If You Can't Stand Superiority, Get Off the Top Shelf

Published on by D. G. Hart

The chief deficiency of Protestantism, according to Jason and the Callers, is that we only have a Bible that needs to be interpreted while they — Roman Catholics — have a pope who is the final word on interpretation. In other words, Protestants have multiple opinions about the Bible’s meaning while Roman Catholics have one truth thanks to its one pope (please don’t notice, by the way, when the church had more than one).

Given this anti-Protestant polemic (the new acceptable prejudice), I had a good chuckle when devout Roman Catholics had to come to the rescue to explain what Francis meant in his recent universalistic sounding homily.

Andrew Preslar did a pretty good impersonation of a Protestant reading his Bible when he wrote:

The key to understanding the Pope’s remarks is to understand that there is a difference between being redeemed–as are all men (objectively), because of Christ’s death and resurrection–and being saved or in a state of grace–as are only those who receive God’s grace by faith and abide in his love. It is also important to notice that the Pope was not teaching that atheists can be saved merely by doing good works. He made two distinct though related points; namely, that atheists can do good works and that Christ has redeemed everyone. For these reasons, we can “meet one another in doing good.” [1] Of course, the Pope’s point about the universality of the Atonement is disputed by Calvinists, and the teaching of Vatican II concerning the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ is widely debated in non-Catholic Christian circles. Without here entering into these debates by way of argument, I want to describe how I think about this matter now, as a Catholic, with special reference to evangelism.

Bryan Cross couldn’t resist getting in on the fun of private interpretation:

Whatever the merits of these explanations of Francis, they flatly contradict the claim that Protestantism suffers from a diversity of opinions. Roman Catholicism does as well. You have the former Protestant line of Francis’ meaning, and then you have the cradle-left-leaning-social-justice Roman Catholic version. Link to NCR comments on homily. Protestants have to interpret the Bible and Roman Catholics (post-Vatican 2) have the freedom to interpret their bishops. Without any temporal power to enforce the right interpretation – whether Geneva’s City Council or the Roman Inquisition, we’re all Protestants now.

If Jason and the Callers had the slightest awareness of history, they would know that they jumped from the frying pan of denominationalism into the fire of Roman Catholic opinion making. But to justify their rational, autonomous decisionism, they continue to think they have chosen the church of Cappadocia circa 389 AD.

Modernity does make its demands.

497 thoughts on “If You Can't Stand Superiority, Get Off the Top Shelf”

  1. Given this anti-Protestant polemic (the new acceptable prejudice)

    Not in this case: Many Protestants are in accord with Pope Francis’s remarks. This does, however, offer Calvinists a “teaching moment” vs. Roman Catholicism’s “Arminianism,” although this Arminianism is also shared by many Protestants*.

    In fact, the question here is whether such an Arminianism is the normative Christian view of salvation–that is, the majority view of all Christians–Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, various Wesleyans, most Baptists, and sundry others, all being non-Calvinist.

    “The problem of magisterium,” of theological authority [which we were discussing before this “controversy” broke] remains, and really has nothing to do with “Protestant” vs. Catholic; the problem of magisterium exists independently of Rome and is no secret.

    http://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/how-conservative-presbyterianism-lost-its-mojo/

    There has been a decided turn to intramural theological squabbles in conservative Presbyterian circles since the 1970s—the Shepherd controversy, theonomy, Federal Vision, the Pete Enns controversy, literal six-day young-earth creationism, 2K. The list goes on and on. Some of these issues reflect historic fissures in the tradition, while others are evidence of the breakdown of earlier theological consensus and the loss of a sense of proportionality. Not every issue requires that one go to the mat. John Frame chronicled some of this in a controversial internet article “Machen’s Warrior Children.”

    &c.

    ______
    *See, for instance, Keith Drury’s “The Triumph of Arrminianism”

    A true Calvinist begins and ends his discussion of salvation with God. God alone. For the true Calvinist, man has no ability to move toward God. He cannot even recognize his own sin. Salvation is something which happens wholly as God’s work. What man does or is makes no difference. Confession, repentance, or “going to the altar” does not make a difference. To the true Calvinist, salvation happens totally apart from anything man does or is. It is purely God’s work done without man’s participation in any way whatsoever.

    Today’s church has drifted to a more Arminian approach. Most church people today believe the Christian’s relationship with God is bi-lateral, not uni-lateral. While maintaining that God alone does the saving, today’s church figures that men and women have a part to play—confessing sins and receiving Christ. To today’s average Christian, Christ’s death on the cross provided completely for our salvation, but forgiveness is not effective until an individual receives God’s forgiveness. In this most Christians are “practicing Arminians.”

    How shall we approach evangelism?

    Since a Calvinist believes salvation is wholly God’s work without any partnership with man, he or she approaches evangelism nonaggressively. Calvinism teaches there is nothing whatsoever a person can do to become saved—we can’t “decide for Christ” or “receive Christ” enabling a person to “become a Christian.” To do this would give man a part in salvation. Calvinists believe salvation is from God and God alone. To make salvation hinge on an individual’s “accepting Christ” or “receiving Christ” makes salvation partially a human endeavor. A true Calvinist believes that nothing whatsoever a person does or is contributes anything at all to salvation. Salvation is God’s work alone and we play no part in it—not even receiving salvation counts.

    Today’s evangelical church is far more Arminian in its approach to evangelism.

    [Bold face in original.]

    Like

  2. Salvation comes through God’s Grace and Mercy. The Sacrifice of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice of The Most Holy and Blessed Trinity, for “God so Loved us that He sent His only Son…”.

    Do not let your hearts be hardened like a pillar of salt, for it is through, with, and in Christ, in the unity of God’s Holy Spirit, that The Body of Christ exists.

    “No one can come to The Father except through me.” – Jesus The Christ

    Like

  5. Tom, you heard perhaps of Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. I know it’s hard to wrap your mind around that. But when we start with what makes sense to us, we wouldn’t get limited atonement or flight of the penguins (all that just to keep the breed going?).

    Like

  6. God Is Love. Love exists in relationship.
    “You cannot be my disciples, if you do not abide in My Word.” – Christ, The Way, The Truth, The Life(Light) of Love.

    From The Beginning, it Is God Who defines what is Good. Our Call to Holiness, Is a call to Love according to The Word of God.

    Like

  7. You can see just how much these Protestant converts have abandoned all reason or common sense when they go to these lengths to defend Francis. Even though the Roman church has been moving toward full-on universalism for some time now, I’m willing to give Francis the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps he just wasn’t speaking very clearly.

    Apparently for CTC and Stellman, the pope can’t even have an off day. Why they can’t simply say he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra and was off his game is just simply astounding. It’s a shell game there willing to play elsewhere.

    And if Francis needs amateur lay-level apologists such as the Callers and Stellman to defend him, that makes Rome better than Protestantism how? I though the Bible’s lack of perspicuity was the reason why we needed the far more perspicuous Roman Magisterium.

    Like

  11. D.G., sorry, I thought it reasonable to assume that if my comment was not directed to any specific person, it was directed to all men and women, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers…who, accepting God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy, accept God’s Good Will.

    Like

  13. Robert, or maybe not so astounding. I mean, the system is authoritarian after all. Ex cathedra seems to be a convenient card to play to take the edge off. But one does wonder: if infallibility only occurs under extraordinary circumstances then what are the ordinary times in which the Bishop of Rome can be fallible and thus subject to scrutiny? To listen to CtC and CCC tell it in this instance of mere homily, never, he’s infallible 24/7/365 and it falls to the unwashed masses to simply defend and interpret.

    Like

  14. On the working assumption that Nancy is a real person she really does represent a kind of Catholic we haven’t had here before. The desire to lose one in One made up of many is certainly distinct from the Crossian Mr. Smart Guy approach. (See, Nancy, I can also use unconventional CAPS). I wonder if Nancy’s subjective mode of worship is like what you would expect in Eastern religions.

    Like

  15. One need not defend a lion, it is said, for a lion can defend itself. Clearly this no Pope Leo(nine) because everyone is jumping forward to re-interpret him as if he were a doddering old man who sometimes says nutty things. Wouldn’t it be more pious for the Catholic to listen and heed their Pope? And what can be their basis for calling his words into question? Could it be….private interpretation?

    Like

  16. MM, I’m not sure about the new breed of catholic, line. Me thinks that once inside the wall of noumenal Rome, this is where the sincere evangelical meets his twin; sincere RC. This is gonna be where the Bryan Crossity’s are gonna let their evangelical hair down, up to and including trying to proselytize evangelical style. It’s all about the outward piety(all of lifery, witnessing when I should be working) and inward meaning it, even down to the RC’s in mass who are one beat slower/faster during the responsorials.

    Like

  17. MM, IOW, for the sincere RC and the sincere evanjellyfish, it’s all about what’s going on inside of me and wearing that ‘reality’ on my sleeve.

    Like

  18. The RCC has a definitive word on the exegesis of Romans 7 and 9, or 2 Peter 2:4-12?

    I would very much like a link…

    Like

  19. Sean, I’ll tend to yield to your perspective on all this. If we were to find Protestant paralells, Cross might be Gordon Clark and Nancy would be a charismatic? But I find the Nancy approach to be more authentic; it’s a deep, subjective faith commitment that’s going on here, and the logical approach is so much rhetoric.

    Like

  20. MM, I think that’s right. I don’t know much about Clark himself but I often wonder about the strict rationalism of Clarkians. Certainly Cross had to make the leap just to escape his own stark rationalism. That’s why I always liked Jonathan Tate, he was at least getting down to the nitty gritty of sacramentalism and the eucharist on a lot more direct line than the Thomistic path of the others.

    Like

  21. Zrim,

    I guess I’m not surprised. It is necessary once you swallow the hard pill of Roman infallibility. But to excuse Francis because he was speaking Roman Catholic language to a Roman Catholic audience, as CTC and Stellman are doing, is rather crazy. Is not the pope the Vicar of Christ? Should he not speak clearly if the salvation of the whole race depends on him?

    Rome is better, why?

    Like

  22. In other words, Protestants have multiple opinions about the Bible’s meaning while Roman Catholics have one truth thanks to its one pope (please don’t notice, by the way, when the church had more than one).

    Ahem, shouldn’t the last clause read in true Byromic nitpicking discernment ” when the infallible church infallibly had more than one infallible leader.”?
    Hey, just askin.

    And Cross is G. Clark?
    Come on. What a low blow. I’m ready to go back to the PB, (tho I always thought the Viking was OK if he is who I think he is).

    Like

  23. Since it is true that Pope Francis supports same-sex sexual unions and thus same-sex sexual acts, The election of Pope Francis is not valid to begin with. Men and women are designed in such a way that it is not possible to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, who, from the moment of conception, has been created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female.

    Like

  25. Robert,

    As far as CTCers go, the pope could declare himself anti-christ and the hermenuetic of faith would cause them to reconcile to it as some supreme act of humility by which he just cemented his worthiness to be God’s vicar. ‘They believe that they might understand’ along with other pious sounding declarations of faithful subjugation.

    Like

  26. Bob S, if you dig being offended then read no further. Otherwise I have only drawn a limited paralell about kinds of argumentation. Now hustle back to the PB if you wish and tell them all that the 2ks have slandered Clark.

    Like

  27. Daryll, that was a good call on Nancy; SSPX I believe you inquired. Though now I half suspect Kent or Erik or even MM of a pseudonym.

    Like

  28. Nancy,

    I don’t even know what a “same-sex sexual union” is. But whatever it is, I’m pretty sure that Pope Francis did not support such an institution. And, even if he did, I don’t see how it’s apposite to the above discussion. Did you forget to take the meds this morning?

    Like

  29. Bobby, true, there is no such thing as a same-sex sexual union, as it is scientifically impossible for same sex sexual acts to be unitive. The fact that Pope Francis supports same-sex sexual “unions” is relevant is because a Pope who is not a valid Pope has no authority in The Catholic Church. This does not change the fact that through Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, The Word of God, Has remained consistent.

    Like

  30. Sean, it’s not that I’m above such a thing, just that it would take too much work. If I go pseudo – I mean, more than I am now – my character will be Muddy Gravel, a twice-divorced bluesman with some earthy common sense and skepticism toward all forms of world-conquering.

    Like

  34. As I sit here at work, watching “Girls”, eating Ben & Jerry’s Liz Lemon Greek Frozen Yogurt, and working through mounds of paper, Nancy has made my Memorial Day joy complete. Once “Girls” is over I’ll make my way back to season 2 of “The Wire” and it will get even better.

    Like

  35. All, I was never a fan of Star Trek, but I did enjoy The Time Tunnel, even though I realized in reality, Time is a continuum. Although we can’t go back in Time, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could repair the schism in Christ’s Church from The Beginning?

    Like

  37. No way “Nancy D.” is a woman. Multiple comments and now Star Trek? Fess up. Who is it? We need to take roll and figure out who’s missing. It’s probably Paul.

    Like

  38. I think Nancy D got Twilight Zone confused with Star Trek. Which since, according to Todd, we’re all equivalent to a bunch of trekkies, should be enough for banishment just on it’s own.

    Like

  39. Erik, I said I was not a fan of Star Trek, that’s a clue. I am a daughter, sister, wife, and mother. I am not Paul.

    Like

  43. Tom, you heard perhaps of Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. I know it’s hard to wrap your mind around that. But when we start with what makes sense to us…

    Darryl, I don’t litigate theological truth claims on the internet. Believe what you will. I was pointing out that

    a) This Pope Francis hubbub seems to come more as a surprise or as a confusion to Calvinists and atheists. “Arminianism” is normative among Christians, that Christ died for all men [“universal atonement”], not just an “Elect.” Many Calvinists appear to have misapprehended that [see Michael Horton], and of course atheists/unchurched seldom understand any Christian doctrine clearly, Catholic or Reformed.

    b) That Protestantism’s “problem of magisterium” is independent of the existence of the Roman church. Although the Pope can speak of/for Catholicism normatively, a “normative” Reformed theology cannot be said to exist, since there is no “majority church” to pontificate it. Or as previously glibly but accurately put, Whose Calvinism is it anyway?

    My interest here is always clarity–I want to get you right. Indeed, it can be said there’s no one who can definitively speak for J. Gresham Machen, let alone John Calvin or Christianity. John Frame’s [in]famous

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/machens-warrior-children/

    contains many of the concerns I arrived at independently–which is gratifying–but you should know I personally maintain a fallibilism about these things, that perhaps your theological truth claims are completely correct, and that yours is indeed the One True Church. That’s not the sort of thing to be settled in comboxes.

    You went “meta” on the magisterium question, but aside from some passing references by some ex-Protestants of your acquaintance, I don’t think this Pope Francis thing rings of an “anti-Protestantism” atall–I submit that “Universal Atonement” is the normative theology of Christianity, that “Limited Atonement” for an “Elect” is a minority position even among Protestants and certainly the minority position among the world’s ~2 billion Christians.

    [Now, as previously litigated, if in your view many or most of those ~2 billion may not be Christians atall, that’s the No True Scotsman argument, and is unhelpful outside your Own True Church.]

    [I intend to get deeper into John Frame’s “Twenty-One Points” of contention between even Machen-ists, and have already downloaded an mp3 from “Christ the Center” that appears to be your rebuttal. Still, as an outside observer, I’m more interested in keeping an accurate scorecard than assessing truth claims. And when Frame writes

    One slogan of the Machen movement was “truth before friendship.” We should laud their intention to act according to principle without compromise. But the biblical balance is “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). We must not speak the truth without thinking of the effect of our formulations on our fellow Christians, even our opponents. That balance was not characteristic of the Machen movement.

    this is a question of form, not content. A parting shot in my journey to BaylyWorld was what with all the “sodomite” talk, I just wasn’t feeling the love. This is not true just of the Baylys. FWIW.]

    Like

  44. But Nancy, the schism did happen. There was a rupture in the Church, hence the space-time continuum itself ruptured, which resulted in matter and anti-matter, world and bizarro world, Gandalf ain’t coming back as the White Wizard and a DeLorean will never rescue you from bully Biff.

    Like

  46. Bob, I guess my sarcasm meter needs calibration. Maybe because I’m now looking at putting together a grill that has about 4,125 pieces.

    Like

  47. Todd is lurking. Which reminds me of my one creepy trekkie encounter when I actually went to the movies to see the Trek movie with the new ‘young’ Cap’n Kirk a couple of years back. So, me and my wife-to-be are taking in the movie, which she was embarrassed to be at as it was and still reminds me of to this day, and one of the trekkies who’d come with a few of his trekkie pals(knew it was bad when my now wife was the only female in the theater) let out an audible gasp and mutterings of “she’s hot” when the ‘young’ version of one of the staple female characters comes on screen. I never knew how real the whole ‘basement-living trekkie’ contingent was ’till that moment. Never been to an adult theater but I got a sense of it right then.

    Like

  48. Tom, Pope Francis confirmed that the media reports are accurate in regards to same-sex sexual relationships and thus same-sex sexual acts, on page 117 of his book, “On Heaven and Earth”.

    Like

  49. Tom, if you Love someone, you desire to treat them with respect in private as well as in public.

    Like

  50. Sean, reminds me:

    You might be a Trekkie if…

    you can name all 79 episodes of classic Trek– in order
    you can name alphabetically all the women Kirk seduced
    you named your first child Tiberius
    you spend $150.00 at a convention on a piece of plastic that may or may not look like a phaser
    you sing along with William Shatner’s record album
    you talk… like… William Shatner–on purpose
    you trim your angora cat’s hair to make it look like a tribble
    you scare your little brother by acting like a Gorn
    your dream date is with Deanna Troi
    you can trace your genealogy back to Surak
    you can quote all of the Articles of the Federation
    you sing Klingon Opera while showering
    you cannot use contractions in your speech
    you know the difference between “Live long and prosper” and “Nanu, nanu”
    you ask your broken computer to run a self-diagnostic

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.