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.
Old Life 
NancyD, I was getting your back there–at least for your freedom to speak without being summarily dismissed. I do not agree with your interpretation of Pope Francis’ book, written as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. By all means let’s look at it, and look! a google reveals what you yourself reported it on another blog! What were the odds??!!
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/extracts-of-new-book-on-pope-francis#ixzz2UX0niXXd
Robert, my point isn’t to excuse Francis–those who presume to speak for Christ and do so misleadingly have millstones that await.
It’s to press the Callers on infallibility. They will say he’s only infallible ex cathedra, which to my understanding does not cover homilies. He speaks carelessly and confusingly in a homily and they rush to clarify and justify, which would seem to suggest that infallibility extends beyond ex cathedra, which only buttresses the functional authoritarianism. Stellman will sometimes use an absurdity to show that the Roman system isn’t as authoritarian as the Reformed might suggest, saying that when Francis favors something like vanilla to chocolate it is not binding. Sure, how infallibility comes and goes and doesn’t apply to flavors is a bit of a mystery, but I’m not talking about that. I’m wondering if they can see how rushing to justify clearly careless words in a non-ex cathedra moment at least comes off fundamentalist–the Pope says it, I believe it, that settles it.
LikeLike
Nancy, If You Love Someone, Set Them Free (Free, Free, Set Them Free!).
LikeLike
I recently re-read Frame’s essay. It’s interesting to note how many dogs he has in those fights. One thing to realize is that all of the dustups that Frame identifies are since the founding of the OPC…and the OPC still exists as a denomination as it has for the past 75+ years. Indeed, Frame is the one who has taken his toys and gone elsewhere.
Also worth noting is Hart’s forthcoming global, yes global, history of Calvinism. Our movement is not as small as Tom would like to believe.
I do appreciate your toned down demeanor in your comment today, Tom.
LikeLike
Sean – (knew it was bad when my now wife was the only female in the theater)
Erik – Try taking your very pregnant wife to the first night showing of “Borat” in a college town.
LikeLike
Tom,
Regarding your “scorekeeping”: Who cares? We advertise ourselves as Old School Presbyterians. You come here and find Old School Presbyterianism and are shocked, shocked! at the audacity of our theology. What were you expecting? Joel Osteen? Billy Graham? Make theological arguments if you intend to dissuade us, don’t just tell us our numbers are small. Most things worth being involved in in this sorry world involve small numbers, in case you hadn’t noticed.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’m wondering if they can see how rushing to justify clearly careless words in a non-ex cathedra moment at least comes off fundamentalist–the Pope says it, I believe it, that settles it.
Indeed, their response says a lot more about their circle-the-wagons mindset than it does Francis’s theology… though not to excuse his wanderings.
LikeLike
Ratzinger rose to the papacy by covering up terrible crimes committed by priests against children, and Ratzinger left the papacy and the Vatican drowning in a cesspool of blackmail, male prostitutes, and gay sex rings. He reaped what he sowed.
Since then, the Papal Conclave and the Scrutineers blew its smoke and Shazam! they appointed a pope who winks at atheism and smiles on same sex marriage. Call me a cynic, but I am not shocked. Romans 1:27.
Does anyone really wonder why Jason Stellman chose Rome?
LikeLike
Tom, Regarding your “scorekeeping”: Who cares? We advertise ourselves as Old School Presbyterians. You come here and find Old School Presbyterianism and are shocked, shocked! at the audacity of our theology. What were you expecting? Joel Osteen? Billy Graham? Make theological arguments if you intend to dissuade us, don’t just tell us our numbers are small. Most things worth being involved in in this sorry world involve small numbers, in case you hadn’t noticed.
I came to this blog to hear amd learn leading J. Gresham Machen biographer Darryl G. Hart in his own words, fairly. Sorting through the high-handedness and smirk, snark, sarcasm of his followers has not been a pleasant experience.
You flatter yourself that your theology is particularly “audacious” or that I came here to “dissuade” you of anything—any more than Darryl went to Turkey to “dissuade” anyone from Islam. In fact, I find your brand of Calvinism interesting and worthy mostly for its similarity to Islam, and admire you both for exactly the same reasons.
Darryl, if that sounds like a compliment in the way that J. Gresham Machen wrote
then so be it.
And N.B., I admire a proper Islam more than “liberal Christianity”—Beatitudism, Barney the Christosaurism, whaterism, and that’s why you fascinate me so. Perhaps the same reason you found yourself in Turkey out of 200 other countries on Earth—surely not to be a Christian missionary to a 99% Muslim country that would likely jail you if you gave Islam half the guff you give Roman Catholicism.
Your table-fencer ErikC seems to think I’m here to overturn your table. Not so.
LikeLike
Extra base hit for CN. We miss the obvious. Not much need to argue about the abomination that is Rome. Truth hurts.
LikeLike
“What were the odds??!!.”
Since all the conditions were met for the event to occur, the odds were 100%
Tom, there is a difference between not prosecuting every sin, and condoning sin, and that difference makes all the difference. Desire, consent or location, does not change the inherent nature of a demeaning act. No doubt, St.Thomas would agree.
LikeLike
Tom, btw, the Pope can’t litigate what he says either. If you’ve been following the posts about Edgardo Mortara, it takes the temporal to implement the spiritual. But then you think the two swords business only applies to 1300 AD.
And if you’re going to try to get me “right,” I’d advise against using John Frame. Sheesh. What United Colors of Beneton shop do you buy your theology from? First Beza now Frame?
LikeLike
If you’ve been following the posts about Edgardo Mortara, it takes the temporal to implement the spiritual. But then you think the two swords business only applies to 1300 AD.
Not what I said, and it’s getting too tiresome correcting the misapprehensions of what I actually do say.
And if you’re going to try to get me “right,” I’d advise against using John Frame. Sheesh.
Well, I hardly expected you to be happy about it. ;-P Again, it’s more about Whose Calvinism is it anyway than which of you is right or wrong. And as for the other 99% of what I write that you elide, well, that’s all part of the picture too. I’m getting you fine. Peace.
LikeLike
Tom, the elision goes both ways. You haven’t exactly owned up to the anti-Arminian Calvinists who you believe supported the U.S. War for Independence, or that the resistance theory of the 16th and 17th centuries was decidedly against Arminianism (which is not exactly what Francis was affirming). In fact, you mix in just enough snark so that you do create your own misapprehensions. Sometimes you need to resist the jabs for the sake of clarity.
LikeLike
Erik, try taking a very Baptist girlfriend to a first showing of “My Own Private Idaho” at the Michigan theatre in Ann Arbor (1991). That was not smart, that was not smart.
LikeLike
CN, you can’t have a Great Apostasy from a false church. One need only look at the signs of the Time we are living in to understand that the way to have a Great Apostasy, that if it were possible, would deceive even the elect, is to allow those who have left Christ’s Church spiritually, to remain within His Church physically, causing chaos and confusion, as they lead many astray. Although it is true that “the gates of hell will not prevail”, “When The Son of man returns, will he find Faith on Earth”? Not if through a false ecumenism, we compromise The Truth.
That being said, those who are responsible for the heinous crimes were not the Faithful. They were persons who denied the teaching of The Catholic Church in regards to Faith and Morals.The crisis in The Catholic Church is due to those persons who deny the Sanctity of every Human Life from the moment of conception, and The Sanctity of Marriage and The Family, and the failure of the hierarchy to inform the apostates that they are no longer in communion with Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
LikeLike
To be clear, to deny the truth about the essence 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 or female, is to deny the truth about the essence of God from the beginning, and makes one an apostate.
LikeLike
Zrim,
You were the guy who saw that in the theater? You should have added in “The Basketball Diaries” and “Drugstore Cowboy” for a triple feature. Her dad would have had you lynched.
LikeLike
Tom – mostly for its similarity to Islam, and admire you both for exactly the same reasons.
Erik – Yeah, because Calvinism & Islam are so similar. I guess since you used to have a ponytail we can assume you’re just like Vincent Vega. Similarity to Islam, good grief.
LikeLike
Tom,
When’s the last time you had a Royale with Cheese?
LikeLike
Erik, her dad married us. Good thing I stopped while I was ahead and just bought her some Stucchi’s to calm her stomach.
LikeLike
Erik/Zrim – if you think that’s bad, I had a classmate who took a first date to see “Closely Watched Trains” (which, coincidently, was also in a theater in AA,MI, ca. 1968). Sure, it was a foreign sub-title flick, so you could look the other way at the verbiage, but activities on the screen were so filled with innuendos that I’m not sure how he explained everything. ‘Course, knowing this guy, I’m not sure he understood all of them himself. BTW, he’s an LCMS pastor now, so that completes the irony sphere.
LikeLike
Careful George. Rumor has it D.G. courted Mrs. Hart with foreign films.
My wife and I argue about who had more highbrow taste in film growing up. I rode the bus to campus see “Amadeus” in junior high while she touts her viewing of “Cinema Paradiso” and “Pelle the Conqueror”. She grew up pagan and I grew up Baptist so she had a head start, but I caught up and surpassed her. She was coerced into watching too much “Barney” and “My Little Pony” over the last two decades.
LikeLike
George,
I’ve seen “Trains”. It’s interesting to reflect on what qualified as “racy” before “Bonnie & Clyde” broke the studio code in 1967. “Trains” was from 1966.
LikeLike
MM, I mean it with all love
In the peace of Popovich
LikeLike
Erik – I need to update my NetFlix queue – all the ones in there now have release dates like August or September. Any good recommendations? How about “Side Effects?” Seen that?
LikeLike
Pop has a line in the above video, which is pretty 2k as well. He doesn’t berate Timmy for not doing what he told him(Law) or inappropriately remind of his faith to manipulate him/motivate him to do what he’s been directed to do(misappropriation of gospel truths to seek a temporal end), he jokingly tells him that maybe if he(Pop) tells him in a different way how to do something, that the wiring in Timmy’s head will accept it.(temporal means-good for a temporal end-good, but not holy).
LikeLike
Sean,
great video, though he was wrong about Tim not being in any cool commercials
LikeLike
You bunch of heathens. I courted the Mrs. by taking her to The Muppet Movie. There was a little too much pink in a Miss Piggie scene but otherwise it was pretty clean.
LikeLike
Sean, if Adam hadn’t sinned the Celtics would have drafted Duncan.
LikeLike
MM, who would’ve coached him? Pitino and Duncan wouldn’t have worked. If Adam hadn’t sinned, you would’ve had the Bias era, where he thwarted Jordan’s best years, dovetailing into the Duncan era with Larry Bird in the front office and Don Nelson as coach with Pop as his assistant. That Adam really mucked it up.
LikeLike
M&M, you court like a Baptist. What’s next, Purity Balls with the daughters? But don’t you know that courting is the new faddish rage among the homeschooling set?
LikeLike
Sean: that’s awesome analysis.
Zrim: well, I was a Baptist. And my daughters aren’t allowed to date until they’re 24.
LikeLike
You haven’t exactly owned up to the anti-Arminian Calvinists who you believe supported the U.S. War for Independence, or that the resistance theory of the 16th and 17th centuries was decidedly against Arminianism
Anti-Arminian Calvinists DID support the U.S. War for Independence. There were a lot of them. I have no idea what you’re arguing.
http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2009/janfeb/17.28.html
&c.
LikeLike
Tom, Beza?
LikeLike
Exactly.
nice driveby @ C2C, BTW
LikeLike
George,
“Side Effects” is o.k., not great. Of things I’ve seen lately I highly recommend “The Killing”, seasons 1 & 2. Also season 1 & 2 of “Men of a Certain Age”. The best movies I’ve seen in recent months are “The Little Fugitive”, “Warrior”, and “Teddy Bear”. If you want to laugh really hard watch Jim Gaffigan’s comedy on Netflix.
LikeLike
So I want to see if I understand what’s going on here. The CtC bunch left protestantism in part over what they perceived as a weakness with Sola Scripture – without a pope people can read the bible in any old way they want and that leads to religious anarchy (and 50 bazillion independent bapticostal community churches). Once you accept apostolic succession and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, you have the makings of a paradigm that makes all epistemic uncertainly disappear – everything fits perfectly and to suggest otherwise is to commit a straw man fallacy.
We reformed types say poppycock to all that. There are major problems establishing apostolic succession in the early church, the Pope came along relatively late, and he hasn’t done much to quell doctrinal uncertainty anyway – indeed councils have erred and popes have contradicted one another (is killing in the name of God blasphemy or one’s moral duty – how does one develop into the other?). Sweeping these contradictions under the “development” rug is an intellectually dishonest way to pretend that the infallible magisterium is indeed infallible.
Now we have a pope providing a definitive teaching on something (what isn’t exactly clear). Fortunately we have teachers (e.g. Bryan Cross) to come along and explain to us what the the proper interpretation of this latest homily from the pope means (or doesn’t mean as the case may be). But then there are a lot of other smart Catholic voices explaining that the pope clearly meant something else. What’s a poor layman to do? How do I decide which priest, theologian, or Catholic intellectual to listen to (e.g. Fr. McBrien, Garry Wills, or Bryan Cross?) to extract the proper meaning from the text or even to know whether he is the legitimate Pope (NancyD)? Do I decide for myself or does the Church tell me? Which part of the Church? I almost feel like a poor protestant trying to decide whether to be Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, or Reformed. I guess I could read up on the issues myself, listen carefully to the arguments on the issue, and make a choice with whom to align – but that’s how I ended up among the frozen chosen. I don’t know how to make sense of what the Pope said. If the Catholic intellectuals can’t agree among themselves, what hope do I have?. I just don’t understand how going to Rome does anything more than kick the epistemological can down the road.
LikeLike
So I want to see if I understand what’s going on here.
Sorry, you don’t.
LikeLike
sdb,
Post that good question at CTC and see if they’ll answer it. Bryan will probably tell you (in the Peace of Christ, of course) that you are not being charitable. That’s what he resorts to when flummoxed.
As an accountant I’ve observed that figuring out Catholicism is a lot like trying to figure out how to comply with the tax code. Unless you find a regulation or a court case that is exactly on point with the situation you are dealing with, you are left with various shades of gray. Ask 50 accountants to do the same complex tax return and I’ll guarantee you’ll get 50 different answers. This is why it’s so stupid for CTC to come along and act like it’s all so clear and we’re just stubborn for not seeing it like they do. Try to get Bryan to admit to any ambiguity in the Church that Jesus Christ Himself Founded (TM). He’ll just point out the logical fallacy that you committed in asking the question.
LikeLike
Erik,
My wife and I have been working our way through the 7x Up series, which I think was recommended here, on Netflix. We just finished 42 Up. They’re great and would have been even more useful in high school, but at least we learned how to cope with armpit hair.
The new My Little Pony is supposed to be really good. We have a daughter and I’m scared about how relevant that may become.
LikeLike
So says Tom, the guy who stands firmly for…..wait for it….wait for it…I’m not sure what. Tom is like Karl Marx in the brilliant video Sean posted last week:
LikeLike
Mike,
I’ve heard good things about that series but haven’t seen any of them yet. I hope to.
I’ve been mocking my son mercilessly for watching “My Little Pony” but he’s still at it. He’s ticked off because Netflix stopped streaming “Jimmy Neutron” so apparently this is his way of acting out.
Then there’s my wife and her sister watching “Game of Thrones”. I just can’t go there.
LikeLike
Our resident ‘sean’ posted a comment somewhere about us all eating at the dinner table, or sitting outside while others est, something. Basically, sdb, we can break this down however we like. I totally butchered his writing (sorry sean), but I think we Christians put the ‘fun’ in dysfunctional. Also, why I remain a Calvinist, has something to do with the last part..
LikeLike
Tom, your charity at spending this long with us degenerates is a shock to my Calvinist blood. The longer you stay, the more I doubt? Weird. This is where I bring up golf, but I’m flummoxed here. Enough posts for 2013. See you all next year.
LikeLike
Is it bad that my wife dragged me to star trek yesterday?
LikeLike
Tom, in your knowledge of and wisdom in all things — Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, church history, American Revolution (stocks and bonds?) — what is exactly going on?
LikeLike
Hart,
Can’t answer for Tom but I have a theory. We don’t believe.
First words and last words of Christ in the gospel of Mark.
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
For love of the Truth and those who need it our Lord was killed.
Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
I do not believe we love the Truth or those who need it as Christ does.
What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? 2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. 4 You adulterous people!3 Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? 6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.
11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers.4 The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
May the Lord forgive us our sins and grant us everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Blessings fellas,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
MichaelTX, huh? This explains why Jason and the Callers became RC?
LikeLike
Judging from the way people defend the Universalistic comments, I would have to say that had the “Pope” said the same thing about Satanists, some would have defended him as well or twisted the comment to their liking.
I just wonder why people dont consider the possibility that he might be a false Pope. I mean if a Pope 20 years from now say that Francis was a false Pope, those RC apologists would defend that Pope’s comments as well right?
LikeLike