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 
Well, Robert Sungenius said in the 2001 Papal Infallibility debate vs James White that Popes can be heretics.
I guess if I were a smart RC apologist, I would just say that this Pope’s views about Universal Salvation were heretical and nothing more.
LikeLike
Tom
No need to apologize, though an explanation of what I’ve missed about CtC would be nice. I guess I’m too much of a simpleton to get it on my own.
LikeLike
Hart,
I believe this explains why we lack fellowship and understanding of each other. We do not believe as we ought. We seek more often than not to point out the sin, foolishness, and error in others rather than seeking holiness, wisdom and truth from God for ourselves.
“first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
I think we repel the union of sinners because we deny we are “chief of sinners.” The one people of Christ is the union on sinners in the One who was a “friend of sinners.” Even if we don’t believe this one Church to be manifest in the visibly organized Catholic Church, but only those baptized into Christ’s death we still have a problem with our lack of fellowship with each other and this reveals our lack of “walking in the light.”
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
It took one Adam in the beginning to break fellowship with God and his children’s fellowship. Now one New Adam has restored fellowship with God and His children, we act like we are born of the first Adam of the flesh rather than the second of the Spirit, therefore we act like we don’t believe. I say this shows we don’t believe.
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
We can not give what we do not have, fellowship with God through Christ.
Hope that helps you understand my train of thought.
Peace from the chief sinner over here in Texas,
Michael
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?
I’ll answer as though you’re mostly sincere with the above. Believe it or don’t, I thought the College of Cardinals [which is all part of the “living church”/magisterium/inspired by the Holy Spirit nexus] would select a pope from outside Europe. The Church took a great beating in the First World over the pedophilia scandals. So the best solution was to turn to the Church’s future, which lies outside the First World. [See, Phillip Jenkins on demographics, for instance.]
I also suspected [really!] that the new pope might choose the name Francis. What was and is called for is what the Puritans called Days of Fasting and Humiliation, and that’s just what Pope Bergoglio has done, the washing of feet, the mellow tone.
As for the Church’s prayer for Universal Reconciliation [a hope, not an ex cathedra doctrine of universal salvation], it’s in the catechism–“apocatastasis” not as a fact but as a prayer. [Personally, I see no reason why everyone can’t be “Elect,” if such is God’s will.] I think it’s a good product and good advertising, and Francis intends to get the RCC to be more evangelical–indeed, I just heard that the growth of evangelical Protestantism in South America was also a boon for the RCC, spurring Catholics to start attending church again.
A rising tide lifts all boats, and Francis means to get the RCC back afloat.
LikeLike
Tom – A rising tide lifts all boats, and Francis means to get the RCC back afloat
Erik – It’s always high tide at CTC. All they lack is more converts from Presbyterian & Reformed churches.
LikeLike
Tom,
In your opinion, why is being religious superior to being virtuous but irreligious? If I have no religion but work hard, pay my taxes, and raise my kids well, what does it matter if I go to church?
LikeLike
Michael TX, but what if you are wrong and I am not seeking holiness in pointing out that you are wrong? Paul said that even those who preached the gospel for the wrong motives were right to preach the gospel. Please don’t go pietistic on me.
LikeLike
Tom, the what’s going on was in reference to an account of why Protestants were converting to Rome, not your odds on the next pope.
LikeLike
Hart,
Not trying go all pietistic on you. I just believe that if two parties are truly following Christ they will not part ways, though I do believe because we can not know each other as God knows us and we have an Enemy among us this does happen.So, ultimately they will not remain apart.
I do know I can be wrong the Catholic Church and am willing to be corrected. I also with Paul am glad when Christ is preached even if it is out of selfishness. But, the greater question is in your pointing out me being wrong are you preaching Christ? Paul knew and was at peace in all his troubles even to his death.
“God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself…”
“And all things are of God,-who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. . . . Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.”
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.”
LikeLike
Tom, the what’s going on was in reference to an account of why Protestants were converting to Rome, not your odds on the next pope.
Then why didn’t Dr. Magic 8 Ball just say that in the first place instead of sending me down a rabbit hole in a good faith guess as to what the hell he was asking? Geez.
And it was a pretty pithy response. I was hoping y’d enjoy it. It was about this pope and your recent attack on his recent speech.
As for your actual question, I’m afraid you won’t like my answer, but I believe it’s for the intellectual tradition and method*. The list of estimable converts to Catholicism is astounding in its intellectual heft. Chesterton, Elizabeth Anscombe, Mortimer Adler, Avery [Cardinal] Dulles, Newt Gingrich [OK OK, I’m kidding], Russell Kirk, Jacques Maritain, Alasdair MacIntyre, Malcolm Muggeridge, John Henry Newman, Richard John Neuhaus, Walker Percy, JRR Tolkien, to name a few names I grabbed off the list.
Interestingly enough, a number of these people became some of the foremost and able apologists for Catholicism. That your friends from Called to Communion embraced apologetics is no surprise–frankly, if you’re any barometer, they have embraced a change from polemics to an affirmative message and it feels good. I’m sorry, Darryl, but much of your writing is polemical, bagging on the papists, and in Reformed theology itself has an anti-universal/anti-catholic-with-a-small “c” strain, that of the U and the L in TULIP. If the elect are saved anyway, then God will handle the details. Evangelism, ecumenicalism, even being pleasant to certain other so-called “Christians” despite doctrinal differences really doesn’t matter much either way in the end. “Fatalism,” as you put it.
The difference in vibe betw your pals here and the Called to Communion crowd is palpable to the outside observer. The theology of hope that all men will be saved, universal reconciliation, is substantively different from “Limited Atonement” [Christ died for me, not thee], and I think it shows in how you each go about your soteriological business.
________________
*http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/jbudziszewski_int1_feb05.asp
J. Budziszewski, professor at UTexas, a convert from evangelical Christianity:
“Naturally I taught my students Thomas Aquinas, but I found it difficult to do so. The problem was that his arguments presented such a strong appearance of truth. For the very beauty of this appearance, I had to exercise strong discipline not to weep. One of my students in those days asked permission to put a personal question. “I’ve been listening carefully,” he said, “and I figure that you’re either an atheist or a Roman Catholic. Which one is it?”
You can see why, when I finally returned to Christian faith, I wanted that one foot in Catholic tradition.
Yet return also meant recovery of lost elements of Protestant belief, and I couldn’t see my way to Catholicism proper.
I had the common Protestant idea that Catholicism teaches “works-righteousness”–that we earn our way into heaven, apart from the merits of Christ–that if we just earn enough “virtue points,” we’re in. It took a long time to get over such misunderstandings.”
TVD: So there’s your current theological dispute with C2C and the Pope, that Protestants are operating under that false impression.
But I do want to add that those who have swum the Tiber the other way, away from Rome–IMO usually do it for a more personal–visceral–connection with the Bible and with Christ himself. “Enthusiasm,” if I have the Calvinist battles between the New Lights and the Old Lights correct, during the First Great Awakening.
“They are chiefly, indeed, young persons, sometimes lads, or rather
boys; nay, women and girls, yea, Negroes, have taken upon them to do
the business of preachers.”—Charles Chauncey, c. 1740
Amateurs. Feh.
LikeLike
Tom,
Not everyone’s impressed with your Catholic converts in a “big picture” sense:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/allitt-converts.html
“But the general trend bore the range of intellectually respectable ideas steadily away from religion in general and Catholicism in particular. This trend, often labeled “secularization,” appeared for decades to be unstoppable, so that many convert intellectuals, far from reversing its momentum, found their own views gradually moving outside the realm of what other intellectuals considered plausible. The consequence was marginalization, and convert intellectuals in general lost influence with the passing decades, so that none in the twentieth century could have an effect on his or her non-Catholic contemporaries to match that of Newman and Brownson in the mid-nineteenth. Certain writers, such as Chesterton or Christopher Dawson, could still find admirers, but neither created a major school of thought, and non-Catholic admirers saw their religion as a colorful aberration rather than a central element in their work. In that sense this book is the history of a momentous and protracted failure.”
LikeLike
Tom – But I do want to add that those who have swum the Tiber the other way, away from Rome–IMO usually do it for a more personal–visceral–connection with the Bible and with Christ himself. “Enthusiasm,” if I have the Calvinist battles between the New Lights and the Old Lights correct, during the First Great Awakening.
Erik – I think it’s less “enthusiasm” than it is comparing Catholic theology to Scripture, a la the Reformers, and finding Catholic theology wanting. You can be “enthusiastic” and remain Catholic. Look at MichaelTx.
LikeLike
Tom – The difference in vibe betw your pals here and the Called to Communion crowd is palpable to the outside observer. The theology of hope that all men will be saved, universal reconciliation, is substantively different from “Limited Atonement” [Christ died for me, not thee], and I think it shows in how you each go about your soteriological business.
Erik – But the Vatican has been clarifying the Pope’s claims. You still have to be joined to the RCC (if you know about it) to be saved. How is this “Universal reconciliation”?
You are right that the doctrine of Limited Atonement differs from Catholic theology, though. Not a bad post by you.
LikeLike
I’ll take that last bit as a compliment, Erik. Acknowledging that, by God’s grace, if Catholicism is against Scripture and the God of our Lord Jesus, then I’ll be even more enthusiastic against it. Look out if this previous antiCatholic becomes a revert. Of all things I hate to be deceived, and hate it more in others.
Peace,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Enthusiasm in the Truth is good; enthusiasm in error is kicking harder than others against the goads and just leads to more pain. Not good.
LikeLike
Michael,
It was intended as neither a compliment nor a put down.
LikeLike
Erik – But the Vatican has been clarifying the Pope’s claims. You still have to be joined to the RCC (if you know about it) to be saved. How is this “Universal reconciliation”?
Asked and answered in my very first comment of Darryl’s Original Post on this, Erik. You’re wearin’ me out, brother. Kindly read me with care the first time.
Neither am I interested in fending off anti-Catholic polemics. There is no end to that game. If you genuinely seek truth instead of hunting for error, then I’ll be glad to help. I don’t write here to win arguments or convince Erik or Darryl of anything. I write in the interest of clarity for the readers here gathered, who will hopefully explore these issues further on their own.
____
Tom Van Dyke
Posted May 23, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
True, this the RCC prays for–universal reconciliation, apokatastasis in the
Greek. Not that there is no hell, but that it be empty.
I for one am glad it’s in God’s hands and not my fellow man’s, some of whom get the smuglies at the idea of other people in hell.
“Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.”–John Paul II
RCC Catechism:
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let
me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save
himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim
2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).
1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by
God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each
one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’
and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good
works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays
for ‘all men to be saved.’
LikeLike
An universal objective reconciliation which turns out not to reconcile….is limited. No true gospel tells anybody that they in particular are elect, so it’s false to describe the Reformed Confessions as teaching “for me but not for you”.
The ultimate way we can tell people that the gospel is “outside of you” is to tell them that the gospel they MUST believe excludes even this believing as the condition of salvation. The only condition of
salvation for the elect is Christ’s just and effectual death for the elect.
No debated language about the objectivity of “the covenant” or “sacraments” should be allowed to obscure this gospel truth. Unless you preach that Christ died only for the elect, no matter how
confessional you are, you will end up encouraging people to make faith (and the works that follow) into that little something that makes the difference between life and death!
The glory of God in the gospel means that all for whom Christ died will certainly be saved. Election is God’s love. When the Bible talks about God’s love, it talks about propitiation. I John 4:10, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” If you are not yet justified, when you read that “our”, you are reading somebody else’s mail.
If all we only stipulate that the appeasement of wrath will not work without our faith, then it’s not enough to add on that God sent His son to purchase our faith. The nature of the cross as a propitiation will not be proclaimed. Instead covenant will be turned into law. A propitiation for the elect which is also the same and enough for the non-elect, amounts to nothing.
Christ loved the church, but is the church the Norman Shepherd church of elect who become the non-elect? The Shepherd gospel is not first of all about future justification by works. It starts with the idea of talking about “the covenant” instead of “election”, about water baptism instead of regeneration.
The gospel does not tell anybody that they are elect while others are not. But many paradoxical folks will defend a non-election gospel as being the only perspective possible to us. We have to know we believe, before we can know if we are elect. I agree, but we can and should know that God has an elect before we believe the gospel.
Knowing our election before we believe is impossible. Knowing our election is NOT our warrant to believe. But this is no excuse for leaving the Bible doctrine of election out of the doctrine of propitiation by Christ’s death there and then on the cross.
The glory of God does not depend on human decisions, and the gospel must not become a hostage to catholic collaboration with those who on the basis of “universal atonement” condition salvation on what God does in the sinner.
LikeLike
Tom,
Can you show me a Protestant church that prays that some should be lost? What’s your point?
LikeLike
Tom,
I think you grasp some aspects of Reformed Theology, but I think you still have a lot of misconceptions. I sincerely hope you stay around and ask questions.
LikeLike
Mark,
I would be interested to hear what you think of this sermon:
http://literatecomments.com/category/united-reformed-churches-of-north-america/
LikeLike
Mark from over here, I see again how our languages differ, yet speak of commonalities.
Anyway,
about water baptism instead of regeneration.
Can you show me where Scripture shows these must be separated?
LikeLike
Erik,
I didn’t think you were speaking bad of me. I just know it can be used that way. I believe enthusiasm in the Truth can only come from the Lord, so I take it as a good gift. May the Lord give us all greater enthusiasm in the Truth.
“None can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit.”
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
I think you grasp some aspects of Reformed Theology, but I think you still have a lot of misconceptions. I sincerely hope you stay around and ask questions
Erik, work it out amongst yourselves.
https://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/norman-shepherd-begins-by-telling-us-not-to-talk-about-election/
If Norman Shepherd gets the noose, I have no chance.
This theological debate about grace and justification has been going on for 500 years and frankly, it doesn’t matter a whit. God decides. If he decides [had already decided at the beginning of time, or even before that] to spare Adolf Hitler, that’s none of our business. And spare me the sophistry of “Can you show me a Protestant church that prays that some should be lost?” which perverts the question. Limited Atonement presupposes that some were not atoned for, and by your own theology, case closed on them.
[Unless you hope that all will turn out to be “Elect,” although that makes “Limited” Atonement a moot concept.]
What I have already argued is that the hope for universal reconciliation may be the Christian norm, as I already wrote.
I suppose I can just keep reposting the same replies in the hope that you may someday read them, and perhaps even respond to them!
____
**See, for instance, Keith Drury’s “The Triumph of Arrminianism”
http://www.crivoice.org/arminianism.html
LikeLike
I think you grasp some aspects of Reformed Theology, but I think you still have a lot of misconceptions. I sincerely hope you stay around and ask questions
Erik, work it out amongst yourselves.
https://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/norman-shepherd-begins-by-telling-us-not-to-talk-about-election/
If Norman Shepherd gets the noose, I have no chance.
This theological debate about grace and justification has been going on for 500 years and frankly, it doesn’t matter a whit. God decides. If he decides [had already decided at the beginning of time, or even before that] to spare Adolf Hitler, that’s none of our business. And spare me the sophistry of “Can you show me a Protestant church that prays that some should be lost?” which perverts the question. Limited Atonement presupposes that some were not atoned for, and by your own theology, case closed on them.
[Unless you hope that all will turn out to be “Elect,” although that makes “Limited” Atonement a moot concept.]
What I have already argued is that the hope for universal reconciliation may be the Christian norm, as I already wrote.
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.
I suppose I can just keep reposting the same replies in the hope that you may someday read them, and perhaps even respond to them!
____
**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.”
LikeLike
I appreciate everyone keeping it civil here. As a life long and thankful protestant, those converting, and their subsequent proselytizing, is very confusing to me. Clearly, these people think they found something in RC. I’ve found so much and still am without RCism. And again, very thankful for where I find myself. I can only talk for me, here, though.
LikeLike
+1 AB…
LikeLike
Tom – Limited Atonement presupposes that some were not atoned for, and by your own theology, case closed on them.
[Unless you hope that all will turn out to be “Elect,” although that makes “Limited” Atonement a moot concept.]
Erik – It’s confusing trying to talk with you, Tom, because you seem to have a very utilitarian concept of religion. Tell me why you think what one “hopes” for has any bearing on whether or not a religion is true or false. This is where we keep getting tripped up.
You need to show your cards more about what you personally believe and why.
I think you also understand how Reformed Churches work in practice. We don’t presume to know who was atoned for. We preach the gospel widely and regard those in true churches as saved people until proven otherwise (that’s when we practice church discipline — up to and including excommunication — when needed). Even then, we rely on professions of faith and don’t presume to know the ultimate fate of men’s souls. We realize our knowledge of these things is fallible and limited.
LikeLike
“I think you also understand how Reformed Churches work in practice” should be “misunderstand”.
LikeLike
Good stuff!
AB.
God has more than we can take and He keeps giving more and making us able to receive it and speak of it.
God is good. We are the poor servants which only give what He has given.
You finishing up for the work day?
LikeLike
Tom,
You argue that Arminianism is the majority view. O.K. So what? Way more people eat hot dogs than steak. Should I agree with you that hot dogs are better? You need to convince me that Arminianism is biblical. Way more people go to Joel Osteen’s church than mine, but that doesn’t convince me that Osteen has superior theology to my pastor.
Drury’s quote is bogus because if you read our confessions you will see that we believe God uses men and means (primarily the preaching of the gospel) to save people. Unlike the Arminian, however, we can preach without fear because we don’t think the person’s response depends on us.
If you are an Arminian, Tom, do you spend every minute telling people about Jesus? If not, why not. People could be going to hell because of your selfishness and laziness. Why play music? This is time you could be witnessing.
If we believed what you say we believe why would we have adults get baptized and make a profession of faith upon repentance & belief? We do that.
LikeLike
The question is why one leaves an Arminian position to convert to a Reformed position.
There has been a fad about it for the last decade, which swept me up to a good church.
LikeLike
Erik,
Way more people go to Joel Osteen’s church than mine, but that doesn’t convince me that Osteen has superior theology to my pastor.
I have to say Amen! to that.
LikeLike
Tom,
I’d also be weary of calling the Catholic teaching “Arminian”, even if some view it that way. Arminius didn’t teach Catholic doctrine, but nor did Calvin. They both had some things right, as I understand it.
LikeLike
Tom, I’d also be weary of calling the Catholic teaching “Arminian”, even if some view it that way. Arminius didn’t teach Catholic doctrine, but nor did Calvin. They both had some things right, as I understand it.
I put scare quotes around “Arminian,” Michael, in the narrow sense used by Keith Drury here
http://www.crivoice.org/arminianism.html
to delineate it from Calvinistic soteriology.
Again,
BTW, here’s a PDF of a hand-typed transcript of an interview of Cornelius Van Til on Norman Shepherd matter.
Click to access ns06-InterviewWithJimPaytonJackSawyerPeterLillback.pdf
You must understand I find this interesting as ecclesiastical history, but the theological questions at hand are not very compelling to me.
LikeLike
Erik, I like Dordt for the most part, except for the “sufficient/efficient” formula. I especially like the antithesis against errors. Dordt is clear and rational.
Roman Catholics are not Arminians, Lutherans are not Arminians, and not all Arminians are the same. But all agree that Christ’s atonement was not only for the elect but also for those who will perish.
Ephesians 1:9-11–” making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Christ we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…”
These days even most Reformed folk teach that Christ died in some sense for every sinner, even if they say that Christ died so God could justly condemn the sinner. Many think that they honor Christ by saying that the decree for Christ to die is before the decree to elect some sinners. They claim in this way to put the person of Christ before the doctrine of election.
Many Reformed and Lutheran folk don’t want to make Christ’s atoning death the cause of justification. They want something they call “union” with the living Christ to be the cause of all saving grace. In this way, they attempt to talk about salvation in Christ without talking about either election or Christ’s past death for the elect. These folks tend to equate “atonement” (and election) with the church and its present “means of grace”.
LikeLike
Sorry–I keep putting links in and more than one gets you trapped in comment moderation.
Tom, I’d also be weary of calling the Catholic teaching “Arminian”, even if some view it that way. Arminius didn’t teach Catholic doctrine, but nor did Calvin. They both had some things right, as I understand it.
I put scare quotes around “Arminian,” Michael, for the narrow sense used by Keith Drury here
http://www.crivoice.org/arminianism.html
to delineate it from Calvinistic soteriology.
Again,
This theological debate about grace and justification has been going on for 500 years and frankly, it doesn’t matter a whit. God decides. If he decides [had already decided at the beginning of time, or even before that] to spare Adolf Hitler, that’s none of our business.
BTW, here’s a PDF of a hand-typed transcript of an interview of Cornelius Van Til on Norman Shepherd matter.
Click to access ns06-InterviewWithJimPaytonJackSawyerPeterLillback.pdf
You must understand I find this interesting as ecclesiastical history, but the theological questions at hand are not very compelling to me. I have no problem with Pope Francis’s remarks, and neither does the Catholic catechism. This hubbub is about nothing except certain Protestants’ and atheists’ confusion on the RCC’s position. Without getting into the tall weeds of it, I take it the Norman Shepherd controversy is theologically similar. I’d rather read y’all discoursing on that: It seems you have plenty enough to squabble about inside the Machen house.
LikeLike
DGH: Sorry–I keep putting links in and more than one link gets you trapped in comment moderation. Pls ignore previous attempts at this comment.
________________
MichaelTX: Tom, I’d also be weary of calling the Catholic teaching “Arminian”, even if some view it that way. Arminius didn’t teach Catholic doctrine, but nor did Calvin. They both had some things right, as I understand it.
I put scare quotes around “Arminian,” Michael, for the narrow sense used by Keith Drury to delineate it from Calvinistic soteriology.
Again,
BTW, here’s a PDF of a hand-typed transcript of an interview of Cornelius Van Til on Norman Shepherd matter y’all may find interesting.
Click to access ns06-InterviewWithJimPaytonJackSawyerPeterLillback.pdf
You must understand I find this all interesting as ecclesiastical history, but the theological questions at hand are not very compelling to me. I have no problem with Pope Francis’s remarks, and neither does the Catholic catechism. This hubbub is about nothing except certain Protestants’ and atheists’ confusion on the RCC’s position. Without getting into the tall weeds of it, I take it the Norman Shepherd controversy is theologically similar. If so, I’d rather read y’all discoursing on the issue per that: It seems you have plenty enough to squabble about inside the Machen house without looking inside others’.
LikeLike
“Strictly speaking, there are no demands and conditions in the gospel but only promises and gifts. Faith and repentance are as much benefits of the covenant of grace as justification (and so forth)”
—Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.454
LikeLike
Tom,
The OPC, the URC, the RCUS, etc. (pretty much everyone but the PCA) have issued statements on “The Federal Vision”, which is basically Norman Shepherd for the next generation. The OPC’s report is maybe the best:
Click to access justification.pdf
You won’t find much discussion of Shepherd here, because most of us consider the matter to be settled in our churches.
I agree with you that what Francis said was not a big deal, other than the fact that it maybe wasn’t wise for him to make a statement that required so much clarification by those under him (from CTC to the Vatican).
LikeLike
Tom – And spare me the sophistry of “Can you show me a Protestant church that prays that some should be lost?” which perverts the question.
Erik – You lauded the Catholic church for praying that all men be saved. How does my challenge pervert the question?
They pray for all to be saved but say that none who know of Rome but fail to come to her will be.
We pray for all to be saved but say that only those who have true faith in Christ will be.
What’s the difference?
LikeLike
Tom,
Thanks for the Van Til interview. I’ll read it.
LikeLike
Tom,
You criticize Calvinists but you have no problem with Catholics saying that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church (if they know of her)? You let them off just because they say they pray that everyone would join their church?
LikeLike
Tom,
Charging Calvinists as fatalists is not out of left field, granted. We stress the soverignty of God, but there is a paradoxical element here, IMHO. Our confession says we must handle the doctrine of election with extra care. Does that help?
AB
LikeLike
Correction, predestination, not election, is what we handle with care. My point is made though, we acknowledge paradox (mystery) here. Disagree with reformed prots all you like. Some of us really dig the WCF. Here’s from chapter 3:
The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
LikeLike
AB: Our confession says we must handle the doctrine of election with extra care. Does that help?
Well, if the Pope got all this guff for saying all people might be saved, I can’t imagine the social spitstorm that would come down–fairly or unfairly, ignorantly or knowledgeably–on Calvinists if the “Elect” thing and all its implications really got out there. Just sayin’.
We’re kind of reaching the limit of my interest in all this, esp since the theological weeds are getting tall and Calvinists seem to be “careful” about what they say about Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement, and this cat-and-mouse thing of trying to figure out what they believe [“no, THAT’S not it–you don’t understand…”] is lame. If y’all want to be open about it, I’m happy to read.
In particular, this centuries-old grace and justification debate is an argument about something that’s out of our hands anyway. Or as somebody put it, a difference that makes no difference IS no difference. I’m happy to hear you out so that I understand your position [iirc, Aquinas likewise struggled with the idea that an omnipotent God couldn’t NOT know who would be saved and who wouldn’t, so I’m guessing that’s related]. But I’m not going to fight with you about it. It seems to me that Election could be universal [if such is God’s will] and therefore so is the Atonement, and so you could go about your Calvinistic business without that question needing to be resolved.
LikeLike
Tom,
I get that you have reached the limit of your interest in this topic. So therefore, this will be as brief as I can make it.
There is no shame in my admitting there are mysteries in the Christian religion. In my own study, I have found it helpful to know when I am dealing with a doctrine that is mysterious. Predestination and election just happens to be one of those.
The best learning about the reformed faith I have been experiencing is through a very good pastor, teaching us the Westminster larger catechism. I know this might be a boring answer, but as for the OPC, we take that document really seriously, and find it very helpful.
There’s open debates about how far we take our confession (the debates our over officers in the church, of which I am one, and what it means for us to “subscribe” to the confession). The point is, if you want to learned about confessional protestants, it’s a time consuming effort, but a study of the confessions is a must. Don’t expect a silver bullet answer in a combox. I have found that christian doctrine of any kind simply doesn’t work like that.
There is plenty of “spit-storm” about doctrines like election, because plenty of atheists read the Bible and take great offense to much of what it is saying. When we say we are confessional, we are ultimately saying that the Westminster Confession summarizes well the teaching in Scripture. Again, you can disagree all you like. But that’s who we are.
It’s ultimately not the confession or the Bible that I expect the “spit-storm,” however. I expect to be spat upon when and if I ever proclaim a clear gospel. That’s just plain fact. My pastor made a point recently in our mid-week Bible study through 1 Thessalonians (we are in Chapter 2, if you want to try to find the verses that are the context for what follows) that when a clear Gospel is preached, it seems there is always a very strong negative or positive response. This is where election starts to make sense for someone like me, 12+ years in the OPC every Sunday. I think that’s true – a person either responds very positively or very negatively when presented with the fact that they are a sinner in need of a savior. And the more clear the message, the more strong the reaction, positive or negative.
Look, no one wants an internet fight. We’re all trying to help each other out, I think. But I’ve already written too much. If you want my take, I’m a big Bible guy – they called me “Bible Boy” in my public school, because I kept that book with me in my backpack. There’s reasons why I took to the Bible at a young age, and reasons why I continue to find such help in daily study of that book. It floats my boat, dude. And the OPC has helped me immensely, personally. It may not be the church for everyone, but we’re pretty happy with what we’ve got. And when someone comes along and says I need some correction in my learning from some outside pope or magisterium, I just say, “huh?” I’m sure I got issues, but why listen to them instead of anyone else? I’m not the one trying to convince a bunch of CtCers to come to the OPC. They are the ones running a website. Those of us around here just scratch our heads, post comments, and read DG’s blog posts. I find them quite informative and I keep reading. Glad you like it around here to stay this long. Remember, wherever you go next, we had good beer here. And you’re always welcome back. At least, that’s my take.
AB
LikeLike
Goodstuff AB,
Just hope you remember if you ever want an answer for “why listen to them instead of anyone else?” Just ask and I’ll do all I can.
Peace bro,
Mike
LikeLike
Tom, have you ever wondered why Rome can’t produce it’s own apologists but needs ex-Protestants?
LikeLike
Tom, Beza’s views about predestination have not stopped you from claiming him as a major influence on the so-called Calvinist American Revolution. You do blow hot and cold on Calvinism. Seems to be when it suits you, you appeal to it. Otherwise, Calvinists are crazy. So why not admit that by your lights you live in a crazy Republic.
LikeLike