Erik has already commented that neo-Calvinists could learn from the Vatican, but the affinities between neo-Calvinism and Rome were even more striking in Jamie Smith’s recent post about Lumen Fidei. His remarks suggest that the real gateway drug for Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism is the sort of comprehensive Christianity that fuels every-square-inch transformationalism. Part of what makes neo-Calvinism appealing to evangelical Protestantism is that it offers so much MORE than salvation from sin and the need to evangelize daily. It talks about redeeming the whole world and promotes the value of every legal walk of life.
But just imagine how much more comprehensive Rome looks when it has 1500 more years of history, and an institution that (in addition to opposing the French Revolution, a neo-Calvinist requirement) put the Holy in Holy Roman Empire. If you want a culturally influential Christianity, Dutch or Dutch-American Calvinism looks like a piker compared to Rome.
This may explain why Jamie was so pleased by Francis’ first encyclical:
. . . the Pope rightly argues that the standpoint of Christian faith is not opting for un-reality—to believe the Gospel is not an irrational escape from “the real.” To the contrary, it is an invitation to participate in the One in whom all reality holds together. And this is an incarnational faith: tangible, sticky, concrete, embodied, in contrast to the vague Gnosticism that too often passes itself off as “Christian.”
So if Christians practice an otherworldly faith because Christ has gone somewhere else to prepare a home for his people, or because Paul tells us to set our minds on things above, or Calvin prays that we should not become too deeply attached to earthly and perishable things, these otherworldly saints are simply gnostics or fundamentalists.
And Smith goes on to quote approvingly Francis’ depiction of faith as a common (as opposed to a Spirit-wrought) good. Here’s Francis:
Faith makes us appreciate the architecture of human relationships because it grasps their ultimate foundation and definitive destiny in God, in his love, and thus sheds light on the art of building; as such it becomes a service to the common good. Faith is truly a good for everyone; it is a common good. Its light does not simply brighten the interior of the Church, nor does it serve solely to build an eternal city in the hereafter; it helps us build our societies in such a way that they can journey towards a future of hope.
To which Smith adds:
I can’t imagine a better articulation of the faith that animates our work here at Cardus. The Reformation isn’t over, but the protest that has separated us might not be as significant as the Gospel that unites us. This Protestant is deeply grateful for the witness of Pope Francis to the light of faith for the common good.
I know it is a sign of doctrinalist, logo-centric nit-picking to compare Smith’s words to the confessional standards he subscribes. But how exactly does faith become a common good when you define it the way Heidelberg does? (Can’t you at least show that you know what the Three Forms teach and then try a form of reconciliation?)
Question 21. What is true faith?
Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
And what comes of the protest that separates Protestants and Roman Catholics when Heidelberg goes on to describe the centrality of faith to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?
Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?
Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.
I understand and even admire the desire of Christians and NPR listeners to make the world a better place (even if I also think that desire can look fairly naive or self-righteous at times). But if you do grasp the otherworldliness of Christ, Paul, and the Reformers, you do understand that the good of a common life together on planet earth is remarkably inconsequential compared to a separate existence in heaven or hell. Gussying up the goods of western civilization, the humanities, Christendom, or social and political solidarity in talk of “the permanent things” still doesn’t cross the gulf that exists between the life that believers and unbelievers share in this world and the separate worlds they will inhabit in the world to come.
Old Life 
As Jeremy might say, James is obviously an “honest and well educated” protestant.
In the peace of Bryan
LikeLike
D.G. – This may explain why Jamie was so pleased by Francis’ first encyclical:
. . . the Pope rightly argues that the standpoint of Christian faith is not opting for un-reality—to believe the Gospel is not an irrational escape from “the real.” To the contrary, it is an invitation to participate in the One in whom all reality holds together. And this is an incarnational faith: tangible, sticky, concrete, embodied, in contrast to the vague Gnosticism that too often passes itself off as “Christian.”
Erik – I’ve always longed for a sticky faith.
LikeLike
Smith – Faith is truly a good for everyone; it is a common good.
Erik – Faith is good for lawbreakers who don’t embrace Christ? What of Jesus saying that he is either the Cornerstone or a stone of stumbling? The gospel is good news for some and extremely bad news for others.
LikeLike
Smith – The Reformation isn’t over, but the protest that has separated us might not be as significant as the Gospel that unites us.
Erik – Rome and Reformed Christians teach the same gospel?
LikeLike
The “comprehensive gospel” Reformed guys I know all tend to downplay the distinction between justification and sanctification, because the gospel came to bring both, and the really important thing is not being dualistic and worrying about your justification, but about “living the gospel” out here to make this world a better place. Sounds like a bridge to Rome to me, or at least a downplaying of the ongoing need for stringent protest against conflating sanctification into justification, (thus works with a passive, justifying faith ~ WLC 72). And that first paragraph you quote sounds positively Doug Wilsonish. All this was hashed out in the early years of the Federal Vision controversy (cf. the Beisner colloquium book), but it keeps seeming to return — different voices, but same basic errors, it seems to me.
LikeLike
“Sticky Faith”
What is the Gospel version of the Stones’ greatest album?
LikeLike
Exile on Assyria St.
LikeLike
Their Glorious Saviour’s Irresistible Grace
LikeLike
Well, I have already warned you about James K Smith. It’s just more of the same triumphalistic transformationism in new clothes borrowed from “radical orthodoxy” and Caputo/ Derrida. Calling it “worship” doesn’t change its character as being in continuity with magisterial/constantinian cultural projects of the past.
Of course I would say that, since I am a fundamentalist who wants us to talk more about the gospel (and less about what’s wrong with neo-Calvinist cultural projects, I say to myself, but does noticing the irony forgive my lack of focus?) The reason Smith calls us “sectarian gnostics” is a sense that we all agree about the gospel and now we need to move on to “more than” the gospel.
Chris is very right on to notice above the connection to the blur of justification and sanctification under “union”. As in, sure we believe in justification by imputation of Christ’s work without/apart from our works. We don’t deny that But we also I believe in a final justification by the Holy Spirit’s work in us, which is our works, which of course is still Christ’s work. I am thinking not only of Gaffin and NT Wright, but of the “Protestants” who write in the recent 4 views of the Judgment According to Works. If our final justification (which is not another, Gaffin says) is according to our works, then we will need “more than” Christ’s satisfaction of the law for the elect, we will need to do our part in the transformation of the “one” culture.
James K Smith (Letters to a Young Calvinist) commends Colson as a person who was not “gnostic” or “Lutheran” or “narrowly focused on soteriology” like “Machen’s warrior children” .
Perhaps one way to escape a sectarian focus on eternal life for individuals would be to lose our narrow focus on the gospel and join all the other good anti-nihilist (Robert P George, Al Mohler) “social conservatives” who are lamenting the “secularilism” which exposes the end of the Constantinian presumption that everybody in your neighborhood at least knows what’s natural.
Or, as Francis Schaeffer said with so much nostaglia, oh for the days when even the pagans lived below Kant’s line….James K Smith knows he can’t say it that way anymore, but he’s still trying to save the Kuyper/Mouw project…
The justice which is our hope is not the justice we do here or now. It WAS DONE by Christ 2000 years ago. If that is too “otherworldly”, so be it . The next time somebody asks you if you want justice or grace from God, remember that God never gives grace without justice. Our only hope is Christ’s death as the justice for all for whom God has grace. God only has grace for the elect and we know that because Christ only satisfied God’s law for the elect. Christ ALREADY did justice for only the elect because God has NEVER had grace for any but the elect.
So why try to save the world, when it’s the church which needs to be saved?
LikeLike
McMark, because that is fundamentalist full stop. I suspect that the Protestant Reformed make it impossible for the neo-Cals ever to concede fundamentalism had a point, just like the way New Life Presbyterianism prevents me from ever singing a praise song.
LikeLike
McMark, I’ll take “narrowly focused on soteriology” with a side of solid ecclesiology all day long.
LikeLike
Brian, big coincidence, here is an email I got today:
______________________
ROCK N, ROLL LAW
It’s only rock n’ roll…and some law
“This CLE was very interesting and informative. Mr. Jesse is a musical encyclopedia, and makes the area of music copyright law easier to grasp.”
–Recent attorney attendee from Omaha, NE
The Rolling Stones, George Harrison, The Verve, John Fogerty, the Bee Gees, among others . . . hear the stories hehind the great music copyright cases.
Introduction to Music Copyright Law (and all other copyrights)
Hear the songs and stories behind the biggest music copyright cases
What you will learn and experience:
• Why Mick and Keith make money off someone else’s song
• The 6 exclusive legal rights you get with any copyright
• The 2 copyrights within each song
• Why physical music may be obsolete
Why most songs I hear begin to sound alike
___________
But here’s what’s REALLY going on: it’s being held in a pub.
LikeLike
Ooh! Let me, let me! Stones’ gospel albums
– Into Our Heads
– Easter’s Children (and Everybody’s)
– After Mass
– Got Life If You Want It!
– Their Satanic Majesties Repent
LikeLike
I agree, Charles. A narrow focus on soteriology will mean antithesis with any false gospel. But you can’t build a big “church” if you do antithesis. Gospel antithesis I mean. You can have a big congregation if you congratulate the good people with you on not being like the “liberals” who have corrupted the culture.
You do know, dgh, that I can’t pass for a fundamentalist, right? (The Protestant Reformed wouldn’t take me) So why do I keep trying to use that label?
I could listen to the praise songs if they came with a narrowly true gospel for sinners based on Christ’s satisfaction of the law for the elect. That combination must exist out there somewhere. Better that than good hymns followed by clergy anecdotes signifying nothing, with apologies for the doctrine of election. You can fill in the name of your favorite “Reformed” celebrity here…..
LikeLike
“I know it’s only OPC but I like it…”
But if a neo-Cal or theonomist was singing about 2k the song remains the same: “I want to paint it black.”
Then there’s an OL contributor about whom the following applies: “If you start him up / He’ll never stop.”
Jagger was asked what his favorite thing was about himself. “My pelvis.”
Irishman and blues lover Rory Gallagher nearly became the lead guitarist for The Rolling Stones. It appears they wanted him more than he wanted them.
LikeLike
I don’t really see anything in that quote from Smith where he actually contrasts the presence of Christian Faith as *resulting* in common good with the Spirit-wrought *origin* of faith.
So “as opposed to Spirit-wrought” doesn’t really work: its a misreading.
Faith results in true Love, according to Luther, and love is needed by the *neighbor* primarily.
LikeLike
Paul, you wrote, “I don’t really see anything in that quote from Smith where he actually contrasts the presence of Christian Faith as *resulting* in common good with the Spirit-wrought *origin* of faith.”
And that’s the problem.
LikeLike
Was there some part you didn’t quote where he actually said that faith was something held in common among all people, instead of faith being something Christians alone posses, but it, since it is always followed by works, leads to common good? Because that’s what he meant.
LikeLike
Paul, he quoted Francis and approved:
Not to mention that he says the Reformation’s protest might not be as significant in the light of the “Gospel that unites us.”
LikeLike
It’s disturbing that this post has not generated more indignation and comment. It means we’re really used to Reformed types saying and writing this heinous stuff. Horrible. like Tennessee and Alabama fans getting cuddly or Yankees and Bosox fans trading hats.
LikeLike