Just A Goat Breeder

The Christian Curmudgeon has moved to “Just a Curmudgeon.” The reason could be that he doesn’t think Christians own being curmudgeonly any more than folks who trust Jesus (or Abraham Kuyper) own the secrets of goat breeding:

I heard Eugene Osterhaven wonder if some take the Kuyperian world-and-life-view too far. The instance he cited was the formation of a Christian Goat Breeders Society in the Netherlands. The question is, What distinguishes a Christian goat breeder from another?

I supposed one function of a Christian Goat Breeders Society is to breed Christian goats only with other Christian goats. And inasmuch as it is the Calvinists who form such societies, I suppose we can go a step further and say that the Society provided a service by which Calvinist Christian goats would be bred only with other Christian Calvinistic goats.

This is the Curmudgeon’s excuse for posting a video about the effects of Christian patriarchy advocates on dating. Not as funny as the Lutheran satirist. But the video has its moments.

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “Just A Goat Breeder

  1. Interesting name change together with the continued affirmation of Christianity in the sidebar. Perhaps he thinks there is not a uniquely Christian way to be curmudgeonly?

    Like

  2. This doesn’t understand natural law. To such people there is only special revelation, not general revelation. But true Christianity assumes the latter, and fills in the blanks with the former. When you don’t get natural law, you say stupid stuff like “the Bible doesn’t cover everything.”

    No it doesn’t. It assumes you have the sense God gave you [the law written on the human heart, Romans 2:15]. The natural law plus the Bible covers everything, but some Bible-bots don’t even have the sense God gave them anymore, so much have they made theology their idol.

    Like

  3. The guy kind of makes sense given his world non view.

    “With this Blog I am out Hart-ing Darryl. He continues to say everything at two Blogs – Old Life (which is a reference to being an Old Side and Old School Presbyterian) and Putting the Protest in Protestant. Now when he writes about the movies and TV shows he and Mrs. Hart watch, is he giving what he believes are Jesus’s reflections? I suggest the he, too, reinvent himself perhaps by creating a new Blog, “The Secular Hart.” I like the double entendre of it.”

    Like

  4. Aren’t you guys friends, Brother Hart? I assumed this was kind of a friendly banter, back and forth sort of thing. If you guys are really feuding, then I apologize.

    Hey, have a wonderful Lord’s Day tomorrow.

    Like

  5. Mermaid, too bad you don’t read the journalist who covers the Vatican.

    I’ll tell you how I think the public narrative about the papacy has shifted from B16 to PF.
    Old narrative: Everything you don’t like about the Catholic Church is because of the pope.
    New narrative: Everything you don’t like about the Catholic Church is in spite of the pope!

    Old Life RC narrative: the pope is in my heart (and he doesn’t even burn).

    Like

  6. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 15, 2015 at 7:01 am | Permalink
    Mermaid, too bad you don’t read the journalist who covers the Vatican.

    Old Life RC narrative: the pope is in my heart (and he doesn’t even burn).

    Old Life narrative: I don’t actually know anything about the Catholicism but I read a website this morning.

    Like

  7. TVD
    Posted November 15, 2015 at 5:04 pm | Permalink
    D. G. Hart
    Posted November 15, 2015 at 7:01 am | Permalink
    Mermaid, too bad you don’t read the journalist who covers the Vatican.

    Old Life RC narrative: the pope is in my heart (and he doesn’t even burn).

    TVD:
    Old Life narrative: I don’t actually know anything about the Catholicism but I read a website this morning.>>>>>>

    I’ve noticed that, too, TVD. Too bad.

    Like

  8. Zrim:Ali, with worldview anything is possible. Philippians 4:13.

    Dear Mr. Zrim, if you’ll notice, I was just Bible-quoting. Maybe you are too here above! One great advantage of that – then any rejecting is of God. Are you disagreeing with God about leaven? It’s possible, if you articulated ‘with precision’ your 2K and were consistent about how you talked about it, there might be more understanding and much agreement. Don’t know. Maybe; but maybe not, if your ‘worldview’ can’t always incorporate what the Lord has to say.

    Like

  9. TVD and Mermaid –

    As Katy said, always so misunderstood. Not sure you’re always above board about Catholic beliefs. Example Mary. Was looking at this site http://www.catholic.org/prayers/rosary.php (didn’t watch ‘the mystery of the Holy Rosary’ video though because there is no mystery to the rosary -though there definitely is mystery to prayer to the Lord) ; sample of the content:

    1)”Step-By-Step” Instructions for Praying The Rosary
    2) prayers like “The Salve Regina” (Hail Holy Queen): Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!
    3) The Fifteen Promises of Mary to Christians Who Recite the Rosary..[1- whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the rosary, shall receive signal graces….5) The soul which recommend itself to me by the recitation of the rosary, shall not perish….11) You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the rosary…

    There is only One Who is our life and hope; there is only One Whom we serve; only One ‘most gracious Advocate’, only One who answers prayer; only One Who keeps us ‘from perishing’, only One in whom all ‘promises’ are always Yes… and it isn’t Mary.
    Please refix your eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith

    Like

  10. Ali
    Posted November 15, 2015 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
    TVD and Mermaid –

    As Katy said, always so misunderstood. Not sure you’re always above board about Catholic beliefs. Example Mary. Was looking at this site [link]

    You read but you do not understand. You look for error, not truth; darkness, not light. Once you think you found error, you fire off a comment. You look at the Salve Regina and do not see

    V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
    R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

    The Rosary is about Christ.

    Neither is that an official website of the Catholic Church. A number of those prayers are not officially in the Rosary. You have to stop acting like Dr. Hart, trolling the internet for gotchas, or as lazy as him in accepting unofficial internet claims that suit his anti-Catholic agenda.

    The 15 promises [of the Rosary] were, according to the common claim, “Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan.” St. Dominic is a familiar figure, but “Blessed Alan” is less well known. He is Alanus de Rupe—also known as Alain de la Roche, and variants. He lived in the 1400s, over 200 years after St. Dominic’s time. He reportedly received private revelation that showed him certain things about the life of St. Dominic, including the revelation of the 15 promises. This is why they are claimed to have been “given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan.” We don’t have evidence—apart from Alan—that St. Dominic received these promises. The matter comes down to how much credibility one places in Alan’s reported private revelation.

    So how reliable are they?

    It does not appear that there are any significant magisterial documents dealing with the subject. At least, advocates of the 15 promises do not seem to have identified any papal or curial documents affirming them (and there are certainly none from ecumenical councils). There might be some that are not commonly available in English, but until such can be identified it does not appear that the promises have ecclesiastical approbation on the global level.

    Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-the/#ixzz3rc26acNH

    Like

  11. So what is an official document of the Catholic church?

    Encyclicals don’t qualify.

    Ott didn’t qualify.

    The Baltimore Catechism didn’t qualify.

    Catholic.org doesn’t qualify.

    No True Scotsman?

    Like

  12. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
    Jeff, an official document is in the eye of the convert except when the pope visits the U.S.

    Dr. History doesn’t know an official document from a hole in the ground.

    He didn’t know what’s in the Rosary either.

    Like

  13. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, which means I read more websites than you (or vd, t) do. Ignorance is bliss but it’s not much of a strategy for apologetics. Oh the audacity.>>>>>

    If ignorance is bliss, why are you so grumpy, Brother Hart?

    Like

  14. Ali, it was sarcasm. But that’s part of the 2k point–what God has to say can’t always be incorporated since he’s so silent on so much. Besides, where worldview is the working category for neo-Calvinism, faith is the working category for 2k.

    Like

  15. Look, Brother Hart, if I want to know what the OPC teaches, I go to your denominational website. This is a blog where you express your opinions about all kinds of things and people give their comments. Sometimes it’s funny. Sometimes it’s serious. Sometimes it’s weird. Sometimes we get nasty. It’s a blog, and nothing more.

    If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, I go to the Holy See, the USCCB, and some trusted websites. By trusted I mean websites related to faith formation of the Catholic Church, such as Word on Fire or the website of Dr. Hahn. There are others, like the Catholic Encyclopedia.

    I make some assumptions about the OL guys as well. Sure, you act tough in here, but at home you are careful to leave the toilet seat down. Your wives don’t yell at you if you forget, unless it’s in the middle of the night and she has to use it. I assume that you do chores around the house. I assume that you help your wives out and take care of your kids and grand kids. You all know how to change diapers. I assume that you pray and read your Bibles and ask for God’s help. Oh, there are so many other assumptions about you guys that I make. See, I know all your secrets! I am willing to expose you right here in public, too, and accuse you of these and other activities, like vacuuming.

    You can’t fool me. You do all that and work hard to support your families as well. I know your kind.

    Sometimes you go huntin’ and fishin’ and I’ll bet your wives go along. Typical. 😉

    We are all in the same boat in a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty.
    -G.K. Chesterton

    Like

  16. Mermaid, “I go to the Holy See, the USCCB, and some trusted websites. By trusted I mean websites related to faith formation of the Catholic Church, such as Word on Fire or the website of Dr. Hahn. There are others, like the Catholic Encyclopedia.”

    In other words, you don’t look at any news coverage of your church. If you’re going to boast about being big, one, and historic, you’re going to generate lots of news. And you’re only looking at the “faith formation” bits of Roman Catholicism is oh so Protestant. It’s not about the teaching, you know. It’s about Rome. On fellowship with the Holy See does all sacramental effectiveness hang.

    And it’s the Vatican and the bishops that should keep you up at night.

    But you have you’re own pope. Wait for it. Scott Hahn. You didn’t cross the Tiber. You bought a barcalounger from Luigi’s Department Store in Rome.

    Like

  17. vd, t, and please do remember how the Rosary became popular (not enough for you to use it or go to Mass):

    On October 7th, 1571 a fleet of ships assembled by the combined forces of Naples, Sardinia, Venice, the Papacy, Genoa, Savoy and the Knights Hospitallers fought an intense battle with the fleet of the Ottoman Empire. The battle took place in the Gulf of Patras located in western Greece. Though outnumbered by the Ottoman forces, the so-called “Holy League” possessed of superior firepower would win the day. This victory would severely curtail attempts by the Ottoman Empire to control the Mediterranean, causing a seismic shift in international relations from East to West. In some respects, and I do not want this claim to be overstated, the world that we know came into being with this victory. This event is known to history as the “Battle of Lepanto.”

    Pope Pius V, whose treasury bankrolled part of this military endeavor, ordered the churches of Rome opened for prayer day and night, encouraging the faithful to petition the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the recitation of the Rosary. When word reached the Pope Pius of the victory of the Holy League, he added a new feast day to the Roman Liturgical Calendar- October 7th would henceforth be the feast of Our Lady of Victory. Pope Pius’ successor, Gregory XIII would change the name of this day to the feast of the Holy Rosary.

    Our contemporary sensibilities might make us stir uncomfortably at the association of the Mother of the Prince of Peace with the memory of warfare, strife and the troubled history that preceded and followed the Battle of Lepanto. But the fact of the matter is that this feast was first understood as a celebration akin to what we commemorate on the Fourth of July or D Day. Pope Pius V (later Saint Pius V) interpreted the event as the movement of Providence in favor of the Church and European civilization. He had no qualms in the assertion that the triumph properly belonged to the Mother of God and that in the midst of the rancor of battle, her intercession had moved the “Holy League” to victory. Such warlike associations with Christian Faith and culture likely cannot be sustained today. Some find all this to be offensive to genuine Christian sensibilities.

    Like

  18. vd, t, oh wait. This just in from the pope about prayers and violence:

    Speaking to pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square, the Pope said that when faced with such “intolerable” acts of violence, one “cannot but condemn the disgraceful affront to human dignity.”

    Francis assured his closeness to French president Francois Hollande, as well as to the families of the dead and wounded, entrusting them to the mercy of God.

    “I wish to forcefully reaffirm that the path of violence and hate can never solve the problems of humanity!” he said, adding that “to use the name of God to justify this path is blasphemy.”

    He prayed that Mary would protect and watch over France, Europe and the entire world, and paused for a moment of silence before leading pilgrims in praying a Hail Mary.

    Like

  19. Zrim:Ali, it was sarcasm. But that’s part of the 2k point–what God has to say can’t always be incorporated since he’s so silent on so much. Besides, where worldview is the working category for neo-Calvinism, faith is the working category for 2k.

    You confuse me Zrim. Probably because I’m a woman and w/o discernment ability.
    Which may be valid ,come to think of it, because look at some of the crazy things Mermaid’s discerning power makes her sure of about OLers: “at home you are careful to leave the toilet seat down; you do chores around the house; you help your wives out, and take care of your kids and grand kids. You all know how to change diapers”

    Anyway, everyone has a worldview. Christians have a Biblical worldview not mutually exclusive of faith. And what does “what God has to say can’t always be incorporated since he’s so silent on so much” even mean? If He’s said something, He’s not silent on it.

    “Whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God, so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen…. To this end we pray always, that our God will count us worthy of our calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in us, and us in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ”.

    Like

  20. “He had no qualms in the assertion that the triumph properly belonged to the Mother of God”
    “He prayed that Mary would protect and watch over France, Europe and the entire world”

    “Some find all this to be offensive to genuine Christian sensibilities.”

    that’s for sure

    the Lord is slow to anger

    Like

  21. Ali, it means when it comes to provisional life he’s left much more unrevealed than revealed. Perhaps you’re one of those Christians, though, who imagines she can connect the dots from revealed to unrevealed because you possess the Spirit or whatever. But Belgic 13 on Providence (in part) cautions a little more humility:

    We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what God does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what God shows us in the Word, without going beyond those limits.

    And if two believers who share the faith have two different views on how the world should specifically shake out (and this happens all the time), then which one is biblical? We know from said revelation which view of justification is biblical, but which view on how to govern is? If you and I split the bill and you go generous on the tip and I go prudent, which of us is being biblical? We pay our bills (faith) but we veer on the gratuity (worldview). How would you like it if I said I’m being biblical but you’re not?

    Like

  22. Arim: “And if two believers who share the faith have two different views …”

    well, you have to admit Zrim, a lot of it just isn’t that ‘gray’ such as, like, e.g, certain innuendo =reformed faith and practice’? pretty easy answer. have a good day

    Like

  23. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:46 am | Permalink
    Mermaid, “I go to the Holy See, the USCCB, and some trusted websites. By trusted I mean websites related to faith formation of the Catholic Church, such as Word on Fire or the website of Dr. Hahn. There are others, like the Catholic Encyclopedia.”

    In other words, you don’t look at any news coverage of your church. If you’re going to boast about being big, one, and historic, you’re going to generate lots of news. And you’re only looking at the “faith formation” bits of Roman Catholicism is oh so Protestant. It’s not about the teaching, you know. It’s about Rome. On fellowship with the Holy See does all sacramental effectiveness hang.

    And it’s the Vatican and the bishops that should keep you up at night.

    But you have you’re own pope. Wait for it. Scott Hahn. You didn’t cross the Tiber. You bought a barcalounger from Luigi’s Department Store in Rome.>>>>>>

    Brother Hart, I’m here, haven’t you noticed. I read what you say. I used to be anti Catholic as well. I think you protest too much and don’t do any real research about what the Church teaches and believes. You don’t even know what the Rosary is, and Ali has followed your lead on that.

    You are a scholar. Do you troll the blogs, Wikipedia, and tabloids to do research for your books? If you have primary sources available, then go to the primary sources.

    This is a tabloid blog. A scholar should be able to do better.

    Besides, I don’t need to let the Vatican Bishops keep me up at night. They keep you up at night.

    See, you OPC guys have tried to get away from sinners by forming your fundamentalist Presbyterian group. You are the original fundamentalists of American Protestantism. Well, you have not been able to keep yourselves pure. That is what should keep you up at night, since you are an elder in the OPC.

    How will you keep your denomination from the New Visionists, the feminists, the patriarchalists, the neo Calvinists, or the Dominionists? While you worry about all that, there are others in your denomination who worry about how to keep your brand of 2 K theology out of their churches.

    …and you guys take the time to put a handicapped woman on trial, and then reverse the decision.

    I don’t blame you at all for lashing out at Catholicism. Anti Catholicism is part of the tradition of Reformed Christianity generally, and the OPC specifically with Boettnerism.

    I put your posts and comments in that context. Still, I don’t hold it against you. I don’t even dislike you guys. I know Reformed men in my real life. Good, solid, Christian men who do all the things I accused you guys of yesterday.

    Lashing out at Catholicism and Catholics may help you worry less about your own beloved OPC. If if does, then glad to be there for you.

    Like

  24. You might make a Christian Goat Breeder association because there’s no neutral ground, even for a group of goat breeders.

    Like

  25. Mermaid, have you ever considered Roman Catholicism isn’t all that its cracked up to be?

    Have you ever considered that the church from Trent to Vatican II was anti-modern and now it isn’t any more?

    Have you ever considered hard thoughts?

    Didn’t think so.

    Your condescension is amazing.

    Like

  26. Ali:
    the Lord is slow to anger>>>>>

    There is nothing in these prayers that you should find objectionable. They are part of the Rosary.
    ————————————————————————-

    Glory be to the Father,
    and to the Son,
    and to the Holy Spirit,
    as it was in the beginning,
    is now and ever shall be
    world without end.
    Amen.

    O my Jesus,
    forgive us our sins,
    save us from the fires of hell,
    and lead all souls to Heaven,
    especially those in most need of your Mercy.
    Amen.

    Our Father, Who art in Heaven,
    hallowed be Thy Name.
    Thy Kingdom come,
    Thy Will be done,
    on earth, as it is in heaven.
    Give us this day, our daily bread,
    and forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us;
    and lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
    Amen.

    I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
    Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ,
    His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
    He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
    He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Amen.

    Like

  27. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:49 am | Permalink
    vd, t, and please do remember how the Rosary became popular

    Again you commit the tragic Reformationist error of standing atop a molehill and missing the mountain standing behind, Dr. Hart. A Catholic can go through his entire life without touching a Rosary. The centerpiece of the Christian religion remains the Eucharist.

    You expend barrels of cyberink on trivia about Mary but you do not have the Eucharist. On Sundays Calvinists can talk “about” Christ but Catholics receive Him in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. For all your learning, you still understand nothing of the Church, my poor fellow.

    Like

  28. From the Roman perspective it may appear that Reformed folk turn mountains into molehills, but from the Reformed perspective it is the Romanist who dismisses mountains as molehills. The Reformed object to idolatry in RC worship — whether in prayers to Mary or in the Mass.

    If Reformed folk did not object to the rosary, then we would be inconsistent with our theology — and inconsistent with the Word of God. Same goes for the Mass.

    The theological disagreements may seem minor to the RC, but to the Reformed, they are towering.

    Like

  29. Mermaid: Ali There is nothing in these prayers that you should find objectionable. They are part of the Rosary.
    Mermaid, before you try to further deflect to the true parts without addressing the serious untrue parts already mentioned, let me say- you don’t think enemy work is actually obvious and overt 2 Cor 11:13-15

    kent Ali: it’s called adiaphora…

    Kent, some other words come to mind.. such as: ignorance [infancy Heb 5:14] or rebellion [unbelief Heb 3:12]
    the deceitfulness of sin hardens hearts, Kent (Heb 3:14) just look at what appears to be happening to cw

    Like

  30. The Mad Hungarian
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
    From the Roman perspective it may appear that Reformed folk turn mountains into molehills, but from the Reformed perspective it is the Romanist who dismisses mountains as molehills. The Reformed object to idolatry in RC worship — whether in prayers to Mary or in the Mass.

    If Reformed folk did not object to the rosary, then we would be inconsistent with our theology — and inconsistent with the Word of God. Same goes for the Mass.

    The theological disagreements may seem minor to the RC, but to the Reformed, they are towering.

    Yes, you hear with Calvinist ears, and so you can still speak only of the molehills. In “reforming” the Church, you lost the Eucharist. That is the mountain you cannot see. The Christian faith is built upon the Cross, the Eucharist is “this is my body,” and through Christ’s promise, I will always be with you, Christ is literally present. Instead it is you who spend your time focusing on Mary.

    Your tiresome accusations of idolatry are inaccurate to the point of being a lie, and as even John Calvin observed about the “towering” controversy of Mary’s perpetual virginity, those who love spending time arguing over it simply love to argue.

    Like


  31. Robert
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    You realize that Calvin believed in the real presence of Christ. Probably not.

    Do you? Does your church? Whose Calvinism is it, anyway?

    I’m not going into the tall weeds with you on this because it’s your lookout, not mine. Your version of the “Lord’s Supper” is not the Eucharist as Christianity has understood it for 2000 years, is the relevant fact here. Not even the Lutherans would have it.

    Like

  32. Zrim
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 4:19 pm | Permalink
    Robert, Tom recently also suggested that Christianity was sacramental until Calvin and his brood got their hands on it. Has he read something like this?

    http://www.amazon.com/Given-You-Reclaiming-Calvins-Doctrine/dp/087552186X

    Why do you people hide your point behind links? If you have a point, why can’t you put it into your own words? [We all know why.]

    Reclaim away, it’s still not the Eucharist. Try selling this to the Lutherans before you try the Catholics.

    Like

  33. “Not even the Lutherans would have it.”

    But remember, that’s no big deal. Just like ecclesiology and baptism are no big deal. All Protestant churches are united, except when they’re not or don’t count. One Protestant body’s adiaphora is another Protestant body’s essential. Always has been, always will be.

    Like

  34. Tom, why do you copy and paste everyone’s else’s point, date and time stamp and all, before driving by with yours?

    The point? You don’t read nearly as much as you spout. Are you saying the Protestant doctrine isn’t Catholic? Profound. Now tell us the color of the sky.

    Like

  35. Zrim
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
    Tom, why do you copy and paste everyone’s else’s point, date and time stamp and all, before driving by with yours?

    To show that I read it and understood it, and am addressing it directly so that I can’t be accused of dodging, as

    The point? You don’t read nearly as much as you spout. Are you saying the Protestant doctrine isn’t Catholic? Profound. Now tell us the color of the sky.

    you do here, with yet another empty ad hom, pointedly unresponsive to a single word I said.

    Like

  36. Tom,

    So the Lutherans have the Eucharist? Traditionally, Rome says no. I guess now they do given Pope “who am I to judge” Francis recent comments.

    You obviously have no clue as to what Calvin taught about the Lord’s Supper. And the fact that you have the gall to proclaim that transubstantiation is irrelevant to what the Eucharist is and THEN to not even go to mass to take the real thing shows your ignorance of Romanism.

    Like

  37. Cletus,

    .But remember, that’s no big deal. Just like ecclesiology and baptism are no big deal. All Protestant churches are united, except when they’re not or don’t count. One Protestant body’s adiaphora is another Protestant body’s essential. Always has been, always will be.

    Get back to us when Francis can figure out whether members of the churches of the Reformation should or should not be barred from the Eucharist, which is supposed to be your most essential rite.

    Like

  38. Robert
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    So the Lutherans have the Eucharist? Traditionally, Rome says no. I guess now they do given Pope “who am I to judge” Francis recent comments.

    I’m saying not even Lutherans [or Anglicans] buy your “Lord’s Supper” as the Eucharist. Because they don’t.

    You obviously have no clue as to what Calvin taught about the Lord’s Supper. And the fact that you have the gall to proclaim that transubstantiation is irrelevant to what the Eucharist is and THEN to not even go to mass to take the real thing shows your ignorance of Romanism.

    That makes no sense. Think for yourself and stop parroting Dr. Hart’s ad hom attacks. I know you’re capable of it. My personal religious beliefs are none of your business. Whenever Old Lifers pull that stuff it proves they have no intelligent rebuttal.

    Like

  39. Katy
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 5:09 pm | Permalink
    “My personal religious beliefs are none of your business”

    ?!?!

    I never thought that would pop up at OldLife. Ok.

    They use what people hold dear as weapons. =:-O You’ll learn. Everything’s grist for their mill when they’re losing. Mt 7:6

    You know why she calls herself The Little Mermaid? Once one of the Old Life faithful [who since got disgusted and left] was poking around and found a profile that said she liked the Disney heroine movies. So Dr. Hart and the rest started mocking her as “The Little Mermaid.”

    So she just changed her screenname to The Little Mermaid, to shame them.

    If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also.

    There’s a lot more that goes on with this little group than meets the eye. Watch, witness. The Little Mermaid sees underwater, right through them.

    Brother Hart, I’m here, haven’t you noticed. I read what you say. I used to be anti Catholic as well. I think you protest too much and don’t do any real research about what the Church teaches and believes. You don’t even know what the Rosary is, and Ali has followed your lead on that.

    You are a scholar. Do you troll the blogs, Wikipedia, and tabloids to do research for your books? If you have primary sources available, then go to the primary sources.

    This is a tabloid blog. A scholar should be able to do better.

    Besides, I don’t need to let the Vatican Bishops keep me up at night. They keep you up at night.

    See, you OPC guys have tried to get away from sinners by forming your fundamentalist Presbyterian group. You are the original fundamentalists of American Protestantism. Well, you have not been able to keep yourselves pure. That is what should keep you up at night, since you are an elder in the OPC.

    How will you keep your denomination from the New Visionists, the feminists, the patriarchalists, the neo Calvinists, or the Dominionists? While you worry about all that, there are others in your denomination who worry about how to keep your brand of 2 K theology out of their churches.

    …and you guys take the time to put a handicapped woman on trial, and then reverse the decision.
    I don’t blame you at all for lashing out at Catholicism. Anti Catholicism is part of the tradition of Reformed Christianity generally, and the OPC specifically with Boettnerism.

    I put your posts and comments in that context. Still, I don’t hold it against you. I don’t even dislike you guys. I know Reformed men in my real life. Good, solid, Christian men who do all the things I accused you guys of yesterday.

    Lashing out at Catholicism and Catholics may help you worry less about your own beloved OPC. If if does, then glad to be there for you.

    Like

  40. vd, t, not sure why celebrating Christendom’s victory over Muslims with a prayer is such a minor matter.

    But then again, you don’t seem all that bothered with the Mass.

    Like

  41. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, not sure why celebrating Christendom’s victory over Muslims with a prayer is such a minor matter.

    But then again, you don’t seem all that bothered with the Mass.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, “Your tiresome accusations of idolatry are inaccurate to the point of being a lie”

    You’d make a good inquisitor.

    Don’t worry about me, tough guy. The Little Mermaid’s the one who’s got your number.

    Like

  42. TVD: They use what people hold dear as weapons.

    Tom, who is “they”? And why should you be afraid of “their” weapons?

    If you’ve gotten to the point where you are afraid to discuss what you actually believe, then maybe you’re in the wrong forum. Despite the superficial similarity, this isn’t debate squad.

    Like

  43. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, “They use what people hold dear as weapons.”

    The passive-aggressive inquisitor.

    Jeff Cagle
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
    TVD: They use what people hold dear as weapons.

    Tom, who is “they”? And why should you be afraid of “their” weapons?

    If you’ve gotten to the point where you are afraid to discuss what you actually believe, then maybe you’re in the wrong forum. Despite the superficial similarity, this isn’t debate squad.

    Of course it is. And you reveal yourselves accidentally by what you try to conceal, by what you attack, by what you baldly ignore. You don’t need any inquisitor, not that Darryl has ever given a straight answer to anything anyway. 😉

    I’m in precisely the right forum, thanks.

    Like

  44. @TVD and TheWorld – “Your version of the “Lord’s Supper” is not the Eucharist as Christianity has understood it for 2000 years, is the relevant fact here. Not even the Lutherans would have it.”

    As one of the few eeee-guys around here, would you all just recognize that Zwingli was the one who finally, and rightly, understood the Eucharist. 🙂

    Like

  45. I’ve actually gotten a fair number of straight answers from DGH. Not at first (c. 2008), but once it was clear that neither wanted to troll the other, we’ve been pretty good at straight-shooting with one another.

    Like

  46. JRC: Despite the superficial similarity, this isn’t debate squad.

    TVD: Of course it is.

    That does explain some things. I’m afraid to say that you’ve been wasting your time, then. No-one is keeping score, and if you look around, no-one is giving prizes either.

    Like

  47. Jeff Cagle
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:33 pm | Permalink
    I’ve actually gotten a fair number of straight answers from DGH. Not at first (c. 2008), but once it was clear that neither wanted to troll the other, we’ve been pretty good at straight-shooting with one another.

    Jeff Cagle
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:39 pm | Permalink
    JRC: Despite the superficial similarity, this isn’t debate squad.

    TVD: Of course it is.

    That does explain some things. I’m afraid to say that you’ve been wasting your time, then. No-one is keeping score, and if you look around, no-one is giving prizes either.

    Never wasting my time because the truth always comes out, whether or not Darryl co-operates in it.

    As for the topic we were discussing [answering these comments about commenting only helps bury the topic], the Calvinists here can explain their version of

    “Take and eat; this is my body.”

    to that nice Lutheran lady, Katy. Let’s see if she buys it.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-lutheran-response-to-calvin-on-the-eucharist/

    Calvin saw that Zwingli was flawed. This is why he believed in an actual participation of his body and blood. However, Calvin was already committed to the idea that Christ’s human nature could not be omnipresent. Thus, he developed a new formula which involved the Spirit causing the soul to ascend to heaven. Lutheran theologians argued against this proposition in three ways. First of all, the Bible simply does not mention any such action. The Spirit is not ever spoken of as being an instrument in bringing us Christ through the supper. If it is not exegetically supportable, it should not be accepted. Secondly, the idea of us ascending to God is contrary to the message of the New Testament. The gospel is about Christ descending to save us. Thus, the supper as a visible form of the gospel, unless otherwise stated in Scripture, should be seen to work the same way. Thirdly, this idea is based upon the assumption that Christ cannot be present in his human nature in more than one place. This has already been shown to be unproven.

    The final attack of the Lutheran dogmatists against the Calvinistic theory of the Eucharist is that the Calvinists believe that Christ is present only by faith. There is no presence of Christ for the unbeliever. Much of the argument came from John 6:63 which says, “the Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing.” How can Jesus’ life giving bread be given to those who are in the flesh? For this verse to have any bearing upon the discussion, it must be shown that this chapter is about the Eucharist. If this chapter is shown to be about the Eucharist, it contains several statements which prove the Lutheran doctrine of the presence of Christ’s human nature. “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians point to the fact that unbelievers do partake of Christ’s body and blood, but rather than unto life, unto judgement. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” Paul sees those who partake unworthily of sinning against the actual body and blood of the Lord, not of a symbol. This offense was so serious that God killed members of the congregation for doing so.

    Calvin’s position, as a compromise corrected several of the errors in Zwingli’s exegesis. However, he still held to assumptions that controlled his reading of the crucial passages of the text, not allowing them to speak for themselves…

    Like

  48. How can this man [Jesus] give us his flesh to eat?

    Verbum caro, panem verum
    Verbo carnem éfficit:
    Fitque sanguis Christi merum,
    Et si sensus déficit,
    Ad firmándum cor sincérum
    Sola fides súfficit.

    John 6:52-59

    52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[a] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus[b] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

    Like

  49. The author explicitly argues for the omnipresence of Jesus’ human nature.

    Chalcedon: …but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis

    Like

  50. Tom, comments about comments may bury the topic but your chosen topic (Eucharist) has already buried the post (Calvinist goats), which serves the larger purpose of smothering a blog simply because it doesn’t kow-tow your Barton-esque rightism. Which has simply for a long time (ahem) gotten your goat. Has anyone told you how transparent you are yet today?

    Like

  51. Tom,

    I’m saying not even Lutherans [or Anglicans] buy your “Lord’s Supper” as the Eucharist. Because they don’t.

    Except of course that I’ve taken the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist with Lutherans and Anglicans, so try again.

    That makes no sense. Think for yourself and stop parroting Dr. Hart’s ad hom attacks. I know you’re capable of it. My personal religious beliefs are none of your business. Whenever Old Lifers pull that stuff it proves they have no intelligent rebuttal.

    No, Tom, it makes perfect sense. People keep bringing up your personal religious beliefs because you admit that you don’t go to mass and then go on about the glories of Rome. That’s a tad strange, don’t you think. Just tell us you’re going to mass regularly and it won’t be an issue. And if you’re not going or not going to tell us you are going, don’t get all hot and bothered when someone points out the disconnect.

    But in any case, you can’t lecture us on our Lord’s Supper when you can’t even acknowledge that Rome has dogmatically defined transubstantiation as the official mode of Christ’s presence. The whole Reformation was fought over it. More was written about the Eucharist than just about anything else. The fact that you think its irrelevant shows an ignorance of history and the beliefs of all professing Christian communions. That’s about the nicest way I can put it.

    Like

  52. Robert
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 8:10 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    “I’m saying not even Lutherans [or Anglicans] buy your “Lord’s Supper” as the Eucharist. Because they don’t.”

    Except of course that I’ve taken the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist with Lutherans and Anglicans, so try again.

    “That makes no sense. Think for yourself and stop parroting Dr. Hart’s ad hom attacks. I know you’re capable of it. My personal religious beliefs are none of your business. Whenever Old Lifers pull that stuff it proves they have no intelligent rebuttal.”

    No, Tom, it makes perfect sense. People keep bringing up your personal religious beliefs because you admit that you don’t go to mass and then go on about the glories of Rome. That’s a tad strange, don’t you think.

    Actually, I don’t discuss my private religious life so I “admit” nothing, especially here, where belief is bloodsport. When people play that game, it’s an admission they have nothing principled or intelligent to say. You don’t see the Called to Communion people play that dirty game. They can’t wait to share their faith with anyone who asks. They do not play supercilious games with their religious beliefs, or ad hom people with crap like “Little Mermaid” like you did to that nice Catholic lady.

    As to the substance, I only correct Dr. Hart’s calumnies of the Catholic religion, and the others who are sucked into his wiki-deep knowledge of the Catholic religion. I have also done so for evangelicals, Mormons too, and yes, Muslims. Even Calvinists.

    To the Eucharist, I do not know what

    I’ve taken the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist with Lutherans and Anglicans

    means. On whose turf? By whose consecration [if any]? To gloss over the obvious theological disagreement over what the Eucharist even is [the Lutherans have a very

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-lutheran-response-to-calvin-on-the-eucharist/

    what you even ate and drank, proves CVD’s point, Robert.

    Cletus van Damme
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
    “Not even the Lutherans would have it.”

    But remember, that’s no big deal. Just like ecclesiology and baptism are no big deal. All Protestant churches are united, except when they’re not or don’t count. One Protestant body’s adiaphora is another Protestant body’s essential. Always has been, always will be.

    When it comes to someone praying the Rosary, Old Life wants to scorch their earth. The Eucharist, well, you say potato, I say potatoe. That was the point, is all, Robert. Molehills and mountains. By its own account, this is supposed to be a “theological society” afterall, not an Inquisition. Some sense of proportion is necessary.

    The Reformation was not about Mary. It’s a side issue, and a BS one. The Eucharist is Main Street.

    Like

  53. TVD:
    The Eucharist is Main Street.>>>>>

    “How can this man [Jesus] give us his flesh to eat?”

    The answer to that question is life or death. There are no more important questions. It is THE question, even thought the ones asking did so in unbelief.

    “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ”
    – Jesus

    Like

  54. Apparently Lutherans practicing closed communion to the Reformed is too conservative and strict and divisive for Presbyterians, and those Lutheran churches that dont are not to be considered liberal but rather lauded for their fostering of unity. But the “historical context of Luther and Calvin” that shows they would have nothing to do with churches approving homosexual ordination also shows Lutherans would have nothing to do with opening communion to the Reformed. Hmm.

    Like

  55. vd, t, “Actually, I don’t discuss my private religious life so I “admit” nothing, especially here, where belief is bloodsport. When people play that game, it’s an admission they have nothing principled or intelligent to say.”

    You’re right there in the mud with us. Stop preening.

    “I only correct Dr. Hart’s calumnies of the Catholic religion, and the others who are sucked into his wiki-deep knowledge of the Catholic religion.”

    Like Mermaid, you are in denial. My sources come from mainstream RC websites and authors. You? You’re just a Mass-avoiding Los Angeles attorney wannabe Roman Catholic apologist.

    Like

  56. James Young, if you’re going to mock Protestants, why not step up about your own infallible papa?

    Pope Francis won’t bar Lutherans from communion:

    Pope Francis has strikingly suggested that Lutherans married to Catholics can personally discern whether to take Communion in the Catholic church, saying it is not his role to give permission to such persons but to encourage them to listen to what God is telling them about their situations.

    In a moving ecumenical visit to Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran church Sunday afternoon, the pontiff also called for “reconciled diversity” between the Christian denominations and said both must ask forgiveness of each other for historic persecutions.

    The pope’s words about the issue of communion for Lutherans will likely attract wide attention, as Catholic teaching currently prohibits members of other Christian denominations from taking communion in the church in normal circumstances.

    Francis spoke about the issue during Sunday’s visit in response to a question from a Lutheran woman who said she is married to a Catholic man and that the current prohibition on Lutherans receiving communion in the Catholic church causes them sadness.

    “We have lived together for many years, sharing joys and pains,” the woman said. “And therefore it hurts us very much being divided in the faith and not being able to participate together at the Lord’s Supper. What can we do to reach, finally, communion on this point?”

    The pontiff responded with a wide-ranging reflection on the nature of Christian faith and on Jesus’ words as recorded at the last Supper, when he is said to have told his disciples: “Do this in memory of me.”

    “I ask myself: Is sharing the Lord’s Supper the end of a path or is it the viaticum for walking together?” said the pontiff, using a Latin term for food or provisions along the journey.

    “It is true that in a certain sense sharing is to say that there are not differences among us, that we have the same doctrine — I underline the word, a word difficult to understand — but I ask myself: Don’t we have the same Baptism?” he continued.

    How cool is that? Yup.

    Like

  57. Cletus,

    Yes, the church errs. Even Protestants. To bar any professing Christian from the Lord’s Table is wrong. Most Protestants, in this country at least, have come to realize that.

    Now, why don’t you support Tom’s contention that issues such as the Assumption and transubstantiation are optional beliefs that don’t really mean much? Maybe you’ll be the first.

    Like

  58. Tom,

    On whose turf? By whose consecration [if any]? To gloss over the obvious theological disagreement over what the Eucharist even is [the Lutherans have a very

    what you even ate and drank, proves CVD’s point, Robert.

    By whose consecration? By the consecration of a Lutheran pastor on several occasions, an independent on several others, and even by an Anglican minister.

    And the post by Jordan Cooper proves what? That the Reformed and the Lutherans have a different view of the Lord’s Supper? That Lutherans think Calvin’s view is insufficient. That’s hardly news. Now ask him if he bars non-Lutherans from the table. I don’t know whether he does or not. I do know that all of the truly evangelical, Bible-believing Lutherans that I know have practiced open communion. So the point about Lutherans not recognizing our sacrament is very belabored, and the charge is essentially meaningless from a non-Lutheran and a non-practicing RC who thinks that transubstantiation is an optional belief.

    It’s not to say these views aren’t important or that they are insignificant, but Rome doesn’t get to cheat and accuse us of thinking ecclesiology doesn’t matter when Francis is opening the door to Lutherans to commune and allowing bishops to admit divorced people to the sacrament based on whichever way the wind is blowing in their diocese.

    Like

  59. TVD: When it comes to someone praying the Rosary, Old Life wants to scorch their earth. The Reformation was not about Mary. It’s a side issue, and a BS one. The Eucharist is Main Street.

    It’s the Lord who scorches the earth (Deut 9) and the Lord who says what are ‘side issues’ or not (1 Cor 11:28-32)
    Again, TVD, re:rosary http://www.newadvent.org/images/rosary.pdf
    Mary is NOT, our life, our sweetness, and our hope, and NOT our most gracious advocate.
    And sure God is mentioned there, but less than half as often as Mary
    TVD – guard yourselves from idols. I John 5:20-21

    Mermaid:“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ”
    – Jesus

    A. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood do not refer to partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
    A. W. Pink (Exposition of John, on monergism.com) gives four reasons that John 6 does not refer to communion. First, communion had not yet been instituted. Jesus instituted it on the night He was betrayed. Second, Jesus was speaking here to unbelievers and communion is for believers. Third, the eating here is unto salvation or eternal life, while eating the Lord’s Supper is for those already saved and points to fellowship. Fourth, the Lord’s Supper does not produce the results that are here attributed to eating and drinking Christ. If Jesus’ words here refer to communion, then you gain eternal life by partaking, which contradicts many other Scriptures that show that salvation is through faith in Christ, not through participating in a ritual. So, as J. C. Ryle puts it (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels [Baker], 3:393), “We may eat the Lord’s Supper, and yet not eat and drink Christ’s body and blood. We may eat and drink Christ’s body and blood, and yet not eat the Lord’s Supper.”
    . https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-36-what-are-you-eating-john-648-59

    Like

  60. TVD: When it comes to someone praying the Rosary, Old Life wants to scorch their earth. The Reformation was not about Mary. It’s a side issue, and a BS one. The Eucharist is Main Street.

    It’s the Lord who scorches the earth (Deut 9) and the Lord who says what are ‘side issues’ or not (1 Cor 11:28-32)

    Again, TVD, re:rosary http://www.newadvent.org/images/rosary.pdf
    Mary is NOT, our life, our sweetness, and our hope, nor our most gracious advocate. And sure God is mentioned there, but less than half as often as Mary
    TVD – guard yourselves from idols. I John 5:20-21

    Like

  61. Mermaid:“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ”
    – Jesus

    A. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood do not refer to partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
    A. W. Pink (Exposition of John, on monergism.com) gives four reasons that John 6 does not refer to communion. First, communion had not yet been instituted. Jesus instituted it on the night He was betrayed. Second, Jesus was speaking here to unbelievers and communion is for believers. Third, the eating here is unto salvation or eternal life, while eating the Lord’s Supper is for those already saved and points to fellowship. Fourth, the Lord’s Supper does not produce the results that are here attributed to eating and drinking Christ. If Jesus’ words here refer to communion, then you gain eternal life by partaking, which contradicts many other Scriptures that show that salvation is through faith in Christ, not through participating in a ritual. So, as J. C. Ryle puts it (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels [Baker], 3:393), “We may eat the Lord’s Supper, and yet not eat and drink Christ’s body and blood. We may eat and drink Christ’s body and blood, and yet not eat the Lord’s Supper.”
    . https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-36-what-are-you-eating-john-648-59

    Like

  62. By way of providing a bit of clarity (hopefully) on the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper:

    The doctrine taught by Calvin was that Christ is really and spiritually present at the Supper. Not that he is physically present, but rather that we are made present to him, in heaven, by the Spirit (hence the Sursum Corda, still used in Dutch Reformed circles). The feeding on Christ and drinking of Christ is done in the Spirit, by faith — it is not physical. Thus, Christ is present in the bread and wine sacramentally, not physically.

    A sacrament is a sign plus the thing signified (the sacramental union). Christ gives himself through the sign. Calvin affirmed the sacramental union with a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. We eat the bread and dink the wine (sign) and unto us the Holy Spirit seals eternal life and all the benefits of Christ (thing signified). For Calvin, the mode of receiving Christ was mysterious — it was less important to speculate than it was to affirm that Christ was received.

    Calvin came to this position by way of Peter Martyr Vermigli, who credited a Bosnian EO Archbishop with this view of the supper (known as transelementation). Beza was also an early proponent of this doctrine of the Supper.

    Like

  63. The Reformed take on Lord’s Supper is an interesting one that cannot be grasped unless you are serious about joining a Reformed church that will put you thru a decent diligence for membership.

    Like

  64. Robert,

    “To bar any professing Christian from the Lord’s Table is wrong.”

    So to be clear, OPC/PCA should practice open communion with members and officers of churches such as:
    PCUSA, ELCA, Arminian, Anglican, Unitarian, Pentecostal, Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Arian, KJV-onlyist, Marcionite, gnostic, reconstructionist, kinist, biblicist, seeker-sensitive, liberal, emergent, church of christ, antinomian, Pelagian, NPP, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren, Finneyite, Anabaptist correct?

    Or do only those subscribing to WCF, LBCF, Augsburg, or 39 Articles get to count?

    If the “historical context of Luther and Calvin” is the arbitrary litmus test for “true Protestants” so as to exclude those “Protestant in name only” and liberal churches affirming things like homosexual ordination from counting, why should those Lutheran and Anglican churches that allowed you open communion not be charged as PINO and liberal as well by that test?

    Like

  65. CvD, the Reformed practice a fenced table, which is between open (evangelical) and closed (Lutheran, RCC). Reformed also distinguish between coming to the table and membership. The table is fenced by verbal instruction and it is left to the Spirit to either encourage of discourage those providentially in our midst. Membership is a different matter, where one’s particular confession and life are taken into account, such that one who would be welcomed at the table may not necessarily be afforded membership.

    Like

  66. Cletus, how do you fail to pick up that Reformed confessions are basically the WCF and the 3FU?

    This must have come across your eyeballs 100 times by now?

    Augsuburg, the LBCF and 39 Articles would very rarely get a plea from someone asking to join in a Reformed Lord’s Supper as a visitor.

    again, please try to go even 1% and 5 seconds to grasp what we believe and who we are instead of cheap shots all the time?

    Like

  67. I would add to Zrim’s comment that the Reformed practice of fencing the table would also apply to communicant members who may have some unrepentant sin in their lives which keeps them from the table whether by conscience or action by the elders.

    Like

  68. kent,,

    “Cletus, how do you fail to pick up that Reformed confessions are basically the WCF and the 3FU?”

    Uh, yeah. Robert was saying, “hey, I took communion at Lutheran and Anglican churches and it was all groovy so stop bleating on about differences in the lord’s supper amongst Protestants, and Protestants who practice closed communion to professing Christians are bad sectarians”. That’s what I was responding to, so I didn’t fail on picking up anything.

    “again, please try to go even 1% and 5 seconds to grasp what we believe and who we are instead of cheap shots all the time?”

    Please try to go even 5 seconds in reading discussions more carefully before accusing those who disagree with you of ignorance. I often cite your confessions and theologians in my discussions to show I am not pulling things out of thin air.

    Like

  69. What Zrim said is true of many Reformed churches. Others fence the table by interviewing potential communicants, but these interviews are to 1) determine that there is a profession of faith and 2) determine if the future communicant is a member in good standing of an orthodox church.

    I have communed at churches that practice this form of fencing the table and they have allowed Baptists and other non-Reformed types to take the Lord’s Supper.

    The Reformed practice of fencing the table is an attempt to balance two principles: 1) that communion is for all Christians and 2) that there are serious consequences for taking the Lord’s Supper in an improper manner.

    Reformed churches attempt to spare from divine judgment those who would otherwise improperly take the Lord’s Supper upon themselves by at least giving such people a warning.

    Like

  70. Cletus,

    So to be clear, OPC/PCA should practice open communion with members and officers of churches such as:
    PCUSA, ELCA, Arminian, Anglican, Unitarian, Pentecostal, Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Arian, KJV-onlyist, Marcionite, gnostic, reconstructionist, kinist, biblicist, seeker-sensitive, liberal, emergent, church of christ, antinomian, Pelagian, NPP, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren, Finneyite, Anabaptist correct?

    You don’t have to go to Protestants to see this. I can be in out and out mortal sin and receive the Eucharist in Roman Catholicism.

    Theological anarchy is you and Nancy Pelosi being fully orthodox Roman Catholics, good sons and daughters of the church, both with knowledgeable opinions of the faith that are equally valid since neither one of you is excommunicated. It’s not Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and Gene Veith all being able to come to the Lord’s Table together despite being members of different theological traditions and denominations.

    Or do only those subscribing to WCF, LBCF, Augsburg, or 39 Articles get to count?

    Typically the PCA admits anyone who is an evangelical and not under the discipline of a local church.

    If the “historical context of Luther and Calvin” is the arbitrary litmus test for “true Protestants” so as to exclude those “Protestant in name only” and liberal churches affirming things like homosexual ordination from counting, why should those Lutheran and Anglican churches that allowed you open communion not be charged as PINO and liberal as well by that test?

    I don’t understand this question. What I also don’t understand is why in the same contexts of open communion that I have participated in, impenitent homosexuals and abortionists would be turned away but then they could go down to the local Roman parish and partake. Maybe you can explain that.

    I’m not saying that differences on the mode of the sacrament aren’t significant. I’m saying that a Roman Catholic like you doesn’t get to pretend they are more significant than they actually are when your papa is letting anyone with a pulse take the sacrament regardless of whether or not they are in mortal sin or in communion with the Roman Church. Many years ago when I was Lutheran I was allowed to take the Eucharist at the Mass by a priest who knew full well that I was Lutheran and had irreconcilable differences with Rome (though my view of Rome was more sanguine then). Explain why Rome is so much better at keeping people on the same page if that can happen, and then we can talk about the actual reality of theology on the ground.

    And then maybe you can support Tom’s contention that transubstantiation is no big deal and actually completely irrelevant. While your at it, let’s hear your argument for how you can be a good RC and be agnostic about the Assumption.

    This is the fundamental problem with the CTC apologetic—not only does it paint a picture of Rome that doesn’t exist in reality, it also paints a picture of Protestantism that isn’t true to way the world actually operates. Hence Darryl’s ongoing critique.

    Like

  71. Robert,

    “Theological anarchy is you and Nancy Pelosi being fully orthodox Roman Catholics”

    No, theological anarchy is when you compare confessions, catechisms, statements of faith from every Protestant body/church and see the massive conflicts and contradictions within that spectrum.

    “Typically the PCA admits anyone who is an evangelical and not under the discipline of a local church.”

    Are the following types of churches evangelical: PCUSA, ELCA, Arminian, Anglican, Unitarian, Pentecostal, Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Arian, KJV-onlyist, Marcionite, gnostic, reconstructionist, kinist, biblicist, seeker-sensitive, liberal, emergent, church of christ, antinomian, Pelagian, NPP, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren, Finneyite, Anabaptist?

    “I don’t understand this question.”

    In the other thread, you said that only confessional Protestants get to count in evaluating Protestant doctrinal unity and this is not an arbitrary standard because “It’s not arbitrary to insist that Protestantism has a historical context and that Luther, Calvin, et al wouldn’t recognize as Christians the homosexual-ordaining Lutherans that Rome wants to make nice with.”

    So, leaving aside the fact that the “historical context” of Luther and Calvin also encompassed many Protestant bodies outside of confessional Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican (e.g. Anabaptists, antinomians such as Agricola’s movement, libertines that Calvin barred from Lord’s table, etc), if we hypothetically grant your position, by that same argument the Lutherans and Anglicans who practiced open communion with you are liberal and should be chastised since Lutherans during that same “historical context” would’ve barred you and other Reformed from the table.

    “What I also don’t understand is why in the same contexts of open communion that I have participated in, impenitent homosexuals and abortionists would be turned away but then they could go down to the local Roman parish and partake.”

    Wait – so they would be turned away? But Zrim and others seem to say the verbal warning is sufficient and it is left to personal discernment by the communicant.
    Plus you already said you wouldn’t bar any evangelical not under discipline from their church. So apparently those who are members of churches approving of abortion or homosexuality would not be barred, or they are not evangelical and so would be barred.

    “I’m not saying that differences on the mode of the sacrament aren’t significant. I’m saying that a Roman Catholic like you doesn’t get to pretend they are more significant than they actually are”

    And who decides what appropriate significance they should have? Why should the OPC/PCA get to decide what is “essential” and that ecclesiology, baptism, and the lord’s supper are just adiaphora? Do they claim any such authority to make such a judgment and decision binding on others? That’s why I said above one Protestant body’s adiaphora is another Protestant body’s essential – it’s a characteristic inherent to the system.

    Like

  72. Ali
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 9:17 am | Permalink
    TVD: When it comes to someone praying the Rosary, Old Life wants to scorch their earth. The Reformation was not about Mary. It’s a side issue, and a BS one. The Eucharist is Main Street.

    It’s the Lord who scorches the earth (Deut 9) and the Lord who says what are ‘side issues’ or not (1 Cor 11:28-32)

    Well, the people bagging on the Mary stuff are the ones playing God here, the ones scorching the earth, not the Catholics. I can only ask them, how do you know Mary is not an intercessor with her son Jesus, as she was at Cana? Who made you pope?

    And if you don’t presume to be pope, what business is it of yours if some people believe they have a relationship with Mary that bring brings them to Christ? That’s Pharisee tut-tutting stuff.

    I rather agree with John Calvin–who, BTW, obviously saw the perpetual virginity of Mary as a side issue–that people who like to argue about such things just like to argue.

    Like

  73. Cletus van Damme
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    “I’m not saying that differences on the mode of the sacrament aren’t significant. I’m saying that a Roman Catholic like you doesn’t get to pretend they are more significant than they actually are”

    And who decides what appropriate significance they should have? Why should the OPC/PCA get to decide what is “essential” and that ecclesiology, baptism, and the lord’s supper are just adiaphora? Do they claim any such authority to make such a judgment and decision binding on others? That’s why I said above one Protestant body’s adiaphora is another Protestant body’s essential – it’s a characteristic inherent to the system.

    Ali, please see above. “Protestantism” scorches its own earth all the time, which is why there are dozens if not hundreds of different “Protestantisms.” And unlike Protestantism, the 1000-year division between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church [“Eastern Orthodox”] can only be said to be over “side issues,” since each recognizes each other’s priesthood, apostolic succession, and sacraments [most importantly, the Eucharist] as licit.

    By their own self-understanding of Christianity as not just a “revealed” religion but a “sacramental” one as well, they remain the same Christian religion. They separated over ecclesiastical authority, but they did not scorch the sacramental earth.

    Like

  74. Cletus,

    No, theological anarchy is when you compare confessions, catechisms, statements of faith from every Protestant body/church and see the massive conflicts and contradictions within that spectrum.

    You and Nancy Pelosi practice two fundamentally different religions. Both of you are orthodox according to Rome because neither one of you has been excommunicated. That’s anarchy. It’s not anarchy for two communions to differ with one another when they are honest about their differences.

    Are the following types of churches evangelical: PCUSA, ELCA, Arminian, Anglican, Unitarian, Pentecostal, Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Arian, KJV-onlyist, Marcionite, gnostic, reconstructionist, kinist, biblicist, seeker-sensitive, liberal, emergent, church of christ, antinomian, Pelagian, NPP, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren, Finneyite, Anabaptist?

    Ignore the theological anarchy that is all approved as fully orthodox by Rome and point to non-Christians. Good one.

    So, leaving aside the fact that the “historical context” of Luther and Calvin also encompassed many Protestant bodies outside of confessional Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican (e.g. Anabaptists, antinomians such as Agricola’s movement, libertines that Calvin barred from Lord’s table, etc), if we hypothetically grant your position, by that same argument the Lutherans and Anglicans who practiced open communion with you are liberal and should be chastised since Lutherans during that same “historical context” would’ve barred you and other Reformed from the table.

    Which Reformed confession says that Lutheran bodies aren’t true churches and which Lutheran confession says that Reformed bodies aren’t true churches. Meanwhile, answer the question about why we can discern that the ELCA is apostate but Francis can’t.

    Wait – so they would be turned away? But Zrim and others seem to say the verbal warning is sufficient and it is left to personal discernment by the communicant.

    When elders know of impenitent sin, they should be turned away and they are. When was the last time abortion loving RCs such as Nancy Pelosi were turned away from the Eucharist? Therefore, abortion is completely kosher for Rome.

    Plus you already said you wouldn’t bar any evangelical not under discipline from their church. So apparently those who are members of churches approving of abortion or homosexuality would not be barred, or they are not evangelical and so would be barred.

    I would bar anyone in impenitent sin that I knew of. Rome doesn’t do that. That’s the point.

    And who decides what appropriate significance they should have?

    The church via the exegesis of the Word of God.

    Why should the OPC/PCA get to decide what is “essential” and that ecclesiology, baptism, and the lord’s supper are just adiaphora?

    Who said adiaphora? Not me. I said that getting these wrong doesn’t mean you are going to hell or are automatically not a true church. I’m not Roman Catholic.

    But the OPC and PCA get to define such things for their respective bodies because they are churches.

    Do they claim any such authority to make such a judgment and decision binding on others?

    Um, yes. The decisions of the general assemblies are binding upon the members of their denominations. The decision of the OPC isn’t binding on you because you’re not a member of the OPC, just as the decision of the Roman Catholic Church, when and if you can figure out what that is, is completely irrelevant to my life.

    That’s why I said above one Protestant body’s adiaphora is another Protestant body’s essential – it’s a characteristic inherent to the system.

    It’s equally inherent in Roman Catholicism. Documents seem to say abortion is a mortal sin. Pelosi gets communion. Therefore, its really an indifferent matter. Kill babies all you want and Rome will still give you the sacrament—as long as you have enough connections.

    Like

  75. Robert
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
    Cletus,

    No, theological anarchy is when you compare confessions, catechisms, statements of faith from every Protestant body/church and see the massive conflicts and contradictions within that spectrum.

    You and Nancy Pelosi practice two fundamentally different religions. Both of you are orthodox according to Rome because neither one of you has been excommunicated.

    That’s the second time you’ve said that, Robert, but that doesn’t make it true. You need to do a lot more heavy lifting on this, and I don’t think you’ll find the results worth the effort. Nancy Pelosi is in error about abortion, and was corrected by her bishop.

    In a church of only some tens of thousands, they have time to do chickenshit “trials” like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church did to this poor

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/02/20/women-and-the-disabled-on-trial-in-the-orthodox-presbyterian-church-no-they-dont-get-it/

    but in the Church, of over a billion people, prudence alone dictates that it would do more harm than good.

    Like

  76. Robert, in important churches like rome, they can’t even be bothered with whether the priests are diddling the children. However, if you need a ruling on the legitimacy of that shadowy image of Mary in your Eggo waffle, the church is ready to weigh in. Listen up Tommy, the Network would like a word with your non observant self about the chickenshit way rome has dealt with it’s observant, even religious, women.

    Like

  77. Wait – so they would be turned away? But Zrim and others seem to say the verbal warning is sufficient and it is left to personal discernment by the communicant. Plus you already said you wouldn’t bar any evangelical not under discipline from their church. So apparently those who are members of churches approving of abortion or homosexuality would not be barred, or they are not evangelical and so would be barred.

    CvD, the URCNA form for fencing is as follows (in part):

    “Preparatory Exhortation

    Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ, listen to the words of the institution of the holy supper of our Lord as they have been handed down by the apostle Paul:

    For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:23-29).

    In obedience to these words and in fellowship with the church universal we shall commemorate the death of our Savior in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper on the coming Lord’s Day. (Or: we now commemorate the death of our Savior in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.) However, to do so to our comfort, we must first examine ourselves, as the apostle has admonished.
    Let all of us, therefore, consider our sin and guilt. God’s anger against sin is so great that he has punished it in his beloved Son with the bitter and shameful death of the cross; and let us examine whether our hearts accordingly are filled with that “godly grief” which “produces a repentance that leads to salvation.”

    Let us also search our hearts to see whether we truly believe in Jesus Christ as our only Savior, and accept God’s gracious promise that for the sake of the passion and death of Christ all our sins are now forgiven and we are clothed with the perfect righteousness of the Son of God. Finally, let us examine our consciences to see whether we resolve sincerely and gratefully to serve Jesus Christ as Lord and to live by his commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind . . . and . . . your neighbor as yourself.”

    As we thus examine ourselves, let us be assured that God will certainly receive in grace and welcome to the table of his Son all those who repent and walk in faith.

    However, the Lord admonishes those who do not believe or have not repented to abstain from the holy supper so as not to eat and drink judgment on themselves. Therefore we also charge those who willfully continue in their sins to keep themselves from the table of the Lord *(such as all who trust in any form of superstition; all who honor images or pray to saints; all who despise God’s Word or the holy sacraments; all who take God’s name in vain; all who violate the sanctity of the Lord’s Day; all who are disobedient to those in authority over them; all drunkards, gamblers, murderers, thieves, adulterers, liars, and unchaste persons). To all such we say in the name of the Lord that as long as they remain unrepentant and unbelieving, they have no part in the kingdom of God.

    However, this solemn warning is not intended, beloved in the Lord, to discourage the contrite believer, for we do not come to this supper claiming any merit in ourselves. On the contrary, we come testifying that we seek our salvation apart from ourselves in Jesus Christ. By this testimony we humbly confess that we are full of sin and worthy of death. By this testimony we also confess that we believe the sure promise of God: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). This promise assures us that no sin or weakness which still remains in us against our will can hinder us from being received by God in grace at his table as worthy partakers of this holy food and drink.

    *Thus assured, let us at the appointed hour come with quiet conscience and fullness of faith to keep this sacramental feast which our Lord appointed to be a continual memorial of his atoning death until he comes again.

    Let us pray.”

    Nobody wrestles the sacraments from anybody’s hands. Nobody is grilling anybody on hot button social and political issues, or even on particular church membership. What is publicly read above is sufficient for the Spirit to use to either encourage or discourage souls. In a word, if one is trusting in Christ alone, renounces his own works, and lives an obedient life (however imperfectly and weakly) is welcomed.

    Like

  78. TVD: Ali And if you don’t presume to be pope, what business is it of yours if some people believe they have a relationship with Mary that bring brings them to Christ? That’s Pharisee tut-tutting stuff.

    aw TVD, don’t imitate the ‘pharisee’-deflection-strategy used when one just Bible-quotes, because it is inappropriate for that, in that Pharisees say things like:
    John 8: 13 Pharisees said to Jesus, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.”
    John 12:42 Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

    The pope can say whatever he wants but Jesus’s testimony is what counts:
    Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

    Please stop diminishing God’ costly, sufficient mediation –
    1 Timothy 2: 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
    1 Peter 3: 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

    And TVD, re: the pope, when you see the Lord and try to say “But the pope said this and that” , you’ll probably be shocked to find it counts for nothing when it conflicts with the Lord.
    Believe God.

    Like

  79. Zrim: Finally, let us examine our consciences to see whether we resolve sincerely and gratefully to serve Jesus Christ as Lord and to live by his commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind . . . and . . . your neighbor as yourself.”

    Maybe it should be revised to say “ resolve to sincerely and gratefully to serve Jesus Christ as Lord and to live by his commandment…on Sunday; for Mon –Sat have been exempted by R2k

    🙂

    Like

  80. Tom,

    <i.Nancy Pelosi is in error about abortion, and was corrected by her bishop.

    She was corrected? Doesn’t look like it did much good. She’s as pro-baby-killing as she ever was. And she continues to get the Eucharist.

    I have no good reason, then, to believe that her position on abortion is unorthodox or a mortal sin. That is, unless I believe dogma trumps the bishops, in which case I’m reading the Roman Church like a Protestant.

    Rome can’t laud its clarity and infallibility in regard to dogma and then do nothing about it and expect us to think she takes her clarity and infallibility all that seriously. If Rome doesn’t, why should I? For the most visible professing Christian institution on earth, when she gets a platform to speak to many we hear a lot about social justice and precious little about repentance and faith. And the fact that Rome doesn’t even use its emphasis on social justice to consistently discipline powerful people proves one thing: when it comes to power and truth, the Magisterium will invariably side with power.

    That may sound harsh, but Rome continues to give me no confidence that my conclusions are incorrect. I wish that it weren’t so, but between the sexual abuse scandal, the letter about global warming, Francis’ “who am I to judge” speech, the vast majority of laity practicing birth control and embracing both abortion on demand and homosexuality, etc., etc., all I see is a church that writes conservative morals on paper, doesn’t care about whether people actually know Christ, and is willing to throw conservatives under the bus. It’s the equivalent of the PCUSA some 80 years ago in Machen’s day.

    And as far as the OPC trial, for all of its errors (and it was overturned at the General Assembly), at least the fact that it has such a trial shows it is concerned about orthodoxy and pastoral practice. With the CTC picture of Rome, all I see is a talking head that declares dogma and passes the people by. Quite odd for a church that is supposed to be so incarnational.

    Like

  81. And we should point out that the OPC trial concerned the lack of attendance at worship by a member. Does Rome care about Tom’s attendance? If not, why not? Why do Tom’s prot blog opponents seem to care more for his sould than his RC(?) online friends and allies?

    Like

  82. Ali: Maybe it should be revised to say “ resolve to sincerely and gratefully to serve Jesus Christ as Lord and to live by his commandment…on Sunday; for Mon –Sat have been exempted by …

    … said no one ever.

    Seriously, having been around the barn many times on this issue with notables like Zrim, the hard-core 2k advocates to a man affirm, “The Christian must obey God’s commands.”

    What they push back against is, “The State must compel all men to obey God’s commands.”

    Like

  83. cw :Ali, I would hope the virtue of honesty compels you to admit that no “R2k” advocate here has ever said that. #piousfiction

    Dear cw l’unificateur-grincheux-misogyne-pious-fiction, 🙂

    what has been said by Zrim (correct me if I’m wrong) is that out in the world there are just some things ‘we are on our own about thinking about and deciding to do.’ I believe that is likely highly offensive to God, that’s all; also prideful.

    John 15: 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

    Galatians 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.

    James 4 . 5 Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”? 6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.”

    Romans 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you

    can we ‘connect all the dot right now, as Zrim says? of course not yet, and we all know that

    Like

  84. So, Ali — does scripture also regulate worship and church government to the same degree you believe it ought to regulate EVERY LAST BLINKING ACTION you take every day? Please describe your church’s worship services and governing structure.

    Like

  85. So odd that R2k is a thing. Who knew being a human being would be classified as radical. Always thought it was rather unavoidable. Maybe on the internet you can pull off not being subject to the human condition. Kind of a pietistic world of warcraft thing.

    Like

  86. cw l’unificateur:So, Ali — does scripture also regulate worship and church government to the same degree you believe it ought to regulate EVERY LAST BLINKING ACTION you take every day? Please describe your church’s worship services and governing structure.

    Oh the hostility cw, appeal: please watch that hardened heart.

    Not sure why you’re asking about Sunday worship, I thought we were talking about Sun-Sat.

    But anyway, oh now, it’s ‘every last blinking action’ rather than larger things Zrim was speaking to?
    I have a friend who takes small decisions to the Lord saying something like “this is what I think I ought do and I am proceeding in it- please redirect me if not”. I’m not there yet, but it’s admirable, don’t you think? I mean, who wouldn’t encourage that -unless you think one is adequate within oneself, having one’s own resources.

    Like

  87. CW, Robert, etc. – With regard to the much referenced trial I would add 2 things:

    1. The fact that the session cared enough about observation of the Sabbath to bring this case is to their credit, though they appear to have overreached in this particular case.
    2. The Presbyterian system worked. There was a trial and an appeal and the GA seems to have gotten it right. (Caveat: I have read the docs available online but did not participate in the trial in any way.) That’s the way it is supposed to work.

    The OPC takes doctrine and discipline seriously. Much has been made of this one case, but I have seen excommunication bring repentance and then the grace of restoration to the church. It is sobering but also hopeful and very helpful to the entire congregation.

    And, this goes to the point Robert has been trying to make: To what extent is a church that fails to enforce church discipline a true church?

    Like

  88. cw l’unificateur: Keep typing, Ali. You’re making our case. And Sunday, Schmunday, right?

    of course not cw – I think you know I know that -why do things always seem to have to be mutually exclusive but anyway that link of TVD’s was more than a little heartbreaking, don’t you think?

    Have a good day.

    Like

  89. Ali, no one around here but you learned about that case from Tom’s link. And some OL regulars voted in that case. Do you have a presbytery or assembly to which you can appeal? Are you a congregationalist who has to rely on your local church’s (fill in the blank) to be led by the Spirit or interpret the scripture properly?

    Like

  90. Robert,

    “Both of you are orthodox according to Rome because neither one of you has been excommunicated.”

    And there is no guarantee those partaking of the Lord’s Supper in Reformed churches are orthodox since as Zrim and others said (“Nobody wrestles the sacraments from anybody’s hands. Nobody is grilling anybody on hot button social and political issues, or even on particular church membership. What is publicly read above is sufficient for the Spirit to use to either encourage or discourage souls”), the verbal/written warning and personal discernment is supposed to suffice. Guess that means you can’t ever know what the OPC/PCA consider orthodox.

    “It’s not anarchy for two communions to differ with one another when they are honest about their differences.”

    I see. So all the churches I delineated do not show anarchy. It’s just honest diversity.

    “Ignore the theological anarchy that is all approved as fully orthodox by Rome and point to non-Christians. Good one.”

    An evasion. So these groups are all apparently non-Christians even though you said that professing Christians were not barred from the table. Are you asserting adherents to these churches/beliefs don’t profess themselves as Christian? On what basis do you limit professing Christians to only those Christians that profess WCF, LBCF, Augsburg, or 39 Articles?

    “Which Reformed confession says that Lutheran bodies aren’t true churches and which Lutheran confession says that Reformed bodies aren’t true churches.”

    Are you disputing Lutheran churches during the Reformation actively barred Calvinists from the table?

    “When elders know of impenitent sin, they should be turned away and they are.”

    But many professing Christian churches do not consider homosexuality or abortion sinful. So why should they care what OPC/PCA elders do?

    “I would bar anyone in impenitent sin that I knew of. Rome doesn’t do that. That’s the point.”

    That’s nice that you would. But why should anyone from a church who disagrees with you care?

    “The church via the exegesis of the Word of God.”

    Right. And those churches that disagree with you claim the same. That’s the problem. You’re just begging the question by limiting “the church” to only those that subscribe to one of the four confessions.

    “Who said adiaphora? Not me. I said that getting these wrong doesn’t mean you are going to hell or are automatically not a true church.”

    Right, so they’re not essential. So why should the OPC/PCA get to decide what is “essential” and that ecclesiology, baptism, and the lord’s supper are not essential?

    “But the OPC and PCA get to define such things for their respective bodies because they are churches.”

    Right, but why should those outside of that church care or be subject to your definition. The ELCA and Word of Faith and Unitarian churches get to define such things for their respective bodies because they are churches.

    “The decisions of the general assemblies are binding upon the members of their denominations.”

    Right, but non-OPC members have no reason to care about that then. So they shouldn’t care whether OPC/PCA considers ecclesiology, baptism, lord’s supper a non-essential if they consider it an essential, or what the OPC/PCA thinks about homosexuality or abortion or the canon of Scripture or its inerrancy or the Trinity and so forth.

    Btw, does that mean the Leithart decision was all good then? Or are such decisions only “binding upon the members” except when they’re not?

    “just as the decision of the Roman Catholic Church, when and if you can figure out what that is, is completely irrelevant to my life.”

    That’s the disconnect. Rome claims the authority to make a judgment binding and normative on all; dogma isn’t defined just for its members or offered as “well, this is what we believe, but you can believe something else and it’s equally true”.

    “It’s equally inherent in Roman Catholicism. Documents seem to say abortion is a mortal sin.”

    Right, and if you compare documents of the various bodies I listed above, you see the massive conflict and contradiction in the wide spectrum of Protestant churches. But as you agree, such is not the case with Rome. So no equivalence.

    Like

  91. Alright, y’all have to tighten this up. I may have done a few drugs trying to cope with dodging sketchy priests as an adolescent, so be considerate. Say less and communicate more concisely.

    Like

  92. Ali,

    I have a friend who takes small decisions to the Lord saying something like “this is what I think I ought do and I am proceeding in it- please redirect me if not”. I’m not there yet, but it’s admirable, don’t you think? I mean, who wouldn’t encourage that -unless you think one is adequate within oneself, having one’s own resources.

    Who wouldn’t encourage that? James:
    13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. 17 So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

    Like

  93. Ali: cw – that link of TVD’s was more than a little heartbreaking, don’t you think?
    cw l’unificateur:Ali, no one around here but you learned about that case from Tom’s link. And some OL regulars voted in that case. Do you have a presbytery or assembly to which you can appeal? Are you a congregationalist who has to rely on your local church’s (fill in the blank) to be led by the Spirit or interpret the scripture properly?

    Way to deflect from that specific question,cw. I forgot to include in the ‘doding question senarios’ – this one: become the inquisitor. Anyway, even though you won’t comment on it,at least it is good all who observe it are provided with valuable lessons for growth in faith.

    I think I already descibed my denomination affliation and re that –we are each convinced,the testimony of our consciences. And not that we shouldn’t have denominations, but it possibly does contribute to the already rampant ‘I’m better than you’ attitude where we have to look down on another to feel good about and elevate ourselves. None of this to say that truth is not vital.

    I’m glad you have what you consider a good accountability process; as with any faith process, it would be even better if it were consistently, impartially, applied, in humility and dependance always on the Lord, His word, and Spirit. After all, there’s a whole lot of skill to attain in this way, on our way to judging angels.

    Walton:Ali,I have a friend who takes small decisions to the Lord saying something like “this is what I think I ought do and I am proceeding in it- please redirect me if not”. I’m not there yet, but it’s admirable, don’t you think? I mean, who wouldn’t encourage that -unless you think one is adequate within oneself, having one’s own resources. Who wouldn’t encourage that? James:
    13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. 17 So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

    Walton, not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing-can’t tell for sure. Also love James 1:5; Matt 7:11. Crazy- so clear the Lord says we should be continually be in prayer in dependence on Him about, as cw says, EVERY LAST BLINKING ACTION.

    Like

  94. Ali, that was a bit ambiguous in hindsight. I was disagreeing. It seems presumptuous and contrary to that passage to desire some divine warrant for each and every last blinking action. I will go into some career field, if the Lord wills.

    But concerning the “redirection,” we definitely should ask God to “lead us not into temptation.” And he does. But God “redirecting” me by placing me in a Reformed church where the 4th commandment is taught (so that I would be led away from sin) is different from God telling me what profession I should pursue or me assuming that I made the right decision in my career choice. Largely, we have no assurance that we made any “right” life decisions, because there is not a clear cut right/wrong in these situations.

    Like

  95. And it goes without saying that God ordains all things that come to pass, so in that sense we always make the foreordained decision, but sin also comes to pass… so just because God ordains it doesn’t make it “right” if there even is a right/wrong to life decisions.

    Like

  96. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 6:23 am | Permalink
    vd, t, “Actually, I don’t discuss my private religious life so I “admit” nothing, especially here, where belief is bloodsport. When people play that game, it’s an admission they have nothing principled or intelligent to say.”

    You’re right there in the mud with us. Stop preening.

    “I only correct Dr. Hart’s calumnies of the Catholic religion, and the others who are sucked into his wiki-deep knowledge of the Catholic religion.”

    Like Mermaid, you are in denial. My sources come from mainstream RC websites and authors. You? You’re just a Mass-avoiding Los Angeles attorney wannabe Roman Catholic apologist.

    Clockwork personal attack, you poor fellow, I knew it would be waiting here for me in the morning. But church attendance is irrelevant to your baleful ignorance and shoddy googling about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

    Besides, you’re a jerk to everyone regardless of their church attendance.

    Like

  97. Ali,

    Do you pray for divine guidance on how to best tie your shoelaces? Every single time?

    Do you pray about every one of your posts on this website?

    Like

  98. Ali
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
    Ali: cw – that link of TVD’s was more than a little heartbreaking, don’t you think?
    cw l’unificateur:Ali, no one around here but you learned about that case from Tom’s link. And some OL regulars voted in that case. Do you have a presbytery or assembly to which you can appeal? Are you a congregationalist who has to rely on your local church’s (fill in the blank) to be led by the Spirit or interpret the scripture properly?

    Way to deflect from that specific question,cw. I forgot to include in the ‘dodging question scenarios’ – this one: become the inquisitor. Anyway, even though you won’t comment on it,at least it is good all who observe it are provided with valuable lessons for growth in faith.

    By George, I think she’s got it. Cheers, luv.

    Like

  99. Ali, so God has revealed what sort of laptop to purchase, how much you should tip your server, which lawful vocation to pursue (and oh so much more)? If you say yes, you’re claiming knowledge you don’t actually have, Gnostic alert. If you say no, you agree with me. You asked to be corrected if you’re wrong so there you go.

    And for the record, Christian obedience is 24/7/365. Where anyone ever gets this idea that 2k is about a selective obedience is bizarre. But as CW suggests, my guess is that it’s picked up in how 2kers are usually the ones promoting the Sabbath, i.e. there are 10 commandments and worship is the principal good work of believers. How emphasizing the complete law translates into selective obedience says more about 2k’s critics–ironic.

    Like

  100. And there is no guarantee those partaking of the Lord’s Supper in Reformed churches are orthodox since as Zrim and others said (“Nobody wrestles the sacraments from anybody’s hands. Nobody is grilling anybody on hot button social and political issues, or even on particular church membership. What is publicly read above is sufficient for the Spirit to use to either encourage or discourage souls”), the verbal/written warning and personal discernment is supposed to suffice. Guess that means you can’t ever know what the OPC/PCA consider orthodox.

    CvD, sure you can. Just read the confessional forms (WCF/TFU). How a fenced table as I’ve described it makes a church’s confession of what’s orthodox hash is a mystery. If it helps, I don’t see how something like Pelosi’s admittance to the sacraments makes hash of the RCC’s confession (my 2k talking). It’s how it stacks up to the Bible that shreds it up.

    Like

  101. LoserStar:Ali, Do you pray for divine guidance on how to best tie your shoelaces? Every single time?

    haha, funny, Loserstar; oh wait a second, were you joking with the Lord.

    in everything pray.. without ceasing… at all times in the Spirit [Phil 4:6; 1 Thess 5:17;Eph 6:18]

    Like

  102. Zrim,

    “CvD, sure you can. Just read the confessional forms (WCF/TFU). How a fenced table as I’ve described it makes a church’s confession of what’s orthodox hash is a mystery.”

    Bingo. Thank you Zrim. I think I might cry. Robert might have a mental breakdown.

    “If it helps, I don’t see how something like Pelosi’s admittance to the sacraments makes hash of the RCC’s confession (my 2k talking).”

    It just gets better and better.

    Like

  103. Zrim,

    If it helps, I don’t see how something like Pelosi’s admittance to the sacraments makes hash of the RCC’s confession (my 2k talking). It’s how it stacks up to the Bible that shreds it up.

    True on the second. On the first, its a matter of interpretation. Unless you admit that the dogma is above the bishops, then the way in which the bishops apply the dogma is the key to what the dogma means. But if you say the dogma is above the bishops, you are essentially conceding the Protestant position.

    Like

  104. Zrim:Ali And for the record, Christian obedience is 24/7/365. Where anyone ever gets this idea that 2k is about a selective obedience is bizarre. But as CW suggests, my guess is that it’s picked up in how 2kers are usually the ones promoting the Sabbath, i.e. there are 10 commandments and worship is the principal good work of believers. How emphasizing the complete law translates into selective obedience says more about 2k’s critics–ironic.

    Always encouraging to hear there is a standard- not always clear here, Zrim .
    Don’t forget, too, on what the whole Law/Prophets depends and is summed up in. Romans 13:8-10; Matt 22:39-40

    Like

  105. I’m responding to stuff from pages ago (perhaps another post altogether), so don’t mind me.

    I didn’t know the Mermaid’s name history. I don’t get the impression she’s being made fun of for it. I do get the impression TVD is white knighting Mermaid, as they say. She seems to hold her own and not get flustered, and doesn’t need TVDs help. I really was surprised by the visceral reaction toward my use of “Romanist”

    The gist is conversion to Rome is a BIG DEAL. And sometimes it is inconceivable to those who do convert that those still in Reformed and Lutheran confessions will say “no, thanks” with eyes wide open. It’s hard for the convert to understand that–nearly impossible, in my experience.

    The Roman church does have a huge disciplinary prob

    Like

  106. @ Ali:

    I articulate 2k a little differently from DGH, so here’s a slightly different take.

    There is such a thing as Christian worldview. It’s called “doctrine.” So if you ask me for my Christian worldview, I’ll point to the Bible. If you ask me to be more specific, I’ll hand you the Westminster standards.

    If you ask me to be more specific still, I will decline on principle. The reason is that where Scripture does not positively teach by direct command or good-and-necessary inference, Christians have liberty. So to get more specific than that would pretty much be to add to God’s word.

    Now for a case study. Today, I had the *pleasure* (let the reader understand) of attending a video conference for the purpose of checking out an online Learning Management System to replace our current dog of a system.

    What does Scripture teach me about Learning Management Systems? Well, it teaches me to love my neighbors (fellow teachers, parents, students) so that I work heartily in finding the best system possible. That’s “worldview.” But it has no specific guidance about the systems in particular.

    Like

  107. Jeff, doesn’t doctrine flow from the category of faith rather than worldview though? Maybe you think that’s a tortured distinction, but then how do you distinguish between creation and redemption, eternal and provisional? Faith is how we divide eternal truth from falsehood, while worldview is how we adjudicate between better and worse ideas about how to order this life.

    So Scripture wouldn’t really guide you in any relevant way about LMS, rather earthly knowledge actually would. I mean, would anyone really take your assessment of LMS seriously if you said you dis/approve of it because it does/’nt help us love our neighbors as ourselves? Yeah, ok, but tell me why, which is what worldview is for.

    Like

  108. Katy
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 5:55 pm | Permalink
    I’m responding to stuff from pages ago (perhaps another post altogether), so don’t mind me.

    I didn’t know the Mermaid’s name history. I don’t get the impression she’s being made fun of for it.

    They certainly were trying to belittle her by calling her that. So she took it as her screen name and turned it around on them.

    I do get the impression TVD is white knighting Mermaid, as they say. She seems to hold her own and not get flustered, and doesn’t need TVDs help.

    Perhaps, but everybody can use a little back when they’re being ganged up on. Try it some time.

    I really was surprised by the visceral reaction toward my use of “Romanist”

    Well, you should stop using it. It’s a pejorative, and it’s also a rhetorical trick.

    http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/11/those-bloody-papists-even-term-roman.html

    The gist is conversion to Rome is a BIG DEAL. And sometimes it is inconceivable to those who do convert that those still in Reformed and Lutheran confessions will say “no, thanks” with eyes wide open. It’s hard for the convert to understand that–nearly impossible, in my experience.

    A central part of many or most conversion stories I’ve read is that the “convert” had previously had many false ideas about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. So no, they don’t believe that those still on the other side of the Tiber have their “eyes wide open.” They have scales in their eyes, as they once did. As Bishop Fulton Sheen famously said,

    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

    And if you don’t believe me, all you have to do is read this blog, and all the painful confusions and misrepresentions of Catholicism therein. So yes, “converts” very much do want to share their experience and understanding of Catholicism.

    The Roman church does have a huge disciplinary prob

    For the record, if you want to write honestly, its real name is “The Catholic Church.” No “Roman.”

    As for the “discipline” problem, it’s hard to say what the prudent approach is for 1 billion souls. And considering how hostilely and inaccurately the Church and her theology is portrayed in the press, I would expect any move toward more discipline to do far more harm than good.

    Inquisition! Inquisition!

    Like

  109. To wit, philosopher Peter Kreeft:

    But if Catholic dogma contradicted Scripture or itself at any point, I could not believe it. I explored all the cases of claimed contradiction and found each to be a Protestant misunderstanding. No matter how morally bad the Church had gotten in the Renaissance, it never taught heresy. I was impressed with its very hypocrisy: even when it didn’t raise its practice to its preaching, it never lowered its preaching to its practice. Hypocrisy, someone said, is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

    I was impressed by the argument that “the Church wrote the Bible:” Christianity was preached by the Church before the New Testament was written—that is simply a historical fact. It is also a fact that the apostles wrote the New Testament and the Church canonized it, deciding which books were divinely inspired. I knew, from logic and common sense, that a cause can never be less than its effect. You can’t give what you don’t have. If the Church has no divine inspiration and no infallibility, no divine authority, then neither can the New Testament. Protestantism logically entails Modernism. I had to be either a Catholic or a Modernist. That decided it; that was like saying I had to be either a patriot or a traitor.

    http://chnetwork.org/2011/10/hauled-aboard-the-ark-conversion-story-of-peter-kreeft/

    Like

  110. Katy:
    The gist is conversion to Rome is a BIG DEAL. And sometimes it is inconceivable to those who do convert that those still in Reformed and Lutheran confessions will say “no, thanks” with eyes wide open. It’s hard for the convert to understand that–nearly impossible, in my experience.>>>>>

    It is a big deal. I would say you have no idea given my background, but you do seem to get it.

    I understand why people say “no thanks.” I really do. What I have found amazing is my great big YES to what I was taught was The Great Whore of Babylon with her antichrist Pope.

    I come here and read and I jump in the middle of discussions and wonder what I am doing on this side of the Tiber. My love for my Mother, the Church, only grows. I look back over my life and can only conclude that this is what I was made for.

    See, I loved studying Reformed theology. Oh, I don’t mean I was good at it, but I did work hard to understand at least the doctrines of grace. I think of it now as a kind of gateway drug. That led me to Augustine. So, I warn people who start studying Reformed theology and reading the early Church fathers. Be careful. You might forget what you were protesting about and just go on Home to Mother.

    Especially stay away from St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa if you want to remain Protestant.

    Like

  111. Thanks, Mermaid for responding

    (We’re big fans of Aquinas over here, and have the Summa on our shelf, but it hasn’t been the ticket to make it all fall together, in fact, he’s not very Tridentinr at times. Here’s where it does get tough for my friends who have converted. The Fathers–including medieval scholastics–kept me from joining. No one can scarcely believe it)

    TVD is right, though, about the centrality of the Eucharist, not Marian dogma. Since I was convinced from plain Scripture and tradition (yes, really) we receive the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting through His very physical body and blood, I couldn’t accept the doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass. They undermined Holy Communion. I am not saying this to be offensive.

    Like

  112. Katy
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:08 pm | Permalink
    Thanks, Mermaid for responding

    (We’re big fans of Aquinas over here, and have the Summa on our shelf, but it hasn’t been the ticket to make it all fall together, in fact, he’s not very Tridentinr at times. Here’s where it does get tough for my friends who have converted. The Fathers–including medieval scholastics–kept me from joining. No one can scarcely believe it)>>>>>

    Howdy, Katy,
    Katy, if you are happy where you are, then I am happy for you.

    Katy:
    TVD is right, though, about the centrality of the Eucharist, not Marian dogma.>>>>

    Of course he is right. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith.

    Katy:
    Since I was convinced from plain Scripture and tradition (yes, really) we receive the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting through His very physical body and blood, I couldn’t accept the doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass. They undermined Holy Communion. I am not saying this to be offensive.>>>>

    Katy, I am not offended.

    Is there something you wanted to discuss with me?

    Thank you for sharing. You have a wonderful evening.

    Like

  113. TVD:
    A central part of many or most conversion stories I’ve read is that the “convert” had previously had many false ideas about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. So no, they don’t believe that those still on the other side of the Tiber have their “eyes wide open.” They have scales in their eyes, as they once did. As Bishop Fulton Sheen famously said,

    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”>>>>>

    What you say here is so true. I can remember the day the scales fell off. That came at the end of a long process.

    I thought my eyes were open already. Some here have said that those who join the Catholic Church act as though a spell has come over them. I think it is the other way around. A spell has been broken. That is, the spell that had convinced me that somehow all the divisions in Christianity were okay. It’s not okay.

    I couldn’t interpret Ephesians 4:1-6 in a way that made Protestantism make sense. There is no Biblical justification for what Protestantism has become.

    I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

    Like

  114. Katy
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:08 pm | Permalink
    Thanks, Mermaid for responding

    (We’re big fans of Aquinas over here, and have the Summa on our shelf, but it hasn’t been the ticket to make it all fall together, in fact, he’s not very Tridentinr at times. Here’s where it does get tough for my friends who have converted. The Fathers–including medieval scholastics–kept me from joining. No one can scarcely believe it)

    TVD is right, though, about the centrality of the Eucharist, not Marian dogma. Since I was convinced from plain Scripture and tradition (yes, really) we receive the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting through His very physical body and blood, I couldn’t accept the doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass. They undermined Holy Communion. I am not saying this to be offensive.

    Interesting, although puzzling. Sacramentally speaking, the only question is whether the Catholic Eucharist is the real Eucharist in the Lutheran view. The rest is ex post facto theologizing that doesn’t affect the sacrament itself.

    This is interesting, BTW.

    http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-resolution-on-brother-roger.html

    Like

  115. Tom,

    Oh, and Katy, even more interesting—Pope Francis is speaking exclusively of Lutherans in his latest controversy du jour. Eeeie, eh?

    That’s probably because a Lutheran asked him the question, don’t you think?

    Like

  116. Robert
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    Oh, and Katy, even more interesting—Pope Francis is speaking exclusively of Lutherans in his latest controversy du jour. Eeeie, eh?

    That’s probably because a Lutheran asked him the question, don’t you think?

    I can’t say, Robert. You’d have to read the links I provided. It’s a point for discussion. Lutheranism seems to be a special category, I’m thinking, though.

    I don’t know what Lutheranism thinks of the Calvinist version of “the Lord’s supper,” whether that qualifies as the Eucharist or not. The lion’s share of what I wrote to Katy was an inquiry not a debate, since she seems to be awesomely erudite on the Lutheran position.

    Hope you’re reading this, Katy. The Catholic Church seems to have fairly effortless ecumenical dialogue with at least some Lutherans; how Lutherans [re]solve the question of the Eucharist with Calvinists and the rest is the interesting part.

    Since you agree that the Eucharist is central, essential and fundamental to the Christian religion, the Catholic Church is actually not even part of the sacramental question.

    Like

  117. James Young, I’m glad OL is here for you and you take encouragement. But why not look to your infallible authority? You need to come here for comfort? Some testimony for your church.

    Like

  118. Tom,

    I can’t say, Robert. You’d have to read the links I provided. It’s a point for discussion. Lutheranism seems to be a special category, I’m thinking, though.

    The link includes this: “Francis spoke about the issue during Sunday’s visit in response to a question from a Lutheran woman who said she is married to a Catholic man and that the current prohibition on Lutherans receiving communion in the Catholic church causes them sadness.”

    It seems that Lutheranism is up for discussion in this particular instance in light of a question a Lutheran asked. Based on what Francis has said and has acted, I would expect that a Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, or Baptist would get the same answer. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he turned the other way if a priest were to give the Eucharist to a Hindu or a Buddhist, but that’s more speculative.

    But Lutheranism is in somewhat of a special category. Traditionally it is liturgically closer to Roman Catholicism, though doctrinally, confessional Lutheranism is about as far away from Roman Catholicism as is confessional Calvinism.

    I don’t know what Lutheranism thinks of the Calvinist version of “the Lord’s supper,” whether that qualifies as the Eucharist or not. The lion’s share of what I wrote to Katy was an inquiry not a debate, since she seems to be awesomely erudite on the Lutheran position.

    Given the history, I would think that they hold a dim view of Zwinglianism wherever that appears in the Reformed tradition. I went through confirmation in the Lutheran Church (a conservative ELCA congregation) and took my first communion there. I don’t recall much talk about what they thought of other communions’ views of the sacrament.

    It depends on how you view Lutheranism. The ELCA clergy-sharing privileges with other mainline Protestant denominations. Liberals tend to not care about what the other traditions believe. Its one reason why Rome is able to talk to liberal Lutherans. Both sides have gone liberal enough to say “Reformation, eh, just a tempest in a teapot.”

    Hope you’re reading this, Katy. The Catholic Church seems to have fairly effortless ecumenical dialogue with at least some Lutherans; how Lutherans [re]solve the question of the Eucharist with Calvinists and the rest is the interesting part.

    It would be interesting. All I know for sure is that churches like the PCA and OPC will admit Lutherans to the table. I believe the Missouri Synod used to practice closed communion, but I’m not sure that is still the case in practice. The Wisconsin Synod practices closed communion as far as I am aware. In the ELCA, they don’t really care what you believe, unless it’s a conservative congregation.

    But again, Roman Catholics have effortless dialogue with the ELCA and not the Missouri Synod. That’s largely because the Missouri Synod still thinks doctrine is important. Frankly, that is not really true of Rome or the ELCA. Both are big tent denominations that are essentially inclusivist, if not universalist, and are utter failures when it comes to church discipline. The ELCA is more liberal than Rome on paper. In practice, both denominations are full-on modernist. Rome today is the ELCA of fifty years ago or so.

    Since you agree that the Eucharist is central, essential and fundamental to the Christian religion, the Catholic Church is actually not even part of the sacramental question.

    But of course it was for Luther.

    Like

  119. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 7:17 am | Permalink
    vd, t, NCRonline? Seriously? What’s with this wikishite?

    The difference is very simple, tough guy. I use such unofficial links for information purposes only, for background. You use them as weapons.

    Robert
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    “Since you agree that the Eucharist is central, essential and fundamental to the Christian religion, the Catholic Church is actually not even part of the sacramental question.”

    But of course it was for Luther.

    Well, at first he just wanted to reform things, not start a separate church. As for the Eucharist, I’m guessing he thought the Catholic Church had/has the real Eucharist. Not sure what he might think of the Calvinist version.

    Thx for the reply.

    Like

  120. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 8:27 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, “I use such unofficial links for information purposes only, for background. You use them as weapons.”

    You must not shop at http://www.selfaware.com.

    But you do troll the internet for Catholic dissenters and use them to attack the Catholic Church.

    Like

  121. vd, t, I use information to dispute the apologists, deniers, and gullible that Rome is the answer to Protestantisms woes. At 1.2 billion and 2000 years of age, woes doesn’t begin to describe the situation that infallibility — as if — cures.

    Like

  122. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, I use information to dispute the apologists, deniers, and gullible that Rome is the answer to Protestantisms woes. At 1.2 billion and 2000 years of age, woes doesn’t begin to describe the situation that infallibility — as if — cures.

    Stick to what the Church itself actually teaches, not stupid websites, and we’ll get along fine.

    http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt

    Like

  123. vd, t, from one of your approved websites:

    The pastor at St. Columba-Brigid Catholic Church in Buffalo posted a sign reminding passersby that “Jesus Had Two Dads.” He says it was a statement supportive of children raised in non-nuclear families, yet others took it as support for same-sex marriage. The sign has been taken down.

    Like

  124. Tom,

    Well, at first he just wanted to reform things, not start a separate church.

    True. But then the infallible Magisterium lied to him about having a debate over his views and then at Trent condemned beliefs he didn’t hold with regard to justification. The fact that a separate church was started is entirely Rome’s fault.

    As for the Eucharist, I’m guessing he thought the Catholic Church had/has the real Eucharist.

    Not likely since he came to reject their understanding of the mass.

    Not sure what he might think of the Calvinist version.

    I don’t know what he thought of Calvin’s view. Later Lutherans don’t like it. What Luther himself thought is up for debate. Heck what he thought about his own view of the sacrament is up for debate.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s