Brennon Hartshorn:
"I would like to distance myself from the fundamentalist anti-Catholics here who, for some reason, will not accept the historic Christian position that Mary is the mother of God. Even RC Sproul says we should not be afraid of that terminology. For the Catholics here, know that not all of us evangelical protestants are of the ilk you have encountered here. The ilk here upset most of us, too, although I still love them as brothers in Christ."
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-worshipping-mary.html#c2084060206166877887
John Wesley:
“The beast is the Romish papacy.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=EvEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA715#v=onepage&q=pope&f=false
“By this the pope manifests that he is antichrist, directly contrary to Christ. It is Christ who shed his own blood. It is antichrist who sheds the blood of others.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=EvEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA715#v=onepage&q=pope&f=false
“However, in many respects, the pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increased all manner of sin above measure. And he is too properly styled, The son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=EvEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA715#v=onepage&q=pope&f=false
“There is no city under the sun which has so clear a title to Catholic blood-guiltiness as Rome. The guilt of the blood shed under the heathen emperors has not been removed under the popes, but hugely multiplied. Nor is Rome accountable only for that which hath been shed in the city, but for that shed in all the earth. For at Rome, under the pope, as well as under the heathen emperors, were the bloody orders and edicts given: and wherever the blood of holy men was shed, there were the grand rejoicings in it. And what immense quantities of blood have been shed by her agents!”
http://books.google.com/books?id=EvEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA715#v=onepage&q=pope&f=false
“Her fornication is her idolatry, invocation of saints and angels, worship of images, human traditions, with all that outward pomp, yea, and that fierce and bloody zeal wherewith she pretends to serve God. But with spiritual fornication, as elsewhere, so in Rome, fleshly fornication is joined abundantly. Witness the stews [i.e. brothels] there, licensed by the pope, which are no inconsiderable branch of his revenue. This is fitly compared to wine, because of its intoxicating nature.”
“Of this wine she hath indeed made all nations drink, more especially by her later missions. We may observe, this making them drink is not ascribed to the beast, but to Babylon. For Rome itself, the Roman inquisitions congregations, and Jesuits, continually propagate their idolatrous doctrines and practices, with or without the consent of this or that pope, who himself is not secure from their censure.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=EvEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA715#v=onepage&q=pope&f=false
Wasn't John Wesley one of the most famous advocates of arminianism?
ReplyDeleteThis fellow Brennon Hartshorn (and Victor Reppert as well) should be distancing themselves from arminian fundamentalists such as John Wesley too then.
Wasn't the quote from Brennon, which you posted here, about Mary, the mother of God, and not about the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church specifically? Just wondering about that red herring you threw in there.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the addendum.
ReplyDeleteDistance myself in the behavior in that instance, not the theology. I don't agree all of Wesley's or Arminius' language on some things. However, at the time, the Catholic's behavior was unacceptable. It's true that many attrocities were committed by Rome, and the reformers had an obligation to speak out against them. But that's not the issue, so this is red herring city here. The issue was that specific topic.
The term “anti-Catholic” is a bit divisive, if any would want to talk about divisiveness. After all, what’s so wrong with being anti-anything? The question begged is that Catholics are at least right enough to be recognized as holding a legitimate gospel. Then it’s a non-sequitor to conclude that they shouldn’t be challenged on those matters where it is believed they are wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf they indeed get the gospel wrong it is imperative that they be challenged for their error since they claim to be Christian lest the holiness of the true Church be compromised and the testimony of the true gospel diminished. Who can fault a Christian for having as his intent the purity of the revelation of the God we serve?
So, Brennon, do you classify Arminius, Wesley, and their "ilk" as "fundamentalist anti-Catholics"? Or does that only apply to Calvinists?
ReplyDeleteBTW, why do you use "fundamentalist" as a pejorative term? For example, do you disapprove of Dallas Theological Seminary? Is that on your list of baddies?
Jim Pemberton: "After all, what’s so wrong with being anti-anything?"
ReplyDeleteTrue, dat.
For example, I'm anti-abortion.
Rephrased to "Pro-Life."
It's odd that Brennon would suck up to Catholics while, in the same breath, he holds "fundamentalists" at arms' length. Strange priorities. Does this mean Arminianism is closer to Catholicism than fundamentalism?
ReplyDeleteI myself get along just fine with fundamentalists of the Dallas Seminary/Master's College variety. I'd don't use "fundamentalist" as a pejorative.
Steve Hays: "I'd don't use "fundamentalist" as a pejorative."
ReplyDeleteI use it in the same sense as those who use it do.
For example:
A Liberal Fundamentalist.
An Arminian Fundamentalist.
Looks like the "ire" drew a response from Horton:
ReplyDeletehttp://ow.ly/CWzj
"I’m not sure what part of this [his endorsement blurb]aroused this blogger’s ire. I disavowed agreement with some of the pope’s conclusions (I agree with him on the Trinity and other important doctrines, but disagree strongly with other important doctrines). I admired “his engagement with critical scholarship” (he often offers trenchant arguments against higher criticism). I endorsed Hahn’s book because it is “a highly readable summary” and “an eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important theologian of our time.” Despite my strong disagreements with his views on a variety of issues, he is certainly 'an important theologian of our time.'"
While I could tell he was couching his blurb in such a way, it still strikes me as playing nicey-nice...or maybe not. It could be shameless self-promotion that benefited a Catholic apologist.
I have left the following comment at the White Horse Inn blog entry by Horton. (As I write this, it is "awaiting moderation.")
ReplyDelete***
My own personal objection stemmed from the fact that Scott Hahn is not merely a “scholar” who is doing a “study.” Hahn is a person with a very clear agenda, and his agenda is not only well-known, but it is revered and imitated by scores of lesser known apologists, very many of whom bring nothing but mud to the show.
In lending your name to the legitimacy of Hahn’s work, you are lending your good name, and the name of Westminster, California, to this whole movement. (And since you know James White, why not ask him what he thinks about that movement?)
You may think that, in the spirit of Christian dialog, you will somehow accomplish something useful. But in dealing with Hahn, you are not dealing with a person who can make any concesions at all. Moreover, official Rome has very clearly re-articulated what it thinks of the churches of the Reformation. Equivocation on the part of individuals who have (with good intentions) tried to negotiate at any level at all with Catholicism — including Packer, Colson, George, and other — have seen absolutely no official budge at all from Rome.
How many Protestants, even your own seminary students, are well enough equipped to profitably read a work by Hahn, much less a work by Ratzinger, and to be able to deal with it adequately?
In the meantime, you are someone not unimportant at a very important Reformed seminary. Why not commission a study of Ratzinger’s work from a Reformed perspective, and endorse that?
So, Brennon, do you classify Arminius, Wesley, and their "ilk" as "fundamentalist anti-Catholics"? Or does that only apply to Calvinists?
ReplyDeleteThe times, they were-a different. I too may have said similar things about a church that practiced what they did at the time. I would have spoken out against Zwingli's murder of Anabaptists as well. I probably wouldn't fit well in the 16th and 17th centuries.
But perhaps my words were too strong. Your polemics at the time seemed a little harsh, but I have rethought my words and have determined that they were wrong.
That is not to say that if Arminius or Wesley were alive today and said those things that I would commend them on it. I'm not sure they would, though.
BTW, why do you use "fundamentalist" as a pejorative term?
I think we should avoid the fundamentalist attitude, not their theology. I flirted with fundamentalism a year or so ago. Wasn't a good thing. As Michael Patton said a few days ago, "The term “fundamentalist,” I find, is very ambiguous. It is very difficult to know what people mean when they use it. Nine times out of ten I would not call myself a fundamentalist; eight times out of ten I would repudiate the designation." I agree with the fundamentalist's repudiation of liberal theology. Amen to that! But the exclusivist attitude of some fundamentalists that causes them to condemn people like Billy Graham is what makes me avoid the designation.
But again, I was wrong in labeling you as such
It's odd that Brennon would suck up to Catholics while, in the same breath, he holds "fundamentalists" at arms' length. Strange priorities. Does this mean Arminianism is closer to Catholicism than fundamentalism?
Yes, since I am the arbiter of Arminian theology :). And since there are fundamentalist Arminians...no.