Friday, December 11, 2009

Who is my brother?

Before I proceed, I’ll repeat a distinction I recently made:

In Scripture, there are different types of love. Loving the brethren isn't interchangeable with loving one's neighbor or loving one's enemy. Bible-believing Christians could (and should) love Roman Catholics without loving them as fellow-Christians.

Moving along:

TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:

“Out of curiosity and out of lack of knowledge about U.S. Protestant history, how long has it been the doctrinal position of Protestants to make it explicit that they will in no way regard Catholics and EO's as Christians? Are there official, formal documents from various denominations and church bodies dating back X number of years stating either directly or indirectly that Catholics and EOs are not to be thought of as Christians? Or is this an informal, and perhaps somewhat of a recent phenomenon, that's generally and widely agreed upon, and which really should be known by both Protestant leaders and by Protestant laity that it's truly a mistake of significant magnitude to ever refer to Catholics and EO's as Christians?”

1.To answer the question directly, when the Westminster Confession speaks of denominations which “have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan” (WCF 25:5), I suspect that it’s primarily alluding to the church of Rome.

2.However, the question is misleading. If a denomination defines its own theological identity, then it will, in the process, whether implicitly or explicitly, differentiate itself from the competition. In that case, it isn’t necessary for the competition to issue a separate statement. For the initial exercise is logically reciprocal.

If, for example, Tridentine theology defines itself in specific contrast to Protestant theology, then it isn’t necessary for a Protestant denomination to return the favor. By defining itself, Trent has automatically defined itself in relation to the competition. That’s how it wants the competition to view it. Classical Protestants don’t have to differentiate themselves from Trent, for Trent has already done that for us.

While the definition was unilateral in execution, it is bilateral or multilateral in its implications.

Of course, if we think a denomination is defining itself in very self-serving terms, to the expense of others, we might take issue with that self-serving definition. Still, that self-definition supplies a logical point of reference.

3.Apropos (2), if, say, Trent, or Vatican II, or the Synod of Jerusalem, implicitly or explicitly define Protestant theology as a false gospel, then we as Protestants don’t really need to build a second fence. Whoever builds the first fence will suffice for both parties. If you build a fence, I don’t need to build a parallel fence. If you build a fence facing my backyard, I don’t need to build another fence facing your backyard. A double fence would be redundant.

4.Of course, we’re still at liberty to evaluate the opposing definition on our own terms. Is the incipient modernism of Vatican II consistent with the Gospel? Is the Tridentine theology of the (seven) sacraments, Purgatory, indulgences, justification, the Mass, and/or the cult of the saints compatible with the Gospel?

5.Historically, Eastern Orthodoxy is an outlier in American culture, so we may be less familiar with what it stands for. Here are some examples, from the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) of how it demarcates its theological identity in contrast to Protestant/Reformed theology:

*****************************

To the candid and lovers of truth, what hath been said will be sufficient, or rather, so to speak, more than enough to enable them to understand what is the doctrine of the Eastern Church, and that she hath never at any time been in agreement with the Calvinists in their novelties (nor in fact with any others besides herself), nor hath she recognised him {Cyril Lucar ELC} whom they contend was of their party, as being so. For the complete refutation, however, and uprooting of the designs which have been formed, contrarily to the glory of God, against the sacred bulwarks of our Orthodox religion, and, so to speak, for the complete demolition of the blasphemies contained in the vaunted <110> Chapters {of the 1629 Confession ELC}, we have thought it right to put forth certain Questions and Chapters {the 18 decrees below ELC} corresponding in number to those written by Cyril, and diametrically opposing the same, wherein he hath, as it were (as hath been supposed many times), whetted his tongue against God, {cf. Psalm 43:4} so that they may be called a refutation and correction of the said Chapters of Cyril. And the order which is there observed will be followed in these which will be put forth by us, so that each of the Faithful may be able to compare, and judge of both, and easily know the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church, and the falsehood of the heretics. Where, however, necessity requireth, we shall omit some things, or add some other things tending to the accurate understanding of the matter. And we shall use words, entire sentences, and periods {sic ELC} set out there, so that we may not seem to fight against words and Orthodox sentences rather than against novelties and impious dogmas.

Albeit, in prayers and supplications unto Him, we say the Saints are intercessors, and, above all, the undefiled Mother of the very God the Word; the holy Angels too — whom we know to <121> be set over us — the Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, Pure Ones, and all whom He hath glorified as having served Him faithfully. With whom we reckon also the Bishops and Priests, as standing about the Altar of God, and righteous men eminent for virtue. For that we should pray one for another, and that the prayer of the righteous availeth much, {James 5:16} and that God heareth the Saints rather than those who are steeped in sins, we learn from the Sacred Oracles. And not only are the Saints while on their pilgrimage regarded as mediators and intercessors for us with God, but especially after their death, when all reflective vision being done away, they behold clearly the Holy Trinity; in whose infinite light they know what concerneth us.

That the dignity of the Bishop is so necessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of. For he, as a successor of the Apostles, having received in continued succession by the imposition of hands and the invocation of the All-holy Spirit the grace that is given him of the Lord of binding and loosing, is a living image of God upon the earth, and by a most ample participation of the operation of the Holy Spirit, who is the chief functionary, is a fountain of all the Mysteries [Sacraments] of the Catholic Church, through which we obtain salvation.

And the one having received the dignity of the Priesthood <128> from the Bishop, can only perform Holy Baptism, and Prayer-oil, minister sacrificially the unbloody Sacrifice, and impart to the people the All-holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, anoint the baptised with the Holy Myron [Chrism], crown the Faithful legally marrying, pray for the sick, and that all men may be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, {cf. 1 Timothy 2:4} and especially for the remission and forgiveness of the sins of the Faithful, living and dead.

But the High Priest is also the minister of all these, since he is in fact, as hath been said before, the fountain of the Divine Mysteries and graces, through the Holy Spirit, and he alone consecrateth the Holy Myron. And the ordinations of all orders and degrees in the Church are proper to him; and in a primary and highest sense he <129> bindeth and looseth, and his sentence is approved by God, as the Lord hath promised. {Matthew 16:19} And he preacheth the Sacred Gospel, and contendeth for the Orthodox faith, and those that refuse to hear he casteth out of the Church as heathens and publicans, {cf. Matthew 18:17} and he putteth heretics under excommunication and anathema, and layeth down his own life for the sheep. {cf. John 10:11}

But it is well said by one of the Fathers, that it is not easy to find a heretic that hath understanding. For when these forsake the Church, they are forsaken by the Holy Spirit, and there remaineth in them neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness.

We believe to be members of the Catholic Church all the Faithful, and only the Faithful; who, forsooth, having received the blameless Faith of the Saviour Christ, from Christ Himself, and the Apostles, and the Holy Œcumenical Synods, adhere to the same without wavering.

We believe the Catholic Church to be <131> taught by the Holy Spirit. For he is the true Paraclete; whom Christ sendeth from the Father, {cf. John 25:26} to teach the truth, {cf. John 26:13} and to drive away darkness from the minds of the Faithful. The teaching of the Holy Spirit, however, doth not immediately, but through the holy Fathers and Leaders of the Catholic Church, illuminate the Church. For as all Scripture is, and is called, the word of the Holy Spirit; not that it was spoken immediately by Him, but that it was spoken by Him through the Apostles and Prophets; so also the Church is taught indeed by the Life-giving Spirit, but through the medium of the holy Fathers and Doctors (whose rule is acknowledged to be the Holy and Œcumenical Synods; for we shall not cease to say this ten thousand times); and, therefore, not only are we persuaded, but do profess as true and undoubtedly certain, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to err, or at all be deceived, or ever to choose falsehood instead of truth. For the All-holy Spirit continually operating through the holy Fathers and Leaders faithfully ministering, delivereth the Church from error of every kind.

We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which worketh through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the notion] that faith fulfilling the function of a hand layeth hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and applieth it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifieth through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becometh efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad, forsooth.

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord saith, “Whosoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord shewed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whosoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Saviour would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be <140> regenerated.” And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptised is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptised.

Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he be Orthodox, and have the intention proper to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins whatsoever which the baptised may have committed. Secondly, it delivereth him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin, as for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it giveth to such immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it maketh them temples of God.

The Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honoured in the highest manner, and adored with latria. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.

This Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, <150> except only by an Orthodox Priest, who hath received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox, and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics; but necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress the Catholic Church of Christ rejecteth and anathematiseth.

And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine {in summation ELC} by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers <152> of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not.

Nevertheless they [the Scriptures] should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired <153> into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and in fine read.

The Saints being, and acknowledged by the Catholic Church to be, intercessors, as hath been said in Eighth Chapter {sic; Decree VIII above ELC}, it is time to say that we honour them as friends of God, and as praying for us to the God of all. And the honour we pay them is twofold; — according to one manner which we call hyperdulia, we honour the Mother of God the Word. For though indeed the Theotokos {Mary ELC} be servant of the only God, yet is she also His Mother, as having borne in the flesh one of the Trinity; wherefore also is she hymned, as being beyond compare, above as well all Angels as Saints; wherefore, also, we pay her the adoration of hyperdulia. But according to the other <157>manner, which we call dulia, we adore, or rather honour, the holy Angels, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and, in fine, all the Saints. Moreover, we adore and honour the wood of the precious and life-giving Cross, whereon our Saviour underwent this world-saving passion, and the sign of the life-giving Cross, the Manger at Bethlehem, through which we have been delivered from irrationality, {In allusion to the manger out of which the irrational animals eat their food. JNWBR} the place of the Skull [Calvary], the life-giving Sepulchre, and the other holy objects of adoration; as well the holy Gospels, as the sacred vessels, wherewith the unbloody Sacrifice is performed. And by annual commemorations, and popular festivals, and sacred edifices and offerings; we do respect and honour the Saints. And then we adore, and honour, and kiss the Eikons of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the most holy Theotokos, and of all the Saints, also of the holy Angels, as they appeared to some of the Forefathers and Prophets.

Let us briefly suffice for the reputation of the falsehoods of the adversaries, which they have devised against the Eastern Church, alleging in support of their falsehoods the incoherent and impious Chapters of the said Cyril {Lucar ELC}. And let it not be for a sign to be contradicted {cf. Luke 2:34} of those heretics that unjustly calumniate us, as though they spake truly; but for a sign to be believed, that is for reformation of their innovations, and for their return to the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in which their forefathers also were of old, and assisted at those Synods and contests against heretics, which these now reject and revile. For it was unreasonable on their part, especially as they considered themselves to be wise, to have listened to men that were lovers of self; and profane, and that spake not from the Holy Spirit, but from the prince of lies, <174> and to have forsaken the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which God hath purchased with the Blood of His own Son; {cf. Acts 20:28} and to have abandoned her. For otherwise there will overtake those that have separated from the Church the pains that are reserved for heathens and publicans; but the Lord who hath ever protected her against all enemies, will not neglect the Catholic Church; to Him be glory and dominion unto the ages of the ages. Amen.

In the year of Salvation 1672, on the 16th [day] of the month of March, in the Holy City of Jerusalem: —
I, DOSITHEUS, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, declare and confess this to be the faith of the Eastern Church.

{Chapter VI. concludes with more than five full pages of signatories, omitted here. ELC}

http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

23 comments:

  1. "Who is my brother?"

    Yes, that does seem to be a most pertinent question to be asked when looking at the controversy over the Manhattan Declaration.

    Thanks for addressing it. And thanks for a most excellent post. I was (and still am) truly curious (and ignorant, but a little less so now due to your post) about the provenance of the idea that it is a significant error to refer to members of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as "Christians".

    While everybody has different experiences growing up in church, attending small groups, being part of college campus ministry, and/or serving in church, I can only relate my experience, and say that I have never, ever heard that one should never refer to Catholics and EO's as Christians, and that by doing so, you are blurring and obscuring the Gospel. I have never heard that. Never.

    But now it's being loudly and widely trumpeted. And so I scratched my head and was curious (with no intent to mislead) about the provenance of the noise generated by these clanging, clashing cymbals that it's such a significant error to refer to Catholics and EO's as Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1.To answer the question directly, when the Westminster Confession speaks of denominations which “have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan” (WCF 25:5), I suspect that it’s primarily alluding to the church of Rome.

    Of the $20 million or so Protestants in the United States, about .05% of them or less prescribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Therefore, TUAD's question is not adequately addressed by citing hte WCOF.

    If, for example, Tridentine theology defines itself in specific contrast to Protestant theology, then it isn’t necessary for a Protestant denomination to return the favor. By defining itself, Trent has automatically defined itself in relation to the competition. That’s how it wants the competition to view it. Classical Protestants don’t have to differentiate themselves from Trent, for Trent has already done that for us.

    Kind of like, "...for example, Chalcedon orthodoxy defines itself in specific contrast to Monophysite theology, then it isn’t necessary for a Monophysite denomination to return the favor. By defining itself, Chalcedon has automatically defined itself in relation to the competition. That’s how it wants the competition to view it. Classical Monophysites don’t have to differentiate themselves from Chalcedon, for Chalcedon has already done that for us."

    Is the Tridentine theology of the (seven) sacraments, Purgatory, indulgences, justification, the Mass, and/or the cult of the saints compatible with the Gospel?

    Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sean and Stephanie said...

    "Of the $20 million or so Protestants in the United States, about .05% of them or less prescribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Therefore, TUAD's question is not adequately addressed by citing hte WCOF."

    Different Protestant traditions can answer for themselves. And, as I went on to point out in some detail, there is more than one way to answer his question. So your objection is wide of the mark. Try again.

    "Kind of like, '...for example, Chalcedon orthodoxy defines itself in specific contrast to Monophysite theology, then it isn’t necessary for a Monophysite denomination to return the favor. By defining itself, Chalcedon has automatically defined itself in relation to the competition. That’s how it wants the competition to view it. Classical Monophysites don’t have to differentiate themselves from Chalcedon, for Chalcedon has already done that for us'."

    And how does that comparison rebut my statement?

    "Yes."

    Naturally you'd say that since you're Catholic. However, the argument is symmetrical:

    If Trent explicitly or implicitly defines Protestant theology as a false gospel (e.g. the Tridentine anathemas), then Protestant theology thereby defines Tridentine theology as a false gospel. Action>reaction.

    The opposing positions are correlative and antithetical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Truth Unites... and Divides:

    The fact that you'd never heard it is telling - for all of us. I'd heard it, growing up, but it never really sank until until I was face to face with someone who told me that *it was necessary for salvation* to believe all of the dogma of Romanism.

    Most folks, in most churches, don't get the grounding that I had, in a theological, apologetically minded home - and a church of like mind. The culture tells us the opposite, the ecumenists are the people most praised in the media, pop christianity, and in the general "layman's" opinion.

    When you study church history, you begin to appreciate these statements for what they are. You can't read the history, biographies, or works of people like Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Owen, Gill, or Henry without seeing this common theme.

    One problem, among many, is that we just don't study history like we used to. It isn't encouraged, and it is rarely mentioned. My generation is one in which I am seeing an enormous movement towards historical theology - because we are, on the whole, dissatisfied with the trite answers we are typically given - therefore, due to recent, high-profile figures like Francis Schaeffer, or John MacArthur, or Greg Bahnsen, what we find when we study history - especially that of the churches we attend, is that they are, almost unexceptionally, Reformed.

    This is no surprise, given that all Protestants stem from the Protestant *Reformation* - but we hear "Protestant", and somehow fail to see what is was that was being protested against. We hear "Reformation", and somehow fail to realize that there was, obviously, something that needed Reformation.

    As I've become immersed in this "totally other" stream of evangelicalism (which not only wiggles their toes on the surface of the stream of history, but delves deep into the waters of the theological past, toward the source), it has become apparent to me that much of our problems stem from an abject ignorance of that which went before. We see bits and pieces of the outrages of the Romanist system - but we are never taught from whence it stems - systemic corruption of the Gospel through their artificially grafted-on system of authority and merit. Once this is realized, the only recourse is then to see that the Reformers might not have been so silly and hyperbolic after all.

    Today's evangellyfish has no conception of these things - because it is never taught to them. I was only taught a surface-level smattering, and didn't realyl delve into it myself until I was an adult. Once I did, I found it utterly impossible to claim, as I did coming into James White's chat channel years ago, that it was simply "blatant falsehood" to claim that the doctrines of Rome were a different gospel. I was patiently directed to the primary sources, and encouraged to read for myself.

    They were right. It is a different Gospel. Therefore, it is our sad duty to assert, along with Paul in Gal 1, that any man preaching a gospel which differs from his is accursed. We wish we didn't have to say it - but our zeal for truth requires us to do so.

    Does that make sense? Consistent Romanists, and EOs will also say the same about us. The systems are mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Trent explicitly or implicitly defines Protestant theology as a false gospel (e.g. the Tridentine anathemas), then Protestant theology thereby defines Tridentine theology as a false gospel. Action>reaction.

    Are you a Calvinist? If so, do you call Armenians/Free Will Baptists etc Christians? Because, their articulation of the gospel is different than a Calvinist articulation isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. How 'bout you show when Arminians said Calvinists are anathema, and then you'll have a peg to hang your analogy on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Razorskiss: "The fact that you'd never heard it is telling - for all of us."

    I do, however, remember hearing and learning that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christians. I think it was a discussion about various sects. But nothing at all about Catholics and EO's not being Christians and that it would be a dreadful mistake to refer to them as Christians as this would blur and obscure the Gospel. Was this a terrible failure by all the pastors, ministry leaders, and small group leaders that I learned under? Why didn't they teach it? For me and everybody else?

    In examining the provenance and history of Protestants not calling Catholics and EO's "Christians" (or conversely, the provenance and history of Protestants calling Catholics and EO's "Christians") it seems from my own very limited experience that it wasn't a priority for the shepherds, teachers, and leaders over me, if it was even a consideration for them in the first place.

    This idea, then, of identifying and teaching that Catholics and EO's are "non-Christians" as part and parcel of becoming a mature Protestant believer must have gone dark for a period of time. Maybe even dark for generations.

    ReplyDelete

  8. I do, however, remember hearing and learning that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christians. I think it was a discussion about various sects. But nothing at all about Catholics and EO's not being Christians and that it would be a dreadful mistake to refer to them as Christians as this would blur and obscure the Gospel. Was this a terrible failure by all the pastors, ministry leaders, and small group leaders that I learned under? Why didn't they teach it? For me and everybody else?


    They likely did not teach it, because 1) they were not taught it themselves or 2) Were taught it, and rejected it due to other reasons - such as the prevalence of ecumenism, relativism, the distaste for open debate that seems to have become common. There are many reasons this is so - but one of my theories is that we all had cults, naturalism, and inerrancy to deal with, and thence EOs and RCs were considered "settled", and were not kept in view. Witness the recent "downgrade" of the SBC in the wake of their victory in the area of inerrancy. They have preserved inerrancy, but failed to preserve their Calvinistic heritage in doctrine. Over-focus, or neglect that leads to th necessity of it, will cause issues. Balance is a necessity.

    In examining the provenance and history of Protestants not calling Catholics and EO's "Christians" (or conversely, the provenance and history of Protestants calling Catholics and EO's "Christians") it seems from my own very limited experience that it wasn't a priority for the shepherds, teachers, and leaders over me, if it was even a consideration for them in the first place.

    It probably wasn't. It was mentioned occasionally in the churches I grew up in, but only occasionally. It was not a habitual practice to point out error along with the teaching of sound theology. This is was in otherwise sound churches. The reason, I think, this is so, is that churches are up to their eyeballs in other problems - often caused by an unbiblical leadership structure, in which the pastor is forced to all responsibility for all shepherding, instead of multiple elders, who can all safeguard the flock in unity. They have all of the external and internal problems of a modern church, without the requisite study of history by which to put it into context.

    This idea, then, of identifying and teaching that Catholics and EO's are "non-Christians" as part and parcel of becoming a mature Protestant believer must have gone dark for a period of time. Maybe even dark for generations.

    I agree. There have been a couple generations where the voices of theological consistency have been rather muted - but there has always been a voice crying in the wilderness. God has raised up a mighty group of leaders in His church of late, who are striving mightily to turn that massive rudder back towards Scripture - but i fear they are doing it in a very adverse environment - and in a period where the judgement of God is surely falling upon the Western world.

    I just hope that when God gets our generation into shepherding, that we may be as faithful.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Are you a Calvinist? If so, do you call Armenians/Free Will Baptists etc Christians? Because, their articulation of the gospel is different than a Calvinist articulation isn't it?

    No. While I've not posted an article here for quite some time, it's also true that I've been over this exact question in exioplicit detail more than one time.

    While it's true that Calvinists and Arminians differ over election,etc. it is not true that they articulate the Gospel "differently," for they both affirm justification by faith alone. It's some hyper-Calvinists and, in modern times, some hyper-Arminians who affirm that one most hold to a dogmatic position on these issues to be a true Christian,but, as a rule, those persons are few and far between.

    ReplyDelete
  10. An Arminian, for example, holds to substitutionary atonement *inconsistently* - but, the fact remains that they DO hold to it. That's why it's a different case. We point out the inconsistency, while affirming their gospel (those who do hold to a Biblical gospel - as there are always the folks who just don't get the gospel at all). Make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Truth Unites... and Divides wrote:

    "And so I scratched my head and was curious (with no intent to mislead) about the provenance of the noise generated by these clanging, clashing cymbals that it's such a significant error to refer to Catholics and EO's as Christians."

    Aside from what Protestants have historically believed, a subject you tell us you're "ignorant" about, what do you do with the many Biblical passages that condemn the adding of works to the gospel and condemn the Judaizers in particular? When you read Romans or Galatians, for example, you don't see any implications that Roman Catholicism's gospel is false?

    ReplyDelete
  12. While it's true that Calvinists and Arminians differ over election,etc. it is not true that they articulate the Gospel "differently," for they both affirm justification by faith alone

    Ah, so that is how you define 'Christian.'

    Apparently there were no Christians before Luther nor is Christianity taught in the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ah, so that is how you define 'Christian.'

    No,that's how we define "credible profession of faith" since the time of the Reformation. "Credible profession" and "saving profession" are intersecting concepts but not identical concepts. Both Steve and I have been over this more than once.

    Apparently there were no Christians before Luther

    1. That's a historically inaccurate statement as Jason has shown more than once.

    2. That would only be true if one defined saving faith as dogmatic faith. Where's the supporting argument?

    nor is Christianity taught in the bible.

    Uh-huh, well why don't you run off to your little blog and tell us, exegetically, where we can find things like your view of justification in the Bible. While we're at it, why don't you tell us where we can find things like the Assumption of Mary, the treasury of merit,and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sean and Stephanie,

    A collection of some of our articles on pre-Reformation beliefs can be found here. On justification in particular, see here and here, for example.

    Given that some of the advocates of justification through works prior to the Reformation expressed their view in opposition to people in their day who were arguing for justification through faith alone, why would you claim that nobody believed in justification through faith alone during that timeframe? When a church father criticizes people who believe in justification through faith alone, who is he addressing if no such people existed? It seems that a lot of people who make the claim you're making either aren't aware of this sort of evidence or haven't given it much thought. You can't have church fathers or other pre-Reformation sources criticizing people who advocated sola fide in their day if nobody was advocating sola fide. At a minimum, then, you ought to acknowledge that there were some such advocates of the concept prior to the Reformation.

    A common response at this point is to acknowledge what I've said above, but then dismiss all of the pre-Reformation advocates of sola fide as heretics. But that approach won't work either. First, the mainstream sources who criticize such advocates of sola fide don't claim that all of these people were heretics. The assumption that they were all heretics is dubious. Secondly, some of the people criticizing them acknowledge the orthodoxy of the sola fide advocates, despite their criticism of those people. Third, the pre-Reformation advocacy of sola fide comes from some mainstream sources as well, not just sources who were criticized by the mainstream. It's true that justification through works was a more popular view among professing Christians prior to the Reformation, as it is today and as it is among humans in general. Justification through works is a popular concept. (So are a lot of other errors.) But justification through faith alone was one of the views that existed during the era between the apostles and the Reformation, alongside the many and contradictory forms of justification through works that existed during that timeframe.

    We should also keep in mind that while the absence of a doctrine during the patristic era or the medieval era, for example, would be significant, an absence from the Bible would be even more significant. The Bible has more authority than later sources, and its books were written over a period of more than a thousand years. If you (erroneously) think that justification through faith alone was absent during the patristic centuries, for instance, and that fact is significant in your eyes, then the absence of justification through works in a more authoritative source that covers a longer period of time (the Bible) should seem even more significant to you. There's no way to avoid addressing the Evangelical appeal to scripture. While other data, like the patristic evidence, is significant and should be addressed, the Biblical evidence is even more significant. Asserting that nobody believed in sola fide between the apostles and the Reformation doesn't get you far. You need more than an assertion, and you need to address other lines of evidence, such as the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1. That's a historically inaccurate statement as Jason has shown more than once

    Name one Church father that taught imputed righteousness alone apart from works of faith, love and charity.

    Name one Church father who divorced justification from sanctification.

    Name just one.

    Uh-huh, well why don't you run off to your little blog and tell us, exegetically, where we can find things like your view of justification in the Bible.

    James 2:24
    24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    And, you there is plenty of exegesis Gene. Its not like the Church just made up infused righteousness in 1600 and acted like it was orthodoxy.

    A god start on exegesis

    ReplyDelete
  16. Notice that Sean and Stephanie ignores the material I linked in my last post, changes the subject by bringing in imputation, and shifts the discussion from all post-apostolic and pre-Reformation sources to the church fathers (only a portion of the people who lived during that time). All of those moves are indications that he doesn’t understand the subject well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dr. Francis Beckwith, former President of Evangelical Theological Society, now Catholic convert, wrote this interesting comment:

    "It is one that seems not to be able to distinguish between the question of whether a person is a Christian and the question of whether that Christian has conscious awareness of, and has willfully announced his agreement with, a particular theological theory of justification. After all, one becomes a child of God by God’s grace. Whether it is via the Evangelical altar call or the rite of baptism, one, fortunately, does not have to first become a systematic theologian as a condition for conversion.

    When I was a Protestant I believed that my Catholic friends were “saved,” even if they believed in what I once thought was a mistaken view of justification. It seemed to me that they trusted in Christ. They embraced all the great creeds, and clearly believed what St. Paul says in I Cor. 15 is “the Gospel”:

    Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

    For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


    Of course, as St. Paul writes, this is only “of first importance,” implying that there is more to the Christian life than this narrative of the Gospel. This includes, as John Paul II eloquently presents it in Evangelium Vitae, the praxis of the Gospel, the “love” about which St. Paul writes in I Cor. 13. It is a “love” that is, according to the apostle, greater than even faith and hope. In fact, without it, “I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”"

    I know that Steve Hays wrote lengthy posts critiquing Dr. Beckwith's explanations for returning back to Rome. (FWIW, I haven't read them). Question: Do Steve and Jason consider Dr. Beckwith a brother in Christ, however greatly erring or sinful?

    If the question was flipped back to me, I'd offer the standard "I don't know, but I'd err on the side of charity and say that he's an errant brother in Christ."

    My other two choices are "I don't know" which isn't all that helpful or "He's not a brother in Christ; he's currently an apostate and if he were to die today, he'd go to hell." And I'm not in a position of John 7:24 and judge that he's damned to hell.

    So I'm left with the charitable decision to consider Dr. Beckwith as my brother in Christ. Would Steve and Jason join me in considering Dr. Beckwith as their brother in Christ? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  18. TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:

    ”Do Steve and Jason consider Dr. Beckwith a brother in Christ, however greatly erring or sinful?”

    I don’t think a Catholic qua Catholic can give a credible profession of faith.

    In the case of individuals who can give a credible profession of faith, that’s in spite of their Catholic distinctives. They’re ignorant or confused.

    “My other two choices are ‘I don't know’ which isn't all that helpful.”

    Actually, we’re frequently confronted with borderline cases in which “I don’t know” is the most responsible answer.

    “So I'm left with the charitable decision to consider Dr. Beckwith as my brother in Christ.”

    Nothing is more uncharitable than giving someone false assurance.

    “Would Steve and Jason join me in considering Dr. Beckwith as their brother in Christ? Why or why not?”

    i) In the Bible, the default assumption is that fallen men and women are lost. The onus lies on the individual to overcome that presumption.

    ii) Not only does Beckwith fail to meet certain positive conditions for a credible profession of faith (e.g. affirming certain essentials of the faith), but he consciously denies certain essentials of the faith. He’s in a position to know better.

    In addition, he assumes the role of a false teacher as he tries to recruit evangelicals to the church of Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Steve what about Jaruslav Pelikan I read he was a Lutheran minister once

    ReplyDelete
  20. LonelyBoy,

    He'd be in the same boat. Same with Scott Hahn, John Neuhaus, &c.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Truth Unites... and Divides,

    Why should we keep answering your questions when you keep refusing to answer the questions so many people ask you? And how many times now have you changed the subject, cited yet another source on the web that supposedly supports your view of things, etc.? You keep moving from one topic to another, from one source that you cite to another, all the while ignoring so much of what people are writing in response to you. You need to change your behavior.

    And your framing of the issue you've asked about is misleading. Steve has explained some of the reasons why. I would add that your reasoning could be applied to individuals in other groups as well, such as the Judaizers. Would you give the Judaizers, as a group, the sort of "charitable decision" you refer to above? If so, then you disagree with the Bible. In other words, you disagree with God. Or if you would say that you'd only extend that "charitable decision" to individual Judaizers, not the group, then you're erring in two ways. First, you're accepting the sort of distinction between groups and individuals that you questioned earlier, when Peter Pike, I, and others argued for it. Secondly, you would then need an additional argument for exempting somebody like Francis Beckwith from the condemnation of the group he belongs to. The fact that he's an individual, not a group, doesn't logically lead us to such an exemption. You would need something more than that. And appealing to charity isn't enough. Where's your argument that charity, by itself, suggests that we should assume that another person is a Christian? Does charity lead you to conclude that every individual Buddhist, atheist, and Muslim is saved as well? Your comments above don't provide what would be needed to exempt Beckwith from the condemnation that's applicable to his denomination.

    You could make a better case for his salvation than you do above, and you're probably taking a lot of factors into account that you haven't mentioned. Your argument needs to be more nuanced.

    I'll address your question, since it's a significant one and I think readers might benefit from a discussion of the subject. I've started a new thread about it. See here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As far as I know all reformational churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian) have and continue to excommunicate members who join the Romanist church as apostates since the time of the Reformation.

    Most Protestant confessional documents only lay out broad guidelines that would exclude the Roman churches (the definition of the visible church, 3 Marks of a true church, etc.), most do not single out the Roman churches by name. The French Confession, one of the earliest Reformed confessions, would be a notable exception:

    " In this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in those acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ."

    ReplyDelete
  23. In Dave Armstrong's post about Jason Engwer, I asked him to define the term "Anti-Catholic." He responded with a number of previous posts he had written. In this link I found the following excerpt which is germane to this thread discussion:

    "Christian Research Institute, founded by Protestant anti-cult researcher Dr. Walter Martin; review of Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, in the Christian Research Journal, by Kenneth R. Samples (current President of CRI is Hank Hanegraaff, the "Bible Answer Man"):

    How should evangelicals view Roman Catholicism? This is an extremely controversial question, and often emotionally charged. The spectrum of opinion among conservative Protestants generally ranges from those who see the Catholic church as foundationally Christian (but with many doctrinal deviations), to those who dismiss Catholicism outright as an inherently evil institution. It would seem, however, that those of the latter persuasion ("anti-Catholics") are in the ascendancy. . . .

    An additional criticism is that the book does not always distinguish carefully enough between anti-Catholics and those who are merely critical of Catholic doctrine. If this distinction is not made, then all Protestants become anti-Catholic. By the same reasoning, all Catholics become anti-Protestant. In Keating's defense, however, I do believe he normally makes this distinction."

    This part (which I bolded) stood out for me:

    "The spectrum of opinion among conservative Protestants generally ranges from those who see the Catholic church as foundationally Christian (but with many doctrinal deviations)...".

    So Kenneth Samples notes that some conservative Protestants at whatever time in whatever location and for however long a period saw "the Catholic church as foundationally Christian (but with many doctrinal deviations."

    This might account why I was never taught to view Catholics as non-Christians.

    (I'll cross-post on the Beckwith thread).

    ReplyDelete