In his introduction to the work, “
Roman but Not Catholic”, co-author Jerry Walls writes, “We have heard from lots of people who have read John Henry Newman’s famous essay on doctrinal development and found his arguments compelling. I thought it might be helpful to hear from persons who have read Newman but found his arguments deeply confused and his conclusions badly overstated.”
Apparently, C.S. Lewis was one of those people.
 |
| C.S. Lewis: “Newman makes my blood run cold ...” |
C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm chpt. 6
HT:
Steven Wedgeworth on Facebook.
The problem with this new book John is that it still is done in the spirit of ecumenism instead of polemics. The proof of this is that in the end the authors write a chapter on how Protestant and Catholics should engage in common mission together. Remember Jerry Walls was taught at notre dame so he can never be to hard on Rome. I also wonder if the book deals with Vatican 2, pope Francis and modernism?
ReplyDeleteI've let them know that I would prefer that they go further in their conclusions, but the substance of the book contains far more updated "polemical@ material than Protestant s have ever seen in one place.
DeleteSo it does include Vatican 2 and pope Francis?
ReplyDeleteI haven't read that far. But I'll certainly mention it when I get there.
DeleteDo you disagree with the authors attempt to find common mission with Catholics?
ReplyDeleteYou and I have chatted a lot. You know that I'm not willing to say that Roman Catholics are not Christians. I have not read the entire book, but I have seen the conclusion, and the honest that I've seen in the chapters that I have read is refreshing-- and best of all, not based on 16th century polemics.
DeleteJohn,
DeleteThat is a good quote you found from C. S. Lewis about John Henry Cardinal Newman!
Do you think the Roman Catholic Church became a false church at the Council of Trent? (that is what I believe)
But I find my self usually agreeing with Roman Catholic political and social / cultural commentators on news and radio shows, in the "culture wars".
Hi Ken, I definitely think the council of Trent was wrong-headed and even heretical, but it didn't turn Roman Catholics into "non-Christians" in a wholesale kind of way. We used to say at NTRMin even that only the "best Catholics", those most dependent on the system, would run into the most trouble. They still "name the name of Christ", and I would not discount that for anything.
DeleteAgreed that there are some Roman Catholics who are Christians.
Deleteall those years of debating with Dave Armstrong and others (me watching the James White's debates, Webster, Svensen vs. Roman Catholics, and here at Triablogue and Beggar's All) (and R. C. Sproul wrote on that, that the ETC forced the issue more also) - they forced the issues into the specifics of if a Roman Catholic knowingly rejects justification by faith alone, then it seems like they are not regenerated, since they are cutting the heart of the gospel out.
Dave Armstrong calls all of us "anti-Catholics" for that position.
DeleteTo be honest my understanding of the conclusion is based on the book summary in amazon.com. Is the conclusion the only problematic part of the book you have read so far?
ReplyDeleteVincent, I've only read less than half the book so far. I did obtain an advanced copy of the text last week, and I've read some of the portions that I had not seen. Of the portions that I read, they were very historically thorough. At one point, Ken Collins drifted the text into the "sovereignty-vs-free-will" type of discussion, and I noted that, and in the conclusion, it turned out that one of the primary reasons for them not to be Roman Catholic is because of Roman Catholicism's failure to admit other Christians to communion. Frankly, that is one area where I thought they should have gone farther, and in my notes to them, I did point out the the difficulties with transubstantiation and the notion of "the sacrifice of the mass". I did not see the final draft of how they treated those things, but I imagine that if I see problems in this new reading (with fresh eyes), I'll certainly point them out.
DeleteAs it is, I know the section on Transubstantiation goes a long way toward explaining the historical development of that notion, and also the current difficulties they experience with it (compared with the historical understanding of the early church). Maybe when I see the final text, I will renew my concern that they should have gone further, but the information that they provided was certainly a great clarification from what we normally see, and it's a movement in the right direction.
In an earlier draft of the conclusion that I read, the reason for the title was based on three considerations: "exclusivity, separation and grounding authority". I do not fault them for wanting to be "ecumenical", as there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. They are looking at it from the right perspective.
DeleteForget this book and pick up Michael Hoffman's The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome instead. It's new, well-researched and written by a jaded Roman Catholic who concludes that the papacy is an abomination and that the theological rot we see today truly set in during the Enlightenment period when the Church was subverted by occultists.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it's very inventive. Does he have pictures of the "alien forces" that emerged in the 20th century, so that we can identify them when we see them in real life?
DeleteIs their ecumenical goal for Rome and the Protestant churches to be united again? How can you do ecumenism rightly when the whole ecumenical movement from its inception was built on compromise?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you're placing too much of a linkage on the adjective "ecumenical" with past iterations of "the ecumenical movement". I don't know what their overall goal is. I'm sure it's to make the situation within Christianity more "united" -- and in any event, the purpose that they explicitly adopt is to "unswervingly pursue" and examine, from an unabashedly Protestant perspective, what they say are "Roman Catholicism (and its many claims". That in itself is positive, and I support it wholeheartedly. Too many Christians who want to dialogue with Rome are still repeating 16th century claims, without having examined what has come more recently. This will give Protestants of all backgrounds a very good overview of what they are dealing with when they are dealing with Rome today.
Delete