tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1990658599185015154..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Who is my brother?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3104055138851212882009-12-14T16:34:42.234-05:002009-12-14T16:34:42.234-05:00In Dave Armstrong's post about Jason Engwer, I...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 <a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/08/legitimacy-of-term-anti-catholic-as.html" rel="nofollow">link</a> I found the following excerpt which is germane to this thread discussion:<br /><br />"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"): <br /><br />How should evangelicals view Roman Catholicism? This is an extremely controversial question, and often emotionally charged. <b>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.</b> It would seem, however, that those of the latter persuasion ("anti-Catholics") are in the ascendancy. . . . <br /><br />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."<br /><br />This part (which I bolded) stood out for me:<br /><br />"The spectrum of opinion among conservative Protestants generally ranges from those who see the Catholic church as foundationally Christian (but with many doctrinal deviations)...".<br /><br />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."<br /><br />This might account why I was never taught to view Catholics as non-Christians.<br /><br />(I'll cross-post on the Beckwith thread).Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55325485789529073902009-12-14T01:22:51.799-05:002009-12-14T01:22:51.799-05:00As far as I know all reformational churches (Luthe...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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />" 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."David Gadboishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18375984671877016361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30340418992737093002009-12-13T12:27:20.410-05:002009-12-13T12:27:20.410-05:00Truth Unites... and Divides,
Why should we keep ...Truth Unites... and Divides,<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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 <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/is-francis-beckwith-saved.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5951812301116397702009-12-13T11:05:31.676-05:002009-12-13T11:05:31.676-05:00LonelyBoy,
He'd be in the same boat. Same wit...LonelyBoy,<br /><br />He'd be in the same boat. Same with Scott Hahn, John Neuhaus, &c.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71221557932477527022009-12-13T10:50:17.942-05:002009-12-13T10:50:17.942-05:00Steve what about Jaruslav Pelikan I read he was a ...Steve what about Jaruslav Pelikan I read he was a Lutheran minister onceLonelyBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02296231795980808737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64191363735439223032009-12-13T08:43:17.068-05:002009-12-13T08:43:17.068-05:00TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:
”Do Steve and J...TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:<br /><br />”Do Steve and Jason consider Dr. Beckwith a brother in Christ, however greatly erring or sinful?”<br /><br />I don’t think a Catholic qua Catholic can give a credible profession of faith.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />“My other two choices are ‘I don't know’ which isn't all that helpful.”<br /><br />Actually, we’re frequently confronted with borderline cases in which “I don’t know” is the most responsible answer. <br /><br />“So I'm left with the charitable decision to consider Dr. Beckwith as my brother in Christ.”<br /><br />Nothing is more uncharitable than giving someone false assurance.<br /><br />“Would Steve and Jason join me in considering Dr. Beckwith as their brother in Christ? Why or why not?”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In addition, he assumes the role of a false teacher as he tries to recruit evangelicals to the church of Rome.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25099195432587488012009-12-13T02:26:40.724-05:002009-12-13T02:26:40.724-05:00Dr. Francis Beckwith, former President of Evangeli...Dr. Francis Beckwith, former President of Evangelical Theological Society, now Catholic convert, wrote this interesting <a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/12/an-interview-with-the-devil-himself/#comment-3644" rel="nofollow">comment</a>:<br /><br />"<b>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.</b> 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. <br /><br /><b>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.</b> 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”:<br /><br /><i>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.<br /><br />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.</i><br /><br />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.”"<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26634559384568505232009-12-12T14:06:29.867-05:002009-12-12T14:06:29.867-05:00Notice that Sean and Stephanie ignores the materia...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.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64555467063510974502009-12-12T08:35:06.016-05:002009-12-12T08:35:06.016-05:001. That's a historically inaccurate statement ...<i>1. That's a historically inaccurate statement as Jason has shown more than once</i><br /><br />Name one Church father that taught imputed righteousness alone apart from works of faith, love and charity.<br /><br />Name one Church father who divorced justification from sanctification. <br /><br />Name just one. <br /><br /><i>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. </i><br /><br />James 2:24<br /> 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/143" rel="nofollow">A god start on exegesis</a>Blogahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390152245638471831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27944465457712292042009-12-12T07:27:29.064-05:002009-12-12T07:27:29.064-05:00Sean and Stephanie,
A collection of some of our a...Sean and Stephanie,<br /><br />A collection of some of our articles on pre-Reformation beliefs can be found <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. On justification in particular, see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/francis-beckwiths-reversion-to-roman.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/diversity-of-roman-catholicism-at-time.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, for example.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24529140276399976412009-12-12T02:29:12.970-05:002009-12-12T02:29:12.970-05:00Ah, so that is how you define 'Christian.'...<i>Ah, so that is how you define 'Christian.'</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>Apparently there were no Christians before Luther </i><br /><br />1. That's a historically inaccurate statement as Jason has shown more than once.<br /><br />2. That would only be true if one defined saving faith as dogmatic faith. Where's the supporting argument?<br /><br /><i>nor is Christianity taught in the bible.</i><br /><br />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.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81433672265609124462009-12-11T22:43:15.477-05:002009-12-11T22:43:15.477-05:00While it's true that Calvinists and Arminians ...<i>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</i><br /><br />Ah, so that is how you define 'Christian.'<br /><br />Apparently there were no Christians before Luther nor is Christianity taught in the bible.Blogahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390152245638471831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55072561942436245732009-12-11T19:34:53.652-05:002009-12-11T19:34:53.652-05:00Truth Unites... and Divides wrote:
"And so I...Truth Unites... and Divides wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"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."</i></b> <br /><br />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?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41356123613484186462009-12-11T16:53:51.053-05:002009-12-11T16:53:51.053-05:00An Arminian, for example, holds to substitutionary...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?RazorsKisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196172455018273851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25880036995768788812009-12-11T16:26:53.655-05:002009-12-11T16:26:53.655-05:00Are you a Calvinist? If so, do you call Armenians/...<i>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?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38549271117996893042009-12-11T16:23:01.434-05:002009-12-11T16:23:01.434-05:00I do, however, remember hearing and learning that ...<i><br />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?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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. <br /><br />I just hope that when God gets our generation into shepherding, that we may be as faithful.RazorsKisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196172455018273851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37318026236275244862009-12-11T15:14:25.772-05:002009-12-11T15:14:25.772-05:00Razorskiss: "The fact that you'd never h...<b>Razorskiss</b>: <i>"The fact that you'd never heard it is telling - for all of us."</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9099646776101818582009-12-11T14:34:44.187-05:002009-12-11T14:34:44.187-05:00How 'bout you show when Arminians said Calvini...How 'bout you show when Arminians said Calvinists are anathema, and then you'll have a peg to hang your analogy on.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87565913394515686402009-12-11T14:23:38.019-05:002009-12-11T14:23:38.019-05:00If Trent explicitly or implicitly defines Protesta...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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?Blogahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390152245638471831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2225282213043514232009-12-11T14:17:47.779-05:002009-12-11T14:17:47.779-05:00Truth Unites... and Divides:
The fact that you...Truth Unites... and Divides:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Does that make sense? Consistent Romanists, and EOs will also say the same about us. The systems are mutually exclusive.RazorsKisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196172455018273851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29126504566643656582009-12-11T13:55:39.361-05:002009-12-11T13:55:39.361-05:00Sean and Stephanie said...
"Of the $20 milli...Sean and Stephanie said...<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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'."<br /><br />And how does that comparison rebut my statement?<br /><br />"Yes."<br /><br />Naturally you'd say that since you're Catholic. However, the argument is symmetrical: <br /><br />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.<br /><br />The opposing positions are correlative and antithetical.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30383415875486908862009-12-11T13:26:25.981-05:002009-12-11T13:26:25.981-05:001.To answer the question directly, when the Westmi...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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."<br /><br /><i>Is the Tridentine theology of the (seven) sacraments, Purgatory, indulgences, justification, the Mass, and/or the cult of the saints compatible with the Gospel?</i><br /><br />Yes.Blogahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390152245638471831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1736683425627540362009-12-11T12:27:14.321-05:002009-12-11T12:27:14.321-05:00"Who is my brother?"
Yes, that does see...<b>"Who is my brother?"</b><br /><br />Yes, that does seem to be a most pertinent question to be asked when looking at the controversy over the Manhattan Declaration.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com