The Papists, the Turks, and the Jews...

Thanks for all your labors, brothers.

I hadn't yet considered the Geneva-Rome-Constantinople ecumenism a symptom of postmodern-style tolerance. That may be the case, though I think I've felt that aching for unity that said ecumenists claim to feel.

Of course, the heart is awfully deceitful.

Interesting times, no? I've read that Benedict XVI is expected to rehabilitate Luther after the conference in September. I have also read, from different sources, that there are directives to remove the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

Belated humility on Rome's part?

Kamilla

>we ought to recognize their baptisms

To do so is not to welcome to membership and Table fellowship those who have not renounced Roman ceremonies, rituals, and idolatries.

Note the moral equivalence in that document. Cathodox have their errors that need to be reproved but Reformed people also have their errors that need to be reproved.

Given this document would it be wrong to proselytize the Cathodox? If this an embrace of officially Cathodoxy as part of Christ's true body?

Is the PCA going to ignore this?

I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't be difficult to connect the dots between the kind of effete inclusivism put on display by Trinity Reformed with the growing feminization of the PCA.

So, paying attention to it could give them twice as much bang for their buck.

>PCA Friend

If you are going to criticize Pastor Leithart shouldn't you be a man about it and use your name?

>So now one can be an RC or EO in good standing and be *warmly* welcomed into CRE membership.

Unlike much of the howling about the CREC that is actually rather damning, at least as written.

Fred,

Didn't RC Sproul (Sr.) plant a church that was independent and didn't go into the PCA? (I'm way out of date on this, so something may have changed in the last few years.)

Don't criticize Leithart for this unless you also ready to criticize RC Sproul, and judge them equally on this matter.

Reverend Bayly,

>we ought to recognize their baptisms

To do so is not to welcome to membership and Table fellowship those who have not renounced Roman ceremonies, rituals, and idolatries.

I'm trying to sort this out biblically, doesn't a valid Christian baptism require at least:

1) A "Trinitarian" pronouncement

2) A biblical doctrine of the Trinity (by the Church baptising)

3) A biblical doctrine of the Gospel

If so, wouldn't this ordinarily rule out Greek Orthodox baptisms on point 2) and 3) and Roman baptisms on point 3)?

Respectfully,

Mark Chambers, Luther also said that he

"would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts."

I think most of our conservative Presbyterian churches would be grouped with the Enthusiasts.

How he spoke of Rome depended upon his audience.

I think this statement is good as far as it goes. It may not go far enough, but I appreciate what it does say.

al sends

A few things stood out to me on reading this statement:

1. Follow the adverbs; they're often unnecessary. I found myself wondering throughout why certain ones were included in such a careful, economical statement. Like you, Tim, "cheerfully" immediately stuck out to me. Really, the sentence is clear without this, so what prompted its inclusion? Further on, we read that those who see Trinity on a trajectory to Rome "have dramatically misread our aims and purposes." Dramatically?? So...why so dramatic a word?

2. "...we are grateful for and committed to those summaries of the faith found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Three Forms of Unity, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion."

There's a great deal of gratitude and commitment going on here and in surrounding sentences, but I have to wonder why certain words are absent: i.e., "adhere to," "accept as authoritative," "holds to," etc. Well, I guess gratefulness is always good, right?

3. "...we reject views which place the ultimate, infallible authority of the Scriptures in competition with other sources of authority since Christ is Lord over all..."

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the phrasing of this? I may be wrong, but it smells fishy to me. Why not just say, "The Scriptures are the ultimate, final authority; all others are subordinate thereto."

Fred, by my estimate, about ten percent of our congregation is former Catholic. I can think of two recent attendees coming to us from Rome. If they were to join our church, they have to take a vow in which they submit to our government and discipline. They are coming under our instruction and teaching, and they commit themselves to pursue that peaceably. And we then teach them the Reformed faith. It mystifies me how an effective work that draws people from Rome can be taken as a movement to Rome.

>It is that for many of us, it seems so very strange that they would be joined to a Protestant church as members while they still held doctrines contrary to even a general understanding of Protestant Christianity.

The PCA contains large numbers of overt reformed baptists (having been one myself at one time). Same principle although the differentiation is less. The understanding was we would not be allowed to teach in areas where we differed with the PCA doctrinally and if we agitated we would be disciplined. I'm still not entirely sure that is a good idea although I did wind up Reformed instead of Baptist when the dust settled.

Pastor Wilson,

As a former altar boy who has a relative who is a priest, I know *exactly* how important it is to have former RCs as members of an evangelical church, and I know personally what is involved in such.

But, respectfully, one would think that if Trinity meant what you described (and which I commend you for) they could do a better job of writing in English (considering there is at least one PhD among the Session):

"On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation"

The reception to the Supper is described as on the basis of RC and EO *beliefs* not on Reformed/Protestant/Evangelical ones. The baptism accepted is RC or EO, not a Reformed/Protestant/Evangelical one. So why would I have to read into the last sentence:

warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation [provided that they renounce their pernicious and heretical doctrines of the Mass, theosis, justification by infusion, etc.

Not to mention that such a mental emendation would run contrary to the entire thrust of the Trinity Statement. I would encourage you to encourage Rev. Leithart and the Trinity session to repent and revoke their statement.

How any Protestant church could warmly welcome someone into membership if there were real, substantive and critical differences is beyond me.

All I can say is that unless you consider monergism and paedo-baptism as non-substantive, it's not at all uncommon.

I was a member of a PCA church for several years, and my beliefs were firmly Anabaptist then as now; it wasn't my perception that this was in the least unusual. (And it was a very firmly doctrinal church; and my disagreements were entirely clear to the elders from the beginning.)

You make Tim's point when you implicitly make equivalent the differences a PCA church would have with Reformed baptists (whose 1689 confession is about 90-95% the WCF) and RC (who have massive systemetic differences with the WCF on critical issues like justification) and the EO (who have even more differences, like the Trinity and inspiration).

That 5-10% difference between Reformed Baptists and the Westminster Confession of Faith, while not constituting as severe a systemic difference as that which exists between RC and WCF, the differences remain so substantive that Reformed Pastors should preach series teasing out the systemic differences between Credo and Paedo faith systems. Reformed Baptist is only inconsistently Reformed.

Still, it is a far better error than Cathodoxy which Reformed Trinity seems to be winking at.

“I'm still not entirely sure that is a good idea although I did wind up Reformed instead of Baptist when the dust settled.”

David,

While it may not have been intentional on your part, I have noticed that some Presbyterians like to point out that they are “Reformed” and that they have never been or that they are no longer “Baptist”.

To use the word “Reformed” to differentiate yourself from a “Baptist” who also believes the doctrines of grace does not say anything more than if you used the word “Christian” to differentiate yourself from a “Presbyterian”.

Ex: “I'm still not entirely sure that is a good idea although I did wind up Christian instead of Presbyterian when the dust settled.”

To argue that Bunyan, Spurgeon, and Lloyd Jones were not “Reformed” because they did not practice infant baptism seems as ridiculous to me as arguing that Wesley was “Reformed” because he did. (For some reason the spell check in my computer refuses to initially accept a capitalized typing of the word “Reformed”☺)

Sam/Bret,

I think my "substantive" comment was unclear. I am not trying to say that there are not real differences between Baptists and Presbyterians. I focus on them everytime I teach on ecclesiology and the sacraments.

So perhaps let me put it more starkly (if less gently):

Reformed Baptists differ from the PCA, et. al in substantive ways, but the RB who confesses the 1689 in sincerity would have a true saving faith in Jesus Christ.

RCs and EOs have more substantive differences with the PCA et al than RBs, and the RC/EO who confesses his church's doctrine in sincerity would not have a true saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Of course, there are exceptions (RBs can profess in vain, and there are true believers in the RC or EO communions), but in the case of RBs, the exception would be a false profession (that would in fact *contradict* the church's confession) while in the RC/EO case unbelief would be the rule (and be *consistent* with the church's confession).

Craig,

So if the Roman Catholic comes to me, I should redirect him to the Catholic Church so as not to break Canon Law?

At what point do I warmly welcome him? At what point did Christ?

Dear Brothers,

My name is Toby Sumpter. I have recently been called to Trinity Reformed Church, and I am now co-pastoring with Peter Leithart. As one of the signatories on the document and the owner of the blog where it is currently hosted, let me offer a couple of clarifications.

First, as Pastor Wilson has already pointed out, the statement really is meant to be a strong warning against leaving Protestant Reformed orthodoxy for Rome or Constantinople. While our emphasis on the unity of the body of Christ and our understanding of reformed catholicity may be overdone for some of your tastes, please note that our document goes on to insist that we are robustly committed to the traditional reformed confessions of faith. We named the Westminster Confession of Faith, the 3 Forms of Unity, and the 39 Articles which make up our church's Book of Confessions. Not only do we subscribe to those documents, but we are convinced that they represent significant doctrinal progress and development in the universal Christian Church. And we tried to express this through several helpings of adjectives and adverbs, as one comment pointed out. This was just us saying: “Yay for the Reformation! Three cheers for Luther and Calvin and Bucer!” And note that this paragraph ends stating that we believe that we have much to offer the rest of Christendom.

Please also note that the third section of the document is a number of fairly strongly worded criticisms and warnings regarding RC/EO practices. Again, the statement is meant to be a standing warning against going to Rome or Constantinople.

Second, while a number of comments have expressed concerns related to our willingness to receive RCs and EOs into membership at Trinity, please note (as another comment pointed out) that this already presupposes a fairly significant departure from Roman or the Eastern Orthodox theology. People coming to our church are already leaving those commitments behind to some degree, simply by worshipping with us. In other words, no one could become a member of Trinity and remain a thoroughgoing RC/EO, at least as their current dogmas stand.

Last, this document is a pastoral statement that addresses particular situations and people related to our church's make-up. This Statement was meant to address specific individuals in our congregation and their friends, and in addition to our more personal pastoral interaction with them, we wanted to offer this more broadly as a strong warning against converting to RC or EO. Surely other churches will need to evaluate their congregations and given various factors offer their counsel and warnings to fit their circumstances. It is also true that many other things could have been said. But alas, there is only so much time and space. The elders of Trinity believed that this Statement offered a timely and pastoral response to our specific needs and situation.

I might also invite anyone interested to look around at the posts surrounding this statement at the blog where it is currently posted. I am busy trying to defend the glories of the reformation, the theology of the reformers, and all the rest. I quick perusal would hopefully make it plain that we're not playing footsy with the Pope.

Thank you for your consideration, and may God bless your labors for the Kingdom.

Fred Greco said:

"You make Tim's point when you implicitly make equivalent the differences a PCA church would have with Reformed baptists (whose 1689 confession is about 90-95% the WCF) and RC..."

David Gray said:

I'm clearly stating that the differences between a reformed Baptist and a Reformed Christian are less than the differences between an RC and a reformed Christian. That is precisely NOT making them "equivalent".

David, though it may have been unintentional, (Fred did say “implicit”) that is exactly what you have done. There is no formal difference between the two disagreements as you state them, the difference being merely quantitative. IOW the difference you posit is one of degree not category. The implication, as you stated the case, is one of categorical equivalence. So no you were not misrepresented.

Following up on Mr. Sumpter's comment, I'm just curious why there's apparently such a strong temptation among the members of his congregation--one "robustly committed" to Protestantism, mind you--to convert to either the Roman Cathlic or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And yes, the letters "FV" are in my mind as I type.

Mark,

I wasn't clear in my post. I meant, intellectually committed Catholic. Sorry.

But while I have you. What do you believe to be the requirement for coming to the Lord's Table?

Ron

Ron, first things first OK?

I wasn't clear in my post. I meant, intellectually committed Catholic.

Ah. So then a Roman Catholic is qualified for the table as long as they are not intellectually committed to Roman Catholicism? Or do you think it might be wise to examine the individual to find out exactly what it is they do believe?

In answer to your question see the first paragraph of Tim's post immediately above and the WLC questions 169-173.

Let's not be selective with our quoting:

"What we (the Reformed) have in common with Rome is some theological terminology. The de fide statements of the Roman church are not orthodox. Indeed, looking at the papal encyclical cited above they are often blasphemous. We do not have a common faith."

but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all

Neither is Rome, Machen not withstanding.

you [the PCA] haven't begun to deal with the liberalism (just on women's issues) there.

Indeed. Which has what to do with Rome exactly?