Here we fall. We can do no other. God help us.
Those following the doctrinal battle of the past couple of years within the PCA's Northwest Presbytery were surprised to see a pastor of that presbytery, Jason Stellman, announcing a couple days ago that he's renounced his ordination vows. He says he has embraced two of Rome's dogmas: that the Word of God is subordinate to the Church's tradition, and that infusion is right and imputation wrong. In other words he has publicly repudiated sola Scriptura and sola fide.
It's important to note that Mr. Stellman has been at the center of his presbytery's doctrinal battle as prosecutor of his fellow presbyter, Dr. Peter Leithart, for heresy. Mr. Stellman's work was completed when the court acquitted the accused. Now the accuser himself has embraced some of the very errors he was opposing in his prosecutorial work.
The two things cannot be unrelated, and while the precise nature of that relationship is known only by God, it would be foolish not to look for warnings we may take from this train wreck. Since Rome's heresies lead to apostasy, wise men will examine the paths of those who have fallen for indications of what we must avoid if we are to persevere to the end.
That said, nine days before Mr. Stellman embraced Roman Catholic doctrine, the acquitted posted a short piece saying he is too catholic to embrace Roman Catholicism. In that piece Dr. Leithart summarized his opposition to Rome... as follows:
I agree with the standard Protestant objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy: Certain Catholic teachings and practices obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ; prayers through Mary and the saints are not encouraged or permitted by Scripture, and they distract from the one Mediator, Jesus; I do not accept the Papal claims of Vatican I; I believe iconodules violate the second commandment by engaging in liturgical idolatry; venerating the Host is also liturgical idolatry; in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, tradition muzzles the word of God. I'm encouraged by many of the developments in Catholicism before and since Vatican II, but Vatican II created issues of its own (cf. the treatment of Islam in Lumen Gentium). I agree with those objections, but those are not the primary driving reasons that keep me Protestant.
When I read this some days ago, I wanted to point out to Dr. Leithart how flaccid his objections to Rome are compared to any prior Reformed father of the faith in the centuries since the Reformation. Rather, I would expect this sort of wording from men like Tom Howard, John Henry Newman, and Richard John Neuhaus during their "almost thou persuadest me" stage just before converting to Rome. This is the sort of language and nuance Benedict XVI employs speaking of Jews--that "certain of their teachings and practices obscure" the true path of salvation.
But can anyone imagine coming across such mealymouthed words in Luther's exchange with Erasmus or Calvin's response to Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto's letter to Calvin's Genevan congregation, enticing them to return to Rome? For the purpose of comparison, here are a couple excerpts from Calvin's response:
That I might perceive these things, Thou, O Lord, didst shine upon me with the brightness of thy Spirit; that I might comprehend how impious and noxious they were, Thou didst bear before me the torch of thy Word; that I might abominate them as they deserved, Thou didst stimulate my soul.
* * *
But if I desired to be at peace with those who boasted of being the heads of the Church and pillars of faith, I believed to purchase it with the denial of Thy truth. I thought that anything was to be endured sooner than stoop to such nefarious compact. For Thy Anointed Himself hath declared, that though heaven and earth should be confounded, yet Thy Word must endure forever (Matt. 24:35). ...And the apostles declared that there would be no enemies of Thy Church more pestilential than those from within who should conceal themselves under the title of pastors (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:18).
Why should I have hesitated to separate myself from persons whom (the Apostles) forewarned me to hold as enemies?
* * *
But the most serious charge of all is, that we have attempted to dismember the Spouse of Christ. Were that true, both you and the whole world might well regard us as desperate. But I will not admit the charge, unless you can make out that the Spouse of Christ is dismembered by those who desire to present her as a a chaste virgin to Christ--who are animated by a degree of holy zeal to preserve her spotless for Christ--who, seeing her polluted by base seducers, recall her to conjugal fidelity--who unhesitatingly wage war against all the adulterers whom they detect laying snares for her chastity.
And what but this have we done? Had not your faction of a Church attempted, nay, violated her chastity, by strange doctrines? Had she not been violently prostituted by your numberless superstitions? Had she not been defiled by that vilest species of adultery, the worship of images? And because, forsooth, we did not suffer you so to insult the sacred chamber of Christ, we are said to have lacerated His Spouse. But I tell you that that laceration, of which you falsely accuse us, is witnessed not obscurely among yourselves--a laceration not only of the Church, but of Christ himself, who is there beheld miserably mangled.
Really, what kind of man can subscribe to the Westminster Standards while speaking of Rome's doctrine of salvation merely "obscuring" the imputation of our Lord's righteousness as our only hope in life and in death?
And then there's the matter of these things being only secondary or tertiary obstacles to Pastor Leithart's consideration of Rome. Notice he ends that list with the statement, "I agree with those objections, but those are not the primary driving reasons that keep me Protestant."
So what are his "primary driving reasons?"
If I told you the Sacraments are the brick wall keeping him from Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome, you may be tempted to breathe a sigh of relief, assuming Dr. Leithart's greatest objection to union with Rome is the ex opere operato at the heart of Rome's sacramentalism. Sadly, this isn't so.
Instead, Dr. Leithart speaks to men like Jason Stellman as follows:
What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople? Are you willing to start going to a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome? ...For myself, I would have to agree that my ordination is invalid, and that I have never presided over an actual Eucharist. To become Catholic, I would have to begin regarding my Protestant brothers as ambiguously situated "separated brothers," rather than full brothers in the divine Brother, Jesus. To become Orthodox, I would likely have to go through the whole process of initiation again, as if I were never baptized. And what is that saying about all my Protestant brothers who have been "inadequately" baptized? Why should I distance myself from other Christians like that? I'm too catholic to do that.
Dr. Leithart's brick wall isn't Rome's doctrine of infusion or her repudiation of sola Scriptura or sola fide. It isn't Benedict XVI's promotion of a parallel path of salvation for Jews that bypasses the New Covenant in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It isn't even the unbiblical requirement of priestly celibacy that has resulted across the centuries with great regularity in predator shepherds who destroy the souls of Christ's little ones.
Rather it's the exclusivity of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy's sacramentology.
Think of it. Here we are in the middle of a massive rapprochement between the best and the brightest of Geneva and Rome and we find Geneva balking at Rome's refusal to admit Geneva's best and brightest (and their congregants) to the Table of our Lord! I mean, isn't this perfect postmodernism?
Does anyone remember Allen Bloom warning us that, in America today, the only law left on the books is we must all get along with each other? Applied to the interface between Rome and Geneva, the perfect expression of this cloying togetherness is Dr. Leithart's claim that he's too committed to a getting-along-with-other-Christians-ecumenical-sacramentology to embrace fellow believers who are committed to a not-getting-along-with-other-Christians-non-ecumenical-sacramentology.
Yes, yes; of course our Lord told us they would know we are Christians by our love. Yes, yes; of course our Lord prayed that we would be one as His Father and He are One. But to trot those statements of our Lord out as it they are trump cards is to beg one humungous question: precisely what doctrine constitutes true Christian faith; or, more to the point, who is a Christian and who is not a Christian? Have we really arrived at the point where to ask this question is sin? Or is it just that it's impolite?
Let me say this: when the Biblical doctrine of of justification has become a side issue and the center of the division between Rome and Geneva is said to lie in the exclusivity of Rome's Sacraments, it's time for us all to gather with our picnic lunches and entertain ourselves watching droves of men like Jason Stellman swim across the Tiber.
When I've had friends who were in the throes of converting to the Roman apostasy, I've always told them that they must study the Biblical doctrine of justification--"forget everything else and focus your study there." One fellow Gordon-Conwell grad didn't bother to study justification and simply converted. Two years later he told me he'd just converted back. I asked why and he responded, "Tim, you wouldn't believe the legalism of the Catholic church! It's mind-numbing!"
No kidding.
It's hard to fathom anyone warning such souls by whining about the exclusivism of Rome's sacramentology.
There can be no Christian unity or peace between those who affirm the Biblical doctrine of justification and those who deny it, so why complain that Rome sees this and serves her sacraments accordingly? If Rome or Constantinople have the integrity to confess their faith through their sacraments, why don't we?
A few years ago, a young man came to my PCA presbytery asking to be received by us. In the course of the examination, it came out that he didn't believe in fencing the Lord's Table as required by our Book of Church Order. And in the process of looking more closely at his error in this regard, I asked him if he would serve the Lord's Supper to a Roman Catholic and he responded, "Sure, why not?" The presbytery collectively sucked in its breath and we asked our Candidates and Credentials Committee to go back into committee and work on this issue with the young man. A number of us were floored by the flippancy with which he'd answered. It was as if it had never occurred to him souls hung in the balance when Luther and Calvin and Knox put their lives on the line in battling Rome. I'm certain he didn't even know that the Geneva consistory disciplined souls for imbibing Rome's sacraments.
The man assuring us the exclusivity of Rome's sacramentology is the real road block between us and Rome is Dr. Peter Leithart of Pacific Northern Presbytery. The young man seeing no obstacle to Table fellowship between Rome and the PCA was a member of Pacific Northwest Presbytery. Until repudiating sola Scriptura and sola fide, Jason Stellman was a member of Pacific Northwest Presbytery. Does Pacific Northern Presbytery have a father in the faith who can work within the presbytery toward a recovery of Reformation doctrine and practice?
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- June 2013 (15)
- May 2013 (28)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- can i get my ex back after a year 2 on Athanasius College: an alternative to old schools' hyperinflated tuition...
- Abram Hess on Theological critique of Escondido Two Kingdoms theology (VIII): Machen was a culture warrior...
- Bert Perry on Homeschooling, church discipline, and the education of our children...
- Carol Noren Johnson on Homeschooling, church discipline, and the education of our children...
- Roger Keane on Homeschooling, church discipline, and the education of our children...
Comments
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Pastor Bayly. I was raised a Roman Catholic and most of my extended family are still under the "spell" of that evil church. I have seen of late more and more blurring of "Gospel Boundaries" as attempts are made to have rapprochement with Rome. It is a grievous evil! Would that all Reformed men could see that the Gospel is denied by Roman Catholicism as clearly as you do.
Blessings,
Nancy
I recall when Stellman got the boot from my former non-denom-denomination, Calvary Chapel. A friend warned me I would follow in his footsteps when I became Reformed. He said that the PCA was merely a bus stop between Baptist and Roman. I disagreed but the warning always stuck in the back of my mind. He wasn't too far off. Its all about spiritual-upward mobility, baby!
Asking Leithart to be Luther or Calvin is asking him to time-travel. There are plenty of hard responses to Stellman, from yours on the left edge of hard to frothing-at-the-mouth Sean Gerety on the right. I don't know if Leithart wrote what he did having had inside information on Stellman or not, but either way, it seems clear that he wanted to speak in a way that would be heard and considered by those standing by the bank of the Tiber with their swim trunks on. He could have made a "Here I stand" Jan Hus objection, and then that would have been the end of it. I think PL's blog on why he couldn't be RC is the most original and hereunto unspoken objection.
You quote him yourself where he (PL) says that he disagrees with everything you disagree with about Rome. (1st quoted paragraph.) Later, you write,
The man assuring us the exclusivity of Rome's sacramentology is the real road block between us and Rome is Dr. Peter Leithart
But of course, he didn't say exclusive. He said primary. Is that our real debate here? Which objection is primary or secondary? Did he mean primary in importance or in effect? This simply devolves into a debate over "emphasis," which is hardly worth debating. Emphasis is two people who love donuts arguing over which of these two tasty donuts is better when it's eaten first, jelly filled or glazed.
So, by my count, the PNWP has (1) man with whom you have a disagreement over "emphasis," who sees a great distance between RC and Protestant communion. We just shed (1) man who was out of accord with the Scriptures.
Did you receive the man from the PNWP or not? If you did, it would seem that by your tally, you have bigger problems than we do. Whatever Jason Stellman believed he picked up from Westminster Escondido, not the PNWP.
I agree with men like Hodge and Dabney that Rome has the Gospel but that is severely obscured by a mass of heresies. That leaves me with more hope for a cradle Catholic than a man who consciously chooses to reject a more clear understanding of justification (and the sacraments for that matter) for, at best, a more obscured understanding. It almost certainly means that after a fashion it was the error that was attractive, that he is attracted by what Rome gets wrong rather than what Rome gets right. And that is a truly gruesome place to be.
About the only convert to Roman Catholicism one would say has improved his position is someone leaving liberal Protestantism. As Machen observed he had vastly more in common with an orthodox Roman Catholic priest than he had with a liberal Protestant who was practicing another religion altogether.
Dear J, I was using 'exclusivity' to refer to Rome's sacramentology, not Dr. Leithart's catalog of Roman errors. I meant that Dr. Leithart objects to the exclusivity of Rome's sacramentology in that their sacramentology excludes him and others. Love,
The fact that there are many believers within the Roman Catholic church and that it's possible to find the Gospel, there, is a far cry from saying Roman Catholic dogma contains the Gospel. ECT was a study in ambiguity, not a discovery of intrinsic or even incipient Gospel truths within Rome.
Love,
I agree that Leithart's article is disheartening. He begins his own article stating he is not encouraging others to go to Rome, but as a Pastor-Shepherd his silence on justification is certainly leaving a large gap in the fence for his sheep to run through. I find his overwhelming desire to reunite the church (as if the true church has ever really been divided) has perhaps become an idolatrous desire that has blinded him to the fact that watering down biblical standards will not bring unity. To say the reason he can't become Catholic because he is too catholic is really an impressive way of saying the less impressive statement, "Catholics have too many standards."
Would it be great if the Roman Catholic church repented of their statements made at the Council of Trent? Absolutely. But then again, Matthew Henry comments that the Roman church is the beast of Revelation 17. How very different M. Henry's statements are compared to Leithart's. Was Henry attempting to divide the church further by his observations? I would argue that he was protecting the true church from a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Well said, Tim. Those who cannot see that Rome's gospel and the Protestant gospel are two different, contradictory and irreconcilable versions of the gospel ought not be allowed to teach Sunday School, much less be considered for church officership.
Men and women were burned alive in order to pass on to us that which we so little value in our day. We dishonor their memory and their sacrifice who will not stand fast in a day when the cost of doing so is that a few men somewhere will not like us very much.
Brother, mea culpa on the exclusivity. The larger point still stands. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
JK sends warmly.
Some might benefit from reading Dabney's "The Attractions Of Popery."
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/popery.htm
Charles Hodge's "Is The Church Of Rome A Part Of The Visible Church" is a good supplement.
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/chrome.htm
and of course Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism" has a lot to say that is worth hearing, especially in the PCA.
I'd be pleased to have any of them teach Sunday School.
And agreeing with them hardly is in conflict with honoring the martyrs. They still hold Martyr's Memorial services in the UK for those burned by Bloody Mary, although regrettably they are lightly attended. There is a lot to like in men like Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, Wishart and many others. I regret I cannot right now remember the names of the two men burned in front of Ely Cathedral, four miles from my door when I lived in Cambridgeshire.
Here we are:
William Wolsey of Upwell & Robert Pygot of WisbechDied 1555A woodcut of the execution
of the Wisbech MartyrsQueen Mary ISimon Kershaw tells the story of two martyrs from this region who were put to death for their defence of Protestantism during the bloody reign of Queen Mary I, a staunch catholic. William Wolsey and Robert Pygot were among nearly 300 people burnt at the stake for heresy during her short time on the throne.
The Church of England had been reformed during the reign of Edward VI along more protestant lines, but after his death at the age of 16 he was succeeded by his half-sister Mary. Her major goal was the re-establishment of Catholicism in England, a goal to which she was totally committed. Thus began one of the most painful chapters in English history.
Her first act was to repeal the Protestant legislation of her brother, hurling England into a phase of severe religious persecution. She restored the Roman Catholic faith and many who refused to reject the reformation were put to death.
One of these was William Wolsey, a Constable at Upwell, near Wisbech. He was deprived of his office when one of the Justices noticed that, although Wolsey was a regular worshipper at the parish church, he used to absent himself at the Mass.
Wolsey had obtained a smuggled New Testament in English and by reading it had become convinced that the Roman doctrine of the Mass was erroneous. In Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, the author, John Foxe, records that Wolsey was told that as a layman he should not meddle in the scriptures. John Fuller, the Chancellor of the Bishop of Ely, lent him a book by Thomas Watson, Bishop of Lincoln. Wolsey took the book and read it, marking his disagreements in the text. Fuller asked him to ‘rule his tongue’ and he would see that he was let off. However, Wolsey declared that he must speak and be witness to the truth.
Robert Pygot was a painter from Wisbech who was summonsed for not attending church. He and Wolsey were sent to prison at Ely to face the commissioners who could try them for heresy.
On 9 October 1555 both Wolsey and Pygot appeared before a Commission comprising Dr Fuller, and the Dean of Norwich, John Christopherson. When questioned about the sacrament of the altar (the Mass), the two Wisbech Martyrs, Wolsey and Pygot, made the following answer: “The sacrament of the altar is an idol and the natural body and blood of Christ are not present in the said sacrament.” They refused to recant their denial of the sacrament, believing this was not heresy, but the truth, and were condemned to death.
A week later, on 16 October, they were executed by burning on the Cathedral Green at Ely, the same day that Bishops Latimer and Ridley were martyred at Oxford. The sentence of condemnation was read and a sermon preached, and then they were led out to the stake. With them were burnt copies of the Bible in English, and Wolsey and Pygot seized copies of these, reciting Psalm 116, and imploring all present to say, ‘Amen’. And so, records Foxe, they ‘received the fire most thankfully.’
You asked if there is a father in PNW Presbytery who could help. Maybe Pastor Doug Wilson could help them. He offers his assistance to Stellman on his blog: http://www.dougwils.com/Auburn-Avenue-Stuff/a-decent-sandwich-in-new-yor...
Although I'm not sure if he agrees or disagrees with Stellman on the issue of Sola Fide:
<blockquote>
With regard to sola fide, he is quite right to see the very narrow position he was nurtured in as contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to sinners, and the instrument of a God-given faith is what receives that gracious gift. But the gift received is that of living faith, breathing faith, loving faith, the only kind of faith the living God bestows. It is sola fide, not nuda fide. Stellman was wrong to identify his previous narrow view of sola fide as the doctrine of sola fide itself.</blockquote>
Brothers Bayly, are you perhaps missing the humour in Leithart's remark about being too catholic to be Roman? A central plank of the Protestant polemic is that we are the true catholics, and the Romans are not catholic at all, because of their many departures from the catholic faith. In the Creed we say, I believe in the catholic church, speaking of ourselves, not others.
>>A central plank of the Protestant polemic is that we are the true catholics
That they are the true Church and Protestants schismatics was the accusation Rome brought against the Reformers and it remains their accusation down to this day. "Unity, unity, unity" they cry, but they have none. Even the Pope can't bring himself to submit to his own magisterium when it comes to his two covenant approach to Jewish non-evangelism.
In his reply to Cardinal Sadoleto's seduction of the souls of Geneva, Calvin speaks of the marks of the true church. They are the right preaching of the Word of God, the right administration of the Sacraments, and the right exercise of church discipline. That Dr. Leithart makes no mention of them is telling. That he focuses on the Sacraments is also telling. That his concern with Rome's administration of the Sacraments is that they're too strict is beyond telling.
The Table of our Lord is a table of unity--not division. So what sort of unity does Dr. Leithart seek?
Calvin above speaks of the Roman Catholic church having "violated (the Bride's) chastity, by strange doctrines (causing her to be) violently prostituted by (their) numberless superstitions..." He says Rome has "lacerated His Spouse (and that it is) a laceration not only of the Church, but of Christ himself, who is there (in Rome) beheld miserably mangled."
Dr. Leithart doesn't agree because what matters--what really really matters--to him is sacramental union.
I love laughter and good jokes and irony, but this stuff isn't even ironic. Too plain for irony and too many souls at stake for laughter.
Love,
The problem, it seems to me, is that the Catholic Church is like China. It is so large that whatever you say about it will be true at least some of the time, if not all of the time. The result, at the edges, is a doctrinal chopsuey that would have confused Reformer and Roman Catholic alike.
I was once in a situation where leading at the Lord's Table, I was serving communion to someone who I knew to be a Catholic. Why they would part company with a very important part of their own tradition in doing so, is still beyond me.
Since I have commented favorably and publicly on Peter's "too Catholic" post, let me add a bit of context here. Just a few things . . .
1. The point of Peter's post was to stop certain folks from saying that they were following out his teaching by departing from the Reformed faith. He was using an argument that was tailored to that set, and having dealt with them also, I believe it is a strong argument -- one that they would have trouble answering. You can't say everything to everybody every time.
2. As far as sola fide itself is concerned, Peter had just a few months earlier been exonerated by a solid presbytery, which investigated his views on these very things, and found that he was in conformity with the confession. We should have no reason for doubting that, particularly since the man who was prosecuting him in that trial turns out to have been harboring doubts about sola fide while in the midst of that prosecution. I mean, jumpin' Jehoshaphat . . .
3. And even if you believe Peter made a tactical polemical error in not having sola fide as the centerpiece of his argument, that is different than saying he doesn't hold to it, or hold to it firmly. It was his accuser who wasn't holding to it. Peter is a theologian, and a pretty irenic guy. If I were nominating a saloon brawler to bust a chair over a papist's head, it wouldn't be Peter. And I say this believing that the body needs more saloon brawlers, and I believe we need to be more combative with the RCs and EOs than we have been, and so on. But as Paul might say, every man has his gift, some this, and some that . . .
4. Put this in a story. Put it in a screenplay. Have the prosecutor in a presbytery trial, accusing a fellow minister of crypto-Catholicism, fail in that trial, and then crown the whole affair by poping himself. It would be sent back to the writers as too contrived. Everybody needs to just stare at this thing for a bit. There is something really weird going on here.
By the way, this is my first time commenting in your new digs -- congrats!
Thanks for the reminder that Rome teaches a gospel other than the one we have received. Very helpful to read the remarks of Calvin, especially since I'm tempted to pretend that although Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity, it's close enough that it doesn't really matter.
Love,
Thanks, Doug. Appreciate your points and the context. Still, we're left with the sacraments--always the sacraments. Have you noticed that? But it's a rhetorical question since I know you have. Love,
>>I'm tempted to pretend that (Rome is) close enough that it doesn't really matter.
My temptation too, dear brother. Love,
>Peter is a theologian, and a pretty irenic guy. If I were nominating a saloon brawler to bust a chair over a papist's head, it wouldn't be Peter. And I say this believing that the body needs more saloon brawlers, and I believe we need to be more combative with the RCs and EOs than we have been, and so on. But as Paul might say, every man has his gift, some this, and some that . . .
Dear Pastor Wilson,
As a pastor and theologian, Leithart has been recognized as having precisely the gifts necessary to combat the heretical doctrines of Rome and other errors that put souls jeopardy. In this case, he:
a. used those gifts properly,
b. failed to use those gifts at all, or
c. improperly used those gifts in such a way as to make matters worse
I think the answer is "c." Instead of sounding a clear note to warn souls of the lupine doctrine, he used the horn to play a pretty melody about unrequited love. I'm not sure what the wolf thinks of the tune but it's likely confusing and misleading the sheep.
He has the sword of the Spirit, the rod, the staff, and the horn. Thank God his personality and propensities--and ours--just don't matter.
With love,
Brian
Rachel, if you're "not sure if he [Doug Wilson] agrees or disagrees with Stellman on the issue of Sola Fide," what makes you think DW is a “father in the faith who can work within the presbytery toward a recovery of Reformation doctrine and practice”?
I wanted to point out to Dr. Leithart how flaccid his objections to Rome are compared to any prior Reformed father of the faith in the centuries since the Reformation.
I've read more Leithart this week than I ever have, but the above struck me as perhaps odd in our modern context: We're post Vatican II, even if the Catholic church hasn't quite caught up to it yet. Doesn't that count for anything?
I can't speak for Leithart, as I never appreciated FV when I was in the Reformed world and am not familiar enough with it, but desiring open communion is hardly automatically a postmodern impulse, especially if Holy Communion creates what Scripture says it does (namely, the one people of God).
>>We're post Vatican II, even if the Catholic church hasn't quite caught up to it yet. Doesn't that count for anything?
Trent and Vatican II are both ecumenical councils, according to Rome, and until Trent is repudiated, Vatican II counts for nothing in terms of healing the unity of the Church and allowing orthodox convinced Tridentine Roman Catholics to approach the Table of our Lord under the fencing of Reformed Biblical officers. Imputation and infusion cannot be bypassed or merged. They are two diametrically opposed ways of entry to the Judgment Seat of the Father Almighty. One leads the sinner to approach God dressed in his own righteousness; the other in the foreign righteousness of Jesus Christ. I could go on and explain that the obedience (righteous deeds) of the saints are their clothing at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, but these things are elemental and should not need to be said to those who understand Biblical doctrine.
So yes, I sincerely believe all this talk about unity with Rome and her Sacraments is the product, not of Vatican II, but of our postmodern fixation on "can't we all just get along." Rome is clear in refusing to move one iota toward repudiating Trent's anathemas, and that's the reason ECT had to employ ambiguity as it's main tool and lacked any support from the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Roman Catholic church in these United States is a kinder gentler shell on her magisterium, but go anywhere across God's green earth and check out Roman Catholicism, and it's neither kinder nor gentler. There have been a few positive steps post-Vatican II, but two or three swallows doth not a summer make. I'm pleased Roman Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, finally, but really--is that it?
Love,
>>We're post Vatican II, even if the Catholic church hasn't quite caught up to it yet. Doesn't that count for anything?
Trent and Vatican II are both ecumenical councils, according to Rome, and until Trent is repudiated, Vatican II counts for nothing in terms of healing the unity of the Church and allowing orthodox convinced Tridentine Roman Catholics to approach the Table of our Lord under the fencing of Reformed Biblical officers. Imputation and infusion cannot be bypassed or merged. They are two diametrically opposed ways of entry to the Judgment Seat of the Father Almighty. One leads the sinner to approach God dressed in his own righteousness; the other in the foreign righteousness of Jesus Christ. I could go on and explain that the obedience (righteous deeds) of the saints are their clothing at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, but these things are elemental and should not need to be said to those who understand Biblical doctrine.
So yes, I sincerely believe all this talk about unity with Rome and her Sacraments is the product, not of Vatican II, but of our postmodern fixation on "can't we all just get along." Rome is clear in refusing to move one iota toward repudiating Trent's anathemas, and that's the reason ECT had to employ ambiguity as it's main tool and lacked any support from the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Roman Catholic church in these United States is a kinder gentler shell on her magisterium, but go anywhere else across God's green earth and check out Roman Catholicism, and it's neither kinder nor gentler. There have been a few positive steps post-Vatican II, but two or three swallows doth not a summer make. I'm pleased Roman Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, finally, but really--is that it?
And by the way, now that you're no longer Reformed, what Biblical doctrines have you repudiated? Smile, but a serious mind does inquire...
Love,
Alliance Witness 1929
Missionary and Native Worker Jailed in Southern Colombia
By OLIVER K. M. CEDAR
Scattered here and there in the Department of Narino are a number of believers. Through the distribution of the Word of God by faithful colporteurs, there arc those who have been led from the darkness and ignorance of Catholicism to the true Light. We find it necessary and profitable to make frequent visits to these homes where we are now welcome, to encourage the Christians and to lead others to the Truth as it is in the Word of God.
This trip we made in company with one of our members of the Ipiales church, Senor Antonio Chingual, who was willing to sacrifice a week's salary to help propagate the Gospel among his people. After a long day of travel on horseback we arrived at the home of one of the believers, where a few gathered that night to hear the Gospel. The next morning we went to a home in La Cocha we had not visited before. From this home the first one was to be baptized, a man about forty years old. To get to the river where the baptismal service was held, we had to go down, down, down for about an hour. Sometimes it seemed we should fall into space. But a rock here and a twig there would give us something to hold on to. We have since heard that this man, because of his public stand for the Lord in baptism, has had to leave his home.
We did not realize what was ahead of us the next day as we started out, full of hope and joy. All along the way to the town of San Dana we were able to sell Testaments and give out tracts. We found most of the people interested and willing to buy, but the majority of those we met could not read or write. This is the general condition all over Southern Colombia.
On entering San Dona we went to the home of a man who had bought a Bible some time before, and who was friendly toward the Gospel. Tie invited us to have a meeting that night in one of his rooms, and promised to gather his friends to hear the "evangelico" preach. After the service had continued some time, we heard an awful racket outside the windows, which faced the street, and found it to he caused by a mob of people who were calling out, "Down with the Protestants" and "Long live Christ the King !" Then the alcalde of the town with a number of other chief men entered the room, and pronounced judgment against Sr. Chingual and myself for doing public propaganda in San Dona. We had sold some Testaments before reaching there, but in San Pond we had not even given out a tract. We told him so, hut a young man got up and said he knew a woman who had bought a big book from us. We could prove we had no big books along with us. Then he pronounced a verdict of blasphemy against me, saying I had preached we believed in God hut not in Jesus Christ. So they told us the best thing was for us to follow them to the jail, leaving our possessions in the house of our friend.
When we got to the jail, the guards put Sr. Chingual and me in separate cells, so we could have no communication. They brought us each a mat to put on the floor, to serve as a bed, also a candle. The night before, at the home of the man who was baptized, I had preached on the Philippian jailor, and it made us both laugh to think the experience of being in jail was ours the next day. Sr. Chingual said after, that he felt honored to have the same experience as the apostles of old. But we did not suffer stripes ; in no way whatsoever were we ill-treated.
About midnight the alcalde, with about a dozen other men of the town, came to inform us that the people had risen up against us, were shooting off revolvers, and that we had better leave San Dona at once. They would get our horses ready. Sr. Chingual told the alcalde that if anything happened to us, he was responsible, having put us in jail without cause. Then the men passed remarks about different sects which did not believe in the Virgin Mary, or in purgatory, trying to get us to commit ourselves that we did not believe in those things, and then they really would have had a case of blasphemy against us. To say anything against the teachings of the Catholic church here in Colombia is blasphemy.
Outside the jail the streets were lined with people; the whole town was awake. They were shooting off fire crackers as though it were some celebration. Perhaps they called it a victory over the Protestants. We left the jail on our horses, surrounded by policemen with rifles in their hands, who followed us to the outskirts of the town. After we started down the steep incline from San Dona, we discovered that our Testaments, books, tracts and calendars had been taken out of our bags by the alcalde and his men, they thinking in that way they could stop our propaganda.
What a long night of travel, from midnight until noon of the next day without resting! We had to go over new trails which neither of us knew. While it was still dark, we had four hours of steep climbing. At times we had to dismount because of the overhanging branches. What a welcome sight it was when just before noon we could see down below us, over five hundred feet clown, the sugar plantation of the Segura family. It seemed very close to us, but we had to wind down a long, steep trail to get there.
About four years ago the first ones of this large family were converted through the reacting of the Bible bought from a native believer. Now there are thirteen members baptized, including one son-in-law and four daughters-in-law. They arc the means of propagating the Gospel in the district where they live.
They have suffered much for the Gospel, but are standing true. Their earnestness and hunger for the Word of God was an inspiration to us. The whole family works joyfully together on the plantation. This was a busy time, when they grind cane almost night and day. But nevertheless we were able to have three services in the day and a half we stayed there. When we said good-by, we bad a precious time of prayer with all of them, and then again climbed the incline of the ridge, to go down a little farther to visit other believers.
On the way down to the Meneses home, we stopped to invite a man and his family to !he meetings to he held there. There arc nine of the Meneses now baptized, with others desiring to take this .step. We found them all happy, and eager to hear the Word of Gad explained, Every member of the family can read, and is very faithful in reading the Bible. It seemed they had stored up for months past with questions to ask us. Just the family was present for the Saturday night meeting. Our meeting hall was the large kitchen of the house, which had the usual mud floor. Guinea pigs ran about contentedly. Sunday morning with just the family present a tiny balmy was dedicated to the Lord. On our farmer visit in July five babies were dedicated.
Then toward afternoon friends began to gather, sonic in time for the afternoon service. One man who came with two friends from two hours' distance has been used of the Lord in leading men to Christ. He has faithfully given his testimony, and these two men who came with him were led to the Lord through his ministry. This man, his wife, and the two friends are now waiting to he baptized, the first ones in their little village. This is the beginning of the Church of God in Samaniego.
When it came time for the evening meal, about thirty friends and relatives had gathered. All these must be fed. At least six chickens were killed. We were served in groups, as many as could get in the kitchen ate at once. They gave us chicken soup and potatoes, plantains and eggs. At seven o'clock we started our evening service, which did not end until after midnight. The hunger these people had for the Word of God was profound.
I would talk awhile, then the native worker would continue. Thus we took turns until after midnight. One young man seemed especially full of questions about the Bible, things that had puzzled him in his reading. When we would get through explaining one thing, they would ask about another, and so passed the whole service.
We were very glad to see the man and his family enter, that we had invited on the way down. When we told Mr. Meneses we had asked him to come, he was very happy, saying he needed the Lord a great deal, was a terrible drunkard. So at the close of the service our hearts rejoiced when he stood up saying that if this were the True Way, he wanted to follow it. He had been deceived all his life, and now was glad to be free from these wrong teachings. Then and there he gave himself to the Lord. He has one house with a very large room, and to this he has invited us to come and hold a meeting next time we pass through that district.
The two men brought by the friend from Samaniego stood up, saying they wanted to confess their Lord before this company of people; they knew they were saved, were glad to have been led out of darkness into Light, and were desirous of going on to know the Lord better.
All the friends and relatives who attended the service stayed over night in. the home of the Meneses, and we slept eight and nine in a room. We slept only a few hours, and at daybreak were ready to start on our way home, tired hut happy.
Tim,
I expected that response, but I wanted it in shorter form—so thanks for indulging me. Your position is clearly the one to take—granting confessional subscription of course.
As with most folks, my story's not short. Suffice to say I was never a strict subscriptionist, and had entered the Reformed world through, first, the Lutheran church (which reeled me back from the brink of faithless liberalism) and then, second, through the Dutch biblical-theological school (largely Ridderbos). Reformed Orthodoxy (as a place, not its doctrines) never made sense to me.
The two Presby churches I ever became a member of were highly liturgical, and one of them (RC's—probably no surprise) was essentially mono-episcopal.
I'm about as close to Catholic as you can get without being one (Anglo-Catholic), precisely because of several of its Tridentine anathemas. But it's up to Rome. It's their problem, not mine (not least b/c Anglican orders are valid). It has yet more reforming to do; though no doubt what those reforms are would be a lot less for me than for you. So to my mind Vatican II was a huge step in the right direction (from an ecclesiological perspective, which I'm tempted to say—sorry—is no less important than <i>sola fide</i>).
>>from an ecclesiological perspective
But how have we gotten to the point that formal hierarchy and Sacraments are ecclesiology, and no one says a word about pastoral care? Acts 20 shows none of this, let alone the Apostle Peter's statement he didn't come to baptize. It seems to me what strict subscriptionists and Papists alike (and many Anglo-catholics, I think) really mean when they say "ecclesiology" is as formalistic and ritualistic and ceremonial and pomp and circumstancy and engineerish as when certain men speak of the objectivity of the covenants and looking to the sacraments. But maybe I'm wrong.
May God bless you, brother.
Love,
In our home about twenty years ago, we had old family friends Dave Howard and his brother-in-law and sister, Lars and Elisabeth Elliot Gren, for breakfast. With their brother, Tom, having converted to Roman Catholicism eight years earlier, I asked Elisabeth whether she was preparing to convert herself? In the ensuing conversation, things were said that caused Dave to express horror at the thought of anyone converting to Roman Catholicism. He was utterly disbelieving that any Biblical Christian could even consider it, and hammering his point home, he recounted how in his missionary years in Colombia decades earlier, he had seen Christians suffer under the attacks of Roman Catholicism. Specifically he mentioned the martyrdom of Christians at the hands of Roman Catholics. The moment was very heavy and brought the conversation to an end.
It made a deep impression.
Thank you for this, dear brother. Love,
I never met my grandfather who exhausted himself in his work in Ecuador and Columbia and died a decade before I was born but I look forward to laying my eyes on him in the resurrection and thanking him for the gift of the testimony of his life. I was pleased to give my second son the name Oliver Kermit Malloy Gray.
Wonderful. Love,
Add new comment