Reformed or Foreged Catholicism

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
This was written I think given the recent swimming of the Tiber of a fairly social media prominent OPC ruling elder who has taken his family and swum the Tiber to the shock of many.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Being "Reformed" implies Reformed Catholick (in the good sense), otherwise we are Reforming some nebulous non-entity. I think he is overreacting to the guy who swam the Tiber. Otherwise, we fall into the trap that the Reformed church didn't exist from 97AD to 1517, which is a talking point in pop Catholic apologetics. If we say, "We are just getting back to the Bible," then great. We are on the same ground as the Campbellites.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Who, Jacob— Nathan Eshelman? Or William Perkins, who was addressing the very same set of circumstances in his time?
Nathan. Here is my thesis: if you are suspicious of scholasticism-and even some medieval formulations of it--then you need to get rid of the WCF.

>>>>Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the First Cause

That is almost word-for-word Aristotle and every. single. medieval. and. roman. catholic. theologian.

You cannot understand the Reformed doctrine of God without drawing upon medieval antecedents. If you read Perkins' volume on the doctrine of God (either 5 or 6), he is using medieval and scholastic categories.

Or even worse, to use an anti-feminist verse, "Doth not even nature itself teach you...?"

What's nature mean? The Bible, not being an exhaustive database lexicon, doesn't tell you. You literally have to go to Greek philosophy to find out.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
Whenever I have witnessed someone in online Reformed circles drift off into either Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, the drift usually began not as a result of reading the Patristics but as a result of purity-spiralling over a cliff. The mythical quest of various cyber-Covenanters and others to find the "real" Church of Scotland led them into an exceedingly ugly Sectario-Presbyterianism, which is neither biblically nor confessionally defensible. And then, once that search for an apostolic succession proved futile and failed to provide them with the illegitimate religious certainty which they longed for, it led them into either Rome or the East. Ultimately, however, their problem was not intellectual, but one of the heart, as is evinced by their inability to forbear even the slightest fault in a Reformed church while they now turn a blind eye to the much greater doctrinal and practical evils of Rome.

Most solid Reformed people know that you read the church fathers and the medieval theologians in order to have a greater knowledge of theology proper, the Trinity, and Christology. You also read Augustine et al in order to find elements of nascent Calvinism. They generally know enough to know not to follow them in areas where they ought to be avoided. The ultra-Protestant fear that anyone who reads anything prior to the Reformation is going to convert to Romanism is nonsense. The writings of the Reformed orthodox are filled with references to the church fathers and medieval divines, though, of course, with some pointed criticisms here and there. Conversely, it is the lack of familiarity with the Patristics that has been a contributing factor in the emergence of various gross heresies on some of the above points in evangelical and Reformed circles in recent years. I very much doubt anyone grounded in Reformed theology is going to become a Papist through reading Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, or Thomas Aquinas, but they might fail to detect other errors as a result of neglecting them.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
the drift usually began not as a result of reading the Patristics but as a result of purity-spiralling over a cliff.
This is 100% true. While the Fathers weren't proto-Covenanters eagerly awaiting the revealing of the Solemn League and Covenant, they weren't monolithic on numerous issues, and even phrasing the question that way itself is problematic.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
This is the crux of the article:
"There is nothing wrong with being a student of the Church Fathers—or Aristotle even—but the problem occurs when the Bible is put down because the left hand is filled with the Fathers and the right hand is filled with Aristotle. The right place of the Scriptures is set aside."

Let me provide a different perspective from the brothers who contend against this article. I have seen this problem in my own congregation in times past and with others online. Men have come to our church loving scholastic theology but have not even read the Bible through once. It is very sad.

This is a problem. I am sorry that if some of you think this is a slam on scholasticism or the Fathers. It is not.

But keeping the Scriptures close to your heart is the best inoculation against Rome. Many of these men do not know the Word as they should and forget the Scripture's answer to, "What must I do to be saved?" if they ever truly knew it. This is also the problem with the "cyber-covenanters". They also do not know Scripture as they should, but can quote the SL&C verbatim.

The ditching of the Words of Life, seems to me, to be the primary focus of the article. It can manifest itself in many different ways. It can either take you to Rome or make you a Steelite (or cyber-Steelite).
 

Grumman Tomcat

Puritan Board Freshman
Being well grounded in Scripture is the best inoculation against getting sucked down the Tiber. I recommend daily study in the scriptures.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
This is the crux of the article:
"There is nothing wrong with being a student of the Church Fathers—or Aristotle even—but the problem occurs when the Bible is put down because the left hand is filled with the Fathers and the right hand is filled with Aristotle. The right place of the Scriptures is set aside."

Let me provide a different perspective from the brothers who contend against this article. I have seen this problem in my own congregation in times past and with others online. Men have come to our church loving scholastic theology but have not even read the Bible through once. It is very sad.

This is a problem. I am sorry that if some of you think this is a slam on scholasticism or the Fathers. It is not.

But keeping the Scriptures close to your heart is the best inoculation against Rome. Many of these men do not know the Word as they should and forget the Scripture's answer to, "What must I do to be saved?" if they ever truly knew it. This is also the problem with the "cyber-covenanters". They also do not know Scripture as they should, but can quote the SL&C verbatim.

The ditching of the Words of Life, seems to me, to be the primary focus of the article. It can manifest itself in many different ways. It can either take you to Rome or make you a Steelite (or cyber-Steelite).
I agree to an extent, but when I hear things like "just go to the Scriptures," I hear someone saying we can interpret the bible neutrally without a grid. Monks like John Chrysostom and Basil had the psalter and New Testament memorized, so it isn't a matter of just going to the Bible.

More to the point, though, the Roman Catholic Church of Scholasticism is officially dead. It's the Novus Ordo church now. It's more ecumenicism and liberalism. People who go to Rome because "scholasticism" are just LAPRing.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
I agree to an extent, but when I hear things like "just go to the Scriptures," I hear someone saying we can interpret the bible neutrally without a grid. Monks like John Chrysostom and Basil had the psalter and New Testament memorized, so it isn't a matter of just going to the Bible.

More to the point, though, the Roman Catholic Church of Scholasticism is officially dead. It's the Novus Ordo church now. It's more ecumenicism and liberalism. People who go to Rome because "scholasticism" are just LAPRing.
I agree that there is a balance to be struck, for certain. We are Confessional Christians on this board, after all. But I have also seen many who replace the Scripture and no longer hear the voice of God in them.

But I mostly wanted to respond to the LARPing comment with a :rofl:.
 

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
It’s also a fact that said elder was swimming in a pond on Facebook full of Papists and EO’s who have been honing their anti-Reformed apologetic for years now. With the help of Apostates I may add.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
It’s also a fact that said elder was swimming in a pond on Facebook full of Papists and EO’s who have been honing their anti-Reformed apologetic for years now. With the help of Apostates I may add.
I've definitely been there before. And as an observation: I only know this guy by friends of friends, but among many Cyber Covenanters. if your apologetic methodology is more or less exhausted by talking only on a few points: sabbath, 2CV, and the evils of Southern man-stealing, and then you come across an intellectually sophisticated system like Thomism, you won't have a chance in apologetics. It will be ugly and public
 

Grumman Tomcat

Puritan Board Freshman
LARPing :rofl:
But I have to agree. The Roman Catholic Church has become packed with proponents of floppy soft theology and liberalism. Not everyone within it is infected with this - but this has crept into many of the higher offices within the church. This is not a good era for the Roman Catholic Church.
 

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
LARPing :rofl:
But I have to agree. The Roman Catholic Church has become packed with proponents of floppy soft theology and liberalism. Not everyone within it is infected with this - but this has crept into many of the higher offices within the church. This is not a good era for the Roman Catholic Church.
This isn’t as a whole true. While in urban areas this may be very popular and true, in my area there is an entire town essentially run by Pre-Vatican II style Romanists. Newsweek ran a piece on them and their town of St. Mary’s, KS.

EO and Traditionalist Romanism are entirely still popular.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Newsweek ran a piece on them and their town of St. Mary’s, KS.
Isn't that where the notorious Dimond Brothers live and run their rad trad Youtube page?
EO and Traditionalist Romanism are entirely still popular.
Yes, but excepting RCC guys like Ed Feser and others, they don't have much of an institutional presence nor do they run the publishing houses. Notre Dame invited Pete Buttigieg to be a professor. The Methodist Stanley Hauerwas routinely took Mass at Notre Dame when he taught there.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Junior
My cultural references need enlarging. Is "LARPing" a reference to "Live Action Role Playing" or the "Los Angeles RP" church? I can see either in the context here :)
 

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
Isn't that where the notorious Dimond Brothers live and run their rad trad Youtube page?
Those whack jobs in New York.

Yes, but excepting RCC guys like Ed Feser and others, they don't have much of an institutional presence nor do they run the publishing houses. Notre Dame invited Pete Buttigieg to be a professor. The Methodist Stanley Hauerwas routinely took Mass at Notre Dame when he taught there.
There’s definitely a divide between the elite and the average Romanist
 

Minh

Puritan Board Freshman
As a recommendation, I found "Catholic Church Debunked Documentary" by Keith Thompson, a Reformed Baptist, to be the most comprehensive and well-researched response to Roman Catholicism. Here's a link and time stamp.


Introduction
The Papacy/Papal Infallibility 05:32 - 01:32:47
Mary 01:32:48 - 03:14:40
Scripture & Tradition 03:14:41 - 04:32:35
Rome's Worst Atrocities/Deception in History 04:32:36 - 05:07:11
The Reformation 05:07:12 - 5:35:05
Salvation 5:35:05 - 08:22:27
Conclusion
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
My cultural references need enlarging. Is "LARPing" a reference to "Live Action Role Playing" or the "Los Angeles RP" church? I can see either in the context here :)
Live Action Role Playing. You see it with converts to Eastern Orthodoxy who want to take AKs and liberate Constantinople (which is not necessarily a bad idea). You see it with converts to Rome who believe the 1300 was the high point of human thought. You see it in Reformed facebook grouops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top