What is Reformed Catholicism?

[Presbyrino]

What is meant be the term "Reformed Catholicism"? And how is this different from the churches the split from Rome in the reformation: Luthern, Reformed(Continental, Presbyterian, Anglican) and Anabaptist? Did these traditions initially see themselves as "reformed catholics"? What was the reaction of Calvin and Luther to their followers using their names for titles of theological systems (i.e. Lutheranism or Calvinism)?

 

[Bladestunner316]

I believe thats what doug wilson is?

blade

 

[yeutter]

Reformed Catholic is a term used in Anglican circles to refer to those who; on the one hand, wish to maintain all of the old liturgical forms and ceremonies unless they can be clearly proved to be contrary to Scripture, and on the the other hand agree with Dr. Martin Luther on Sola Fides, Sola Gratia, ect. Dr. Peter Toon would be such an example of a Reformed Catholic.

How the term is used in Presbyterian circles, I do not know.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

From my reading (primary & secondary web sources) RefCats center Christianity around baptism, and not on a common confession. Christianity--as far as humanity can see it, judge it, join it, interact with it--is [b:20f9389d9d]visible.[/b:20f9389d9d] Prime example is how some of them see Rome. [i:20f9389d9d]Roman[/i:20f9389d9d] catholics are not to be judged as "outside" the church because they have a "valid" baptism. Their confession--what on paper defines them and what they believe--is irrelevant. They are "Christians" based on trinitarian baptism. What they [i:20f9389d9d]think[/i:20f9389d9d] doctrinaly is invisible hence irrelevant, and may not even matter in the long run (eternally) because someone's faith is usually better than their theology anyway.

RefCats say they are only contending with non-covenantal, radically individualistic Christianity such as dominates American Christianity today, and (say they) has infected most of modern Reformed churches today. The Bible unites, doctrine (propositions, "abstractions", formulations, systematic theology) divides. Stories=good. Biblical Theology=good. "Narrow" confessionalism=bad. "Prooftexting"=evil. Unity and peace are more important than purity (between professing Christians--from any confession).

This thumbnail is inadequate. Hopefully it gives you some idea. If you check out James White's website blog (on main page & archives), http://www.aomin.org , you will find some interaction with some self-styled RefCats. He even has included some links that allow you to go to their blogs, etc., and see for yourself what some of them are saying. His quotes are good, but reading them yourself is better. They are witnesses against themselves. NTWright (Anglican) is one of their poster-boys, though he probably wouldn't cross the street to identify himself with them. It's enough that they buy and promote his books.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I've not heard of this, but it sounds intersting. I'll have to check into what they're all about..

 

[Scott]

Reformed Catholicism claims to simply be a fuller understanding of what it means to be Reformed. As "Reformed" is an adjective, they say that the noun it is modifying is "Catholicism" or the "Church" of the period - which was the Catholic church. The Reformers wanted to "reform" the church, not destroy it is create countless denominations. Reformed Catholics develop and teach reformed doctrines that have been forgotten or ignored in today's reformed world, including sacramental teaching (especially the efficacy of the sacraments) and ecclesiology.

Here is an excerpt from a blog www.reformedcatholicism.com, which you can review if you want to learn more about RefCats.


[quote:8c2c805435]
We've put this site together to facilitate and celebrate the sacramental, trinitarian, and covenantal connection we have with the historic Church. However, there have been some who have questioned the use of the term "Reformed Catholicism".

But the nagging question should remain--what was the Reformation all about? What did the Reformers want to see reformed? What is the implied noun that the adjective Reformed modifies?

There are some who would like to see Reformed become a noun. That is, a separate Christian Church--one free from error, pure, perfect in every way, and if not at least striving towards that end--completely separate from the historical Church of Christ. If anything, the last 500 years has proven that the Reformed Church is just as capable of error, corruption, and idolatry as anything that happened in the Roman Catholic Church prior to or during the Reformation.

Undaunted by this, today I believe the Reformers would have continued their work to call men and women to Christ, to encourage Christians to be faithful to their baptisms, and to remind them that they stand in line with a great cloud of witnesses that have gone before them in the faith. What I don't see magisterial Reformers like Calvin doing, were he alive today, is continuing to divide, continuing to wrangle over meaningless abstractions, and continuing to perfect our doctrine while ignoring how we live out that very doctrine.

But, for those who remain skeptical--that somehow the words Reformed and Catholic do not go together, I quote the following from the Heidelberg Catechism--used in a day when men were not afraid to use the word "catholic" in describing themselves or paranoid about identifying themselves with others who might use the term. Notice that the Reformed Church for centuries has defined herself as "catholic"--so much so that Question 22 leaves out the word Reformed and describes our Reformed faith as "our catholic, undoubted Christian faith". Note also Question 23, which I've provided below.
Q22: What, then, is necessary for a Christian to believe?

A22: All that is promised us in the Gospel,[1] which the articles of our catholic, undoubted Christian faith teach us in summary.
1. John 20:31; Matt. 28:20; II Peter 1:21; II Tim. 3:15

Q23: What are these articles?

A23: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
Keep in mind that the Reformers defined "our catholic faith" as inherently catholic. The Apostles' Creed summarizes the content of the faith according to the Heidelberg Catechism and to say that the Reformers viewed themselves as anything other than a part of and a continuation of the historic catholic Church is simply denying the facts of history as well as denying what the Heidelberg Catechism sees so clearly summarized in the Creed itself--"our catholic faith".

Avoiding the plain fact of this matter is no small issue. The most amazing thing about those who are most vociferous about avoiding the term "Reformed Catholicism" is the fact that they do not even lay claim to a Reformed understanding of ecclesiology in the first place. That should tell us something right there. Somehow it's okay to redefine and use the adjective Reformed when speaking of Baptists--while denying the very tenets that make the Reformed Church what it is. But, when others use the word in describing our historical connection to the universal, historic, catholic Church in line with what the Reformers actually taught they are condemned as "new-fangled" and "highly sectarian"!

Unlike these radicals, those of us who use the term "Reformed Catholicism" or something similar can back up our claims both from the history of the Church and the works of the magisterial Reformers--as well as the Scriptures. You won't see that being done by our self-styled "opponents".

There's nothing wrong with linking Reformed and Catholic together. In fact, the two are inextricably united and we look forward to exploring our common history in the faith together.
[/quote:8c2c805435]

 

[Scott]

Bruce:

The irony of relying on White to understand Reformed Catholics, is that the Reformers would would have branded him a schismatic independent, a nonconformist. He low view of the sacraments (not efficacious), his independent ecclesiology, etc. would have been condemned (not to mention the obvious credo baptist position). Further, the magisterial reformers would not even recognize the validity of the ministry in the congregation White attends, because there are no valid calls for the ministers (because of what the Reformers would have viewed as the schismatic nature of their ecclesiology). His congregation would not even be considered a church at all.

By "Reformers" I am speaking of magisterial Reformers like Calvin and not anabaptists like Schwenkfeld.

Please also note that I am neither affirming or denying this position, just setting it forth. White is not a person who has much ground to stand on in defending the Reformation and it is somewhat hypocrtical of him to claim that he is more reformed than others.

Scott

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Scott]

 

[fredtgreco]

Scott,

Thanks for the link. It was enough for me to see that one of the main posters was Rich Lusk, perhaps THE main promoter of the Federal Vision Theology and one of the main advocates of NT Wright in the PCA. The links to Mark Horne's website and Andrew Sandlin's writings were helpful too. And of course Nevin! He's only been rejected by I don't know almost every Reformed theologian since his writings.

As was said in Casablanca, "all the usual suspects."

Would I be correct then in assuming that Reformed Catholicism espouses paedocommunion (both Lusk and Horne do) ? That would be interesting, since neither the Reformed, nor Catholics ever have. But that can't stand in the way of complete reformation! {CHARGE!!!}

It was also helpful to see the Shorter Catechism trashed (hey, what's a vow before God and men when you can write a neat blog!)

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/000193.html

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[Scott]

Fred:

I think that allot of the participants in the movement have been influenced by Wright (or, at least, are not hostile to him) and that some espouse paedocommunion, as you mentioned. (I too reject paedocommunion and really know nothing about Wright other than that he is controversial in Reformed circles).

I am not really sure about what their goals are either. It seems almost academic.

In any event, they are useful in that they dig up some parts of the Reformation that have been lost (not paedocommunion or Wright, which are new), like Reformed ecclesiology, the historical catholic church, and sacramentology. They seem to find reformed works on topics I rarely hear about elsewhere.

Scott

 

[wsw201]

If I remember correctly, this was the topic of the last AAPC conference with John Frame.

The goal of Reformed Catholicity is to allow greater "freedom" in picking and choosing what you may consider to be "Reformed". That way you don't have to stick with the theology of the WCF or 3FU. There is also a heavy emphasis on Biblical Theology vs Systematic Theology. I believe there was a bullet point on this topic in the PPLN's vision statement on their site.

 

[sosipater]

Scott, you said:
[quote:12819cffea]
White is not a person who has much ground to stand on in defending the Reformation and it is somewhat hypocrtical of him to claim that he is more reformed than others.
[/quote:12819cffea]

Could you explain what you mean by he has no ground to stand on in defending the Reformation? Also, I've never heard him say he is "more reformed" than others, could you supply the source for this?

Thank you.

 

[Scott]

Russ:

Let me preface that I don't want to be critical of baptists and other idependents and I value their contributions to Christ's kingdom. And the views I express are not necessarily my own (it is a difficult issues and I have not fully come to any conclusions).

In any event, what I am saying is that if you look at the Reformation as a package deal, White would depart from essential features of it. One area would be schism. The mainstream Reformation (excepting radicals such as Schwenkfeld) valued unity of the visible church - meaning an organizational connectedness. While they did break from Rome, they justified this disunity on the basis of extreme emergency. Turretin used the example of a city under seige whose magistrate betrays them by opening the gates to the enemy The citizens, are are normally required to obey have the right to reject his order and overthrow him. (Reminds me of Gandalf and Denothor in the Return of the King).

Anyway, Turretin and others affirmed the importance of organizational unity and the ordinary necessity that ministers be called from the existing visible church. To simply form a group, call oneself, or follow some other procedure was ordinarily considered schismatic and factious. Ministers of these organizations were to be avoided.

Anyway, White is part of a group that the magisterial reformers would have considered schismatic and divided from the church. The ministers of his church would not even be perceived as even being validly called and should be avoided. Consequently, for him to claim to embrace the mainstream Reformation (Calvin, Turretin, Knox, etc) leads to inconsistency. He quotes men like Calvin, Turretin, Knox and others for one point when these very men would likely have condemned him as schismatic and to be avoided.

There are other similar areas where he departs.

Scott

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Scott]

 

[wsw201]

Just reviewed that site on Reformed Catholicity. Interesting to say the least. It would appear that the Church stopped Reforming about the 4th Century, even though they seem to like the phrase "Semper Refomanda".

As Fred noted, these are "the usual suspects". I remember Sandlin had an article about this topic, which fits well with his view of Constantinian Christendom and his future "Christian Culture". In politics they call it "the Big Tent".

 

[sosipater]

Scott,

Thanks for the well reasoned response. Let me preface by saying even though I am a Baptist, I understand where you are coming from and agree with your historical conclusions.

I guess I am having trouble prioritizing things here. Does the fact that James White differs from the reformers in his ecclesiology, even though he agrees with them in most all other aspects of doctrine, mean he cannot claim any connection to Reformed Theology, or using the word Reformed? It seems we are being nitpicky here. Maybe some of the reformers would see him as schismatic, does that make it right? The question should be, is he true to the sciptures, especially in the matters which are in question in this debate? Not side issues like, would the reformers think he is schismatic or not.

This just doesn't seem to be the issue in the Reformed Catholicism/NP debate. Justification, Christ's Imputed Righteousness, our standing before God. These are the issues, not whether James White is "Reformed" or not.

Grace & Peace,

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by sosipater]

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:8a69b9601f][i:8a69b9601f]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:8a69b9601f]
Just reviewed that site on Reformed Catholicity. Interesting to say the least. It would appear that the Church stopped Reforming about the 4th Century, even though they seem to like the phrase "Semper Refomanda".

As Fred noted, these are "the usual suspects". I remember Sandlin had an article about this topic, which fits well with his view of Constantinian Christendom and his future "Christian Culture". In politics they call it "the Big Tent". [/quote:8a69b9601f]

Yes. Lusk said on another board that he would advocate mass baptizing an entire tribe on the basis of the profession of the leader of the tribe. Constantine indeed!

Sandlin just makes me want to vomit.

 

[wsw201]

[quote:4f52e1c157]
Yes. Lusk said on another board that he would advocate mass baptizing an entire tribe on the basis of the profession of the leader of the tribe. Constantine indeed!

Sandlin just makes me want to vomit.
[/quote:4f52e1c157]

You think you have heard it all, then.....

I never cease to be amazed.

 

[Scott]

Russ:

I think the RefCat guys have mentioned that White claims they abandoned the Reformation or something. I don't know if he has or not, as I don't read his blog. To the extent he has, I think it is reasonable to point out where he has abandoned the Reformation.

Scott

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:86a116939f][i:86a116939f]Originally posted by Scott[/i:86a116939f]
Russ:

I think the RefCat guys have mentioned that White claims they abandoned the Reformation or something. I don't know if he has or not, as I don't read his blog. To the extent he has, I think it is reasonable to point out where he has abandoned the Reformation.

Scott [/quote:86a116939f]

Scott,

don't you think that this boils down to the New Perspective view that ecclesiology is more important than soteriology?

If it is, then White is in trouble. If Soteriology is more important, than they (at least Lusk, Sandlin, and Horne) have abandoned the Reformation.


Ohh, how Lutheran, gnostic, Greek-minded of me!! Shame, shame!!!

:smug_b:

 

[yeutter]

John H. Gerstner used to talk about the need for the Church and Christians to be Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical and Reformed. Eventually even he became frustrated at being misunderstood and instead talked about full well orbed Christianity.

It is a shame we have abandoned the term Catholic to the Church of Rome and now those who want to deviate from the faith once delivered.

 

[Scott]

Fred: I think we can have both Reformed ecclesiology and soteriology. I don't think we need to set one against the other. While I appreciate the contributions of independents, I am tending to think that the very nature of their church government is a form of schism and divisiveness, as many Reformers seemed to have believed. While this is different from saying they are not justified, it still is serious error.

I look forward to Matt's paper on the Independent Controversy.

BTW, I don't know anything substantive about Wright. I don't really have an interest in a "new perspective" that everyone else but Dr. Wright has missed. There are too many other reliable and credible works to read first. I suppose I may have to dig into it if the controversy flares up.

I read the RefCat stuff mainly because they seem to be able to dig up interesting Reformation period works on ecclesiology and the sacraments. I don't bother with the Wright or related stuff.

Scott

[Edited on 7-9-2004 by Scott]

 

[wsw201]

Scott,

You are right in that there are alot of better things to read than NT Wright. If you do ever get around to it, the monergism.org site has a pretty good page on NPP, including articles from Wright himself so you don't have to just take someones word for it.

 

[Roldan]

[quote:9673ed352d][i:9673ed352d]Originally posted by sntijerina[/i:9673ed352d]
What is meant be the term "Reformed Catholicism"? And how is this different from the churches the split from Rome in the reformation: Luthern, Reformed(Continental, Presbyterian, Anglican) and Anabaptist? Did these traditions initially see themselves as "reformed catholics"? What was the reaction of Calvin and Luther to their followers using their names for titles of theological systems (i.e. Lutheranism or Calvinism)? [/quote:9673ed352d]

Reformed Episcopalians

 

[cupotea]

"Reformed Catholicism" is code for Shepherdism and/or the NPP.

It looks like many of you have figured that out; that it's synonymous with that current fashion among many erstwhile Reformed persons to think their current soteriological conception superior to that of Machen, Warfield, Hodge, Dabney, Knox, Calvin, Luther, Augustine and Paul.

[Edited on 7-9-2004 by Steadfast]