Whom do you call bretheren?

[pastorway]

The arminian church will for the most part proclaim salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

If they waver on the gospel, or the person and work of Christ, then they are not a sound church.

Rome is not just distorting or misrepresenting the gospel, they deny it altogether!

Error is not as bad as heresy. Error needs to be corrected, but heresy damns, it is another gospel, a gospel with no power that cannot save.

So while arminian churches may be full of error, they are not preaching another gospel.

Phillip

[Edited on 4-16-04 by pastorway]

 

[raderag]

[quote:5cbccb3b4a][i:5cbccb3b4a]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:5cbccb3b4a]
The arminian church will for the most part proclaim salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
[/quote:5cbccb3b4a]

They do not proclaim grace alone as defined in the Protestant Confessions. In fact, they outright deny it with synergy.

[quote:5cbccb3b4a]
If they waver on the gospel, or the person and work of Christ, then they are not a sound church.

Rome is not just distorting or misrepresenting the gospel, they deny it altogether!
[/quote:5cbccb3b4a]

Once again Phillip, by which standard? Faith alone, grace alone? Just tell me why and how they deny the Gospel.

Both have been denied by Arminians, and most of the ECF's we consider orthodox.

[quote:5cbccb3b4a]
Error is not as bad as heresy. Error needs to be corrected, but heresy damns, it is another gospel, a gospel with no power that cannot save.

So while arminian churches may be full of error, they are not preaching another gospel.
[/quote:5cbccb3b4a]

I'm not so sure that those in Dordt would agree with you. So, is everybody that holds to a heretical belief damned? What is the definition of heresy?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Brett,
There are too many examples in the RC catechism for me to -yank- out right now. I f I get the time this weekend I will. My point is, yes they say they embrace the apostles creed, and in the same breath they deny it by their secondary doctrinal beliefs. For instance, Mary is co-redemptrix.

 

[JWJ]

[quote:9df8f89419][i:9df8f89419]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:9df8f89419]
The arminian church will for the most part proclaim salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

If they waver on the gospel, or the person and work of Christ, then they are not a sound church.

Rome is not just distorting or misrepresenting the gospel, they deny it altogether!

Error is not as bad as heresy. Error needs to be corrected, but heresy damns, it is another gospel, a gospel with no power that cannot save.

So while arminian churches may be full of error, they are not preaching another gospel.

Phillip

[Edited on 4-16-04 by pastorway] [/quote:9df8f89419]

Pastorway,

I believe I know what you are saying and why you are saying it. I am also "sympathetic" towards Arminian theology vs. that of Rome. I too believe that many Arminian as well as some in Rome, are saved and do not believe and live the theology their Church teaches.

However we must ask ourselves is this really true--- i.e., that Arminian churches are closer to the truth because they just have error but do not deny the gospel? What if the error in the gospel that many Arminian churches preach / teach is in the very substance? If the substance is in error then is not the gospel, albeit more implicitly, denied? For example many Arminian churches proclaim grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. However, their grace, faith and Christ are not alone. As a matter of fact for many Arminians, faith is a human work wrought in part by the depraved human will.

Moreover, many Arminian (sadly, now many in so called Reformed circles too) preach / teach / live a faith that does not rest solely on the on the life and death of Christ. Rather their faith rests on man's work (e.g. so called evangelical obedience / covenant obedience) together with Christ's work. This sounds like a denial of the gospel!

JWJ

 

[Scott]

From my experience and reading, the main problem with RC congregations in America is not fidelity to Trent - most do not have this. It is that they are for the most part mainline liberal churches. They typically deny the gospel not by adopting a Trent's formula but by adopting a secular (relatavistic) formula, which is for the most part indistinguishable from the views of mainline Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. There is little meaningful allegiance to Rome. For example, fewer than 10 percent (probably much less) abide by the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, which prohibits birth control. Only a very small conservative minority that does.

Also think of this. The Catholic Church officially teaches that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexual marriage is wrong. Massachussetts as a state is actually around half Catholic. Yet, this is where the first court decision favoring gay marriage occurred, with little outcry (although, thankfully, some Catholic officials are trying to challenge this). Most of thier legislators are Catholic too and they are offering up civil unions as an alternative. It is outrageous. These Catholics are no different than secular counterparts. These are not firebreathing Trent fanatics. These are functional atheists.

It is interesting to read the biographies of converts to Catholicism (I am thinking specifically of Matatics and Hahn). They found a Catholic church much different than the one that persuaded them of the truth of RC. They found the arguments of Cardinal Gibbons' Faith of Our Fathers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...prev/103-2648618-5693440?v=glance&s=books) persuasive but entered a church with theologians more closely linked to Shelby Spong. A great book on conservative and traditionalist challenges in the RC church in America is The Smoke of Satan.

Scott

 

[raderag]

Yes, the Roman Catholic ecclesiology is every bit as messy as the Protestant one.

They really hate when we talk about the invisible church, but they have some concept of self-excomunication.

 

[Scott]

Brett wrote:

[quote:b4f6990eb7]
Secondly, Did the RC become false only after trent, or was most of the midieval church a heresy. Does that mean the church had to be restored instead of reformed?
[/quote:b4f6990eb7]

You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about. Of the modern American Reformed who have thought of historical issues (and many don't study history - Americans tend to be ahistorical), you get some pretty weird views. Here is a good, short article describing views of history present in some strains of Puritanism:

The Puritan Theory of Early Christianity
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/the_puritan_theory_of_early_christianity.htm

You also run into problems with people arguing that understanding Luther's justification formula is the article on which the church stands or falls. Many Protestants (if not most) believe that there is no evidence of this formula in any church writing until Luther. See, for example, Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei : A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, which is commonly cited. if true, and if there is no justification without embracing Luther's formula, this means that basically from the completion of the final book of the Bible to the time of Luther there is no evidence that anyone anywhere believed in sola fide (and, according to these people, what evidence there is contradicts Luther's view). This view implies that there was no true church from the time of the apostles to the time of Luther. So, the men who did the work of recognizing the canon were all damned, spiritually blind children of wrath. To me at least that would call into question the value of their work on the canon.

I think that this kind of view explains why Protestants have little or no interest in Patristic and medieval theology. These theologians are often perceived by modern Protestants as proto-Catholics or worse. This is quite a contrast to Calvin and others, who relied heavily on the Patristics. I think Hughes Oliphant Old's The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship is good in this regard.

Scott

 

[raderag]

[quote:921fc9c7fd][i:921fc9c7fd]Originally posted by Scott[/i:921fc9c7fd]
You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about.

Scott [/quote:921fc9c7fd]

I wonder if that is why you are the only one to answer here so far?

Come on. Whoever is saying Rome is false, answer this question.

 

[raderag]

[quote:bea5906ae0][i:bea5906ae0]Originally posted by Scott[/i:bea5906ae0]
You also run into problems with people arguing that understanding Luther's justification formula is the article on which the church stands or falls. Many Protestants (if not most) believe that there is no evidence of this formula in any church writing until Luther.

Scott [/quote:bea5906ae0]

I have read some ECF's and midieval theologins that suggest that forensic justification, while not devolped, was not denied. Bernard of Clairvaux would be one example. But those claiming Augustine should realize that he agrees with Rome on justification, the Eucharist, Ecclesiology, and many other important doctrines.

 

[raderag]

[quote:84f3c1e317][i:84f3c1e317]Originally posted by Scott[/i:84f3c1e317]
Brett wrote:

[quote:84f3c1e317]
Secondly, Did the RC become false only after trent, or was most of the midieval church a heresy. Does that mean the church had to be restored instead of reformed?
[/quote:84f3c1e317]

You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about. Of the modern American Reformed who have thought of historical issues (and many don't study history - Americans tend to be ahistorical), you get some pretty weird views. Here is a good, short article describing views of history present in some strains of Puritanism:

The Puritan Theory of Early Christianity
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/the_puritan_theory_of_early_christianity.htm

You also run into problems with people arguing that understanding Luther's justification formula is the article on which the church stands or falls. Many Protestants (if not most) believe that there is no evidence of this formula in any church writing until Luther. See, for example, Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei : A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, which is commonly cited. if true, and if there is no justification without embracing Luther's formula, this means that basically from the completion of the final book of the Bible to the time of Luther there is no evidence that anyone anywhere believed in sola fide (and, according to these people, what evidence there is contradicts Luther's view). This view implies that there was no true church from the time of the apostles to the time of Luther. So, the men who did the work of recognizing the canon were all damned, spiritually blind children of wrath. To me at least that would call into question the value of their work on the canon.

I think that this kind of view explains why Protestants have little or no interest in Patristic and medieval theology. These theologians are often perceived by modern Protestants as proto-Catholics or worse. This is quite a contrast to Calvin and others, who relied heavily on the Patristics. I think Hughes Oliphant Old's The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship is good in this regard.

Scott [/quote:84f3c1e317]

Scott, thanks for all of the great information.

 

[Scott]

[quote:5baaf1929e]
I have read some ECF's and midieval theologins that suggest that forensic justification, while not devolped, was not denied. Bernard of Clairvaux would be one example. But those claiming Augustine should realize that he agrees with Rome on justification, the Eucharist, Ecclesiology, and many other important doctrines.
[/quote:5baaf1929e]

Yes, and I agree with this. I think that Thomas Oden does a good job of showing that sola fide was present in some form throughout the church. See his The Justification Reader:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...1_29/103-2648618-5693440?v=glance&s=books

Still, I know many Protestants who are comfortable with simply saying that everyone (except the apostles, of course) was wrong until Luther. Further, noted Protestant theologians, like McGrath, disagree with Oden on this point.

Scott

 

[Scott]

[quote:7c678b0576]
But those claiming Augustine should realize that he agrees with Rome on justification, the Eucharist, Ecclesiology, and many other important doctrines.
[/quote:7c678b0576]

It is odd that many people who cite Augustine for predestination would excommunicate him for other issues. I would not go so far as to say that he agreed with Rome on those issues, though.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:4a357e43fb][i:4a357e43fb]Originally posted by raderag[/i:4a357e43fb]
[quote:4a357e43fb][i:4a357e43fb]Originally posted by Scott[/i:4a357e43fb]
You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about.

Scott [/quote:4a357e43fb]

I wonder if that is why you are the only one to answer here so far?

Come on. Whoever is saying Rome is false, answer this question. [/quote:4a357e43fb]

It is as simple as this: Rome has officially anathamatized the gospel. Methodism has not. Arminians are confused about the gospel, but they do not dogmatically state that the true gospel is anathema. Rome does. She has stated dogmatically that the gospel is false. She also usurps the authority of Christ, where Arminians and broad evangelicals do not.

Consider this, Calvin considered Rome only a true church so far as her baptism was concerned. He called for a departure from Rome, which he could not have done if he considered her a true church:
[quote:4a357e43fb]
Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ." (Institutes IV.ii.2)[/quote:4a357e43fb]

Basically the only thing Calvin though worthy of preserving in Rome was the validity of her baptism.

Also consider Hodge's comments on WCF 25.6:
[quote:4a357e43fb]The word "Antichrist" occurs in the New Testament in 1 John 2:18; 22;4:3; 2 John 7) The coming of the "man of sin," the "son of perdition," is predicted in (2 Thess. 2:3,4) Interpreters have differed as to whether these phrases were intended to designate a personal opponent of the Lord, or principles and systems antagonistic to him and his cause. The authors of our Confession can hardly have intended to declare that each individual Pope of the long succession is the personal Antichrist, and they probably meant that the Papal system is in spirit, form, and effect, wholly antichristian, and that it marked a defection from apostolical Christianity foreseen and foretold in Scripture. All of which was true in their day, and is true in ours. We have need, however, to remember that as the forms of evil change, and the complications of the kingdom of Christ with that of Satan vary with the progress of events, "even now are there many Antichrists."
[/quote:4a357e43fb]


As for Nevin, he is hardly an unbiased assessment from Protestantism. Neither is Horne. Both are interested in rapprochement with Rome (Horne because NT Wright considers it a great sin not to have "table fellowship" with Rome, Nevin because he was a proto Catholic).

As for interest in the patristic period, you must not be reading very widely. There has been a great resurgence in Patristic studies in the past few decades, especially with respect to Covenant theology. Doug Kelley and Ligon Duncan have each done extensive work, and R. Scott Clark has done some as well.

The problem with all of this is that with the redefinitions of "covenant" and "justification" going on, it is much more fashionable to lambaste the evan-jelly-cals of our day with proto Romanism.

If you would have asked Hodge to let a Papist into his pulpit he would have laughed at you.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I don't think Scott meant to imply that Rome SAYS they deny the Apostle's Creed, but rather, that in their stance on doctrine they are denying what the Creed means.

Catholicism is the synagogue of Satan, and the Antichrist's embodiment on earth. I would have no problem telling that to any priest or pope. Same goes for the cult member.

The Mass itself is an abomination to God. It is just as a bad, or worse, than a Satanic ritual or a Satanist worship service.

The essential doctrines of the Christian faith MUST be adhered to, or else you forfeit salvation (I don't mean that in an Arminian way, just practically).

 

[Scott]

Fred:

It is interesting that you mention Doug Kelly with approval. I just watched a video series sponsored by Covenant Seminary (PCA) in which he represented the reformed camp on the question of "What is the True Church." He was not as hostile to Rome as you seem to be. In fact he went out of his way to make the point that we Reformed agree with Rome on about 95 percent of doctrinal issues. He got this figure from his work with Ford Lewis Battles, who held that belief. He seemed open to Christian unity, including with Catholics. Of course, he did not diminish the importance that 5 percent difference, which is huge. He also indicated, based on a citation from Calvin, the the Eastern Orthodox were true churches. The series is available in the PCA video library if you have an interest.

As to patristic interest among Reformed and Protestants, I disagree with your assessment. It is anemic at best. Most Protestants could not even spell Chrysostom. The most voluminous stuff is coming from Thomas Oden and his early church fathers series and related books, which are helpful.

I am not sure what your point about Hodge was. Nobody suggested that he would have allowed a Roman priest into the pulpit. That is a different issue from saying that the Roman church is not part of the visible church of Christ. There are many in the visible church who should be kept from the pulpit.

Scott

 

[Scott]

There is no doubt that the Reformers considered the papacy to be the embodiment of Antichrist. This view was built into their eschatology, historicism. Also built in is that the Roman church was the church of God. They interpreted the passage about the Antichrist sitting in the temple of God as referring to the papcy sitting in the church (the temple). If the Roman church was not a church at all, then Antichrist could not have been sitting in the temple of God.

Scott

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Right, they would have seen the Roman church as [color=blue:9750f25d70]apostate[/color:9750f25d70] (I agree).

 

[raderag]

[quote:02debd728f][i:02debd728f]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:02debd728f]

It is as simple as this: Rome has officially anathamatized the gospel. [/quote:02debd728f]

Ok, so you are saying that Trent was the apostasy? That is kind of what I have believed in the past.

 

[raderag]

[quote:622ebb7539][i:622ebb7539]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:622ebb7539]The Mass itself is an abomination to God. It is just as a bad, or worse, than a Satanic ritual or a Satanist worship service. [/quote:622ebb7539]

Could a justified person take the mass?

 

[sastark]

[quote:059bff0831][i:059bff0831]Originally posted by Scott[/i:059bff0831]
There is no doubt that the Reformers considered the papacy to be the embodiment of Antichrist. This view was built into their eschatology, historicism. Also built in is that the Roman church was the church of God. They interpreted the passage about the Antichrist sitting in the temple of God as referring to the papcy sitting in the church (the temple). If the Roman church was not a church at all, then Antichrist could not have been sitting in the temple of God.

Scott [/quote:059bff0831]

I, as a historicist, disagree with this statement. I do not believe the reformers saw the Roman church as [b:059bff0831]the[/b:059bff0831] church of God. It is only viewed as [b:059bff0831]part[/b:059bff0831] of the church universal. A minor difference, but an important one.

You are correct to say that the passage concerning the man of sin sitting in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God is referring to the office of pope, since the office of the bishop of Rome was at one time a valid office (there actually were Christians who held that office). As time progressed the bishop of Rome became more and more powerful and influential until Antichrist was revealed. So, we can say that the man of sin sat in the temple of God (the church), proclaiming himself to be God (some of the titles the pope claims: Vicar of Christ on Earth, Most Holy Father, Pontifficus Maximus, etc. all claims to deity).

 

[sastark]

[quote:0490cd3a67][i:0490cd3a67]Originally posted by raderag[/i:0490cd3a67]

Could a justified person take the mass? [/quote:0490cd3a67]


Can a justified person still sin? Yes!

Should a justified person flee from sin? Yes!

So, could a justified person take the mass? Yes! But they would need to repent of their idolatry.

 

[raderag]

[quote:c8fca71b1f][i:c8fca71b1f]Originally posted by sastark[/i:c8fca71b1f]
[quote:c8fca71b1f][i:c8fca71b1f]Originally posted by raderag[/i:c8fca71b1f]

Could a justified person take the mass? [/quote:c8fca71b1f]


Can a justified person still sin? Yes!

Should a justified person flee from sin? Yes!

So, could a justified person take the mass? Yes! But they would need to repent of their idolatry. [/quote:c8fca71b1f]

But if compared to a satanic ritual, that would be denying Christ.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:b10e210fcf][i:b10e210fcf]Originally posted by sastark[/i:b10e210fcf]
[quote:b10e210fcf][i:b10e210fcf]Originally posted by raderag[/i:b10e210fcf]

Could a justified person take the mass? [/quote:b10e210fcf]


Can a justified person still sin? Yes!

Should a justified person flee from sin? Yes!

So, could a justified person take the mass? Yes! But they would need to repent of their idolatry. [/quote:b10e210fcf]

It is a sin that can be repented of. But it is the equivalent of worshipping a totem pole. It is a clear violation of the 1st and 2nd commandments.

 

[raderag]

[quote:3ca2b8b0c2][i:3ca2b8b0c2]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:3ca2b8b0c2]
[quote:3ca2b8b0c2][i:3ca2b8b0c2]Originally posted by sastark[/i:3ca2b8b0c2]
[quote:3ca2b8b0c2][i:3ca2b8b0c2]Originally posted by raderag[/i:3ca2b8b0c2]

Could a justified person take the mass? [/quote:3ca2b8b0c2]


Can a justified person still sin? Yes!

Should a justified person flee from sin? Yes!

So, could a justified person take the mass? Yes! But they would need to repent of their idolatry. [/quote:3ca2b8b0c2]

It is a sin that can be repented of. But it is the equivalent of worshipping a totem pole. It is a clear violation of the 1st and 2nd commandments. [/quote:3ca2b8b0c2]

Agreed.

 

[sastark]

[quote:7c5256aaa0][i:7c5256aaa0]Originally posted by raderag[/i:7c5256aaa0]
But if compared to a satanic ritual, that would be denying Christ. [/quote:7c5256aaa0]

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one person who denied Christ three times, and yet repented, and was a Christian. So, it is sin and sin is evil, but it can be forgiven and repented of.

(which reminds me: PRAISE GOD!)

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by sastark]

 

[raderag]

[quote:92549314a3][i:92549314a3]Originally posted by sastark[/i:92549314a3]
[quote:92549314a3][i:92549314a3]Originally posted by raderag[/i:92549314a3]
But if compared to a satanic ritual, that would be denying Christ. [/quote:92549314a3]

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one person who denied Christ three times, and yet repented, and was a Christian. So, it is sin and sin is evil, but it can be forgiven and repented of. [/quote:92549314a3]

That's a good point, but Peter repented. Are we saying that midieval Christians were not Christians at all?

 

[sastark]

[quote:0be8394f88][i:0be8394f88]Originally posted by raderag[/i:0be8394f88]

That's a good point, but Peter repented. Are we saying that midieval Christians were not Christians at all? [/quote:0be8394f88]

Hmm... are there people in Hell now that expected to go to heaven? I think so. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:da0945054b][i:da0945054b]Originally posted by raderag[/i:da0945054b]
[quote:da0945054b][i:da0945054b]Originally posted by sastark[/i:da0945054b]
[quote:da0945054b][i:da0945054b]Originally posted by raderag[/i:da0945054b]
But if compared to a satanic ritual, that would be denying Christ. [/quote:da0945054b]

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one person who denied Christ three times, and yet repented, and was a Christian. So, it is sin and sin is evil, but it can be forgiven and repented of. [/quote:da0945054b]

That's a good point, but Peter repented. Are we saying that midieval Christians were not Christians at all? [/quote:da0945054b]

I don't think it requires us to consign the entire Medieval Church to hell to say that Rome is a synagogue of Satan today. There is something very important about Trent. At Trent Rome was faced with the choice of denying the gospel or affirming it. She chose to deny the gospel and anathamatize those who professed it. It is as if Peter had refused Paul's rebuke in Gal. 2 and instead insisted that Paul was a heretic. Remember that according to Rome (even if each church does not admit this practically) you are going to hell if because of what you believe. Trent is very clear here.

But we shouldn't fall into the mistake of quickly lumping all of the Medieval church into the equivalent of post-Tridentine Rome.

A good source for many of these questions is Cunningham's [i:da0945054b]Historical Theology[/i:da0945054b]

 

[raderag]

[quote:d8bbc05a98][i:d8bbc05a98]Originally posted by sastark[/i:d8bbc05a98]
[quote:d8bbc05a98][i:d8bbc05a98]Originally posted by raderag[/i:d8bbc05a98]

That's a good point, but Peter repented. Are we saying that midieval Christians were not Christians at all? [/quote:d8bbc05a98]

Hmm... are there people in Hell now that expected to go to heaven? I think so. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter into the kingdom of heaven. [/quote:d8bbc05a98]

Seth, do you suppose that I don't know that verse.

The point is that you are implying that no midieval Catholics are in heaven, which means the church did not exist in visible form. WHat do you say to that? Is the Eucharist damnable?

 

[sastark]

[quote:75e7422d58][i:75e7422d58]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:75e7422d58]

I don't think it requires us to consign the entire Medieval Church to hell to say that Rome is a synagogue of Satan today. [/quote:75e7422d58]


I agree and I hope it did not sound like I meant every one who lived from 600 to 1517 went to hell. Not what I meant.

As usual, I agree with Fred.