A similar thumbnail here: if one thinks Billy Graham is mainly a good thing, an Evangelical; if mainly a bad thing, a Protestant.

IOW – Evangelicalism is a hollow word. It doesn’t mean anything concrete.

You can be evangelical and catholic, in the best sense, or shall I say, “deeper impulses” of both of those terms.

Happy New Year!

From the token Lutheran.

And maybe, just maybe some good will come of the debate among some young witnesses present…..sort of like the Vietnamese crowd who watched one of my ancestor’s, a young priest named Agustine, go happily to his death forgiving everyone and praising Jesus to his last…and thus so moved them that many converted.

Have a blessed new year. And Thanks. again.

John, that’s one of the most charitable things you could say to me. And all I can say is pray for me that God would continue to guide me into the truth, and I will do the same for you. And may our journey to the truth one day find us together as no longer separated brothers, but united in the one kingdom of our Lord.

Until then, as you no doubt know, we’ll have to keep having these kinds of conversations. Because as soon as we all say, yes to sacraments, then we’ll have to talk about the presence of Christ in them. And as soon as we all say yes to councils then we’ll have to talk about what makes a council ecumenical. Is it ecumenical merely because a pope called it or because it has been sifted and ultimately vindicated as Nicaea was? And as soon as we all say yes to bishops, then we’ll have to talk about whether there is a bishop among bishops who has universal authority over all or whether the authority is in the college of bishops. And on and on. . . .

So let’s pray for one another and keep the conversations going.

It’s obvious that institutions and roles in the Church have changed over the years according to various organic developments of the believers, experience ad intra and experience ad extra.

So one would expect to find smaller local church communities first and later – a century or two later – large churches meeting not in homes but Bascillicas or other large meeting places… organic growth.

Similarly, one would expect there to be a plethora of leadership roles fleshed out, improved on, etc. So in Acts we do see first the apostles doing alot…then deciding on the role of Deacons to assist them. One sees Apollos career and the rise of local leaders like Titus or Timothy. In any event one also comes to Bishops and presbyters as well… not perhaps involed in the same ‘jobs’ or roles as modern ones, but there nevertheless.

And that was all lost at the Reformation as ‘unbiblical’…. and yet it wasn’t. It was biblical, and historic. And one would presume, the response by those early believers to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As for the need for the Church to reform itself…yes, of course. I don’t believe the whole church has ever been in a perfect 100% unity of mind and heart since ever. There were always problems needing addressing. Leaders needed dressing down (Paul to Peter) and so did junior leaders or new disciples (Aquila to Apollos). But note in Acts that when there was a difference of opinion in Antioch, it was not resolved by the two parties quoting scripture to each other. It was resolved by a Council of the apostles in Jerusalem. Both scripture and practical need was cited and a solution worked out. But again the Church did not merely send a letter…. it wasn’t a “sola scritura” moment: they also sent two representatives to make sure that letter was interpreted and implemented correctly.

And so we come back to Scripture vs. “The Gospel”. Jesus commanded his disciples to preach and make disciples. They took the inititive to write some of this preaching down which later became “scripture”. But it was imperative that a living soul inspired by the Spirit and endowed with authority to bind and lose (and interpret/test spirits) be present to keep all these far flung little communities from straying.

Else what are we to conclude? That the Galatians couldn’t read? Or that they could, but any letter or constitution or creed can be misinterpreted and twisted out of context and original intent both by accident and by malice.

Hence Jesus’ command to people to preach rather than write it all down and make a zillion copies for distribution….and his promise to be with them, the preachers, always.

So yeah, sure, absolutely, the Bible is vital. But neither in the first century or in our century is it “alone” sufficient for the believer to come to know the truth and live it as Jesus intended we do.

If only because in the first centuries they had sacraments and believed that Baptism was one, and Eucharist too, and Reconciliation and Annointing, and Confirmation…… while many Protestants jettisoned all that when they let go of the priesthood.

So here’s the thing…. from my perspective it’s not that you are all “wrong” as much as that you’re all fellow Christians who are not availing yourselves of the treasures of the Kingdom that is yours if only you recognized it. A treasure hidden in a field indeed!

Sure rubrics, the ‘how’ of sacraments have differed over the centuries and from place to place, but the ‘what’ and basis in both scripture and historical evidence is solid. So how does one just wave it all away as ‘not there’ in the way Jesus wanted to come to us when it was there from the beginning?

This isn’t to say Catholics haven’t botched the liturgy over the years or priests and bishops haven’t been sinners and bad examples in need of reform. Sure they have. Protestants too. But in the early Church there were sacraments so….. how could a modern Christian today not feel the need to regain them if the point is to be as Jesus originally intended us to be?

I didn’t put it the way you suggested because Grudem does not say anything about Calvin. However, I need to do some more checking to see if the first generation of Reformed thinkers held to penal substitution. I said Reformed because it quickly becomes the model for Puritans and other Reformed thinkers.

I just always want to separate Anselm and the medieval scholastics understanding of satisfaction from penal substitionary theory.

Maybe I should have said that penal substitutionary theory is especially designed to fit forensic justification, which Anselm did not hold. Thus penal substitutionary theory sees the primary problem with humanity in terms of guilt rather than in terms of a an inherited condition.

I think Anselm’s satisfaction theory is more designed to address the lack of rectitude or uprightness in both humans and the universe, which means that Anselm stills see the big issue in terms of a condition. Rectitude is closely aligned to Anselm’s view of justice. So “satisfying” God’s justice is really about restoring rectitude so that humans can fulfill their original purpose of being both upright/just and happy.

I would expect that the precise formulations of Calvin and Anselm would differ by virtue of Calvin having the luxury of centuries more of doctrinal development; I was just surprised that the characterization of penal substitutionary atonement as a “Reformed” doctrine of soteriology. Double predestination, sure. But PSA, in light of its being held (not in exactly the same terms) in so much of the Western church since Anselm?

I think my tired brain might have been able to avoid being confused if something like this were written instead: “For example, Wayne Grudem claims that Calvin’s formulation of penal substitutionary theory is orthodox for Evangelicals. I would say, no it’s not although Reformed folks think that it is the best way to understand the atonement.”

One last thing: what do you think of John Stott’s treatment of the subject in The Cross of Christ?

Truly, how does one read Acts of the Apostles and not see a single hierarchical church expanding globally, sharing a common gospel, prayers and liturgies, a common moral doctrine and a common sense of belonging in organic and historical continuity with the ancient patriarchs & prophets?

Huh? I guess because when you read Acts you don’t see any semblance of a hierarchical organization whatsoever. There is no common prayer, no liturgies. The better question would be how do you read Acts and come away with Roman Catholicism?