Now that we have had a post on the improvement in Dominos’ pizza, I thought I might spice things up a bit here as well. A tad provocative, to be sure, sure to cause some angst in both Roman Catholics and Reformed/Protestant Evangelicals all around, but nonetheless interesting to consider:
“Lutheran theology differs from Reformed theology in that it lays great emphasis on the fact that the evangelical church is none other than the medieval Catholic Church purged of certain heresies and abuses. The Lutheran theologian acknowledges that he belongs to the same visible church to which Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Athanasius and Ireneaus once belonged. The orthodox evangelical church is the legitimate continuation of the medieval Catholic Church, not the church of the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council which renounced evangelical truth when it rejected the Reformation. For the orthodox evangelical church is really identical with the orthodox Catholic Church of all times. And just as the very nature of the Reformed Church emphasizes its strong opposition to the medieval church, so the very nature of the Lutheran Church requires it to go to the farthest possible limit in its insistence on its solidarity and identity with the Catholic Church. It was no mere ecclesiastico-political diplomacy which dictated the emphatic assertion in the Augsburg Confession that the teachings of the Evangelicals were identical with those of the orthodox Catholic Church of all ages, and no more was it romanticism or false conservatism which made our church anxious to retain as much of the old canonical law as possible, and to cling tenaciously to the old forms of worship.”
Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand, pp. 110-11.
January 17th, 2010 | 4:53 pm | #1
Um, how can the “orthodox evangelical church” be the “orthodox Catholic CHurch” without Peter the Rock, without Holy Orders, and without a valid Eucharist???? Jesus is the Lord of History. His historical Church is the Catholic Church. Protestants have to say that at some point Jesus stopped protecting His holy Bride from the Father of Lies. He never stopped protecting her, and he never will.
January 17th, 2010 | 5:16 pm | #2
The theory of Papal/Petrine supremacy was developed to a high degree during the Medieval era, and reached its zenith in the 19th century. It falls under heresy and abuses of which the Church was cleansed during Her Reformation in the Sixteenth Century. It is under that overarching error, that Roman notions of “holy orders” and “legitimate” Eucharists thrive. Ironically, it was precisely after the declaration that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra , declared in 1870, that this theory was disproved when the first Papal use of this newly minted dogma, the declaration that Mary was conceived without original sin, and that she was assumed bodily into heaven: pious legend/theories that have absolutely no warrant in the infallible text of Sacred Scripture. And so it goes.
January 17th, 2010 | 5:26 pm | #3
This is a problematic statement to make: At what point in church history does one decide the church went awry? What exactly is an “orthodox” evangelical church? Where is the rubric for gauging orthodoxy? Can the “Orthodox Evangelical Church” answer these questions in a manner that is both reasonably and integrally sound?
January 17th, 2010 | 5:32 pm | #4
The church is always being reformed, but a study of the development of the unique doctrines of Medieval Roman Catholicsm demonstrates that the ever increasingly outlandish claims by Rome reached a zenith in the 13th/14th century. I would propose that the documents collected in the Book of Concord are a faithful exposition and explanation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and I encourage your study of them to ascertain for yourself whether what they claim for themselves is, in fact, true. A wise person posted something on the Internet last April that speaks to this issue: “Often I find myself at odds with many who do not think that any disagreement is possible, and it is then that I must remind them that major reform happened less than 50 years ago because there was disagreement.”
January 17th, 2010 | 5:45 pm | #5
It’s clear that evangelicals love Jesus. But they don’t think He had what it takes to protect his holy bride from the Father of Lies. I’ll say it again: Protestants have to claim that Jesus’ Church went off the rails in terms of teaching the TRUTH. But how is that possible if Jesus is really God the Son? How could Jesus let the Father of Lies win? Unthinkable. Protestants don’t get that the Church is the Bride. And Jesus is a good husband. No matter how many sinners there are in the Church, and no matter at how high a level, Jesus ensures, by the sending of the Holy Spirit of Truth, that His One, Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic Church, continuous throughout history through apostolic succession, can never teach error. To deny this, it seems to me, is to deny the divine power of Jesus.
January 17th, 2010 | 5:48 pm | #6
That’s a great quote, only marred by the fact that is doesn’t recognize that the orthodox Reformed make the same basic claims regarding catholic continuity.
January 17th, 2010 | 5:49 pm | #7
@Miasarx: That response has a certain ring of truth to it, but…it is rhetoric not reality, and besides, it is facile. Have you not read the Old Testament, or the New, for that matter? We read already in the New Testament about how one of the Apostles went totally off the rails and had to be very publicly rebuked and condemned by another? I’m referring, of course, to St. Peter’s grave error in refusing to eat with the Gentiles. He was sternly rebuked by St. Paul. So, if the “first Pope” could go so badly wrong, whose to say others could not, and did not? Oh, would you do us the courtesy of identifying yourself by name? I think in such matters the least we can expect of one another is the integrity of not hiding behind anonymity. Thanks for your kind consideration.
January 17th, 2010 | 5:51 pm | #8
@ Jordan: Of course they do. That’s why the differences are not inconsequential, but worth continually wrestling over, not dismissing.
January 17th, 2010 | 5:58 pm | #9
Was Judas Iscariot a part of the Church in Luke when Satan entered him, or did Jesus just not take care of his apostles until after he died? If sinners are a part of the church, then why was Judas not “protected” as part of the Bride? (Of course, I mainly seek the Catholic perspective on this)
January 17th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #10
The essential differences, which the second claim about the Reformed church in the quote (read charitably) actually attempts to describe, are worth wrestling over.
Mischaracterizations of another group’s explicit self-understanding, as in the first claim about the Reformed, don’t seem to be wrestling so much as twisting. Maybe it’s grammar-chopping, but these two assertions don’t seem to be identical: (1) Reformed theology emphasizes X; (2) the essential nature of the Reformed church emphasizes X.
I hope my first response didn’t come off as dismissive. I really mean that I think the only error of note in the quote (and certainly an explainable error at that) is the juxtaposition of the Reformed claims with the Lutheran claims regarding continuity with the medieval church.
January 17th, 2010 | 6:36 pm | #11
@Jordan: I see your point and understand what you are saying; however, Dr. Hermann Sasse was a gifted scholar of comparative symbolics and Church History, most specifically, Reformation era history. He was deeply involved in ecumenical conversations and work with Reformed scholars in Europe in the 20th century: Barth, the beginnings of the World Council of Churches. I would not too hastily dismiss his remarks about Reformed attitudes over against the Medieval Church. The man knew, deeply, of what he spoke.
January 17th, 2010 | 6:36 pm | #12
Lest one think that the issue is only between Rome and the Reformation, we should recall that Rome and Constantinople make virtually identical claims for themselves, i.e., that each is the legitimate continuation of the church of the apostles and is guaranteed not to fall into error. Yet Rome and Constantinople disagree on the filioque, on papal supremacy, on purgatory, the immaculate conception and a host of other dogmas. Who’s right? They can’t both be.
That Christ is protecting and guiding his church is beyond dispute. That the church will always rightly discern this leading is hardly beyond dispute, especially because we have manifold historical examples of its not doing so. Both testaments testify to the unfaithfulness of God’s people throughout its history, even the generation that saw so many of his miracles in the Sinai. If God’s people of the old covenant fell into error repeatedly, why should we assume that his new covenant people will not do the same?
January 17th, 2010 | 7:10 pm | #13
Dr. Sasse’s impressive qualifications and expertise notwithstanding, this is a caricature of Reformed theology, one to which Barth himself contributed greatly.
One thing this characterization does, which is most unhelpful, is fail to distinguish those for whom claims to catholic continuity through the medieval period were important (e.g. the magisterial Reformed) from those for whom such claims were explicitly renounced (e.g. the Anabaptists).
January 17th, 2010 | 7:22 pm | #14
I won’t go into the fact that one of the greatest Reformed theologians since the 16th century, Karl Barth, actually supports Sasse’s thesis.
I think the iconoclasm in Geneva and Zurich, with the anti-sacramental rhetoric from the chief early leaders of the Reformed movement, which inspired the Beeldenstorm in the Netherlands in the 1560s, and other such horrors, goes a long way to reinforcing the idea that the Reformed communion, on the whole, views the later years of the Patristic era, and the Medieval era as a whole, as but one long glitch, moving the Church ever further from the primitive [read: purer] Church.
January 17th, 2010 | 7:35 pm | #15
What I enjoy about this part of Lutheranism is that a denomination which historically has covered about 2% of all people who use the name “Christian” wants to call itself the main line of historical affirmation of the universal church of Christ. There’s no sense arguing about this with Rev. McCain or any Lutheran. If they give up this aspect of what they believe, they’d be Presbyterians plain and simple. Bless their heart. :-)
January 17th, 2010 | 7:46 pm | #16
I’ll have to revisit this tomorrow when I have a bit more time, but for now I’ll just say that calling Barth Reformed is like calling Bultmann Lutheran.
January 17th, 2010 | 8:24 pm | #17
Hah, ok, fair enough. I look forward to your further comments.
January 17th, 2010 | 8:26 pm | #18
@FrankTurk I simply refuse to believe you actually are suffering from such colossal theological and historical ignorance as to think seriously that genuine Lutheranism is just a vector off of Presbyterianism. Truly, I can’t believe it. I suspect you are just having a bit of fun, you naughty fellow. By the way, under which tent do you place yourself these days? At last check, you had removed yourself from the Southern Baptist Church, no? So, where do you fall among the Lutheran Reformation-spawned spin-offs?
January 17th, 2010 | 9:19 pm | #19
I know it’s fun to stir up a fuss now and then. However, I think it is extremely funny that as soon as a member of one Protestant group attacks the CC, other Protestants immediately say, “Hey! WE have more legitimate right to attack the CC than you do!”
When you get that little problem solved, maybe Catholics will get a bit more stirred up at what you’re saying. Until then, the invitation to return to full, rich, exciting orthodoxy is always open. Come on, now–you know you want to.
January 17th, 2010 | 11:06 pm | #20
Luther made a good start, he just failed to do the job completly. That’s where Calvin came in.
January 17th, 2010 | 11:23 pm | #21
Frank Turk’s “2%” crack is a bit snarky but it does point to an important problem with the Saase position – namely that he asserts that Lutherans are part of the same “visible church” as the great theologians of the middle ages despite the fact that Lutheranism is a relatively small movement.
It makes sense to advocate for a visible church and say that the visible church is the one that was roughly 100% of Christians until 1054, and 100% of Western Christians from then until the Reformation, and still a majority of Christians worldwide (the RC position).
And it makes sense to advocate for an invisible church (the Reformed position). The advnatage of the invisible church position is that you can end up thinking the church is invisiable and tiny, or invisible and huge. Either is a legitimate position from within the invisible church framework.
But to assert that the true church is visible but tiny – that’s a stretch.
January 18th, 2010 | 12:58 am | #22
I’ve always wondered about this and would like some feedback: could it be that those of the Reformed camp like Mr. Turk want Lutheranism to just be pseudo-Presbyterianism? They would affirm, as far as I know, that Lutheranism has the true Gospel. But many of them also argue quite routinely that things like baptismal regeneration and having salvation tied in any way to the sacraments is against the Gospel and is inevitably bound up with a Roman conception of salvation (this is a point that James White makes ad nauseum).
To which Lutherans like myself sit here confused, scratching our heads.
“Hey, uh… we’re right over here, you know, and we can hear you!”
January 18th, 2010 | 1:48 am | #23
How then do you account for the Eastern rites’ nearly parallel understandings on these topics? In the East you find apostolic succession, hierarchical authority, and councils pronouncing infallibly. You also find holy orders and an understanding of the Eucharist that is realist (even if the term “transubstantiation” is not used, since it is a philosophical concept employed to explain the doctrine of Eucharistic realism). For these reasons, the Catholic Church (which includes more than “Rome”) accepts the Eastern Churches as having true sacraments and a legitimate priesthood. So, if these ideas were “Roman inventions,” why the strong similarities including a realist view of sacramental grace as infused?
( see http://faculty.biola.edu/alang/EO/Report.pdf )
January 18th, 2010 | 8:21 am | #24
Actually, I would say the “off shoots” are more Luther than Lutherns – what ever happened to each congregation picking their own ministers, anyway?
January 18th, 2010 | 8:28 am | #25
Dac, first, it is spelled Lutherans, not Lutherns, and secondly, Lutheran congregations in the USA do call their own ministers. Other than that, your comment was spot-on!
January 18th, 2010 | 10:25 am | #26
I like it that my last comment is perceived as “naughty fun”.
In terms of formal systematics, there’s no question that Lutheranism and Presbyterianism are not hardly identical. But if Lutherans stopped seeing themselves as the most-suitable singular heir to catholicity, and therefore surrender their view that the Medieval period is the point to which they ought to reform, a lot of their theological distinctives would then come under the microscope (and, in my opinion, get reformed in both the small “r” meaning and the big “R” meaning).
I am sure you wouldn’t see it that way, Rev. McCain. :-)
January 18th, 2010 | 10:26 am | #27
yes, Luther started that way, but then he killed it and went back to the hierarchy (RC) method – why did the lutherns not stick with it if Luther was so gosh darned wonderful? And the one tru church and all?
January 18th, 2010 | 11:08 am | #28
“I am sure you wouldn’t see it that way, Rev. McCain.”
We agree, again!
: )
January 18th, 2010 | 11:10 am | #29
Dac, Lutheranism has never insisted on one precise form of church governance. We are happily willing to drive both RCs and Reformed up the wall when we refuse to insist on a single form of church governance: bishops, congregational voters’ assemblies, consistories, we’ve used it all and are content with all of them. We refuse to make forms of church governance of the essence of the Church.
January 18th, 2010 | 11:12 am | #30
Mr. Turk, one more thing, I said you were a naughty fellow, having a bit of fun. Just to be precise. I know, its just the description you crave. Happy to help.
; )
January 18th, 2010 | 4:18 pm | #31
This sounds similar to Swiss Reformed historical theologian Philip Schaff’s argument in Principle of Protestantism (1845), though Schaff had more of a sense of doctrinal development:
“The Reformation is the legitimate offspring, the greatest act of the Catholic Church; and on this account of true catholic nature itself, in its genuine conception: whereas the Church of Rome, instead of following the divine conduct of history has continued to stick in the old law of commandments, the garb of childhood, like the Jewish hierarchy in the time of Christ, and thus by its fixation as Romanism has parted with the character of catholicity in exchange for particularity.”
January 18th, 2010 | 4:29 pm | #32
I note that Rev. McCain has not answered Francis Beckwith, and would add that one can only point to “medieval mischief” and its alleged progeny if one has forgotten key points that John Henry Newman made in his “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.”
To say that there is no warrant for various Marian doctrines in scripture is misleading at best– did Aquinas and others not conclusively prove that reason and revelation need never be at war with each other?
January 18th, 2010 | 4:50 pm | #33
Ex post facto pious speculations imposed on the Scripture, by pronouncements in the 19th and 20th centuries by a Papacy declared infallible, hardly stands the test of “conclusive proof.” When the Pope declared in 1950, in Munificentissimus Deus:
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
Let me, for one, go on record utterly rejecting and denying these extravagant claims of the Papacy.
In so declaring, the Papacy verified the point Hermann Sasse about the Roman Catholic Church and its claims about itself. Frankly, it seems to me to be more than ironic that only “declaration” made that rises to the level of infallibility, as defined in 1870 by Vatican I, was one concerning a pious speculation/legend that has literally no standing in the broad consensus of Creedal Christianity.
January 18th, 2010 | 6:21 pm | #34
That’s not the way I understood the arguments when I was considering Catholicism. In fact, virtually every book I read on the subject offered a careful, organic understanding of the papacy. For instance, how was it possible by the 19th century to have an ecclesiastical office that could do such a thing? It didn’t arrive out of nowhere from whole cloth. So, the reason must lie in the logic of the development of the See. For the Catholic, the greater centralizing of the papacy corresponds rather nicely to two historical phenomena: (1) increased travel and communication, and (2) the rise of the secular nation-state, both of which require a different sort of papacy than the Church required in 340 A.D. Analogously, we don’t get the Chalcedonian formulation of the incarnation until mid 6th century. Does that mean that if we look back on the development of that doctrine from the first century onward and detect in retrospect its increased sophistication and nuanced understanding that we are engaged in capricious post facto reasoning? I don’t think so. And that’s precisely why Catholics don’t think it’s such a big deal if the papacy changes over time. After all, our understanding of Scripture (the inclusion of the NT), the Trinity (from a vague concept to Nicean precision), the incarnation, and Holy Communion (from a basic Eucharistic realism to the more philosophically sophisticated transubstantiation) developed over the time. Why not the papacy?
January 18th, 2010 | 6:24 pm | #35
You know: wow.
Dr. Beckwith said:
Really? So the schisms between East and West were in spite of “nearly parallel undestandings on these topics”?
Shall we cite the mutual anathemas between East and West, Doctor, or will you admit this is at best an errant overgeneralization which (intentionally or not so much) obscures the facts?
I can respect that you think you did the right thing, but if it was based on historical pretzels like that one, one can’t help but think that maybe a little beer was also involved.
January 18th, 2010 | 7:18 pm | #36
What Mr. Turk said. [We agree again].
January 18th, 2010 | 7:21 pm | #37
Wow, so from, let’s say, 33 A.D. or so, when Christ gave St. Peter the keys of the Kingdom and declared him to be the rock upon which the Church is built, it took until the late part of the 19th century for the Church to realize this means that the Pope is infallible? I wonder why it took over 1800 years to reach this increased sophistication? And it is quite a stretch to suggest the Church was wobbly on its Christology until 340, when in fact already St. Paul had, by the Spirit’s inspiration, declared Jesus Christ to be Lord.
January 18th, 2010 | 8:00 pm | #38
In criticizing the post, some of you are proving what it says. Here the Lutheran is praising medieval Catholicism as a good thing. Whereupon the Reformed here are saying, no it isn’t. Meanwhile the Catholics are rejecting the nice things the Lutherans are saying about them by saying that they alone have it.
Seriously, wouldn’t a fully catholic, universal Christianity of today have to include Protestantism? If Catholics make up half of the number of Christians today ( a billion), non-Catholics make up the other half (which includes 200 million Orthodox; there are about as many Lutherans as Anglicans, close to 100 million each, and then all the others.
The genius of Lutheranism is that it embraces elements of both Catholicism (& Orthodoxy); namely, a realistic view of the Eucharist (to pick up on what Dr. Beckwith says), baptismal generation, and liturgical worship. Plus, a Protestant-like emphasis on Scripture and on the Gospel.
Catholics attack Lutheranism for being Protestant, while Protestants attack it for being Catholic. Maybe it is ecumenical in the true sense that counts.
January 18th, 2010 | 8:01 pm | #39
By no means am I anti-Catholic, and I loathe Calvinism. A big difference between them, however, is that one man made Calvinism and many people made Catholicism. It’s easy to dismiss Calvinism because it looks nothing like anything in Church history. In fact, its uniqueness and novelty is what many find appealing. That is is different from the rest of Christianity is often viewed as its witness and strength.
All that said, I think Catholicism has some problems. I, too, has elements of novelty. By that I mean some doctrines clearly developed AFTER the split between East and West. Since those doctrines cannot be found in earlier Church history, one way to defend them is to appeal to another novel concept: the papacy. Many converts to Catholicism find some doctrines hard to believe: for example, many find the Immaculate Conception doctrine hard to believe. One way many deal with it is by accepting the papacy. If the papacy teaches it, then it must be true. It is analogous to the Protestant view of Scripture: if it’s taught in the Bible it must be true even if I do not find it convincing on any other grounds. The problem for me is that the authority issue seems circular. It seems that the papacy finds its legitimacy in the papacy. After all, the doctrine is not found in the Eastern churches and cannot be found in early Church history. It’s source is itself. I know an objection is Matthew 16, but everyone who believes in the Bible believes in Matthew 16. If I assume the papacy is legitimate, I can easily come to the conclusion that the papacy is found in matthew 16. However, unless I presuppose the papacy is legit, I cannot find it outside of its own claims.
If it can be shown to me that the papacy is rooted in BOTH Scripture AND Holy Tradition, then I believe I can be Catholic. It wouldn’t bother me if it is the true Church. I have nothing to lose by it being what it claims to be. I love Chesterton, Peter Kreeft, Francis Beckwith, Theology of the Body, on and on. I’m not Catholic (though I was) because I cannot accept the claims that separate the Catholic Church from the first thousand years.
That being said, I think Catholic Church is a part of the true Church and that its sacraments are valid. My opinion matters little, but it’s where I stand.
January 18th, 2010 | 8:02 pm | #40
Sorry for my typos in the above, btw.
January 18th, 2010 | 8:41 pm | #41
@Veith: Game. Set. Match. Nicely done.
January 18th, 2010 | 9:36 pm | #42
I personally think the only way you get that kind of Lutheran read is to stop the history of Christianity prior to the Gregorian reforms of the 11th century when the papacy became the papacy. I assume that since Luther and Melanchthon rejected the notion of habitus, which was the synthesis of the 13th century, rejected much of the ecclesiology central to the medieval Catholic church, and loathed the scholastic project in general that much of what counts as medieval Catholicism must be accorded the status of heresy.
I suppose one could agree with Thomas Aquinas on the notion of a real presence even while rejecting his Aristotelian interpretation of transubstantion as well as the Fourth Lateran Councils establishment of transubstantion as official Catholic teaching. I suppose you could agree with Aquinas notion of conversion as involving the sanctifying work of grace and beginning at baptism (for infants) even while rejecting the very core way Aquinas understood the sanctifying work of grace. I suppose you could accept the early councils even while not according them the level of authority that either the medieval Catholic or Byzantine Orthodox churches accord them.
We’re talking about a very thin slice of the medieval Catholic church that almost any version of Protestantism could carve out. It seems to boil down to sacramentality and that’s about it. Heck most pietist forms of Protestantism can claim to have greater continuity with medieval Catholicism in terms of their greater emphasis on synergism and sanctification than forensic justification so central to the Book of Concord. Don’t forget, according to Paul, the second Martin et al., had to purge the errors of Melanchton, which I suppose means the synergism that he endorsed.
Furthermore, if the Book of Concord really does rule out synergism then it’s not a faithful reflection of the Orthodox church, which has never accepted the Augustinian notion of predestination or the monergism it endorses. So, it endorses a distinctly western, even North African, understanding of predestination that was not even embraced by the monks in Southern Gaul and John Cassian.
It’s a thin, thin slice. I don’t think you could put much on it.
January 18th, 2010 | 9:47 pm | #43
To return briefly to Barth, here’s the relevant quote, which I think captures his entire theological programme nicely:
Karl Barth (self-portrait, 1964): “Since I could not become an orthodox ‘Calvinist’, I had even less desire to support a Lutheran confessionalism.”
Barth has a confession, and it’s the Barmen Declaration, which he understands to be the expression his fundamental tenet: the rejection of natural theology.
As for the rest, I simply point out that Sasse’s characterization of Reformed theology misrepresents the self-understanding of the Reformed orthodox of the 16th and 17th c.
Rev. McCain responds in part by pointing to some concrete examples he thinks show that the Reformed were not/are not continuous with the medieval church in any important way.
This completely misses my point. I was not making a claim about the actual continuity, but rather about the Reformers’ self-understanding that there was continuity and that such continuity was important.
They could have been wrong. But they should not be misunderstood.
January 18th, 2010 | 9:58 pm | #44
“The Reformers” – let’s qualify that, a bit, shall we? “Calvinist Reformers” claim continuity, but … in what precisely does such continuity consist? They were iconoclasts, anti-sacramental, etc. Hard to see where “continuity” with the Medieval Church was on their agenda. Please elaborate.
January 18th, 2010 | 10:17 pm | #45
If you agree that the “Calvinist” Reformers claim continuity, as apparently do the “Lutheran” Reformers (per the Sasse) quote, why do I need to qualify the following? “…the Reformers’ self-understanding that there was continuity and that such continuity was important.” I could qualify to note that I’m speaking of the magisterial Reformation, but I noted that I think that distinction is precisely the one that Sasse’s characterization endangers (i.e. the magisterial Reformed vs. the radical reformers/Anabaptists).
January 18th, 2010 | 10:47 pm | #46
Jordan, please enlighten me. I will assume you are correct, for the sake of the discussion, that Calvinists believed they were in “conformity” with the Medieval Church, but given their intense antipathy over against virtually all aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine and piety I’d would love to know precisely how they understood themselves to be in conformity with it.
January 18th, 2010 | 10:56 pm | #47
Here’s one of the best summary statements of which I am aware:
“It is worth recognizing from the outset that the Reformation altered comparatively few of the major loci of theology: the doctrines of justification, the sacraments, and the church received the greatest emphasis, while the doctrines of God, the trinity, creation, providence, predestination, and the last things were taken over by the magisterial Reformation virtually without alteration.”
–Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 39.
January 19th, 2010 | 9:20 am | #48
Mr. Veith writes: “Seriously, wouldn’t a fully catholic, universal Christianity of today have to include Protestantism?”
To which the obvious response: Yes, of course–as the Catholic Church thinks of Protestants as Catholics who have left the Church over doctrinal disputes. “Separated brethren,” the term is.
The fact that Protestants are still squabbling over which bits and pieces of Catholicism they can include in their confessions, and which brand name is the best continuation from Catholicism, indicates their origin.
January 19th, 2010 | 4:15 pm | #49
When I consider the tremendous, let us say, “variety” across North American Roman Catholicism, alone, I find appeals to the great “unity” of Roman Catholicism set up over against “squabbling” among Protestants to be a bit facile.
January 19th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #50
Is the ELCA the RCC of the medieval scholastic age?
January 19th, 2010 | 5:07 pm | #51
@Orthodoxdj: You may have a point. Homosexuality and other unspeakable moral depravity was very much a problem in the RCC monastic system in the Middle Ages, but it was not formally condoned and blessed as the ELCA did last summer.
So, I’d say, to say the ELCA is the RCC of the Middle Ages would be an insult to the RCC of the Middle Ages.
January 19th, 2010 | 6:30 pm | #52
A theology teacher from my high school days was fascinated by Lutherans and high-church Episcopalians. In their own ways, he opined, each seems to “p!$$ off both Roman Catholics and many Protestants” Thus, he inferred, that each must be onto something – some essential truth. What is that truth?
January 19th, 2010 | 6:34 pm | #53
“When I consider the tremendous, let us say, “variety” across North American Roman Catholicism, alone, I find appeals to the great “unity” of Roman Catholicism set up over against “squabbling” among Protestants to be a bit facile.”
Point taken. Call it unity de jure as opposed to unity de facto.
January 19th, 2010 | 6:37 pm | #54
Is the Bible all we need to know for belief and practice? That’s the question I keep going back to. I have ZERO PROBLEM with believing that there are genuine Christians in many chuches: RC, EO, Protestant (even as far out as SDA). I have a problem with the idea that either we can’t know what the church is supposed to be or that one group much later in church history rediscovered the real Gospel and ways of being the church. If the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, how could it have gone so wrong?
January 19th, 2010 | 7:56 pm | #55
“If the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, how could it have gone so wrong?”
Orthodoxdj, let me take your question and turn it into a statement: If the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, then any group establishing itself on Scripture Only is eventually, one way or another, going to veer off its foundation.
The best “continuation” of the Catholic Church of yesterday is the Catholic Church of today.
January 19th, 2010 | 7:57 pm | #56
@Joe: I suggest you consider reading, and studying, this book.
January 19th, 2010 | 7:59 pm | #57
Churches and councils, can, and have erred. That’s a simple reality and fact. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, but this is not to say that members of the church are inerrant.
January 20th, 2010 | 12:35 am | #58
“If the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, how could it have gone so wrong?”
Because the Church is full of fallible sinners?
“Well, why didn’t Christ and the apostles warn us about false teachers and bad doctrine?”
See Acts 20:28-31, 1 Timothy 4:1-2, Jude 3-4, Matthew 7:15, 16:21-23; Galatians 1:7, 2:11-21; 1Tim 6:3-10, 2Cor 11:4, 2Pet 2:1-2, Revelation 2-3 …
The Bible teaches us that there will always be struggles in the Church to defend the truth against error and heresy.
The ELCA was mentioned above. I believe those folks would claim to follow in the apostolic succession Rev. McCain mentions. So how can they be so wrong on things so central to the gospel? And wouldn’t their example (and that of the ECUSA) demonstrate that the visible church can get things badly wrong?
January 20th, 2010 | 6:43 am | #59
Craig, you will have to do better than this. The Roman Catholic Church of the Council of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II is by no means the catholic church. What is truly catholic in Roman Catholicism, is by no means unique to Romanism, but the doctrines that are unique to Romanism are most certainly not catholic.
January 20th, 2010 | 9:47 am | #60
What is truly catholic in Roman Catholicism, is by no means unique to Romanism, but the doctrines that are unique to Romanism are most certainly not catholic.
Now, that’s quotable!
January 20th, 2010 | 10:03 am | #61
All right–let’s review. The point of this thread seems to be that the proper continuation of medieval Catholicism is today Lutherism. (Isn’t “Lutherism” the counterpart to “Romanism”?) I have argued to the contrary that the true continuation is the contemporary Catholic Church. On that point, I think Newman and I will just have to disagree with you.
As far as catholic doctrines being “unique” to Catholicism, of course they are not. (We agree!) I’ve argued before that Protestantism is essentially about 90% Catholic in belief; in fact, the vast majority of Protestant Christian beliefs owe much more to Catholicism than they do to the Reformation.
“Craig, that last bit is quotable.” “Why, thank you; I thought so, too.” :)
The disagreement seems to be that you think the Reformation “corrected” the other bits of doctrine which are peculiarly “Roman.” Is this a fair assessment?
January 20th, 2010 | 10:19 am | #62
Protestantism is essentially about 90% Catholic in belief; in fact, the vast majority of Protestant Christian beliefs owe much more to Catholicism than they do to the Reformation.
Well, that’s news to me as a Protestant. So was the Reformation just a power-grab, then? An ego trip? A terrible misunderstanding?
Or perhaps when you say that Protestantism is 90% Catholic, do you mean Lutheranism?
January 20th, 2010 | 10:56 am | #63
any group establishing itself on Scripture Only is eventually, one way or another, going to veer off its foundation.
But a group founded on human leaders can’t possibly go wrong! The answer to the Bible leading us astray (!) is human authority?
1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Gal. 1:6 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
(Here an inspired apostle tells Christians to test his own teaching against the Word of God)
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
They didn’t simply assume Paul’s teaching was true because of any office or education he had, but tested it against God’s Word, and were commended for it.
Of course anyone can pervert Scripture to suit their own ends. The Bible itself warns us that people will do just that. But the defense against false teachers and doctrine is not an infallible teaching office (of which Scripture knows nothing), but the Word of God itself to which all Christians may refer.
The infallible Church, of course, put people to death for translating the Bible so that Christians could actually read it.
January 20th, 2010 | 1:00 pm | #64
The lack of visible unity in the body of Christ is a cause of great sorrow for our Lord and one of the greatest impediments to the faith of the unbeliever and the salvation of all nations; as such, it is the responsibility of all Christians to be working for unity in truth, which is not the same as defensively building up a fortress of self-justification whereby we can comfortably rest in our denomination’s righteousness, but involves first seeing the planks in our own denomination’s eye and then seeking out the estranged brother in humble love.
Would that our comments reflected more humility and less self-assurance. I, for one, wish my local Presbyterian church was oriented by Luther’s desire to be reconciled to a Catholic Church that had forsaken sins and heresies, that we practiced and not simply asserted that we are “Reformed and always reforming,” and that we were less in thrall to the anti-Christian forces of late modernity–that is, in biblical terms, the spirit of our age–that has infiltrated and so threatens every Christian denomination more than any Christian denomination does each other.
To this end, the Catholic doctrine of theological development gives me hope, though I am certainly tempted by cynicism, for it opens up a way to reconciliation and renewal that Vatican I had seemed to close off.
January 20th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #65
“Well, that’s news to me as a Protestant.”
Always glad to help out. :)
But seriously, Jeff, you do accept the Creeds, right? Not to mention (although I will) the canon of Scripture? (Leaving aside for the moment that Deuterocanonical issue. Are we going to let seven books stand between friends?)
This is what I mean by arguing that Christians in general are about 90% Catholic, no matter what they are in name. Or do you think the doctrines of the Trinity, the nature of God, the Incarnation, the nature of Christ, the canon of Scripture, and so on, sprang full-blown from the forehead of Luther? (Or Calvin, for Reformed readers.) I mean, even if you are not Catholic (yet), you could at least be grateful to your Mother, right?
And doesn’t it seem funny that the Catholic Church could develop accurately the doctrines of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the Incarnation, the canon of Scripture, and so on, all which I assume you accept, and yet be so wrong on the matter of church authority? You accept the camel but strain out the gnat?
And just one more point: You quoted Gal. 1:6, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.” You then said, and rightly so, that Paul was inviting readers to test his teaching against the Word of God.
So my question would be: When Paul mentions the Gospel he preaches, is he talking about the Bible? If not, where did the Gospel, the Word of God, to which he refers, reside?
January 20th, 2010 | 3:55 pm | #66
Craig, you seriously have to stop suggesting that the “Catholic Church” somehow can claim ownership of universal Christian truth. You can have every doctrine the Catholics uniquely came up with after 1520. That seems fair enough.
The small-c catholic church came to understand and express the truths of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the incarnation, etc. The Roman Catholic church is the one that developed the doctrine of papal infallibility — unless you’ve got some place in Scripture to show from whence that doctrine is derived. Because I can show you from Scritpure where the others originate.
Do you not agree that all doctrines are not created equal? That the Bible clearly warns Christians about false teachers and false doctrine in the church? In the face of multiple biblical passages and the clear witness of history, you assert that the church cannot be wrong on matters of doctrine?
The Church burned people at the stake for translating the Bible so that Christians could read it for themselves. Up until 45 years ago, the Church insisted that Christians worship in a language that none of them understood. Many churches actively supported slavery and genocide. The church has gotten so many things wrong that the miracle is that the gospel endures in spite of the church.
So I’m pretty sure the gospel doesn’t reside in Paul’s infallible teaching authority, since he encourages the Body of Christ to test his teaching. And I’m pretty sure it doesn’t reside in Peter’s authority, since Paul has to publicly rebuke him for corrupting the gospel. The Bereans tested Paul’s teaching against the OT canon, corroborating what he said with God’s revealed truth. If you’re asking what the did Gentiles before the NT canon, not having the OT to test Paul’s teaching against, I’m not sure that’s relevant to the discussion here, since we actually have the authoritative Scriptures. But Jesus makes it clear that the Holy Spirit, the one who gives us new life, bears witness to the truth.
I imagine you’d say that it’s dangerous to let individuals or churches decide doctrine for themselves. They can twist Scripture and come up with all kinds of errors and heresies. I would agree that’s a real danger. But it’s no greater a danger for the local Free Will Baptist assembly than it is for the Pope and the Magisterium.
January 20th, 2010 | 4:55 pm | #67
Well, thanks for responding, anyway. However, I don’t really recognize anything I said in what you say I said. I would at least repeat one point: Be grateful for the endowment of doctrine handed down to you from the Church. And yes, it was the Catholic Church.
January 20th, 2010 | 6:58 pm | #68
That’s odd. I got my doctrine from the Bible, and from teachers who teach from the Bible.
But maybe that’s just me.
January 20th, 2010 | 6:58 pm | #69
@Craig, I wanted to respond to your proposed areas in which we would agree.
I would agree with your statement, but only if you would not capitalize Catholic, which I take to be a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.
If however, you are referring to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, I would find much to agree with in your assertion.
January 20th, 2010 | 8:03 pm | #70
“That’s odd. I got my doctrine from the Bible, and from teachers who teach from the Bible.
But maybe that’s just me.”
Dear Daryl: I expect better of you. (I sound like a scold, don’t I?) Where did the canon of the Bible come from? How were the inspired Scriptures, inspired by God, recognized as inspired? Through what body? Under whose authority? And how do you know for sure they got it right, unless you acknowledge their authority? Plus, of course, everyone under the sun–every Gnostic, every Arian, every Marcionite–would say exactly the same thing you said. Who corrected them? And do you acknowledge the authority of the corrections?
“I would agree with your statement, but only if you would not capitalize Catholic, which I take to be a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.
If however, you are referring to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, I would find much to agree with in your assertion.”
Dear Rev. McCain: (By the way, do you have a preference as to how you want to be addressed?) I would agree with you–in fact, I do for the most part–except for one thing: In the time period we are discussing, the holy catholic church was in fact the Catholic Church. It was not only the spiritual family of believers, but the visible organizational structure of that family, that worked out the orthodox Christian doctrine still held to by all of us, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.
Despite my pugnacious posts, I really think there is less dividing us than meets the eye–except for this impossible-to-overlook question of authority.
January 20th, 2010 | 8:14 pm | #71
Craig,
I am sincerely sorry if I misunderstood or misrepresented what you were saying.
You expressed incredulity that the church could get major doctrines like the nature of Christ, the incarnation, and the Trinity right and then have gone so wrong on papal authority.
It seemed reasonable to infer that you were arguing that the church having gotten other doctrines right should be trusted to get papal authority right, or that papal authority should be held as equally important as the foundational dogmas you cited.
My response was based on what appeared to be the logical consequence of your comment. If you’re not arguing that official church teaching is infallible and you agree that all doctrines are not equally important, I’d appreciate it if you could help me understand your point.
January 20th, 2010 | 10:53 pm | #72
Dear Jeff: I do agree, certainly, that not all doctrines are equally important; in fact, I would go further and argue (or admit, I suppose) that not all teachings of the Catholic Church rise to the level of doctrine. I also agree with you about false teachers within the Church (recalling Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares growing up together). I think, though I am not looking this up, that the idea of the pope pronouncing infallibly at times and under certain conditions actually is one of the teachings held most strongly and has been pronounced to be so. I assume this is what most folks have problems with.
Rather than quote myself (which is too self-referential even for me), I will direct us back to Post 70. I think pretty much everything I had to say I said there.
If we are completely basing our lives on the Bible, we should remember through whom the Bible came. Did the Church infallibly get that right, and then start missing it?
I also want to repeat something I said earlier: although I probably come across as pugnacious, I hope that I am not offensive to anyone here. This is an interesting and intelligent blog, and I appreciate the high level of civility (especially high considering typical internet standards). Anyway, there was no need to apologize for anything, and I didn’t intend to imply there was.
January 20th, 2010 | 10:59 pm | #73
Well, is St Vladimir’s granting an honority degree to Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican church means that orthodox people are going back to the dirty plays of the hippodrome. Where according to Procopius, the future Empress Theodora, had geese pick up grain from her groin area. Orthodox also had sexual behavior just as bad as Roman Catholics in the middle ages.
January 20th, 2010 | 11:28 pm | #74
If we are completely basing our lives on the Bible, we should remember through whom the Bible came. Did the Church infallibly get that right, and then start missing it?
To summarize my earlier posts, Why would we not assume otherwise? Because the church gets core dogmas right does not suggest logically that we would necessarily get other doctrines right. In fact, I think it makes sense to assume that there will be great unity and certainty on core dogma and increasing uncertainty and likelihood for error the further we move from there.
A pastoral friend once suggested a model for prioritizing doctrines based on breadth of biblical witness, clarity of biblical evidence, theological importance, and historical agreement. Doctrines like the nature of the Trinity and the vicarious atonement of Christ will be very high in all those areas. Papal infallibility might be theologically important, but there’s little historical agreement, biblical clarity or scriptural support for it. You might see things differently.
Anyway, thanks for the gracious words. Pax.
January 21st, 2010 | 12:01 am | #75
So… you’re saying that we can breathe, eat, and drink infallibly, but that Jesus isn’t going to help us walk, run, or move the spoon to our mouths. He’s perfectly fine with us crawling all our dogmatic lives or eating the religious equivalent of drain cleaner, because he just can’t be bothered.
Yeah, that’s the kind of valuable shepherding I expect from God setting up His Church. Sort of an “abusive neglect” theology, instead of straight up Deism.
January 21st, 2010 | 9:34 am | #76
Maureen, if your comment is aimed at me, I fail to see how your analogy applies to what I’ve actually said.
Are you suggesting that the church can do no wrong? That the church cannot err in its theology, law, or practice? I refer you to the biblical texts I’ve already cited, and to the sad reality of church history filled with sins, errors, and obvious wrongs.
I do believe that Christ is a perfect shepherd. I’ve yet to meet any other shepherds or sheep who are sinless or infallible.
Instead of alleging that my theology is deficient, you might want to test your anthropology an ecclesiology in light of the Bible and church history.
January 21st, 2010 | 9:12 pm | #77
Well, this is one point where I might agree with Turk. Some Sacramential church members sometimes think their bapistism or taking the eurchrist saves them from Hell. The great critic of early christianity, Julian the pagan emperor complain that murders used their bapistism to save them from hell. Granted, both the Catholic Church and the Orthdox church believe that belief and good works are other factors. But sacrements along don’t do it, think of all the nominal Catholics or Orthodox of Lutherans and Anglicians that have lost their fath.
January 21st, 2010 | 10:11 pm | #78
“Well, this is one point where I might agree with Turk.”
It’s a slippery slope. Be careful.
January 21st, 2010 | 10:12 pm | #79
That was a joke.
January 25th, 2010 | 6:44 pm | #80
“I would agree with your statement, but only if you would not capitalize Catholic, which I take to be a reference to the Roman Catholic Church”.
Can Paul McCain define for us what he means by “Roman Catholic Church; I am not exactly sure how he is using it. I find it interesting that he does not recognize that the Church headed by the pope is the “Catholic Church”. This is the way the Church identifies herself in all her official expressions. I suspect that “Roman Catholic Church” as used by McCain is antagonistic but I could be wrong.
January 25th, 2010 | 7:52 pm | #81
Mr./Ms. Dozie, I refer to the Roman Catholic Church, not the “Catholic” Church, for in using the word “Catholic” as a proper name for itself, the Roman Church speaks in error. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is not coterminus with, or defined as, the Roman Catholic Church.
January 26th, 2010 | 8:15 am | #82
“for in using the word “Catholic” as a proper name for itself, the Roman Church speaks in error.”
I fail to see how the Church is in error for identifying herself for who/what she is. Is there not an institution called the Catholic Church prior to Martin Luther? Do you think the Council of Trent was a gathering of Roman Catholic Bishops?
January 26th, 2010 | 9:46 am | #83
Mr./Ms. Dozie,
I must apologize to you, for evidently I am failing clearly enough to communicate my position.
I certainly understand why a Roman Catholic feels strongly that the Roman Catholic Church is *THE* Church and why it is perfectly acceptable to refer to it as such, and as the *Catholic* [capital C] Church.
I however reject these claims and assertions as false and untrue.
I prefer to refer to the Roman Catholic Church to better identify and more properly label the communion that regards the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ on earth, to which all authority has been given to rule and govern the church on earth.
If you would like additional insight into why I believe, as I do, you can read this blog post:
http://bookofconcord.blogspot.com/2010/01/church-sa-part-iii-article-xii.html
January 29th, 2010 | 1:15 am | #84
Regarding to an earlier comment that you made about the ‘first Pope’ Peter could do so wrong…is not to be man to be in a state of sin? With Adam and Eve and the ultimate fall of man (through both Adam and Eve), it brought humanity to a state of original sin. When we are baptized into Christianity that state of original sin is wiped clean, but we still have sin upon us. Even though we are made in the image and likeness of God, we are not divine. So yes even Popes (who are men), are not without sin. But, we can trust that God speaks to them (apostolic succession).
January 29th, 2010 | 1:19 pm | #85
Attention Catholics:
I honestly want an answer. I’m not trying to pick a fight or set up anyone to look bad. Here is my problem with the Pope concept:
Suppose Matthew 16 actually does teach that Peter was given all the authority the Catholic Church claims. Where is Apostolic succession in that passage? Suppose one says that Apostolic Succession is taught in Tradition. Where is that tradition in early church history? I’m willing to believe it if I can find good evidence for it. What I am not willing to do is presuppose it is true and then find Scriptures and snippets of Church Fathers that back it up IF it is first assumed.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact