Can Protestants and Romanists Marry?

Andrew Sandlin discusses marriages between Romanists and Protestants. He concludes,

I conducted an intra-faith, inter-sector wedding. In short, I conducted a Christian wedding. As a catholic Protestant, I perceive Rome as occupying a different sector of Christendom than Protestantism. It is not a different Faith (as, for example, Islam or Judaism are), but a different sector of the Faith. We Protestants join with Rome in affirming the great truths of the early ecumenical creeds and thereby the structure of orthodox Christianity. In this sense, both Rome and Protestantism constitute orthodox Christianity.

In this new found understanding of the ‘one, holy, and apostolic church’ Rev. Sandlin is not alone.

He goes on to admit that this position is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Protestant creeds in general, and both Romanist and Protestant position through all history. Of course, Rev. Sandlin believes these statements by both Protestants and Romanists to be wrong. For Rev. Sandlin, both Rome and Geneva affirm the structure of Christianity, ie. the early creeds of Nicaea, Apostle’s, and Chalcedon. The other differences between the two parties do not place them outside the realm of Christianity, and therefore, do not place them outside the realm of inter-marrying.

Allow me to defend the historic positions of both Rome and Geneva for a moment. While I do believe that Rome violates those early ecumenical creeds in practice, and thus, their profession of them is worthless, I do not believe that is the only reason Romanists and Protestants are an inter-faith wedding. Traditionally it takes more than just a believing affirmation of who Jesus is and who God is for a person to be considered orthodox or even a Christian at all. Protestants have traditional stated that if you do not believe you are saved by faith alone, then you are not a Christian. Rome has said, since Trent at least, if you do not believe in salvation by faith and works then you are not a Christian. Thus, the difference between Rev. Sandlin and both historic Protestants and Romanists is whether or not how salvation is obtained and applied part of the structure of Christianity.

The Bible seems to concentrate an awful long time on the importance of justification by faith alone. Romans 3:21-25, 4:4-5, Galatians 2:16, Philippians 3:9, and Ephesians 2:8-10 are just a few of the examples that seem to show the importance of Justification by faith alone, a doctrine which the Roman church curses. Yet, perhaps none show the difference as clearly and straight forward as Galatians 5:4. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Here the application of salvation, whether it be by law/works or faith, is linked to Christ. Those who get it wrong, do not have Christ at all. Then a marriage between one who has Christ, and one who does not have Christ is by definition an inter-faith marriage. I have to respectfully dissent from Rev. Sandlin concerning the status of Roman Catholics with regards to the Christian faith.

Hodgepodge

I will be traveling to visit New Geneva Seminary for the RCUS most of this next week, so I thought I would leave you with some posts to keep you reading.

I did write a post for Westminster Brass, if you are just dying to read new things from me.

For those of you who cannot get enough political news, do not forget that the military is fundamentally a political entity as you read about retired generals against Rumsfeld. I am not taking a stand one way or another on the Iraq war. I just think that people need a little more historical perspective about generals and politics. After Washington and Jackson were the two most popular Presidents, the army became a way for people to step into politics. James K. Polk conquered Mexico, but knew he was defeating his own political party in the process because all of his top generals were Whigs. Eventually General Zachary Taylor became President. Of course who could forget General William Henry Harrison or General Grant or Gen. Eisenhower, all of them won the Presidency, and so did Rutherford B. Hayes who also served. Generals Fremont, Scott, and Hancock all ran for the Presidency after winning party nominations. Countless others also served in politics after military careers like General Wade Hampton. If you think it is only historical figures take a look at Colon Powell or Wesley Clark. A general making political a statement is old hat and is not news worthy.

I did watch a portion of a show on National Geographic channel about the Gospel of Judas. It was basically an all out assult on Iranaeus as simply choosing four gospels when the Gospel of Judas was just as legitimate. Sad. Read a good critic of National Geographic to learn more.

If you are interested in illegal immigration then you need to be reading Philologus.

If you are going to see N.T. Wright speak soon, you should keep this critique in mind.

If you care about all things, and enjoy a good laugh from time to time, you should check in on Untied, the blog of Tucker Carlson. And if you are not watching the Situation with Tucker Carlson, then you are missing out on Willie Geist, news, laughs, and hands down the best show on TV (excluding Lost of course).

I also will be adding some new blogs to the link on the side such as The Wittenburg Door and Soli Deo Gloria.

The Images Strike Back

Images, otherwise known as icons, are making a comeback. Admittedly this comes from Christianity Today whose definition of Reformed apparently comes from Andover Newton Theological Seminary, which if I am not mistaken feeds the United Churches of Christ. The church that pushes for homosexual marriage is hardly the representative of the Reformed tradition. Yet, this is not the only example of a push to return to images. Take for example, Reformed Catholicism’s recent post on the subject. If one wants to see the exegesis in favor of images, Dr. Paul Owen provides us with the new analysis of the Second Commandment allowing for images in worship.

It is no secret since I have posted on the subject before I am against images. No pictures of Christ, no pictures of the Spirit, nothing. I base this in part on the second commandment. Dr. Owen’s post assumes too much about the nature of the second commandment, and Deuteronomy 4:14-20 for that matter. Dr. Owen restricts this to imaging surrounding false gods. He seems to deny that imaging God is forbidden, only imaging false gods. Yet it should be noted that in Exodus 32:4-5 Aaron clearly claims the golden calf is an image of Jehovah. It is not some new false God, he proclaims it is the god that brought them out of Egypt, a reference to Jehovah. And then he proclaims the next day as a feast to Jehovah. The proper name of God is used in reference to the golden calf. They were not making foreign gods, they imaged the God, and it violated the Second Commandment.

Dr. Owen also fails to deal with John 4:24 that tells us we are to worship God in spirit and truth. We are not to need physical objects to aid our worship. We are not to need Jerusalem or any old mountain. We are not to need these relics to be true worshippers. Instead, our worship is to be in spirit and truth. Nor does he deal with Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Sight is not mentioned at all. In fact, we are to walk by faith and not by sight. Nor did he reference Isaiah 40:18 where he openly asks, "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" These verses do not seem to lend themselves to only discussing foreign god images, but a prohibition on images all together in worship.

Dr. Owen did provide another argument in favor of images of Christ that is commonly used. Jesus is the image of God, and we are simply imaging the image of God. That must be allowable. Plus, they are not images of the divine nature, but Christ in the flesh. That argument was given by men like John of Damascus when they argued in favor of images. The imaging Christ’s flesh argument runs afoul of the universal definition of the person of Jesus Christ as given in the Council of Chalcedon. The person of Jesus has two natures, and they cannot be divided nor mixed. Thus, any picture of the person of Jesus Christ is a picture of the divine nature as well as the human nature. No picture can do that, and any picture that tries violates the Second Commandment. By making the argument that images are not trying to capture the "ineffable divine nature", he admits that trying to do so is wrong. Thus, in order to keep images of Christ, one must throw out the Council of Chalcedon. This is the conclusion reached by Constantine V as did the Council of Hieria which included 338 bishops. They rightly pointed out that Jesus left us the bread and wine as proper images, we need nothing else. Images were also rejected by Charlegmane and the Council of Frankfurt lest anyone be swayed by the argument that the church pronounced them acceptable in Nicaea II.

In the end, we should remember the progression of Romans 1:18-32. The rejecters of God refused to glorify him as God (21) and turned to their vain imaginations instead. Thus, they changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image (23). It is from there that they continue down the path of sin. Images are no small matter, but cut to heart of the nature of God.

Grover Cleveland

I admit it. I was watching a history channel presentation on the Presidents. In my defense, I was tired after some yard work. Anyway, it struck me that we need more men like Grover Cleveland.
Cleveland actually won the popular vote for President in three straight elections. He is best known for being the only President to get a second term after sitting out of office for four years. However, he should be known as a prophet, a statesman, and a man to emulate.
Cleveland vetoed twice as many bills in his first term than all of his predecessors combined. He vetoed draught assistance to farmers, pensions for Civil War vets, granting disabilities for Civil War vets for disabilities suffered after the war. He vetoed just about every spending bill that came across his desk, especially Federal Handouts. He stated, Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . .. He was against high protective tariffs. He defended the gold standard even in tough times. He had a heavy hand in foreign policy, and sent the army in to brake up a union led strike in Chicago that affected mail delivery. In most of these things he was right.
Franklin Roosevelt should have listened to Cleveland. Cleveland was President during the worst depression in America’s history to that point, just like Roosevelt. Cleveland’s was caused by the high protective tariff enacted during his four year absence from the Presidency. Cleveland refused to remove or replace the gold standard of US money. He would not even add silver to the standard. Roosevelt removed the gold standard and by all accounts made the depression worse because of it. Cleveland refused for the Federal Government to get involved in the aid to the poor, unemployed, farmers, or help out failed businesses. Roosevelt did all of those things. Cleveland knew that not only would was it not the job of the Federal Government, but he knew it created dependence and that weakened the economic fiber of America.
Sadly today we have the legacy of FDR and not the responsible legacy of Grover Cleveland. We have men who give away money in hope of votes. Instead we should agree with President Cleveland who said, What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?
I am looking for a good biography on Cleveland. Suggestions are welcome.

The Covenant of Grace and Conditions

I have been debating with a few friends whether or not the Covenant of Grace has conditions. This debate has just popped up on line quite outside of the discussion I was having off-line. Rev. Horne tries to draw upon historical Reformed authors to indicate that they believed the Covenant of Grace has conditions.
Rev. Horne first quotes Zachrias Ursinus when he states, "This agreement, or reconciliation, is called a Covenant, because God promises to us certain blessings and demands from us in return our obedience" (pg. 97 of Commentary on HC). Yet the next sentence states, "It is called a Testament, because this reconciliation was made by the interposition of the death of Christ, the testator, that it might be ratified; or because Christ has obtained the reconciliation by his death, and left it unto us." He explains a covenant has conditions that must be met, and a testament has none. The Covenant of Grace is both. He makes a covenant with us, but Christ fulfills it. Therefore, does Ursinus truly believe there are conditions on the Covenant of Grace? Yes and no. It is hard to claim Ursinus as support, as Mr. Horne tries to do. Instead it appears that Ursinus holds the covenant fulfilled for the elect by the testator, Jesus Christ leaving no conditions for the elect. This is certainly in keeping with the Heidelberg Catechism.

Rev. Horne then goes on to Francis Turretin. He quotes Turretin in many places talking of conditions on the Covenant of Grace. While this time Horne does admit that Turretin’s position is “nuanced” he then goes on to quote Turretin as saying, "it cannot be denied the covenant is conditional" and then proceeds to list Turretin’s argument. This leaves a false impression about Turretin’s actual position. If Rev. Horne would have quoted the very next sentence on pg. 185 we would see Turretin himself deny conditions on the covenant of grace. Turretin says, "But if they are taken for the promises concerning the means (to wit, concerning faith and regeneration or repentance), they certainly cannot be conditional, but are simple and absolute because other-wise there would be granted a progression into infinity and the condition of a condition would also be demanded (which is absurd)." Even prior to this Turretin clearly states in paragraph 3 of the same page, "These things being laid down, we say first, if the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned." Thus Turretin is telling us any discussion of conditions has to deny the conditions are the ‘means’ to salvation, that they are ‘meritorious’ for salvation, that they are the ‘cause’ of salvation, and that they are from the nature of the covenant. The discussion of conditions on the covenant of grace is also to speak ‘broadly and improperly’ about the covenant of grace. Turretin later tells us that the covenant of grace is only with the elect (pg. 191), which was the common opinion of the Reformed (pg. 207), and that the God "fulfills the very conditions of the covenant" for the elect. When the broad improper way of speaking about the covenant is used then they are speaking about those who are under the "external dispensation", but are not properly partaking of the essence of the covenant. Turretin soundly disagrees with Rev. Horne and the Federal Vision regarding conditions on the covenant of grace.

In the end, I believe both the early and late Reformed traditions deny conditions on the covenant of grace properly speaking. They seem to reject the usage of a conditional covenant propagated by Rev. Wilkins, Shepherd, Rev. Horne, as well as other proponents of the Federal Vision.

The Gospel of Judas

The Gospel of Judas is soon to be in print. I can see Dan Brown's next book already. This is an NBC mini-series waiting to happen. Leave it to those gnostics to make Judas the hero.

Sectarianism the real danger to the church?

John Armstrong’s article in Acts 3 is an interesting critique of the situation in the PCA churches today. It is a critique that makes the danger to PCA churches out to be not liberalism, but sectarianism. Armstrong contends that a vocal minority of PCA ministers trouble the church on a regular basis, stopping the PCA from living up to its potential in things like education and missions.

Armstrong’s definitions of liberalism and needless sectarianism are revealing. Liberalism for Armstrong is homosexual marriage, homosexual ordination, and anti-Semitic overtures. Then he defines needless sectarian bickering as:

justification and the New Perspective on Paul, the Federal Vision (with related debates about baptism and the Lord’s Supper), Norman Shepherd’s misunderstood views on justification and sanctification, the place of liturgy (including weekly communion, forms of worship expression, ministerial robes and clerical collars), the role of women (including women serving as ordained deacons and women serving in the military), paedocommunion, Bible translations, etc

Needless sectarian bickering is defined then as anything regarding justification (including adding works and sacramentalism to justification and altar-based worship), ordination of women, and translation of the Word of God. These issues have always been at the heart of the church. If these are indeed needlessly sectarian the Reformation itself was a needless exercise, and we should all still be Romanists.

In the end, Armstrong is defining liberalism as those things to the left of him, and sectarian trouble everything to the right of him. He paints himself as the martyr who will be attacked for his views. Yet, in the end he is a liberal on this point. The entire Reformed tradition places the utmost emphasis on justification by faith alone. The Reformed have always gone through great pains to distinguish the sacramentalism of Rome from what the Bible tells us about the sacraments. The Reformers viewed a high liturgy, not as a needless, unimportant difference, but as an attack upon the truth of the gospel. These things are not meaningless as Armstrong would have us think. No one in the history of the church has thought it meaningless. Clearly, it would be better for Armstrong if people quit discussing these things for then he would be able to propagate his theory on progressive Christianity unabated. However, it would not be better for the PCA, the OPC, the Reformed in general, or the church universal.