Pro-Life Rally Observations

It really is frustrating to see the media lie as much as it does. And in January every year the media blitzes us with pro-abortion messages. Sadly it is not just is shows like Private Practice, but in the news as well. The March for Life is a good example. I did not go to the one is Washington, but I did go to the one in Lincoln, NE. It was 15 degrees and it had been a bad year for the Pro-Life group in NE. Ben Nelson turned his back on the movement despite having been endorsed by Pro-Life NE (which did generate a change the leaders of Pro Life NE signs) and the regents of the University of Lincoln decided to start murdering babies for their stem cells in the name of science . . . or federal funds it was hard to tell. But thousands of people showed up. I don’t attend many political rallies. I can count the number I have attended on one hand and still have enough fingers left to grip a baseball. And one of those rallies was at the Beacon in Spartanburg, SC, so it is hard to tell if I went to see Ambassador Keyes or the Bacon O Plenty. But, I have a few observations to make.

1. The make up of the Pro Life march was young. There were lots of youth there from youth groups, and not with their parents. The vast majority of the people in attendance were born after Roe v Wade passed. In fact of the main speakers only two were born before Roe v Wade. The Nebraska Speaker of the House and Attorney General were both born after Roe and were good speakers. A few of the other legislators probably were too, or at least they were infants when it passed. The Governor, one Senator, and probably the Regent of University were all born pre-Roe. In the crowd the age group that was missing was the women who were of solid voting age during Roe. Those who were thirty something when Roe passed were almost non-existent at the walk. Any reports to the contrary are just false.
2. There were 8 Pro-Abortion protestors. I think when they biked passed me there may have been 9, but when they lined up at the end of our march I only counted 8. They collectively had at least 25 signs. They must have been up all night making those things. And all in all their signs were mean and disturbing. The nicest one they had was “Sex Ed Saves Lives” and they had several that suggested some bad things about women and coat hangers and one that was a paragraph long insult on my intelligence. The Pro-Lifers did not have any negative signs about pro abortionists. In fact, the meanest signs were about the Pro Life Leadership and their endorsements. There was one that said “Bye Bye Ben”. I guess that counts as negative.
3. Ben Nelson did not even send a letter. He is not running for re-election or he would try to repair that bridge. I expect him to throw Pro-Lifers under the bus this year.
4. The thing that disturbed me the most is that the number of Roman Catholics to Protestants is overwhelming. I think every Catholic Church must have been there. They prayed as they walk for the most part. The Newman Club from the University was there, and the march waited for St. Mary’s Catholic Church to finish its Mass before they started. When it let out it added at least several hundred people to the walk. I did not see one sign for a non-Romanist church. Including my own to admit my own fault although I know I was not the only one from my church there. One has to wonder where the Protestants were. Why is the Pro-Life movement so dominated by Romanists? I think it is a condemnation on how many mainline Protestant churches have folded on this argument. They caved early on and now a whole generation of people has grown up and left the mainline church embracing again the biblical position on life.

In the end, it was a good thing. I probably will go back next year. And maybe next year I will make a church sign to carry.

Anglican and Rome Merger

If you have not seen this disturbing news, you might want to take a look at it. Apparently Anglicans are actually thinking about taking the Vatican up on their offer. And what makes it depressing is that it is the conservative Anglicans that are thinking about it. If you had not heard, Pope Benedict made some sort of offer to the Anglicans that they could join the Roman fold if they were inclined to leave the Anglican communion, and they would be given a special status such as ruled by Anglican bishops, and able to teach at Anglican seminaries. I don’t know all the details such would they have to accept papal claims, but I assumed the offer was just an attempt to peal away one or two Anglo-Catholics. However, it appears as if it might peal away the African conservative base of the Anglican Church.

It is another potent reminder that the Anglican Reformation was not really the same as the Reformed Reformation and its path since then has also been different. It also should remind us that being right on social issues like abortion and homosexuality does not equal being sound on theology in general or even in the basics of salvation. I am not sure what Bishop Akinola is pondering about this offer. Reject it, hand it back to the Romanist heretic on the papal throne and go on about your day. The mere fact he considers it does not speak well for him.

Are the Reformers Revolutionaries?

Rev. Enloe has responded to my earlier post about the Reformation and Conciliarism. I thank him for his response. I will have to take some time to think and study more on the issue before replying in full, including reading the book recommended by Kepha in the comments to my previous post. However, there is one small point I wish to discuss a little further now. Were the Reformers revolutionaries?

In one sense I want to agree with Rev. Enloe and say no. For one thing the term revolutionary has a negative connotation in my mind about throwing off all that has come before. I do not think the Reformers did that at all. They have a grand connection to the early church, and I think the connection goes on and can easily be seen in France and Germany during the time of Charlemagne and in many other places where the Roman doctrine never fully took over.

However in the end, I think they were revolutionaries in a lot of ways. This is what sets the Reformation apart from the numerous other movements within the Catholic Church that never ended in a real change. All of the movements before were revivals of piety and of learning, but never true reform. Take a look at the Cluniac Reformers. They were scandalized by the behavior of the popes, simony and lay investiture, and they took over the papacy as a popular movement. Yet, no real doctrinal change occurred. They were not revolutionaries, but people who sought to fix some problems through minor tweaks to the system. They did things such as create the College of Cardinals to help with the problem. The rise of the Fransician and Dominican orders also were movements designed to bring about higher morals. They were clearly a protest against monasticism the old way and the corruption that had developed there. Yet, no real doctrinal change ensued or was ever pursued. The Conciliarists may very well fall into this category. They were scandalized by the existence of multiple popes. They tried to fix the system by instituting regular Council meetings and curtailing the powers of the pope. It was a tweak to the system, but not a whole sale change of it.

I believe the Reformation was a whole sale change in many ways. They dumped the offensive system that had grown up around the church. They opposed the papacy outright rejecting its very idea, something not done by previous reforms. They placed the bible above the church which lead them to do things like reject the lectionary in favor of the preaching straight through books of the Bible, they dumped the church calendar, and they cast off ‘traditional’ but unbiblical ideas like transubstantiation, purgatory, and indulgences. They would even go as far to reject government by bishops in favor of presbyteries (except in England and in the Lutheran Church). When one views these wholesale changes as compared to previous attempts to clean up the church, how can one not view them as revolutionaries. They completely upset the apple cart. Revolution may in fact be a viable word to describe the event.

Papal Visit and Protestantism

April 15th is tax day and is a day to be dreaded and disliked for that reason alone. However, today is also the day that Pope comes to visit America. In this there is little reason to celebrate in my opinion. The Pope is the Pontiff of the smallest nation on the planet and the spiritual tyrant over millions throughout the globe. I grew up in the South where Romanism barely exists, and when it does it is very loose. However, I now live in a different part of the country, a part where Romanism has a death grip over most of the population. The Dakotas as a whole are mostly Roman Catholic. I have seen the scandals of the Roman church up close (not all scandals involve children), and the Catholic church moves quickly to cover up the sins and abuses of their priests, but does nothing to actually try and fix the problem. However, I drift from my main point.

The main point is the arrival of the Pope and his place in Protestant theology. Rev. John Armstrong has a couple of recent posts talking about the papal visit. Armstrong points to a "new ecumenism", which he defines as

it tries to see the common core of our ("mere") Christian faith that we share together while we continue to pursue our differences within our mission for Christ in a world shattered by war and upheaval.

This is a statement that would have scandalized the church in ages past. Now it barely seems to affect anyone. What exactly common core beliefs to Protestants and Romanists share? Is it beliefs about salvation? No. Justification? No. Sanctification? No. Do we agree on worship? No. The authority of the Scripture? No. The authority of Christ? No. Prayer? No. Do we even agree on what books are in the Bible? No.

The idea that we can embrace the pope as a different, but loyal friend is not one I share. Throughout history the Protestant church has maintained the Roman church was apostate and the pope a root of evil. In fact, many pre-reformation Christians had similar ideas. Yet, in today’s world there is a movement away from the idea of the pope as the antichrist, or even as an unbeliever. The original Westminster Confession of Faith proclaim the papacy to be the antichrist, but that was removed around 1900 to soften the stance. The Heidleberg Catechism proclaims the Mass to be at bottom "a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry." However now a few churches like the Christian Reformed Church are removing question 80 as an offensive question. What exactly has changed over the years? It is not the teachings of the Roman church, they have not moved. So, then the change must be in the Protestant church. I believe there are two major reasons for this wholesale change on Romanism.

1. We fail to recognize that ceremonies have inherent theology attached to them. You can see from the fact that the CRC thinks the Heidelberg Catechism does not reflect the actual beliefs of the Roman church that we have failed to recognize the theological power in ceremonies.
2. We no longer appreciate the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the doctrine upon which the church stands are falls. Sure Presbyterian and reformed church still argue about it from time to time, but the evangelical world as a whole has lost sight of its importance. And even in Presbyterian/Reformed circles we often fail to see it as the lifeblood of the church. We may fuss here and fuss there, but when push comes to shove do we really up hold this doctrine as the only hope in life and in death? Do we really see those who preach a salvation by works, by saints, or by sacraments as denying the very essence of salvation? Too often we do not.

That after all is the essence of saying that we should look past or difference to our "core" or "mere" Christianity. It is saying salvation by faith is nice, but it is not vital. It is saying that true Christianity does not actually care about faith or works. It is saying that "core" Christianity is something wholly other than how we are made right with God. What exactly the ‘good news’ is in this new approach, I am not sure, but if it is a gospel with which the pope can agree, then it is not gospel at all.

A brief excursus on Roman and Reformed Unity

I just want to take a second to reflect on something that has been happening on Reformed Catholicism. The site has had a few dust ups about Roman Catholicism and especially the pope. Most of these seem to have been cause by Tim Enloe. One of the ironies of this dust up is that Mr. Enloe often holds to a much more Roman view on many issues, just not the pope apparently. The comments got pretty heated, and Mr. Enloe seems a little surprised that Romanists would comment in such a manner.

I mention this because it highlights my major problem with Reformed Catholicism. It is an oxy moron. It is nice to speak about a dialogue between the Romanist and the Protestants, but it is not possible in the manner they desire it. Protestants and Romanists cannot agree on the gospel. We cannot agree on justification by faith alone, what dialogue can happen? None. We cannot even agree upon what books are in the bible. What should one expect when one presents a critique, historical or otherwise, about the Pope, which like it or not, is the defining characteristic of Roman Catholicism. Just another issue Protestants are Romanists do not agree upon. The Bible is clear, ‘How can two walk together lest they be agreed?’ There is no agreement between Romanists and Protestants, especially Reformed believers. So, I am all in favor of a Roman – Reformed dialogue. I just think that if that dialogue does not start with a call to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, then no good is being done.

Reformed Rhetoric or Reformed Basics?

Tim Enloe at Reformed Catholicism has some concerns about the rhetoric of Reformed people and churches concerning Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic theology. When shifted, the gist of his complaint is that Reformed people do not take the time to understand the nuances of Romanism and that Reformed people cling to that desperate illusion of ‘Bible-onlyism’. Without shifting the post is a rant that shows Mr. Enloe has no real understanding of what the Reformation actually says. Maybe there is someone out there somewhere who fits his straw man, but I doubt it. It also shows that Mr. Enloe holds the fundamental tenants of Protesantism in contempt.

Here is a good sample of exactly what I mean:

here’s a particular one that bugs me of late. Reformed people very easily go off on diatribes against Rome’s "false Gospel," claiming that it "cannot save." Usually this is accompanied by horrific slurs of “Rome’s teaching” which are based on hopelessly inadequate categories of analysis derived from an utterly silly "Bible Onlyism" that blinds people to the complicated interfaces of history, culture, language differences, and philosophy with theology.

Hopefully we can all agree with Paul that false gospels do not save and that another gospel is really no gospel at all. I think Mr. Enloe would agree with that. It seems to me that Mr. Enloe is saying Rome is not teaching a false gospel and that such things are a slur against Rome. Why is it that most Protestants think that Rome teaches a false gospel? According to the post because we believe the Bible alone as the rule of faith, and do not hold to quadrilateral of Scripture-Tradition-Experience-Reason. This is the real objection of Mr. Enloe.

Take a look at some of the questions Mr. Enloe sets forth to remove us poor Protestants from our ‘sophomoric’ addiction to the Bible and rejection of tradition.

More importantly, what does it mean to say that “Rome’s Gospel doesn’t save”? For militant Bible-Onliers, where exactly in the Bible does it say that believing in the doctrines of the Reformation is "how" you get saved? If this is true, why didn’t the Apostles preach sola fide in the book of Acts?

What Reformed person on the planet thinks that believing the doctrines of the Reformation is "how" you get saved? In fact it is just the opposite. Rome thinks you must submit to the Pope (ie. believe what he believes) and be a member of the Roman Church to get saved, while the Reformed think we are saved by Jesus Christ alone through faith alone by grace alone. The whole debate about whether or not Rome’s gospel saves is because Rome and Geneva disagree on "how" one is saved. The instrument of the salvation is not belief in the doctrines of the Reformation, but rather faith is the sole instrument of salvation and in that point is where the debate lies. Mr. Enloe knows this as his assertion about Acts shows, but he puts it in the very inflammatory manner because it makes his case sound better.

As for Acts sola fide is preached by the apostles. Acts 2:38 has Peter telling the crowd "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There is no notion of works plus faith here just turning from one’s sins to Jesus Christ. Note Philip’s requirement for the Ethiopian to be baptized in 8:37, "If you believe with all your heart [that Jesus Christ is the Son of God] you may." Faith is all that is required by Philip, who may not be an apostle, but is in the book of Acts. Notice how the preaching of Saul soon to be Paul is characterized in Acts 9:20, "Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God." Acts 15 has the Apostles and elders specifically reject the idea of law keeping as a necessary part of salvation. Peter calls it a yoke that ‘neither our fathers nor we are able to bear’ (v.10). Then of course we have the famous answer of Paul to the Philippian Jailor saying "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household" (16:31). I could go on.

One other question posed by Mr. Enloe deserves a bit of attention.

What does it mean to say that the Gospel was “recovered” at the time of “the” Reformation? If the Gospel is what saves, and if it was “lost” for so long, how was anyone between whatever point the loss occurred and the point of the recovery saved? Is Christianity thus like Mormonism, conceiving that True Faith was destroyed for hundreds and hundreds of years and then, poof!, shazam!, and abracadbra!, just recovered out of the blue at the point of our own little group’s founding?

Here I must give Mr. Enloe some credit. First, for using the word ‘shazam’ in a sentence. It has always been one of my favorite words. Second, because here he has a decent point. Some people do think that the gospel was completely lost, and those people are wrong. However, I think a better historical question for Mr. Enloe is does not the success of the Reformation show that the gospel never really disappeared? It is only recovered in the sense of something being taught from the top. The popes had lost the gospel, but it had never fully disappeared from the world. Take for example the Waldenses who cease to exist as a separate entity because their teachings were the same as the teaching of the Reformation because they both taught the Bible. Similar success was found among the many followers of Wycliffe. The history of the Medieval Church is a history of how the gospel survived and thrived especially in Southern France, Switzerland, and northern Italy, which all became hot beds of the Reformation. While Mr. Enloe is right to characterize some Protestants as dismissing almost all of history because they think anything pre-Reformation is wrong, that is not the case for most Protestants. History is on the side of the Reformation, and her doctrines.

All in all for a for a post about the poor state of Reformed Rhetoric, this post is laughable. It makes every error it charges to the Reformed. Mr. Enloe’s hostility will not abate because he does not truly want a change in Reformed Rhetoric, he wants the Reformed to abandon Sola Scriptura. Mr. Enloe’s problem is not with our speech, but with our theology. Hopefully next time he will just admit it and gets straight to the heart of the matter.

Rejecting Mariology

It is often claimed the Mary was heralded by the Patristics as a woman full of grace, perhaps sinless, and deserving our veneration above other departed saints as the Mother of the Church. This is not the case. While I do freely admit that the word Patristic can be used to cover a variety of ages, I prefer to use it to the pre-nicaean leaders of the church. Let us start with them, and we can move on from there.

In the Apostolic Fathers, as the first century leaders are often called, one sees little to no mention of Mary at all. Clement of Rome leaves her out of his epistle completely. This is a glaring omission for ‘Mary full of grace’ since Clement’s entire letter is about submission, faith, and peace. Clement uses as examples of Christian living Paul, Peter, Moses, Abraham, David, and several martyrs in addition to Jesus Christ. Beyond that he even uses a few women as examples. Rahab gets the most ink as a wonderful example of faith, two women killed by Nero are mentioned, Esther get a paragraph, as does Judith from the Apocrypha. But no Mary. First century writers seem to view Mary as a good believer, but nothing more, much like Protestants today.

Second century writers turn up the first exaltation references to Mary, but even these are over stated. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all try to draw Mary as the anti-type of Eve as Jesus was of Adam. This leads to some grandiose statements about Mary, but the ancient mind often thought more typologically and allegorically then we do today. These men did not have any allusions about Mary being above sin (original or actual). In fact Irenaeus condemns Mary as a sinner for her role in the Wedding of Cana arguing that Jesus rebukes her for her presumptuous pride. Tertullian along with other second century leaders like Origen and later writers like Basil the Great and Chrysostom (4th century) all ascribe to Mary the sins of maternal vanity, anxiety, and doubt and state that the ‘sword’ that pierces Mary’s soul in Luke 2:35 are these sins. Hardly a high view of Mary despite their typological attempts.

The rise of Mary really follows the rise of Monasticism and the encroachment of Neo-platonism into Christianity. The third and fourth centuries see apocryphal texts like the Gospel of the birth of Mary, which were all condemned by the church as a whole, but eventually the teachings of these books would be folded into the Mariology of the Roman church. The asceticism of the monastic orders arising from their neo-platonic view of the flesh exalted Mary as the ultimate example and claimed for her perpetual virginity. This helped give their life-style a bigger backing as well as giving them a patron saint.

The controversies of the 5th century about Christ led to Mary being the Mother of God as a test of orthodoxy. Mother of God was not meant to convey anything at all about Mary, but rather something about the natures of Jesus. However, it would come to be twisted to elevate Mary into something higher than merely human. The first person to actually advocate Mary did not have any actual or original sin was Pelegius, the free-will opponent of Augustine. During this time also one must remember that Rome was destroyed by the uneducated and pagan barbarians. As the centers of learning were destroyed the educated clergy could no longer restrain phrases like ‘Mother of God’ and Mariology became Marialotry took on a life of its own as the masses carried Mary to extremes she was never meant to reach. By the time of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Mary was installed in her current position for the Roman church. Gregory freely instructed his missionaries to the barbarians not to destroy pagan temples, but rename them and the statues in them. Many pagan temples were to women, and Mary worship was well on its way.

Thus, I do not think Protestantism needs a Mariology at all. Mary is a wonderful example of saintly piety and faith as are many people in the Bible. She should not be avoided for she is the mother of our Lord. But we must remember, as I believe the Reformed tradition does, she is simply one of his disciples no better than any other believer in Christ. This is, after all, exactly what our Lord teaches in Matthew 12:47-50.

‘Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.’

Roman Degradation of Mary

In a perfect storm of events, books, and blogs, I have been recently thinking on the subject of Mary and her place in the Reformed Church. Mr. Bonomo of Reformed Catholicism has posted his thoughts on Mary. His post is provocatively entitled, ‘The Protestant Degradation of Mary.’ The question obviously becomes do Protestants degrade Mary or do Romanists elevate her to a status she does not deserve?

Mr. Bonomo admits up front in his post that the Scholastics went too far. He rejects Mary’s Immaculate Conception and any idea of Mary as co-meidator (which I believe includes prayers to her). In this we agree. So far Rome has gone too far. What then does he reject in Protestantism? He asserts that the Reformed church does not go far enough in her praise perhaps by even refusing to call her blessed. But do Protestants and Reformed Protestants actually refuse to call her blessed? The Scripture itself calls her blessed, and what person would actually think that Mary was not blessed when God chose her to birth the savior? Mr. Bonomo admits that her blessedness derives itself from the savior in her womb, what Protestant church disagrees with that? The Reformed Churches and confessions all accept the third and fourth ecumenical councils that describe Mary as the Theotokos (God-bearer), so where has she been degraded?

The only real difference then between Protestants or at least Reformed Protestants and Mr. Bonomo’s position is the latter’s choice to remain silent or accept the supposed Patristic evidence for a Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the question of actual sin in Mary. Mr. Bonomo would rather not impute sin to her because it is not expressly stated in the Bible she sinned. Mary’s own words proclaim God as her ‘savior’ (Luke 1:47) expressing a sinful state that would need salvation, and that would seem to be enough for me to impute sin to her. The argument is made in the comment section that such a salvation could be for original sin rather than actual sin. But, then who is tainted with original sin, but does not ever actually sin? Would that not create quite a slippery slope theologically? Plus, the bible has no problem imputing sin to all mankind in such statements as ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). I think these Scriptural statements enough for me to rest assured she sinned as the rest of us do.

The Perpetual Virginity is a more troubling idea. The Bible does clearly state Jesus to have brothers and sisters. Matthew 13:55 names his brothers, and Matthew 2:46-50 makes clear it is his mother and his brothers. I see no compelling reason to think that ‘Mary the mother of James and Joses’ in Matthew 27:55 is anything than another name for the blessed Mary, the mother of Jesus as well as James and Joses. This along with the idea that it would have been sinful for Mary to withhold herself from Joseph for their entire marriage is enough to put to rest her perpetual virginity. The troubling aspect of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is why it was so important to Medieval Theologians. It was important because virginity was important. That sexual love was somehow wrong, sinful, or at least a lesser way. Mary was the embodiment of holiness; thus, she must have never partaken of such a sinful thing as sexual love with her husband. This theology is embedded in Romanism still today. Vows of celibacy are still required showing that somehow virginity is a higher holier road. The Roman Church needs the Perpetual Virginity of Mary because if she had relations with Joseph then she is no longer ‘Mary full of grace’, but rather ‘Mary just like the rest of us’.

Kevin Johnson of Reformed Catholicism makes the accusation that lip service may be paid to Mary, but devotion to her does not show up in Reformed churches. Again, I argue that Mary shows up enough. Nothing is denied her that Scriptures give her. I preached from the Magnificat this year, and I heard a Reformed sermon on the radio about Mary this Christmas. Are we really being called to task because not all Reformed Churches think Mother’s Day sermons are appropriate? If we are all agreed that icons of her are forbidden, prayers to her are forbidden, the extra-biblical miracles about her are wrong, then where is the disagreement? What activities exactly are the Reformed Churches not doing for Mary that need to be done? We know for a fact that Enoch was a prophet, a righteous man, did not die and was taken to heaven, but no one ever raises the charge that churches are not devoted enough to him and his life. So what is the difference?

It is my belief that Protestant churches get a bad wrap about Mary. She is given every laud given to her in Holy Writ. Most Reformed churches preach unashamedly through Luke, Matthew and John, all of which necessitate sermons on Mary. The Biblical evidence has to viewed as against her sinlessness and perpetual virginity, plus both are necessary props for the modern Roman dogmas, which these gentlemen appear to reject. The Marioloty of Rome is an actual threat to the gospel by making her a co-redeemer and mediator, but it is the Reformed who seemed to get lectured about Mary more often than not. I believe it is the Protestants who defend Mary, and the Romanist who degrade her by making her into something she is not, one who does not bare the savior, but is a savior.

Expository Preaching under attack

Just in case one did not think that an altar based liturgy and a pulpit based one do not conflict with each other, witness the recent attack on expository preaching. It begins at Reformed Catholicism where Kevin Johnson extols ‘kergymatic preaching’ which he defines as follows:

[kergymatic preaching] brings the acts of God to fore in the proclamation of God’s Word so that both in word and in deed (communion, the Lord’s Supper, weekly if possible), the covenant community is brought ever more forward into a unity with God through Christ and by His Spirit.

He makes clear it is not:

"micro-exegetical" line by line word by word expository preaching through books in order. That should have passed with the Puritans.

This shot at the line by line preaching straight through a book done by the Reformers was then heralded by The Boar’s Head Tavern, and the Restless Reformer, who rightly calls it ‘Christian Storytelling’. The Restless Reformer goes on to connect this problem to Systematic Theology, noting that Christology is usually the third course or topic in Systematics. Nielson’s Nook makes the jump from the original attack on expository preaching to the Lord’s Supper seemingly linking believing propositions from sermons to a misuse of the sacraments. What is clear is his desire to have a more liturgical way of propounding the gospel, which for him seems to include weekly communion and less expository preaching.

Which brings us full circle to the original post by Kevin Johnson. Notice the comments. Comment #2 by Mike Spreng states the following after relating a story about Roman Catholic sermons:

I think good preaching certainly can and should be done with the help of the scriptures, but yes, wrangling with the text and expecting the people to take out there notebooks does not seem to emphasize the centrality of the ceremony and even the gospel itself. That is better done in an academic context

.

Kevin responds in comment #3:

I have found nine times out of ten when I’ve been at a Roman Mass that the preaching was actually very much gospel-oriented and in line with what I’ve written above. The fact that the Western liturgical tradition in large part sees the sermon as part of the liturgy rather than the climax helps this aspect of it, imho

This shocking bit of information cannot be passed over. The preaching of the Romanist church was ‘gospel-oriented’? The church that denies one is saved by faith alone and requires work and sacraments to achieve salvation had a ‘gospel-oriented’ sermon? Has this attack on exegetical preaching changed the definition of gospel or at least the message of the gospel?

I believe it has, and I believe it does. I want to be clear there are those that should be legitimately criticized for preaching badly and some who may even leave Christ out of the sermon. However, this is a failure of the preacher not the method. These gentlemen are advocating a return to pre-reformational ways of preaching and pre-reformational messages that those ways are meant to communicate. They are extolling the centrality of the service, the centrality of the ritual, the Supper and the altar. This is exactly why the Reformers changed the service from an altar based one to a pulpit based service. The words of Christ are life (John 6:68). We should cling to them line by line. We should usually go straight through books so we can see the ‘story’ develop before us. So we can see his truth, and receive the gospel of eternal life. Kergymatic preaching that elevates the story above the words, and is designed only to make the focal point the altar and not the words, is not emphasizing Christ, it de-emphasizes him. It de-emphasizes his gospel words and returns us to the yoke of works as the Roman system openly admits.

Exegetical preaching should always present the call to Christ. But is does this through line by line exposition of his words. The preacher must be aware of applying it to the lives the believers and showing them Christ in every story, in every message. These posts come dangerously close to advocating a giving of the gospel without the words of the gospel. ‘Christian Storytelling’ is nice, but it is not preaching. Preaching is an explaining of the Scripture, which cannot be done by simply finding its ‘kergyma’. Jesus fulfilled every ‘jot and tittle’ of the Scripture, not just the main points or central thrust (kergyma) of it. We must not return to the methods of an age that denied the gospel and replaced it with sacerdotal system unless we desire to return to that same gospel denying sacerdotal system.

Charlemagne and the Pope

The first question that must be asked to see if Charlemagne’s church was a Protestant one, is did the church submit to the Pope, or did they reject his authority? This is one that can be seen better in acts than words. Most everyone mouthed the words that the Pope was the supreme head of the church and sat in St. Peter’s chair. However, did they follow that up with action, or were those words mere flattery?

First, the Seventh Ecumenical Council or Council of Nicaea II serves as an appropriate illustration. Nicaea was attended by Papal legates, and approved by Charlemagne’s close friend, Pope Adrian. This council allowed the use of images and accounted for them to be venerated, but not worshiped. The church of Charlemagne, by this I mean France and parts of Spain and Germany, rejected this Pope approved General Synod of the church. They rejected veneration of the images, denied they served any useful purpose at all, and repudiated the authority of the council. These things were published under the title, Libiri Carolini. Pope Adrian pleaded with Charlemagne, but at the Council of Frankfurt (794), Nicaea was denounced. At least 300 bishops from France, England, Spain, Italy, and Germany signed on to the rejection of the Council of Nicaea II, which had already received papal approval. This was not just the influence of Charlemagne. The church continued this position under Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, by denouncing the use of images at the Council of Paris in 825. The Council of Paris also openly rebuked the pope for supporting such a council. Hardly the actions of a church submitting to papal authority.

Second, the Filoque controversy shows the rejection of papal authority. The Filoque controversy is about adding the phrase “and the Son” to the Nicene Creed. Thus, the revised version reads that that Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This was in use by the 6th century in Spain, but it was Charlemagne’s church that made it official. Alcuin, Theodulf, and Paulinus, the greatest scholars of the Carolingian church, and later Ratramnus of Corbie all argued heavily for the inclusion of the phrase ‘and the Son’. They viewed it essential to understand the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Again, Pope Adrian pleaded against such an idea, and later Pope Leo would not accept it either, although he treaded much lighter. In 809, at the Council of Aix-la-Chappelle the phrase was included in the Nicene Creed officially, and always used that way in the areas controlled by Charlemagne. Since even the Pope now recognizes that phrase, we can see which side gave in.

Third, an incident involving Pope Leo III is also telling for it shows how the church under Charlemagne viewed the Pope. Leo had been accussed of some sins, including adultery if I remember correctly, and the people of Rome were in an uproar. Arno, archbishop of Salzburg, led a delegation of two archbishops and five bishops to investigate the charges. This act in and of itself is unheard of. Archbishops and bishops were investigating the Head of the Church. The Pope sitting under judgment of fellow bishops runs counter to everything claimed by the Pope. Yet, Arno not only led this delegation, they found Leo guilty. They would not reinstall Leo as the bishop of Rome. Charlemagne did reinstall Leo for political reasons, but the very idea that the church under the dominion of Charlemagne would try the pope and find him guilty is astounding and says quite a lot about the view of the papacy held by the bishops of the Carolingian Kingdom.

Fourth, the constant use of Councils and Synods. I have already mentioned at least three. Charlemagne required yearly synods of his church. They bishops met together and discussed affairs of the church and kingdom. This practice is not in keeping with the Roman practice. It speaks volumes about where the church turned for judicial and theological matters. It was to itself and not toward Rome.

Fifth, the views of individuals should also say large amounts. In addition to the men mentioned above such as Arno of Salzburg, we can add the thoughts of many others. People like Theodulf who thought the Pope was not over Charlemagne and at least rejected the idea that the pope had temporal authority at all. Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt rejected the idea of the Pope as a universal bishop and the idea that Peter founded the seat in Rome! However, Claudius bishop of Turin speaks the loudest. This man was given his bishopric by Louis the Pious and was never removed from his seat. He states concerning Matthew 16,

‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church: and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ under pretence of which words the stupid and ignorant common people, destitute of all spiritual knowledge, betake themselves to Rome in hope of acquiring eternal life. . . . Know thou that he only is apostolic who is the keeper and guardian of the apostle’s doctrine, and not he who boasts himself to be seated in the chair of the apostle.(J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism, Vol. 1. pg.22)

Hardly the word of a man upholding the authority of the Pope. Hopefully this brief look at the history of the Carolingian church will show that the Pope held no real power in the church, and was regularly disobeyed in matters of doctrine and faith. I believe this requires one to view the Carolingian church as a church ‘protesting’ the authority of the bishop of Rome, and finding its own way without him.

The Pope - Politician or Preacher

This is a sad story to see. The Pope quoted an old emperor who thought that everything that Mohommed taught that was new, was evil. The Pope did not endorse this idea, but he also did not condemn it. The response from the Arab world was swift. They condemned the Pope for his anti-Islam speech even though these same countries fail to condemn suicide bombings, terrorism, and other atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Oh and do not forget that all of these countries make a sport of condemning Israel.

But what is really sad about this story is not the predictable response from a religion that does indeed teach evil. What is sad is the Pope’s response.

"The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful," Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement.

What?! Why? Why should the head of the Roman church be sorry he upset Muslims, a religion out to kill him and his church? Perhaps the Pope should be trying to offend some Muslims. The cross of Christ is an offense (Galatians 5:11). One should expect Muslims to be offended when you tell them that Mohommed was a false prophet, and converted people by the sword. But, they need to hear it. They need to be told that God has a Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. They need to be told that war, terrorism, and the sword are not the way to heaven, but only through the blood of Jesus. One cannot expect works to be weighed and have any result other than death, damnation, and hell. This is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Repent of your sin, and believe on Him. The Pope does not say that, nor does he wish to offend any Muslims. Every Roman Catholic around the world should now clearly see that the head of their ‘church’ is a mere politician and not a preacher. He cares more for his seat at the international table than for the seat of St. Peter. He cares more for political correctness than correct theology. He cares more for the good will of Muslim ambassadors than he does for the good of the souls of those trapped in Islam. And that fact makes this a sad story indeed.

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.

Shocking Stories

I wonder if any backlash will come of the story of Haleigh Poutre. Massachusetts Social Services and Supreme Court had decided to kill her and just hours before they took her off of life support she began to wake up from her permanent vegetative state. She is now breathing on her own.

I also wonder how Evangelical and Catholic Together advocates will react to the Pope’s proclamation that evolution is acceptable science. So much for a good conservative hard line Pope.

Schaff against Rome or against Geneva?

Rick Phillips at Reformation 21 gives us a quote from Philip Schaff about the evils of Popery or Romanism, and how it is not Catholicism. Schaff compares Catholicism to Judaism. Judaism pointed the way to Christ, and then after Christ became something altogether horrible. For Schaff so too did Catholicism. It pointed the way to the Reformation, and at Trent it became something horrible. It became Popery. While I agree Popery is wrong, I disagree with the reasoning Schaff gives. Schaff states, Popery never forgets and never learns anything, and can allow no change in doctrine (except by way of addition), without sacrificing its fundamental principle of infallibility, and thus committing suicide. It seems to me that Schaff is saying that Popery is wrong because it does not change its doctrines. Do we as Protestants want constant change in our doctrine? We ascribe infallibility to the Bible alone, but do we really want to say a church that refuses to learn and change is a church that is dead?

Rick Phillips seems appreciative of the quote because it does not pander to Romanism, which he thinks is a growing error in the church today. I believe this a somewhat thinly veiled reference to ECT and the Reformed Catholics of today’s churches. Yet, is this quote not exactly the sort of thinking that has led to Reformed Catholicism, and Federal Vision movements in today’s churches? Historically speaking Schaff and Nevin pandered to Rome by changing Protestant doctrines into more Roman Catholic ones. They argued for altar based liturgies, they did a lot of what could be considered pandering to Rome. I believe Rich Phillips has mistaken Schaff’s refusal to pander to the Pope and mistaken it for a refusal to pander to Rome. Perhaps even worse, he has missed the endorsement of Historical and Theological Development that is Schaff’s critique of the Pope. Unless we as Protestants are willing to sign on to Schaff’s ever changing doctrine as the principle of Protestantism, as he suggests, then we need to throw out Schaff’s critique, and hopefully one day clarify a better Protestant historiography

To Rome or Relativism?

Finally, the high regard for Mercersburg Theology is open and apparent. They wish to be High Church Calvinists like John Nevin and Philip Schaff. I am sorry that Rev. Meyers thinks that Nevin is not understood and that he is used as an albatross to tie around necks. Nevin and Schaff destroyed the German Reformed Church. They ran out members that disagreed, they forced Liturgy and new theology on the church. It lead to decades of strife, contentiousness, and hostility. In the end, Nevin won because they controlled the seminary. The RCUS merged with the Evangelical Lutheran church, and then they merged with a Congregational group to make the United Churches of Christ. Rev. Meyers is right about one thing. Being a Mercersburg High Church Calvinist is not being on the road to Rome and her doctrine. It is on the road to no doctrine at all.

If the Reformed tradition turning into the UCC is not proof enough, then examine the new denomination of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). This denomination is permeated with Federal Vision proponents such as Wilson, Sandlin, and I believe Leithart ministers in one of their churches. There constitution allows member churches to choose which Reformed confession to follow including the Westminster and the London Baptist confession. What about the differences over such things as sacraments? Those differences are not important. Doctrinal unity gives way to organic unity. The Federal Vision is not on the road to Rome for even Rome recognizes doctrine is important. The Federal Vision is on the road to relativism.

St. Bartholomew’s Day

This is a blog that hopefully will come to a point. I did want to post something more about the mass murder that took place on St. Bartholomew’s Day, August 24th, 1572. That day King Charles the 9th ordered the slaughter of the Reformed believers in France. It was worst in Paris where Admiral Coligny was slain. 10,000 men in that city alone were executed in the streets. Many of the murders went around singing the Psalms from the Reformed Psalter of France to mock the dying, and Lord might I add. Henry of Navarre, a Protestant with a claim to the throne, did not die that day, but at knife point he had to take Mass and recant. So too did the Duke of Conde. Others were not as fortunate. Some who took Mass to avoid death were forced to murder their friends in order to prove their loyalty to the Roman faith. King Charles himself is said to have shot some that came to his palace seeking refuge.
The order went out to all of France, and while some refused to do the work, others did it joyfully. 70,000 people total died on account of their faith that day. The leading preachers in Navarre were put to death. In one region the Reformed were put into prison to keep them safe, but the people found them, broke down the jail, and murdered all inside. All because of a differences in their religion, a different faith.
The world reacted differently to this massacre. England refused to have relations with France for quite sometime, but in the end did nothing. John Knox of Scotland pronounced the King of France a murder and asked God to pay him back. The Pope commended the King of France and celebrated a High Mass in honor of the deed. Spain took heart in the murders and stepped up their own persecutions. The King would commission a coin minted in honor of the Massacre. All because of a differences in their religion.
Murder should always be condemned, and religion is no excuse but those Romanists took it serious enough to kill. The Reformed men took their faith seriously enough to go to the grave. Both sides saw a difference, a real meaningful difference between Protestantism and Romanism. Is that belief that there is a real and meaningful difference in Protestantism and Romanism around today? There is a Reformed Catholicism movement in the Protestant Churches. There is a new spirit of ecumenicity breaking out all over the evangelical spectrum. Romanists and Protestants are joining hands across the nation in order to win political victories. Big evangelical leaders refuse to condemn the Roman Catholic Church. The late Pope John Paul II saw acclaim from most Protestants when he died. In small towns, like mine, ecumenical services take place. Protestants worshipping as Romanist preach their version of the gospel, which is not a gospel. Why the difference between the two ages? Why now do people view the difference so small as to be insignificant, and then they viewed it so large as to be a matter of life and death? While I praise God that the years of Romanists murdering Protestants and Protestants murdering Romanists is over, I pray that we would find again the dedication to our faith; in order that we may realize that the differences between us are real, and are a matter of life and death. Not physical life and death, but eternal, spiritual life and death.

The Next Pope

An election of a pope is a monumental event for the Roman Catholic Church. John Paul II is dead and gone, and he left quite a legacy. What exactly that legacy will be is up for debate and may in large part be determined by the election of the next pope.

John Paul II increased devotion among Romanists and the number of lay people in the RCC, but the number of priests declined. I think it safe to say that morality among the priests, of at least America, also declined. The Vatican is continuing to have financial troubles, which John Paul II did little to correct. The Polish Pope was also the first non-Italian pope in some 400 years.

So the election of the next pope will show us if the RCC wants to continue in the vein of Pope John Paul II, or will they want to liberalize the church, which John Paul II always resisted. I rummaged around the Internet for names to watch as the election of the pope begins . . .

Conservatives:
German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – ultraconservative, centralized power, “God’s Rottweiler”
Venice cardinal Angelo Scola – relatively young (63), and has a fancy style
Austria's Christoph Schoenborn – multilingual, good diplomat
Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Vatican-based Nigerian – conservative on family issues like contraception


Liberals:
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former archbishop of Milan – wants different tone on women, social issues, and more localized power
Milan Archbishop Dionigi Tettamanzi – appeals to the young, new tone on social issues
Lisbon cardinal Jose Da Cruz Policarpo
Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga – archbiship of Tegucigalpa – trained in clinical psychology
Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes – desires more fighting of poverty, AIDS, and effects of Globalized economics.


Moderates:
Cardinal Angelo Sodano – John Paul II’s secretary of state, ties to Latin America
Giovanni Battista
Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels - well known in political and diplomatic circles

Continent voting breakdown:
Europe has the biggest bloc with 58 papal electors — cardinals under 80 years old. Italy alone has 20.
Latin America has 21 and Africa brings 11. The United States also has 11 cardinals
77 votes needed to become the next pope.

The Pope as antichrist

I had planned out a post about how the old Reformed creeds all viewed the pope as the antichrist, and how we have lost such a view, but Matt has not only beaten me to posting about the Pope, he has posted thought provoking ideas worthy of interaction.

Matt makes good points about not needing to be doctrinally perfect to get into heaven, and that no man should say ‘every Roman Catholic is going to hell.’ To that I say, Amen. Yet, the Pope is not just any Roman Catholic, he is the head of that church, the dispenser of eternal blessings, the maker of Saints, and vicar of Christ on earth. While, it is impossible to know with 100% accuracy the eternal destination of the Pope, and saying that we should leave such things up to God is never wrong, saying that Pope John Paul II is in hell, I think it is a pretty safe bet. Baring any death bed conversions, his life proves, as the life of every pope must, that he is not a man of faith, but a man denying Christ. Thus, the ancient designation of antichrist for the popes, which I believe was not only born of the persecution, but a theological point that is still valid today. Matt states,

For all the RC's faults, they believe in the trinity, the deity of Christ, and his substitutionary death on the cross for our sins. . . All of this, it seems to me, add up to the core of the gospel, even if they have dumped a truckload of other garbage on top of those beautiful doctrines, obscuring them to millions

To this I would like to disagree. And I believe it is here my greatest disagreement with Matt lies. I do not think that Roman Catholic theology truly believes in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross for our sins. Instead, I think that Romanists hold to a continual substitution through the Mass, which denies the work of Christ on the cross. And denying the finished work of Christ on the cross is denying the core of the gospel. As Heidelberg Catechism Q.80 beautifully summarizes, “And thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.” It seems to me that Pope John Paul II fully held to this denial of Christ, never repudiated the Mass, and taught it to others. If he did not believe such things about the Mass, then he is a giant hypocrite for never using the Papal chair to speak out against it. Paris is not worth a Mass, and neither is Rome. It is wrong to take the Mass if one knows better.

It seems to me then that one who denies the work of Christ through his theology of the sacraments, participates in what can only be called idolatry, and truly believes himself to be the head of the church and our Lord’s vicar here, rightfully holds the title antichrist (little ‘a’, not big ‘A’ which rests on tenuous biblical proof). While the Romanists and Pope John Paul II might be our friends on cultural issues like right to life and bringing down communism, they are not friends of the faith.

To 'Filioque' or not to 'Filioque'

‘Filioque’ is a Latin phrase meaning “and the Son”. It was added to the Creed of Nicaea by Charlemagne so that the creed now states that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son.” This is how Protestant churches, and the Roman Catholic Church both confess the relationship within the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the only one that refuses to claim the Jesus Christ can send the Spirit as well. Thus, for the Eastern Orthodox the Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

Sadly, one does not have to look very far in the Reformed world to see those who would desire to return to the Eastern view of the Trinity. It is an idea held forth by many within the Federal Vision movement, although I would stop short of saying that it is a characteristic of that movement. Andrew Sandlin holds forth this idea of revoking the Filioque clause.

If the Eastern form of Trinitarian dogma (which is where orthodox Trinitarianism developed) cannot be improved on within the Reformed tradition (and we don’t believe it can!), we have no problem championing the Eastern view; in other words, we do not feel it necessary to create a “Reformed version” of every doctrine (which may easily lead to heresy).

It have seen it on several other blogs telling us that this idea has taken root. The removal of the Spirit proceeding from Christ is not a minor thing. It opens the door again to Arianism, which is why the clause was first adopted in Spain, and then inserted by Charlemagne. The Arians claimed the if the Spirit only proceeded from the Father, then Christ was lesser than the Father. But more importantly, the Bible teaches us pretty clearly that the Son sends the Spirit too. John 15:26 Christ says, “I will send” the Spirit. John 20:22 states, “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” This fairly clearly shows that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. The Bible seems to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Why the sudden interest in rejecting this? I confess, I don’t know. It seems that there is a great need to undo things agreed upon, or go to the least common denominator in all arguments, but the motive is still unclear. However, one thing is clear, the church appears on the verge of having to re-fight a great many battles that we should have already settled.