BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...

Roman Catholic and Protestant divorce and remarriage...

(Tim) Divorce is one of the most difficult questions pastors and elders face as we shepherd God's flock. Providing spiritual counsel in cases where husband and wife don't get along is relatively easy. Much harder are those cases in which husbands or wives physically abuse their spouses, fathers or stepfathers sexually abuse their children, husbands or wives commit serious sexual sin (what Jesus refers to as "porneia" in the exception clause of Matthew 19), or husbands demand their wives and children deny the faith. Each of these matters requires the most careful study of Scripture, prayer, and pastoral counsel. Sometimes the result is a session (board of elders) recommendation of divorce.

In the twelve years since Church of the Good Shepherd was founded, our session has made such a recommendation two or three times, each by unanimous consent. Sometimes it's hard to say whether the believing or unbelieving spouse is the one taking the initiative in the divorce. This is why it's impossible to say precisely how many times we've counseled divorce. We don't make the decision--the innocent party does. Yet neither do we abandon that innocent party to their own counsel. Our Westminster Standards are correct..

Protest the Pill Day: It's the Roman Catholics, again...

(Tim) My daughter, Michal Crum, just forwarded me a link to American Life League's "Protest the Pill" web site. Of course it would take Roman Catholics to be concerned about the pill killing unborn children, wouldn't it?

Where would our nation be without Nazarene Jim Dobson, Baptist Chuck Colson, Atheist Jews Nat Hentoff and Bernard Nathanson (since converted to Roman Catholicism), Methodist Don Wildemon, or Roman Catholics Richard John Neuhaus, Joe Scheidler, and Judie Brown?

Reformed believers aren't concerned about widows and orphans in their distress? Well, sure we are, but saving souls is so much more important! Then too, there's that whole spirituality of the church thing...

Who cares about babies?

Complementarianism simply a private Christian conviction...

(Tim) Several of us have been having a conversation about what I consider far and away the best work on sexuality in print today, Stephen B. Clark’s Man and Woman in Christ. If you’re a Titus 2 woman, a pastor, or an elder and you haven’t read Clark, you should know that this book written by a Roman Catholic layman is indispensable. Traditional complementarian literature such as Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood can never be more than a stopgap measure. Although helpful, such works are only a hodgepodge of viewpoints and perspectives, never approaching a theology of sexuality. Why?

At the heart of the movement known as “Complementarianism” is the commitment to saying sex matters only in the church and home and only among Christians. It’s a private affair for those who affirm the authority of Scripture because of their Christian faith, and this private affair is only applicable in the private Christian spheres of the church and the home. One looks in vain for complementarians’ application of the order of creation to the military, courts, law enforcement, education, business, or government. The silence is deafening.

As with abortion in the late seventies and early eighties, we again are humiliated by having to turn to Roman Catholics for the doctrinal work needed for our time. While evangelical marketing mavens cop relevant postures and talk loudly in restaurants about being missional and the necessity of contextualizing, Roman Catholics do the heavy lifting against the heresies of our time. What shame we should feel.

These comments exchanged with several brothers by private E-mail led to this response by Bill Mouser, a dear brother in the Lord who's been a great encouragement to me for many years, now. Mouser, the head of the International Council for Gender Studies, writes...

A survey on Bible literacy...

(Tim, w/thanks to Carol) The international Synod of (Roman) Catholic Bishops will meet this coming October around the theme, "The Word of God." In preparation, an international survey on biblical literacy was taken in the United States, the United Kingdom, Holland, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland and Russia. (Soon, other countries in the Southern Hemisphere will be added, including Argentina, South Africa, the Philippines, and Australia.)

Italian sociologist Luca Diotallevi says the study is “the most systematic scientific undertaking yet attempted to compare, on an international scale, levels and forms of familiarity with the Scriptures.”

The survey's findings indicate even secularized nations and people are quite interested in the Bible, but find it very hard to understand. This is a wonderful opening for the people of God--evangelistic Bible studies continue to be one of the most effective tools we have for bringing men and women to the preaching of the Word and faith.

Other survey results show the decline of Bible knowledge among American Protestants as it grows among Roman Catholics...

Senator Kennedy's soul...

(Tim) Throughout my adult years, Senator Ted Kennedy has been our nation's most visible proponent of wickedness in high places. Chief among his high crimes has been his ruthless promotion of the altars of Molech upon which many millions of little ones have been sacrificed. And from Chappaquiddick on, his personal life has been notorious.

Yet, even a month ago at the Papal Mass held at Nationals Park, the Roman Catholic church could not bring herself to enforce her own rules of discipline against him or fellow Roman Catholic pro-abortion Senators John Kerry and Christopher Dodd. They all received Communion.

While confessing Christians such as President Bush are issuing statements commending Senator Kennedy as a great statesman, my hero Joe Scheidler has struck the right note in calling us to pray for the Senator's soul:

We're all praying for him. We hope his ailment will bring conversion. We can't wish anyone eternal punishment.

May God have mercy on Senator Kennedy's soul as he faces death and judgment.

Had Calvin or Luther lived in our time...

(Tim) Senator McCain asked for Pastor John Hagee's support in his presidential bid, and got it. Later, Roman Catholics sought to make Senator McCain's association with Pastor Hagee the same sort of liability Senator Obama had with Pastor Wright. Well, unlike Pastor Wright, Pastor Hagee knows how to backpedal.

Releasing this howler of an abject apology, the LA Times reported:

Pastor John Hagee, who heads the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, said in a letter made public Tuesday that he now knew the terms he used to describe the church, such as "the great whore," were "rhetorical devices long employed in anti-Catholic literature."

I'm chuckling.

Putin, patriarchs, and thugs...

(Tim, w/thanks to Lucas) From my perspective, there's little difference between the claims of unity of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Both amount to little more than, "We're real, real old."

No duh.

Read Calvin's Institutes and you'll see that evangelical reformed doctrine and practice are much older, going back to the Apostles themselves with much support in the early and medieval church. I like to tell my congregation that the Roman Catholic church didn't exist until the Council of Trent when it went off in schism. Yes, it's slightly hyperbolic, but a good bit true, too.

Here's an article from the New York Times documenting something those of us with brothers and sisters in Christ working in former Soviet bloc countries knew already. Just as Orthodoxy's scribes were tight with the KGB before Communism's fall, they're tight now with the blinkered nationalistic thugs governing these countries today. And Orthodoxy's patriarchs are in The Man's hip pockets...

Sealed with a kiss...

(Tim, w/thanks to David W.) Some years back, I was responsible for escorting Mother Theresa across several blocks in downtown St. Louis to the venue where she was about to address the Presbyterian Church (USA) on the subject of abortion. As we walked (or tried to walk), our way was obstructed by scores of desperate mothers and grandmothers pressing up against one another as if they were bodies trying to get on a Japanese commuter train, each holding out a picture of some loved one--a child or grandchild--that they wanted Mother Theresa to look at, touch, and bless. I felt like I'd been transported in time back to the medieval world...

Limbo in limbo: "This exceptionally delicate issue..."

...the question of the eternal destiny of infants who die unbaptised is “one of the most difficult to solve in the structure of theology”. It is a “limit-case” where vital tenets of faith, especially the need of Baptism for salvation and the universal salvific will of God, can easily appear to be in tension. (W)e have considered how the Spirit may be guiding the Church at this point in history to reflect anew on this exceptionally delicate issue. -The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptised

(Tim) Watch for Benedict XVI to lower the Roman Catholic Church’s commitment to limbo, soon. According to The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptised, a report recently released with Benedict XVI’s permission by the Vatican’s International Study Commission, limbo can’t be found in Scripture.

The internal debate has been heating up the past couple of years as traditionalists sensed what was coming and took their usual posture of opposing change. When papists go around claiming “No other church has the guarantee that it will always teach the truth” (Wanderer, 8/16/07), they back themselves into a corner that’s hard to escape. So the Vatican finds itself in an awkward position wanting to withdraw a doctrine they’ve taught for centuries...

A celibate priesthood...

(Tim) Every couple of months I waste some time reading the New York Times. Normally newpaperless, it's fun every now or then to catch up on the great big world.

Dateline Vatican City, October 13: An Italian monsignor was suspended from his Vatican post in which he serves "as a top official in the Vatican's Congregation for Clergy, which aims to ensure proper conduct by priests."

An italian television network broadcast interviews with a number of priests about their sodomite practices. The men were interviewed with their faces and voices obscured to avoid identification. The hapless monsignor made the mistake of being interviewed in his Vatican office. So, although his face and voice were hidden, the trappings of his office were not. During his interview the Monsignor "said he 'didn't feel he was sinning' by having sex with gay men."

Vatican spokesman, The Rev. Frederico Lombardi, assured reporters: "The case is being handled with utmost reserve."

The only man I know personally who is currently preparing for the Roman Catholic priesthood has spent his life struggling against temptations to same-sex intimacy.

Benedict and Luther agree, at least...

Would people think more of the Catholic Church if she were to deny her link with the God-man Jesus and pretend that she is just the same as churches founded by weak men like Martin Luther and King Henry VIII? Not likely. That would also mean denying her divine Founder and her whole reason for existence. No other church has the guarantee that it will always teach the truth. No other church has seven sacraments, seven channels of God's grace, to help us get to Heaven. No other church, except the Orthodox Church (which lacks full communion with the Bishop of Rome), has the Holy Eucharist, the actual Body and Blood of Christ Himself, without which Jesus said we cannot get to Heaven… That is why it is essential for Catholics to go to Mass every week; it's the only place one can receive the spiritual food necessary to get to Heaven… -The Wanderer, August 16, 2007

(Tim) The Wanderer is an orthodox Roman Catholic weekly newspaper published since 1867 in St. Paul, Minnesota. Back in 1980, I was given a six month gift subscription by my dear friend, Jon Archibald. I found the paper so helpful on social, cultural, political, economic, academic, and moral issues that I’ve subscribed now for twenty-seven years. Although Touchstone magazine places a close second, The Wanderer still holds first place as the best news source for the national and international battle on fronts such as sodomy, the unborn, the libertarian movement, no-fault divorce, population control, China’s forced abortion and single child policies, the persecution of Christians, economics, just war principles applied to global conflicts, terrorism, the education of children, the academy, our two-party union shop, infanticide, euthanasia, etc. I’ve found no better news source for Christians pursuing our Lord’s command to be salt and light.

Yet there's another way The Wanderer is helpful. It reminds us of Rome's errors and the threat those errors pose to immortal souls. When so many evangelical luminaries have signed on to the nuanced ambiguities of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, we can be lulled to sleep and forget the chasm between Rome and biblical faith. But then, along comes The Wanderer providing a pitcher of cold water to the face, awakening us from our slumber.

Men whose observation of Roman Catholicism has been limited to the kinder gentler Catholicism of the northern hemisphere might have difficulty understanding why, at this late date, anyone would still consider Roman Catholicism to be opposed to biblical faith. David and I are currently serving as tutors to the men who matriculated this fall in our pastors college as they read Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians. Luther got it right when he opposed the Judaizing heresy at the heart of Rome. Take this lengthy excerpt as one example, particularly noting what Luther says about Rome's schoolmen and the Pope...

Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians, gagged...

(Tim) The second group of men have now matriculated in our pastors college and, as part of the heart religion emphasis during the first of three years' study, I'm leading a seminar on Luther's commentary on Galatians. I have an old copy of the commentary published in 1953 by London's James Clarke & Co. which I've used preaching through Galatians the past couple of years. But I went ahead and bought a second copy of the commentary since the most widely available and cheapest printing today is a paperback edition sold by Wheaton's Crossway Publishers. It's one volume in their Crossway Classic Commentaries series and we had assigned it as the edition of Luther's commentary the men were to read for the seminar. It made sense for me to be on the same page with the men. Literally.

Still, I wasn't entirely happy with the situation. Concerning evangelical publishers and their theological trustworthiness, I have a naturally suspicious mind. "Surely no need to worry about Crossway, though," I thought. "They publish many good authors and, although Alister McGrath is one of the series' editors, Jim Packer is the other and he wouldn't allow them to bowdlerize Luther." In his essay, "Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification," Packer cites the same edition of Luther on Galatians I use, translated by Philip S. Watson and published by James Clarke & Co. He's drunk at the same well so he'll not allow anyone to ruin Luther.

And yet I had a nagging thought at the back of my mind that we'd made a mistake by going with Crossway's edition... 

Benedict XVI: Protestant churches not true churches...

(By Tim) This strikes me as pretty ho-hum. After all, for centuries now Roman Catholics and Protestants have been agreed that both sides of the Tiber cannot possibly be true churches. Yes, we've gone through a couple decades when everyone was trying to deny the substance of our division, and that the substance centered on the nature of saving faith. But you have to respect Benedict XVI for blowing away those mists and vapors. If only Protestant men would be as honest.

By the way, have I ever said I love Ratzinger?

Scholars and shepherds: another angle on Roman Catholic ecclesiology...

Under Francis Beckwith's post announcing his conversion to Roman Catholicism, one Roman Catholic commented:

Welcome back (to Rome)! I am a clergy convert myself.

To which I commented that Dr. Beckwith is not “clergy.” He has no congregation he has been set apart by the Holy Spirit to shepherd. For my own understanding of his error, this is key. Go back to the Erasmus/Luther debate, and the same distinction is pivotal. Erasmus is a scholar, Luther a shepherd.

Really, the Reformers were so very stupid...

Twelve hours ago, the current president of the Evangelical Theological Society, philosopher Francis J. Beckwith, posted a short piece announcing he and his wife have made the decision to convert to Roman Catholicism. Beckwith claims there's no conflict between Rome and the doctrinal standards of the Evangelical Theological Society and who am I to disagree? (No cheating--ya gotta read it all the way to the bottom.)

Here's my comment under Beckwith's announcement:

This past week, I taught Luther’s Bondage of the Will to my son’s home school co-op class, prompting my observation as a longtime ETS member that it seems apparent ETS today would roll out the red carpet for Erasmus, but would give old man Luther the boot. Those tempted to cast a longing glance after Beckwith would do well to read Bondage of the Will, themselves. It’s a perfectly Scriptural cure for Tiberculosis.

The Vatican shames evangelicals...

While acknowledging the terrible denial of the Gospel at the heart of Roman Catholic dogma, true believers will rejoice to hear her prophetic voice continue to address the evils and hypocrisies of western culture.

These are strange days, when the professor of ethics at the Presbyterian Church in America's Covenant Seminary seeks to overturn laws banning sodomy, while the Vatican decries "parliaments of so-called civilized nations where laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated, such as the approval of marriage between people of the same sex ..."; when the Washington D.C. representative of the National Association of Evangelicals calls the world to a new moral awakening opposing carbon emissions, while the Pope calls for a new moral order in which abortion clinics are finally recognized as "slaughterhouses of human beings, …terrorism with a human face."

(Thanks, David.)

Georgetown Jesuits give Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, other Protestant ministries, the boot...

This just arrived in my E-mail inbox from my friend, Kevin Offner:

I'm still a bit stunned as I write this. Georgetown University has just kicked off InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (and four other evangelical para-church groups) from its campus. No reason has been given other than what you see in this letter. Please pray for us as we seek to respond, that we would have wisdom and respond out of love, not fear.

Warmly in Christ,

Kevin Offner, InterVarsity Grad Staff at Washington, DC Universities

Looking into the matter, I found that Georgetown's campus newspaper, The Hoya, ran an article today (August 25, 2006), announcing the decision. The article titled "Campus Ministry Removes Affiliates exposed the tight-lipped, damage-control mindset characterizing Georgetown's administrators who implemented the decision:

"The manner in which they pursued this was that they weren't going to allow any other voices other than their own," (Chi Aplha Christian Fellowship co-leader) Jay Lim said. "It's not just what they did, it's the manner in which they pursued [it]."

The new policy barring ministry affiliates was announced during a brief meeting that administrators held with the groups last Thursday. According to several affiliate members who attended the meeting, administrators announced the exclusion of the groups without permitting any discussion or feedback.

Hannah Coyne (COL '07), another Chi Alpha co-leader, called the move "incredibly unprofessional and incredibly disrespectful to the students at Georgetown."

...Officials in the offices of Fr. Philip Boroughs, S.J., vice president for mission and ministry, and Fr. Timothy Godfrey, S.J., director of campus ministry, referred questions to the Office of Communications. Phone calls yesterday afternoon to Rev. Wheeler, who wrote the letter informing the groups of the new policies, were not returned.

Here is a PDF copy of the letter announcing the decision. Printed on Georgetown letterhead and signed by Rev. Constance C. Wheeler, Director of Campus Ministry, it reads...

Love across the Tiber...

Here's an E-mail just received from my dear friend, John Archibold, who has given me permission to put it up on the blog. John had read the recent post, Mainline sodomites and evangelical feminists: Who really loves Jesus?, and this is his response. But first, who is John Archibold?

Back in 1979-80, Mary Lee and I spent a year in Boulder, Colorado, where I had been hired to serve a one-year pastoral internship at First Presbyterian Church prior to entering Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the Fall of 1980. During that year, Dad put us in touch with John and Molly Archibold, old friends from Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship days, and the Archibolds graciously invited us to their Denver home for dinner one evening.

We had never met the Archibolds, but that evening meal and the conversation that followed late into the night remains one of the most memorable and influential contacts in Mary Lee's and my life. At the time, the Archibolds were members of their local Episcopal parish. Later, they left the Episcopalians for the Anglican Catholics--a way-station on the way to Rome, I thought at the time. Then, sure enough, they converted to what I call Roman Catholicism and they call Catholicism. They love Rome and all she stands for, and I think they're wrong. Woefully so, given the stark difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of justification, particularly the distinction between the infusion and imputation of Christ's righteousness.

But I'm not writing this to fight that battle, at the moment. Rather, to pay tribute to John and Molly for all they've meant in my life and that of my family, and also to demonstrate that there is a Roman Catholic who loves me and is convinced that I, like many other reformed pastors before me, will soon enter Rome. What can I say?

Well, loving John as I do, I'd suggest he not hold his breath. Here's his loving letter...

Gordon College & Tom Howard; Wheaton College & Joshua Hochschild...

With my two brothers, David and Nathan, I took my Masters of Divinity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, an institution bound historically with its sister institution about four miles away, Gordon College. Both schools are on Boston's North Shore. And although no formal ties remain, the two schools have always had plenty of Gospel ties coming out of their mutual Protestant and evangelical commitments, and their common heritage and close proximity.

In 1985, two years after I graduated from Gordon-Conwell, one of the more visible members of Gordon College's academic community, Tom Howard, converted to Roman Catholicism and resigned as a faculty member.

Howard is the younger brother of two prominent evangelicals, Dave Howard and Elisabeth Elliot Gren, but he also was an author with broad name recognition himself. Years earlier, he'd written his angry-young-man book, Christ the Tiger, which was widely read. He'd also done a number of other books, one an extended meditation on the Christian home called Splendor in the Ordinary which I commend to our readers. (Howard continues to write and publishes with the orthodox Roman Catholic publisher, Ignatius Press, one of the most noteworthy Christian publishers today.)

When Howard converted, it hit the evangelical world like a sledgehammer and his departure from Gordon College was not to be taken for granted. A rather typical evangelical institution--big-hearted, broad-minded, but atheological--many of us would not have been surprised for Gordon College to keep Howard on despite his conversion. But they didn't.

Shortly afterward, a document authored by Gordon College's Faculty Senate was released as a partial explanation of the college's decision. The document titled, Explanatory Statement to the Senate's Motions To Affirm the Existing Policy with Respect to the Hiring of Non-Protestants as Faculty Members at Gordon College, circulated broadly. As I've read the discussion surrounding Joshua Hochschild's departure from the faculty of Wheaton College because of his own conversion to Roman Catholicism, I've thought it would be good for those involved in the discussion to have access to this document from Gordon College's past history...

Wheaton College and Roman Catholicism

A disturbing article from the Wall Street Journal on a Wheaton College philosophy professor's conversion to Roman Catholicism and subsequent firing by Wheaton.

The irony of this account is that it seems certain the day is coming when Roman Catholic professors will be accepted at Wheaton. President Duane Litfin comes across as a man dutifully toeing the historic line which has long been understood to forbid Roman Catholic professors, but he seems a forlorn figure, standing for a Wheaton of alumni memory rather than the Wheaton of the present.

The Journal is strongly sympathetic to the fired professor; it suggests that such narrow sectarianism is the reason some states have begun to reject student aid funding for Evangelical schools.

When Christ warns about the "leaven of the Pharisees" He speaks of a contagion that proliferates. Ironically, the contagion of Notre Dame's bloodless, anemic Catholicism is now hitting Evangelical schools which aspire to similar intellectual heights. When we send our children to be educated at Catholic schools which fail to hold to staunchly Roman Catholic views, we end up with similarly ambiguous doctrinal commitments spreading in the Protestant schools that receive them as professors.

On the theory that, as a whole, a forthright enemy is preferable to a slippery friend, it would be better if Wheaton's Roman Catholic professors were educated in Rome itself rather than at weak-kneed Roman Catholic institutions of ambiguous doctrinal commitment like Notre Dame.

Interesting also that it's a philosophy professor who claims he can affirm Wheaton's commitment to the Bible as Christianity's "supreme and final authority" while maintaining loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church. From the Journal:

Wheaton's 12-point statement doesn't explicitly exclude Catholics. But its emphasis on Scripture as the "supreme and final authority" and its aligning of Wheaton with "evangelical Christianity" were unmistakably Protestant, Mr. Litfin wrote to Mr. Hochschild in late 2003. Because Catholics regard the Bible and the pope as equally authoritative, a Catholic "cannot faithfully affirm" the Wheaton statement, he continued.

Mr. Hochschild disagreed. The Bible, he wrote, is indeed the supreme authority for Catholics, who turn to the Church hierarchy only as Protestants consult their ministers. While acknowledging the college's right to exclude Catholics -- and knowing his position was endangered -- he replied that as a matter of principle, "I see no reason why I should be dismissed from the College upon joining the Roman Catholic Church."

There's a reason such specious forms of argument have historically been known as "sophistry."

The Journal goes on to tell how the study of philosophy at Notre Dame University led Hochschild to convert to Roman Catholicism.

Yet a question nagged Mr. Hochschild: Why am I not a Catholic? As he saw it, evangelical Protestantism was vaguely defined and had a weak scholarly tradition, which sharpened his admiration for Catholicism's self-assurance and intellectual history. "I even had students who asked me why I wasn't Catholic," he says. "I didn't have a decent answer."

His wife, Paige, said her husband's distaste for the "evangelical suspicion of philosophy" at the school might have contributed to his ultimate conversion. The Hochschilds say some evangelicals worry that learning about philosophy undermines students' religious convictions.

"Evangelical suspicion of philosophy" seems singularly appropriate in light of Paige and Joshua's story. Unfortunately, there is less and less such suspicion in the bounder intellectual world of modern Evangelicalism.

A superb preacher in the Vatican...

Called to my attention by my reformed baptist brother and leader of my small group, David Talcott, check out this sermon by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the Pontifical Household preacher. This is the first in his Advent Series of sermons (actually, he calls it a "meditation") to the Pope and his household, given on December 2nd of this year. Father Cantalamessa's theme chosen for this Advent series is "Faith in Christ."

Read these excerpts from Father Cantalamessa's first sermon to the Pope and ask yourself whether it doesn't seem sometimes as if the first shall be last and the last first--whether some in Rome may not be recovering the heart of the Gospel while some within the reformed community are recovering sacramentalism--a doctrine that could not be more destructive to the soul of man.

Note the warnings here given by the Pope's personal preacher concerning the loss of personal evangelism when most baptisms are of infants, not adult converts--infants, as the good father puts it, "who do not have the capacity to make (faith in Jesus Christ) their own choice."

Note also his lament over the loss of evangelistic preaching within Roman Catholicism, and his recognition that many souls have had to go outside the Roman Catholic church to hear the Gospel proclaimed in a way that calls for a personal decision for faith in Jesus Christ...

Fr. Andrew Greely: Narnia flick Trojan Horse for Roman Catholic idolatry...

Although brother David and I have a slightly different take on the Second Commandment, it's been fascinating to see the almost-complete absence of any personal interaction of our good readers with the real personal danger of idolatry, specifically related to the riot of images at the center of the culture we live within. Much discussion of idolatry, conceptually; and much defense of pictures and movies and statues and art; but in all the thousands of words written, no idolatrous image found.

So convenient. So telling.

Well, I've never quoted the liberal Roman Catholic gadfly priest, Andrew Greely, before, and I trust I'll never have to again. But here I must. On the occasion of the release of Disney's Narnia flick, "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," Fr. Greely published a piece in the Chicago Sun Times titled, "Relax, It's Only a Fairy Tale." (Thanks, Bill Mouser.)

Coming off the first half of his article detailing the tremendous marketing hype Disney has employed to sell this movie to the evangelical subculture, Greely concludes his piece remarking upon how open Protestant evangelicals are to what he claims is a quite-Roman Catholic movie by an almost-Roman Catholic author, C. S. .Lewis.

Leaving to the side the matter of Lewis' theological commitments, I do think Father Greely has a point--indeed, an excellent point--about the apparent abandonment of the Second Commandment by Protestants today...

Plenary indulgences live on...

This announcement from the Vatican. Martin Luther would be pleased to know that these indulgences, at least, are not being sold.

Pope Benedict XVI has declared a plenary indulgence for Catholics who honor the Virgin Mary on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8

In a November 29 announcement, the Vatican said that Pope Benedict has declared the indulgence to mark the 40th anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. The announcement indicates that the Pope "when he renders public homage of praise to Mary Immaculate, has the heartfelt desire that the entire Church should join with him, so that all the faithful, united in the name of the common Mother, become ever stronger in the faith, adhere with greater devotion to Christ, and love their brothers with more fervent charity."

Yes, Dorothy, Rome does indeed teach justification by faith plus works...

Note from Tim Bayly: In a prior post, a number of us pointed out that, in a recent statement concerning the hope of salvation of those who have never believed in Jesus Christ, we saw again the inevitable return of the papacy and Roman Catholicism to good works as grounds for a man's salvation. To which one of our good readers named John responded by pouring text from the Council of Trent into the comment section of the blog, all of which seemed to deny that the Roman Catholic Church taught that a man was justified, in part, by his own good works. Here, then, is my response to his denial of the central place good works have within Roman Catholicism in the justification of sinners.

John, since my hope is that you seek truth, and not simply sectarianism, let us both acknowledge that across history Rome and Protestantism have not been fighting over nothing. If your selective citation of Rome was to be believed, sincere souls might well wonder what all the ruckus was about?

Roman Catholicism clearly opposed the Reformers through the very Council of Trent that you cite. The whole world knew it then, and still does. And when all the clouds of qualification are blown away, Rome denied that man is justified by faith alone. Here are two of her canons that have never been repealed, and therefore continue to have absolute authority within all Roman Catholicism:

Council of Trent; Canon 9: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

The "nothing else" refers to good works, so the word "obtain" is key, indicating that good works are required to obtain justification. Had Rome instead written, for instance, that good works were required not to obtain, but to prove justification, she would only have been saying what our Lord said, that "by their fruit ye shall know them."

But that's precisely what Rome chose not to say, and from this statement and many others comes the Reformation in which biblical men and women clinging solely to the merit of Christ overthrew all Rome's greedy hunger for good works that, inevitably, accrued financial treasures for the papacy's use, including particularly the good work of purchasing indulgences for loved ones hanging in the torment of purgatory until they bore the punishment for their sins and were made good enough for Heaven. Get it?

Again, assuming you are a seeker of truth and not one who desires to work in the shadows of half-truths and ambiguity, admit that the division of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism has not been much ado over nothing, and that what Rome and Wittenberg thought they were fighting over--the place of faith and good works in the justification of sinners--was what they were fighting over, and what we all fight over to this very day...

The White Sox, the Cubs, and Rome...

As my brother, David, notes below, in the comments section of this blog some have faulted me with being unfair and "sick" in my summaries of the Vatican's teaching on salvation outside of Christ. Specifically, they say I ought to have included Benedict XVI's citations of Augustine in his latest address supporting the error of inclusivism, and that Benedict XVI is not really teaching what the news service in the Vatican, Zenit, said he was teaching, that "Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved." Here are three responses to these charges:

First, contrary to what Ken wrote in our comments section, Benedict XVI was not giving "a meditation on Augustine's work." Both the title and Benedict's own first sentence tell us the opposite--Catholic Online titles his audience address "Commentary on Psalm 136(137)" and Benedict began the address with these words, "On this first Wednesday of Advent ...we meditate on Psalm 136(137)...." These meditations are routinely carried on the front page of the Roman Catholic weekly, The Wanderer, to which I subscribe and I have often been encouraged by the commitment of the Roman Catholic popes, to teach the Word of God rather than the words of men--even very pious men such as Augustine.

Second, it may have been unfair to Benedict not to include his extensive citation of Augustine but I thought about it and decided to leave it out because I have high respect for Augustine and don't want him yanked in to support this very well-established and broad movement in the Vatican toward inclusiveness. Because someone else thinks citations of an ancient father of the Church can be made to support his winking at the spirit of the age doesn't mean that the ancient father would be pleased to be used that way, and I'm inclined to give Augustine the benefit of the doubt--that he'd not look kindly on Benedict and the Vatican using him in this way.

And third...

"Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope..."

The above headline, taken directly from the Zenit Roman Catholic news service, says something either entirely unremarkable for its orthodoxy or entirely remarkable in its heterodoxy.

Evidently, several of our readers have no idea of the necessity of rigorous accuracy both within the journalistic profession--and, more importantly, in the teaching of the Word by shepherds of Christ's flock. These good readers' defense of the pope's November 30 speech claiming the possibility of salvation for men of good will outside faith in Christ leaves too much to blind faith. Either the Zenit account of the pope's address was woeful journalism, or the pope's speech was woeful theology.

Bad enough for such confusion to be the result of poor reporting. But having looked at a verbatim translation of the papal address, I'm inclined to believe the fault lies with the pope who skates dangerously at the very edge of proclaiming the possibility of salvation outside faith in Christ throughout his address.

It's one thing to proclaim God's power to draw men to Himself by instilling faith and knowledge of Christ in unbelievers before they depart this life. This is what Augustine does when the pope quotes him as saying,

God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance.... He sees their service and will show them the other city, toward which they must really long and orient all their effort.

It's another thing altogether to suggest that men of good will receive knowledge of Christ not in this life, but in the life to come. The pope has departed Augustine and is speaking for himself when he says:

...among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire. They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption.

And he says that among the persecutors, among the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live. With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ.

Pope Benedict suggests he is thinking with Augustine at this point, but he's not. He's taken Augustine's theme in an entirely different direction. Augustine makes clear that God grants a vision of the true Jerusalem to those He predestines and sets them on their way there through authentic faith in this life.

But the pope speaks of an inauthentic faith "in an unknown reality" which places those who possess it on the path to the "authentic Jerusalem" where Christ resides. Rather than God choosing to give men of good will authentic faith, the pope suggests that God gives men of good will heaven where they come to know the truth that they had previously known only inauthentically. Thus the pope argues that human goodness in this life leads to knowledge of Christ in the life to come. And this is every bit as bad as Tim suggested--a heresy no amount of quibbling over Augustine's words can cover up.

Note as well the pope's ending excursus on Jewish sufferers in the Nazi holocaust of the 20th century, another indication that he is tying goodness in this life to authentic faith in the life to come.

What is muddled and unclear in the Zenit account becomes explicit heresy in the verbatim translation, a blasphemous denial of Christ. Evidently there are problems in the Zenit report. But the problems of Zenit's reporting pale in comparison to the problems contained within the pope's actual speech.

Here, for those who did not bother to read the article before commenting on this site, is the original Zenit article:

Pope Benedict XVI: the road to Heaven is paved with good intentions...

Reminding all of us why we are catholic, but not Roman Catholic, this item from the Vatican based news service, Zenit.org.

Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

On a rainy morning in Rome, the Holy Father ...addressed ...more than 23,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square, (saying):

(A)mong the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire.... They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption.... (A)mong the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live.... With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ.... God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance.

I was pleased the College of Cardinals chose Cardinal Ratzinger rather than any number of other contenders for the Papacy, but let's keep in mind that the Papacy and all it stands for remain a very large liability to biblical faith.

Taking for granted the statement above is contrary to the Word of God, what possibility is there that this purported successor to Simon Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, will have anyone stand up to him and rebuke him as the Apostle Paul rebuked the Apostle Peter when he attacked the Gospel...

Universal claptrap from the Director of Vatican Observatory...

Remembering all the times Roman Catholics have pointed out the unity of their denomination as proof positive of her standing alone as the ark of the Covenant, I'm fond of noting other times when their unity is rather embarrassing--frightening, even. For this we needn't turn to such flagrant examples as the homosexual pederasts and bishops who provided their hideouts, nor to well-known liberal dissidents Hans Kung and Father Richard McBrien, nor even to the sedevacantist dissident Mel Gibson, or the late Archbishop Lefebvre .

Arriving on the scene with a big bang is the director of the Vatican Observatory, Father George Coyne S.J.

Coyne is attending a conference in Florence, today, and is quoted on Breithart.com as saying:

Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be... If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.

Moving from today in Florence to a couple months ago when Coyne published an article in the British Roman Catholic magazine The Tablet we find the following statements which, I might add, sound very much as if there is some serious cross-pollination between the Vatican Observatory and the Pinnock/Boyd/Sanders/Bilezekian/ hospitality suite at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society:

Now, the religious believer asks, where does God the creator feature in this scientific scenario?

...It is unfortunate that creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. (If) we take the results of modern science seriously... it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient...

Roman Catholic syncretism...

For our good readers whose only experience of Roman Catholicism is of the kinder gentler northern hemisphere sort, here's a rude awakening:

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) - It's a tradition people outside Bolivia might find creepy: families perch human skulls on altars, revering them and asking them for protection and good luck. On Tuesday, the skulls were gussied up and taken to cemeteries, where the families crowned them with flowers and filled their jaws with lit cigarettes.

The chapel in La Paz's main cemetery was filled with hundreds of people jockeying to get their skull, or "natita," in a good position for a special annual Mass. Thousands more people gathered outside...

For the rest of the article... Thanks, Brandon.

Multnomah Bible College loses one to Roman Catholicism...

A young man (variously named Kevin or Gus) who is finishing up his studies at Multnomah Biblical Seminary is blogging here about his imminent entry into the Roman Catholic Church--what he calls his "Romecoming." The rather inauspicious beginning to his announcement goes like this:

Hello. My name is Kevin. I am a student at Multnomah Biblical Seminary in Portland, Oregon. I was raised in the United Methodist Church, have served and worshiped with a number of protestant denominations, and have considered myself a protestant pastor for many years. And I have a secret to share with you.

Since the secret's been made public almost everyone seems to be affirming Kevin in his pursuit of what appears to be only his latest vocation. Check out the comments.

Kevin writes that he's not looking forward to giving up serving as a pastor (he's been married so he's not able to become a Roman Catholic priest). But not everyone thinks it's necessary for him to give up serving as a Protestant pastor after he converts:

In some ways, it might be easier for me to join the Catholic Church if I did not feel called to the pastorate. If I was a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker, I could continue in my same line of work, most likely for the same employer, following initiation into the Church. While one nameless SBC pastor/friend might like to see otherwise, I don't think I can continue working as a protestant pastor after becoming Catholic. Ecumenism only goes so far.

To which Timothy R. Butler responds in the comments section:

Sounds exciting. I'm sure it will all come together.

Of course, why not a Protestant minister whose Catholic? :) God seems to love paradoxes. It wouldn't be that much more of a stretch than our head of communion serving who is an active Catholic (attends mass before attending our service with his family each Sunday). [Mr. Butler, a member of St. Paul's Evangelical Church in St. Louis, blogs here.]

The cult of Mary and non-traditional tradition...

In the comments under "Scriptura--solo or sola..." Jack writes: "Instead of getting hung up on the word 'tradition,' I have thought of it as the collective understanding of Christ's church throughout history. For example, one of the reasons I have always rejected dispensationalism (both its views on the church and its end-times speculations) is that it is a novel doctrine that just found its way into the church in the 19th century. Why was it never clear to anyone before then, including in the early church fathers? ...Would be interested in your comments."

Jack, I agree. I've thought the same thoughts about dispensationalism and many other aberrant doctrines--where were they for two thousand years? But this is the conceit of the Roman Catholics, that Protestants were nowhere for two thousand years. It's only a conceit. Read Calvin, for instance, and it's clear the reformers see a very long line of continuity between themselves and prior centuries, right back to the Apostles. Indicative of this are the frequent citations of other church leaders through the ages including Augustine, Bernard, and many early church fathers. The reformers use church fathers as well as Scripture in opposing Roman Catholic heterodoxies and heresies.

Reformed Protestants don't buy the Roman Catholic argument about tradition for more than one reason: yes, because we see it undercutting the final authority of Scripture by placing tradition on a level with God Himself; but also, because we don't really see Roman Catholic tradition as holding to historic Christianity as much as it does, so often, simply protect the syncretism of the masses and the perquisites of the pope and his cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests. The cult of Mary is one obvious example where syncretism has been blessed by church tradition with a legitimacy it never had in the Early Church and should never have been given later.

Personally, I believe that reformed men who have left Christianity behind and entered the Roman Catholic church defend the cult of Mary with such vehemence precisely because of their bad conscience on this matter. But of course that's just speculation and I could never prove it.

Think of it: millions across the world and time worship the mother of our Lord but it can't be condemned. Why?...

Scriptura--solo or sola?

In a comment made under my brother, David's, post, "Doing Our Dirty Work," the question is asked:

...The issue of authority is the biggest question that I have as a Protestant. I feel when I read the Westminster Larger Catechism and it says, "The Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice..." that the Catechism can no longer go on. What gives it the authority to propound the Bible's doctrine (or a pastor) over my reading? What keeps the Bible from being my own possession rather than the Church's?

Good reader, you misunderstand the Catechism at this point and your definition of sola scriptura is not the historic Reformed doctrine, least of all that of the Westminster Standards. Rather, it is the straw man Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox set up to the end of making a great show of knocking it down with ease. Here, for instance, is Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn setting up this straw man:

I believe that the doctrine of sola scriptura, that the Bible alone is our only authority, is itself unscriptural. I can't find anywhere in scripture God telling his people that the Bible alone is their sole authority.

Yes, I admit that this straw man represents the mainstream evangelical understanding of sola scriptura quite well, but it's only natural that an emotive and experiential community which self-consciously rejects doctrine, and particularly the doctrine of the Church and her officers, would hold to a Bible-and-me-alone view of spiritual authority. But what a perversion this is of the historic Protestant and reformed doctrine of Scripture and ecclesiastical authority. (For an excellent essay on this, see Keith Matheson's piece, "A Critique of the Evanangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura.")

Show me one place where the reformers teach that the believer is to submit to no one and nothing but Scripture--no pastor, no elder, no session, no deacon, no presbytery, no general assembly, no master, no king, no father, no husband, and so on. For Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn to characterize the historic Protestant and reformed view in this way is duplicitous. (I know Scott and he knows better.)...

A Mirror for Protestants....

Joel, Roman Catholic author of On the Other Foot--a blog we've watched with some interest since Joel started blogging earlier this year, writes a post about Protestant apologetics from the viewpoint of a Roman Catholic.

Listed in the entry are five Protestant fallacies about Roman Catholicism Joel has come to recognize over the years. Those five, abridged from Joel's post, are these:

1) Mary--"It's simple: We don't worship Mary. Period. How hard is that to understand? I can't count the times I've gotten into the distinction between dulia and latria, typed until my fingers bled, and still been told, 'But it's still worship!'"

2) The Bible--"I've seen repeated examples where somebody will line up doctrine under the heading of 'What Rome Teaches' and proof-texts under 'What the Bible Says.' For cryin' out loud! Do you really think we don't have Bibles? ... We have a bookcase loaded with Bibles in different translations and commentaries on Scripture. Yet some yahoo is always convinced that being a Catholic, I must not know what's in the Bible, and if I would just read it, I would immediately see the error of my ways."

3) Conspiracy Theories--"Believe it or not, there's no great plot by the fabulously wealthy and powerful Vatican to subvert Christians into a Satanic cult. We're not sworn to secrecy at confirmation. Frankly if the Vatican were as powerful and sinister as some of the wilder theorists say, they would have been eliminated long ago."

4) Trent--"Trent is every Protestant's nightmare, an articulation of anathemas in which Protestant truths are blatantly denied and Biblical Christians condemned. Right? Wrong, actually. The Council of Trent was called (secondarily) to consider - not to condemn - the doctrinal issues raised by Luther and the other reformers...its first purpose was to address the abuses that drove Luther to nail his brain to the cathedral door in the first place.

5) "Christian"--"These days, 'Christian' is too often used as a synonym for 'Protestant,' as though Christianity began in 1517. 'Christian' bookstores, 'Christian' magazines, 'Christian' music... they're invariably Protestant-oriented, which only reinforces the meme. Believe it or not, we were there already. We're not 'sub-Christian,' we're certainly not 'anti-Christian,' and we're not 'non-Christian.' If we're not Christians, then you're not either, because like it or lump it, you came from us.

I would offer the following brief comments in response, taking Joel's points in order.

1) Mary. It's not enough to make a non-biblical distinction (point 2, we both go the Bible for authority, right?) between dulia and latria to win this argument. When your priests and people are bowing to a statue and praying to it, they're doing exactly what the Philistines did with their statues of Baal. If that's not worship, then I'm not a resident of Ohio because back in the 1800s, my region of Ohio declared independence and attached itself to Michigan. But the truth is, the lesser does not define the offense against the greater. Man does not define idolatrous worship. God does.

Joel is just wrong on this one. I'm concerned that Protestants aren't concerned about their image worship, and ours is less blatant than this one.

2) Scripture. Yes, Roman Catholics have the Bible. But Joel is approaching this as a relatively recent Protestant convert to Roman Catholicism. Even just thirty years ago the Roman Catholic attitude toward common people studying the Bible was markedly negative. I was asked as a Protestant seminarian to lead a Bible study in a Roman Catholic nursing home by a Renew-movement Roman Catholic in the mid-1980s explicitly because I was Protestant and would actually teach the Bible. The attitude of Roman Catholicism toward laity and the Scripture has been changing, but not entirely and only relatively recently. And, if we're honest, one of the primary reasons for this change has been the influence of Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism from Cardinal Newman on through some of today's prominent Roman Catholic apologists.

Finally, however, the great shibboleth remains: tradition is of equal authority with Scripture in Roman Catholicism. And thus, I would suggest, no Roman Catholic has Scripture the way a conservative Protestant has the Word.

3) Conspiracy. Right, it's no human conspiracy though the devil is this world's prince and where the devil works there is a diabolical scheme and systematic. But this is quibbling; the devil is equally at work in vast swathes of Protestantism.

4) Trent. Well, yes and no. Yes Trent dealt with other issues than justification. But no, the entire context of Trent is the Reformation and we must look at its anathemas in that light. It's a counter-Reformation document from start to finish, both in its positive teaching and its anathemas. It anathematize those who hold to classic Protestant theology in more areas than just Canon 9, but at Canon 9 it's a flung gauntlet.

Honestly, at the point of Trent, I'd rather not try to bridge the gap. Bridging the gap hurts Roman Catholic theology as much as Protestant. Attempts to reconcile the two positions (such as the joint Roman Catholic-Lutheran declaration on justification of several years ago) have been repudiated as strongly by the magisterium of Rome as by staunch Protestants. Let's hold our positions as they're clearly stated in our foundational documents.

5) "Christian". I'll grant you "Christian" if you'll grant me "Catholic." Is it a deal?

The Church of Rome a Visible Church?

In returning to the USA from Guadalajara, I am forced to acknowledge my proud provincialism as an American Presbyterian when it comes to tackling the thorny question of Roman Catholic legitimacy as a Church of Jesus Christ.

Some months ago I commended to our readers an argument by Charles Hodge in the Princeton Review urging acceptance of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis of Roman Catholicism's status as a visible Church of Christ. Though Hodge's position on Roman Catholicism was scandalous within Presbyterianism in the 1840s, it no longer provokes opposition within most of American Presbyterianism. Willingness to accept Rome as a visible Church is clearly the majority position among teaching elders of the Presbyterian Church of America.

But encounter Rome through the eyes of one converted to Christ out of Roman Catholicism and suddenly many of Hodge's arguments sound hollow. This is especially true of those converted out of Roman Catholicism in places such as Mexico where Roman Catholicism remains the vastly majority religion without the benefit of 300-plus years of confrontation with majority-religion Protestantism to moderate its excesses.

Which leads me to wonder if Hodge would have written in defense of Roman Catholicism had he been a missionary in South America rather than a professor at Princeton Seminary?

For that matter, I also wonder if PCA pastors in North and South America should pay closer attention to the thoughts of their native colleagues before joining with Roman Catholics in prayer services. Surely a native Presbyterian pastor converted out of Roman Catholicism and working to convert Roman Catholics to true faith is at least as well equipped to judge whether Rome is a visible Church as one whose knowledge of Rome is largely theoretical.

Some further thoughts on Roman Catholicism as a visible Church:

1) Is this an area for charity or precision? I suspect, despite my concerns with how the regulative worship principle (RWP) is sometimes applied within Reformed churches, that a growing lack of concern for the RWP within a Reformed body will inevitably lead to a willingness to accept Rome as a visible Church.

Once idolatry is no longer viewed as a present danger, charity rules. But the syncretistic worship of the northern kingdom was NEVER treated charitably by God through His prophets. Is not Rome akin to Samaria? But salvation is of the Jews, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman. There is no compromise.

The call of God is to precision and warning for those granted the privilege of declaring His Word. Let God be charitable in His treatment of individuals within Roman Catholicism. Prophets must heed His Word in speaking of Mount Gerizim. We ignore such heretical Roman doctrines as those declared at the Council of Trent at our peril.

2) Is it possible to speak of a disparate, variegated worldwide body as a monolithic whole? Hodge agrees that the Church is apparent in the world in a variety of forms, from local body to universal Bride of Christ. But can we speak of a worldwide body as visible when such a declaration ignores the teaching of that body in many places throughout the world?

The churches of Revelation were in much closer proximity than the churches of Rome, yet they are individually addressed and judged rather than corporately summarized. By declaring Rome, in total, a visible Church, do we not accept the basic Roman argument of apostolic succession and unity? How can we describe Rome as a "visible" Church when Rome, as a whole, is hard-pressed to fit any of the classic New Testament aspects of Christ's Bride?

3) Hodge's sanguine view of Rome's formal theology seems to assume that theology is entirely a matter of books and documents, rather than living belief written on the heart. When such a vast disconnect exists between what Hodge views as the basically orthodox central tenets of Roman Catholicism and the expression of those tenets in the faith of individual lives around the world, perhaps it is necessary to test the doctrine by the fruit it produces.

Senator Santorum's faithful witness to Jesus Christ...

The May 22nd issue of The New York Times Magazine had a very long cover story titled, "The Senator From a Place Called Faith: The coming of Rick Santorum." If you're able, pick up a copy. As the article starts out, it appears it will be one more slash-and-burn treatment of biblical faith, but deeper into the piece it becomes apparent the author, Michael Sokolove, is listening carefully and finding himself surprised by a growing sympathy.

Senator Santorum comes across as one of the bolder witnesses to the Christian faith I've ever seen profiled by a major media player, and it's particularly encouraging to read of his involvement, both legislatively and personally, in helping the poor. The good Senator reminds me of the Apostle Peter's exhortation:

Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:12)

One item of interest to those who have taken part in the discussion of Roman Catholic theology and practice on this blog is this sad statement:

Santorum is not a reader of Scripture-- "I've never read the Bible cover to cover; maybe I should have" --and has no passages he clings to when seeking spiritual guidance. "I'm a Catholic, so I'm not a biblical scholar. I'm not someone who has verses he can pop out. That's not how I interact with the faith." (emphasis added)

Jesus Christ had "verses he (could) pop out," and He popped them out all the time--one for every occasion. If He was tempted, pop. If he was faced by a murderous mob of religious leaders, pop. If He was giving a sermon on a hillside, pop pop pop pop pop...

Ironically, one of the article's illustrations is a picture of a grouping of the senator's personal effects. Sitting on top of a stack of books in his office is a black Bible with "Rick Santorum, United States Senator" engraved in gold leaf on the lower right corner of the cover.

Leaving this matter to the side, though, Senator Santorum honors God and I'd be proud to be lumped in with him.

The Beam in Our Own Eye....

Because we have opposed so strongly the emphasis on works in the Roman Catholic view of justification, we must be honest in admitting Protestantism's often-greater failure in this same regard.

One of the young deacons in my church writes today in an email to his fellow deacons:

Galatians 1:6-9 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- [7] not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

Can anyone honestly say that Rome teaches the gospel that Paul taught? No, they have added to it, therefore it is different. It is distorted because Christ's blood is not viewed as the sole means of reconciliation between sinners and God. It is contrary to the true gospel message which teaches that Hell awaits those who are unrepentant. I could go on but I won't....

I suggest that some stalwart Protestants reason with the Catholics on Sunday after church, perhaps greet them in their parking lot as they are ready to leave and share lovingly the gospel they lack. What do you think? Too much?

John, The Part Time Zealot (using fictitious names)

To which a fellow deacon responds:

John:

Just wondering: do Arminians teach what Paul taught? Why not go to (a variety of tree) Creek while we're at it?

-Bart

If we are honest, we must admit as Protestants that what the Reformers viewed, to a man, as the baseline defective principle of Roman Catholicism is so entrenched within Protestantism we are blind to it. Typical Protestant and Evangelical theology is little better than Roman Catholic. Theology which makes the human will sovereign in salvation is Roman, no matter where it is taught.

The reason so many Protestants have so easily and happily made the transition to Rome in recent years is that Protestant soteriology has devolved, in many cases, to Roman soteriology. We have thrown in the towel on the bondage of the will, on depravity, on the sovereign grace of God.

I wrote several weeks ago, "The difference between Willow Creek and St. Joe's RCC isn't that great once you get past the liturgy--and liturgically St. Joe's has it all over Willow Creek."

But there is another advantage to the Roman Church: St. Joe's RCC often speaks more clearly about sin and guilt than the average Evangelical church. St. Joe's may lack the answer, but at least it diagnoses the problem with an honesty you will rarely find at the local Willow Creek clone--or many other Protestant churches for that matter.

Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?

For Protestants unsure how to view the Roman Catholic church and her adherents, here is an excellent essay by Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary written in the 1840s which summarizes the classic, though not unanimous, Reformed view of the Roman church.

Hodge is arguing that the Presbyterian church should accept Roman baptism. It's interesting to note the charity of the classic Protestant position at this point.

Read on for a portion of the article.

Let them have their unity....

The visible-invisible divide between Roman Catholic and Protestant views of the Church is on full display in reactions to recent posts about the unity of the Roman Catholic church.

In the end, I am inclined to provisionally agree with Roman Catholic claims to a full unity under the pope--recognizing that such unity is entirely formal and visible in accord with Roman Catholic ecclesiology which claims that the visible and invisible Church are coterminous. By Roman Catholicism's self-definition, her unity is complete and visible. There's no sense arguing the point.

But, what must be stated with equal vigor by Protestant opponents of Roman Catholic theology is that you can't be Roman Catholic and eat your cake too... In particular, the unity of the Roman church is by its very definition exclusive of every single Protestant believer.

Protestants recognize the possibility of true faith and, thus, salvation within the confines of the Roman church. Protestant soteriology, based on the teaching of Scripture, recognizes that not all Israel is Israel for herself--and that not all Samaria is Samaria for Roman Catholicism. Instead, true Israel is Israel in faith, Israel of the heart:

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical, but a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.

Because Protestants understand salvation to be the imputation of Christ's righteousness to an utterly undeserving, unworking sinner, and the imputation of that sinner's sin to Christ, because Protestants believe that salvation is by grace alone, not by works in any way, because Protestants believe that faith is the sole means by which the Father's justifying love in Christ is apprehended and possessed and because Protestants believe that faith comes by the agency of the Holy Spirit, we can embrace the possibility of a Roman Catholic Christian, despite our opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine. A Roman Catholic can look to Christ by faith for salvation, even in the midst of a heretical church.

True Protestants understand it is not the outward marks of the Church which confer the Christian's status in Christ. Instead, the outward marks are signs and seals of spiritual reality. No combination of religious acts can amount to faith. Rather, the essence of faith is internal, of the heart, by the Holy Spirit. Thus, despite the vast conflict between Roman soteriology and Biblical Christianity, Protestants understand that it is entirely possible for true Christians to exist by faith in the midst of the Roman church's corrupt soteriology. It is not what we believe about salvation that constitutes saving faith, but what we believe about Jesus Christ.

The problem for Roman Catholics, however, is that Roman Catholic unity is: 1) visible, and; 2) by virtue of number 1, exclusive.

Formal Roman Catholic soteriology thus specifically denies salvation to unrepentant Protestants. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger frequently affirmed prior to assuming the papacy, the canons of Trent stand with undiminished authority in the Roman Catholic church.

In particular, the following statements from the Council of Trent's Sixth Session, its Justification Canons have not been altered or diminished in Roman Catholic theology:

Roman Catholics' false claim of unity...

My Roman Catholic acquaintances have never failed to throw in my face the schismatic nature they claim to be intrinsic to Protestantism. "We are one Church, united under the Pope, while you Protestants are thousands and millions of churches."

Similarly, they claim the Roman Catholic church is united in her biblical interpretation whereas Protestants, having no authoritative tradition bequeathing the proper interpretation of Scripture, have as many interpretations of Scripture as there are readers of Scripture (of which all honest people admit Protestantism has an almost infinitely greater number than Roman Catholicism).

So the argument is the unity of the Roman Catholic church and her doctrine.

Knowing the guts of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical and theological scene from the inside, reading publications such as The Wanderer and Culture Wars, I laugh without malice. One church! One doctrine! One authoritative interpretation of Scripture! Surely they jest!

Endless examples from church history and our own time could be cited, but let me quote from the weekly newspaper that best represents the most conservative and faithful-to-the-pope element of the Roman Catholic community in the US, The Wanderer.

Here is their description of this purported Roman Catholic unity as it is demonstrated by the relationship between Rome's most prestigious order, the Jesuits, and the Pope of the past twenty-six years, John Paul II. (Most of The Wanderer's description comes from extensive citations of an essay titled Liberal Jesuits and the Late Pope by Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ (Society of Jesuits) run by Catholic World News.)

Any Roman Catholic or Protestant who plays with the notion that the Roman Catholic church stands on a higher moral ground because of her unity needs to read Mankowski's complete essay, but to whet your appetite, here are a few excerpts...

How Many Roman Catholics are There?

There seems to be a tendency among Roman Catholic commentators on this site to exaggerate the size of the Roman Catholic Church and to diminish the size of Protestantism in the aftermath of John Paul II's death.

How large is the Roman Catholic church vis a vis other branches of Christianity?

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, this is how Christianity was constituted in mid 1995:

Branch- - - - - - - -Number of Adherents

Roman Catholic- - - -968,000,000

Protestant- - - - - -395,867,000

Other Christians- - -275,583,000

Orthodox- - - - - - -217,948,000

Anglican- - - - - - -70,530,000

You will note that most small religious groups are included in the "Other Christians" category. Most of these are Protestant, though some fall under a broader definition of Roman Catholicism which includes non-Latin rite Catholic churches. "Other Christian" also includes sects and cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

Inclusion of orthodox smaller factions increases the number of adherents to Protestantism and Roman Catholicism by slightly less than 100,000,000 each.

Moreover, growth rate comparisons of branches of Christendom have routinely favored Protestant churches for the last 30 years. Recent figures show Evangelical and Pentecostal worldwide growth rates in excess of quadruple Roman Catholicism's growth rate.

Admittedly, sizes and growth rates are imprecise. But all estimates I have seen show generally the same basic ratios and sizes. Church size should be beside the point to these discussions. If our Roman Catholic friends wish to argue size, they may have another century or two to do so. But watch out. If size proves anything, the shoe could be on the other foot with the next 150 years. Protestantism began with a handful of adherents and it's now better than half the size of Roman Catholicism and growing faster worldwide to boot. Include Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism now holds a plurality, not majority, of worldwide Christian adherents.

For further statistical information see here.

Sobran: Benedict XVI "a sterner disciplinarian"...

This just in from Joe Sobran concerning the new pope:

The election of Benedict XVI means that the College of Cardinals does indeed want change; but not the kind of change the liberals crave. It wants the return to orthodoxy and discipline (Cardinal Ratzinger) has been advocating throughout the long papacy of John Paul II...

He may also prove a sterner disciplinarian than John Paul. It was often said of the late Pope that he was more loved than heeded; Benedict certainly won't enjoy the same phenomenal popularity (who could?). But he is also a man who commands respect, because he has always preferred speaking truth to making friends.

After the honey of John Paul II, Benedict XVI may seem like a dose of vinegar. But at 78 he probably can't look forward to a long papacy, and he must make his remaining years count. He has the example of the Savior, whose most startling teaching (in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel) caused many of his disciples to desert him: "This is a hard saying; who can accept it?"

This new Pope knows that such hard sayings are the very essence of Catholic teaching. Whatever his reign may give us, it won't be a watered-down Catholicism.

Sobran's summary of the new pope seems accurate to me. Now for just a moment imagine such a man assuming, not the See in Rome, but the See in Wheaton.

(Sobran's full article will be available in a week or two at his web site.)

Salem Communications, World, and a denuded doctrinal landscape...

One little-spoken-of aspect of the relationship between Roman Catholics and Protestants in America today is the tension our co-belligerent status on cultural and moral matters has created for us in other areas. Specifically, how do we handle our disagreements over the more substantive theological disagreements we've had for centuries--such as "justification by faith alone, yet not faith by itself" which is the historic Protestant position but was (and still is) anathematized by Rome?

Largely agreeing on abortion, pornography, feminism, sodomite marriage, euthanasia, and similar matters allows us to make common cause in so many forums, sharing resources and maximizing our investments. But that same sharing easily morphs from a matter of efficiency to a matter of principle.

If reformed Protestants and Roman Catholics are used to subscribing to the same newsweekly, our own beloved World, and eating at the same editorial table without a hint of discord, what happens when the subject turns from those issues we agree on to those issues we don't agree on?

For instance, when Pope John Paul II died our discussions necessarily turned to eternity, and specifically the coming Judgement, Heaven and Hell, purgatory, and the state of John Paul II's soul. How could they not?

But the same subscribers who have lived together in unity the rest of the year are not going to be happy campers when they see that World's principal staff are not Roman Catholic, but Protestant, and that to a man they reject purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the Rosary, not to mention papal infallibility and the infusion of Christ's righteousness.

A good example of this tension, particularly within the media of the Christian subculture, is this story of how Salem Communications fired their Pittsburgh talk show host, Pastor Marty Minto, for answering a listener's question concerning whether or not John Paul II was in Heaven.

Knowing personally the leadership of Salem, I can say that Pastor Minto was fired for saying exactly what Salem's founders and leaders believe. So if Christian radio stations are not the place to remind Protestant believers of the principles of the Reformation and the need for reformation in the church still today, where exactly are such subjects still appropriate?

Certainly not in most seeker-sensitive churches which would not tolerate for a minute the slightest exercise of biblical discernment concerning the Roman Catholic church lest the seekers present would be offended and not "come to Christ," whatever they mean by that.

I don't envy Joel Belz and Marvin Olasky of World magazine, nor Ed Atsinger and Stuart Epperson of Salem Communications, their job of deciding which parts of biblical doctrine to bar from their media empire in the interest of protecting the spirit of cooperation that currently prevails between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Still, it appears to me that this is a key contributing factor to loss of theological and biblical precision within the church today, and that it will only grow worse as increasingly believers will look to mass media for their most significant doctrinal input week to week.

Having subscribed to, and read, the most conservative Roman Catholic publications in America today for over twenty years now, I know it's possible to appreciate the work they do well, while suffering under their constant promotion of heterodoxies and heresies, as well as their regular and egregious smear campaigns against Luther, Calvin, and other Protestant leaders; and to do so without cancelling my subscription and walking away in a huff. Can we not expect an irenic maturity and equanimity of Roman Catholic readers of World and listeners to Salem's radio stations?

(Thanks to Kim Johnson for pointing me to the Salem story.)

A Protestant & reformed take on Pope Benedict XVI...

I'm amazed. A week ago, someone told me Cardinal Ratzinger was the likely next Pope and I expressed skepticism. I couldn't imagine the College of Cardinals allowing the quite-conservative Pope John Paul II to be succeeded by someone arguably even more conservative. More likely they'd make a slight correction back to the Vatican II ethos.

So what happened?

I haven't read a word of commentary on the election yet, so this is shooting from the hip. But it's my guess Cardinal Ratzinger's election is an indication of John Paul II's deep respect for Ratzinger--no surprise here--along with John Paul II's great moral authority exercising itself from the grave. It seems clear he controlled this election of his successor, and not simply by having appointed all but three of the 117 voting cardinals.

It seems everyone knew John Paul II's will, and did it.

So as someone who is paleolithic in his biblical, Protestant, and reformed commitments, but who subscribes to a number of periodicals that are ultramontane (papal and conservative) in their doctrine, what do I make of this election?

First, I expect Pope Benedict XVI to continue the conservative reform of the Roman Catholic church begun under John Paul II, but to accelerate its intensity and dogmatic underpinnings. Ratzinger is, by all accounts, flat out brilliant and has a killer work ethic.

And for some of this we reformed Protestants may be grateful...

Will the Papal Ban on Women's Ordination Fall?

Lest conservative Protestants think they've found a permanent friend in the Roman Catholic Church because of its current stand in favor of male priesthood, read this account of the creeping advance of feminism within the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Even more distressing for conservative Protestants is this account by Nat Hentoff of a conversation with the late John Cardinal O'Connor of New York. O'Connor, a linchpin Roman Catholic conservative, felt it conceivable that Roman Catholicism could embrace the ordination of women in the lifetime of a pope other than John Paul II.

Late one afternoon in 1986, with two priests listening attentively, I told him I had received a newsletter from the Chicago-based National Coalition of American Nuns asking again why women could not be priests. "We women of the Catholic community," the newsletter read, "do not seek jurisdiction over the male-church power estate. In asking for ordination, we seek only to preach, to administer the sacraments and to teach the Gospel to the poor."

O'Connor had a bad cold, was tired, and was due to speak at Columbia University in a few hours. One of the priests suggested firmly that the interview was over. The cardinal waved him away. "How can I answer that and be quite honest?" he said hoarsely. Then he spoke of the theological tradition and of history: the twelve apostles were men; Catholics speak of "God the Father" and "God the Son"; Christ always spoke of hi