pilgrim people

Francis Beckwith, the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society who recently reverted to Rome, told Christianity Today that he has "no doubt that the New Perspective and Federal Vision have had an effect on the Protestant-Catholic debate," and that the movements have helped Protestants make the journey to Rome. "I have met several former evangelical Protestants who have told me that Wright's work in particular helped them to better appreciate the Catholic view of grace."

Taylor Marshall, a Westminster Philly grad and Protestant-turned-Romanist goes so far to say, "If you buy into Wright's approach to covenantal theology, then you've already taken three steps toward the Catholic Church. Keep following the trail and you'll be Catholic." Marshall, now a PhD student at University of Dallas, attributes Wright's work to helping him conclude that the Reformed doctrine of justification sola fide was a departure from Scripture. You can read it here in the CT article.

Note carefully what Marshall says regarding buying into Wright's covenant theology. Essentially what he is referring to is a collapse of the Abrahamic d Mosaic covenants into one and a flattening of the contours of redemptive history from old covenant to the new. Whenever such flattening out or monocovenantalism occurs, the distinction between law and gospel is inevitably blurred and the necessity of Christ's active obedience imputed to the believer denied, at lease to some degree.  

So there you have it: straight from the horse's mouth. Now, will those within confessional bodies who are sympathetic to the FV and NPP please shew the horse away or get on it and mosey on out of town? That horse has no place hitched to the post of confessional Reformed churches.

In 1538, Jacopo Sadoleto, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, wrote a letter to the Protestants in Geneva after hearing the news that the Protestant reformer John Calvin had been exiled from their city. Seeing this a prime opportunity, Sadoleto urged the Genevans to return to holy Mother Rome. Upon receiving the letter, the Genevan authorties realized they needed an effective response. Sadoleto was no light weight. He was a distinguished scholar who knew how to turn a phrase. Humbled, the Genevans turned to their former pastor for help. Ever a man of Christ's true Church, Calvin obliged. Six days later, he completed and sent his response, a treatise known to us as Calvin's "Reply to Sadoleto." It remains to this day one of the greatest defenses of the Reformation in one statement.

As W. Robert Godfrey notes, "Calvin's 'Reply to Sadoleto' is important for more than its brilliant defense of Reformed Christianity. It is also a window into Calvin's soul. Calvin was usually very reticent to write much about himself, but in this work there is a remarkable personal quality that reveals a great deal about him...Calvin's 'Reply' in 1539 was shaped by his passion for the glory of God and by the peace with God that he had experienced in Christ after his recognition of the seriousness of his sin. He was convinced that only through the Bible and the work of the Holy Spirit had he come to know this peace in Christ. He was certain that the old church had gravely distorted the truth and needed thorough reform." (Pilgrim and Pastor, 14, 22)

The problem remains the same today: if Rome is the one true Church as she claims for herself, why did we then hear the Gospel for the first time outside of her walls? Many of us who are Christians were baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, some even confirmed. Yet, it was through Protestants faithfully opening up the Bible to us, and by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit who has chosen to use THOSE means, that we were brought to faith in Christ. If Rome is the true visible Church as she claims, she is apparently unfaithful in her task to bring the Gospel to sinners with clarity and simplicity.

Calvin's "Reply" remains relevant even to this day. The entirety of its text follows. Happy 500th, John. See you in glory.

Click to read more ...

After a busy but blessed week of pastoral ministry (which included spending time with my friend Rev. Andrea Ferrari from Milan, Italy), I finally sat down today to post a follow-up to my post from Sep 17, "Mere Christianity and the Marks of a True Church." Having been away from blogging for several days (which, I must admit, was kind of nice), I thought I might first read the blog of my esteemed colleague, seminary bud, and occasional partner in crime, Jason Stellman (you will have to ask Jason about that last title). I was pleasantly surprised to see that he had picked up the conversation right where I left it. (See here, here, here, and here.)

While I was unable to read all the comments for lack of time, those that I did read - and especially the posts themselves - were very interesting (If you do not read Jason's blog, De Regnis Duobus, let me encourage you to give it a look sometime. Jason is a very good writer with extraordinary wit, and, while I don't always agree with him, he provokes you to think about life in the two-kingdoms). I have only a few comments that I want to make here as a follow up to my previous post.

While C.S. Lewis's illustration of the various rooms in the house (i.e. the various traditions within the Christian Church as a whole) is interesting and, to a limited extent, helpful, it is an illustration that quickly (and rightly!) falls apart in light of the Reformed confessions. Consider, for example, what the Reformed churches have confessed since the late 16th century in Belgic Confession Article 29:

Click to read more ...

In the latest issue of Modern Reformation, Dr. Horton makes the point in his article, “Whose Orthodoxy? How to Define It and Why It’s So Important,” that confessional Christians would do well to take a page from C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and recognize that there are more rooms in the house of God than our own. Lewis uses the illustration of Christians from different traditions meeting in the hallway for common discussions. “But it is in the rooms,” says Lewis, “that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is the place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in.”

This is an excellent point, and one which every Reformed Christian should hold dear. Clearly, being Reformed does not constitute mere Christianity, only living in the best room in the house. This room has the most robust fire, the best chairs and meals. If there were a better room, such as the Anglican, Lutheran, or Baptist room, I would live in that one. But it is the Reformed confession and tradition that offers the most robust and complete expression of Christianity to be found on the planet. Why would I live to another room? Nevertheless, there are more rooms in the house, and some wonderful Christians who live in them. It is nice to meet them in the hallway.

Click to read more ...

In Book IV of his magisterial Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin spent a lot of ink and labor pointing out many of the falacies of Rome's claim to authority and the primacy of her see. One in particular caught my eye recently. In IV.6.9-10, Calvin made the point that Paul never speaks of the primacy of Peter or of any one bishop. He draws our attention to Ephesians 4:

[BOQ] By his ascension Christ took away from us his visible presence; yet he ascended to fill all things [Eph 4.10]. Now, therefore, the church still has, and always will have, him present. When Paul wishes to show the way in which he manifests himself, he calls us back to the ministries which he uses. The Lord (he says) is in us all, according to the measure of grace which he bestowed upon each member [Eph 4.7]. For that reason, 'he appointed some to be apostles,...others pastors, others evangelists, still others teachers,' etc. [Eph 4.11p.]. Why does Paul not say that Christ has set one over all to act as his viceregent? For that the occasion especially demanded, and it ought in no way to have been omitted, if it had been true.

Christ (he says) is present with us. How? By the ministry of men, whom he has set over the governing of the church. Why not, rather, through the ministerial head, to whom he has entrusted his functions? Paul mentions unity, but in God and in faith in Christ. To men he assigns nothing but the common ministry, and a particular mode to each.

Why did he, in that commendation of unity, after he had mentioned 'one body, one Spirit,...one hope of calling, one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph 4.4-5p.], not immediately also add, one supreme pontiff, to keep the church in unity? For nothing more appropriate could have been said, if indeed it had been an actual fact. Let that passage be diligently pondered.[EOQ] (emphasis mine)

Now, our Roman Catholic friends might say that this is an argument from silence. But is it? I encourage you to think carefully about what the apostle Paul is teaching us in Eph 4.1-16. His whole point is about what Christ has given his Church to keep her unified. As a gift to his Church, Christ gave "the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers." Yet, there is no mention of Peter, a prime bishop, the Roman see, or the Magisterium of Rome - those very things to which many tired souls, longing for unity, often turn.

I sympathize with those who look at the divided and fragmented state of Evangelicalism today (as well as all the other problems that come with it) and long for one unified Christian Church under one authority. But turning to Rome and her papacy to find that unity seems far more romantic than biblical. And it is a romance that comes at a steep price. It will cost you the sweetness of the Gospel.