Questions that I’m struggling with in regards to Roman Catholicism

Beards

Beards

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello,

I’m convinced of the Reformed faith, but recently I’ve been struggling with a lot of questions that have caused me anxiety. I feel the weightiness of them because it seems like if Rome is right, we’re done, and that thought concerns me as I don’t want to be separated from Christ. So I thought I would post them here (forgive me if it’s the wrong thread type) and see if anyone has any answers or resources for these:

1) Are we as Reformed Churches schismatics? I see that the Roman Catholic Church has many deep errors, but how do we avoid the charge of schism or being like the donatists if we really did seperate from Rome and seemingly started a new line of churches?

2) Is Reformed theology a novum in Church history? If so, how can we hold to something that no one else has held to in the history of God’s people?

I ask the 2nd question especially because reading the fathers, it seems like the prédominent view of justification (at least by the 4th century) was that it is the process where God makes us intrinsically just. There also doesn’t seem to be, at least of what I can find, any idea of “Simul Justus Et Peccator.” It seems like since legal justification by faith alone is so clear in Scripture, it would be very clear in the fathers.

3) How can we know for certain? It seems like both side use the fathers and Scripture, and being that we are so limited, none of us can study these things exhaustively to come to a conclusion. So how can we come to know with certainty, especially when the stakes are so high?

Thank you.
 
Beards said:
Hello,

I’m convinced of the Reformed faith, but recently I’ve been struggling with a lot of questions that have caused me anxiety. I feel the weightiness of them because it seems like if Rome is right, we’re done, and that thought concerns me as I don’t want to be separated from Christ. So I thought I would post them here (forgive me if it’s the wrong thread type) and see if anyone has any answers or resources for these:

1) Are we as Reformed Churches schismatics? I see that the Roman Catholic Church has many deep errors, but how do we avoid the charge of schism or being like the donatists if we really did seperate from Rome and seemingly started a new line of churches?

2) Is Reformed theology a novum in Church history? If so, how can we hold to something that no one else has held to in the history of God’s people?

I ask the 2nd question especially because reading the fathers, it seems like the prédominent view of justification (at least by the 4th century) was that it is the process where God makes us intrinsically just. There also doesn’t seem to be, at least of what I can find, any idea of “Simul Justus Et Peccator.” It seems like since legal justification by faith alone is so clear in Scripture, it would be very clear in the fathers.

3) How can we know for certain? It seems like both side use the fathers and Scripture, and being that we are so limited, none of us can study these things exhaustively to come to a conclusion. So how can we come to know with certainty, especially when the stakes are so high?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
If the little green men from Mars have a ray gun pointed at Earth that they intend to fire and blow us up next week--if this is right, then we're done.

This is the form of the argument--albeit with far different premises--that you indicate is the basis for the cause of your recent anxiety and struggling. So, the issue is: what is the likelihood that the premises underlying your panic are serious and legitimate?

Let's look at your three points with the goal of addressing that identified issue respecting each one.

1) Schismaticism. Is schism a sin? Breaking the unity of Christ's church is certainly serious, and does harm; I would say yes, it is a sin, and I think the Bible will back up that opinion. However, St.Paul also declares that "there must be divisions" in order that the truth come forth. So, who is negatively responsible for the division? It is the party to a division who rebels against the unity of Christ. The unity of Christ is found exclusively in the truth (Christ is the truth), and divine revelation (which is committed to writing in the Scriptures we possess) which is infallible. Therefore, in order to not be guilty in regard to schism one is obliged to side with the truth.

The truth may be on the side of the majority, on the side of power, or the side of money, or all of them, or none of them. Rome doesn't get to claim it is the side of truth simply because it exercised its power to expel and condemn dissension, and refused to reform itself. Indeed, it eventually declared at Trent that it was "irreformable," that is to say it never would reform since she declared there could never be any reason why it should reform. The fact is St.Paul himself wrote to the Roman church (such as it then was) and warned her she could theoretically be a branch broken off Christ--yet, this thought Rome seems to reject outright.

Rome is the schismatic body. Rome turned its back on reform, on the uniquely supreme authority of scripture, hence rejecting the truth as it is in Jesus. Rome has invented many unbiblical doctrines, corrupted worship and discipline of the church, and anathematized the pure gospel. Rome should repent of these evils and the sin of schism, and seek reunification of the church under the lordship of Christ (alone), besides dethroning its false "vicar" and pontifex maximus who has usurped the authority of both Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Rome has as much right to claim all breaks with her are sinful schism of the other party, as the Jews had to declare the apostles and the NT church was schismatic from the original Israel of God. There is a legitimate argument as to which party--the apostles or the priests/scribes/Pharisees--had the better claim to the OT faith. Just having control of the temple and synagogues, and sway over the majority who claimed to revere the Torah, was not sufficient to establish that authority. Neither is it the case that the premise: Rome is the vine, and the rest of the church are branches, is legitimate.

I will go on to points 2 & 3 in another post.
 
The Word of God is our authority, not a church. Rome rebelled against God and His Word - the Reformation was a recovery to biblical fidelity.

My advice to you is to get rooted and grounded in God's Word as much as possible so you are not shaken by the Catholic deception of "we are the one true church" - I was raised Catholic and left it at age 18 after I became a born again Christian and actually hearing the gospel that I never heard in the Catholic church. The more I grew in my faith the last 28 years, the more I have come to hate Catholicism as the despicable cesspool of soul-damning lies that it is. The more you know God's Word, the more you will come to realize it as well.
 
Colin, I have little to add to the discussion, but I just want to remind you that you are saved through faith in Christ— faith in a divine person. You are not saved by faith in knowledge about Christ, or right doctrine. Knowledge about Christ and right doctrine are important— God reveals himself after all. But I think too often we fall into the trap of forgetting the object of our faith and find comfort in our knowledge, our denomination affiliation, etc. You are safe in Christ, just as the Roman Catholic who truly believes in Christ—though he certainly has error—is safe in Christ. There is still one catholic church, undivided and beloved. Rome may use the word catholic, but in confining a universal term to their own exclusively, they continue to divide a body that cannot be divided.
 
I don't mean this to sound over simplistic. But I would consider the Roman catholic doctrines, and the reformed doctrines, and bring them unbiasedly to God's Word. To me it is very clear which will hold up as truth. I don't mean this in an ignorant way, but the reformers and puritans I believe were hands down the best at understanding what the Bible communicates. At the end of the day, the truth is what matters, regardless of who and what time period it was best articulated.
 
Beards said:
2) Is Reformed theology a novum in Church history? If so, how can we hold to something that no one else has held to in the history of God’s people?

I ask the 2nd question especially because reading the fathers, it seems like the prédominent view of justification (at least by the 4th century) was that it is the process where God makes us intrinsically just. There also doesn’t seem to be, at least of what I can find, any idea of “Simul Justus Et Peccator.” It seems like since legal justification by faith alone is so clear in Scripture, it would be very clear in the fathers.

3) How can we know for certain? It seems like both side use the fathers and Scripture, and being that we are so limited, none of us can study these things exhaustively to come to a conclusion. So how can we come to know with certainty, especially when the stakes are so high?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
2) "New" doctrine. Rome one-time claimed it never held any new doctrine, not one, but that all its teaching was original from the apostles. If not found in the Bible, yet allegedly the teaching was oral and passed down through the Roman magisterium.

To avoid the ahistorical demonstration of that claim which came to discredit it utterly by the 19th century, Rome came up with a NEW (!) defense, namely the developmental thesis, in which the doctrines were all present in seed-form in the apostolic church; and such beliefs as Rome incorporated afterward are legitimate because Rome incorporated them, and they are indubitable on the basis of Rome's authority. No more viciously circular defense is conceivable. Rome's authority is precisely one such doctrine that is not defensible from the apostolic scriptures, but must be predicated on the correctness of the developmental hypothesis: "It's what we say because we say so."

What doctrines are defended and taught in Reformed theology that are alleged "novum?" In the first place, a specific doctrine or set of them need be identified as "new." Just claiming that our Confession and Rome's Catechism are at odds in general is no ground for preferring one to the other. And what's sauce for the goose is sauce also for the gander: Rome holds for dogmas and doctrines elements of its religion that are demonstrably later than the apostolic writings, and even the ant-Nicene fathers. In which case, it is a matter of holy piety to both judge and reject them as a false foundation. By maintaining such, Rome shows preference for its beloved traditions irrespective of their quality or failures.

Even if it was true that: of the remnants of church teaching from the first four centuries of the NT era, most taught some form of "intrinsic" justification (instead of "alien"), the issue of reform is that of recovery of primary source intention. What do the apostles' teach, and by implication Christ himself teach? This is not a fact determinable from some majority (or minority) collection. Rome's bald assertion is that she should be relied upon always to have maintained the best theology, and never lost its right to the rest of the church's deference.

Yet, there were numerous instances going all the way back into ancient church history when Rome's position and power was on the side of the errorists. There was no "simply pious" justification for anyone to go along with the bishop of Rome, pleading implicit faith--God allowing the laity some ignorant leeway, while some ecclesiastics (including popes) bore all the sinful effects of false teaching. No, but Holy Scripture states unequivocally that the church suffers and souls are lost when leaders go astray, for they lead the sheep into perdition.

Rome's teaching concerning the pope is "novum," since even so important a figure as Gregory (I) the Great (r. A.D. 590-604) called the doctrine of of a "universal bishop" a precursor to Antichrist. Rome's sacramental doctrine--and even the number of true sacraments--is "novum." Rome's devotion to "Mary"--and its progress toward declaring her co-redemptrix--is both "novum" and still going toward more "novum." Rome's presentation in many places it has come for a missionary enterprise has swallowed countless local customs and devotions, "baptizing" and repurposing them by some alchemy into rites for the church and its new adherents from other cultures. Some Euro-centric traditionalists may be parochially offended by the current pope's Pachamama moment, but he is the one following this broader church-tradition. Who are these whiners? Being the pope means being the Tradition.

The truth is, doctrinal expression does "develop," and it has done so from the earliest days of the church especially in response to challenges from heretics and false teaching. How has the church faced those challenges? When it has done so properly, it went back to Scripture; and did not pull out bare human authority (not even the Creeds) except to appeal to prior teachers who taught the same truth from the Bible. This is how the great creedal statements of the church were crafted--and these same commitments continue to be affirmed by Protestants in their Confessions. Protestants have not left the catholic faith; but Rome has done in many respects. The premise underlying Charge 2 is invalid; and beside the Bible itself as the final authority, pre-Reformation writings from respected church fathers are often available to show the antiquity of our professions.

part 3 to follow.
 
If you are really worried about salvation because of Rome, and don't feel like converting to Rome, just become Jewish. Today's Roman Catholics say Jews are elder brothers and certainly "in."

I'm kidding, of course. Actually, not really. Don't become Jewish, but most RCs today think Jews (and Muslims, since the popes have kissed the Quran) are saved.
 
Beards said:
3) How can we know for certain? It seems like both side use the fathers and Scripture, and being that we are so limited, none of us can study these things exhaustively to come to a conclusion. So how can we come to know with certainty, especially when the stakes are so high?
Click to expand...
3) Certitude. There is such a thing a the quest for illegitimate certainty, that is to say: a demand for greater "certainty" than befits a simple Christian and believer in in the witness of God over that of any man or intermediate authority. The Christian faith demands that we accept as true many things that are "unreasonable" from the standpoint of ordinary expectation. We deny that Christianity is intrinsically or inherently unreasonable; but the issue is what is the predicate for our certainty.

Is it the antiquity or prestige or "weight" of tradition? What is the underlying premise of that conviction? Seems something like: it's so old, it must be true; or so many people consent, how dare I question the consensus. What about the idea that "the truth will triumph, eventually?" I think so too, but I know that some truth will not be vindicated until the Last Day. How many people must recover the truth in order for it to be a triumph? I should think the Protestant Reformation was a great recovery of the truth, and its vindication against great error. But clearly Rome still disagrees, still she maintains her pernicious errors, along with great pomp and pageantry. As if the Bible itself did not teach that the true church is seldom found amidst earthly glory!

By seeking some validating authority in human institutions--even the divinely ordained institution of the church--to validate the self-attesting God who has set forth his Word and entrusted it to men, the validating authority and that which is to be validated are inverted. The norming norm of Holy Scripture is turned into the normed norm by the vaunted authority of the Rome; which claims to be synonymous with the Church. Jn.14:17, "Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." Jn.8:32, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Jn.17:17, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." Is.8:20, "To the law and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

I'm sure more may be written than I have done, but duty calls...
 
RamistThomist said:
If you are really worried about salvation because of Rome, and don't feel like converting to Rome, just become Jewish. Today's Roman Catholics say Jews are elder brothers and certainly "in."

I'm kidding, of course. Actually, not really. Don't become Jewish, but most RCs today think Jews (and Muslims, since the popes have kissed the Quran) are saved.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Rome is dispensational but worse

(Also sorry that the first reply I make is a joke. I’ve been reading everyone’s. Thank you, they are helpful so far, just trying to consider everything before I add anything. Thanks all)
 
With regard to 1: the Orthodox have the much stronger historical case that the Roman church was the real schismatic party in the Great East-West Schism of 1054.
 
Beards said:
Sounds like Rome is dispensational but worse

(Also sorry that the first reply I make is a joke. I’ve been reading everyone’s. Thank you, they are helpful so far, just trying to consider everything before I add anything. Thanks all)
Click to expand...

They are. I know it's a simplistic take, but Vatican II gutted the Catholic faith. I had similar questions with EO 14 years ago. I realized that if I took the same skeptical arguments against the Bible that EO and RCCs make, and I applied them to the knowing process in general, which seems to be the logical thing to do, then it likewise refutes EO and RCC. If my knowing senses are too stupid to understand the Bible, then it isn't safe to think they can understand a thousand years of scholastic magisterium.
 
Beards said:
Sounds like Rome is dispensational but worse

(Also sorry that the first reply I make is a joke. I’ve been reading everyone’s. Thank you, they are helpful so far, just trying to consider everything before I add anything. Thanks all)
Click to expand...
Rome has taken some strange turns towards ecumenism. Including people who are clearly of other faiths(Hindus and muslims), and even of no faith, and saying we are all children of God. Accepting people as spiritual brothers and sisters who reject Christ is a travesty for the gospel.

Rome used to persecute and execute those who rejected her explicit teaching, now they want to embrace nearly everyone, even some branches of protestantism it seems like. Very confusing.

Whatever it takes to keep people in the dark, and away from the truth.
 
Another point that is really getting to me is the early father’s exegesis of Romans 8:1-4, which seems to have some merit at face value but which would perhaps necessitate justification being an act where God makes us just.

The main idea they put forward (Primarily Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose) is that there is no condemnation because, while the law could not be fulfilled by those enslaved by the flesh (Romans 7 they say), God has accomplished in the death of sin in the death of Christ 1) forgiveness of sins, and 2) the removal of sinfulness in the believer so that he walks not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, fulfilling the law (verse 4, “so that the law might be fufilled *in us*”).

Any thoughts on this point? It does really bother me and I’m not sure what to think, especially as Paul does emphasize that Christ died so that the law might be fulfilled in us. His also further emphasis on walking in the flesh vs in the Spirit also makes it seem like the no condemnation is rooted in the believer’s new holiness.

Not saying it is the case, it just troubles me and I want to figure it out.
 
If you don’t mind me asking, what church are you attending? Have you thought of having coffee or just sitting and talking this out with one your Elders or Pastor?
 
KBullock said:
If you don’t mind me asking, what church are you attending? Have you thought of having coffee or just sitting and talking this out with one your Elders or Pastor?
Click to expand...
A URCNA Church near me. By God’s grace, I will be meeting with the Minister tomorrow, so I’m just throwing these out until then and also to help on the side.
 
Beards said:
Hello,

I’m convinced of the Reformed faith, but recently I’ve been struggling with a lot of questions that have caused me anxiety. I feel the weightiness of them because it seems like if Rome is right, we’re done, and that thought concerns me as I don’t want to be separated from Christ. So I thought I would post them here (forgive me if it’s the wrong thread type) and see if anyone has any answers or resources for these:

1) Are we as Reformed Churches schismatics? I see that the Roman Catholic Church has many deep errors, but how do we avoid the charge of schism or being like the donatists if we really did seperate from Rome and seemingly started a new line of churches?

2) Is Reformed theology a novum in Church history? If so, how can we hold to something that no one else has held to in the history of God’s people?

I ask the 2nd question especially because reading the fathers, it seems like the prédominent view of justification (at least by the 4th century) was that it is the process where God makes us intrinsically just. There also doesn’t seem to be, at least of what I can find, any idea of “Simul Justus Et Peccator.” It seems like since legal justification by faith alone is so clear in Scripture, it would be very clear in the fathers.

3) How can we know for certain? It seems like both side use the fathers and Scripture, and being that we are so limited, none of us can study these things exhaustively to come to a conclusion. So how can we come to know with certainty, especially when the stakes are so high?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
This may be of help to you. A lecture by a former priest against the RCC. Hosted at our church in 1971. Just discovered the cassette in storage and converted and put up on our SermonAudio page. He says it all comes down to the RCC understanding of the priesthood.

www.sermonaudio.com

Former Priest Speaks Against Roman Catholicism

Angelo Lo Vallo | Puritan Reformed Presbyterian Church
www.sermonaudio.com www.sermonaudio.com
 
Some anecdotal musings...

As I visited various RCC cathedrals in Europe and elsewhere, with their characteristic gaudiness and grotesque idol-ware, I found myself wondering - how on earth did they get here, and what would Christ and the Apostles really think if they walked in and saw this...?

I also recall what Philip Schaff once said: "The three biggest objections Protestants have with Rome are, Mary, Mary, and Mary."
 
As someone who has read a goodish bit on Roman Catholicism, I will put in a few words.

1. We did not leave Rome. Rome kicked us out. The papal bull "Exsurge Domine" excommunicated Luther. The opposite narrative has been Rome's rewriting of history for quite some time. The Reformers wanted to reform the church from within. They were not allowed to do so. Trent is the red line when Rome became apostate, because it condemned justification by faith alone. If a body condemns the truth, that is a fundamentally schismatic action. Rome is therefore the schism-monger, not the Reformers.

2. In one sense, doctrine does not develop, but in another it does. We have to distinguish between the faith once for all delivered to the saints, on the one hand, versus our understanding of that faith, on the other. We don't want to separate them, of course, but we have to distinguish. Otherwise there is no way to adjudicate between contradictory doctrines. On many issues, the Reformers thought of themselves as regaining the faith of the early church (see, for example, Oden's Justification Reader for a largish mass of early church fathers on justification, wherein we can see that even if the ECF might not have been as clear as the Reformers on justification, the Reformers could definitely and legitimately claim to be in line with their teaching). Of course, the real question is whether the Reformers were biblical. If they were, then the doctrine is not novum: it is taught in Scripture. Do not make the mistake, either, of thinking that the ECF must be correct on everything. Ligon Duncan's rule of the thumb is this: when the ECF were reacting to heresy, they were at their best; when they weren't, watch out (not that they were always wrong in such situations, but they weren't as carefully biblical as when they were defending the truth from heretics).

3. Bruce's excellent comments on this one go for me, too. We live by faith, not by sight. But if you are still in doubt as to whether Rome is correct or not, just do a bit of a comparison for yourself: take a good look at a Roman Catholic worship service, and then compare that with the New Testament descriptions of worship in Acts.

With regard to your question on Romans 8, make sure you are not confusing ECF definitions of "make" with later Romanist definitions, which always focus on inward renovation. Reformers can claim that God "makes" us just in justification. The declaration of God makes it so. But it is not the inward change. That is distinct. Making someone just could refer, theoretically, either to a declaration making someone just, or to a renovation changing a person and making them just. The question is the mechanism by which this "making" happens. If you read Oden, you will find plenty of evidence of a declarative definition of "making just" being quite common in the ECF, especially in Chrysostom.
 
Beards said:
Hello,

I’m convinced of the Reformed faith, but recently I’ve been struggling with a lot of questions that have caused me anxiety. I feel the weightiness of them because it seems like if Rome is right, we’re done, and that thought concerns me as I don’t want to be separated from Christ. So I thought I would post them here (forgive me if it’s the wrong thread type) and see if anyone has any answers or resources for these:

1) Are we as Reformed Churches schismatics? I see that the Roman Catholic Church has many deep errors, but how do we avoid the charge of schism or being like the donatists if we really did seperate from Rome and seemingly started a new line of churches?

2) Is Reformed theology a novum in Church history? If so, how can we hold to something that no one else has held to in the history of God’s people?

I ask the 2nd question especially because reading the fathers, it seems like the prédominent view of justification (at least by the 4th century) was that it is the process where God makes us intrinsically just. There also doesn’t seem to be, at least of what I can find, any idea of “Simul Justus Et Peccator.” It seems like since legal justification by faith alone is so clear in Scripture, it would be very clear in the fathers.

3) How can we know for certain? It seems like both side use the fathers and Scripture, and being that we are so limited, none of us can study these things exhaustively to come to a conclusion. So how can we come to know with certainty, especially when the stakes are so high?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I understand the anxieties, believe me, and don't at all downplay the importance of studying these matters and seeking wise counsel, especially from your pastor. I went through periods of fascination and attendant anxiety about Roman Catholicism when I was young and Eastern Orthodoxy in my 20s. I even did some graduate-level study of patristics.

However, as much as I encourage you to keep on asking and studying and to take these wise members' responses and suggested resources to heart, I'd also say that no single argument or resource persuaded me as much as simply embedding myself in the teaching, worship, and fellowship of a sound Reformed congregation over many years. It isn't a quick process or always satisfyingly clear, but God's work through these means of grace is deep and sure. It's not that I never have doubts or questions anymore, but I also can't imagine going anywhere else, because this is where I've found the words of eternal life.
 
One other thing — you might find it interesting to look at Kenneth J. Stewart's book In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis. It was something I wish I'd encountered when I was younger and struggling with the claims of Rome and EO. It has some helpful contents, including a chapter on justification.
 
After meeting with my pastor and thinking on this more, I think I’ve arrived to some more definite and clear questions.

I believe what I was trying to say with my 1st question was this:

If the Church is in part defined by its visible government, whose officers are ordained and laid hands on by the present elders, then can we truly claim Reformed Churches to be true Churches when we broke from Rome and hence had ministers and officers that were not ordained by the visibly instituted elders at the time (in Rome)?

To put it this way:

Paul ordains Bob, Joe, and Berry as Elders in Ephesus, they then ordain Jerry (very 1st century names) and on and on. Down to the 15th century, elders ordained by those who were ordained by those who were long long ago ordained by Jerry have fallen into error. The Reformation happens. John becomes an elder of a Reformed congregation. But if John and the other elders were not ordained by Jerry and friends, who were ordained by a long line of office bearing men, can John really be said to be an elder and can that church really be said to be a true church founded by Christ? Since their authority didn’t come from Jerry and crew, they must be appointed apart from the presbytery, which (I assume) we would all normally reject.

Unless I’m wrong on my history (please correct me if I am wrong), isn’t this what happened? If so, how can we really say Protestant churches are true churches?

Similarly, I also struggle with things like Cyprian’s letter on Church Unity. It seems that he believes any separation from the visible Church ruled by elders ordained by genuine elders, etc. puts one outside of salvation. I can’t see how that could be reconciled with the Reformation, where we did leave the visible institution with its presbyters.

How do we reconcile this? I am convinced of Protestant doctrine and I am convinced Rome is in contradiction to much of Scripture and the teaching of the orthodox fathers, but this is one area where I can’t see any resolution yet. If anyone has any ideas, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
 
Did you read the article I shared from Naphtali.com? The answer to your question about the difference between separation and schism is in that article.

Also, the early Reformers were all ordained. They didn't emerge from the head of Zeus.

One might also ask the question that if an un-Biblical form of Church government arose where elders were no longer present to lay hands on men for ordination then the problem exists for centuries of the Church prior to the Reformation. Church history recounts the decline of the Presbyter in the Church so does that mean that ordinations became invalid? It becomes a form of Donatism to deny the validity of the visible Church baes on sinful errors.
 
Colin,
If you are going to begin by granting the Romanist the unchallenged legitimacy of his starting premises, then you cede the "high ground" before the contest has begun. Why are you granting those premises without a challenge, as if it is the churches of the Reformation only who shoulder the whole burden of proof? I should think a convinced Reformation-tradition Christian would make more demands of the papist: that he discharge his own burden of proof. It seems like you give the priest the benefit of the doubt, and then expect your interlocutors here (and your pastor) to contend an uphill battle.

That battle was fought, once; and now Rome wants numerous rematches in order to prove "the wrong side" won, and the Reformation was just a setback for the legitimate title-holder.

Moving the goalposts, now the "burning issue" for you is the claims Rome makes to "apostolic succession." Well, Rome can't prove its own claim; and it has insuperable problems related to broken papal succession links, the Avignon popes, its own separation from the Eastern churches, etc. Rome just waves its hands and expects us to concede these devastating cracks in its own foundation because... authority? Rome doesn't start with some indubitable facts of a righteous claim, which it is the duty of others to prove false before she has to work for field position.

Just to clear up one doctrinal point: the church ordains men to office, not persons who are filling office in the church. The authority is Christ's, and he vests it in the church, not in one particular bishop or all of them. Hence, the authority to ordain resides not in "the Presbytery" (i.e. the office holders personally) but in the church, that power being exercised through its presbyters. Eliminate every last presbyter, and the authority doesn't simply disappear; it resettles in the church, until such time as the church (by a work of God) summons up a college of called men to undertake office-bearing.

Such a reconstitution of government would surely require an extraordinary act of God and special work of the Holy Spirit to guide it; but (if Christ was not returned yet) would be demanded under the circumstances. It would be an even more radical repair than took place in the Reformation; but our theology shows us what should take place. And Rome's theology asserts a completely different expectation; inasmuch as Rome looks to her officers as materially constituting the church. Rome's theological claim is that the officers, i.e the ministry of the church cannot "fail" from the earth. That is what Rome means when she says the church will never (has never) failed, and she needs no reformation.

We believe that there has been substantial connection--one piece of the true church tied with the rest--down through history. Often times, this has been clearly demonstrable through the church's ministry; but even with splits, schisms, failures institutionally on a colossal scale, God has preserved his church. Churches of the Reformation don't deny the western church of the Middle Ages is "our" church and history. We claim the best of the tradition for ourselves. Our ecclesiology can handle the messy bits of history, without needing to resort to the myth of apostolic succession; however Rome is "stuck" with that very myth, and the need to account for things like the fact Rome's claim to supreme leadership among the foremost ancient "sees" was never accepted outside of the west.

Simply put (to use your illustration): "Jerry and crew" don't possess authority that, like a substance is passed from them to others after them. That may be Rome's conception, but it's the wrong concept. The authority is Christ's; the vessel is the church; the ministry/officers are the instrument. Ordinarily we want, we need to see Christ's authority regularly and with order and decency invested in a new generation of instruments handed off from the previous. But the church is not hostage to a cabal of elites, having abandoned Christ, who gain the ascendancy in the church.

Besides all that, though it flies in the face of our Protestant theology and ecclesiology, we could (if we wished) make what we might of the ordination (from Rome) of men like Luther and other ecclesiastics who continued to serve Christ in the churches of the Reformation, leaving Rome and her follies behind. But why should we aim at so pretend a "succession," lest it appear as if we believed the myth? Apostolic succession as Rome and even the Eastern hierarchical churches promote it is a fiction.

And, if these churches have long since abandoned the security and correctives of the Apostles, themselves still ruling the church from the pages of the Bible, the only path forward for the faithful church and its several congregations and saints within is to cleave to the Apostles and to Christ himself revealed in Holy Scripture. There you find a true succession not found in the pages of history, but the pages of the Bible. The New Testament is where one stands with Christ to be led by him, or be appointed his undershepherd for the good and peace of his church.
 
Beards said:
How do we reconcile this?
Click to expand...

"Ques. 1: What calling did the first Preachers of the Gospel, and planters of our [Protestant] Church have?

It is necessary to answer this question; for if they had no calling, then neither have we, who are the followers. And I answer two things. First, that they had their callings by virtue of which they restored the Gospel of Christ from the Romish Church itself; for they were either Priests or School Doctors: as in England, Wycliffe; in Germany, Luther; in Bohemia, John Huss and Jerome of Prague; at Basil, Oecolampadius; in Italy, Peter Martyr, and others. And therefore these, with many others, were ordained either in Popish Churches, or in schools, and there they were solemnly bound by oath to do the duties of their callings with a good conscience, by confuting error, and maintaining the ancient Apostolic faith. Which is why, if this —their calling —has any force to stop the Papists’mouths, we say, the first restorers of the Gospel in our times had their first callings from them.

Obj: It may said that these men were all perjured for preaching against the Church of Rome, to whose allegiance they were bound by oath.

Ans. 1: I answer that, by virtue of their oaths at their ordination, they were bound only to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not to the present Church of Rome. For the words “the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome,”which now run in the tenor of the oath, were not so strictly used in former times, but are more urged now of late.

Ans. 2: Secondly I answer that many of them had callings that were in some sort, extraordinary; I say in some sort, distinguishing the office of teaching, and the use of it. The office which they performed was ordinary; but the execution of this office, in purging and restoring true religion —not in respect to that true order which God had set down in His word, but in respect to the abuse of it in the Romish Church —was extraordinary. Which I will declare in this manner: God calls men extraordinarily when he does not bind Himself to ordinary laws of vocation set down in His word. And He does this in three ways. First, by His own immediate voice. Thus Abraham was called, and Moses in the bush, and so were the Apostles of Christ called immediately; and Paul likewise after Christ’s ascension. Secondly, He calls extraordinarily, by the ministry of creatures: as Elisha was called by Elijah (1King 19.16); thus Aaron was called by Moses;Exo 4.14-15 and Philip was called to baptize the Eunuch, by the message of an angel (Act 8.26). Thirdly, by special instinct, and extraordinary inspiration of the Spirit. We have examples of this in the word of God: Philip, who by his first calling was a Deacon, went and preached the Gospel in Samaria, and first began the Church of God there —not by a calling from the Apostles, because they were ignorant of his preaching (Act 8.14); and we may not think he engaged this work of his own brain —and therefore, in all likelihood his calling was by a special instinct of the Spirit of God. Again, when the Church of Jerusalem was dispersed, men came from Cyprus and Cyrene, to Antioch, without any outward calling; and yet they preached there, no doubt by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, as it appears the hand of God was with them. I say the like about Luther and the rest: namely, that they were stirred up by the special instinct of the Spirit of God, whereby they were moved to restore the Gospel to its former purity, as they did."

William Perkins, a teatrise on vocations
 
If I may, I would highly recommend this relatively brief book by Matthew Poole. I think it is the best one that simply and clearly deals with these kinds of questions in a way that would convince any un-prejudiced mind:

PDF available here:
archive.org

Dialogue between a Popish priest and an English Protestant : wherein the principal points and arguements of both religions are truly proposed, and fully examined : Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

206 p
archive.org

Text only:

The reality is that Roman Catholicism is a strong-delusion, the masterpiece of the devil, and a soul destroying system that is deceiving millions of poor souls for eternity. The cheats and deceits of it are so flagrantly contrary to Scripture, and even church history, that it is a wonder anyone who takes the Bible seriously could stomach it. There's a reason our Confession of Faith calls it a synagogue of Satan, whose head the Pope is the Antichrist.

PS. James Buchanan has a section in his work on Justification that deals with the looser terminology in some of the fathers and how that has been often misrepresented: https://www.monergism.com/doctrine-...ory-church-and-its-exposition-scripture-ebook
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Contra_Mundum said:
If you are going to begin by granting the Romanist the unchallenged legitimacy of his starting premises, then you cede the "high ground" before the contest has begun. Why are you granting those premises without a challenge, as if it is the churches of the Reformation only who shoulder the whole burden of proof? I should think a convinced Reformation-tradition Christian would make more demands of the papist: that he discharge his own burden of proof. It seems like you give the priest the benefit of the doubt, and then expect your interlocutors here (and your pastor) to contend an uphill battle.
Click to expand...

Rev. Buchanan,

This first paragraph (and the rest) deserves honorable mention, at least.
Thanks for pithy lines, like–"you cede the "high ground" before the contest has begun."

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top