"Reformed" Campbellites

Status
Not open for further replies.
fredtgreco

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
I guess when I subscribed to the WCF I wasn't paying attention. Apparently, we are saved by our own works, namely our baptism. If we are not baptized, then we are not saved (pace WCF 28.5). Because that is the latest gunk coming out of Reformed Catholicism by Paul Owen:

Like it or not, justification takes place only in union with Christ, and Romans 6:1-5 teaches that union with Christ is instrumentally effected by baptism. Colossians 2:12 teaches the same truth. No baptism, no union with Christ. No union with Christ, no justification. It's just that simple. Of course, I'm in good company, since the Westminster Confession of Faith 28.1 & 6 teaches that ingrafting into Christ is "conferred" by the right use of the ordinance of baptism. Also the WCF teaches that nobody is actually justified until the Holy Spirit applies Christ unto them (11.4), and of course the purpose of the sacraments is to apply Christ and the benefits of the New Covenant to believers (WSC 92). (Emphasis added)
Click to expand...

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/000393.htm
 
I actually saw that the other day and reformedcatholicism. By the way, why do they have "Sic Semper Tyrannis" on the top of their page? It wasn;t the first thing that came to mind when I saw them.
 
So, a man who just converted, was never baptised before the fact, hasn't any union to Christ, let alone justification, until he's baptized?

Are these guys ordained in the PCA or OPC? If they are, are they being disciplined?
 
Originally posted by Craig
So, a man who just converted, was never baptised before the fact, hasn't any union to Christ, let alone justification, until he's baptized?

Are these guys ordained in the PCA or OPC? If they are, are they being disciplined?
Click to expand...

Craig,

To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of the guys over there. Many are PCA, some are not. Othersare involved in the Moscow, Idaho idyllic paradise - oh I mean "kirk"
 
:ditto: Moreover, heretics who closely associate themselves with the truth are much more dangerous to the cause of the truth than outright heretics who openly oppose it.
 
At least you will be glad to know that your salvation depends not only on your baptism, but your works in sanctification as well:

It is sad to see theologians who are so bound to their evangelical, American, pseudo-Reformed traditions that they cannot read the Bible in an objective manner the way I do. (I shouldn't have to say it, but that was tongue in cheek.) Paul says plain as the day is long in Romans 6:22 that the eschatological reward of eternal life IS conditioned upon sanctification, which he earlier defines as being a "slave to righteousness" (6:19). To be a slave to righteousness means to be obedient, as 6:16-18 makes plain. So our actual obedience, that is to say, our being slaves of righteousness, which is to say our sanctification, IS a condition for eternal life in the future judgment. That may not go down well at a Billy Graham Crusade, but that is apostolic doctrine
Click to expand...
 
And it just keeps coming:

A couple of additional points: 1) N.T. Wright is correct is saying that justification is not what saves us properly speaking. Justification is a forensic declaration of our new identity. It does not cause that identity, but rather acknowledges it. This is why justification is subsequent to calling in Romans 8:30. Those who are called (i.e. regenerated), are acknowledged by God as his people in justification. 2) Baptism is the justifying event, because it is in the waters of baptism that believers are set free from sin (Rom. 6:1-7). In other words, a person cannot normally be justified prior to baptism, because it is in baptism that the liberating union with Christ which is the cause of our justification is effected. So justification must not be separated from its sacramental context, as is so often the case in American evangelical and even quasi-"Reformed" Christianity (Paul Owen, "Justification as Liberting Power" emphasis added)
Click to expand...

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/000389.htm

Anybody wonder now why so many of us here have no patience with "Reformed Catholicism" ?
 
:barfy:

This is infuriating. My brother says Wilson is misunderstood, but when I read the very words of those he associates with, I can't help but view him et all as outside orthodoxy...they're trying to redefine it.

Where is the discipline in our denoms if any of these teachers are among us? In essence, evangelism for these guys is probably not the way to go...just go baptize some people. They've overcompensated for what broader evangelicalism has abandoned: the sacraments. You don't fix the problem by adopting Rome's views on the sacraments.


What's also amazing is the fact this Reformed Catholicism webpage has links to confessions...including the Cannon's of Dordt. These statements on baptism and synergistic salvation overthrow the cannons...not to mention the solas.
 
Originally posted by Craig
:barfy:

This is infuriating. My brother says Wilson is misunderstood, but when I read the very words of those he associates with, I can't help but view him et all as outside orthodoxy...they're trying to redefine it.

Where is the discipline in our denoms if any of these teachers are among us? In essence, evangelism for these guys is probably not the way to go...just go baptize some people. They've overcompensated for what broader evangelicalism has abandoned: the sacraments. You don't fix the problem by adopting Rome's views on the sacraments.


What's also amazing is the fact this Reformed Catholicism webpage has links to confessions...including the Cannon's of Dordt. These statements on baptism and synergistic salvation overthrow the cannons...not to mention the solas.
Click to expand...

Have I mentioned the fact that a prominent proponent of these ideal is on record as having said he would baptize an entire tribe/people/nation if the king converted?
 
Originally posted by Craig
They've overcompensated for what broader evangelicalism has abandoned: the sacraments.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. I actually hadn't thought of it that way before, but it could possibly even be an explanation for at least part of where they're going.
 
But then on the outset if they were callling themsleves reformed catholics as under the impression that they were once RC and now reformed then it doenst sound bad but of course they have to reword defintions which alot of men have and continue to do.

blade
 
Baptismal Regeneration??

I know its the baptism of the spirit aka the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit that saves a man. But that better be some pretty darn good water if they think its going to save them? Isnt earthly water tainted by sin as well? so how can it save a man?

blade
 
Originally posted by Craig
So, a man who just converted, was never baptised before the fact, hasn't any union to Christ, let alone justification, until he's baptized?

Are these guys ordained in the PCA or OPC? If they are, are they being disciplined?
Click to expand...
Craig,

Some of the men who post there are ordained in the PCA, but most (as best I can discern) are not. I've had a number of interesting exchanges with Owen on another board. He holds a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh I believe, and teaches at a PCUSA college (Montreat) in NC, but claims he is a member of a PCA church. He is not ordained, and to the best of my knowledge has never been examined on the floor of any Presbytery.

Cheers,
DTK
 
B.O.T. recently published Traill's book "Justification Vindicated" it is a wonderful little treatise that deal's with the heart of the issue.
 
Have I mentioned the fact that a prominent proponent of these ideal is on record as having said he would baptize an entire tribe/people/nation if the king converted?
Click to expand...

I am not defending Reformed Catholicism, but the view above is not far from the Reformation. Some Protesants taught that a gospel message need only be given once to a "nation." If the nation accepted, then fine. If not, it was lost and there was no use in returning with the message. Some strange views can be found in the history of missions.

Scott
 
I am not defending the Reformed Catholicism people (indeed, I believe that salvation ordinarily comes through the ministry of the Word), but it is odd that many of the criticisms here could be as easily directed against Luther and Lutherans. Luther expressly taught baptismal regeneration and taught that baptism was the sacrament that instilled faith. Babies, for example, received faith in the sacrament of baptism. Luther was, of course, the greatest defender of sola fide during the first Reformetion. He did not see a contradiction between baptismal regeneration and faith.

Of course, modern Reformed tend to love Luther, especially his commentary on Galatians. This is even though, most Reformed would not be admitted into a Lutheran Church.

Scott
 
Originally posted by Scott
I am not defending the Reformed Catholicism people (indeed, I believe that salvation ordinarily comes through the ministry of the Word), but it is odd that many of the criticisms here could be as easily directed against Luther and Lutherans. Luther expressly taught baptismal regeneration and taught that baptism was the sacrament that instilled faith. Babies, for example, received faith in the sacrament of baptism. Luther was, of course, the greatest defender of sola fide during the first Reformetion. He did not see a contradiction between baptismal regeneration and faith.

Of course, modern Reformed tend to love Luther, especially his commentary on Galatians. This is even though, most Reformed would not be admitted into a Lutheran Church.

Scott
Click to expand...

The problem, Scott, is that while Lutherans are honest in pointing out the distinctions, the Reformed Catholics are trying to usurp and hijack reformed theology. If they want bad, unbiblical expressions of the sacraments, etc., fine - but don't pretend (and confuse others) by saying you are in the tradition of Calvin and the Reformers.
 
Originally posted by Scott
Have I mentioned the fact that a prominent proponent of these ideal is on record as having said he would baptize an entire tribe/people/nation if the king converted?
Click to expand...

I am not defending Reformed Catholicism, but the view above is not far from the Reformation. Some Protesants taught that a gospel message need only be given once to a "nation." If the nation accepted, then fine. If not, it was lost and there was no use in returning with the message. Some strange views can be found in the history of missions.

Scott
Click to expand...

These are two completely different things. Especially since for them baptism is what makes one a Christian.
 
These are two completely different things. Especially since for them baptism is what makes one a Christian.
Click to expand...

I think they are related, as they treat a nation as a moral person and envision the salvation of that person (which involves the baptism of the person's individual citizens). I was just responding to your one point about baptizing tribes or nations. This is largely how Europe was converted.
 
The problem, Scott, is that while Lutherans are honest in pointing out the distinctions, the Reformed Catholics are trying to usurp and hijack reformed theology. If they want bad, unbiblical expressions of the sacraments, etc., fine - but don't pretend (and confuse others) by saying you are in the tradition of Calvin and the Reformers.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out the inconsistency that happens in some Reformed circles. Some decry Reformed Catholics (or whatever they call themselves) as heretics because they affirm some form of baptismal regeneration. This affirmation implies, according to critics, a denial of sola fide, heresy, and Romanism, among other things. Yet, these same critics would not ascribe these problems to Luther and, indeed, often idolize Luther as a great reformer and defender of sola fide. This is in spite of Luther expressly and very clearly affirming baptismal regeneration (much more clearly than RefCats).

Its inconsistent. If one condemns Reformed Catholics, he should condemn Luther too. If one simply thinks that, like Luther, RefCats are wrong, then the language of heresy should be avoided.

Scott
 
I am not defending the Reformed Catholicism people (indeed, I believe that salvation ordinarily comes through the ministry of the Word), but it is odd that many of the criticisms here could be as easily directed against Luther and Lutherans. Luther expressly taught baptismal regeneration and taught that baptism was the sacrament that instilled faith. Babies, for example, received faith in the sacrament of baptism. Luther was, of course, the greatest defender of sola fide during the first Reformetion. He did not see a contradiction between baptismal regeneration and faith.

Of course, modern Reformed tend to love Luther, especially his commentary on Galatians. This is even though, most Reformed would not be admitted into a Lutheran Church.
Click to expand...
Hi Scott,

I confess that I'm not clear on whether you're attempting to link the Reformers here with Luther's view of baptism to a certain degree or not. I think that Calvin himself (unlike Luther) was careful to point out the problem with attributing salvation to baptism rather than the promise of God preceding it, as well as the implications that would hold for sola fide...

John Calvin: But that all doubt may be better cleared away, this principle should ever be kept in mind, that baptism is not conferred on children in order that they may become sons and heirs of God, but, because they are already considered by God as occupying that place and rank, the grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh by the rite of baptism. Otherwise the Anabaptists are in the right in excluding them from baptism. For unless the thing signified by the external sign can be predicated of them, it will be a mere profanation to call them to a participation of the sign itself. But if any one were inclined to refuse them baptism, we have a ready answer; they are already of the flock of Christ, of the family of God, since the covenant of salvation which God enters into with believers is common also to their children. As the words import, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee. Unless this promise had preceded, certainly it would have been wrong to confer on them baptism. Now I ask whether the word of God is sufficient by its intrinsic virtue for our salvation, or whether some aid must be borrowed elsewhere to supply its defect, or help its infirmity? If this promise is not believed to be efficacious in itself, not only the virtue of God, but also his grace and truth will be attached to the external sign. Thus those men, while they strive to honor baptism, cast serious ignominy on God. Now what will become of so many passages in which Christ is represented as satisfied with faith alone? They will deny that faith is separated from baptism. I admit it, where an opportunity of receiving it is afforded. But if a sudden death carry off any one who shall have embraced the gospel of Christ, will they therefore doom him to destruction, because he has been deprived of the outward washing with water? Do not ancient histories furnish us with some examples of martyrs, who were dragged away by tyrants to execution before they had presented themselves for baptism? And for this want of water, will the blood of Christ be of no avail to the holy martyr, who does not hesitate to shed his own blood for the faith of the gospel in which is placed the common salvation of all? Assuredly the Papists were more moderate, who, at least in this case of necessity, substitute for the washing of water the baptism of blood. In one word, unless we choose to overturn all the principles of religion, we shall be obliged to confess that the salvation of an infant does not depend on, but is only sealed by its baptism. Whence it follows that it is not rigorously nor absolutely necessary. And should we even grant what they perversely demand, viz., that when the danger of death is imminent, infants ought to be baptized, still it should be administered according to the institution and command of Christ. Letter 438, To John Clauberger in Selected Works of John Calvin, Letters 1554-1558, Vol. 6, pp. 278-279.

Blessings,
DTK
 
DTK: I agree with Calvin and am certainly not Lutheran. My point was more an ecumenical one. So many Reformed people praise and love Luther (some simply gush over his work on Galatians) that they overlook his attachment to baptismal regeneration. Yet, when Catholics or others promote something like this, the Catholics get blasted part and parcel, often on the ground that justification by faith is inconsistent with baptismal regeneration or any kind of spiritual efficacy in the sacrament. It is inconsistent. Luther maintained sola fide as well as baptismal regeneration.

I have read a number of Calvin's writings and think his position on baptism is a bit ambiguous, perhaps changing over time. Anyway, I affirm the WCF views.
 
I am not endorsing all of what Paul Owen would write but if anyone read the latest Books and Culture (if you haven't, don't worry about it--it is like Churchianity today without the overt claims to evangelicalism), it featured Paul Owen's scholarly responses to Mormon apologists. So perhaps a person who is most often wrong will be right on one issue.:judge:
 
How different are the beliefs of those who claim to be "reformed catholics" from those of Reformed Episcopalian/Anglican church? Is the problem that the "reformed catholics" call themselves Presbyterian, when in reality they are more Anglican in their doctrine?
 
RefCats try mightily to show that their views are Reformed. They would be extremely comfortable with an Anglican teaching on baptism I think.
 
Well,

Lets see if the RefCats disavow this post on their website by Kevin Johnson. Johnson takes on even Doug Wilson, saying that he does not go far enough regarding Baptism. For Johnson, the power of Baptism is so great it goes beyond faith or the Word. Catholics are Christians not because of what they believe, or whether they trust in God - but simply because they have been baptized. WOW!


I guess he forgot to read WCF 24.3, which states:
It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies. (emphasis added)
Click to expand...


The link is here:
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/000435.htm

Here is the text:
November 20, 2004
Yeah, we believe Roman Catholics are Christians (Wink, Wink)

I just listened to the recent debate by Douglas Wilson and Dr. James White on the subject of whether or not Roman Catholic baptisms are valid. I was extremely pleased by the overall tone of the debate and both speakers should be commended for their charity towards one another and the subject in general--though I wonder what any Roman Catholics sitting in the audience might have thought about it.

This position I take reviewing the debate may very well be controversial, even among my fellow writers at ReformedCatholicism.com. But, that's what this web site is about--earnest and frank discussion of issues surrounding catholicity.

Overall, my impression is that any careful observer would have to hand the debate to Douglas Wilson but Dr. White did present his position well. Wilson was especially good during both cross examinations (especially the material on 1 Corinthians 10!). Dr. White picked up points for presenting his position on Hebrews chapter 8 which Douglas Wilson--while he had the opportunity to nail it--simply didn't do that particular passage justice in terms of the debate and certainly didn't answer the Reformed Baptist concerns about the passage. I thought it was interesting to hear Dr. White complain that it is difficult to frame a biblical understanding of the word "Christian" when there were only three mentions of it in the New Testament, yet the Reformed Baptist view of the covenant is expressed in only one real explicit place, Hebrews 8. Missed opportunity by Wilson. Oh well!

In some sense, Dr. White was astoundingly correct in the question and answer session when he spoke of two ships passing in the night because if anything else, the debate proves that your starting point determines your ending point and starting with at least two different presuppositions in this sort of debate rarely makes it possible for the two participants to agree and actually debate the issue fully.

But, really, what practical difference is there between Douglas Wilson's position and that of Dr. James White for those who aren't interested in the explicit details of the theological differences between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians? Yes, yes, I know the two parties understand the covenant differently and that they are operating from two different outlooks. But, do they think of Roman Catholics differently in any real sense?

Though Douglas Wilson clearly won the debate, I believe James White's position is actually the more consistent of the two. Not that I agree with him...Let me explain.

Both James White and Douglas Wilson see Roman Catholics as something other than regenerate Christians. Dr. White is quite clear about it and Wilson perhaps a little less so. But Douglas Wilson had no problem stating more than once how he agreed with the contents of White's book on Roman Catholicism, that the Roman Catholic Church is one general council short of apostasy, and that though we grant technical "covenantal" status to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters because of their baptism, we don't really think that they are truly Christian. In fact, Wilson is eager and happy to tell Roman Catholics to repent--grabbing them by their baptism--and early in the debate joked quite rightly that he was helping Dr. White give Roman Catholics an even harder time than James White normally does!

This must seem like the sort of extreme hair-splitting that would make even the medieval scholastics wince to those outside of Reformed circles. It would be one thing if Douglas Wilson said that based on trinitarian Baptism, Roman Catholics are or will be regenerate Christians as the Spirit of God works through Baptism. After all, God keeps his promises. It seems extremely unkind and uncharitable to me to pretend that we have a high view of Baptism in and among some Reformed churches to the point where we emphasize the regeneration of our infants and that they are truly children of God and then turn around and tell our Roman Catholic brothers, "Repent, and until you do, we call you and your children Christian but we don't really think you are in any sense that matters except to increase your condemnation as apostates!". What confidence we display in the objective sign of covenant Baptism!

Here's another way I've heard it put: "We believe Roman Catholics are Christian (wink, wink) , but we can't believe you're going to put your daughter in a Catholic school. That's not really providing her with a Christian education."

A part of me says at least Dr. White's position is crystal clear, consistent, and unambiguous even though I don't agree with it. We have a long way to go towards catholicity in the Reformed world and pretending we can call certain people Christians while not really recognizing them as such doesn't get us anywhere. I imagine to the smart Roman Catholic out there--were they to know the truth, and I believe many of them are catching on--it's actually a worse thing to them than the blatant and uncompromising position Dr. White has consistently displayed.

Where is the charity for our brothers and sisters in Christ in a communion such as Rome? Yes, we have disagreements about the dogma and doctrine of Rome (and they disagree with us similarly), but why must we act as if we are certain that such men and women blessed by the sign of Baptism are most certainly something other than Christian? We hold no window to their soul. We are not in the place of God to judge them of their sins. We forget that we carry a 500 year old prejudice against anything and everything Roman. Are we really viewing the matter rightly?

I'm not sure the Reformed world is ready yet to fully work out the implications of an objective covenant theology such as the one presented to us by the magisterial Reformers and lately by men like Douglas Wilson. Even its chief advocates today have difficulty staying true to the spirit of such things and it certainly makes me question whether or not we're really aware of the logical implication of our views. In contrast, while the magisterial Reformers were quite clear in their rejection of the papal hierarchy, they considered the ordinary layman and others as Christian people. Why argue for communion in both kinds if, well, you know, (wink, wink), they're only heaping judgment upon themselves and they're not really Christian?

Dr. White was certainly right when he said in the debate that over-correcting one pastoral problem can create others . If we agree with Paul that "the greatest of these is love", perhaps we ought to ponder how that would work out in our understanding of members of other communions at least as much as we do the technical details of things like the objectivity of their status in the covenant as a result of trinitarian Baptism.
Posted by Kevin D. Johnson at November 20, 2004 07:17 AM
Click to expand...
 
I am blown away that the doctrine of Justification is being redefined on a daily basis. All of the new doctrines sound like Covenantal Nomism splintering off at one point or another. Plus they are all trying to appeal to the reformed faith by telling us that we got it wrong when interpreting Paul (NPP)or that they are becoming reformed (REFCATS). Man, that old Serpent just doesn't give up. He must be jealous.
For Christ's Crown and Covenat, Randy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top