The last post prompted a little concern that I may be heading down the road to Rome. Hopefully this post will clear that concern up. Most of my reply to Travis is a copy and paste from an email I sent him, with some editing and personal comments removed. Without any further ado…
“I don’t think New Testament writers thought and wrote in our 21st century Evangelical, American categories”
Could you explain what you mean a bit more here?
The vast majority of those who I know read my posts are people from either my Baptist church at home or my Baptist school, so this point — and many of the others — are to be understood as being against that American Baptist mindset (and they may be even a bit hyperbolic). Specifically in that point I was driving against the extreme tendency that I see to interpret the Bible in a cultural vacuum. We tend to assume a Western, individualistic, freedom-centric mindset that I think is foreign to the original writers in most, if not all, cases.
“I don’t think non-Protestant churches are apostate and hell-bound.”
Could you elucidate a bit on this as well? What do you mean by saying that the churches aren’t hell-bound? Is that to say that every member of the church isn’t going to hell? Or is that to say that the official doctrine of the church isn’t apostate? I hope it is the latter, given Rome’s clear heresies.
It’s to say that Protestants won’t be the only ones in heaven. The EOC (Eastern Orthodox Church) and RCC (Roman Catholic Church) both hold to many wrong things, but are they really damnable doctrines? Many Protestants hold to wrong things as well. I’m sure you would agree that perfect doctrine, as though it were possible, is not necessary for salvation. Saving faith in Christ is the basis for justification, not saving faith + proper doctrine.
“I don’t think the church was apostate from AD 100 until the 1500s”
This isn’t intended to imply that one who thinks that Rome is apostate now is required to think that the church was apostate from AD 100 until the 1500s, is it? Because that really looks like what this is supposed to be implying. But of course, I don’t think the former entails the latter at all.
I don’t believe the former entails the latter either. ☺ Rather, I was trying to communicate that Christianity is something larger than American Christianity.
“I don’t think appealing to tradition is bad”
Does anyone think that appeals to tradition per se are bad? Probably not. The problem is with appeals to tradition as inherently as authoritative as Scripture, or appeals to “tradition” that contradicts Scripture.
I’m quite sure that there are people who believe appealing to tradition is bad. My point was that tradition, what the Christian church has done since it started, is very important and telling.
“I don’t think the Westminster Confession of Faith was inspired”
I’m pretty sure no one in the world believes that. This was supposed to be a joke, right?
Somewhat. ☺ Like I said, some of these were a bit hyperbolic – exaggerated to drive home the point.
“I don’t think being non-Confessional is equal to heresy”
Well, it all depends on what won’t be confessed, right?
Of course it all depends on what won’t be confessed. What bothers me is when I see people write against a certain position, or rally against something, purely because it is “non-confessional.” They must keep in mind that the WCF is nice, but not perfect. Being non-confessional does not necessarily mean one is non-orthodox.
“I do…think we should take Jesus seriously when he said his spirit would lead the Church into all truth”
OK. What exactly does that mean, then?
That true Christianity didn’t suddenly appear when Christians got their act together and became Baptists a few hundred years ago.
“I do…think Protestants can learn much from other Christian traditions”
Such as?
The EOC seems to have a better grasp on holiness and “other”-ness of God, and how Christianity is all encompassing. The RCC seems to do a better job of saying Faith – Works = Non-saving faith. (Yes, they may take it too far, but we could still learn that lesson from them).
“I do…think apostolic succession is darn cool”
False, unsubstantiated claims to tyrannical authority over the Church of Jesus Christ are cool?
Well, no… those aren’t cool. ☺ Specifically, the priest at the Episcopal church which I attend at school has a chart showing the apostolic succession from Jesus all the way to him. That’s what I think is darn cool. Claiming tyrannical authority simply because of that succession is not cool.
“I do…think tradition (“the faith once delivered unto the saints”) is very important”
What is this “tradition” of which you write, exactly?
“That which is believed everywhere, in all times, by all?”
“I do…think the bounds of orthodoxy should be generous”
How generous?
About this generous: |—————————-|
I don’t know that we can quantitatively answer that. We should be very careful to not divide Christ’s body unnecessarily. Of course you’ll wonder how we determine when it is necessary. I don’t know. But I prefer to be very careful. The three ecumenical creeds seem good.
“I do…think ‘In essentials unity, in doubtful things liberty, but in all things charity’”
OK, what does that mean, exactly?
For example:
How charitable ought we to be with those who deny Sola Fide?
How charitable ought we to be with those who deny that homosexuality is a sin?
How charitable ought we to be with pedophiles?
How charitable ought we to be with those who deny the deity of Christ?And, what, exactly, does “charity” mean practically with respect to how we ought to behave towards them?
If they deny that man is justified by saving faith alone, then we should be very careful of our involvement with them. Of course in saying this, you’re probably thinking of the RCC and I’m not so convinced they would say they’re not justified by saving faith alone.
They’re wrong. I don’t think they should be called heretics for it, though.
We should love them, but we shouldn’t let them run the church nursery.
We should be very careful. Do they really believe in the same Christianity as we do, or have they destroyed it? It seems to me they have destroyed it at its root in which case we should say that we don’t believe them to be a Christian church. Are there really many Christian churches that officially don’t believe in the deity of Christ?
You see, I think this is one of those slogans that might sound nice, but it doesn’t really mean anything, or at least the meaning is so elastic that it could mean anything. This is a problem because it’s easily misunderstood as a result.
Yes, but I think there is a place for leaving something open to interpretation just as there is a place for being painfully explicit. God could have given us the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith), all systematic and spelled out and wonderful, but instead He gave us books. Some of them are history, some poems and songs, some words of wisdom, some letters to pastors, some letters to churches, etc. God didn’t see fit to give us a complete systematic theology of himself. We have incomplete, imperfect knowledge, and God didn’t see fit to give us complete, perfect knowledge. It seems to me we should act with that in mind.
I realize there is a danger in not being painfully explicit in meaning – in not spelling everything out. I think the current problems within the Episcopal Church demonstrate that well. But I don’t think that voids the usefulness of leaving some things open to interpretation, it just shows what we already know: man is sinful and prefers his own word to God’s.
Keith also made a few comments…
Furthermore, I would HIGHLY (I cannot emphasize it strongly enough) recommend that you listen to this:http://www.cmfnow.com/Download/gb1432.mp3
Though I greatly respect the late Dr. Bahnsen, he and I disagree on this. (But then he and you would disagree on a great number of things as well.) And to be honest, it seemed like most of his message was emotional pleading in saying “They condemn/ed us/Luther/Reformers! Doesn’t that make you mad!”
When Christ refers to the spirit leading the disciples into all truth, I believe He was talking about the disciples alone, meaning that everything they wrote under inspiration would be sufficient for doctrine, instruction in righteousness, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16). If the Spirit leads ALL believers into ALL truth then you have a massive task before you of explaining why so many theological chasms are present.
That’s certainly an aspect of what Jesus said, but if we were to interpret it like that, we would have to say that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to only his disciples, because the entire context is Jesus saying “I’m sending the Spirit, here’s what he will do.” The immediate audience was certainly his disciples, but the Holy Spirit and his ministry wasn’t limited to just them.
And I wouldn’t be so naïve as to say that the Spirit leads all believers into all truth, but rather that he has led the Holy Catholic church as a whole into truth. In other words, God doesn’t leave himself without a church; he won’t allow every church to fall into apostasy. I seem to recall the Reformers believing a similar thing, though I may be confused.
Second, Jude 1:3 isn’t talking about tradition—it is talking about the essentials of the Christian faith, namely the gospel. I use this verse when I talk to Mormons and others who believe that God continues to give us revelation to better our Christian walk.
At the time, though, what was the faith once delivered unto the saints? It was tradition, the essentials of the Christian faith. I think we both agree on this point, we’re just using different words.
Hopefully that clears up any confusion that last post may have caused. I don’t think I’m on the road to Rome, more like on the road to Canterbury, but I certainly appreciate the concern and feedback!
