Family Resemblance [intro]

I've been thinking about two things lately for a couple of reasons. One is my interest in what is happening inside orthodox Presbyterianism over the "Federal Vision". Another is my abiding burden for the matter of Roman Catholicism and those who stay inside that body. And a third is that I just can't let anything go.

See: about 3 years ago (was it longer? Maybe 4 years ago?) James White and Doug Wilson had this debate about the status of Roman Catholics as "brothers and sisters in Christ". You can buy the audio here. The reason I bring this up is because this debate really started my obsession with the topic of baptism -- not because I am somehow allured by paedobaptism, but because I can't believe anyone is allured by it.

That said (sorry Al; sorry Doug; sorry Gadbois and Skyman), this series is not about baptism: it's about a claim or an assertion Doug Wilson made in that debate which I have been mulling over intently ever since. During the cross examination, Pastor Wilson said (in words to this effect) that the reason that we must consider the Roman Catholic our brother in Christ is that his baptism vouchsafes such a thing. That is, objectively, he got the sign and seal, and that means we have to treat him as a "member of the covenant" -- that is, a member of the church, a member of the visible body inside the visible effects of the New Covenant.

But on the other hand, when pressed, Pastor Wilson made another startling affirmation: he also said that if Rome ever made a denial of the trinity -- and his example was that if they simply took Munificentissimus Deus seriously and made the Queen of Heaven an intrigal part of the Godhead -- we could start calling their baptisms faulty in the same way we call Mormon baptisms faulty. If that happened, we could stop calling Catholics "brothers in Christ" because they didn't know Christ. They couldn't recognize Him. They weren't putting His work on in baptism, and they would be "out", so to speak.

Since DW makes a pass here every now and again, I welcome him to tidy up this entry with any corrections as I am not working off a transcript. I have listened to the deabte 4 or 5 times, and this much seems clear to me, but he may have a salient matter to append here which I have missed.

At any rate, that matter of defacing the Trinity has interested me for one reason in two examples. The first example is this, from 1 John 2:

I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us--eternal life.

This being the guy who calls God "love", and extolls the love of the Father through the Son. But it's an interesting passage as it cuts some pretty fine theological mitre joints and glues them up for us.

And I say that especially in light of the Catholic Catechism's adaptation of Lumen gentium which says this (sans footnotes):

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

840 and when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

I am interested in these two writings because I think one disqualifies the other. I think one makes the other of dubious character. And in that, I think one puts the authors of the other in an interesting predicament.

So as we work through this, I ask that people who disagree with what I drop in here come forward and tell me what they think. Show me where I have err'd.

The series will begin tomorrow, and I am personally looking forward to it.

Al Mohler

You must watch it to believe it. It is real.

Synergy: our friend

First, watch this clip from Joe Scarborough which was added to YouTube on 2/3/2007:

Got it? OK -- now read the actual AP report for yourself.

Now ask yourself this question: what causes something like this -- both the poll results, and then the kind of commentary from this person from the New Republic. I'd be interested in your opinions about this.

Another example

After the surprisingly-flat reception given to my last two posts on this subject, James White has some insight into the modern method of Roman Catholic apologetics which I think is both insightful and useful.

Expert Testimony

I just read this about Global Warming, and one wonders why statements like this aren't more widely publicized.

No snark about Al Gore, under the new guidelines. Just read it and think about that.

Trouble.

I am very uncomfortable thatI agree with iMonk about the spirit of the following statement:

Joel Osteen is the anti-Christ. I am not joking.

Does Osteen place himself in place of Christ? Let's think about that for a minute.

On the one hand, he doesn't claim all authority and power for himself, does he? Not in the political or judicial sense, let's be honest.

But on the other hand, um, where's the Jesus? See: there's a subtle way in which one can replace Christ with himself -- and that's by never bringing up the Jesus. When it's all about the book I wrote or am about to write, or about my blog, or about my TV show, or about my cathedral the size of a sports arena, one is swapping out Christ for Me.

That's the spirit of anti-Christ, folks. I think iMonk said a good one here, and I leave it to him to flesh it out if I misunderstood him.

Since we're on the subject ...

... let me refer you to this essay by John Piper. It's about the apologetic endeavor, and I'd say that I'm with him on this.

I'd also like to cite this values statement from DGM, partiularly this portion:

4. Humble Authenticity

“We are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ” (2 Cor 2:17).

God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (Jam 4:6).

We seek to be what we preach and teach. We desire our personal lives and organizational structure and policies to give explicit evidence that we treasure Jesus Christ above all things. We will pursue loving, gracious honesty in all of our communication. We will also seek to serve others and consider them more important than ourselves. In disagreements will seek to assume the best of others and ask clarifying questions before making judgments. When we have offended another we will be quick to confess our errors and sins, pursue reconciliation, and make necessary changes.

And in that spirit, I'd like to do something I think I have learned a lot about over the years: I'd like to apologize to anyone who, in the past, I have not treated in this way. That doesn't include anyone I have banned from this blog's comments as I have been (as the record will underscore) exceedingly patient with those I have dealt with anathemaciously, but it does include some with whom I should have taken a day off before responding to them.

Consider these ground rules for me in the future.

Are Roman Catholics Christians?

A fellow named Russ from Georgia brought this up in the meta of a previous post by making the following statement:

Are you implying that Roman Catholics don't really love Jesus as much as Baptists?

How silly.

And since it is a seemingly-reasonable question, I thought I'd bring it up here.

Here's my answer: I think that it's somewhat stupid to assume that all baptists love Jesus the same way or even have saving faith. Being a baptist doesn't save you. In exactly the same way, being a Roman Catholic doesn't save you.

If you worship bread as God or demand that the assumption of Mary into Heaven is as necessary as the resurrection of Christ for saving faith, you are no better than someone who has idols of abstinence, political influence, and some escatological conclusion.

I'll bet some Roman Catholics wind up in Heaven. I doubt any of them will be Popes, but of course I could be wrong.

Note to Catholics interpolers: if you want to chat about this, ask one question at a time. If you are trying to construct a logical argument by asking questions, start with the first one, and wait for an answer.

Note to SBC interlopers: If you have a criticism, bring it here and not to your pulpit. Defend yourself in a public way and not as if you were a Bishop or Pope.

What? The Gospel?

Tom Ascol gives the question of the Gospel both barrels.

Amen to that.

Fact? or Fiction?

I have 3 things to say about this video:

[1] There is nobody but Mark Erickson who thinks this is real -- but it's amazing to watch.

[2] Mark P. Erickson bears an uncanny resemblence to Zachary Johnson of "Fatal Farm" fame. Because the content at Fatal Farm is not family friendly, I'm not going to link it. The invasively curious can Google "Fatal Farm" and go offend themselves.

[3] You know "Erickson" has fallen off the apple cart (so to speak) when he tries to tell us how to connect iTunes to youTube in order to grab videos for your iPod. Not to expose my inner geek or anything, but the iPod only plays MP4 files -- and those only of a certain video size. youTube is a shockwave environment, and at the very least you'd have to get something to convert it from Shockwave to MP4. Somehow the infinite solution doesn't account for that.

And thus, the joke is on me -- what kind of geek debunks junk like this? Don't I have a life?

And on that uplifting note, be with the Lord's people in the Lord's house on the Lord's day this weekend. Don't watch a podcast of church -- you're not a spectator but a participant.