Thread: What in the World is Timothy George Thinking?

This quote was posted over at James White's blog. It is by Timothy George and from Christianity Today:

"The gaping divide between evangelicals and Catholics is ecclesiology and authority, not justification and salvation, as important as that debate remains," George said. "There is enough commonality that evangelicals and Catholics with a living faith can recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ with a common Lord and common grace that brought them together. The hard issues are questions related to the church, such as the Petrine office [the papacy] and the Eucharist. Those discussions will occupy us for the next 100 years."

Perfect -- just in time for Reformation Day.

Yeah, our views on justification differ in such a small way that they're barely worth mentioning. Let's not forget also idolatry, confession to a man the "church" states is an alter Christos, rank superstition, and the proper place of Biblical authority. (Tradition v. Sola Scriptura)

The biggest issues are obviously ecclesiology and the eucharist.

That's bonkers.

Maybe he recently suffered some traumatic brain injury...

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Maybe he recently suffered some traumatic brain injury...

I don't think so. He was a signer of the Evangelical and Catholics Together thingy several years back... of course, so was J.I. Packer.

Perhaps tomorrow I should head down to the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception while dressed in my getup for the Reformation Celebration and tack a copy of the 95 Theses to the door.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Maybe he recently suffered some traumatic brain injury...

I don't think so. He was a signer of the Evangelical and Catholics Together thingy several years back... of course, so was J.I. Packer.

Till this day I refuse to believe J.I Packer did such a thing!

There were several good conservative men that signed the thingy, I just wonder how this thingy was sold to them. I would assume it wasn't totally truthful or at least it was deceptive in its totality.

Dr. George is absolutely correct . . .

. . . if you concede the "minor" NPP "corrections" to the Reformation and the doctrine of justification

. . . if ecclesiastical unity/union is more important to you than truth/purity of doctrine

. . . if you get your terminal degree at Harvard and come at the Reformation with Baptist presuppositions

. . . you are part of that cadre of peacemakers who are endeavoring to build bridges to other faiths at all costs. For example, here is part of what Dr. George said in answer to the question, "Is the Father of Jesus the God of Mohammed?"

We do know that Muhammad had contact with more orthodox Christian believers later in his life. We also know that one of the wives he married after Khadija's death was a Coptic Christian from Egypt. However, what is rejected in the Quran itself is not the proper Christian doctrine of the Trinity but rather a heretical belief in three gods. Christians believe just as strongly as Muslims in the oneness of God. We can only agree with the Quran in its rejection of a concocted tritheism.

"On the other hand" Dr. George also affirms the Christian uniqueness in the following words, leaving me to wonder what his answer to the original question was.

One verse in John's prologue summarizes the Christian faith more completely than any other text in the Bible: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (1:14 KJV) . . . . Allah (the Arabic name for God) became flesh ... God was in Christ. This was, and is, a scandalous thought, not only to orthodox Muslims but also to Jewish teachers, Greek philosophers, and religious thinkers of all kinds. Christianity stands or falls with the Incarnation, just as it stands or falls with the Trinity. The glory of the Trinity is that God was able to share his life with the world he had made - and to do so without ceasing to be truly God, without compromising his fundamental unity. The wonder of the Incarnation is not only that God could do this, but that he was willing to do this. The wonder is that, in fact, in fleshly fact, he has actually done so.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

"The gaping divide between evangelicals and Catholics is ecclesiology and authority, not justification and salvation, as important as that debate remains," George said.

In a way, Dr. George is correct. Most Roman Catholics do not hold to the RCC's soteriological position because they think the RCC's soteriological position makes more sense (in itself or with regard to Scriptural evidence) than, say, the Reformed position. Rather, their allegiance to it is due to an overarching conviction that the RCC cannot err on such matters. The RCC could posit any crazy doctrine, and it would be believed, simply by virtue of the RCC Magisterium being an 'infallible authority'. This is the number one article of faith for the Roman Catholic.

The wise Protestant understands that refuting particular RCC doctrines, on a case-by-case basis, is of little effect on the Roman Catholic mind. One must first go after the overarching or primary ecclesial-authority presupposition -- the lynchpin of the whole shebang -- for the 'conservative'/'orthodox' Roman Catholic to even wake from their slumber and give any serious attention to Protestant claims.

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

There were several good conservative men that signed the thingy, I just wonder how this thingy was sold to them. I would assume it wasn't totally truthful or at least it was deceptive in its totality.

It is my understanding that they went into it with eyes wide open. I heard John MacArthur relate that he and R.C. Sproul and a group of Evangelicals met with Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, etc. to try to reason with from Scripture and to have them to have them remove their names from the document. Alas, to no avail.

Originally Posted by Bookman

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

There were several good conservative men that signed the thingy, I just wonder how this thingy was sold to them. I would assume it wasn't totally truthful or at least it was deceptive in its totality.

It is my understanding that they went into it with eyes wide open. I heard John MacArthur relate that he and R.C. Sproul and a group of Evangelicals met with Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, etc. to try to reason with from Scripture and to have them to have them remove their names from the document. Alas, to no avail.

That is quite disconcerting to say the least. Our likeness to RCC doctrine is likened to our likeness to pentecostal doctrine. Just do not mix, period.

Those discussions will occupy us for the next 100 years.

There is no discussion. It is wrong. Full stop.