Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To cite but one example, the Church in her earliest days was confronted with a question that Jesus had not addressed with any specificity or directness, namely, the question of Gentile inclusion in the family of God.
(Luk 8:5) A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
(Luk 8:12) Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
Historically speaking, the idea that the written Word of God is formally sufficient for all things related to faith and practice, such that anyone of normal intelligence and reasonably good intentions could read it and deduce from it what is necessary for orthodoxy and orthopraxy, is not a position that I see reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers. While there are plenty of statements in their writings that speak in glowing terms about the qualitative uniqueness of Scripture, those statements, for them, do not do away with the need for Scripture to be interpreted by the Church in a binding and authoritative way when necessary.
Veith defines it "as the belief that you yourself are your own infallible religious authority."
Historically speaking, the idea that the written Word of God is formally sufficient for all things related to faith and practice, such that anyone of normal intelligence and reasonably good intentions could read it and deduce from it what is necessary for orthodoxy and orthopraxy, is not a position that I see reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers. While there are plenty of statements in their writings that speak in glowing terms about the qualitative uniqueness of Scripture, those statements, for them, do not do away with the need for Scripture to be interpreted by the Church in a binding and authoritative way when necessary.
This is a straw man in my estimation.
The Reformed do believe that the Church is important for understanding the Scripture. But the Church isn't infallible nor is it inerrant as the scriptures are. The Church is not the final authority. It is dependent upon its King and the Holy Spirit for understanding the Scripture. St. Paul tells the Ephesians as a congregation to be understanding what the will of the Lord is. 1 Corinthians 2 says the spiritual man only understands the things of the given to us by God. It is written for our edification and growth. All of Scripture is inspired. Not the Church. Wow!. I know those who think the Roman Catholic, excuse me, (some would prefer the one and only Catholic Church) have always interpreted scripture inerrantly. But if we examine their claims then we must also understand that even the Early Church made many mistakes. It even started with St. Peter who after he was told the Gentiles were clean returned to shunning them watching Judiazer's make them fall under self justification by circumcision again. Thank the Lord for St. Paul and the Council of Jerusalem who had to deal with the issue. It was handled in a Presbyterian way I must say. At least it appears that way according to Acts 15. I am grateful the Lord said the gates of Hell will not prevail. I actually don't think the Church ever went away and that it took many detours and had to have many warnings as Chapter 2 of Revelation states even back in the day. The Church is not inerrant but it is Victorious in Christ. Revelation chapter 2 proves this.
Apart from the theology - why would any sane person want to join a cult whose senior officials seem to be locked in a serious, no holds barred, power struggle. I would have thought that the revelations as to the number of priests who spied for the Polish communist government - not to mention the 6800 priests under suspicion of child sex abuse in the USA alone - might also give pause for thought as to the moral soundness of the RCC.
I also kind of hoped that. Partly because I always enjoyed the EO's aesthetic more than the RC and probably because I have a disproportionate dislike of the RC. I am so exposed to the RC on a daily basis (went to a RC college and work at an RC hospital crucifixes in every room), that on top of disagreeing with it theologically I just do not like it because I think it is tacky, hopelessly superstitious and sentimental. So I can share in that bizarre feeling that I wished he walked away from the faith and into something cooler.Assuming that his rejection of what he thinks is Reformed doctrine is settled--I hope it isn't but let's say it is--Was I the only one hoping he'd turn Orthodox or Anglican?
I agree with that to a certain point, but if said departing seminarian says "Hey, this professor said 'x' in seminary!" then at the very least it should be examined. You're right that seminaries are too quick to be blamed, but at the same time error can and (as we have seen in the history of the church) does enter them. Seminaries are made up of men, and men are not infallible.Bottom line: we need to stop all public queries about the integrity of the men's schools, sessions, presbyteries, and others. The issues are fundamentally individual and spiritual. In some cases, these men are honest, and find themselves changing and getting consistent with their deepest convictions. Sometimes they are dishonest, perhaps first with themselves, then with others. These very same events have happened since the 1500s in every place. The profiles of the men are different. In a smaller set of churches, the effect of a departure is magnified, as is such a move in the age of internet-instant communication. These things are (thankfully) unusual, but they aren't unheard-of. These recent events are a reminder to us of that fact, and of how vulnerable the church is, if Christ is not our watchman on the wall.
I agree with that to a certain point, but if said departing seminarian says "Hey, this professor said 'x' in seminary!" then at the very least it should be examined. You're right that seminaries are too quick to be blamed, but at the same time error can and (as we have seen in the history of the church) does enter them. Seminaries are made up of men, and men are not infallible.Bottom line: we need to stop all public queries about the integrity of the men's schools, sessions, presbyteries, and others. The issues are fundamentally individual and spiritual. In some cases, these men are honest, and find themselves changing and getting consistent with their deepest convictions. Sometimes they are dishonest, perhaps first with themselves, then with others. These very same events have happened since the 1500s in every place. The profiles of the men are different. In a smaller set of churches, the effect of a departure is magnified, as is such a move in the age of internet-instant communication. These things are (thankfully) unusual, but they aren't unheard-of. These recent events are a reminder to us of that fact, and of how vulnerable the church is, if Christ is not our watchman on the wall.
I agree with that to a certain point, but if said departing seminarian says "Hey, this professor said 'x' in seminary!" then at the very least it should be examined. You're right that seminaries are too quick to be blamed, but at the same time error can and (as we have seen in the history of the church) does enter them. Seminaries are made up of men, and men are not infallible.Bottom line: we need to stop all public queries about the integrity of the men's schools, sessions, presbyteries, and others. The issues are fundamentally individual and spiritual. In some cases, these men are honest, and find themselves changing and getting consistent with their deepest convictions. Sometimes they are dishonest, perhaps first with themselves, then with others. These very same events have happened since the 1500s in every place. The profiles of the men are different. In a smaller set of churches, the effect of a departure is magnified, as is such a move in the age of internet-instant communication. These things are (thankfully) unusual, but they aren't unheard-of. These recent events are a reminder to us of that fact, and of how vulnerable the church is, if Christ is not our watchman on the wall.
It appears that the post above was removed at Jason's request. He has not explained why. I am not at all sure why Jason has found it necessary to make this a public process. I don't see how this can be of help to his family or former congregation. He could have met with his congregation and submitted his letter of resignation quietly, but he has (in my opinion) taken a much more self-serving route.
I think Rev. Buchanan's post addresses the issue well, but wanted to answer a few questions that arose in this thread directly:
1) I can say with certainty that Jason consulted with both WSC faculty and alumni (many his friends and former classmates). A meeting took place on our campus shortly before he announced his resignation from the PCA. As far as the perceived silence of the WSC faculty on this issue, I don't get it. Dr. Horton has posted a few things at the White Horse Inn Blog. Dr. Clark has re-posted some blog posts/articles on his page at Westminster Seminary California. Our faculty positively defends the Reformed Confessions at every opportunity and regularly contrasts them with the teaching of Rome in the classroom. They are very concerned about these situations. I am not sure what more needs to be said.
As an aside, I think that it is interesting (though troubling) that far more often graduates of theological seminaries leave the ministry due to moral failings than theological ones. Each can be quite devastating to congregations, yet these theological defections seem to receive much greater attention (within Reformed circles at least). Do we have a greater obligation to respond because this is a theological failing?
2) I should also make it clear that these two recent WSC grad transitions to Rome are quite different (besides the fact that they were enrolled at WSC nearly 10 years apart). Although Mr. Lim was in good standing as a member of a Reformed Church when he arrived at WSC, it is quite apparent from his explanation of his conversion that he was questioning the Reformed/Protestant Faith before he arrived at WSC. To my knowledge, he did not disclose any of these concerns to the faculty until he had made a decision to join the RC church. At that point many did reach out to him, but he could not be persuaded to reverse his course. You will also noticed that Mr. Lim did not mention in his post the seminary from which he graduated. I am sure this was added by the folks at CTC for effect.
3) One of the troubling things about this situation, in my opinion, are the responses. It is the "confessionalism" or "Two Kingdoms" or an "Over-emphasis on ecclesiology" or a "a Lutheran view of Justification." We all want to know why, but none of the quick explanations that have been showing up on blogs since Jason first announced his resignation come close to getting at the complexity of this situation. If you look at the list of contributors at the Called to Communion site you will several former Presbyterians (from many denominations) and a variety of seminaries. It is impossible to point to any particular theological or educational defect that unifies these situations.
unshattered
unshattered
Depends on who you ask...history or Rome.