Ecclesiology over Soteriology

[fredtgreco]

Paul Owen gives a classic example of the position (so common in NT Wright) that ecclesiology is more important than soteriology in this post on Communion Sanctorum (for those of you who don't know, it is Reformed Catholics Part II, with extra Latin)

http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=23

Think about the implications of this statement (yes, think about it):

If I were to leave Presbyterianism for some other denominational fellowship, I have no doubt that I would turn to Anglicanism. Frankly, that would require of me very little doctrinal adjustment. If that option were closed to me, I would opt for Lutheranism. Were that option to be closed, I would turn to Methodism. If that option were closed to me, yes, I would convert to Roman Catholicism. If that option were closed, I would return to my Classical Pentecostal roots. And if that option were closed, yes, I would become a Baptist. I say this not at all to be insulting to Baptists, but to lay my cards out on the table as to where I stand.

 

[Solo Christo]

Is he being serious???? Sorry, I haven't read it yet.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Solo Christo]

 

[truthman1972]

Baptismal regeneration or covenantal

Is he willing to abandon faith alone over the doctrine of padeobaptism? Maybe Im missing something.

 

[Solo Christo]

OK. I've read it. Is he being serious?!?!?!

 

[turmeric]

Pentecostal over Baptist? Veddy significant! A closet Arminian?

P.S; Poor John MacArthur! I hope he never sees where that guy said he was influenced by him!

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by turmeric]

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by turmeric
Pentecostal over Baptist? Veddy significant! A closet Arminian?

P.S; Poor John MacArthur! I hope he never sees where that guy said he was influenced by him!

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by turmeric]

LOL!

 

[Poimen]

He is right to some extent, since the doctrine of the church has been ignored or abused in NA rather shamefully.

At the same time, I wonder if these guys ever consider the following:

After the Reformers were kicked out of the church, there was only one true church: the Lutheran and Reformed (Anglican). The only other option were the Anabaptists who were largely heretics.

So when the Synod of Dordrecht met in 1618-1619, it was an ecumenical and catholic meeting right? Other than the Lutherans, who had by this time, largely capitulated to Semi-Pelagianism, and the Arminians themselves, there were no others to be sought within the fold of the visible Christian church. So when the Synod condemned Arminianism, the Canons, in effect, became an ecumenical creed for the visible church. In a sense it is a catholic creed, one we rightly as historical Protestants, say is binding on all to believe, just like the early creeds of the Christian church.

Or am I off here? At the very least, we ought to take the Canons more seriously as the basis for our unity...

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Solo Christo
OK. I've read it. Is he being serious?!?!?!

Yes he is. He is just bolder than some others in stating it.

As a friend of mine put it:

FV proponents fall over themselves to establish cordial relations with the RCC, while at the same time hammering Scots, Puritans, Southern Presbyterians and the vilest of all imaginable creatures.... B A P T I S T S... <shudder>

In essence, the men they seem to hate the most are those undeniably theologically furthest from the RCC, while those they tend to like the most are those closest to the RCC. In fact those Presbyterian theologians most despised and caricatured in their works are also those who denied that the RCC was a part of the visible church at all. In the FV we have a movement where conferences featuring Anglican Bishops and Roman Catholic Priests and sacerdotal inquiry are favored, while presumably the Banner of Truth, which brings together men from across the Reformed spectrum, but in particular Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists who share a mutual admiration for "puritan experimental theology" (which is perhaps the antithesis of opus operatum theology) and which purposely stays away from divisive wranglings over the sacraments, would be the least desirable of meetings. In other words the men we have historically shared common cause with in the Reformation Solas are to be discarded in favor of better relations with an organization that formally anathematized the gospel in the 16th century. Goodbye Al Mohler and Mark Dever, hello John Cardinal Newman.

And don't think this is lost on the Papists either:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ47.HTM#DIALOGUE WITH KEVIN D. JOHNSON ON THE

 

[turmeric]

Is this where Scott Hahn fits in?

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Solo Christo
OK. I've read it. Is he being serious?!?!?!

Yes he is. He is just bolder than some others in stating it.

As a friend of mine put it:

FV proponents fall over themselves to establish cordial relations with the RCC, while at the same time hammering Scots, Puritans, Southern Presbyterians and the vilest of all imaginable creatures.... B A P T I S T S... <shudder>

In essence, the men they seem to hate the most are those undeniably theologically furthest from the RCC, while those they tend to like the most are those closest to the RCC. In fact those Presbyterian theologians most despised and caricatured in their works are also those who denied that the RCC was a part of the visible church at all. In the FV we have a movement where conferences featuring Anglican Bishops and Roman Catholic Priests and sacerdotal inquiry are favored, while presumably the Banner of Truth, which brings together men from across the Reformed spectrum, but in particular Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists who share a mutual admiration for "puritan experimental theology" (which is perhaps the antithesis of opus operatum theology) and which purposely stays away from divisive wranglings over the sacraments, would be the least desirable of meetings. In other words the men we have historically shared common cause with in the Reformation Solas are to be discarded in favor of better relations with an organization that formally anathematized the gospel in the 16th century. Goodbye Al Mohler and Mark Dever, hello John Cardinal Newman.

And don't think this is lost on the Papists either:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ47.HTM#DIALOGUE WITH KEVIN D. JOHNSON ON THE

Well said. Who is your friend Fred?

 

[fredtgreco]

Rev. Andy Webb, pastor of Providence PCA in Fayettville, and owner of the Warfield List.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by poimen
He is right to some extent, since the doctrine of the church has been ignored or abused in NA rather shamefully.

I agree; he is correct, and possibly more than to a degree. I don't believe he is neccesarily abandoning soteriology for ecclesiology. He is placing ecclesiology (according to Christ) in it's rightful place. That rightful place can have a direct affect upon one's soteriology. Is there a standard for Christs church? Are those whom abandon the standard, anathema? If a line is not drawn, we must allow the house church movement it's cake. The edges have become blurred. There is either a standard or no standard at all; it cannot be both ways!

Is RC Sproul correct in his abandoning ties to the PCA and planting his independant flag? Is this not the beginning of the end?


[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Poimen]

I thought of something else this morning: how can these guys want to be so friendly with Rome? Rome is ardently amillennial and they (usually) are postmillenial, and rabidly so. They shoot down any in the Reformed camp who does not believe in a golden age before the return of Christ, but are holding hands with a girl who may or may not be the whore of Babylon!

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Rev. Andy Webb, pastor of Providence PCA in Fayettville, and owner of the Warfield List.

A dangerous guy! Stay away from him...

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by poimen
I thought of something else this morning: how can these guys want to be so friendly with Rome? Rome is ardently amillennial and they (usually) are postmillenial, and rabidly so. They shoot down any in the Reformed camp who does not believe in a golden age before the return of Christ, but are holding hands with a girl who may or may not be the whore of Babylon!

I think they like the idea of the Roman Church-State. The only unfortunate thing for them is that it will be Rome, not these ecclesiastical commandos, who will be dictating the terms of this church-state. Gandalf's conversation with Sauruman is very helpful here.

 

[JohnV]

Three questions I have:

1. Can the article referred to above, or rather the sentiment of the author, be summarized by this statement?

To reject infant baptism is to cut oneself off from the historic Catholic Church

Was that his point?

2. Is this, or the corallary reasons he states, sufficient reason to come to the conclusions he comes to?

3. Is he "blaming" opposition to paedo baptism for his own wishy-washy ecclesiological position?

If I may, a fourth question; one that expresses my concern with this article:

4. What if he really was committed to Presbyterianism, as he claims to be, and sees his options as an opposite direction instead? Namely, what if he felt it his responsibility to rehabilitate Presbyterianism? What then, if he were faced with an expulsion, in one form or another, from his Presbyterian church? What if he identified Presbyterianism more with the One True Church, (or at least respected it as such) rather than just a favourite denomination? Does this not say a whole lot more to his actual position than merely being a FV-ist, or any kind of -ist?

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by JohnV]

 

[Scott Bushey]

What if he identified Presbyterianism more with the One True Church, (or at least repsected it as such) rather than just a favourite denomination?

John,
Thats the way I took it.............The inuendo in regards to Rome; the way I took it is that he feels that Rome is more consistant historically than the protestants are. Rome is wrong, but at least they are consistant.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[JohnV]

Scott:

Yes, that hits it, I think. He claims affinity for consistency. But I think he gives up his own dedication to the consistency of truth itself, in a fallen race which is yet a holy church. What is he really wanting to be consistent to?

 

[turmeric]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by poimen
I thought of something else this morning: how can these guys want to be so friendly with Rome? Rome is ardently amillennial and they (usually) are postmillenial, and rabidly so. They shoot down any in the Reformed camp who does not believe in a golden age before the return of Christ, but are holding hands with a girl who may or may not be the whore of Babylon!

I think they like the idea of the Roman Church-State. The only unfortunate thing for them is that it will be Rome, not these ecclesiastical commandos, who will be dictating the terms of this church-state. Gandalf's conversation with Sauruman is very helpful here.

Didn't Jesus say that antichrist would attempt to fool the very elect?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by turmeric

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by poimen
I thought of something else this morning: how can these guys want to be so friendly with Rome? Rome is ardently amillennial and they (usually) are postmillenial, and rabidly so. They shoot down any in the Reformed camp who does not believe in a golden age before the return of Christ, but are holding hands with a girl who may or may not be the whore of Babylon!

I think they like the idea of the Roman Church-State. The only unfortunate thing for them is that it will be Rome, not these ecclesiastical commandos, who will be dictating the terms of this church-state. Gandalf's conversation with Sauruman is very helpful here.

Didn't Jesus say that antichrist would attempt to fool the very elect?

Now I have to modify my Hillary-is-antichrist thesis. I don't see her fooling any elect.