Posted on 12/12/2014 8:42:11 AM PST by Gamecock
Darryl Hart has a thought-provoking post today on Rick Warren’s recent comments about what Rome and Protestants have in common.
Warren’s comments are a sterling reminder of the importance of knowing our church history. Yes, Christians of all the major traditions receive the biblical and catholic truths of the Holy Trinity and the two natures of Christ. Yes, confessional Protestants are committed to the protection of unborn humans and the affirmation of a creational order for sex and marriage—is Pope Francis committed to the latter?—but we share these commitments with Mormons, Jews, and even some atheists. Obviously, these concerns, as important as they are, are hardly a basis for making the sorts of sweeping generalizations that Warren expressed in the interview.
It is also true that we understand those biblical, catholic truths and their implications rather differently than Rome does, a fact that Warren ignores. No one who knows what Rome teaches accuses her of confessing that Mary has been deified. Roman dogma is offensive enough without embellishment. Rome confesses that Mary is mediatrix, an adjutrix (helper). The very notion that anyone other than Jesus hears our prayers and intercedes for us is nothing less than blasphemy against the Son of God, about whom Scripture says, “For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus… (1 Tim 2:5). There are no other mediators. Just Jesus. Hebrews 9:15 says, “Therefore he is the Mediator of a new covenant…” (Heb 9:15). He is “the Mediator of a new covenant…” (Heb 12:24). Nowhere does Holy Scripture teach, imply, or even vaguely suggest that the blessed virgin Mary was ever to be a mediatrix. It is blasphemy against Christ to suggest that she is because it clearly implies that Jesus’ work and person are insufficient. They are not. They could not be.
We heartily confess, with Chalcedon (451) that Mary was the God bearer (θεοτόκος) but Jesus is God. He was in the beginning with God and is God (John 1:1). Mary is not. The earliest Fathers knew nothing about Mary as mediatrix. The notion that Mary was anything more than God bearer was hotly controverted in the medieval church. The magisterial, confessional Protestants, rejected the sectarian doctrine of Mary as mediatrix. That’s not a small thing. We also reject the sectarian dogma that other deceased Christians hear prayers or intercede for us on the same grounds. There is no other name given under heaven (Acts 4:12). None. Rev. Warren, says, “”When you understand what they mean by what they’re saying, there’s a whole lot more commonality.” That’s simply and categorically false. Read the teaching of the Roman catechism and the other magisterial documents. I have. It’s quite clear and it’s not at all clear that Warren has or that he has understood what Rome teaches.
He says, “Now there’s still real differences, no doubt about that. But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we’re on the same team.” Again, the question has never been “who loves Jesus.” This was one of the red herrings of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement. Indeed, there are real differences:
So, yes, there are real areas of disagreement. Confessional Protestants understand these to be fundamental to the Christian faith, so basic that we charged the Roman communion of departing from the catholic faith and of becoming a sect.
Warren’s comments illustrate the importance of having a robust doctrine of creation and providence. Absent those, Warren’s only recourse is to minimize the theological and ecclesiastical differences between Protestants and Rome. He knows of no other way to make common social, cultural cause with them. Here is where distinguishing between spheres or recognizing God’s twofold kingdom in the world helps us to recognize what is, in God’s general providence, common (not neutral) to believers and unbelievers or common to citizens in the common cultural or civil sphere and what is not. Confessional Reformed Christians need not cash in the Reformation in order to make common social, cultural, or civil cause with those with whom we have deep theological and ecclesiastical disagreements.
Second, they illustrate why it is so important for all Christians to have a basic knowledge of church history. Were Warren better educated in church history, were he to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other more recent declarations, in light of the history of the church he would know how idiosyncratic, how novel, and utterly Tridentine Rome really is. The truth for all those who are tempted to swim the Tiber (covert to Rome) is that there is no “Rome Sweet Home.” There are as many “Romes” as there are converts. The ex-evangelical converts have their version of Rome. The liberals have their version of Rome. It’s a Babylon of competing visions only apparently unified. All one need to do is read Darryl Hart’s running commentary on contemporary Romanism to know how deeply divided Romanists really are. To paraphrase Obi Wan, Rome is not the church you’re looking for. The second-century Apostolic Fathers would be horrified by Rome as would most of the church through the 13th century. When the Protestants rejected Romanist innovations they were not rejecting the ancient Christian faith, they were seeking to recover it.
Ping
I’ll take the Catholics and lay the points.
Most Jews could care less about abortion, one way or the other. Same goes for unnatural marriage. They could care less. About 90% vote for democrats.
Oh, my, what would all these protestants do if Rick Warren converted to Catholicism?
You are absolutely right. It’s even in their “ethics”. (Yea, I know, world’s shortest book.) Abortion isn’t a transgression unless the baby is ‘viable’. Can you imagine a couple of rabbis twisting the law on viability? Whatever helps them in this world - Eden on Earth - is fine. “You take the next life, we got this one.”
Welcome him home.
I don’t know about the Protestants but those of us who understand prophesy have been expecting those types of things.
“Oh, my, what would all these protestants do if Rick Warren converted to Catholicism?”
Say ‘good riddance’.
Cheer. Good riddance...
Dance in the streets?
Rejoice? Same thing as he is doing now, but then he could lay claim to an extra 2000 years of making it up as you go.
Thanks for posting this. While I appreciate Dr. Scott a lot and read him regularly, I take a somewhat different view of Rick Warren. I don’t think he’s ignorant of church history or Rome at all. He’s well read, brilliant, and cagey, so I suspect he knows exactly what he’s doing. I believe Warren is a dangerous deceiver who is bound to and determined to lead the way to Laodicea.
+1
” I suspect he knows exactly what he’s doing. I believe Warren is a dangerous deceiver who is bound to and determined to lead the way to Laodicea.”
+1
Evangelicals are often equated with fundamentalists or the religious right, which annoys Warren. Although he's politically conservative - opposing abortion and gay marriage and supporting the death penalty - he pushes a much broader agenda and disdains both politics and fundamentalism....Warren predicts that fundamentalism, of all varieties, will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century."
-- from the The purpose-driven pastor (Rick Warren calls Christian fundamentalists an enemy)"The evangelical movement has been confused with both the religious right and fundamentalism, which it is not. I'm not a fundamentalist, and I'm not part of the religious right."
-- from the thread Rick Warren in his own words
The truth for all those who are tempted to swim the Tiber (covert to Rome) is that there is no “Rome Sweet Home.” There are as many “Romes” as there are converts. The ex-evangelical converts have their version of Rome. The liberals have their version of Rome. It’s a Babylon of competing visions only apparently unified. All one need to do is read Darryl Hart’s running commentary on contemporary Romanism to know how deeply divided Romanists really are.
....If the Roman Catholic apologist wants...to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition)....
-- from the thread 30,000 Protestant Denominations?
Decrease the percentage of "voted Democrat in the last election" in the Evangelical category, and increase it in the Catholic category?
Related thread:
Joel Osteen Joins With Catholics To Convert Confused Protestants
Consider it as proof that he’s lost his senses.
1.Does God accept us because of what Christ did for us (pro nobis) or on be basis of what God the Spirit is doing in us with which we are freely cooperating?”
Both! The first point(death and resurrection) gets us into the door...the second develops out of the first point as an on going relationship that continues from our initial salvation! The question is not really a question but a “splitting hairs game” of silly semantics!
Look at the pro-life movement. Catholics held that bag for quite some time. Then Protestants got on board and realized that Catholics don't have horns.
But we need to have some point at which we say to each other that we do have more in common and then decide to build friendships from there.
It is called honest dialogue and it is something I think Jesus would really appreciate.
People don't have to convert to another's religion just because they agree on the basics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.