Posted on 12/16/2009 11:13:37 PM PST by Gamecock
I am a teenager, and thinking of going into church ministry when I'm older. I am attracted to the OPC, based on its faithfulness to Scripture. I noticed that the OPC holds to a "strict-subscriptionist" interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. I agree with them on every point, except perhaps one which I would like clarified.
The WCF, Chapter XXIV (Of Marriage and Divorce) reads as follows:
It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.
Now I fully agree that Christians may not, without sinning gravely, marry others who are not Christians. This is clearly Biblical teaching. However, would I be wrong in saying that Roman Catholics can be saved in spite of their Church?
So, my first question is whether you can please provide any Biblical evidence that a marrage between a Protestant and a saved Catholic is inherently and absolutely wrong (aside from the difficult circumstances it entails). My second question is, if I interpreted this article of the Westminster Confession of Faith in the sense that marriage with papists is bad but not absolutely forbidden by Scripture and thus not worthy of formal church discipline, would I be automatically barred from being an OPC minister?
Thanks so much for taking the time to read this!
Thanks for writing a letter that's quite sophisticated for a teenager. I hope the Lord will lead you into the ministry if that is his calling for you.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church can fairly be called a strict-subscriptionist church. But that statement doesn't end the matter. Men who are ordained in our church vow to receive the Westminster Standards "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." Some men take that virtually verbatim, while others disagree with a word or phrase in the confessional standards. Still others may, before a presbytery, take exception to something, and their views still be deemed within the "system of doctrine." But that's somewhat rarified theology which doesn't directly address your concerns.
Of course a Roman Catholic can be saved in spite of his church. That's a safe position to hold. A separate issue is marrying a Roman Catholic. And imbedded in this is the criteria for judging who is saved. We all agree that only God knows the heart. With that agreement certain necessary matters have to be observed. That's why, in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church tradition, it is the church session—not an individual like you or me—that makes the judgment that a person makes a credible profession of faith: not an infallible judgment and certainly not a subjective, theoretical opinion of the kind your remarks seem to suggest.
So let's say an Orthodox Presbyterian Church member wants to marry a "saved Roman Catholic." My counsel would be that he/she come before a church session as a candidate for communicant church membership, and be received into the church. That's the best we can do, humanly speaking, to determine whether one is saved, a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
That's the concern of the Westminster Confession of Faith: that we have a believer on our hands, whom a believer may marry with God's approval. The Westminster Confession of Faith's "necessary" qualification for a Christian marriage is to marry "only in the Lord" and not be "unequally yoked" with an unbeliever.
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church does hold "damnable heresies": the mass, confession and absolution by a priest, purgatory, Mary as "mother of God," "the queen of heaven," and "co-redemptrix," to say nothing of a pope speaking "ex cathedra" on doctrinal matters which members are bound by.
To repeat somewhat, it's not enough for any individual to judge whether a person is "saved." Leave it to the church to determine that question, and also the question of marrying a "saved" Roman Catholic. At the least, such a Roman Catholic should be interviewed by a church session. For such a marriage to take place, approval by a session is a must.
I hope my reply answers at least some of your concerns.
Hey, no blame. I am interested, though, in lowering the temperature so that those who want to act like rational animals looking at their differences will not be too hindered. So much of what people hate about our Faith is an invention. And if we can keep it together long enough to point that out, who knows who will be encouraged to re-think his unreasoning opposition?
The title of “co-redemptrix” has so far been rejected by Rome, probably precisely on the basis that it would cause confusion. Mary, as prototype of the Christian faith, is a means through which redeeming graces have flowed. Every Christian has received their faith, in part, through her, so she has participated in the redemption of every Christian; no other Christian has participated universally in the redemption of all Christians. For this reason, she has been called “co-redemptrix” by many Catholics for reasons which are not heretical.
HOWEVER, Mary is not the author of any such graces. Her role has been merely as a conduit through which graces have flowed. “Co” picks up connotations of equality, particular in English, which are not intended in the title, “co-redemptrix.” For instance, President Bush and Private Lynch are co-workers in the U.S. government, but if I called Lynch Bush’s coworker, you could reasonably infer a similarity in position that is unintended. To prevent such confusion, “co-redemptrix” has heretofore been denied status as a canonical title. But to simply deny that the “church” holds Mary as “co-redemptrix” could cause confusion among Protestants who may have seen it used by Catholics.
I would think that with all the issues facing us at this time, that we could dispense with this divisive crap.
I think the premium, gold-label, "Made with water from Lourdes" brand is called for.
Holy smoke!
10-4
Before you left full communion, did y'all read any of Scott Hahn's stuff?
It's funny you should say that, because the inverse thread, saying that Catholics should not marry Protestants, got a rather vigorous counter-reaction here just a couple of weeks ago.
Catholics should marry Catholics. I have an older catechism on the shelf that says that even dating a non-Catholic with any sort of seriousness is something that has to be brought up in confession.
A friend of mine was in the PCA. He converted to Catholicism. His wife divorced him over it, apparently with the approval of her minister. The same thing almost happened to Scott Hahn; a Presby minister friend counselled Kimberly to divorce him after he converted.
That's more than sufficient evidence for me to say that Presbyterian marriage vows do not mean what Catholic marriage vows mean.
Margaret: "Is that final, father?"
More: "Yes, Meg, so long as he's a heretic, that's final."
How very Papist. Actually, rather more "Papist" than even the Pope claims to be.
Good old Pleasantburg. How could one town produce both a Bob Jones and a Jesse Jackson...especially considering how nice a town it is?
Well we'd certainly hope so.......... :-)
What's the point of good flamebait if everyone just ignores it.......... :-)
“I hope this clarifies our belief”
OK my frigid Maine partner, let’s see if we have this right. Col. 1:16-17 says, “all things were created by him,(Jesus) and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” This must include all people, including Mary.
Following this to its logical conclusion, God created Mary who then gave birth to God. That would make God the mother and father of God. That sounds a lot like Latham and Jaffe’s take on a Mark Twain piece:
Many, many years ago when I was twenty-three
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.
My father fell in love with her and soon they, too, were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life
For my daughter was my mother, ‘cause she was my father’s wife.
To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.
My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad
For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother
To the widow’s grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my step-mother.
My father’s wife then had a son who kept them on the run
And he became my grand-child, ‘cause he was my daughter’s son.
My wife is now my mother’s mother, and it makes me blue
Because, although she is my wife, she’s my grandmother too.
If my wife is my grandmother, then I am her grandchild
And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
(This has got to be the strangest thing I ever saw)
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpaw.
Chorus
I’m my own grandpaw
I’m my own grandpaw
It sounds funny I know
but it really is so
Oh, I’m my own grandpaw.
p.s. The good news is only four more days until the days start getting longer; the bad news is there will be more daylight to see how much colder it is going to be.
Nestorianism lives and breathes in the XXI Century.
Appalling, isn't it?
ArrogantBustard:
I have pointed this same fact out over and over again, that the overwhelming majority of Protestants here are defacto Christological heretics as they reject Mary being dogmatically defined as the Theotokos, i.e. “The God Bearer”/ “Mother of God”. I have been there and done that with these people for the last 2 years and now just sit back and wach and read the nonsense that is posted and don’t comment as much. It is like that movie Groundhog day with Bill Murray, same nonsense different day.
Amen!
I married a born and raised papist who eventually led this born and raised Presbyterian to the comfort and assurance of the Scriptural, Calvinistic perspective.
As God wills.
“I would think that with all the issues facing us at this time, that we could dispense with this divisive crap.”
You’d think it, but whatever would the miscreants do to pass their time?
Preaching the truth may be divisive, but that is not a bad thing.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." -- 2 Timothy 4:2-4"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
zot
That's what happened in our house when Mom converted from southern Baptist to Catholicism, and all four of us offspring bailed on ANY church at all for many MANY years. I ended up Catholic, one sib is Evangelical, one is mainline Protestant, and one is still wandering.
Of course; +John said it so much better:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 3πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
"That would make God the mother and father of God."
No, that would make God the creator of the Most Holy Theotokos, not her mother nor her father for that matter (except to the extent that He is Our Father). Her mother was +Anna and her father was +Joachim.
It was 19 degrees last Sunday AM as I drove through Pittsfield, thought of your folks and said a prayer of thanksgiving for their many years! :)
2 Degrees when I left the house for court this morning.
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.