Posted on 11/09/2013 5:52:12 AM PST by Gamecock
In a post on the First Things blog today, Peter Leithart declares the “End of Protestantism.” It’s not at all clear, however, that he understands what he wants to end. He begins with a sociological observation about contemporary English non-conformists and uses that to leverage the definition of “Protestant,” which he proceeds to use as a foil to justify his refashioning of Protestantism.
For those who aren’t aware, until recently, he was Wilson’s right-hand man at HQ in Moscow. His mission, in which he seems to have succeeded (at least according to Lane Keister), was to take the sting out of the 2007 PCA GA ruling against the Federal Vision movement. Almost immediately after the ruling he, Wilson, and others issued a statement affirming the very errors rejected by the PCA. He was essentially daring the PCA to charge him. They did and, in what Lane Keister has called a “wagon-encircling kangaroo trial” his presbytery was unable to convict him. On appeal the Standing Judicial Commission voted 15-2 to refuse to consider the record of the trial, deciding to consider only procedural questions. As a result, Leithart remains a minister in good standing in the PCA while openly confessing doctrines at variance what was adopted by GA in 2007.
In the piece he juxtaposes “Protestant” with “Reformational Catholicism.” For anyone familiar with the rhetoric and teaching of the Reformers and their successors, this juxtaposition is just silly. The Protestants (Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin) and more to the point, the Reformed Churches did not cede the adjective “catholic” to the Romanists.
In contrast to the Reformed Reformation, Leithart wants to make Rome a true church. The Protestants and the Reformed Churches were the original Reformational Catholics. The Belgic Confession (1561), the confession of the Dutch Reformed Churches, distinguishes between the true church and the false church and sects (articles 28–29). It consigns Rome, with the Anabaptists, to the category of a false church or a sect. Calvin, in his lengthy response to the Council of Trent (a part of which you can read here) he castigated Rome for becoming a sect. William Perkins, in 1597, stoutly defended the confessional Protestants as the true catholics over against Rome. They accused Rome of becoming a sect because she, for the first time in the history of the church, in council, anathematized the holy gospel. In so doing, she cut herself off from the broad stream of the church universal (which is all catholic means). By definition, Roman Catholic is an oxymoron. There was a pastor in Rome, who arrogated to himself, over time, authority that belongs to no single pastor and then finally he made himself a competitor to the head of the church. For this reason, the Protestants, picking up the rhetoric of William of Ockham, called him antichrist.
Another great problem with Leithart’s analysis is that it doesn’t go far enough. He rejects prayers to saints, papal claims, the veneration of the host (i.e., the transubstantiated victim, which Rome claims to re-sacrifice memorially to turn away God’s wrath), prayers to the Blessed Virgin, and the elevation of tradition above Scripture. He affirms that “salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith” but, as we know from the 2007 FV Statement and his ecclesiastical trial, the the Federal Vision definition of faith in the act of justification is not that of the Westminster Confession (ch. 11).
He doesn’t understand why confessional Protestants are skeptical of Rome’s claim that she believes in “salvation by grace.” I guess Leithart slept through the ECT controversy. Sigh. Protestants who know their Reformation history don’t doubt that Rome confesses salvation by grace. What we reject is her definition of grace as a medicinal substance, with which we are infused, that enables us to cooperate reciprocally with grace unto sanctification progressively toward justification. Real Protestants don’t equivocate on that which Calvin called the “exclusive particle” (in his commentary on Gal 5:16) when it comes to justification. The doctrine of justification is as J. H. Alting, a Reformed theologian, wrote in the early 17th century, “the article of the standing or falling of the church.” A true Protestant knows that Rome defines faith, in the act of justification, as sanctification. We, by contrast, define it as the sole instrument, an empty hand that receives and rests in Christ and his finished work for us. For Rome, justification is an ongoing work in us. In that sense, “in” in the Roman preposition and for is the Protestant preposition. [Before the "union with Christ" folks get wound up, I said "in that sense." We believe in "in" too but that's another post].
Yes, Protestants are creedal. A true Protestant knows and confesses the original understanding of the creeds. That’s why they wrote so many commentaries on the creeds. That’s why Calvin structured his Institutes around the Apostles’ Creed and the book of Romans—it’s both/and, not either/or. A true Protestant, however, isn’t deceived by Cardinal Newman’s theory of “doctrinal development” or by Romanist sleight of hand post-Vatican II. Yes, some things have changed (and are changing still) but have the essential issues been resolved? No. Rome still denies free acceptance with God through faith (trust) alone grounded in the whole, perfect obedience of Christ imputed to us. She still denies the perspicuity of Scripture and its sole, unique authority over the church. We are not family and, according to Rome, the only way we can ever be family is to stop being Protestants. On this point Leithart’s claims are contrary to fact and incoherent.
Liturgical forms? The Reformed published Liturgical forms. Calvin had forms of prayer. Here’s the Heidelberg Liturgy. Calvin’s liturgy is well-known. It is discussed at length in Recovering the Reformed Confession and in “Calvin’s Principle of Worship.” Yes, the Westminster Directory for Public Worship (1644) offered rubrics rather than liturgy but there is strong unity in the Reformed dialogical principle and practice of worship: God speaks in his Word and sacraments and his people respond with his Word in prayer. Our worship is catholic! Transpose Calvin’s service over the 2nd century and it makes complete sense to Justin or Irenaeus or Polycarp. Transpose a Romanist service over the 2nd century and the fathers would repudiate it as collection of pagan rituals.
The Reformation isn’t over, not at least for the confessional Protestant churches, who don’t equivocate, who understand what Rome is really saying, who still submit to the Word of God as the sole, unique authority for faith and life, who affirm the sole sufficiency of Christ and righteousness for us for acceptance with God, for salvation from wrath, and for sanctification, who are resting in Christ and in his finished work for us, and who find their assurance in Christ for us and his promises to us. It’s unfortunate but telling that Leithart thinks these things are negotiable.
The Council of Trent resolved Martin Luther’s objections 45 years after he posted his complaint.
His followers and factions continued with new complaints and new divisions.
I DO know a bunch of atheists that are killing all religious people, though.
"Course .. THOSE people just LOVE for us to talk about religion.
Keeps the eye off of THEM.
Ping
I was lost in the second paragraph. Who is Wilson? What is a PCA? etc.
I doubt that this essay was written for the general public.
Calvin, in his lengthy response to the Council of Trent (a part of which you can read here) he castigated Rome for becoming a sect. William Perkins, in 1597, stoutly defended the confessional Protestants as the true catholics over against Rome. They accused Rome of becoming a sect because she, for the first time in the history of the church, in council, anathematized the holy gospel.
Could Leinart defined hos terms and delineated and flushed out his comparisons better absolutely. Could he have delved more exactingly and factually into history in which to flush out his arguments? Yes. However at least Leinart used ‘big theological’ words sparingly and spoke to the common reader which spurred discussion with real, everyday people—some of who had points of agreement and some of which rejected his thesis outright. Stll Leinart didn’t obscure through use of big wordism :). lol
Leinart=Leithart
Just wouldn't be "reformed" polemic without the "Papists re-sacrifice Jesus" lie, would it?
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]
Shh! Next you’ll be saying it’s more important to show kindness and charity toward your neighbor than to be positively certain your theology is absolutely correct and perfect in every particular. Can’t have that! /s
The headline doesn’t make sense. Was it miscopied?
I was lost in the second paragraph. Who is Wilson? What is a PCA? etc.
Wilson would be Douglas Wilson, who would be probably most familiar as one who did a debate movie with Christopher Hitchens.
PCA would be Presybterian Church of America.
I doubt that this essay was written for the general public.
It is pretty in house.
Amazing what a different perspective will do for you. I found Leinart to be insipid and heretical, most likely a liberal.
The wind blowing from the direction of Auburn Avenue smells of popery.
Leithart is not a liberal, he’s a Federal Visionista... which is a different kind of wrong.
Refutation of Calvinism:
Matt 7:21 - not everyone saying “Lord, Lord” will inherit the kingdom of heaven
Matt 24:13 - those who persevere to the end will be saved
Romans 11:22 - remain in his kindness or you will be cut off
Phil 2:12 - work out your salvation in fear and trembling
1 Cor 9:27 - drive body for fear of being disqualified
1 Cor 10:11-12 - those thinking they are secure may fall
Gal 5:4 - separated from Christ, you’ve fallen from grace
2 Tim 2:11-13 - must hold out to the end to reign with Christ
Hb 6:4-6 - describes sharers in Holy spirit who then fall away
Heb10:26-27 - if you sin after receiving the truth, judgement remains
It doesn't matter what the PCA is (you could google that). What is important is whether you adhere to the foundational truths laid out in the Westminster Confession or London Baptist Confession. They're pretty much one in the same and the root of Protestantism.
Now don't get me wrong. I never said he also was not the two things you mentioned :-D. I just didn't have the take away of the second analysis. I do however like your word choices. :)
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.