Y’all coming? Steven Wedgeworth and I will be doing a class on “Romanism and Orthodoxy” this coming Saturday at the Bucer Institute (starts at 9:00 a.m. in the Jackson House). It should be fun as we consider these two communions and the problems that they face in their doctrine and practice. Wedge will be carrying the main load giving three of the four lectures on the peculiar attractions of Rome and Constantinople; the peculiar teachings of each; and what the future holds for us who are happily Reformed. Ought to be very helpful, so come if you’re in the area and can make it.
September Bucer Class
September 9, 2009 by Joe
Posted in Uncategorized | 69 Comments
69 Responses
Leave a reply to Curate Cancel reply
-
RECENT POSTS
Blogs
Churches
- AAPC – Monroe, LA
- All Saints, Fort Worth
- Christ Church, Livingston County
- Christ Church, Moscow
- Christ Church, Santa Clarita
- Christ Church, Searcy
- Christ Covenant, San Antonio
- Christ Presbyterian, Baton Rouge
- Christ Reformed, Meeker
- Church of the King, Sacramento
- Cornerstone Reformed, Carbondale
- Covenant Presbyterian, Sulphur
- Emmanuel Covenant, Phoenix
- Grace Covenant, Nacogdoches
- Heritage Covenant, Weatherford
- Immanuel Presbyterian, Clinton
- Reformation Covenant, Oregon City
- Salem Reformed, Rome
- St. David’s, Houston
- St. Mark Reformed, Nashville
- The Evangelical Reformed Church of Gdansk
- Trinity Church, Kirkland
- Trinity Church, Moscow
- Trinity Presbyterian, Birmingham
- Trinity Presbyterian, Valparaiso
Family Blogs
Booksneeze
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I am writing to you on the occasion of your Bucer Institute session entitled “Romanism & Orthodoxy.” During this conference you will “…deal with the history of development of the Roman and Orthodox Churches, their errors, why people are tempted to join them.”
I am a former Deacon in the Presbyterian Church in America. I was a Deacon of John Knox Presbyterian Church in Ruston, Louisiana while Jeffrey Steel was serving as pastor. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Jeffrey Steel, his former congregation, and to the pastor and congregation of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church for the many ways in which they ministered to me, strengthened my faith, and contributed to my walk with Christ. My journey has now led me to a place that I find many of you are uncomfortable with. I am now a Roman Catholic layman. In addition, I am actively discerning a vocation as a Catholic priest, all of which will, Lord willing, transpire in God’s time.
I write out of concern for the possible content of your presentation about the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith. Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen famously said, “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.” I recall sitting at a Pastor’s conference, not so many years ago, at Auburn Avenue Church, where Pastor Steve Wilkins was publically called a “heretic.” I remember the shock I felt over this. I remember the lack of charity displayed by those who attacked him. I recall the utter scandal that erupted due to the unfortunate attacks of well-meaning men, who did not, and do not, accurately understand the teachings of men like Pastor Steve Wilkins. I hope and trust that you, during your considerations about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will show the charity and understanding to those of us who are Catholic or Orthodox that was not afforded to you by your Presbyterian brethren. Please do not solely rely on someone else’s take on Catholicism or Orthodoxy to form your opinion of our traditions. Please go to the source to add to your understanding of these ancient traditions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and numerous blogs, websites, popular and scholarly books, as well as many knowledgeable Catholics can serve to answer your questions or objections about our faith. I am not asking you to convert today. I am asking you to show charity and truly educate yourselves about our faith.
You will speak about many aspects of our faith which you view to be in error. I understand. However, I want to make it as clear as possible that ultimately the entire Catholic faith stands or falls on one issue. That is the issue of authority. You may speak about our treasured doctrines such as the communion of the Saints, the Marian dogmas, transubstantiation, the canon of Scriptures, or the celibacy of the priesthood. Ultimately what must be considered is Jesus’ authority in the Church, how it is administered today, and what role St. Peter and the other apostles play in the exercising of this authority. This central issue influences every other aspect of our faith.
In the end, I hope we can, in spite of our differences learn to live and work together for the glory of God and the advancement of his kingdom. Christians are faced with monstrous opposition from secularism to militant Islam. The sooner we can find common ground and have honest and fruitful dialog the better off we are.
In Christ
B.J., thanks for your concern. I can assure you that we will be careful to get our information about the Roman Church straight out of Roman sources only — not only “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and numerous blogs, websites, popular and scholarly books, as well as many knowledgeable Catholics,” as you encourage us to do, but also from the Decrees of the Council of Trent, the declarations of the popes, and the online Catholic Encyclopedia (among others). So everything will be a reflection on what is actually taught by the Roman church and not what somebody thinks they teach.
I greatly appreciate your concern that charity be extended by us toward those who are members of the Roman Church and again, I will assure you that this will be done. I’m a bit baffled, however, over your concern when your own church is so sectarian, schismatic, and uncharitable toward the rest of us.
I have never (and never will) anathematize those who disagree with one of my opinions which has no clear scriptural support. I won’t even anathematize those who disagree with opinions that have clear scriptural support, depending upon the issue discussed. But Rome does this over nearly every one of their strange views where others disagree because they have no Biblical support (the invocation of the saints, the assumption of Mary and her immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc., etc.). I would LOVE some charity from your fellow communicants — and especially from the pope! But alas there is none forthcoming. According to official Roman doctrine, I am not even a member of the true Church and so, cannot even be considered a full-fledged brother of yours.
Charity, it seems, is only a concern of those who have converted to the Roman church (and they demand it from their former friends). But you are forbidden to reciprocate toward us.
I truly regret this and am heartily sorry that you have forsaken the Catholic church. I really wish you would reconsider your decision and return back to us. We would love to have you. (and I’m not being sarcastic)
I hope your meeting today was productive and charitable. I would have replied by now but I was in attendance at our Cathedral in Shreveport this morning at an Extraordinary Form Mass, i.e. Tridentine Latin Mass, and then had a class to attend this afternoon before I begin teaching Confirmation classes to the teens at my parish tomorrow morning.
The Catholic Church views anyone who is baptized into the name of the Holy Trinity to be a true Christian. We are all part of the one Body of Christ. Non-Catholic Christians can also be saved along side Catholics. Many Catholics, and non-Catholics, will stand before Christ in glory, just as many will be punished in the Lake of Fire for eternity. The difference is that the Catholic Church views other Christian “Churches” as “sects” or “Ecclesial Communities” according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These sects or communities are groups of brother and sister Christians who have walked away from the visible unity of the Church, or, whose forbearers walked away from the visible unity of the Church. Jesus has one Church and we are all incorporated into her (His Body) via Baptism. That is spiritual and mystical. However, we know that every body has a spiritual and physical reality. The Catholic position is that non-Catholics are separated from the visible unity of the Church. Someone may argue that the spiritual is more important. However we see that Jesus prayed for the visible unity of the Church, the apostles argue for it as the Bible shows us, and this Church has historically taught that any such emphasis of the spiritual over and against the physical is a heresy and it is identified as Gnosticism. Jesus desires holistic unity. Catholicism is burdened with a desire to restore the visible unity of the Church, which is the desire of Jesus. Catholicism also acknowledges the role it has played in causing the disunity of the visible body.
Trust me when I say the Catholic Church is very desirous of re-unity with other Christians. Pope Benedict has been a Pope who has labored for making peace with those who are divided from the visible fold. I feel he is an embodiment of charity, humility, and meekness. He is working hard with the Orthodox Church, excommunicated Catholic religious groups, many Anglicans, and anyone else who is interested in working on unity. Honestly, and not to poke fun at other Christian communities, but more often than not I see division in them while the Catholic Church is seeking re-unity, and creatively so.
The Catholic Church must and will stand on its dogmas. The Catholic Church for the sake of “unity” or “charity” will not jettison the dogmas that Protestants find repugnant. What would we think if, for the sake of charity, the Catholic Church jettisoned the Creeds for the sake of welcoming Arians back into the fold? That would be absurd. I am sure the Arians consider this “sectarian, schismatic, and uncharitable,” but to bend the truth for the sake of “unity” is not charitable at all. Unity without truth is no unity.
If you, as you say, are truly reading the primary sources of the Catholic faith, then surely by now you would have read the nearly infinite biblical and historical data which Catholicism uses in support of each and every teaching of the Church.
“I truly regret this and am heartily sorry that you have forsaken the Catholic church. I really wish you would reconsider your decision and return back to us. We would love to have you. (and I’m not being sarcastic).”
I don’t believe you are being sarcastic, but I think you are wrong. If someone asked you for directions to the “Catholic Church” would you really point to your congregation or direct them down the road? You are a fine historian, and I respect your ability to present history in an edifying and enjoyable way, but this isn’t sound history right here. Who would dare say that a franchise restaurant which breaks away from the chain, yet still calls itself by the name of the chain, is legitimate? No one. Outside the visible unity of the Roman Catholic Communion you can still be a Christian but you can’t call your community of Christians the Catholic Church.
If we are going to have productive dialog at all we need to primimarly address one issue first. This is the authority of St. Peter. Let’s leave purgatory, Mary, etc, out of this and deal with St. Peter. Who is St. Peter to you? Please explain, and from this point we may be able to begin to have fruitful and charitable dialog about the Catholic faith. In fact, initially, we can consider the Biblical evidence alone, as we both acknowledge that the Bible is authoritative in our lives.
I, also, truly regret and am heartily sorry that you forsake the Catholic Church. I really wish you would reconsider your position, and come back to the Church your forbearers left. We would love to have you, and I am not being sarcastic either.
BTW, I really do prefer to be called Thomas now. Thank you for your response.
Ro·man·ism (rō′mən iz′əm)
noun
1. Roman Catholicism: hostile usage
A-nath-e-ma
–noun, plural -mas.
1. a person or thing detested or loathed
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
tell me about “hostile usage”
That was helpful. Now things are starting to fall into place, and I think I finally understand what this is all about.
Thanks
KB
Kevin,
Don’t know how you took that (Steve’s last comment), but putting the best construction on it, I’d say Pastor Wilkins was refering to the RC usage of the term ‘anathema’ in reference to those of us who belief in Justification by Faith.
Don’t we all?
Is there any possibility that the lectures will be put online in some format? I cannot be there, since I am in England, but I would love to read or hear the talks.
Roger du Barry
Yes, these lectures will be available from Auburn Avenue Media.
http://www.auburnavenue.org or http://www.bucerinstitute.org
– Jarrod Richey
Auburn Avenue Media
jrichey@auburnavenue.org
Sure Kevin, if you say so, but that was not (the red herring) that I was talking about. I was saying that you apparently were misreading what Pastor was saying. True?
No, Ed.
I did not misread what he was saying.
I understood exactly what he was referring to, just like you.
And as I said, I understand.
KB
Kevin,
If that is the case then your comments make no sense.
What then do you mean by “I think I finally understand what this is all about?” as a response to Pastor’s remark?
I know I am dull of wit, so you will have to help me here.
What do your comments mean?
Ed,
I meant, and I mean:
A. I realize that his comments referred to the Council of Trent, probably in particular, or really any pronouncement of anathema by the Church against those who have departed from the Church’s authority and teaching.
B. I understand what is driving this recent obsession with the Catholic Church.
KB
a.) Do you then not regard an anathama toward those who do not agree with all sorts of particular Romish theological positions as hostile?
b) Well than, enlighten us. What IS driving this recent “obsession?”
I think I know, but I’ll bet you have a different answer.
Ed,
a.) It depends on your view of exactly what is the Church.
From the perspective of those who have departed from the Catholic Church, it certainly would appear arrogant, hostile, outrageous, schismatic, sectarian, etc.
From the perspective of the Catholic Church, and in the historical context of the pronouncements of the Church, it is a necessary pronouncement that carries with it the weight of legitimate apostolic authority, and carries with it as much opportunity for mercy as condemnation, depending upon how it is received.
b.) I prefer not to talk about it.
KB
Yeah, ok.
That’s what I thought.
Thomas Kennedy wrote:
“I hope your meeting today was productive and charitable.”
I think it was and I hope you will obtain the MP3s or the CDs and listen.
“I would have replied by now but I was in attendance at our Cathedral in Shreveport this morning at an Extraordinary Form Mass, i.e. Tridentine Latin Mass, and then had a class to attend this afternoon before I begin teaching Confirmation classes to the teens at my parish tomorrow morning.
“The Catholic Church views anyone who is baptized into the name of the Holy Trinity to be a true Christian. We are all part of the one Body of Christ. Non-Catholic Christians can also be saved along side Catholics. Many Catholics, and non-Catholics, will stand before Christ in glory, just as many will be punished in the Lake of Fire for eternity. The difference is that the Catholic Church views other Christian “Churches” as “sects” or “Ecclesial Communities” according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These sects or communities are groups of brother and sister Christians who have walked away from the visible unity of the Church, or, whose forbearers walked away from the visible unity of the Church. Jesus has one Church and we are all incorporated into her (His Body) via Baptism. That is spiritual and mystical.”
No it’s unbiblical and peculiar. The “body of Christ” is the Church of the living God. The Roman Church refuses to acknowledge us to be members of the Church and therefore excludes us from “the body of Christ.” It’s only because of its inability to live with the implications of its arrogance that it goes on to say “But all baptized people are members of the Body.” Howso? There is no biblical rationale, it’s pure sentimentalism – and, don’t get me wrong, I’m very thankful you’re willing to be inconsistent with the Roman church’s position – those who came before you tried to kill us, so this is a great improvement in attitude for which we thank God.
“However, we know that every body has a spiritual and physical reality. The Catholic position is that non-Catholics are separated from the visible unity of
the Church. Someone may argue that the spiritual is more important. However we see that Jesus prayed for the visible unity of the Church, the apostles argue for it as the Bible shows us, and this Church has historically taught that any such emphasis of the spiritual over and against the physical is a heresy and it is identified as Gnosticism. Jesus desires holistic unity. Catholicism is burdened with a desire to restore the visible unity of the Church, which is the desire of Jesus. Catholicism also acknowledges the role it has played in causing the disunity of the visible body.
“Trust me when I say the Catholic Church is very desirous of re-unity with other Christians. Pope Benedict has been a Pope who has labored for making peace with those who are divided from the visible fold. I feel he is an embodiment of charity, humility, and meekness. He is working hard with the Orthodox Church, excommunicated Catholic religious groups, many Anglicans, and anyone else who is interested in working on unity. Honestly, and not to poke fun at other Christian communities, but more often than not I see division in them while the Catholic Church is seeking re-unity, and creatively so.”
The unity the pope seeks is indistinguishable from the “unity” sought by the hyper-Reformed – “We are very desirous of re-unity, all you have to do is drop your errant views and embrace our position.” I fail to see the “creativity” or, more importantly, the humility of either form of sectarianism.
“The Catholic Church must and will stand on its dogmas. The Catholic Church for the sake of “unity” or “charity” will not jettison the dogmas that Protestants find repugnant. What would we think if, for the sake of charity, the Catholic Church jettisoned the Creeds for the sake of welcoming Arians back into the fold? That would be absurd. I am sure the Arians consider this “sectarian, schismatic, and uncharitable,” but to bend the truth for the sake of “unity” is not charitable at all. Unity without truth is no unity.”
Hey, if we’re talking orthodox views of the Trinity, I’m fine with refusing to back away from clear, fundamental, and Biblical teaching. But we’re talking about things like the “bodily assumption” of Mary and her “immaculate conception” and “perpetual virginity” purgatory and indulgences! I get antathematized because I can’t see any biblical support for these strange opinions? No matter how you try to paint it, this is schismatic and sectarian from top to bottom.
“If you, as you say, are truly reading the primary sources of the Catholic faith, then surely by now you would have read the nearly infinite biblical and historical data which Catholicism uses in support of each and every teaching of the Church.”
nearly “infinite” biblical and historical data? Wow, that must be a lot. To quote that very fine linguist and social critic, Inigo Montoya, “I don’t think this word means what you think it means.”
“I truly regret this and am heartily sorry that you have forsaken the Catholic church. I really wish you would reconsider your decision and return back to us. We would love to have you. (and I’m not being sarcastic).”
“I don’t believe you are being sarcastic, but I think you are wrong. If someone asked you for directions to the “Catholic Church” would you really point to your congregation or direct them down the road?”
Sure. Why not? The difference is I wouldn’t say that the only way you could be a member of the “Catholic Church” by joining my own. I recognize that the catholic church is bigger than my own denomination.
“You are a fine historian, and I respect your ability to present history in an edifying and enjoyable way, but this isn’t sound history right here. Who would dare say that a franchise restaurant which breaks away from the chain, yet still calls itself by the name of the chain, is legitimate? No one. Outside the visible unity of the Roman Catholic Communion you can still be a Christian but you can’t call your community of Christians the Catholic Church.”
No, your analogy is backwards. Here’s a better one: The chain of restaurants is taken over by a gang of unfaithful, power-hungry men who change the menu and start serving sub-standard food (some of it quite unhealthy, if not poisonous) and then they tell everybody that they haven’t changed anything but are simply keeping the old, trusted and tried menu we’ve always had. Then they accuse me of changing the menu and trying to poison people with bad food and follow up their slander by trying to run me out of business, threatening my employees, trying to take away our livelihoods and hiring “hit men” to take out my best managers and me! In such a situation, I certainly have the right to call them to repentance, to take measures of self-defense, and begin a new chain of restaurants that actually does maintain the old menu, providing some nourishing and tasty items which get better over time and actually give people good food which strengthens them, good food at a great price with faithful service and which promotes their happiness and well-being. Further, I have the right to point out the criminal activity and dishonesty of those who highjacked the original chain and to demonstrate that our new chain is in fact the one who faithfully maintains the traditions of the old and thus, has the legitimate claim to the name.
“If we are going to have productive dialog at all we need to primimarly address one issue first. This is the authority of St. Peter. Let’s leave purgatory, Mary, etc, out of this and deal with St. Peter. Who is St. Peter to you? Please explain, and from this point we may be able to begin to have fruitful and charitable dialog about the Catholic faith.”
Well, you may think this needs to be addressed, but I think the Bible has already addressed this pretty clearly. Peter was one of the twelve. He is consequently one of those upon whom the Church is founded with Jesus as the Chief cornerstone. He has no peculiar supremacy over the other apostles at all. He may never have gone to Rome, so he had very little to do with the church founded there. He certainly was never considered to be a “pope” and thus, the claim of the bishop of Rome to supremacy is false: Biblically unwarranted and historically unfounded. There’s no point in pretending that this discussion hasn’t occurred.
The reality is, the historic position of the Church is no longer satisfactory to you. You now are willing to grant legitimacy to the Roman bishop. I’m not. You are now willing to embrace dogmas that have no Biblical foundation, defend them, and anathematize all who will not accept the unbiblical teachings of Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily assumption, purgatory, indulgences, etc., etc., etc. I view your position as abhorrent. It is incredibly uncharitable, schismatic, sectarian, and uncatholic. You’ve already admitted that the Church must not its allow its dogma to be reformed by the Word of God or altered. Thus, the catholicity you call for is simply another form of the arrogant sectarianism that we’ve seen over and over through the past 500 years and I for one, am tired of viewing it as a legitimate position.
Bottom line: I’m happy being catholic. You’re not. The Roman Church can have no credibility until it is honestly willing to examine all its dogmas and practices in the light of the Word of God and acknowledge that it has made some serious mistakes and misjudgments and stands, like the rest of us, in continual need of ongoing repentance and new obedience — i.e. true reformation according to the Scriptures.
Wow. Pardon my French, but you seem a little pissed off. I am not sure what the catalysts to your current foray against the Catholic Church are, but the conversation continues.
My responses will have to be somewhat short, not because I am being “short” with you, but because I have a lot on my plate today.
I do plan to obtain the CDs or MP3s. I look forward to hearing them. I am glad you have made them available for sale. I’ll check out the Auburn Avenue Media page soon.
Pastor Steve, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says you are incorporated into the Body of Christ by baptism. You teach that, we teach that. If you don’t recognize the Catholic Church teaching that, you have misinterpreted the Catechism or have not read it. For the record, I am fully in line with the Catholic Church’s teaching and dogma. I affirm it and embrace it.
Truth requires that you embrace it and leave error behind. This is why Rome is unable to shed any dogma.
The same Church that declared what the orthodox view of the Trinity is also declared that it is orthodox to believe the “bodily assumption” and the other beliefs you find strange. What is strange is to believe the dogmatic truth of the Trinity, declared by the authority of the Church, and then reject the authority of the Church on other beliefs which you, by the authority of your private opinion and fallible interpretation of the Bible, decide are unorthodox. I feel much safer placing my faith in the authority of the Church rather than in my own private interpretation of the Bible.
Yes, I do know what the word “infinite” means. Again, if you were truly reading the Catechism and other such Catholic sources, you would have encountered the biblical and historical data for each and every teaching of the Church. Just Google this stuff and it will easily yield this data to you.
You say, “…those who came before you tried to kill us…trying to take away our livelihoods and hiring ‘hit men’ to take out my best managers and me!…criminal activity…dishonesty…” and the accusations go on. We both have to admit there were serious mistakes made by both sides in the past. I don’t know of any Catholic, or Protestant, hit squads on the streets today. Queen Mary gets a bad rap as “Bloody Mary,” but what about “Bloody Elizabeth” who had many times more people killed for there faith? What about the Protestant riots in Germany which Luther had to quell? My point is that both sides have sinned. If we can’t see that, admit that, confess that, and bury that, to move on toward better days, then I’m afraid we won’t have much luck talking to each other. Paranoia has to end. There is no boogie man.
I will try to post a separate entry on the biblical nature of St. Peter sometime in the next day or two, as it will take much more time to write.
I do grant legitimacy to the Roman bishop. I pledge fidelity to his supremacy and his God given ministry to the universal flock of all Christians. I’m not going to entertain your thoughts on my “abhorrent” views. We obviously disagree on that point. The rhetoric has to stop somewhere and the conversation has to begin. I hope that will begin when I post the biblical support of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors. If you can convince me that my view of St. Peter is inaccurate biblically, then I will eat my words and become a member of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. You know I put my money where my mouth is. It was my conviction that brought me to Rome, and only conviction would ever take me away from her. Nevertheless, I am firmly convicted that Rome is the Church, biblically and historically. I hope you would be as willing to follow the truth as I am, no matter what surprising place it may take you.
In Christ,
Thomas
oh my, sorry, but you’ve completely misread the spirit of my post. There’s no piss nor anger. There is a great deal of sorrow and disappointment. You have to realize that you are not the first to repeat the arguments of the Roman church and that others are not totally ignorant of them. Nor is the reason that we disagree that we simply haven’t carefully considered the biblical and historical arguments Rome has to offer. (Nor is it that we unwilling to be led to “surprising places”!) I’ve interacted with Rome’s views off and on for over 35 years and I must tell you, the closer I look at them, the more incredible and less legitimate they appear. Indeed, the more I learn about them, the more outrageous and offensive they become to me.
Over the past few years I’ve become more aware and more amazed over the smugness, arrogance, and intolerance of Rome toward other Christians as well her blithe indifference to what seem to me to be the plain teachings of Scripture. And I continue to be astonished each day listening to her defenders stand by all that without blinking and (apparently) without a second thought.
It’s clear where you stand. At this point there’s little that can be said that would be persuasive to you and I’m certainly not interested in being made to appear more closed minded and “dishonest” than I’ve already been accused of being. I would simply encourage you not to follow some of your compatriots who have gone from Protestantism to Rome and now are even more sectarian and schismatic than ever — and others who have become so disenchanted that they have renounced the faith completely.
Live long and prosper out there in sectarianland — as I said, I’m really happy to be just a plain ole catholic.
‘Jesus did not found a Catholic party in a cosmopolitan debating society but a Catholic Church to which he promised the fullness of truth; a body which reduces its Catholics to a party within a religious parliament can hardly deserve to be called a branch of the Catholic Church, but a national religion, dominated by and structured on the principles of liberal tolerance in which the authority of revelation is subordinate to democracy and private opinion.’ Benedict XVI
That sounds a lot like Wedgeworth’s version of the ‘successful’ American Christianity. Without an enemy for the ‘Reformed’ there is no purpose of existence. Now that the TR Evangelicals are off the radar screen a new target is needed for the justification of one’s existence.
But, the truth is the real fear is found in G.K. Chesterton’s words.
‘It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it.’
So, remember dear friends, ‘The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid but ends up making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious and everything else becomes clear.’– Chesterton
Kevin, you are an apostate and an idolator. How can you of all people lead us to the truth? Repent of your self-chosen hero worship of the bishop of Rome, ask for forgiveness from God and the church you betrayed, and then come to to learn, not teach.
The Bishop of Rome is an anti-Christ. The evidence is clear and unambiguous. He has declared himself to be the ruler not only of the world’s Christians, but the ruler of all the rulers of the earth.
That kind of megalomania is shared by people like Hitler. He has the pride and arrogance of the devil, and must be resisted as firmly.
Christ is the only ruler of rulers, and the only King of kings. That is why he is the Christ. Christ is King.
Curate,
Is there anything in particular that I said here that your are responding to, or did you just feel the need to say that I am an apostate and an idolator?
KB
Jeff,
You are still defining “Catholic Church” as the ministerium rather than the people of God. That’s why you can’t understand my point about reality and history. It has nothing to do with debating points. It has to do with civics.
Steven, wrong, I define the Catholic Church as communio which includes the laos. But in the history of the Church you can’t do anything without the Bishop, especially the Eucharist, and to do so is schismatic according to reality and history. It’s not a debating point that this is what St. Ignatius wrote to the churches. And, why should anyone who reads this take your interpretation of reality and history and the definition of the ‘Catholic Church’ as authoritative? The authority has to come from somewhere, so where? How does your approach to sola scriptura fit into the formation of the Canon and what of the Catholic Church prior to having in completed?
Kevin, I am genuinely offended by your arrogance. You have apostatized from grace in favour of justification by works, you have abandoned the Reformed Faith for error, and then you come around to Reformed sites as if you have done something wonderful, with the idea that we should all have a cozy little chat about your exciting new discoveries.
We are supposed to totally ignore your unfaithfulness to God and the gospel, and happily chatter with you. You are indeed an apostate and an idolator.
Curate,
I’m still wondering, is there anything in particular that I said here that your are responding to?
KB
Pastor Steve:
If I misread the spirit of your post then I do apologize.
As for the matter at hand we seem to be at an impasse. I am willing to write a comment on St. Peter and defend his succession in the Church, but I am afraid it would not be taken seriously, and as you say, you’ve seen the arguments and remain unconvinced. On the contrary, you are almost as opposed to Catholicism as you reasonably can be. I am not interested in converting back to Protestantism, and no matter how you try to color it I am Catholic. I respect your decision and I thank you for interacting with me as you have.
Many times in the history of the Catholic Church, her detractors have in turn become her greatest defenders and advocates. I pray that you will be one of those men someday.
Jeffrey,
Your reading of Ignatius is also influenced by the sacerdotal principles of Romanism. Walter Lowrie, following Rudolph Sohm, provides a more convincing interpretation, which has been followed by the majority of early church historians: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/walter-lowrie-on-early-church-bishops/
People should take my reading of reality seriously because it works with the objective facts of history, which can be gotten through the right use of scholarship and reason. We know that in the early church, the “authority” came from the emperor. Paul wants to evangelize Caesar in the book of Acts, and in Romans 13 he proclaims that the civic powers are divine officers. This is objectively what happened with Nicaea, and then the 2nd ecumenical council at Constantinople. The Emperor was the authority.
In the middle ages, this continued to play out, however, with the added element of papal civic claims. They did indeed say that the Church is properly the clergy, with the rest of the people of God being the Church through submission to the clergy. This is contrary to St. Augustine, of course, who defined the Church as the mystical body of Christ. Through the course of the middle ages, of course, the popes did lose. They had a few victories, to be sure, but by the time of the Babylonian Captivity, it is once again the emperor who settles things by calling the Council of Constance and throwing the bums out and installing a new pope.
Trent is not received by the empire, nor by France, and of course, it also isn’t received by the Protestant kingdoms.
So the RC simply cannot claim the old Christendom any more. They have to plea for a “spirituality of the Church” as argued by Thomas a Beckett, which is just as anti-creational as your most gnostic Protestant, and it has to promote hagiography instead of history (which is why you’re forced into such poor readings of the Caroline divines).
Sorry, but is just true. I don’t see much point in debating whether or not I have a nose on my face. It is there, and everyone can see it.
Steven,
St. Thomas Becket is my patron Saint. That is why I go by the name “Thomas.” I want to correct you on a small point if I may.
“He is also commonly known as Thomas à Becket, although this form seems not to have been contemporaneous, but a post-reformation adornment, possibly in imitation of Thomas à Kempis. Historian John Strype wrote in his Memorials of Thomas Cranmer (1694): “It is a small error, but being so oft repeated deserveth to be observed into corrected. The name of that archbishop was Thomas Becket. If the vulgar did formerly, as it doth now, call him ‘Thomas à Becket’ their mistake is not to be followed by learned men.” Notwithstanding, the Oxford Dictionary of English, the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, and Chambers Biographical Dictionary all prefer St. Thomas à Becket.” – Wikipedia
Thomas
Pope Steven,
All of us who have read in the Caroline Divines, my supervisor and Anglican and Catholic historians as well as sacramental theologians such as Bishop Kenneth Stevenson who have read four of the five chapters of my thesis on Andrewes are just thick and are obviously not as skilled as you. I shall refer all of them now to your excellency in all matters pertaining to history and sacramental theology.
[Removed at author’s request]
[Removed at author’s request]
Ok, Jeff, we’ll get Escalante’s old post on this back up very shortly. This whole thing is old hat, and you lost.
You also missed the point of how authority would be determined in the church. But shift the point of the question if you wish. It will be fun either way.
Excellent! Escalante never answered the clear biblical/theological as well as Andrewes’ use of anamnesis with the Fathers. Why don’t you speak to the plain nose on the screen here and answer my question if a Reformer would say what Andrewes is saying? Andrewes was constantly being referred to as a papist. Just answer the simple question yourself.
Stop running from my question and just answer it. I’ll make it clear for you:
Did the Reformers EVER speak of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as containing immolatus whatsoever? Where?
Mr Noses,
I would happily have answered any questions about Andrewes and anamnesis, if only my interlocutor had actually stuck around and debated those many months ago, instead of declaring in a huff that he wouldn’t. It was a shame; I was very eager to have the conversation.
Also, Mr Noses, while your name suggests that a certain nasal quality might be inevitable from you, might wish to modify your shrill tone: no one likes to talk with people who apparently can’t speak as men ought, let alone, who apparently can’t speak as Christians ought.
This really was covered long ago in that little post of mine. Andrewes’ language is certainly more florid in some cases than the first Reformers’, but nothing has changed in the doctrine. Christ is certainly “immolatus” *representatively*, that is, in figure, in the broken and poured elements; but not *really*. Bp Taylor is absolutely clear about this, and how far from Taylor can Bp Andrewes be? The unquestionably Protestant Baxter and the Savor Liturgy hammer this idea of Christ immolated in the Eucharist, but *representatively*, not really; and Laud, in his Conferences with Fisher, expressly rejects the Bellarminian notion of real immolation (which necessitates real presence in the elements). How far from Laud can Bp Andrewes be?
Bp Andrewes acidly, in the sermon delivered before the Elector, mocks the Eucharistic cultus of the RCC: either he was a sincere Calvinist, or, if he actually held the RC view(a position for which there is no evidence), then he was a vile coward who went out of his way to commit what he knew to be public blasphemy from the pulpit. If that’s your Andrewes, well then, you may have him; I, however, think he was a sincere Calvinist.
On anamnesis: Andrewes is pretty clear that post-Crucifixion anamnesis is like the pre-Crucifixion anticipation, but obviously on the other end of the event, and with the difference of the object being completed in time and its full benefits thus plenarily available. But nowhere does he suggest that the commemoration is anything other than commemoration. The past even is not being presently handled or performed; but its benefits are, though, being presently appropriated by faithful commemoration.
I would be happy to have this discussion; I never got a chance to last time, since my interlocutor hurried off, after I had shown very clearly that Andrewes held the extra Calvinisticum, used material conveyance language of immaterial means (namely, prayer) indifferently with material, predicated of the waters of Baptism exactly what he predicates of the Cup, and closed with a quotation of him openly ridiculing and anathematizing the natural liturgical consequences of the Roman doctrine.
peace,
Peter
Jeff,
Peter can outpoint me when it comes to the neat and tidy explanation of systematics, but I can say that none of your quotes seem incompatible with the Protestant explanations given by Puritan Edmund Calamy and later Anglican Daniel Waterland. All the key words are in there: represent, memory, remembrance, memorial.
It fits right in with the normal breadth of English Reformed thought.
But Peter’s points are really the clinchers, particularly the extra calvinisticum and mocking of RC eucharistic devotion.
I am not trying to be mean, but I am trying to be direct. You do not seem to be taking note of historic facts. You seem to neglect the breadth of the English Reformed tradition, thus reading Andrewes in opposition to men with whom he actually agreed, and you also skirt the primary issue, that of authority in the Church of England.
And if I’m on the side of Bryan Spinks (someone I remember you not liking), then I have no shame in being confident of my position.
[Removed at author’s request]
I should also say that the Council of Trent also believed in the fact that after the ascension Christ’s humanity in natura could only in one place at one time. Aquinas believed the same so now that all agree on that very important Chalcedonian point, the next issue is with regards to objective presence in the elements is what Andrewes, held on to very protectively when preaching and in correspondences.
Jeff,
I am sorry if I seem arrogant or mean-spirited. That is not my intention.
However, my intention is to be quite forceful with you. You are wrong. You were shown to be wrong quite some time ago, and at that time, you elected to leave the discussion in a huff. Peter wrote a very good article in response to you, but it ended with a statement about the “discussion” continuing. It did not. Instead you used a similar rhetorical method that you used on Wilkins facebook (when you mocked what you believed to be a small number of attendants) , that of dismissing your opponent as below your level.
I also believe that you purposely ignore the nuances of the Reformed churches, supposing that they must attain a level of strict (even Dordtian) predestinarianism. This is false. It is true that the English weren’t thrilled about Dort, but neither where the German Calvinists, of whom England was closely allied. The English didn’t reject the doctrine of Dort though, as indeed Samuel Ward defended it publicly and King James hired John Davenant to summarize its essential teachings and distribute it throughout the kingdom. None of that is really to the point, of course, as the real issue is authority and how one goes about defining the church. Andrewes is squarely opposed to Rome in all its essential claims, and he is wholly aligned with the Reformed and Evangelicals and all their claims.
Your narrative rewrites history in a falsely polarizing way, and thus it scurrilously maligns the true Reformed churches of Christ. This is why we can’t just agree to disagree.
So as a Christian gentleman, I believe it is my duty to state that you are wrong and that it matters, even if you are a very nice guy with whom we would all otherwise get along.
[Removed at author’s request]
[Removed at author’s request]
[Removed at author’s request]
Jeff,
There are a number of points that need to be made clear. Your claim, as I understand it, is that 1) Andrewes uses the language of a propitiatory sacrifice, and this proves that he does not hold to the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist. 2) Beyond this, Andrewes’ position was, in effect, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, with perhaps some wiggle-room when it comes to strict dogmatic explanations of transubstantiation (I’m carrying this over from the facebook comments as well). 3) From this, it also follows that the mainline Church of England held to something other than the Reformed position on the Eucharist, and that they should not be considered Reformed.
So far so good?
—
Now, you ask two direct questions to me:
Q1) Tell me which reformed writer on the Eucharist ever referred to it as a propitiatory offering? [That is a question I would like for you to answer.]
Q2) What else do I need to provide to show the clear distinctive difference between Calvin and Andrewes on Eucharistic offering than what is in this post and those above?
Steven, I await your answer to THIS specific question and so does everybody reading this post…
Q1) This is answered simply enough, Richard Baxter in the Savoy Liturgy. Robert Bruce, in his The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper insists that Christ’s true Body and Blood, as well as the virtues of His sacrifice and the virtue of His passion are mystically conjoined to the visible signs, as they represent, exhibit, and confer, the grace during the rite. Edmund Calamy Jr. says essentially the same. Peter has also mentioned Taylor and Laud. Daniel Waterland, writing much later and after this particular dust has settled, can quote the same Chrysostom as Andrewes in firm agreement.
Q2) You need to account for Andrewe’s use of “represent,” as well as memorial and commemoration. Those are all very key terms for Reformed sacramentology. It is why the waters of baptism are also called the blood of Christ, though no one dare assert that the element of water is changed.
This notion of represent is also why Andrewes can make the Calvinist commonplace of asserting that our enjoying of the past sacrifice is as the Israelites enjoyed the future sacrifice: through memorial and the Spirit. Again, these are all Calvinist flags.
So, to answer your second question quite plainly, you would need to show that Andrewes is teaching that the Body and Blood of Christ become really present under the elements of bread and wine and that they were then sacrificed in a way other than commemoration.
Thus far this has not been shown, and if it were shown for Andrewes, it would bring him into contradiction with his other Caroline divines, even Taylor and Laud.
The mere appearance of sacrificial language, even if propiatory, does not prove the point. Other Reformed could use the same, since the real issue is *how* this sacrifice is so, namely through representation and commemoration.
—
You are also incorrect when it comes to the baptismal point. You say:
Richard Hooker did. John Davenant, Samuel Ward, and James Ussher also did.
As you say, that is a crucial issue in how you interpret Andrewes, as well as how you see him fitting in the larger context.
—
You also ask: If you are right, why did so many charge him with papal views of the Eucharist?
Being called a papist is a very different thing from calling yourself a papist (Just ask Pastor Wilkins!). England was a very polemical time during Andrewes’ tenure. Hooker was himself called a few nasty names. King James called the Puritans Jesuitical. The Gomarists called the moderate Calvinists Arminians, and the moderate Calvinists called the Gomarists heretics of their own sort.
The biggest problem with nomenclature, in our day, is that too few people understand the Reformed settlement. It was not based on polity, nor was it specifically based on intellectual points of theology. King James asked all of his divines to refer to the Lutherans as “Reformed,” and Richard Field and John Durel (French Reformed) both continue to do this, speaking of the churches as “Reformed by Luther.” Bucer and Melanchthon are also interesting “middle men,” as are the host of irenic theologians to include John Forbes, John Dury, David Pareus, and Georg Calixt.
The key to the Reformed identity was a few things: 1) The Two-Kingdoms, with a sort of civil magistrate primacy in regards to “order” (contra the papal primacy of Rome) 2) sola fide (and sort of visible/invisible church distinction) 3) A rejection of local presence in the elements (this would be where Calvinists and Lutherans crossed swords, though there were always figures on both sides finding concord), as well as the liturgical and devotional practices that accompany such a belief.
King James is not an easy character to classify, but he called himself Reformed, asked his churchmen to call themselves and the Lutherans Reformed, and held to Evangelical views of justification and faith.
—
Back to those first few points, supposing that I have them basically correct.
1) Andrewes’ use of sacrificial language, whether it be expiation, propitiation, or immolatus is of no real consequence, seeing as that it is not unique among Reformed writers, able as it is to work consistently with the other key points of the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist (inner/outer, Spiritual, signification, representation, memorial), and that he also affirmed justification by faith alone, the extra Calvinisticum, and the inner/outer distinction regarding the sacraments as well as their reception.
2) Andrewes mocked the Roman Catholic practice, particularly things that would be natural logical conclusions of local presence views.
3) Even in the event that Andrewes held the view that you say he does (he does not), he would be an isolated figure among the Caroline divines. Even Laud would be closer to the Reformers. The mainline Church of England held to the 39 Articles, in their original Protestant interpretation, and the leadership of the Church of England, ultimately in the person of the monarch, used the label “Reformed” and worked closely with Reformed theologians from the continent, namely France and the Palatinate.
In regards to the most important issue, the head of the Church, the Church of England was wholly irreconcilable with Rome, proclaiming that Christ was the spiritual head and the king was the temporal head (a view consistent with the Reformers Two Kingdoms view: see Paul Avis and Philip Edgcumbe Hughes for more on this).
And so my conclusion is that it is wholly appropriate to refer to the Church of England under Edward, Elizabeth, and James as Reformed. It was certainly called this in its own day.
Another tasty quote from Andrewes which ought to be enough to prove the basic point of ecclesiastical identity is found in his Catechetical Lectures:
They [Papists] have the Fathers, Councils, the Church and the Pope. We have not so.
~ A Pattern of Catechetical Doctrine 5.3
The whole book is very anti-Roman.
[Removed at author’s request]
[Removed at author’s request]
I am not sure what happened above with the same to statements. Sorry about any confusion.
Jeff,
I’m not sure how to communicate this to you other than most directly, but your quotes do not prove what you say they prove. You include statements with phrases that are Reformed identity badges: representation, memorial, commemoration, even the heavenly/earthly distinction. These all matter. When I read those last few sentences of your comment (three up) regarding Andrewes and James, I see Reformed-speak. “But not the earthly part”– surely you’ve seen this is all the other English churchmen, as well as the irenics and ecumenicals like Bucer and Melanchthon.
You cannot simply say that Andrewes meant them in the “patristic” sense because the Reformers all claimed that the patristic sense was their sense, ie. they claimed that the patristics taught the Reformed view. You can see this in Zanchi, Vermigli, Jewel, Ridley, and the much later Waterland. Calvin will say that sometimes the fathers spoke too strongly on the elements, but he never says that they held to a contrary doctrine than his own. He everywhere claims Augustine and Chrysostom.
Also, you continue to toss up the name of Calvin as if he were a defeater. Now whether or not you have Calvin right (hardly a safe assumption), I still am perplexed why you think he is some sort of linchpin. You grant that Hooker is not on your side, yet surely you know that Hooker could critique Calvin, particularly the assumption that Reformed=Geneva. In our own day, Richard Muller has done the lion’s share of the work in showing that “Reformed” is a very big-tent signifier. If Robert Bruce says that the substance of Christ is present in the sacrament, shouldn’t that count. (Now of course, “in the sacrament” does not actually mean “in the bread and wine.” It means in the res made present by the Spirit, ie. the heavenly reality. But this is what Andrewes means too, as well as the King). If Richard Baxter says “It is his will to be thus frequently crucified before your eyes.” shoudn’t that count? If I can show that Andrewes fits right in the midst of the rest of the Reformed or Protestant English Churchmen: Davenant, Ward, Ussher, Hall, etc, shouldn’t that count?
The answer is of course it should.
And you can’t dismiss this as “What we all know.”
No, this matters. Andrewes fits consistently within his own context. Furthermore, the Church of England is consistently Protestant, even Reformed (Again the Patterson book you’ve read points this out again and again. King James commanded that his divines use that title and apply it to the Lutherans as well). And that has not been, at least by you and your disciples, an easy or natural admission.
Your reading of Andrewes is also littered with a certain suspicion. Andrewes has the 39 Articles “breathing down his neck.” Really? Is Andrewes just doing what he can get away with? Is he really drunk on royal power? Is that a sound approach to the man?
No.
All of his language, from the very quotes you provide is consistent with, indeed it is actually surrounded by the qualifications of “representation,” “memorial,” and “commemoration.”
So, for Andrewes, is the sacrifice a “real” one or a commemorative one? Are the elements of bread and wine really the Body and Blood of Christ, or are they representatively so?
Jeffrey
What you have not grasped is the fact that Reformed sacramentology teaches that in the Supper, the believer receives Christ and his benefits.
Nota bene, we are not speaking of the present baptistic non-sacramentalism of evangelicalism, but actual Reformed sacramentology. That is what is making you think that these English divines are Romans.
Where it differs from Lutheranism is in denying a corporeal presence in, with, or under the elements of bread and wine. Christ is truly eaten and drunk, but spiritually, not materially.
Where it differs from Rome is obviously the absurdity of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the priest for the living and the dead.
Does anyone think that Jeff’s arguments and positions regarding Andrewes Eucharistic beliefs vs Reformers and the Church of England/Reformation in England warrant any added status or credibility for the facts that:
a) Jeff was actually a priest in the Church of England for about 6 years prior to his conversion to the Catholic Church, and;
b) Jeff’s doctoral thesis was “Eucharist and Ecumenism in the Theology of Lancelot Andrewes: Then and Now”
You think?
KB
[Removed at author’s request]
Father Jeff,
Please don’t post the MP3 on your blog but rather please encourage people to obtain a copy from us.
– Jarrod Richey
Auburn Avenue Media
Can anyone point us to a scripture or scriptures that teach that the Supper is a memorial offering uniting time and eternity in a recapitulation of the one sacrifice offered anew on the altars of the church in memorial?
What we have here is pure superstition mixed up with pseudo philosophy, dressed up in a D.D. and polysyllabic mumbo jumbo. In a word, it is skubalon.
Skubalon…that’s a dirty word.
Curate, you can’t be serious? Ever heard of the Words of Institution?
Here: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/the-uncommon-bread-of-the-caroline-divines/
Steven, I’m still waiting for YOUR answers here.
A dirty word indeed.
Funny, Kevin
In response to your “doesn’t Jeff’s academic work on Andrewes count for anything,” the logic teacher in me has to say by way of counter example that Issac Asimov wrote a “Guide to the Bible”
(Please note that my point is not to compare Asimov to Steel – that should be obvious)
Ed,
I have three words for you:
L
Ron
Hubbard
🙂
Well I am quite distressed to see this recent turn events. Jeffrey has elected to leave this field, where he issued so many challenges, yet he is still happy to ridicule me from the comfort of his own blog.
I believe that I had answered all of his key points thus far, and I was looking forward to answering any more. I do believe that the last comment he left, before deleting them all, admitted that his read of Andrewes did make Andrewes a unique figure for his day. This would be enough to prove my original point about the Caroline divines.
But even here I think that most readers will find it hard to accept that Andrewes was the lone churchmen of his day advocating a 20th cent. Eastern Orthodox position. I think that Escalante’s treatment is much better, and the reader can decide.
This is a sort of deja vu though. The last time Escalante’s paper was posted, the same vanishing act occurred. Odd.
I just have to say: what’s the big deal about Andrews? I mean, come on. He’s not part of the magisterium, right? I’m sure he’s a great topic for an historical theology doctorate. Sure. But beyond that, what’s point of this historical fiction that he was somehow a closet Romanist? He was an Reformed Anglican.
BTW, MacGregor has an excellent chapter in his _Corpus Christi_ on the Eucharist in Reformed tradtion. Lots in there about “sacrifice.” Remember, the NT applies the language of “sacrifice” and “offering” to all sorts of activities of believers.
But the real challenge today is to try to understand what the OT meant by “offering” (qorban) and “sacrifice” (zebach). Our views of OT animal rituals have been sidetracked by these odd Medieval and Reformation debates on the Eucharist. Clearly, God’s drawing his people near through Christ in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day is “sacrificial.” He trysts with his people at the Table. The Table is a “communion site” or “altar” (mizbeach).
But in the Bible and the altar fire is not a place where the the propitiatory death occurs. That happens on the way up to the altar – the animal is killed in place of the worshiper. The animal ascends the altar to be “food for Yahweh,” to be transformed into smoke and incorporated into Yahweh’s glory cloud community. In the Bible the top of the “altar” (mizebach) is the place of communion, not propitiation. But the time the animal reaches the top of the altar, the blood been separated out, the death has occurred, and the animal has been prepared for the fire. The fire is not hell or the wrath of God, but the fiery, purifying fire of a loving God.
When we come to church the death of Jesus has already occurred. The body and blood have been separated. We have two species on the Table – bread and wine. Breaking the bread is not about killing Jesus again, either symbolically or in some other mystical way. It’s about distributing the risen glorified, living-giving Christ and his benefits.
So the REAL problem is that we do biblical exegesis by importing ideas about “sacrifice” back into the Bible from people like Andrews or Calvin or Aquinas instead of doing the exegetical work to find out what’s really going on in the pre-Christian rituals of Israel.
Doing doctoral work on Andrews is fine for historical theology, but it won’t likely get us much closer to understanding the Bible, unless, of course, Andrews has some helpful exegesis to offer. And I don’t mean endless logical, theological, and grammatical analyses of “this is my body,” for goodness sake.
I have removed these items from here due to a recommendation from scholars privately to not put my translations out here for future pulication purposes if I want to do that. Wedgeworth claims to have answered my questions and my evidences went to show the uniqueness of Andrewes in his thought.
Jeff, you are correct about the importance of how Andrewes handled scripture. He was known as one of the greatest exegetes of the day and a scholar beyond anyone near him having known some eleven modern languages and a number of ancient ones. His take on Leviticus 3 for instance would be of great interest. There is no death on the altar but the offering takes place on the altar. So, it would have been for Andrewes eucharistically when applying the one death to believers for forgiveness of sins actually committed.
I did prove this distinction and it was never acknowledged. I had a number of private emails telling me I will never get anywhere and just pull out from it and ignore what they say when you do. So, I am. They can read it in print.
Steven,
You are free to comment at my blog and it is not a comfort of protection. The reference to you was your lecture that I purchased and listened to as a bizarre interpretation of being able to read into people’s motivations for conversion.
Papists and the EO cannot exegete scripture. The recent blog discussions on Reformed sites have proven that over and over. They simply refuse to do so, and I believe the reasons are that they have neither the skill nor the interest, nor, most importantly, PERMISSION.
It appears that intelligent conversation with them is impossible, because they have handed their brains in at the magisterium. They may not use their own judgement, as they themselves tell us, and it appears that all they are allowed to do by their cult leader is regurgitate the catechism.
One cannot engage a theological cyberman.
How reminiscent this is of the present generation of WCF worshippers. They cannot exegete scripture either. They simply quote the WCF. Their Puritan forebears would give them a mighty telling off if they could speak from their graves.