Calvinism/Reformed Christianity AMA

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's a bizarre parallel as this attitude shows up in both liberal mainlines looking to abandon Paul and conservative Evangelicals looking for special revelation.

There's at least a few other bizarre (and deeply uncomfortable) parallels I could talk about here wrt attitudes towards the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

[DC Al Fine]

There's a bizarre parallel as this attitude shows up in both liberal mainlines looking to abandon Paul and conservative Evangelicals looking for special revelation.

There's at least a few other bizarre (and deeply uncomfortable) parallels I could talk about here wrt attitudes towards the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

Would you mind elaborating? I'm familiar with the criticisms of the standard Evangelical approach, but not the liberal mainline parallel.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's a bizarre parallel as this attitude shows up in both liberal mainlines looking to abandon Paul and conservative Evangelicals looking for special revelation.

There's at least a few other bizarre (and deeply uncomfortable) parallels I could talk about here wrt attitudes towards the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

Would you mind elaborating? I'm familiar with the criticisms of the standard Evangelical approach, but not the liberal mainline parallel.

The terms I like to use are left-Marcionism and right-Marcionism. Both make a lot of noises about "muh legalism" but left-Marcionism adds this weird patina of attempted reductio ad absurdum where it's presented as self-evidently unreasonable to expect anyone to take Old Testament law seriously (apparently entirely forgetting that there's a religious minority deeply embedded in the culture of America's largest city that tries to do just that). The point at which I went from just finding this vaguely distasteful to actually seeing something sinister in it was when I learned that there was an extensive rehabilitation of Nazi theologians like Walter Grundmann in ostensibly-liberal German theological circles after the war, and that they taught a lot of the next generation of both German and American academic theologians.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What gives you assurance that you are actually part of the "elect"?

[RFayette]

Sorry if this is chaining a lot of questions together, but what is your stance on evolution (and monogenism), the age of the Earth, and the geographical extent of Noah's flood and the Tower of Babel?   More broadly, what role do you believe scientific evidence (which is inherently constrained by methodological naturalism) should play in interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis, if any? 

[DC Al Fine]

What gives you assurance that you are actually part of the "elect"?

Well, first one must be careful. To paraphrase the confession, hypocrites and other unregenerates often deceive themselves. One ought to search themselves carefully when thinking of their assurance. That said, if you sincerely believe in and love Jesus and endeavor to follow him, you have assurance. Paul's tone with believers is hopeful. It is optimistic for those in the church, not pessimistic. Sorry if that's a bit short. It's the sort of thing that tends to get book length treatises, so its a bit hard to address quickly.

[DC Al Fine]

More broadly, what role do you believe scientific evidence (which is inherently constrained by methodological naturalism) should play in interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis, if any? 

To start, let me say that history has always been my first love, not science. I've always found science a bit tedious compared to the messiness that is humanity. I'm not particularly well researched in these topics, because my interest in both apologetics and theological training has both tended towards the early church, Paul's epistles and so on. Bear with me if I sound a touch ignorant.

There's a big question about how to interpret the first few chapters of Genesis. Are various sections poetry, allegory, history, etc? First, I look for internal clues. How do Jesus, Paul, and the other epistle writers treat the various accounts? If they take something as literal, historical fact, then so should we. If Jesus or the apostles do not give any internal clues, then we can begin looking at scientific evidence to point us in the right direction. Genesis 1 for example could be history, poetry or both. Since scientific evidence appears to contradict the literal interpretation, that would suggest it is poetry.

So what does that mean for the issues you addressed?

Sorry if this is chaining a lot of questions together, but what is your stance on evolution (and monogenism), the age of the Earth, and the geographical extent of Noah's flood and the Tower of Babel?   

Applying the criteria above, I would suggest that Adam and the fall were literal historic events, but Christ and Paul leave room for an old earth and evolution. No idea about the flood or Babel.

[DC Al Fine]

One other thing re science.

I had a philosophy professor who liked to introduce students to epistemology by discussing how the antebellum South 'knew' scientifically that blacks were inferior, or the Nazis 'knew' scientifically the Jews were conniving.

Of course those ideas seem risible to our post-modern, Western eyes, but the point was to those folks, existing in their contexts, with their bias, those racist views were perfectly obvious. That always stuck with me. I've always been nervous about what 21st century 'facts' are actually our biases talking, and consequently, I can't hold science in quite as high esteem as the adherents of scientism do.

[RI]

For Catholics and Orthodox, it is the failure to accept the finality of Christ's sacrifice and his role as high priest outlined in Hebrews. This manifests itself in Catholic attitudes towards the Mass, and exceedingly high view of Mary and the saints.

Could you elaborate on this?

[DC Al Fine]

For Catholics and Orthodox, it is the failure to accept the finality of Christ's sacrifice and his role as high priest outlined in Hebrews. This manifests itself in Catholic attitudes towards the Mass, and exceedingly high view of Mary and the saints.

Could you elaborate on this?

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this.

Reformed theology teaches that Christ executes three offices, prophet, priest and king. This question concerns Christ's role as priest. Let's look at the Westminster Larger Catechism on the subject:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We get this from Hebrews 7 and 9

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ died for us once, so to call the Eucharist, a sacrifice takes away from the sacrifice on Calvary. Likewise, since Christ is making intercession for us, to call Mary our co-redemptrix or to pray to the saints takes away from Christ's role as our redeemer and great high priest.

Since Christ has made one final sacrifice, and continually makes intercession for us as our high priest, Catholic attitudes about the Mass, Mary, and the Saints is unhelpful, or even idolatrous depending on how polemical you want to be.

[RI]

For Catholics and Orthodox, it is the failure to accept the finality of Christ's sacrifice and his role as high priest outlined in Hebrews. This manifests itself in Catholic attitudes towards the Mass, and exceedingly high view of Mary and the saints.

Could you elaborate on this?

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this.

Reformed theology teaches that Christ executes three offices, prophet, priest and king. This question concerns Christ's role as priest. Let's look at the Westminster Larger Catechism on the subject:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We get this from Hebrews 7 and 9

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ died for us once, so to call the Eucharist, a sacrifice takes away from the sacrifice on Calvary. Likewise, since Christ is making intercession for us, to call Mary our co-redemptrix or to pray to the saints takes away from Christ's role as our redeemer and great high priest.

Since Christ has made one final sacrifice, and continually makes intercession for us as our high priest, Catholic attitudes about the Mass, Mary, and the Saints is unhelpful, or even idolatrous depending on how polemical you want to be.

I'm not sure you're accurately describing Catholic/Orthodox theology. A few points:

1) The Eucharist is not a sacrifice additional to Christ's but a participation in the eternal sacrifice on Calvary. Catholics believe Christ's body/blood is completely present in the Eucharistic gifts, the same body which was sacrificed on Calvary; we "re-enact" the breaking of Christ's body and shedding of Christ's blood and then choose to receive it, but this isn't viewed as a reenactment per se as much as a literal revisiting to the Passion itself. It is necessary for us to accept this sacrifice won by the giving of Christ's body and voluntarily receive the grace conferred by His act; if such an acceptance were not necessary, then we verge on universalist territory.

A slightly separate issue is about the definition of "sacrifice" in this context. Christ's sacrifice is "The Sacrifice," as it were, but we all offer our own "sacrifices." Praise and thanksgiving are often referred to as "sacrifices of praise" or the like (even by most Protestants), of which the Mass is first and foremost. The existence of such sacrifices in no way undermines Christ's ultimate sacrifice.

2) The title of "co-redemptrix" is not an official Catholic title for Mary. It is not dogma nor doctrine and has always been controversial within Catholicism. To the extent that it is accepted, it's viewed in the following way: Mary saying yes to bare Jesus was a necessary condition for the salvation of the world for without it Christ would not have been born. Her life was invariably intertwined with Jesus's thereafter, and she consequently bore many of Christ's sufferings with Him (Mary was the original "redemptive sufferer" who unites their suffering to those of Christ's and thus in some small way participates in His act). However, she was not in any way sufficient in the redemption of mankind. Christ is the only Redeemer; Mary was a necessary assistance in performing His role as Redeemer. Whether that "takes away" from Christ's role is a matter of opinion; while I would agree that Catholicism places perhaps an overemphasis on Mary's role, I often feel Protestantism places far too little emphasis on her.

3) I'm sure you know Catholics don't "pray to saints" but ask for their prayers on behalf of us to God just as you might ask a friend to do so, and, that by virtue of their being in the direct presence of God, might have some additional "efficacy" in the transmission of their prayers. If you want to criticize this, I'd approach it more from the direction of questioning the eschatology necessary for saints to be with God rather than being raised on the last day or to what extent prayer's "efficacy" is an applicable idea. I view it as an optional thing that probably doesn't hurt, but then again I'm not as ingrained in Catholic culture as someone raised in it might be.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll agree with realistic idealist concerning the Eucharist. Regardless of whether one considers it to be literally or metaphorically the case, it is in a very real sense part of the sacrifice that Jesus made of himself.  It doesn't matter that physical form of the bread and wine came into being later than Calvary as God transcends time.  Christ's sacrifice is not limited to one moment of time.  Like Christ himself, it transcends time from its beginning to its end.

[DC Al Fine]

2) The title of "co-redemptrix" is not an official Catholic title for Mary. It is not dogma nor doctrine and has always been controversial within Catholicism. To the extent that it is accepted, it's viewed in the following way: Mary saying yes to bare Jesus was a necessary condition for the salvation of the world for without it Christ would not have been born. Her life was invariably intertwined with Jesus's thereafter, and she consequently bore many of Christ's sufferings with Him (Mary was the original "redemptive sufferer" who unites their suffering to those of Christ's and thus in some small way participates in His act). However, she was not in any way sufficient in the redemption of mankind. Christ is the only Redeemer; Mary was a necessary assistance in performing His role as Redeemer. Whether that "takes away" from Christ's role is a matter of opinion; while I would agree that Catholicism places perhaps an overemphasis on Mary's role, I often feel Protestantism places far too little emphasis on her.

3) I'm sure you know Catholics don't "pray to saints" but ask for their prayers on behalf of us to God just as you might ask a friend to do so, and, that by virtue of their being in the direct presence of God, might have some additional "efficacy" in the transmission of their prayers. If you want to criticize this, I'd approach it more from the direction of questioning the eschatology necessary for saints to be with God rather than being raised on the last day or to what extent prayer's "efficacy" is an applicable idea. I view it as an optional thing that probably doesn't hurt, but then again I'm not as ingrained in Catholic culture as someone raised in it might be.

On the question of the mass, I'll plead ignorance. I'm not well read enough on the subject to provide a substantive rebuttal. As for Mary and the saints...

2) Regardless of it being an official position or not, I think it speaks poorly of Rome that it is tolerated. We both agree it's a black mark on the mainlines that don't discipline clergy who deny the resurrection, even if they don't deny the resurrection. My own PCA is marred by its difficulties in disciplining Federal Vision heretics.

Mary may have been a very unique and virtuous woman, but language is important. Even the sufferings you describe do not merit elevating her status to such a high role. Such language implies (even if Catholic theology doesn't actually affirm it), that human Mary is on par with divine Christ, and as such should be discouraged.

3) I'm aware of Catholic theology on prayer to saints rejects it as pointing the laity in the wrong direction at best. Calvinists reject the friend analogy as it really doesn't deal with what is so objectionable about the practice. Let's compare the analogy to real life:

I ask my mother to pray for me, you ask the Virgin to pray for you. So far so good. The analogy breaks down when you take it any further though.  My friends don't have a place in the Reformed liturgy, nor is there a graven image of any great Calvinists in my church yard like there is of the Virgin in my local Catholic parish. Such honors do not belong to anyone but God.

Furthermore, I don't buy the 'efficacy' of the saints prayers as Hebrews directly contradicts it. Jesus Christ is sitting on high right now as our high priest, interceding on our behalf with the Father. What could be a more effective place to aim our prayer than that?

[Small L]

DC, I enjoyed your post, but I do think your last paragraph is exactly the type of objection that the friend analogy is meant to deal with.

Admittedly it may be insufficient to handle the stuff about the liturgy, but I really think a lot of that stuff goes back to fundamental disagreements about the nature Sacred Tradition and its place in theology. I find it very difficult to accept that prayer to the saints (which I really don't think is an inaccurate representation of what Catholics do as long as it is understood that we mean dulia in these cases, not latria) is a departure from genuine historical Christianity when you have guys at least as far back as Augustine saying prayer to the saints is just fine.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have a fairly maximalist Mariology and even I think "Co-Redemptrix" is a bit much, but I don't see any burning need to make people stop using it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My own PCA is marred by its difficulties in disciplining Federal Vision heretics.

What specifically is it about the Federal Vision that leads you to consider it heresy?  I ask this partly because it seems there are many differing views of what constitutes the Federal Vision and also it'll help me figure out what you consider to be core Calvinist doctrines.

[DC Al Fine]

DC, I enjoyed your post, but I do think your last paragraph is exactly the type of objection that the friend analogy is meant to deal with.

Admittedly it may be insufficient to handle the stuff about the liturgy, but I really think a lot of that stuff goes back to fundamental disagreements about the nature Sacred Tradition and its place in theology. I find it very difficult to accept that prayer to the saints (which I really don't think is an inaccurate representation of what Catholics do as long as it is understood that we mean dulia in these cases, not latria) is a departure from genuine historical Christianity when you have guys at least as far back as Augustine saying prayer to the saints is just fine.

Could you reference where Augustine approves of the practice? It's interesting as Augustine (along with John Chrysostom) is one of the Church Fathers we cite against the practice.

I have a fairly maximalist Mariology and even I think "Co-Redemptrix" is a bit much, but I don't see any burning need to make people stop using it.

I'm kind of surprised by that. Language is quite important. The Church had quite the fight over Theotokos vs Christokos, and co-redemptix is much less nuanced than that. Co-redemptrix implies putting the Virgin on the same level as Christ. As such, I'd be quick to discourage it, even if I had a higher Mariology.

[Small L]

DC, I enjoyed your post, but I do think your last paragraph is exactly the type of objection that the friend analogy is meant to deal with.

Admittedly it may be insufficient to handle the stuff about the liturgy, but I really think a lot of that stuff goes back to fundamental disagreements about the nature Sacred Tradition and its place in theology. I find it very difficult to accept that prayer to the saints (which I really don't think is an inaccurate representation of what Catholics do as long as it is understood that we mean dulia in these cases, not latria) is a departure from genuine historical Christianity when you have guys at least as far back as Augustine saying prayer to the saints is just fine.

Could you reference where Augustine approves of the practice? It's interesting as Augustine (along with John Chrysostom) is one of the Church Fathers we cite against the practice.

Sure. I'm thinking specifically of the opening paragraph of Sermon 302 and paragraphs 19/20 of On the Care of the Dead. I'm not as familiar with Chrystostom.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have a fairly maximalist Mariology and even I think "Co-Redemptrix" is a bit much, but I don't see any burning need to make people stop using it.

I'm kind of surprised by that. Language is quite important. The Church had quite the fight over Theotokos vs Christokos, and co-redemptix is much less nuanced than that. Co-redemptrix implies putting the Virgin on the same level as Christ. As such, I'd be quick to discourage it, even if I had a higher Mariology.

I don't interpret it as necessarily implying that--I read the implication as in "co-pilot". I definitely think some sort of study needs to be done of how the people using this term actually think, and if it turns out they are in fact putting the Virgin on the same level of Christ, then shut use of the term down until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

[DC Al Fine]

I have a fairly maximalist Mariology and even I think "Co-Redemptrix" is a bit much, but I don't see any burning need to make people stop using it.

I'm kind of surprised by that. Language is quite important. The Church had quite the fight over Theotokos vs Christokos, and co-redemptix is much less nuanced than that. Co-redemptrix implies putting the Virgin on the same level as Christ. As such, I'd be quick to discourage it, even if I had a higher Mariology.

I don't interpret it as necessarily implying that--I read the implication as in "co-pilot". I definitely think some sort of study needs to be done of how the people using this term actually think, and if it turns out they are in fact putting the Virgin on the same level of Christ, then shut use of the term down until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

You highlight an interesting difference. To steal Realistic Idealist's phrasing, I'd say Rome and Canterbury are much too willing to put unity over discipline, while Geneva is too quick to split at the first sign of imperfection.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have a fairly maximalist Mariology and even I think "Co-Redemptrix" is a bit much, but I don't see any burning need to make people stop using it.

I'm kind of surprised by that. Language is quite important. The Church had quite the fight over Theotokos vs Christokos, and co-redemptix is much less nuanced than that. Co-redemptrix implies putting the Virgin on the same level as Christ. As such, I'd be quick to discourage it, even if I had a higher Mariology.

I don't interpret it as necessarily implying that--I read the implication as in "co-pilot". I definitely think some sort of study needs to be done of how the people using this term actually think, and if it turns out they are in fact putting the Virgin on the same level of Christ, then shut use of the term down until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

You highlight an interesting difference. To steal Realistic Idealist's phrasing, I'd say Rome and Canterbury are much too willing to put unity over discipline, while Geneva is too quick to split at the first sign of imperfection.

This reminds me of pre-conversion John Henry Newman's analysis in an 1839 article (revisited post-conversion in his Apologia) that the Key Charge of Anglicanism is that "Rome possesses the Note of Idolatry" while the Key Charge of Catholicism is that "Canterbury possesses the Note of Schism". Presumably the Key Charge of Calvinism would, then, be further in the 1839-Anglican direction.

[DC Al Fine]

My own PCA is marred by its difficulties in disciplining Federal Vision heretics.

What specifically is it about the Federal Vision that leads you to consider it heresy?  I ask this partly because it seems there are many differing views of what constitutes the Federal Vision and also it'll help me figure out what you consider to be core Calvinist doctrines.

Haha, I like how phrased the question. The Federal Visionaries themselves haven't quite finished hammering out their theology, so it's harder to object to them the same way one might object to say, Lutheranism. That said, I'll do my best to get to the heart of the issue:

The big overarching problem with Federal Vision is that it a really distorted view of classical Reformed Covenant theology, namely:

1) Monocovenatalism, that is they mush the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace together, which leads to...
2) Works righteousness, by including works in the definition of faith¹.
3) Making the family patriarch into a sort of federal head for the family, and taking Exodus 20:5's "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me" out of context.

So that's the big picture side of it. How does this theology manifest itself in practice? Well, primarily, it shows itself by treating good parenting as a sort of sacrament.² Since works is a part of faith and the father's works-faith affects the son's, there's a lot of concern about doing x, y and z, just so to make the kids turn out faithful.

The average uninformed lay person is typically exposed to all of what I described above by the practice of paedocommunion to ensure the child remains in the faith. This is very different from the Roman Catholic practice of first communion for 7-8 year olds. I am talking about giving communion to infants.

Doug Wilson once compared standard Reformed practice to not feeding the hungry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This denies God's election, and even worse, turns it into a sort of bargain with God. It denies the Gospel itself by making God 'owe' you salvation for your children if you do x and y, and z.

1) This goes much further than James' "I will show you my faith by my works"
2) Obviously they don't say it's a sacrament, but they appear to treat it as such.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How is paedocommunion objectionable while paedobaptism is not? It seems to me that any objection to the former would be even more applicable to the latter.

[DC Al Fine]

I have a fairly maximalist Mariology and even I think "Co-Redemptrix" is a bit much, but I don't see any burning need to make people stop using it.

I'm kind of surprised by that. Language is quite important. The Church had quite the fight over Theotokos vs Christokos, and co-redemptix is much less nuanced than that. Co-redemptrix implies putting the Virgin on the same level as Christ. As such, I'd be quick to discourage it, even if I had a higher Mariology.

I don't interpret it as necessarily implying that--I read the implication as in "co-pilot". I definitely think some sort of study needs to be done of how the people using this term actually think, and if it turns out they are in fact putting the Virgin on the same level of Christ, then shut use of the term down until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

You highlight an interesting difference. To steal Realistic Idealist's phrasing, I'd say Rome and Canterbury are much too willing to put unity over discipline, while Geneva is too quick to split at the first sign of imperfection.

This reminds me of pre-conversion John Henry Newman's analysis in an 1839 article (revisited post-conversion in his Apologia) that the Key Charge of Anglicanism is that "Rome possesses the Note of Idolatry" while the Key Charge of Catholicism is that "Canterbury possesses the Note of Schism". Presumably the Key Charge of Calvinism would, then, be further in the 1839-Anglican direction.

Perhaps we possess a Symphony of Schism

Seriously though, coming from a Reformed background, I'm amazed at what Rome and Canterbury will put up with, particularly Canterbury. If a Spong were to arise in the Reformed community, the heresy trials would have to begin immediately, and Presbyteries would walk out en masse if he wasn't disciplined. It still baffles me nothing really happened to him, much less defrocking and excommunication!

Of course on the other side, we have a ridiculous tendency towards schism and disunity. Our ecumenical body, NAPARC has:

• Five Scottish Presbyterian denominations
• Six Continental Reformed denominations
• Two Korean Presbyterian denominations

It's a black mark on us that not even very similar groups like the OPC and PCA, or CaRC and URCNA can't merge, less the entire group. We would be so much stronger if we could provide a unified front.

[DC Al Fine]

How is paedocommunion objectionable while paedobaptism is not? It seems to me that any objection to the former would be even more applicable to the latter.

Well, first let's look at the bare words of scripture. Paul counsels us to examine ourselves before the Lord's supper, which implies a minimum age or maturity. On the other hand scripture references multiple household baptisms in Acts and Corinthians.

Working out from there, Reformed theology holds that baptism has replaced circumcision in the sacraments with the resurrection of Christ, and as such should be administered to children. Finally, the Church Fathers mention the practice approvingly quite early on.