Ad maiorem Dei gloriam
Warning: This is intended for those Christians involved in advancing the Reformation. If you are a Roman Catholic Jesuit sympathizer, you will be greatly offended. This post is not favorable towards Roman Catholicism, Contemplative Spirituality, or J.P. Moreland’s Kingdom Triangle trap. Judgments have been made based on what has been revealed in God’s fully authoritative, inspired, and inerrant Word. Got beef? Take it up with Him!
Once the Protestant Reformation began, Rome was losing thousands of her people to the Protestants. Rome reacted to the Reformation with the “Counter-Reformation.” This was an attempt to win back those that left her for Protestantism. Pope Paul III initiated the Council of Trent in 1545, where they explicitly rejected the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. The Counter-Reformation had several “orders” that became essential in moving things forward. Each order had a specific task. The Theatines were an order of priests that kept an eye out for heresy among the clergy. The Ursulines were an order specifically to educate girls. Other orders included the Capuchins, the Barnabites, as well as one that is still quite popular today: the Jesuits.
The Jesuits (Societas de Jesus) were founded in 1534 by Ignatius of Loyola, and received papal authorization in 1540 (Paul III). At the expense of over-generalizing, the mission of the Jesuits was complete dedication to the pope and what I call the “intellectual takeover at the university level.” By 1556, the year Ignatius died, the Jesuits operated a network of 74 colleges on three continents. The Jesuit plan of studies (Ratio Studiorum) incorporated the Classical teachings of Renaissance humanism into the Scholastic structure of Catholic thought. For details on the system of Jesuit education, see “Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum Societatis Iesu (”The Official Plan for Jesuit Education”).
According to the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, there are 28 Jesuit colleges in the United States. Some of the notable schools are:
-
Boston College, Boston, Mass.
-
Creighton University, Worcester, Mass.
-
Fordham University, New York, NY.
-
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
-
Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.
-
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA.
-
Loyola University, Chicago, IL.
-
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.
-
Regis University, Denver, CO.
-
Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA.
-
Saint Louis University, Saint louis, MO.
-
University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
-
Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA.
-
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH.
The Jesuit mission of the intellectual takeover at the university level, I think, is clearly established upon a cursory historical survey of the mid-sixteenth to mid-seventeenth centuries. The “Counter Reformation” is undeniable, although its purpose and motives are still sometimes debated. It is also undeniable that Ignatius of Loyola was a prominent figure in advancing the Counter Reformation. The Jesuits’ Ratio Studiorum was viewed by the Catholics as effective in advancing and sustaining the Counter Reformation. Therefore we are justified in assuming that if the Counter Reformation spirit is still alive and active, then attacks aimed at hindering Reformation theology and principles will be coming from those areas that Ignatius and the Jesuits have “taken over” and staked their claim in.
One may ask: but what exactly are they doing inside those Jesuit schools that can be so bad? How are they taking over, and what are they taking over?
One major obstacle between Roman Catholicism and her goal of world domination is the Protestant Reformation principle, Sola Scriptura. As long as Christians accept only those doctrines that are exegetically verifiable from the 66 books of Scripture, Roman Catholicism will receive “Bereanic” opposition. This opposition from Sola Scriptura proponents is what Rome faced in the events that we now call the Protestant Reformation. With the Bible as the final authority, Popes can no longer “bully” and control Christians that adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura. If the spirit of the Counter Reformation lives on, then we should expect to see clever attempts to undermine Sola Scriptura. We are also warranted in being suspicious of theologically-related academic trends that appear to have a logical connection to the Jesuit mission, especially if the suspicious academic trend is in a field or fields included in the Jesuit’s Ratio Studiorum.
This is merely a primer on some forthcoming posts that concern the Jesuit infiltration that some of us are tracking. I will attempt to prove that the spirit of the Counter Reformation is alive and vibrant by linking current movements to larger agendas and tracing them back to the Jesuits and its founder. We will consider some of the suspicious activity that has transpired in recent years such as J.P. Moreland’s paper “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done About it,” as well as his Kingdom Triangle proposal that includes a hearty endorsement of Jesuit mysticism, contemplative spirituality and spiritual formation, Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises, and other anti-biblical assertions such as implementing the pagan mysticism of the Desert Fathers, Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Henry Nouwen, Fr. Luke Dysinger (Benedectine monk, CA), Renovare, and his own:
“Step 1: Focus the center of your attention on your physical heart muscle. Attend to the center of your chest where your heart is and stay there for about thirty seconds. The goal is to feel the area around your heart. There are two ways to help you in this. First, pretend you are breathing in and out of your heart muscle. Second, try to ‘feel’ and attend to the front surface of your physical heart then the back surface, followed by the right and then the left side of your heart.” (J.P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle pg. 160)
Moreland has the apostasy bug real bad, he even commands the incorporation of Roman Catholic Spiritual Directors in Evangelical ministries, another Jesuit idea.
The current Jesuit infiltration should be expected, especially because it is becoming popular these days to be included among the new “Reformed” movement. There is a battle to fight out there, and to ignore it is simply to allow it - because guess what - it’s moving full steam ahead. Remember, it is a Counter to the Reformation. This means that we must advance the reformation that they are countering or else we are only countering their counter which grants them the victory! We have been on the offense. They were formed as a defense. This will surely separate a) those new young so-called Calvinists engulfed in the latest Christian trends, from b) the true Calvinists that live what they believe under the Lordship of Christ. So, listen to me all you “young, restless, and reformed” folks out there that “aren’t emergent” - you’re either going to be “a” or “b.”
What will you be remembered in Church History for?
63 Comments, Comment or Ping
Travis
Stephen,
Im not clear at what you ment with “a” are you refering to the Mark Driscoll crowd or the Brian McLaren crowd.
By trends do you mean “new doctrines” or “style and fashion” ?
Like I said before we that are part of the reformation are going to be attacked by “christians” but we must stay faithful and check our salvation and challenge everything by scripture.
May 18th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis,
“a” would include the new sweeping trend of cool Calvinism. This could mean those that acclaim Keller, Driscoll, Warren, or any other Purpose Driven contemporary hipster as prototypical “Calvinism.”
“By trends do you mean “new doctrines” or “style and fashion”?
The trend I referred to is cool Calvinism, the new “Reformed” brand of Christianity that has a gelatin skeleton developin’.
May 18th, 2008
Travis
Let me ask this,
I can say this, not alll are like what you describe, I am tattooed, fairly fashionable, enjoy different types of music(worship) attend an Acts29 church and like beer, but still adhear to the scripture(which includes the doctrines of grace) and will defend it, So I ask another question, what is the biggest beef with Keller and Driscoll? If it is just that they are “hip and cool” than I would say that is no reason to to say they are not apart of the reformation. BUT if you say as is clear on the post about Keller, that these men which John Piper has to fall into as well, teach something other then scripture, I will agree with you.
We have the evidences of Keller, but Driscoll and Piper im not sure why they wouldnt be apart of the New Reformation, though all I know of them really is what I have heard on random sermons, which is more “practical” sometimes dumbed down, but havent heard anything contrary to scripture.
May 18th, 2008
Mario
Let the Reformation Rhinos press the fight ahead! Christ said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail! His Truth is marching on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 18th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis,
I’m not referring to cool as in fashionable, tattoos, music, and beer. If that were the case then we’d all fall into that category (especially for beer and tattoos!). I’m referring to “Purpose Driven” as in Rick Warren’s movement that is posing as a Reformation but really is a De-formation.
I’m not sure how Piper was dragged into this. It wasn’t from me. Personally, I strongly disagree with the way he handled Wright in “The Future of Justification,” but I haven’t really expressed that here on BT.
Rick Warren has just announced this week that he is and always has been a Calvinist and says that Kuyper’s influence is all throughout Purpose Driven Life, which is hardly true.
I totally am with you on this: “If it is just that they are “hip and cool” than I would say that is no reason to to say they are not apart of the reformation.”
May 18th, 2008
Travis
Thanks for the clarifacation, I assumed thats what you ment.
I brought Piper into this because if Driscoll is de-forming than Piper might be also, because he (from what I understand) is a mentor to Driscoll.
So, who would be part of spreadig the truths of the reformation and who would not be? And why? I know it wont be a complet compilation because there are many congergations that are not “well known”, but for the sake of encouragement to see where this is happening and to know who people can go to. Maybe a list of people could be made?
Maybe a Reformation Manifesto also, not to counter the evangelical one but to be specific on beliefs not so general like the the EM. I think Micheal Horton tried it, but failed.
May 19th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Stephen…I’ve seen Mario’s tattoo…absolutely LOVE it! Do you have one too…I guess I’ve never asked you that… =)
This is another great post that gives us a quick look into the world of the Jesuits. One cannot think of Catholicism without grieving over their teachings on justification! The Reformed view is once again, freeing, full of hope and security in Christ! Consider this excerpt from Spurgeon’s “Pardon and Justification”:
“God never did any thing by halves. He speaks a man into a justified condition, and He will never speak him out of it again; nor can that man be cast away. Good God! and do any persons teach that men can be quickened by the Spirit, and yet that quickening Spirit has not power enough to keep them? Do they teach that God forgives, and then condemns? Do they teach that Christ stands surety for a man, and yet that man is damned himself on his own responsibility? Ah let them teach it! We speak not thus; we have not so learned Christ. We cannot use words so derogatory to divinity, so dishonorable to the Saviour. We believe that if He stood our substitute, it was an actual, real, effectual deed; that we are positively delivered thereby; that if He did pay the penalty, God can not by any means exact it twice; that if he did discharge the debt, it is discharged, and can not be revived; that if the sin was imputed to Christ, he did suffer for it. We say before all men that heaven itself can not accuse the sons of God any more of sin. Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect, if God hath justified, and Christ hath died? Ah, Christian! thou mayest stand and wonder at this mighty justification, to think that thou art so pardoned that thou never canst be condemned, that all the powers in hell can not condemn thee, that nothing which can happen can destroy thee; but that thou hast a pardon that thou canst plead in the day of judgement, and that will stand as valid then as now. Oh, it is a glorious and gracious thing! Go, ye who believe in another gospel, and seek comfort. Yours is not the justification of the blessed God. When He justifies, He justifies for ever, and nothing can separate us from His love”.
May God grant repentance to the Jesuits and all of Rome!
Stephen…look forward to more on this…
May 19th, 2008
agogley
Don’t even get me on the subject of tattoos…
RW, a Calvinist? HAH!!! Next he’ll be telling us that Billy Graham is a Calvinist too.
May 19th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Do tell Agogley…are you pro or con?
Travis…you brought this up…lol…what tatts have you? BTW, does Stephen have permission to tell me how to find you on myspace?
May 19th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Agogley,
There are some psycho Calvinists out there. Google the Westboro Baptist church for example. I’m sure Calvin would drown Rick Warren and Westboro if he was alive today.
Jean Cauvin
May 19th, 2008
Travis
RM
I have a half sleeve of exerts of the book of Revelation: Pillars, the “eye of God” in flames, clouds, a bunch of other things, it was my first tattoo. I have a human heart with an anchor going through it draped with a banner that says soverign, and a sparrow on both sides of it. Its a reminder that God is soverign over me the heart being the main organ that causes life. The two sparrows to symbolize the going to war and the coming home, as well as that God takes care of even the sparrows. I have another one brewing also Ill let you know.
Yeah you can contact me through Myspace
May 19th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Perhaps, Travis, one day we can all meet and get together and fellowship! Stephen, Mario and I were talking about that a few weeks ago…we’d like to celebrate you and your service to this country…love to see your tattoos in person…one day God willing!
May 19th, 2008
Travis
my mom lives right around the corner from the church, I am probubly going to be visiting her in a couple months, so that would be great, maybe Lord would find favor in saving my Mom, she has been entrenched in jesuit evangelical theology for 18 years, though I can not pass the blame wholly onto this theology, because I have attempted to explain salvation to her, and living as a christian, but thats another issue. I might be stationed in San Diego for my next tour also.
May 19th, 2008
Travis
Back to my question, Can anyone tell me who is apart of this reformation, or should I say who would agree that scripture is contradicting a majority a theology that is being taught through out the world. (Not that everyone everywhere teaches everything wrong)
This brings up another question, the same as I asked before, what teachings would we put in a Reformation Manifesto, to weed out people like Rick W? I think a manifesto is important because people need to know what scripture specifically teaches. (with out question of, it could be this or that)
May 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis,
Any Reformation is by grace.
I know you know that. I just want to make that point very clear.
The “boundary marker” of the Reformation is Sola Scriptura. Once the “sola” is detached from Sola Scriptura, pieces begin to fall off and true religion eventually crumbles into what we see today. The need for reform warrants the revolution that precedes reform. The need for reform is justified by apostasy, which is varied in degree. This is seen throughout Scripture.
Sola Scriptura is under major attack these days. What makes our battle slightly different than those that ran before us is that the attack is from within our own walls. This enemy of close proximity is potentially more dangerous since it leaves us vulnerable which strengthens the attack. Thus we must keep watchful and remain on the alert, and quickly shut down those moles that emerge.
We may even need to smoke them out!
We must earnestly contend for the “once for all time delivered to the saints” faith and refute opposing doctrines that contradict those revealed in Scripture. Included in our earnest contending should be the active protection of the doctrines that remain on the enemy hit list such as justification solely by faith, penal substitutionary atonement, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, original sin, doctrines of grace, etc.
Read the words of the Lord: “Indeed, from the days of John the Baptizer, until this moment, the kingdom of heaven is being taken by storm, and the strong and forceful ones take it for themselves eagerly.” Kenneth Wuest: The New Testament, An Expanded Translation
“Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” Lk. 13:24 ESV
Hendriksen said it well when he said: “Therefore it takes vigorous men, men who are eager to fight and to conquer, to overcome Satan and thus to take possession of the kingdom, of all the blessings of salvation. The kingdom then, is not for weaklings, waverers, or compromisers.”
May 19th, 2008
Travis
I gotcha, I was thinking that there is no way for a reformation to happen except by Grace. My point which I didnt make clear was we can take encouragement because we arent completly alone in this reformation, there are many Godly men and women that will defend the faith and stand for Sola Scriptura. (I would add Mark Driscoll into this camp, for now)
I have to say you are correct in saying that the strong will survive, but I will also say the strong should help the weak. I say this in sence of You, Dr. Morey, DA Carson… have been gifted and have a revelation that God is reforming the Church, he has gifted you in teaching and explaining. So keep teaching and blogging because I consider myself in the weak (as far as knowladge goes) and you guys are helping me greatly, as I am sure others. I dont see this as I am inferior to you but just different gifts to be used and if I recall Luther, Calvin etc.. were all known because of thier Love for the Lord and thier knowladge, but with out God calling the masses there would be no reformation.
I hope this makes a little sence, sometime I just cant put the words to paper so easy.
May 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis,
My name among those beasts belongs under the title of “briefcase holder.” The other night at a restaurant here in OC, Dr. Morey was telling me and Darrin about a conversation he and Don Carson had when Carson slept over at Morey’s house one night. The waitress brough our bbq ribs just then and we never picked it back up (get Dr. Morey around food and you can kiss theological discussions goodbye - he’ll teach you about good sauces and marinade though!). Anyhow, as I began to eat I was thinking: Oh, to be a fly on that wall with Carson and Morey chopping it up! That would have made a great audio CD! Darrin, can I get a witness???
Anyhow… back to this thread…
We can generalize the Protestant Reformation as being two types of reform, Luther’s and Calvin’s. Not theirs, per se, but those types they molded.
Here’s an excerpt from “The Origin and Formation of the Westminster Confession of Faith”
“Luther was for retaining of medieval doctrine, government, worship, many things – whatever seemed to him desirable and not forbidden in the Word of God.”
“Calvin was for bringing the Church into conformity with the pattern shown in the Word. He would have the Church hold the faith taught in the Word, govern itself according to the principles taught in the Word, and conduct its exercises of worship according to maxims derivable from the Word. He believed in the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice, and he would have the Church conform in all respects to Scripture teaching.”
“Lutheranism was the great type of moderate reform in Northern Europe.”
“Calvinism was the great type of thoroughgoing reform.”
We are continuing Calvin’s type of reform, hence the term Calvinists. His type (thoroughgoing) of reform was a continual reforming (Semper Reformanda: Always Reforming). As Reformers, we call for conformity in all respects to Scripture teaching. Last Reformation Day I wrote a plea to Christians in the West that was for a high-traffic website. The link for that post is http://biblicalthought.com/blog/semper-reformanda-a-plea-to-reformed-american-christians/
I basically said the same thing as here. I even took a jab at the neo-Jesuits:
“…and reclaim the official “starting point” for the Christian - SCRIPTURE ALONE! We must view the supremacy of Scripture over and above our own feelings, our own faith, our own experiences, and our own fallen intellects. By God’s grace, this will cause a mighty revival in today’s world and with our own eyes, in our lifetime, we may see the inevitable downfall of the Emerging Church movement, the New Perspective on Paul, the neo-Jesuit movement that has crept in unnoticed into Evangelical Universities, and all destructive heresies that lead to the eternal damnation of conscious torment in hell!”
Reformed Mama!
You said: “Stephen…I’ve seen Mario’s tattoo…absolutely LOVE it! Do you have one too…I guess I’ve never asked you that… =)”
No, I don’t have any tattoos. I was thinking of getting some EO Icons, or maybe some Aquinas or Ignatius portraits, you know, for the Reformation’s sake! Or, better yet, I could get a tattoo of “Ad maiorem Dei gloriam” which is the Jesuit’s motto (and title of this post)! Nah, too many books to buy…
May 19th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Stephen~
“For the greater glory of God”…not bad for a tattoo…how about “ANATHEMA” as in Gal 1:8-9…”if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be anathema”. Now THAT is the correct use of Anathema!! Orrr…you could have an icon with a line through it like a no-smoking sign…lol…am I getting carried away?
Anywaaay…great post my friend…I want, God willing, to choose:
b) the true Calvinists that live what they believe under the Lordship of Christ!!
God’s grace…
Travis~
We will party, to God’s glory, when you come out, my friend!! Keep us updated on when!!
May 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Great ideas. How about “No Nazianzus” or “Palamas or Paul?”
Or, as a way to draw attention to the issues:
Not By Faith Alone
Not By Grace Alone
Not Through Christ Alone
Not by Scripture Alone
To Man’s Glory Alone
(The 5 counter-solas of the counter-reformation)
That might spark some talk…
May 20th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Nazianzus, Basil and Chrysostom are known as the 3 Holy Hierarchs…more like the unholy trinity!! Wierd thing about Nazianzus his “relics” are split up between the RCC and the EOC…perhaps that is common??
“Palamas or Paul”…nice…I like it!
May 20th, 2008
woodoced
Reformed Mama
It was good to be with you guys on Mother’s Day. I have spent a good deal of time listening to your pastor on You Tube and also from the CD given to me at your church. I haven’t found anything I would disagree with yet. He speaks the true of the Word of God and that is sufficient. Isn’t it strange how people with say the believe the Bible and yet when someone speaks the plain truth of the Word they get attacked. Our pastor gets the same treatment too. Christ said the Gospel would offend and I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. It is just so strange how some people will “read” the Word and say the love it, but when it is “preached”, they are offended. Go figure.
We love you guys!!!!!!!!!
Wood - Doc - Ed
May 20th, 2008
Will
Stephen: Thanks for your excellent commentary on the Jesuits. I’ve heard so many different views on them for so many years. My Uncle- who was also my Godfather, idolized the Jesuits, gave mucho dinero to them, and recently passed away, to God-knows-where. Ironically, his wifes’ maiden name was Calvin, and I knew for many years that she was descended from John Calvin, which didn’t mean much to me until the last few years. She was a life-long Catholic. Go figure. Also, your “5 Solas of the Counter- Reformation” speaks volumes. By the way, is it my imagination, or was USC established by the Jesuits?
May 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Will,
Stay tuned, I’m putting together a piece on Ignatius of Loyola.
As for USC, I have no clue. They weren’t on the list as one of the 28.
May 20th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Woodoced~
Welcome to BT!
Your visit meant a great deal to us! Thank you for listening, for your encouragement and prayers.
Glad to know your thoughts on Dr. Bob. He is only a man, but he serves Messiah faithfully, by God’s grace, and we love him for that! You have stated it exactly right…people will say they love God’s word but they often mean the “God is love” part ONLY!
Much love to you guys!!
God’s grace…
May 20th, 2008
agogley
Isn’t Notre Dame a Jesuit institution?
May 21st, 2008
agogley
Reformed Mama: I am most definately CON.
Jean: There are not crazy Calvinists out there. There are crazy people who might claim to be Calvinists. And that RW would follow Calvin if he were alive, is no strong endorsement. I suspect RW would follow anybody of great popularity…although I doubt Calvin would be very popular today.
May 21st, 2008
Samuel Garcia
Basically, so far this sounds like an association fallacy with an appeal to the emotions of Reformed Christians against the Catholic Church. This may not be the direction you’re heading but is just a heads-up to whatever you’re thinking of writing next.
May 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Sam, I knew this post wouldn’t make everyone happy. That is why I provided the disclosure at the top. If you would like to show the alleged association fallacy, I’d be willing to look into it.
Almost everything is documented and is a matter of historical fact. Sure, I took some risks and put my own spin on it. But I believe that my spin is justified.
But really, the disclosure at the top leaves me with clean hands.
May 22nd, 2008
Samuel Garcia
Well, I didn’t mean that because it was informally fallacious rendered it erroneous. I was just pointing out that your argument seems to be based largely on how one camp is borrowing from the other, therefore since the other camp is bad, so is this one. As I said, this is easy to accept for the Reformed (and most Protestants) for that matter because of their automatic reflex against Catholicism, Jesuits, etc.
I was just cautioning you against relying on that too much because your case would be stronger that way. I don’t think because “they” use it, therefore all of it is bad.
May 22nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Sam,
Thanks for the input. BTW, my argument isn’t that one camp is borrowing from the other. I think the first sentence in the last paragraph could have been written better, that’s my fault. I meant that since there is an increased interest in Reformed Theology these days, especially among the younger crowd (which has a trendy element to it), Jesuit counter-reforming efforts should be expected since they are servants of Satan.
And you already know my whole bit about Moreland and how I disagree with his attempts to return to Rome. In the Kingdom Triangle, Moreland openly endorses Ignatius of Loyola, the featured Jesuit founder, particularly his highly questionable Jesuit training manual on spiritual exercises. The association is warranted and is not a jump - Moreland’s desire is to bring Jesuit (Ignatius) mysticism into the Protestant Church. This (imbio) must be rebuked.
May 22nd, 2008
woodoced
Reformed Mama
Got a letter from your close relative that we stayed with. Remember my question about when you received the Lord? Let me quote, “Both girls prayed to receive the Lord into their hears and lives as small children.” This illustrates the delusion that many are under in this “easy believism” world we live in today, All is necessary is to pray the “magic words” and “poof” like the rabbit in a hat, you are “saved”. Never mind the evidence of the Spirit’s presence in his sancifying ministry to conform us daily through the Word to the image of Christ. The proof is in the life lived each day for the Glory of God and our moment by moment trust in Him through His Word. Aren’t you glad you had nothing to do with your own salvation other than to experience the God granting repentance of sin and turning to God by Jesus Christ?
enough, I think I am preaching!
Love,
Woodoced
May 22nd, 2008
Monty L. Collier (Red Beetle)
Hello,
Since we are on the topic of Jesuit/Catholic institutions, then I might point you to Westminster Seminary California. Please watch the following video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9CDSnRWbx48
Concerning tattoos, I think you would do good to watch this video, which demonstrates how tattoos violate more than a few basic commands:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iWjd2S6uXts
Visit my channel page to see more videos on Calvinism:
http://youtube.com/user/RedBeetle
Calvinism is Christianity!
Sola Fide,
Monty L. Collier
May 23rd, 2008
Samuel Garcia
Calvinism is Christianity? Are you kidding? So not only are Arminians damned to hell, but also ignorant Christians…wow. This reminds me of those Pentecostals who once told me that “to speak in tongues is to be a Christian.”
May 23rd, 2008
agogley
I know this is kinda off topic, but I wanted to say something to Red Beetle.
I’m no fan of tattoos and I was looking forward to your youtube video. I was really hoping you would succinctly articulate my own opinion on the subject. But much to my disappointment, I couldn’t even watch the whole thing because it was rife with error and incorrect assumptions or conclusions. I think this is a perfect example of how we Christians tend to overextend, exxagerate, or otherwise stretch the Bible to support certain doctrines.
I also echo Sam Garcia on the statement, “Calvinism is Christianity!” I think you mean well, but it is an emotionally charged statement that lacks specificity. I think we ought to be careful not to brand Christianity but rather we should stick with essential doctrines as descriptors of the true faith.
May 24th, 2008
Mario Herrera
Monty,
A comment on tattoos:
I got mine to the glory of God. It took about 2 or so hours to complete and was able to declare the gospel and speak of the things of God to the tattoo artist. Since getting it, it has led to many conversations of what Jude 3 means. I have no regrets. Would like your thoughts.
May 24th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
There is one way and only one way to tell if a person is of the reprobate empirically speaking. And that of course, is if they have a visible tattoo.
Jean Cauvin
May 25th, 2008
agogley
Jean,
And I thought it was lip piercings…
May 25th, 2008
the BOC
Hey Monty!
John Calvin is dead! So is Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, Muhammed, Jim Jones, David Karesh and every other leader where doctrines and denominations are based on the teachings of man and not the Word of God. Jesus is alive and well last I heard. Don’t equate my Saviour with a dead man!
Shalom!
May 26th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Woodoced~
Yes…I rejoice that I had nothing to do with my salvation…I would just mess it up anyway!
Hope all is well out your way…email us anytime!!
Love to you both…
May 28th, 2008
Denise
Roman Catholicism is infiltrating many schools. They are feeding the next generation of “Evangelical Reformed” pastors, coming to a church near you. Take a look:
Reformed Theological Seminary
http://www.rts.edu/faculty/StaffDetails.aspx?id=427
Mark Futo is Professor of Old Testament, Academic Dean - Orlando. He received his M.A. and Ph. D. from The Catholic University of America.
The mission of The Catholic University of America:
“As the national university of the Catholic Church in the United States, founded and sponsored by the bishops of the country with the approval of the Holy See, The Catholic University of America is committed to being a comprehensive Catholic and American institution of higher learning, faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed on by the Church. Dedicated to advancing the dialogue between faith and reason, The Catholic University of America seeks to discover and impart the truth through excellence in teaching and research, all in service to the Church, the nation and the world.”
So what’s a “Reformer” doing getting two higher degrees at an RC university and THEN taking what he learned back to a “Reformed” seminary?
He’s not the only one.
Peter Lee also got his Ph.D. from The Catholic University of America and also is Assistant Professor of Old Testament at RTS.
Dr. John J. Yeo his Ph.D from the University of St. Michael’s College in Canada:
“The University of St. Michael’s College is a Catholic institution of higher learning founded by the Congregation of St. Basil and expanded by cooperation with the Sisters of St. Joseph and the Sisters of Loretto.”
Dr. William Davis (Adjunct) got his PhD from Notre Dame University. He teaches philosophy at RTS.
Dr. Michael A. Milton Professor of Practicle Theology, received his Ph.D from University of Wales, a Church of England university.
Westminster Theological Seminary:
Douglas Gropp: taught at Catholic University of America 1987-2007, current teaching O.T. at WTS.
Westminster Theological Seminary- California:
Bryan D. Estelle: Associate Professor of Old Testament; Ph.D Catholic University of America. “He lectured in Hebrew at The Catholic University between 1997 and 2000. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Catholic Biblical Association.”
David m. Vandrunen: Robert B. Strimple Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics: Ph.D., Loyola University Chicago
Richard Lints - Visiting Professor of Theology: M.A. University of Notre Dame, Ph.D. University of Notre Dame. “He has taught at the Yale Divinity School, Trinity College in Bristol England, and the University of Notre Dame. ”
Dordt Collge - Associated with the Christian Reformed Church
Mark Tazelaar -Professor of Philosophy. Ph.D., Loyola University
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Bruce L. Fields, PhD - Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament at Marquette University.
Mark H. Senter III is chair of the Educational Ministries Department and professor of educational ministries at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois: Doctor of Philosophy in foundations of education from Loyola University
Douglas A. Sweeney is associate professor of Church History and the History of Christian Thought and director of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Dr. Sweeney has also served as an adjunct professor at Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee.”
“Rooted in Catholic heritage, Aquinas College has a history founded on Dominican Tradition. Owned and administered by the Dominican Sisters of the Congregation of Saint Cecilia, the history of the College actually began its remote preparation with the establishment of the Saint Cecilia Congregation in 1860 at the request of Nashville’s second bishop, James Whelan, O.P. ” - Aquinas College
WHAT Reformation? Seems a lot of Reformers are going back to the false church called Rome. Some never really left Her.
May 28th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Denise,
This is a good observation on your part. For the record, “Futado” not “Futo” is that former WSC prof’s last name. This is a very touchy subject for them.
Dr. Morey said, in his review of Stephen Grabill’s book “Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics” (Eerdmans, 2006):
“My first question was who is Stephen Grabill? On page ix he acknowledges that he wrote the book for the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion in Liberty located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This foundation is sponsoring seminars on Natural Theology and Natural Law at such places as Calvin College. This book is recommended by J. P. Moreland and Budziszewski.”
“I went on the Internet and found the Acton Institute was established in honor of Lord Acton, a fanatical Roman Catholic scholar, who fought against the evangelical gospel in England. Budziszewski is a Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism and has connection to the Acton Institute. I found that the head of the Institute is headed by a Jesuit priest.”
*Here’s where he outs Van Drunen:
“It is interesting to note that on pages 6-7 Grabill lists the Natural Theologians who support Natural Law. Among others, he lists David Van Drunen, who has recently joined the faculty at Westminster Seminary (Escondido, CA). This is interesting because in a series of email exchanges I had with Dr. Van Drunen, he denied that he was a Natural Theologian. Under my questioning he did admit that his book Law & Custom: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, the Future of the Common Law (Peter Lange), was financially underwritten by the Jesuits. It was dedicated to a Jesuit priest. His education was by the Jesuits.
When I had other people contact Westminster concerning whether Van Drunen was a Natural Theologian trained by the Jesuits, they were told that none of these things were true. Grabill’s book is the final straw that breaks the camel’s back. The Jesuits finally have someone on the faculty of Westminster Seminary. Van Til would have declared Van Drunen’s book heresy!”
The cut is deeper than most realize. A professor at Westminster Seminary California writes a book promoting anti-Sola Scriptura Medieval Catholic doctrine, it’s financially underwritten by the Jesuits, He’s Jesuit-trained (PhD, Loyola), and the book is dedicated TO A JESUIT PRIEST!
Great idea guys. Let’s get a Jesuit-trained counter-reformer to teach the next generation “Christian Ethics.”
I said it’s a touchy subject for them. Just watch what happens to those that oppose!
May 28th, 2008
Denise
Dr. Mark D. Futato should be the correct name. Sorry about that. Thanks Stephen.
Btw, here are some of the issues with him:
http://www.presbyteriannews.org/volumes/v5/2/Futato.html :
Professor Will Soon Be Heading to Teach at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando
The Rev. Dr. Mark Futato, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, has renounced the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) by joining an independent congregation. His action came as he was facing the prospect of judicial charges brought against him by two ministers of South Coast Presbytery.
The charges revolved around his alleged promoting and endorsing the ministry of a female naturopathic doctor and with continuing to endorse his wife’s involvement with her institute. Dr. David Eby, who pastors North City Presbyterian Church in San Diego, and Dr. Iain Duguid, who serves on the faculty at Westminster Seminary with Dr. Futato, charged him “with the general, public offense . . . of failing to guard the flock and shepherd the church of God; of failing to exhort with sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it; of failing to speak the truth in love, to the edification of the body; of associating with so-called brothers who teach contrary to the Word of God, and the Constitution of this Church, founded thereupon.”
May 28th, 2008
R. Scott Clark
I have no idea how Dr VanDrunen’s name arises in this discussion or Westminster Seminary California for that matter, but Dr VanDrunen has been a member of the faculty of Westminster Seminary California for more than 8 years. He, our president W. Robert Godfrey, and Michael S. Horton (White Horse Inn and Modern Reformation) and we are ardent proponents of the Protestant Reformation.
We just published a lengthy defense of the Reformation doctrine of justification, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry (Phillipsburg; P&R Publishing). It’s available at http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore
Dr VanDrunen chaired the Justification Study Committee for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. That study also defended justification sola gratia et sola fide and is available at WSC books.
Some time back our faculty released a statement in response to the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision on justification sola gratia et sola fide. You can see that material and much more here:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php
Our faculty members have earned our PhDs at a different kinds of institutions: 2 of them Roman Catholic, 5 of them secular, some of them broadly evangelical, 3 and some broadly Reformed. Yet none of us is secular, Roman, or broadly evangelical in the least. We are a confessional Reformed faculty. We subscribe and heartily believe the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. More than that we believe the Word of God written as inspired and inerrant.
As to Natural law, Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, and the rest of the Protestants would be shocked to find out that only Roman Catholics believe in natural law! Here are some posts that might help:
http://tinyurl.com/4n9rcp
http://tinyurl.com/4orte2
We are all devoted to the biblical and Reformed defense of the faith taught by Cornelius Van Til. Following the Apostle Paul in Romans 2, the Reformed churches have always confessed that every human has some limited but true knowledge of God. That knowledge only condemns him and is not saving. Every human knows God’s law. It’s written on his conscience. That is the natural law and it is substantially the same as the moral law or the decalogue (ten commandments). This is not “Roman Catholic” teaching. What it if it was? Rome believes the Trinity and the two natures of Christ? Should we reject those because Rome teaches them?
The story of Dr Mark Futato is a long and complicated one but he has not taught at WSC for many years.
For what it’s worth, Dr Peter Jones is one of the leading critics of neo-paganism and is a resident scholar at WSC.
R. Scott Clark
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Westminster Seminary California
May 29th, 2008
Mario
Stephen, Denise:
This information is so important to know! The enemy of old is infiltrating on every side. It is like gangrene that spreads with the intent of consuming all that is good. Keep up the great work!
May 29th, 2008
Mark Vander Pol
The “enemy of old is infiltrating on every side?” Speaking to the charges that Rome is active and vibrant at Westminster Seminary California (following up on Dr. Clark) - have any of you who are calling Dr. Estelle and Dr. VanDrunen Roman ever sat in on one of their classes to hear what they are actually teaching? In Dr. VanDrunen’s classes whenever the Roman church disagrees with us [the Reformed] on any point of doctrine that is pointed out under Dr. VanDrunen’s infamous classification of “Alternative Views.” You are also forgetting that both of these gentlemen received their M.Div. degrees from WSC and are ordained ministers in the OPC.
So it seems that in order to be truly Reformed one must only receive their education from a select handful of schools? Pray tell, what would those be? Who cares about where the best education can be found for one’s particular field to better equip them in training up the next generations of pastors.
Mark Vander Pol
Westminster Seminary California, M.Div. student.
May 29th, 2008
Denise
I’ll ask my question again. Why would anyone who claims to repudiate Rome go back to Her for anything? And why defend it?
May 29th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Dr. Clark,
Thank you for your comment. The point at which we would push back would be on certain statements such as the following:
“Every human knows God’s law. It’s written on his conscience. That is the natural law and it is substantially the same as the moral law or the decalogue (ten commandments).”
Since we do not find exegetical support for such a position we deny its validity. We not only deny its validity, but we also counter such positions with what we do find exegetical support for. We believe that this is the most faithful way to apply the principle of Sola Scriptura. Although we allow for logical deductions to be drawn from Scripture and be inferred as truths that are not propositionally revealed per se, we do not find that to be the case with the form of natural law that you are asserting.
Since Scripture does not say what you’ve said it says (God’s law is written on the conscience of every human), we would reject the suggestion and embrace what we find to be a more biblical position. The text says that the “work” of the law is written on hearts, not that the “law is written…” While this may sound like splitting hairs, we believe that the distinction is important to make since the Holy Spirit has desired for it to be in Paul’s letter.
May 29th, 2008
Denise
Attending the Catholic University of America is supporting its mission which is stated at their website:
http://www.cua.edu/mission/
“As the national university of the Catholic Church in the United States, FOUNDED AND SPONSORED BY THE BISHOPS of the country with the APPROVAL OF THE HOLY SEE, The Catholic University of America IS COMMITTED TO BEING A COMPREHENSIVE CATHOLIC and American institution of higher learning, FAITHFUL TO THE TEACHINGS of Jesus Christ AS HANDED ON BY THE CHURCH. Dedicated to advancing the dialogue between faith and reason, The Catholic University of America seeks to discover and impart the truth through excellence in teaching and research, all in service to the Church, the nation and the world.”
“As a Catholic university, it desires to cultivate and impart an understanding of the Christian faith within the context of all forms of human inquiry and values. It seeks to ensure, in an institutional manner, the proper intellectual and academic witness to Christian inspiration in individuals and in the community, and to provide a place for continuing reflection, in the light of Christian faith, upon the growing treasure of human knowledge.”
Moreover, http://policies.cua.edu/Studentlife/faith.cfm :
“The Catholic Church recognizes the good in other religious traditions and believes that the Catholic Church HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE FULLNESS OF FAITH and REPRESENTS IN THE CLOSTEST MANNER THE AUTHENTIC TEAHING of Jesus Christ as handed down to us from the Apostles.”
You sure you Reformers want to approve of this by attending and giving the Whore money to perpetrate such false notions and then defend it as if its ok?
“With the exception of the reception of the sacraments (confession, the reception of Communion, etc.) all students, faculty and staff — REGARLESS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE — ARE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SPIRIUTAL LIFE of the campus. THIS INCLUDES THE CELEBRATION of the MASS, EUCHARIST, ADORATION, retreats and any or all other Campus Ministry events.”
Perhaps folks are more ecumenically minded (and therefore have more in common with the RCC) than you think:
“CUA itself, may, on occasion, sponsor services which are designed to be ecumenical in nature as an expression of Catholic ecumenical outreach. ”
Why would a Christian want to endorse THAT? (That again begs the question, “WHAT Reformation?”)
RCC is a false church, without the Gospel, without Truth, and without Light. What could a false church possibly have to offer any Christian? No lie is of the Truth, says Scripture. And most certainly God demands purity in doctrine AND practice. We are not to add a little leaven to the bread. We are to keep it OUT.
Christians are not to be toying with error. We are not to be trying to find some truth in it. No! We are to spot it and immediately reject it completely. We are not to play with fire. We are not to drink a little poison. Rather we are called to Purity. Exposing ourselves to error not only is disobedience, but it will desensitize us to the horrors and affects of it. We will end up thinking its not all that bad. But God says:
2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.
2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
Rom 16:19 For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and INNOCENT [unmixed, pure, simple] as to what is evil.
Purity demands not mixing truth with error, sin with obedience, good with evil. That is EXACTLY what men do when they go to a false religion to gain “wisdom”, instead of sticking to the PURITY and simplicity of Christ and Scripture.
Such are already deceived and lack discernment and wisdom. Stop being man-centered. What does Scripture say? What did God do when Israel mixed Baal worship with worshipping Him? What does He say to Christians?
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
May 29th, 2008
Denise
Mark,
The first and foundational problem is the notion that Christians have any common ground with the RCC on Truth. It does not. The RCC is a false church and does not have God nor His Gospel. Its very foundations are not found in Truth.
How is error, no, heresy, considered an “alternate view”? God is black and white. Doctrine is either true or false, right or wrong, good or evil, of Him or of Satan, in the Light or from the Darkness. Remember 2Cor. 6:14-17.
It seems, Mark, you haven’t repudiated Rome much if at all, which makes me wonder if you consider Rome to be a valid church?
May 29th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Mark Vander Pol,
You wrote: “[H]ave any of you who are calling Dr. Estelle and Dr. VanDrunen Roman ever sat in on one of their classes to hear what they are actually teaching? In Dr. VanDrunen’s classes whenever the Roman church disagrees with us [the Reformed] on any point of doctrine that is pointed out under Dr. VanDrunen’s infamous classification of “Alternative Views.”
No one is just “calling” Dr. VanDrunen a name for name-calling’s sake. It was pointed out that he wrote a book (Law & Custom: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, the Future of the Common Law) that was financially underwritten by the Jesuits, and was also dedicated to a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest! VanDrunen is featured in Catholic Philosophical Journals/publications and he also has a history with the Acton Institute that was founded by one of the biggest “Christian” gay-rights advocate Fr. Robert Sirico.
This is sufficient warrant for at least a strong suspicion of Dr. VanDrunen wouldn’t you say? IOW, no one said he’s Catholic just because he went to a Catholic school.
Lastly, do you see a difference between an “alternative view” and a “false view?”
May 29th, 2008
Mark Vander Pol
Stephen, et. al. -
Thanks for your reply.
However, by simply going to a certain university and belonging to certain group does not necessarily imply then that one is in full agreement with all that institution holds to be true. I worked for an organization before coming to seminary that as a whole would agree to an Darwinian, macro-evolution view of the creation of the world (along with a lot of things I disagree with). Does that mean that I too am a Darwinian because I made a living by working for them and cashed their paychecks? I did my undergraduate study at a school which would classify itself as Kuyperian, but yet I would not agree with them on all aspects of that theology. However, I must be bleeding Kuyper because I went to that particular school.
In the case of Dr. VanDrunen and Dr. Estelle just because they are publishing in the best forum for that particular area of study does not mean that they fully agree with the theology of the organization who publishes the journal or holds the “deed” to the society. Why aren’t you talking about the fact that these guys also publish in journals and belong to societies that are “Reformed” and have published books by other publishers (like P&R).
Which schools and organizations, in your opinion then, must one belong to in order to be truly Reformed? According to what I have heard, just being in the OPC doesn’t redeem these guys. Do they need to go to the Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church of Kingsport, TN (if it even exists because I cannot find a single thing about it on the Internet)? What journals or societies must one be a member of, even if there are other societies that also overlap with their area of interest?
Again have you actually sat under their teaching and heard what they actually said? Just by publishing in a particular journal means nothing when the content of what they publish and teach is totally in line with the Reformed confessions and ultimately Scripture.
That video on YouTube concerning this matter makes so many false statements that it is frustrating (not to mention that the developer of the video couldn’t even get the names spelled right). For instance, do you know what Dr. Estelle lectured on at the Catholic University? Let me know if you do.
There is a difference between an “alternative view” and a “false view,” but they are not mutually exclusive. There are points in doctrine where the alternative is in fact heresy, but on the other hand there are alternative views that one can hold and remain Reformed and orthodox. I know that you are going to try and prove the point that because Dr. VanDrunen doesn’t label the category exactly a “false view” when a Roman dogma is presented, means then that he is in fact a Jesuit in Calvinst clothes. But because I know that is what you are trying to do, I will let you sit in on Dr. VanDrunen’s classes and read his body of work to make the judgment for yourself. Because I have heard him lecture and have read a good amount of his work, I know my answer, but you need to actually do the hard work (more than reading a bio on a webpage) to make the accusations that you are. The same goes with Dr. Estelle. Hear him lecture, hear him preach, read his work and then come back to the table.
Finally, I do consider Rome to be a false church (and it is according to Belgic Confession Article 29). However, we do agree on certain things with them in some areas of doctrine and can learn from their scholars (as they can from ours) without becoming Roman Catholic. I am totally against ECT and other eccumenical statements that have been forged as of late, but I do believe in God’s common grace that makes it so we can learn from those who do not believe in the Biblical plan of salvation.
Overall, I was just very surprised today to learn that there are those out there who claim that Westminster Seminary California is being taken over by Rome, when I find nothing of the sort and I am actually here (on campus as I type).
Mark
May 29th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Mark,
It took me a couple of minutes to put two and two together, but are you talking about the “Red Beetle” YouTube videos? If so (I can’t imagine otherwise), then you have really missed by about a mile. We do not have any affiliation with RB whatsoever. We do not know him (Monty?) or his supposed church. He posted (to my knowledge) once here on BT (in this thread). He appears to have had some past issues with Dr. Clark over some PB thread (as have I) and was suspended from the PB (as was I). Other than being suspended from the PB for disagreeing with Dr. Clark, I have nothing to do with him. I fully understand how you could have easily confused the issues. This is simply a point for clarity. If you are referring to other videos, you need to let me know.
Your first paragraph is really a waste since it argues against a straw man (as does Dr. Clark). Had you written a work in defense of the fossil record argument in favor of atheistic evolution, had that work financially underwritten by a well-known anti-Creationist institute, and dedicated the book to a well-known atheist associated with the anti-Creationist institute that funded you, then perhaps your not being a Darwinian in spite of your former employer would be relevant to VanDrunen’s not being a Jesuit pawn at WSC. Both yours and Dr. R. Scott Clark’s arguments are just plain silly in this regard.
As for being truly Reformed, I am shocked that you, Mark, would rely on an institutional connection as the basis of one’s authenticity as truly Reformed. I cannot teach you Reformed Theology here in one post. But you must know that as a Calvinist, I am part of what has been identified as the “thoroughgoing reform.” Ask some of your professors there at WSC about the difference between TR and Luther’s moderate reform, but don’t abbreviate like I did (TR); they may already have another definition for TR (truly reformed) tied to confessionalism (sorry to misrepresent Dr. Scott Clark’s position here - if I am) or something like that. My form of TR screams “SEMPER REFORMANDA!” It can be best described as Reform-ing rather than Reform-ed. I’ve been known to split hairs (as I’ve said many times in the past!).
May 29th, 2008
agogley
Mark:
1.) what Youtube video are you referring to?
2.) You make some decent points about reviewing the actual teachings, however, IMHO, you still haven’t addressed the facts raised by Stephen.
To Others:
What the heck do we mean by “natural” law? Natural law has meant so many things throughout world history and Church history.
I have a bit of a problem with taking Romans 2:14 & 15 and forcing it to mean that ALL humans have God’s law written on their hearts. “For when Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law…” Looking at the Greek, “when” is closer to whenever. So it’s not the Gentiles collectively, but Gentiles among whom the supposed case occurs. Secondarily, it doesn’t say the law is written on the heart, but the worksof the law. That means the design, purpose, or object which is contemplated by the revealed law. Thirdly, 2:15 says “in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” Does that mean that some knowledge of God’s moral law is natural or that God reveals some portion of the law to all men (not necessarily the same portion) and that this is evidenced by their actions?
But even if we look at these verses and agree that it means that ALL persons have been given some knowledge of God’s moral law we still have to ASSUME that each person is given the same knowledge and that a person is born with this knowledge (assuming that is what we mean by “natural.”).
We are pulling a lot out of a passage which is meant to tell us that if people are to be justified by the law, their obedience must be entire and perfect. Jews and Gentiles both had an opportunity to illustrate this principle and failed.
Anyways, that’s my rant for the day from the perspective of somebody who has no divinity or other religious degrees.
May 29th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Stephen…it is exhausting to continually explain that people such as the Redbeetle and Jean C(h)auvin DO NOT represent us…gosh…!!!
May 29th, 2008
agogley
RedBeetle seems to be a one-time poster.
May 29th, 2008
R. Scott Clark
Dear All,
Today I am going to fly a simulator on a military airbase. That does not make me a military pilot (or any pilot for that matter). Neither does attending a Roman school make one a member of or sympathetic to the Roman communion.
As Mark notes, what matters is what we teach. Please take just a moment to read what we’ve actually written.
I’ve written a number of criticisms of the Roman doctrine of justification and of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Here is just one post that leads to others:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/of-catholics-evangelicals-and-rome-1/
Attending a university with Roman connections is not “going to Rome.” In fact, Dr Estelle’s advisor was a confessionally Reformed Protestant!
I attended a secularist university. Am I a secularist? Prove it.
As to natural law, you simply do not know what you are talking about or at least you have no idea what the historic Protestant tradition teaches. Luther, Calvin et al may be wrong but you haven’t proven it. Have you bothered to read anything that VanDrunen or Grabill or I have written on this? Did you read any of the links I provided?
Rom 2:12-15 says:
For all who have sinned vwithout the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For wit is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, xby nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is ywritten on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
That is prima facie evidence for some sort of doctrine of natural law. Paul says that the Gentiles do not have “the law” but they do “by nature” what the law requires. They “show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.” He connects that with the conscience.
On this basis the Reformed confessions (e.g. the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort) all teach that humans have a natural, non-saving knowledge of God.
This knowledge condemns them but they have it. We appeal to it as Paul did at the Areopagus to convict them of their sin and to point them to Christ.
One may disagree with the Reformation doctrine of natural law but at least recognize that the Reformers and the Reformed Churches were trying to get to grips with God’s Word on this doctrine.
May 30th, 2008
Mark Vander Pol
Hey all -
My apologies for including Red Beetle into your group. I am totally new to this forum and don’t know who anybody is and how they are or are not related. However, Red Beetle is making the same claim you are about Drs. VanDrunen and Estelle, therefore, on this point I am somewhat justified in my lumping y’all together.
With that said I am not going to argue this point much anymore. Until you have heard these gentlemen speak or read their work, then we have common ground for discussion on whether or not these guys are really Roman. Dr. Clark pointed to some references above. Here is Dr. VanDrunen’s inaugural address given earlier this year (I don’t think Dr. Clark linked to this).
http://tinyurl.com/6lhs4o
Finally, I have had Dr. VanDrunen for a couple of classes and the same for Dr. Estelle. I don’t know how strongly I can say this… THEY ARE NOT ROMAN!!! Doing work with and for our Roman brothers and sisters (there are true Christians within the false church of Rome!) does not make one a Roman and if you think so, then you are sorely mistaken and don’t know what academic life is like.
Come to WSC this fall and sit in on The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit with me taught by Dr. VanDrunen or Pentateuch with Dr. Estelle taught in the Spring. Sit in on a few classes and we will discuss over a beer and/or cigar.
Thanks for allowing me to partake in this discussion. Seeing that my mind is still recovering from my final exams I was probably not very cogent, for that I apologize.
Take care,
Mark
May 30th, 2008
Denise
Mark said, “Finally, I do consider Rome to be a false church (and it is according to Belgic Confession Article 29). However, we do agree on certain things with them in some areas of doctrine and can learn from their scholars (as they can from ours) without becoming Roman Catholic.”
I’m not understanding why Reformers such as Scott and Mark think its fine to go to an apostate church for anything. Claiming to repudiate Rome, yet saying it has something to offer in the way of truth relating to spiritual things is hypocritical. It also violates Scripture. RCC is a false church because Gal. 1 says it is. Why are you citing the Belgic Confession instead of Scripture?
Scott and Mark, what you think the RCC can offer any Christian that is spiritual truth, exactly?
Doesn’t 2Cor. 6 say that Belila and Christ have NOTHING in common? Why do you say they do?
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Scripture cannot be clearer: Rome has nothing in common with Christ Jesus. RCC’s foundation is based on lies not Truth, so She has nothing to offer any Christian. Scripture says no lie is of the Truth.
On every major doctrine Rome denies the Truth.
You both, to be honest, are ecumenical. You hold hands with Rome by defending going to Her for learning to then turn and teach Christians. You say that She has things in common with believers.
God says the RCC is eternally condemned. Gal. 1:8-9.
Not only does the RCC have no common ground with the Truth, She has violently confronted Truth historical and continues to rage against it.
How in the world can there be an “alternate” view to the Truth? Truth excludes all other views. This amazes me that anyone would think such a thing. God will NOT allow mixing Truth with error. Why do you? And why do you swallow a professor’s “alternate view” label? Because he’s a professor? Does GOD say its an alternate? Truth IS knowable and it IS dogmatic. “Alternate” seems to indicate uncertainty as well as possibility of it being alternately truth. Error will always be error, truth always True.
2Jn 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
There was a day when Christians not only stood up against Rome, but fought Her with their very lives. Today the Reformers go back to the slop thinking there’s something good there, when all that is offered is death. They want to find a middle ground, violating God’s clear Word.
Neither Mark nor Scott have shown from Scripture how they can accept hand-holding with Rome. Circling the wagons and relying on authority doesn’t work either. I sure hope God convicts them of this. Such liberal views only serve to blur the line between Truth and error, Right and wrong, biblical Christianity and Rome.
“So the main contributor to this lack of discernment has been the WEAKENING OF DOCTRINAL CLARITY AND CONVICTION in the name of unity, in the name of mystical experience, and so forth. And as I said, THE LIBEALS COULDN’T S SELL US THEIR THEOLOGY SO THEY SOLD US THEIR HERMENEUTICS, relationships, love, unity, mystical experience and we buy in to that and we’ll end up with the same chaos. ”
“We live in a culture that some say thinks on what you could call a continuum. In other words, there’s no black/white. There’s no right/ wrong, true/false, good/bad, there’s just this long continuum of relative shades of gray…. Religion is subjective, spiritual experience is subjective. But listen, BIBLICAL PREACHING is not relative, it is not subjective, IT IS ABSOLUTE IT IS SHARPLY BLACK AND WHITE, it is pointedly antithetical to error…. ”
–Dr. John MacArthur, “A Call For Discernment” http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/52-32.htm (Emphasis, mine)
For the Master,
Denise
P.S.
And by the way, I realize its standard proceedure with young Reformers particularly, but please reconsider flaunting your smoking and drinking publically, because it not only comes off worldly, but it likely is a stumbling block to a weaker brother (Rom. 14, 1Cor.
and I would assume you’d want to be careful to not cause anyone to stumble in any way. Thanks.
May 31st, 2008
Denise
P.S.S. If its ok to go to the RCC to learn truth, then where does that end? Why not go to the LDS? Or Islam? Or Eastern Mysticism?
I say they have neither the God of Scripture nor the Truth. Dead men hate God and despise HIS authority.
Rather: Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man who walks NOT IN THE COUNSEL OF THE WICKED, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 BUT his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night.
2Jn 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God.
May 31st, 2008
Mark Vander Pol
Denise -
Do you hold to any sort of doctrine of Common Grace?
Mark
Jun 2nd, 2008
Denise
Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth rearing. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this “modern thought.”
http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg10.htm
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Dear All,
I am really surprised (and disappointed) by the low quality arguments of Dr. R. Scott Clark. Straw men left and right, and when pointed out to him, he erects more to knock down. In addition to numerous self-regenerating straw-men, his handling of the text (Rom. 2:12-15, Ac. 17) is poor. Then we see Dr. Clark committing a very basic category fallacy (natural law/general revelation). Not only does he attribute his errors to the GA & Divines, but he goes on to assert that the Apostle Paul appealed to “natural law!” Talk about eisegesis…
I am shocked to see such grevious errors coming from a Reformed seminary professor, especially one from Westminster Seminary California. Aren’t they supposed to know these things???
This post is very general in pointing out that Dr. R. Scott Clark has made some pretty bad boo-boo’s. Should anyone want specific examples of Dr. Clark’s low quality arguments, etc., just request them and I’ll post them here. But you must deal with them. That includes you, Dr. Clark.
Jun 3rd, 2008
Eric
<>
P & R publishing is also publishing Norman Shepherds heretical teachings. I suppose the ‘P’ now stands for Popish. P & R publishing is publishing two gospels!
<>
Why does the OPC have to form a committee to study justification? This should be a settled matter in any reformed church. This is a very sad state of affairs and exactly the reason I would not join the OPC if it was the only ‘reformed’ church left on the planet. What fellowship does light have with darkness? Paul M. Elliot does a great job in explaining this in his book ‘Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond.’
Jul 12th, 2008
Reply to “Ad maiorem Dei gloriam”