|
I had written:
Meanwhile, I sat in utter amazement as I read an article by
Kevin Johnson on the "Reformed Catholicism" blog. It was
another complete fulfillment of the citation I posted here a
few days ago: “…such men that are for middle ways in points
of doctrine have a greater kindness for that extreme they go
half way to than for that which they go halfway from."
Mr. Johnson replies:
There is nothing like personally attacking your opponent.
I reply:
I would direct folks to Johnson's blog where he only
recently hoped the anonymous blogger, who produced nothing
but mockery of me, would get back to work, since his
material was "hilarious." I will gladly let the fair and
honest minded person decide if in fact I am attacking Mr.
Johnson with that quote, or, if my observations are, in
fact, quite fair and true.
Johnson:
Why deal with the issue at hand when it is simply easier to
cut your opponent off at the knees by attacking his
integrity and character? Dr. White certainly has the means
and the opportunity to respond with some substance about the
particular issues at hand, but instead chooses to attack
myself and others personally. Odd behavior for one who
claims to have truth on his side.
I reply:
The new advocates of "Reformed Catholicism" are very long on
complaining about being mistreated but very short on fairly
handling material. This was the first paragraph, nothing
more. To start complaining about lack of substance in the
first paragraph is just a tad bit disingenuous, is it not?
Johnson:
But, for the record, Reformed Catholicism is not about
meeting anyone halfway. Reformed Catholicism is about what
the Reformation has always been about--a return to who we
really are as Christians.
I reply:
Ah, but as I had pointed out, Mr. Johnson has not always
believed in "Reformed Catholicism." He once believed as I.
In fact, he has been your standard Southern Baptist of the
Arminian stripe, then a conservative Anglican, then back to
Southern Baptist, then to a Calvinistic Southern Baptist,
then to Presbyterianism. I assume he would see himself as
now just a broader-minded, fully covenantally-oriented
"Catholic" now. But the fact remains that while I am still
right where I was, it is Mr. Johnson who has been quite the
moving target over the past fifteen years or so, and hence
the quotation is perfectly valid in the context in which it
is being used: Mr. Johnson has, documentably, moved *away
from* where I am to a point very, very far down the
spectrum. Hence the propriety of the citation. Mr. Johnson
has missed the point again.
Johnson:
That includes a return to the truth. But it also includes a
return to our identity as catholic Christians. The assertion
of Dr. White above is groundless simply because our position
is a return to a fuller magisterial understanding of the
Reformation, its contribution to history, and our identity
as men and women who stand in line with a great cloud of
witnesses over these two thousand years in the Church.
I reply:
That sounds wonderful, but, it has nothing to do with the
citation I offered. Mr. Johnson is now "in the middle"
between two opposing sides in a theological conflict (as the
quote says); he has moved from one side to the middle, and I
am not the only one who has known Mr. Johnson well in the
past who believes the quote is accurate: that he is
significantly more favorable to those on the other side than
he is toward those with whom he once counted his allegiance.
Now as to whether this hybrid religious system with an
oxymoronic title is, in fact, relevant to our identity as
"catholic Christians" is a completely different issue, one I
was not even addressing. What does a "magisterial"
understanding of the Reformation mean? Does Mr. Johnson
believe Baptists should be given their third baptism?
Banished? That was the "Magisterial" response to them. Or
does "semper reformanda" allow us to both appreciate, and
correct, their views of such things? And how about the Roman
magisterium? What is its authority for Mr. Johnson? These
are all interesting questions, but they are hardly relevant
to the point I was making.
Johnson:
Our emphasis on catholic doctrine is a return to the spirit
of the Reformation's cry of ad fontes. Our focus upon the
trinitarian, covenantal, and sacramental connection we have
with those brothers who are in other communions is a focus
that lifts up high the banner of semper reformanda.
I reply:
Really? What is the basis of semper reformanda? Allegedly
ancient traditions, dogmas of men, or the inspired Word of
God? The Galatian false teachers were seemingly "orthodox"
in their theology in most areas, yet, were anathematized.
Who does Mr. Johnson anathematize today? Evidently, the
Mormons. But, the Mormons likewise practice baptism in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And if we say,
"Oh, but what they mean by that is not correct...." are we
not "parsing" their profession of faith in the very way that
"Reformed Catholics" find so disturbing when someone such as
myself does it? And upon what binding authority, I ask, am I
to believe that my unity is to be formed on the basis of "trinitarian
baptism" in the first place? I thought the unity of the
faith was found in the confession of faith in Jesus Christ
as Lord that is brought forth from the common presence of
the Holy Spirit in redeemed souls (1 Cor. 12:3)! Call me
schismatic if you wish, but what fellowship can I have with
one who believes they are justified by baptism, kept by
sacramental faithfulness, forgiven partially by
participation in the Mass, further forgiven through priestly
absolutions, trusting in the merit of indulgences, headed to
an indeterminate time in purgatory, and praying to Mary to
seek her intercession and grace?
Johnson:
We say, with the Reformers and their catholic brothers
before them, that a pure but historically invisible Church
is not enough to fulfill the words of our Lord "that the
gates of hell may not prevail against it". And, it certainly
isn't what the Reformers envisioned for the role of the
Church throughout history. No, the Reformers argued
incessantly that their faith was catholic and that their
Roman Catholic contemporaries indulged in a faith that had
separated itself from the Gospel as well as allowing moral
corruption and decay to run rampant in the Church.
I reply:
No argument here, but unless Mr. Johnson has forgotten what
he once believed, no one back here in the place he left a
few years ago would deny anything in that citation, at least
in the context that would allow *all* that the Reformers
said to be taken into consideration. But it is just in that
phrase "separated itself from the Gospel" that we part
company, for a faith that has not the gospel is not
"Christian" in any meaningful sense.
Johnson:
If anything, Reformed Catholicism has a higher view of truth
and doctrine than our self-styled "opponents" suppose simply
because we place the appropriate emphasis for our day on the
'pillar and ground of the truth'.
I reply:
In context, 1 Timothy 3:15 is about the local body. :-)
Johnson:
A proper ecclesiology that recognizes the biblical binding
nature of the teaching office of the Church, for example,
will result in a higher view of the truth--a view that is
not utterly disconnected from the life and practice of the
saints.
I reply:
One of the main problems with this new breed of "Reformed
Catholicism" is that it uses lots of buzz phrases and
flowery words that, in the real "space time world," mean
nothing. I am reminded of the "ecclesiastical text" view
that sounds so fine, but cannot answer a single textual
question put to it. I deny "Reformed Catholicism" has a
higher view of truth and I deny it can even produce a
single, meaningful model of the "biblical binding nature of
the teaching office of the Church" either. And at least some
of us can point to published works in which we have defended
a high, biblical ecclesiology in contexts other than
Internet blogs.
Johnson:
For too long, Reformed theology has found its home in overly
systematic abstract propositions and our churches have
suffered immeasurably as a result.
I reply:
And midnight on the Elbe flyingly a green the road invicibly
heightened.
Ipse dixits, repeated often enough, seem to become mantras
of movements such as this. It is a hasty, overly broad,
unfounded generalization to state this, yet, it is taken as
axiomatic by "Reformed Catholics," at least those who offer
their views under that title.
Johnson:
Reformed Catholicism, on the other hand, is pastoral in
nature in that it puts theology back in its place while
returning to the Church the honor it is due.
I reply:
Again, very nice words, but what do they mean? How is
halting between two positions "pastoral?" How is the
confusion engendered by this movement of benefit to the
people of God? I simply reject as utterly false the concept
that Reformed churches as a rule, and the church to which I
can speak directly in particular, are guilty of these
accusations by "Reformed Catholics" (how odd for RC's to say
they are non-schismatic, yet, their basic presuppositions
involve attacks upon others?). Merely making the accusations
does not make them true. And to what does Johnson refer when
he says he is honoring the "Church"? Again, that sounds
wonderful, but what does it MEAN? I do not believe Christ's
Church is honored when the gospel is made a matter of taste
while matters of tradition are made dogma. Is Rome the
Church? Calvin denied it in the strongest of terms. Was he
wrong?
Johnson:
This honor forces us to realize the inherent weaknesses in
our own doctrinal positions, to humbly approach our
disagreements with others while keeping in mind the
testimony of the catholic Church, and to fully search out
the truth of these matters.
I reply:
Again, sounds wonderful, but what does it mean? What does it
mean to speak of "inherent weaknesses?" What is the
"testimony of the catholic Church" and who gets to decide
it? Does Johnson decide this for himself? His local
assembly? The CRE? Interdenominational synods? We are not
told.
Johnson:
This is in contrast to adopting a polemic that for the last
five hundred years has been responsible for a divided
Church, a polarization of the issues to the point of not
properly representing those on the other side of the fence,
I reply:
That is the reason for a divided Church? How about
abandoning sola scriptura, allowing the world to reign in
the church, and pandering to traditions rather than God's
Word? And as for not properly representing those on the
other side of the fence, goodness, I have come to the
conclusion, reading the works of "Reformed Catholics," that
they themselves define what everyone else believes (surely
that has been the case with me personally), so to even point
out their misrepresentations is to be "schismatic"!
Johnson:
the fostering of an attitude which leaves out charity, and
the over-emphasizing of the expression of certain doctrines
that doesn't accord either with the way the Bible speaks of
them or the way the Church over the ages has spoken of them.
I reply:
Like Paul Owen's statement about Baptist views stinking like
a construction site porta-potty at a fancy wedding? Would
that be one of the "let's not worry about charity"
statements? I have a hundred pages culled from "Reformed
Catholics" just since March. And what might these doctrines
be that the unnamed, "please don't ask me to get specific in
identifying this" "Church" has spoken of in a way
differently than, say, I do? Sola scriptura, perhaps?
Justification by grace through faith alone, maybe? The
sovereignty of God in salvation?
I wonder if Johnson applies this standard consistently? I
mean, it took over three centuries before the first treatise
on the atonement was written. Does that mean that, at that
point in history, "the church," by not "speaking" to that
issue fully, had indicated it was not central or vitally
important, or clearly laid out in Scripture? I do wonder
about these things, I truly do. :-)
I had written:
...there is almost nothing on "the other side" that he can
truly criticize with any passion, while there [is] almost
nothing on this side he can keep himself from criticizing.
Johnson:
This assertion is truly ludicrous. Any casual read of my
blog will indicate that this just isn't the case. Missed
completely by Dr. White's critique is the current discussion
on sola scriptura I've been having with Roman Catholics and
others across my own and other various blogs. Positive
comments towards others (even Baptists) in the Reformed
community also exist on this blog but you wouldn't know it
by reading Dr. White's statements.
I reply:
I simply direct you to Mr. Johnson's blog itself. Read
through it. See how many times "Reformed" churches are
criticized for this or that, and how often he will speak to
the idolatrous practices of Rome, such as prayers to saints
and angels (does Mr. Johnson pray to Mary? I have asked
before. It is a custom clearly approved by tradition and the
"historic church" is it not? If not, why not?). Any
statements about Mary should, of course, be balanced, if Mr.
Johnson's viewpoint is valid. But, where was the criticism
of prayers to Mary such as the following?
O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all
the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for
this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so
bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art
the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who
have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest
Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place
my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count
me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy
protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect
me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because
thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the
devils, because thou are more powerful than all hell
together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by
one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I
fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call
on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the
pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and
the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of
Perpetual Help.
Wouldn't it be part and parcel of a fair, balanced view to
point out that Rome's dogmatizing of the Immaculate
Conception and the Bodily Assumption are frontal assaults on
any meaningful concept of "tradition"? But all we hear is
about how Reformed folks do not honor Mary as theotokos. I
think my point is well taken.
I had written:
Case in point is his entry on Mary. He's been reading a lot
on Roman Marian beliefs of late, so it is easy to talk about
how "bad" your former compatriots are on that issue. We are
told that "generations of Reformed Christians have ignored
her," and that "Reformed churches today can't even refer to
the Blessed Mother as the Godbearer, the theotokos."
Johnson replies:
Notice that there is no substantive argument presented here
to rebut my claim. The fact is that generations of Reformed
Christians have ignored Mary and many do have problems
referring to Mary in the same way the historical Church has
for two thousand years.
I reply:
One does not present a substantive argument in one's thesis
statement. That came right afterward. :-) Does "generations
of Reformed Christians have ignored Mary" mean "they do not
honor her as Rome honors her" or does it mean what I said in
my 1998 book on the Marian issue:
There is much truth in the statement that Protestants fear
Mary. But the reason is not too difficult to find. I believe
the reason many Protestants do not talk about Mary, and are
uncomfortable doing so, is in direct response and reaction
to the overemphasis upon Mary in Roman Catholicism. To speak
of “the Virgin Mary” strikes many a Protestant ear as
“Catholic,” when in reality, it isn’t. We’ve allowed an
error on one side of the issue to result in a corresponding
error on the other—an unbiblical de-emphasis of Mary as a
great example of faith and obedience. Truly, all generations
should never fear to call her blessed—but she would dare not
ask us to call her anything more than the Scriptures grant
to her. (Mary--Another Redeemer? p. 19).
Further, what does it mean to state that the "church" has
honored her in a particular manner for two thousand years?
Does Johnson find some consistency in Marian devotion that
is traceable over that period?
Johnson:
If theotokos is a "perfectly valid Christological term", why
not employ it?
I reply:
I'm published doing so, and that before Mr. Johnson had ever
heard of the term "Reformed Catholic." :-) See pp. 45-49 of
the above cited work.
Johnson:
But, the very fact that Dr. White sees the term as a
"Christological" term makes my point quite clearly.
Theotokos described who Mary was, not Christ. The fact that
the early Church used this title to defend orthodox
Christology does not take away from the reality of the
designation in describing Mary. There is still no reason to
describe her as other than theotokos and the only reason we
don't has to do with how the Roman Catholic Church and
others outside the Reformed world have used the term.
I reply:
Mr. Johnson's church history is weak here. Theotokos IS a
Christological term. Its origins are Christological. As I
had written:
Anyone who reads the writings of the ancient Church knows
that the term translated “Mother of God” is the Greek term
theotokos. Literally the word means “God-bearer.” It became
a title for Mary, so that you often find her simply being
called Theotokos in devotional and theological writings. But
where did the term come from?
Around the beginning of the fourth century, Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria, used the term of Mary. It is no
coincidence that it was the teaching of Alexander that
prompted the most famous “heretic” of all time to begin his
heresy: Arius, the great denier of the deity of Christ.
Evidently at that time, even in its earliest uses, the term
was meant to say something about Jesus, not something about
Mary. That is, the term was Christological in force. It was
focused on Christ, and was meant to safeguard the truth
about His absolute deity.
The term really entered into the “orthodox” vocabulary
through its usage at the Councils of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and
more importantly, Chalcedon (A.D. 451). We can learn the
most about how this term was originally understood by taking
a moment to understand why it appears in the creed produced
at Chalcedon.
The debate over the complete deity of Christ had lasted for
many decades, continuing on well after the Council of Nicea
had finished its work (A.D. 325), not coming to completion
until the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. But once
that great truth was properly safeguarded, other questions
began to arise. One of those questions went like this:
Granted that Jesus Christ is truly God in human flesh, how,
then, are we to understand the relationship between the
divine and the human in Christ? Was He really a man at all?
Did His deity swallow up his humanity? Was there some
mixture of the two? Or was Jesus two people, one divine, and
one human, just sharing one body?
Sadly, the debate was undertaken in anything but a calm and
respectful climate. More time was spent on political
maneuvering than upon meaningful exegesis. But despite the
rancor of the debate, the resulting understanding was very
important, especially for our understanding of the term
theotokos.
One of the principle participants in the debate over the
nature of Christ was a man named Nestorius. Since Nestorius
was eventually condemned as a heretic, we have some doubt as
to whether we have a completely accurate (or fair) view of
his beliefs, as they have come down to us primarily through
the writings of his enemies. Basically, Nestorius objected
to the use of the word theotokos. He quite rightly expressed
concern that the word could be easily misunderstood. But
most importantly, his denial of the propriety of theotokos
led him to insist that Mary was the mother only of the human
“element” of Christ, which resulted in a functional
separation of the divine from the human in Christ. The basic
danger of Nestorius’ position, then, was that it led to a
Jesus who was two “persons,” with no real connection between
the divine and the human.
Those who defended the use of theotokos did so by insisting
that the Messiah was fully human and fully divine from the
moment of conception, hence, the child who was born was not
just a human child with a deity dwelling in him, but was the
God-man, the Incarnate One. Chalcedon insisted that Jesus
was one Person with two distinct natures, the divine and the
human. The divine did not “swallow up” the human, nor was it
“mixed” with the human to create something that was neither
fully God nor fully man. Nor was Jesus schizophrenic, so
that you had a human person, Jesus, and a second divine
Person separate from him. One person, two natures.
What is vitally important is that the term God-bearer as it
was used in the creed and as it was applied to Mary in these
controversies said something about the nature of Christ, not
the nature of Mary. “Mother of God” is a phrase that has
proper theological meaning only in reference to Christ.
Hence, any use of the term that is not simply saying “Jesus
is fully God, one divine Person with two natures,” is using
the term anachronistically, and cannot claim the authority
of the early Church for such a usage.
Johnson:
We have simply failed to honor Mary as the mother of God
(which the Bible clearly describes, as Calvin noted, in Luke
1:48) in accordance with the facts of the matter and in
contradistinction to the historical Church.
I reply:
If Mr. Johnson would like to make a self-confession here, he
has that freedom. But I resent his charging me and my
brethren with his shortcomings. I have defended Mary's true
honor in public debate. I have addressed this subject to the
best of my abilities so that the people of God might see
Mary as she is in Scripture, not as she has been perverted
in human tradition.
Johnson:
This sort of failure on the part of the overall Reformed
community has practical pastoral implications and it is part
of the hypocrisy that those from other communions note quite
quickly. We say we honor the truth but we don't really act
like it unless we are talking about the issues we care
about.
I reply:
Again, I do not accept Kevin Johnson as the anointed
representative of the "Reformed community," and to bring the
charge of hypocrisy in this general way *without at the same
time* bringing the much clearer, more easily defined charge
of idolatry to Rome's doorstep, is the very essence of the
quote I cited at the very beginning.
I had written:
But it is just as true that 99.99% of all usage of the term
in the Roman communion today, and most particularly in the
piety of the Roman Catholic faithful, has absolutely
positively nothing to do with the original Christological
significance of the term. What was historically a statement
about Christ has been changed into an exalted title of a
redeemed creature, Mary, with connotations utterly
unbiblical and, yes, idolatrous. How many millions of times
today has someone bowed and prayed, "Holy Mary, Mother of
God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death"?
Somehow that part, however, being in the realm of the "half
way to" of Johnson's journey, does not receive mention.
Johnson:
Again, this sort of straw-man just isn't the case.
The Roman Catholic Church has taken all sorts of terms and
used them in ways different from the Reformers and others.
That doesn't invalidate their proper use.
I reply:
Umm, excuse me, but this is about as poor an argument as you
could possibly mount. This is not a matter of taking a term
and using it "differently" than the Reformers. The fact is
that "Mother of God" is used in Roman piety, 99.9% of the
time, in an anachronistic fashion as an exalted, and hence
false, title of Mary. It is used throughout the prayers of
Romanism in an idolatrous fashion. And it was used that way
long before the Reformation. That was my point, and it
stands, unless Mr. Johnson wants to defend the Roman meaning
and use of the term.
Johnson:
Clearly, Dr. White would view the Roman Catholic doctrine of
justification different than his own yet for some reason he
hasn't abandoned that term. Yet I doubt seriously that Dr.
White feels that the error of Rome regarding justification
is any less serious than what he perceives as the idolatry
of Rome regarding Mary and the various terms employed by
Roman Catholics.
I reply:
Apples and oranges. Dikaiow/dikaiosune is a biblical term;
theotokos is not. I still seek to define my theology by that
which is theopneustos, not by that which is not. Rome's use
of theotokos is idolatrous, for it gives to Mary what is to
be reserved only for God. It promotes ungodly worship of a
creature, not the honor of which the Scripture speaks.
Johnson:
Further, because of our covenantal connection with the
historical Church it should be noted that these historical
terms concerning Mary such as theotokos are terms that we,
as members of Christ's Church, own.
I reply:
A very good reason not to read the covenant in the way Mr.
Johnson is reading it. Are we really being told that because
of baptism properly performed in a particular fashion, that
there is a "covenantal connection" that means all who are
thereby baptized somehow "own" the traditional developments
of the Roman system? My trinitarian baptism means I have to
somehow honor the idolatrous teachings of Romanism? Can
someone show me where the Apostles functioned on such a
basis?
Johnson:
They are terms that belong to the Church and they are terms
that should be used and used properly to teach the truths of
the faith 'once for all delivered to the saints'.
I reply:
We are to use non-inspired words that have been perverted
into idolatrous shibboleths in teaching the faithful? This
is what "Reformed Catholicism" teaches us? No thank you!
Johnson:
We shouldn't be afraid to use them merely because some have
abused them. Avoiding terms like theotokos only avoids the
very connection we have with all those who have gone before
us and it keeps us historically insulated from the very
history and doctrine that will help the Reformed Church out
of its current dire straits. Are we to think that the writer
of Hebrews somehow didn't value the testimony and
contribution of the saints over history (Hebrews 12:1)?
I reply:
Again we have the "dire straits" of the Reformed and,
seemingly, Rome's wonderful orthodoxy? The only connection I
have with anyone using "theotokos" is when I go to the
Scriptures and defend the full humanity and deity of Christ
and the Incarnation: when someone stands on that ground,
today, or in the past, we share true communion. But I have
no communion with someone who prays to Mary as the Mother of
God. The difference, I would hope, is clear.
I had written:
But most amazing was this line, "Her role in guarding
Christian orthodoxy concerning the nature of Christ as the
theotokos is well known by students of Church history, but
her role in the lives of every day Reformed folks is simply
non-existent." Mary had a role in guarding Christian
orthodoxy? I would very, very much like to think that
Johnson here has simply mis-stated himself, and that what he
means is that the use of 'theotokos' was relevant to the
definition of Christian orthodoxy regarding Christ at a
point in time, but that is not the sense of his language. It
almost sounds as if Johnson has gone a bit farther than half
way and is granting to Mary activities and roles in divinely
guiding events on earth.
Johnson:
What was Mary's role in guarding Christian orthodoxy
concerning the person and nature of Christ? She bore
Christ--who was fully man and fully God. She was, in a
sense, God's mother and as such the historical and biblical
fact of that matter quite simply helped to preserve the
Church from error.
I reply:
How is the biblical fact of Christ's nature relevant to
asserting that *Mary* has had a "role" in guarding Christian
orthodoxy? Mr. Johnson has been reading more than enough of
Congar and others to know that Roman Catholics do, in fact,
speak of Mary's "role" in salvation, in dispensing grace,
and in guarding the Church. The Pope speaks often of placing
all the world in Mary's hands. This is the voice of Rome.
Does Johnson (rightly) reject such exaltation of a redeemed
but fallen creature? Outside of this, this does not explain
the use of "role." That is like saying the baptism of John
(a biblical and historical event) played a "role" in
protecting orthodoxy. If this is his meaning, it is a very
poor and possibly misleading way of expressing it.
Johnson:
Without the reality of Mary's role as Christ's mother,
Athanasius and others would have had a harder time proving
both the divinity and the humanity of Christ. We have got to
get past the idea that defending orthodoxy means solely that
we deal with abstract propositions. Mary defended Christian
orthodoxy because she lived the Gospel and actually is the
mother of God.
I reply:
What does this mean? Of course Mary is Christ's mother; of
course Christ was fully deity even at birth (the only
relevance of the phrase "Mother of God"); what does this
have to do with the shibboleth about "abstract propositions"
or living the Gospel?
Johnson:
The "almost" insinuation of Dr. White that somehow I am
saying that Mary is "divinely guiding events on earth" is
clearly is quite beyond the bounds of normal dialogue and
discourse as any reasonable man would admit.
I reply:
Excuse me? Mr. Johnson lists as the books he is reading on
his blog men like Congar or Chesterton and he can then say
that such a viewpoint is "beyond the bounds of normal
dialogue"? It is the very voice of Rome to speak of Mary's
guidance of earthly events. Does he deny the "historic
church" here? :-)
I am out of time, but let me just reply to one more item:
I had written:
Johnson goes on to talk about the "testimony" of the ancient
church, yet, if he was serious here, would he not have to
train his rhetorical guns on Rome itself for creating dogma
out of whole cloth, and ignoring history itself in defining
her Marian dogmas?
Johnson:
No. To say one thing about something is not to say
everything. I am one lone voice on the Internet speaking
about issues that are these days rarely focused upon. That
doesn't deny the truth of other related issues and there are
scores of "apologists" out there decrying the evils of
idolatry regarding Mary--and there clearly are abuses.
I reply:
Does Mr. Johnson agree with these "apologists" (why the
quotes?) that Rome's dogmas on Mary, her exaltation of her
to the status of the Queen of Heaven, and her prayers to
her, are, in fact, idolatrous? What say ye, Mr. Johnson?
Does the Pope engage in, and promote in others, the sin of
idolatry in a formal, doctrinal, dogmatic fashion through
his Marian teachings? And are we to believe that we are
still joined in some "trinitarian, covenantal" fashion to
Rome when she has added *to the gospel* these idolatrous
exaltations of a Mary that never did, and does not today,
exist?
Johnson:
My personal opinion is that it is best to focus on our own
set of idolatries in the Reformed community prior to
attacking others.
I reply:
It is idolatrous of the "Reformed community" not to use the
term theotokos when discussing the nature of Christ? Well,
of course, the Reformed community does. So, it is idolatrous
to not use the non-biblical, incorrect usage of theotokos in
devotion? Is that what is being said?
I had written:
But once again, we get only silence, for you do not train
your guns on those you are seeking to befriend and with whom
you are seeking to build unity based upon the "objectivity
of the covenant." Things like the gospel, the ultimate
authority of Scripture, and even idolatry itself, cannot be
allowed to undo that objective unity.
Johnson:
Again, we are not building an ecumenicity upon compromise.
We build ecumenicity upon the legitimate covenantal,
sacramental, and trinitarian connections we have with one
another. That doesn't mean we compromise in regards to
doctrine.
How can it not mean that? Since this "covenantal,
sacramental, and trinitarian" connection is non-doctrinal in
nature (at least it does not take into consideration the
gospel, and whether the person thusly connected even
embraced the truth about God or Christ), how can any
"ecumenicity" based upon it be anything other than an act of
compromise? What kind of foundation can such a "connection"
provide when it says the gospel and the Spirit is not that
which unifies Christians in their common bond of faith?
Johnson:
Dr. White is attacking another sort of ecumenism. One that
we have seen in the last century utterly fail simply because
the Gospel was compromised by these individuals and they did
not value the truth.
I reply:
When my theology requires me to join hands with one who
holds to a false gospel and call him "brother," my theology
has compromised the gospel.
Johnson:
And, we are condemning idolatry. But, we condemn idolatry
everywhere we see it--not just in Rome. Any Roman Catholic
will tell you there is idolatry in the Church, but try to
get someone in the Reformed Church to tell you the same
thing about our own communion.
I reply:
Excuse me, but when has the Magisterium of Rome denied her
own infallibility so as to admit idolatry in her teachings?
There is a huge difference between saying "there are
idolators in our midst" and saying "Rome's dogmas teach
idolatry."
Mr. Johnson replied shortly after I
posted this response. The final paragraph of that reply
reads:
Yes, Athanasius and other apologists defended their
doctrines, but it was the ordinary reality of the simple
salvation of the faithful in Jesus Christ seen quite clearly
in lives like the Virgin Mary that had the greatest
impact--the working of the Word in the life of the community
of the faithful.
It is this kind of assertion that creates so much confusion
in the minds of people today. Is this saying Athanasius
"missed it" in investing so much time and energy in the
defense of the deity of Christ? Was he in error to write
books against the Arians, and even suffer himself to be
removed from his see five times by force, all over some
"propositional doctrine"? How much better it would seem to
have been to just not worry about "parsing doctrine" but
rather to remain with his people and demonstrate the
"working of the Word in the life of the community of the
faithful." But doesn't this illustrate what I said a number
of times above? This kind of statement has the facade of
spirituality, and is surely offered with sincere motives,
but what good is it if its truth content is nil? The fact of
the matter is, to separate out "doctrines" from "the working
of the Word in the life of the community of the faithful" is
the very docetic kind of theology that rC's claim others are
promoting. There is no separating the CONTENT of the Word,
its doctrine, its teaching, from living it out in the
community. That is why this debate is so important, for in
essence what these rC's who openly have moved *away from* a
stance of vigorous, open, honest debate against the false
gospel of Rome (or any other group that has fallen into the
Galatian error) into the fluffy middle ground of endless
mantras and pipe-smoking, wine-sipping ecumenical fraternity
with Chesterton-wannabes are doing is denying the
knowability of the substance of divine revelation and
replacing it with a complex of traditionally-driven
platitudes that place the key issues of the gospel on a
lower plane of "negotiables." They are seeking to create
unity based upon something other than the gospel itself, and
the result is quite simply hideous, for the union of what
"Reformed" means (a passion for God's sole glory, His
inviolable truth, Christ's supremacy as Lord of all things,
and the purity of His gospel) and its polar opposite is
unpleasant in the extreme.
And so with this as an apologia, I reply once again to Mr.
Johnson:
James White replies:
Ah, but as I had pointed out, Mr. Johnson has not always
believed in "Reformed Catholicism."
Johnson:
No one said I did.
Correct. But let's keep our eye on the ball. I had quoted
the following statement:
“…such men that are for middle ways in points of doctrine
have a greater kindness for that extreme they go half way to
than for that which they go halfway from." Traill,
Justification Vindicated, 2
I had insisted that this quote is relevant to Mr. Johnson's
writings over the past months: that he is moving away from
where he once was (and where I still am), and this explains
the drumbeat of "the problems with the Reformed community"
in his writings that does not find an equal and opposite
"problems in the Catholic community" on the other side, just
as the quote indicates. He shows a "greater kindness for
that extreme" to which he is going than "for that which" he
has gone halfway from. The more we discuss this, the more
clearly applicable the quotation becomes. :-)
James White continues:
He once believed as I. In fact, he has been your standard
Southern Baptist of the Arminian stripe, then a conservative
Anglican, then back to Southern Baptist, then to a
Calvinistic Southern Baptist, then to Presbyterianism. I
assume he would see himself as now just a broader-minded,
fully covenantally-oriented "Catholic" now.
Johnson:
I wouldn't characterize my own journey this way, but even
Dr. White's limited vocabulary has one word to explain this
transformation: sanctification.
I reply:
I hope the reader will note this, as it is important, and
further illustrates the propriety of my original comments.
Moving *toward* Catholicism, however one defines that term
in this context, is viewed, by this rC, as the result of
sanctification. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that I
have not been experiencing sanctification since I have not
moved from where I am to where Mr. Johnson is. In talking to
many of these folks who have moved off into other views I
hear the same kind of thinking, "Well, yes, I've adopted
different views, but that just means you are a crusty
traditionalist and unwilling to examine and learn and grow."
Maybe so, but who stands in the closest proximity to truth
will be determined in some other fashion outside of merely
comparing experiences, to be sure.
Johnson:
Even Dr. White himself was once a "standard Southern Baptist
of the Arminian stripe" and even used to be a member of a
mega-church (he even used to sing solos in youth choir and
go on youth crusades). But why does Dr. White even mention
these things as if they were relevant to the actual issues
at hand? I think we know the answer.
I reply:
1) For those interested, I never embraced Arminianism. My
father was a graduate of Moody Bible Institute in the 1950s,
and his Systematic Theology text, which I began looking at
as a teenager, was written by a Presbyterian (P.B. Fitzwater
as I recall). I had always embraced the perseverance of the
saints and election; what I lacked was the technical
terminology to see the consistency of the position. I recall
very clearly walking alone around the grounds of the
Southern Baptist Conference Center at Glorietta, New Mexico
(a beautiful place) at age 16 pondering how to fit man's
responsibility with God's election. And, I not only say
solos in youth choir, I was youth choir president, and far
more important, sang for two years in "Liberation," the
traveling youth group (we even had a band!); my wife-to-be
also sang the second year in that group, and everywhere we
sang I would give the countdown, in days, to our wedding.
:-) 2) Why did I bring it up? Mr. Johnson seems to have lost
the context: remember the citation above? Mr. Johnson's
theological movements have been around a large portion of
the theological map. Mine have not. It is relevant to the
citation.
Johnson:
A lot of people have moved away from where you are, James.
That doesn't make either one of us right or wrong.
I reply:
Yes, that does seem to be the case these days. I'm glad
truth is not a matter of polls and popularity, anyway. All
it says is one of two things: either I'm stuck in tradition
and hence appeal to tradition to defend my position, or,
other folks seem discontent with the truths they once
professed great passion for, and are looking for greener
pastures. The only way to decide is to weigh the value,
cogency, and consistency of the arguments offered by both
sides.
Kevin writes:
That includes a return to the truth. But it also includes a
return to our identity as catholic Christians. The assertion
of Dr. White above is groundless simply because our position
is a return to a fuller magisterial understanding of the
Reformation, its contribution to history, and our identity
as men and women who stand in line with a great cloud of
witnesses over these two thousand years in the Church.
James White states:
I thought the unity of the faith was found in the confession
of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord that is brought forth from
the common presence of the Holy Spirit in redeemed souls (1
Cor. 12:3)!
Johnson:
The last time I checked, the Roman Catholic Church properly
professes Christ as Lord regardless as to how they
misunderstand salvation.
I reply:
Really? You can confess Christ as Lord properly while
embracing and in fact dogmatically teaching a false gospel?
Would it follow, then, that the Judaizers in Galatia
"properly" confessed Christ as Lord? Again, I find this kind
of statement useful for all those reading this exchange (and
there are more than I thought, I might add in passing). For
here we see one of the main areas where I reject rCism: I am
not confessing Christ as Lord when I am at the same time
denying His gospel, subjecting His Word to human tradition,
and teaching others to pray to His mother in an idolatrous
act of giving worship to a mere creature. To think otherwise
is to engage in the same docetic division of truth and
doctrine from confession and life that I noted above.
Johnson:
The requirement both for salvation and for membership in
Christ's Church is not a proper view of salvation--the
requirement is believing in Christ ("Whosoever shall call
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved").
I reply:
More docetic redefinition of terms. What does it mean to
believe in Christ? Why does Johnson reject Mormon confession
of Christ as Lord and their trinitarian baptism? Because he
parses their profession and, seemingly, if he is consistent,
makes "a proper view of the godhead" a requirement for
salvation. And it is just here the incoherence of this
position is seen so clearly: just as you cannot say you are
believing in Christ without properly knowing who Christ is
(hence the necessity of the proclamation of truth for faith
to exist) in the same way you cannot call "faith" that which
violates the biblically defined concept of what faith is and
what its object is. The same author who quoted that passage
of Scripture Johnson cites spent chapters placing it in the
proper context. We cannot ignore what he wrote for the sake
of a unity based upon some allegedly objective external
sign.
Johnson:
And, you are unable to judge the status of the Spirit in
men's hearts so I hardly think your standard is either
relevant or realistic.
I reply:
And here we encounter the Federal Visionist complaint: "I
can't see the Spirit, some may fool me, therefore saying
that the true bond of unity is the Spirit's work of
regeneration in the heart is not relevant or realistic."
Well, you know, I wonder why we think we will have some
greater means of identifying the brotherhood than the
Apostles had? Did not Paul work with those who eventually
left him and returned to the world? Did his heart not break
when that happened? Did not John tell us that those who go
out from us were never truly of us to begin with? Such a
statement flies in the face of rCism's "objectivity," for
the reality is that the true basis of unity is, in fact,
internal, Spirit-borne, and involves that common commitment
to divine truth that the enemy of God cannot long abide. But
for those who have experienced that unity and that
fellowship, the "replacement" concept of an objective sign
that is devoid of truth, devoid of the gospel, devoid of the
Spirit, will have no attraction at all.
Johnson:
Baptism, of course, is the symbol of union with Christ and
all men who are baptized whether as infants or as adults
participate in His lordship and pronounce that very same
profession that "Jesus is Lord".
I reply:
So you say, but again, I do not see any baptism in the
Scriptures that is disconnected from the gospel of Jesus
Christ, experienced in faith, immersed in repentance,
birthed in love for Christ. And when you can place this
external sign in the context of a false gospel and still
call it Christian, I simply refuse to follow you, for you
cannot offer me the first meaningful biblical reason to
follow you.
Kevin writes:
If anything, Reformed Catholicism has a higher view of truth
and doctrine than our self-styled "opponents" suppose simply
because we place the appropriate emphasis for our day on the
'pillar and ground of the truth'.
James White replies:
In context, 1 Timothy 3:15 is about the local body. :-)
Johnson:
Even if I grant this, so what? That doesn't mean it can't be
applied to the whole Church by implication.
I reply:
I never said otherwise, but the fact remains that in context
Paul was talking about the local assembly, and as one who
believes a thoroughly biblical, semper reformanda based
ecclesiology is important, I reject the idea that rCism is
actually offering a *higher* viewpoint. I believe any
departure from the biblical norm is a *lowering* of the
standards.
Johnson:
Where else is salvation found on this earth but in the
Church? What else does the Church as a whole do but proclaim
the truth? What institution throughout the last two thousand
years has preserved the Scriptures?
I reply:
If these statements were allowed to be consistently applied,
one could never, ever call Rome "the church" as a result.
Does Mr. Johnson follow his own logic to its final
conclusion here?
Johnson:
But, it is your Baptist ecclesiology that forces you to see
this verse as only applying to the local church. Calvin had
no problem seeing it refer to the Church, not the local
church as you claim (see his Commentary on the First Epistle
to Timothy).
I reply:
That's nice, I prefer the Scripture itself. As I wrote in
Dangerous Airwaves a few years ago:
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how
one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which
is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of
the truth.
The Apostle Paul writes to Timothy and gives him
instruction, as an elder in the church (probably at
Ephesus), on the manner of conduct that should prevail in
the fellowship of the church. Note that conduct is something
that speaks to behavior within the visible church, the
organized body with elders and deacons. The preceding
context is all about elders and deacons and the everyday
activity of the church as an organized body of believers.
The description of the church as the church of the living
God is first and foremost a description of the church as she
exists in the local body of believers. This is a vital
point.
Sound exegesis requires us to look closely at Paul’s words
and the context in which they would have been understood by
his child in the faith, Timothy. One vital point to keep in
mind when reading Paul’s letters to Timothy is seen in the
common source both used in their teaching and preaching: the
Greek Septuagint (the LXX), the Greek translation of the
Tanakh, the Old Testament. Both used the same source in
their teaching and preaching, and therefore, when we find
Paul using terms that come directly from the LXX, we should
be quick to realize that Timothy, being a student of the
Scriptures himself (2 Timothy 3:14-15) would likewise make
the same connections. And what do we find when we look at
the terms Paul uses in this passage?
The first thing we discover is that the terms Paul uses are
echoed in the pages of the Old Testament Scriptures. He
speaks of the church as the “household of God.” David had
used the very same language long before. In 1 Chronicles
29:3 we read,
Moreover, in my delight in the house of my God, the treasure
I have of gold and silver, I give to the house of my God,
over and above all that I have already provided for the holy
temple.
These words were spoken, of course, in the context of the
temple of God that was to be built in Jerusalem. This temple
became the focus of the worship of the one true God. In the
same way the church is the place where the central focus is
the worship of God through the reading of the Scriptures,
prayer, and the singing of God’s praises. God is glorified
and praised in His church, throughout the ages, as we will
see in Paul’s exposition to the church at Ephesus.
In a similar way the phrase “the living God” would have
evoked a number of images in Timothy’s mind, including
these:
But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the
everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the
nations cannot endure His indignation. (Jeremiah 10:10)
'For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of
the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we
have, and lived? (Deuteronomy 5:26)
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God; When shall I
come and appear before God? (Psalm 42:2)
My soul longed and even yearned for the courts of the LORD;
My heart and my flesh sing for joy to the living God. (Psalm
84:2)
Joshua said, "By this you shall know that the living God is
among you, and that He will assuredly dispossess from before
you the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Hivite, the Perizzite,
the Girgashite, the Amorite, and the Jebusite. (Joshua 3:10)
Then David spoke to the men who were standing by him,
saying, "What will be done for the man who kills this
Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who
is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the
armies of the living God?” (1 Samuel 17:26)
In each of these passages the phrase “the living God”
contrasts the true God of Israel with the false idols of the
surrounding nations. It contains an implicit assertion of
monotheism and a denial of the existence of any true God
outside of Yahweh (cf. Isaiah 43:10). The living God is
greatly concerned about His worship and His glory (all idols
are, by nature, unconcerned about such things, and those who
control the worship of such abominations are the ones who
are manipulating people to their own ends), and by drawing
from this Old Testament terminology, Paul is continuing to
emphasize the continuity between God’s revelation of old and
this new work, that of the church.
He continues the motif by describing the church as the
“pillar and foundation of the truth.” The word he chooses
for “pillar” is used a number of times in the LXX. In Exodus
13:22, 14:19, and 33:9 the pillar of cloud/fire,
representing God’s presence and protection, uses this term.
And in 1 Kings 7:15 the bronze pillars in the Temple are
described using the same word.
When we listen, then, with the full effect of the background
of the Old Testament in place, to the description Paul gives
of the church in 1 Timothy 3:15, we can hear it at the
“volume” it would have carried in its original context.
Remember, Paul is exhorting young Timothy in both his
letters to him to stand strong in the service of Christ
within the church. We are encouraged to give our best in the
pursuit of the highest goals and the most exalted service,
so Paul reminds Timothy of what he had surely already taught
him in person. The church is the household of God, under His
divine and sovereign rule. It is a divine institution,
established at the command of God, sustained by His Spirit.
And the church has a purpose as a result: it is the firm,
unmoving ground upon which the truth can stand without fear
of falling to the ground. The terms “pillar and foundation”
speak to the strength of the church in providing a ground
upon which the truth can be based. Surely for young Timothy
this would be a great encouragement, but do not forget that
for Paul this would be just as great a boon, for he was
facing the end of his life, and could not but consider the
future, filled with challenges and dangers, and pray for the
continuing health of the young church. He had confessed to
the Corinthians that there was upon him the “daily pressure
of concern for all the churches” (2 Corinthians 11:28), so
surely that had not ended when he wrote to Timothy. And yet
he knew the truth: the church would endure because it is not
a merely human institution, it is divine in its very nature.
God had decreed the church to function as the ground and
support of the truth, holding forth the word of life and
worshipping Him who is truth itself. This did not make the
church the truth itself (indeed, Paul’s epistles, written to
churches, almost always have corrective elements,
demonstrating the constant need for reformation in the
fellowship), but the intimate relationship between the true
church and the truth itself is unmistakably taught in
Scripture.
Johnson then quoted Calvin on the church's authority, which,
obviously, is ironic, since Calvin likewise rejected Rome as
participating in that authority. My point was that rCism may
speak much of the church, authority, magisterium, and the
like, but rC's can't point you to SPECIFICS regarding the
identity of this church, just as the ecclesiastical text
theory cannot deal with any particular textual variant. Mr.
Johnson may not see the relevance, but it is clear for
others.
Kevin writes:
For too long, Reformed theology has found its home in overly
systematic abstract propositions and our churches have
suffered immeasurably as a result.
James replies:
It is a hasty, overly broad, unfounded generalization to
state this, yet, it is taken as axiomatic by "Reformed
Catholics," at least those who offer their views under that
title.
Johnson:
Hmmm...yeah...I guess no one ever in the Reformed Church has
had problems with being really heavy into doctrine and
really light on practice.
I reply:
Note the shift: The first statement is broad and general, as
rCism always is; when challenged, now we look to *particular
incidents* of failure. I know most of our readers can see
that kind of false argumentation quickly, but some of those
more heavily influenced by modern American "sound bite"
thinking struggle to see it, hence I point it out.
Johnson:
This coming from the man who has problems seeing anyone who
doesn't explicitly endorse sola fide as his brother.
Yeah...okay. Deny reality all you want...and whatever you
do, don't actually deal with what is said. Just dismiss it
outright.
I reply:
Please note again the insistence of rC's to define my faith
without reference to the rather large volume of material in
print under my name. Those who have read my blog can see the
difference between making the explicit confession of sola
fide the standard and responding to the *direct denial of
sola fide.* Have I "dismissed outright" Mr. Johnson's
position, or have I demonstrated inconsistencies an
identified those places where his argument is made up solely
of his own ipse dixit? Let the reader decide.
Johnson:
I don't even need to substantiate that one statement I make
above since whole conferences have been dedicated to this
pastoral problem among Reformed churches (just review the
tapes from the last two or three Auburn Avenue Pastors'
Conferences--regardless as to what you think of their
solutions, try to figure out what problem(s) they're trying
to combat in Reformed churches). Also, Lewis Schenck's The
Presybterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant addresses
some of the roots of this problem.
I reply:
Argumentum ad populum. "They've had conferences, so, my
original statement, universally broad as it was, can be
defended by reference to individual instances!" Again, let
the reader decide.
Kevin writes:
Reformed Catholicism, on the other hand, is pastoral in
nature in that it puts theology back in its place while
returning to the Church the honor it is due.
James White replies:
How is halting between two positions "pastoral?"
Johnson:
You have mischaracterized our view and tried to frame it in
a way in which we have not construed it. Why don't you allow
us to state our own position?
I reply:
What is the mischaracterization? Is it not a halting between
two positions, even when Mr. Johnson identifies his move as
one of "sanctification"? What makes it "pastoral"? How does
one define pastoral in a biblical sense?
Johnson:
Reformed Catholics are Reformed and fully confessional. I go
to a church that is faithful to the original Westminster
Confession of Faith. You seem to leave that out of your
equation. We are returning to a theology and ecclesiology
that is much more in line with the magisterial Reformers and
just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you have
license to misconstrue it.
I reply:
That's nice, but again, the mere assertion of it does not
mean it is true, does it? How did we get from the bland
assertion that rCism is "pastoral" to this point?
< snip irrelevancies >
Johnson:
Paul himself had respect for the High Priest of the Jews
(Acts 23:1-5), yet I dare say we do not accord what we would
view as similar figures in the historical Church even an
ounce of the same respect.
I reply:
Connecting Caiaphas to "similar figures in the historical
Church" is a fascinating concept. Might we refer to the Pope
here, for example?
< more "let the reader decide stuff skipped >
Johnson:
This of course adequately and tactfully handles the claim of
Roman Catholicism concerning prayers to Mary and other
saints or any other action by men that would detract from
the proper and exclusive worship of God.
I reply:
That's great....so, is there agreement then, that, no matter
how tactfully one might wish to put it, the tradition, long
held in "Christendom," that not only allows, but promotes,
and identifies as godly, prayers to Mary and saints, is not
only in error, but detracts from the singular glory of God,
and is utterly reprehensible?
James White writes:
(does Mr. Johnson pray to Mary? I have asked before. It is a
custom clearly approved by tradition and the "historic
church" is it not? If not, why not?).
Johnson:
I'm not going to answer a question like that. I already have
clearly answered it.
I reply:
I missed the part where we are given a clear, usable,
consistent standard by which to reject this historical
tradition found in ancient Christendom and (rightly, I
surely believe) to be rejected on the basis of comparison
with inspired writ, and any other such tradition, such as,
say, alleging that trinitarian baptism creates Christian
unity? Or Marian doctrines? Etc.? I missed that, and would
very much like to see Mr. Johnson produce this clear, usable
standard.
Johnson:
Besides, I'm not sure that you've ever demonstrated that
just because someone mistakenly prays to Mary that they are
an idolator. Athanasius prayed to Mary, are you going to
call him an idolator?
I reply:
Mistakenly? How does one judge this? Yes, if that is the
case, it was idolatrous, wouldn't Mr. Johnson agree?
Ambrose's long paeans of praise to Mary are definitely
deleterious to the glory of Christ, are they not? The
question is, now that that is clearly established, does the
person today who rejects that offered light sin in a greater
fashion than the one doing those things in ignorance in the
past?
Johnson:
This section of your reply more than any other just amazed
me. At one point you claim we shouldn't use the term
theotokos because of the misuse it receives in Roman
Catholicism and at another point you defend your own use of
the term as it relates to Christology. Which is it?
I reply:
My position has been in clear black and white print (not on
a blog, in a book) for years, and I cited it and quoted from
it. The term, as a Christological term, accurately describes
the truth that Jesus Christ was the God-man at His birth,
hence denying formulated Nestorianism. But the developed,
pietistic usage of the term, which has lost all sight of the
Christological context of its origin, and turned it into a
statement about Mary herself, so as to exalt her and make
her the object of prayers, is utterly inconsistent with
godliness and Spirit-borne piety. How is this unclear?
Johnson:
Also, here I'm reading on Mary a lot according to you and
for that reason you are perfectly legitimate in taking my
statements in the worst possible sense as if I'm already
Roman Catholic--yet on the other hand you want to maintain
how ignorant I truly am of Mary's role and the accompanying
vocabulary throughout the history of the Church.
I reply:
He who puts his thoughts out in the context of blasting all
of Reformed life and practice should not be surprised to be
challenged. :-) Mr. Johnson may wish to curb his enthusiasm
for rCism and stop lumping everyone into a big pile and
blasting them with the rC Mantra Gun in the future: it is
hard to defend universals such as those that fill his
statements (as documented before).
Johnson:
See, you merely agree with me and you don't even know it. I
don't even know why you bothered to argue against what I
said regarding the fact that the Reformed Church simply
ignores Mary because of the "overemphasis upon Mary in Roman
Catholicism".
Thank you very much, next time I am just going to quote you.
I reply:
Great. However, to do so, you will either 1) have to stop
shooting all of the "Reformed community" in the head with
your overly general and vague accusation, or 2) dismiss me
from that community, since I'm the one who wrote those
words. :-)
James White writes:
Further, what does it mean to state that the "church" has
honored her in a particular manner for two thousand years?
Does Johnson find some consistency in Marian devotion that
is traceable over that period?
Johnson:
What does Luke 1:48 mean? Even you in your own book have
called her "blessed". Why don't you flesh it out for us?
I reply:
I'd suggest that book to Mr. Johnson's reading. :-)
Johnson:
I find it interesting that you quote yourself to
substantiate your understanding of this point. Most scholars
do that only sparingly and then generally only to avoid
rehashing something that they have already clearly
established elsewhere. Your method however is to point me to
what you have written whether it establishes what you are
saying or not.
I reply:
The cited portion contains relevant historical information
to the Christological controversy that gave the term its
creedal (as opposed to pietistic) meaning; and, since I have
made that same distinction as to when it is proper to use
the term (in Christological definition) and when it is not
(in pietistic exaltation of Mary as a creature to the status
of the Mother of God), what better way of establishing the
basis of my point?
Johnson:
The passage you referred me to does not deal with the
scholarly literature on this subject in any sense and was
written for laymen.
I reply:
Ah, let's not let the laymen in on our conversation! That's
no fun! :-)
Johnson:
It doesn't have supporting documentation other than the most
basic of Christian sources (Kelly, for example) and frankly
fails to demonstrate your point. I would have preferred a
more bulletproof refutation from you (would that you could
provide it) but instead I am left to deal with the general
statements of a book which clearly does not deal with the
requisite issues at hand concerning the title of theotokos
and its use in history by the Church.
I reply:
When you write your first book, Mr. Johnson, I will have a
basis upon which to evaluate your less-than-subtle ad-hominem.
:-) Till then, let's get to the meat of the matter....
Kevin writes:
But, the very fact that Dr. White sees the term as a
"Christological" term makes my point quite clearly.
Theotokos described who Mary was, not Christ. The fact that
the early Church used this title to defend orthodox
Christology does not take away from the reality of the
designation in describing Mary. There is still no reason to
describe her as other than theotokos and the only reason we
don't has to do with how the Roman Catholic Church and
others outside the Reformed world have used the term.
James White replies:
Mr. Johnson's church history is weak here. Theotokos IS a
Christological term. Its origins are Christological. As I
had written...
Johnson:
Well, as I state above, quoting yourself doesn't justify
your position. Maybe you can demonstrate your position, but
thus far you haven't.
On the contrary, there are scholars that disagree with what
you have written--that somehow theotokos is only a
Christological term and says nothing substantial about Mary.
I reply:
Mr. Johnson does not seem to grasp the difference between
the meaning of a term in Christological definition and a
very different usage in pietism. Even a layman can actually
understand that a term can bear one meaning in one context,
and another meaning in a another. His fevered efforts to
show himself scholarly by citing sources only proves that
the distinction I have offered still misses his thinking. I
am well aware of the fact that Ambrose, for example, uses
the term in a pietistic context, *and I have consistently
rejected such a usage, going all the way back to when I
began teaching church history in 1991 while Mr. Johnson was
a student at the school where I was teaching.* The fact
remains that, if Johnson were to have any consistency in his
position, his own self-professed adherence to the WCF would
likewise force him to hold to the very same distinction I
have enunciated between the pietistic usage of the title and
the creedal one. So all the posted verbiage from Pelikan or
anyone else is little more than a display on Johnson's part,
for I had read those works long before he was even aware of
them. The fact remains that nothing he cites addresses what
I said, which he requotes:
After all that, we read from the book by James White:
What is vitally important is that the term God-bearer as it
was used in the creed and as it was applied to Mary in these
controversies said something about the nature of Christ, not
the nature of Mary. “Mother of God” is a phrase that has
proper theological meaning only in reference to Christ.
Hence, any use of the term that is not simply saying “Jesus
is fully God, one divine Person with two natures,” is using
the term anachronistically, and cannot claim the authority
of the early Church for such a usage.
Now, is Johnson ready to DENY that the "proper theological
meaning only in reference to Christ"? Is he going to say it
is consistent with the WCF to join Ambrose in his paeans of
praise to Mary as the Mother of God? We simply seek some
level of consistency here, and finding it in rCism is a
difficult task indeed.
Kevin writes:
We have simply failed to honor Mary as the mother of God
(which the Bible clearly describes, as Calvin noted, in Luke
1:48) in accordance with the facts of the matter and in
contradistinction to the historical Church.
James replies:
If Mr. Johnson would like to make a self-confession here, he
has that freedom. But I resent his charging me and my
brethren with his shortcomings. I have defended Mary's true
honor in public debate. I have addressed this subject to the
best of my abilities so that the people of God might see
Mary as she is in Scripture, not as she has been perverted
in human tradition.
Johnson:
Frankly, speaking of oxymorons, I don't consider Reformed
Baptists as Reformed anyway so I really wasn't talking about
you or your "brethren". Let us be clear--Calvin wouldn't
have thought Reformed Baptists as Reformed either.
I reply:
Well, there you go! All Johnson has actually been
criticizing are....who, Presbyterians? No, not Southern
Presbyterians, so, he must mean others. Well, great, there
you go! I guess that means we non-Reformed Reformed Baptists
are not guilty of having not honored Mary properly. Whew,
I'm glad we cleared that up!
Johnson:
I was speaking in general of the Reformed community at
large. What you have done with Mary in any proper sense is
frankly irrelevant to this part of the discussion so I don't
understand why you are so upset when I didn't even address
you in the first place.
I reply:
Again, great to know we have handled Mary properly, since we
are not Reformed anyway! Of course, seriously, my concern is
over the confusion engendered by such articles as Johnson's,
and the damage they do to the apologetic effort, but that
was established a long time ago to the reader who has been
following all of this.
Kevin writes:
Clearly, Dr. White would view the Roman Catholic doctrine of
justification different than his own yet for some reason he
hasn't abandoned that term. Yet I doubt seriously that Dr.
White feels that the error of Rome regarding justification
is any less serious than what he perceives as the idolatry
of Rome regarding Mary and the various terms employed by
Roman Catholics.
James White replies:
Apples and oranges. Dikaiow/dikaiosune is a biblical term;
theotokos is not. I still seek to define my theology by that
which is theopneustos, not by that which is not. Rome's use
of theotokos is idolatrous, for it gives to Mary what is to
be reserved only for God. It promotes ungodly worship of a
creature, not the honor of which the Scripture speaks.
Johnson:
It's not apples and oranges and besides...
I reply:
Ipse dixit. I pointed out the category difference, it is
ignored.
Johnson:
"Dikaiow/dikaiosune" is the theopneustos term, not the
English term "justification" or its Latin equivalent. And,
even still, you know full well that many biblical concepts
are phrased in non-biblical words that have been used as
well as abused over the years.
I reply:
I will take that to mean there is no rational response to my
established point that Johnson's argument was in error. :-)
James White replies:
A very good reason not to read the covenant in the way Mr.
Johnson is reading it. Are we really being told that because
of baptism properly performed in a particular fashion, that
there is a "covenantal connection" that means all who are
thereby baptized somehow "own" the traditional developments
of the Roman system? My trinitarian baptism means I have to
somehow honor the idolatrous teachings of Romanism? Can
someone show me where the Apostles functioned on such a
basis?
Johnson:
No. I am saying we have a heritage in terms of our
Christianity. And, that heritage is a heritage we should
own, not disown. You never saw the Apostles of the New
Testament disparaging their heritage to the point where they
did not consider their historical fathers as a part of the
people of Israel. In fact, the New Testament tells us that
even the disobedient ones were a part of the providential
salvation of God for us in that they serve as examples of
how not to "work out our salvation". So, even the great
evils of the Kings of Israel for example become for us a
thing of inestimable value. Likewise, in later centuries in
the Church, those corruptions and doctrinal errors which
resulted from the activity of the historical Church are
still examples for us to profit from and to the extent that
we can use them to reach others, to improve our own
inadequacies, and to walk humbly before our God we should do
so with all our might.
I reply:
So, rCism says we should look to certain Popes, for example,
like we look to Ahab as a glaring example of unbelieving,
God-hating idolatry to be avoided? Is that what I'm hearing
here? If so, I guess we agree! :-) But I do wonder, however,
if that wouldn't mean the Apostles would have been friendly
to the phrase "Reformed Unbelieving Pharisaism"?
James White replies:
What does this mean? Of course Mary is Christ's mother; of
course Christ was fully deity even at birth (the only
relevance of the phrase "Mother of God"); what does this
have to do with the shibboleth about "abstract propositions"
or living the Gospel?
Johnson:
What does this mean? The Christian faith is about the
reality of Christ. It is not about the proper doctrine of
Christ. It is not about the proper doctrine of salvation. It
is about the reality of the Second Person of the Godhead
coming down to us through the theotokos, Mary, to be the
God-man Jesus Christ.
I reply:
OK, if the reader has started getting a little fuzzy
brained, time to refocus. Read that citation again. Think
for just a moment about what it means to say the Christian
faith is about the reality of Christ, but, it is not about
the proper doctrine of Christ. Could someone, please,
without using pious platitudes that communicate nothing at
all tell me what the "reality" of Christ is without the
truth of Christ? This sounds like Christian Science to me.
How does one experience the reality of Christ without the
truth of Christ and without the gospel of Christ? Can
someone point me to the inspired Word where this docetic
distinction between the teaching of Christ and His gospel is
made secondary and irrelevant while the "reality" of Christ
is maintained? Never mind, I know. Nothing can possibly be
offered. The utter disconnection between stating "it is not
about the proper doctrine of Christ" (tell Athanasius that
one) and then stating "to be the God-man Jesus Christ" is
hard to handle. How on earth does one know Jesus is the
God-man without the proper doctrine of Christ? I don't know,
but evidently, this kind of division is inherent to at least
Mr. Johnson's version of rCism.
Johnson:
It is about His Lordship, it is about her service and
sacrifice. All of these things speak to concrete realities
and it is these realities that defended the orthodox
doctrine of Christ so that millions afterward would not just
understand the greatest story ever told but that they would
live out the reality of that story in their own lives.
I reply:
Great. And the truth of the Lordship of Christ is
communicated to us in Scripture by....DOCTRINE. What is so
hard about that? Anyone who has a problem with that needs to
re-read 1 and 2 Timothy a few times.
James>>>
About Francis de Sales:
Around 3PM this afternoon or so I added a brief comment on
Francis de Sales, a man proclaimed a "saint" by the Roman
Church, and in fact elevated to the lofty position of
"Universal Doctor of the Church." Within about three hours
Mr. Johnson responded on his website. It is a very zealous
response, very much filled with emotion and commitment to
his newfound viewpoints. But I also think it provides, for
the one who wishes to see the result of turning baptism into
the "objective sign of the covenant" (so that Christian
unity is based upon it) the clearest warning I have yet
observed as to the result of this movement.
I had noted that de Sales wrote a series of tracts which
were put together in his work The Catholic Controversy.
This work remains in print today. It is an extended
anti-Reformed polemic, from which modern defenders of Rome's
teachings often draw. The subjects are those that have
defined the battleground for centuries, summed up by saying
de Sales denies the solas of the Reformation with
every fiber of his being. He denies the sufficiency and
clarity of Scripture, promotes Papal ultimacy, and, as a
result, promotes all of the central soteriological errors of
Rome, including such errors as purgatory. The majority of
the text comprises a historical argument for the supremacy
of the Roman magisterium, and one will be disappointed if
one searches for meaningful biblical argumentation against
Reformed theology regarding the supremacy of grace,
predestination, the perfection of the atonement, etc.
I did not mention, but will add here, that de Sales had
experienced "despair" in his studies under the Jesuits
regarding the doctrine of predestination. It is surely
significant to me that he was freed from his confusion about
the subject while kneeling before an image of Mary,
resulting in his consecration to the Virgin. For the person
who holds to the Bible as the God-breathed revelation that
defines Christian truth, someone who is "freed" from a
biblical doctrine while engaged in an act of idolatry is not
someone one would wish to emulate or promote.
I note these things for a simple reason: de Sales was no
ecumenist. He saw that there was no middle ground, no
"reformed Catholicism" to look to. He sought not to create a
synthesis with Reformed theology; he hated Reformed
theology, and he exercised every fiber of his mind and soul
toward its destruction and banishment from the areas where
he could accomplish such an end. If one believes the gospel
as expressed by Reformed theology is, in fact, the most
biblically consistent, divinely powerful summary of God's
self-glorification in Jesus Christ, Francis de Sales openly,
fervently sought to destroy the very object of your passion,
the hope of your soul. He was, without question, an enemy of
the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as much as an Arius, or a
Pelagius, or a Judge Rutherford, or a Joseph Smith or a
Victor Paul Wierwille.
I noted the quotation Mr. Johnson includes under his
Chesterton citation, ""We must recapture Christianity...we
must recapture Geneva." We need to realize what this meant
for de Sales: this was not "We must work hard to create an
historical synthesis in Geneva, and examine our traditions,
and make adjustments, and create a wonderful Christian
culture." No, for de Sales, this meant the gospel that frees
from the tyranny of Rome must be banished, destroyed, wiped
from the minds of those who had embraced it, and the old
system of works righteousness, of indulgences and merit and
purgatory and relics and priestly absolutions, had to be
forced back upon the inhabitants. This was de Sales'
"Christianity," and it was what he wanted to bring back to
Geneva. We are talking here about nothing less than the
utter overthrow of the Reformation in Geneva, the
destruction of the life's work of John Calvin. And this is
the citation Kevin Johnson places on his blog.
Mr. Johnson's defense expresses, with a clarity I could
never hope to provide in my own words, the end result of the
concept of trying to wed the God-centeredness of grace as
expressed in the gospel of Jesus Christ with the
man-centeredness of the idea of baptism as the "objective
sign" of the covenant. When Christian unity based upon the
work of the Spirit in creating in the heart a burning
passion for the purity (yes, purity, now a dirty word in
some circles, which only proves that for many lurking in the
rC movement, the real goal is to conclude that we simply
cannot know the gospel with sufficient clarity to worry
about its purity) of the gospel is replaced with an external
ritual (properly done, of course), the resultant system
simply cannot make room for the gospel any longer. The
biblical gospel is too big, too powerful, to be shoved in
the little corner left for it by rCism.
Mr. Johnson wrote:
For those
overly committed to modernism and all of its glories,
this exercise may be somewhat difficult--especially if
you are predisposed to a position that is contrary to a
more historical and objective view of the Church of
Christ and the covenantal terms of her membership.
I reject and
refute the false assertion that believing in objective
truth, Scriptural sufficiency, Scriptural perspecuity, and
the simple fact that God has spoken plainly, is "modernism."
I believe in defining the church biblically, first and
foremost, and I do believe in the covenantal terms of her
membership: I just think that covenant as revealed in
Hebrews 8 is perfect, complete, and whole, and is not
entered into by means of baptism, but by means of the
sovereign grace of God.
Mr. Johnson wrote:
Francis de
Sales was a Roman Catholic bishop in Geneva during the
Reformation and one of the key figures of the Catholic
Counter-Reformation. He was indeed responsible for
turning many men away from Calvinism and back to the
Roman Catholic Church. Strange words to appear on a web
site dedicated to blogging about the Reformed faith, at
least if you view such words only in one way--one
particularly wooden and modern way.
The "wooden and
modern way." Keep in mind once again we are talking about a
man who was an avowed enemy of the very substance and heart
of the gospel. It would be like someone who invests their
heart and soul in evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses placing a
citation of Arius on their blog page without any indication
that it is meant to be taken in a negative fashion.
Mr. Johnson writes:
For, Francis
de Sales is a part of our heritage. By virtue of his
baptism he is to be considered a member of the New
Covenant of Christ.
There we go, in a
nutshell. Hence, by virtue of his baptism, every Pope of the
Pornocracy, every grand Inquisitor, every murdering
Crusader, becomes "part of our heritage." Every false
teacher, every false brother, becomes a part of our
heritage. Despite the fact that Hebrews tells us that those
in the New Covenant are redeemed and forgiven (not just
Hebrews 8, but Hebrews 10 as well), once we embrace the
"Federal Vision" and make baptism the "objective sign," we
are left with this perspective: the very enemies of the
cross become our Fathers in the Faith, and Francis de Sales
takes his place as well. I utterly, unequivocally, reject
this idea as without the slightest element of biblical
basis.
Mr. Johnson continues:
Yes, he led
men astray and out of the Reformed Faith back into Roman
Catholicism. But, how is this different from men today
in our own churches that unnecessarily lord over others
with their authority as elders,
How is it
different? Unless Mr. Johnson is talking about false
teachers, it is very different. de Sales was promoting a
false gospel in direct contradiction to the truth, and that
knowingly. If Mr. Johnson has a problem with an elder in a
church, there are mechanisms in place to deal with such a
situation, but there is obviously no comparison to a Roman
Catholic prelate whose mission was to contradict and attack
the gospel of Jesus Christ. (And I note in passing the
confirmation, once again, of what I have said so often: when
you have a clear, compelling example of a Roman Catholic
attack upon the gospel, the response is to turn the gun
upon....Reformed communions. How very, very odd).
Mr. Johnson continues:
that elevate
justification by faith alone as an artificial standard
regarding fidelity to the gospel,
How very sad
these words are to anyone who knows that without that truth
one has kicked open the door to the entire flood of
God-dishonoring systems that have plagued God's people for
ages. For some odd reason, Paul thought it so central he
discussed it at the very head of his explanation of what God
has done in Jesus Christ. Oh yes, the enemy has thrown
everything including the kitchen sink at that truth in every
generation, and surely today's blogosphere would provide
enough denials of that vital truth to clog the heartiest of
Internet connections, but God's truth has never been
determined by popularity votes, thanks be. rCism has
elevated "trinitarian baptism" to a point where it is not
only artificial, it is simply wrong, for it leads to the
denigration of justification by grace alone through faith
alone in Christ alone to a negotiable, an "artificial
standard." God protect us! And pause to consider for just a
moment that this is said in the context of paralleling it
with de Sales attack upon the gospel itself! Amazing beyond
words.
Johnson continues:
that idolize
abstract doctrine higher than any wooden idol ever had,
Who knows what
this is supposed to mean? Perhaps it refers to those who
make the Trinity definitional, so as to exclude Mormonism's
trinitarian baptism? Those who "idolize" the truth of the
Son as an eternal person so as to say those who deny the
Incarnation are anti-Christs (1 John 2:19ff)? Possibly Paul
himself, who said that if you allowed yourself to take that
first step down the road of works-righteousness that Christ
would be of no benefit to you (Gal. 5:2-4)? It is hard to
say, for rC's repeat as a mantra, without providing any
compelling or meaningful substantiation, this constant
allegation of "abstract doctrine."
Johnson continues:
that refuse
to treat their brothers with simple Christian charity,
Remember, this is
being said in comparison with de Sales' attack upon the
gospel of Jesus Christ.
Johnson:
that feel
free to joke about what they consider as potential
apostasy of their brothers in Christ, and that condemn
men as heretics without any effort towards proper
ecclesiastical governance?
Obviously Mr.
Johnson has "issues" he is referring to here, but staying on
course, remember this is all being offered as a parallel to
de Sales' attacks upon the gospel!
Johnson:
Don't
misunderstand me. I'm not going to Rome. I don't
personally agree with the theology of Francis de Sales,
or his activity of calling men back into the Roman
Catholic Church, but I do agree that as one of the
fathers of our faith he knew that taking back Geneva for
what he considered to be the true faith is something we
should consider in our own day. Not a return to Roman
Catholicism, but a return to a Reformed Faith that is
what it should be--catholic and obedient. Yes, SEMPER
REFORMANDA!
And once again we
are left in the odd semi-twilight world of rCism where words
just do not seem to carry much in the way of meaning. Notice
that Reformed elders engage in idolatry, but Johnson
"doesn't personally agree" with de Sales' theology or
activities. I get the distinct feeling there is a lot more
passion in Johnson's dislike of the alleged "idolization" of
"abstract doctrines" than in de Sales' wholesale assault
upon the gospel of Christ. But, despite de Sales'
activities, he is "one of our fathers in the faith." No, Mr.
Johnson, he may be one of YOUR "fathers" in the faith, but
just as the Judaizers were not my fathers in the faith,
Francis de Sales is not, either. There is every reason to
believe Joseph Smith was properly baptized as a Methodist at
one point: does that make him my "father in the faith?" Of
course not! Here we see what happens when baptism is made
the definition of "the faith" and the gospel is not only
minimized, but is in fact denied any ability to function as
definitional of the Christian faith! What an incredible
sight to behold! And so we are told that the reason for the
citation is that we must "retake" Geneva for a "Reformed
faith that is what it should be--catholic and obedient."
What does that mean? No one knows. Catholic as de Sales
would have interpreted that word? Evidently not. Obedient?
To what? We are not told.
Johnson then goes off on a tangent about criticizing
Reformed churches (fine: doing so by positively citing an
enemy of the gospel and making him one of our "fathers" in
the faith is the issue).
Johnson:
Sometimes
that means I'll quote someone completely for my own
purposes, such as Francis de Sales (whose work on the
devout life is fascinating, by the way)--we should own
the vast resources of the catholic Church over the
centuries. Francis de Sales is part of our heritage and
no matter how regenerate one feels the Church should be
or is it is simply not in accordance with the facts to
think that somehow he wasn't a part of Christianity over
the last two thousand years, just as Ahab was still an
Israelite and King of Israel.
And once again we
see the result of confusing the true unity of believers,
which is based upon the truth of the gospel made alive by
the Spirit of God, with a false unity based upon a
misunderstanding of the nature of the New Covenant and the
role of baptism. On this level every false teacher we could
look at down through the centuries who labored hard in the
service of that falsehood is worthy of citation today as
"part of our heritage." Goodness, do we not have sufficient
*believing* examples we can cite without going to these?
Johnson:
I quote
Francis de Sales because we need men of his spirit
that--regardless of their confessional heritage or
denominational stripe--are quite dedicated to turning
the world upside down for Jesus Christ our Lord and 'the
one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'.
A man who was
"freed" from the biblical doctrine of predestination in a
visionary, idolatrous moment before an idol and who gave his
life to the enslavement of men's souls to empty religion is
to be emulated? So we are to point to the hard-working
heretic? This is the vision of rCism? Note again the
purposeful exclusion of the gospel of grace from any
defining role in what is, in fact, Christ's truth, and
Christ's church.
Many years ago Mr. Johnson was part of a group of us who
passed out tracts to those attending the LDS Easter Pageant
in Mesa, Arizona. He may well remember the very, very
zealous LDS missionaries who would do everything in their
power to remove our tracts from the hands of those who had
taken them. I wonder now if Mr. Johnson would call us to
admire their zeal? Here were men who believed they were
doing God's will, believed they were doing what was right,
yet, they were removing a Christian witness from the hands
of many who desperately needed to hear that truth. How do
those men differ from de Sales? If the only reason is,
"Well, they were not baptized by properly ordained
ministers," doesn't that say everything that needs to be
said about rCism?
|
