This popular Internet poster (link) recently realized that one cannot please both Roman Catholicism and Reformed Theology (iMonk writes: "If the answer to my blogging is Olson’s “Why I’m Not A Protestant,” I think my answer to Olson is…….completely irrelevant. If I call him my brother, I’m a damnable heretic with the truly reformed, and if I call myself a “Not a Catholic”, then the best I can be is just one more deficient, defective Protestant, outside of the true church with no authority to say anything anyway and never getting the real Jesus because I refuse to recognize transubstantiation."). Sadly, this was disheartening for the writer when it should have been an encouragement: there is absolute truth. Either Rome is right or the Reformation was right. Both cannot be right.
-Turretinfan
P.S. again, Jonathan, not the one I had mind...
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Now you see my pain when it comes to contemplating the RCC. I want them to be "Christians in error" as opposed to "not Christians." But BY THEIR OWN DOGMA, I cannot call them my brother, unless I am fully in agreement with them. And so, if they are not my brother, and I am Christian, then that forces my hand.
Actually, both can be right. Just not about the same things.
Orthodox,
Actually, for that matter, both can be right about the same things, as long as they are things upon which both agree: e.g. Christ was born of a virgin.
After Trent, one cannot generally hold to the doctrines of Rome and the doctrines of the Reformation. One has to choose, because Truth is absolute.
Get it?
-Turretinfan
T: After Trent, one cannot generally hold to the doctrines of Rome and the doctrines of the Reformation. One has to choose, because Truth is absolute.
O: 90% of "protestants" hold to doctrines accepted by Rome and rejected by the reformers.
Orthodox:
Made up statistics, eh?
In any event, regardless of the percentage, a large segment of "Protestants" are not Reformed.
That's one reason that it's senseless for Papists and the "Orthodox" to lump all Protestants together.
-Turretinfan
"That's one reason that it's senseless for Papists and the "Orthodox" to lump all Protestants together."
Since protestants seem to lump themselves in all together as part of the "invisible church" it's hard for us not to do the same.
Orthodox,
Are you just haggling?
If you are not, I suggest you read up on the "invisible church" doctrine.
It's not even close to your misrepresentation of it.
-Turretinfan
Do you consider yourself in the church with all the other protestant denomination's christians? Yes or no?
Dear Orthodox:
Your question makes little sense without a definition of the word "church."
I could answer "yes" or "no" - but unless we clarify what you mean, the answer would be meaningless.
The invisible church includes all those who have been justified by faith in Christ, including those in heaven and in denominations that are not "Protestant."
-Turretinfan
I'll take that as a yes, and thus a vindication of my comment.
That demonstrates that you either did not read, or did not understand.
-Turretinfan
You stated that according to some definitions of "church" you lump all true believing protestants in the one church. Thus you do what you complain of us doing.
Orthodox:
The disconnect in your reasoning should be clear as you review the flow of argument:
O: 90% of "protestants" hold to doctrines accepted by Rome and rejected by the reformers.
T: ... it's senseless for Papists and the "Orthodox" to lump all Protestants together.
O: You stated that according to some definitions of "church" you lump all true believing protestants in the one church. Thus you do what you complain of us doing.
Critique:
Your conclusion is not supported by your argument:
1) Primarily because "all true believing protestants" is a subset of "all protestants."
2) Secondarily because "all true believing protestants" is a subset of the invisible church.
-Turretinfan
T:1) Primarily because "all true believing protestants" is a subset of "all protestants."
Well, you can't blame us lumping the true believers with the untrue ones, since the allegedly true ones lecture us we don't know who the elect are and therefore ought not attempt to distinguish them (and thus ought to lump them). So don't blame us for lumping what you taught us to lump.
2) Secondarily because "all true believing protestants" is a subset of the invisible church.
O: If the invisible church is a superset of all true believing protestants, then protestants are indeed lumped together within the invisible church banner. Looks like you conceded the point.
Orthodox:
You seem to have trouble understanding categorization.
There are:
1. All Christians Outwardly
This includes anyone who claims to follow Christ - which includes all Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics, and so forth.
2. All Christians Inwardly
This is a subset of (1) i.e. "true believers."
3. The Invisible Church
Is a set of (2) plus those who have already gone to heaven.
4. The Elect
Is a set of (3) plus those who will one day be part of (3).
Of course, none of those sets provides any justification for your lumping doctrinally different groups together when making a claim about doctrine.
Don't blame us for your misgroupings.
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment