Skip to main content

You're Both Right

I don't find it ironic that Leithart's prosecutor is now Catholic. If you talk to him, it makes perfect sense. Jason Stellman has always been an ecclesial Christian; that is, his faith has always been a faith received. Once you make that decision, and investigate it to the end, the Catholic Church is inevitable. If you purge that highly ecclesial sensibility of the random individualist elements, (like Sola Scriptura) Mother Church is all that remains. Let's just be blunt: Leithart is a more perfect fundamentalist; he's read a lot of books, and he's got buckets of sympathy for the Church, at least insofar as it serves to obscure the central truth: he is his own arbiter of what counts as divine revelation.

R. Scott Clark has roundly criticized the Federal Vision for being out of accord with traditional Reformed theology; he's right. But people like Rich Lusk have pointed out that the story with the sacraments has never been as stark as Clark says. He's right, too. And here's the kicker: this is evidence for the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. Would you not expect two communities that were once one to share affinities? Lusk says, "Look back here! We share affinities!" But there are reasons why we are not one. Clark is there to remind people of those things. That is, Clark represents that which defines itself in opposition to the Catholic Church. In a way, he should. That's why those communities were founded in the first place.

I breathed deeply of that FV air, and I can tell you that most of them don't realize the ecclesial implications of what they say. They have recovered something of Catholic truth without knowing this is what they have done. They earnestly believe they have recovered an authentic charism of God from within their tradition. They're right. Something has to give. You either pretend that trans-communal theological continuity isn't an authentic work of the Holy Spirit, or you ignore the ecclesial implications of having recognized it, by making the Church invisible. Or, you become Catholic. If you become Catholic, you can recognize the work of the Holy Spirit outside the Church, AND recognize the visible, ecclesial implications of it. LG, 8.

Come home, Rich. We have what you're looking for. James and Peter, we have what you're looking for, too. God already thought of your insights, and he gave them as treasures to the Catholic Church. Dr. Clark, does it really seem reasonable that Jesus Christ left His brothers in darkness until 1517?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un