Skip to main content

Really? That's What You're Going With?

Consider this quotation: "...all true liturgy is verbal, not visual. Nowhere does the Bible command acts of obeisance before any manmade object. The Bible never shows anyone rightly doing such a thing. The Bible expressly forbids it, and threatens a great curse on those who do it. Because of this, the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglo-Catholic churches are not liturgical churches; they are anti-liturgical." -- James B. Jordan

Some of you don't know who James B. Jordan is. Well, I don't know who he is, either. But I do know he's at the forefront of what has been called the "Federal Vision" movement. It's hard to summarize, but in very general terms, it characterizes a theological outlook that uses the biblical theology--centered on the notion of covenant--to argue for objective sacraments, and a much more ecclesial worldview than is common among some Reformed. Baptismal regeneration, paedo-communion (communion to infants and very small children) and a belief in the real possibility of apostasy are some of its distinctives.

Unsurprisingly, many advocates have been charged with heresy, and accused of being Catholic sympathizers. Other advocates have welcomed Catholics and Orthodox to their celebration of the Lord's Supper. (Not that good Catholics or Orthodox would receive it, but even so.) Does it sound remotely coherent for that sort of a man to attack those Churches? Zwingli at his most ill-considered could have said this. Pastor Bob from Living Waters Bible Church could have said this. Arius could have said this.

Do you know what I think? I think guys like Jordan deep down realize that their theology implies a return to the Catholic Church, but they are afraid. And they like being liked. So, every now and again, they throw some red meat out to throw the suspicious off the scent of the papist incense that you can almost smell on their clothes. As if. But if it makes them feel better. It's not just a river in Egypt.

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