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

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
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...

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...