Before you convert to Roman Catholicism

Repost from 8/9/2011

Roman Catholicism has a gospel that does not give peace, because it fundamentally violates the Scriptural teaching on how one is made right with God. Rome has a false gospel that cannot save, hence, I have no reason to abandon the peace I have with God through Christ’s perfect atonement for the treadmill of Rome’s sacramental system of salvation… the person who has embraced the gospel of grace has not only landed his boat on the far side [of the Tiber River], but has torn the boat apart to use the wood as a pulpit from which to proclaim freedom in Christ to those trapped on the other shore. – Dr. James White

At his blog at www.aomin.org, Dr. White also writes:

Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.

Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.

TOP TEN LIST
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my “Top Ten List” in response to this fine inquiry.

10. Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome’s claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.

9. Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?

8. Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?

7. Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome’s ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome’s answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn’t Rome’s magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen’s Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?

6. Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?

5. Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome’s doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?

Continue reading

Objections to Church Discipline

Article: 7 Well-Meaning Objections to Church Discipline — And How Pastors Ought to Respond to Them by  Caleb GreggsenSam Emadi (original source: https://www.9marks.org/article/7-well-meaning-objections-to-church-discipline-and-how-pastors-ought-to-respond-to-them/ )

“You preached those sermons on church membership and discipline point by point through the Bible . . . and I hated it!”

The chairman of the deacons at North Possum Baptist Church (fake name) spoke those words to a former pastor of mine (Sam). He’d just finished a series of sermons on the doctrine of the church. The most astounding and, frankly, disturbing thing about this opposition to membership and discipline was his acknowledgement that these doctrines were, in fact, plainly taught in Scripture.

Over the years we’ve encountered dozens of people in churches who have opposed the concept of discipline—grimacing, scowling, or bristling at the bare mention of the word. But we “9Marks guys” need to beware that we don’t assume everyone who winces at the mention of discipline is opposed to Scripture and bent on corrupting the church. Not everyone who opposes discipline does so with such brazen disregard for Scripture, as the deacon chairman did above. In fact, as we reflect on the church contexts where we’ve served, many wonderful, godly Christians have opposed discipline (at least initially) for understandable, albeit uninformed, unbiblical, and misguided reasons. They’re opponents, but not wolves. They’re simply sheep who have sadly endured decades of bad shepherding.

To that end, pastors must introduce discipline to a church slowly and wisely, enabling its members over time to exercise this authority faithfully. Merely teaching about discipline is not enough. They must also teach the doctrines that provide the gospel framework to support church discipline: conversion, holiness, repentance, membership, discipleship, and love.

Again, not everyone who opposes discipline does so with nefarious motives. Many are simply confused sheep with well-meaning but misguided theological principles.

Below we want briefly consider some of the “good-faith” objections to discipline we’ve encountered and how we try to help church members understand the theological principles undergirding discipline.

1. “Pastor, we can’t judge someone’s heart, so how could we possibly say someone is not a Christian?”

Of course it’s true that no one has infallible knowledge of another person’s heart. At the same time, we need to qualify that statement a bit. Jesus indicates that we wear our heart on our sleeve, speaking and acting according to what’s inside (Matt. 12:34; 15:10­–20). We can’t know someone’s heart but actions and words typically reveal the state of someone’s heart. As Jesus said, good trees produce good fruit and bad trees produce bad fruit (Matt 7:17).

2. “Jesus never turned anyone away.”

True, Jesus never turned away a repentant sinner. But Jesus did drive out money changers from the temple and didn’t stop the rich young ruler from walking away. Besides, the clearest teaching on church discipline comes from the Lord Jesus himself (Matt. 18:15–20).

Furthermore, discipline is not “turning someone away.” The church never turns away a repentant sinner seeking grace and forgiveness. The church only disciplines the obstinately sinful—those who are unwilling to repent of their sins while professing the name of Christ. Discipline is not turning people away who want Jesus, but identifying those who want sin more than they want Jesus.

3. “Nobody’s perfect. People make mistakes.”

Church discipline doesn’t mean we demand an extra measure of holiness or that churches that practice discipline are out to “get” the ordinary, struggling Christian. No one should ever get disciplined for not living up to some standard of super holiness. The only requirement to remain in the covenant community is that you daily respond to the gospel with faith and repentance. Nobody gets excommunicated for sin, per se. Rather, the church enacts discipline for unrepentant sin.

4. “But they won’t hear the gospel if they’re not in church.”

Discipline doesn’t require barring the disciplined from corporate worship or other gatherings of the church. Of course we want lost people (including unrepentant sinners who claim to be Christians) to hear the preaching of the Word and experience the corporate witness of the gathering. But we want them to know, if they’re unrepentant, that they observe the fellowship of the church from the border, not the center.

Most disciplined folks will not choose to continue attending church, at least initially. But how much good was their attendance doing before being disciplined if they’re self-deceived about their standing with God?

Moreover, many Christians view the church building as the only place the lost can legitimately receive salvation—as if the gospel is a product you can only get at certain stores. In response, pastors should teach their people a biblical doctrine of conversion and remind them that people come to faith as they encounter the gospel around water coolers, during backyard cookouts, and in innumerable other contexts as Christians faithfully carry out the Great Commission.

5. “I’ve never heard of this before!”

Sometimes Christians are suspicious of new ideas because they don’t like change—especially if it disrupts their comfort. But it’s also the case that many Christians are (rightly) skeptical of novel ministry trends because they feel put off by the many pastors they’ve witnessed parade through their church claiming to have the “silver bullet” for ministry.

When discipline is seen as a new tactic, even your best members will be suspicious of it. For that reason, pastors should make every effort to show how church discipline is rooted in the explicit teachings of Scripture. Church history is also particularly helpful on this point. As your members learn that Christians before their grandparents also practiced church discipline, they’ll see that this isn’t just the latest pastor-fad, but a matter of biblical fidelity.

6. “If we practice discipline, it will hurt the church’s reputation.”

Scripture indicates that we should maintain a healthy sensitivity to how outsiders perceive our congregations (cf. 1 Cor. 14:16, 24; 1 Tim. 3:7). But we should never allow that sensitivity to slide over into a fearfulness that prevents us from obeying Jesus.

Some folks in our congregations may fear that practicing discipline will communicate to outsiders that our church is harsh or judgmental. But we must remind people that discipline is actually God’s way of maintaining the church’s credibility in a lost community. Jesus’ reputation is bound up with his church. If we tolerate sins even unbelievers find scandalous, we compromise our witness to the gospel’s power to transform lives.

7. “We never did this in better days, when our church was bigger.”

Pastors, especially new ones, need to understand their congregation’s history—particularly the history that still lives in the memory of older members. I (Sam) served in a church where many of the members longed for the “glory days” of the 1970s and 80s, when the church was large and the ministry programs were brimming with activity. In those halcyon days, the church never discussed membership, wouldn’t have dreamed of discipline, and prioritized catering their services to unbelievers. Discipline represented the opposite of every ministry intuition cultivated during the “best” days of the church.

In retrospect, I see that many members were motivated by a desire to see the church once again produce that kind of fruit (or at least what looked like fruit). For many, discipline represented a practice that placed the church in direct opposition to the “fruitful ministry” it had known in the past. As a result, people disliked discipline not because it seemed unloving or unbiblical; they disliked it because it’s simply not what the church did when it was bigger, more fruitful, more influential. They’d become well-catechized in the belief that bigger is always better.

In response, pastors should patiently teach their people to trust that God’s ways are better than ours, even if they seem counterintuitive. Second, pastors should teach their people to celebrate the fruit of faith in Christ and holy lives, not a church brimming with ministry programs. After all, on the last day, many will ask, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and run counseling centers in your name, and host VBS in your name?”

Of course, counseling centers and Vacation Bible Schools are good things, but they aren’t a sure sign of the Spirit’s work. If our baptism numbers and ministry programs today don’t translate to accepted servants on thatday, then what good are they? Pastors aren’t the only ones who need constant reminding that success in ministry is a matter of faithfulness and patience, not bigger budgets and packed pews. Care for your flock by teaching them that gospel growth and God’s blessing depend on faithfulness. And teach them that part of holding the gospel faithfully is helping others hold fast as well.

Chalcedon

Article: Truly God, Truly Man: The Council of Chalcedon by Nicholas Needham

Original source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/truly-god-truly-man-council-chalcedon/

It’s hard enough to pronounce “Chalcedon.” Getting to grips with its theology can be even more daunting. But the effort will be very richly rewarded. For the past 1,500 years, right up to the present day, virtually all orthodox Christian theologians have defined their “orthodoxy” with reference to the Council of Chalcedon. That certainly includes the Reformed tradition. We may not think that the early ecumenical councils were infallible. But we have generally held that they were gloriously right in what they affirmed, and that Christians who take the church and its history seriously must reckon with these great councils as providential landmarks in the unfolding life story of God’s people.

What was Chalcedon all about? Basically it was trying to settle the aftermath of the Arian controversy in the fourth century. Biblical theologians had struggled successfully against Arianism to affirm the deity of Christ. But this led to further controversy. This time, the issue was the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ. Two tendencies quickly became prominent. One was associated with the church in Antioch. It wanted to protect the full reality of Christ’s deity and humanity. To do this, it tended to keep them as far apart as possible. The Antiochenes were afraid that any close blending of the two natures might mix them up. Christ’s human limitations might get applied to His deity — in which case He wasn’t fully God. Or His divine attributes might get applied to His humanity — in which case He wasn’t fully human. This was fine, as far as it went. The trouble was, Antiochenes sometimes separated Christ’s two natures so much, He seemed to end up as two persons: a human son of Mary indwelt by a divine Son of God. The most famous Antiochene thinker who took this line was Nestorius, a preacher who became patriarch (chief bishop) of Constantinople in 428. Nestorius was condemned by the third ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 (it also condemned Pelagianism as heresy).

The other tendency was associated with the church of Alexandria. Their main concern was to protect the divine person of the Son as the one single “subject” of the incarnation. In other words, there is in Christ only one “I,” only one personal agent, and this is the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. And again, this was fine as far as it went. The trouble was, Alexandrians sometimes became so zealous for Christ’s divine person, they could lose sight of His humanity. To the extremists of Alexandria, any sort of emphasis on Christ’s human nature seemed to threaten the sovereignty of His single divine person. Would Christ not break apart into two persons — the hated Nestorian heresy — if one insisted too much on the full reality of His manhood?

In the aftermath of Nestorius’ condemnation at Ephesus in 431, the Alexandrians made all the running. Their greatest thinker was Cyril of Alexandria. But when Cyril died in 444, a more extreme figure stepped into his place. This was Eutyches, a leading monk in Constantinople. Eutyches was so violent in his commitment to Christ’s single divine person, he could tolerate no rivalry (as it were) from His humanity. So in an infamous phrase, Eutyches taught that in the incarnation, Christ’s human nature had been swallowed up and lost in His divinity: “like a drop of wine in the sea.” This extreme Alexandrian view triumphed at another ecumenical council in Ephesus in 449. Its victory, however, was due less to theological argument and persuasion, and due more to gangs of unruly Alexandrian monks who terrorized the proceedings, supported by the troops of emperor Theodosius II, who favored Eutyches.

The council was condemned in the western, Latin-speaking half of the Roman Empire. Pope Leo the Great thundered against it as the “Robber Synod” (and the name stuck). After the death of emperor Theodosius, a new emperor, Marcian, called a new council at Chalcedon (in Asia Minor) in 451. This time, Eutyches and the extreme Alexandrians were defeated. The council skillfully wove together all that was good and true in the Antiochene and Alexandrian outlooks, producing a theological masterpiece on the person of Christ:

So, following the holy fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; of one essence with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same of one essence with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, the same born of Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity.

He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation. At no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being. He is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

Perhaps we can best appreciate what the Council of Chalcedon achieved by asking what the consequences would have been if either Nestorius or Eutyches had won the day. Let’s take Nestorianism first. If the incarnation is really a case of a human son of Mary being indwelt by a divine Son of God, then Christ is no different in principle from any holy human. Every sanctified man is indwelt by the Son. Was Christ merely the highest example of that? If so, no true incarnation has taken place at all. We cannot say “Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.” We can only say “Jesus of Nazareth had a relationship with the Son of God.” Think of what this does to our doctrine of the atonement. We would have to say we are saved by the sufferings of a merely human Jesus who happened to be indwelt by God (as all holy people are). Would that not inevitably lead to a belief that human suffering — perhaps our own — can atone for our sins? And think of what it would do to our worship. We would not be able to worship Jesus — only the divine Son by whom Jesus was indwelt. That would destroy Christian worship entirely.

But then, think what would have happened if Eutychianism had won out. If Christ’s humanity was lost and swallowed up in His deity “like a drop of wine in the sea,” then once again, no real incarnation has taken place. Rather than God becoming man, we have man being annihilated in God. One can see how this would easily have lent itself to all manner of humanity-denying mysticism. After all, if Christ is our pattern, shouldn’t we too seek for our own humanity to be lost and swallowed up in deity like a drop of wine in the sea?

The fathers at Chalcedon set themselves firmly against both of these unwholesome tendencies. They affirmed that Christ is indeed one single divine person, not some alliance of a divine and a human person, as in Nestorianism. The subject, the “I,” the personal agent whom we meet in Jesus Christ is singular, not plural; this person is “the Only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord” — the second person of the Godhead. Mary is therefore rightly called the “God-bearer,” a truth passionately rejected by Nestorius. The person whom Mary bore was precisely God the Son! Mary is the mother of God incarnate (although not, of course, the mother of the divine nature). The fathers of Chalcedon equally affirmed that this one person exists in two distinct natures, complete deity and complete humanity, thus rejecting the Eutychian absorption of one into the other. We see in Christ everything that it is to be human, and everything that it is to be divine, at one and the same time, without either being compromised by the other. We could say that in Christ, for the first time and the last, all the fullness of human being, and all the fullness of divine being, have come together and exist together in exactly the same way — as the Son of the Father and the Bearer of the Holy Spirit. Or to put it more simply, Christ is fully and truly man, fully and truly God, at the same time, in a single person.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; 
Hail the incarnate deity! 
Pleased as Man with man to appear: 
Jesus, our Emmanuel here.

The fathers of Chalcedon did a fine job. In matters christological, we can perhaps only ever be dwarfs on their giant shoulders. We may be enabled to see even further, if we sit there. But if we climb off, I somehow doubt that we’ll see anything but Nestorian and Eutychian mud.