Response to Jim Bublitz: Emerging Submerging of the Reformation

 Having a little protest seems to be the way to celebrate Reformation Day.  This morning, Jim Bublitz of Old Truth.com took apart my Reformation Sunday post piece by piece. He wrote the post below entitled "The Emerging Submerging of the Reformation"

What I write now is a quick knee-jerk response to Jim's challenge to my blog post. I wish I had more time to respond more fully. See with what large GREEN letters I write with.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Emerging Submerging of The Reformation, by Jim Bublitz

[Jim Bublitz writes in black] It's no secret that many in the Emerging Church Movement would prefer that this day be erased from their calendar.

[(Andrew Jones always writes in GREEN): Some of us see Reformation Day as an opportunity to celebrate our reformation influence and to reflect on our current reforming efforts. In fact, at an Emergent event hosted at John Knox's church in Geneva, we celebrated the Reformation and took a guidd tour to see all the effects of Calvin's ideas in this city. One thing that stood out to me was the top story of a row of houses that was built to accommodate the many homeless from other countries. HOSPITALITY was important to them and this is another wonderful thing from the Reformation that we dont seem to hear much about.  - You see, its not about ERASING it, its about researching it and finding out what really happened and what we can learn from it]

No not Halloween, though I'm sure we won't find many Emergents out today wearing Martin Luther costumes. I am instead referring to Reformation Day. One critic of Emergent correctly noted the widespread historical revisionism in the Emerging Church, saying: "All the great heroes of the faith end up becoming fools. And the antiheroes - the fools who compromise and who don't take a stand - become the heroes. It's turning history on its head; they undo the Reformation so they can go back to a quasi-Christian, medieval spirituality".

That was John MacArthur who made those remarks in an  interview about his Truth War book. One reader of his book who won't be giving it a four star Amazon review anytime soon is Emergent leader Andrew Jones. [actually i have no official role in Emergent Village apart from friendship and some history with Young Leaders Network] His distaste for the book is stated in no uncertain terms, in fact, he says so in words that many of you will find distasteful. [Go ahead and say it or your readers will assume i said something worse than i actually did. The word i use is "poop" and "poopslide" to express the meaning of the Greek term used in Jude. If you have a better translation of that word, please share it. John Macarthur said "Jude uses a Greek word for "garment" that signifies underwear and a word for "polluted" that means "stained in a filthy manner; spotted and stained by bodily functions". He is comparing the defilement of false teaching to soiled underwear."] That's the Emerging Church that we've come to  expect.

  But this post is not about foul language however, nor of Andrew  Jones' distain for MacArthur's book [my concern is that the book is not accurate in its interpretations but thats for another post], but of Jones' interesting ??? take on church history  as expressed in the Reformation post on his Tall Skinny Kiwi blog this week. The bullet points  from Andrew's post are in red below, and I will briefly challenge his ideas in the text that follows. Hopefully afterwards, you'll have a better understanding of why Emergents so often have disdain for the greatest revival of the last 1,000+ years - the Protestant Reformation.

[No disdain. There is much to celebrate and learn from the Reformation. Praise God for it!! Look at our Bibles on our desks and praise God we have the freedom to read and interpret them. Even the Roman Catholics benefited from the Reformation]

1. The Reformers were committed to an ecumenical consensus of unity. They wanted to reform the whole church, not just one break-away segment that became the Protestant Movement. Sectarianism was not the intention.

It's true that while Martin Luther was still a Catholic monk, he endeavored to see changes made in the Roman Catholic church. But this quickly evaporated in the early days of the Reformation as it was clear that the Catholics were in no mood for sweeping reforms. It's interesting to hear Anthony [My name is Andrew. Anthony (Tony) Jones is the Coordinator for Emergent Village. We are often confused, despite me being much better looking.] Jones say that the "the Reformers were committed to an  ecumenical consensus of unity" when in fact Luther broke unity even with other protestant Reformers, over sacramental doctrines. Take for example Luther's meeting with Ulrich Zwingli in which Luther refused to even shake hands with the Swiss Reformer afterwards, breaking unity with him over Communion. Luther's sentiments towards Rome were even more sectarian. Unfortunately, Andrew Jones' "unity" remarks only portray a limited portion of the story. The Reformers were indeed inclined to choose doctrine ahead of unity.

[There is disagreement here. Allow me to quote a well known historical source which shows the other side.

"Schism and disruption followed in the wake of the Reformation and the process has multiplied the number of autonomous units in non-Roman Christianity. Critical observers of this trend have often drawn the conclusion that Protestantism has at its heart a divisive principle by which it is irresistibly driven to complete disintegration. Many Protestants have acquiesced in this view, justifying it on the grounds of an unqualified religious individualism, which, with more rhetoric than research, they have professed to derive from the teaching of the Reformers. On the other hand, those who have really studied Reformation sources have found in them a consistent affirmation of the reality of the one Holy Catholic Church and a clear avowal of the principle of ecumenical unity.

. . .  This revival of ecumenical concern accords with the spirit of the Reformers. They sought the renovation, not the disruption, of the Church, and hoped for its reunion. They unhesitatingly accepted the ecumenical creeds . . . "

A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, page 29-30, edited by Ruth Rouse and  Stephen Neill]

2. If there is a Babylon the Great today, it is not the Roman Catholic Church. It is probably something closer and dearer to us.

 

How can he be so certain of who is NOT being referred to in Revelation? I wonder if whatever entity Andrew has in mind as a better fit, has the kind of track record that the Roman Catholic church has of martyring saints, disfiguring essential biblical doctrines, and installing a leader who is said to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth (amongst other blasphemous  titles). 

[Do you have a problem with certainty? It may have been clear to the Reformers in the 16th century who Babylon was for them but that does not lock it in for the rest of human history until Jesus returns. I don't see the Roman Catholic Church today (which is based in Vatican City, not Rome) ruling over the kings of the earth, or making the merchants of the earth wealthy, and I don't see a RCC military killing machine. Check out what the Catholics think about this.] The only religious power with that kind of capability, with both wealth and military power, is  . . . well . . . thats another post.]

 Like so many Emergents today, Andrew Jones seems more  interested at times in having unity with Catholics rather than evangelizing them. Emergents may think they are being loving and charitable that way, but in reality it's extremely unloving to not tell them the truth. Andrew Jones goes so far as to offer apologies to Catholics for having once given them evangelism tracts [Yes. I REPENTED for obnoxiously posting tracts on their cars while they were in Mass], calling them a part of the body of Christ. [no - Only Jesus knows and affiliation does not guarantee salvation for Catholics or Baptists or anyone] I can only assume that much of his new thinking has influenced his statement of certainty regarding who Babylon the Great ISN'T.

[The charismatic Catholics I met in that instance you point to seemed just as redeemed as many Protestants. Jesus desired unity among his followers (John 17) and I see no reason to disobey. The charismatic movement, thanks to Calvary Chapel, has built a bridge between Protestants and Catholics. The Emerging church movement has not had the same effect. Catholics involved in emerging church ministry tend to stay Catholics and Protestants likewise. But there is a place for ecumenical unity based not on theological compromise but rather by common commitment to the mission of God]

3. If USA and England had as many Czech immigrants as they did German, history would probably show that the Reformation started much earlier and its geographic center was a few hundred miles eastwards of where we currently believe it to be. YES - I am talking about Jan Hus.

Everyone loves conspiracy theories I guess. 

[Not everyone. I am much happier with an accurate picture of what happened. Luther's sympathy for the Husites was a turning point in the Reformation and he was seen in some places as a "reviver of the doctrines of Hus"]

The appeal of it to  Emergents of course, is that Jan Hus of the previous century presents a more docile character to  grapple with than the highly polemic Luther who once said: 

"I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing, let me rather speak the truth with too great severity than once to act the hypocrite and conceal the truth."

[And the other side to Luther was this: Luther was more ecumenical than the Roman Catholic Church with his inclusion of the various sects considered heretical by the Roman Communion, like the Husites and Bretheren]

"Geographic centers" have little to do with the perception people have of the Reformation. There's no escaping the fact that God providentially used the Magisterial Reformers, along with the rulers of the land who were favorably disposed to cooperate with them, and let's not forget His timing of the newly invented printing press. What a shame it is that numerous Emerging Church blogs on this day will invest so much bandwidth attempting to discredit such an obvious work of God. [Finding the historical accuracy so that we have a truthful basis on which to celebrate is "discrediting" only to those that have been told a different story]

4. The Reformation was initiated NOT because of doctrinal purity, as commonly taught, but because of corruption in the use of power and wealth. Doctrinal reform was a bonus, but not the primary motivation.

[I was thinking of Owen Chadwick, Regis Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge, on this one.

"When churchmen spoke of reformation, they were almost always thinking of administrative, legal, or moral reformation; hardly ever of doctrinal reformation. They did not suppose the Pope's doctrine to be erroneous. . . They not only wanted popes and bishops to be less secularized, monks to practise their rule, parish clergy to be more instructed. They sometimes talked of a theology which should be less remote from human beings, more faithful to the gospel, a faith that should be less external and more akin to the teaching of the Lord. But to gain this end they had neither desire nor expectation or anything which could be called a change in doctrine"

The Reformation, Owen Chadwick, page 13-14.]

Martin Luther certainly reacted to much of the moral corruption in the  Catholic church of his day, and in fact - his 95 Theses was a very moral document. Had it not been for this corruption in the church, Luther may never have published his thoughts on Justification and other important doctrines. What's not reflected in Andrew Jones' remarks however, is the acknowledgement that the Reformers thoroughly understood the relationship between thought and deeds. In other words, they understood that the corruption sprouted from error. The Reformers knew that the moral abuses were driven by wrong thinking. The Emerging Church should take a page from the Reformers, as we so often find this movement's followers emphasizing "good works" detached from doctrinal truth.

[And what Jim neglects to say is that, in searching for the right "thoughts", that they accepted the ecumenical Creeds and in some cases (Headship of Christ) actually built on the knowledge of the Church Fathers.]

5. There is reform in the church today because there is corruption in the church today. God still cares about his church. So should we. The way we play with ecclesiastic power and the way we spend the Bride's finances should concern us all, not just our commitment to a common creed.

We can certainly agree with that. The Church today needs reform, where we radically disagree with Emergents is on how to go about it.

[And we may disagree on how far to reform structurally. Many of us in the emerging church movements are not content with the  Catholic style hierarchical leadership system or the weekly mass type church service that did not change very much in the Reformation, despite Luther's original intentions towards house church. For this reason, many in the emerging church are attracted to the Radical Reformers like the Bretheren for their intentional communities and holistic lifestyles of hospitality, spirituality and craft.]

6. The emerging church might well be a protest (Don Carson) but it might also be a corrective measure to the excesses and imbalances of the reformation and the Enlightenment.

[nice graphics btw]

Or it may be a dangerous over-reaction to some of the problems that are especially pronounced in the evangelical church of the last century.

[Yes - Some go too far with the pendulum swing and there are many coming with a lot of baggage from their old churches]

The way we need to judge contemporary movements is to evaluate their truthfulness, and by this standard the Emerging Church Movement (and certainly Emergent Village) does not measure-up as a reliable source of guidance and leadership for the changes that are needed in our time.

[Jim, its a huge and diverse movement, spanning many countries and cultures, and one leader will not speak for everyone. I notice you are a Baptist, like me. Is the Baptist movement a "truthful" movement? We share a similar creed and yet we would never dare make general statements about Baptists like you made about the Emerging church, which includes many denominations and movements.]

Let the Reformation continue. Others: Reformed Trombonist and  check out Campi who is always  seasonal this time of year, even if he comes from a different angle than me.

Seasonal perhaps, but also - more historically accurate and less (not more) personally biased. 

[I think we are all biased, if we admit it, and we all choose to read and blog-link people that share our personal bias. The list of links on your blog, for example, Jim, is a great example of like-minded linking that reminds me of the reality of the Donald McGavaran's homogenous unit principle. With my fundamentalist and reformed background, it was a stretch, initially, to read outside my world but I feel it is essential in reading history with perspectives other than our own or our own camp (no pun intended) so that we dont just reinforce our personal prejudices and conclude every study with "We were right after all!" If we are always right, we never have to repent]

I fully agree with Andrew Jones in recommending men like Steve Camp who will remind you of why PROTEST is part of the word "protestant", and has been for nearly 500 years.

[And may I add, for the benefit of your readers, the word "testicles". meaning "little witnesses" also comes from the word Protest.]

Reformation Day is one holiday that belongs on the calendar, though I can imagine those erasers [erasers?? - no - i challenge your readers to pick up a few books on the reformation that they have not read before or maybe books written by Anglicans and not just Reformed Presbyterians and for God's sake learn something NEW this year!] being out in full force today in Emergent households. While I do not fully agree with any of the Reformers on everything, their contribution to Christianity can not be denied. They were rough around the edges at times, some of Luther's choices of words [he used words much worse that "poop"] (which are often exaggerated with no context on the blogs of his enemies) would still draw objections from me in the same way Emergents do; I also disagree with some of the doctrinal lines that were drawn (or not drawn) in the Reformation. But for their time and circumstances we must recognize that which the Lord chose to accomplish through these men. The Reformation gave the Puritans and others a steady platform to improve upon in the years that followed, and the same has been given to us. Let's remember to pray for the revival that is so badly needed in the western world today. Lord bring us more men with the conviction of truth and the courage of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.

[Amen. And more women also . . ]

[Jim, thanks for taking the time to assess my blog post. I appreciate your thoughts, even if i dont always agree with your conclusions. I guess this means your church will not be supporting us as missionaries this year?]

Comments

[Jarrod Saul McKenna]

Andrew here's a quote from one of those "heretical catholics", Thomas Merton, that I worth keeping in mind with all of this;

“The dread of being open to the ideas of others generally comes from our hidden insecurity about our own convictions. We fear that we may be ‘converted’ – or perverted – by a pernicious doctrine. On the other hand, if we are mature and objective in our open-mindedness, we might find that viewing things from a basically different perspective – that of our adversary – we discover our own truth in a new light and are able to understand our own ideal more realistically.”

[Jarrod Saul McKenna]

Mate I was thinking the reformation conversation seems very ‘Magisterial-centric’ (did I just invest a word?). I don’t understand why we let Calvin or Luther set the bar for “orthodoxy”. What about the radical wing of the reformation that insisted orthodoxy lay in the witness of the early church and were therefore willing to die but not kill for Christ.

I feel embarased that the conversation gets so nasty.

While we don’t kill our brothers and sisters today over difference (although I did hear Driscol threaten it... he’s a funny boy) we still don’t think loving each other means not attacking each other. Why is that? What about Jesus' Lordship in this area? If we really think each others in error should there not be tears in prayer for one another not ‘virtual burnings’. I think the church is still in need of a savour who rejects violence, and I think we have one in Jesus.

Surely these conversations can be opportunities to for the church to journey deeper in the process of sanctification, of ‘divination’ as the Orthodox have put it, in become more Christ-like. If we can’t love our sisters and brother well how are we going to love our enemies?

Thought you might be interested in this:

http://www.backyardmissionary.com/2007/10/jesus-camp-scares-me.html

[andrew]

thanks Jarrod. Thats a breath of fresh air to blow out the bad smell. appreciate it.

[knsheppard]

As a fan of Owen Chadwick, you might also wish to read Diarmaid McCullouch's "magisterial" (pun!) account called: "Reformation: Europe's House Divided, 1490-1710", a more recent overview with more recent research and historiography worked in.

[Tyler]

Hey Andrew. I for one really liked what you had to say about the Reformation, although I think it's always important to emphasize that the Reformers tried to reform the Church universal according to the word of God - not that I think anyone would deny this.

[brad brisco]

Andrew, great response/reflections. Jerod, like wise! Jerod your comment about Calvin/Luther setting the bar rather than other "wings" of the reformation is significant.

[Jim from OldTruth.com]

Andrew:

There's a lot to respond to here, and I don't think I can do it in a comment, but let me hit a couple of points:

First of all, please accept my apologies for the one 'Anthony' slip. I will fix that and the typos; can you proof read all of my stuff for me? Just the spelling though, and not the views :-)

I'll have to look at some of the history sources that you cited above, but suffice it say - it's possible to find people with PhD's who will say almost anything to support a bias. And when church history has been saying something for centuries, and then along comes somebody new, saying "something new" (or at least saying something rare) then it ought to cause us to wonder.

In your original post you mentioned the bias that you used to be under, and I think it's fair to say that you are implying above that I am pinned to that same bias, but I am reading a bias all over the place in these two posts of yours Andrew. Take for example one of your sources "A History of the Ecumenical Movement"; that's a book with as much bias towards finding ecumenical things to say as a history book entitled "The Greatness of Martin Luther" would have towards exalting Luther. Both ought to cause us to question.

In this post, you say that you feel there's much to be celebrated about the Reformation, but I wonder if it's the same things that Christians have been celebrating for centuries. Do you mean, it is to be celebrated because it merely got everyone thinking, or got everyone in the mode for some helpful changes in which we would all treat one another better? Or do you mean it should be celebrated as a time when God liberated the true Gospel from the hands of a false religious system? That's what Christians have celebrated about it for centuries, but your new take on things seems different than that.

That leads me to a question that I asked you on my blog, and one which you never answered, and that is: Did the protestant martyrs who died under the Queen Mary Tudor die unnecessarily according your view? I'm still interested in knowing your opinion of that. The question is one of principle and beliefs, and not one of glorifying humans (the martyrs). Aside from your alternate view of the Reformation, the thing that is sure to make many of us wonder whether you (as well as many who follow the Emerging Church Movement) have gone off the ecumenical deep end are thoughts like this, from your post in which you fellowshipped at a Catholic gathering:

"Reinhold brought an apology for his previous prejudices and anti-catholic biases, but he was speaking for all of us. ... We embraced each other as brothers in one family."

"This is a little movie of Reinhold and Mattheo hugging each other after asking forgiveness for not acting like a Christian family."

"so I need to be part of the solution that sees Christ body starting living together now, in preparation for the life to come. Even if that means breaking some of my own taboos."

Andrew, if you really think that those who believe in and follow the Roman Catholic system are part of a "Christian family", part of "Christ's body" and "brothers" in Christ, then it's no wonder that your views are so different about the Reformation.

If I'm misunderstanding you on your points above, I'm willing to revise my viewpoint. I don't want to misrepresent you. Thanks for letting me comment.
--Jim

[Richard Clarke]

It is a common belief that when you get close to actually killing a sacred cow, that those that have never checked the actual ownership of that cow will tell you that they own it and you cannot kill it.

[andrew]

Jim, thanks for turning up and commenting.

Please do check those sources. I think you will find that Bishop Stephen Neill is one of the most well respected mission and church historians of last century. I would not take his view, or those who accept it, to be "alternative" by any means.
Likewise with Owen Chadwick of Cambridge, the other source. However, as you said and I hinted at, they are all biased towards making a point just like the rest of us.

And no, the martyrs did not die unnecessarily - as i already said on your blog - their sacrifice paved the way and was an acceptable gift of worship. I have had associates get killed on the mission field. It continues today, in some ways with greater numbers.
But there is a difference in being persecuted for living godly and, on the other hand, finding biblical cause for violence or abuse. And this is where i see some fundamentalists headed.

As for the charismatic Catholic church where a few of us were invited to preach, it was almost identical to a typical charismatic service - no Mary worship, Hillsong choruses and contemporary worship. Not my scene actually, shoot - i am a baptist - but the presence of God was there and yes - I believe that many there were believers in Christ. Sorry if your theology does not allow for that but thats the way i saw it. And if they invited me back to preach again, i will probably accept because i love to preach the good news of Jesus Christ to whoever will listen.

[Jim from OldTruth.com]

Andrew:

No, actually - my theology does allow for redeemed people to be sitting in the pews of a Catholic church, but I think you are escaping the key language that I've been using in discussing this with you, relating to what is believed by them. Are you saying that this Catholic group that you visited (yes, no mary worship THAT day, but did you go to church with them on a Sunday?) might actually believe in Rome's way to salvation and yet still be saved? If so, you are parting with centuries of protestant thought. You can keep painting me as narrow minded and owning the sacred cow (Richard Clarke above) but why should anyone abandon centuries of Christian belief and run after some new innovative thinking by a group that is currently but a small blip on Church History's radar screen? I'm not suggesting blindly following the past, but traditional protestant beliefs should have some magnetic pull on us that at least makes it hard to escape it's orbit. I don't see that here. I see a willingness to throw out the baby with the bath water, and invent something new.

If you are saying that the Tudor martyrs were right to make their stand for the reasons that they did (correct me if that's not what you are saying) then that should have a polemic effect on you. It can't just be "right for them" but not "right for you" if you were in a similar situation; truth is old, and what was worth standing for before is worth standing for now. Do you agree?

[Dan R.]

"When churchmen spoke of reformation, they were almost always thinking of administrative, legal, or moral reformation; hardly ever of doctrinal reformation. They did not suppose the Pope's doctrine to be erroneous. . . They not only wanted popes and bishops to be less secularized, monks to practice their rule, parish clergy to be more instructed. They sometimes talked of a theology which should be less remote from human beings, more faithful to the gospel, a faith that should be less external and more akin to the teaching of the Lord. But to gain this end they had neither desire nor expectation or anything which could be called a change in doctrine"
The Reformation, Owen Chadwick, page 13-14.

“But as soon as falsehood has forced its way into the citadel of religion, as soon as the sum of necessary doctrine is inverted, and the use of the sacraments is destroyed, the death of the Church undoubtedly ensues, just as the life of man is destroyed when his throat is pierced, or his vitals mortally wounded. This is clearly evinced by the words of Paul when he says, that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone," (Eph. 2: 20.) If the Church is founded on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, by which believers are enjoined to place their salvation in Christ alone, then if that doctrine is destroyed, how can the Church continue to stand? The Church must necessarily fall whenever that sum of religion which alone can sustain it has given way. Again, if the true Church is the pillar and ground of the truth," (1 Tim. 3: 15,) it is certain that there is no Church where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy.

Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ. The communion of the Church was not instituted to be a chain to bind us in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other kinds of evil, but rather to retain us in the fear of God and obedience of the truth.”
Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Book 4, Chapter 2

[Mark]

Can I simply ask Jim, in the light of your comment "Did the protestant martyrs who died under the Queen Mary Tudor die unnecessarily according your view?" Do you believe that the many Catholic martyrs murdered by Protestants during the period died necessarily?"

[Mark]

Can I also add the question "why should anyone abandon centuries of Christian belief"... what about 12 centuries of Christian belief?

[Peggy]

I am grateful to you, Andrew, for willingly entering the conversation here...and for a fresh perspective based on a balance of right behavior AND right doctrine.

I now have to find a way to get a cleansing breath from the Holy Spirit and keep moving forward instead of getting stuck in the sacred cow pies that seem to be everywhere! ;^)

I am quickly learning the wisdom of the saying: "Don't feel the trolls."

Oh...and thanks so much for including the sistren, bro!

Blessings.

[Jim from OldTruth.com]

Mark:

I seriously doubt that there were any "Catholic MARTYR's" that died at the hands of regenerated Christians, can you give us an example from church history of one?

Why abandon 12 centuries? I'm not advocating abandoning it all, but church history shows a clear pattern of "doctrine creep" in which over that time span things slowly started to creep away from the Gospel and the scriptures. To whatever degree that has happened to protestants in recent years, I say the same thing; there's a need to go back to what we once believed.

[brad]

huh ...

truthfully, i am wondering if the real argument underneath the surface here is about "true" versus "truth."

i guess i always understood that we are saved by placing our trust in the One who is True, Jesus Christ, not by believing truth. thus, there is room for imperfect and incomplete understanding - which all who are catholic, or orthodox, or reformed, or anglican, or radically reformed, or fundamentalist, or evangelical, or etc. all suffer from - yet still find salvation in Christ.

if salvation is by beliving The Truth, then how can anyone be saved - it would require perfect knowledge - and anyway, our salvation would then be in The Bible, not in the One who is The Living Word.

[Dana Ames]

Not to mention Thomas Muentzer. Not to mention Calvin's -execution- of suspected witches and those with heretical views.

"Your side killed more people than our side did," is rather a sick statement, in my view. Christians advocating and carrying out killings in the name of Jesus, for any reason, are the biggest shame and scandal of the church, and unfortunately only a very few groups are not guilty of this.

Andrew said: "But there is a difference in being persecuted for living godly and, on the other hand, finding biblical cause for violence or abuse. And this is where i see some fundamentalists headed."

There is NO "biblical cause" for violence and abuse. There is no such thing as redemptive violence. We follow a Lord who was led like a lamb to the slaughter, who did not defend himself. How Jesus must grieve over what has been done in the name of doctrinal purity- he who gave us a new commandment: "Love one another as I have loved you." To those who asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied, love God and love the suffering human being right next to you.

To go into my personal history would impinge on Andrew's blog hospitality; suffice it to say that I am so very tired of the RCC being equated with Babylon. As Andrew pointed out, it no longer has either political or economic power. And a lot of RCs do a spectacular job of loving the suffering human being next to them in the name of Jesus, simply because he said to do so, not to "earn salvation".

[brad]

p.s. that this is unfolding on "all saints day" is intriguing.

saints are holy ones, and salvation - according to the Greek NT - has three tenses: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved.

so, isn't sanctification a legitimate means of testing (both pyrazo and dokimazo - sorry for my bad transliterations from Greek) who truly is saved? but it takes perseverance in relationship. if we stick around people long enough, we'll see by evidences of salvation, both a stronger truth-index AND a Christ-changed lifestyle.

actually, all saints day is the paradoxically and providentially perfect day to speak of who Christ owns. i am sad, though, that we have become onerous for Christ ...

[Jim from OldTruth.com]

Brad:

It's a logical fallacy to say that knowing anything is true requires perfect knowledge of the thing; the Trinity being one example. Christ is truth, yes, but that does not mean that this is where truth stops. Search my site for a Carson article in which he provides a whole list of things and people in the bible who speak truth or are representing truth. We are saved by putting our trust in Jesus, yes, but who is He? And, which Jesus, this one? www.infantjesusshrine.com They say that's the one in the bible, on that site. We need biblical truth to define Jesus for us.

Dana says "Calvin's -execution- of suspected witches...".

Cite a reputable history source please? Perhaps a seminary history text book or something that has sold more than 100 copies on Amazon.

Those of you bringing up "your side killed people" or "everybody killed people" are missing the point, which was whether the Tudor martyrs made a mistake in dying instead of simply taking a more ecumenical "lets all get along" stance. Perhaps they could have said to the Queen, "you might be right about the bread and wine, we don't have perfect vision of biblical things, we are not necessarily saying you are wrong" and then walked away. Why didn't they? Would you? Would Andrew? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. It was important to those old saints, but it doesn't seem very important on this blog, to be honest.

[brad]

jim, your point might be well taken under one reading of my comment on 'true' and 'truth,' however i'm not sure you apprehended the reasoning underneath my use of capital letters in everything. and i would add a word of caution to all of us on how we rely on logic(s) and what logic(s) we rely on, as there may well be more kinds of logical forms used in Scripture - which i do take as inspired, special revelation, inerrant in the original manuscripts - than typical of Western theologies.

i wish this weren't such a tedious process, but then, perhaps biblical theology takes a long time to say anything, as does anything in Old Entish, and hopefully what is said is worthwhile.

[Jim from OldTruth.com]

Brad:

Logic, while it may be leaned on too heavily, is an inescapable reality that we all function through. It's not something that's "western" only. That is more emergent-speak I'm afraid.

How about taking a turn at my question now. Same question about the Tudor martyrs that I asked Andrew.

[Dana Ames]

"Men and women were burnt for witchcraft. Gruet was beheaded for sedition and atheism. Servetus was burnt for heresy and blasphemy. The last is the most flagrant case which, more than all others combined, has exposed the name of Calvin to abuse and execration; but it should be remembered that he wished to substitute the milder punishment of the sword for the stake, and in this point at least he was in advance of the public opinion and usual practice of his age."

Philip Schaff, "History of the Christian Church: Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation. The Exercise of Discipline in Geneva"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc8.iv.xiii.x.html

I hope Schaff is reputable enough for you, Jim.

The RCs should not have killed the Tudor martyrs. The English protestants should not have killed the RCs when the prot's took political power. They were both wrong to result to killing on doctrinal grounds. Christians killing anyone in the name of Jesus, especially other Christians, is the biggest shame of the church.

Jim, I'm sure you love God and are trying to follow Jesus the best way you know how. I ask you to please try to understand what Brad is saying in his comments. I don't want to argue; it takes too much energy away from things I think are more valuable than arguing. May God keep you.

[brad]

jim, i agree that logic is an inescapable reality, and that it's not a Western thing only. one of my concerns is that Western theologies use a primarily philosophical logic derived from Greek epistemology and rhetoric. Eastern cultures have their own unique kinds of logic problems that taint their views of biblical theologies.

if it sounded like my view is "emergent-speak" to you it may have been because i did not have time to detail my sources for my view, nor any nuances of the issues. however, my view comes not from emergent, but from earning a degree in linguistics, where i spent a significant amount of time focusing on logic, language, and rhetoric. the past 12 years, i have been developing analytical tools and frameworks to understand and interpret epistemologies, hermeneutics, apologetics, constructions of theologies, etc. etc., so we can avoid syncretizing our theology with our culture- and language-bound forms of "logic." which is what, i would suggest, is a major issue among various branches of Christianity, just as what Dan R. on your blog seems to suggest, although i would likely take that thought into additional directions.

and i'm not particularly inclined at the moment to respond to your question about martyrs, but may do that later.

[Jim from OldTruth.com]

Dana:

I don't want to keep you arguing if you have other things to do; I hope that just by my responding that I'm not keeping you here.

Yes, Schaff is a good source, especially if you don't sound byte him, and do your best to take in everything he's saying in that chapter. For example, scroll up a little from where you pasted your Calvin executed witches idea and you'll see this "But the Council introduced also coercive laws...". Scroll down on the page and you'll see this "The most cruel of those laws—against witchcraft, heresy, and blasphemy—were inherited from the Catholic Middle Ages, and continued in force in all countries of Europe, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, down to the end of the seventeenth century. Tolerance is a modern virtue". Robert Reymond in his book on Calvin takes an honest effort at sorting all of this out, and is a good (ok, just slightly biased) read on this topic. Efforts must be made to understand the laws of the day (the Old Testament has some strict ones too), and what Calvin actually played a role in versus what the city councils did or did not do. If you don't do that, then you are just spreading more internet rumors about a dead guy who people love to hate.

I think you are still not addressing my point about the martyrs though.

[Dana Ames]

This is all. I need to go help some kids in my local public school learn how to read.

Thanks for the context. Yes, I addressed your comment about the martyrs. Let me say it again. It was wrong for them to be killed. Killing in Jesus' name is WRONG no matter who does it. The established church should have simply let them alone. As Andrew said, it is up to God to decide who is regenerate. What they were addressing was important. There should not have been killing over it.