Sinners & Saints

6 comments so far

1. Oct 10, 2008Ron Grimm   #

   Hi..I must say that you guys have a terrific website, these mp3’s really hit home..thanks!
   I wanted to download the “I’m A Catholic” mp3, or even listen to it online…but it seems that this particular mp3 is not available for download, I can’t even listen to it on line..can something be done to rectify this problem? I’d really like to have something like this to give to my Catholic friend. – Thanks !

   Ron Grimm
   Dallas Texas

2. Oct 10, 2008URC Learning Admin   #

   Should be all set now, Ron. Thanks for letting us know.

3. Apr 15, 2010Eric   #

   “People don’t understand, that the Roman Catholic church stole the term “Catholic”, and now applies it exclusively to themselves”

   In fact, the man who coined the word “Catholic” was Ignatius, as he applied it to the universal faith. And wrote:

   “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans”

   This cannot be twisted, because this is also one of the reasons Calvin denied Ignatius was an actual person.

   Also, not to get to off the main topic. But, one of the hosts said “We agree with the trinity” in which, this is impossible.

   1.Calvinsim’s christology is generally Nestorian, and at best, quasi-Nestorian. This is because it makes the hypostatic union a product of the Incarnation — divine nature + human nature = person Jesus. Most Calvinists (like many westerns in general) erroneously confess Jesus to be a “human person.” Gordon Clark and his disciples and other reformed giants like A.A. Hodge openly defend Nestorius and his views. Not to say that he is speaking for all Calvinists, but is ahead of the curve.

   2.The Calvino-Nestorian view of the Incarnation has all kinds of other flaws that flow from it. Most notably, Calvinists often confess a human man – Jesus – being damned by the Father at the cross. This is, to say the least, Nestorian, while the other option for Calvinists is to keep the orthodox confession of the sole subject being the Logos, but that leads to the conclusion that the Father damned His divine Son – therby splitting the Trinity. Either route the Calvinist takes, it can only be heretical.

   3.Also flowing from this issue is the nature of salvation and problems for imputational theology. If no. 2 is correct in its analysis, then we also cannot rely upon a legal status – itself a created grace earned by a human-person-Jesus – to save us. We need an actual ontological change in our whole being – theosis or deification, and this is denied by 99% of Calvinism. The reason for this is also faulty christology, because Calvinism won’t consitently confess that the Logos is sole subject of all the Incarnate economic actions. It will not confess two energies in Christ because of its denial of the essence energy distinction and adoption of western absolute divine simplicity, as well as its theological voluntarism and a whole host of difficulties that come with classical, unbalanced western augustinian theology.

   4.As just mentioned in point 3, the rejection of essence – energy and adoption of absolute simplicity has plagued calvinism with the same problems as outright Augustinianism. Pure monergism means mon-energism, which means the heresy of monothelitism, condemned by the 6th council. Many Calvinists say they confess the 6th council and two wills in Christ, but the WCF mentions two wills nowhere and Calvinism’s acceptance of absolute simplicity means it must of necessity reject two energies in Christ as taught by the 6th council.

4. Apr 20, 2010Rev. John Sawtelle   #

   Eric,
   You are not very clear in the things you write, so if what I critique here is not really what you intend to say, please let me know. In what follows I will address what I perceive to be your main points:

   First, you seem to be arguing that S & S hosts—(as well as Reformed theology in general) have an incorrect understanding of the term “catholic” which you think you set straight from the historical record by quoting from St. Ignatius. Let me begin by saying, the term “catholic,” comes from a Greek word “katholikos” which simply means universal. In the context of this comment, Ignatius is applying the term to the church universal which confesses the truth, not to a local or regional church such as Rome. It is clear that he does not place the locus of all ecclesiastical authority in the Roman church and its bishop, nor does he exclusively identify the true church with the Roman church. A primary reason why this term was used to refer to the church by early Christians, such as Ignatius, is because cults and heretical groups were usually isolated and located in a particular place or region while the true church was not narrowly confined to a specific locale, rather it was spread throughout the world. That thought leads to the next point here, which is that Rome did appropriate the term “catholic” and apply it to the Roman church and argued that the true church is found only where a particular church identifies itself organizationally with the ROMAN bishop who stands in succession with the apostle Peter. The point the S & S hosts were making when they said, “the Roman Catholic church stole the term ‘catholic’ and now apply it to themselves exclusively” is that Rome illegitimately applies the term “catholic” to itself exclusively and in a way that is wholly inconsistent with how the early church intended the term to be used. Rome, by applying the term to itself exclusively is identifying the true church with a specific locale and region, which was precisely what heretics and cults did in early church history. The Reformed use the word “catholic” in a manner that is consistent with the early Christians by confessing that the church is found in any place where the church bears the three marks of the true church.

   Second, in what appears to be a mere afterthought, you seem to say that the S & S hosts don’t believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. You simply assert this but make absolutely no reference to anything said on any S & S program to substantiate that claim. This is a very serious charge you are making, because you are essentially saying that the hosts of S & S, who are all ministers in good standing in the Reformed church, are blaspheming heretics. If what you say is true, it is scandalous; however, if it is not, you are engaging in slander. When you make public comments such as this, you are obligated, at minimum, by the law of love, to substantiate your claims with evidence. Simply asserting it in an offhanded way without any support causes you to come across both as hostile and lacking in credibility, which I sincerely hope is not the impression about yourself that you want to form in the opinions of others.

   FOR THE RECORD, THE 3 HOSTS OF THE S & S ALL WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUBSCRIBE TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AS CONFESSED BY THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

   Third, you INCORRECTLY ARGUE that Calvinists are NESTORIANS. It is clear from the words in your post that you don’t understand what the Nestorian controversy is and it is clear that you don’t understand the Reformed doctrine of the incarnation. Let’s begin with your articulation of “Calvino-Nestorianism” as you put it. You say that it consists in “making the hypostatic union a product of the incarnation,” “confessing Jesus to be a human person,” “confessing a human Jesus being damned by the Father at the cross,” or “the Father damning His divine Son thereby splitting the Trinity. Either route being heretical.”

   First, let’s review what Nestorianism is. Nestorius was a 5th century bishop of Constantinople. Nestorius is notable for calling Mary the “chistotokos” (the bearer of Christ) instead of “theotokos” (the bearer of God). His intention was to clarify that Mary was not the source of Christ’s divinity, but it was not to deny that Christ was actually fully divine. Whatever his intentions were, the church ruled that Nestorius’ construction did not adequately express the personal union of the divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ. Nestorius and Nestorianism was eventually condemned first in 431 at the Council of Ephesus and later at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The 4th ecumenical council, the Council of Chalcedon, correctly articulated the relationship of the human and divine natures in the PERSON of Christ as follows, saying that Christ is:

   consubstantial with the Father concerning his divine nature, and consubstantial with us concerning his human nature; in all things like unto us, but without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father concerning his divine nature, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the MOTHER OF GOD CONCERNING HIS HUMAN NATURE; One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in TWO NATURES, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.

   All this means that the DISTINCTION of natures is not taken away by the UNION and that the PROPERTIES of each nature are preserved in the PERSON of Christ. The other thing to note, is that by applying the term “bearer of God” to Mary, the church is expressing the truth that Jesus derived a true human nature from Mary, and that Jesus, the son of Mary according to his humanity, was God from the moment of his conception. This is what all Christians must confess about the relationship between the two natures in the person of Christ.

   Now, having stated that, let’s examine what the Reformed confessions confess about the person of Christ. The Heidelberg Catechism says in Q15 that our mediator and redeemer is “true God and true and righteous man.” The Belgic Confess takes the very same position but articulates it in greater length and precision when it says in article 10 that Jesus Christ “according to His divine nature is the only begotten Son of God, begotten from eternity, not made, nor created, but co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, equal unto him and in all things. He is the Son of God, not only from the he assumed our nature but from all eternity” and then confesses in article 18 that the Son really did assume “the true human nature with all its infirmities, sin excepted” and finally it goes on to confess in article 19 that “by this conception the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature, so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures UNITED IN ONE SINGLE PERSON; yet each retains ITS OWN DISTINCT PROPERTIES.”

   It is very clear from these statements in the Reformed confessions, that the Reformed church DOES NOT CONFESS A NESTORIAN VIEW of the person of Christ. That the Reformed church confesses what the church historically teaches and confesses is evident in the fact that it uses the very categories of the Chalcedonian Definition. To claim that it teaches something contrary is to be either entirely unaware of the Reformed view of Christ or it is to willfully distort what the Reformed church confesses. Let the reader choose where you make your stand.

   As for the false distinction you set up in your point number 2 between the Reformed either confessing a human Jesus being condemned by the Father on the cross or the Logos was condemned by the Father on the cross there by splitting the Trinity, it is HOPELESSLY CONFUSED. The Father sent the Son to assume a true human nature in which the disobedience was committed in order to make satisfaction for sin and to bear punishment for sin IN THAT NATURE BY THE ACCURSED DEATH OF THE CROSS. Orthodox Christianity CANNOT confess that the deity of Christ suffered and died on the cross as you suggest in the second option you propose in the latter half of point 2, because then it would confess something which is inconsistent with the very nature of God, namely, that the deity could suffer and that it could die; neither is possible, because if the Logos, the Son of God, could suffer and could die, HE IS NOT GOD. AT THE SAME TIME, we insist with orthodox Christianity, the suffering of Christ according to his HUMANITY was INSEPARABLE from His divine nature, so that by the power of his GODHEAD, He might bear the wrath of God in his human nature. This inseparability of the natures is essential for the work of redemption in order that he might, by the power of his Godhead, overcome death and restore to sinners righteousness and life. The false distinction you set up, ironically BREATHES THE SPIRIT OF NESTORIANISM, which drives a RADICAL WEDGE between the natures of Christ, which is the very thing you charge Reformed theology with!

   The 3rd point you make is UTTERLY INCOHERENT, and in no way logically flows from anything you say in point number 2. You seem to be claiming that “imputational theology” is rooted in Reformed theology’s supposedly Nestorian view of the hypostatic union. The best I can make of your argument in point number 3 is that you have a Eutychian view of the hypostatic union which collapses the distinctions between the human nature and the divine nature. This is apparently your position because you charge the Reformed view of denying that the Logos is the subject performing the economic actions pertaining to securing our salvation. The fact of the matter is, that the Reformed, along with orthodox Christianity and the scriptures, say that Christ according to his humanity represents man in the covenant of works, and through his obedience and suffering, IN OUR PLACE, secures salvation by earning righteousness by his active obedience to the law and by his suffering God’s wrath in our place. The fruit which results from this covenantal transaction is righteousness and life, which is then imputed to the elect who are represented by Jesus Christ in the covenant of works. This is not a novel view, it is the very thing the apostle Paul teaches in Romans 5:18-19 which says, “through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (v18) and “through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (v19). Paul could not be more clear that our redemption is in the BODY OF CHRIST (that is the humanity of Christ). It was in the body of Christ that obedience to the law was performed and it was in the body of Christ that satisfaction for sin was made. That means then, that the humanity of Christ is the medium through which the blessings of salvation come to us.

   ALL THIS MEANS that salvation does not consist in Christ mediating to us the divine nature by means of the hypostatic union, it means that salvation consists in having the actual obedience and satisfaction of Christ, performed by the humanity of Christ, imputed to us by God. Let me hasten to add, that the Reformed do not envision that this representative work of Christ was performed apart from the divine nature, because it is impossible for the divine and human natures to be separated from one another, for they were inseparably joined in the holy conception of Jesus Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary.

   This inseparable connection of the natures in performing the work of redemption is taught by Paul in Acts 20:28 when he says God “purchased the church with his own blood.” Paul does not mean that God actually bled at the cross, it is a rhetorical way of speaking. Classically, theologians have called this the “communicatio idiomatum” meaning that, what is true of one nature, can be LINGUISTICALLY applied to the other nature. It does not mean that there is an actual confusion of the attributes of each nature, it means that what can be properly said of one nature in the person of Christ can be applied rhetorically of the other. To my point though, this manner of speaking UNDERSCORES the fact that the divine nature of Christ was inseparably connected to the human nature of Christ in performing the acts of our redemption which are in turn imputed to sinners for salvation.

   Eric, I have attempted to fairly understand your arguments and then refute them theologically and exegetically. I trust that you are a person who is open to instruction and therefore I admonish you to study what has been written here, and to align your views with the orthodox faith which the church confesses, based upon careful study of the scripture. I would also admonish you to be far more careful of the claims you make and the positions you take. It is clear that you are not theologically trained and your views seem to be based upon a very superficial understanding of theology. To speak publicly like you have out of such thorough ignorance, you manifest an arrogant pride which is contrary to a disciple of Christ. Additionally, the charges you level against the ministers who are the hosts of S & S are entirely unfounded and you owe a public apology to these ministers for the ignorant and false charges you have made against them.

5. Jun 11, 2010Arjen Karssenberg   #

   Are Protestants “Catholic”?

   Looking for an english translation of the Belgic Confession, I find your website and I’m astonished that I can read something about the three forms of unity. Being a member of the dutch reformed churches, I also know these forms as “the three forms of unity”. Because we believe that our confession is ‘only’ a good summary of the Holy Bible, it is a reason for me to say: “yes, protestants are catholic”. We may live in different places and perhaps never meet each other, but we have the same faith in common.

   Greetings,

   Arjen Karssenberg
   Amersfoort, The Netherlands

6. Jun 12, 2010Rev. John Sawtelle   #

   Arjen,
   Very pleased to make your acquaintance. We are glad that you stopped by urc learning. Its great to know that we share a ike common faith.

   Grace and peace!