Alliances, Conferences, and Resolutions

"The four long-time friends, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C. J. Mahaney, and Albert Mohler, have asked John Piper, Thabiti Anyabwile, Matt Chandler, Kevin DeYoung and David Platt to join them again for the next Together for the Gospel Conference on April 8-10, 2014."

t4g.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Handshake_%28Workshop_Cologne_%2706%29.jpeg

Two Men Shaking Hands

What a difference three years can make…  It's interesting to reflect back on the 2010 SBC Pastors Conference (held in Orlando) which included C.J. Mahaney in the line-up of speakers.  His admonition to pastors was to 'PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR SOUL'.  After delivering his message, Mahaney was interviewed backstage, and here is what he had to say.  Al Mohler, Mahaney's close colleague, was also interviewed backstage, and here are his remarks.

Over the last decade or so, it has been interesting to watch alliances being established between leaders who are not in the same denomination.  For example, the Together for the Gospel friends include two Southern Baptists (Al Mohler and Mark Dever), an SGMer (C.J. Mahaney), and a Presbyterian (Ligon Duncan). 

As these alliances have formed, we not only have Mahaney addressing Southern Baptists but we have Mohler speaking before Presbyterians as he did today at the PCA General Assembly in Greenville, South Carolina.  Mohler and his buddy Lig (Duncan) conducted a joint seminar on “Commending and Defending the Total Truthfulness of Scripture”. (link) 

Out of these alliances have sprung up conferences, with these friends sharing the stage (and in all likelihood the profits).  Together for the Gospel began in 2006 and has been held bi-annually ever since.  According to the T4G website, registration for T4G 2014 opens on July 1, so hurry and save your spot!  

Now that the headquarters for Sovereign Grace Ministries is in Louisville, there are all sorts of opportunities for Mahaney, Kauflin, and gang to form alliances and conduct conferences with Southern Baptists.  For example, the Think: Worship conference was held on the Southern campus July 17-19 and featured Joe Crider (Professor of Music and Worship at SBTS) and other worship leaders including Bob Kauflin. 

Speaking of Bob Kauflin, he will be hosting two WorshipGod conferences this summer.  WorshipGod West is fast approaching and will take place July 27-29 at Calvary Church in Santa Ana, California.  Kauflin will be joined by Kevin DeYoung and other SGM leaders.  WorshipGod East will take place at Highview Baptist Church East July 31 – August 3, 2013.  Highview Baptist is a multi-site church, and one of its notable members is Al Mohler.  Joe Crider currently serves as interim Worship Pastor at the Fegenbush campus.  Kevin DeYoung will be speaking/teaching at this conference as well along with other Kauflin and other SGM pastors.  When does DeYoung have time to 'serve' his congregation since he's so busy speaking at conferences?

And then there's the Cross Conference that will take place for the first time after Christmas (December 27-30).  It will be held at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, and there is quite a line-up of speakers including the same old same old, along with some relatively new faces.  According to the website,

"CROSS aims to mobilize students for the most dangerous and loving cause in the universe: rescuing people from eternal suffering and bringing them into the everlasting joy of friendship with Jesus."

It seems the Calvinista hub has it ALL – a conference for pastors and wannabes (T4G), conferences for worship leaders (Think:Worship and Worship God East), and a conference for missions minded college students (Cross Conference).  While all of this is in the works, we have Trevin Wax spouting off about the SBC Annual Meeting on his blog where he had this to say:

"Next year, there could be more Southern Baptists at Together for the Gospel than at the Convention in June."

And then there's Timmy Brister who recently reflected on SBC #13.  Like Trevin Wax, he focused on numbers by writing:

"Where Are All the Messengers?

What stood out to so many in Houston was that so few were actually there. We are in megachurch capitol of the world. We are in a state with the most Southern Baptist churches. We are in a region of the country where the highest percentage of Southern Baptist pastors could make it in a day’s drive. And yet, we had the second lowest number of messengers in 50 years (around 5,100 messengers)."

In the wake of the formation of alliances and the establishment of conferences, we have Southern Baptists who are deeply troubled by certain relationships between SBC leaders/employees and those who purportedly did not handle child sex abuse crimes properly.  And let's not forget that Mohler wrote the foreward for Mahaney's masterpiece – Living the Cross Centered Life (re-published in 2006).   Mohler begins with these words:

"The book you now hold in your hands is nothing less than a manifesto for turning your world upside down…"

Tragically, that is what has allegedly happened to a number of folks who revered their leader C.J. Mahaney – their world has been turned upside down

Now that those who have been hurt are finally coming forward, individuals outside the SGM bubble are taking notice. The passing of Resolution #3 at the SBC Annual Meeting was quite remarkable, and we plan to keep tabs on whether state conventions adopt the same or a similar amendment. 

The Calvinistas have been riding quite a wave since 2006 (?) and it will be interesting to see whether it has crested.  As the legal wranglings involving Mahaney, SGM et al continue, we will be watching to see whether the recently passed SBC resolution is enforced.  

As more and more information trickles out about Mahaney and SGM, we can't help but wonder whether the alliance between Mahaney, Mohler, Duncan and Dever will remain strong and whether their loyal supporters continue to flock to conferences?

Lydia's Corner:  1 Kings 15:25-17:24   Acts 10:24-48   Psalm 134:1-3   Proverbs 17:9-11

Comments

Alliances, Conferences, and Resolutions — 110 Comments

  1. “QPP * : Is Mahaney Rocking The Proverbial Boat?”

    hmmm…

    “RESOLVED: that we encourage all denominational leaders and employees of the Southern Baptist Convention to utilize the highest sense of discernment in affiliating with groups and/or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices in protecting (QPP) our children from criminal abuse…”
    – Amendment to Resolution #3 Proposed by Peter Lumpkins.

    What?!?

    To “…utilize the highest sense of discernment in affiliating with groups and/or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices in protecting our children from criminal abuse…”

    huh?

        Wartburg, 

    Monsieurs Mark Dever, et Albert Mohler are exempt…

    …didn’t you know?

  2. “RESOLVED: that we encourage all denominational leaders and employees of the Southern Baptist Convention to utilize the highest sense of discernment in affiliating with groups and/or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices in protecting our children from criminal abuse;”

    Not surprisingly the Southern Baptist Conference resolution means nothing to Southern Baptists Mark Dever, Al Mohler and Thabiti Anyabwile. Is John Piper also a Southern Baptist?

  3. TW wrote:

    Is John Piper also a Southern Baptist?

    I wondered that myself when I saw these alliances being formed.

    The church Piper pastored his entire career – Bethlehem Baptist – is part of a denomination called Converge Worldwide. The denomination adopted this new name in 2008. Prior to that it was called the Baptist General Conference.

    According to the Wiki article, "In 2006, the BGC had 194,000 members in 950 churches in the United States."

    Here is the link showing that affiliation.

  4. Speaking of small denominations like Converge Worldwide, the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) could also be described that way.

    The PCA is wrapping up its annual gathering (where Al and Lig spoke yesterday).

    Here are the statistics that have just been reported:

    On Wednesday morning, June 19, Dr. L. Roy Taylor, stated clerk of the PCA General Assembly, provided commissioners with a summary of key statistics from 2012. Such data, Taylor said, provides insight into the health and vibrancy of the denomination.

    At the close of 2012, Taylor informed the Assembly that the PCA was officially comprised of 1,474 particular churches, 303 mission churches, and 4,321 ministers. He went on to suggest, however, that there may be as many as 100 churches and 200 ministers who have not been reported to his office.

    Still, according to the latest reported data:

    • There are now 1,777 churches and missions — a net increase of six.
    • In 2012, there were 9,145 total professions of faith — a decrease of 922.
    • Total membership in the PCA is 364,019 — an increase of 12,613.
    • There are 138,010 “family units” in the denomination — an increase of 502.
    • Sunday school attendance is 101,809 — a decrease of 817.
    • Per capita giving is $2,580 — an increase of $119.
    • Per capita benevolences are $440 — an increase of $4.
    • Total “congregational disbursements” were reported to be $743,643,457 — an increase of $35,960,789.

    For more information about the 41st PCA General Assembly, visit http://byfaithonline.com/

  5. And while we're at it, let's take a look at the denomination that Kevin DeYoung's church belongs to. It's called the Reformed Church in America.

    If the statistics on Wikipedia are any indication, it's also a small denomination.

    "In 2011, the total membership was about 240,000, down from about 300,000 in 2000, and about 360,000 in 1980. In the last thirty years, the Church has lost approximately 1/3 of its membership."

     

  6. Here's MY bottom line . . .

    These malcontents, namely Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Mahaney, Piper, DeYoung, Carson and their ilk need to go and START THEIR OWN DENOMINATION!

    Sorry folks, I'm on a roll this morning because of TW's question about John Piper and his denomination affiliation… 

     

  7. So much of this happening in Louisville, my hometown and place of life for 20+ years. We have removed ourselves from this circle of churches because if I heard the word “Conference” one more time I was going to fall over dead. I’m so tired of conferences, “equipping sessions”, classes on baptism before you could be baptized…. When did we stop listening to the holy spirit and the life changing ability of that and reduce everything down to a few college courses or weekend sessions? gah!

  8. The Calvinistas have been riding quite a wave since 2006 (?) and it will be interesting to see whether it has crested. As the legal wranglings involving Mahaney, SGM et al continue, we will be watching to see whether the recently passed SBC resolution is enforced.

    As more and more information trickles out about Mahaney and SGM, we can’t help but wonder whether the alliance between Mahaney, Mohler, Duncan and Dever will remain strong and whether their loyal supporters continue to flock to conferences?

    So if things turn against them, will they accept it as Predestination or start screaming, lashing out, and rolling on the floor chewing the carpet (Humbly, of course)?

  9. Deb wrote:

    And while we’re at it, let’s take a look at the denomination that Kevin DeYoung’s church belongs to. It’s called the Reformed Church in America.

    Reformed(TM) = “THERE IS NO GOD BUT UTTER PREDESTINATION, AND CALVIN IS ITS PROPHET!!!!!”

  10. @ Deb:
    Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Mahaney, Piper, DeYoung, Carson and their ilk need to go and START THEIR OWN DENOMINATION@ Deb:

    that’s what Mahaney did….

  11. ” … we will be watching to see whether the recently passed SBC resolution is enforced.”

    Don’t expect anything resembling enforcement. Southern Baptist are very proud of their polity – every church is independent. The Convention’s resolutions are actually recommendations. Follow them if you like, but there is no one to enforce, no consequence for ignoring.

  12. David

    You are correct. There will be no enforcement. However, it is good that this was discussed. It took someone outside of the power circles to get this out there. The leaders, in general, are dead wood when it comes to this issue.

  13. dee wrote:

    David
    You are correct. There will be no enforcement. However, it is good that this was discussed. It took someone outside of the power circles to get this out there. The leaders, in general, are dead wood when it comes to this issue.

    The SBC enforces selectively. They use the autonomous polity selectively.

    “For the second year in a row, the Georgia Baptist Convention has withdrawn fellowship from one of its most historic member churches for calling a woman as pastor.”

    http://www.abpnews.com/archives/item/5876-georgia-baptists-oust-second-church-with-woman-pastor#.UcReoMu9KSM

  14. “When did we stop listening to the Holy Spirit (Spiritus Sanctus) and the life changing ability (Spiritus Sancti ) of that?” meg

    Spiritu Sancto ?

    With God, all things are possible?

    You betcha…

    Some of us stopped listening to the man behind the faux 501c religious curtain long ago,

    fait accompli.

    “Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?” Acts 19:2

    Why such a question?

    What?

    “Till now have you asked nothing in my name: ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be full. ” -Jesus 

    Huh?

    The main reason many a Christian does not see the power of the Holy Spirit throughout their Christianity, is because they don’t expect it, and they simply don’t ask God to provide it.

    hmmm…

    Blessings!

    Sopy

  15. Amy wrote:

    The SBC enforces selectively. They use the autonomous polity selectively.
    “For the second year in a row, the Georgia Baptist Convention has withdrawn fellowship from one of its most historic member churches for calling a woman as pastor.”

    Because “WOMAN, SUBMIT!” and the Divine Right of Pastors is far more important than children being raped.

  16. Stefon from SNL: If you want to go to the biggest Calvinista Conference, you have to go (fill in the conference). This conference has everything: conservative white people, old conservative white people, wives submitting to thier husbands, church discipline, orthodoxy pissing contests, autograph sessions with defendants accused of conspiracy and negligence, “Love Wins” bonfires, and Pipertweets.

    Seth Meyers: What are Pipertweets?

    Stefon: Its that thing where you lose everything in a natural disaster and Reformed baptists go on twitter to tell jokes about it.

  17. J Miller wrote:

    Stefon: Its that thing where you lose everything in a natural disaster and Reformed baptists go on twitter to tell jokes about it.

    Or, I should say, “a Converge Worldwide pastor” instead of “Reformed Baptists”. I should have read through the conversation on John Piper’s denomination first.

  18. deb –

    I laughed when you ironically called Mahaney’s “Living The Cross-Centered Life” a “masterpiece.” When I attended CLC for a few months before Detwiler’s documents appeared, I and the other visitors received a free copy of the earlier (2002) version, “The Cross-Centered Life.” It was a tiny, thin book that would fit into most pants’ pockets. I read it in about 30 min. (I’m a slow reader) and eventually threw it away.

    Doing a little research on Amazon, I found that, in tiny print on the copyright page, a “Kevin Meath” is listed as co-author. So Mahaney couldn’t write these 96 (small) pages by himself. Apparently, the 2006 “Living…Life” is mainly the earlier book plus another earlier book by Mahaney, “Christ Our Mediator.” This time he is listed as the sole author. I guess he excised the Meath-written portions. Right.

    The 2002 version received some criticism for barely, if at all, mentioning the resurrection. Going by a review of the 2006 edition, it also scants the resurrection. This isn’t surprising, given Mahaney’s obsession with (others’) sin, and his lack of interest in grace.

  19. I think that over time, the movement will die out just as the other “great awakenings” in U.S. history have. Obsession with the Bible as a divine blueprint is almost exclusively American in origin and as some scholars have argued, the latest wave is not much more than 40-45 yrs. old.

    There might some good grist here for an enterprising young grad student (doing some good science) to show how this latest movement eerily parallels the Easter island rise and die-off, stone monolith sculptures and all.

  20. @ Muff Potter:

    as you say, the latest wave of obsession with the bible as a divine blueprint illustrated by Easter Island rise & die-off, the ghost town of Moai all that is left standing to indicate that something(?) had taken place.

    Perfect!

  21. Posted this on another thread, but is more appropriate here:

    “We admit, therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself.” -John Calvin, “Reply to Sadoleto.”

    “Pastors and teachers are in charge of interpretation of the Scriptures to keep doctrine whole and pure among believers.” -John Calvin, “Institutes of Christian Religion.” 4.3.4

    Will their alignments also be centered around doctrine?
    And, listen to your pastors as you would Christ himself.

  22. By the way, has anyone else noticed the Christianity Today’s Out of Ur blog does a weekly Friday Five Interview. And ever since April 5, the interview has been with a Gospel Coalition council member? (The exception is when they interview a woman. No women are on the Gospel Coalition council.)

    April 5 – D.A. Carson, May 24 – Josh Harris, June 7 – Kevin DeYoung, June 21 – Phil Ryken

    Christianity Today and the Gospel Coalition have an alliance? Kind of looks like it.

  23. Correction — Since April 5, the Friday Five Interviews also have included Russell Moore, Michael Ware, and Samuel Rodriguez. Ware and Rodriguez are outside the neo-Calvinist band wagon. But Moore is a contributor at TGC, in addition to being given an entire blog post on June 14 by Justin Taylor’s TGC blog. He probably cannot go on the Gospel Coalition council as long as his boss Al Mohler is on it.

  24. @ JeffB:
    I haven’t read the original Cross Centered Life. I understand that Meath was purportedly Mahaney’s ghostwriter.

    Did you see the post I wrote some time ago about Cruciform Press? Meath has joined forces with Tim Challies and another guy to publish books that can.be downloaded over the Internet. At least Meath got credit on the original Cross Centered Life book.

  25. Muff Potter wrote:

    I think that over time, the movement will die out just as the other “great awakenings” in U.S. history have.

    Muff — I too hope that this Calvinista extremism will run its course as a religious fad.

    According to Quantcast, The Gospel Coalition’s following is very narrow. https://www.quantcast.com/thegospelcoalition.org#!demo:
    • Male seminarians and young pastors ages 25-36
    • Elderly men over age 65.

    73% of The Gospel Coalition website visitors don’t have children whereas the average for all Internet users is about 50-50%.

  26. Muff Potter wrote:

    Obsession with the Bible as a divine blueprint is almost exclusively American in origin and as some scholars have argued, the latest wave is not much more than 40-45 yrs. old.

    How long have previous waves lasted? What’s their life cycle and how many years do they take to run their course?

  27. I get that it’s human nature to want to hang out with like-minded people. But when leaders willfully choose to be surrounded only by those who will agree with and affirm their particular views, a number of unhealthy things happen. Things become insular, valid criticisms are shut out, conformity becomes increasingly a requirement and a litmus test, and eventually the atmosphere fosters some level of contempt for anyone outside the chosen group or groups. Expect to see these dynamics at work, and increasing, if the trends in this post continue.

  28. @ Mark:

    Not all Baptists or Protestants are Calvinists. I never was, even when I was a Christian. I’m not fully agnostic now, but I have drifted away. I used to point out to very strident Calvinists that they act as though Calvin is the Protestant Pope. I don’t know why they put so much stock in Calvin, he was just a guy.

  29. Very much agree it was good the resolution was discussed and passed. It won’t break up the alliance circled around C.J. but it does show this issue isn’t going away. @ dee:

  30. The Rest Of The Story: “The Power Of Pastors Are Circumscribed By Calvin, Within Certain Limits?”

    Dear Wartburg readers, here is Mark’s first Calvin quote (this Post) :

    “We admit, therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself.” -John Calvin, “Reply to Sadoleto.”
    @ Mark

    URL:

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/06/20/affiliances-conferences-and-resolutions/#comment-104482

    hmmm…

    Found below, is a fuller account (quote context) of what John Calvin said in his reply to Cardinal James Sadolet, from Basle, September 1, 1539.

    (short quote): 

    “We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself, but they must be pastors who execute the office entrusted to them. ” – John Calvin

    (The quote in a fuller context): 

    “It is not ours, Sadolet to rob the Church of any right which the goodness of God not only has conceded to her, but strictly guarded for her by numerous prohibition. 

    For, as pastors are not sent forth by Him to rule the Church with a licentious and lawless authority, but are astricted to a certain rule of duty which they must not exceed, so the Church is ordered (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1) to see that those who are appointed over her on these terms faithfully accord with their vocation. 

    But we must either hold the testimony of Christ of little moment, or must hold it impious to infringe in the least degree on the authority of those whom he has invested with such splendid titles! 

    Nay, it is you who are mistaken in supposing that the Lord set tyrants over his people to rule them at pleasure, when he bestowed so much authority on those whom he sent to promulgate the gospel. 

    Your error lies here, viz., in not reflecting that their power, before they were furnished with it, was circumscribed within certain limits. 

    We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself, but they must be pastors who execute the office entrusted to them.

    And this office, we maintain, is not presumptuously to introduce whatever their own pleasure has rashly devised, but religiously and in good faith to deliver the oracles which they have received at the mouth of the Lord. 

    For within these boundaries Christ confined the reverence which he required to be paid to the Apostles; nor does Peter (1 Peter 4:11) either claim for himself or allow to others anything more than that, as often as they speak among the faithful, they speak as from the mouth of the Lord. 

    Paul, indeed, justly extols (2 Corinthians 12:10) the spiritual power with which he was invested, but with this proviso, that it was to avail only for edification, was to wear no semblance of domination, was not to be employed in subjugating faith.”

    -John Calvin

    [extraction from a letter – To James Sadolet, Cardinal RCC; written from Basle, September 1, 
    1539. ( a reply to his letter, to the Genovese; Carpentras, XV. Cal Apr. ; 18th March, 1539.] 

    *

    Mark, 

    Hope this helps!

    We will be happy to leave the light on for ya!

    Click! Click!

    ATB

    Sopy

  31. @ Sopwith:

    This helps a lot. The context elaborates, but doesn’t detract, from the quote.

    @Daisy, I quite understand that not all protestants are Calvinists. But, the blog post referenced Calvinistas, so I went to see where some Calvinistas get their ideas from. Who was Calvin? What did he teach?

    Maybe I should have also included a quote from Luther too. Of course, I think that it might not be appropriate due to its content. I might get censored.

  32. Mark wrote:

    @ Sopwith:
    This helps a lot. The context elaborates, but doesn’t detract, from the quote.
    @Daisy, I quite understand that not all protestants are Calvinists. But, the blog post referenced Calvinistas, so I went to see where some Calvinistas get their ideas from. Who was Calvin? What did he teach?
    Maybe I should have also included a quote from Luther too. Of course, I think that it might not be appropriate due to its content. I might get censored.

    Not all Protestants follow Luther either.

    Baptists do not -or any other historical religious leaders/figures, other than the ones in the Bible – basically. There are some fringe elements such as KJVO IFBs who like P. Ruckman on KJVO.

  33. An aside, anyone know anything about a pastor of a large church in N or SC? Name is Dr. John Munro, and hails from Scotland. Just wondering if he’s part of the TGC/T4G crowd.

  34. Deb wrote:

    These malcontents, namely Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Mahaney, Piper, DeYoung, Carson and their ilk need to go and START THEIR OWN DENOMINATION!

    Why should they do that when they can simply take over one with existing seminaries and infrastructure using OPM?

  35. Thanks guys for that interesting piece on the Calvin correspondence with Sadolet.

    I would respectfully suggest that periods where the Bible is regarded as a divine blueprint is not solely a North American phenomenon (though I am not sure you were saying that, admittedly). This was a hallmark of the Reformation, and before that of Europe in the Middle Ages and the Mediterranean area in the Early Church period. Likewise there were certain revivals in areas such as Wales where I believe a similar view of the Bible pertained.

    However I confess that I feel there has been a certain amount of overkill in some quarters. Also all Christians should remember the adage of 1 Cor 13: without love, I have nothing.

  36. @ Daisy:

    Thanks Daisy. I had no idea that not all Protestants follow Luther either. 🙂

    I’ve known my share of mainstream evangelical Protestants who, for better or worse, regard what the minister says from the pulpit as divine truth and would never dare question him. They also consider anyone who does question what their beloved pastor preaches as a “hater.” Even the pastor calls them haters.

  37. Anon 1 wrote:

    Deb wrote: These malcontents, namely Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Mahaney, Piper, DeYoung, Carson and their ilk need to go and START THEIR OWN DENOMINATION! Why should they do that when they can simply take over one with existing seminaries and infrastructure using OPM?

    This is why we rant about the Neo-Cals! It's NOT about the gospel – it's about their power and control.

  38. @ Kolya

    Of interest? :  Sadolet (with his letter) was providing Geneva with an overture to return to what Sadolet considered, the one true church. It is interesting the Mark should, in the recent past, apparently make similar overtures here at Wartburg.

    hmmm…

    *

    The complete (letters) Sadolet/Calvin correspondence can be found archived here: 

    http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_sadolet.html

    ATB

    Sopy

  39. @ Kolya:
    But the early church didn’t have our Bible, the middle ages was a jumble – most priests, never mind parishioners, couldn’t read. By the time Luther came along there was the printing press, so literacy had improved, but even in Luther’s day, most priests didn’t know which books were in the Bible and which were other catholic writings – it was astounding the amount of ignorance the clergy had during the middle ages, and it really hadn’t improved much by Luther’s day. I think what made the Catholics more aware was the Protestant revolutions. Suddenly, you had to learn your “side”.

  40. @ Val:

    That’s an interesting take on history. Clearly designed to assuage the problem that Luther ripped out 7 books that were part of the Canon of Scripture.
    Remember, the mantle of authority passed from the Jews to the Catholic Church after Christ. They alone have the authority to determine which is Canon. The problem you have is that if you say that the Catholic Church was in error over those 7 books, you are saying it is fallible, and you have no basis for security on the books that you have today. The Holy Spirit didn’t lead the Church into error on some books but not others.
    I know Luther didn’t like the scriptures in 2 Maccabees which support purgatory. He also didn’t like the NT book of James, but was persuaded to keep it because it might make him appear too bitter.
    So, yeah, I agree that there were people all throughout the history of Christianity who want to disagree with the Church over what books are in the Bible and which aren’t. Some today even want the Gnostic gospels included. That doesn’t make them right.

  41. @ Mark:

    Yes, Luther did rip out 7 canonical books, something most protestants are in complete ignorance of, especially when they rant on and on about the “word” being settled by the early church – never mind they don’t follow the complete “word” they are so convinced of.

    But, the Catholic church was not a direct inheritor of any mantel. The early church, pre-counsel of Nicaea, was neither western Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. That early church never completely agreed on which books should be admitted to the New Testament section of the Bible – to this day Revelations is not added to the Greek Orthodox Bible. Many Eastern churches contain slightly altered NT canon’s -Coptic, Georgian, etc. True, the western half made a delineation between “inspired” wirtings (in the canon) and other writings, but the easter church didn’t feel that all those rejected canons were completely uninspired –
    they include some books accepted in the Western Cannon (but not entirely in the early/modern Eastern cannons):
    These antilegomena or “disputed writings” were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James (Western), the Epistle of Jude (Western), 2 Peter (Western), 2 and 3 John (Western), the Apocalypse of John (Western), the Gospel of the Hebrews (Western), the Apocalypse of Peter (unique in being the only book never accepted as canonical which was commentated upon by a Church Father), the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache.

    So, that mantel of authority extends to the Eastern church and would actually add extra cannons to our NT, if you take the idea of the early church as direct authority. To me, although I reject the church’s alignment with Constantine (if Constantine truly converted, he should of given up his Worldly throne first), the pre-Constaintine church’s mantle of authority rested in the power of the Holy Spirit. When it began to fade – as the church aligned itself more and more with Roman Power structures – is when that mantle ceases to pass in an historically verifiable way. So, the churches today that are moving in the Spirit and truly saving the societies they exit in – Latin America, for example, are where the mantle rests. Know one knows where the Holy Spirit is blowing, it comes unannounced and departs unannounced – yet it carries the true mantel of authority and is not wholly depended on a specific (western or eastern) cannon, but on the witness of Christ – as Christ demonstrated through love, compassion and magnificent wonders.

  42. Val wrote:

    The early church, pre-counsel of Nicaea, was neither western Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. That early church never completely agreed on which books should be admitted to the New Testament section of the Bible

    That’s right. The Catholic Church was one until the Eastern churches split over authority. The Eastern Orthodox communities are now a good example of what happens when you reject authority. They are in a great deal of disagreement among each other over doctrine, much like Protestants. It is why I have come to see, and understand as a necessary design by God, that there would be an ultimate authority when inevitable disagreements arise.

    It is true that there were other writings that were ultimately deemed uninspired, which were read in the early Church. However, doctrines and dogmas in the Church didn’t come from these. Doctrines and dogmas come from the teachings of the apostles and traditions that were passed down. The Bible even affirms this: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” The earliest Church didn’t even have Scripture, other than the OT, which included the 7 books.

    If you have the Holy Spirit, why do you believe that the Scriptures, as they are indexed in your Bible, are the complete inspired Word of God?

  43. @ Mark:
    “If you have the Holy Spirit, why do you believe that the Scriptures, as they are indexed in your Bible, are the complete inspired Word of God?”
    I don’t, I’m a non-sola scriptura Protestant 🙂

    See, I think the Eastern Orthodox church stayed more on course with the early church’s teachings. The Eastern Orthodox is all split up because A) It put too much reliance on worldly (specifically, Roman) authority structures – with a Pope/Patriarch at the head then B) Fell when it’s authority structure was over thrown by Seljuk Turks in the 13th(?) Century (whatever century it was that the Turkic Mercenaries grabbed Constantinople/Istanbul). Had the church not become so reliant on a Patriarch/Pope leader, it would have done fine with the overthrow of Constantinople/Byzantium. The Holy Spirit can lead without a human “head” of the church.

    Consider this, one of the main reasons the Western Church survives today, intact, is because the Eastern Church took the brunt of the Muslim expansion in the First Millennia A.D. Had the Eastern Orthodox Church not been there, or have been split by Constantine, the Western Church would have fallen to the expanding Muslim armies and there would be no Catholic Church (or Protestants) today.

    OK, so why do I say the West split from the East? Because of the direction the two churches took after the split. The EO continued to teach a Christus Victor-like atonement theory (Christ Ransom atonement theory, actually) and continued to view Hell as the “grave” not as and external, eternal place of separation for humans. The Western church began to toy with Atonement theory – first, reorganizing ordination to exclude anyone but Priests, something the earlier Catholic Church didn’t restrict (allowing women in to strong positions of power as ordained teachers, prophets and healers), then condemning the Archbishop of Canterbury (to death?) for postulating the Satisfaction atonement theory, only to turn around and accept his atonement theory and pave the way for accepting Substitutionary Atonement Theory in the Western Church (also giving Augustine’s completely debunked scientific views way too much credence, that the church now needs to back pedal on). Not that I am totally opposed to a somewhat possible Substitutionary atonement view, but that that was not the teachings of the apostles or the early church. Also, since when did Priests become a feature in the NT? They aren’t really priests as we are all a priesthood of believers and they don’t actually perform sacrifices or absolve our sins – that is something Christ did for us, so a New Testament Priest is a redundant office.

  44. @ Val:
    I mean I don’t believe the Bible is the complete word of God – I think God speaks through his Spirit to each of us (it just needs to at least line up with the Bible basics).

  45. Val wrote:

    @ Val:
    I mean I don’t believe the Bible is the complete word of God – I think God speaks through his Spirit to each of us (it just needs to at least line up with the Bible basics).

    Not sure if that means you believe in Orthodox traditions or you believe that the Holy Spirit gives you understanding of scripture apart from the Church. Might I add that if the latter, that it just needs to line up with *your interpretation* of the Bible basics (and might I add your understanding of what Bible basics even are).

    While the East and West aren’t divorced, we are separated. It isn’t about what happened after the split, but before. For the first thousand years (and subsequently the second thousand years) the authority of the Church was in the See of Peter, in Rome. Rejecting that authority brought about the schism. Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism, and all other shapes and variations.

    The broader question I would have on this blog is: What does Authority mean practically? What does it look like to submit to church authority? Is there really even ecclesial authority over members? Does anyone submit to church authority over any part of their lives anymore? Is church authority just an antiquated concept? But if you believe the Bible, you know that there is authority in the church. What does that really mean?

  46. Religious Progress: “The Similitude Of A Dream, Perhaps ?”

    hmmm…

    HowDee YaAll,

    Commenter Mark said: ” The broader question I would have on this blog is: What does Authority mean practically? What does it look like to submit to church authority? Is there really even ecclesial authority over members? Does anyone submit to church authority over any part of their lives anymore? Is church authority just an antiquated concept? But if you believe the Bible, you know that there is authority in the church. What does that really mean?” @ Mark

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/06/20/affiliances-conferences-and-resolutions/#comment-104733

    Q: What does all this really mean?

    hmmm…

    Ans:  (the short skinny   🙂  ) It is believed in certain circles that any authority apart from the Catholic Church is meaningless; as the Catholic Church is seen as representing a greater authority than the Bible.  In the Catholic experience, the See, the Bible, and tradition, presents a triad where ultimate authority rests in the See of Rome; in their consciousness  the Bible however, shares a equal footing with Catholic tradition. 

    Huh?

    The Protestant experience is some what different, representing not a triad, but a Penta,  i.e. five Latin phrases (The five solae) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation, summarizing the Reformers’ basic theological beliefs in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. 

    [Note: The Latin word sola means “alone” or “only” in the English language. ]

    “The Five Solae” :

    1.  Scripture alone. (sola Scriptura)
    2. Christ alone. (solus Christus)
    3. Grace alone.  (sola gratia)
    4. Faith alone. (sola fide)
    5. Glory to God alone.  (soli Deo gloria)

    The five solae articulate the five fundamental beliefs of the Protestant Reformation, the pillars in which the Reformers believed to be essentials of the Christian life and practice. 

    All five solae (Note 1)  implicitly rejected or countered the teachings of the then-dominant Catholic Church, which the Reformers claimed had usurped divine attributes or qualities for the Church and its hierarchy, especially its head, the Pope.

    [Note: The modern Protestant Reformed church has not, to my knowledge, changed that position.]

    Hope this helps.

    *

    “AS I walk’d through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where was a Den, and I laid me down in that place to sleep; and as I slept, I dreamed a Dream. I dreamed, and behold I saw a Man cloathed with Rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a Book in his hand, and a great Burden upon his back. I looked, and saw him open the Book, and read therein; and as he read, he wept and trembled; …”

    (tears)

    …and,

    “…not being able longer to contain, he brake out with a lamentable cry, saying”  :

    “What shall I do?”  (Note 2)

    “dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux”

    (grin)

    YaHooo!

    S“㋡”py
    ___
    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Solas

    (2)  Quote: John Bunyan, ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ http://www.bartleby.com/15/1/101.html

  47. @ Mark:
    You said: “For the first thousand years (and subsequently the second thousand years) the authority of the Church was in the See of Peter, in Rome.” ???? No, Constantine divided his huge Empire into Eastern and Western halves during his reign and put a “Pope” in each half. I think the East has always called their Popes “Patriarchs”, but there was, way back, one head Patriarch. That all got destroyed in the 14th C. when the mercenary Seljuk Turks overthrew the Byzantium Empire and replaced it with a Grand Sultan (the Ottomans, who were muslims). That is pretty standard Roman Empire History, I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that the Eastern Empire was under the authority of the Western Empire. In fact, for many centuries, it was the opposite, the Eastern Empire had more power and influence – including religious influence.

    You may want to read up on the Great Schism, it was more than a separation, it was a divorce. Both sides declared the other side a heretic – you know, kind of like all religious internet debates 🙂 But people can’t hand each other rolled parchment with wax seals to “officiate” the Heretical designation any more. What I have read, in numerous historical documents is, it made that split final. They never did reconcile before the EO church fell – there is no Pope figure left in the EO church today to reinstate a relationship. Kind of like a divorce and then one spouse dying before a reconciliation can occur (think Charles and Camilla and how he (Charles) is going to try and use Diana’s death to claim his “right” to lead the church of England). Yes, Diana is dead, but Charles did commit adultery (heretical act) and they divorced (Great Schism) before she died, so he shouldn’t be excused to lead the Church of England. Likewise, the two Empires split, accusing each other of Heresy, and never did reconcile. It’s too late now to claim otherwise. The former Byzantium Empire, like princess Diana, is now dead. However, the actual Eastern Orthodox Church – without it’s Pope – is still functioning and alive today (like offspring). And, like offspring, it is a reminder that that once great Empire has equal claim to the original mental of authority (according to them, not me).

    Sorry, but the idea that the EO was once under the Western Church is just not correct.

    So, back to that authority question. If, the EO church has always had the mantle of authority, from the apostles until now, does this change anything for you?

    For me, no. Here is my view. The earliest church (including Peter) had the Holy Spirit. They could lay their hands on others and those people would be visibly and powerfully filled with the Holy Spirit on the spot. The recipients could then heal, prophesy and speak in tongues as soon as the apostles laid their hands on them. On lookers were amazed. Sometime between the time the last letters were written for the (later) New Testament canon and the time of more legal acceptance of Christianity (3rd Century BC, where we get most of our early church writings from), the authority – that power, both Paul and Jesus point out that the power is there to show that God’s authority is present – has dwindled. That, alone, is a sign that God’s authority is barely there by the time Constantine legalized Christianity. So, I look to the writers, both Catholic and non-Catholic who were filled with the spirit and lead powerful, inspiring lives as having an authority, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Clive Staples Lewis, J.R. Tolkien, etc. The Holy Spirit is still alive and well in many writers, but, and this is the key, the heads of the various church denominations don’t exhibit any form of Spiritual authority. If they can’t do the things Christ did, or inspire others to live more like Christ, then their title or church position matters very little to me. If you know God, you will be drawn to the people who are most like him, not people who were vestaments or have titles before their names.

  48. Sorry, that posted too soon. So, the church – being anyone who is a follower of Christ – has authority. It just isn’t always the one who is in charge that has the actual authority. Take John of the Cross, Pope John Paul II liked John of the Cross. He was an inspired writer filled with the Holy Spirit. But, here is the catch. The religious leaders of his day – not sure if it was the Pope or just the Archbishop of Spain had him killed. Declared him a heretic (or something like that) and had him killed! So, which church leader is correct? The old leader in John of the Cross’ day and the newer leader (Pope John Paul II) actually contradict each other. So, church authority is often just a game of pick and choose – if you wait long enough.

    Christian Basics – one could argue the creeds are the basics. I would go beyond that and say 1 Cor. 15:3 “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

    Summary of the basics: Christ died for our sins according to the Old Testament (and Apocrypha), was buried and rose on the 3rd day – appearing to many of his apostles and followers. We will be raised again with new bodies. 1 Cor. 15 pretty much sums up the basics.

    The church, of course being us, not any particular institution – has authority when the Holy Spirit’s power is exhibited and the person is able to harness their supernatural gifts to edify and support others. That person of authority could be a church leader, but it also could be your great-grandma.

  49. Val wrote:

    Sorry, but the idea that the EO was once under the Western Church is just not correct.
    So, back to that authority question. If, the EO church has always had the mantle of authority, from the apostles until now, does this change anything for you?

    Just because the EO claims something does not make it true. It changes nothing for me since I do not agree with your interpretation of history. While there were five bishops, the early church recognized that Rome was at Rome. That is documented in the early Church writings.

    Today, there’s so much quarreling within the EO over their own doctrines and dogmas that they cannot see what their founding fathers believed and cannot bring healing. The RCC views it as a schism, the EO views it as a divorce. There’s no reason they couldn’t sign the Decree of Florence now.

  50. Just noticed something…

    The four long-time friends… have asked … David Platt to join them again

    David Platt certainly gets around. I still remember his goal against Belgium in the last 16 of the 1990 World Cup.

  51. Hi Mark and Val
    I am finding your discussion very interesting. I do not know enough about the history of the post NT church to completely understand everything you are discussing. Could you provide me with links to sites, books or other documentation so I can get a better understanding.

    By the way, so far, I find Val’s arguments more compelling. I also believe that we that are saved and have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have the authority of the Ekklesia and that no institution can have that authority.

  52. @ Wisdomchaser:

    Wisdomchaser,
    here’s a good video to get started:
    Christianity, the first 1000 years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSYgEsfxyB4
    There’s also part two- the second thousand years.

    With regards to the schism:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy

    On Catholic versus Protestant teachings:
    Book: If Protestantism is True by Devin Rose
    Book: On The Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman:
    http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/

    A WORD OF WARNING: To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

    May God bless your studies.

  53. Wisdomchaser;

    I can’t recall all the places on the Net, so you could start with wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism
    especially the sections under the headings:
    1.1 Centers of Christianity
    1.1.1 Early development of the Eastern Church
    1.1.2 Rise of Rome
    1.1.3 Rome’s claim to authority over other churches*
    * Notice Mark’s claim here that the Holy See was always in Rome contradicts the Bible itself – the Jerusalem church/council mentioned in Acts, later the Church at Antioch also in Acts (and the letters to the SEVEN churches in Asia (Turkey/Greece). There is no Holy See in Rome in Acts or elsewhere in the Bible.

    This is a quick You Tube view of the early church (from an EO perspective), but gives a great historical timeline that is easy to follow and why Catholics claim to be the original church (based in Rome, and why that historically doesn’t work):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tirUy13Q_L8

    Mark is asking me what a lot of my Catholic friends ask me about authority – who is a Protestant’s authority? Yet my questions back to him are does the Catholic church really have any special authority? It is one of the Churches of Christians in this world, but the “authority” they claim to have doesn’t even work Biblically. Also, Catholics see Bishops and Pope’s in line with the early apostles. EO’s see Patriarchs in line with Elders, so who carries ecclesiastic authority is also disputed. But, and this is very clear biblically, whoever has authority can impart supernatural powers on to people – Peter healing people, apostles laying hands on new believers and imparting the Holy Spirit in immediate and powerful ways, Jesus telling his followers his signs and wonders were proof he was sent from God. What I like about the EO’s views on church authority are; they aren’t claiming apostolic power from God, rather Eldership and guidance (aka Pastoral) authority. While the Catholic leaders are claiming all kinds of powers that very few can actually demonstrate (so they hide in Pope Mobiles and security-saturated countries (Vatican) where no one can actually see their so-call directly from God authority. Now, not ALL Catholics, Popes or otherwise, do this, but it is a pretty improbable claim that the majority of these Archbishops have even an iota of Peter’s actual Holy Spiritual power surging through them. When Pope Francis raises someone from the dead or makes a blind person see, then I will support his claim to be an Apostle with the mantle of Peter. Until then, it is just church (and only one branch of the Christian church at that) authority, not Apostolic authority.

  54. Janey wrote:

    By the way, has anyone else noticed the Christianity Today’s Out of Ur blog does a weekly Friday Five Interview. And ever since April 5, the interview has been with a Gospel Coalition council member? (The exception is when they interview a woman. No women are on the Gospel Coalition council.)
    April 5 – D.A. Carson, May 24 – Josh Harris, June 7 – Kevin DeYoung, June 21 – Phil Ryken
    Christianity Today and the Gospel Coalition have an alliance? Kind of looks like it.

    Over the last two or three years, Christianity Today has morphed into Calvinism Today. There is nary an article anymore written by someone not in the Reformed Axis.

  55. Val wrote:

    Yet my questions back to him are does the Catholic church really have any special authority? It is one of the Churches of Christians in this world, but the “authority” they claim to have doesn’t even work Biblically

    Val, it is really difficult for me to believe that you are really an Orthodox Christian with a comment like this. But, maybe it does explain a lot. The EO Church has been on the defensive concerning its claim to be the true church. But, the Bible clearly does make the point that Jesus said to St. Peter “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
    Peter and the keys to the Kingdom have been given/transferred to the See in Rome since Christ. It is sad to see that the Eastern Churches won’t embrace that which has been widely known by the early church. As for doctrine, the Roman Church has mostly been on the defensive in its teaching and only uses dogma to refute heresy.
    Clearly, the rejection of the Christ-given authority to Peter and passed to the Popes in Rome, along with the influence of the Byzantine Empire, created bishops in the East which opposed the authority given to Peter and his successors.
    I don’t hold it against Val that she ridicules the RCC. No different than Protestants who would do the same. The claim to authority threatens most believers.

  56. @ Mark: Oh Mark… can we just let it rest for now?

    You two aren’t going to win your respective “wars” in blog comments, that’s for sure! 🙂

  57. Mark, no I’m not an EO at all – I said earlier I am Protestant. Charismatic leaning, but also quite intellectual – so I kind of contradict the two areas. I am not ridiculing the RCC, I am saying anyone claiming to be in the same place as an apostle like Peter or Paul needs to actually show for it. Claiming it without evidence is a misunderstanding of just who the early apostles were – they were touched by God to impart the Holy Spirit, and minister in the Spirit’s power. Due to this, they held great authority in the early church (both men and women).

    Now, the Archbishops and Pope have an authority, sure, but it isn’t at the same level of the the apostle’s unless they are doing the things the apostles were doing. I know there were many saints and priests who were credited with miracles (healings and so on), and I am not ridiculing or disputing those at all. If they ministered in the power of the Holy Spirit, that is awesome and not to be mocked in any way. What I am saying is, claiming to have the same power – a mantel is a spiritual power (comes from the hand over of Prophetic power from Elijah to Elisha) – as the apostles isn’t correct. The Pope does have authority. Just not specifically Peter-mantel apostle authority.

    The way I would compare it is that the Priests had authority in Jesus’ day and long, long before. Some were great (Samuel) some were awful (Eli) but the prophets had the power of God – they saw visions, showed God’s power and challenged the Israel authority with God-sent authority. For their efforts they were often killed or driven away. In the RCC, the history of the Saints is much more like the Prophets in the Old Testament. The Saints were often killed by the powers that be – Joan of Arc, John of the Cross, etc. yet John of the Cross exhibited a very prophetic-like power in his writings (as did many of the Mystics). So, to me, the power that Peter and Paul had to raise the dead was more like a prophetic power in the OT, only stronger.

    The huge difference was, in the early church, the Prophet-like Christians (apostles) were leading the church, not the priests. My sorrow is that all this changed. It was during intense persecution of the late first and early second century. Little insightful writing survived that era, but a huge shift occurred in the method of choosing a leader from Holy Spirit empowerment – Apostles – to more knowledge-based, politically minded Christians – Bishops, Archbishops, etc. Augustine would never have been labelled an apostle/bishop in the first century, as he didn’t exhibit any Spiritual demonstrations of God’s power resting on him, however, by the third century, Augustines intellect and competence were what allowed him to be Bishop. Sure, the Bishops claim to be just like the early church Apostles, but unless they actually do what the early apostles did, they look more like the priests and judges of the OT (not all bad, but not all were like the Prophets of old), then like the Old Testament (OT) prophets.

    I am sad for the whole church for this shift and don’t hold any particular church in contempt or disregard for the way it is. If the Reformers had been around for 2,000 years, they would likely have more spilt blood on their hands than the RCC does. I don’t care which denomination, if any were to put those with true Apostolic gifts in charge, and remove any who are no longer operating in the power of the Holy Spirit, I would join that denomination in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, all denominations seem to choose leaders who are more politically and/or intellectually proven then spiritually proven, even if a denomination stumbles upon someone who is truly both intellectually and spiritually proven, it happens from time to time, there is no stated system in place to ensure his/her successor is also spiritually proven.

    The way Catholics put Saints through the tests to make sure the power of God was demonstrated in their lives should be used for all their priests. I know priests who are atheists, openly seek homosexual relationships (very dishonest to their denomination and vows of celibacy), etc. yet they are still priests! They shouldn’t be. If the church needs to ordain women to get the right leader, then they should. Better a spirit-filled leader then a person who meets all the tick-boxes (isn’t that why Sarah Palin ended up running for VP? She met all the tick-boxes, but really didn’t have what it took). But, in no way is this limited to the RCC, all denominations put in worldly qualified leaders when they should look for congregants with apostolic gifts and use them instead.

  58. Mark wrote:

    that she ridicules the RCC

    Mark. Let's tone it down a bit. No one "on staff" at TWW will ridicule you for being RCC. And for what I've read of Val's comments she isn't either. Just disagreeing with you does not automatically allow you to claim she's ridiculing your beliefs or the RCC. As to your arguments, to many people these come across as talking points. Some of them very smart people. These talking points leave out many details and emphasize things that many other smart people would de-emphasize. Especially things what you say about the RCC's path from Peter to the current RCC church while saying the EO isn't really a part of that path. Again, make your point. Don't make it over and over. And no personal attacks or mislabeling people's motives.

    Make your case without belittling others and saying "bible agrees with me so there".

  59. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    Make your case without belittling others and saying “bible agrees with me so there”.

    What? I never said that. And, I never said she ridiculed me for being Roman Catholic.

    And, I never said “the RCC’s path from Peter to the current RCC church while saying the EO isn’t really a part of that path.”

    Please don’t make things up and mislabel/mischaracterize my posts. While you may not like like what I say, the least you can do is not misrepresent what I write.

  60. @ Mark: fwiw, I don’t think anyone here has “ridiculed” you – I know that I haven’t, and wouldn’t. I have had many Roman Catholic friends – people who have given their all (financially and otherwise) for Christ – and I’m very thankful to have known them and been taught by them.

  61. “Conflagrāre: “Just Because?”

    Mark, since when did this TWW trending journey become about the witch’s broom?  

    I’ll get you my pretty, and your little blog too?

    hmmm…

    The Reformation was about a  religious system that was really, really hurting people, and simply would not change.

    Fast forward… (to present day) 

    billions of dollars later, and still no change?

    How many victims will it take before these types of abusive religious systems , and others like them, ‘see’ the light?

    Will they continue to harbor, shield, and enable these abusive predators?

    What happened to the light Jesus brings?

    What happened to “walking in the light as He is in the light” ?

    Have the gates of Hell sorta prevailed, perhaps?

    Some are loosing heart,

    While, others think it (hell) has really, really, really, already prevailed.

    Ask the victims.

    Don’t make matters worse,

    …please put away your conflagrent matches and dial a spiritual 911 – don’t you think the church world would b better 4 it?

    (sadface)

    S“㋡”py

  62. numo wrote:

    @ Mark: I’m afraid you said exactly that, in an earlier post [-
    I don’t hold it against Val that she ridicules the RCC. No different than Protestants who would do the same. The claim to authority threatens most believers.
    Link to the post in question: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/06/20/affiliances-conferences-and-resolutions/#comment-104811

    Read it again. I never said she ridiculed *me*. If you are going to start quoting me get it right. If you want to butt in and start pointing fingers get your facts straight.

  63. Mark, Vall, and Numo

    Let’s suspend this for the night.

    This is a command, not a request.

  64. @val, @numo, @mark, and everyone else.

    There are 3 people with badges here. Everyone else is to leave the scolding to us. At this time there are no deputies. If someone crosses the line report it to us via the contacts page and we’ll deal with it.

    Now Mark. This conversation about the RCC being the one true church keeps turning a bit personal and repetitive. And Mark you seem to be the main instigator. If you disagree with my assessment that’s your right. But you are not in charge here. And the other’s who have engaged you have responded in kind AT TIMES which is also not OK.

    As referring to others as “butting in” this is a public blog. All comments are basically a “butt in”. Get over it.

    And you seem to be the only one who disagrees with the way your comments are being taken. I not going to make a decision as to whether the rest of us are all having comprehension problems are just maybe your words are not coming across as you intended. But do think long and hard about your wording.

    And you keep taking general comments and taking them out of context as personal attack.

    Tone and down. Mark. AND everyone else. Either make points or drop it. Words like ridicule are not a part of a valid debate here.

    Just because you believe that the RCC is the one true church doesn’t mean a lot of other very smart Christians don’t disagree with you and your points.

    But in the end this blog is NOT about which Christian church is the one true church. These are side discussions.

  65. Mark

    Just like you, many of us have had bad experiences in former churches. How we deal with that varies from person to person. I think I can say, from the bottom of my heart, that I am gald you have found strength, answers and solace in the RCC. I admire your current Pope and I am impressed with the level of scholarly research that has been produced by the church leaders on issues such as human life and dignity. I also respect those in in the Orthodox faiths. My father was Russain Orthodox.

    I once had a pastor who said that true Christians are made of the same batter but are baked in different shoped bake pans. I doubt that there are any churches today that are identical to the church in the first 200 years. All of us have adapted to the culture in one way or another. Just like I woud never expect John Piper to change his views on Calvinism, I would not expect you to change your views on the Catholic church. 

    Instaed of battling over the righteousness of a particular Christian expression, it might be helpful to express the joy you have found in the RCC, explain why you now believe you have found the correct church, and then pray for those of us who do not agree with you. Did you know that your Pope had Luis Palau, an evangelist, lay hands on him and pray for him when he became archbishop?  They recognized each other as fellow brothers in the faith. Perhaps that is what we need to do. Bless each other and share the love of Christ that we have found in our faith expressions.

  66. Whatever GuyBehindtheCurtain. Your assertion that I was “belittling others and saying “bible agrees with me so there”, is absolutely false. To come to that conclusion from reading my posts makes me really wonder what your motive is.

  67. @ Mark:
    My motive is to keep the discussions on track and civil.

    You quote Matthew 16:18 as a basis for your arguments but say you aren’t using the bible.

    BTW, That verse talks about Peter, not the city of Rome which is a big point for many people.

    But in the end you seem to keep starting a heated discussion about the authority of the RCC no mater what the subject of the post here at The Wartburg Watch. Maybe you need to start a blog about the authority of the RCC. If you do let us know and we might link to it.

    Again, if and when TWW discusses the authority of the RCC this type of heated discussion will be more appropriate.

    If you don’t want people reading emotions into your comments don’t use the word belittle.

    Let’s end this.

  68. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    @ Mark:
    If you don’t want people reading emotions into your comments don’t use the word belittle.
    Let’s end this.

    I didn’t use the word belittle. You did. It was civil right up to the point where you jumped in accusing me of belittling others. And now you want to argue a point I was making about a Bible verse? Give me a break.
    Yes, let’s end this. You obviously have your strong opinions and I mine. I get your bias. I just wish you were more transparent about it.

  69. Mark wrote:

    I didn’t use the word belittle. You did. It was civil right up to the point where you jumped in accusing me of belittling others.

    I’m sorry. I was wrong. I wrote belittle when I meant to write “ridicules”. You didn’t write belittle.

    And the TWW is sorry that your church experiences outside of the RCC were so bad. And we’re glad that you found a home in the RCC.

    But my point still stands. You want to make your case in a way that in my opinion and that of others is over the top. We asked you to tone it down and you basically yelled back.

    This discussion point is ended. If you want to talk about the topics in a civil manor, jump in. But drop the RCC is the one true church debate.

    This also goes for people who took the other side of the debate.

  70. Maybe you can tone it down and not use words like “belittle” when you talk about a commenter here. You know the word belittle and ridicule are really close in meaning but is it OK for you to use it but not me? Pot meet kettle.
    And, please don’t assume that I am Roman Catholic any more than you should assume that Val is EO.

  71. Mark

    Numo is not the Guy Behind the Curtain. I know because he is a long time friend. Numo, on the other hand, is a new friend that I have never seen in person but know I will see in heaven.

  72. Mike wrote:

    Over the last two or three years, Christianity Today has morphed into Calvinism Today. There is nary an article anymore written by someone not in the Reformed Axis.

    Mike — Fortunately the news about the SGM child sexual abuse cover up lawsuit has been getting out. Insiders in the neo-Calvinist camp who didn’t sign their name to the T4G and TCG statements are getting very uncomfortable with C. J. Mahaney and with all who celebrate him. As the criminal investigation continues and the motions to reconsider move forward, we are seeing a lot of neo-Calvinist staffers go through a crisis of confidence. They are starting to talk with non-Cals about it. It’s good to see that they have aren’t as hard-hearted as their masters.

  73. No, I never said I was Roman Catholic. But, judging by the posts and responses here, I am leaning more towards it. Thank you TWW.

    “Please stop bickering.”
    Seriously? Ok, seriously. I’m not a third grader and if you want to talk to me like that, then have at it. I am so over the wag-your-finger moderation of this blog. It doesn’t help serious inquiry into anything you purport to want to uncover here. But that’s my fault because I keep thinking this place is something that it is not.
    IMO, you need to hit the pause button and relaunch this blog with something more in line with your REAL purpose- reporting just on sexual and physical abuse of children and women in Protestant ecclesial communities. That’s it.
    And there’s nothing wrong with that.

  74. Mark wrote:

    BTW, numo = GuyBehindtheCurtain That’s pretty obvious.

    Ditto on what Dee wrote. Numo and GBTC are not the same person. Time to move on…

  75. Mark wrote:

    BTW, numo = GuyBehindtheCurtain
    That’s pretty obvious.

    Ah, no. Never met numo.

    I even think we are different genders based on some emails I’ve received from numo. 😉

  76. I’m working on a short blog post on abusive commenters on Christian blogs – I do think it’s a separate matter of interest.

    But Mark is a paradigm example. A subset of people who abuse IRL escalate, and Mark went from a bold and opinionated, but inoffensive, post about the interweb sending people to the true church (tbh, I first thought he was joking), through increasingly entrenched stereotyping of “protestants” (which eventually included JW’s and Mormons, and who knows who else might have ended up in there). Once confronted over his tone and content, he became increasingly personal and vitriolic, kicking back and amplifying any and every request that was put to him.

    His final denial of ever having claimed to be RCC was an extraordinary instance, either of “gaslighting”, or (more likely) a last-ditch effort to present himself as misunderstood and thereby find grounds to accuse TWW of attacking him unjustly.

    The phrase “internet troll” has already shifted somewhat in meaning since its first use, as language always does. The first ever internet troll posted a question on a fantasy/gaming forum regarding who would win in a fight between Gandalf and The Emperor Out Of Star Wars. He did this out of curiosity as much as anything; what happened was an increasingly vicious and personal flame war between supporters of Gandalf and supporters of The Emperor. So “troll” initially meant “person who enters a debate in which he has no personal interest, with the aim of fermenting a destructive argument”. It has now come to mean a person who posts insulting, accusatory, inflammatory or otherwise unpleasant comments generally.

  77. It’s a matter of particular interest because Lesley and I have recently had to deal with such a person in real life (I mentioned her in a different comment recently). She was somewhat more intrusive as she presented herself as a believing friend and, as such, persistently tried to convince us that we were beholden to her as though a part of “her” church, and expected regular and frequent invitations to meals in our home. As in the following conversation:
    Me: Tonight’s really busy – we really need to just meet up a bit later and pray together.
    Her: But I want to come round for a meal!

    She too, provided she was given a platform to say whatever she wanted about anyone she didn’t like, was quite happy. She would say whatever else she needed to say to keep the stream of invites coming. But as soon as we (and others) began to make it clear that she would have to respect the community she wanted to be part of, and had to abide by the same rules as everyone else – indeed, to treat others the way she demanded that they treat her – she appeared to realise that the game was up. Thus, to cover herself and prepare for the expulsion she must have realised was coming, she became increasingly abusive, insulting and accusatory whilst constantly maintaining that it was we who were being abusive and accusatory.

    Her entire life-story, we later discovered, was a litany of splits, bust-ups and broken relationships. But to her, clinging to the self-righteous delusion that she is the hurt martyr is preferable to repenting and building an actual friendship.

    Incidentally, I note that Mark did not explicitly claim to be a Christian, and I apologise for jumping to the conclusion that he is one. I also apologise for the assumption that he is male and wishes to be addressed as Mark, given that (s)he didn’t actually say this.

  78. IMO, Mark is a lot more than “leaning” toward Roman Catholicism when he repeatedly writes off “Protestants,” and vigorously defends the authority of the Pope and the idea that the Roman Catholic church holds the keys to heaven.

    It is possible that Mark belongs to one of these groups…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakaway_Catholics

    …but I doubt it. I must say, if I were seeking a church after being abused at my last one, and I had been interested in the Catholic church, Mark’s comments here over the past week or so would have put a big damper on that interest. Which is manifestly not what he wanted to convey.

  79. Aside from the bickering, I thought that the discussion of the early church and apostolic authority was one of the most interesting I have seen here. I’m grateful that Mark came to stir the pot (sorry!). Val, I want to steal your research. In fact, I would be greatly interested in a separate thread about authority, it’s my greatest bugaboo.

    Come to think of it, I would really love it if there were a testimony or personality thread or even a shoes and chocolate section. Really, you have knitting…! BTW, did anyone see Star Trek Into Darkness?

  80. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The first ever internet troll posted a question on a fantasy/gaming forum regarding who would win in a fight between Gandalf and The Emperor Out Of Star Wars.

    I did not know this! As a fan of both movies (and books), I am fascinated. Very cool.

    There was a guy, early on in our blogging career, who played this game on lots of Christian blogs. He got so bad, it caused one blog to shut down. Those folks alerted us. Thankfully, there are a lot more safeguards now to prevent a repeat.

    I should have taken this action sooner. But I have a real heart for people who are struggling or have been hurt. My hope is that ,if we let them get it all out, they will feel validated and begin to converse instead of merely emoting. That usually works. It did not in this instance.

    Let me know when you have completed that post. We need to cross link to it.

  81. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Thus, to cover herself and prepare for the expulsion she must have realised was coming, she became increasingly abusive, insulting and accusatory whilst constantly maintaining that it was we who were being abusive and accusatory.

    Excellent observation!

  82. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Incidentally, I note that Mark did not explicitly claim to be a Christian, and I apologise for jumping to the conclusion that he is one. I also apologise for the assumption that he is male and wishes to be addressed as Mark, given that (s)he didn’t actually say this

    He led us to think in that direction. He also alluded to having been part of SGM which, of course, caused me to cut him major slack.

    It could be that (s)he is angry because we touched on a sacred cow and trying to punish us.

    Because we believe in redemption, we start with a cooling off period and allow them back after 2 weeks. Most do not return. One did and got kicked off again almost immediately. But hope springs eternal!

    However, I do try to send them off in style. Do you like the link to Il Divo’s “Time to Say Good-bye” as they fade off into the sunset?

  83. VelvetVoice wrote:

    a testimony or personality thread or even a shoes and chocolate section.

    I could do a tutorial on winning a bid on ebay. I am a shark, circling the item and pouncing at the opportune time.

    I like the idea of a testimony section. Could you explain what you mean by a personality section?

  84. @ dee:

    I, too, had empathy for said person. But they seemed to morph from one persona to another. It’s difficult enough to interact on blogs, but it becomes impossible with some people. 🙁

  85. Dee, I mean “introducing” thread, like a little bit about who we are. Posting a picture or your favorite subjects, or fave sayings or scriptures, your theological leanings, etc. it might take an awful lot of work though, because you don’t want to have something else for GBTC to moderate. I would also be interested in a purely music thread. I guess I should just get busy with a blog on my own! LOL, I keep thinking about Hester’s blog, and how it posts above the search for the actual CDs. If I get everyone here to visit, maybe I will end up with these kind of numbers.

  86. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I note that Mark did not explicitly claim to be a Christian, and I apologise for jumping to the conclusion that he is one.

    I suspected very early that he was a Roman Catholic, though he was not explicit about it. He did not deny being Roman Catholic when I brought it up.

    Years ago, I became very interested in learning about Roman Catholicism, so I read a lot of books and blogs about it.

    Shortly after, one of my Protestant friends with a religious forum asked for my help.

    Some Roman Catholics are very eager to evangelize and debate Protestants. Not all of them, but some.

    My friend with the forum got this one RC lady visitor who would not let up on extolling the wonders of RCism and the supposed shortcomings of Protestant beliefs.

    My friend asked me for help with that since he was not familiar with RCism, so I talked with the lady for a few weeks (or was it months?). Oh, it dragged on and on. One or two other RCs joined the debate, too.

    As a result of that, and all the reading about RCism I did, I became pretty acquainted with typical Roman Catholic arguments against Protestants and Baptists and related issues. Mark was using several of those standard arguments in his posts.

    Anyway, one thing I learned from all that is that the real gung-ho Roman Catholics will debate you for all eternity. They never tire. They must drink a lot of Red Bull energy drink or Jolt cola. They wear me down.

    I have been good friends with Roman Catholics since I was a teenager and in adulthood, but my RC friends were laid back about their faith. If we did discuss religious differences, it was respectful.

    We didn’t raise our voice with each other. I didn’t try to convert them to the Southern Baptist denomination, they didn’t try to convert me to RCism. My RC friends didn’t bash sola scriptura or Baptists or Protestants. I did not bash Marian stuff or Popes.

    Our chats were more of a learning exchange such as, “So why do Southern Baptists believe thus and so about topic X?,” or me asking them, “What is the deal with rosaries? What do they mean?” And we didn’t always agree with each other’s religious views, but that was okay (we remained friends).

    I do see how sometimes a group’s theological beliefs can be the foundation of spiritual abuse in churches and so on, like legalistic views of God can lead to IFBs (fundy Baptists) putting way too much emphasis on the length of a woman’s skirt, or SGM guys weighing ‘everyone is a sinner’ and reconciliation so heavily they force a three year old to make up with her rapist (which is horrible)…

    But I was having a hard time seeing how distinctive Protestant beliefs (sola scriptura, etc) could thought of as the root cause of abuse, as Mark appeared to claim early on.

    Nor did I understand how RC theology kept RCs safe from child sex abuse or spiritual abuse (because it does not; abuse has taken place among RC churches and RC families too).

    Rather than keep talking to Mark to figure all that out, I decided to drop out of most exchanges with him.

    Your real, real dedicated RC apologists are like Terminators from the movie: they never stop. They never tire of the debate. I can see that going nowhere. (And I really don’t like getting into heated fights.)

    If he was not a troll, it’s possible he was hurt by Protestant churches and is not currently a member of Roman Catholicism was considering joining.

    I used to have a Protestant friend who went through a religious crisis several years ago, and he was seriously looking into becoming Roman Catholic (though he never did). Maybe Mark is in that situation right now?

  87. @ Daisy:
    I was kind of being satirical when I made that comment (and the one about his being called “Mark”)…

    I think it’s interesting that he claimed to have left “Protestantism” and found “truth” (his word). He didn’t claim to have found Jesus, nor “God” in a more generic sense, and I see no evidence that he has in his comments. There’s no love, joy or peace in them. But evidently some people are drawn to one form of religion or another as to an ideology; they’re a little like devout Marxists, or capitalists. The people of whom you speak are probably driven to keep on arguing because that’s the very thing that energises them: the belief that they are somehow “right”. Pushing and celebrating their ideology is meat, drink and worship to them; it’s what they get off on (if you’ll pardon the expression).

  88. I wonder when all these conferences will actually produce the desired effect? I mean other than for the profits of the speakers.