can anyone remember when fundementalism wasnt a derogatory term? I can… I was saved in a fundemental Baptist church (and I thank God for the hell fire preaching and the push to know the Word of God and to live an obedient, separated life in faith); but it was too confining and restrictive for the world; so fundementalism became wrongly synonymous with a ridiculous fanaticism;

In my mind evangelicalism is dead (and reeking) and the only hope is to embrace our past and the “fundemental” truths of the reformation and to renounce the appellation “evangelicalical” and of what it now consists and attack as heretical the false doctrines perpetrated on the lost who hold to a false security in a false god
(as the fundementalists rightly did at the outset and as Macarthur et al are presently engaged); a return to the “narrow way” is the only hope of ours and all generations; (Matt. 7 seems so relevant to this discussion);

Lastly, the flight of “evangelicals to the RCC should speak loudly to us as to the state of “evangelicalism”

btw MS – Horton’s book “In the face of God” was VERY good and very relevant to the present discussion;

John Laird

It’s probably Tim Challies’ fault. The actual seminar was well-organized and cogent. But Challies must’ve been answering e-mail and writing book reviews and doing other stuff while he was taking notes. Everybody knows how he is. So the lion’s share of blame belongs to him for anything that seems disjointed and rambling.

“1. The Catholic Church has badly mangled the Gospel. Mangled it to the point that to become Catholic would be to forsake the Biblical Gospel, and I have read Galatians 1. I believe the church is in serious error on justification and all the doctrines that precede and flow from it. In two thousand years, Rome has gotten better in talking about the Gospel, but hasn’t come one step from where Luther stepped back and called the church apostate on the Gospel. Yes, often Rome holds forth one of the jewels of the Gospel in its liturgy or tradition or in the voice of one its eloquent saints. But Rome has never come beyond Trent, and this is an uncrossable boundary.

For example, Peter Kreeft now laughs at the reformation doctrine of imputed righteousness, and offers instead Rome’s doctrine of actual infused righteousness through the sacraments. As much as I admire in Catholicism, I cannot believe its Gospel of salvation is the Biblical Gospel. Luther was right in recovering the Biblical Gospel, and Rome is wrong in holding to the sacramental system that, in the end, must rely on the church to fill in what scripture does not say.

2. The church has abused its role as the keeper of tradition. Like the Pharisees of the first century, Rome has taken the traditions of the church and constructed an edifice that goes far beyond scripture. In many Romish doctrines, the role of tradition has eclipsed scripture, putting mother church in the place of Holy Scripture. Rome may be right in much it says about tradition, but it is very wrong in how it has handled tradition.

I can accept the church’s role in the creation of scripture. I cannot accept its role in continuing to go miles beyond scripture to teach what scripture does not teach. Rome seems to think that error, once taught by Rome, is no longer error. I cannot agree.

3. In particular, the recently propagated doctrines associated with Mary are impossible to accept. The Church’s defense of Marian theology is embarrassing. We can join our Catholic friends in honoring the mother of Jesus, but the inflated role of Mary in Catholicism demands an acceptance of the church’s continuing pronouncements about Mary that challenge the Mormons for inventiveness and creativity.

4. The role of the Pope in Catholicism cannot be defended from scripture. It is a historical development that the church has chosen to impose upon scripture, and to divide Christians by their allegiance to the bishop of Rome as the “Vicar” of Christ.

It appears to me that the entire Gospel of John was written to fend off the kind of veneration of Peter that the papacy is premised upon. Infallibility cannot be given to both the successors of Peter and to scripture and still be credible. Luther, again, was right. Popes have erred. Councils have erred. Scripture must be the final authority.

5. Transubstantiation. At no point am I more puzzled than when my friends write me notes in rapturous adoration of the Mass. For at no point in worship with my Catholic friends am I more saddened and offended than when the entire book of Hebrews is shredded in the words of the mass. Roman Catholic theology of the mass is a medieval leftover from a time when the church controlled the eternal salvation of its members by access to the wafer. It is borderline blasphemous to use the kind of language used in the mass about the once-for-all incarnation and the once-for-all sacrifice. I reveal myself as a Zwinglian, no doubt, but I am not debating physics. I am asking, can the book of Hebrews be true, and Christ be on the altars of Catholicism?

I have a lot of minor quibbles. Purgatory. The Apocrypha. Celibacy. But they are no worse than similar evangelical errors. But the five issues I have listed are insurmountable. They prove, at least to me, that the credibility of Rome has diminished throughout history, as the RCC has continued to defend and define itself in ways that cannot be reconciled with scripture, and in ways that serve the self interest of the church more than the glory of Christ..

At the end of the day, I am an evangelical, reformational protestant. Tired, angry, kicking at the nonsense, but still reforming. I own the reformation for its recovery of Christ in the Gospel. It takes me to the place where I can, on the days when I am able to worship and exalt in the great, classical Christian traditions we Protestants share, imagine that we really are one church in Christ. A church divided, and hopefully a church debating. But still a church where I must choose, as Luther did, to remain with scripture and those Reformation doctrines, and with the great “Solas” that define my faith.

http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/P/papist.html

I’ll tell all the RCC apologists who attempt to bribe me into the RCC that you’re a prophet.

What about this essay made you write that comment?

I enjoyed reading the articles you linked in this post, although the post itself was a bit meandering. I find myself agreeing with you on a lot of points. I wonder though if the reformation, necessary as it was, did not carry some of the seeds of its own demise. In completely rejecting the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church (whether this started with the reformers or later I am not sure. Do you know?) implied by its stance that history and tradition are extraneous, they can be ignored. Now we are complaining that the reformers are being ignored. Its just the next step.

Also many Protestant churches bought into their own version of Descartes scientific rationalism rejecting the Christian philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. The end result of Descarte’s philosophy is materialistic naturalism. He himself did not carry it so far, but the seeds were there. The Catholic tradition has a place and an explanation for spiritual experience, spiritual reality and this spiritual experience is firmly under the authority of the Church and her doctrine. Because the Protestant church in the 19th century rejected experience for reason, those who had spiritual experiences had little place to go so they threw off the yoke of the traditional churches and started their own, accoutnalbe only to their own authority. The answer to the charismatic church is not to criticize but to reassert the proper place and purpose for spiritual experience within churches that are also strong on doctrine.

I myself have run the gamut. I became a Christian in a Chrarismatic church, currently attend a Baptist church. In an effort to integrate my reason and my desire for God, my docrine and my experiences of God, I have found myself turning to Catholic writers. This is not because the Protestants I have read are not aware of the Spirit but there is no coherent doctrine of the working of the Spirit.

>The Charismatic movement has the most credibility as a source of a dissolving evangelicalism, because it has been the most pragmatic, least doctrinal, most culturally adaptive and least intellectual component of evangelicalism. This is a movement with virtually no accountability or institutions, no meaningful confessions and little interest in relating to the Reformation.

I’d welcome specific refutations regarding the Charismatic MOVEMENT. Not exeptions that you know. I work with dozens of charismatics and many are exceptions to various statements.

Legwork? I have been in and around the charismatic/Pentecostal movement for 34 years. If I’m wrong, it’s not because I am making sweeping generalizations. Where I live 80% of the churches are charismatic. I deal with hundreds of Charismatic pastors, parents and students. I doubt if there are 2 that know what the Reformation was.

Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes. What more do I need to say? I applaud Jack Hayford. But this movement is Oral Roberts and Rod Parsley, Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland, Joyce Meyers, etc.

I hate to say this, but Charismatic/Pentecostals increasingly remind me of Mormons. Because of their large numbers, presence and influence in evangelicalism, they want to define the mainstream. Then T.D. Jakes denies the Nicene Creed, Rod Parsley sells snake oil and Joel Osteen repackages the Word-Faith heresy, and we’re all supposed to adjust.

I may disagree with Phil on whether there is much of anything to call a “once orthodox” evangelicalism, but I don’t disagree with him on the current effects of the mainstream Charismatic movement. I’ve tauted and praised C.J. Mahaney on this blog in hopes that someone would notice just how different SGM is from the rest of the Charismatic world. Why is Mahaney hanging out with Presbyterians rather than fellowship with the mainstream Charismatics on TBN?

http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/T/tbn.html
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/P/pentecostal.html

I usually find your essays thoughtful, provocative or both. But this is one of the sloppiest I’ve seen. You’ve bitten off much more than you can chew in a blog post. Some of your generalizations are so shaky as to be virtually useless, if not borderline slander (e.g., charismatics with “virtually no accountability” and “little interest in relating to the Reformation”?)

You need to do a little more legwork, be a little more thorough in your research and more careful in the conclusions you draw. I like reading your work, and will continue to do so, but you’ve missed badly on this one.

What bothers me about some sectors of Evangelicalism is this “all or nothing” or “either/or” treatment of everything that is analyzed. There’s no ability to discern black or white among the gray. EVERYTHING the Emergents are saying is wrong because some of the things they are saying are wrong. EVERYTHING the charismatics say is wrong because some charismatics are heretical headcases. You can’t be a real Christian and do ____________ because ____________ is not something our sector of Evangelicalism condones or practices.

The irony of this is that many of the favorite sons quoted by people who like to make these bald comments are folks who practiced the very things that are being derided:

* Only the old hymns are the right kind of worship (even if some of our favorites are by that Arminian Charles Wesley.)

* Charismatics are heretics, but we’re willing to give a pass to Sovereign Grace Churches, A.W. Tozer, and the first President of Moody Bible College, R.A. Torrey.

*Emerging churches are wrong, even if they’re out feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and visiting the prisoners while we sit around and argue doctrine all day.

The Godblogosphere has become very tiring lately, especially when people can’t see the natural outcomes of their own blindspots.

Snore.