Catholic Protestantism
Fundamentalists Linked to Reformers?

I read an article on Nominalism & Voluntarism recently. The article argued in favour of what it called "Catholic Protestantism."
Sound like an oxymoron? It did to me too, although the author attempted to make it sound plausible. This is basically what was argued (I won't say who did the arguing):
'The original postulates of the Reformation have severed the link of Faith & Reason where man & God are concerned. This is why Evangelicals today deny any Intellectual Discernment & push only the will, only Spirit-leading, or some other spiritualized intution rather than the capacity to rationally discern.'

I am revolted. Let me rant for a moment and then I'll calm down and stop breaking things.

Here is the problem with this thought: they are attempting to link the Reformation to the universal concept (intentio secunda).
However, the Universal Concept has as its object internal representations...which means that the role of the universals is to serve, merely as a label; i.e., to hold the place in the mind of a multitude of things to which it can be attributed.

So, while - resultantly - I agree that Evangelicals (what I might call hyper-fundamentalists) probably ignorantly derive their contempt of Biblical Scholarship or Intellectual Discernment from some deviation of the Reformation (the urge that each individual know God personally), I would also say that Occam's Conceptualism applied here becomes very subjective.

Why? Because, when the abstract concepts reach the individual thing itself (as it exists in nature) the Universal no longer applies.
Ergo; voluntarism MAY be a RESULT of the Protestant Reformation, but the fundamental postulates could not have been what they may have inadvertently produced.

So, while I agree that Nominalism and Voluntarism are not the same thing (as the author tries to prove), and that Thomism was encouraged directly by several Reformers, as well as indirectly by others (Martin Luther once said: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason..."). I think that the ultimate conclusion falls short of the truth. The principles guiding the Reformation did not themselves (on the whole) encourage Voluntarism.

John Calvin, for instance, has been accused of total denial of philosophy. While it is true, that this reputation is rather well-earned, in another way, Calvin's consideration, knowledge, and use of philosophy in his own work refutes an obscurantist representation left by a surface-level reading.
A closer reading of Calvin's magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, along with his commentaries and treatises demonstrates that instead of denying the importance of philosophy, Calvin generally seeks to set philosophy in what he regards as its proper place.

In this sense, there is no need to "re-visit" Catholic Protestantism (or visit it in the first place), since the Reformers weren't attempting to pull away from Thomism. They had strong affinity with Aquinas, and in many respects, with Aristotle himself. However, I wholeheartedly agree that Fundamentalist Evangelicals need to re-evaluate their approach to Biblical Scholarship/intellectual discernment.

Galileo once said something to the effect of: 'I do not believe that the Creator who endowed us with the faculties of reason and intellect intended us to forgo their use.'

The Reasoning of Evangelical America

I'll admit it upfront: I am not what we might consider a modern "evangelical." This means that you probably won't find me pounding on your door on any given day, to instruct you to pray the Roman's Road Prayer. (Doesn't mean, however, that I don't believe in being a witness.)
The situation in my mind is - however - one that concerns the inconsistencies in Evangelical Theology. The problem lies when they try to cross over from (abstract) Theology into (corporeal) Practicality.
Here's a for-instance or two...

Evangelical: "Jesus is coming soon."
Me: "Bet you invested in your company 401k."

Evangelical: "The end is near."
Me: "Planning for your child's college? Bet so."

Evangelical: "The Signs of the Times are everywhere. We should be ready."
Me: "Been out to eat lately?"

Evangelical: "He is at hand!"
Me: "Re-roofing your house, eh?"

In otherwords - The Premillenialist philosophy (theology) says one thing, and practically, they do another; because it simply wouldn't be reasonable or comfortable to live as if tomorrow, the Antichrist were coming.
My temptation was to stop writing here...to leave the hypocrisy splayed wide open, and point the righteous finger at the Evangelical world, however, I would not be doing my duty as an honest theologian if I did.
Therefore I must confess that the hypocrisy is not one-sided. Amillinial proponents (as well as us Posts) often run a-foul of this sort of hypocrisy as well.
In our case, it is the reverse:

We say: "Usher in the Kingdom."
Problem: We live like Premillenialists.

We say: "The Golden Age is dawning."
Problem: We could care less about Dominion.

Ultimately, the situation looks like this: The Premils ought to either act on their end-times doom and gloom, or change their theology to match ours.
And we ought to either change our theology (which we shouldn't), or we ought to begin to live with Dominion in mind. This means taking a fresh look at how we live, how we work, how (and why) we water our yards and rake our leaves.

The Scriptures say: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion..."
We say: "It's time to get to work."

Ignorance of the Law: no excuse?

Reformed Protestants hold to the line of thought which says that men will die condemned if God does not regenerate their heart through the Holy Spirit. This means, even if they die on some backwater island with no knowledge of Salvation or the Scriptures, they are still condemned.

Armenien brethren would argue (not all, of course - let's be fair) that if they had never heard the gospel, they would be spared, else; how could they be held accountable for something they were never privy to?

Sound intelligent? It does to the Catholics.

The 1538 Questions and Answers on Catholicism And Protestantism [St. Paul: Radio Replies Press] claims to be “Invaluable for the uninformed Catholic - the educated and uneducated lapsed Catholic and prospective Convert.” Lets take a look at question #536.

536. Do you maintain that one is obliged to join your infallible, one, holy, catholic, apostolic, indefectible Church, if he wishes to be saved?

If a man realizes that the Catholic Church is the true Church, he must join it if he wishes to save his soul. That is the normal law. But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have been his fault that he was a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for good faith.

Elsewhere Rumble and Carty point out, “…[R]emember the conditions of salvation for a Protestant. If he has never suspected his obligation to join the Catholic Church, it is possible for him to be saved. But it is necessary to become a Catholic or be lost if one has the claims of the Catholic Church sufficiently put before him.”

Now Carty and Rumble are saying that if one has been presented with the “claims of the Catholic Church” and rejects them, one may be lost. Rumble and Carty want one to look at the evidence for Roman Catholicism and then make a decision on whether or not to believe it. If one rejects it, one is probably doomed to hell.

So my question is this: If the Catholic church wants more souls in Heaven, wouldn't it just be better to never mention the Catholic church at all? This way, no one would know, & they'd never have the option of declining membership; thus saving their souls.
See...& you thought we should be telling people.

Wanted For Murder: Calvin.....or not

It has long been purported that John Calvin "murdered a man," especially by opponents of Calvin. However, History & - it would seem - the Law, are in favour of John Calvin, not a man named Servetus.

Servetus was a Catholic rhetorician, controversialist and diplomat. He belonged to that suave and cultured type of Catholic that wins to the Church princes and people to education and wealth (or kills them off if anyone disagrees with them). He has been likened by John Morley to Cardinal Newman; although Protestant History & Catholic law finds him a founder of Heresy.

Servetus, opposed the Protestant faith in Geneva (a crime punishable by death at the time), was arrested and thrown into prison. The charge was heresy, and was a legitimate one punishable in any Protestant city (or burgh, as the German Protestant states were called).

The trial lasted from August until September. At first, we find from documents supplied by those who knew Calvin, he would not supply any proof against Servetus, desiring his own testimony of Heresy to find him guilty, although he was at last persuaded to supply proof of guilt by bringing forward the many letters written him by Servetus. The prisoner did not deny the proof, but instead sought to
defend his position, once more - a crime punishable by death, running contrary to Protestant law. Calvin replied at length, and thus did the long - postponed debate take place.

The judges could not revoke the law, although Calvin tried to get a lighter sentence for Servetus.

The next day Servetus was burned alive in the public square.

"I interceded for him," said John Calvin; "I interceded for him - I
wanted him beheaded, not burned."

Was Calvin guilty of MURDER?
If he was, so were the Council of Judges who ruled in favour of Servetus' execution, so were the townspeople who stood by, not only endorsing the Protestant laws in place concerning Heresy, but supporting them by their very citizenship in Geneva, & so were the original lawmakers themselves.

However, most people will never take this into consideration. Calvin pleaded for a lighter sentence on a legally condemned man. F. Lewis Battles once said, “I can usually tell, when people speak of Calvin, whether they know him only by hearsay, have read a few pages, or sampled him anthologically. They have no clue to the wonderful interconnectedness of Calvin’s thought. They ask questions which a fuller reading of the Institutes could have answered.”

Maybe we should think about it a while...

These Things We Hold...
Tradition & The Word of God

Which is most important? Scripture, or Traditions of men?
Each time we ask that question, a problem rises: Some claim that Ecclesiastic Traditions are instituted by the Holy Spirit, and thus on equal footing with Scripture. Read the words of the Catholic Confession, Second Ed.:

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
"As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Then we ask the question in response; if both Tradition & Scripture must "be accepted & honoured with equal sentiments of devotion & reverence," ... what if the two contradict one another?

For instance, as Luther pointed out, that the Third Lateran Council contradicted the decree of Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, concerning EXTRA ECCLESIUM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside The Holy Roman Church), who - in turn - contradicted the the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, by Pope Boniface VIII, 1302 (which said that all had salvation who directly fell under jurisdiction of a Roman Pontiff), while the Second Vatican Council declared that all believers constituted the Universal Church, even those outside of Rome...however, many of the Early Church Fathers, as well as St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Pius XII, & the Vatican II held the notion that whether or not one had implicit or explicit Faith (i.e., proper knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church), a sort of Salvific Grace covered the entire body of believers.

Ummm...so, what were we talking about? Oh yeah! The harmony of Traditions (of men) & the Scripture...yeah...well, maybe not HARMONY, but...
Ok, ok. It would take a far stretch of the Orthodox imagination to make believe that these traditions were inspired, since they contradict one another so often. It would almost tempt me to wonder whether or not one would have to be a heretic to believe in the inspiration of Tradition...
oops; did I just say that? :)

Witch Hunting
A Rant On Why The White Badger Avoids Scandals & Stories

Ever picked up a Christian Magazine or Newsletter with lines pasted across the cover-page reading: Secrets Shopping Malls Aren't Telling You! ?
Like an edition of The Enquirer, yet smeared with a veneer of religion, these heresy-hunting magazines do nothing but spread emulation and divide the brethren.
Let me pause here and note two things:
First, we at the White Badger Inn are strongly in favour of standing on one's doctrinal convictions. We hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and do not waiver in the face of those who differ from us. This does not mean, however, that we condemn others who vary on minor issues, or issues of liberty.
Second, an article of this sort is rare, since we would be defeating the purpose of standing against heresy-hunters, if we constantly bashed them. We'd end up become the same thing ourselves.
All this being said:
We understand the need to warn. We understand the need to critically examine; however, we also understand the need to be gracious.
...Not tolerant; gracious.
But I must point out the grave difference between this sort of action (slandering men and woman, many of whom are truly children of God), and the actions of - say, John Calvin (who was known to be stern and sober) is primarily this: Calvin approached those whom he had an issue with, and dealt with the problem Biblically.
Is it not Scriptural to approach a brother if you have ought against him?
Then why oh why do the Heresy-hunting folks who produce so many of the fundamentalist-style papers slander and libel others who differ from them, without truly addressing the perceived problem?
However, while this is a great Biblical issue which gets me heated...the real issue that irritates me the most is just getting sick and tired of how they complain about everything. Everything is - to them - a sin. Everything is wrong. The world is coming to an end. Bush is the Antichrist. The U.S. is the new Rome. Bill O'Reilly is Satan.
I have sworn off these Witch-hunting papers. I will not pick one up. And though the cover of one may tempt me to peek within the pages and ridicule the author, I will not. I have stopped keeping them on the back of the commode (yes, I really did), and I think I am going to take up something more calming.
Perhaps Rhinoceros hunting, or fishing. Maybe a trip to Salem...
Or not.