When I hear from time to time of some young evangelical Presbyterian going into Roman Catholicism, I ask myself, “Why bother? You’re already in a church pretty much like what the Reformers rejected.”
In the Medieval church, the congregation did little but watch while the priest and choir did everything. It’s not much different in conservative Presbyterianism. There is little for the congregation to do but sing some hymns. That’s why the Reformers wrote liturgies.
In the Medieval church, the psalms were absent from the song of the congregation. That’s why the Reformers were psalm-fanatics. Neither real psalms nor metrical psalms are much in evidence in conservative Presbyterianism today. The Trinity Hymnal certainly does not contain near all the psalms. Look at the bulletin of any conservative Presbyterian church and see if there is even one psalm sung.
In the Medieval church, people were served only one half of the Lord’s Supper. Wine was never served to them. Wine is pretty much never served in conservative Presbyterianism either. In this, modern Presbyterianism is identical with Rome. (And don’t tell me grape juice is wine. If it is, then use wine. Woops! The moment you say that, you find out that grape juice is most definitely not wine!) “Grape juice” communion is for all intents and purposes identical with Roman Catholic communion.
Medieval Rome also served wafers as bread, and people only came to communion once a year. Modern conservative Presbyterians are served crackers, not bread, and usually only a few times a year.
Rome had no interest in the Bible. The touchstone of truth was tradition, as understood by the Romanists of Luther’s Day. Luther, Bucer, Calvin and the other Reformers showed over and over that in fact Augustine and the Fathers did not teach the Roman doctrines, and that they (the Reformers) were in line with the true tradition. It made no difference. The same is identically true today. “Federal Vision” people have shown repeatedly that their teaching is right in line with the Reformation, and have been answered over and over with citations from Confessions and Catechisms wrenched from context and fitted with new meanings. Not once has any “study committee” dealt with the Bible in dealing with the “Federal Vision.”
The Papists at the time of the Reformation pulled various power games to suppress the Reformers. At that time, this included murder. Today, the conservative Presbyterians resort to internet slander, creating “investigatory commissions” that contain no one sympathetic to any other views, and holding secret meetings. Most interestingly, in the Presbyterian Church in America there is the SJC (Standing Judicial Commission) which has total and absolute power in the PCA. This Star Judicial Chamber has exercised its power to threaten to dissolve the Louisiana Presbytery if it did not fail to condemn the teachings of one of its members — after the Presbytery itself had twice exonerated him. There is no recourse in the PCA against this Star Chamber, and evidently the PCA is too full of milquetoasts for anyone to stand up against them. So it seems.
So, if a young conservative Presbyterian leaves the idolatries of the PCA and goes into the Papal church, he’s not making much of a change. And it’s not a big surprise when people do so.
I agree. And you’ll find that it’s not just conservative Presbyterian churches which are like that.
“So, if a young conservative Presbyterian leaves the idolatries of the PCA and goes into the Papal church, he’s not making much of a change. And it’s not a big surprise when people do so.”
Sorry, but that’s simply not true. I understand your point. But…it’s not nice to lie.
I wish it WERE a lie!
I have to say that I agree; but then, I’m pretty much fed-up with the Church in general, never mind the denomination. In my book, the whole thing has fallen too far from what true Christianity is all about.
About the Communion issue, I’ve been to Lutheran churches where it was announced that grape juice was available for those who could not physically tolerate wine. At the time, this seemed acceptable to me; but, after reading this blog, I get the impression that this too may be just another ‘excuse’ for whatever reason.
Theresa,
Messed up as the Church is, that’s where Jesus is also. We may have to hold our nose at a lot of things, but He’s holding His also. We can’t abandon the assembly.
That said, I agree with you about offering grape juice as a substitute. A person can always dip his/her finger in the wine and just take a sip.
Churches that have used grape juice for the last 100 years often go to having both as a way to avoid pastoral problems. We have to be sensitive to this, but it’s best to teach the matter clearly and make a complete break with grape juice.
JBJordan
James, this is a very good post.
A Roman Catholic convert from modern evangelicalism wrote to me to say that the RC church he has joined has lots of Bible, lots of congregational singing, etc., and far more of these than the Presbyterian church he abandoned. I have no doubt that this is true, though of course he has embraced some serious problems by becoming RC. I was commenting on the state of the Papal church at the time of the Reformation.
His point, however, is still of some validity. More often than not, a person moving from a PCA church to the Roman Catholic Church is moving from less Bible to more Bible, from less psalmody (i.e., zero) to more psalmody, from starvation to food.
It makes me think of how the Ithamar and Eleazar lines of priests shifted back and forth during the old age.
Ah, that Rome would give up its silly and abominable notions of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it’s semi-necromancy, and its semi-iconolatry! Until then, I’ll suffer in evangelicalism.
James,
I certainly agree with you on the whole but I do have a question regarding the elements of Communion. Of course where bread and wine are available one ought use (both of) them but was not the reason Jesus used bread and wine because they were both staple elements of the diets of 1st C. E. Palestine? Say, for example, you went to a foreign country as a missionary where they neither ate bread nor drank wine, would you have to import them to have Communion or could you use the staple elements of their diet?
Richard,
I believe that “daily bread” of a society is what should be used, and “the good alcoholic drink used with meals” is what should be used. That might mean “date wine” in some tropical cultures. I wrote this in Rite Reasons No. 42, November 1995.
9. What about lands that don’t produce grapes and wine? Well, use some other alcoholic beverage then. The Bible speaks of both wine and beer being offered to God (Numbers 28:7). Alcohol was created by God and designed by Him to communicate a sense of rest and well-being. It is a sensible sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is not true of non-alcoholic drinks. Whatever the local “wine” is, that is what should be used. Similarly, whatever the local bread is, that is what should be used. It does not have to be wheat.
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-42-doing-the-lords-supper/
“Ah, that Rome would give up its silly and abominable notions of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it’s semi-necromancy, and its semi-iconolatry! Until then, I’ll suffer in evangelicalism.”
Pastor Jordan, Im ex-Catholic and love my Reformed faith, so my first reaction to the above was that I was taken back a little. But thinking on it a bit more, I’m sympathetic to your catholic (small ‘c’) sentiment here, so can you elaborate? In the same vein, do you think a papacy could ever be Biblically legitimate? (assuming the Bible does surely militate against a Roman and/or Petrine-style papacy)
I don’t see a problem with a “first among equals” minister of the word as bishop of a diocese/presbytery, or archbishop over all the dioceses in a nation, or an archbishop who coordinates all the dioceses in the world. Somewhat like the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople coordinating all the other patriarchs of the EO churches. It could not be a separate office, nor is “bishop” a separate office. At this point in history, that’s pretty theoretical.
If Rome repented of all her errors, but retained justification by faith plus works, it would still have to be resisted.
Drinking a grape juice instead of wine is of course a problem of the whole modern evangelical community, here in Russia too. People in evangelical churches willingly rejected drinking an alcohol for their lives, why then use it in a church?
Though… personally for me, such refusal, speaking Russian, is a “tilt at windmills”, because I’ve never seen problems with using a communion wine in churches, even for children.
Moreover, I see some sort of contradiction – wllingly rejecting drinking an alcohol for the life everlasting in the communion and, from other side, willingly using drugs, like morphine, ketamine etc., for a body in a medicine. What is finally more important?
Nice post, but I think the grape juice comment is overstated. I’ve received communion from probably a dozen PCA churches in my life, and it’s 100% of the time been wine. To say that wine is rare strikes me as a dramatic overstatement.
AJ, hmmm. I don’t know where you live, but I have to say I think your own experience is virtually unique. I’ve been in numerous PCA and OPC churches, and the only time I was served wine was in a church that had just, after a decade of arguments and trauma, finally moved to it. Most PCA churches are in the South, if that makes any difference to your understanding my my post.
Others can chime in here.
Jim,
In my experience, wine is commonly used in PCA/OPC churches in New England while grape juice was commonly used in the PCA churches I attended in Mississippi and North Carolina.
That said, your claim is outrageous (“So, if a young conservative Presbyterian leaves the idolatries of the PCA and goes into the Papal church, he’s not making much of a change.”). If someone told you they were considering joining either the PCA or the Roman Catholic Church, would you really say that it doesn’t make much difference?
David
Of course it’s outrageous. Editorials are supposed to be outrageous. But that said, the situation in the PCA is outrageous. As you well know, neither Calvin nor Bucer nor Knox would be allowed to serve in the PCA or the OPC; and not only that, but they would loudly condemn these groups for just what I’ve condemned them for. In fact, I doubt if any of the delegates at the Westminster Assembly would be allowed to serve in either of these groups. Matthew 23:29-30 certainly is beginning to apply.
As for joining churches, people don’t join either the RCC or the PCA. They join local parishes. And generally speaking, a PCA parish would be preferable. At the same time, I know of a PCA parish in Northwest Florida that is virtually a synagogue of Satan, and a decent RCC church might be a better place to attend (though they won’t let you have communion).
Mr. Jordan,
I appreciate and encourage the sentiment of “reformed and always reforming”, but even during the Reformation there were the radicals like Andreas Karlstadt and Thomas Muntzer who advocated chucking it all and starting over. They even called Luther, “Dr. Easy-Chair”. For the record, I’m not PCA or OPC, but rather RPNA.
I fear what happens…or actually what DOES happens when such criticism are not carefully formulated and disclaimed against the possibility, is that heretics use these kind of articles to support their cause. As a matter of fact, I came to this link after reading about it on a heretical site. (the heresy of hyperpreterism; a “movement” that advocates among other things that Jesus came back once and for all in the 1st-century, that the resurrection of the believers happened in the 1st-century and was non-physical, that the judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the 1st-century, and that there will be no end of sin and no culmination of God’s plan for this world).
Mr. Jordan, I’ve written you before, privately about this very issue because for years hyperpreterists have been using your very name to support their cause. There was a time you participated in a debate with a hyperpreterist at one of their conventions and by the end of the event, the hyperpreterists weaseled and asked you the question they always ask in an attempt to get men like you on record; “Do you think hyperpreterism is heresy?” — You at the time replied no, and expressed that you regretted ever calling them heretics. They have been using you as a PR campaign trying to prove they are legitimate.
Thus I strongly, strongly urge you to be very, very protective of the community of saints. Sure, question and reform; but from within, like a family does.
Individual congregations need accountability otherwise the “teaching elder” becomes nothing but a mini-pope over his own private Rome, as is the case in say Baptist congregations. The question is how is a congregation going to be accountable? This wave of “local churchism” has caused many of the problems. The church was never meant to be a collection of disconnected congregations. This was the allegation the RCC said would happen to the Protestants, that we’d fragment and fragment and so we have. How do we fix/stop this if not by drawing a doctrinal line somewhere?
Respectfully in Christ and His Church and Faith once and for delivered to the saints,
Roderick Edwards
http://thekingdomcome.com
Some of your points would draw sympathies and agreement from both sides of the FV debate. However, I think your post in general is a gross overstatement. To equate the traditionalism of the PCA with that of Rome is preposterous. For instance, the pastoral reasons for replacing wine with grape juice, although not justifiable, do not spring from an unbiblical distinction between priest and layman, as did the withholding of the wine by the RCC. Are you equally upset with your Roman friends for mixing oil in with the baptismal waters? Do you really think that the system of the PCA is as bad as that of Rome?
Even if the practice of traditionalism is lamentable, it does not even begin to approach the abomination that is the Roman Church. The biggest problems in the PCA are perhaps scholarly wrangling and weak spines, but in the Roman system the idolatrous attributing of redemption to Mary comes to mind, among other things. Also, while the SJC may have undue power, at least they do not have the power to damn my soul on the basis of tradition, as do the authorities in Rome (so they think).
Anyway, I find it glaringly ironic that a man object so strongly to tradition, all the while wearing a Roman collar around his neck… Where is that in the Scriptures again?
I don’t know your real name, hmayberry; but have you not read the other posts on Roman idolatry on this blog? Yes, Jordan is equally upset with Roman errors. That’s not the point.
Dear Hmayberry,
You have not read my essay in context. Anyway, a couple of things: The clerical collar I wear was invented by the Scottish Presbyterians and was only much later adopted by some in Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_collar
The use of grape juice is not pastoral. It originates from walking by sight (science) not faith (obedience). Walking by sight is all over the PCA today, as we see in all those who reject the Biblical chronology. There is nothing pastoral about this. It is unfaithfulness.
When the SJC calls men heretics and wolves who mislead the flock, they are saying that those men are under the condemnation of God and headed for hell.
Rome, at least, let Luther speak before condemning him.
This is lengthy, so consider it private communication if you like, or post it if you prefer.
My name is Phillip Mayberry: I don’t blog, so I posted under my wife’s ID. Didn’t know my name was important, Jeff. The point is that Mr. Jordan is equating the errors of a false church with that of a true church when it comes to gravity (although he says the PCA is not a church of Christ, but instead like the church at Sardis), and pretending to champion the Bible alone, while asserting tradition out of the other side of his mouth. There is a time for overstatement, but when overstatement is used, don’t be surprised when it is corrected. No, I haven’t read the other posts. Rome is an apostate church: I am not going to beat that which is dead already.
If the errors of the PCA and the idolatry of Medieval Rome are on the same level, his point would be well taken, and the question would be: why are you still PCA, given Jesus’ pleas for unity? My point is simply that they are NOT on the same level of error, and should never be equated.
Additionally, to identify FV’ers with the Reformers, and the PCA SJC with the oppressive hierarchy of the Middle ages is misleading. The argument is not that FV teachers are answered with Confessions: it is that the other side does not believe their points are sustainable Biblically.
Ironically, Mr. Jordan appeals to tradition (“in line with the Reformation”) while charging the other side with holding to tradition! The issue is 1) that there is a Biblical disagreement as to the interpretation of certain texts, and 2) when Confessions are cited, they are cited largely to emphasize that FV teachers in the PCA are out of accord with the VOWS they took upon ordination.
I agree that Confessions should not be used to dismiss biblical concerns, and that this is sometimes done. However, once biblical concerns are examined and deemed to be unbiblical doctrines, the teacher should make a decision: either leave the Denomination in accordance with his vows, or cease teaching the doctrines.
James,
Sounds like you are admitting that the clerical collar is a tradition… It’s convenient to hurl stones at one tradition while wearing another.
The use of grape juice IS indeed pastoral in many contexts. Pastors that come into a church where the tradition is in practice should seek to move the church away from it to the biblical element. However, have you never heard of the statement “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot yet bear them”? Likewise, when a pastor is outvoted by his Session in this sort of matter, he can either divide the church over a secondary matter (As Paul identifies the Sacraments in 1 Cor. 1:17), or seek to educate the church before implementing a change. It is most certainly pastoral to seek to preserve unity in this way, as you seem to say in your answer to Theresa.
Another difference is brought out by this example and Rome. Rome today preserves unity at the expense of the very gospel, by canonizing so called “saints” who taught doctrines such as “secret Christianity” in explicit denial of John 3:18.
James: if you are truly “equally upset” with Rome and the PCA, why do you call the papacy “small potatoes by comparison” to the evils of the SJC? The papacy usurps from the Scriptures the authoritative voice of all disputes. The very most the SJC could do is claim that they believe someone to be in error based upon their reading of the Scriptures. It sounds like what is really bothering you is that people are not accepting your doctrines as Scriptural, and you think your case to be so ironclad that this is inconceivable to you.
Moving from “starvation to food/less Bible to more Bible” when going from the PCA to Rome is ridiculous, although the lack of Psalm singing is a valid point. If I’m not mistaken, though, it is permissible Biblically to sing hymns and spiritual songs as well. So maybe Psalm singing should not be the litmus test for a true church. At least the Bible occupies a central point in the service in the PCA in general, while the table has supplanted it in Rome.
That you could even begin to compare any Protestant church with Rome demonstrates to me that you either 1) do not understand the gravity of their error concerning Justification by faith alone, or 2) do not consider it to be a big deal. As you are obviously brilliant, I lean toward dismissing #1. Could you ever really yoke up with those that deny JFA, even if they corrected their errors of “semi-iconalatry” and the like? Could you suggest to others that they do so, or commend them for doing so? If so, then you are indeed a wolf. Of course, you could go down to your house justified if the cry of your heart is the prayer (apart from works) that we find in Luke 18:13-14, which I hope is YOUR hope in truth, as opposed to your obedience…
Mr. Mayberry,
I just re-read my original essay. I don’t think you’ve read the same essay. I made many points of comparison; I did not write an exhaustive treatment. I have written a whole book against the errors of Rome. I have no need to defend myself on that score here. Read The Liturgy Trap if you want to know what I think about Rome.
If you really want to defend the neo-gnosticism that pervades the PCA, go ahead. The future belongs to those who respect and obey the Bible.
Grape juice in communion is a sin. A sin of inadvertency for many, and of course a pastor has to take whatever time is needed to change back to obedience. But he cannot rest in this sinful situation. In this regard, as in most of the rest, you are bringing up matters my original post did not address and that are irrelevant to my original essay.
The Star Chamber of the PCA has never said anything about the Scriptures. The scriptures are irrelevant to them. And they have proven far more tyrannical than Rome has ever been. I notice you made no reply to my repeated point that Rome gave Luther a chance to speak before condemning him, something neither the OPC nor the PCA have ever done with the FV, and something the SJC has never done in any of these situations. If you cannot see the difference, you need a refresher course in basic morality.
Rome is plagued with violations of the 2nd commandment. The PCA is filled with violations of the 3rd and 9th.
I believe in justification by faith alone. All FV people do, and we believe it far more consistently than our opponents do. But if you think that justification by faith alone is the only thing Jesus is concerned about in His Kingdom, I suggest you re-read the gospels.
Yours,
JBJordan
By the way, I am not trying to be a jerk: just writing plainly. I respect some of your positions, such as the biblical chronology/six day creationist position, which I also hold. I agree that to depart from this position is to walk by sight and attempt to appease the culture.
Rome giving Luther a chance to speak was an isolated instance: one that Hus, Jerome, and thousands of others were not afforded. They did so out of political posturing and fear of losing Germany; not out of charity and fairness. I find it difficult to take such comparisons seriously, which is why I didn’t comment on it.
As for the SJC: the comparison with Luther is not equitable. Luther was given a chance to recant that which he had written. You and the other FV advocates have also written prolifically to articulate your position. There have been several publications where your position has interacted on a charitable level with the orthodox (no dig intended) position. These publications have been saturated with Scripture on both sides. Do you think that actually standing and orally articulating your position would make a difference? Does a counsel not have the right to evaluate a position as written and rule accordingly?
Again, the issue is that there is a different interpretation of the Bible on the table. Your position has been considered based on what you and others have written, and deemed to be novel. While you are free to disagree in Christian charity, it seems to me that you have taken the route of sowing discord between brothers. Why continue to attempt to change (or attack) a denomination that is dedicated to a view of the WCF that is out of accord with your position?
When there are two differing interpretations of Scripture, what alternative is there than to agree to disagree? The position of the PCA is at this point that FV doctrines are not in accord with our interpretation of the Scriptures. Would you insist on Paedobaptism if you were in a baptist denomination, or agree to disagree?
I don’t believe that my baptist brothers hate the Scriptures, or have a disregard for the Word simply because they are wrong about baptism. We can quote Scriptures all day long on both sides, but at some point we have to call it quits and separate, or either agree to adopt one or the other position.
All the matters I brought up, though not all were in your original post, are relevant to the end that they establish a character portrait of your thoughts regarding the PCA and Rome. Now you have added that we take the Lord’s name in vain…
How is the grape juice issue irrelevant to your original essay? You brought it up, did you not? When bringing up other comparisons between Rome and the PCA, my point is simply that your thesis (“Rome, Why bother?) is unwarranted when all the facts are considered, and therefore unfair.
In Christ,
Phillip
Dear Mr. Mayberry,
I’d like to know where you find exegetical interaction with FV stuff. Not that that is relevant to this discussion particularly, but I’d like to see it. In fact, I’d like to see any theological interaction with FV stuff — interaction, not just “well, FV guys say you earn your way to heaven, but that’s not so.”
I’m not in the PCA. The PCA is supposed to be given to “good faith subscription.” Good faith has been completely denied to people said to be “FV.” They have been accused repeatedly of lying when they profess their orthodoxy. I don’t like seeing my friends, good men, lied about and pilloried.
The strange and idiosyncratic readings of the confession by the neo-Thornwellians and Klineans is hardly the historic Presbyterian mainstream, which is in fact pretty much “FV.” The so-called “FV” controversy has served to expose the fact that the OPC and the PCA, etc., are far outside of the historic Reformed faith and very far removed from the Westminster documents. The controversy is finished, as you say. These denominations, as a whole, are no longer “Reformed” any more than Roman Catholics are “Catholic.” You can go here for more:
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/how-to-do-reformed-theology-nowadays/
…Or at least, so it seems. It’s possible that the remaining Reformed elements in these groups will push back against the neo-Thornwellians and Klineans and restore these groups back to the historic Reformed faith. I don’t hold out much expectation of this, but it’s possible.
Grape juice is not wine. Neither is orange juice, milk, or horse urine. There is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit communicates the blood of Christ through grape juice or horse urine. Grape juice is used precisely because it is NOT wine.
RCs had all kinds of good reasons (good to them) for avoiding wine in communion. So do gnostic presbyterians. All those reasons are wrong. All are disobedient, and faith-less.
Yours,
JBJordan
Ok… so now grape juice IS relevant…
If the (FV) controversy is indeed over, I am still curious as to why you are not encouraging your friends in the PCA to leave on good terms, in order to preserve peace, especially if we are not a viable denomination anymore.
It seems like you are employing gnosticism in claiming to know the motivations of those who reject your view. Maybe we have just examined your evidence and found ourselves in disagreement. I also notice that you continue to appeal to tradition. If you really want to take the high road, why don’t you just stick to the Scriptures? I would suggest the same to the other side, since Confessions and counsels can and do err.
I am trying my best to not be into “having the last word” and the like. I will consider your points, and try to read through your eyes in the future.
I’ll even re-read “A.A. Theology: Debating the FV” and see if there is indeed an absence of exegetical/theological interaction with FV positions by the respondents. I know you know of this book, so I assume that you dismiss it as having no exegetical/theological interaction; only caricatures.
Maybe we’ll talk again sometime.
In Christ,
Phillip
Mr. Mayberry,
If you want to understand what the FV people have tried to argue, you need only read this:
http://www.federal-vision.com/resources/joint_FV_Statement.pdf
If you think what is found here is unacceptable to the PCA or OPC, then fine. If not, then you need to ask why there was ever a controversy and what it was really all about. You might ask about the pathology of the response to this “FV Statement,” which has been, “Well, that’s what they SAY, but we know they are LYING.”
If you want, you can have the last word. Most of us have moved on.
JBJordan