I think the author is on to something in speaking about the evangelical interest in the pope. Yes, it has something to do with stability in a tradition that is often a flash in the pan with megachurches and unaffiliated nondenominational churches. (To which point I would suggest searching out your nearest Reformed Presbyterian church, which has a long history in the Reformed tradition.) But I think there is something more basic, more fundamental in the obsession with the so-called "vicar of Christ" — that is our basic human desire to worship a God and to have a king rule over us. To Americans, this seems silly. Yet looking at the rest of world history, it is clearly an impulse in human nature. The vast majority of nations have had a monarch to rule over them. Take for example the Israelites in 1 Samuel: They demanded a king to rule over them like all the nations (1 Sam 8:4). It wasn't just that they wanted a king — God says that they rejected Him as their king: "They have not rejected you [Samuel], but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them". When we demand a Pope, we are doing likewise — we are rejecting Christ's rightful rule over the church and demanding someone who will stand in his place (2 Thes 2:4). God has given us a King — he was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief having born our sins, and by his stripes we are healed. His name is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government there will be no end. Maybe protestants ought to be interested in the papal conclave — but only in the interest of the Reformation that was begun 500 years ago when Luther nailed those 95 theses on the chapel door in Wittenburg.
EMCM6485
What is going on at the editorial board of World?
If my count is right, this is the third article in the past week that seems to embrace and positively portray Catholicism and only lightly discuss its promulgation of a different gospel. See Galatians 1:6-12.
Taking such a position seems to point to either a lack of knowledge of Scripture, or a lack of concern about what Scripture says, or a similar valuing of the opinion of a wider intellectual or political community more than the truth of the New Testament Gospel.
Two points make a line; three points confirm it. Sadly, I find myself asking, “Is World something different than I thought it was?”
Make it four: See Carl Trueman's piece in The World and Everything in It from this morning. Of all the authors, he should really know better. Of all the essays, though, his is the most definitive in making a contrast between those still protesting and the papists.
You might want to read it again. The writer was musing over why even Protestants are often interested in papal conclaves, & noted how rooted such events, Catholic writers, and the Catholic Church in general, are deeply rooted in tradition. I've met, and seen many more interviewed, people who have converted to Catholicism, and that is often the initial draw in this constantly changing world. That observation hardly qualifies as recommending Catholic teaching. I saw many comments like these when the Presbyterian Journal board folded the old denominational magazine in favor of World. World is a news magazine, and the conclave is news. Reporting on it, and, for that matter, writing on why so many seem interested, is what news magazines do, even Christian ones.
I think my disappointment is that Brad Littlejohn, in this editorial piece, did not address more sharply and specifically the differences between what the Catholic Church promulgates as truth and the Truth of the Gospel as described in the New Testament.
For instance, Dr. Littlejohn says “ to the Protestant Reformers, Rome’s greatest fault was its spirit of innovation, manufacturing new doctrines not found in Scripture.” That is true but in a very toned down way. I think what the Reformers actually said was along the lines of “the just shall live by faith” whereas the Catholic Church teaches a gospel of works and compliance with the rules of the organization.
The Reformers taught the Scriptural precept that we can all access God directly through His Son in contrast to the Catholic view that salvation comes through the church and grace is meted out via sacraments performed by priests.
I guess I wished Dr. Littlejohn had said evangelicals may find pageantry and an air of authority and permanence in the Catholic Church but to do so requires turning at least 90 degrees away from the Truth of Scripture , particularly:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
You are, of course, correct in every point. But the fact remains that to the outside world, the Pope is the face of all Christianity. Even us Protestants should hope and pray for a Pope who will represent Christ well. Unlike the previous one, who often contradicted the Bible and Catholic doctrine.
I think the author is on to something in speaking about the evangelical interest in the pope. Yes, it has something to do with stability in a tradition that is often a flash in the pan with megachurches and unaffiliated nondenominational churches. (To which point I would suggest searching out your nearest Reformed Presbyterian church, which has a long history in the Reformed tradition.) But I think there is something more basic, more fundamental in the obsession with the so-called "vicar of Christ" — that is our basic human desire to worship a God and to have a king rule over us. To Americans, this seems silly. Yet looking at the rest of world history, it is clearly an impulse in human nature. The vast majority of nations have had a monarch to rule over them. Take for example the Israelites in 1 Samuel: They demanded a king to rule over them like all the nations (1 Sam 8:4). It wasn't just that they wanted a king — God says that they rejected Him as their king: "They have not rejected you [Samuel], but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them". When we demand a Pope, we are doing likewise — we are rejecting Christ's rightful rule over the church and demanding someone who will stand in his place (2 Thes 2:4). God has given us a King — he was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief having born our sins, and by his stripes we are healed. His name is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government there will be no end. Maybe protestants ought to be interested in the papal conclave — but only in the interest of the Reformation that was begun 500 years ago when Luther nailed those 95 theses on the chapel door in Wittenburg.
What is going on at the editorial board of World?
If my count is right, this is the third article in the past week that seems to embrace and positively portray Catholicism and only lightly discuss its promulgation of a different gospel. See Galatians 1:6-12.
Taking such a position seems to point to either a lack of knowledge of Scripture, or a lack of concern about what Scripture says, or a similar valuing of the opinion of a wider intellectual or political community more than the truth of the New Testament Gospel.
Two points make a line; three points confirm it. Sadly, I find myself asking, “Is World something different than I thought it was?”
Make it four: See Carl Trueman's piece in The World and Everything in It from this morning. Of all the authors, he should really know better. Of all the essays, though, his is the most definitive in making a contrast between those still protesting and the papists.
You might want to read it again. The writer was musing over why even Protestants are often interested in papal conclaves, & noted how rooted such events, Catholic writers, and the Catholic Church in general, are deeply rooted in tradition. I've met, and seen many more interviewed, people who have converted to Catholicism, and that is often the initial draw in this constantly changing world. That observation hardly qualifies as recommending Catholic teaching. I saw many comments like these when the Presbyterian Journal board folded the old denominational magazine in favor of World. World is a news magazine, and the conclave is news. Reporting on it, and, for that matter, writing on why so many seem interested, is what news magazines do, even Christian ones.
You make some good points. And I did re-read it.
I think my disappointment is that Brad Littlejohn, in this editorial piece, did not address more sharply and specifically the differences between what the Catholic Church promulgates as truth and the Truth of the Gospel as described in the New Testament.
For instance, Dr. Littlejohn says “ to the Protestant Reformers, Rome’s greatest fault was its spirit of innovation, manufacturing new doctrines not found in Scripture.” That is true but in a very toned down way. I think what the Reformers actually said was along the lines of “the just shall live by faith” whereas the Catholic Church teaches a gospel of works and compliance with the rules of the organization.
The Reformers taught the Scriptural precept that we can all access God directly through His Son in contrast to the Catholic view that salvation comes through the church and grace is meted out via sacraments performed by priests.
I guess I wished Dr. Littlejohn had said evangelicals may find pageantry and an air of authority and permanence in the Catholic Church but to do so requires turning at least 90 degrees away from the Truth of Scripture , particularly:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
You are, of course, correct in every point. But the fact remains that to the outside world, the Pope is the face of all Christianity. Even us Protestants should hope and pray for a Pope who will represent Christ well. Unlike the previous one, who often contradicted the Bible and Catholic doctrine.