J. Robert (Bob) Ewbank’s book “John Wesley, Natural Man, and the ‘Isms’ has been published. The ‘Isms’ are Heathenism, Judaism, Deism, Roman Catholicism, Quakerism, and Mysticism. The questions being answered are: how does each of them differ from John Wesley’s idea of True Christianity, and what are the prospects for those holding these views being saved.

Written for the layperson as well as the scholar, there is a Study Guide in the back of the book to help individual or group study. The Guide has questions in the front, which are answered later in the Guide.

Bob has a B.A. from Baker University in Baldwin, Kansas and an M.A. from Garrett-Evangelical. He is currently Lay Leader of St. Mark UMC, in Mobile, AL.

Bishop Rueben P. Job of the United Methodist Church has written some kind words on the back cover.

To find the book go on the internet to:

1. http://www.wipfandstock.com (Wipf and Stock) For your information, the book is $23.00 at bookstores, but at the web site it is only $18.40
2. The book is now available at Barnes and Noble, Books-a-Million, Cokesbury, WJE at Yale (The Jonathan Edwards Center), Kalahari.net, Paddyfield.com and Amazon.com among others.

Also readThe Transforming Power of Grace by Thomas C. Oden – powerful.

Michael,

I do have a blog called “Solus Christus”.

Here’s the url:

http://jybnntt.blogspot.com/

Jay

Jay, once again, you have given some food for thought. You need a blog! This is great.

While I would not, at this point, articulate these issues the way you do (e.g. anti-Christ, false Gospel), I do agree with your basic conclusions and concerns about these other traditions.

I am sorry that my question seemed to suggest something that I did not mean. I know that you have never suggested that these people, by their traditional associations, are going to hell. But I do appreciate you reiterating this.

God bless my friend.

Michael,

I would never and have never considered any person anti-christ. Nor have I during this discussion, or to the best of my knowledge ever, rendered anyone damned to hell. I just don’t think that is my place. I think I’ve said this several times in my previous comments.

Evaluating the human heart is difficult. In fact, I believe it can only be done perfectly and finally by the Holy Spirit, even with regard to one’s own heart. So for me to claim to be able to do that is, in my view, idolatry (got that from John Owen somewhere).

But I think it is possible to evaluate written dogma, confessions of faith. Throughout this conversation I have tried to be very careful with my language so as to only be evaluating Roman Catholicism (contrary to Ferris Beuler I think -ism’s are very important) . That’s why when I posed the question to Dr. Burns I made the distinction between Ratzinger himself and the office of the papacy. The office is, in my estimation anti-Christ (against Christ, taking the place of Christ, the only mediator between God and man). I suppose there is reason to believe that the person holding the office probably believes in his office, but its not my place to evaluate Ratzinger’s heart. I would be fine questioning his reason for assurance of salvation based upon his confession, but not his salvation itself.

That being said, with regard to your question, if I am not familiar with the Church of Christ’s confessional statement. But I understand that the denomination is the product of the Barton Stone-Alexander Campbel restorationist movement. That movement tended, I think, away from recognizing dogma. So, in that case I suppose the system, if there is any real consistent system, would be difficult to evaluate. Of course, that is not the case at all with Roman Catholicism, which has a very well developed and re-developed dogma.

The Arminian system (not as you worded it “Arminians” themselves) however is, I think, fundamentally dogmatized in The Remonstrance. I don’t think think any man is lifted up to the point of officially taking the place of Christ over his Church in that document, so I would not consider it as including an office of anti-christ. However, I do think the rulings of the Synod of Dordt against it are correct. In my estimation the Arminian system, as dogmatized in The Remonstrance is fundamentally false, even a false gospel.

Could someone be saved in the atmospheres of Arminian, Church of Christ, or Roman Catholicism? I don’t doubt it. But that is not the question.

This brings us back to one of the main points of Dr. Wallace’s post “51% protestant.” Dr. Wallace, who I respect deeply, suggested that Roman Catholics and Protestants had no major soteriological differences. He did that by sharing a personal story about meeting a Roman Catholic who shared many of his same doctrinal views. Then he suggested that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (of which the Reformed tradition is a part) share basically the same views of salvation by grace alone and justification by faith. Finally he questioned why, since someone could be saved in the Roman Catholic church, we are so separated. All to the end that Protestants and Catholics be willing to dialogue in love.

While I completely agree with his end, I think the means he used to get there are not quite true.

I don’t mean to be the disagreeable one. I don’t orchestrate my life around the enterprise of argumentation. And I don’t think I am prone to raise banners, yell battle cries, rally the troops, and go to war. I know there are guys that do that in every tradition, and they have their place, but I’m just not that interested in spending my time obsessed with doing that. Nonetheless, I do think this is an issue worth discussing in a spirit of peacemaking. I appreciate your encouraging compliments and reciprocate them.

Thanks for the great continuing discussion Michael.

Jay

Thanks Jay. Good comments. I do respect Burns as well. I will have to think about this.

One question: Would you consider either Arminians or the Church of Christ anti-Christ?

Thanks for your continued gracious contributions. You are a sharp guy!

C Michael Patton,

I appreciate your analogy from marriage very much. I believe marriage is analogous to almost every aspect of social life, and it certainly has application here. However, I think there are a couple of differences I would have with it (I’m sure everyone is surprised)

First, the idea that “both sides are committed to the same person” is I think false. I remember being very surprised when I asked Dr. Burns point blank in his ST elective on Roman Catholicism at DTS: “The Westminster Confession says that the office of the papacy is Antichrist, do you agree with its assessment?” His reply: “I agree that it is antichrist with a little ‘a.’” Though I completely agree with him, I was surprised and rather pleased to see a professor, a scholar take such a stand and be so clear. You know Dr. Burns. He is one of the most gracious, most kind men I think I’ve ever met. But graciousness and kindness must not necessarily yield indecision for the sake of “toleration” in every circumstance. Especially when so much is at stake.

Second, the analogy pictures the situation as to people simply having a misunderstanding where each “side” has drifted from the center somewhat. While I don’t think Reformed Protestantism is perfectly centered on the truth, I agree with you that it is the closest the church has come (this is not intended to be a judgment levied at Christianity prior to the Reformation as if truth was finally discovered then [cf. comment #62 and 63 at "51% Protestant"]). I also believe that Roman Catholicism has fundamentally moved off-center so that it is no longer attached to it. But Roman Catholicism does not see itself as having drifted from the truth at all. Sure the Vatican II and the CCC call for unity, but unity subsist in the Catholic Church. The call for unity there is simply a call to return “home.” See comment #59 at “51% Protestant.” For a fuller explanation with citations from the CCC and Vatican II.

Thanks Michael!

Jay

[...] even have a raft for casual floating or a fishing license were I tempted. The point of my last blog (which followed Dan’s post on the same subject) has been for Protestants (and Catholics) to [...]

Scott, I could not agree with you more. I am floating in the same boat as you (although not on the Tiber ).

Dan has started something that is very helpful here and I am, as I have always been extremely grateful for his willingness to engage these issues even though he will get hanged by some.

Thanks for the encouragment.

Michael-

Re: your exchange with jybnnt – I agree with what you are saying. And I don’t think the “gentleness and understanding” you speak of necessarily signals a bow to the postmodern mindset.

I entered TTP as a 4-point Calvinist who was willing to openly question the salvation of just about anyone who disagreed with me – despite my Christian immaturity. Today I’m still a 4-point Calvinist but I find myself challenging my own beliefs more than I do that of others. Perhaps that’s a natural part of the growth of an immature believer – but I think too there is some merit to having that mindset. And I would draw the analogy between that scenario and Jesus speaking of the minds of children.

I can’t ever foresee myself converting to Roman Catholicism as Dr Beckwith has – but I also don’t question his heart or judge him for having done so. And I do believe that Dan has shed some valuable light on what we can learn from these other “brands”, especially since they are rooted in the same tradition in which Protestantism is. Maybe the greatest thing I learned from Dan is that we maybe tend to stereotype Roman Catholic believers as actually adhering to the Catechisms, etc – when I myself must admit that I have many RC friends who I might label as evangelical catholics who have no idea what the catechisms even say (and I’m not condoning their misunderstanding of their own faith any more than I condone Protestants for misunderstanding their own).

When I started TTP I was pretty certain of my beliefs on a wide array of theological topics. I am less certain now – and I think that’s OK, maybe even desirable. And I think that the humbleness that comes with being a little less certain helps us to learn and grow in the faith – while also aiding in irenic dialogue with those whom we disagree.

So I for one look forward to more friendly discussion on this topic – and am extremely thankful that Dan Wallace took time to share his experiences with us, along with how it has provided him with some new perspective.

Blessings,
Scott

jybnnt,

I think I see what you are saying. You are right, many people have been rather polemic throughout the history of the Church and this has been a good thing from time to time. I don’t think anyone is necessarily arguing against the need for polemics in certain situations. But I think that this situation requires gentleness and understanding for now.

I like to think of it like a marriage. Both sides are committed to the same person. In a fight, there may be a right and wrong and there may be reasons sometimes for divorce. But more often than not, bad marriages are caused by bad communication. While we have tried the divorce thing for 400 years, now that the heat of the fight has worn off, we are coming back, rethinking, and wondering if we overreacted and miscommunicated some things. Once the smoke clears we have to ask ourselves if the differences are really so bad that divorce is still necessary.

I don’t have the answers, but as I have said before, this is where I am at . . . wondering and discussing.

Who knows, maybe that illustration stinks, but I hope you get the point.

Michael