The Death of a Pope

There's nothing quite like the death of a Pope to bring out the ugly side of some Reformed folks.

In case you hadn't heard, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, passed away recently. If you're friends on Facebook with a certain type of Presbyterian, you would have been informed by the gleeful declaration that another antichrist had been taken from the Earth. No, I'm not joking...I had multiple Facebook friends confidently declaring, and reveling in the fact, that the deceased Pope is currently burning in the fires of Hell.

Now, just to be clear, my view of the Roman Catholic Church is that it is a valid Christian tradition that has fallen into significant theological error (the same could, of course, be said about many or all Christian traditions). I would not personally be comfortable joining a Roman Catholic parish. However, I would also not be comfortable declaring that all members of that tradition are unsaved. There is a huge difference between a Christian tradition, like the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Reformed Church, and cults like Mormonism, The Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

So, as I read a variety of posts by these Presbyterian and Reformed folks, I was saddened. I was certainly not surprised, having heard the same exact thing when Pope John Paul II passed away, but I was disappointed, both by the content and the form of the attacks. I was left with these three thoughts.

Firstly, we should not be so quick to judge. Something about having a social media account makes people think their opinion matters (like having a blog, I suppose), and this can be particularly repulsive when the condition of a man's soul is under consideration. Yes, the Bible calls us to make certain judgements. Yes, our Savior did say that we will know people by their fruit. Nevertheless, we, especially regular, Joe Schmo types with little or no spiritual authority, should be cautious about making unequivocal declarations about the eternal resting place of other men who have claimed the name of Christ, especially when those people were Bishops of the Patriarchate of Rome.

Secondly, regardless of the Pope's spiritual condition, reveling in the death of anyone is ugly. In fact, it is particularly ugly when the person engaged in said reveling believes that the deceased party passed in a state of unbelief. We should not glory in the demise of sinners gone to Hell. If you believe that Pope Benedict is in Hell, you should be sad, not overjoyed. The eternal perdition of any man should be a cause for serious, sober reflection, not sarcastic Facebook posts designed to draw attention to yourself.

Thirdly and finally, these outspoken Reformed brothers should consider the implications of their own theology. The Five Solas would seem to indicate that perfect theology is not necessary for salvation. In fact, Sola Fide especially implies that faith, even weak, ill-informed faith, is salvific. In other words, Sola Fide itself implies that one need not believe or understand Sola Fide in order to be saved. No one has perfect theology, of course. I think, I would hope, that we would all be humble enough to acknowledge our own theological finitude and fallibility. So who gets to decide what the right amount of correct theology is? Do you have to have 50% right? 75%? 25%? When put in these terms, we can understand how silly such a question is.

The Apostle said, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Pope Benedict certainly did that. Certainly, our faith must have content. Saving faith must be informed faith, to some degree, but who determines what that degree is? I certainly don't have an answer to that question, and I'm not sure anyone does. In my estimation, the best standard available is the great Tradition of the Faith as expressed in the great Creeds of the Church. So, if you hold to the Faith once handed down, I will call you brother or sister. We can have theological disagreements, even over significant matters, but I will still count you as a member of Christ's body. If you can say the Apostles' Creed with me, I will share the Table with you.

Put simply, I believe that the grace of God can overcome imperfect theology. For my own sake, I am banking on it.

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion . It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate. Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC. I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC. I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did. So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical. Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion. However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table. One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table. You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation. Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward. 1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup. This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree. Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations. As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae. Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict. What does it mean? Who may partake? What do we call it? These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts. Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention. PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it. I underst...

Always Reforming

Search This Blog