Video: "The Future of Protestantism"

[Theocrat]

On April 29th, 2014, The Davenant Trust sponsored a forum on “The Future of Protestantism,” held at Biola University in California. Hosted by the Torrey Honors Institute there, and co-sponsored by the magazine First Things, the forum brought together Dr. Peter J. Leithart (Trinity House Institute, Birmingham, AL; New Saint Andrews College, Moscow, ID), Dr. Carl Trueman (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA), and Dr. Fred Sanders (Biola University, La Mirada, CA), to explore the following questions:

• What are the flaws of modern evangelical American Protestantism?
• Why are these shortcomings not reason, as many have argued, to convert to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy?
• How might Protestantism—particularly in America—need to change if it is to survive and thrive in the 21st century?

[Theocrat]

Here is the essay that sparked the whole conversation: "The End of Protestantism" by Dr. Peter J. Leithart.

Here is the response that it evoked: "Glad Protestantism" by Fred Sanders...as well as this one: "Reformation Day and Its Critics" by Peter Escalante.

[Theocrat]

I would like all of my Protestant and non-Protestant brothers and sisters to take some time to watch this engaging forum. I think it will give you some great insights about how Protestants can work with non-Protestants in the coming ages to shine the light of the Gospel to all of the world, while simultaneously addressing the issues which separate the two groups within the Body of Christ.

[Terry1]

First, something praiseworthy about Leithart’s “The End of Protestantism.” It’s very clear what he deplores. He deplores the kind of small-minded Protestant whose heroes are Luther and Calvin, and who has no other heroes in the 1500 years prior to them. He deplores the kind of knee-jerk Protestant who is locked into permanent reaction against whatever Roman Catholics do or say, and who enjoys setting up Roman strawmen (Vatican I, Catholic Encyclopedia vintage, if possible) to knock down. He deplores the kind of unimaginative Protestant who mocks patristic Bible interpretation and thinks that if the grammatical-historical mode of interpreting was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us. He deplores the kind of amnesiac Protestant who leaps from “Bible Times” to the Reformation, thinking he has skipped over nothing but bad guys in doing so.

This is all certainly deplorable. Where shall we find men of such denominational ressentiment? Mostly in “the local Baptist or Bible church,” but also among “conservative Presbyterians.” Leithart deplores a few other things, like preaching in a suit and tie instead of vestments, and a low sacramentology, but let’s stick for a moment to the historical outline of the portrait. Leithart calls us away from that kind of small-minded, knee-jerk, unimaginative, amnesiac man of ressentiment, and conjures instead something free and fully realized. He calls it Reformational Catholicism, and builds up its portrait in bright, not to say self-congratulatory, colors, in contrast to the dark tones he has just used.

I found this part of the article interesting in light of the fact that I truly believe that the way for the Calvinists to be enlightened is through their own wanting and desire to understand the first 1500 years of Christianity before them. It's very difficult for many of these people who subscribe to this doctrine to think or believe anything outside of it, because as we've seen, this doctrine has a very unique and distinctive way of holding it's subscribers hostage and in bondage to it through fear of what will happen to them if they abandon this belief.

It's not just Calvinism that does this either, there are other denominations that hold their subscribers hostage through the teaching that if they abandon that particular doctrine--they can not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So we first have to understand what's holding people back from wanting to think outside of their doctrinal boxes and why before we can begin to come together as one in the body of Christ. Let's not forget either that there is a devil at work in the world also and working very hard to deceive mankind through their own ignorance and corruption.

[pcosmar]

I ain't protesting anything but religion itself.

I long for the end of it. Not Reformation,, but elimination.

[Theocrat]

I found this part of the article interesting in light of the fact that I truly believe that the way for the Calvinists to be enlightened is through their own wanting and desire to understand the first 1500 years of Christianity before them. It's very difficult for many of these people who subscribe to this doctrine to think or believe anything outside of it, because as we've seen, this doctrine has a very unique and distinctive way of holding it's subscribers hostage and in bondage to it through fear of what will happen to them if they abandon this belief.

It's not just Calvinism that does this either, there are other denominations that hold their subscribers hostage through the teaching that if they abandon that particular doctrine--they can not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So we first have to understand what's holding people back from wanting to think outside of their doctrinal boxes and why before we can begin to come together as one in the body of Christ. Let's not forget either that there is a devil at work in the world also and working very hard to deceive mankind through their own ignorance and corruption.

Despite all of the controversy it may have sparked in Reformed circles, I really enjoyed Dr. Leithart's essay. In terms that he uses in that essay, I would definitely consider myself as a "Reformational Catholic."

[Terry1]

Through my own studies, prayer and experiences, I have found that what the Apostle Paul said is so true. Paul called himself "a free man in Christ". Paul also said that he became all things to all men that he might win souls to Christ.

Examining these scriptures and with the understanding I already had about being blown about by the winds of doctrine. I began to see what Paul was talking about. Paul was talking about being so free and liberated in Christ for the purpose of winning souls that he actually said and did many things contrary to the gospel to win souls to Christ. Paul didn't do these things because he actually believed in them, but did them in respect to the people to draw then closer to the witness of Christ. When I mention that Paul said and did things contrary to the gospel of Christ for the purpose of winning souls, I mean that Paul respected their customs and traditions when he went into a place to witness to them. This did not mean that Paul was practicing them because he believed them, but because in order to gain any respect from the people to draw them into the truth and witness of Christ--Paul first had to show them respect for what they were currently believing.

So when Paul said that he became all things to all men to win souls for Christ--this is how free Paul knew he was in Christ to lead the sheep home to the Lord--God knowing Paul's heart and intentions.

So in other words, I know it's important that we respect each others beliefs and show them kindness and love before we can draw them into the knowledge and wisdom of Gods plan and purpose within the body of Christ as a whole. It is nothing more or less than blind ignorance that holds people in bondage to a particular doctrine who do not understand that God exists outside of mans own interpretations and doctrines. The only doctrine that the Apostles taught was the Gospel of Jesus Christ--they didn't have the written word of the New Testament--they were the mouth of God creating the written word.

[Terry1]

Despite all of the controversy it may have sparked in Reformed circles, I really enjoyed Dr. Leithart's essay. In terms that he uses in that essay, I would definitely consider myself as a "Reformational Catholic."

I enjoyed reading his essay too. He really does bring a lot of issues to light that need to be given credit and thought. Because I really didn't get that he was asking that people abandon their doctrines that they have subscribed to, but give more respect to the 1500 years of Christianity and those traditions that existed long before the reformation.

[Terry1]

The other problem I see with Protestantism is that they are completely diverse from one another with the body of themselves as a whole. The number of Protestant denominations varies anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 different denominations whose doctrines all differ from one another from one degree to another depending upon the source and count. Needless to say--that there are so many different Protestant denominations that the only common denominator they have is their aversion to the Catholic faith, despite the fact that most of them can't agree on doctrinal issue between themselves.

Although I believe that it's a noble effort in hope to bring Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants together under one umbrella as the body of Christ as whole, I see little hope of this happening in reality.

[Theocrat]

The other problem I see with Protestantism is that they are completely diverse from one another with the body of themselves as a whole. The number of Protestant denominations varies anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 different denominations whose doctrines all differ from one another from one degree to another depending upon the source and count. Needless to say--that there are so many different Protestant denominations that the only common denominator they have is their aversion to the Catholic faith, despite the fact that most of them can't agree on doctrinal issue between themselves.

Although I believe that it's a noble effort in hope to bring Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants together under one umbrella as the body of Christ as whole, I see little hope of this happening in reality.

What you're addressing there is an issue that I believe Paul was reminding the Corinthian church about in 1 Corinthians 12. I think sometimes we Protestants forget that there are other church members from other denominations who complement us on some doctrines and issues that we could use help in.

[Theocrat]

I ain't protesting anything but religion itself.

I long for the end of it. Not Reformation,, but elimination.

Everyone is religious, my brother. The important thing is to know whether you are part of true religion, or false religion.

[heavenlyboy34]

Everyone is religious, my brother. The important thing is to know whether you are part of true religion, or false religion.

+rep

[pcosmar]

Everyone is religious, my brother. The important thing is to know whether you are part of true religion, or false religion.

My Faith is in God the Father,, Creator of All that is,, and in Jesus Christ his son , Who died and shed his blood as a sacrifice for sin. And who rose again to defeat Death and who sits on the Right hand of the Father.

I do not follow men,,
None follow me. Nor would I want them to.

I am a believer,, I have no religion.

[Nang]

Despite all of the controversy it may have sparked in Reformed circles, I really enjoyed Dr. Leithart's essay. In terms that he uses in that essay, I would definitely consider myself as a "Reformational Catholic."

I just saw this thread, and will be upfront with you Theo.

The Federal Vision movement is the worst thing to ever happen to the Reformed Faith, and as much as you and I will agree on some of the basic doctrines, I cannot identify with you or befriend you as I first thought I could, because of your support of these men. I consider them to be instrumental in attempting to lure Presbyterians and some Reformed Baptists to back to Roman Catholic beliefs.* In my evaluation, they are false teachers who oppose Justification By Faith, Alone.

I will not discuss the errors here, because I refuse to give them audience . . even on a non-Reformed forum.

My husband and I have followed these developments for years, and have sorely grieved over what has happened in our greatest seminaries, and what is happening in the visible churches this day.

*I note the endorsement you received from HB. Such is understandable for you are talking his language.

[Sola_Fide]

Theo, as much as I respect your keen insight into other things, I am with Nang in that I see Federal Visionism as an assault on the doctrine of justification by faith.

It is a shame to the PCA that they haven't defrocked Pete Liethart. They are turning a blind eye to the clear and present dangers of Federal Visionism.

[Theocrat]

My Faith is in God the Father,, Creator of All that is,, and in Jesus Christ his son , Who died and shed his blood as a sacrifice for sin. And who rose again to defeat Death and who sits on the Right hand of the Father.

I do not follow men,,
None follow me. Nor would I want them to.

I am a believer,, I have no religion.

I say "Amen" to the first part of your reply. However, the Gospel message was handed down to you from other men in history (guided by the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, of course), and without which, you would not have heard the Gospel and believed it (cf. Romans 10:14-15). So, in a sense, you are following men. Salvation is not just individualistic; you are saved into union with Christ and into fellowship with His Body, which is the Church (cf. 1 Corinthians 12). Even the apostle John makes this clear in 1 John 1:

That which was from the beginning, Which we have heard, Which we have seen with our eyes, Which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of life (for the Life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness and show unto you that eternal Life, Which was with the Father and was manifested unto us) that Which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and, truly, our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

This then is the message which we have heard of Him and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

Your faith in God is not a work of your own, pcosmar. You are a member of the Body of Christ, His Church, and as such, your religion is attached to the Head of that Body, Jesus Christ Himself.

[Christian Liberty]

I just saw this thread, and will be upfront with you Theo.

The Federal Vision movement is the worst thing to ever happen to the Reformed Faith, and as much as you and I will agree on some of the basic doctrines, I cannot identify with you or befriend you as I first thought I could, because of your support of these men. I consider them to be instrumental in attempting to lure Presbyterians and some Reformed Baptists to back to Roman Catholic beliefs.* In my evaluation, they are false teachers who oppose Justification By Faith, Alone.

I will not discuss the errors here, because I refuse to give them audience . . even on a non-Reformed forum.

My husband and I have followed these developments for years, and have sorely grieved over what has happened in our greatest seminaries, and what is happening in the visible churches this day.

*I note the endorsement you received from HB. Such is understandable for you are talking his language.

Two things:

First of all, why is being friends with a person contingent on their doctrinal orthodoxy? I cannot endorse theo as a doctrinally orthodox teacher, despite his sound grasp of many theological concepts, because of this issue. From my understanding; federal vision is a false gospel. But I don't see how this precludes one from being on friendly terms IF one is willing to have the hard conversations without being offended. I haven't chosen to make enemies with anyone here, rather some people have been so offended by the preaching of the true gospel that they have chosen to make me an enemy. I haven't experienced this with Theo as of yet.

Second of all, I see nothing wrong with debunking false teachers, whether here or anywhere else. I'd like to learn more about this issue and would greatly value your explaining the issues. This doesn't mean you are accepting these false teachers or "giving them audience", rather you are warning people of their teachings.

[Christian Liberty]

Theo, as much as I respect your keen insight into other things, I am with Nang in that I see Federal Visionism as an assault on the doctrine of justification by faith.

It is a shame to the PCA that they haven't defrocked Pete Liethart. They are turning a blind eye to the clear and present dangers of Federal Visionism.

I don't really understand Presbyterian ecclesiology, but SHOULDN'T this be something Liethart's local church deals with?

[heavenlyboy34]

I say "Amen" to the first part of your reply. However, the Gospel message was handed down to you from other men in history (guided by the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, of course), and without which, you would not have heard the Gospel and believed it (cf. Romans 10:14-15). So, in a sense, you are following men. Salvation is not just individualistic; you are saved into union with Christ and into fellowship with His Body, which is the Church (cf. 1 Corinthians 12). Even the apostle John makes this clear in 1 John 1:



Your faith in God is not a work of your own, pcosmar. You are a member of the Body of Christ, His Church, and as such, your religion is attached to the Head of that Body, Jesus Christ Himself.

This^^ (though I think for now we'll have to agree to disagree on how to properly define "His Church". ~hugs~ )

[Theocrat]

I just saw this thread, and will be upfront with you Theo.

The Federal Vision movement is the worst thing to ever happen to the Reformed Faith, and as much as you and I will agree on some of the basic doctrines, I cannot identify with you or befriend you as I first thought I could, because of your support of these men. I consider them to be instrumental in attempting to lure Presbyterians and some Reformed Baptists to back to Roman Catholic beliefs.* In my evaluation, they are false teachers who oppose Justification By Faith, Alone.

I will not discuss the errors here, because I refuse to give them audience . . even on a non-Reformed forum.

My husband and I have followed these developments for years, and have sorely grieved over what has happened in our greatest seminaries, and what is happening in the visible churches this day.

*I note the endorsement you received from HB. Such is understandable for you are talking his language.

Theo, as much as I respect your keen insight into other things, I am with Nang in that I see Federal Visionism as an assault on the doctrine of justification by faith.

It is a shame to the PCA that they haven't defrocked Pete Liethart. They are turning a blind eye to the clear and present dangers of Federal Visionism.

I agree with much of the theological discussions within the "Federal Vision," but I do not oppose "justification by faith," neither do I see it as leading men "towards Rome." As a matter of fact, most of the men I know who are sympathetic to the "Federal Vision" are not opposed to "justification by faith," and they have many issues with Roman Catholic theology. The important thing about "justification by faith," though, is that the Bible has more to say about it than our Reformed confessions, creeds, and catechisms have expressed. But even so, "Federal Vision" is much more than about "justification by faith." If anything, it focuses more on the "objectivity of the New Covenant."

I really would like to know how much of their writings and talks that you've read and listened to, because when you say such things, it reveals to me that you are getting your information from second-hand sources.

[Sola_Fide]

This^^ (though I think for now we'll have to agree to disagree on how to properly define "His Church". ~hugs~ )

What is this "hugs" stuff all the time? It's kind of feminine.

[Nang]

I don't really understand Presbyterian ecclesiology, but SHOULDN'T this be something Liethart's local church deals with?

Friend,

This is such a profound tragedy that is occurring within the Presbyterian churches, that unless one is totally informed of its history and aims, one should not offer any suggestions or solutions.

IOW's, skip this battle, but be on guard for this error infiltrating your Baptist church. There are actually teams of people who deliberately infiltrate unknowing churches, to spread this FV poison. Check out all newcomers, carefully.

As far as being friends . . this matter goes beyond doctrinal disputes and differences. Befriending or identifying with this movement, in my view, would be like befriending Satan, for these people are destroying, bit by bit, in the name of orthodoxy, the Presbyterian seminaries and churches . . simply because they come across so confessional that they are not confronted and shamed by the members, as they should be.

[Theocrat]

Two things:

First of all, why is being friends with a person contingent on their doctrinal orthodoxy? I cannot endorse theo as a doctrinally orthodox teacher, despite his sound grasp of many theological concepts, because of this issue. From my understanding; federal vision is a false gospel. But I don't see how this precludes one from being on friendly terms IF one is willing to have the hard conversations without being offended. I haven't chosen to make enemies with anyone here, rather some people have been so offended by the preaching of the true gospel that they have chosen to make me an enemy. I haven't experienced this with Theo as of yet.

Second of all, I see nothing wrong with debunking false teachers, whether here or anywhere else. I'd like to learn more about this issue and would greatly value your explaining the issues. This doesn't mean you are accepting these false teachers or "giving them audience", rather you are warning people of their teachings.

And, once again, how much of the "Federal Vision" discussion have you read and/or listened to, FF? It's one thing to call something "false teaching" when you provide examples of it, comparing it with God's word. But it's another thing, entirely, to call something "false teaching" when you have no information to back that claim up. SO, as of now, you're just speaking in ignorance (just as Sola and Nang are).

[Nang]

I agree with much of the theological discussions within the "Federal Vision," but I do not oppose "justification by faith," neither do I see it as leading men "towards Rome." As a matter of fact, most of the men I know who are sympathetic to the "Federal Vision" are not opposed to "justification by faith," and they have many issues with Roman Catholic theology. The important thing about "justification by faith," though, is that the Bible has more to say about it than our Reformed confessions, creeds, and catechisms have expressed. But even so, "Federal Vision" is much more than about "justification by faith." If anything, it focuses more on the "objectivity of the New Covenant."



I really would like to know how much of their writings and talks that you've read and listened to, because when you say such things, it reveals to me that you are getting your information from second-hand sources.

I will not discuss this with you. Here or elsewhere.

But I will remind people here of your agenda (mod delete) if you continue posting videos or throwing out these names.

[Theocrat]

Friend,

This is such a profound tragedy that is occurring within the Presbyterian churches, that unless one is totally informed of its history and aims, one should not offer any suggestions or solutions.

IOW's, skip this battle, but be on guard for this error infiltrating your Baptist church. There are actually teams of people who deliberately infiltrate unknowing churches, to spread this FV poison. Check out all newcomers, carefully.

As far as being friends . . this matter goes beyond doctrinal disputes and differences. Befriending or identifying with this movement, in my view, would be like befriending Satan, for these people are destroying, bit by bit, in the name of orthodoxy, the Presbyterian seminaries and churches . . simply because they come across so confessional that they are not confronted and shamed by the members, as they should be.

Oh, I see. So, because I believe in many of the doctrinal precepts within the "Federal Vision" discussion, that makes me a child of Satan.

And where is your Biblical evidence for such a claim?

[Nang]

And, once again, how much of the "Federal Vision" discussion have you read and/or listened to, FF? It's one thing to call something "false teaching" when you provide examples of it, comparing it with God's word. But it's another thing, entirely, to call something "false teaching" when you have no information to back that claim up. SO, as of now, you're just speaking in ignorance (just as Sola and Nang are).

I do not speak in ignorance . . . how dare you so accuse me of speaking of what I know not.

Such wickedness!

[Theocrat]

I will not discuss this with you. Here or elsewhere.

But I will remind people here of your agenda (mod delete) if you continue posting videos or throwing out these names.

Why not? This is the perfect thread to discuss the subject, after all. What are you afraid of, my sister?

[Nang]

Why not? This is the perfect thread to discuss the subject, after all. What are you afraid of, my sister?

I refuse to be your accomplice. That simple.

And I will consider any and every taunt, such as the above, as verification of (mod delete)

[Sola_Fide]

Theo, I am very aware of Federal Visionism. We talked about a while ago in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ight=visionism

[Sola_Fide]

Why not? This is the perfect thread to discuss the subject, after all. What are you afraid of, my sister?

In a nutshell, Federal Vision denies justification by faith by saying that covenant faithfulness (not Christ's works) are the final basis of justification.