[Vision2020] Doug Wilson: Anti-Catholic

[News of Christ Cult]

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/11/quasi-anti-catholicism-baptism-as.html
Quasi-Anti-Catholicism & Baptism as Minimalist Cause of Catholic Inclusion
in the Covenant / Mary to be Promoted to the Godhead? (vs. Douglas
Wilson) *Sunday,
November 07, 2004*

Lately, with the much-ballyhooed debate between two Reformed Protestants:
Douglas Wilson and "Dr." [?] James White, concerning whether Catholics are
Christians or not, renewed discussion on the legitimacy of Catholic baptism
(and thus, no need for rebaptism of a convert to Protestantism) has arisen
in Protestant (particularly, Reformed) circles. Wilson says Catholic baptism
is valid, while White denies it (but of course, White is a *Baptist*, so he
would deny the validity of *all* infant baptism, including all Reformed and
other Protestant varieties). Wilson thus asserts that Catholics are part of
the "Covenant community" and therefore, "brethren in Christ," while White
denies that also. Both men try to enlist the "Reformers" in support of their
positions (I believe Wilson is backed-up to a greater degree by the
historical facts than White is, in this regard).

What interests me the most, however (as an ecumenical Catholic and opposer
of anti-Catholicism) is how *little* (not how *much*) the more "ecumenical"
side is willing to grant to the Catholic Church. So we are "brethren in
Christ" and can be called "Christians." That's surely worth *something*, and
is a considerable improvement. But when one looks at the overall context and
opinions of those (at least this one person: Douglas Wilson) making these
"concessions," it is clear that they can still be categorized as
"quasi-anti-Catholics," if not anti-Catholics (since the most widely-used
definition amongst Catholics and historians and sociologists of all stripes
is one whereby it means that Catholicism is considered a sub-Christian faith
altogether).

I have found this to be true of both Calvin and Luther also, in the course
of my studies on this issue. They may acknowledge baptism, yet on the other
hand, they maintain the whole range of arguments against Catholicism, based
on a host of misunderstandings and incoherent examinations, both
theologically and historically. In other words, they hold to a *
contradictory* position, whereas true-blue anti-Catholics are at least *
consistent* (though far more *wrong* and distant from the overall truth of
the matter, insofar as they hold to more falsehoods and errors).

Despite the "minimalistic" (too often quite condescending and patronizing)
acceptance of Catholicism on a bare-bones level as Christian, these men
state in a hundred different ways that the complete system of Catholic
theology is abominable, idolatrous, etc. This is especially true in Calvin's
opinion on the Sacrifice of the Mass (and to a lesser extent, Luther's), and
both men's reactions to the communion of the saints. It goes without saying
that both had a very dim understanding of Catholic soteriology, thus leading
to a host of distortions and straw men that have plagued that discussion
ever since.

But my immediate point is to reiterate that even with the concessions of
this relatively more "ecumenical" position, it is still far closer to
outright anti-Catholicism in spirit than to a full-fledged ecumenism such as
that seen in Vatican II and the ECT statements and the ongoing
Lutheran-Catholic discussions. Luther, Calvin, and men like Douglas Wilson
and those who call themselves "Reformed Catholics" today still
(generally-speaking) view Catholics as fundamentally "lesser" (often
accomplanied by much sheer prejudice and ignorance) in a way that they would
not view fellow Protestants. They treat scarcely any other Protestant group
with the suspicion and apprehension that they bring with them when they
approach Catholics.

It seemingly largely remains the case that whoever is a "true Christian" in
Catholic circles, must be so *despite* all of Rome's "errors." They are
Christian insofar as they sound like good evangelicals or Reformed
Protestants. They can't be a good Christian by being a good (orthodox)
Catholic. And that is the condescension and difference in how Catholics are
regarded, over against other species of Protestants, by* both* schools (who
are denating each other presently). I shall show examples of how Douglas
Wilson regards Catholics in his recent opening statement in the debate
<http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=560>mentioned
above (his words will be in blue), and then give a few examples from Luther
(green) and Calvin ( red). Bracketed comments are my interjections:

Before proceeding to my argument, I would like to begin with an assertion so
there will be no confusion about my position concerning the Church of Rome.
I detest the errors of Rome, and I pray for the day of her repentance. Among
those errors I would include the idolatry of the Mass, the use of images in
worship, their profound confusion on the matter of faith and works,
Purgatory, Mariolatry, merit, the saints, the papacy, and much more. In
preparation for this debate, I read James White's book *The Roman Catholic
Controversy*, which I thought was quite good. Judging from that book, I do
not know of any *distinctive* Roman doctrine concerning which James White
and I would disagree.


[note that he accuses Catholics of idolatry in three ways: the Mass, and
veneration of images and of Mary]

I want to begin by setting a scriptural pattern, and I want to show how this
pattern can be seen as culminating in a specific apostolic warning to the
Church at Rome, which is the subject of our proposition being debated
tonight.

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who
hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done
despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:29)

The book of Hebrews was written to a new covenant people, and it was written
in order to head off a looming apostasy. That is what the entire book is
about.


[Thus Wilson equates institutional Catholicism with an apostate *
organization* supposedly being discussed here, with scarcely any warrant
from the immediate textual considerations]

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same
spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank
of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But
with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the
wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not
lust after evil things, as they also lusted (1 Cor. 10:1-6)

In short,* our* fathers are *our* examples, and with a number of them God
was *not* well pleased. But what does all this have to do with the Roman
Catholic Church? Rome has fallen into the errors it has because she has
refused to heed the warning explicitly given by the apostle Paul to that
specific church-a warning very much like the ones we have just been
considering.

[Isn't this a wonderfully edifying and ecumenical sentiment? Wilson casually
assumes that Paul was discussing the historic Catholic Church here. He
doesn't prove it; he merely assumes it. In so doing, Catholics are equated
in moral and discipleship terms with the disobedient Jews in the wilderness,
and those who lust after evil]

The apostle Paul saw (with remarkable prescience) that the Church at Rome
was going to be a problem, and he addressed it forthrightly. And the only
thing that is more remarkable than the Church of Rome ignoring these Pauline
warnings aimed
straight at her besetting sins is that fact that Protestants have also
largely ignored the fact that these warning were directed at Rome.

[he goes on to cite Rom. 11:16-22]

[I submit, rather, that the quasi-anti-Catholic Douglas Wilson argues with
remarkably circular logic and eisegetically . . . ]

In the past I have maintained (although I cannot find *where* I said this)
that Rome was guilty of a final apostasy at Trent, where in solemn
ecumenical council she anathematized any who faithfully held the biblical
gospel. This is no longer my position, and if my worthy opponent has found a
quotation of mine that says this, and returns to this point to press me with
it, I will merely say, "I changed my mind, and it is a practice I commend to
you." It is nevertheless still my position that what happened at Trent *
deserved* removal from the olive tree, that is, from the catholic church.
But I am now convinced that such a removal has not yet occurred. God does
not always give us what we deserve.

[Absolutely* classic* example of a distinction without a difference . . .
Further comment -- and I could make several -- would be entirely superfluous
and an insult to readers' intelligence]

The Roman church is shot through with theological liberalism, which Machen
correctly identified as another religion entirely.

[As if Protestantism *isn't*? But the crucial *difference* is that
liberalism (which we received from our Protestant brethren in the first
place as an extrinsic "hostile worldview") has not been enshrined or
legitimized or *sanctioned* in Catholic *dogma* to the *slightest degree*,
whereas we see Protestant denominations -- most notably, Anglicanism
(particularlt in England and America) -- *institutionally* changing,
compromising, and caving to liberalism all over the place. Therefore, this
criticism is far more damaging to Protestantism and its faulty principles of
authority which have arguably caused the massive institutional apostasy of
Protestant liberalism, than to the Catholic Church]

Couple this with feminism, the appeal of Mariolatry to the natural man, and
it is quite possible that Mary will eventually get her big promotion, and
people will be baptized into the name of a Quaternity.

[Oh, *really*? Now Wilson lowers himself to the surreally ridiculous levels
of an Eric Svendsen or David T. King. Mary (it is "quite possible") is to be
promoted to membership into the Godhead and the Holy Trinity. Wow; it's
weird that I, as a Catholic apologist, have completely *missed* this turn of
events . . . Wilson has now lost all credibility in my opinion, as any sort
of "expert" on Catholicism. This is shocking and saddening to me, as I
thought some progress was being made. But at least this (rather
spectacularly) proves my point about ignorance, distortion, and so forth.
Who cares if he acknowledges our baptism, if he can argue on an absurd level
like this, and have these ludicrous views of Catholic Mariology? To make
matters worse (and more illogical) Wilson tries to place this in the context
of an encroaching *liberalism*. But it is precisely liberalism which
cares *less
and less* about Mary (let alone Marian dogmas). The ones who are devoted to
the Blessed Virgin and development of Mariology are the
*orthodox*Catholics: who would be the very
*last* persons to compromise trinitarianism and the nature of the Godhead]

When the creedal core has rotted out, the liturgy cannot remain indefinitely
the same. We see this in the mainline denominations which abandoned the
faith in substance, but kept the old triune form *for a time*, a form which
we should receive.

[This serves to prove my point about Protestant liberalism, too. Stuff like
this happens in their ranks all the time, but there is no sign that it has
occurred in Catholicism. And that should give folks like Mr. Wilson some
significant pause, as to *why* that is the case. Individual stray,
heterodox, dissenting Catholics may reject the Trinity, but that has nothing
to do with what the *Church* teaches. Yet Wilson fears that the Catholic
Church may switch from a Trinity to a Quaternity (I wonder if he is scared
of the boogeyman "getting him" every night, too?). I swear that I have
rarely seen such a ridiculous and empty-headed argument from an otherwise
intelligent man, who should know far better]

Moving on to the so-called "Reformers," Martin Luther wrote (emphases
added):

From: *Wider Hans Wurst*, or *Against Jack Sausage *(1541); in *Luther's
Works*, 55 volumes, Philadelphia: Fortress Press (also Concordia Publishing
House), 1955 -, General editors: Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) / Helmut T.
Lehmann (vols. 31-55)

This is a polemical piece against the Catholic (and corrupt) Duke Heinrich
(or Henry) of Braunschweig / Wolfenbuttel, written between February 19 and
April 4, 1541. It is reprinted in Volume 41 of *Luther's Works*, pp.
179-256; translated by Eric W. Gritsch.

They allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new
church . . . since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for
them to prove that they are . . . But if they cannot prove it . . . they are
not the church and . . . *we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away
from what is not the true church*. Indeed, since there is nothing
in-between, *we must be the church of Christ and they the devil's church, or
vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church* . .
. One part must be false and untrue . . . The Lord Christ commands us not to
embrace the *false church*. (pp. 193-194)

We have *proved* that *we are the true, ancient church* . . . Now you, too,
papists, prove that you are the true church or are like it. You cannot do
it. But I will prove that *you are the new false church, which is in
everything apostate, separated from the true, ancient church, thus becoming
Satan's synagogue*. (p. 199)

*You do not hold to the original, ancient baptism*, for you have invented
many other *new baptisms*, teaching that the original baptism is
subsequently lost through sin . . . For *where there is no baptism*,the
sacraments, the keys, and everything else are of no avail. (p. 199)

You were indeed all baptized in the true baptism of the ancient church, just
as we were, especially as children. Now if a baptized child lives and then
dies in his seventh or eighth year, before he understands the whorelike
church of the pope, he has in truth been saved and will be saved -- of that
we have no doubt. *But when he grows up, and hears, believes, and obeys your
preaching with its lies and devilish inventions, then he becomes a whore of
the devil like you and falls away from his baptism* and bridegroom -- as
happened to me and others -- building and relying on his own works. (p. 207)


We acknowledge not only that you have, with us, come from the true church
and been washed and made clean in baptism . . . but also that *you are in
the church* and remain in it . . . But *you are no longer of the church*, or
*members* of the church, for in this holy church of God you are building
your own new *apostate church*, the *devil's brothel*, with limitless
whoredom, idolatry, and innovation. (pp. 209-210)

These words are quite self-explanatory. I would only note that Luther's view
of baptism is even "stronger"(i.e., more sacramentally "powerful" or
irrevocable) than the Catholic view. He decries the fact that we believe
that mortal sin can in effect undo the positive graces of baptism, whereas
he seems to think nothing can do that (which is why he attacks the Catholic
doctrine).

How about John Calvin? He said Catholic baptism was valid, right, so is that
the end of the story? No. Like Luther, he can't simply pause at making this
a point of agreement. He has to still disagree somehow. So in his *Antidote
to Trent* (1547), Calvin rails on and on, disagreeing substantially with
many of the decrees of Trent concerning baptism. As an example, Trent's *Canon
III on Baptism* reads as follows:

If anyone saith that in the Roman Church . . . there is not the true
doctrine concerning the sacrament of Baptism; let him be anathema.

Calvin replies to this particular canon:

But our writings clearly shew that the whole doctrine of Baptism, as taught
by them, is partly mutilated, partly vicious. Now, while they are unable to
refute our arguments, it is vain to think of hiding themselves under the
flash of an anathema!

(in *Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters*, Vol. 3, *Tracts,
Part 3*, edited and translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1983, 179; reprinted from edition published by the Calvin
Translation Society, Edinburgh: 1851)

He writes similarly when treating of the general character of sacraments;
for example:

Here, indeed, they disclose their impiety, not only more clearly, but also
more grossly. The device of *opus operatum* is recent, and was coined by
illiterate monks, who had never learned anything of the nature of
Sacraments.

(Antidote to Canon VIII on the Sacraments, *ibid*., p. 176)

Their fable of an indelible character is the product of the same forge. It
was altogether unknown to the Primitive Church, and is more suited to
magical charms than to the sound doctrine of the gospel!

(Antidote to Canon IX on the Sacraments, *ibid*., p. 176)

With regard to Calvin's denial of the sacramental principle of *ex opere
operato*, it is *he* who is out of step with the ancient Church and St.
Augustine, and in line with the Donatist schismatics. As usual, when he
appeals to history, he has his facts wrong. Thus, Lutheran (later, Orthodox)
Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes:

The Augustinian theology of grace was thus obliged . . . to commit itself to
the principle that the efficacy of the sacraments, and especially of
baptism, was assured "ex opere operato," by the sheer performance of the
act, rather than "ex opere operantis," by the effect of the performer upon
the act, . . .

(*The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition {1200-600}*, University of Chicago
Press, 1971, 312)

The reputable Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly, in his discussion of the
patristic view of baptism, makes it clear that a host of benefits (Calvin's
reference to "indelible character") were believed by the Fathers to be
attained through baptism. It is clear that Calvin can easily be shown to be
mistaken as to the earliness (or lateness) of that aspect of baptism and
sacraments also. After discussing the sacramentsal views of many Fathers, he
concludes that their opinions:

. . . go a long way towards the so-called *ex opere operato* doctrine of
sacraments, i.e., that they are signs which actually and automatically
realize the grace they signify.

(*Early Christian Doctrines*, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition
of 1978, p. 427; larger context referred to: pp. 422-432)

Likewise, Protestant historian Philip Schaff characteristically presents an
accurate picture of ancient Christian doctrine, while disagreeing with it
himself. He amply refutes Calvin in both respects:

Augustine also makes a distinction between a transient and a permanent
effect of the sacrament, and thereby prepares the way for the later
scholastic doctrine of the *character indelebilis*. Baptism and ordination
impress an indelible character, and therefore cannot be repeated . . . The
popular opinion in the church already inclined strongly toward the
superstitious view of the magical operation of the sacrament, which has
since found scholastic expression in the *opus operatum* theory.

(*History of the Christian Church*: Vol. III: *Nicene and Post-Nicene
Christianity {A.D. 311-600}*, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, reprinted, 1974;
of the fifth revised edition of 1910; p. 476)

So we see that Schaff would agree with Calvin as to how sacraments should be
understood, yet he shows that Calvin was dead-wrong on his opinion of these
fundamental elements of sacramental theology being late-arriving novelties.
They were not. And so it always goes, when one examines Calvin's claims
about the Fathers, over against some Catholic doctrine that he disagrees
with. Once again (and as always) the early Church agrees in substance with
the Catholic position, and against the Protestant innovations.

I submit that if Calvin's research and scholarship is this sloppy when
dealing with what the Fathers and the ancient Church believed, that it is
likely that he will be found distorting Catholic theology as well, in
addition to giving shabby, fallacious arguments against it. I have often
found this to be the case in the past, and I'm sure I will continue to do so
in the future, as I study Calvin further (and offer refutations of his
faulty, wholly inadequate arguments). The same applies to Luther. And thus
current-day arguments built upon the arguments of these men will tend to
show the same inaccuracies that were present the first time around. The
apple only falls so far away from the tree, after all. Douglas Wilson is no
exception. I would class him, along with Luther and Calvin, as
"quasi-anti-Catholics"; only slightly distinguishable from outright
anti-Catholics. I conclude this with no pleasure at all (in fact, sadness
and great disappointment), but I don't see how it can be denied, given all
the data above, and much more that could be brought to bear.


-- 


Juanita Flores
Advocate for the Truth from Jesus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070201/7191bc55/attachment-0001.html