Office Hours: The Lure of Rome by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

[CopticChristian]

Mea culpa if you thought I worded that question wrong.

He represented the Reformed viewpoint accurately. It would be wrong of him to label it the Protestant position, I suppose, since Lutherans would disagree with the Reformed as far as the sacramental nature of justification… I am not sure if he misrepresented the Roman Catholic understanding. You would know that better than I. Which of his statements about it do you think he misrepresented?

It is hard to say. He mentioned Reformers, Evangelicals, Augustine, Protestant…he was bouncing off the walls…

 

[CopticChristian]

I guess my question is ‘why believe his characterization’, he’s not even Catholic? You say that you are Catholic**, is this what you are taught in Catechesis**?

I posted what he said as a compare and contrast…who’s on first, that’s right, I don’t know…all I did was post a summary of what he said the Protestant Gospel was as compared to the Roman Catholic Gospel…direct your concern to his comments…he goes on to say this…

If you say Rome doesn’t believe we are saved by grace, it is easy for Rome to say of course we believe we are saved by grace…

If you say Rome doesn’t believe we are saved by Faith , it is easy for Rome to say of course we believe we are saved by Faith

The issue is do we have a sophisticated enough understanding of theology to recognize the difference between saying…we are saved by grace and saying we are saved by grace alone or to say we are saved by faith and to say we are saved by faith alone or to say we are saved by Christ and saying we are saved by Christ alone…

That is where the issue gets complicated….and it is complicated…

 

[IggyAntiochus]

It is hard to say. He mentioned Reformers, Evangelicals, Augustine, Protestant…he was bouncing off the walls…

Yes, I did notice that. Honestly, it shouldn’t even be addressed in that sort of format because time is always an issue and everything has to be condensed, paraphrased, and schizophrenic in moving from subject to subject. In addition, if the topic is to be discussed, it should always have an opposing viewpoint. He should have invited a priest on the show. Our radio show almost always does!

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I did notice that. Honestly, it shouldn’t even be addressed in that sort of format because time is always an issue and everything has to be condensed, paraphrased, and schizophrenic in moving from subject to subject. In addition, if the topic is to be discussed, it should always have an opposing viewpoint. He should have invited a priest on the show. Our radio show almost always does!

I agree this guy is nuts…comment on the following…

He says that Justification in the Ancient Church….cannot be found as articulated by Luther……

He says that the Reformation is an effort to clarify Augustines effort to clarify grace alone….faith alone…

He states that We are not saved by a Doctrine….and then says…

We are saved by resting in Christ alone and in his grace alone as our only hope, if you are doing that then you are using the doctrine of faith alone even if you can’t articulate it???

He calls to mind…

Romans 4:16….Protestants and Ancient Church not good at articulating this thought….he says a right understanding of Faith gives a right understanding of grace….

16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

He tries to make Faith a precursor of Grace however that is not what Scripture says…because many translations and the Greek say in accord with Grace…

He says that the Ancient Church is saying, Augustine is saying it is not us, it is grace alone, not us it is Christ….

He then leans on Augustinian theologians throughout the middle ages articulating Protestant thought…

Doctrines don’t save you…but he articulates a Doctrine and then says that even if you don’t know the Doctrine as long as you are doing what the Doctrine says then you are saved…Huh…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is a very interesting radiotalk that I just came across. The website’s description: “Office Hours talks to Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California and Professor of Church History, about why evangelicals and other Protestants become Roman Catholic and how we should respond.”

wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/the-lure-of-rome

What peaked my interest is how the doctor presented Church history through the view point of Protestantism and contrasts it with his understanding of the viewpoint of Catholicism on history, although that is not the sole interesting point (for me) in the whole talk: there are LOADS of them.

Comments?

Agree! It was a very interesting presentation and you’re right, there would be a great deal to say about each topic touched upon. Overall, I think the presenter makes some really great points, but also makes some pretty serious errors.

1. The presenter doesn’t seem to have a very good grip at all on the Reformation generally speaking, or Sola Scriptura in particular, and then (worse) tries to connect modern evangelicalism as inheritors to the Reformation in ways that are are not accurate or authentic. Note the way he uses the terms Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical almost as if they were interchangeable.
2. He’s right that many evangelicals charicature Catholic beliefs, but then he goes on to do exactly the same thing when discussing, for example, the belief that sacraments work “magically.” Generally speaking, he has a poor understanding of the history and development of sacraments and sacramental theology, probably because it doesn’t fit well in his very Platonist/Evangelical theological perspective and thus has never really needed to address it in a serious way.
3. You’re right, history is at the core here, and I think the presenter makes some really excellent points about Catholic misrepresentations of church history and the church fathers. I have also heard some Catholic portray the church as if it were a worldwide, totalized unity under the pope until 1056, which just doesn’t square at all with actual church history. Some converts to Catholicism that I have met claim to have studied the church fathers as part of their conversion experience, but when you press them on it, you find out that what they’ve actually read are cherry-picked quotes from the church fathers in various compilations (Jergens being a popular one), usually almost exclusively sourced from the Latinate Church. The presenter doesn’t understand the Reformation view of authority and tradition very well at all, but I think actually sums up the Catholic view on authority fairly accurately for someone who isn’t Catholic.
4. I thought his remarks on the possibility of Cardinal Newman’s being disillusioned with his conversion to Catholicism to be intriguing, so I will have to do more research on that.

Overall, I think that evangelicals try to do a massive “end run” around church history–basically ignoring it entirely because a great deal of it supplants their ideas about sacramental theology and worship. So when some evangelicals find a church that at least addresses history (the Catholic Church or Orthodox Churches) they find this very appealing and ultimately compelling. But as I see it, the trend of evangelical conversions to Catholicism in particular is more a matter of people trading one set of fundamentalisms for a different set of fundamentalisms–agreed, a more logical and better grounded set–but still a fundamentalism.

 

[CopticChristian]

Agree! It was a very interesting presentation and you’re right, there would be a great deal to say about each topic touched upon. Overall, I think the presenter makes some really great points, but also makes some pretty serious errors.

1. The presenter doesn’t seem to have a very good grip at all on the Reformation generally speaking, or Sola Scriptura in particular, and then (worse) tries to connect modern evangelicalism as inheritors to the Reformation in ways that are are not accurate or authentic. Note the way he uses the terms Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical almost as if they were interchangeable.
2. He’s right that many evangelicals charicature Catholic beliefs, but then he goes on to do exactly the same thing when discussing, for example, the belief that sacraments work “magically.” Generally speaking, he has a poor understanding of the history and development of sacraments and sacramental theology, probably because it doesn’t fit well in his very Platonist/Evangelical theological perspective and thus has never really needed to address it in a serious way.
3. You’re right, history is at the core here, and I think the **presenter makes some really excellent points about Catholic misrepresentations of church history and the church fathers. **I have also heard some Catholic portray the church as if it were a worldwide, totalized unity under the pope until 1056, which just doesn’t square at all with actual church history. Some converts to Catholicism that I have met claim to have studied the church fathers as part of their conversion experience, but when you press them on it, you find out that what they’ve actually read are cherry-picked quotes from the church fathers in various compilations (Jergens being a popular one), usually almost exclusively sourced from the Latinate Church. The presenter doesn’t understand the Reformation view of authority and tradition very well at all, but I think actually sums up the Catholic view on authority fairly accurately for someone who isn’t Catholic.
4. I thought his remarks on the possibility of Cardinal Newman’s being disillusioned with his conversion to Catholicism to be intriguing, so I will have to do more research on that.

Overall, I think that evangelicals try to do a massive “end run” around church history–basically ignoring it entirely because a great deal of it supplants their ideas about sacramental theology and worship. So when some evangelicals find a church that at least addresses history (the Catholic Church or Orthodox Churches) they find this very appealing and ultimately compelling. But as I see it, the trend of evangelical conversions to Catholicism in particular is more a matter of people trading one set of fundamentalisms for a different set of fundamentalisms–agreed, a more logical and better grounded set–but still a fundamentalism.

Please enumerate the great points, 1, 2, etc…

Please what are the misrepresentations concerning church history and church fathers you heard…?

What is the reformation view of authority and tradition?

The speaker said that Protestants and Catholics claim the Ancient Church…you say that the appeal is History and that is not what the author says…

What are Evangelicals view that is supplanted by history?

You equate the fundamentals as equal and they are not. You may want to enumerate what you see as fundamentals.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Yes, I did notice that. Honestly, it shouldn’t even be addressed in that sort of format because time is always an issue and everything has to be condensed, paraphrased, and schizophrenic in moving from subject to subject. In addition, if the topic is to be discussed, it should always have an opposing viewpoint. He should have invited a priest on the show. Our radio show almost always does!

I would have to agree with this from IggyAntiochus.

I did listen to the whole program. I thought it had some serious flaws, but also made some good points. Namely, Dave Noonan’s point #3 in post 25 is something I’ve observed. And Dave’s final paragraph, about some converts—not all, and not even a majority—
going from one sort of fundamentalism to another in switching from Protestant to Catholic, seems true. Dr. Robert Sungenis’ journey would be an extreme example of this.

 

[CopticChristian]

I would have to agree with this from IggyAntiochus.

I did listen to the whole program. I thought it had some serious flaws, but also made some good points. Namely, Dave Noonan’s point #3 in post 25 is something I’ve observed. And Dave’s final paragraph, about some converts—not all, and not even a majority—
going from one sort of fundamentalism to another in switching from Protestant to Catholic, seems true. **Dr. Robert Sungenis’ **journey would be an extreme example of this.

Dilieate the good points, 1, 2 etc so I can see what you see…

So, from #3 in post 25…can you elucidate and expand on these so I can see why you agree…

I think the presenter makes some really excellent points about Catholic misrepresentations of church history and the church fathers.

The presenter doesn’t understand the Reformation view of authority and tradition very well at all, but I think actually sums up the Catholic view on authority fairly accurately for someone who isn’t Catholic.

Explain your understanding of Sungenis and going from one set of fundamentals as you say to another…how do you see these fundamentals as equals?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi CopticChristian—

I appreciate what came across as a kind tone in your post to me. I hope you and your family are having a blessed Advent season.

I’ve been taking something of an “internet fast” for Advent, so I’m kind of regretting doing any posting this morning; I savor the days of Advent and, for me, getting involved in threads is a distraction from this beautiful, wondrous time…so for now I’m going to go back to being quiet.