Should I Convert to Rome? Protestantism for the Global Church – The Rev. Dr. Jacob Rodriguez

All right. Well, welcome.

Welcome to my talk. Should I convert to Rome?

There's a little bit of a title change, more on that and a

little bit. But before we get started, let

me go ahead and pray because this is a very important topic.

It can be a sensitive topic. I also think it's an urgent

topic. And if done rightly, I think it

can actually help us in our sense of the church's mission

and of our identity as the people of God.

So pray with me. Heavenly Father, we thank you

for the gifts of your Son Jesus Christ, for the outpouring of

your Holy Spirit. We thank you for the birth of

the church at Pentecost, and we thank you for our birth into the

Church through baptism. I pray that what I say today

will be honoring to your name and that it will help us be more

faithful as your people, that it will help us know the clarity of

the gospel above all, and that it will help us in our unity

globally as the Body of Christ. I pray this through Christ, our

risen Lord, our Advocate, our Mediator, our Lord Jesus.

Christ. Amen.

OK, so I have retitled this talk Should I convert to Rome

Protestantism for the global church.

This is specifically addressed to our context as Anglicans,

many of whom have come from low church backgrounds or

evangelical backgrounds where we know nothing of liturgy.

And then when we discover it, it's, it's, it's, it's amazing

for the first time hearing, passing the peace or hearing the

blessing of the Triune God bestowed upon you, the first

time hearing the Nicene Creed spoken in a corporate context.

These are amazing treasures that when we discover them, it leads

us into liturgical worship and also perhaps leads us to ask the

question, how far should I go in this path of liturgy?

Do other church traditions have a more faithful inheritance or

stewarding of this liturgical tradition?

Is Rome inevitably the question that's asked?

Is Rome the truest, most faithful, exclusive heir of this

tradition of the Church? I'd like to answer that question

today by making a hopefully robust case for Protestantism as

a gift to the ecumenical body of Christ.

Global ecumenical, basically synonymous in the Greek oiku

mune, the globe, the known world, global Christianity.

I like to make the case that Protestantism offers a faithful

expression of the global church, and it challenges the rest of

the global church, global Church, whether Orthodox or

Catholic, to a more faithful adherence to the Gospel.

Let's go ahead to the next slide.

I'd like to make the case for these Protestant goods that we

can retrieve them for the ecumenical church and for our

own life as Christians. These three goods I'll call

historic ecumenism, prophetic ecclesiology, and gospel

clarity. Historic ecumenism.

Let's go to the next slide. Historic ecumenism is the case

that we are part of a global body that is represented equally

in every sector where the Church is planted and that it is united

under the head, Jesus Christ himself.

Now I'd like to compare a Roman Catholic understanding of this

ecumenism to a Protestant understanding of this ecumenism.

This is Pope Pius the 9th, the convener of Vatican One, the

First Vatican Council in 1868 to 1870.

This is what he said. If anyone therefore shall say

that the Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the

Prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole

Church militant, or that the same directly and immediately

receive the same our Lord Jesus Christ from the same, a primacy

of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction, let him

be anathema. Let's go to the next slide.

It continues, therefore, it has always been necessary that each

Church, that is, those who are the faithful everywhere, should

agree with the Roman Church, because of the greater power of

the principality that she, the Roman Church, has received.

In order that all being joined together in the unity of that

seat, Peter's seat in Rome, from the veneration of which the

rights of communion flows to all, might associate closely as

members of one head, Christ, represented by Peter in the

compact unity of the body. If then, any should deny that it

is by the institution of Christ the Lord, and by divine right,

that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in

the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman

Pontiff is a successor of blessed Peter in this primacy,

let him be anathema. I think I have another portion

of that quote. If anyone then, shall say that

the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or

direction, so something that we might have in a Episcopal Church

polity, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction

over the universal Church. Let only not only in the things

which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which

relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread

throughout the world. Or assert that he possesses

merely the principal part and not all the fullness of this

supreme power, or that this power which he enjoys is not

ordinary and immediate both over each and all the churches and

over each and all the pastors and the faithful.

Let him be anathema. That's the papal encyclical

Pastor Eternis, which came as a result of the First Vatican

Council. Let's be clear what the Roman

Catholic teaching is here. As a side note, this lecture

will be slightly different in format than the previous two.

This will be what I'll use, the common academic lecture format.

I'll aim to have my lecture finished in half an hour to 45

minutes, and then it'll be a free for all question answer

time afterwards. Sound good?

Let's do that. OK, so Petra and supremacy, To

what extent does this foster ecumenism?

Notice how this Petra and supremacy and later papal

infallibility actually at the same time becomes Catholic dogma

only at the Vatican 1 Council. Now that's a good Roman Catholic

argument. In favor of this would be this

is just putting an official decree on what had always been

the practice in the historic Church, Church.

However the case may be, it is quite clear that there is a

supremacy and an exclusivity given to the Roman Pontiff to

the exclusion of those who claim other lineages going back to

Christ, even if those be Apostolic lineages.

Let's compare this to Scripture and let's compare this to the

1st 2 1/2 centuries of Christianity.

Let's go to our next slide, historic ecumenism.

How does it, how do we see it displayed or born in the New

Testament? First of all, Acts 15 verses one

through 21, the first council of the church, the Jerusalem

Council, where the collective witness of the apostles and the

elders gathered at Jerusalem. Notice Peter does speak up, but

he only speaks up along with Paul and Barnabas.

And James presides over the council.

He presides over the assembly, and James has the final word.

Notice how Paul lists these pillars of the church in

Jerusalem. He calls them Cephas.

And let's see here James, Cephas the rock, and John in that

order. Peter does not have preeminence

in this passage in Galatians 2, and he's actually soon to be

rebuked in the following verse. Peter is one of several pillars

of the church in the earliest form of Christianity.

Notice also that Peter and James do the same thing with their

introductions in their letters. Peter to a certain extent offers

a blessing to the Catholic Church in Asia Minor, Pontius

Bithynia, and Galatia in first Peter 11.

And he does it from Babylon, that is Rome.

So he is acting like a Bishop based in Rome, blessing a large

part of the body of Christ. But James does exactly the same

thing. In fact, he does it in a broader

audience. James chapter one, verse 1.

James, the brother of the Lord, to whom he says to the 12 tribes

of the dispersion. In other words, this diaspora,

this dispersed ecumenical body of Christ spread throughout the

world. James is exerting the exact same

kind of Apostolic authority as Peter in the New Testament.

Also look at Revelation One through 3, the seven churches

represented by the seven lampstands. 7 is a symbolic

number in Revelation and should be appreciated as such.

It represents the complete ecumenical church.

Rome is not even mentioned as one of those seven churches.

They're all located in Asia Minor and Rome doesn't even

feature in apocalypses heavenly ecclesiology unless we interpret

Babylon as the Roman church, which as much as they like

Luther, I think this might be a little bit of a stretch on his

part. So in the New Testament, the

ecumenical body of Christ does not have Peter as its head.

Our earliest documents show James functioning as a head when

it comes to the Jerusalem Council, and James and Peter in

their own settings establishing the Apostolic Gospel by their

own Apostolic credentials, and Paul also appealing to that same

level of credentials. Let's go to the next slide.

Then we move forward 100 years to the 2nd century AD.

We have this apocryphal text called the Epistola Apostolorum.

It's usually featured with several other apocryphal

gospels, but what's interesting about this one is it's actually

not a heretical document. It's Proto Orthodox.

It's promoting. The.

Incarnation of Jesus Christ, his full embodiment, and it's it's

advocating for the Apostolic faith of the physical

resurrection of Jesus. In this document, Peter is not

named first. He's named third after John.

This document likely originates in Asia Minor, and it encourages

the same network of churches that Revelation encouraged,

probably Yohannian churches that had traced their Apostolic

descent from John, not from Peter.

And so this document with John as the head, as the chief

representative of the church, gives a thoroughly Yohannian

Apostolic case for the Gospel. Now this, this is creating a

tension to be sure. You have Asian, Asian minor

Christians appealing to John as their progenitor.

And then you have Roman Christians appealing to Peter.

And you see a little bit of a tension emerging between those

two. We'll, we'll explore this

tension in our next, our next segment.

But let's appreciate how Irenaeus, St.

Irenaeus, who died around 200 AD, how he describes this

tension and also this unity, this diversity and this unity.

If you look at your Roman Catholic catechism, they will

point to this exact quote from Irenaeus to establish Petra and

supremacy, but they only quote the first half.

The Blessed Apostles having founded and built up the Church,

committed into the hands of lioness, the ministry of the

bishopric. I've translated this very

woodenly and then after that it goes on to assert the the the

validity and Apostolic origin of the Roman Church.

That quote is definitely worth seeing in full.

I can share that in our question and answer time and usually in

our Roman Catholic catechisms, we see that put to the front

like this is early evidence for pet triumph supremacy.

But then look at what he does in the very next section.

However. But Polycarp was not only

instructed by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen

Christ, but was also by apostles in Asia appointed Bishop of the

Church in Smyrna. That's modern day Ismir, Turkey.

To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also

those men who have succeeded Polycarp.

Also, the church in Ephesus founded by Paul and having John

remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan is a

true witness to the tradition of the apostles, not because Peter

planted the church, but because Christ planted it through Paul,

confirmed by John, who up and to his death remained there as the

witness, the Apostolic witness to the Gospel.

Irenaeus is establishing certainly the validity of the

Roman Church as a faithful Apostolic Church.

Amen to that. He is also establishing

independently the validity of the Asian Church based in

Ephesus. Amen to that.

Irenaeus is ecumenism actually brings together the four

gospels. Mark based in Rome, John based

in Ephesus, Matthew presumably based somewhere in the Holy

Lands because it's he says that Matthew preached among the

Hebrews and then Luke, who traveled all over the

Mediterranean with Paul preaching the Gospel.

So for Irenaeus, the fourfold Gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and

John is the emblem of the Church, the ecumenical body of

Christ, with who on the throne? Not Peter, but Jesus Christ the

Lamb. He does this by an allegorical

interpretation of Psalm 80 verse one which says the Lord is

seated between the cherubim. He combines that with an

interpretation of Ezekiel chapter 1 and the four living

Ezekiel 1 · chapter mention

creatures that shows the Lord the Son of Man exalted, and then

finally Revelation chapter 4 with those same 4 living

Revelation 4 · chapter mention

creatures exalting the living Christ.

So for Irenaeus, the fourfold gospel itself would be

undermined if one of those heads assumes supremacy and primacy.

Irenaeus, I think, advocates a truly ecumenical church

structure where each representative from the various

corners of the church are lifted up as faithful heirs of

Apostolic faith wherever it has been proclaimed.

Let's go to the next slide. We see this historic ecumenism

that's not founded in Petra and supremacy in other sectors of

the early church. We get to the 3rd century, 100

years later. Cyprian from North Africa, in a

correspondence with Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, said, quote,

Peter did not assert that he had a rights of seniority.

That's Primatus, quite literally, and that therefore

upstarts and laycomers ought to be obedient to him.

He further defines this unity in his tractate on the Unity of the

Church. This unity we ought firmly to

hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who

preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate

itself to be 1 and undivided. Let no one deceive the

brotherhood by a falsehood. Let no one corrupt the truth or

the faith by perfidious prevarication.

The episcopate is 1, each part of which is held by each one for

the whole. He'll use this language to

describe Peter for sure, but he'll also use this language to

describe the other Apostolic progenitors of Christian faith

across the ancient Mediterranean all the way down to his own day.

Wherever the gospel has been faithfully preached and handed

down generation to generation, there you find the church.

That is why Calvin and the and the Reformers appealed so

consistently to Cyprian. They actually have derived their

Protestant reformational ecclesiology in large part from

Cyprian's interpretation of the biblical witness.

Let's go to the next slide. Finally, nice scene and

following. It's interesting to see the

Bishop of Rome's role in our ecumenical councils.

The Bishop of Rome was not even at the Council of Nicaea.

He sent delegates. He was not at the that one.

That's the one that really hammered out Trinitarian

theology. He was not at the the Council of

Constantinople, the third, which really dealt with the with the

heresy of Monothelatism. How many wills does the

Incarnate Christ have? A divine will and a human will.

How do those interact as one absorbed into the other?

Or are they kept distinct? So the Bishop of Rome did not

even he was he only sent delicates to that council.

Also Nicaea too, which tackled the question of iconography.

Only delegates were sent there. The Bishop of Rome did not even

send delegates to Constantinople with the first Council and

Constantinople the second council.

Constantinople, the first council was a reaffirmation of

Nicaea. Keep in mind that Rome

essentially became apostate between 325 and 381, with the

reigning emperor preferring Arianism.

And it took a different kind of ecclesiology to say the true

Church can go into exile and still remain the true church.

It doesn't have to stay at Rome. So these ecumenical councils, I

argue, were just that. They were ecumenical.

They were not functions of Petrine or Roman supremacy.

Now, let me clarify really quickly what I am not saying.

I'm not saying that a church based in Rome with faithful

passing down from generation to generation is not the church.

If and when the Roman Catholic Church has done that faithfully,

they are a true church. They bear those marks of the

true church. And I'm just reiterating what

Calvin and Luther would say. But what I am saying is even

though they are a true church, they are not the only church at

the exclusivity of the rest of the ecumenical body of Christ.

That's why I argue that Protestantism preserves a truly

historic ecumenism. That's my first section.

Next section, let's also look at how when the Roman when the

Protestant Reformation emerged, how these differing traditions

talked about each other. I'm going to try to show the the

most vociferous Protestant railings against Roman Catholic

and let's see how how how deep they go in criticizing the Roman

Church. Article 19 of our 39 articles.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have

erred, so those are different Eastern Orthodox traditions.

So also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their living

and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

It's not a formal anathema, it's a declaration of having gone

astray. Also Article 22.

By the way, if you're Anglican or want to be Anglican, I'd

strongly recommend reading the 39 articles.

You'll be surprised at what Anglicans believe and don't

believe. Hopefully you won't be too

surprised. The Romish doctrine concerning

purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well as images

as of relics and also invocations of Saints, is a fond

thing, vainly invented and grounded upon.

No warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of

God. OK, strong words to be sure, but

not a formal anathema. Article 37.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of

England. A firm word to be sure, but not

a formal anathema. It's Pope, a Bishop of Rome.

Yes, do your thing in Rome, but we are faithfully preaching the

Apostolic Gospel here in Canterbury.

We can do this as the ecumenical Body of Christ.

Now you get so Anglicans are kind of in this in between

space, preserving a lot of Roman Catholicism.

I think what that which faithfully demonstrates the

Gospel, but but still preaching the reformed understanding of

the gospel. When you get to the Prezis,

they're a little bit harder hitting, harder punching.

So Westminster Confession of faith, see what they say about

Rome. The purest churches under heaven

are subject both to mixture and error.

So they introduced this category even before they say their

strongest indictment against the Roman church.

They introduced this category that a true church can be mixed

with, can be mixed with error. So they're introducing the

category that even the Roman Church that they would say the

head of which is the Antichrist, even the Roman Church can be a

true church mixed with error. That's why they said there is no

other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the

Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof.

But is that Antichrist who sets himself out in the House of God

one of the strongest Protestant statements against Roman

Catholicism? As a sidebar here, this may have

been legitimate in that time, but I would argue against

against using that in any way in the present day.

I think we Protestants and Catholics have made a lot of

progress in the past 500 years and so this is actually one of

the reasons why I'm not Presbyterian.

Now let's see how the favorite was returned.

Actually, this was before contacted Domino Pope Eugene the

4th 1442 quote. The Roman Catholic Church

professes and preaches that all those who outside the Catholic

Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and

schismatics, cannot share an eternal life and will go into

the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his

angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before

the end of their lives. You can find similar language in

Martin Luther's writings, but Luther acknowledged that he was

not writing on behalf of the entire church.

This is a papal encyclical which by the 1870 Pastor Eternis is

technically infallible. Next, the Council of Trench,

another historic document or council for the Roman Catholic

Church that has defined its doctrine.

And henceforth, if anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing

else but confidence in the Divine Mercy which remits sins

for Christ's sake, or that this confidence alone is that whereby

we are justified, let him be anathema.

Now that anathema, so a Roman Catholic apologist would say

anathema is not the same as condemnation to eternal fire.

It is excommunication from the one true Church.

So that caveat albeit considered, there is still

stronger words towards the D churching of those who hold

Protestant beliefs. Finally, Pope Pius the 12th

right before Vatican 2 says it is forbidden to any man to

change this, namely our declaration.

This is specifically dealing with the bodily assumption of

Mary. So this is a particular doctrine

in Roman Catholic dogma. It is forbidden to any man to

change this our declaration, pronouncement, and definition,

or by a rash attempt to oppose and counter it.

If any man should presume to make such an attempt to have a

different doctrine than the bodily assumption of Mary, let

him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the

Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Now again, I am not invalidating

Roman Christianity. I'm merely trying to set the

terms of what's already been written in the discussion

between Roman Catholics and Protestants and try to show how

really, up until Vatican 2, the the the Roman Catholic instinct

and the the the Roman Catholic Church polity was not towards a

generosity of ecumenism. Contrast that with what we have

in our next slide in our gestures toward echumenism.

Look at what the 39 articles say in Article 19.

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men

in which the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments be

duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance and all those

things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

That's the that's the Protestant grammar for the church.

You can have a church wherever you have the gospel faithfully

preached and where the sacraments are faithfully

administered. So in theory, you can have a

church among the Roman Catholic communion.

Look what Martin Luther says. There is much that is Christian

and good under the papacy. In the papal church.

There are the true holy sacraments, true baptism, the

true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of

sins, or Calvin's correspondence with Cardinal Sadaletto in 1539.

But what arrogance, you will say, to boast that the Church is

with you alone, and to to deny it to all the world Besides,

that's the point I'm trying to make today.

But then look at what he concedes.

I conceded along happily along with Kelvin.

We indeed so doletto deny. Not those.

Not that those over which you preside are churches of Christ.

So it seems that the Protestant theology of what is the Church

actually invites towards a greater ecumenism, regardless of

who the Apostolic figure is that established the Church where you

find it. So now I think it's my opinion

that the the Protestant moved towards that invisible unity of

the church was actually a good thing for the Roman Catholic

Church to express a more faithful ecclesiology.

Because look at what the look at the the the developments in

Roman Catholic doctrine that we get in Lumen Gentium and

Unitatis Reditegratio, namely the light to the Gentiles and

the reintegrated unity, light to the nations and reintrocuted

unity. These papal encyclicals that

came out of the Vatican 2 quote. The Church knows that she has

joined in many ways to the baptized, who are honored by the

name of Christian but have not preserved unity or communion

under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and

have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although

imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

This is a beautiful development in Roman Catholic theology where

we contrast it with 15th century Council of Trent.

I think this is an example of how Protestants and Catholics

can help each other towards a better ecumenism, a better

theology of a church, and what I'll show at my Third Point, a

better preaching of the gospel. This this this ties up our first

discussion on on the historic ecumenism being robustly

portrayed by Protestantism. The second heading now towards a

prophetic ecclesiology, namely does the head of the Church the

human representative of the Church?

Is there a function within the Church to call him to account

when he falls into apostasy? Let's see if the pre Vatican 2

Roman Catholic theology gives any avenues towards that kind of

semper reframanda. This is again Pastor Eternis

1870 from Vatican One. Therefore, faithfully adhering

to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian

faith for the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the

Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian people.

The Sacred Council approving we teach and define that it is a

divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex

cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of

pastor and teacher of all Christians, by a virtue of his

supreme Apostolic authority, he defines A doctrine regarding

faith or morals to be held by the universal Church by the

divine assistance promised to him.

And Blessed Peter is possessed of that infallibility with which

the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for

defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that

therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are

irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the

Church. There is very little wiggle room

in here for a prophetic voice to come in and be able to speak a

message of repentance to the highest level of church

leadership. Quite frankly, I think that

poses a problem. Let's go to the next slide.

Let's see the biblical theology of prophetic history.

Think of Elijah, Jeremiah, and the prophets.

They opposed the kings who were in the line of David, to whom

God said, a your seed will remain on this throne in

perpetuity. So the line of David could say,

hey, look, I have been instituted.

There is Davidic succession. Who are you to oppose me?

Or how about the ironic priesthood in Jeremiah's day?

They could say, well look, I can trace my father's father's,

father's father's father's, father's father's father's with

Aaron, the first Levitical priest.

Jeremiah opposed that priesthood with the message of Yahweh.

Calvin, in his introduction to the Institute's in the letter to

the local monarch, he he appeals to this prophetic trend, this

prophetic theme running through the Old Testament, saying that

the Israelite church went into hiding in the days of Elijah,

but it was the true church. Because quote the Church may

exist without any apparent form, and moreover, that the form is

not ascertained by that external splendor which some foolishly

admire, but by a very different mark, namely, by the pure

preaching of the Word of God and the due administration, the

sacraments. Calvin appeals to Elijah being

fed by the Ravens and being given drink by from the brook as

and being told by God that there are 7000 who have not bowed

their knee to Baal to create his to create a biblical theology of

the Church when it has to be an exile outside of Jerusalem or

Rome or whatever Mother City was where the Church came from.

This Reformed ecclesiology gives us the agency to speak the

prophetic word of God to whoever is on the seat seat of ecclesial

power. Calvin also appeals to Jeremiah,

who opposed the Davidic kingship and the ironic priesthood when

they audaciously claimed that the law would not perish from

the priest. Priestly succession needs

prophetic critique in every age of the church.

Let's see what happens in the New Testament.

Jesus and John the Baptist do exactly the same prophetic

critique. John the Baptist, born in a

Levitical family, could have certainly been a priest in a

kind of way. He became a priest, baptizing

and offering and forgiveness of sins.

Right outside, right by the Dead Sea, right right at the Jordan

River, he was starting a counter priesthood that called out the

apostasy of the Levitical priesthood.

Caiaphas was a great, great, great, great, great, great

grandson of Levi, great, great, great, great grandson of Aaron.

And so Jesus and John the Baptist demonstrate this

prophetic ecclesiology that calls to repentance even the

head of the temple complex. Now, does this extend to the New

Testament era with Christ on the throne?

Do we not have a new era where there's no longer needed a

prophetic critique of the one to whom Jesus gives authority?

Now I'd like to argue, let's go to the third bullet point.

Here Paul introduces the possibility that apostasy can

enter right into the heart of the church.

So in the Antichrist, the man of lawlessness takes his seat in

the temple of God. Calling the church the temple is

directly drawing a line from Old Testament ecclesiology and the

grammar therein to New Testament ecclesiology and the prophetic

critique we need against leaders who might even sit in the center

of the temple of God proclaiming a truth that is contrary to the

gospel. Now we see an example of this,

not in a nefarious way, but in in simple human error.

We see this prophetic critique bearing itself out in the way

Paul opposes Peter. Now look at the name he uses for

Peter. Not when Peter came to Antioch.

Let me make sure I get this right.

When Cephas comes to Antioch, it might be when Peter came to

Antioch. But in that in that passage, Oh

my goodness, I left home without my Greek New Testament.

That's the world coming to OK Cephas is the rock that Jesus

says to whom Jesus gives the declaration about the keys of

the Kingdom. But even this rock is opposed

quote to his face when he stands condemned.

Paul's own words for compromising the gospel by his

hypocrisy, saying one thing in a certain setting and going

against that by not eating with Gentiles in another setting.

It's interesting Jerome and Augustin find different

strategies for understanding this tension even within the New

Testament. Witness Jerome says, well,

actually Paul and Peter were deliberately staging this

disagreement, and so they were staging it so that people can

have a greater truth even through their pretend

disagreement. Augustin on the other hand, and

I side with Augustin on this one, believed that Peter was

genuinely in the wrong and Paul corrected him.

And so the history of, of interpretation of these passages

shows how these apostles after Jesus rose and ascended to the

right hand of the Father. They had the capacity of writing

authoritatively, inspired by the Spirit, and these are the texts

and Scripture that are handed down to us.

But they also had the capacity for error.

And so there was a need for a prophetic critique, even among

the apostles themselves. Let's go to the next slide and

see how this prophetic ecclesiology emerges.

Remember the tension between Ephesus and Rome?

OK, that continued well into the 2nd century.

John's Gospel places Jesus's death on Nissan 14, the day

before Passover. Mark's Gospel places Jesus's

death on Nissan 15. The day of Passover.

Now critical scholars will say, ha, error in the Gospels.

You can't trust the whole thing. Actually, if you dive a little

bit deeper, you see that there was a Galilean Pharisaical

numbering of the moon when it when it first shone and when was

the first day of the month. And so by that Galilean

tradition, Jesus died on Nissan 15.

But in the Jerusalemite priesthood reckoning of time,

Nissan 15 started a day later. And so Jesus was crucified

according to the priestly reckoning on Nissan 14.

Same day, different reckonings, no contradiction.

Actually a more robust depiction of what Jesus accomplished,

being the Paschal lamb by being sacrificed on the day before the

Passover and being the one who brings us out of out of Egypt

through Exodus into the new creation, being crucified on

Nissan 15. This complementary and diverse

depiction of the cross of Christ had implications for how Easter

was celebrated in the East in Asia Minor.

John's disciples in Ephesus took up the practice of remembering

Jesus death on Nissan 14. But those from a Roman

Providence who probably had Mark's gospel as the Gospel they

read the most they took to celebrating Jesus death,

remembering his death on the Friday before Easter.

And this posed no small conflict during the days of John's own

student Polycarp, who lived a long time.

So he learned from John himself and then also taught well into

the mid 2nd century. He became the Bishop of Smyrna.

We mentioned him a few minutes ago.

He and Anaikatis, the Bishop of Rome at that time, had a

disagreement about when and how to celebrate Easter, based on

when Jesus was said to have been crucified.

They agreed to disagree on the date of Easter.

And look at these words, the very phrasing that Eusebius

preserves. Anikatas yielded to Polycarp,

obviously out of respect. So things were all, you know,

cleared up after then, right? Well, no.

Go to the next slide. Victor became Bishop of Rome

around 180 AD. He's a little bit more power

hungry of a Roman Bishop. He says, no, I don't like this.

They're not doing they think they're their own wing of the

church and they can practice Easter whenever they want to

know we're going to we're going to make only one practice of

when to celebrate Easter. So he he pressured them to

conform. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus.

Who traced his Apostolic lineage all the way back to John.

He writes a letter to Victor stating that he and all the

churches of Asia following John will continue to commemorate

Jesus's death. On this on 14.

Not afraid of threats, for it is better to obey God than man.

It's according from Acts when Peter and Paul, in this case it

was Peter. Acts chapter 5 is opposing the

Acts 5 · chapter mention

Jerusalem priesthood, saying it's better to oppose God.

Sorry, it's better to obey. Amen.

It's better to obey God. It is better to obey God than

man. How does Pope Victor respond?

He attempts to excommunicate Polycrates and all the churches

of Asia Minor. But Irenaeus, whose name means

peacemaker, a native of Smyrna, student of Polycarp, A

missionary Bishop all the way in Lyon, modern day France, he led

a coalition of bishops to appeal to victor, to quote, rebuke him

sharply. By confronting the Bishop of

Rome and proving his error, Ironyus delayed the East West

schism by nearly 900 years. It was this prophetic

ecclesiology that kept the Church together.

And oh if it could have persisted in 1066 or 1054 when

the great Schism happened between East and West.

Let's continue. OK, it continues.

The plot thickens. We have a figure.

So Pope Liberius and Pope Felix the Second, who's actually in

Roman Catholic understanding is considered an anti Pope.

So Fast forward 200 years, we're in 355 AD.

After the Council of Nicaea, the Aryan sympathetic Emperor

Constantius the Second pressures Liberius, the true Bishop of

Rome, to issue a condemnation against our friend Athanasius,

the champion of Nicene Orthodoxy.

Liberius as a faithful Bishop who could trace his lineage back

to Peter. He refused, so Constantius

banished Liberius. Get out of here, you're no

longer in Rome, and installed Felix the Second as Pope.

Two years later, Liberius, under threat of death, agreed to sign

the condemnation against Athanasius, who had just begun

his third exile. This LED This was Liberius's

power play to get reinstalled back as the Bishop of Rome.

He did it for what might say good motives because he wanted

to exert good Nicene orthodoxy, but he did so by condemning

Athanasius. After Constantius's The Second

Death the Second's death, Liberius repented and rescinded

his condemnation against Athanasius.

So how does the Roman Catholic Church understand this

difficulty of the Bishop of Rome being exiled no longer in Rome

and another Pope coming in? Who's the true Pope?

They have a category known as the antipope for any figures

like Felix the Second. There are several antipops

throughout Roman Catholic history.

Now I think that is a legitimate interpret way to interpret the

history of these bishops of Rome, but it's basically

Protestant ecclesiology. Think about it.

The Bishop of Rome, the true heir of the Gospel, gets exiled

out of Rome, and so the Church goes with him out of Rome, and

then the church comes back and confronts Rome with the true

Gospel. That's just the Protestant

Church movement in an ancient form.

Let's go to the next slide and see another example of this.

Fast forward by another three or so centuries.

In the 7th century, the heresy of Monothelatism sprang up,

teaching that the Incarnate Son only had one will, rather than a

human will hypothetically united with a divine will.

So in 635, Pope Anorius the First came dangerously close to

endorsing Monothelatism by offering concessions to the

arguments of Sergius, the first Patriarch of Constantinople.

Now the he didn't technically endorse Monothelitism, but

perhaps out of generosity he he offered concessions to those who

were full on Monothelites. If so, remember from the Council

of Chalcedon, 451 AD, It's utterly important that Christ

has a divine nature and a human nature eternally without,

without without confusion, united in these two natures,

which means his divine nature has a divine will.

His human nature has a human will.

The two of those are united without, without with

distinction. But without?

Without. Blending they're united

eternally in his incarnation, so that way Christ can fully assume

human nature and fully redeem it into the Godhead.

It's really important that Christ in his Incarnate self has

two natures and two wills. So monotheletism actually is a

really important theological. Debate.

The 6th Ecumenical Council, Third Council of Constantinople

formally and mathematizes Pope Honorius the First quote, who

did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the

teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery

permitted its purity to be polluted.

Honorius the First is not considered an antipope.

He's a Pope in the line of the faithful who received the Gospel

from Peter. And yet he is.

Anathematized here. How do we handle that?

It seems that it's the prophetic ecclesiology that can even say

when a Pope missed that can even call the Bishop of Rome to

account when he does not sanctify the Apostolic Church

with the teachings. Of Apostolic tradition.

All right, let's go to the next slide.

OK. So so far we've had the

historic, historic ecumenism and we've had the.

Prophetic ecclesiology. Now third and finally, Gospel

clarity. I think this is actually the

strongest point that Protestants can make, our crystal clear

proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul says it. I want you to I want to remind

you, brothers, of the gospel which I gospelized to you, which

you have received, and upon which you have taken your stand.

Through this gospel. You are saved if you hold firmly

to the word which I gospelized to you, otherwise you have

believed in vain. Let's see here then he says, For

I pass down to you that sacred Apostolic tradition passing down

as of first importance, what's the main thing, the most

important thing? If you forget everything else

that you hear in church, what's the most important thing to

remember? That the Messiah died for our

sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried

and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the

Scriptures. He's the Messiah.

He died for our sins. He was buried and raised on the

third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

This fourfold Apostolic proclamation, the Greek word for

it is karigma, is the gospel that unites Paul with Peter with

John with James with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

This Apostolic gospel, you see it in First Corinthians 15, Acts

Acts 10 · chapter mention

chapter 10 when Peter's preaching to Cornelius,

Ephesians chapter 1 when Paul is writing the Super run on

Ephesians 1 · chapter mention

sentence in Greek. This Apostolic gospel is what

unites the entire New Testament Canon.

It is of first importance. Scholar recently has made

written this incredible book that shows how Matthew, Mark,

Luke and John as the four gospels.

Apostolic gospels are differentiated from the 80 other

apocryphal gospels because none of those eighty other gospels

preach this Apostolic charisma. Only Matthew, Mark, Luke and

John do. And so this is of first

importance. Now let's see how this gospel

clarity emerges in the divergent traditions.

Of Christianity. Let's do the next slide.

You see, every church tradition engages in the development of

doctrine. I kind of.

That's why I mentioned some of the the the frequently mentioned

later. Roman Catholic dogmas that

Protestant apologists like to point out 1870 is a relatively

late dogma, and so the the Petrine supremacy and papal

infallibility. Is a later thing 1870.

Now it's not just Roman Catholics who have development

of doctrine, Protestants too as well.

And so that same criticism might be levelled against some of our

distinct Roman Protestant doctrines.

And even the consensual Nicene Constantinopolitan and

Calcedonian traditions are similarly developments of the of

doctrine. Where do you see the word Co

substantial in the New Testament?

You don't find it. Where do you see the word

Trinity in the New Testament? You don't find it.

Where do you find the word hypostatic union?

You don't find it in the New Testament.

But any of us who recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday would

say these are genuinely in the text of Scripture.

It just took time to draw it out and for the seed to bear fruit

and the tree to grow. And so we have Nicene

Constantinopolitan Christianity. Which brings me to my question

regarding Gospel clarity. Which post Nicene traditions

show greater Gospel clarity in their further development of

doctrine? Let's see how the Orthodox,

Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions develop their

doctrines. Purgatory indulgences.

Never a dogma, but very commonly practiced before Trent,

Immaculate Conception of Mary, Petra and supremacy, Papal

infallibility, bodily assumption of Mary.

A good OP Dominican conservative Catholic theologian could make a

case that you see the Gospel somehow preserved, protected, or

embodied in these Roman Catholic dogmas.

OK, but with what clarity? Compare that to the

substitutionary atonement of Christ, the imputation of the

resurrected Christ's righteousness on us sinners, the

sole intercession of the ascended Christ on our behalf.

These doctrines go right to the heart of the gospel so that you

can know that Christ died. Christ died for your sins

according to the scriptures, and through him you can have the

confidence to face God on judgment day.

Not through the mediation of Saints and angels or the Blessed

Virgin Mary herself. It is through the sole work of

Christ. I don't have time to discuss to

discuss Greek Orthodox dogma. It's just interesting as a

parallel to notice how the dogma that develops in a Greek

Orthodox context has other implications regarding the

Gospel and regarding church practice.

For this, for the purposes today, I'm just comparing and

contrasting Protestant development of doctrine versus

Roman Catholic development of doctrine.

Let's continue. This comes to bear on our

liturgy, the implicit curriculum, the thing that you

say every single Sunday that shapes who you are.

Look at the difference between our Eucharistic prayers.

Now, I'm borrowing here from the Anglican standard text.

We use the revised ancient version, revised ancient text

for our Eucharistic liturgy, but the Anglican standard text is

also there in our Book of Common Prayer.

We earnestly desire your fatherly goodness mercifully to

accept this, our sacrifice of praise and Thanksgiving, asking

you to grant that by the merits and death of your Son Jesus

Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and your whole church

may obtain forgiveness of our sins and all of the benefits of

His Passion. And although we are unworthy

because of our many sins, to offer you any sacrifice, yet we

ask you to accept this duty and service we owe, not weighing our

merits, but pardoning offenses through Jesus Christ our Lord,

and of course, our prayer of humble access.

We do not presume to come to this Your table, O merciful

Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your

abundant and great mercies. Let's contrast that with the

Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayer in communion with those

whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever

Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, and

Blessed Joseph her Spouse and all your Saints.

We ask that through their merits and prayers in all things we may

be defended by your protecting help through Jesus Christ our

Lord. Amen.

Have mercy on us all. We pray that with the Blessed

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with Blessed Joseph her Spouse, with

the Blessed Apostles and all the Saints who have pleased you

throughout the ages, we may merit to be coheirs to eternal

life and may praise and glorify you through your Son Jesus

Christ. OK, again, if we had AOP,

Dominican conservative Catholic theologian would probably be

able to make a really strong case for how merit here does not

equal workspace righteousness, how merit here is actually a

transformation of the soul into the likeness of God, etcetera,

etcetera, etcetera. But what is more abundantly

clear, pointing to the grace of Jesus Christ for wretched

sinners like you and me. This is the glory of our

Protestant tradition, that it goes back to the Apostolic

Gospel. It proclaims it with utmost

clarity and it preserves it from generation to generation.

I don't have time to share about my own family's experience, but.

Suffice it to say. That coming from a N northern

Mexican Roman Catholic quasi folk religious context, being

confronted by Baptist missionaries 120 years ago with

this gospel of grace was transformative to my whole

family and I'm still experiencing its effects today.

And so I offer to you this Gospel clarity in our Protestant

tradition, together with our prophetic ecclesiology and our

historic acumenism, as hopefully a compelling case to remain.

Protestant, thank you. Oh.

Sorry. OK, lest I have the last word,

let me give John Kelvin, my homeboy, the last word he says.

When we see that the whole sum of our salvation and every

single part of it are comprehended in Christ, we must

be aware of deriving even the minutest portion of it from any

other quarter. If we seek salvation, we are

taught by the very name of Jesus.

The Lord saves that He possesses it.

If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, we shall find them

in His unction. Strengthen His government,

purity in His conception, indulgence in His nativity, in

which He was made like us in all respects, in order that we might

learn that He might learn to sympathize with us.

If we seek redemption, we shall find it in His passion,

acquittal in His condemnation, remission of the curse in His

cross, satisfaction in His sacrifice, purification in His

blood. Keep going.

Reconciliation in his descent to hell.

Mortification of the flesh and His sepulchre.

Newness of life in his resurrection.

Immortality also in his resurrection.

The inheritance of a celestial Kingdom in his entrance into

Heaven. Protection, security, and the

abundant supply of all blessings in His Kingdom.

Secure anticipation of judgement in the power of judging

committed to Him. That is Christ.

Finally, since in Him all kinds of blessings are treasured up,

let us draw a full supply from Him and from none other quarter.

Those who, not satisfied with Him alone, entertain various

hopes from others, though they may continue to look to Him,

chiefly deviate from the right path, because some portion of

their thought takes a different direction.

Thank you very much. All right.

We have some time for Q&A. Go ahead in the front.

So 1 of my largest largest blockades for is.

Sorry for. Me being critical.

Of yeah, go ahead. Why?

Why would I want to associate with someone who removed?

Seven books from the Canon. Yes, Canon question.

So our so you can. So I commend to you 2 lectures

of the past two weeks. We did the Old Testament Canon

and the New Testament Canon. Short summary of both of those

lectures. When you see the Canon of the

Hebrew Bible, when you see the Canon of Athanasius, so of

origin of Athanasius, of Jerome, of John of Damascus, you see

common overlap that the core of each of those like the the and

the list doesn't include the Apocrypha.

There was a, there was this very thoroughgoing patristic teaching

that there are 22 letters of the Hebrew Bible and therefore only

22 books of the Old Testament. And that that is essential.

That is our Protestant Canon. Those 22 books include the the

12 books of the minor prophets as one book, Lamentations

together with Jeremiah, Ezra and Nehemiah together.

But it's 22 summarizing the entire language of God for the

Old Testament, just as there are 22 letters in the Hebrew

alphabet. Jerome, John Damascus,

Athanasius origin, Josephus the the the Jewish historian all

appeal to that argument for the closeness of the Old Testament

Canon at 22 books. It was later Christians who well

Christians along the same time as Athanasius, Jerome and

Augustine who said we have these other books, what do we do with

them? I think that the Anglican

approach to it is the most faithful that that really

follows the partistic tradition that says.

We have 22 books of the Old Testament when they're numbered

in that way as our authoritative scriptures, and then we have

these seven other books that are helpful for our instruction.

And so we commend them even for public reading.

And the Anglican seminary where I teach, we read from the

Apocrypha as part of our daily office.

We commend them for teaching of morals and instruction, but not

for any formulation of doctrine. And I think that just only that

faithfully anchors ourselves in what Athanasius?

Jerome, Shana. Damascus all the way back to

origin and back to the early church.

Early centuries of the church would say that's a good question

though. Go ahead, Sarah.

So. I have a question on the last.

Part. Looking at the clarity of the

gospel because when it comes to Catholicism and like praying to

Saints and everything, a lot of the way that we Protestant see

it is from Catholics to. Misunderstand.

Yes, yes, yes, Doctrine. And we also.

I also have a lot of examples of current.

Protestants. Oh yes, they abound that.

Then take like. Salvation by faith too far.

Yep, Yep, Yep, actually there's. No conformity to the acts of

right. And so despite the gospel

clarity, like, it's still perverted.

So Yep. Yep.

My question is like, how would you respond to the Catholic

doctrine? Yes, absolutely.

If I had another hour, I would just enumerate all the ways that

historic Roman Catholic theologians have challenged us

Protestants in ways where we have lost the Gospel.

And so, so I, I think the ecumenical dialogue towards

Gospel clarity should go both ways, certainly.

And I mean, to use an extreme example for within a, I'll have

to call it a broadly Protestant context, but look at the

prosperity gospel that is proliferating, especially in

sub-Saharan Africa. They take the name of.

Jesus and the power that is in it and ascribe to it a kind of

talismanic force that they can use to bless people for all the

prosperity and all their own acquisition of wealth as corrupt

pastors. It's all across the continent of

Africa. I spent five years of my life

teaching true doctrine and promoting the gospel because of

these Protestant errors. So I think the critique should

go both ways and each of our traditions should appreciate

where we marred the gospel and and blur its clarity.

So I think that's a really appropriate comment.

Yes, Renee, go ahead. So.

A couple of. Things.

Yes please having. Left the Catholic tradition

relatively. Recently.

Yeah, there is in the United States a great hostility because

Protestants are deeply untouched to.

Catholics in a lot of ways. The Catholic Churches are

desecrated on a regular. Basis.

And that's something that you understand if you're going to

disagree with someone. I think if you don't really

understand things, you will lose your integrity.

Very, very quickly. Absolutely the concept.

Of papal supremacy does not just come from one person's concept,

it was actually a parallel to Isaiah 20. 2 whereby?

A king gave the keys to the Kingdom to a servant and said,

I'm giving you the keys and my authority.

As the king. To run this, this, this Kingdom

on my behalf. And whatever you say will be

interpreted as I have said. It will have all of my

authority. And they look at the parallel

when Jesus said, I now named you Peter for the rock, and upon

this rock I will give my church. And then the cakes of thou shall

not prevail against it. And I am giving you the keys.

And a Jew would have looked at those parallels and said, Oh, of

course. And Paul went to see Peter

before he began his ministries. That's actually where it comes

from. The other things I don't agree.

With, yeah, I think it's. Really important.

If you're going to. Disagree with?

People. Yeah, to.

Really, really understand. Absolutely.

So we. The Catholic Church doesn't look

at merit as we have earned it is we have been transformed by.

Christ. And as such will perform good

things. Yeah, and they look at Saints

not like I need them to go to Christ.

Yep. But these are people who have

done great things and now have a relationship with Christ.

The wedding it came. Up.

Yep. Yep.

Mm. Hmm.

Absolutely. Yep.

And who went to Christ? Yep, said.

Just. That yes.

I I get very nervous. Mm hmm.

In these. Situations.

Yep, Yep, yes, and I. Said there are and then my other

question is how do I respond because I still have many, many

friends who are. Catholic about.

Things that were done post Vatican.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean.

Kelis is a lot older, so they did things like theology of the

body. It's like, OK, we're going.

To develop Protestant theology of the body.

And how do I respond to people who say Anglicans are just

taking the the keys to the Catholic bus and trying to

drive? It off.

And that's, I have, I have heard that many times when people who

find out when I went from being a Catholic to an Anglican,

they're copying what we did, but then just taking out what they

don't. Want.

Yeah, both have faceted question.

Thank you so much. Let me just rapid fire.

Rapid fire is the worst analogy. Basically, I want to, I want to

affirm like several things right off the bat that I think the

whole group here should hear if the, the concept or the, the

errors or the, the harm that's caused by desecrating Roman

Catholic churches. Absolutely we need to cut that

out. The misunderstanding and the

disrespect that Protestants give to Roman Catholics.

Absolutely we need to do better. That's not that's not becoming

of our identity as brothers and sisters in Christ.

The properly representing Catholic arguments for their

doctrines. Absolutely we need to do that.

So I'm glad that you bring up Isaiah 22 pointing to Hezekiah,

giving Eliakim the the his representative the keys of the

Kingdom. There is there are good biblical

theological hermeneutics that run through from the Old

Testament passage of the keys of the Kingdom all the way to

Peter. I, I would so so I appreciate

that Roman, that biblical theology hermeneutic that Roman

Catholics are using for pad trance supremacy.

I only ask that they nuance it with the other things of Peter's

career that we see in the New Testament and the whole and the

history that I've outlined of ecumenical dialogue.

So absolutely yes, things that I'm affirming that you've said

and also ways in which we can, I can hopefully make a case like I

did while still extending the right hand of fellowship to

Roman Catholics. Question your question about are

we just sort of stealing all the goods of Roman Catholicism and

running the bus off I. Of course my answer is no, we're

not doing that. And the reason why is I whatever

tradition we find truth from, that reminds us and anchors us

back in the Apostolic Gospel, we should thank God for those

fontes, for those sources wherever we find them.

And even Calvin will quote from Thomas Aquinas and Bernardo

Clairvaux, just as he would quote from the Eastern Orthodox

Fathers. And yeah, even as he was

influenced by probably some rabbinic sources as well in his

day. So we need to acknowledge where

we get our theology from, not only kind of paying lip service,

but genuine gratitude for those sectors of the Church that with

with with which our polities don't have communion.

But with but to whom we are. Deeply indebted because of what

they have taught us by passing, passing down to us the Apostolic

faith. I think that that Oh yeah.

Then then regarding merits, Mary and the Saints, again, a

conservative Catholic description of these concepts, I

think does get to a point of saying how they relate to the

Gospel. But coming from a personal

experience of Mexican American Roman Catholicism, I can

definitely, I, I can very clearly see how just as in a, in

a sub-saharan African context with the prosperity gospels

leading others astray. I have seen and have continued

to see how reliance on other mediators, even like how your

typical folk Catholic Mexican is not going to know the

understanding of merit and the understanding of intercession.

And so they're going to them for salvation.

And so that's why I, I, I, I advocate the clarity that's

given in the Protestant tradition.

Go ahead up front, I wonder. If you could.

That Peter was indeed. The founder of the church in

Rome and that this isn't a later claim made by the leaders of

Rome that tried to take his authority for their own church.

Like why do we believe? That that Why do we believe that

Peter founded the church in Rome?

Yeah, well. Like what are what is, what is

the evidence? That Peter was actually.

Yeah. So if we just have the New

Testament, it. Someone could correct me if I'm

wrong, but it looks like Paul got there first in Acts 27 and

28. However, if we look at Irenaeus

in that quote that I brought up against Heresies chapter 3,

Section 3, he said yeah, the blessed apostles.

Then, having founded and built up the church, committed into

the hands of Linus. The office of the Episcopate and

then it mentions in section book three, section one that.

Peter and Paul were. Preaching at Rome and laying the

foundations of the church. So it's a Petrine and Pauline

collaboration that founds the church, which is why we have

basilica's to both in, in, in Rome, and which is why in one of

the Anathema's the, the, the Pope of that time said they they

would experience the wrath of God and Peter and Paul, they're

appealing to Pauline and Petrine origins for, for, for the Church

of Rome, But then interpreting Matthew 16, specifically saying

Peter would be that head. I disagree with with some of

that exegesis, but that's at least the argument that they

would make. Yeah, go ahead.

To what extent would you say that like a rise in literacy

explains sort of the timing of the Protestant schism?

Like the Roman. Catholic Church and like

printing press. And like 13. 50 and that sort of

thing, the Bible like. Yeah, yeah.

Just that, like, you know, as with any sort of human

institution. Yeah.

A lack of kind of oversight or, you know, many, many viewers

sort of distraction, the ability to sort of sort truth from, you

know, do you do you think like literacy was part of that?

Well, I mean, just see how Twitter can tear a church apart.

I think these. Technologies are like fuel to a

fire. They, they, they accelerate the,

the, the trends that are already there.

They were political dynamics, there were social, there were,

you know, the dynamics of plague and famine and war all and and

in addition to that, the increased levels of technology

that we have in the 15th century.

All of that, I think was contributing to it was

accelerating these dynamics that we saw in the 2nd century, that

we saw in the 7th century and that we saw in the 11th century

with the great schism. These these tensions over how

does the church stay united existed in out in every

generation. But the in the case of free

Reformation Europe, it would seem that the papacy, if there

was ever a papacy that was straying from the Gospel, it

would be that era which would lead to those dynamics, those

prophetic dynamics already present in the church, coming to

their full fruition towards eventual schism, even though the

original reformers did not want a schism.

So Alfred in the back. So I want to make sure I'm

understanding what the talk is and isn't.

Yes, so. The.

First one understand it. Explaining and saying is why

you're not. Yes, uh huh.

Absolutely is you. Don't seem.

To address the Orthodox question.

It seems to me from from listening that there is 2

reasons appeared to me. There were two reasons you were

a new author. Yeah, the.

Humanism of the Protestant Church and the sort of fidelity

to the the the true box. And I think.

Some anonymous in May for different of traditions and you

can go on to use those two. Pillars.

So just clarifying that you aren't actually addressing why

you aren't. Next summer, bring me back.

Yeah, it IA short answer would be it.

So I have used many Eastern Orthodox arguments today,

especially for the, especially for the accumulate, the historic

accumenism, and also a little bit of the prophetic

ecclesiology. A short answer would be it's

the. 3rd. Point the Gospel clarity.

If we had more time, we'd unpack how I still believe the the

Protestant exposition of the Gospel is still the clearest

when it's properly preached and why I'm sorry.

In my personal opinion, when you see Roman Catholic or Easter

Orthodox evangelizing, well, I think we Protestants have helped

them remember how to do that. Let's go to the side here,

Andrew. Yep, Yep.

Yeah. So how do we speak of the

continuity of doctrine and the unity across the body because of

one head? Yes, that is a that is a a real

draw to many, many a millennial or Gen.

Z Protestant. Well, as I think it's Brad

Lillijohn and Chris Casaldo have put it, if you go to Rome, for

the sake of clarity of doctrine, you have 66 books of the Canon

and more actually, and you have over 600 papal encyclicals and

church documents that you also have to sort through.

It's actually making things more complex as well.

It just so Protestants do that as well with our confessions of

faith. But if we make the argument that

Protestants have made things too complex and have invited

disagreements, we should also recognize that the number of

papal encyclicals and the church documents in the Roman Catholic

Church, including retractions, that we see in developments.

And I would, as a Protestant, argue contradictions between

Trent's and Vatican 2. We have just as much difficulty

squaring our circles and looking for clarity with regard to the

the one head of the Church. I think we can, we can and

should point to Protestant examples of, I can call it

unprecedented ecumenism. Look at the Lausanne Congress of

1974 convened by John Stott and Billy Graham and the, the, the,

the, the thousands of representatives from every

continent. So Lausanne, 1974, Lausanne,

that was in Switzerland, 1989 in Manila, 2010 in Cape Town, last

year in Seoul, Korea. These are ecumenical conferences

that bring together a wide diversity of Protestant

denominations. United and making common

commitments to the preaching of the.

Gospel look at the Anglican Communion that is represented on

every consonant in the world that arguably.

If you just. Look at a picture of the Gaff

Con conference in 2018. Jerusalem and the sea of faces

where no no one's skin color next to another is the same.

It's beautiful to see. Global ecumenism, I think is

beautifully practiced by specific bodies of Protestantism

to this very day. And that is another reason why

I'm glad to be part of the Anglican Communion and adjacent

to movements like the Lausanne movement.

That's a good question. The very back.

Yeah, I've been. Back into my face for a few

years now, been volunteering and visiting churches that across

the DNB. Yeah, people like me are.

Asking how? Yeah, I'm.

Trying to educate myself on. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Feels like. Homelessness.

Or. Is my sole Yeah.

To eventually subscribe to something.

Yeah. Yeah.

Well, I would say what I would say.

So I served as a missionary in Ethiopia, based there in seven

years. And so I worked with Ethiopian

Orthodox and with Protestants of a variety of traditions and

Muslim background believers. And so there are many people in

each of those circles who had experiences of ecclesial

homelessness. And my encouragement to those

folks were find a church where the gospel is faithfully

preached and put yourself under their authority and stick with

them through thick and thin. That will be the, the, the best

for your spiritual growth and it would it will be the best for

your ministry within that church.

There is a practical, practical utility to, to having a

doctrinal statement of faith that we agree on so that we can

do practical ministry together. Even if we, even if we join

sides with other churches in evangelistic campaigns.

There's a practical, A pragmatic aspect to having a statement of

faith that defines who we are as a family, such that we can

disciple well. Yeah, so nice.

And creed, I would say go a little bit more defined than

that with a specific church so that you can be under the

authority of a, of a priest or a pastor who has taken vows before

God in the church to shepherd you in the faith, to correct you

when you stray, to preach the gospel of forgiveness for your

sins. We can't just hop from church to

church thinking that we're going to receive those those goods by

osmosis. It's good to be in a family.

It's good to be under authority. Yeah.

Someone had a hand up for a long time, Justin, in the very back.

So you. Sort of made a couple different

references and talked a little bit about for church,

particularly the exile, the church.

That's sort of true. Churches.

Exile comes. Back.

Yeah. When?

You think about sort of the churches split, split up, sort

of the big term, not the next 20 years.

Yeah. Hundred 500 How do?

You want to. Think about that.

Yeah. Do you see it more?

Do you see the churches or theology of the church more?

That eventually we want to come back together, right?

That there's things that can be rectified, pull back together.

Yeah. Or is it more of a historical

sort of like Asia Minor has a particular version of it and we

sort of work together and we try?

To clarify things about. The gospel, yeah, which is just.

An exile or more? Really, really good question.

I'm not going to try to wig a lot of this one by saying time's

up, but I will get to that question.

And I think that actually might be a good final question to

answer. It'll be 3:00 PM at that point.

Good time to end. OK, so we did Wentz.

Now let's do wither. Where are we headed as the

church, as the global church that is fractured by schism, by

division. There's a, there's, there are

two, two realities that exist at the same time and are already

not yet. Christ's resurrected body is

united in the heavenly realms. There's not a piece of him over

there, a piece of him over there.

He is resurrected in his in his fullness, representing humanity

at the right hand of God. And all of our prayer, all of

our intercession, all of our Eucharistic devotion is because

Christ is one in the heavenly realms.

The other reality is that his church is divided on earth.

And so we have this paradox that Christ is simultaneously united

in the heavenly realms, but divided among his people on

earth. Now that question is is

perplexing has perplexed theologians since even before

the Reformation. But I.

Think we need to lean into the? Lean into the the hope of the

eschaton that the church will be won at the last day and whatever

we can do this side of eternity to to preach the true Christ and

to work to the unity of his body.

I think we need to do both of those things all the time.

It will look different ways in different circumstances.

So for example, the East Ethiopian Orthodox Church in the

Horn of Africa did not have Christians or did not make

converts of African traditional religion up until the 20th

century in the southern bit of Ethiopia.

So when Protestant missionaries in 1895 went to the emperor and

said, hey, we have the gospel, we've brought all of our goods

in our coffins because we're going to die here in Ethiopia

preaching the gospel. Where should we go?

The emperor said, well, we're already Orthodox N but we're

Muslim east and we're Pagan South, so go, go South and east.

And so you have this amazing 80. Year.

Movement of Protestant Christianity in southern

Ethiopia. Now there are some among those

Protestants who want to go north and say all y'all Ethiopian

Orthodox have to have to become Protestants.

I actually disagree with that. I would say I would, I would, I

would follow a different trend, which is in the north of

Ethiopia and their seminaries. They're rediscovering the

Scriptures and there's a little bit of a reformation happening

even within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

That to me is pointing towards greater Gospel clarity at the

same time as this ever, ever approaching union of different

ecclesial bodies, even if it doesn't happen in our lifetime.

It is that latter ecclesiology that also has Gospel clarity

that I am committing my life to. Which is, and this is exactly

why I'm not anathematizing any Roman Catholics or Eastern

Orthodox. And it is why I have this, this,

this rugged, indefatigable hope that the Church will one day be

won. And the way for me most

faithfully to live towards that is to preach the Gospel in all

of its clarity. Be grateful for all of my

teachers, whatever sector of the Church they come from, and to

encourage those from other church bodies towards that same

clarity as we all grow in the likeness of Christ.

So thanks, Justin.