The Future of Protestantism - Peter Leithart, Fred Sanders, Carl Trueman, and Peter Escalante

I watched the whole thing; but I admit I fell asleep here and there for 5 minutes or so. I think I went back and listened again to the parts I missed.

I am trying to understand Peter Leithart.

He was tried for heresy (it seems, if I understand it rightly, basically, of being accused of aspects of the “Federal Vision” – that infant baptism justifies and regenerates – and aspects of something similar to the New Perspective on Paul that seem to be adding the merit of works for final salvation and not distinquishing between justification and sanctification), within the last couple of years, but was exonerated.

Go to the Aquila Report and search under Peter Leithart and you can find the details.  (There are several other articles there on the heresy trial of P. Leithart.)

But the main prosecutor, Jason Stellman, later became a Roman Catholic. (very ironic)

Leithart seems to say that Roman Catholicism is part of the same body of Christ and the people are brothers and sisters as they were baptized with the same Trinitarian baptism. Leithart seems to be arguing the same kind of thing that Doug Wilson argued in his debate with James White, “Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters?” (see at http://www.aomin.org) – Wilson says something like “grab them by their baptism”.

I think Peter Escalante was wrong at 1:28:00 where he says that Francis Turretin said that the RCC was a church, just deformed, but has word and sacrament, etc.

Turretinfan provides evidence to the contrary:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/04/real-turretin-on-church-of-rome-in-his.html

No one mentioned directly the anathemas of the Council of Trent on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

In this video, Leithard emphasizes:
1. Ecumenical meetings, Unity, John 17 – getting together locally to foster unity and discussions with Roman Catholics
2. Seemed to say that Transubstantiation could be an opinion, but not a dogma ( ?? !!!)
3. Liturgy
4. Sacraments
5. Eucharist/Lord’s supper has to be celebrated every week

Carl Trueman said that J. Gresham Machen’s view was that theological liberalism was not Christianity, but that RCC is a distorted form of Christianity; and that the Reformers did not re-baptize anyone who converted from Rome to the Protestant faith.

Trueman was good in emphasizing the Word/Scriptures/preaching/teaching and pastoral implications of helping the average person understand the issues, by not confusing them with too much ecumenism.

They needed to have James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and John Bugay of Triablogue and John McArthur, R. C. Sproul, and William Webster there to make the discussion more lively.

Catholic Nick and obstinacy

It still amazes me, though it shouldn't, how a clearly intelligent man like Catholic Nick can interact with Reformed bloggers for years and years and yet still fail to grasp the most elementary distinctions because of his Rome-leaning bias. A robust Protestant view of ecclesiology seems so foreign to him that maybe he is literally too far under the surface of the Tiber that everything looks muddy and brown.

We continue:

Sure, I can understand that's what you think about what infallibility is, but it does not exist in real life. And a false claim to infallibility doesn't get us anywhere.
Who cares about infallibility, BTW, if one is RIGHT about something?

The Judaisers DID go on Judaising. That's why Paul had to write Galatians and parts of 2 Corinthians and Philippians. Did you just forget that part? You keep acting like true authority or infallibility would lead to everyone agreeing, including enemies of the faith, but that's not true in the early church nor in RCC throughout history.


Take (almost) any doctrine and notice how some Protestant somewhere will deny it on the basis that the Protestants who believe it are not infallible.

But what do I care about "some Prot somewhere"? Why don't you actually argue in a way that is relevant here? I certainly don't argue that way! If a Prot is wrong about something, it's b/c he's WRONG; I never mention infallibility unless someone falsely claims it for himself.


This is precisely why no Protestant is bound to accept the Westminster Confession,

But what relevance does this have? The Confession is the authority for Presby churches; it serves to make it easier to identify who really agrees with them and who doesn't and thus to call ppl to comply with the set doctrine or to join another church (or to be called out as heretics).
LOok, you HAVE to realise that it's the exact same situation with RCC. Either someone submits himself to RCC and its confessions, or one doesn't. It's as simple as that. There's no force involved, and the authority you think RCC has is only applicable to those who agree to listen to that authority. It's the same with WCF and Presbys.


People can submit to it in the same way an employee submits to the office rules, but that's by no means infallible or binding on all Protestants.

Trading on an inconsistent comparison, like you always do.
It's binding on all WCF-PRESBYTERIANS. Just like CCC and Magisterial docs is binding on all RCs. But you need to compare church to church. Not "Protestants" as a whole.


And from that you can see that it's plainly ridiculous to speak of each and every denomination having their own distinct formally established dogma.

Why is it ridiculous? Each one DOES.


You're not distinguishing between "The Church" and "A Church".

Actually, I did so very carefully. That's why I said "A Prot church".


There is only One Church in reality, with various local manifestations (e.g. parishes), but not in Protestantism

That's completely untrue. I completely affirm that there is only One Church in reality, with various local manifestations (e.g. local churches). Just like in the NT.
There are no "parishes" in the NT, BTW.


In Protestantism, everyone is autonomous

Your Romanist blinders don't let you see the double standard you're using.
What do you mean by "autonomous"?


there is no single denomination where everyone comes together.

So?


You make my point for me, by saying it depends on the denomination you have made church authority worthless.

How so? What authority does the church have over outsiders?
What authority does RCC have over outsiders?


Now anyone can go and start their own denomination and make themself pastor

Anyone can do that with RCC as well, and RCC either intervenes and says "you're not of us" or it doesn't.
Same with PCA as well - someone could do so and call themselves PCA and PCA either intervenes and says "you're not of us" or it doesn't.
Further, there is always the question of the JUSTIFIABILITY of that guy's going off by himself. How does RCC handle the problem that there will always be split-offs? We've seen clearly how they did it in the 16th century - they threaten the lives of the splitters.
You're evincing a 16th-cent mindset; you apparently prefer RCC to operate with force against those who leave RCC. Nice.


All a dissatisfied Presbyterian has to do is go start his own Presbyterian denomination and just rename it.

All a dissatisfied Roman Catholic has to do is go start his own Roman Catholic denomination and just rename it.


That means the PCA is just a bunch of men pretending to have authority over Christians when in fact they hold no divine authority at all.

They have authority over THEIR OWN CHURCH - Matthew 18, Hebrews 13, Titus, 1&2 Timothy.
Just like RC priests and the Magisterium have authority over THEIR OWN CHURCH.


You have not given any indication there is one church Jesus approves of above all others. I

You didn't ask.
He probably approves most of the church that has the best doctrine and conduct. Like in Revelation 1-3.
Just b/c He approves MOST of a given church doesn't mean that other ones aren't true churches.


I have, which I why as a Catholic I say the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

Good for you, but your mistaken assertions mean nothing more than that you are mistaken.


What you're saying is that either there is no way to know which denomination Jesus approves of above all others, or that Jesus doesn't really care where you go as long as you join one.

As long as you join A GOOD CHURCH, there is plenty of reason to think you're doing your due diligence.


In other words, the original Church Jesus established flopped at least once, if not multiple times, and fresh new start ups had to arise from the ashes whenever a prior church went bad. That's pure Mormonism

Yawn. Of course the original church***ES*** flopped. When's the last time you read the NT?
The epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Titus, Timothy, of John, and Jude, and 3 of the 7 churches in Revelation 1-3 show that early churchES had serious doctrinal problems even in the lifetime of the apostles.
It's not Mormonism, since no one is claiming that the true church totally disappeared, only to reappear in the form of a polytheistic cult later.
Maybe you could exegete Matthew 16, showing that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means necessarily that "the church in Rome will never experience deadly doctrinal error" or "21st century people will always be able to find definitive historical evidence that Jesus' followers existed in force for a continuous flow throughout history". I'll be happy to see your exegesis along those lines.


There is no historical continuity from Christ upto now in your view. To you the Early Church Fathers practiced an extinct form of Christianity.

Your Romanist bias prevents you from dealing with my true position. You've had so many opportunities to be corrected on this; I'm losing hope that you'll actually ever even be able to deal with a real Protestant position. It's like you're stuck arguing against fading memories of Chick tracts.



The NT does not give a list of Majors/Essentials

Not a list per se, but it certainly seems a pretty shallow mindset to demand a list. Perhaps God preferred to reveal His essentials differently.
And the NT does split out majors/minors quite clearly in numerous places. John 8:24, pretty much all of Galatians (which, of course, condemns RCC quite vociferously), Revelation 1-3, etc. And 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14.
It's like you're not even reading. I've now told you 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 thrice; when are you going to interact with them?


If it did, then there would never have been debate on issues such as paedobaptism between folks like White and R Scott Clark in the first place.

Proof ≠ persuasion.
Be consistent; your argument proves too much - The RC Magisterium does not give a list of Majors/Essentials, nor can such a list be derived. If it did, then there would never have been debate on issues such as filioque between folks like RCC and EOC in the first place.
Or ...then there would never have been a debate on issues such as predestination in earlier RCC. Or of various Marian dogmas. The role of relics.
The list goes on and on. When will you actually take this into account? RCC does not have the unity it claims it has!



There is no "the church" in Protestantism to be able to follow Our Lord's instructions.

Sure there is. There's the local church.

CatholicNick seems not to have learned much

...at least not on the issue of "church unity" and the 29,000 30,000 33,000 58 zillion denominations argument.

Here is the comment to which I reply.


 I don't see why infallibility is necessary to have formally-established dogma. If a group gets together and says "this is our formally-established dogma. Nobody is infallible of course but this is our formally-established dogma, b/c although nobody is infallible, this dogma is actually true", what's wrong with that? You need to give an argument that infallibility is a necessary precondition for formally-established dogma. A Prot church DOES have a single, unified hierarchy. I have told you this many times; it's disappointing to see you haven't learned anything in the years since I pointed it out to you.

Instead, every pastor is self-appointed and does their own thing. That depends entirely on the church/denomination.

What makes you think these overgeneralisations do anyone any good?


  The PCA has no authority over someone like James White

Duh, but PCA does have authority over someone like a PCA pastor.
Just like an EO priest doesn't have any authority over someone like CatholicNick


  You're stopping short of asking the full question: not "join A church" but WHICH?

Well, of course, but we each have to answer the same question. Which church? Which infallible interpreter? EOC? WatchTower? Salt Lake City? Seriously, these answers have been around for many years. Why haven't you advanced the argument any?


Surely Jesus wasn't saying "I don't care which denomination you attend, just as long as you attend one".

Please argue for this assertion.



Suppose Jason (Stellman) wants to dump the PCA and go solo, so now he's attending his own start-up church. Is that just as good?

If he did so b/c he doubted paedobaptism and embraced credobaptism, that would be a good thing*. If PCA went apostate like Rome has, it could be a good thing. If he did it to reach previously unreached ppl, sure, why not? For reasons of swapping out doctrine, no, it wouldn't be good, b/c PCA's doctrine is very, very good. But all churches are "start-up" churches, so I don't really understand what you're saying. RCC does not extend back from Jesus and the apostles; neither does EOC or any other church.



This only begs the question as to what is "Major" and what isn't. 

Of course it does, but the NT tells us. And I already reminded you of it. A shame you once again refused to advance the argument.


It further raises the question why join a Church that is wrong on "smaller things" rather than seek out or form one that is right on both Major and Minor?

I did, and I found one that is about the closest to right on things major and minor that's in my area. I'm blessed; there are several like that and I am a member of one of them.


Once you start making a list of "Majors" then you'll see things begin to break down.

That's false; I've done that before and it worked out fine. There are also these things called confessions that have stood for hundreds of years. Those also work quite well.


 The difference between Jason and others is that Jason was willing to attempt to derive such a list.

No, the difference between him and others is that he had already given up on Sola Scriptura.


You don't realize that you're essentially acting as Pope when you go around saying "smaller issues like pædobaptism or church polity".

You need to argue for this. I don't think I'm infallible; I merely recognise that I have responsibility to do what Jesus told me to do. And I've already pointed out where the NT teaches the major/minor distinction.


Who says those are "smaller issues" when HISTORICALLY those and similar issues have bitterly divided Protestantism.

The fact that they don't corrupt the Gospel or necessary doctrine fundamentally "says" those are smaller issues. As for whether they have bitterly divided ppl, why should it bother me that men before me have been sinners and let conflicts go farther than they should have? And why doesn't it bother YOU that the same is true of RCC and RC history? One of us can deal with his own history.



Luther and Calvin hated and damned the anabaptists, and the more traditional Confessionally Reformed and Baptists would still find each other objectionable and closed communion.

So? RC and EO bishops/popes/patriarchs have hated and damned each other, and they would still find each other objectionable and closed communion.


  it's absurd to suggest a hierarchic, democratic, and individualist polity are equally acceptable.

I didn't suggest that. I"m afraid you may be having difficulty with the idea that people can recognise that a given idea is a minor matter and also that someone else is wrong on that minor matter and also that, since it's minor, it does not merit wholehearted anathemas. Since Jesus and the apostles did that, who am I to demur?


If you are in a debate about some major point of doctrine or morality with a good friend who's of a different denomination, which "church" do you approach for correction as per Christ's instructions in Matthew 18 to "tell it to the church"?

At the risk of stating the obvious, no church. How am I supposed to address "the church" when we're not part of the same church? How would you deal with an EO friend about his disaffirmation of the filioque?

*It should go without saying that I am a Baptist. I'm speaking as a Baptist here, since Nick asked me the question. 

A very fine Protestant ecclesiology

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion, and I am thoroughly edified by Peter Escalante's explanations surrounding the Protestant definition of the word "church" here. I believe this goes a long way toward defining a Protestant ecclesiology that makes sense of the Reformation history as well as giving us a way to understand "the Protestant Church" moving forward in our own era.

To get straight to it: the corpus christianum on earth is a multitude, not a single political unity. This is why it can be genuinely transnational without being a multinational corporation or empire, and why it can be the principle of many commonwealths. The visible worship assemblies are actions of the corpus christianum, whereby the heavenly reality of that earthly corpus christianum becomes more iconically focused, so to speak. But as I said, a believer is not “more” in the mystical body on Sunday than on Friday.

As Steven has said, I think the idea you’re getting at is actually the corpus christianum. The important thing to note is that the c.c. as such is temporally a multitude, not a politically or para-politically incorporated institution. It underlies household, State, ministerium and worship assembly, and other civic and social forms.

* * *

Protestantism: of course there many movements in the 16th century, but most historians of the time have little trouble in clearly identifying a Magisterial Reformation, and can do so because it enjoyed a remarkable consensus on the crucial points. “Semper reformanda” does not primarily refer to doctrinal revision- the phrase isn’t doctrina semper reformanda- but rather, means that the Christians can always do more to get their act together. It cannot serve as warrant for ever more speculative theology, or for rejection of classic truths. It’s one thing to say that evangelical doctrine is wrong, but quite another to appeal to the Reformation example as warrant for departing from its principles…

* * *

You say “the institution which we call the Church”. Well, with the Reformers, I would say the Church is primarily the union of believers with Christ, a name for the relation of the Person to the many persons (and as Steven noted, this is straight Luther). The visible assemblies are indispensable, but derivative. The visible worship assembly is not an interposed mediator between a believer and the true Mediator. It is rather birds of a feather flocking together, fixed on the Sun of the Word, and winging on the air of the Spirit. You say you can’t square the Protestant conception with the Biblical metaphors; but you then admit that it probably does square with the evangelical doctrine of the mystical body. What you object to is the evangelical distinction between that one Body, and the many visible assemblies, because, it seems, you wish to entirely conflate them. Such a conflation leads of necessity, by the way, to ecclesiologies such as those of Rome, or Witness Lee. And missing in all your explanations of your position is the classic idea of the corpus christianum…

* * *

On alternatives: I think that there really aren’t that many alternatives, and the clearer one is about principles and the more coherent one’s thought becomes, the more one will find himself tracking with one of the handful of possibilities. I am not speaking of airtight systems; I am speaking of basic configurations of first principle, and there really is a phenomenological typology of these. Anabaptism and Rome really do both conflate the visible assemblies and the mystical body, and thus both, predictably, destroy the corpus christianum; and so on. There is a sort of science of these things.

On conflation: I do know you want to make a distinction. It would be helpful were you to recognize that we do not at all radically separate the visible earthly assemblies and the mystical Body of Christ: they share an identical center, the Word, and they are connected in living persons. The crucial difference, I think, is that we think that the way in the which the mystical Body most basically presents itself in the world is as the corpus christianum, which is a multitude; and that c.c. staffs, as it were, the household, the visible assemblies, and the civic orders and offices. It is not itself a polis; it is rather the principle of many commonwealths.