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.

Trueman on Catholic-Evangelical Relations in Voting for a President

I followed a link back to Carl Trueman's old review of Noll's Is The Reformation Over? and came across this socio-political tidbit, which to me, appears to apply as well to conservative Roman Catholics and Protestants voting together for a Mormon:

As one would expect from any book which carries Mark Noll’s name on its cover, the work is meticulously researched, very clearly written, and exhibits a generosity of spirit that will be disarming even to its critics, among whom it will be clear I number myself. The insights it contains are also fascinating. For example, as a foreigner on American soil, I found the book extremely useful in outlining and explaining the history of Catholic-Evangelical relations in US society. It is, after all, puzzling to an outsider that as late as 1960, a presidential candidate’s Catholicism was seen as an electoral liability, particularly with reference to the conservative Protestant sections of the electorate; and it is arguable that Kennedy won the election despite his religion and then only because he managed successfully to distance himself somewhat from it; yet in 2004, it was John F. Kerry’s perceived failure to be a consistent Catholic on issues such as abortion and sanctity of life-related matters which was seen as the electoral problem, particularly with that same, conservative Protestant core. Much of the answer to this conundrum, of course, lies with Roe vs. Wade and the way in which the abortion debate in America has polarized society, politicized the judicial process, placed moral issues at the center of politics, and driven religious conservatives, Catholic and Protestant, into an unlikely alliance which fifty years ago would have seemed inconceivable. Now it seems (at least to an outsider) that much of the evangelical hopes, culturally and politically, hang on the decisions of Catholics such as Roberts and Scalia on the Supreme Court. Indeed, if, as this change perhaps implies, evangelicalism functions for some, or perhaps for many, of its adherents not so much as a statement about God but rather as an idiom for protesting the moral chaos in America, we can expect to see yet more rapprochement and maybe even significant numbers of conversions from evangelicalism to Rome, especially given the potential for clear moral leadership by the Catholic Church under the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

Just one small correction for Carl Trueman

No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.

This was a very good video discussion, regarding the problems with modern Evangelicalism and "The Elephant Room 2" and compromises with T. D. Jakes and his modalism and anti-Trinitarian doctrines and his word of faith/prosperity theology, two very dangerous heresies.  And, as Phil Johnson says, "damnable heresies".

I agree with everything these gentleman said on the issues of doctrine and the problems with the Elephant Room 2

. . . except for one small side comment that Carl Trueman made that I think is important for Christians to understand.

The one small comment was one that Carl Trueman made and I am very surprised that he said it.   I really appreciate Carl Trueman, and I enjoy his blog at Reformation 21; and I tried to find his email at the Westminster Seminary Website, but I could not.  I respect him greatly, and his work in church history and historical theology is very important.  So nothing personal is meant here, and I know he is very mature and will take this for the merit of the issue.

When talking about the Christians at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Professor Trueman said they were Turks.  [around the 31 minute mark] Professor Trueman was right that the men at the Council of Nicea were not "white men", but they were not Turkish either.  They were Greeks and Egyptians and Syrians (The Syrians before the Arabs conquered them in the 600s AD.)  That is an amazing mistake by a church history professor, in my opinion.  They were mostly Greeks, Syrians, 2 Latins from Rome, and Egyptians (Athanasius, for one) and others from around the Roman Empire.  The Turks did not live in what is today called Turkey at the time of the Council of Nicea.   The Turks (Seljuk and Ottomans) did not come to that land until before the Crusades (1071 AD) and they did not completely conquer the area known as Anatolia and Constantinople until 1453 AD.  No Turks lived in these areas in the New Testament days nor in early church history until the 900s AD!  It is possible that there were some Turkic peoples there from the time of Attila the Hun in the 400s, but not that many, and not any in 325 AD.

It is amazing to me that people don't take the time to study what happened to the Greeks and the Byzantine Empire.  The Arabs first attacked after they conquered Syria/Palestine and Persia and N. Africa.  (632-722 AD)  They tried to take Constantinople in the 600s and 700s but failed.

The Arab Muslims converted the Persians by force (Jihad, Qatal, Harb)  from the 630s into the 900s.  Jihad جهاد  (struggle/effort/striving) and Qatal قتل (the word for "slay" or "fight" = "fighting to the death" in battle - Surah 9:5, 9:29) and Harb حرب (War) are integral aspects of Islam from the time Muhammad conquered Medina in 622 AD.

Then the Arab Muslims converted the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, starting in the 600s, and by the 900s AD, the animist Turks had become Muslim.  (Today these areas are called Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirghestan, etc.  Tajikistan is mostly a Persian speaking area - ethnically the Tajiks and southern areas of Uzbekistan are Tajik-Persian (Bukhara and Samarqand) ethnically and were part of the old Persian Empire.  The Arab Muslims also converted the Kurds to Islam by force.  Saladin ("Salah e din" = صلاح دین = "genuine religion"), the famous Muslim leader against the Crusaders, was Kurdish.  Today the Kurds are spread throughout western Iran, Northern Iraq, Eastern Turkey, and the top corner of Syria.

The Seljuk Turks were hired as the palace guards and military force for the Arabs in Baghdad.  The Turkic peoples became the dominant fighting force.  the Seljuk Turks attacked the Greek Byzantine Empire in 1071 AD at the Battle of Manzikurt near Van in the east (was part of Armenia).  The Byzantines were defeated by the Seljuk Turks.

This caused the emperor in Constantinople to call for help from the Pope in France.  The Crusades were launched.  (1095-1299)

After the Crusades, the Ottoman Turks became the dominant Turkish people and eventually conquered all of Anatolia and then Constantinople fell in 1453 and it was renamed Istanbul.

So, today, the area known as Nicea (The Turks call it Iznik today, and it is about one hour outside of Istanbul), where the Council of Nicea was held in 325 AD is in the same area as the country of Turkey; but at the time of Nicea there were no Turks there.

The Turks never heard the gospel.  The Crusades are still major stumbling block to Muslims, especially the Turks.  The Crusades were somewhat understandable in the sense of a "just war" and self-defense, but the horrible mistakes, and the slaughter of the Greek Eastern Orthodox by the Latin Crusaders is a major scandal and shame, as was the Crusading against Jews along the way to the "holy land".   Today the Turks are still 99 % Muslim and there is some outreach to them, but not much.  The Arab Muslims have not been evangelized much either in history.  The Persians were not much either.  The ancient Persian church before Islam was mostly the ethnic Assyrians in Mesopotamia (today's Iraq); not the ethnic Persians farther east.  Henry Martyn translated the first complete copy of the Persian NT in the 1800s.  He died in 1812.

Let us reach out with the gospel to Muslims.

Why make such a big deal about a minor comment not related to the main topic?

The reason why this so important to get right is that the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:46-47) is to peoples, nations, ethnic people groups, not "countries" or "political boundaries".  The Greek word for "nation" is ethna (εθνη) and carries with it the idea of a cultural-ethnic people group that is unified by language and culture.  So even though the land of Turkey (and Egypt and N. Africa and Syria and Mesopotamia) had the gospel in earlier centuries, it was snuffed out by Islam in most of these areas, and eclipsed in places where there is some small evangelical witness left.

This is important because God is saving people from all the nations, peoples, tribes, and tongues, as the gospel goes out.  (see Revelation 5:9 and 7:9)   Some "nations" are spread over several political boundaries (countries) and some peoples/nations are within political boundaries and don't have their own country.  A classic example of this is the Kurdish people, who have never had their own political country and are spread over 4 countries.  (Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria)

The OT background of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:46-47 is in Genesis 12:1-3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Psalm 2:8, 67:1-7, 96:3-6, 87:4-6, Isaiah 49:6 and many other passages that use the word "families" (Mishpakha = משפחה ) and "nations" = "goyeem" גוימ and peoples  עמימ  ("ameem") .

A good book that explains the Biblical idea of nations and peoples is John Piper's Let the Nations Be Glad! (Baker) and the articles by Ralph Winter and John R. W. Stott and others in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement.    The Perspectives book is, overall, a good missions book, but there are some articles in it that I would disagree with, just in case any one wonders.

Addendum: (August 31, 2012)
I want to apologize if it seems I was being too nit-picky on Professor Trueman's statement.  I think if someone reads the whole thing that I wrote above, they can see why I wrote what I wrote, and that it was not meant as a "potshot", but an honest pointing out of the importance of understanding that aspect of church history in relation to missions and the spreading of the gospel among unreached people groups.  A big problem is that missions people are weak in theology and historical theology and church history; but also sometimes theologians are weak in missions.  I noticed that in seminary also, they have their separate disciplines and yet there is a great need for more inter-connectedness of these disciplines because they all come together in the challenge of Islam in today's world.  Islam is what should cause us who believe the Bible to also understand it and evangelize Muslims and also integrate it with church history and historical theology. (and politics, culture, just-war theory, etc.)   The challenge of Islam will force us to deal with the implications of it to all of these areas of study and knowledge.

Someone (D. Waltz) pointed out an article that Professor Trueman wrote, in which he was a little more accurate on the situation:

"Still, let us go back to the fourth century and see how the `middle aged white guy' critique measures up.  Well, at the Council of Nicea in 325, many of the participants were no doubt middle aged -- which Paul in the Pastorals would actually seem to think is quite a good thing in a church leader.  But white?    I suspect they were ethnically more akin to modern day Turks or south eastern Europeans, not that racial categories really meant anything then.  The key category in the fourth century was that of Roman citizenship, not skin color."

The modern Turks are a mixture of many peoples.  But they originally came from Central Asia, and they were not at Nicea in 325 AD and they were not in those lands in NT days that is now called "Turkey"; and they were never reached with the gospel in history; as I pointed out earlier.  They did Islamic wars/Jihads/killing against the Byzantine and Armenian men, and probably took many of the women as wives from the original people groups that lived there.  So, there is probably some Greek, Syrian, Arab, Galatian, Armenian, and other ethnicities within the modern day Turks who live in Turkey.  Today, Turkey is officially 99 % Muslim and very unreached with the gospel.  

Carl Trueman on Rome's Double Standards

I was sent this link:

Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

I was pleased to read this entry from Carl Trueman. It was this time last year when he put out "Another Thing Needful". That post deeply troubled myself and some of my blogging friends. This time he's put together a cogent and articulate blog post on the fallacies of some of Rome's blatant double standards in apologetics. The good news about this new post is, it says quite nicely what many of us have said for quite a long time. The bad news about this new post is, it says quite nicely what many of us have said for quite a long time. That is, there's nothing really new here. There's nothing in this post that many people with a lot less academic credentials haven't already pointed out. Ah well.

In terms of apologetics against Romanism, I'm not too sure what more there is to say. The major arguments over Scripture, Tradition, and the Gospel have been done over and over again. So, it appears to me Carl is late to the party. The work has largely been done for him.  The curtain, so to speak, has already been pulled back. We all know what the wizard looks like. We've known for years.

Addendum
In my Luther-research of Roman Catholic argumentation, I've seen a steady drop-off in the typical Romanist slander. I think it's largely due to the Internet. Back when I started looking up Roman Catholic Luther quotes, it was like the whack-a-mole game.  Now, I rarely find Rome's bigger stars putting forth the same out-of-context dribble they did previously. The other day I was reading one of Rome's heroes actually defending Luther on the necessity of good works as the result of justification. If you were to go back a number of years and read this same Roman apologist on this topic, he would've been arguing Luther was in some sense an antinomian.  Perhaps even I've said all I can possibly say on the topics that interest me. My party may be over as well.

Further Comments on "Another Thing Needful"

I went back and re-read Carl Trueman's post, and with each reading, I tend to get even more agitated. Trueman is correct that the modern hodge podge of evangelicalism typically has no idea what to do with Romanism. Because of their usual disdain for Reformed theology, they wind up with stuff like Geisler's "Rome is a true church with significant error" or they ignore Rome altogether, and then wonder why their friends end up converting to Romanism.

In this generation, official Roman dogma has been responded to by a handful of Godly men including Dr. White, David King, Eric Svendsen, William Webster, to name but a few. In previous generations, a host of other older Reformed sources have done so as well. God out of his mercy raises up men who exhort us to recall that our differences with Rome boil down to sola fide and sola scriptura. Rome has not changed on her denial of these basic truths. Her theologians may play around with them. Her theologians may try to dress these denials up in new clothes. But the devilish dogmas of Romanism remain consistently against the sole infallible authority of the Scriptures and the pure gospel.

The authors I mentioned above have also engaged Rome's defenders. Each generation will produce Romanist sirens who attempt to woo sheep over to Rome. Anyone who has read through Pastor King's footnotes in his Holy Scripture book realizes he simply doesn't engage Rome's pop apologists (Sungenis, Madrid, etc.).  King also went up the Romanist food chain and dealt with statements from their more "official" theologians. He still continues to do this.

What agitates me about Trueman's blog post is that he seems completely unaware that there have been men in this generation who have done a tremendous amount of work in refuting both Rome's dogmas and apologists. I'm fairly confident though that Carl Trueman has some of the contemporary books by the authors mentioned above. Did he read them? I have no idea. He says, "We need a thoughtful, learned, respectful, confessional Protestant book on Roman Catholicism." I can't help but wonder if Dr. Trueman is simply being an intellectual snob. Maybe there's no "thoughtful, learned, respectful, confessional Protestant book" because the materials available come from a baptist (Dr. White), or from books published personally by pastors (Webster / King). I hear Trueman saying in effect, "We intellectuals need to put out books engaging Romanism. Until we do it, no one has."

Trueman says, "Küng and Benedict represent in many ways the two possible paths of Roman Catholicism into the future. These men are substantial, worthy of sophisticated engagement." I have a feeling that even if White, Svendsen, King, etc. were to write books interacting with Küng or Benedict,  I wonder if Trueman would still maintain a "thoughtful, learned, respectful, confessional Protestant book" was needed.

I have though come up with a plan for Dr. Trueman. Rather than help the evangelical world by writing a definitive book on Romanism, perhaps it would be best to figure out why a few WTS folks have ended up in Romanism or Eastern Orthodoxy. He could start by challenging these WTS folks gone Romanist to public debate. His choices? Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, Kenneth Howell, Paul A. Sauer, Albert Scharbach, or Taylor Marshall, to name a few (these are the ones at least a basic Google search will reveal, there are probably others). Then maybe he could mold some of the WTS curriculum to address issues involving Romanism from the outcome of these debates.

Communicating in America: Advice for Carl Trueman

Recently, I’ve been reading some of Carl Trueman’s work, and I’ve listened to the Medieval church history lectures that Matthew has linked here.

One of the more entertaining elements is that he brings his English culture to America, and one of the funniest lines to come out of that is the statement that “Being born an Englishman is like winning first prize in the lottery of life.” Now, that’s a very quaint thing to say, and I joked about that one for weeks with my wife. (A 12-lecture series takes me about two weeks to listen to, given my commute). Trueman also made jokes about trips out west in which he made some [for him] memorable purchases of cowboy boots and cowboy hats. I really like him a lot.


Back when I was leaving Roman Catholicism, I looked for all the help I could find when it came to “leaving,” and on a consistent basis, I found that help in works I read from the Reformation era. Another thing I found was that these works were consistently grouped with works from the great Princeton lights, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield. So I followed that lineage, and once liberalism infiltrated Princeton, then J. Gresham Machen carried the Reformation torch across the river from Princeton into Philadelphia, where he organized the OPC as a response to liberalism within Presbyterianism. I attended an OPC for several years before a fire shut them down. (And today I am a member of a PCA church that is probably just a few miles up the road).

I know that the Westminster seminaries have come under fire for one reason or another in the past. I think that this may be because they’ve adopted some positions that are less than popular, and in some cases, they’ve been criticized with good reason. The net effect is one of disappointment because, from my perspective, looking at the tradition of the Reformation, Westminster was the thought leader in America, and when a leader in whom you have some hope fails to lead properly, it is disappointing.

So I, for one, want them to succeed. And now, Trueman is taking some steps toward leading a Reformed effort to understand the Roman Catholic Church in our day, and I, for one, find that to be a very hopeful development. He is noticing that we, in our day, “need a thoughtful, learned, respectful, confessional Protestant book on Roman Catholicism.”

But, if Dr. Trueman believes he is the person to write the book, I hope he would take a cue as to how to approach this topic in a way that will be meaningful to Americans, and not confusing in any way.

For example, my hope is that he does not invent an unpleasant word, like “Refortholics” or something like that. There are clear differences between the Protestant Reformers and the Roman Catholics. And such differences are hugely meaningful, even today.

And here is another caution for him. Speak and write in American. Don’t say things like “Roman Catholicism is the default position,” and “we need good solid reasons for not being Catholic.” I heard him say that in those lectures, and I understand why he’s saying it. It’s rhetorical hyperbole, and he admitted as much. But such use of the language confuses some people and even prompts them to dishonesty.

In this vein, I’d recommend that Trueman consider emulating someone who truly understood what it meant to wear a cowboy hat and be an American.

Before becoming President, Ronald Reagan, among other things, was a prolific writer, and one of his regular contributions was to write, and deliver, daily radio commentary. As it turned out, Reagan wrote his own commentaries, and in the process, he crafted his own policies that, with some historical hindsight, have turned out to have been remarkably successful, not only for himself politically, but for the US and the world.

We the people need more common sense economics and a lot less demagoguery if we are to make or support decisions affecting our welfare. I’ll be right back.

Now, Economics is a difficult topic, but Reagan knew how to boil it down in ways that Americans could understand it. This radio address, entitled Economics I, was delivered July 31, 1978. Reagan was commenting on a California tax-cutting initiative that was known as “Proposition 13”. (I am old enough to remember the news stories on this issue). Labor unions officially opposed the measure, which nevertheless passed. Reagan used the issue to provide a simple lesson in Economics, and this is the style that I think Trueman could adopt.

Reagan perfected a combination of sound policy with straightforward rhetoric that Americans could understand. Cue Ronald Reagan:

Early in July the leadership of the California AFL-CIO met in convention and made a few decisions that will affect the livelihood of the workers they represent. These leaders of organized labor were more than a little upset about the passage of Proposition 13. Meaning no disrespect, I feel compelled to say, the remedies they proposed reveal that they believe too many of the economic fairy tales widespread in our land today.

In the first place they must be out of step with their own rank and file members because those members voted for Prop 13 in large and enthusiastic numbers.

But where the fairy tale shows up is in the convention’s decision to battle for reimposing the property tax that Prop 13 cancelled back on business and industry. They said it was a $3½ billion break for business and therefore by their reasoning bad for the individual citizen. If they have their way, that $3½ billion will end up being paid by the very individual citizens they claim they want to help.

Let’s take the case of a corner grocer in a nice middle class neighborhood. The store keeper rents the building. Everyone who shops there can understand that he must charge enough to cover the wholesale cost of the things he sells, wages to helpers and his rent, plus a fair return for himself so he can make a living. But now supposing he buys the building? There is no more rent but there is interest on the mortgage and property tax instead of rent. Obviously he can’t stay in business if those costs can’t be recovered in the price of the things he sells. And just like his wage earning customers (many of them union members), he has to make enough gross income to pay his living costs—after he has paid his income tax.

What this all adds up to is that government can’t tax things like businesses or corporations, it can only tax people. When it says it’s going to “make business pay,” it is really saying it is going to make business help it collect taxes. Into our corner store comes a regular customer to pick up a loaf of bread on his way home. We’ve already covered the fact that the grocers mark up includes a share of the property tax on the store. But the truth is that the wholesale price the store keeper paid to the bakery includes [the bakery’s] taxes, and more than 150 others going all the way back to the farmer who raised the wheat. If he can’t get a price for his wheat that will cover the real estate tax on his farm, he can’t stay in business either. If the trucker who hauled the wheat can’t charge enough to cover his license fee and gasoline tax, he can’t stay in business.

Union leaders will serve the men and women they represent a lot better if they’ll drop the demagoguery and take a simple course in economics. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.

So Dr. Trueman, I hope you will continue to write about Roman Catholicism. In our day, it truly is a needful thing. But what’s most needful in this respect is to call an Evil Empire an Evil Empire. That kind of honesty, unpopular though it may be, is the kind of thing that helps to accomplish genuinely meaningful things.

A Different Perspective on Trueman & Romanism

Food for thought: Carl Trueman & A Need For A Contemporary Polemic Against Romanism.

"Another thing needful"

Carl Trueman explains the need for a "thoughtful, learned Protestant response" to post Vatican II Roman Catholicism, and why Evangelicalism has yet to provide one:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/04/another-thing-needful.php

Seeking a Name For Ourselves

I recently listened to a twenty minute lecture by Carl Trueman titled "What Was Luther Doing on Reformation Sunday?" The lecture is a deeply practical and critically introspective application of 1 Timothy 1:1-11 to the motivations of the heart--to the reasons we seek to study theology. Trueman utilizes the passage from 1 Timothy as a sort of lens to interpret the motivations of Tetzel for selling indulgences, applying it as well to modern televangelists, bloggers and, last of all, seminarians. Why do we study theology? Is it to advance the Kingdom of God in humility? Or is it to increase our power and influence? If it is merely to increase our power and influence, then we might very well find ourselves defending whatever arguments are most convenient to this end.

While not explicitly mentioned in the lecture, Trueman's analysis supplies a possible answer to a question regularly enough posed in the combox of this blog--why do some Protestants, with degrees, grounding in Reformed theology, etc., decide to convert to Catholicism? Some, it seems, desire power and influence more than they desire to serve the truth. A sensational conversion to Catholicism provides a kind of celebrity, authority and prominence unavailable to those who quietly and obscurely serve the Lord in a Protestant church. And certainly this temptation is both apparent and increased given the celebration of "conversion stories" in modern Catholic apologetics.

Such an application of Trueman's analysis cannot be granted in the case of each and every convert, for the circumstances vary, often greatly, from individual to individual. But it certainly explains why at least some turn from the truth of the Gospel.

The talk is available for free through iTunes U. If it is not obvious already, I highly recommend it.

"Basic Advice on How to Interpret Luther"

Carl Trueman analyzes Rob Bell's use of a Luther quotation.

Medieval Church History Lectures

One of the benefits of removing television and video games from daily life is that it affords ample time to pursue more meaningful activities. In order to cultivate a greater appreciation for the Reformation, I recently began listening to a series of lectures on the Medieval Church by Dr. Carl Trueman through Westminster Theological Seminary's iTunes University listing.

In the first half of his introductory lecture, Trueman sketches the popular and sophisticated reasons for why there is a disinclination to study medieval church history within Protestantism, while there exists a competing preference for sixteenth century and early church material. He then presents an effective case for caring about medieval church history, part of which includes the significant points of continuity between Protestant thought and earlier medieval thought.

The connection between the Reformation and earlier centuries of thought is neither new nor radical to anyone who has spent time engaging medieval source materials. (This was apparent even during my studies at NYU in the half-dozen courses I took on the medieval era, courses not even geared to strictly theological issues.) So there is much we can learn from the medieval tradition, and, of course, this information has, among its many other benefits, direct and practical application in refuting the banal claims of some lay-Catholic apologists that the Reformation represents a total innovation and complete break with earlier Christianity.

From what I've heard so far, I commend Trueman's lectures to you (which can be found through a simple iTunes search), especially since he isn't interested in reducing his presentation to a tally of who is and isn't orthodox. He seeks to have the class engage the medieval period in a critical, reflective manner, with the student coming to his or her own conclusions after properly wrestling with some of the era's major texts.

A Brief Carl Trueman review of "The Heresy of Orthodoxy"

It's one thing to work through the historical situation of the early papacy, and show how the thing was *not* there, not in the Scriptures, not in the belief or practice of the early church. It's quite a different thing to reconstruct what *was* there. And that's one of the things I like so much about this work, "The Heresy of Orthodoxy."

Carl Trueman has written a very brief review of this work that I wanted to pass along:

the authors are both New Testament scholars; and their book tackles the influential thesis of Walter Bauer, that what came to triumph in early Christianity was not some primeval orthodoxy but merely one competing vision of Christianity among a host of others. It just happened to be the one that won…

In such a context, this book is a gem, giving both a summary of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis and offering good, solid evidence of its manifold flaws. In the process, the authors deal with the development of the canon, textual transmission, and the relevant bibliography for those who wish to read further. It also has a very helpful concluding chapter (albeit, in my opinion, too brief -- like young Twist, I wanted more cultural criticism, Beadle Kruger!) on why the work of such as Ehrman and Pagels, with its emphasis on diversity, is so appealing in the contemporary cultural context. The book is also thoroughly footnoted throughout, giving plenty of pointers for further reading. All in all, an extraordinarily helpful volume.

Keep in mind as you're reading this, as you see the words "Bauer/Ehrman thesis" or "the flawed thesis of Walter Bauer," you can substitute "the flawed thesis of Newman's development" or "the flawed assumptions about the earliest church made by Roman apologists today."

The work is a sound, biblical based, historically accurate response to all of those things.