Who said this?
James Bannerman, in his remarkable The Church of Christ, is discussing the popish conception of the Church. Specifically, he was addressing her position on the in/visibility of the Church.
To whom was he referring?
Bannerman was referring to Giovanni Perrone, a contemporary Jesuit Professor of Theology in Rome. After both explaining the Protestant position on the in/visibility of the Church and the popish historical position of only affirming the visible Church, he presents Perrone's compromise, or third way, in response to some of the persuasive Protestant arguments.
In regards to the contemporary similitude:
Perrone proposed that the invisible Church was made up of all those "who had ever received grace through the ordinances and communion of the Church." Moreover, he further explained that "even though they [ie: some] should afterwards fall away and become [ie: prove themselves to be] reprobate, [they] are nevertheless to be accounted true members of the invisible Church of Christ."
Today, we witness the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology [FV] group expounding (basically) the same thing.
Steve Wilkins, for example, writes that if one partakes of all the blessings - esp. means of grace like the ordinance of baptism - one is in union with Christ and, further, if one should fall away (prove apostate/unregenerate), "they would perish like Israel of old. All their priveleges and blessings would become like so many anchors to sink them into the lake of fire." (See The Federal Vision, Monroe: Athanasius, 2004, p.60.)
Numerous examples - as explicit as this, or deduced by good and necessary consequence (See lines 245,246) - can confirm this position, the forbear of which Bannerman strenuously opposes as unorthodox.
...it is not difficult to trace the one ruling and predominating idea which runs through the whole of the Popish system, - namely, the necessity and virtue of the outward grace communicated by the Church, instead of the inward call and election of God.
We see it, in like manner, in their ascription of the title and right of members of the invisible Church to those not chosen and not elected by God, but only joined to the visible Church, and sharing in its outward grace, notwithstanding that they shall afterwards fall away, and prove themselves to be reprobate.
With the apparent similarities (observable even more clearly upon investigation and reflection) so obvious, can we not say with Bannerman, "In both [Perrone & FV] cases it is the grace given or denied by the Church to the sinner, that confers or withholds the title of a member of the invisible Church of Christ, and not rather the purpose and election of God, calling him to the adoption and privileges of a son"?
The modern papist view is slightly modified from Perrone's day. It is, however, clear that by curent standards the papists still accede to some form of invisibility (see the case of people who apparently partake of grace yet remain outside the communion and dominion of the Papal See, here at section IX).
5 comments:
No similarities at all. Perrone, as you said yourself, was talking about the invisible church.
"Now, at the outset, it is not unimportant to remark, that when we speak of the Church invisible and the Church visible, we are not to be understood as if we referred in these designations to two separate and distinct Churches, but rather one and the same Church under two different characters. We do not assert that Christ has founded two Churches on earth, but only one; and we affirm that that one Church is to be regarded under two distinct aspects." - Bannerman, vol.1, p.29.
FV, also, likes to emphasize one Church, and/or attributes qualities of the invisible to the visible.
Perrone, "...admits in some sort the twofold charachter of the Church [same as Doug Wilson, for example] as invisible and visible, but denies that the members of the invisible Church are made up of the elect, and them only [same as FV]." - ibid, p.70.
Steve Wilkins agrees with Perrone when he denies - by implication - that only the elect [those chosen from the foundation, who persevere to the end] are in the 'covenant' (c/w WCF definition), but, rather, that there are (those who prove to be) reprobates in it as well.
"They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, et. [undoubtly referring to lists of blessings/benefits/etc. on pp.59-61], and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God." Wilkins in The Federal Vision, p.62.
"Steve Wilkins agrees with Perrone when he denies - by implication - that only the elect [those chosen from the foundation, who persevere to the end] are in the 'covenant' (c/w WCF definition), but, rather, that there are (those who prove to be) reprobates in it as well."
Sorry, if that is your parallel, you may as well say that huge swaths of the Reformed tradition have been similar to Perrone. You are trying to take a shortcut to dismiss a view you don't hold, but it is not licit. On this basis, I could go through the Reformed tradition and identify all sorts of people as having Romanist tendencies. This sort of thing does not advance discussion or shed light.
When you say that "huge swaths of the Reformed tradition have been similar to Perrone," do you mean that the Reformed (main stream, or orthodox) have held that partaking of the sacraments places one in the invisible Church, although some can and do fall away?
As far as trying to take a "short cut:" originally, I was reading Bannerman and happened upon the passage detailing Perrone's position. It struck me as remarkably familiar. Thus the posts.
By advancing discussion, I trust you do not have in mind hegelian dialectic. ;-)
It does shed light in that we can plainly see that there is nothing new under the sun.
You asked,
"When you say that "huge swaths of the Reformed tradition have been similar to Perrone," do you mean that the Reformed (main stream, or orthodox) have held that partaking of the sacraments places one in the invisible Church, although some can and do fall away?"
No, but Wilkins doesn't say that either, as I pointed out already. But then the only tie you have is what you provide here:
"Steve Wilkins agrees with Perrone when he denies - by implication - that only the elect [those chosen from the foundation, who persevere to the end] are in the 'covenant' (c/w WCF definition), but, rather, that there are (those who prove to be) reprobates in it as well."
... and it is with reference to that, in particular, that I referred to broad swaths of the Reformed tradition, which has indeed held that reprobates are included in the covenant. If you damn Wilkins for this, well, big deal - you're damning a great many mainstream Reformed theologians.
Post a Comment