Today being the day when every single blogger of Calvinistic leanings (and maybe even some who are not) will be noting that Calvin was born on this day 500 years ago, I thought I would review a new life of Calvin.

The slant in this biography is as the title of the blog post would suggest: Calvin as a pilgrim through life. The chapters are arranged chronologically, with an apt noun describing each period (orphan, pilgrim, stranger, refugee, etc.). I would highly recommend this life of Calvin, as Selderhuis seems to have gotten into the shoes of Calvin, and you get insight into how the man thought, and why he did and said what he did.

For instance, Calvin got the nickname accusativus while he was studying at the Collège de Montaigu. Selderhuis notes that this comment “was not meant as a compliment. The name appears to have had nothing to do with grammar, but with a perception that Calvin felt a moral obligation to tell on others to the administration” (p. 14). This helps explain Calvin’s role in the burning of Servetus, on which Selderhuis has a very balanced and sane opinion. Servetus was a dead man all over Europe (p. 204). Disbelief and active opposition of the doctrine of the Trinity was a capital offense in those days, not just in Geneva, but all through the Holy Roman Empire, according to the edict of the emperor Charles V. Selderhuis thinks that Servetus chose Geneva possibly because he wanted to get the council on his side. At any rate, he seems to have been suffering from a chronic death wish. Servetus went to Calvin’s church on August 13, 1553 (p. 205). Servetus, while eating after the service, was spotted by someone, who reported the event to Calvin, who in turn felt it his civic duty to report Servetus to the authorities. Calvin did this, and therein his involvement in the Servetus case came to an end, except that he petitioned (after the council deliberated to have him burned at the stake) to have him hanged rather than burned, as it was more humane. One has to understand that it was the council and not Calvin, who condemned Servetus to death. Calvin undoubtedly approved of the council’s decision, but it was not his decision. He was not on the council. Selderhuis also notes that “Any city that became known as tolerant of those who would deny the Trinity would be abandoned by friend and foe alike” (p. 206). This put Geneva in a very difficult position if it wanted to defend heretics. But all the advice from all the neighboring cities was to execute the man. Therefore, if Calvin is to be implicated in the burning of Servetus, then so should all the rest of Europe, for rejoicing in said crime. This may not excuse Calvin in the minds of many, but to single out Calvin, as if he were the sole person responsible, is irresponsible scholarship, and only engaged in by those who have it in for Calvin.

Selderhuis’s description of Calvin’s love for his wife Idelette, humanizes Calvin for us. He was a man, not a machine. Calvin wrote to a colleague in Frankfurt, seven years after he had lost Idelette, “What a terrible injury, what a pain the death of your wife has caused you, and I speak from my own experience. For even now I fully know how difficult it was, seven years ago now, to deal with such grief” (quoted on p. 172).

Of course, Calvin was not perfect, and Selderhuis does not have rose-tinted glasses. For instance, Calvin noted after Idelette’s death that she had never hindered him in his work. Selderhuis notes that “we might also wish that Calvin had simply dropped this remark” (p. 171). Perhaps Calvin’s work was too important in his own estimation.

All in all, I found it a very enjoyable read, based on original sources, having the feel of a scholar who had soaked deeply into Calvin’s life and work (Selderhuis has also published on Calvin’s theology of the Psalms).

Doug and I are showing some signs that there is some ground at least, on which we can meet. I had to laugh at his dragging in Sarah Palin to the discussion (see, I can do it, too!). His waiting for me reminds me of the definition of infinity I came across a while back: two Midwesterners, one going north, and one going east, meeting at an intersection.

We agree that the Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of various feasts and rituals, not just Passover. Venema agrees with that as well. What conclusions we draw from that may go out like two different tangents from a circle, but we do agree there.

We also agree that we should not presume a child to be unregenerated. I never presume that. However, I do not presume the other way, either. How many in the church have shown themselves to be unregenerated? Maybe even more than half, if you include all denominations of the visible church. The question is this: how should we treat children? Do borrow Doug’s own language in the Strawbridge book on infant baptism, we do not regard our new infant as the newly arrived Amalekite sitting at the table (a phrase I have always liked). Nevertheless, we still have to stress repentance and faith for each person. What is required for being present at the Lord’s Table?

Is representation part of the Lord’s Supper? Could we go that route? I am of two minds. I have never considered this particular question before. On the one hand, it feels right. Federal headship is absolutely the way to go on quite a few things, and this would fit right in with that. On the other hand, the requirements for participation in 1 Corinthians 11 seem to me to be addressed to all who would participate. We can say that small children can participate by watching and learning. But of course, that isn’t the same as actually eating and drinking. Is it true, then, that the only way of considering non-participating children as not excommunicated is by seeing them as represented by federal participation? I am not so sure about this. The federal principle is very strong indeed when it comes to baptism. Indeed, covenantal continuation and federal headship are the linchpins of the argument for baptizing children, and in so doing, we reckon them as part of the visible church. Is this not sufficient all by itself for saying that children are not excommunicated? Why would participation in the Lord’s Supper, whether actual or representative, be needed over and above baptism to say that they are part of the visible church? Besides, I thought excommunication was related only to sins that force the church to expel said member. This could not happen (or at least, it is extremely rare if not non-existent) or be said to happen about children. I think I understand the concern here: the concern is to make children feel included in church. This is entirely laudable. We don’t want them to feel excluded. But we can still say something like this: “Here is something special to which you can look forward,” just as we might say that about driver’s licenses, or voting, or drinking.

As to unbelievers partaking, the confessional position has always been that unbeliever do not partake of the thing signified in the Supper, since faith is necessary for proper partaking of the Supper. Is this Doug’s position? There are certain signs that say no, but it would be nice to clarify.

The third volume of this important series is now out. Included in it are important articles by Ligon Duncan on covenant theology, Rowland Ward on subscription to the confessions, Donald MacLeod on the New Perspective, and Chad Van Dixhoorn on the Westminster Assembly at work, although all the articles will be well worth the read. A complete table of contents is available by clicking on the “sample pages” link available from the first link provided above. This is essential reading for those interested in the Westminster standards, especially is placing their work in historical context, as well as noting the assembly’s relevance for today’s debates.

I was just reading 1 Kings 8 in preparation for the Lord’s Day coming up, and I noticed a use of the term “covenant” which is extremely problematic for those who define “covenant” as “relationship.” This passage is 1 Kings 8:21. In the context, which is Solomon’s dedication of the temple, we note some interesting things.

First of all, what Solomon says indicates very clearly that the temple is the fulfillment of God’s promise made to his father David. However, verse 21 also implies that the fulfillment of the promise made to David is in turn connected to the covenant God made with the fathers when He brought them out of Egypt. This is indicated by the pronoun “our” connected to the noun “fathers.”

One is reminded of the preface to the second giving of the law in Deuteronomy 5, where Moses makes the point that it was not with their fathers (it was, but not absolutely and exclusively) that God had made the covenant, but with those present right there, all of them who were alive at the time of Deuteronomy being given to the people. In other words, 1 Kings 8:21 is a very important verse for deciding what the word “covenant” means, since Solomon is connecting the word not only with the Davidic promise-covenant, but also with the Mosaic covenant.

And here is what he says: the covenant actually resides in the ark of the covenant. What was in the ark of the covenant? The law of God (see verse 9). If covenant equals relationship, then it could not reside in the ark of the covenant. A relationship does not reside in a physical place. But it is actually said that the covenant was IN the ark of the covenant in the obvious form of the tablets of stone, on which were written the Ten Commandments. This points fairly conclusively to a definition of covenant as “agreement.” Of course, the relationship is based on the agreement, and the agreement and the relationship built upon it are closely tied together. And no, contrary to all the rhetoric of the FV folks, saying a covenant is an agreement is not a cold, legal, paperish sort of thing, any more than a marriage certificate is. Looking at my marriage certificate brings many happy memories back to me of the wedding, and of my wife, just as looking at the covenantal agreement in Scripture brings us back to God’s love for us, and the love we are required to give back to God in the form of obedience to the Ten Commandments.

Just to know where we are currently, this post and this post have not yet received a response from Doug.

What we are going to do in this post is a bit of intertextuality. This practice, by the way, can be defined as seeing what echoes of the Old Testament are in a particular New Testament passage, although it is not limited to this. For there are echoes of the OT in other OT passages as well, and the same for the NT. But the main issue in scholarship these days concerning this facet is the New Testament’s use of the Old. The passage we want to examine is Matthew 26:28.

τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

In translation (as literal as possible): For this is my blood of the testament (or covenant), which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Quite simply put, the question is this: what is the Old Testament background for this statement? Is it the Passover, or something else? I would argue, with Venema that it is something else (see Venema, page 87). The particular echo is that of Exodus 24:8, which reads this way in Hebrew:

וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הַדָּם וַיִּזְרֹק עַל־הָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה דַם־הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר

כָּרַת יְהוָה עִמָּכֶם עַל כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה׃

This way in Greek: λαβὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ αἷμα κατεσκέδασε τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ εἶπεν· ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς διέθετο Κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων.

Translation (of the Hebrew): And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, “Look, the blood of the covenant which the Lord cut with you, according to all these words.”

A couple of points to notice here: 1. the phrase “the blood of the covenant” is the important linking phrase. 2. The phrase is fairly rare, occurring in the Old Testament in only one other place, which is Zechariah 9:11. Interestingly, in Zechariah 9, the phrase comes just after the prophecy concerning the king coming to Zion lowly and riding on a donkey. We can say, therefore, that the phrase definitely points us to Christ. 3. In the New Testament, the majority of occurrences are in the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24, Lk 22:20, 1 Co 11:25). However, there are a few occurrences of the phrase in Hebrews (9:20, 10:29, and of course in 13:20). They are certainly all connected to Jesus’ sacrifice. That is the way it is used in all Scripture, which gives us additional confidence that Exodus 24 points us the same way. Notice the one key difference, however, in our passage in Matthew. Jesus inserts a key word: “my.” It is HIS blood that is now the blood of the covenant. That is because He is the perfect lamb sacrificed.

So, from this evidence, we can say that Jesus is the new Moses, offering the new blood of the new covenant, which sprinkles those in the new covenant unto salvation. Now, the point of this is not that only the leaders of the church should participate. Remember, a direct appeal to the Old Testament should not be definitive for New Testament practice (see Venema, p. 60). Rather, we see here that this evidence makes the appeal ambiguous. No one denies that the Passover is one of the precedents for the Lord’s Supper. However, Exodus 24 seems to me to be just as clear a precedent, especially given the extremely similar wording. Those who participated in this covenant renewal ceremony were representatives of the community. We can therefore phrase the question this way: in terms of Old Testament precedent for who belongs in the participation of the Lord’s Supper, which has greater weight, the Passover (which evidence is already ambiguous, see previous posts), or the covenant renewal ceremony? We are NOT arguing that the Lord’s Supper should be limited to the leadership of the church. Rather, all we seek to demonstrate is that the supposedly direct line from Passover to Lord’s Supper is not a direct line, and has other parallel lines intersecting with it, and muddying up the footprints, as it were. All that is needed with regard to the Old Testament evidence is to point out that it is ambiguous, and does not prove what PC advocates claim it does. Of course, the real debate begins and ends with 1 Corinthians, to which we shall turn in the next few posts.

This book is a very interesting book. For one thing, it is a Puritan’s (and Ramist’s!) commentary on the Continental Heidelberg Catechism. This means that there was definitely cross-pollinating going on in the time of the post-Reformation. For more, see the excellent introduction by Joel Beeke and Todd Rester (pp. xii-xxxii). Ames was one of the Puritans invited to the Synod of Dordt. The introduction gives a brief sketch of his life and work, including an excellent discussion of Ramism (pp. xvii-xviii). This volume is the inaugural volume in the series Classic Reformed Theology. There is an excellent introduction to the entire series by R. Scott Clark. The series intends to “produce and provide critical English translations of some of the more important but generally neglected texts of the orthodox period.” One can only say a hearty amen to that!

The commentary itself is not quite what we would expect, however, in a catechism commentary, for he does not primarily comment on the catechism itself, but rather on a passage of Scripture upon which that Lord’s Day of the Catechism was based. So, for instance, Lord’s Day one is a commentary on Psalm 4:6-8, wherein is shown that the Psalmist’s “highest good… is located in God’s favor towards him” (p. 5), an excellent summary of question 1 of the HC. In other words, this book would be an excellent study in moving from Scripture to Catechism, seeing how the Catechism is based on the Word.

Just to take a few ideas from the book, under Lord’s Day 23 on justification, he says several helpful things: “People are justified either by nature, or by law, or by the gospel, but they can be justified neither by nature nor by the law” (p. 116); “In the resurrecting of our Head, Jesus Christ, from the dead, we have all been justified virtually, in whatever manner all of His posterity had been virtually sinners in Adam’s sinning” (p. 117). This latter quotation is especially important, as it proves that the connection between justification and resurrection is not original with Gaffin, however much he emphasized it. In fact, the connection is quite old.

So there is significant historical interest in this book, as a specimen of cross-pollination of the British and the Continental streams of Reformed theology; it is of interest systematically, when considered from the perspective of moving from text to catechism, and it is of interest theologically simply in what it says. I recommend it.

The huge Calvin 500 conference in Geneva is going to start up soon. Follow on Twitter, the Calvin 500 Blog, or Facebook, or whichever medium suits you best.

Here is a brief response to Bryan, and a somewhat longer response to Taylor. First Bryan.

Truth is not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking about authority. Here is a quotation from Lumen Gentium that argues precisely what I said the RCC is arguing for:

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith. (I have removed the footnotes; the passage comes from paragraph 25).

This is saying that even the Bible cannot be a final court of appeal against an official ex cathedra statement from the Pope or from the supreme magisterium. They have infallibility. This is claiming infallibility for the words of mere men, and putting their words on a par with Scripture. It doesn’t matter if that isn’t what they think they are doing, that is what they are doing. On an ex cathedra matter, there is no court of appeal beyond the Pope, not even Scripture. To say that this paragraph says otherwise is to deny the plain meaning of the text. And this paragraph is cited in section 891 of the Catechism, which says the same thing. In fact, the Catechism even claims that “this infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself” (then it references Lumen Gentium 25). That phrase is explained by another section of paragraph 25 of LG:

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.

As to the intercession from dead saints, I agree that it depends on the prior question of the canon. A subject for a different post.

As to transubstantiation, the Catechism clearly states that the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (see paragraphs 1374-1377). The substance of the bread and wine are therefore transformed. But the form of bread and wine remain. How is this not saying that the substance has changed, but the accidents of bread and wine (the outer form) remain? In which you have the substance of Christ taking the place of bread and wine, and yet the accidents of bread and wine remaining. As I have said, this is a misappropriation of Aristotle’s categories. And Aquinas, in question 75, most certainly does assert that the substance changes into Christ’s body and blood, while the accidents of bread and wine remain (see especially article 6, where he responds to the objections levelled against that doctrine: it should be noted that the objections come first, and then follow his response to those objections). Therefore, my original comment stands.

As to the death of Christians, I do not believe that a non-believer would be freed from sin at death, because his soul is not raised from death to life. Only those whose souls have been raised from death to life (see this progression in Ephesians 2 especially) will have the guarantee that their sin nature will die at their death. So, Bryan’s comment does not follow, because he is forgetting the requirement of the prior resurrection of the soul.

Now, on to Taylor’s comments. First of all, the difference between the words “inspired” and “infallible” is not relevant to my argument in the slightest. If they claim infallibility, then they are setting up the words of men as on a par with Scripture, regardless of whether or not they regard the human words as inspired or not. Secondly, the three verses have everything to do with “Scripture alone,” because they claim that the words of Scripture are sufficient for the Christian to be well-equipped. This is the doctrine that Taylor does not understand. Is the church helpful? Sure. Is the church necessary for the Christian to be a member of it? Sure. Does this necessity mean that Scripture is not sufficient? No. Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and practice. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 draws a contrast between the words of men and the words of God. This means that the words of men do not effective work in a person to believe, as the end of the verse says. Only the Word of God does that. One is reminded of the words of Isaiah: “they teach as doctrines and commandments the words of men.” This is a stinging rebuke. No word of man has the authority that the word of God has. 1 John 5:9 indicates that the word of God is greater than the word of men. Period. There can be no parity. There can be no claim of infallibility on the part of any man, acting in any capacity whatsoever.

On the issue of Mary as Mediatrix, Lumen Gentium (paragraphs 60, 62, quoted in Catechism 970) does say what Taylor says about the position of Mary: it’s still wrong. Those who are dead cannot intercede on behalf of the living. That is why it is so important for us to see that Christ is alive. He can intercede for us, because He’s alive. As Hebrews says (I’m sure he had a smile on his face when he wrote this), the Old Testament priests were many, because death prevented them from continuing in office, Heb. 7:23. Yes, death would be a substantial disqualification from ministry. But if they could still intercede on our behalf, then they could still be priests.

On justification, of course the Roman Catholic church teaches a repeatable justification: this is because it is conflated with sanctification. But justification does occur at baptism. My words did not imply that that was the only time it happened in Catholic teaching. One cannot say everything every time one issues a summary. But Catholics do teach that one is justified at baptism, and so my words were not a lie of any sort.

On 1 Corinthians 6:11, of course justification is associated with washing: the blood of Christ cleanses us from the guilt of our sin, and that happens in justification. The verb, however, does not mean baptism in and of itself. Paul could have said “you were baptized.” Instead, he says “you were washed.” There is nothing in the context to indicate baptism. And the use of three terms does not mean that they should be conflated. The aorist use of these verbs does not help Taylor’s position, since they do NOT indicate a process. Paul is emphatically contrasting the previous state of his readers with the subsequent state. That change was marked by three verbs that describe different aspects of that change. So Paul is NOT talking about progressive sanctification here. By the way, Calvin can treat sanctification before justification too, as he in fact does in the Institutes. What’s the point? The beginning of sanctification occurs at the same point in time as justification. But they are distinct, because works play no part in justification, and yet are the distinctive fruit of sanctification. I do not think that Taylor has done justice to the careful exegesis of this passage. I will treat the remaining questions in another post.

Posted by Bob Mattes

Things have been a bit busy since returning from the 37th PCA General Assembly. A lot of the post-assembly talk has centered on the the overtures considering women’s role in the church. You may recall that last year, Philadelphia Presbytery put forward an overture to study the issue of deaconesses in the PCA which was rejected by the Assembly. As I reported in this post, James River and Susquehanna Valley Presbyteries submitted identical overtures calling for a more general study committee to study the role of women in the church. Although this apparently was thought more palatable than an outright call for deaconesses, most commissioners saw through the thin veneer.

The Overtures Committee debated these overtures at some length. I tip my hat to TE Phil Ryken who chaired the committee this year. Although his church, 10th Presbyterian in Philadelphia, has deaconesses, you would never have guessed that from his moderation of the debate. TE Ryken did an excellent job of keeping things moving and on track.

Many who argued for the committee relied on the unproven premises in the “Whereas” clauses of the overtures. These primarily included the unsupported assumptions that:

Whereas, the PCA has struggled with the question of how women in the local church are to exercise their God-given gifts within the framework of the BCO; and

Whereas, many PCA churches are uncertain about how to use appropriately God’s gifts among the many capable women within the membership of those churches; and

Whereas, in many PCA churches those gifts are under utilized;

Personally, I’ve never seen or been in those churches though I traveled widely. Do they exist? Perhaps, but proponents offered no specific evidence. These were just emotion-based, unsupported assertions for which no one in the debate could/would offer evidence.

What could have been offered into evidence is that there are PCA churches skirting the BCO by commissioning women as deaconesses. There are PCA churches who, while commissioning women and men to a parallel “diaconate”, refuse to ordain men as deacons as required by the BCO. The Assembly spoke against this practice last year through the Review of Presbytery Records. That there are churches skirting around the BCO or defying it is clear. I doubt that this is out of confusion, but am open to correction.

The other major argument offered was that some past studies had been helpful. The few studies mentioned included the ones on Freemasonry and creation. Of course, these did not concern BCO changes or daily practices in the church. What proponents didn’t mention were the numerous other studies that didn’t provide the catharsis desired. Take the Federal Vision study. Although approved by over 95% of the 35th General Assembly, Federal Visionists are still tolerated in some PCA presbyteries. They simply will not submit to the decision of their brothers.

So would it be with a study on deaconesses or women’s role in general. Such a committee would certainly produce a minority report just at the Overtures Committee did. Proponents of each side would latch onto the version they like and the debate would continue unabated. We already see this with the OPC’s minority report on women in the church. Although rejected by the OPC, it is still widely used by proponents of deaconesses. Study reports rarely solve anything, which opponents of this proposed study skillfully argued.

Proponents also argued that a significant percentage of overtures and SJC cases this year involved the issue of women’s roles in the church. However, when actually examining the overtures, eliminating duplicates, and considering the details of the SJC cases, the assertion didn’t hold water. The argument seemed to be based on a cursory count of titles rather than actual content.

Those who opposed the study believed that the Scriptures and the BCO provide ample clarity. I’ve posted on the applicable Scriptures and the BCO previously. The problem isn’t clarity in our only rule for faith and practice, but with our confusion and lack of resolve in an egalitarian culture.

Another argument presented against the study was that polity study reports such as this tend to be elevated to constitutional status in practice. The way to affect changes to the BCO or Confession isn’t through study reports or pastoral letters, but overtures to the GA proposing such changes. Although studies don’t have constitutional force, they sometimes take on that role by default.

Further, the overtures as written seem to seek a checklist of what women can and can’t do in the PCA. This removes the flexibility of local sessions to minister in their local circumstances, always within the boundaries of our theology and polity. As I argued later on the floor of the Assembly, the last thing a unit in the field needs to accomplish its mission is more guidance from headquarters. The current guidance conforms to Scripture while allowing flexibility for local implementation.

Proponents attempted to soften the overtures through amendments, even changing the final product from a report to a pastoral letter. On the other side, one opponent put forth an amendment to change the study to explicitly address deaconesses. That particular amendment was defeated.

After considerable debate, the Overtures Committee recommended answering the overtures in the negative by 40-34-2. Of course, the minority wished to produce their own report to support the overtures.

TE Dave Coffin presented the committee report to the Assembly and RE E. J. Nusbaum delivered the minority one. TE Coffin’s arguments were excellent and centered on much of what I reported above. RE Nusbaum’s minority presentation rehashed the same arguments made in committee. The debate lasted an hour and produced no new insights. In the end, the Assembly voted against a study committee by a narrow 446-427 margin, which required a carefully counted vote.

What does it all mean? Well, as TE Ligon Duncan posited the day before, there were at least four camps in the debate. Just considering the core issue, some wanted the study to expand the permissible roles of women, perhaps to include commissioning deaconesses. Others wanted the study to close the door on deaconesses. Some opposed the study because they feared that it would close the door on deaconesses or expanding the permissible roles of women. Others opposed the study because they feared it may take a step in the direction of egalitarianism. So, with competing interests on both sides of the study issue, it’s hard to say what the vote really means overall in relation to the core issue. My guess is that it doesn’t necessarily much at all.

My opposition to the study haven’t changed since last year. It would have wasted $10,000 (or $15,000 as approved during the Admin Committee votes) and solved nothing. As I argued on the floor last year and again this year, I think that the honest approach is for those who want change to put forth an overture to make specific changes the BCO. Let’s put our cards on the table and debate specifics rather ask for studies on the basis of unsupported generalities.

Posted by Bob Mattes

It occurred to me today (in preparation for speaking to some folks about this) that it might be very helpful for people to have a handy chart for easily comparing the Reformed faith with official Roman Catholic teaching on a number of doctrines (comparing the Roman Catholic catechism with the Reformed confessions), and then seeing what Scripture has to say about it. So, references in the Roman side are to paragraph numbers in the RCC Catechism, and the standard abbreviations in the Reformed standards should be easily recognizable. I have concentrated on the most important issues. No doubt there are others I have missed. The format is first the Roman Catholic teaching, then the Reformed teaching, then the Scriptural teaching.

I. On Scripture: while Scripture is inspired by God, tradition and the pope have equal authority. See 891 of the Catechism.

Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and practice. See BC, article 7, WCF 1.

2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 John 5:9

II. On Mary: She is Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix (Cat. 969). She continues to intercede for us in heaven.

Jesus is our one and only High Priest. We need no other Mediatrix save Christ. (BC 21, HC 18, WCF 8, LC 36)

Phil. 3:1-9, 1 Cor. 2:1-2, Heb. 7:26-8:6, 9:11-14, 9:25-10:14

III. On justification: happens at baptism (1987, 1992), involves sanctification (1989, 1995), can be lost (1446).

Justification happens at time-point of faith, does not involve sanctification, and cannot be lost (BC 22-24, HC 60, WCF 11, LC 70-73)

1 Peter 3:21, Romans 3-4, 8

IV. Baptism regenerates (1213).

Baptism is a sign and seal of salvation, not salvation itself (BC 34, WCF 28). We are saved by the thing signified (Christ’s blood), not by the sign itself.

1 Peter 3:21, Colossians 2:11-13

V. The Lord’s Supper: transubstantiation (1373-1378), which results in the worship of the bread and wine.

The Lord is present spiritually only (HC 78-80, WCF 29)

Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22ff., Luke 22:19ff, 1 Cor. 11:24ff.

VI. Purgatory: further purification might be needed after death (1030-1032)

Only two places for souls separated from the body (WCF 32.1)

Luke 23:39-43, 1 Cor. 3:10-15