On January 23, John Armstrong reported on his blog that he taught the 2011 winter term course for the D.Min. program at Knox. He met the faculty last summer and was welcomed with open arms. He was then invited to teach the D.Min. course. He now endorses the seminary in glowing terms. John Armstrong not only expresses his appreciation for Federal Vision theology but also regards Rome as a true church.

via John Armstrong teaches on unity with Rome at Knox Theological Seminary « Johannes Weslianus.

Usual entry from this blog with the usual strategy of making fun of other peoples’ appearance and dress.

Of course, since Armstrong has always appreciated the Reformed heritage he naturally has an appreciation for Norman Shepherd and “the Federal Vision.” That just means he’s more discerning than Wes White. Not hard to accomplish.

But I find the charge, “also regards Rome as a true church,” interesting.

I have no idea to what extent I would agree with or disagree with Armstrong’s presentation. I wasn’t there. I generally think it is easy to find Protestant-like Roman Catholics and Protestant-like statements from Roman Catholic sources. I don’t think there is reason to be confident they mean that much. It would be nice if they did. We should pray for Reformation in all areas of Christendom. As a post-millennialist, I am certain that prayer will be answered some day. But I have no idea what God’s time table is, nor what the answer might ultimately look like.

But if the offense is regarding Rome as a true church, then we don’t need to resort to exposing Armstrong or Knox Theological Seminary. As far as I know, every Reformed Seminary promotes appreciation of the works of Charles Hodge.

Charles Hodge argued that, for the purpose of administering valid baptism, Roman Catholic clergy were true Christian clergy in the Church:

Do, then, the Romish priests come within this wide definition of ordained ministers? Are they appointed by public authority to teach the Christian religion, and to administer its ordinances? The question is not whether they are good men, or whether they do not assume sacerdotal and other powers to which they have no claim, or whether they are correct in doctrine; but simply whether, in a body professing to hold saving doctrine, they are appointed and recognised as presbyters. If so, then they are ministers within the sense of the received Protestant definition of the term. [This is the ground on which the Reformed churches defended the validity of the orders received from the Church of Rome. “Talis autem est,” says Turrettin, “episcoporum et presbyterorum vocatio in ecclesia Romana, quae quoad institutionem Dei bona fuit, sed quoad abusum hominum mala facta est. Unde resecatio errorum et corruptelarum ab hominibus invectarum, non potuit esse vocationis abrogatio, sed correctio et restitutio.” –Vol. iii. p. 265.]

He argued at length that the Roman Catholic Church was a true branch (though corrupt) of the visible Church, writing,

That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think, plain. 1. Because they believe the Scriptures to be the word of God. 2. They direct that the Scriptures should be understood and received as they were understood by the Christian Fathers. 3. They receive the three general creeds of the church, the Apostle’s, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, or as these are summed up in the creed of Pius V. 4. They believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. In one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And the third day rose again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And they believe in one catholic apostolic church. They acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

If this creed were submitted to any intelligent Christian without his knowing whence it came, could he hesitate to say that it was the creed of a Christian church? Could he deny that these are the very terms in which for ages the general faith of Christendom has been expressed? Could he, without renouncing the Bible, say that the sincere belief of these doctrines would not secure eternal life? Can any man take it upon himself in the sight of God, to assert there is not truth enough in the above summary to save the soul? If not, then a society professing that creed professes the true religion in the sense stated above. 5. We argue from the acknowledged fact that God has always had, still has, and is to have a people in that church until its final destruction; just as he had in the midst of corrupt and apostate Israel. We admit that Rome has grievously apostatized from the faith, the order and the worship of the church; that she has introduced a multitude of false doctrines, a corrupt and superstitious and even idolatrous worship, and a most oppressive and cruel government; but since as a society she still retains the profession of saving doctrines, and as in point of fact, by those doctrines men are born unto God and nurtured for heaven, we dare not deny that she is still a part of the visible church. We consider such a denial a direct contradiction of the Bible, and of the facts of God’s providence. It was within the limits of the church the great anti-christian power was to arise; it was in the church the man of sin was to exalt himself; and it was over the church he was to exercise his baneful and cruel power.

When the Pope invited the Presbyterians to a Council, Charles Hodge was appointed to write the declining reply. He pointedly addressed a problem with the Roman Catholic Church while still acknowledging them as a Church:

We cordially recognise as members of Christ’s visible Church on earth, all those who profess the true religion together with their children. We are not only willing but earnestly desire to hold Christian communion with them; provided they do not require, as conditions of such communion, that we profess doctrines which the word of God condemns, or that we should do what that word forbids. If in any case any Church prescribes such unscriptural terms of fellowship, the error and the fault are with that Church and not with us.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that Hodge would necessarily agree with everything that Armstrong teaches. I’m pretty sure Hodge’s writings are quite a bit less optimistic. (And of course, there is no reason to think that Knox Theological Seminary necessarily agreed with everything John Armstrong said, either. Seminaries often have guest lecturers with various points of view.) But it sure looked to me like recognizing the Roman Catholic Church as a true Church was being proffered as a damning item of evidence on its own.

Well, that ship has sailed. Long ago. In fact, Charles Hodge offers evidence from much earlier in Reformation and Protestant history. Check out the links above to see his arguments from the sources. In the meantime, criticisms about the ecumenical proposals of others would probably get more consideration without this kind of revisionist standard of “orthodoxy.” I am certain that John Armstrong knows Charles Hodge’s views of the Roman Catholic Church. He knows that the railing accusation that he recognizes the institution as a “true church” is sound and fury and nothing more.