Our Lady of Czestochowska
On the Feast of the Assumption, I was talking to someone after mass and he mentioned something very interesting. He mentioned that if you’re interested in religion there are really only three options. These are Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Calvinism.
In regards to Calvinism, I’ll say this. They care about scripture. Most commentaries nowadays are written by Calvinists. They also do the vast majority of apologetics. The one problem that Calvinism has is history. While they acknowledge that Calvinism is less than 500 years old, they tried to trace a line through history. This often includes the proposition that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were proto-Calvinists. A lot of Catholics get annoyed with this but I use it as an opportunity. I simply say: “Fine, they’re yours, now read as much of them as you can.”
No one looking to get serious about faith in Jesus Christ is converting to Lutheranism or Anglicanism. Those groups will be gone before you know it. Another option in the Protestant camp is the charismatic praise and worship type churches. These originate in America but missionaries have expanded this movement into South America and Africa. These churches are essentially big atheism factories. They’re anti-intellectual, shallow, appeal to emotion and more often than not end up killing faith. There are a couple people who fall into the generic Evangelical or non-denominational camp but there aren’t a lot. Protestantism’s strongest movement by a long shot is Calvinism.
The second group is the Orthodox Church. I specifically refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church as Oriental Orthodoxy doesn’t seem to attract any converts. The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t get a large number of converts either, but does get some and they’re of high quality. Hank Hanegraaff is the most famous example. A Catholic apologist who will remain nameless told me recently that Michael Horton has secretly converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and is just waiting to come out at this point. There are younger converts of high quality as well such as Thomas Hamilton and Jay Dyer.
The last option for seriously minded followers of Jesus Christ is my own faith of Catholicism. We’re seeing a revival of scholasticism, Thomism and classical theism in our day. Two great examples are Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon. There is also the great podcast Pints with Aquinas. Many more people are starting to read Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas and its all because of this re-emergence of classical theism.
So, I have to agree with my friend from Church. I see people who are serious about religion falling into these three camps. As time goes on, this will become more and more obvious. The charismatic churches may not go away anytime soon but in fifty years there will hardly be any Lutheran, Anglican, or Unitarian churches left. All of those people will either lose their faith or join one of these three groups.
A Catholic apologist who will remain nameless told me recently that Michael Horton has secretly converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and is just waiting to come out at this point.
That’s very shocking. Hard to believe that it is true.
I’ll send you something on Twitter.
Overall, you are describing what you think the 3 largest Christian groups that will survive into the future.
But you left out a lot of other Evangelicals that are kind of the middle, between Calvinism and Pentecostalism / Charismatic groups. But overall, your analysis seems to be right as far as long term staying power, although it seems humans will always go for the emotional worship groups in the whole Charismatic movement. They do have some things in common with Roman Catholics though – they tend to believe in doing something that can bring miracles or help from angels, etc. – RCs have that same tendency to think something physical can actually bring grace down or miracles, etc. (ex opere operato, relics, statues, angels, icons, praying at graves, etc. – Charismatics have a lot of that same mentality – praying prayers of commanding spirits and angels, claiming things, linen healing cloths, etc.)
Recently I watched 2 videos of this guy – Eastern Orthodox Archbishop Josiah Trenham (former Presbyterian) – this one was very interesting, all three were (Rock and Sand part 1 & 2)
This one is a more complete understanding of the differences between RC vs. EO – but in my opinion, most of the emphasis is on rituals and symbols, buildings, history, physical things – even beards, etc. as some kind of “law” for men to have. (kind of like Islam)
I have not had time to type up some kind of responses to these – it would be a big task, as it encompasses so much of church history and background understanding.
Overall, I still don’t get the attraction of Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy – as the gutting of the heart of the gospel (salvation by grace through faith alone vs. merit of works, etc.), the Pope and Mary stuff, and the emphasis on physical things (relics, statues, graves, gaudy stuff), OVER Spiritual truths of Scripture, etc. and things like statues of Mary are a massive annoyance.
Your statement about Michael Horton is shocking to me; however, since Presbyterians and Continental Reformed (Dutch Calvinists) also have a deep commitment to infant baptism, along with other good things – like good art, architecture, music (which other Evangelicals admittedly lack), and seeing all those “Called to Communion” former Reformed guys (Bryan Cross, etc.), it should not shock me that much if this is true and comes out later.
Is Josiah Trenham an Archbishop? I thought he was just a priest. He has really good stuff though.
“Overall, I still don’t get the attraction of Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy – as the gutting of the heart of the gospel (salvation by grace through faith alone vs. merit of works, etc.), the Pope and Mary stuff, and the emphasis on physical things (relics, statues, graves, gaudy stuff), OVER Spiritual truths of Scripture, etc. and things like statues of Mary are a massive annoyance.”
Well, I mean I understand from a Calvinist perspective why you’d say this. But remember for 75% of the churches history, Christianity was liturgical, and believed in monarchial episcopacy via apostolic succession. You can say that they’re wrong but then I don’t know how your thesis is that different from Mormon Great apostasy thesis. I mentioned that Augustine and Aquinas are admired by Calvinists and are an attempt to trace continuity via belief but a lot of Converts to Catholicism from Calvinist become so by studying them. Some utterly reject them and those are the ones that become EO. This is what happened to Jay Dyer, though he was actually Catholic for a bit.
Regarding your last paragraph on similarities between Calvinist Paedobaptists and Orthodox, I once talked to some people who knew RC Sproul personally. They said in his church was very liturgical. Vestments, incense, etc. A lot of Gordon Clark’s followers used to call him a crypto-papist because of his belief in Lordship Salvation which some think brings works into salvation and nullifies sola fide. Although keep in mind Gordon Clark was a hardcore paedobaptist.
I don’t think Sproul’s church had / has incense. I would need to see proof of that.
Sometimes, like more traditional Presbyterians, like D. James Kennedy – yes, they wore robes, etc.
Someone just told me that. I cannot verify or falsify it unless I actually go to his church in Georgia. I would assume they would still do it if RC did it.
Sproul’s church is in Florida, not Georgia.
Near Orlando, in order to be near Ligonier Ministries headquarters.
Yes, you’re correct, I was thinking of another church.
Sorry, I thought it said, “Archbishop”, but it says “Archpriest”, which I don’t know what that means anyway; I never heard of an “Archpriest”.
On the You Tube description:
“Talk given by Archpriest Father Josiah Trenham at Saint Barnabas Orthodox Church in Costa Mesa California. Father Josiah delivers an Orthodox perspective on the Roman Catholic Church.”
I believe an archpriest is a priest that works in the Cathedral under the Archbishop. He does liturgy sometimes when the Archbishop can’t do it and serves in a secondary role when the Archbishop does the liturgy.
I’ve listened to that talk, its interesting but I think he’s wrong on a few points. I won’t get into them here though. Have you listened to the lecture?
Yes, I listened to that one; and also his part 1 and 2 of “Rock and Sand” (critique of Protestantism)
I hope to someday type up responses to all of them.
You can say that they’re wrong but then I don’t know how your thesis is that different from Mormon Great apostasy thesis.
small, slowly added man-made traditions over centuries up until splits with OO, Assyrians (Nestorians), Invasions of Islam, division with EO (1054), Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, etc. is a lot different than the sudden Mormon Great Apostasy thesis.
I explain that in more detail here – difference between Mormon type theory and knowledgeable Protestant position:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/06/09/rod-bennetts-lecture-the-four-witnesses-brought-me-home/
So do you believe in an average Christian in 100 AD believed in TULIP, Sola Fide and believers only baptism?
Amazing how you keep asking me that over and over.
Believers baptism – yes – even Justin Martyr describes only believers baptism – in 155-165 AD.
the other two doctrines are theological doctrines that were fleshed out more and more clearly as history progressed.
Well, I specifically asked you about 632 and 718 in the past. We’re talking about 100 AD here. This is post NT but pre-Ignatius. We don’t have a lot of resources on what Christians believed in terms of specific doctrine in 100 AD. We have a loads of information about what Christians believed in the 7th century.
Remember, I didn’t say believers baptism. I said believers only baptism. The “only” portion is very important. Today, if a Muslim converts to Catholicism as an adult they will receive a believers baptism.
In 100 AD, they had all 27 books of the NT, however not yet collected all together under one “book cover” / canon / list of God-breathed books.
1. “No one looking to get serious about faith in Jesus Christ is converting to Lutheranism or Anglicanism. Those groups will be gone before you know it.”- true, and it’s not good. These two branches of Protestantism are closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy than Calvinism is. Of all Protestant denominations Anglicanism is the one closest to Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, it does seem to be dying out.
2. “Protestantism’s strongest movement by a long shot is Calvinism.”- fully agreed.
For some reason Calvinists are generally sterner in their convictions and more actively practicing their faith in comparison to the rest of Protestants. I’m not particularly fond of them though, for some of their beliefs are quite wacky. The doctrine of limited atonement for example is a borderline blasphemy. I’m glad Sam Shamoun revoked it. Even James White admits that many Calvinists feel uncomfortable about it.
I still remember the uproar in the Reformed community when Hank Hanegraaff decided to embrace Orthodoxy. The draculesque John McArthur expressed his annoyance with some really nasty words. Anyway, it seems that Orthodoxy is slowly gaining foothold in the West, and conversions like this are going to popularize it more.
May God help us all.
Hi Orangehunter,
Thanks for the input. It’s interesting that you said: “These two branches of Protestantism are closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy than Calvinism is.” That’s true but a lot of the people in these groups are converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, especially Anglicans. It’s getting harder and harder to follow Christ in this church so many of the hardcore ones convert. In England, the C or E is disappearing super fast. Many become atheists, but the religious ones become Evangelical, and of course there are Catholic and Orthodox converts. I follow a lot of ex-Anglican Catholic and Orthodox on Twitter. I also mentioned that the OOs don’t get any converts. The one exception might be England as there is the British Orthodox Church which is OO.
“Anyway, it seems that Orthodoxy is slowly gaining foothold in the West, and conversions like this are going to popularize it more.”
I actually recently met an American campaign manager who was doing some work in Canada. He’s a young lawyer(went to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University), originally from Virginia but now lives in Colorado and he’s deep into the political world of American politics. He was one of the Republicans who just couldn’t stand Trump. Very smart guy. When I met him he was an Evangelical but he was in the process of converting to Orthodoxy and has since converted. I originally thought he was Catholic because he seemed very Thomistic.
Orthodoxy has always had a big presence here in Canada because of the amount of Ukrainian farmers that came over in around 1900. If you go to the provinces of Alberta(where I live), Saskatchewan, or Manitoba which are farming provinces, you’ll see Orthodox churches everywhere, especially in the country and small towns.
In fact, there are so many Ukrainians here that they have their own Ukrainian dialect called Canadian Ukrainian. My mom is a native speaker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Ukrainian
God bless,
Allan
Allan,
I am surprised that you haven’t given more attention to Calvinism in your online musings.
I had never really considered it until I listened more and more to Dr James White, and then I started to become more and more exasperated with its doctrines.
Christopher
I will admit that James White is the biggest marketer of Calvinism and does a half decent job. My primary goal is to deal with Islam and Catholic issues. Outside of America, Calvinism doesn’t pose much of a threat to Catholicism.
Speaking of Calvinism, any thoughts on Molinism?
It was after all a Jesuit’s response to the Calvinist and Arminian ideas espoused by the Reformers, but we don’t really hear much of it outside of say William Lane Craig.
I think Molinism is false.
So, if you think Molinism is false, what is the Roman Catholic view of God’s sovereignty, foreknowledge, predestination, election, God’s sovereignty in relation to evil, etc.
Since the Jesuits and Molina were commissioned by the Pope to come up that – and it was the response to Calvinism – doesn’t it seem to be the majority view of RC since then?
I remember Dave Armstrong affirming Molinism.
What other viewpoint is there that is acceptable within Roman Catholic orthodoxy?
Hey Ken,
This is one area of the church that hasn’t been strictly defined. The two ends of the spectrum have been anathematized. Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism on one side and Calvinism and Jansenism on the other. Anything in between is fine. Most Catholic intellectuals go with the Augustine-Aquinas view. This was most clearly demonstrated by the great 20th century Thomist Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in his book on predestination. John Salza has a recent book on it that talks about all the big thinkers in this area, such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Garrigou-Lagrange. Robert Sungenis has endorsed this book.
I’m not sure of the history of Molinism. What you say may be true but I know there was a point where Molinism was almost dogmatically condemned then the Pope that was about to condemn it died and his successor didn’t want to continue the canonical process. I read that in a popular book, not a scholarly one so it may not be true. Either way, it is still permitted to hold it if you want though most Catholics don’t. I’d strongly recommend Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s book.
If Dave Armstrong affirms this then I think he’s wrong. As I said, most Catholics hold to the Augustine-Aquinas view best explained by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
https://www.amazon.com/Predestination-Scripture-Reginald-Garrigou-Lagrange-Paperback/dp/B015X4RYOW/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=reginald+garrigou-lagrange+predestination&qid=1568390471&s=gateway&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Predestination-According-Scripture-Aquinas-ebook/dp/B004Q3RNCK/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=john+salza+predestination&qid=1568390507&s=gateway&sr=8-1
God bless,
Allan
Thanks for a good and thorough answer on my question about Molinism.