Matt 3:9-- The Baptist is talking about the pride that the Pharasees and Saducess have as blood descendants of Abraham--as if they contained in their own bodies the promise of unity of the Lord.
Who indeed will build a house for the Lord? [Acts 7:48] Whose body holds the promise? Ours? No. His hands have made all. He, instead, builds a house for us, stone upon stone, our own hearts washed clean and stacked up, held together by that which holds together for all eternity--His own Body and Blood.
Self-explanatory?
Do the Catholics = the "brood of vipers"?
Do the Protestants = the stones?
Or do the vipers equal the vipers, and the stones all those, Jews and Gentile, who the Lord will call to himself, whose very hearts will be the stones of the Kingdom?
Tent and temple? Because they stood side by side in opposition to each other?
The Lord has already made a temple for Himself, who would tear it down?
By self-explanatory I meant the danger of over-confidence in lineage, be it Abrahamic or Petrine.
Well, yes, exactly. In the context ("Staying Protestant") the equation works out to "Catholics=vipers, Protestant=stones."
Your point seems to be that "Catholics are proud to trace their succession to Peter, therefore one should remain Protestant."
But in that case, how about Christians=vipers, Hindus=stone? Or any non-Christians for that matter?
The point of the episode is that no-one should think that the promise is inherent within himself, as the Pharisees and Saducees did, within their own blood--in other words, thinking themselves to be the promise. The promise isn't the bloodline, it's the Blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins. But that doesn't mean that the bloodline wasn't important as a vehicle of the promise, obviously, or God would not have used it.
Similarly with the Church-- The apostolic succession alone isn't the promise, the salvation is the promise. But the Lord seems to have had it in mind that this promise would be carried in a certain way. "He who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects the Father who sent me."
I don't dispute that there is more than one interpretation to all of these verses Ben, and I admit mine are out of context. But they do embody Protestant principles, principles which can (as you make clear) live inside Catholicism, but as Oakes makes plain, have historically been forced, for a time, to live outside Catholicism... perhaps in the long run only that they might dwell within her again!
The fact that you're able to employ these verses while still a Catholic, using them to critique an undue "bloodline" confidence - a distinctly Catholic problem - is only further indication that, in Oakes' words, the "portion of the essential patrimony of the Church" that Protestants took with them is being reincorporated.
However, just as God raised up sons of Abraham "from these very stones" (the Gentiles) to keep a very legitimate Jewish bloodline on its toes, so also it seems God has raised up salvation-imbued Christians (see 847) "from these very stones" (non-Catholics) to keep a very legitimate Catholic "bloodline," for a time, in check.
Millinerd, may I point out that Matt. 3:9 is the verse that Merton put at the beginning of The Seven Storey Mountain? Not sure if there is a connexion here . . .
Hi Millinerd... I can't speak for why Oakes said what he did, but as I've said before, his comments don't serve to make anything clear. In what way is the Catholic Church NOT catholic, if she is what she claims to be?
I don't think God raised up sons from the stones (Gentiles) to keep anyone on their toes, the bloodline was leading to the fullfillment of the Jews' purpose: that all nations should be blessed by that bloodline. The newly baptised gentiles were not anti-Jews that God used to smack the Jews--rather, the Christian gentiles were along with the Christian Jews new members of Christ's Body, with no difference between them. The non-Christian Jews weren't being chastised to keep them in line, they were to leave the old line, and be united with the new line. If anyone is keeping anyone on their toes, it would be the Assyrians etc of the Old Testament, who overran the Israelites in their times of apostasy.
Or, to Adam's comment above, perhaps we can see the Franciscans etc as the ones to keep the Church on her toes. Either way, 'Assyrians' outside, Franciscans inside... but Protestants alongside? A new and parallel Church? Its founders claiming that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, the Pope the Antichrist? That disagrees with the Catholic Church on fundamental issues? These are salvation imbued, on priciple? I don't doubt that there are some Donatists in heaven, but is that what God wants, constant fission and contention?
Read 847 again, and 846 too. There is one Church, not a Church and another "Church" to keep the first Church on her toes. If you know what the Church is, you join her post-haste. If she is not what she claims to be, she is an egregious hubristic liar, and it seems strange to quote her catechism authoritatively. In all cases it is better to be in the Church.
I am glad, by the way, that you bring these points up, they are certainly helping me clarify many things for myself.
I got the "on their toes" bit from Romans 11:11.
Perhaps a better verse to make Matt's general point is I Kings 12:23-24. Even if one were to grant that the Roman Church is the church, we need not conclude the Reformation was unfounded. Elijah was a mighty prophet in the northern kingdom, and even there God reserved 7K who did not bow the knee to Baal. Perhaps some of us, like Elijah, are called to the North.
Dear goodness that's utterly perfect.
"Do not fight against your brothers" is a fine reminder that reaching fellow-Christians is a much less risky and less important task than reaching non-Christians.
By so suggesting I do not mean to cast poor light on Catholics who have thankfully engaged we Protestants in this conversation. It's just a reminder to us all.
Catholic = Israel the Northern Kingdom?
Protestant = Judah the Southern?
Or vice-versa?
Is this in context, in any of the four senses of scripture? In what way is it perfect then?
I guess the lesson is that if you look hard enough for things you want to see, you will find them.
"Faithless Israel has shown herself less guilty than false Judah." Jer 3:11
So what does that mean? Not much.
Bah... This analogy is terrible anyway, Christ our Zion came to end all that Judah vs Israel, Pharisee vs Saducee, Jew vs Gentile mess.
Just use your eyes, have Protestants kept to the faith of the apostles or not? If not, who has? Then go with them. Am I in the north? Am I in the south? Which way to Zion? "Let me first go bury my father." No. "They have Moses and the prophets."
If I seem keyed up about this, it's only because I hate to see people playing word games to find exceptions for themselves. I have a few anecdotes from my own personal experience to this point... but, I've written enough.
Every analogy breaks down at a point, else it would be the thing itself. Using the most extended Scriptural instance of the people of God divided to understand our current divisions does not strike me as a stretch. To return to Ephraim Radner's treatment of the issue,
"No Jew, within scriptural testimony, is ever asked by God to choose between Israel and Judah, despite the fluctuating fortunes of their respective faithfulness. Rather, God asks each Israelite to suffer these fluctuations themselves in faith and to allow that faithful patience to be molded into the shape of repentant people by God's own acts upon them" (207).
Wow. Looks like that one hit a nerve with the Zealot. "Just use your eyes, have Protestants kept to the faith of the apostles or not? If not, who has? Then go with them."
Pardon me, but this kind of loaded question instantiates the kind of hubris the reference to Matthew 3:9 was meant to call attention to, was it not? In other words, by insinuating that Protestants qua Protestants have not kept to the faith of the apostles, Ben unduly reveals the extent to which he really does place his confidence in a particular bloodline.
Not trying to be dense, but it just doesn't even begin to strike me as an appropriate analogy.
I certainly see the parallels of the analogy, I just don't think it can apply to us as Protestant and Catholic. I think, rather, it is extremely misleading to even begin to apply this analogy to the Protestant/Catholic split.
Honest questions to which I don't know the answer:
--Were Israel and Judah at theological loggerheads? Jeremiah called Israel faithless ("backsliders") but Judah false ("trecherous"); does this indicate anything?
--I don't recall, but was the temple still up in Jerusalem at that time? And if so, did Israel build a separate temple in the north?
--Did either Israel or Judah set up an alternate priesthood (or abandon the priesthood altogether?) Did either kingdom deny the need for a temple?
--In Christ's bloodline, are both Judah and Israel represented?
There are many questions that need to be answered if you are serious about the analogy and want to search it to draw practical conclusions. If this all seems far fetched, then, again, in what way --at all-- can this analogy be helpful to you in your hopes of finding some motto for your continued Protest?
(BTW, I'm honesty not trying to be a pest or score points here, I really do just like to help people think through things, and, in turn, be helped by them.)
No, kp, and please read charitably.
I'll rewrite the sentence so as not to be a stumbling block: "Use the eyes you have to determine who is following the apostles. The Protestants? The Catholics? The Orthodox?"
The reason I said 'Protestants' is because that is the question facing Millinerd: Protestant or No? That's all. There -may- be other things motivating me besides hubris and nervous Zealotry.
There is a book length treatment of this issue to answer those questions Ben, and your proddings have been very appreciated as a spur to further thought. I hope to conclude this discussion with a "powerpost" quite soon, which explains that menacing rumble in the distance.
Funny the tangential things that come up in these discussions, but here's a book Leithart wrote about 1 and 2 Kings. You probably already know about it. It's next on my shopping list, I realized I don't know Kings as well as I should. It looks pretty cool, and if there are any current Reformed (Hubristic Zealot Ben sez: "So-called 'Reformed'") theologians I can dig, it's him.
Very nice. You can read the relevant pages (93-95) on amazon book search, which were quite insightful.
Ben,
Catholic=Southern Kingdom
Protestant=Northern Kingdom
I think you are trying to read more into Joe's comment than necessary. The point seems to be--simply put--that the division of God's people in the present may have been akin to the division of God's people in the OT. As you'll recall, Jerusalem and the southern tribes were the true center of religious devotion. But due to Solomon's idolatry and excess, God removed the northern tribes from the Davidic dynasty. While the true center of worship remained in Jerusalem, righteous Jews remained in the North and God ministered through them by devout Jewish prophets (such as Elijah).
Joe seems to be suggesting that perhaps in the same way, God found it necessary to remove part of the Church out from under the authority of Rome, due to its corruption and excesses in the 16th century. So while Rome may yet remain the true center of religious devotion, devout Christians dwell in the Protestant "North" (and this by the will of God) and God still ministers to us through his "prophets."
Ultimately, the argument runs thus: God divided his people once, perhaps he has divided us again. I think one could make a good case that if there was ever an age in the life of the Church akin to the reign of Solomon, it was the 16th century.
Of course Joe's argument here need not negate God's ultimate desire for unity, just that the present circumstances require an unfortunate division--a division, thankfully, that He will ultimately overcome. But perhaps through much pain. As one may recall, it was the destruction of both Israel and Judah that occasioned their reunion after the exile.
Well said Gerald - there's also this from Gerald's site.
I don't think Gerald's post is very good. The sacrament of confirmation is supposed to involve adult converstion. So, there is a place for being born again, though we don't call it that because we are already baptized.
Joe C-- the sacrament of confirmation is not a sacrament of adult conversion, though many make it out to be such. The history of the sacrament of confirmation took a different course in the West than it did in the East for several reasons, you might want to look into it, very interesting.
Gerald-- One can make the case that the Catholic Church of the 16th century was a debased and faithless wasteland only if one relies on the Protestant accounts of it as such. Read, for example, "The Stripping of the Altars" by Eamon Duffy, or "The Imitation of Christ" or any of the works of the Devotio Moderna just for a tiny example. If God's answer to the corruption of the bishops of the 16th century is to cleave off the Protestants to contradict the Catholics on nearly every point of doctrine, then what to make of the current sellout of American Evangelicalism to political Republicanism and Health and Wealth? Is it cleavin' time? Or, what to make of the "caesaropapism" of the East during the reign of the emperors of Constantinople? Or, let's heap more on the Catholics, what of the corruption of the 9th century?
I guess what I'm saying is that if I am reading too much into the analogy, then how is it NOT reading too much when you assign north/south roles and use the analogy to perhaps justify a current split in the body of Christians, as if the situation of Israel has any more to do with the situation of the Church than does the Old Man have to do with the New.
Thank you for joining the conversation, I take this all quite seriously, I don't mean to sound like a raging bigot, really.
The analogy, Ben, is not meant to justify the split as much as to lament it.
Lament. Hm, well, in that case, let's fix that! What will you do to fix the breach?
One thing I like to do is engage thinking Protestants in long but precise discussions to draw out their exact reasons for Protest, so that they might they might not console themselves with empty slogans but rather may be certain of their exact reasons for withholding themselves from union with the Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome--to not have specific and grave reasons for not sharing the Cup is deeply sinful.
Running the risk of being annoying is worth it to me.
I've given you nine of them.
we're only sinning by remaining protestant if we acknowledge that the catholic church is the One True Church... Thank God for affording us patience in finding home.
Commenting by HaloScan
