1/13/03
By
J. Parnell McCarter
Puritan News Service
The Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Conferences
have generated significant attention in the reformed community. But one of the most under-reported aspects
of these conferences is their long term political consequence. It should not escape our notice that
theonomists compose a substantial portion of these conferences. Participating ministers such as Steve
Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, and Doug Wilson are connected with the movement in
America for explicitly Christian politics.
For instance, Steve Schlissel is on the board of advisers for the
National Reform Association. And Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson are well known
advocates for a theonomic vision. These
men correctly believe that politics
in America will return to an era of being explicitly Christian, as it well
should be. Religious neutrality in
politics has always been a myth anyway.
And in the future Americans will recognize it as a myth, and they will
recognize the attendant problems that come with upholding the myth. Muslim terrorism is already in the process
of shattering the myth and exposing the danger of maintaining supposed civil
religious neutrality. So we should not
underestimate the long-term political ramifications of conferences such as
this.
Once it is understood that explicitly Christian
politics is the appropriate norm for society that in the future will dominate,
then one issue becomes politically paramount: define “Christian”. Of American theonomists (Steve Schlissel,
Steve Wilkins, Doug Wilson, Andrew Sandlin, Paul Murphy, Rod Martin, Martin Murphy,
etc.), there is good reason to believe many have effectively defined
“Christian” in such a way as to include Romanism. In an article I wrote last year I addressed Sandlin’s treatment
on this topic as part of his defense of the speakers at AAPC. (See http://www.puritans.net/onheresy.htm .)
Sandlin’s definition of “Christian” was such as to deny that Roman
Catholicism is heretical. His article
“Toward a Catholic Calvinism” (see http://www.christianculture.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=3&id=1026889430
) makes the same essential point. He downplays the relevance of Rome’s Council
of Trent, and he denies that distinctively reformed doctrines (like sola
fide) should be included in a test for doctrinal orthodoxy. Doug Wilson appears largely to agree with
Sandlin, for Wilson cited Sandlin’s article in his own defense (see http://www.christkirk.com/images/RPCUS%20Response.html
). And many comments of Steve
Schlissel suggest he concurs as well. [For example he wrote: “Does the LORD
delight in the solas as much as obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to
heed is better than the systems of men…Do not trust in deceptive words and say,
“The solas of the Reformation, the solas of the Reformation, the solas of the
Reformation.” (Steve Schlissel, “We Must Be Christians, Not Hellenists”,
unpublished paper, p. 9.)] It should
not escape our attention either that Romanist Patrick Buchanan is invited to
speak at National Reform Association conferences, along with Protestants.
There are many theological implications of including
Romanism within the pale of orthodoxy, but certainly one is that we greatly
diminish the serious nature of error in Romish soteriology and worship. It seems that sound doctrine is being
compromised for purposes of theonomic goals.
This is quite a contrast to the Protestant Reformation, where sound
doctrine was central. It also
contradicts the word of God.
But the political consequences are also
significant. If the Roman Catholic
Church is regarded as scripturally orthodox for political purposes in a “Christian”
American nation, it will effectively dominate the explicitly “Christian”
government. It is not without reason
that we are warned: “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” And, frankly, if the Roman Catholic Church
is involved, its presence will be anything but “little”. It will be a behemoth among pygmies.
Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church survives on
ignorance and depravity. That means to
stay in power it will persecute those who will seek to rid the people of their
ignorance and who seek true Biblical reformation, as opposed to a Romanist
revolution. F. Tupper Saussy has shown
in his book Rulers of Evil the significant Romish involvement in the
American Revolution and Civil War (see http://www.rulersofevil.com/
). The Romish Church used these
revolutions to accomplish its own purposes, including in the American
Revolution to overthrow distinctively reformed Protestant rule in which
Romanists were excluded from the franchise.
We must fear what may result from what many American theonomists are
styling a Second American Revolution ( see http://www.forerunner.com/revolution/
), a
revolution that Romanists like Patrick Buchanan would also relish.
Despite disinformation to the contrary, Rome has not repented of her past errors and her past threats. The Council of Trent is still official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Its pronouncements have never been rescinded by the Romish Church. Therefore, it is important to understand its pronouncements and its background. The Council of Trent was a Roman Catholic council held from 1545-1563 in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation. This council denied every Reformation doctrine, including Scripture alone and grace alone. Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians. These proclamations and anathemas were fleshed out in the murderous persecutions vented upon Bible-believing Christians by Rome. The Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s referred to Trent dozens of times, quoted Trent's proclamations as authority, and reaffirmed Trent on every hand. The New Catholic Catechism cites Trent no less than 99 times. There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." Every cardinal, bishop and priest who participated in the Vatican II Council signed a document affirming Trent.
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the
theonomic speakers at AAPC are helping to pave the way for Roman Catholic
doctrines to be considered within the pale of orthodoxy by American
Protestants. Their statements blur lines which have been the rationale for
strong Protestant rejection of Romanist errors. This in turn paves the way for an explicitly “Christian”
government in America dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. The good news for Rome is that scripture
tells us that the Romish Beast will win, even destroying the mysterious Babylon
she has long upheld (see Revelation 17:16-17).
The bad news for Rome (but good news for true reformed Protestants) is
that this same Romish Beast’s obvious rule will only be temporary, for she will
be overcome through the preaching of the true reformed gospel (see Revelation
19:19-21), and a restored Protestant Reformation (the “millennium”) will then
be ushered in (see Revelation 20:1-3). (See my book Let My People Go.)