Exchange with Anti-Catholic Calvinist Austin Reed on the Definition of "Christian" and His Denial that "Good" Magisterial, Tridentine (Etc.) Catholics Are Christians

 Anti-Catholic efforts to "prove" that Catholicism isn't Christan . . .

Austin's words [see his Facebook page] will be in blue. This exchange began on one Facebook thread, spread to another, and then to this website paper.

See the Facebook Introduction to this paper and further discussion.

* * * * *
I am not anti-Catholic and I am personally offended by the term, in the same way I am offended by the term "homophobe". I love Catholic people and have several near and dear Catholic friends.

We've been through this before, Austin. "Anti-Catholicism" as I use it, in accordance with scholarly usage, means "one who denies that Catholicism is a Christian system of theology." It has nothing to do with behavior per se (in its basic definition). [see past papers on the topic: one / two / three / four]
 

There is also some usage, granted, of behavior, as in this instance [in an article I cross-posted], which was clearly anti-Catholic not only doctrinally, but physically, in terms of persecution. Thus, events of this sort will be described as "anti-Catholic" in the sense that, e.g., a violent Catholic attack on Protestants in Belfast might be described as "anti-Protestant." Words can have different and multiple meanings as well.

But in my own frequent usage it refers (almost always) to doctrine only. Thus, an anti-Catholic could love Catholics around him to death and have nothing but benevolent and warm fuzzy feelings, wanting to see them saved, etc. He remains anti-Catholic if he believes that in order to be a good Christian and be saved, one has to be a "bad" Catholic (i.e., denounce various Catholic tenets that are abominated by the anti-Catholic and regarded as subversive of true Christianity).

I've reiterated all this 97,603 times through the years, and no doubt I will continue to be misunderstood (to my endless frustration), but it's all perfectly consistent and linguistically / logically sound.

My point is, the use of the term "anti-Protestant" suggests an appeal to pity. Every consistent Protestant will fall under the designation "anti-Catholic" using your criteria . . . 

That's sheer nonsense. The vast majority of Protestants regard Catholics as fellow Christians, and do so with perfect consistency, just as we do the other way around. For a Protestant to say that we are not Christians makes mincemeat of any reasonable, sensible, solid definition of "Christian". 

We are Protestants because we're protesting the doctrine of Justification as set forth in the Council of Trent. Anyone who adheres to that understanding of Justification is unequivocally NOT a Christian.

Hogwash. Define "Christian" and explain where your definition comes from and why all Christians are bound to it. 

Dave, your assumptions are massive and totally unwarranted. You know as well as I do that the alleged historicity of Roman Catholicism has been critiqued over and over again, and I am yet to see any serious responses (and yes I've read your Sola Scriptura book). I would love to see a Roman Catholic make a historical case that Protestantism has historically allowed for consistent Roman Catholics to be Christians.

That's easy. Luther acknowledged that the Catholic Church was Christian in the basic sense of the word, and the debt of Lutheranism to it. I have several of his comments to that effect. His main beef was with the papacy. He regarded Catholics on a much higher plane than he did Zwinglians, whom he regarded as definitely damned. Even Calvin accepts Catholic baptism. That makes us Christians. [see documentation below]

You're a good and sharp guy. With more education, I believe you'll come around and see the foolishness and utter untenability of the anti-Catholic position. Sometimes these things take time.
*** 

That's all I've said: regard us as fellow Christians and I'll never classify you as an anti-Catholic. It ain't rocket science. Disagree on all the usual stuff, but don't take the intellectually suicidal route of denying that the entity that you came from (and must have come from, historically speaking) is Christian. 

. . . which would really make the term completely useless. Its clearly a term loaded with emotional baggage that is totally superfluous and unhelpful. I would be happy to dialogue with any Catholic who wants to interact with Protestant truth claims regarding any doctrine, but I have a very difficult time someone serious who regards those who disagree with him as "anti-Catholic". 

Refute the scholars in my papers about the term if you disagree . . . I've told you how I use it.

I'm happy to dialogue with any Protestant who regards me as a fellow Christian (as I am). Otherwise, I'd much rather dialogue with an atheist, because that is a more consistent position than that of the small anti-Catholic wing of Protestantism, that takes the ridiculous and indefensible position of Protestantism being Christian while the Catholicism from which it derived somehow is not. It's impossible to defend such a position historically, biblically, or logically.

This is why seven anti-Catholics turned down a debate on that: at which time I gave up on debating theology with anti-Catholics altogether (in 2007). [and I have to make an exception to my usual rule to engage in this present one] [see papers about these anti-Catholic "live chat" debate refusals: one / two / three / four / five ]
Are you referring to the challenge you issued in the Alpha and Omega chat channel?
No. Jimbo White was only one of seven who declined. 

I'm pretty sure they've responded to your claims any number of times.

I'm sure "they" think they have. There needs to be a serious debate about the definition of "Christian" before anything else can be intelligently talked about. But it won't happen anytime soon. I brushed the dust off of my feet in 2007, and if anti-Catholics ever get up the guts and gumption to have that discussion, it won't be with me. They had their chance to do that and blew it.  
Martin Luther
1528

In the first place I hear and see that such rebaptism is undertaken by some in order to spite the pope and to be free of any taint of the Antichrist. In the same way the foes of the sacrament want to believe only in bread and wine, in opposition to the pope, thinking thereby really to overthrow the papacy. It is indeed a shaky foundation on which they can build nothing good. On that basis we would have to disown the whole of Scripture and the office of the ministry, which of course we have received from the papacy. We would also have to make a new Bible. . . .

We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. 

 . . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. . . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ.

[251] . . . We recall that St. John was not averse to hearing the Word of God from Caiaphas and pays attention to his prophecy [John 11:49 f.] . . . Christ bids us hear the godless Pharisees in the seat of Moses, though they are godless teachers . . . Let God judge their evil lies. We can still listen to their godly words . . .

Still we must admit that the enthusiasts have the Scriptures and the Word of God in other doctrines. Whoever hears it from them and believes will be saved, even though they are unholy heretics and blasphemers of Christ.

. . . [256] if the first, or child, baptism were not right, it would follow that for more than a thousand years there was no baptism or any Christendom, which is impossible. For in that case the article of the creed, I believe in one holy Christian church, would be false . . . [257] If this baptism is wrong then for that long period Christendom would have been without baptism, and if it were without baptism it would not be Christendom.

(Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter to Two Pastors, 1528, Luther's Works, Vol. 40, 225-262; translated by Conrad Bergendoff, pp. 231-232, 251, 256-257)

1532 

This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years. (Letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, 1532; from Roland H. Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; WA, Vol. XXX, 552)

  
This letter, apparently passed over by Luther’s Works, Vol. 50 (Letters III), was, thankfully, cited at some length by the celebrated Protestant historian Philip Schaff, and refers to, as Schaff notes, “the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper”:
Moreover, this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, -- which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more. For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as if he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the Apostles and Prophets, who founded this article, when we say, “I believe in a holy Christian Church,” to which Christ bears powerful testimony in Matt. 28.20: “Lo, I am with you alway, to the end of the world,” and Paul, in 1 Tim. 3.15: “The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.”
(The Life and Labours of St. Augustine, Oxford University: 1854, 95. Italics are Schaff’s own; cf. abridged [?] version in Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911, pp. 290-292; cf. Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism, 1844, 400)

Schaff, writing in The Reformed Quarterly Review (July, 1888, p. 295), cites the passage yet again, and translates one portion a little differently (my italics):

The testimony of the entire holy Christian Church (even without any other proof) should be sufficient for us to abide by this article and to listen to no sectaries against it. 
1538 

The papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and we have received the Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the office of preaching from them . . . we ourselves find it difficult to refute it . . . Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the creed: I believe in a holy Christian church . . .
(Sermons on John 14-16, 1538 [on Jn 16:1-2] Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 336; WA, Vol. 46, 5 ff. [edited by Cruciger]; cf. LW, Vol. XXIV, 304)
Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy” . . . some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.
(Sermons on John 14-16, 1538 [on Jn 16:1-2], LW, Vol. XXIV, 305)
[I]t is necessary to consider their beliefs and teachings. If I see that they preach and confess Christ as the One sent by God the Father to reconcile us to the Father through His death and to obtain grace for us, then we are in agreement, and I regard them as my dear brethren in Christ and as members of the Christian Church.
Yet the proclamation of this text – together with Baptism, the Sacrament of Christ, and the articles of the Creed – has remained even in the papacy, although many errors and devious paths have been introduced alongside it. . . . All errors notwithstanding, the true church has never perished.
(Ibid., 309) 
John Calvin
Institutes of the Christian Religion


Roman Primacy in Some Sense in the Early Church

I deny not that the early Christians uniformly give high honour to the Roman Church, and speak of it with reverence. . . . pious and holy bishops, when driven from their sees, often betook themselves to Rome as an asylum or haven. . . . It therefore added very great authority to the Roman Church, that in those dubious times it was not so much unsettled as others, and adhered more firmly to the doctrine once delivered, as shall immediately be better explained. . . . she was held in no ordinary estimation, and received many distinguished testimonies from ancient writers. (IV, 6:16)

Semblance of Remaining Christianity in Catholicism

Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them. . . . In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain—symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. (IV, 2:12)

Baptism Initiates Us Into the Body of Christ

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. (IV, 15:1)

The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is its assuring us not only that we are ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself as to be partakers of all his blessings. (IV, 15:6)

[C]hildren derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the Church, . . . (IV, 16:9)

God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, . . . (IV, 17:1)

Baptism being a kind of entrance into the Church, an initiation into the faith, . . . (IV, 18:19)

Catholic Baptism is Valid

Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. (IV, 15:16)

[see also, Calvinist Francis Nigel Lee's paper, "Calvin on the Validity of 'Romish' Baptism"; see a list of his voluminous writings and his obituary. He was quite a scholar. May he rest in peace; he was afflicted with the horrible Lou Gehrig's disease. He treated me very kindly on one occasion (c. 1999) where I was scorned, mocked, and pharisaically consigned to hell on one ridiculous Reformed discussion forum n the Internet. He was literally the only one there who acted like a Christian should, and also, I might add, with intellectual consistency on this issue]

***
So what is your response to my reply to your very confident (and false) assertions, Austin? I fell asleep waiting 13 hours . . .
[I posted on Facebook (6-4-13) about one of anti-Catholic James White's innumerable insults at my expense. I entitled it, "One of My Favorite 'Dr.' [?] James White Potshots"]

Dave, can you provide an exegetical "paper" that interacts with the relevant passages in their original language?

No (I only know English). Can you provide an answer to my last comments in our exchange yesterday? You said you'd love to see a Catholic produce classical Protestants saying that Catholics were Christians (after saying that anyone who accepted Trent on justification couldn't possibly be a Christian). I quickly produced documentation from Luther and Calvin, and you haven't been heard from since, except to produce this non sequitur.

Sure I can. Generally I stop posting because you are either incapable of interacting with the substance of my critique or you just refer me to one of your books (one of which I purchased by the way). I'll look at it and get back to you. 

Right. So you take the same approach as White: I'm a dumbbell and imbecile, incapable of even comprehending opposing arguments, whereas I said twice recently that you were a "sharp" guy and a "good" guy. Case study in Catholic vs. anti-Catholic methodologies . . . You stopped because I am an ignoramus, but now you'll get "back to" me. That's a fascinating juxtaposition there. LOL

Dave, my point is, you felt the need to bring into question Dr. White's credentials (see the title "dr." followed by [?]) yet you are unable to provide exegesis on the same level as Dr. White and others. You're calling out Dr. White for his alleged "pot shot" while you're guilty of the very same behavior. Dave, I didn't get back to you because I severely doubt that you'll even interact with my post in any meaningful way. I try to budget my time wisely when it comes to this sort of thing. Since you've called into question my ability to answer you, I will gladly respond.

I've written several papers documenting White's bogus "doctorate." [one / two / three / four / five / six / seven / eight] That's a completely different issue from one's exegetical abilities (or alleged lack thereof). I don't go around misleading people as to my educational attainments. White simply calls me names and talks about how stupid I allegedly am, whereas my papers on his degree are filled with facts, documentation, and his own statements. No direct comparison whatever.

[I also praised White in the same Facebook thread: "I think White does good work in a number of areas: e.g., fighting various heresies, KJV-only, liberal theology, and Islam. It's when he goes on his anti-Catholic tirades that he lowers himself into the slime pit."]

You can go jump in the lake. I gave you exactly what you wanted when you asked about classical Protestants acknowledging Catholicism as Christian; you have ignored it for about 20 hours now, and then you come back with insults and act like a condescending, pompous ass, precisely as your hero White does when he has no answer to something. I ain't interested in slinging mud with you and White, but in serious argumentation, minus ad hominem.

Yeah, sounds like I struck a nerve and now you're trying to save face. This is typical RC apologetic "rah rah" talk.

Answer my replies. Put up or shut up, if you think you are so superior in intellect and argumentative prowess.

Do you want a response or not? I was lead [sic] to believe by your comment ("go jump in a lake") that you weren't interested in hearing my response.

What part of "Answer my replies" don't you grasp? Personally, you can go jump in the lake, but as a supposed great intellect, you need to have the courage of your convictions, since you have read me and all my Catholic friends here out of Christianity.

Great, I will respond to your articles.

All will end up on my website, including your obligatory anti-Catholic insults. All par for the course with you guys.

Now let's watch Austin try to "prove" that no obedient Catholic could possibly be a Christian: a position far beyond what even Luther and Calvin held. It should be very entertaining and fascinating indeed. He's done a great job digging his own pit; now he can gradually bury himself in it or else flee in abject horror of fact and logic to the hills, with insults and potshots flying, all the way up (James White style).

Wow, Dave do you want a substantive response or not? Give me a few days and I'll answer every thing you brought up in your post. I have a family and, believe it or not, obligations outside of this discussion. Believe me, you will have your response. 

[to be continued] 

*****