In a blog that I published here last week, on May 7, I linked to an article by pastor and blogger Tim Challies. His blog argued that Pope Francis was not a Christian. I debated for days with myself about responding to this sadly uninformed post. To be completely honest I do not like to engage with this kind of Internet “yellow” journalism. I honestly believe that the claim of Tim Challies is so preposterous that it is virtually unworthy of a response, yet after a few days I changed my mind. Why? Simply put, I feel that someone who has a personal history with a mindset like that of Tim Challies should attempt to help non-theologically trained readers grasp a very different evangelical perspective on Catholicism, one that does not promote the “Reformation Wars” of the last five hundred years. My perspective is that Challies’ arguments are so profoundly flawed that any careful reader of the sources, and of the stories that come from real Christians who live in the present, will readily alter genuinely open minds. The kinds of arguments Challies used are the sad result of a faulty set of assumptions and an extremely rigid series of propositions. In the end Tim Challies neither understands Catholic theology very well nor does he grasp the core of what makes for a truly healthy evangelical theology. I believe such a theology promotes the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17, not further misunderstanding and warfare. If Luther said he would kiss the pope’s feet if he proclaimed the gospel what would he do with Pope Francis? I think you get my drift.
Since unity is my particular passion I decided to tackle this recurring debate head on in order to show why Challies fails to honor Christ or the grace of God in the gospel. In this regard I do not judge Tim Challies’ motives or his personal faith. I can only believe he wrote what he did in good faith, according to what he understands. The results of what he wrote are my sole concern. Challies has written a divisive and harmful polemical article that pretends to know the state of a man’s soul before God. This type of judgment serves only to feed the prejudice of some evangelicals and promotes a false view of Pope Francis and the post-Vatican II Catholic Church.
I confess that I do not know a great deal about Tim Challies. I gave a brief introduction about his writing, and personal biography, in my May 7 post. I had previously not spent time reading his blogs until this one came to my attention. I only knew his name because several readers had told me that he was a wonderful blogger. My response on May 7 was linked with the blog of Chaplain Michael Mercer, an evangelical Lutheran minister. Michael is also a prolific blogger who posts his blogs at the iMonk site. I openly agree with Michael’s well-written response to Challies. I had no idea, in advance, that he was going to use my ideas in his blog.
What I propose to do, for several forthcoming posts, is to offer a personal response to some who commented about Challies blog on Chaplain Mike’s post. The comments that were posted there numbered in the multiplied hundreds. Many of these were playing off of my own work since Chaplain Mike used my story to show how one evangelical changed his mind about the “Reformation Wars.” Michael is completely right in how he makes use of my views. I thus want to use these comments on his blog to show why I further believe this to be true.
One commenter on the iMonk site wrote: “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who is Tim Challies?” This is a great starting point. Another person who commented called Tim Challies an “evangelical celebrity.” Another said, “
These comments are not as snarky as they might appear. (They are quite common in the world of the social media.) I have a saying that goes like this: “If you live by the poison pen (keyboard) of Internet controversy then you will also die by it.” The problem is that controversy makes the medium work for many wannabe celebrities. And many of these celebrities are not really that important to the global mission of the church. (I fully realize that I am not that important myself so do not read my words in the wrong way!) Challies’ inflammatory words do not foster peace or spiritual prosperity. He seems to have learned that a great fight in the social media is what blogging is all about, or so it appears. My brief survey of Tim Challies’ most recent blog posts assures me that he understands how to write with a sharp edge, an edge that makes him look like a serious authority for people who don’t understand some really important truths. (After all, he routinely tells you how to get the cheapest prices on Calvinist and Puritans book deals daily!) Decide for yourself, since the democracy of the Internet will allow you this joy, but believe me when I say that Tim Challies is neither a serious theologian nor a deeply critical thinker. He is a rigid popular Calvinist who believes that Catholics are not Christians if they believe what their church believes.
It is sometimes said that an honest confession is good for the soul. I once believed something like the stuff that Challies is promoting but I tried to never publicly admit it. In my mid-twenties if I was asked whether or not a Catholic priest was a “real” Christian I tried not to answer. (I had already met several priests who I was quite sure were real Christians!) In my mind I reasoned something like Challies does thus I thought: “I suppose it is possible for a priest to be a real Christian but only if he does not really and truly believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about the gospel since the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel, one clearly condemned as works righteousness by Paul in Galatians 1.” This is the proverbial bottom line for this type of thinking. In fairness to Challies I have heard some pretty respectable theologians argue in this same way. One such theologian suggested that since I once understood the gospel, but now I obviously rejected it, I had proven that I was never a real Christian myself. I dare not make this up friends. It happened and when it did I was floored and deeply saddened.
For starters, Tim Challies profoundly misunderstands the Council of Trent. This is very common. He also misunderstands subsequent Catholic teaching since Trent as well as how the Catholic Church does reform itself. It is as if the Catholic Church is actually saying that we are saved by our own love and good works with merit tipping the scale in our favor before God. Grace may give us a good start, a kind of divine push, but in the end we contribute the most important part to our salvation; i.e., our good works. Thus only through our good works does God finally save us. The problem with this idea is quite simple – this is NOT what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I’ll say more about why this is true tomorrow. I hope you’ll come back and keep reading.
Related Posts
Comments
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
I like your generosity of spirit John and it reminds me of a story told by a staunchly Protestant Presbyterian minister acquaintance of mine. Years ago, in rural Ireland, during the Troubles, on a very wet day, he was driving along a quite country road and saw in front of him a nun, in traditional habit. She was getting absolutely drenched, so he pulled over and invited her to get in beside him. As she did she saw his clerical collar, recognised him as a Presbyterian, but remarked how nice it was to meet another Christian. The ensuing conversation left him in no doubt that she was a fellow believer. I hope she came to the same conclusion – I’m sure she did. Now if that could happen in sectarian Ireland, it can happen anywhere. One of the most marvellous things about God’s grace is that it depends no more on the ‘soundness’ of our theology, than the goodness of our works.
Because lots of people refer to Tim Challies and follow his articles, I had assumed he was a successful pastor, a theologian, or something like that. I assumed he was doing scholarship. When I read his article about Pope Francis, I was surprised at how poor it was. His momma should have taught him not to criticize things he doesn’t understand.
RT @JohnA1949: Must the Reformation Wars Continue? (Part Two): In a blog published here on May 7 I posted an article … http://t.co/aNyH8X…
Joseph, actually Tim Challies is a pastor, theologian, and prolific writer. His views reflect the views of the Reformers, the Puritans, Spurgeon, and many (perhaps most) who hold to Reformed theology today. Does Pope Francis teach salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone? Perhaps the criticism of Challies grows out of a lack of understanding? Have a nice day.
Yes, I know he is a prolific writer. On his website, he prominently identifies himself as a “blogger, author and book reviewer” which seems accurate. In a less prominent place he does identify himself as a pastor, so there I stand corrected. But I’ve read theologians and know how to recognize them, even (especially) when they write for broad audiences; their careful scholarship, originality, reflectiveness, ability to see multiple sides to complex issues, and so on will be evident.
I suppose the definition of “theologian” here is what might be a point of honest disagreement. If everyone is a theologian, and in some sense everyone is a theologian, then he is one. But if Joseph L Schafer is basically right in his instincts, and I think that he is, then Ray Rhodes Tim is not a carefully trained, highly capable, theologian. As for reflecting the views of the Reformers that is largely debatable. He reflects the views of modern fundamentalist imitators of Calvin and Luther and keeps the rhetoric of the warfare of the past in the process, the one thing we could drop.
Regardless of where Challies stands, I would have taken his article seriously if he had described Roman Catholic teaching well enough that a knowledgeable Roman Catholic would say, “Yes, you have accurately described what the RCC believes and teaches.”
Double facepalm on Challies. The Reformed can understand Christ’s prayer for unity but the five point Calvinist is steeped in sectarianism.
That is always the best test of all. “Do I recognize my views in what this person says about my church or theology?” Charity requires it. He did not show knowledge of the facts.
Richard Kidd, not all 5-point Calvinists would be that sectarian. I know more than a few at Calvin and Western Seminary who are not!!!
John H. Armstrong, good to know. As a former Calvinist I must have been around the sectarian kind but they can be in almost every group.
Challies bases his conclusions on the stated positions of the RCC and places them beside Scripture. When you read the writings of Reformers, Puritans, The Westminster divines, and even the big-hearted Spurgeon (for ex.) you will find that Challies was acutally very mild in his assessment. You will also find that though, he is imagined to be something less than a trained theologian on this thread, that his views line up with some of the great minds of “trained” reformed theologians. I can envision Luther, Calvin, Thomas Manton, etc, etc, giving a hearty “amen” to what Challies wrote. Thats all for me. Thank you for the interaction. Have a nice day.
Yes, and I know more than my fair share of deeply sectarian Lutherans. 🙂
This is why we need to be more ecumenical and centered on Christ.
Ray Rhodes, I love your gentle spirit and the way you have interacted here. I, for one, one would have agreed with you totally. But the issue here is not getting right what they said in the past but being faithful in the present. They would agree, I think. Further, Groups like the Westminster divines were most fallible, by their admission, and do not speak for all time. They understood some things about Rome correctly but their response was deeply colored by their times and the political, social and religious context. This is true in every age, ours being no exception. What we are arguing for here is allowing people to define themselves on their terms so we can then respond in charity and with care. Rome today is not the Rome of the anti-Protestant era and vice versa. Unless you believe nothing ever changes why would this not be so? Further, Challies ays the pope is not a Christian. That alone makes his work deeply problematic since he doesn’t have that kind of information according to our own Scripture.
I follow your writings John because I believe in the core and intent of your desire to seek unity among the brethren worldwide. We should all seek peace while we all seek to understand these profound mysteries of faith. I have recently returned to reading the great classical literature of the Christian faith in writers like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. I am reading primary source material rather than secondary sources like the one mentioned in this blog, to evaluate their own words in context before assigning meanings they never intended. I find most of what I read in modern evangelical publications to be similar to eating jello for dinner. At least many of the Catholics I know, are much more contemplative and intellectually honest than their Protestant counterparts. I attended Acton University last summer, and it was a thoroughly stellar academic event. We all need a reformation of the mind, because the modern evangelical has no comprehensive intellectual concept of the whole of life. Mark Noll and George Marsden have made that plain in their own scholarship. Rather than warring over these things, we should humble ourselves, step back, and take a long discerning look at what we as evangelicals have been saying in recent decades, and reform our ways of interacting with those who sincerely love and follow the One true God.
As a Lutheran pastor, we do not consider Luther infallible. Many of us have denounced his views about the Jews and reactions to other Christian groups. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church today is a bold witness to the world. The current Pope Francis is very evangelical and there are more openness to unity. The creeds and our confession of Christ as Savior and Lord is a big witness while we may disagree on other matters.
It seems that people like Tim Challies judge other Christians, including Catholics, not based on their faith in a Person who is their Savior, but on their faith in the correctness of what they dogmatically demand and insist is the only correct way to interpret justification by faith based on their propositional statements.
If you’re right about Jesus, you can be wrong about a lot of other things and still be saved. The Philippian jailer was told simply to believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved….
I’ve read the article in question a couple of times now and still can’t find where “Challies says the pope is not a Christian.” He does say that the pope is “a false teacher” and that the RCC is “a false church” that promotes a false gospel”. But he also tempers his post a smidge by saying “Those within the Roman Catholic Church who have experienced salvation (and I sincerely believe there are those who have) have done so despite the church’s official teaching, not through it.” Would charity not require that we not put words in his mouth? Would Challies leave open the possibility that the pope himself might be one of “those within the RCC who have experienced salvation”? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Must the Reformation Wars Continue? (Part Two) http://t.co/sOFGiM0l37 by John Armstrong – an evangelical defending Roman Catholics
No. I’m sorry Tim Terhune but this is not an issue of charity on my part. You are technically correct but his logic says that he clearly thinks the pope is not a Christian! I will address this so keep reading my blogs. If Pope Francis is a true Christian then Challies is saying it is “in spite of [HIS] false teaching” since the pope is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and its teaching. He has made a sacred oath to his church Tim. No logic can then say to my mind that Challies is not saying what we all see to be saying in his blog. If he thinks he is a redeemed sinner then let him say so because his words clearly mean that he is not according a Christian according to Challies very bad logic and poor theology. Actually, I read hundreds of comments and no one has raised this question until here. What is the point? I think I miss it. 2 plus 2 equals 4 in this case. The pope teaches a false gospel and thus cannot be a true Christian, according to the logic of Tim Challies.
John, thanks for following up on this. I wish these kinds of posts were unnecessary and that everyone was as passionate about unity, love, and generosity as Jesus was instead of remaining committed to conflict and thinking it is our job to “defend the truth” while denying truth’s clearest call: to love God and neighbor.
BTW, I think you will find my posts are very charitable to him. I simply think he is absolutely wrong about a great deal.
When a person calls someone a “false teacher” it is equivalent to pronouncing an anathema. That’s not putting words in anyone’s mouth.
Thank you Michael Mercer. I just responded and you said more with fewer words. 🙂
If Tim’s words are taken at face value then he believes Pope Francis is evil, should be ecclesiastically cursed, under damnation; “anathema.”
To call someone a false teacher does not mean I’m pronouncing an anathema on them or saying they are not a Christian. I regard Joel Osteen as a false teacher in significant areas. But that doesn’t mean he’s not my brother in Christ.
.@JohnA1949 Must the Reformation Wars Continue? http://t.co/5bihoXEcPQ http://t.co/cl0RDHhLn6 http://t.co/90H5tMGJrL http://t.co/Y9z5Yd9kQ6
Nick Morgan liked this on Facebook.
David Hong liked this on Facebook.
Ben Toh liked this on Facebook.
Judy Browder Shaw liked this on Facebook.
Tony Payne liked this on Facebook.
Will Hinton liked this on Facebook.
Rick Landry liked this on Facebook.
Forrest Lee Horn liked this on Facebook.
Joseph L Schafer liked this on Facebook.
John Ross liked this on Facebook.
Jordan Litchfield liked this on Facebook.
Bram Cools liked this on Facebook.
Must the Reformation Wars Continue? (Part Two) – http://t.co/XEIGEBQEYR
Bless you John for your great work!