On the Death of a Pope

Yesterday we had a lively discussion at church regarding the death of Pope John Paul II.  With several converted Catholics in the room, and some fundamentalists who are aware of other little popes, there was no lack of opinion.  So this morning I have a few responses from others that I have found interesting.  I am focusing on Protestants and their reponses; they express a variety of opinion, from theological disagreement to praise. A number of these are just excerpts, so you can click on the link to "read the whole thing" as they say.  You can read Catholic responses here and at an unofficial Pope's blogsite.

Peter at Comment Me No Comments:  Pope John Paul II has died. He was not my Holy Father, he did not stand as the vicar of Christ on Earth for me, he is not the head of the Body to which I am joined, he was not right in his theology or in his life's role as Supreme Pontiff to Roman Catholics. Had he been so, he could not have remained their pope. He was, however, a great man by his lights, a courageous voice for life, someone I find deeply affected by the Gospel, by Christ's teachings, and by a moral and social vision that we can scarcely afford to disregard or disrespect. That's all I have to say about him.

Blog Jones:  To my fellow Protestants regarding the pope:  De mortuis nil nisi bonum (concerning the dead, people should say nothing except good).

Doug Wilson:  As we gather this morning for worship, we do so as convinced, practicing and confessional Protestants, who do not believe that the Reformation was a tragic mistake. We are mindful of the chasm that still separates us from our neighbors in the Roman Catholic communion.  Nevertheless, even in this context, our condolences and sympathies are with our Roman Catholic family members, neighbors and friends, at the passing of this remarkable man. We are not interested in a sectarian judging of the servant of another; to his own master he stands or falls. 

Having said this, we are grateful for John Paul’s role in bringing down one of the greatest instances of human wickedness in history—the practice of international communism in Eastern Europe. We are grateful for his stand against the secularist culture of death, and his unwavering opposition to the carnage of abortion. We are grateful for the good he did within his generation.  We do not say this in the grip of an ecumenical fuzziness, in a sentimentalist blur, that wants to pass over every difference, however important, in order to get to the eulogy. We are mindful of the many idols that remain in our day, and we want to be faithful in resisting them, whether they are Roman or Protestant idols. And yes, this would include the idols that John Paul did not topple.

Tim Challies:  The pope's death gives us a tremendous opportunity to challenge our Roman Catholic friends, and perhaps our Protestant friends as well. It will also surely tell us much about many evangelical leaders as we see which ones are quick to laud the pope as a great Christian leader and which are careful to point out that he did not uphold the gospel. I suspect many more will do the former than the latter.  In the next days and weeks we need to be attentive to our friends and to be in prayerful consideration for ways to share the Truth with those who do not know the Lord. May God, in His infinite wisdom, use His people in this time to lead many to Him.

Al Mohler:  We should be unembarrassed and unhesitant to declare our admiration for John Paul II's courageous stand against Communism, his bold defense of human dignity and human life, and his robust and substantial defense of truth in the face of postmodernism. In many of the great battles of our day, evangelicals found John Paul II to be a key ally. This was especially true with the crucial issues of abortion and euthanasia....

Even so, we must also recognize that John Paul II also represented the most troubling aspects of Roman Catholicism. He defended and continued the theological directions set loose at the Second Vatican Council. Even as he consolidated authority in the Vatican and disciplined wayward priests and theologians, he never confronted the most pressing issues of evangelical concern. 

Even in his most recent book, released in the United States just days before his death, John Paul II continued to define the work of Christ as that which is added to human effort. Like the church he served, John Paul II rejected justification by faith. Beyond this, he rejected the biblical doctrine of hell, embraced inclusivism, and promoted an extreme form of Marian devotion, referring to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and "Mother of all Graces." 

In the end, evangelicals should be thankful for the personal virtues Pope John Paul II demonstrated, and for his advocacy on behalf of life, liberty, and human dignity. Yet we cannot ignore the institution of the papacy itself, nor the complex of doctrines, truth claims, and false doctrines that John Paul II taught, defended, and promulgated. As Roman Catholics mourn the passing of the pope, we should take care to respond with both compassion and conviction, fulfilling our own responsibility to take the measure of this man and his legacy.

James White:  ....the passing of John Paul II opens up a tremendous opportunity for dialogue. Are you prepared? Can you address the issue of the Papacy, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the reality of the gospel of Jesus Christ and how Rome does not possess that gospel (but instead dogmatically denies it)?

Please remember that many Roman Catholics today have known no Pope but John Paul II. They have a very, very strong attachment to him on a personal level. Your task is to be gentle yet direct in your seeking to proclaim God's truth to Roman Catholics. You can address the Papacy without addressing John Paul II individually. But the better you know your faith, and the better you know the teachings of Rome, the more confidence you will have in addressing this topic.

Joe Carter at EO:  I was nine-years-old the first time I heard about the Pope. My family attended a small backwoods fundamentalist congregation – The First Church of Hellfire and Damnation, or something to that effect -- and the preacher would often mention the Pope in one of his “Identifying the Antichrist” sermons. The Antichrist was hard to pin down and his identity invariably rotated between one of the select “heathen” groups: Chinese communists, the Russians, secular humanists, Episcopalians. The Pope, though, was the favored candidate for ushering in the End of Days.

But then I saw the new Pope, John Paul II. Since this was the man who would be ushering in Armageddon I figured I should pay attention. I was glued to the TV, watching as the new pontiff stood waving and smiling in front of thousand of Catholics. That’s when I noticed that something wasn’t quite right with this guy. He didn’t have the charming smile of “The Beast” like our pastor had warned. John Paul’s smile was warm, kindly, and sincere. In fact, this new leader of the Catholics seemed genuinely sincere and could even pass for a Christian to those who didn’t know better. But even as a child I understood that this guy couldn’t be the Antichrist. For one thing, he was Polish. The Beast could be Russian or German or some other nationality that John Wayne would fight. But the Antichrist couldn’t be Polish; Poles just aren’t that scary.

Comments

[Jason]

Joe Carter and I must have gone to the same church growing up.

[Doug]

Jason, you, and Joe must have gone to my grandfather's church!

Out of all of the eulogies, I must agree with James White's take on the pope, "But the better you know your faith, and the better you know the teachings of Rome, the more confidence you will have in addressing this topic".

[David]

I truly mourn the death of Pope John Paul II.

By way of background, I am now of the Wesleyan persuasion. In my spiritual life, I grew up Roman Catholic (“RC”), drifted for several years, had exposure to the “hippie-like Jesus movement,” and went through some personal crises. I walked into a Wesleyan church that had been and still is growing at exponential rates, with some 2500+-weekend attendance (40% ex-RC). Large for where I live and large for a Wesleyan congregation. But I liked the church because I perceived Wesleyans to be perhaps the most socially liberal of the so-called holiness denominations, they read and believed the Bible, and the Pastor’s heart seemed genuine (and it is).

So now we grow and I know more but I am still a Wesleyan. But I have noticed the Calvinist blogs (I am no theologian but I am rooted and grounded enough to discern the nuances on many levels) and have even commented on said blogs. I also love my parents (born-again Catholics, somewhat Roman), and read National Review. But Wesleyans move through “non-core” issues with love and like a buzz saw through cheese (hence perhaps the reason for the dearth of “Arminian” blogs).

Why slam the RC’s? Give the testimony and witness to them in love. So many of the so-called evangelicals rooted in the Calvinist theology are blogging about the doctrinal problems with the RC Church. No! Really? You mean, the RC’s have problems?

More fundamentally, I find it troubling that bloggers like Albert Mohler and his ilk who delve so deeply into the history of the evils of the RC church are unerringly connected with the Baptist church, who, I can assure you, have their own ‘splaanin’ to do historically on issues of racism, slavery and other unpleasant topics.

So who’s perfect? To borrow from the Christian comedian Brad Stine, if you’re an evangelical (which implies that you might want to “win people to Christ,” “spread the message of salvation by faith and grace and not by works,” etc.), try to avoid alienating people or doing anything even closely akin to what Hitler or Stalin did: i.e., dogmatically propounding your beliefs as absolute truth and denouncing another’s belief as error or falsehood.

We will all stand before His throne shoulder-to-shoulder (envision that!). And I just can’t get the quibbling that goes on principally by Mohler and Co. Is it really that important in the end? Am I naive? Somebody throw some theological and real intellectual fire-power into this debate.

Of course Mariolatry, hagiolatry, transubstantiation and papism are ridiculous concepts to all Protestants. But aside from those four (give or take) how far apart are we? It seems that some fundamentalists can embrace their Jewish brethren more readily than the RC brothers and sisters.

[pgepps]

I find it easier to say nothing of the dead or dying, than to know what to say: I hear your objections, Dave.

I felt it too much to let so significant a figure's passing go unmentioned, so I hedged my remarks with such clarity as I could manage, then acknowledged his passing.

I have dear Roman Catholic friends, too, including some who I have no less reason for thinking of as "born-again" than many of my more evangelical friends. I can't think of Roman Catholic doctrine in many, many areas as Christian, though, and that's the problem when praising, not just a Roman Catholic or even a priest, but *the* Roman bishop of bishops, the one who's just as much responsible for the mostly-pagan rites of some branches of Catholicism as he is for the nearly-evangelical teachings of others.

Where I can easily praise him, beyond his anti-Communism and his stand on issues of life, is his influence within his own church falling mostly on the side of those nearly-evangelical teachings, and much less on the other. Ressourcement has been a boon, not only in helping Catholicism be more Christian, but also in helping the Christian academic and historian of ideas to have a clearer and more useful witness in his field. That's not perfection, but it ain't nothin' either.

Jon, thanks for the round-up and the *great* linkage!

Cheers,
PGE

[Mike]

David,
You are definitely right when you imply that all denominations have their flaws, and skeletons in their closets. After all, we are humans. However, your implication that we should overlook the flaws of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. stop beholding the speck in your brother's eye)can only be taken so far. The list of problematic "concepts" you provided ("Mariolatry, hagiolatry, transubstantiation and papism") really is just a start. Personally, I think the RC doctrine on justification (i.e. Justification = faith + WORKS)is the most egregious problem of all. That may seem like a nuance to some, but the reformers believed (as do I) that it was (and is) heretical. I pray that the Gospel message will truly penetrate the Catholic Church for a true reformation of that denomination.

Sola Fide.

[Joel]

I hesitate to draw all the wrath and fury on myself this is likely to incurr, but I do it because I think it must be said.

When you deny the Gospel (justification by faith alone) you have denied Christianity. This is the whole point of the prostestant reformation. It is not minor, it cannot be overlooked (Gal 1.8-9). The Catholic religion is not a Christian denomination. It is another religion claiming the Christian name. This is not a quibble that Mohler and Co make.

[jon]

Council of Trent (1545-63): Canons on Justification (note especially 9, 11, 12, 24. 30, & 32). According to these canons, we are damned...plain and simple.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVIII.-If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Chris taught; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

Michael Horton: In other words, men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God's grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ's finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone. There are indeed two fundamentally different answers to that recurring question, "How can I be saved?" and, therefore, two fundamentally different gospels.

[Jason]

Needless to say, the Catholics and Protestants in my office have renewed the age-old debate this week over the doctrines of the faith, and central among them is justification. I was forwarded the following article today entitled "Justification by Faith," and it makes some interesting points. I'm curious to get the thoughts of our resident reformers here.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

I don't know the author, Peter Kreeft, but he is apparently a former Protestant who attended Calvin College and today is a Catholic apologist. This article comes from chapter 44 of his book, Fundamentals of the Faith.

Kreeft starts out: "One of the tragic ironies of Christian history is that the deepest split in the history of the Church, and the one that has occasioned the most persecution, hatred, and bloody wars on both sides — this split between Protestant and Catholic - originated in a misunderstanding. And to this day many Catholics and many Protestants still do not realize that fact."

[Joel]

It seems to me rather patronizing to insist that Luther was being rash and careless. It cost Luther everything, and he was as intelligent as Kreeft. I don't think Kreeft's take on it will hold water. I guess you have to chose, have most of Rome's theologians and most of the Protestant theologians been wrong, or are the new consolidators wrong?

The Catholic religion does not believe that by faith the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed so that God declares us just and deservers of heaven. No Catholic can sing with Wesley "No condemnation now I dread, Jesus and all in him is mine, alive in him my living head and clothed in righteousness divine, bold I approach the eternal throne and claim the prize, through Christ, my own." It would be a sin of presumption.

I went to a debate once between a protestant and a Catholic, the catholic was a graduate of Westminster Seminary, and he understood that Catholics mean faith plus sacraments = justification at the end of your life . . . maybe. That is not the Gospel.

[jon]

Kreeft (a remarkable scholar) is trying to paint a pretty picture in the article referenced, but it clearly goes against Trent, as Horton points out. Is the RC church ready to recant the Canons on Justification at Trent? I think not. They consistently combine/confuse justification and sanctification. Here is another article by Kreeft where he more clearly combines justification and sanctification. It is more than mere semantics.

[jon]

And here is where Kreeft will have us ultimately go:

"And what will Protestants have to repent of? Doctrinally, whatever they left behind in the Reformation that was not a perversion like selling indulgences or ecclesiastical politicking but part of the apostolic tradition. I believe this includes the teaching authority of the Church, the inerrancy of her creeds, sacramentalism, apostolic succession, prayers to saints, Purgatory, transubstantiation, and even a definite papal primacy all suitably defined, suitable not first of all to Catholics but to the Spirit of Christ."

[Jeremy Pierce]

Trent has now officially been declared to have been talking not about what Luther, Calvin, and most Protestants call the doctrine of justification by faith but something more like the views of Zayne Hodges and Charles Ryrie that deny what James says when he says faith withut works is dead, It's against what John MacArthur and John Piper call easy-believism, the view that mere intellectual assent (something James says even demons have) counts as faith sufficient for salvation. If that view is correct, then demons are saved. The current Catholic view if Trent, signed onto by John Paul II, is that this view is anathema. I think there's enough reason to think John Paul II's views are much closer to Protestant views than they are to those responsible for the catechism (e.g. Ratzinger). I'm working on a post defending this, but it;s not up yet.

[Robert]

I have a question regarding Doug's comment. Why is it that those with a connection to the Wesleyan tradition seem so much more charitable towards other Christians than those connected with Calvinism? The teachings and witness of the latter so often seemed to be inspired by hatred and negativity. Any explanations?

Robert

[Scott M]

Sometimes I think the Calvinist attitude is similar to that of the Jews in the NT...

"Hey, wait a minute... WE'RE God's chosen people... how dare you Gentiles (Arminians, Wesleyans, Mainstream Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc) claim to know God! God chose us before the dawn of time, and now you come along and claim that you've 'accepted Christ as your savior' and expect us to just call you 'brother'?! Where's the proof that you're part of the Elect?! We didn't accept anything! God CHOSE us!! You think you're saved, but you don't believe in irresistable grace?! That's not fair! You have to be specifically chosen like me to be saved! You can't just believe and be saved... as though Jesus died for everyone and 'whosoever believes' becomes a Christian. (Gasp!) That's too simple. Clearly you are just deceived."

As for the topic of Catholicism... let's not forget that just because a person bears the name "Catholic" doesn't necessarily mean he or she adheres to or understands every point of Catholic doctrine. There may very well be many born-again people who attend Catholic churches and simply do not understand all the particulars of their church's theology. We need to be careful we don't paint all of these people with a broad brush and bring offense where it is unnecessary. I'm no great fan of the Pope or Catholic doctrine... but I do have a lot of Catholic friends. And I'm not looking to offend them more than necessary (especially when someone they care about deeply just died).

[jon]

Jeremy: MacArthur is not arguing for justification based on faith+works in "The Gospel According to Jesus." In short, he is saying that genuine conversion will be followed by works. We are justified by grace through faith alone...faith that is more than mere intellectual assent...faith that acknowledges truth, assents to truth, and embraces truth. This faith is God-given (Eph. 2:8-9), and is prior to any good works or merit on our part. To read the Lordship salvation issue back into Trent appears to be reaching to me. The vocabularly of the "reforming catholics" may resemble the evangelical vocabulary, but the words and concepts are not the same. This plays itself out in the life and worship of the individual and the church.

Robert: "The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men...in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves" (2 Ti. 2:24-26). Mean-spiritedness clearly has no place in the believer's life and is not a fruit of the working of God's Spirit. We can strive for truth in a spirit of grace.

Scott: I haven't met the Calvinists with whom you have been chatting, and I hope I never do. You really need to read more Calvinist's writings. I thought Pritchard had a very gracious response that was still on the money, didn't you?

[Doug]

Robert,

My grandfather was raised Catholic. If you were to meet someone who was raised Catholic, who later in life was saved out of Catholicism, then you will find most (not all) of these men and women, opposed to Rome! They can see through first hand experience, the error of Rome, and the misleading of the Catholic church. Since he was saved later in life, he became an Evangelical United Brethren minister, and despised his Catholic upbringing. Grandad had some beliefs of which I disagreed. I will not go into those details, but he was totally opposed to Catholicism, and was very critical of the pope. On James White's comment, James KNOWS Roman Catholicism inside and out. He debates, on many occassions, several leaders in the Roman Catholic church. I agree with him that as Orthodox Christians, we should understand Roman Catholics to be able to defend our Faith. In love, with pity for their blind faith in a system that denies Faith, and Faith alone, and declares their pope the "Vicar of Christ", then I too have a problem, for the pope never spoke to God on my behalf, and could never wash away my sin. My Advocate with the Father is my Savior, Jesus Christ. In Him, and Him Alone, is my Salvation! As to your other comment, "Why is it that those with a connection to the Wesleyan tradition seem so much more charitable towards other Christians than those connected with Calvinism?", all I can say is hang out with the Calvinist crowd a little more often, and you will find we have a passion for souls. You will now read my comment to Scott, who is a fine, young Arminian :) and you will see that passion most Calvinists have for the lost!

Scott,

I too have yet to meet that Calvinist to whom you refer. I, and most Calvinist I know are humbled, and grateful that God DID Love us before we loved him, called us to be His Children, called us to be Righteous through Christ, Predestinated us before the foundations of this Earth, and gave us the Gift of Eternal Life. As I look out across this vast world, I feel pity for the lost, share the Gospel with those who are lost, and ask God to open their blind eyes, unstop their deaf ears, give them the understanding, and raise them from their spiritual death. As a friend of mine says, we do not know whom God will call to be His child, therefore we scatter the seeds of the Gospel because of the Great Commission, and allow God to bring forth the fruit. We cannot convince anyone of their need of Salvation. Salvation is ONLY of God, through the Death, Burial, and Resurection of Jesus Christ, and the Work of the Holy Spirit to bring about a ressurection of the spiritual death within those who need eternal life.