Within a few hours after posting these words from Greg Bahnsen, l0g0s came unglued on his blog. How dare I quote Bahnsen’s own words directly on the subject of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who would prefer “a spirit of detente rather than antithesis”! How dare I post his own voice taking the opposite position of the rC’s, or quote him directly contradicting their own viewpoints! How anachronistic of me! How could Bahnsen have been truly aware of the glories of Mother Rome only ten years ago, before the great modern blog-driven rC movement showed us all the way? That would be like quoting Warfield and saying…oh, wait, nix that idea.
The simple fact is, Bahnsen did not view Rome as “Mother.” He referred to “Romanists,” opposed ECT, debated Matatics (I do not recall him attempting to grab Mr. Matatics by his baptism, either), and denied the very thing rC’s promote with the fervor of an Amway salesman: let me quote him directly, those who preach another gospel (and he said Rome was doing so) do so “not as brothers in the true faith.” Not. That’s an English word meaning, “not.” Not brothers. As in, not. Really. Not brothers. That should not be read as “true brothers, but not, sorta,” but “not brothers.”
If the rC’s have the courage of their convictions they will do what they must do: they have said I am wrong to say everything Greg Bahnsen said about Rome. Now, will they just have the temerity to come out openly and say, “Bahnsen, too, was wrong. He cooperated too closely with Baptists, and hence was part of the problem, just like those Presbyterians who cooperate with Baptists today. He clearly refused to give Mother Church the deference and honor she is due, so as to bring the blessings of God.” Or is there division in the rC camp?