....What absurdities are uttered in the name of a pseudo-Americanism today! People object to the Roman Catholics, for example, because they engage in “propaganda.” But why should they not engage in propaganda? And how should we have any respect for them if, holding the view which they hold — that outside the Roman church there is no salvation — they did not engage in propaganda first, last, and all the time? Clearly they have a right to do so, and clearly we have a right to do the same. . . .
As I understand it, Rome has attempted to finesse the issue of “no salvation outside the Roman church” when beholding the obvious Christly witness of the life of devout Protestants, as declaring such people to possibly be somehow Roman Catholic after all. As a wascally Protestant I don’t see that as worth arguing with Rome about, if that’s the formula they want to use to arrive at Christian comity. When we see some of them, in turn, exercising direct trust in Jesus Christ we don’t call them honorary Protestants, however....
Anyhow, the witness of the bible itself is also a witness of people that everyone in Christendom would call genuine Christians. So in a sense the Roman Catholics could say that Christians who believe in Christ through the bible’s witness are “Roman Catholics” if that’s what the church really was from the word go. It’s funny the egotism that Roman Catholics project on Protestants, though, by assuming that A Pope Is An Inseparable Part Of Christianity and then since Protestants aren’t doing more than affirming the historical Peter to be the first Christian, then They Must Be Their Own Proud Popes. Well there are stuck up Protestants but there are stuck up Roman Catholics too. And I wonder how many of these Roman Catholics are actually familiar with practicing Protestants rather than just viewing them from afar through the wrong end of a telescope?
I think the personal philosophy will be stll in tune with many FR participants. Here is a Wiki excerpt on Machen's outlook:
Machen was suspicious of mixing religion and politics. He found attempts to establish a Christian culture by political means insensitive to minorities. He was even more concerned about the corrupting influence of politics on Christianity and saw the social gospel as a terrible warning. He opposed school prayer and Bible reading in public school[citation needed]. This position, however, implied that Christians should run their own schools.
Historian George Marsden has described Machen as 'radically libertarian. He opposed almost any extension of state power and took stands on a variety of issues. Like most libertarians, his stances violated usual categories of liberal or conservative.' He opposed the establishment of a federal Department of Education, suggesting before a joint Congressional committee that government control of the children was the ultimate sacrifice of freedom. He was not against locally operated public schools per se, but feared the influence of materialist ideology and opposition to higher human aspirations. He also opposed Prohibition - a costly stance in an age when abstinence was almost a creed among Protestants."
This Wiki article is a good read, to briefly get the flavor of his formation and expression.
This is an excellent post! Thank you for your effort --
Respectfully ---