Comments on: Alan Delotavo’s Back to the Original Church, reviewed by Jim Williams

By: Pneuma Review

Pneuma Review — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 17:44:30 +0000

E.E. writes: “James Williams wrote: ‘This gospel recovery [the Great Reformation] included the teaching of ‘the priesthood of the believer,’ that each Christian had direct access to God without the need of clergy. Delotavo points out that this set up a division between laity and Protestant clergy and also spawned a divisive spirit throughout the Reformation.’ An argument can certainly be made for the Reformation bringing a divisive spirit to the Church, even if this started as a necessary separation over truth. But wasn’t it Roman Catholicism that created the division, perhaps starting with Cyprian, between the clergy and the laity? It seems like the reviewer is saying the opposite of what he means.”

By: Jim Williams

Jim Williams — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:37:21 +0000

Thank you for your careful reading and follow-up question. Actually, it is Delotavo saying this, not me. I point out that he skips much of Church history in his presentation (including Cyprian) and overlooks renewal movements that might have made his case for him. To read him in context, he is not focusing on the origin and development of laity—clergy division, but only on its Reformation manifestation arising from the doctrine of the priesthood of believers as evidence of his main theme. In view of this, I respond that both Delotavo and I are saying exactly what we mean.

By: Pneuma Review

Pneuma Review — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:57:16 +0000

E.E. writes: "James Williams wrote: 'This gospel recovery [the Great Reformation] included the teaching of ‘the priesthood of the believer,’ that each Christian had direct access to God without the need of clergy. Delotavo points out that this set up a division between laity and Protestant clergy and also spawned a divisive spirit throughout the Reformation.' An argument can certainly be made for the Reformation bringing a divisive spirit to the Church, even if this started as a necessary separation over truth. But wasn't it Roman Catholicism that created the division, perhaps starting with Cyprian, between the clergy and the laity? It seems like the reviewer is saying the opposite of what he means."