Is The Reformation Over? (Part I)
October 19, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
The one doctrine that unites all Protestants against Rome is
that of salvation. There have been disagreements about church governance and
revelatory authority, but the unifying factor of Protestantism boils down to
“justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone.”
This, among other lesser protests, has been the battle cry of Protestants for
hundreds of years. Recently, however, debates have formed whether or not we
should still dispute the theology of Rome.
In A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren notes that, “the
average Roman Catholic today (at least among those I meet) is increasingly
clear about God’s grace being a free gift, not something that can be earned or
merited.” (126) I’d like to meet the Roman Catholics McLaren’s met. I haven’t
met a Roman Catholic who was “increasingly clear” about any doctrinal issue.
Regardless, if contemporary Roman Catholics don’t believe personal merit is
necessary, this raises a critical consideration for Protestants.
Contemporary theologians have gone far beyond simply
asserting that Roman Catholics no longer believe that our merit contributes to
our justification. A significant group of Christian leaders signed the ECT I in
1994, claiming Protestants and Roman Catholics should be united in the name of
Christ. This has been followed by several other documents, both for and against
this unity. The argument in favor of ECT I was summed up by J.I. Packer:
The drafters of ect declare that they accept Jesus
Christ as Lord and Savior, affirm the Apostle’s Creed, “are justified by grace
through faith because of Christ,” understand the Christian life first to last
as personal conversion to Jesus Christ and communion with him, know they must
“teach and live in obedience to the divinely inspired Scriptures, which are the
infallible Word of God,” and on this basis are “brothers and sisters in Christ.
(“Why I Signed It” in Christianity Today 12/12/1994)
Mark Noll (a prominent signer of ECT I) and Carolyn Nystrom published Is the
Reformation Over? a short time ago. Their recent article in Books &
Culture highlights many of the main points. Many Protestants and Roman
Catholics now see each other not just as co-laborers in the culture, but as
part of the catholic body of Christ. According to Noll and Nystrom, Protestants
and Roman Catholics, work together on many important moral and social issues,
believe in “Mere Christianity” (as explained by J.I. Packer), share significant historical roots, engage in
various ministries together, and draw from shared spiritual traditions (such as
lectio devina). “The dramatic religious and cultural shifts of the past
forty years have increased the sense of a shared Christian faith—shared but not
identical.”
Is this ecumenical shift valid, or should we still be
protesting? If so, on what grounds? Can we recognize any salvation within Rome?
For more on Is the Reformation Over?, see Tim
Challies’s two part review.
Related posts:
- Is the Reformation Over? (Part II)
- The End Of The Reformation?
- ETS 2006- H. Chris Ross: Promoting Evangelical Faith Through New Media
- To the Saints In…
- Modern Reformation #6: Conversation Partners- An Interview with Brian McLaren
- Modern Reformation #4: Experiencing Emergent by Shane Rosenthal
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
October 19th, 2005 at 6:14 am
“I haven
October 19th, 2005 at 6:50 am
Murdoch,
I'm glad you're keeping this on the radar screen. After the CT/Books and Culture highlighting of Noll's book, I've not personally seen it, or the thesis, given much attention. Maybe the thesis is getting attention and I'm not seeing it. Challies was the last I heard mention of it until your post.
Noll's piece seemed to me mostly about recent history of ecumenical efforts, some theological and mostly as co-laborers on social issues.
While those are interesting, what is more interesting to me is the impact of N.T. Wright and his New Perspectives on Paul. I've only read a little of Wright (not until the dissertation is defended), but from that little bit and from what I read in the blogosphere, it seems that Wright's perspective un-does a significant part of the Reformation.
A camp that seems somewhat novel to me has arisen, “Reformed Catholics.” When I was at RTS, in the wake of ECT 1994, “Reformed Catholic” would have sounded oxymornic. But for those following parts or aspects of NPP, this is a new day.
Because I'm a milimeter deep into this stuff, I may be conflating or misrepresenting people or camps. But from what I gather, the impact on Wright will mean the Reformation is over for some Reformed folks.
October 19th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Michah,
I guess I would say I know there are Roman Catholics who take doctrine seriously out there (such as Peter Kreeft), I just haven't met them. I don't know how you quantify “many,” but of the people I can remember who I knew for sure were Roman Catholic from high school and college, I can't recall a single one who took doctrine seriously. One girl took Catholicism very seriously, she followed the moralisms, was “religious,” but I doubt she could have explained the doctrinal teaching of the church well.
Part I is simply an overview of the current discussion. In Part II I'll be getting into the inclusivism and Mary as issues that I think have been left out of the discussion.
Glenn,
Unfortunately I haven't read Noll and Nystrom's book, so my analysis is based solely on their article. Based on the article, it does appear to be historical in nature (which is Noll's field), but seems to suggest that since so many Protestants treat Roman Catholics as part of the body of Christ the Reformation must be over.
Also unfortunately, I haven't had any time to put into studying NPP. One of these day's I'll have to, but since I really don't know much about it, I can't intelligently bring it into the discussion.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Reformation 21 had a few articles on the NPP, which I linked to here.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Yea, there's plenty of resources out there on NPP, such as: http://www.theopedia.com/New_Perspective_on_Paul
October 19th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Roger, could you help me understand your stance better? Your tone seems somewhat critical of the Catholic Church. Is this your stance or are you just provoking discussion? How do you answer your question, “Can we recognize any salvation within Rome?” It suggests the strong anti-Catholic stance I haven't heard since the 1980's baptist church, and chick tracks. Do you believe there is little if any salvation we can recognize whithin Rome, or are you just posing the question?
October 19th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Bill, the point of Part I is to stir up discussion. You should have a pretty good idea of what my stance is when I post Part II tonight.