Is the Reformation Over? (Part II)
October 20, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
In the comments on Part I, I noted that Noll and Nystrom’s article is
primarily historical in nature, however it seems to suggest that the
Reformation is over in light of the mutual acceptance between Protestants and
Roman Catholics. Indeed, “more and more evangelicals and Catholics are joining
to serve God together with as much creativity as God-given skills and divinely
appointed limitations allow. The needy of the world care little whether the
Christian before them is evangelical or Catholic but much whether they might
encounter the love of Christ and the truth of the gospel that can redeem the
soul.”
This illustration, however, begs the question as to whether
or not Rome does offer the “truth of the gospel that can redeem the soul.” Further,
the needy of the world might find a Mormon missionary just as alluring as the
evangelical or Catholic.
Now for the big contentious point you’ve all been waiting
for- is the Reformation over? As Paul would say, “may it not be!” Rome’s
official doctrine is no better, and may actually be worse, than it was at the
time the Reformation began. Originally, the idea was to change the Catholic
Church, not start a plethora of new denominations. However impractical the
reformation of the Roman Catholic Church may seem, it still bears the same
weight it did back then and is a worthy goal.
I raised several questions at the end of the last post.
These are all answered powerfully in the latest issue of Modern Reformation,
“Shall We Still Protest?” In his article “Can We Be Confessional and Catholic?”
Michael Horton says that the church “is the offspring of the gospel, not vice
versa. Where the gospel is preached, there is a visible church of Christ. It is
not the only mark, but it is the most foundational one. This means unity cannot
be pursued on the basis of a common cultural commitment.”
Here’s the rub: We too often confuse moral activism with
commitment to truth. Simply because I agree with someone that the life of the
unborn should be defended or the poor should be helped does not mean the church
they follow preaches the true Gospel. We should indeed work together, but we
must also recognize that the person beside us may need to hear the Gospel as
much as the person we’re helping.
At the Council of Nicea (in 325) Eusebius of Caesarea
proposed a creed that many people were happy with. Unfortunately these people
included heretics. Athanasius recognized that a creed needed to be formed to
clearly exclude the Arians who used the same biblical language for the trinity
but meant different things by it. Similarly, the “Mere Christianity” J.I.
Packer described is well and good, but someone believing what the Roman
Catholic Church teaches can agree with it because they mean different things by
the same words; different things that are contrary to biblical teaching. This
only leads to confusion and compromise, not true unity.
The official teaching of Rome is still not the true gospel.
Michael Horton points out that, “In spite of numerous
ecumenical dialogues since Vatican II, Rome officially has not moved at all
toward revoking any of Trent’s condemnations themselves or toward embracing
justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. (In
recent accords with mainline Lutheran and Reformed bodies, Rome has not lifted
the anathemas of Trent but has simply said they no longer apply to “the present
dialogue partner.”)”
Justification aside, there are also
still issues with papal authority, worship of Mary as co-redeemer, and explicit
inclusivism. Such inclusivism, unfortunately, is as pervasive in Evangelicalism
as it is in Roman Catholicism, but it’s also the official teaching of the
church. However, Brian McLaren’s point from the previous post bears
consideration. Many Roman Catholics don’t believe in all of these things. Mary
worship is really just a sect, and many might not ascribe infallibility to the
Pope or consider their own works necessary for salvation.
Another feature in Modern Reformation is “Ten These for
Roman Catholic-Evangelical Dialogue.” The seventh thesis put our proper
response well- “We affirm that individual Roman Catholics, who for various
reasons do not self-consciously give their assent to the precise definitions of
the Roman Magisterium regarding justification, the sole mediation of Christ,
the monergistic character of the new birth, and similar evangelical issues, are
out brothers and sisters despite Rome’s official position. We deny that this
allows for joint communion or similar expressions of visible ecclesial union.”
Furthermore, number nine states: “We affirm that the Roman
Catholic Church contains many true believers, but we deny that in its present
confession it is a true visible congregation, much less that it is the mother
of all the faithful to whom all believers must be related.”
Our proper stance should then be that we are still
protesting, hoping to reform Rome to the beauty of truth it once defended;
recognizing that while some of its adherents may be saved by the grace of God,
we must consider each Roman Catholic in desperate need of the true gospel once
for all delivered to the saints.
Related posts:
- Is The Reformation Over? (Part I)
- The End Of The Reformation?
- Modern Reformation #2: An Interview with Stanley Grenz
- Modern Reformation #6: Conversation Partners- An Interview with Brian McLaren
- ETS 2006- H. Chris Ross: Promoting Evangelical Faith Through New Media
- This Is My Body – Part Two
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
October 20th, 2005 at 2:41 am
Great post as always. If a person is in the Roman Catholic church, but denies fundamental tennants of what it means to be a Catholic, are they still Catholic? I don't support the views of the Catholic church (yep, I'm one of those kinds…a Baptist…
but it seems to me that if these people are still in the church, but denying key beliefs of the church, they are putting themselves in a place where they *should* be disciplined by the church. There are of course inherent assumptions that the church is making about whether or not their (the Catholic church) beliefs are True with a capital T.
Just curious on your thoughts anyhow.
Big Chris
Because I said so blog
http://mrclm.blogspot.com
October 20th, 2005 at 2:51 am
Noll and Nystrom cite a few stories of people converting from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism and their dissapointment at the congregation's lack of “concern for truth” (Kreeft), practical biblical preaching, and Bible studies. As I understand it, mass is still given in Latin at every Roman Catholic church. So it seems easy for someone to attend every Sunday and not know very much about official Church doctrine, blindly believing that they've got it right. I don't see much reason to consider people in this circumstance Protestant even though their beliefs might not line up with official teaching- Rome is still the church they choose to associate themselves with.
October 20th, 2005 at 9:21 am
I'm curious if people are aware of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification made by the Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation and signed in 1999. Avery Dulles wrote a synopsis and history of the Joint Declaration over at First Things.
October 20th, 2005 at 10:57 am
I think ecumenicalism is a good goal and we should attempt to achieve it as much as possible without sacrificing any key tenants of the gospels in the process. The hard part is defining those central tenants. If we are too laxed or theologically disinterested, we run the risk of diluting and diminishing the Christian faith but including all sorts of heretical beliefs.
But equally disconcerting is the overally critical (and arrogant) attitude that only members of a certain denomination can be saved. I hate when litmus tests (akin to the Pharisee mindset) are applied from everything from worship style to consumption of alcohol.
Chad
October 20th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
So, here's another question in response to this interesting and thoughtful post:
If a person says that they are a committed Christian, and they say they want to obey the Lord, and they appear in an evangelical church, or a Roman Catholic church, or any other church, regularly, and they help the poor and witness to their acquaintances, and they don't have an honest relationship with the Lord, but no one knows this last fact except the Lord, are they a Christian? And can anyone (except the Lord) really see the evidence for this?
I'm being a provocateur here, I know, because someone could probably tell, at some point, that this hypothetical person might not be the Christian they claim to be, but it's also possible that no one could tell.
Here's the really difficult question, to which I am not sure I know the answer: if ones' relationship with the Lord determines whether one is a Christian, and so many of us have such a relationship, is it possible to determine, via external evidence (including creeds, works, denominational affiliation, etc), who is a Christian? and if you think so, how? (keeping in mind that I have studied scripture in response to this question)
+Vicky
October 21st, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Mass is not given in Latin at every Catholic church. There is a Latin Mass movement, but it is a minority position.
Latin Mass may be available at many Catholic churches, but most masses are conducted in English.
October 21st, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Micah,
Thanks for the correction. Since I've never attended a Mass that's not something I know a lot about. I think the only Mass I've seen was the one given at Pope John Paul II's service, which was in Latin.
October 24th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Hello all, new poster here…
I think we make the unity question way too complicated. We don't have to achieve doctrinal unanimity in order to have spiritual unity.
Vickie asked, is it possible to determine who is a Christian?
Jesus told us that we would not be very reliable at distinguishing weeds from wheat. His angels will do the sorting at the end. So we are to err on the side of acceptance.
He also said if a man sins seven times in a day against me, and seven times comes and says “I repent”, I am to forgive the man. I am to take his word for it that he has repented…despite the fact that he had said that six previous times that day and then repeated the sin. I infer that we would not be very good at discerning true repentance from insincerity.
That being said, consider what is required to become a Christian. (admittedly a disputed point in itself…) Becoming a Christian does not require extensive theological study. A person can be a Christian without understanding the difference between sanctification and justification, for example…or without ever contemplating the issues about justification which led to the Reformation movement in the first place. So, if a person can become a Christian without understanding those things, he becomes my brother. It is not my choice. God adopted me, and God adopted him. We *are* brothers.
If a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand people do the same, they are all my brothers and sisters…regardless of the depth of theological understanding they possess. To accept them as Christians, I must not require them to profess nor to demonstrate more than is required for initial conversion. If a man becomes my brother, he *is* my brother.
So, the basis for unity should be simply this: Anyone who seems to have met the simple basic requirements for conversion is my brother. Any church made up of such people should be considered Christian. At least it seems so to me…
Alan
October 25th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Hey Roger:
Hmm… interesting that our brief conversation when we met at GodBlogCon ended up being about Billy Graham and Roman Catholicism, and here you are writing about the same issues.
I'm not a prophet, but I have a feeling that the false gospel of Roman Catholicism is going to become a much bigger issue in the future, and I need to do my homework on it. Why will it become a big issue? 1. Because there are a billion or so Roman Catholics in the world, and 2. Because the spirit of the times we are living in is “inclusivism at the expense of truth”.
My impression has long been that Roman Catholicism is not in error on every point, but as a whole, it is a system whose foundation in not grace alone, justification by faith in Jesus alone.
And unfortunately, I think that a lot of intelligent, doctrinally sound Christians spend too much time trying to justify Rome's errors in the name of unity, rather than courageously correct them in love.
Thanks for your courageous post.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
P.S. Roger– if you have a chance to look at it, I'd be interested in your thoughts on a post of mine called “A Soft Gospel of Love?”, that I think is relevant to your discussion.
Blessings,
Alex
October 25th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
P.S.S. Roger– actually I just looked at my own post A Soft Gospel of Love and have to admit it's a bit hard to follow because I was responding to comments over at another blog…
Perhaps more relevant to the discussion above (and what I was talking to you about at GodBlogCon) is my post called Billy Graham's Last Stand.
Blessings,
Alex