Sadly I'm
not terribly impressed with the analysis.
The main
point of contention is the fact that Protestants in some formal sense joined together
with Roman Catholics and yet the issue of the gospel hasn't been resolved. The
issues which prompted the Reformation are being ignored.
I think this
misses two critical points.
The related podcast
I was listening to earlier this week addressed Sola Scriptura one time, but
only for a brief moment. I was waiting for elaboration but it never came. For a
moment I thought they would focus on the real issue, but it was missed.
The question
of Authority is the salient issue. One's Authority determines one's doctrine.
You can't discuss the doctrine of Justification unless you first establish the
basis for determining it. Contrary to the opinions of most commentators, Justification
is not the first question.
It's not
Sola Fide (Faith Alone) vs. Rome's faith plus works.
The question
of Authority defines this issue and all others. What's your authority for
determining doctrine? This is why Rome is not a Church and lost its claims to
being one centuries before the Reformation. And yet for many Protestants to
make this delineation leads to some disturbing implications. ..
Rome
anathematized Sola Fide at the Council of Trent in the 16th century
and yet it must also be noted the Lutheran formulation of Sola Fide was indeed
a historical novelty. You will find Salvation by Grace through Faith in previous
eras of Church History but you won't find that specific Lutheran formulation
which builds an entire system around the doctrine. It's simply not there.
People will try to locate it in the theology of the Brethren of the Common
Life, the Waldensians, Bernard, Augustine or the Fathers. But it's not there.
Even Jerome who once used the term clearly did not hold to a Lutheran view of
Justification or Faith.
The issue is
not so much the word 'alone' but how that insertion plays out theologically. It
generates a specific notion of what faith is and also takes Justification and
makes into not only the 'mark' of the Church but the centerpiece of a
theological system.
Lutheranism
and many other Protestants read the rest of Scripture through this lens, but
Lutherans went further and divided Scripture into the hitherto unknown
categories of Law and Gospel. We're not speaking of the Redemptive-Historical
division between Old and New Covenants, but a new hermeneutic, a complete
recasting of all imperatives as almost hypothetical categories which are not
meant to demonstrate faith in any sense.
Also, it
must be pointed out that Lutherans, conservative Methodists, Calvinists and
others will all affirm the doctrine of Sola Fide and yet all mean rather
different things by it.
Rome's issue
of faith plus works is actually a misrepresentation of their system. It's not
just faith plus works that's a problem. James teaches that. It depends of
course on what is meant by it. And how do we determine that? Again that's
another question which comes first. What is the Bible? What are its
implications for Christian thought? By no means do all Protestants agree.
As a
Biblicist, I am not terribly impressed with the philosophical foundations of
Confessionalism. I would argue it too undermines Biblical authority and
establishes human reason as the arbiter of Scripture. It has led to
extra-Scriptural doctrines and practices as well as a minimalizing of significant
portions of Scripture. In some cases, the commitment to systemic thought has
all but eradicated whole categories of doctrine and ethics.
Rome's
problem with regard to the gospel is the extra-Scriptural sacramental system,
the hosts of doctrines and practices that are rooted in tradition and
philosophy, not revelation. This man-made system is the means by which grace
functions, something unknown and opposed to New Testament teachings. The
totality of their system buries the authority of Scripture and its implications.
They like many other false churches have placed their authority above
revelation.
To reduce
the question to Justification is to miss the point and the real issue. It fails
to understand the context of Roman Catholicism in history. Just because they
did not formally deny Sola Fide until the 16th century does not mean
they were 'The Church' up to that point. Rome had abandoned the gospel many
centuries before Martin Luther, because Rome had long ago abandoned Scripture
as its authority.
And yet for
many, Justification is the main issue. You can have a Pope, a false catholicity
rooted in the claims of a man-made hierarchy, dozens of extra-Biblical
practices, traditions and teachings and yet as long you don't formally deny
Sola Fide... you're still the legitimate Church.
That is a
reductionist understanding of both the Church and the gospel and certainly an
impoverished understanding of Church history.
Of course it
must be said that many Protestants, if not most, essentially and effectively deny
Sola Scriptura. No one really wants to work out the implications of that. For
many it functions as the starting point for a system that you build. Their
system might look a bit more like the New Testament than Rome, but I would
argue that's due to time not principle. They haven't had enough time to fully
work out the implications of their system. The changes and shifts don't happen
overnight. Most Protestant churches are on the same road. It sometimes looks
different but this is due to cultural context, not a difference in principle.
So then the
argument ends up being not True Gospel vs. False, but System vs. System.
It just
happens to be that one system has made Sola Fide the central doctrine around
which all others are built. This is contrasted with another system that is Sacerdotal.
Roman salvation is about union with the hierarchy and a willingness to submit
to its system.
One system
tends to end up reducing saving faith to an intellectual assent while the other
system teaches not so much faith plus works but a kind of superstition attached
to the extra-Biblical symbols and an institution.
But in both
cases it is the System which is supreme and the Protestant answer to Rome ends
up being on equally shaky ground. The dividing issues are of a secondary level,
rather than dealing with the essential point.
This is
problematic and a very flawed understanding of the authority of Scripture.
Secondly,
the real basis of ECT which also seems to be largely missed in the reflections
and contemporary discussion is not purely ecumenical but political.
They weren't
trying to create 'unity' to forge a new ecclesiastical arrangement, a new
catholicity. No, Bill Clinton was president, the Moral Majority and Christian
Coalition had failed and the Culture Wars had intensified. Many Evangelicals
admired Pope John Paul II and the perceived role Catholicism was playing both
in the United States and during the Cold War.
They were
desperate to form a political alliance to expand and empower the political
agenda. This new expanded version of the Christian Right has a mixed record,
but overall it has been pretty successful scoring massive political victories
in 1994, the 1998 House impeachment of Clinton, and in the 2000, 2004 and 2010
elections. And yet they're still losing the overall Culture War.
There are a
host of theological problems associated with this politicized motivation but
since they are shared by most critics of ECT you can't expect them to focus on
this very critical issue.
I have heard
about the shift among Evangelicals with regard to their thinking about
Catholics. I think we've all seen it. But it seems many have forgotten that it
wasn't that many years ago that Catholics were not viewed as Christians in any
sense! Indeed many Evangelicals now believe that Catholics are their brethren
and in some cases are critical of those who attack Rome. They believe the
Church's enemies are not within, and of a doctrinal nature, but are instead the
forces of secularism.
The New
Testament is no longer their model. They're not fighting for Scripture but for
the system generated by the extra-Scriptural concept of Christendom.
This is the
real danger of ECT. It opens the doors of the Church (so to speak) to error and
false teaching. And it misidentifies the enemies and threats to the Church.
Secular
people are lost but they can't harm us unless we (as a Church) lose our
antithesis, become confused about our identity and bring their philosophies
into the Church (1 Cor 5.9-13).
False
teachers and their doctrines can undermine pervert and destroy the Church and
that's been the fruit and legacy of ECT.
Dominionism
has overtaken the Church and many believe politics is how we build the Kingdom
of God. They erroneously believe Western Civilization 'is' the Kingdom of God.
For many during the last presidential election, the agent they looked to was a
Roman Catholic candidate in the person of Rick Santorum... a Romanist whose
opinions largely echo that of Opus Dei and Francisco Franco.
Dominionism
is the real issue that all of these commentators are missing. It seems to be
the basis of a new ecumenical framework or depending on how you look at it... a
great apostasy.
They are
building the Kingdom in man's image and have sold out to the quest for power.
The gospel
isn't at stake.
These folks
lost it long ago and they don't seem to have the tools to recover it.
Some related
posts: