Last night I sat in a Starbucks here in Portland talking with one of my best friends about the Synoptic Problem, the unique perspective of the Gospels, and the person of Jesus. We marveled together how the differences found in the Gospels show us a Jesus who was so amazing and complex that one perspective would not suffice. As brothers who have been adopted into the family of God by the Holy Spirit we share the confession that Jesus has been made both Lord and Christ.
My friend is JohnDave Medina who is Roman Catholic. I consider myself to be an evangelical. While we have differing views on everything from Ecclesiology to Mariology to the Eucharist this doesn’t prevent fellowship in Christ. I have no doubt that JohnDave is a Christian and he has no doubt that I am a Christian. Neither of us are skeptical about the other’s standing before God in Christ.
So when I read “Abandon the Reformation, Abandon the Gospel” by Matthew Barrett I couldn’t take him seriously. He celebrates the Reformation and the work of Martin Luther. That is fine and dandy. Luther did some good things and I think I would have reacted similar to how he did if I would have seen the injustices that he saw. What concerned me is that Barrett and many, many others have not updated their calendar to 2011.
That one is a Roman Catholic is not grounds for automatic dismissal, yet Barrett writes:
“Others argue that evangelicals and Catholics, while remaining distinct, can now join together in light of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Communion of Reformed Churches, and the Joint Declaration on Justification. Many believe the rift between Protestants and Catholics has been at least substantially resolved. Hence Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom’s book, Is the Reformation Over?. (See Scott M. Mantesch, “Is the Reformation Over? John Calvin, Roman Catholicism, and Contemporary Ecumenical Conversations” Themelios, August 2011.)
“But as Michael Horton has recently argued (and R. C. Sproul before him), the Reformation is far from over. “There has been no material change in the Roman Catholic position on the issues that led to the excommunication of the Reformers. Even the Joint Declaration overcame the central doctrine of controversy only by embracing a Roman Catholic definition of justification as forgiveness and actual transformation (i.e., sanctification).” Rome continues to reject the evangelical affirmation of justification by grace alone through faith alone. I agree with Horton when he states that it is not about Luther, it is about the gospel.”
Apparently he does not like the idea of Protestants and Catholics seeking common ground in Christ. Apparently our understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith supersedes what happens when one is justified by faith (and please, please do not use rhetoric that assumes all Roman Catholics are legalist who think they save themselves because this is false).
The doctrine of justification by faith is a secondary argument used by the Apostle Paul most explicitly in his Epistles to Rome and Galatia defending the unity of Jews and Gentiles because both have faith in Christ and therefore both have been filled with the adopting Spirit of God who guarantees resurrection life in the age to come. What Paul fought was exclusion from the body of Christ based on claims that one had to become a Jew by means of circumcision, purity laws, and the like. For any Protestant to say justification by faith is not a possibility for people who have faith in Christ but who have different views of how the sacraments function or the unity of the church seems to me to not understand Paul. Likewise, I say the same of any Roman Catholic (I can swallow Vatican II language that we Protestants are some sort of outside circle, even though I disagree, strongly).
Jesus prayed that we would be one, not that we would understand the doctrine of justification by faith. If our understanding of the doctrine doesn’t lead to us seeking unity then is there any sense in which we understand it? Can we say we understand Paul?
But this is all secondary because Barrett betrays a misunderstanding of the Gospel. He conflates justification by faith with the Gospel. It may have been the Gospel of the Reformation, but it is merely a subcategory or consequence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am not going to trek over ground that has been covered again and again by those who have emphasized that the Gospel is the proclamation that the Kingdom of God has been established in Jesus Christ. If Roman Catholic bow before Christ they have responded to the Gospel. If Protestants bow before Christ they have responded to the Gospel. I will let the King sort the goats from the sheep.
If a Roman Catholic dismisses me then there is nothing I can do about that. I see them as siblings in Christ none-the-less. Obviously, I disagree with them on many, many things, but we share Christ and that is what matters to the Father and what brings the Spirit into our hearts.
So no, to abandon reformation as Barrett understands it is not to abandon the Gospel. To disagree on some aspects of justification by faith is not to abandon the Gospel. To abandon the Gospel of the Kingdom in Christ is to abandon the Gospel.
So JohnDave, I’ll see you next week, and we’ll celebrate a result of believing the Gospel–fellowship as children of God the Father, adopted brothers with Christ, those who have been given the same Holy Spirit.
October 28, 2011 at 10:23 am
Agreed. I’m puzzled as to how a theological system or category can be equated to the gospel. Thanks for your post, Brian.
October 28, 2011 at 10:41 am
I’m pretty sure to go to Starbucks (in Portland!!) is to abandon the gospel, but beyond that, great post!
October 28, 2011 at 10:44 am
@Jason: I share that puzzlement!
@Steve: True, but I live by PSU, and most everything else closes early.
Pingback: Justification by faith is secondary | John Meunier
October 28, 2011 at 11:35 am
Even though I am not classically Reformed (it could be said that I am radically Reformed, or Christianly Reformed, or whatever); I would think that the response and substantial theological distinction between Protestants and Roman Catholics is how one views union with Christ (or the Wrightian ‘Covenant’) itself. Is it that we are made righteous through cooperating with God in salvation through an infused-created-grace; or, is it that we are declared righteous (and thus ‘in’ the Covenant) through the alien-outside of us [extra nos]-foreign-grace brought to us ‘in Christ’ (and thus ideally a non-cooperative understanding of salvation)? The Roman Catholic follows the former; while the Protestant follows the latter. This seems to be more than semantic, or even more than something than an elapse of time (like from the 16th century to the present) can over-come. The question remains, it seems to me; how is one identified with Christ in the fulfillment of the Covenant promises? Is it through trusting in His Covenant faithfulness in our stead; or is it seeking to be made (with contingency in mind) a member of the Covenant by cooperating with God in Covenant faithfulness with the aide of infused grace?
In short, I think finding common ground is a good thing (that’s what the Regensburg Colloquium in 1541 sought to find, and failed); but to simply over-look substantial differences [even in a Wrightian world] doesn’t mean those substantial-soteriological differences aren’t still there. I think it is one thing for you to meet with your brother in Christ, JohnDave, and call it a truce (between Catholics and Protestants, theologically); and another thing to compare and contrast the actual teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (still), with what Protestants believe (even with Wright, there is some reason why Wright identifies as Protestant V. Catholic). I agree that there are Roman Catholics who are “saved” (just as there are some Protestants who are “saved”), but I don’t think the Roman System is “saved.”
October 28, 2011 at 11:47 am
@Bobby: Unfortunately, I think this language skips past what is most important to Paul–the Spirit. We can talk all day about grace outside of us (imputation language?) or cooperating with grace, but both fall way, way short of a robust Pauline soteriology (and I’d add Johannine and Lukan) if it doesn’t put the focus on the New Covenant Spirit.
If we read Paul correctly we will have the best of both. The Spirit is given by God providing something “alien” to us, adopting us, regenerating us, and recreating us. All this passivity makes Protestants smile. Yet (!) for Paul the Spirit is progressively making us new. As he writes in Romans 8 we are not fleshly because it leads to death so we walk by the Spirit. While this is God sparked it doesn’t exclude us which is something many Catholics point out (and Methodist, and Pentecostals).
So to be frank, as a “system” the Reformed vision as it is popularly explained seems to divorce the human element too strongly which causes problems of its own. I know this is not true of all branches of Reformed thought, and I know many scholars of Calvin speak of his as the theologian of the Spirit, but overall in popular conversation I think the line is drawn too easily “cooperation” and “non-cooperation” which Pauline Pneumatology erases.
October 28, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Brian,
I was just trying to trumpet what the push back might be if you actually had any true blue Reformed commenters (if not readers) here at your blog
.
Evangelical Calvinism presses a Pauline personalist-Trinitarian understanding of salvation; so everything is embodied in Christ (the objective-subjective poles). Yes, I think you are right to notice that Calvin was rightly called the “theologian of the Spirit;” he is not your post-Reformed orthodox Calvinist (nor Arminian for that matter) who actually mimic their Roman Catholic counterparts in soteriology (IMO). Btw, I just am starting my doctoral research on the Vicarious Humanity of Christ, and much of it will lead into the Reformed categories on this subject. In other words, I say this to highlight that the Reformed, in their variegated history, do have teaching that correlates and even articulates the kind of Pauline emphasis you are desirous of.
I would still assert, though, that to compare yours and JohnDave’s relationship as a micro-picture of ‘how’ Roman Catholics and Protestants (esp Reformed) will relate at a macro-level represents too quick of a resolution. I think that individual Roman Catholics and Protestants can have the kind of communal fellowship that you and JohnDave share without assuming that this will ever be the case at the Institutional Church level (per the teaching of the Roman Catholic church and Protestant churches). I think the greatest distinction between the two is ecclesiological, which then impinges on many other important doctrines (in important ways) like the most important; soteriology.
You wrote:
If we read Paul correctly we will have the best of both. The Spirit is given by God providing something “alien” to us, adopting us, regenerating us, and recreating us. All this passivity makes Protestants smile. Yet (!) for Paul the Spirit is progressively making us new. As he writes in Romans 8 we are not fleshly because it leads to death so we walk by the Spirit. While this is God sparked it doesn’t exclude us which is something many Catholics point out (and Methodist, and Pentecostals).
The only thing I would want to add to this is that we don’t get the Spirit w/o the humanity of Christ for us. In other words, I am afraid that if we talk about the Spirit w/o the humanity applying the benefits of what Christ wrought for us (in an only ‘declarative’ way) that we will have made the humanity of Christ simply the instrument through which the Holy Spirit unites and not the ontological reality. In other words, I want to see any discussion about what the Holy Spirit has given us to be grounded, by way of order (and first) in the what the Holy Spirit has done in the humanity of Christ (as archetypical humanity and the Second Adam, pace Rom 5; Col 1.15ff etc). Does that make any sense, Brian?
October 28, 2011 at 4:09 pm
@Bobby: I think the real Reformed folk read blogs by their friends. Apparently, NearEmmaus.com is not one of those blogs! Thank you for the simulation though.
I agree 100% that it doesn’t fix the macro-institutional objectives. Of course, Barrett’s gripe was with various smaller groups who have tried to bridge the gap. It would be for both Catholics and Protestants if we pretended the differences did not exist. Yet I think groups like those mentioned by Barrett or micro-examples like my friendship with JohnDave are positive signs of unity in Christ across the divide.
I think I am trekking with you. Surely, I do not mean to divide the work of the Spirit in us from the work of the Spirit in Christ. In fact, Romans 8.11 argues that our resurrection by the Spirit is based on what the Spirit did for Christ. That being said, I didn’t understand where that applies to the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the area of explaining doctrine. Clarification there would be helpful.
October 28, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Brian,
Hey you never know who your lurkers are; I used to do posts where I invited my lurkers to un-lurk for a moment, and at least say hi. The funny thing is, when I did these posts, it actually worked with quite a few of them (they would come clean).
I think it is a positive thing when Catholics and Protestants can at the very least talk in meaningful ways about Christ. Both Karl Barth and Hans urs Von Balthasar did this with each other as theologians.
that being said, I didn’t understand where that applies to the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the area of explaining doctrine.
Just that I don’t think the divide, institutionally (and thus doctrinally) will be bridged by this Pauline theological reality; I think the two sides of the Tiber are too entrenched in their own idiosyncrasies. Ironically, from my point of view, Tridentine theology and Reformed orthodox soteriology really traffic on the same theological highway. They both are classical theist, or work from a substance metaphysics. That’s not to say there aren’t still substantial doctrinal differences; I would just say that the differences are ones of emphasis instead of actual divergence when it comes to the function and practice of their doctrine in their daily spiritual practice (I keep opening doors that require more context than I am willing to try and develop
). Anyway, I think Barrett [not really knowing who he is]) probably thinks he is further from Roman Catholics than he actually is (especially if he affirms the Westminster Calvinism that Horton does).
Pingback: Last Week’s Reading: Craft Brewing, Defining “Biblical”, and Jesusween « New Ways Forward
October 29, 2011 at 8:24 am
Messiah inherited the nations. Therefore, in Christ there is not only no distinction between you and your Roman Catholic friend, there is no distinction between you and any of your other friends or non-friends (be they Christian or otherwise). In other words, all human beings belong to Christ, and He is God. This is the reality that was future to the apostles but present to all of us born after them.
October 29, 2011 at 9:03 am
@Bobby: We are in agreement here. It would be naive to think that major institutional differences can be overcome any time soon (or at all until the Parousia). And you are absolutely correct: often Protestants and Catholics are two sides to the same coin while pretending to be different coins altogether.
October 29, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Brian,
It always makes me nervous when we are in agreement on something.
October 31, 2011 at 6:11 am
I think that it is important for us protestants to remember that the Catholic view (of justification by both faith and works, through grace alone that comes from Christ alone) is not entirely without biblical support: James 2 is a strong passage in favor of the Catholic position, and one that is very difficult for the reformed to explain. Perhaps this is why Luther did not believe in the apostolic authorship of James, and called it “an epistle of straw.”
October 31, 2011 at 10:42 am
@Tiller: Agreed!
October 31, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Brian,
Great post! I truly value the friendship we have as follows of Christ on different parts of the spectrum. You’ve helped me come a long way in wrestling with many theological and biblical questions and have given me many tremendous insights into practical Christianity.
As a full-fledged Catholic immersed in a sacramental life with a great Mariology and at the same time one whose interests are steeped in biblical studies over formal declarations of theology, I find myself to be at a unique place in the Catholic church. I can affirm Catholic theology and the teachings of the magisterium, as best as I understand them, but the point of all theology in the Catholic church—and I believe the same of all genuine theology in the Christian world—is to bring one into a deeper love of God and of neighbor.
We both acknowledge the major differences between us and that we don’t see the same on every issue, yet we come together as brothers in Christ, putting those differences aside but recognizing they exist. We are still devoted to the same God, living in the same Spirit, yet expressing our devotion in different ways, all through and by the love of Christ. That speaks of the awesome unity-in-diversity modeled after our great Trinitarian God. I have a hunch that as we continue to grow together in Christ, the genuine fellowship that we share will overflow into our respective spheres and speak to the rest of our fellow brother and sister Christians no matter where they are on the theological spectrum.