Jun
11
2012
Why the Reformation Is Not Over
Scott Manetsch (associate professor of church history and chair of the church history department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and the associate general editor of IVP’s Reformation Commentary Series) explains why it is “impossible to reconcile the classic Protestant solas with the teaching of the Catholic Catechism.”
- For Roman Catholics, Scripture and Tradition are two distinct but equal modes of revealed authority which the magisterium of the Roman Church has sole responsibility to transmit and interpret.
- For the early Protestant reformers, the holy Scripture provides final normative authority for Christian doctrine and practice, standing as judge above all institutions and ecclesial traditions.
- For Roman Catholics, sinners are justified because of inherent righteousness.
- For the mainstream Protestant reformers, sinners are accepted on the basis of the righteousness of another—namely, the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to them.
- For Roman Catholics, sinners are both justified by unmerited grace at baptism and (subsequently) justified by those infused graces merited by cooperating with divine grace.
- For the magisterial reformers, sinners are justified before God by grace alone.
- For Roman Catholics, sinners are justified by faith (in baptism), but not by faith alone.
- For the sixteenth-century Protestant reformers, sinners are justified by faith alone.
- For Roman Catholics, justification is a process of renewal that affords no solid basis for Christian assurance in this life.
- For reformers such as Luther and Calvin, justification is God’s decisive verdict of forgiveness and righteousness that assures Christian believers of the acceptance and love of their heavenly Father.
22 Comments
Right on for (1) and (2) Justin, to bad your “magisterial” Reformers and their followers were/are operating off of a defective translation tradition (see Romans 3:28). They have and do confuse moral law with covenant and the church remains mired in the shallows.
Your categories of “infused” and “imputed” righteousness are medieval notions imported into the text by both Protestants and Catholics.
sounds like some one here is channeling N.T. Wright
MarkO:
Rome produced a perverted concept of Covenant and demanded that believers obey it to obtain Eternal Life.
The Reformers emphasized that it was the believing that secures Eternal Life, the obeying is simply the proof of the believing.
The apostles expounded the New Covenant where believing the Gospel confers the title and earnest of glory and the obedience secures the final reward.
The Reformers overemphasize the Legal imagery in justification to the detriment of the familial. They did not understand the architecture of Covenant and built their concept of atonement around the merit surrounding the “moral law” and not the ancient structure of Promise and Curse.
Is this what N T Wright teaches?
Bruce
The legal over filial argument needs to be put to death.
Apparently Westminster was taking huge strides in its discussion on adoption. Reading the Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms in their historical context demonstrate this.
I am pretty sure they could read scripture just like we do.
Casey:
I’m convinced the Westminster Assembly did much better with what they had than we do with what we have in terms of eyeballs on the original text. If we cared as much as they did we would see great things in Biblical scholarship communicated to the life the the Church.
Bruce
Bruce:
“Is this what N T Wright teaches?”
You sort of sound like him, but now I think I’m hearing a little FV mixed there too. Yes?
MarkO:
I did visit what I think is an FV church. That is where they do paedo-communion, right?
I could not figure out why they still cling to infant baptism. Why not Baptize the young souls at a young age as they perceive and embrace the promise of the Gospel?
I don’t think they understood their system, they were defensive and wouldn’t entertain my questions.
I’m a Baptist by conviction.
Bruce
It’s a quality analysis to be sure. Do you think all practicing Catholics hold fast to these beliefs and traditions? I have lately encountered an emergence of Evangelical Catholics who are working from within on these very issues.
I take it you are merely making use of another’s declarative description of historical differences – rather than a sweeping generalization that all in the Catholic face adhere to these doctrines.
What do you think?
And you can keep up with my wife (Amanda) and I here: http://benknotts.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/bens-bad-mccafe-assumption-part-1/
I have no blog to bid you come and review…but thanks for the article anyways. I believe I will use it as it succinctly sums up the Catholic/Protestant issues.
I certainly hope the Reformation is not over. The church has many more changes it must make if it wants to come in line with what we read in scripture.
[...] Why the Reformation Is Not Over – Justin Taylor [...]
[...] Between Two Worlds: Justin Taylor, Why the Reformation Is Not Over] Share this:ShareEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted [...]
While many of the observations Scott Manetsch makes regarding the Catholic Catechism may be true from an academic viewpoint; evangelicals should take note that there are many, many Catholics who truly love Jesus, look to Him alone for salvation and fulfill the first two commandments. (see Lesson 15 of the Baltimore Cathechism) http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson15.html
Academics reveal some truths. Other truths are seen in the lives of those who follow the Lord.
We should be careful not to polarize Protestants and Catholics.
Protestants stress the “Already” of Justification. Catholics the “Not Yet”. The apostles stressed both the Already and the Not Yet.
The Gospel Promise and Holy Spirit are present permanent possessions of the believer. The glorious reward of physical resurrection is obtained through keeping the New Covenant to the end. Both are essential, the Holy Spirit holds them together for us.
Bruce:
If you be justified “not yet” then you ain’t at all.
You’re getting your eschatology confused with your soteriology.
btw – I quit “trying to keep” the New Covenant a long, long time ago. I found out I just couldn’t do it no matter how hard I tried – not even to save my life.
So I quit.
Now I rest in the One who kept {past tense} it for me.
Ah, now I relax in the New Covenant.
MarkO:
Soteriology is Eschatology because its focus is on the reward of Eternal Life granted to those performing the obedience of faith.
You have a fundamental misconception of the nature of New Covenant obedience if you think it is “too hard”.
What in Romans 2 indicates that the final judgment is based on moral perfection?
Romans 2:6-11 lays out the dividing line: Self seeking and glory seeking.
Seeking “Glory, Honor and Immortality” does not require moral perfection! In fact it requires that we confess our sins and pursue the purification embedded in New Covenant worship. If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” If we refuse to seek New Covenant purification we indeed are among the self seekers who are under God’s indignation and wrath.
Believers “All Ready” possess the title and seal of Eternal Life. It is a permanent possession. But they have “Not Yet” obtained the fullness of their adoption at the physical resurrection from the dead.
Blessings,
Bruce
This is the dividing edge:
“Roman Catholic Catechism
188. Besides believing what God has revealed, what else must we do to be saved?”
Their answer:
“Besides believing what God has revealed, we must keep His law.”
However, the Scripture says:
Acts 16:31, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
Marko:
This is a simplistic presentation by both sides.
The Nation of Israel is a type of Christ, and their journey to the Promised land is a template for the Christian journey to Eternal Life. The Nation was promised a land flowing with milk and honey conditioned on their embrace of Mosaic Covenant promises and warnings. Their obedience to covenant stipulations was a necessary condition for obtaining the land promise, yet it was already theirs through Jehovah’s mighty outstretched arm.
Christians are in the same kind of journey. Since we perceive and believe the promise of the Eternal reward, we pursue it until we obtain for ourselves the fullness of resurrection joy!
The moral law is important, but it is a subset of the Covenant.
Bruce.
But isn’t a lot of that just that Catholic theology uses the word “justification” to refer to the process of being made righteous (because Augustine made up the fake etymology of “iustum facere”) – a difficult word in the Latin Vulgate, because it had been invented by Jerome.
The reformers, rightly, noted that Paul’s use of the word was forensic, and referred to a declaration of righeousness.
But it seems a bit churlish to bear down on Catholic theology for using the wrong word to describe how we are made morally right. Especially because you often hear Protestants say that it should be called “sanctification”: ironic since Paul himself uses sanctification to refer to an event (God’s setting aside as holy, through the gift of the Spirit), and not a process – and so lays us open to exactly the same charge of using scriptural words in novel ways.
Perhaps it would be better, when making comparisons, to replace the technical terms by each side’s definitions, to make it more obvious where the real differences lie. (e.g. point 2 becomes “For Catholics, sinners are made righteous because of inherent righteousness”, which is why Trent calls infused righteousness the formal cause of justification, in line with Paul’s expectation of righteousness through the Spirit in Galatians 5:5-6.)
…but the whole economy of the RCC is built on holding out your completed justification until a future time (possibly, but rarely before your death, possibly AT death or mostly like after purgatory).
Jesus did not offer a cooperative justification project to us (that’s the RCC way). He offers a once and done justification.
Marko:
Let’s never entomb the Scriptures as the RCC has done in layers of tradition, but the Protestant tradition has taken on quite a bit of sediment as well.
Justification in Paul is focused on the jealousy of the Jews for their covenantal privileges. They argue that they are “right with God” because of their Hebrew heritage and covenantal obedience. Paul responds that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly in the flesh, but a true Jew is one inwardly by the Spirit.” He says this because the Jews had hopelessly failed the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant for centuries. Only the New Israelite, Jesus Christ could transform and extend their nation.
Bruce
Yes. The words. The words. And they are difficult for me as well. Like useing the word “consume” the body and blood of Christ. A quote from Bonhoffer may help. Approx. quote: The labels Catholic or Protestant do not matter. It is the Word of God that matters.