click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
51% Protestant
by Dan WallaceFebruary 1st, 2009
16 Comments
Best of Parchment and Pen
On the flight back from Athens last week, I sat in front of a gregarious Irish gentleman. He was a medical doctor in Dallas, but didn’t even come close to losing his native accent. We talked theology most of the flight.
He was fascinated by CSNTM’s work of photographing ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts. And he was a good student of church history. This gentleman affirmed a lot of my most precious beliefs: Jesus Christ, the theanthropic person, died for our sins and was bodily raised from the dead; by putting our faith in him we are saved indeed, we are saved exclusively by God’s grace; there’s nothing that we can bring to the table to aid in our salvation. The good doctor called himself an evangelical. And he also called himself a Roman Catholic.
To some evangelicals, as soon as they hear that one is a Roman Catholic that immediately excludes such a person from the Pearly Gates. To some Catholics, once they hear that a person is an evangelical, they have the same posture. I wonder if part of the reason for this black-and-white view of salvation is due to a radical, unreflective commitment to one’s tradition. I am a Protestant and an evangelical. I used to think that if someone did not fit within those two labels, he was eternally damned. But part of my reasoning was that since I thought that the evangelical faith was 100% correct, any deviation from it was 100% wrong. The problem with that approach is that many other Christian groups believe in a lot of what evangelicals believe. Obviously, I can’t say that someone who believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ is 100% wrong! Yet, the three major branches of Christendom all embrace the truths that Jesus Christ is fully God, that he died for our sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith. There’s so much right with other groups that it’s impossible to claim that they’re all wrong!
As I suggested in my last blog, I’m questioning some of the tenets of Protestantism and evangelicalism. That doesn’t mean that I’m questioning the whole thing; I still believe that the evangelical faith is the best expression of genuine Christianity today. But I also believe that it is flawed and that we can learn from Catholics and Orthodox. And just as it is possible for someone to be saved and be an evangelical, I think it’s possible for someone to be saved and be a Catholic or eastern Orthodox. So, I’m still at least 51% Protestant (and Luther is still a hero of mine), but I have no qualms criticizing my own tradition and exploring what we can learn from others.
This, of course, raises a significant issue: If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do? What is the value of such distinctions? What purpose do they serve?
Daniel B. Wallace
Similar Posts:
- 51% Protestant
- First Things Blogcast #4: Catholics vs. Evangelicals on Justification
- An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox?
- Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?
- The Catholic Church is a Cult
Loading ...
16 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan,
Thank you for some thought provoking questions.
First of all, since you post is very much in line with some of the questions we are asking at Eclectic Christian, would you mind if I reposted this at EclecticChristian.com.
Secondly, I have written a couple of posts on counting Canada’s Christians that may contribute to the discussion. Here is Part 1 and Part 2.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I’m surprised to get this comment from you since that blog post was done about 18 months ago. We got scores of comments, but then it was closed for comments (I think). Yours came out of left field. You’ll have to check with Michael Patton to see if you can post it on your site, but I think he’d probably rather that you link to this one.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan, I should have told you, we are reposting some of the most popular P&P posts over the last few years. Of course, this is one of them! You will probably see some comments here. Feel free to ignore them as I know you are busy.
Michael, you are more than welcome to post this at your site so long as Dan approves. (Dan, I punted back).
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow! I was just coming home from a men’s group meeting I was leading last night, when something along these lines just came screaming into my head. Divide and Conquer. We as Christians live divided; divided by walls that we have erected ourselves. How many lives/souls are lost because of the time and effort we spend criticizing one another’s beliefs? How many of those lives/souls would have been saved if we could live and work united?
If would could for one moment put down the petty differences that divide us and remain truly focused on who Christ is and what His will really is, imagine the difference that we could make. Instead we argue, bicker, fight amongst ourselves. The enemy doesn’t have to spend all of his resources fighting against us – we’re using our own resources to fight one another.
Sure, we all know that Christ and His army will win when the end comes, but in the meantime, how many lives are we sacrificing while we live divided and conquered? Is that His will for us?
Like or Dislike:
0
This is the post that got us on the map! (For better or worse
)
Like or Dislike:
0
Great (re)post. Good to think over these things regularly.
“This is the post that got us on the map!”
I thought it was the charts!
Like or Dislike:
0
I think this points to why the interfaith movement is a good thing. We make a huge big deal over the things that divide us and hardly notice the major things we have in common – as Christians and as human beings. I, for one, would have a really hard time with the notion that, say, the Dalai Lama or millions and millions of other good people who happened to grow up outside the Christian tradition are going to hell on that account.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul, thank you for totally misunderstanding the post.
The issue is not “interfaith”, a misnomer anyway as “faith” is not a major concern of religions other than Christianity, but the divisions within the Christian Church. The Dalai Lama, and those millions of other people (billions probably) are not “good” by the only standard that counts. That is, God’s. Why would God invite into his kingdom someone who does not accept him as their King?
Dan, this is why I have my “minimum requirements” of a Christian. As long as a person has pledged their allegiance to Jesus as Lord, accepts his sacrifice as the only way of satisfying God’s justice, and accepts the historical validity of the Resurrection then to my mind they are Christian enough for us to share fellowship. This of course leaves many liberal clergy out, but then it should. The divisions that people make such a fuss about leave me cold.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
Thanks again for a great post
. I have a very good friend of mine who came out of Islam and joined the Greek Orthodox Church. Although I would not agree with all the practices, I’ve no doubt that he is a born again believer and that we share a common fellowship in Christ. He is zealous for God’s glory and defends the Truth of God’s Word against those who deny it. I am glad God was able to use me to begin sharing the gospel with him when he was a Muslim and I rejoice that he has entered into the true Kingdom of God. Thanks again.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jason, I fully agree with your minimum requirements of a Christian. And Steven, I love the testimony! I’d love to hear more such testimonies.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul Maurice Martin: “I, for one, would have a really hard time with the notion that, say, the Dalai Lama or millions and millions of other good people who happened to grow up outside the Christian tradition are going to hell on that account.”
If you have a chance, read CMP’s post “It Does Not Matter if You Don’t Like a Doctrine . . . Truth is Not a Democracy”.
Then read what Jesus had to say about Himself in John 14:6.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
I am glad that someone I respect as much as you thinks and ponders some of the same things I do! What do you consider the major differences between the 3 main branches of Christianity to be? Are they primarily theological, ecclesiological, or both?
Specifically, all three share the beliefs of the early ecumenical counsils. The main reason I have understood evangelicals to consider Catholics and Orthodox to be unsaved would be over the issue of faith in Christ’s work alone as the basis of salvation. The usual charge against Catholics and Orthodox, as least as I have understood it in my own circles, is that they hold to the synergy of faith in Christ’s work and good works as the basis of salvation. Is this charge true, and how does it relates to your own process of thinking through these issues?
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
NB, it is interesting that all three branches of Christendom affirm the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person as the basis on which we can be saved. And all three recognize that it is only by God’s grace that we are saved. All three recognize that faith is an important aspect of salvation. Ironically, it is almost exclusively within Protestantism that we see disagreements over these fundamentals. Theological liberalism is an outgrowth of the Protestant branch.
There is indeed a synergy of faith and works in Catholic, Orthodoxy, and most of Protestant theology. How it’s defined is a bit different, however. In Protestantism, works become a natural outgrowth of one’s faith for the one who has truly embraced Christ as Savior. Now, here’s where you get some ‘quibbles’ of a major sort: are works totally optional so that a person can be saved and live like the devil? Are works a part of the package of what it means to be saved, so that what we do ensures that we are saved? My point is that even within conservative Protestantism, there is some sort of synergism between faith and works, just as there was in earliest Christianity (cf. Jas 2).
Now, I for one am deeply convinced of the theological correctness of justification by faith alone. But how that manifests itself in a given individual may need some nuancing. And we need to be very careful against holding to a ‘faith in faith’ view. It is not faith in faith that saves us, but faith in Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for re-posting the blog.
What do you consider the major differences between the 3 main branches of Christianity to be? Are they primarily theological, ecclesiological, or both?
Good question, as a former Catholic (don’t know too much about the Eastern Orthodox) and student of church history I think there is both.
Dr. Wallace hits the main one – the relationship of faith & works. The “need” to do sacraments to receive grace as defined by the RCC is certainly a major difference. I think the question here is why one does the activity. Is it to maintain salvation and receive grace for the forgiveness of sins or to give praise and thanks to Jesus for His gift of salvation.
Another area of difference seems to be related to authority. I think we would all agree that there is authority – God, Scripture, government, church leaders, husbands, etc. But there would be some disagreement as to the fallibility or infallibility found in some of them. The RCC and Protestants would have a tough time agreeing on the Pope, Bishops and “ex cathedra” infallible teaching or the preservation of teaching (Tradition) outside of the Scriptures having the same authority as the Scriptures. Church leaders have an incredible responsibility to lead well and protect the flock. We are warned to submit to them, but I for one do not see the possession of infallible teaching/preservation of apostolic teaching (outside of the Scriptures).
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Shane Lems notes that the dialogue above is mirrored here. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Anyway, perhaps this will stimulate some conversation here… I’m not sure how many Catholics read this blog, but maybe they’ll come out of the shadows and let us know what they think! So what’s the big deal? It’s a huge announcement: Dr. Wallace is 51% Catholic. [...]
More Comments: