click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
The Reformation in a Nutshell
by C Michael PattonDecember 9th, 2009
13 Comments
There used to be a time when your loyalty to the Protestant cause was judged by how much you hated Catholics. But today, with all the ecumenical dialogue, the Manhattan statements, the ECT council, and the postmodern virtue of tolerance, people are much more willing to let water under the bridge. “Maybe we overreacted” is the thought of many.
To the Catholics, Protestants are no longer anathema (which is pretty bad), but are “separated brethren” (which is not so bad).
Attitudes are changing, we could argue, for the better. But have the issues changed?
Four hundred years ago we had a “situation” in the church. We call it the “Great Reformation.” Catholics understand it as yet another rebellious schism. The first major division in the Christian church happened in 1054 when the Eastern church got fed up with the Pope and thumbed its nose at him (or something like that). The Great Reformation was the second. For Protestants, this was not only a reforming of the church, but a reclaiming of the Gospel which had been obscured and overshadowed by the institutionalized church of the day.
While there were and are a lot of issues that divide Roman Catholics and Protestant, there are two which overshadow the rest: authority and justification. The issue of authority has been called the “formal” cause of the Reformation while the issue of justification was the “material” cause. In this brief post I would like to focus on these two issues.
1. Authority: Where do we go for truth?
To the institutionalized church of the day (now known as the Roman Catholic Church), both Scripture and Tradition (notice the capital “T”) represented the one ”deposit of faith” that was handed down from the Apostles (i.e. written and unwritten tradition). The church, as represented by the Pope and the congregation of bishops, could interpret both infallibly being protected by the Holy Spirit. Think of a three legged stool. All three (Scripture, Tradition, and the Church) serve as the stool of ultimate authority for the church.
To the Protestants, this represented an abuse of authority. While the institutionalized church had authority, it did not have ultimate authority. While tradition (notice the lower case “t”) was very important and to be respected, it did not share equal authority with Scripture, but served Scripture. Everything, including unwritten tradition, the councils, and the Pope had to be tested by and submit to Scripture. Protestants repositioned both the church and tradition underneath the Scripture.
The battle cry of the Reformers here was sola Scriptura: the Scriptures alone were our final and only infallible source from God.
2. Justification: How is a person made right with God?
Here the issue was not necessarily the nature of justification, but the instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) of justification. The institutionalized church believed that justification was a process brought about in the individual’s cooperation with God through their faith and works. People were not justified, but were being justified, and they could never really know of their own eternal security. For most, the best that they could hope for was that they died and spent a certain amount of time (usually very extended) in a place called “Purgatory” having their venial sins (sins that are not so bad) purged through a painful process of cleansing. Then, once released from Purgatory, they would move on to heaven. As modern Roman Catholics would put it, “Purgatory is the time to wash before dinner.”
The Protestants believed that this was a serious distortion of the Gospel message likened to the Galatian error. This distortion, argued the Protestants, arose in the late middle ages with the rise of the sacramental system (you know, the necessity of Mass, confession, baptism, etc.). Protestants believed that justification was through the faith of the individual alone and that works did not contribute in any way. Otherwise, it was believed, grace is not really grace. Justification, to the Reformers, was an event, not a process. It was a “forensic” or a legal act in which the believing sinner was declared righteous having Christ’s righteousness imputed to their account. There was nothing that man could do to add to or take away from their justification. Any attempts to work for your justification (including time spent in Purgatory) was a diminishing of the value of the cross which, in essence was saying, Christ’s work was not enough. As well, Protestants, unlike Catholics, believed that we could have assurance of our ultimate salvation.
The battle cry of the Reformation was sola fide: justification is by faith alone, not by any works man can do.
There were other issues that caused great strife during the Reformation, but they all paled in comparison to these two. While the tension and the heat that immediately accompany a fight have cooled, recent events have not changed with these two issues. Most Protestants and Catholics still believe that these are hills upon which we should die, even if neither side conclusively believes the other is going to hell.
We must keep in mind, however, how much the two sides do agree. When it comes to the person and work of Christ conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics (along with Eastern Orthodox) all believe that Jesus Christ is the God-man (fully God and fully man) who died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave as an atonement for sin. All believe that salvation is purely by the grace of God and that the faith of the individual is necessary. And, significantly, all believe that Christ is the only way to God.
Was the Reformation necessary? I believe so. The communication and purity of the Gospel was at stake. Amidst all the conciliations going on today, we need to keep this in mind: things have not changed that much. We can love each other and appreciate the common heritage we share. We can even learn much from one another. But there is still a serious divide and Protestants should dare not compromise the Gospel by sweeping the Reformation under the rug. The Gospel is too important.
Similar Posts:
- Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
- Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
- Essential Differences Between Catholics and Protestants
- Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?
Loading ...
13 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: 1. Authority – THE SHAPE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA by Keith A. Mathison is an interesting book in terms of discussing and differentiating between Tradition 0 (radical Anabaptists and their heirs – i.e., many of today’s “Solo” Scriptura Evangelicals – who reject all sources but the Bible for guidance and authority), Tradition I (Calvin and the Reformers, who regarded Scripture as the sole source of revelation and infallible authority, but not the only source of authority in the Church; they honored and listened to the Fathers, the Creeds and the traditions), Tradition II (the Catholic Church since Trent, when Scripture and Tradition were both declared to be sources of divine authority), and Tradition III (where the Catholic Church now seems to be going, elevating the Magisterium to the position of highest authority).
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, appreciate greatly what you have said here. I believe that you are correct that these two issues were at the heart of the Reformation and remain the fundamental issues between evangelicals and Roman Catholicism today. Thank you for your faithful stand for truth. Small point—–you may want to switch the meaning of material and formal; I think you have them reversed. The material cause should refer to justification, and the formal cause should refer to the issue of authority.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, appreciate greatly what you have said here. I believe that you are correct that these two issues were at the heart of the Reformation and remain the fundamental issues between evangelicals and Roman Catholicism today. Thank you for your faithful stand for truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
Great post, Michael. Living in a predominantly Roman catholic country (Brazil) I would say that one other thing is as divisive as the two you mentioned: the veneration (worship) of Mary as the “queen of heaven”. Although they say they only practice “dulia” (veneration) and not “latria” (worship), there is no practical difference between what they do to God and what they do to Mary: they bow down to her statues, pray to her, make offerings to her, and she is supposed to “pray for us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death”. They also call her “our mother” and “our queen”. This comes straight from the Vatican and is not only a Brazilian form of catholicism, as it is found in many other Latin countries. I don’t know how it is in the USA, though.
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree that the reformation was needed and salvation by faith is something that should still be upheld. I actually think that Catholics may be coming around on that issue. This is an article detailing a speech (sermon?) the Pope gave on faith and works which seems to be very close to my evangelical sentiments: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14450
Like or Dislike:
0
In all, though I would classify myself in the broader terms of Protestant evangelical, I am glad for the major steps we have taken even in the past couple of decades to learn to listen to one another. It is no longer the majority opinion that the other group are ‘hell-bound’ and ‘hell-bent’. That, to me, should encourage us. Maybe it is due to the more modern (by that, I mean, post-modernism of the past 15-20 years) that has opened that door of listening. I take stands on certain biblical-theological issues, but I don’t want to anathematize those who are Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. I can even learn from them.
My only pondering is whether we might consider opening the door to other groups that have usually been considered non-orthodox – maybe cults, maybe sects, maybe those with universalist-inclusivist leanings, etc? I am not arguing slippery-slope here. I am just pondering.
Like or Dislike:
0
ScottL: In regard to your pondering about opening the door to cults, I think it’s foundational to recognize that, as CMP pointed out, the primary point of common ground between Protestants and Roman Catholics centers on the person and work of Jesus Christ. To my knowledge, that is the exact point at which virtually every cult departs from biblical orthodoxy. I see no way to establish any common ground with a group that would deny those essential beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0
Good thoughts, Martin. But what about more sectarian groups such as Seventh Day Adventists, or maybe those who have universalist leanings? Just interesting to ponder where we might go. I believe we need to listen and dialogue, which allows for both sides to be heard. It’s just that finding the ‘line’ is not always so easy, yet we know there is one.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you so much for this.
I am all for listening to and learning from church history, but as I see it, Scripture is above church history, not a servant/slave to it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Excellent post!
Michael, I enjoy reading your material. As much as I would like to “de-categorize” myself, when I read the scriptures and formulate my theology I discover at the end of the day that I fit somewhere within the Wesleyan-Arminian heritage.
I have been greatly affected by Calvin Reformers who consider me “barely saved” and call me out right “anti-christian” and “semi-pelagian” and so on. As a result my own blogs have become – uncharacteristically – sarcastic sometimes when referring to the Calvin tradition.
While (obviously) I don’t share all of your views above, I do appreciate the “grace” with which you write and would aspire to share my understanding of God’s word and the Christian faith with that same grace.
Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey Michael,
There’s two other things you forgot to mention which are very important. First, Catholics have a very complicated theology regarding free will while Luther, as seen in his “Bondage of the Will”, denies such a concept. This is especially highlighted in Luther’s dispute with Erasmus.
Second, Catholics deny Atonement Theology.
But overall, great post. I like it how you don’t fall into the whole “Catholic and Protestants are essentially the same” idea. People need to realize the sharp differences that exist between Catholics and Protestants and how important these differences are. Not that I have anything against Catholics personally. I’m an avid reader of Thomas Merton; he’s one of my most favorite spiritual writers!
Like or Dislike:
0
I think the tendency in the Reformation was to be minimalist in the vision of the Christian life. The questions that Luther raised are really due to religious scrupulosity and not to problems inherent in medieval Christianity.
Anyways, I’m headed to Orthodoxy, tired of a minimalist version of the Christian faith. I’d rather have the cosmological maximalist Christology of Orthodoxy (Christ didn’t just become incarnate as a man, he became incarnate in the creation, in the Church as his incarnate body, working to the divinization of the created order so that God will be “all in all”), than reducing Christ to the guy that saves me individually from Hell because God is the cosmic moralist. What is missing in Protestantism is appreciation of the Sublime and the Numinous behind the Incarnation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael – you may consider it nit-picking but I think it would make for an interesting mind opening study- altho not direct theology. The term ‘Protestant’ has become widely accepted, if not generic for non RCC and non Orthodox Christians. I don’t think this will really change. The term ‘protestant’ in religious terms did actually have political and social roots. The Original Protestants were Germanic Lords/Earls etc who Protested at the treatment of Luther, who by this time had adopted the cause ‘keep your money’ and give it to the local church rather than to Rome- so they were hoping to have some monetary benefit from abandoning Roman Catholicism. Ultimately they were not really ‘protesting’ about religion per se. There are those who would hold that protestantism is just an umbrella term for Christian they believeing (erroneously) that the RCC are not ‘christian’
More Comments: