unity-in-the-truth-september-october-1998

$4.00

EFORMATION VOLUME 7 NUMBER 5

Unity in the Truth: Ecumenism Without Compromise

SEPTEMB

Unity in the Truth: Ecumenism Without Compromise Page 17

FEATURES 5 Regensburg and Regensburg II R. Scott Clark Attempts to glue together disparate views of justification have been tried before, most notably at this 1541 meeting of leading Protestants and Roman Catholics.

9

Can Two Walk Together Except They Be Agreed?

Paul Schaefer A grasp of this century’s Ecumenical Movement is a prerequisite to understanding the contemporary quest for unity.

Page 20

17 The Myth of Influence W. Robert Godfrey When Paul said that he became all things to all men, he was speaking of things indifferent, not matters of basic Christian truth.

20 Holy Communion or Unholy Chaos?: The Ecumenical Movement’s Use of the Lord’s Supper Paul T. McCain Is the Lord’s Supper a means to or a sign of unity?

24 What ECT II Ignores: The Inseparable Link Between Imputation and the Gospel R. C. Sproul Without a clear affirmation of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, achieved in his perfect active obedience, sola fide is not affirmed.

29 An Appeal to Fellow Evangelicals The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals As always, justification by faith alone is the article by which the Church stands or falls.

Page 24

DEPARTMENTS 2 In This Issue…

3 Letters 15 Quotes 40 In Print

41 White Horse Inn Log 42 Endnotes 44 On My Mind

33 What Are the Prospects for Greater Unity of Christ’s Visible Body in Our Time?

Michael S. Horton Christ’s “High Priestly Prayer” sought a unity among believers which should still be our prayer today.

Cover illustration: Corey Wilkinson

EFORMATION

IN THIS ISSUE…

By Michael S. Horton

A publication of Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Editor-in-Chief Dr. Michael S. Horton Assistant Editor Benjamin E. Sasse Production Editor Irene H. Hetherington

cumenism”: the word itself makes some of us nervous. It sounds like deep truths are going to be sold out for a shallow, probably sub-Christian, unity. Just remember the ways the term has been used in our century, most notably in the “Ecumenical Movement.” The need to stand united—and the need to appear united—has often been used as an excuse to deny the importance of very significant matters. In the face of mainline accommodation, and even outright doctrinal indifference, our fundamentalist ancestors learned to be very wary of ecumenical pleas.

But in our day, surprisingly, many evangelicals have joined the ranks of those willing to gloss over differences for the sake of apparent unity. The word “ecumenism” may not be frequently used, but that is simply because evangelicals think in terms of movements and organizations instead of churches. As such, there are not serious ecclesiastical meetings to discuss historic differences; instead, evangelical CEO’s decide on mergers, and then urge their constituents to repent of what they call “denominationalism.”

At this point, though, it is important to admit that—while many manipulate the term to devalue things that ought not to be devalued—there is indeed such a thing as denominationalism. When Promise Keepers implies that the disagreements between Protestants and Rome are merely about denominational pride rather than doctrinal truth, they are wrong.1 Yet, we must also admit that there are serious problems in the Church when we see, for instance, the many professing Reformed denominations in the Netherlands.

It was Jesus’ prayer (in John 17), after all, that his body would be one. He came to divide us from the world, but to unite us to himself—and he is not divided. But as soon as we ask the next questions—So who is Jesus? What did he accomplish?—we find those claiming to be his followers beginning to divide. So how can we seek unity without sacrificing truth?

We must recall that creeds and confessions, though they do indeed aim to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy, also aim to boldly proclaim the truth around which God’s people can unite. The shema, or confession of faith, of Deut. 6 (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”) was a rallying cry by which the monotheistic Jews distinguished themselves from the nations. There was unity in this truth.

In the New Testament, the Church was distinguished from the Jews who would not believe in the Messiah. For example, 1 Timothy 3:16 announces: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

“E

NEXT ISSUE: Predestination

2

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.” continued on page 4

Copy Editors Ann Henderson Hart Deborah Barackman Layout and Design Lori A. Cook Proofreader Alyson S. Platt Production Assistant Kathryn Baldino Alliance Council Dr. John H. Armstrong The Rev. Alistair Begg Dr. James M. Boice Dr. W. Robert Godfrey Dr. John D. Hannah Dr. Michael S. Horton Mrs. Rosemary Jensen Dr. J. A. O. Preus Dr. R. C. Sproul Dr. Mark Talbot Dr. Gene E. Veith, Jr. Contributing Scholars Dr. D. A. Carson Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson Dr. D. G. Hart Dr. Carl F. H. Henry Dr. Arthur A. Just Dr. Robert Kolb Dr. Tremper Longman III The Rev. Donald Matzat Dr. John W. Montgomery Mr. John Muether Dr. Richard A. Muller Mr. Kenneth A. Myers Dr. Tom J. Nettles Dr. Roger Nicole Dr. Leonard R. Payton Dr. Lawrence R. Rast Dr. Kim Riddlebarger Mr. Rick Ritchie Dr. Rod Rosenbladt Dr. David P. Scaer Ms. Rachel S. Stahle Dr. David F. Wells Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals © 1998 All rights reserved. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life. For more information, call or write us at: ALLIANCE OF CONFESSING EVANGELICALS 1716 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 546-3696 • ModernRef@aol.com www.AllianceNet.org

Subscription information: US 1 YR $22 2 YR $40 US Student 1 YR $11 Canada 1 YR $25 2 YR $45 Europe 1 YR $34 2 YR $62

LETTERS I have enjoyed MR since subscribing shortly after purchasing my first issue, ironically in one of the “fluff ” bookstores that MR ar ticles decry! In the November/December 1997 issue, I was particularly interested in “Comfort Ye My People,” the two articles considering Reformation perspectives of absolution.

Not coming from a Lutheran or Reformed tradition, I have been neither exposed nor particularly open to the practice of absolution. Both articles have caused me to begin thinking about the biblical texts. While not yet completely convinced that the Lutheran or Reformed perspectives presented adequately explain those texts, I am more sympathetic to the practice of absolution as explained in the articles.

However, there is, in my opinion, a serious error in Rick Ritchie’s argument for the practice of absolution—serious because it is an incorrect criticism of the argument of those who are against absolution. Ritchie says that antiabsolutionists quote Mark 2:7 where Pharisees say, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Ritchie continues, “If everything the Pharisees say is so true that their quotations in Scripture can be identified as the teachings of Scripture itself, then we have to say that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is a blasphemer, too!”

While I agree with the intent of Ritchie’s statement, I believe he goes too far in this criticism of the Pharisee’s speech. In Matthew 23:3, Jesus tells his followers to do what the Pharisees said to do—but not to do what the Pharisees did. In other words, at least some of their teachings were correct.

Fur ther more, in Mark 12:28-34, Jesus indicates that the scribe’s verbal agreement about which commandments were the greatest were “intelligent” (NASV). Presumably this means that this scribe’s speech was correct. Of course this does not “prove” that the Pharisees were correct in Mark 2 (though I believe they were). But our use of Scripture in demolishing false arguments or establishing practices must be wholly valid.

— Scott Way Marietta, Georgia

Thanks for putting MR ar ticles on the web (www.AllianceNet.org)! The articles and the source material have been a real help to me, but they also force you to have to deal with letters regarding older articles!

For example, I would suggest a small change to the author information at the end of Tom Nettles’ article in the May/June 1997 MR. The biographical line reads: “Dr. Tom J. Nettles is Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Church.” I believe it would be more accurate to state that Dr. Nettles is “an ordained Southern Baptist,” or perhaps is “ordained in the Southern Baptist Convention,” or even “is ordained by a Southern Baptist church.” Baptist ordination is conferred by a local church body on the basis of their examination and judgement, and not any official denominational body. As Baptists, we eschew the idea that our churches are not independent, local bodies. Although Nashville and especially the state conventions may on occasion exer t influence (like trying to tell us where we can and can’t go in Florida on vacation), the Conventions do not claim or hold any authority over the local congregations.

— T. F. Via America Online Thank you for providing John Warwick Montgomery’s article on “The Incarnate Christ” in the January/February issue. An apologetic based on presupposition (including that of cognitive instinct) is not adequate. A Gospel call to the evidential facts—including and especially the Scriptural evidence for Christ and his resurrection—is more intellectually and biblically sound.

— John Y. May University of Pittsburgh

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

3

In your November/December 1997 issue, you published a letter criticizing your inclusion of the article “Divine Impassibility and Our Suffering God” in the July/August 1997 issue. The letter’s author objected to the piece as overly technical and too difficult to understand. By contrast, I would like to convey my favorable response to that piece. I quite enjoyed the article. I admit that it was probably the most difficult article to read that I have seen in MR, but I never thought it was overly so. I enjoyed how it pushed me to consider the issue at hand. Challenging articles like that one are one reason I subscribe to MR. I don’t know the theological background of the person who objected, but I know how limited the amount of my own theological training is. I took no religion/theology classes while (recently) in college. What I have learned theologically is the result of my own pursuits, such as my subscription to MR. In sum, I hope it is the general consensus of your reading public that the article in question was not so difficult as to be “above” a significant portion of your audience.

— Stephen Shelby Davis, California Oh No! In my first issue of modernREFORMATION (May/June 1998), I made it all the way to page two when I saw that most awful and offensive of popular phrases, “Mother Nature.” It was even given the undeserved dignity of being capitalized, and it stood

continued from page 2 There could be no lasting unity apart from this truth. If the doctrine of Christ’s incarnation divides, so be it.

Indeed, in the Early Church, this matter would need to be defined even more. But the clarifications aimed toward unity in the truth. The means of distinguishing the faith from all impostors were the ecumenical creeds: Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.

And it is not surprising that these summary statements of essential matters grew longer over time, as there were more false formulations needing to be denied in order to clearly confess the true faith. Likewise, the confessions of the Reformation admitted the division between

4

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

alone without quotation marks, unlike many other duly marked phrases in that column.

We cannot afford to give such dignity to the newage, mother Earth, animals-are-people-too, you-have-alovely-aura crowd by using a prominent feature of their lexicon either in print or in daily conversation! Nature is not an entity. It is the creation of our Holy Lord.

That being said, I must commend you on the rest of your magazine. My mind craves intelligent discussion, thought, and education and you provide that. I must admit that some of the denominational terminology and practices I am unfamiliar with, but I’m learning.

— Chris Immel Elkton, Kentucky

Let us hear from you! modernREFORMATION: Letters to the Editor 1716 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Fax: (215) 735-5133 ModernRef@aol.com www.AllianceNet.org

Protestant and Roman Catholic communions, but in so doing, these confessions clearly proclaimed the Gospel around which the faithful can and must unite. For it is the Gospel that creates the Church, not the Church that creates the Gospel.

So how do we affirm precise definitions of the truth and yet also seek unity in that truth in our day? This is the complicated matter we want to start exploring in this issue. As we consider past and present attempts to reconcile differences in the Church, we have no illusions that the task is easy. But we cannot, because of the complexity, ignore this calling. It was Christ’s prayer that we be one; it must also be ours.

MODERN REFORMATION

Regensburg and Regensburg II: TRYING TO RECONCILE IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES ON JUSTIFICATION R. SCOTT CLARK

Thus, from the point of view of historic Protestant orthodoxy, it is remarkable that since the early 1980s, on more than one occasion, Protestants and Roman Catholics have reached (apparent) agreement on the doctrine of justification. Most notable among these agreements has been the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) 1987 statement, “Salvation and the Church,” “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (1994), the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” approved by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (1997), and most recently, “The Gift of Salvation” or ECT II.2 To many Christians (both broadly evangelical and in the liberal mainline) the time appears to be right to heal what seems to them to be the shame of Christendom: the schism between Wittenberg and Rome. This is not the first time that there has been such a flurry of ecumenism. For a time in the early 1540s it appeared to several leading Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians that the division might be healed.

Ecumenism is well and good, but what about justification?

Then, as today, the evangelicals and Roman Catholics had a plan: they called it “double justice” (duplex iustitia).

On April 27, 1541, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V convened the Imperial Reichstag (parliament) and a theological conference at Regensburg (also known as Ratisbon). Threatened to his west by France and to his east by Muslim armies, he needed a unified Empire, and to get that he needed the support of the Lutheran Electors. 3 To garner that support, he needed his theologians to find a formula on which they could agree.4 In attendance at Regensburg were some of the

Historic District of Regensberg, Adam Woolfitt/©Corbis

When in 1618 the Reformed theologian J. H. Alsted (1588-1638) declared that the Protestant doctrine of justification is that “article of faith by which the church stands or falls” (articulus stantis et candentis ecclesiae), he was only repeating what all Protestants had learned from Mar tin Luther and what all tr ue Protestants and evangelicals still believe.1

greatest and most interesting theologians of the sixteenth century. Among the Protestants were Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) and Martin Bucer (14911551). Watching the match from the sidelines was John Calvin (1509-64). Representing Pope Paul III (14681549) were Cardinal Gasparo Contarini (1483-1542), Johann Gropper (1503-59), Luther’s nemesis Johann Eck (1486-1543), and Johann Pighius (c.1490-1542).

The participants quickly agreed on the first four articles regarding original sin and Pelagianism.5 Then, after only five days, on May 3, the theologians reached agreement on Article 5, “On the Justification of Man.”6 This consensus did not, however, drop out of the sky.

Two abortive conferences had already been held, one in SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

5

Hagenau (June 1540) and the other in Worms (January 1541). The Augsburg Confession was the basis for these conferences and the principal reason for their failure.

The prevailing Roman doctrine of justification taught that justification was the result of sanctification. There was no way to merge that doctrine with the Augsburgers’ forensic doctrine (i.e., that justification was a legal verdict, not a process). For this reason, prior to Regensburg, Martin Bucer and John Gropper had developed an alternative document known as the Regensburg Book. It was this book which, having been read and revised by Cardinal Contarini, formed the basis for the discussions at Regensburg.

The Medieval-Roman Doctrine of Justification The dominant medieval doctrine of justification taught that sinners are righteous before God only when and because they are transformed internally and morally.

The justice of God was said to be distributed to sinners, through the church, in the process of justification. In short, according to Rome one can only be said to be justified because one is sanctified. Further, cooperation with infused grace was of the essence of the received medieval and Roman doctrine of justification.

There were two assumptions about the nature of grace which were essential to this view. First among them was the belief that sanctifying/saving grace (gratia) is a sort of medicinal substance with which the sinner must be infused and which must remain in and actively transforming him. The second assumption was that God had endowed the Church with this medicine and the power to dispense it to God’s people. The sacerdotal system arose to mediate salvation to the Church. Behind the sacerdotal system was, however, another assumption: God’s justice is such that justification is achieved by the result of the gradual accumulation of justice so that eventually one would be completely, intrinsically just and therefore able to stand before God. The three Christian virtues, faith, hope, and love, were considered to be divinely wrought or infused powers, by which the sinner might be gradually transformed to saint. Thus, faith is and sanctification is justification, and they are received initially in baptism. Such beginning faith was called “unformed faith” (fides infirmis), i.e., unrealized by a disposition (habitus) toward obedience. Faith was said to be strengthened in the sacrament of confirmation to an assent to the authoritative teaching of the Church (credulitas), but still “unfor med” or unfinished.

Following the grace of confirmation, the sinner was said to be in a position to exercise a “faith formed by love” (fides formata caritata), i.e., to begin to take the steps of cooperation with grace toward eventual justification.

Thus, in the Roman system faith is obedience and devotion to Christ and his Church. Because it was said 6

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

to be progressive, justification could not ordinarily be attained finally in this life. The final verdict was a matter of uncertain future expectation (spes).

The new Catholic Catechism (1992) makes it clear that according to Rome, justification is still sanctification.

The verb “to justify” means “to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us” Christ’s righteousness.

Justification is conversion or moral renewal. Quoting Trent (6.7) the catechism repeats: “justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”7 With justification “faith, love and hope are poured into our hearts.” 8 “Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom.”9 The Protestant Doctrine of Justification In the years 1513-19, as he lectured through the Psalms, Romans, and Galatians, and as he was driven to work out his theology in controversy with Eck and his other critics, Mar tin Luther (1483-1546) fundamentally rejected the medieval scheme of progressive justification. He came to see that the Good News is that Christ is the righteousness of God (iustitia Dei) and that this righteousness is outside of us. Sinners are not justified because they are sanctified, but rather, they are justified because Christ fulfilled all righteousness, and his righteousness has been imputed to us. Luther’s doctrine of justification was judicial (actus forensis). For Luther, justification was a legal matter, a declaration and accounting by God. No longer are we to think that God says we are just only because we really are intrinsically just. Rather, we are just because Christ was and his justice is credited or imputed to us. (It is this doctrine of justification that is enshrined in the Augsburg Confession [1530], Art. 4; Belgic Confession [1561], Articles 22-23; Heidelberg Catechism [1563], Ques. 60; and Westminster Confession of Faith [1647], Chap. 11.)

With this recovery of the forensic doctrine of justification came the correlate doctrine of faith. From 1518, Luther began to speak of faith no longer as an infused virtue, a disposition toward obedience, but rather as a divinely wrought gift, the instrument which looks away from one’s self and lays hold of Christ and his righteousness. For Luther and the Protestants, it is not faith per se, but Christ, the object of faith who justifies and saves. Faith does not look within (to sanctification), but without: to Christ. The corollary to the Protestant definition of faith was a revised definition of grace. It was no longer considered to be a medicinal substance with which we are infused for transformation and eventual justification, but a way of describing God’s unmerited favor (favor Dei) toward sinners.10 It is these truths that we uphold in the slogan: by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

MODERN REFORMATION

The Regensburg Compromise The theologians needed a tertium quid (a third thing) which the two sides could jointly affirm. The doctrine of justification on which Bucer and Gropper agreed was a version of “twofold justice” (duplex iustitia).11 In his Enchiridion (1538) Gropper had taught that one is justified by an infusion of divine justice (iustitia inhaerens) which would lead to the addition of further justice through sanctification (iustitia acquisita). He was prepared to accept, however, Melanchthon’s definition of imputation as an addition to his own doctrine of justification.12 For his part, Bucer had already been teaching a rather different doctrine of duplex iustitia in which sinners are said to be justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (iustificatio impii). 13 Having been declared righteous, the justified man will necessarily manifest this righteousness by obedience. For Bucer, “God never imputes righteousness without also imparting it.” 14 Bucer called this secondary justification the “justification of the pious” (iustificatio pii). Nevertheless, he was explicit throughout his teaching that sanctification was no part of the ground of our justification, but the result of it. Therefore, his two types of justification were not synonyms but correlates. Bucer’s doctrine of duplex iustitia was part of the development of Reformed theology from the earliest Protestant expressions of justification and the later Reformed forms. His doctrine of “double justice” was, in fact, virtually what Luther taught in 151819, and merely an early transitional form in the development of the Reformed doctrine of justification.15 What he actually meant to teach is that Christ’s benefits are twofold: justification and sanctification. The latter follows and manifests the former.16 But what to do with the doctrine of sanctification?

The medieval church had taught justification through sanctification for a millennium. Luther himself had taught a vigorous doctrine of sanctification (see Luther’s exposition of the Ten Commandments in the Larger Catechism), but neither he nor Melanchthon had found a stable place in their theology for their doctrine of sanctification. Still the questions remained, what do the Protestants believe about sanctification? Where does it belong in their theology? There was more to be said about sanctification than simply that it does not justify.

Thus, Reformed theology set about restructuring Protestant theology to preserve the crucial Law-Gospel

dichotomy in justification and to account for the biblical teaching about Christian living. This is why, e.g., the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) was written in three parts: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The first two parts of the catechism correspond to the classic Protestant LawGospel dichotomy. The third section of the catechism builds its doctrine of the Christian life on that essential Protestant foundation.

Thus there was a sharp difference between Gropper’s doctrine of justification and Bucer’s, as sharp as the dichotomy between Law and Gospel. Bucer, like all Protestants, began with imputation whereas Gropper was using imputation as window dressing, as a concession to the Protestants while retaining the old scheme of justification by sanctification.

In his Epistle on Justification (1541), written days after the colloquy, Cardinal Contarini proposed an approach to synthesize Gropper’s and Bucer’s view. He defined the verb “to be justified” (iustificari) to mean “to be made just and therefore also to be considered just.”17 Thus, for Contarini, there are two g rounds of justification: imputation and sanctification.

Nevertheless, the Protestants were ready for the sort of compromise offered by Contarini. Melanchthon, like Bucer and Calvin, considered Contarini’s and Gropper’s agreement regarding imputation to be a concession which they were entitled to interpret in a way which did not fundamentally threaten the Augsburg Confession’s (Article 4) teaching that sinners are justified by the imputation of Christ’s extrinsic righteousness.

Article 5 of the Regensburg Book was headed: De Iustifcatione Hominis (On the Justification of Man). From the outset it was clear that what the Roman delegates wanted was a clear statement that those who are reconciled to God must be transformed. No one can claim to be reconciled to God and remain a slave to sin.18 “By the Holy Spirit the human mind is moved toward God through Christ and this movement is through faith.”19 Such language was ambiguous enough to facilitate a formal agreement. Contarini and Gropper could say the sanctifying work of the Spirit leads to justification, and the Protestants could say freedom from the bondage of sin is the natural result of justification. The definition of faith even continued by declaring that faith includes assent to all that God has handed down to us and believing the divine promises

Is faith efficacious because

it apprehends Christ or because it transforms? Regensburg wanted it both ways.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

7

“most certainly and without doubt.”20 Out of God’s promises one obtains confidence “for the sake of the promise of God” by which “the forgiveness of sins is offered freely.”21 The Protestants had some reason to consider this last expression a concession, since the Roman delegates seemed to be allowing that one could have certainty and assurance of justification in this life.

Such an admission would allow for justification as a once-for-all event rather than a process. Yet, these “Gospel” words were qualified by the following: those who might have this fiducia are those who have “repented of their former life and by this faith are lifted up to God by the Holy Spirit, and therefore they receive the Holy Spirit, the remission of sins, the imputation of justice, and innumerable other gifts.”22 Who has sufficiently repented to merit adoption, the imputation of righteousness and the other “benefits of Christ”? Who then can have confidence before God? This ought to have troubled the Protestant negotiators. Yet Article 5 also said that “sinners” are justified through a “living faith” (per fidem vivam).23 If sinners are justified, the Protestant view must be presupposed, since in the Roman view, God never justifies any but the righteous.

Yes, but what is a “living faith”? “That faith is living therefore, which apprehends mercy in Christ, and believes that justice which is in Christ is imputed to him and at the same time receives the promise of the Holy Spirit and love. Therefore justifying faith is that faith which is efficacious through love.”24 Brilliantly and deliberately ambiguous, this definition would satisfy everyone at Regensburg—and no one else. First of all, it was “living faith” under discussion rather than “true faith” or “faith alone” (sola fide). Yet, no Protestant could deny that he believed that any saving faith must be a living faith, but the Romanists could say that any faith which is living is a working faith and therefore sanctification is included in justification!

Yet here faith “believes” (credit) that Christ’s justice has been imputed to one. This is clearly Protestant. In reaction to this very language, the Council of Trent (which would later condemn all Protestants) makes it clear that according to Rome, one is not merely reputed, but is actually, intrinsically just.25 The twofold nature of the Regensburg doctrine of justification, however, becomes even clearer in the next line. A living faith might be the sole instrument of justification (because it apprehends Christ’s righteousness), but it also receives sanctification and therefore, though the conferees avoided the traditional medieval language “faith formed by love” (fides formata caritate), “efficacious through love” was close enough to Rome’s basic position. Is faith efficacious because it apprehends Christ or because it transforms? Regensburg wanted it both ways.

8

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

Thus it seems obvious that the document contained just enough concessions to both sides to make it truly, as Luther said, a “gluing together” of irreconcilable views.26 It was apparent as soon as the colloquy broke up that there was no real agreement on justification after all.

Contarini and Gropper interpreted Article 5 in a way which would ultimately be consistent with Trent. Bucer and Melanchthon put a Protestant spin on the article.

Bucer wrote to Charles V to say that if the Romanists persisted in interpreting Article 5 to mean that we are justified because we are sanctified, then he wanted no part of it.27 Though it was sufficiently vague to suit the Emperor’s purposes, it was not unclear to Luther or Rome. Both rejected it categorically. Both knew that double justification was an unstable formula because it attempted to combine two mutually exclusive doctrines of God and his justice, grace, and faith.

From a confessional Protestant point of view, the Regensburg version of “double justice” must be judged a failure. The Gospel is simply not that difficult. Christ died for and justified sinners. Having been declared just once for all, we are renewed by God’s Spirit through the Word and Sacraments. 28 Like justification, our sanctification is also the gift of God, but it is no part of the ground of our righteousness before God. Conclusion: Regensburg II The “double justice” scheme of Regensburg has not gone away quietly. It has become the model for ARCIC (1987) and ECT II (1997).29 In the latter, as with Regensburg Article 5, there are twin grounds of justification, Christ’s imputed righteousness and the infusion of sanctifying grace. As with Regensburg, faith is both the instrument of justification and faith is obedience. Contrary to the claim of ECT II, this is not what the reformers meant by sola fide.

Thus with ECT II, we have come full circle to Regensburg and Cardinal Contarini’s doctrine of double justice. It was one thing, however, for Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin to treat Regensburg as a victory over Rome in the 1540s. It is quite something else for evangelicals to try that trick again 450 years later. With Luther we too ought vigorously to reject this version of double justice.

Protestants cannot subscribe to a statement on justification which makes even divinely, graciously worked sanctification any part of the ground of our justification. Sanctification is and must be the fruit of justification. Here we must stand, we can do no other. MR Dr. Scott Clark is academic dean and assistant professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.

MODERN REFORMATION

“Can Two Walk Together Except They Be Agreed?”: ECUMENISM AS A TWENTIETH CENTURY CHURCH CONCERN PAUL SCHAEFER Geoffrey Wainwright, a leading scholar on the Ecumenical Movement, states: [The Ecumenical Movement is the] name given in modern times to the concer ted drive toward the attainment or restoration of unity among Christians and their communities throughout the world… . Derived from the Greek oikoumene, meaning the inhabited earth, ecumenism refers to the efforts of Christians and their communities to live in such unity that they may with one heart and one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 15:5-6), and by their witness bring the world to believe in the divine mission of the Son (John 17:21).1 For many evangelicals, however, the word “ecumenical,” if even used in our vocabulary, usually raises red flags.

The term has connotations of liberal, anti-dogmatic, service-oriented Christianity without doctrinal substance. In one cartoon, a large gothic church is pictured with two men dressed in clerical attire serving as greeters. The Devil, in a business suit and carrying a briefcase, enters the church. As he does, one cleric says to the other, “Hey do you think we might be taking the ecumenical movement just a bit too far?”

The problem is exacerbated by the plain fact that evangelicals don’t generally use the word. Although “ecumenical” has a lineage back to the Greek New Testament, it occupies little place in evangelical parlance, especially among laypeople. Historian George Marsden

notes, with some humor in his Reforming Fundamentalism, that when in 1949 Fuller Seminary hired Bela Vassady, a leading Hungarian Reformed theologian, naming him Professor of Biblical Theology and Ecumenics, few of Fuller’s constituents knew what the word “ecumenics” meant. Instead, many thought that Vassady had been serving on a “Hungarian ‘economical’ committee” before coming to America.2 Christians who take seriously the prayer of our Lord in John 17 that we are “to be one” and also the Apostolic admonition of Paul in Ephesians 4 to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit” surely should be seeking ways to proclaim visibly our oneness in Christ to a world in desperate need of good news— whether we use the word “ecumenical” or not. But how?

We have witnessed in this century an intensification SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

9

of ecumenical discussion. Protestant communions have engaged in dialogue among themselves and also with the Orthodox and Roman communions. Such discussion has not been limited to the so-called “mainline” churches either, for evangelicals—both within and without the mainline—have also been involved in seeking a greater visible unity, both through official church agencies involved in cooperation as well as through paraecclesiastical agencies. I would like to trace briefly some of these efforts from the first half of the twentieth century (primarily among the so-called “mainline”) and also give some analysis and critique. One question we must always try to answer as we seek greater visible unity and as we long to “grow up into Christ” is how do we do so all the while “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15)?

From Edinburgh 1910 to Amsterdam 1948 Contemporary ecumenism was born in 1910 at the International Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland. The impetus for such a gathering stretched back into the dreams of many of the great nineteenth century missionaries, including William Carey, one of the pioneers of modern mission efforts. 3 The meeting brought together more than 1,200 delegates from many denominational and independent mission agencies.

Under the leadership of John R. Mott, an American Methodist who had been influenced by D. L. Moody and who had founded the Student Volunteer Movement and the World’s Student Christian Federation,4 and Joseph H. Oldham, the Conference sought not only to define areas where substantial agreement allowed cooperative efforts among mission agencies but also to energize the participants toward greater visible unity on a worldwide scale. As Mott declared at the end of the Conference: In a few hours we shall be scattering ourselves among the nations and the races of mankind, and God sends us forth to large things. He is a great God… . Our best days are ahead of us and not in these ten days that we have spent together, still less in the days that lie behind them. Why? Because we go forth tonight with larger knowledge, and this in itself is a talent which makes possible better things. We go out with a larger acquaintanceship, with deeper realization of this fellowship which we have just seen, and that is a rich talent which makes possible wonderful achievements. Our best days are ahead of us because of a larger body of experience now happily placed at the disposal of all Christendom.5 As we’ve stated, Edinburgh 1910 had been a dream of many missionaries and was driven by the revival 10

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

impulse which had swept much of America and Europe throughout the nineteenth century. Those revivals had come largely in two waves, one early in the century and called “the Second Great Awakening” in America, and one later in the century and often associated with the revivals led by Moody and Ira Sankey.6 Looking at reports of the Conference and some of the addresses themselves gives the impression that the Conference itself was “broadly evangelical.”

In saying this, however, two important issues should be considered. First, much of the nineteenth century revivalism, while evangelical in one sense, is not without criticism from a biblical and confessional perspective.

Indeed, several articles in past modernR EFORMATION issues have tried to show this.7 Second, by the time of Edinburgh 1910, Protestant churches throughout Europe and America faced a clear crisis of direction because of the influence of the various “liberal” or “modernistic” theologies associated with figures and movements like Schleiermacher, Ritschl, von Harnack, the Tubingen School, and the Social Gospel Movement.8 Such theologies accommodated far more to prevailing culture than most perceptive evangelicals would allow.

While it can be argued that such theological liberalism had not infected many or even most of the Conference’s delegates, some of the enthusiastic rhetoric of Edinburgh 1910 might well have been tempered by acknowledging this ecclesiastical crisis. Two decades later, this crisis saw the fragmenting of a number of American denominations from which many delegates were drawn. Also, of course, the decade of Edinburgh 1910 itself witnessed the social, political, and even religious upheaval spurred on by the First World War. Mott’s vision of “better days ahead,” however, was rewarded in the 1920s with the forming of three bodies: the International Missionary Council (first meeting, 1921, Lake Mahonk, New York), the “Life and Work” movement (first meeting, 1925, Stockholm), and the “Faith and Order” movement (first meeting, 1927, Lausanne). “Faith and Order” had another meeting in Edinburgh in 1937 and “Life and Work” had a second meeting in Oxford in 1937 also before these two organizations merged at the forming of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1948 (Amsterdam). There was movement toward forming this agency prior to 1948, but actual formation had to wait until the Second World War ended. From its inception, the WCC was never to be a “super-church” but rather a gathering for mutual discussion, larger recognition of Christians outside one’s own communion, and greater use of resources for common concern.9 The International Missionary Council continued as a separate entity, with meetings in Oxford (1923), Jerusalem (1928), Madras (1938), Whitby (1947), Willingen (1952), and Ghana (1958), before MODERN REFORMATION

joining the World Council of Churches in 1961.10 The desire that churches themselves (and not just missions board representatives) engage in discussions regarding greater visible unity, was stimulated by the report “An Appeal to All Christian People” from the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in 1920, and the 1920 encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople of the Orthodox Communion entitled “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere.” Many assume that this encyclical had been drafted by an important Orthodox ecumenist Germanos of Thyateira.11 Indeed, the Orthodox Communion has been influential in World Council deliberations with virtually every Orthodox Church today being a member church of the World Council.12 The “Appeal” issued by the Lambeth Conference contained the so-called Lambeth Quadrilateral, a fourpoint outline suggesting the way to g reater visible unity. Actually, the Quadrilateral might be termed a Trilateral since the four th point—a recognition that the “historic episcopate” served as “the best instrument” for preserving unity and continuity with the Christian tradition—the Bishops well knew would be difficult for Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Independents to accept. As to the other three, the “Appeal” stated:

While much of this statement contains elements that any confessional Protestant would find extremely positive and fruitful for engaging in dialogue across denominational boundaries, one also notes that there is no direct recognition of the necessity of the solae of the Reformation in this urge to greater visible unity.

Interesting, also, is the statement that the Nicene Creed forms a “sufficient” declaration of the Christian faith.

A reader of this magazine, aware that the Church of England produced the irenic yet clearly Reformational Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, might ask why central elements of this important symbol of Anglican identity were not included (particularly the Reformation solae mentioned above). We need to remember that by 1920, the Anglican Communion had three major sub-groupings within it, the Evangelical, the Broad Church Party, and the Anglo-Catholic, each with its own divergences. Nevertheless, anyone from an historic Protestant communion, concerned to uphold the Reformation solae as crucial for any dialogue about visible unity and cooperation in joint mission (not because of tradition—after all we believe in sola scriptura—but because we believe them to be at the very heart of the Gospel), would have to ask whether the “agreements” from Lambeth carry enough clout for the unity these Bishops so earnestly and forthrightly desired.

While space does not permit fully examining “Faith and Order” and “Life and Work” prior to their merging to become the World Council of Churches in 1948, at least one crucial point must be noted. All too often evangelicals, unacquainted with the history of the ecumenical movement among the older mainline denominations, assume by way of caricature that this movement was unconcerned with doctrine. Such an assumption, however, is a mistake. It is true that members involved in the “Life and Work” organization often followed the motto “doctrine divides and service unites”; nevertheless, those involved in “Faith and Order” consistently wrestled with doctrinal issues, recognizing that dealing with doctrinal issues had to be an important part of any ecumenical agenda. Moreover, we evangelicals are surely not immune to this problem either.

How often do we hear “Is this practical?” when we are in the midst of discussing theology, supposedly something very high on the evangelical agenda?

We are quite individualistic,

not willing to be patient with the pace of ecclesiastical reflection and debate. Yet the task of an “ecumenism of conviction and not accommodation” takes time.

We believe that the visible unity of the Church will be found to involve the wholehearted acceptance of: — The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith; and the Creed commonly called Nicene, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, and either it or the Apostles’ Creed as the baptismal confession of belief: — The divinely instituted sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion, as expressing for all the corporate life of the whole fellowship in and with Christ: — A ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body.13

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

11

Charles Brent, an American Episcopalian missionary to the Philippines, who served as a delegate to Edinburgh 1910 and who would be instrumental in forming “Faith and Order,” was concerned to ensure that the emerging ecumenical movement placed doctrinal concerns high on the agenda. “Convinced that ‘whenever God gives a vision, He also points to a new responsibility,’ Brent believed the dream of a united church [as had been talked about at Edinburgh 1910] brought the duty of confronting the doctrinal differences Edinburgh had skirted.”14 To highlight the very real tensions when placing theological concerns on the agenda, Marlin VanElderen relates this anecdote: “The breadth of the theological gulf between Christian confessions is disclosed by the report [of the first meeting of “Faith and Order”] of a brief exchange… : after an Orthodox delegate insisted that ‘we must declare loyalty to the Nicene Creed,’ a Congregationalist stood up to say, ‘Well, I think we should clear all that old lumber out of the way!’”15 Of course, when “Faith and Order” met for its initial meeting in 1927, the delegates faced a problem already mentioned: the older Protestant churches had a doctrinal diversity not only in substance but also in theological method, vision, and essential doctrines.

Such diversity existed not only between the communions but within the communions as well. One can assume that delegates at the first meeting comprised at least three if not four perspectives: a broadly evangelical one, as evidenced by the tone of Edinburgh 1910; a kind of ecumenical catholicism which placed a premium on the Great Creeds of the first five centuries as evidenced by the participation of theologians from the Orthodox Communion as well as some Anglicans instrumental in the Lambeth Conference of 1920; and the aforementioned “liberal” or “modernistic” bent since this had been for some time becoming the dominant theology in much of Europe if not America. The fourth perspective, the new “dialectical” or “neoorthodox” school emerging from Switzerland and associated with the names Karl Bar th and Emil Brunner,16 may at this point not have been too strong but it would become a dominant voice in “Faith and Order” discussions in the years ahead both before and after the formation of the World Council of Churches.

Probably the most famous effort of “Faith and Order” has been the 1982 document Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry.17 While this document comes from a period beyond the scope of this essay, its original impetus came at the Lausanne meeting of “Faith and Order” in 1927.

In other words, the future “Faith and Order” Committee of the World Council of Churches took well over fifty years to hammer out this document before distributing it to the member churches as a basis for dialogue.

12

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

Amsterdam 1948 and a Short Look Beyond Returning to Amsterdam 1948, the delegates of “Faith and Order” and “Life and Work” recognized that they needed one another and that they sought greater “official” involvement from their respective denominations. So, in 1938 at Utrecht (Netherlands), a committee with representatives from both organizations met and approved an inaugural united assembly for 1941. This assembly had to wait until the end of world hostilities to come to fruition. The delegates elected Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft the first general secretary of the WCC. He held this post until 1966. Coming after one of the most destructive wars ever, the title of the opening assembly, “Man’s Disorder and God’s Design,” certainly seemed appropriate. The final statement of the first assembly is an eloquent and moving appeal: It is not in man’s power to banish sin and death from the earth, to create the unity of the Holy Catholic Church, to conquer the hosts of Satan.

But it is within the power of God. He has given us at Easter the certainty that His purpose will be accomplished. But, by our acts of obedience and faith, we can on earth set up signs which point to the coming victory. Till the day of that victory our lives are hid with Christ in God, and no earthly disillusion or distress or power of hell can separate us from Him. As those who wait in confidence and joy for their deliverance, let us give ourselves to those tasks which lie to our hands, and so set up signs that men may see.18 Along with this came the stirring pledge, “We intend to stay together.” Originally representing 147 denominations worldwide, the Council today has more than 300 member denominations.

The Council encapsulated its doctrinal basis in 1948 with these words: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.” P.A. Crow adds, At the New Delhi Assembly in 1961, largely at the urging of the Orthodox [the Russian Orthodox joined in 1961 itself and other Orthodox Churches had joined even earlier], [the doctrinal basis] was expanded to its present Trinitarian form: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill their common calling to the glory of one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”19

MODERN REFORMATION

Crow also notes that a certain Christocentricity can be seen when reviewing the themes of the first and subsequent assemblies. For example: Evanston (1954), “Jesus Christ the Hope of the World”; New Delhi (1961), “Jesus Christ the Light of the World”; Nairobi (1975), “Jesus Christ Frees and Unites”; and, Vancouver (1983), “Jesus Christ the Life of the World.”20 Yet even here, the reader confronts a very real problem: what is meant by Jesus Christ? His deity is stressed, but what does this mean? For theology among the older Protestant bodies has moved even farther than the lines of demarcation of the 1920s-1930s when one usually thought in terms of evangelical, liberal, and neoorthodox theologies. Since the founding Assembly in 1948, theology on the world stage has seen the rise of neo-liberalism (Tillich et al.), radical theology (the socalled “death of God” movement), the Theology of Hope, the various liberation theologies, process theology, and postliberalism (which has a certain “postmodern” bent),21 to name just some.22 Can the doctrinal basis be used as a wax-nose, shaped by whichever “Christ” from whichever of these theologies one espouses, or is there some kind of criterion?

This is indeed one of the continuing struggles that the World Council faces. Even VanElderen admits, “No ‘official WCC theology’ elaborates on what this brief common acknowledgement means. The WCC respects the freedom of its member churches to interpret this and other affirmations in the Basis according to their own teachings.”23 Since the World Council consistently insists that it is not a “super-church” (with some kind of ecclesiastical discipline) this seems proper in one sense.

Yet, since the Council is far more than a “study center” but actually encourages joint mission, social action, and the like through its auspices and agencies, and since it claims to be a “fellowship” (koinonia), one certainly can ask with the words from Amos 3, “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” When John talks of fellowship in I John, certainly he has in mind something strong and vital because it is a fellowship revealed in the infallible and inerrant Holy Scriptures. While this fellowship, this “sharing of our common life” together in Jesus Christ, is something we do certainly experience together through faith, we experience together this fellowship because it is rooted in the truth found in the historical Jesus Christ, the God-man, the Word made flesh, the center of redemptive history and thus truly the Hope, Light, and Life of the World.

There has also been a kind of “wag the dog” problem that the World Council has faced throughout its fifty year existence. This is the possibility that “Life and Work” concerns combined with a mentality that “doctrine divides and service unites” will force the World Council to neglect hard doctrinal thinking

(“Faith and Order” concerns) in favor of an extreme emphasis on social action; a kind of social action, moreover, whose aims at times seem at odds with the kind of Kingdom action mandated by Scripture. We must be careful here, for the World Council has often been influential in combating racism and alleviating human suffering. Such concerns should also be a part of an evangelical social agenda, even as we try to answer such problems through biblical reflection.

The tendency among World Council members to put the accent on “orthopraxy” over “orthodoxy,” nevertheless, has been exacerbated in the past several decades by the flood of various “theologies of liberation.” These theologies have often had an either oblique or even outright revolutionary Marxist bent when interpreting biblical themes like justice, reconciliation, peace, and equality. Indeed, in 1970, even before the liberationist theologies were at their strongest, John Kromminga, then President of Calvin Theological Seminary, expressed concerns about the danger of “the obsolescence of doctrine.”24 While his book, All One Body We, is now almost thirty years old, it still serves as an excellent confessional critique of mainline ecumenism due to its very cautious and irenic tone. Rather than condemning the World Council outright, it seeks to assess what is positive as well as to argue what is negative from a biblical-confessional perspective.

As we, like Kromminga, critique the WCC, we must not forget that evangelicals have also been involved in ecumenical activities. Indeed, going back to even the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, one can find in the works of such Reformed stalwarts as John Owen and Jonathan Edwards, for example, discussions about the true basis for Christian unity and Christian cooperation amidst Christian differences. In this century, organizations like the National Association of Evangelicals (founded 1947), the World Evangelical Fellowship (founded 1951), and the International Congress on World Evangelization (first meeting in Lausanne in 1974) have helped evangelicals begin to think more globally and more ecumenically.25 These organizations have much more explicit doctrinal bases than the World Council and are generally much more evangelistic (in the classic sense of the word) in their zeal.26 Nevertheless, with the doctrinal “megashift” happening within Evangelicalism today, one wonders if some of the same tensions apparent in the World Council may affect the seemingly always-fluid movement known as Evangelicalism.27 A Concluding Thought Related to ECT Since the 1960s, Rome has also been involved in many ecumenical activities. In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople lifted the SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

13

mutual excommunication that had been in effect since the split between West and East in 1054. This, of course, opened new possibilities in Roman-Orthodox relations. Even before that, in 1961, John XXIII allowed Roman observers to sit in on the World Council Assembly at New Delhi (the Roman Archbishop of Chicago had forbidden Roman Catholics to attend the Evanston Assembly in 1954). A year later, he called the Second Vatican Council, which in its “Decree on Ecumenism” (1964) retained, on the one hand, the teaching that only through fellowship with the Roman Church could one find the means for the fullness of salvation, but, on the other, now called Christians not in communion with Rome “separated brethren” rather than “anathema.” 28 Different Roman theologians have incorporated this idea differently, thus showing the level of diversity even within the Roman communion. What this has meant for our purposes is that since Vatican II there has been an increased desire from “official” Roman agencies to dialogue with those outside the Roman fold.

Throughout this past generation, there have been Roman discussions with representative Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican bodies. Thus, ECT is nothing new even if it is more grassroots and has involved explicit evangelicals from both the old mainline and smaller more doctrinally conscious evangelical bodies.

Evangelical ignorance of ecumenical concerns outside of our usual spheres of fellowship and dialogue serves us poorly. For example, how many evangelicals, concerned over ECT I and II, whether favorably or disfavorably inclined, know about the discussions, for instance, between Rome and the Lutheran World Federation, between Rome and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and between Rome and the Anglican Communion, or of Rome’s participation (albeit as a nonmember) in various activities of the World Council of Churches? 29 Indeed, while the original drafters of the ECT documents surely knew of these “official” efforts by Rome and various Protestant bodies to dialogue over matters of faith and order (including statements about justification), the ECT documents make little reference to them. (There is one quotation from the Baptist-Roman Catholic Inter national Conversation of 1988 in ECT I in the section called “we witness together.”) More direct reference would have been helpful since these more “official” dialogues help readers to see where Rome stands today vis-a-vis mainline Protestantism. More direct knowledge of Rome’s discussions with the Orthodox Communion should be noted in this regard as well.

While g rassroots discussion (what the ECT discussions claim to be) can be helpful in noting where certain individuals stand in terms of personal faith commitments, the more “official” pronouncements give a 14

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

clearer grasp on where a particular communion presently stands and also some indication of where it is going.

ECT I and II invite us to join hands across our confessional boundaries, to consider one another “brothers and sisters in Christ,” and even to search for ways to engage in common witness and mission. These seem at first glance to be noble sentiments. After all, are not those involved in the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals doing something similar? From one not directly involved in the Alliance discussions but nevertheless sympathetic, it does indeed appear to be the case. There does, however, seem to be a difference. The agreements in a document like The Cambridge Declaration (Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996) have a long standing in evangelical reflection. Yet, as we read the ECT documents, we find little mention of the official Roman Catholic stance let alone official Protestant stances of the varied communions represented by the individuals involved on issues such as the nature of true biblical faith, fellowship, and mission. Can the two sides really say “we affirm, contend, etc., together” unless they are agreed?

Americans like streamlined efficiency, and American evangelicals are all too often very American. (After all, ours is the culture that coined the phrase “your way, right away.”) We are also quite individualistic, not willing to be patient with the pace of ecclesiastical reflection and debate. Yet the task of an “ecumenism of conviction and not accommodation” (to borrow the excellent phrase from Timothy George) takes time.30 While the signers of ECT I and II always add the caveat that they speak not “for” but rather “from” and “to” their respective communions, 31 would not stating forthrightly that these are therefore merely “study documents” to be considered by the respective communions—and not actual “agreements”—enhance their value even if such a statement forced the signers to offer a more modest announcement? MR Dr. Paul Schaefer (D.Phil., Oxford) is associate professor of religion and philosophy at Grove City College.

MODERN REFORMATION

QUOTES “Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.” — John 17:11 “For there have always been those who, imbued with a false conviction of their own perfect sanctity, as if they had already become a sort of airy [spirit], spurned association with all men in whom they discern any remnant of human nature. The Cathari of old were of this sort, as well as the Donatists, who approached them in foolishness. Such today are some of the Anabaptists who wish to appear advanced beyond other men. There are others who sin more out of an ill-advised zeal for righteousness than out of that insane pride. When they do not see a quality of life corresponding to the doctrine of the gospel among those to whom it is announced, they immediately judge that no church exists in that place… . For where the Lord requires kindness, they neglect it and give themselves over completely to immoderate severity. Indeed, because they think no church exists where there are not perfect purity and integ rity of life, they depar t out of hatred of wickedness from the lawful church, while they fancy themselves turning aside from the faction of the wicked.”

— Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.13.

“I feel that our position is a pathetic one. Indeed to me it is a tragic one. Why do I say this? My first answer is this. Can we deny the charge that we, as evangelical Christians, have been less interested in the question of church unity than anyone else? I say we cannot deny that charge. Everybody seems to be talking about church unity except evangelicals. Surely, with our view of Scripture and with our knowledge and understanding of it, we, of all people, ought to be the first to preach the vital necessity of church unity; but we are the last to do so.”

— D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, “Evangelical Unity: An Appeal,” in Knowing the Times, 249.

“Question: When do we use the doctrine of the Church properly?

Answer: A) When we take heed to be and remain

members of the invisible Church by sincere faith in the Redeemer; B) When we adhere to the Church which teaches the Word of God in all its purity; C) When we do all in our power to maintain, promote, and extend this Church by prayer, personal service, and financial support; and D) When we avoid all false churches… .”

— Martin Luther, Small Catechism, Question 186.

“According to the maxims of universal toleration, the Romans protected a superstition [the Jewish religion] which they despised. The polite Augustus condescended to give orders that sacrifices should be offered for his prosperity in the temple of Jerusalem; while the meanest of the posterity of Abraham, who should have paid the same homage to the Jupiter of the Capitol, would have been an object of abhorrence to himself and to his brethren. But the moderation of the conquerors was insufficient to appease the jealous prejudices of their subjects, who were alarmed and scandalised at the ensigns of paganism, which necessarily introduced themselves into a Roman province. The mad attempt of [the Roman Emperor] Caligula to place his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem was defeated by the unanimous resolution of a people who dreaded death much less than such an idolatrous profanation.

Their attachment to the law of Moses was equal to their detestation of foreign religions.”

— Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 15.

“Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided?”

— 1 Cor. 1:10-13.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

15

“…This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.”

— Conclusion of the Athanasian Creed “[J. Gresham] Machen first voiced objections to liberal Protestant double-talk during his attack upon the plan for church union. He was particularly alarmed by the creedal basis for union… . It merely affirmed the trinity, the church, the Bible, and eternal life, thus substituting ‘meaningless generalities’ for statements of faith that were the ‘carefully formulated result of centuries of controversy.’ The creed was so vague that even Unitarians could subscribe to it. Machen rejected the suggestion that this was an effort to put into simple words what had traditionally been stated in technical theological language. Rather, it was fur ther evidence of the church making Christian truths subservient to specific social ends.”

— D. G. Hart, Defending the Faith, 77.

“The rapid prog ress of the ecumenical movement, so clearly expressed in the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948, stimulated a need among Roman Catholics for definite guidance in the ecumenical field.

The ‘Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement,’ issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in Rome on December 20, 1949, carefully defined the way in which certain Roman Catholics may participate in interchurch discussion.

The document explains that ‘Catholic Ecumenism’ means the return of nonCatholics to the Roman Church.”

— H. S. Smith, R. T. Handy, and L. A. Loetscher, “Catholic Instruction on Ecumenics,” in American Christianity, vol. 2, 579-80.

“How often have we, as evangelicals, discussed the doctrine of the church? I have been associated—as friends have been kind enough to say this evening—with evangelical activities and movements for nearly thirty years here in London, and I have noticed throughout those years that we could never get a discussion on the doctrine of the nature of the church. Why not?

Because we have always been happy to act in terms of 16

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

these movements, and the authorities in the movements have always pointed out, You cannot do that, you will offend this person or that. In other words, if you discuss the doctrine of the church you would cause division. The result has been that, so often, we have neglected the doctrine of the church altogether. So the charge that is brought against us by members of the ecumenical movement and by the liberals has always been: You evangelicals are not interested in the church, you are only interested in personal evangelism. I am here to say that I am afraid that there is far too much truth in that charge. And it is because we have faced our problems in ter ms of movements and societies, instead of facing them on the church level.”

— D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, “Evangelical Unity: An Appeal,” in Knowing the Times, 250.

“We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church—for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of ‘the church.’

We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves ‘the church.’

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: [1] The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; [2] it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; [3] it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church—and no one ought to be separated from it.”

— Belgic Confession, Article 29.

MODERN REFORMATION

The Myth of Influence W. ROBERT GODFREY

The article quoted faculty members from each of the participating schools except Fuller. The presence of Fuller at such a gathering and the absence of a quotation in the article from one of its faculty set me thinking. I do not know what Fuller faculty said at the meeting or what the actual character of the discussion was. I do know that the article leaves the impression that Fuller faculty feel

closer to progressive Roman Catholics, Jews, and Protestants than they do to conservative Protestants.

As I reflected on this article’s impact on its readers, a phrase I had often contemplated came again to mind: the myth of influence.

I could easily imagine a discussion at Fuller when the invitation to this meeting ar rived.

Surely someone said, “We should go. We can be an influence.” But judging solely from the ar ticle, what was the influence? Not that Fuller had advanced the cause of Christian truth, but that Fuller agreed with a variety of theological liberals.

For a long time, I have felt that the cause of biblical Christianity has been undermined in our time by sincere people who engage in unbiblical activities for the sake of being an influence. The sad and ironic result of those actions has been harm to the cause of Christ and little or no good influence has actually occurred. The myth of influence seduces Christians into believing that by compromising important theological truths more people can be influenced for Christ.

Now I am not opposed to the idea of trying to be an influence. The Christian community should not isolate itself from discussion with anyone or from common action with non-Christians where the faith is not compromised. Christians should hope, pray, and work to be a godly influence wherever they can in this world. Christians need to recognize that certain kinds of compromise can be appropriate. Christians and nonChristians can unite to oppose abortion, for example.

And Baptists, Reformed, and Lutherans can join the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals to promote some basic truths of the Reformation.

The danger comes, however, when Christians adopt Corey Wilkinson, scratchboard

In the March 7, 1998, issue of the Los Angeles Times, the “Religion” section featured an article entitled, “L.A.-Area Seminary Teachers Gather to Ponder the Truth.” For the four th year, the Skirball Institute on American Values drew five seminaries together for discussion: St. John’s Seminary of the Los Angeles Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church, Hebrew Union College of Reform Judaism, the University of Judaism of Conservative Judaism, Claremont School of Theology with liberal Protestant connections, and Fuller Theological Seminary with evangelical roots. The article quotes several participants on the positive character of the meeting. The comments of the moderator, Donald Miller of the University of Southern California, captured the spirit of the news report: “There is more similarity of religious views among what Miller called ‘progressive’ Jews, Catholics and Protestants than there is between orthodox and progressive believers within each faith.”

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

17

a notion of influence derived from the world of politics or business. That world sees influence in relation to power, money, numbers, and success. Compromise, cooperation, and intentional ambiguity are all methods used to achieve influence in this world. But should Christians adopt strategies and set goals that compromise basic elements of their faith in the name of influence?

Let me offer two examples to try to clarify the dangers of the myth of influence. The first relates to the ministry of Billy Graham. Billy Graham began his ministry amidst the American fundamentalism of the 1940s. In the early days he had strong support from fundamentalists like Bob Jones, Sr. and John R. Rice.

In 1951 Graham wrote, “we do not condone nor have fellowship with any form of Modernism,” a position that he reiterated to Rice in 1955.1 Yet by the New York City crusade in 1957 that position had clearly changed. Graham has defended his more cooperative approach to evangelism in these terms: My own position was that we should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us. Our message was clear, and if someone with a radically different theological view somehow decided to join with us in a Crusade that proclaimed Christ as the way of salvation, he or she was the one who was compromising personal convictions, not we.2 The problem, however, was not just that Graham increasingly had liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics on his platform and committees, but that he sent inquirers back to those churches. The crusades for a long time (perhaps from the beginning) had sent inquirers who had any kind of church connection back to the churches from which they came. By 1951 inquirers with no church connection at all were referred to a church chosen by a “designations committee” of local ministers.3 Graham faced the problem that all itinerant evangelists face, namely how to relate their work to the churches. He clearly wanted to cooperate with churches and not compete with them. From the earliest crusades he urged those who had made decisions: “Above all, go to church.”4 He has written, Our third concern [in 1948] was the tendency of many evangelists to carry on their work apart from the local church, even to criticize local pastors and churches openly and scathingly. We were convinced, however, that this was not only counterproductive but also wrong from the Bible’s standpoint. We were determined to cooperate with all who would cooperate with us 18

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

in the public proclamation of the Gospel, and to avoid an antichurch or anticlergy attitude.5 In recalling preparations for the Los Angeles crusade of 1949 he commented, “My limited experience had already shown me that without the cooperation of the local churches and their pastors, not only would attendance suffer but so would the follow-up of new Christians.”6 As a matter of conviction, he wanted his work to serve the churches, but he also wanted to be an influence by having many churches involved and having large numbers attend the meetings. Cooperation with liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics was designed to increase the influence of the ministry with the aim of seeing more people converted.

Undoubtedly, Billy Graham was utterly sincere in his pursuit of converts to Christ and in his belief that his strategy was the most effective and influential to that end. But had he been deceived by the myth of influence?

Certainly many thousands have attended crusades that would not otherwise have attended. Certainly individuals have been converted at his meetings. Certainly his decisions to be cooperative have contributed to his status as a national icon and friend of presidents. But has it made him more effective in actually preaching the Gospel and making disciples of Jesus Christ? I believe that from a human perspective more genuine disciples over the years would have been made if he had directed inquirers away from liberal and Roman Catholic churches into biblical Protestant churches.

A second example of the dangers of the myth of influence is the recent statements “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” and “The Gift of Salvation.” These two statements have been examined in the pages of this magazine and I do not want to revisit the theological problems in them. Rather, I want to observe that the evangelical participants in the meetings that produced these statements joined in these efforts out of a desire to be an influence for Christ. They doubtlessly hoped that they would influence the Roman Catholic participants—and perhaps the whole Roman Catholic Church—by presenting the evangelical faith. They hoped that they could forge an alliance with “bornagain” Roman Catholics against the unbelief and the immorality of our time. They believed that they could have great influence for good by reaching a responsible agreement with Roman Catholics.

The evangelicals involved almost certainly believe that they have succeeded beyond their hopes. The Roman Catholics, we are told, have embraced a statement that teaches justification by faith alone as taught by the Reformers. What an influence! The analyses of these two statements presented in this journal and elsewhere show that in fact this admirable goal has not been reached.

MODERN REFORMATION

In fact, the Roman Catholics have not really conceded anything new in the statement and the evangelicals have embraced all Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ, something very new for evangelicals.

Many other examples of the myth of influence could be mentioned. The church growth movement, for example, has eviscerated Christian worship in the name of evangelism. On a smaller scale, think of a pastor praying in public and not using the name of Jesus so as not to give offense. But the baleful effects of the myth of influence are everywhere.

What leads so many evangelicals to accept the myth?

Part of the motivation is the American fascination with respectability, success, and numbers. But such attitudes actually show that American evangelicals have never really left behind their nineteenth century postmillennialism. They still with great optimism look forward to the restoration of the “Evangelical Empire” of the last century. They dream of being again the “mainstream” of American religion and culture as they were before the rise of liberalism and the immigration of Roman Catholics.

An even deeper cause of the attraction of the myth of influence, however, is theological. Evangelicals who succumb to the myth of influence do so in part because of their own flawed theology. They have developed theologies which depart from the rich biblical theologies of the Reformation.

Some evangelicals have embraced the myth of influence out of an Arminian view of salvation. Since salvation ultimately depends on the consent of the free will, many theological compromises are justified in order to gain a hearing and move the unbeliever. Other evangelicals are motivated by a defective doctrine of the church. They see the church, not as an essential institution in God’s economy founded on and regulated by his Word, but as a helpful support group for the individual Christian in his walk of faith.

Both of these theological weaknesses surface in Billy Graham. His Arminianism is clear.7 His weak doctrine of the church is seen in his sending inquirers back to false churches—a fault that even he seems to recognize in his setting up Bible study courses as part of the follow-up for the inquirers.

The most tragic consequence of the myth of influence is that those who embrace it often end up being influenced by the world rather than being a good influence on the world. For example, Fuller Seminary in its efforts to be more influential by moving beyond its own fundamentalist roots 8 has abandoned basic evangelical doctrines such as the inerrancy of Scripture.

The evangelicals who signed the agreements with the Roman Catholics have undermined both their ability to witness prophetically to Roman Catholics and the work

of evangelical missions in places like Latin America.

Billy Graham in a recent interview with Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral sounded remarkably liberal: Dr. Schuller: “What I hear you saying [is] that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life, even if they’ve been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a cor rect interpretation of what you’re saying?”

Dr. Graham: “Yes, it is, because I believe that.

I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they tried to live a life that was quite apar t from the sur rounding community in which they lived.”

Dr. Schuller: “This is fantastic. I’m so thrilled to hear you say that. ‘There’s a wideness in God’s mercy.’”

Dr. Graham: “There is. There definitely is.”9 The only way to dispel the myth of influence is to commit ourselves anew to the importance of biblical theology as the foundation for Christian action. We must allow the Bible in its fullness to direct our thinking and doing. We must remember that Paul did not preach an abbreviated Gospel, but declared the whole counsel of God. When he said that he became all things to all men, he was speaking of things indifferent, not matters of basic Christian truth or ethics. He did not become a prostitute to win prostitutes, nor did he become an Arminian to win those addicted to the doctrines of the goodness of man or the freedom of the will. We need to follow the path of the Apostles and Reformers who accomplished great things for God, not by ungodly compromise, but by faithful declaration of the truth of God’s Word. MR Dr. Robert Godfrey, a member of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, is president and professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

19

Holy Communion or Unholy Chaos?

THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT’S USE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER PAUL T. MCCAIN How is it possible that the most holy night of our Lord’s life has given rise to dissension and disunity in Christendom? How can it be that our Lord’s Sacred Meal has become the cause of turmoil, confusion, and a splintering of fellowship among Christians who trace their theological ancestry to Rome, Wittenberg, Geneva, or Zurich?

The Last Supper, Leonardo Da Vinci/Planet Art

What should the Church’s response to this disunity be? There are two options. The first option is the response of historic Christianity: To lament the disunity, to pray and to work for agreement, but until genuine agreement is reached, to avoid communing together in order to avoid giving expression to a unity that does not yet exist. The second option is the response of the Ecumenical Movement: To assert that in spite of a lack of unity in the confession of the true faith, Christian churches commune together. The Ecumenical Movement’s use of the Lord’s Supper as a tool toward union has turned Holy Communion into an unholy chaos.

The New Testament and Early Church Understanding of Fellowship Historically, the Christian Church did not recognize the distinctions we know of today. The individual Christian was not considered a “free agent” when it came to where he communed. The Early Church clearly understood that church fellowship was a matter of a church’s corporate confession, not merely an expression of an individual’s personal opinions. Thus, Arians did not receive the Sacrament with a congregation that stood for Nicene orthodoxy, and Athanasian Christians would not commune at Arian altars. The Early Church recognized that church fellowship and the expression of that fellowship was always a matter of fellowship in the means by which Christ creates and sustains his Church—the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Unlike our present age, any question about what an individual Christian believed, or stood for, was decided based on where that person regularly received the Sacrament of Holy Communion.1 This was the Early Church’s understanding because

20

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

MODERN REFORMATION

it is the biblical understanding of fellowship in the faith.

The early Christians were “fervently devoted to the apostles’ doctrine, and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). Historic Christianity has known true fellowship only and exclusively in the objective reality of the fellowship God creates and sustains through his Word and his Sacraments. Our fellowship is first with God, and then with one another (1 John 1:7). Thus, the first Christians gathered around the Word (the Apostles’ doctrine) and around the Eucharist (the breaking of bread), in the context of an orderly pattern of liturgical worship (the prayers).

Because fellowship in the church is always a matter of common reception of the Lord’s gifts, the Church recognized that divisions were not to be permitted at the Lord’s Supper.

Our Lord’s Apostle, St. Paul, made that point clear when he scolded the Corinthians for their disorderly worship practices and slovenly use of the Lord’s Supper. “It is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat” (1 Cor. 11:20).

Thus, if there is disunity in confession at the altar, how can there be true communion? St. Paul taught that fellowship in what is eaten at a given altar is clearly a fellowship in what that altar stands for (1 Cor. 10:18).

To eat at an altar representing error is to have fellowship in that error. What is more, Paul declared that the cup blessed in the Lord’s Supper is nothing less than fellowship in the very blood of Christ himself, and the bread distributed is a fellowship in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Thus, whoever eats this bread or drinks of this cup in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 11:27). For both New Testament and early Christians, fellowship in the Lord’s Supper was fellowship in the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; thus, says St. Paul, “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” which is “the body” of the Lord. (1 Cor. 10:17; 1 Cor. 11:27). The Ancient Church had a beautiful expression for this. Before the Sacrament was offered to the people, the priest would say, “The holy things for the holy ones” (ta hagia tois hagiois). The early Christians clearly understood that church fellowship is always fellowship first in the holy

things of Christ which alone make us his holy people.

What then of the Apostle’s assertion that Christians are to examine themselves before they commune (1 Cor. 11:28,) and his fur ther asser tion that Christian ministers are “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1)? Orthodox Christianity, of both East and West, has always held that these two important truths require a practice that is known as closed communion.

The expression “closed communion” comes from the Ancient Church custom of dismissing those who were not eligible to receive the Sacrament before the beginning of the liturgy of the Eucharist. The dismissal of non-communicants would occur and then a deacon would cry out, “The doors! The doors!”

The church doors were then literally closed.

Closed communion is the practice of limiting participation in the Lord’s Supper to those who have been catechized and examined in the truths of the Christian faith and who have promised to believe, teach, and confess what the church in which they will commune believes, teaches, and confesses.

Thus, for the New Testament and Early Church, altar fellowship was church fellowship and church fellowship is most visibly and tangibly expressed in altar fellowship.

The Ecumenical Movement

views the Lord’s Supper as a tool to strengthen and develop an understanding of fellowship in the faith that is not seen as “uniformity but a communion of rich diversity.”

Reformation Understandings of Fellowship Luther was concerned that communicants be examined carefully in order to determine if they understood what the Lord’s Supper actually is and what is given in the Supper. Luther regarded participation in the Lord’s Supper as an act of confession of what one believes.

So did Calvin, who wrote in his Institutes that it was an outrageous act to permit those who had not confessed the true faith to commune (4.12.5). When Reformed Christians in Strasbourg signed the Wittenberg Concord thus formally embracing the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper, Reformed Christians in Zurich did not permit their students to receive the Sacrament in Strasbourg.2 Many Christian churches today view the Lord’s Supper, at best, as only a way for Christians to commune “spiritually” with Jesus Christ who is present only in heaven. Furthermore, many believe that the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar depends on the faith of the individual communicant. Therefore, most SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

21

evangelical and Protestant Christians today do not believe, as Luther and the Lutheran Confessions clearly do, that in the Lord’s Supper the bread is the Body of Christ and the wine is the Blood of Christ which is present, distributed, and received into the mouths of all who receive the Blessed Sacrament.3 Echoing the famous words of John Calvin in the Zurich Consensus, most Protestant churches today would assert: It is particularly necessary to reject every idea of a local presence. For as the signs are present in this world and are perceived with the eyes and touched with the hands, so Christ, as man, is nowhere but in heaven and is to be sought in no other way than by the mind and the understanding of faith. For this reason it is a perverse and impious superstition to enclose him under elements of this world.4 It is precisely this “perverse and impious superstition” that is taught by apostolic Scripture, confessed by early Christian orthodoxy, and still asserted as the only proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and confessionally orthodox Lutheran churches. When the claim is made (usually by Calvinists) that Lutheran and Reformed Christians are not disagreeing that Christ is present in his Supper, but only disagreeing over “how” he is present, one need only compare the following quotation from Luther’s Brief Confession to Calvin’s remarks.

I consider them all as belonging together … who will not believe that the Lord’s bread in the Supper is his true, natural body, which the godless or Judas receive orally as well as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever, I say, will not believe this, will please let me alone and expect no fellowship from me. This is final.5 To this day, or thodox, confessional Lutherans assert that Christ is actually present in the sacramental bread and wine, according to both his human and Divine natures, even as he promised to be when he took bread and said, “This is my body.” Why did the Lutherans in the sixteenth century refuse church fellowship with both radical Zwinglianism and moderate Calvinism? Why did they refuse to do this even when within their own ranks they were willing to tolerate a variety of theories on how Christ was actually present under the bread and 22

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

wine of the Eucharist? Because the Lutherans insisted on only one thing: namely, the acknowledgment that the Body and Blood of Christ are actually and truly present under the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper.

My point in asserting the clear difference between Lutherans and Reformed is not to anger my Reformed and non-Lutheran friends, but rather to indicate that there are in fact very serious differences between us, not trifling and inconsequential “diversities” in opinion. The same can be said about differences between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Lutherans, with all evangelical Christians, reject the Roman Catholic teaching that the Mass is the unbloody, propitiatory sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins, of both the living and the dead. This is our most important disagreement with the Roman church over the Lord’s Supper.

In spite of our differences with Rome, few Christians committed to true reconciliation of doctrinal differences would disagree with the statement found in the Roman Catholic Church’s new catechism. “The more painful the experience of divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.” 6 The point to be made, and defended, is that the precious gift of our Lord’s Supper has been turned into unholy chaos with the advent of the modern Ecumenical Movement. This is the second option for responding to differences in the understanding of the Lord’s Supper, the option to which we now turn.

The Ecumenical Movement’s Understanding of Altar Fellowship The twentieth century Ecumenical Movement began with a missionary conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910. This beginning stage reached its culmination at the first assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1948 in Amsterdam. During these earlier years a concern for consensus in doctrine was much more discernible than today. After 1948 the WCC began to distance itself from attempts to resolve doctrinal difference. As the WCC’s own book on the subject notes, “The Orthodox and Roman Catholic [churches] emphasized the need for unity in faith and tended to favor a methodology of … theological conversations, even as others were stressing solidarity in the socialpolitical crises of the day.”7 In more recent years, the WCC concedes that the emphasis is now on pluralism, that is, “the dialogue of cultures and ideologies within the now-global church.”8 Then comes this remarkably candid statement, “Until 1968 (or thereabouts), diversity was seen more as a problem to be resolved than as a characteristic of genuine unity (despite the frequent MODERN REFORMATION

assertions that ‘unity does not mean uniformity’). This began quickly to change.”9 The Ecumenical Movement views the Lord’s Supper as a tool to strengthen and develop an understanding of fellowship in the faith that is not seen as “uniformity but a communion of rich diversity.” Furthermore, the Ecumenical Movement is intent on “eliminating polemic and [fur thering] mutual understanding, reconciliation and the healing of memories.”10 In spite of pious protestations to the contrary, one is hard pressed to view such a claim as anything other than a call to simply “forget” those memories that stand in the way of fellowship. These “memories” are, for confessionally sensitive Christians, the living voice of Jesus in the Church today, which says, “This is my Body.” What the Lord has said cannot be forgotten, overlooked, marginalized, or downplayed for the sake of unity.

This brings us to today. To illustrate the unholy chaos of the Ecumenical Movement one need only review the most recent ecumenical decisions by four American Protestant denominations. In August of 1977 the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) declared itself to be in full communion with the Presbyterian Church—USA (PCUSA), the Reformed Church in America (RCA), and the United Church of Christ (UCC). The formula of agreement that brought about this sweeping union of mainline Lutheran and Reformed churches acknowledges that agreement about what the Lord’s Supper actually is was not the basis for full communion. This is a contradiction apparent to all but those who support these ecumenical decisions. Thus we read from the text of the agreement: It has not been possible to reconcile the confessional formulations from the sixteenth century with a “common language which could do justice to all the insights, convictions, and concerns of our ancestors in the faith” (A Common Calling, p. 49). However the theological conversations recognized those enduring differences as acceptable diversities with regard to the Lord’s Supper … affirming that those differences are not church-dividing, but are complementary.11 The differences that exist, and have existed since the sixteenth century, are no longer viewed as divisive. The Ecumenical Movement’s commitment to embracing

diversity, rather than resolving differences, has born full fr uit here in the United States with this broad ecumenical agreement on the part of Lutherans and Reformed churches.

Conclusion The twofold response to divisions among Christians remains yet today. Christians may either devote themselves to serious dialogue and an honest wrestling with differences with a view toward resolving them, or they may simply agree to disagree, reconciling their diversity and embracing it as a part of what it means to be the Church.

While it is true that our Lord prayed that we might all be one, first he prayed that we would be “sanctified” and “consecrated” in the truth that is known only from the Word of God, which is tr uth itself (John 17:17–18). Holy Communion or unholy chaos—these are the two options facing all churches. Faithful churches and faithful Christians will never embrace disunity. Our Lord does not want his Blessed Sacrament turned into an unholy chaos of division in the very meal and at the very moment where he joins himself to us, and thus permits us to express our innermost unity in the truth of his Word. These words of Christ, “This is my Body,” still stand firm against all who would deny them or doubt them. May God grant his Church the grace to remain steadfast in the truth of his Word. MR Rev. Paul T. McCain is the theological assistant to the president of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS).

⡐

⡑

BOOK OF CONCORD Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959) Compiled in the late 1570s, the Book of Concord comprises the historic standards of faith commonly acknowledged in the Lutheran Church.

B-LUTH-C Hardcover, $30.00

To order call (800) 956-2644 ⡏

⡎ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

23

What ECT II Ignores: THE INSEPARABLE LINK BETWEEN IMPUTATION AND THE GOSPEL R. C. SPROUL

“Evangelical”: Past and Present Etymologically the word “evangelical” is derived from the New Testament word for “Gospel,” the “evangel” or “good news.” In its most linguistic meaning the term means (or once meant) in its adjectival sense, “Gospeler.” The chief historical significance of “evangelical” grew out of the Protestant Reformation as the term was used to distinguish Protestants from Roman Catholics.

Since the magisterial reformers saw the material issue of the Reformation as the dispute over the doctrine of justification, they were convinced that the conflict focused on the question of the meaning of the Gospel itself. Sola fide was considered normative to biblical Christianity precisely because the reformers believed that sola fide was essential to the Gospel and, therefore, any “gospel” that either 24

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

rejected it or failed to include it was “another gospel” and therefore not the biblical Gospel. The chief protest of Protestantism was a protest about the Gospel. The reformers viewed the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification as a virtual repudiation of the biblical Gospel. Initially the term “evangelical” was a term of antithesis, coined to differentiate sharply between Roman soteriology and Reformation soteriology. The antithesis was so stark that Luther could call sola fide the article upon which the Church stands or falls, and Calvin could call it the hinge upon which everything turns.

In the centuries that followed the Re f o r m a t i o n , Protestantism divided into multiple denominations and communions that differed from one another on a host of disputed

Stephen A. Burch, pen and ink

Has the ter m “evangelical” become hopelessly diluted? All words, including those that serve as shorthand theological labels, are subject to the shifts of linguistic evolution. As every student of lexicography knows, word definitions are forged not only upon the anvil of etymology but are tempered in the crucible of contemporary usage. Thus, to determine what a word means one must look not only to the past but also, and especially, to the present.

MODERN REFORMATION

points of doctrine. Yet this vast diversity of doctrine did not demolish an abiding unity based upon a common understanding of the Gospel. For centuries the twin affirmations of sola scriptura and sola fide served as the unity for Protestant diversity. It gave assurance that diverse Protestant groups, that subscribed to different confessions and creeds, could still regard their doctrinal differences as intramural debates among brothers and sisters in Christ, the people of God who share a common authority in the Bible and a common faith in the Gospel. Historic evangelicals also shared a common “catholic” agreement regarding matters settled in the great ecumenical councils of the first millennium of Christianity such as the Trinity, the Atonement of Christ, his resurrection, etc.

Again for centuries the term “evangelical” served as a synonym for “Protestant.” When Protestantism was invaded by nineteenth century theological liberalism, which attacked not only the common understanding of the Gospel and the normative authority of Scripture, but basic catholic tenants of historical Christianity, the term “evangelical” became used more and more to describe those within Protestant communions who rejected liberalism and clung to orthodox Christianity.

The modernist-fundamentalist controversy further sharpened the term “evangelical” to refer to those who still affirmed the historic creeds and who believed that personal redemption was an essential concern of the Christian faith.

Evangelism was a top priority of evangelicals.

In recent years the term “evangelical” has undergone more subtle changes. The most recent crisis for understanding its meaning has been provoked by people claiming the term for themselves while repudiating its historic meaning. The “reformist evangelicals” such as McMaster University theologian Clark Pinnock, et al., have distinguished themselves from “traditional evangelicals.”

While blatantly rejecting classic and catholic theism, Pinnock and others still claim to be “evangelicals.” At the same time Roman Catholics have claimed the term for themselves while rejecting its historic usage. Keith Fournier calls himself an evangelical in the sense that he believes the gospel in terms of orthodox Roman Catholic theology.

His appropriation of the word for orthodox Roman Catholics rejects the historic usage of the term as antithesis.

Evangelicals and Catholics Together, I and II In 1994, a group of professed evangelicals issued a joint statement together with Roman Catholic leaders entitled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” Known widely as “ECT” the bulk of their joint declaration focused on the need for co-belligerence of Catholics and evangelicals working together to resist the influence of secularism in matters of abortion, political liberty, human rights, and the like. They called for a united

stand against relativism in truth and ethics. But the document went beyond what Charles Colson called a “world-view” document to declare a unity of faith and mission between Catholics and evangelicals.

The publication of ECT sparked a serious controversy precisely as the point of the declaration of a unity of faith and mission. Historic evangelicals were distressed that such a unity of faith could be declared without a unity of the Gospel itself, especially with respect to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Pleas were made to the Protestant signatories to clarify this declaration. These pleas were responded to by the 1997 joint declaration entitled “The Gift of Salvation” popularly referred to as “ECT II.”1 In this document points of agreement were articulated that the signatories believe set forth a unified agreement on sola fide itself, while issues such as the language of imputation, merit, indulgences, purgatory, etc., were left on the table for future discussion. Many professing evangelicals have lauded this new initiative as a remarkable achievement that at long last resolves the historical antithesis between Roman Catholics and evangelicals so that the two groups can now see themselves as enjoying a unity of faith in the Gospel.

Efforts in the past to reconcile the two sides have ended in an impasse over the g rounds of our justification. Does justification rest solely in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us (extra nos: outside of us) or on the righteousness of Christ that to some degree inheres in us? The two views are manifestly antithetical views of the nature of the Gospel.

The framers of the document insist that they are not speaking for their communions but to and from their respective communions. We note the importance of these prepositions, for, to, and from. What is not explicitly stated is a fourth crucial preposition—the preposition “about.” Sadly, the document proclaims a unity of faith in the Gospel shared by both communions. They are saying something about two communions that obscures the historic antithesis.

As I have always considered myself an evangelical, I was distressed that other evangelicals were declaring to the world something about me that I knew is not true. I know that as an historic evangelical I do not share a unity of faith and mission or a unity of faith in the Gospel with Rome. To be sure there are members of the Roman Catholic Church who do believe the biblical Gospel and as such are my brothers and sisters in Christ. But a blanket statement of unity in the Gospel between Roman Catholics and evangelicals is irresponsible if what is meant by the term “evangelical” is its historic sense.

In the ECT affirmations there is declared a three-fold unity between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. This unity includes a unity of faith and mission and a “unity SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

25

of the Gospel.” Perhaps no aspect of this accord has provided more discussion than the declaration of a unity of the Gospel. The controversy on this point recalls the heart of the Reformation debate, which gave definition to the historic meaning of the term “evangelical.”

“The Gift of Salvation” affirms that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ alone. This affirmation has caused many evangelicals to rejoice in that it seems to affirm the Reformation doctrine of sola fide. But before we analyze this we must look at some preliminary considerations.

If the issue of justification boils down to two mutually exclusive options, a righteousness in us or a righteousness apart from us, how can the discussion be reconciled? We meet here a clear antithesis that seems incapable of being synthesized by some mutually agreeable compromise. To ameliorate the difficulty, I can think of three possible ways to resolve the dispute: (1) evangelicals can abandon their view of sola fide and its foundation upon imputation; (2) Roman Catholics can abandon their view of inherent righteousness; or (3) a formula can be drawn up that is a studied ambiguity by which agreement is reached in words but not in substance, leaving each side the opportunity to maintain its original position.

Which of these options, if any, was pursued by the signatories of ECT I and II? On the surface it appears that it was #3. That both ECT I and ECT II are ambiguous at critical points should be clear to anyone who carefully reads the document. However, the presence of ambiguity in such documents does not require that these ambiguities are intentional. To qualify for a “studied ambiguity,” the ambiguity must be both conscious and intentional. We may wonder how it can be conscious without at the same time being intentional, but suffice it to say that both are necessary for a studied ambiguity to be “studied.”

That ECT I has conscious ambiguity is without doubt.

In a letter circulated to the signatories of ECT I written

by Richard John Neuhaus, the chief Roman Catholic architect of the document, he asks the question, “Do we mean the same thing by the words used?” He answers his own question with the emphatic words: “of course not.” On at least three occasions the chief evangelical architect, Charles Colson, declared that “after all, we don’t mean the same thing by what we said.” In response to this disclaimer, I asked Mr. Colson, “If you knew you didn’t mean the same thing by the words you used, how can you claim to the world that you have an agreement?”

With respect to ECT II, one of the Protestant scholars who worked with the group declared his relief that there were “very few intentional ambiguities” in the document. Of course if there were even a few intentional ambiguities in the text that means, according to the laws of immediate inference, that there were at 26

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

least some intentional ambiguities in the document. The question then becomes not if there are studied ambiguities, but what are they?

It is at this point that authorial intent becomes of critical importance. It is also at this point that the letter of clarification offered jointly by Timothy George, Thomas C. Oden, and J. I. Packer, released by Christianity Today is important.2 Some of the explanations offered by these men are of crucial significance, since they were designed to answer questions concerning the “purpose and intended meanings of ‘The Gift of Salvation.’”

The evangelical signatories stress that they do not claim a unity of faith with the Church of Rome but simply a unity with some Roman Catholics. They also explain that the accord is not a “complete common agreement on the doctrine of salvation as expressed in the official teaching of our respective communities,” but is a “significant first step in the right direction.” Further the writers declare, “We see our statement as expressing, not indeed unity in every aspect of the Gospel, but unity in its basic dimension.”

I am pleased by the attempts of all those involved in the preparation of the clarification statement. I was personally engaged with some of these men who were involved in its writings. I am convinced that these men, both in their clarification statement and in their formulation of “The Gift of Salvation” intended to proclaim the historic evangelical position and are convinced that was basically accomplished in the accord.

Some were effusive in their delight that their Roman Catholic “interlocutors” had yielded so much including sola fide and forensic justification. They sincerely believe that they were able to achieve unity in the basic dimension of the Gospel.

However, I do not agree that such unity was achieved; not only between evangelicals and the Roman church, but even between the evangelicals and the Roman Catholics who signed the document. I say this because I believe that the Reformation doctrine of imputation is a basic dimension of the Gospel and that the Reformation doctrine of imputation was not affirmed by “The Gift of Salvation” document.

What the letter of clarification states is vital to the question: The word imputation [not used in the body of the document] refers to God’s crediting of righteousness to us because of what Christ has done for us: which means, God’s accounting of Christ’s righteousness to all those who are united with him through faith. As Evangelicals, we saw this teaching as implicit in the doctrine of justification by faith alone and tried to express it in Biblical terms.

MODERN REFORMATION

I think it is clear by these statements that the evangelicals intended to affirm both the doctrine of justification by faith alone and its essential element, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as the sole grounds of our justification.

The problem is, however, that “The Gift of Salvation” neither explicitly affirms sola fide nor imputation. Indeed the document itself, though it does not explicitly deny imputation, does implicitly deny it.

How so?

What the document does explicitly affirm about sola fide is that some affirmations are “in agreement with what the reformers meant by sola fide.” That is, the document affirms things that agree with sola fide but does not explicitly affirm sola fide itself. It may well have been the intent of the evangelical signatories to affirm, unambiguously, the Reformation doctrine of sola fide, but the awkward wording of the assertion leaves that affirmation ambiguous. If it were unambiguous, we wonder how such Roman Catholic signatories as Keith Fournier or Richard John Neuhaus could have signed it while at the same time maintaining their allegiance to Roman Catholic orthodoxy and the Council of Trent?

The most problematic section of “The Gift of Salvation” is the section that refers to the urgent questions that are not yet resolved, which includes, among other things, the language of imputation and the question of purgatory. The language of imputation is inseparably related to the concept of imputation.

Without the concept of imputation, you do not have the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, and without sola fide you do not have the biblical Gospel.

Michael Horton has used an analogy to illustrate the problem, using the metaphor of chocolate chip cookies. If one mixes together the necessary ingredients of sugar, flour, eggs, and butter but leaves out the chocolate chips, he may produce cookies, but not chocolate chip cookies. In a word, chocolate chips are an essential ingredient to chocolate chip cookies. Without

the chocolate chips one simply does not have chocolate chip cookies. Sugar, butter, flour, etc. all “agree” with chocolate chip cookies, but in themselves don’t yield chocolate chip cookies.

Likewise though we may affirm together important elements or “ingredients” of sola fide (such that saving faith involves more than intellectual assent, and that justification issues in a changed life”), without a clear affirmation of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, achieved in his perfect active obedience (not limited to his work of atonement on the cross), sola fide is not affirmed.

To Charles Colson’s credit, it was reported that during the discussions leading up to the final draft of “The Gift of Salvation,” he steadfastly insisted that unless sola fide was included in the agreement he would not sign it. Colson is convinced that sola fide is affir med and has declared that he could not see how imputation could have been made any more clear than it is in the document.

In the clarification letter, the evangelical signatories declared that the document was a “good faith effort” by some Roman Catholics and some evangelicals “to say with as much clarity as possible” how they understand God’s gracious gift of salvation. No doubt the effort was in good faith, but that this effort yielded such clarity is doubtful. The signers of this letter acknowledge that the word “imputation” is “not used in the body of the document” but is “implicit” in it. Obviously, if clarity is the goal, the explicit is far more useful than an implication, which may or may not be drawn from the text. Since imputation goes to the heart of the historic controversy we would have hoped that any attempt to resolve that controversy would have addressed it explicitly and without ambiguity.

Some of those who prepared “The Gift of Salvation” have complained that its critics have “moved the goal posts.” That is, after ECT I the chief complaint was about sola fide. Now after ECT II the

Purgatory and sola fide are

utterly incompatible. As long as purgatory remains on the table, sola fide and the Gospel remain on the table with it. If we are justified solely on the grounds of the imputed righteousness of Christ, that justification can be neither augmented nor diminished.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

27

chief complaint focuses on imputation. That this is seen as a moving of the goal posts only underscores the theological questions raised by this initiative. The goal posts have not been moved. The question of imputation is simply a question about sola fide. If indeed imputation is essential to sola fide, then it is incomprehensible how any evangelical would see them as separate issues that “move the goal posts.”

Even more to the point is the question of purgatory.

Purgatory and sola fide are utterly incompatible. As long as purgatory remains on the table, sola fide and the Gospel remain on the table with it. If we are justified solely on the grounds of the imputed righteousness of Christ, that justification can be neither augmented nor diminished. I need no more purity to be declared righteous by God than the perfect purity of Christ, which requires no more purging of impurity in purgatory. As along as purgatory is affirmed, sola fide is not only implicitly but categorically, by necessary inference, denied. As long as purgatory remains on the table, there is no unity in “the basic dimension” of the Gospel.

During the course of discussions of the preparation of the letter of clarification, I suggested that the statement read that the evangelicals were able to reach agreement on some aspects of the Gospel but did not achieve unity in the Gospel itself. It was granted to me by two of the signatories that they had not actually reached unity in the Gospel with their Roman counterparts. Somewhere along the way that reading was changed to its present form that declares a unity in the Gospel’s basic dimension.

What of forensic justification? The term “forensic justification” has been used in evangelical theology to refer to God’s legal declaration, by which he declares the believer just in Christ by virtue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to him. The letter of clarification says: “‘The Gift of Salvation’ affirms a declaratory, forensic justification on the sole ground of the righteousness of Christ alone, a standing before God not earned by any good works or merits on our own.”3 Here is ambiguity with a vengeance. Rome has always had her version of “forensic” justification. That is, Rome recognizes that justification involves God’s legal declaration that the believer is just. This is said to be via the righteousness of Christ. But it is the infused righteousness of Christ with which the believer cooperates and to which the believer assents in order to become inherently righteous. But, Rome teaches, God does not, and will not, declare the believer just until or unless that believer becomes inherently just; hence the need for purgatory. Roman Catholic theolog y emphatically repudiated Luther’s simul justus et peccator (the reality that the Christian is simultaneously justified and yet still intrinsically sinful), calling it a legal fiction.

28

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

Rome repudiates the Reformation concept of forensic justification.

Because “The Gift of Salvation” says that our standing before God is not earned by any good works or merits of our own, the evangelicals read this as a solid affirmation of sola fide. Yet an orthodox Roman Catholic could affirm the same words without meaning the same thing. Rome insists, as recently as the new Catholic Catechism (1992) that because our good works and/or merits are wrought by virtue of the aid of the infused grace of Christ’s righteousness, they are strictly speaking, not “earned.” This is the Roman version of sola gratia which differs sharply from the Reformation view. (Neither Rome nor “The Gift of Salvation” document denies that believers have true good works or true merit, only that these do not “earn” salvation.)

To be sure there are crypto-evangelicals, who truly believe the evangelical faith, within the Roman Catholic communion, just as there are crypto-Romanists within the evangelical communions. But this does not justify a public manifesto that declares a generic unity of faith and mission and a unity of the Gospel between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. Such a manifesto at best confuses the faithful and at worst confuses the Gospel.

The ECT initiative is seriously, if not fatally, flawed since it proclaims too much way too soon.

Finally, it is sad to see in “The Gift of Salvation” that among those items that remain on the table for future discussion is the issue of the normativeness of sola fide. That leaves us with the assumption that even if a handful of Catholics and evangelicals did affirm sola fide, they do not yet regard this affirmation as normative to the unity of faith and unity in the Gospel as such unity can be proclaimed without its resolution.

In conclusion, I see nothing in “The Gift of Salvation” that an orthodox Roman Catholic could not in good conscience sign. The document is flawed by its ambiguity at crucial points. These points must be addressed before there can be any significant resolution of the historic conflict. MR Dr. R.C. Sproul, a member of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, is chairman of Ligonier Ministries and visiting professor at Knox Theological Seminary.

MODERN REFORMATION

An Appeal to Fellow Evangelicals: THE ALLIANCE OF CONFESSING EVANGELICALS’ REPLY TO “THE GIFT OF SALVATION” In the first week of October 1997, a coalition of individual Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants issued a joint statement of their common understanding of the Christian Gospel titled “The Gift of Salvation.”

It was an earnest attempt to state the message of salvation in language acceptable to heirs of the Protestant Reformation and to answer some of the objections that were raised to an earlier document known as “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” produced by many of the same people. On the surface, this new statement seems greatly improved, and in some respects it is. However, we are profoundly distressed by its assertions and omissions, which leave it seriously flawed. We understand it to be expressed in terms that are consistent with historic Roman Catholic theology, while failing adequately to express the essential Protestant understanding of the Gospel, and we plead with our fellow evangelicals not to be misled by this new initiative but instead to hold fir m to the doctrine of “justification by grace alone because of Christ alone through faith alone,” which is the biblical Gospel.

Some Recent History The first of these two documents, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” was a call to the Christian world to form a united front against the destructive influences of secular culture in such areas as ethics, statism, and the relativization of truth. In the context of this call to cobelligerency in the common sphere of cultural life, which we heartily endorse, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” affirmed a unity of faith among Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. Included in this common faith was an affirmation that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ.

Many Christians were unsettled by that affirmation chiefly because of the historic controversy between

Protestants and Roman Catholics regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide). Pleas were made to the signatories to provide greater clarity to this matter. The second document attempts to do this.

Unlike the first effort, “The Gift of Salvation” tries to clarify the unity of faith that was asserted earlier. It emphasizes the grace of God in salvation, the atonement of Christ, and that the gift of justification is received through faith.

But there is nothing new in this language from a Roman Catholic perspective. Rome has always maintained that salvation is based upon grace, upon the work of Christ and upon faith. The Council of Trent called faith the initiation (initium), foundation (fundamentum), and root (radix) of justification. “The Gift of Salvation” clearly acknowledges that justification is central to the scriptural account of salvation.

What is striking about this document is the joint affirmation by the signatories that “we understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

29

faith alone (sola fide).” This statement would seem to indicate that the co-signers agree in affirming the biblical and Reformation doctrine of sola fide. If such is the case, we rejoice. However, although it is said that certain affirmations are “in agreement with” sola fide, sola fide itself is not stated.

“The Gift of Salvation” says that: 1. Justification is received through faith, 2. Justification is not earned by good works or merits of our own, 3. Justification is entirely God’s gift, 4. In justification God declares us to be his friends on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, and, 5. Faith is not mere intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, issuing in a changed life.

Each of these points agrees with sola fide. Yet separately and together they fall short of both the biblical and Reformation doctrine of sola fide, which is our concern.

Imputed or Infused Righteousness Why do they fall short? Central and essential to the biblical doctrine of justification and to the Reformation doctrine of sola fide is the concept of the “imputation” of the righteousness of Christ to the believer.

Historically Rome has always contended that the basis of justification is the righteousness of Christ, but it is a righteousness that is “infused” into the believer rather than being “imputed” to him. This means that the believer must cooperate with and assent to that gracious work of God, and only to the extent that Christ’s righteousness “inheres” in the believer will God declare the person justified.

Protestants disagree, pointing to the critical difference between “infused” righteousness and “imputed” righteousness. Sola fide affirms that we are justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness for us, which is accomplished by Christ’s own perfect active obedience apart from us, not on the basis of Christ’s righteousness in us. Thus, the good news of the Gospel is that we do not have to wait for righteousness to be accomplished in us before God counts us justified in his sight. He declares us to be just on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness.

Without the imputation of righteousness the Gospel is not good news because we can never know if we are standing before God in a justified and therefore saved state. We will have to wait for some ultimate, but by no means guaranteed, salvation. The Gospel is not good news if believers may face thousands of years in purgatory before they come at last to heaven.

Toward the end of “The Gift of Salvation” the 30

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

signers acknowledge that there are questions that require further and urgent exploration. Among these are purgatory, indulgences, merit, and the language of imputed righteousness. But if the matter of imputed righteousness remains on the table for fur ther discussion, not to mention purgatory, the matter of indulgences, and the need for human merit of some kind, the Reformation doctrine of justification is not being affirmed in this document, whatever it may claim.

Thus, the document is dangerously ambiguous.

The historic controversy over imputed versus infused righteousness is a vital, essential matter that posits irreconcilable views of justification. The difference between being justified by inherent righteousness (no matter how acquired) and being justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone does not admit to compromise. Nor do we view it as a matter that provokes a “needlessly divisive dispute,” which “The Gift of Salvation” strongly implies it does. We see it as the heart of the Gospel, without which the Gospel is no true Gospel at all.

The signatories have been careful to declare that they are not speaking for their respective communities but from and to them. But it must also be recognized that they are speaking about their communities. We want no one in those communities to be misled into thinking that what is affirmed in “The Gift of Salvation” is the historic doctrine of sola fide.

The Problem of Ambiguity In the discussion that followed the release of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” one of the participants in the drafting of the document repeatedly said that the parties to the declaration agreed to the words of the document but understood their meaning differently. When this occurs we maintain that the “agreement” is not really agreement and the declaration of unity is at best misleading and at worse fraudulent.

Attempts to bring harmony via ambiguous formulas were attempted in the past, most notably at the Diet of Ratisbon [also known as Regensburg] in 1541. On this occasion Rome switched from declaring sola fide a “novelty” to arguing that it was always the position of the church. Nevertheless, the “agreement” at Ratisbon quickly unraveled over the issue of imputed versus infused righteousness.

At Ratisbon the differences between the Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines seemed to resolve itself into this one point, and even on this both sides had some views in common. It seemed that there was no radical or irreconcilable difference between them. Yet when they came to explain what they meant by their choice of words it became obvious that they were contending for two opposite and irreconcilable methods MODERN REFORMATION

of justification: one by an inherent, the other by an imputed righteousness; one by the personal obedience of the believer, the other by the vicarious obedience of Christ; one by the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in us, the other by Christ’s finished work for us.

Ratisbon demonstrated that there can be no honest compromise between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant doctrines of justification. Therefore, any agreement made on the basis of mutual concession can only be made by using ambiguous expressions and can amount to nothing more than a meaningless truce, sure to be broken by either party as soon as the subject is brought again into serious discussion.

The true legacy of Ratisbon was not unity but the anathemas of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Seven months of deliberation were devoted to the doctrine of justification in the sixth session, and the end result was to pronounce anathemas on Protestant teaching.

Sadly, the Canons and Decrees of Trent still form the clearest expression of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification, as evidenced by the recent Catholic Catechism.

The efforts of some recent Roman Catholic theologians to distance themselves from Trent and dialogues with representatives of other communions have nevertheless not altered official Roman Catholic teaching.

The irony is that while “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” expressed concern over the relativization of truth in our day it has led (in “The Gift of Salvation”) to a relativizing of the most important truth of all, namely, the Gospel itself. At least some of the Roman Catholic signatories of these two documents have declared their continuing commitment to the teaching of the Council of Trent, as they should if they are truly Roman Catholics.

intellectual assent and that saving faith includes the whole person and that it issues in a changed life. But this formula fails to address the actual controversy about saving faith. The Reformers believed that we are justified by faith alone because only faith receives and rests upon the imputed righteousness of Christ alone and appropriates his righteousness as the sole ground of our acceptance by God. True faith is immediately effectual in securing justification. Though faith works by love and produces the fruits of righteousness, its justifying efficacy is due solely to its embracing Christ.

Saving faith, according to the Bible, is not only a necessary condition but is a sufficient condition for justification. Rome declares that a person can have such faith without being justified if a person commits a mortal sin.

Such sin is deemed mortal because it kills the grace of justification, even if faith remains intact. Thus, Rome teaches that one can have faith without justification, which is a clear and persistent denial of sola fide.

We believe that there is value in

dialogue with Roman Catholics and other groups, but we protest against declaring that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics share a common faith and mission as long as crucial issues related to justification, such as imputation, remain unresolved.

Faith Alone “The Gift of Salvation” declares that “faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life.” We agree that faith is not merely

The Call to Evangelize We are also distressed by the way “The Gift of Salvation” speaks about evangelism. The document says, “We commit ourselves to evangelizing everyone. We must share the fullness of God’s saving truth with all, including members of our several communities.

Evangelicals must speak the gospel to Catholics and Catholics to Evangelicals.” On the surface this sounds like a statement Evangelicals should endorse. But it is another case of ambiguity, one which tends to undermine evangelical missionary efforts in dominantly Roman Catholic countries, and elsewhere.

“Evangelizing” here does not mean preaching the gospel with a view to converting those who hear, because to preach the gospel to Roman Catholics would mean proclaiming it to those who are already within the church and therefore already in the process (in Roman Catholic theology there can be nothing else) of being saved.

Tr ue heirs of the Refor mation insist that evangelizing means preaching the Gospel of Christ’s allSEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

31

sufficient atoning work to lost people, in the churches as well as outside of them, so they might repent of their sin, trust Christ alone for their salvation and not perish in God’s judgment.

Evangelicals and Evangelicals Together Sadly the publication of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” and now “The Gift of Salvation” has provoked a severe controversy within the ranks of professing Evangelicals. It has divided Evangelicals from Evangelicals. To the degree it has done this, it has disr upted much of the unity once enjoyed by Evangelicals and has revealed that the unity we thought we had was not as deep as we believed.

Many of us have been engaged in ministry for years and have had a policy of cooperating with Evangelicals of many different communions and persuasions. We are deeply committed to the cause of Evangelical unity. We believe that one of the great strengths of historic Evangelicalism has been the ability to set aside nonessential differences as we work together for a common mission. But the heart and soul of that unity has been and must remain our unswerving commitment to Christ and his Gospel. We believe that indeed it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. Unity apart from the Gospel is not biblical unity. In these troubled times we dare not compromise the Gospel in the slightest degree.

We celebrate not only the common Gospel we share, but we honor the communion of saints, particularly those who for the sake of the Gospel in all ages have endured persecution, suffered want and deprivation, and have given their lives for the sake of and in defense of the Gospel. Our times require the same commitment.

We believe that there is value in dialogue with Roman Catholics and other groups, but we protest against declaring that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics share a common faith and mission as long as crucial issues related to justification, such as imputation, “…the normative status of justification in relation to all Christian doctrine, … [and] diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences; Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation; and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized” (“The Gift of Salvation”), remain unresolved.

We are concerned for the flock of Jesus that it may not be confused or misled by ambiguous views of the Gospel. We are concerned about the missionary enterprise of Evangelicals as they bring the Gospel to the nations. We are concer ned for the task of evangelism, being convinced that without the evangel there is no authentic evangelism. We agree with the Reformers that justification by faith alone is the article

32

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

by which the church stands or falls and is indeed the article by which we stand or fall.

We stand together on these truths. We call on all true Evangelicals to stand with us. MR Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

TURNING POINTS Mark Noll In Turning Points, Noll takes readers on a tour of twelve decisive moments in Christian history, using numerous maps, charts, and illustrations. He also reflects on some twentieth century events that may someday be considered turning points.

This unique approach enables readers to grasp the general flow of Christian history and to understand subtle aspects of the story that are often overlooked.

Since “the great events of church history always involved real people” Turning Points moves beyond an endless list of obscure names and dates to the people and circumstances that have shaped the church. This is history that is both readable and compelling.

B-NOL-2 Paperback, $18.00 To order call (800) 956-2644.

MODERN REFORMATION

What Are the Prospects for Greater Unity of Christ’s Visible Body in Our Time?

“For the Lord esteems the communion in his church so highly that he counts as a traitor and apostate from Christianity anyone who arrogantly leaves any Christian society, provided it cherishes the true ministry of Word and sacraments.”

— John Calvin, Institutes 4.1.10.

Does God have a prayer?

This strikes us as a provocative question because of the paradox.

We all know what it is for us to pray to God, but it sounds odd to think that God might also petition God. Yet that is precisely what happens in John 17, the so-called “High Priestly Prayer” of our Savior.

Here, God the Son, incarnate in our flesh, addresses God the Father in the power of God the Holy Spirit, joining his brothers and sisters in the posture of dependence and need. And what does he pray for? From the first moments of his ministry, zeal for the elect’s redemption had consumed him so that he had given no thought to his own happiness. This famous prayer crowns his selfless active obedience. But at the heart of this prayer for the ingathering of the world (i.e., the elect from all nations) before his crucifixion is the petition, “that they may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that you sent me” (v. 21).

This is not merely a petition for the world’s general health or salvation. In fact, “I do not pray for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours,” he prays (v. 9). From papal encyclicals (Ut unum sint) to Promise Keepers, “that they may be one” has been a reigning slogan. Meanwhile, the visible church

appears hopelessly divided. Like a window pierced by a pin-sized hole, the visible unity of Christendom continues to crack and break into ever-smaller pieces. This reality came home to me over the last couple of years as irreconcilable differences in our denomination led to the formation of a new Reformed church. Is this the result of a low view of the church? Is division ever justified?

How do we know when? These are the questions we will address, though fall short of adequately answering, in this article.

Man Reading Book To Group, Jose Ortega/SIS Stock Illustration Source

MICHAEL S. HORTON

The Invisible Church Just as the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles frequently reminded us, even in the Old Testament the elect could sometimes be found outside of the visible covenant community (Melchizedek, Rahab, Cyrus), while only a remnant of the visible church actually persevered in faith to the end: “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6).

Theology has, therefore, long held a distinction between the invisible and visible church which has a firm exegetical basis. We find it also here in Jesus’ prayer. He prays not only for the visible church, but more specifically, “for those whom you gave me.” This phrase occurs also in John 6:39: “This is the will of the Father who sent me, that of all he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Four chapters later, we read, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).

But he tells the group of religious leaders who seek to stone him upon hearing this message, “But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I said to SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

33

you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (v. 25-29).

Referring to the eternal covenant made between the members of the Trinity for the salvation of a people, the secret source of Christian unity is election in Christ.

God gave the Son a people, a people who would be called to faith in the Son by the Holy Spirit. It is no wonder, then, that as he is about to finish the task of their redemption, Jesus would bring their everlasting welfare before the Father. After all, it was all that was on his mind despite his fear of experiencing the Father’s wrath upon the cursed tree.

The Visible Church But this secret election is just that: secret, known only to God in intertrinitarian covenantal fellowship.

God alone knows those who are his (2 Tim. 2:19). Thus, whenever we talk about “the Church,” it is of little use for us to refer to the Church in its invisible hiddenness.

Just as we know nothing of God’s secret plan for our lives and must rely only on what has been clearly revealed, we can also only know and experience “the communion of saints” in its visible manifestation. This wisdom which was hidden is now revealed for all the world to see in the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, faithfully upheld and advanced by the divinely ordained offices and discipline established by Christ.

This is where our Lord spends most of his time in this prayer. First, he prays “not that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil one” (v. 15). This visible community exists for the salvation of the world, not against it. Called out of darkness into the light of God’s new creation, Christ’s disciples are not to remove themselves from the world, but to be separated unto God in the world. How does this happen? Is it simply an act of will on the believers’ part? Is it by following a distinct style of dress, lifestyle, or customs? Not at all. In fact, they do not separate themselves unto God, but are separated by God by gracious election and redemption. They are made holy by Word and Sacrament: “Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth” (v. 17). As Paul tells us, Jesus has been made our sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30).

Thus, the marks of the true Church are the Word, Sacraments, and discipline: all the ministry of Christ the Prophet, Priest, and King.

Others might think of the marks of the true Church in terms of its members: Are they really “born again”? Are they “Spirit-filled”? Do they really love the Lord? Is the church growing and is there a lot of life?

34

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

Against the Anabaptists, the Refor mers and the Reformed confessions labor to distinguish the ordained ministry from its ordained ministers for just this reason.

What happens when the church finds out, God forbid, that the pastor is a philanderer or even an atheist? Do they conclude that his ministry was a sham? Although the pastor is obviously removed from office, and even though his own life may well have been a sham, his ministry was an effectual means of grace if the Word was correctly preached and the Sacraments were rightly administered. We cannot look on the heart, but we can look on the visible marks.

We are sanctified by the Word of truth, the Gospel of an imputed (or credited) righteousness: “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (v. 19). Jesus next moves in his prayer beyond the immediate circle of disciples to sweep the whole visible church into his petition, “those who will believe in me through their word.” It is these people, together with the prophets and apostles, for whom Jesus prays, “that they all may be one.” This is not a prayer that all the elect may be one, for they are already one in God’s secret plan. Rather, it is a prayer that his visible church, mixed with unbelievers and hypocrites as well as the regenerate, will be united until he comes to separate the wheat from the chaff. And why? Once more his pastoral heart is laid bare: “… that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them as you have loved me” (v. 23).

Does Evangelicalism Seek Unity?

So we ask the question: Does division always betray a low view of the church? When we actually think about it, Evangelicalism has championed church unity for a long time. At a time when denominations were frequently fighting with each other, revivalism brought churches together for the evangelization of the lost. “Breaking down the walls” of denominational strife has been a hallmark of evangelical activism long before the Promise Keepers’ slogan. This love of church unity contrasts sharply with the disunity of confessional Protestants.

Or does it? What if Evangelicalism has been able to champion church unity only because it has a low view of the church? What if behind all of the rhetoric of “breaking down the walls” lies a weak appreciation for Jesus’ prayer here in John 17? Let me see if we can pursue this argument along the following lines.

First, what if Evangelicalism has no doctrine of the visible church? Whatever official teaching might be, in actual practice, “the church” is understood by most evangelicals today to refer to everybody who is “really born again.” This not only assumes that we can understand the hidden things of both God and our neighbor, but lodges the “marks of the true Church” in MODERN REFORMATION

the members (or “seekers”) rather than in Christ’s ministry. Parachurch ministries can, therefore, include in their purpose statement “making disciples” and in many cases even administer Sacraments because they believe that the church is invisible. Like the anti-material Gnostics who denied Jesus’ literal incarnation, atoning death, bodily resurrection, etc., a new gnosticism insists that “the spiritual” is what is really important. It is the invisible, secret work of the Spirit in one’s life, separated from the visible means of grace and external operations of the church, which is effective. Many of the arguments which are advanced in favor of this entirely “invisible” notion of the church and its ministry could just as easily be applied to Christology (the doctrine of Christ), leading us to deny that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” which “is the spirit of the Antichrist” (I John 4:3).

Thankfully, this logic is not followed,…but it could be.

So why not break down the walls if one already has such a low estimation of walls— or, for that matter, physical structures at all? The doctrine of the church maintained by many evangelical brothers and sisters today parallels exactly the radical Anabaptist “enthusiasts” against whom the Reformers struggled. As God the Son has “come in the flesh,” so the heavenly Jerusalem is “incarnated” in the visible organism which, despite its fractures and dislocations, is united by the external preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments. Its outward organization and discipline are not to be disparaged as less spiritual.

Surely formalism is no substitute for “spiritualism.”

Never theless, it seems undeniable that much of Evangelicalism connects “life” and the “real work of the Spirit” with the invisible church (i.e., the activity of individual believers who come together rather than of churches), and this Gnostic and docetic ecclesiology represents a dangerously low view of the church. No wonder then that those who follow this tendency fail to take “the walls” seriously. If a few tiny denominations merge after years of blood, sweat, and tears, it might merit a notice in a Christian periodical here or there.

But if millions fill stadiums across America for a few years, it is a news magazine’s cover story. American Evangelicalism (often in contrast to its expression in

other parts of the world) can only pride itself on bringing about Christian unity because it values the church so lightly. Any brilliant entrepreneur can pull together a movement; but only God can build the Church. And he does so through his ordained structures. It is these structures which, admittedly, get in the way of us all being one in visible unity. These structures house the sheep and protect them from the evil one who stalks them, especially when they stray from the visible Church. There is no “evangelical church” in America. There are evangelical churches, but we must not confuse movements of individual Christians with the ministry and advance of the Church of Christ in the world.

So, again, is it possible that many evangelicals can contrast their unity-seeking missions with the alleged bigotry of confessional churches only because they have a low view of what that unity really involves? Tragically, this seems to be abundantly demonstrated in the practice of Evangelicalism over the last two centuries. Alexander Campbell, Joseph Smith, and a host of nineteenth century sectarians founded new denominations under the pretext of restoring the true church of God upon the earth. Others, like Charles Finney and his evangelical heirs, simply substituted their movement for a new denomination, as each new “revival” was proclaimed as “God’s new work” in bringing about church unity. Instead of being for this confession or that confession, the question asked in churches across America is, “Are you for X (Toronto, Pensacola, PK, or whatever) or against it?” The true legacy of American revivalism is not unity but the two most schismatic centuries in the history of the Christian religion.

But let’s take this one step further. It is one thing to say that Evangelicalism’s notion of unity actually rests on a low view of the church and its visible unity. But is it possible that Protestant “enthusiasm” shares some surprising affinities with Rome on this point? Let me briefly explain.

It is widely known in ecumenical discussions that the millennium-old schism between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy is viewed, at least by the Orthodox, as the product of the former’s violation of the ecumenical and

It is not by diluting

our confession, but by being immersed in it, that we actually discover that we share many similarities, despite remaining differences.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

35

catholic spirit of the apostolic and post-apostolic fathers. They cite the warning of Early Church fathers concerning any episcopal tyranny in which one bishop might esteem himself as the superior of the others, and conclude that this is precisely what happened when Rome proclaimed itself “the apostolic see.” As if these pretensions were not enough, the papacy appropriated to itself power over all of Christendom. In the modern era, the pope even declared himself infallible when speaking ex cathedra (literally, “from the chair”).

Despite the aggiornamento (modernizing) of John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council (196265), Rome persists in demanding that church unity means being in union with the pope.

Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, who together with Prison Fellowship Ministries’ Charles Colson, is the architect of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” has quite clearly told me that this is his ultimate goal. Unity means that one has reached sufficient agreement with Rome’s unalterable and infallible dogma, not that two Christian families have found common agreement which may challenge each other’s prior claims. The Spirit is with “the Church” (meaning Rome), not with the Word and Sacraments wherever that sacred ministry is upheld.

At the time of the Reformation, John Calvin repeatedly compared the Anabaptist “enthusiasts” to Rome, since both separated the Spirit from the Word in an attempt to justify their pretensions to ongoing revelation. Both groups undermined the peace and catholic unity of the visible church by refusing to be normed solely by scripture. Like a republic that is forever adding amendments, presidential decrees, and other articles to its constitution, Rome can only maintain unity by force, either physical or spiritual.

Sectarian bodies refuse to limit their authority to the Word and insist on raising their own prophets, priests, and kings above the offices of Christ.

Throughout the first half of the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers burned the midnight oil in the effort to arrive at concord in the Gospel, even with

Rome. A number of leading churchmen—theologians, bishops, and even a few cardinals—were sympathetic to the evangelical thrust of the Reformation. Much had been confused in medieval thought and practice. Too many concessions had been made to philosophy. In addition, too little attention had been given to the proclamation of Christ in the simplicity of scriptural preaching and liturgy. Abuses plagued the church to the extent that the masses of the laity often regarded it as a hypocritical institution and only obeyed her under threats. But most importantly, they said, the glory of God and the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness and g race had been obscured if not ignored.

These Roman Catholic leaders, before and during the Reformation, ought to be remembered by us as faithful brethren in Christ. A number of conferences were held, some called by kings, in which the Refor mers met with representatives of the Roman curia in hopes of settling the controversy and restoring catholic unity.

Nevertheless, when the dust from the Council of Trent settled, it was clear who had won. In 1564, Calvin died and the Council’s anathemas against those who trust in Christ’s merit alone for justification before God were officially promulgated (i.e., made church dogma) by the pope. Just as in its pride it had separated itself from the Eastern churches, now five centuries later Rome caused a division within the Western churches. Rome is an inherently schismatic body, demanding that all churches find their catholicity in her rather than in the only true head of the Church.

So here is the real parallel between Rome and much of modern Evangelicalism on this point: Neither really succeeds in realizing that the Gospel is the standard, basis, hinge, and criterion of unity. “Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth,” Jesus prays. The Apostle Paul indicates the same when he declares that ministers have been ordained by Christ in the church

In the last century,

German Reformed theologians John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff complained that American Protestantism was governed by what they called “a sect-consciousness,” a denial of the catholic spirit which pervaded the Reformers.

36

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

… till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature person, to MODERN REFORMATION

the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love (Eph. 4:13-16).

Unity is something toward which even the apostolic church had to work. Do we really want to return to the apostolic era? Do we recall the ungodly factions in Corinth? The discord which was nevertheless turned to profit in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)? The apostles would not “agree to disagree agreeably” over such essentials. They didn’t set aside their differences in the pursuit of a vaporous unity, but solved their doctrinal division through direct, prayerful and thoughtful interaction. And thank God, for our sakes, they did.

It is not by breaking down the walls of the visible church that unity is achieved, for these are the precincts within which Christ rules his kingdom of grace. Nor is it by achieving unity with a particular pastor, hero, or “prophet,” but by growing up “into him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole body” receives its life and growth. By lodging unity in movements and men instead of in the Gospel as it is made visible in the Church’s ministry, Rome and Evangelicalism subvert the unity of Christ’s body. Rome’s doctrine of “implicit faith” declares that one must believe whatever the church decrees. One may be ignorant of essential Christian teachings, but if he or she trusts the pope and the magisterium to get it right, all is well. But is there not a parallel here with American Evangelicalism? Ignorance of even basic Christian doctrine is tolerated so long as one doesn’t criticize Billy Graham, the charismatic movement, the “Toronto Blessing,” Promise Keepers, or whatever may come next. Today, a “heretic” is not someone who denies a cardinal truth, but someone who refuses to accept the latest “revival.” Thus, each new movement proclaiming the restoration of unity ends up creating more dissension. The role of the magisterium is filled by the revival, and the role of the pope is divided amongst a host of often competing entrepreneurs whose constituencies are their “churches” and whose fellow power-brokers are the “cardinals” who elect the next leader.

It is, therefore, not the churches of the Reformation which have done the most to sunder Christian unity, but Rome and Revivalism.

What About Confessional Christians?

But lest we place ourselves beyond the pale of responsibility for the sad state of visible Christian unity, we need to ask ourselves what (not whether) our Reformation churches have contributed to the problem.

This discussion requires some candor, although I realize that I can only speak for myself in this article and not for my church.

The Colloquy of Marburg was a fiascao. Here, Luther and Zwingli met face-to-face and Zwingli was clearly the wrong person to represent the Reformed.

After reaching complete agreement on every point of dispute between them, the two Reformers could not resolve the question of the Eucharist. Whatever Luther may have wanted to affirm in addition, the hinge of the debate turned on one question: Is Christ really and truly present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion?

Holding (at least at that time) a memorialist view, Zwingli defended a position which has never received acceptance by any Reformed confession or catechism. In fact, it was rejected in the Second Helvetic Confession, which Zwingli’s successor Heinrich Bullinger drafted in an attempt to reach unity with the rest of the Reformed churches which (especially under Bucer’s and Calvin’s influence) had written polemically against Zwingli’s view.

It was rejected in all subsequent Reformed symbols and catechisms (Geneva, Scots, Belgic, Heidelberg, the Thirty-Nine Articles, Westminster).

Nevertheless, some Presbyterian theologians in America have followed a more Zwinglian line in theory and many Reformed and Presbyterian churches have tended toward a more Zwinglian line in practice. This has only served to justify the historically unwarranted identification of the Reformed position with Zwingli, a misunderstanding which many Lutheran theologians find extremely difficult to relinquish. As Reformed Christians, we must come to terms with our own confessional theology and take the time to understand that of our next-of-kin. Further, if I may be so bold, if Lutherans, instead of reducing the Reformed position to caricature or identifying it with positions which the tradition does not hold, were to interact with the genuine areas of disagreement, perhaps we could at least achieve greater understanding.

Due in large measure to the massive immigration of the Scots-Irish and the Dutch early in colonial history, a process of “Americanization” tended to make Presbyterian and Reformed bodies far more susceptible to revivalism’s influences than their counterparts in other countries. The contrast between the Reformed Church in America (the nation’s first Protestant denomination), which is typically more pietistic and mainline Protestant, and the more historically confessional Christian Reformed Church (from a wave of Dutch immigration SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

37

in the last century) is probably due as much to this factor of “Americanization” as it is to their respective histories in The Netherlands. The same contrasts could be (and have been) drawn between earlier American Lutheranism, with its dalliances with revivalism, and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Typically, those who have been more strict in their Reformed and Presbyterian confession have, ironically, been more sympathetic in their evaluation of—and interaction with—the Lutheran tradition. And this seems largely true on the Lutheran side. It is not by diluting our confession, but by being immersed in it, that we actually discover that we share many similarities, despite remaining differences.

What about our relationship with the broad evangelical world? To be sure, this relationship is strained today, and this article is indicative of that fact.

Never theless, even theologian Clark Pinnock, a champion of those who seek to eliminate vestiges of Calvinism from evangelical theology, has frequently observed that until quite recently evangelicals had to rely on the theological works of Reformed and Presbyterian writers. Most of the leaders of the modern missionary movement were avowed Calvinists. Furthermore, Baptists who adhered to certain Calvinistic distinctives (viz., the “TULIP” acronym) have included John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, and the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention among their number.

Whatever important differences a Reformed believer may have with Baptists on the covenant (especially baptism), ecclesiology, and similar issues, someone like Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, is more of a friend to confessional Reformed believers than are some leaders within our own bodies and institutions. Against the backdrop of contemporary Evangelicalism, such staunch defenders of Baptist distinctives are actually—again, ironically—more serious allies in the cause of truth than are our respective counterparts who are often enamored with the fads of modernity. Why shouldn’t we engage in thoughtful, constructive dialogue on the issues which continue to divide us in an effort, as with the Lutherans, to at least arrive at greater understanding?

Relationships with other traditions could be explored.

For instance, historically Anglicanism identified itself as part of the Reformed family. In fact, “the Reformed Church of England,” as it was called in the major documents of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, is still served by a distinctly Reformed confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles. (The only notable exception is its episcopal rather than presbyterian polity.) Its first Prayer Book was authored under the theological guidance of Martin Bucer (Calvin’s mentor) and Peter Martyr Vermigli (a Reformed theologian), whom King Edward 38

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

brought to England to restore sound teaching at Oxford.

Its Elizabethan bishops were returned exiles from the Reformed churches of Switzerland and Germany, and these bishops continued to look to their sister churches on the continent for guidance. Archbishop Cranmer and his fellow pastors often asked how they could be increasingly patterned after “the best Reformed churches.”

Calvin even sent the Duke of Somerset a plan which later Queen Elizabeth considered to unite all of the Reformed churches and was even willing to allow episcopacy as its form of government. Ecumenism has long been important within the Reformed tradition. Even today, many of the leading names in Reformed circles belong to the Anglican communion.

We could mention the Easter n Or thodox communion, which has (along with Rome) enjoyed a steady influx of young evangelicals. Stating our differences with Orthodoxy is an essential task, but so is finding common ground. In the seventeenth century, the Ecumenical Patriarch (Lucaris) embraced the staunch Calvinism of the Synod of Dort and officially adopted Dort’s positions. Nevertheless, it failed ratification and was in fact repudiated. Although Orthodox theologians have a long memory, there are certainly points of agreement (especially the shared suspicion of papal authority and a common heritage in the church fathers), despite the tradition’s apparent lack of interest in such essential doctrines as original sin and justification. Lack of interest does not entail denial and perhaps this affords some opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue.

In spite of my criticisms above, I think that we could even conceive of constructive discussions with Roman Catholic churchmen. The “irreformible” nature of Roman dogma makes this somewhat difficult.

Nevertheless, a great deal of rethinking is taking place especially among biblical theologians. As with the other dialogues, conversation does not require ecclesiastical union as its goal. Nor must we first rescind our conviction that in its current confession Rome lacks the most essential mark of the church (viz., the pure proclamation of the Gospel). Understanding between Christians is a sufficient goal in itself.

Closer to Home But the matter is even more pressing when we come to the divisions within the Reformed and Presbyterian family itself. In the last century, German Reformed theologians John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff complained that American Protestantism was governed by what they called “a sect-consciousness,” a denial of the catholic spirit which pervaded the Reformers. I think that they are largely correct on this point and that we must struggle against this infection.

MODERN REFORMATION

The divisions of this century are quite understandable. Princeton Seminary professor J. Gresham Machen and other conservatives were being disciplined by the church courts of the Northern Presbyterian Church while universalists and liberal professors were gaining g round. The “Aubur n Affirmation” signaled a departure from the church’s high view of Scripture. So the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in 1936 was a courageous effort to continue the Presbyterian witness to the Gospel. In the seventies, a similar division occurred within the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS), which led to the founding of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Although both the OPC and PCA are conservative denominations, merger talks in the eighties failed for a variety of reasons. Despite this fact, they enjoy close fraternal relations, along with other bodies with similar distinctives in the National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. Although the PCA and OPC have broken fraternal relations with the Christian Reformed Church (CRCNA) over the latter’s refusal to reconsider its synodical decision to ordain women to all offices, the United Reformed Churches (URC), the churches which seceded recently from the Christian Reformed Church, may seek admittance.

Given the nature of this fraternal body, should we allow ourselves even to conceive of the possibility that these member churches could become one new Reformed denomination in the United States? Are the differences between the Presbyterian and Reformed sides of the family great enough to warrant continued separation? Is passive acceptance of separation complicity with sinful division or is it justified by present realities? These questions could themselves become divisive within churches unless a catholic spirit of charity could prevail. But I can only hope that it can.

The churches of the Westminster Standards and those of the Three Forms of Unity have far too much in common to squander their resources and witness on introspection and idiosyncrasies of culture, pride, recent histories, and lack of vision. Surely the great founding leaders of these bodies, who wept over their respective Jerusalems, would not want to see these churches either ape the culture of modernity which destroyed the mainline bodies or resign themselves to a Reformed/Presbyterian version of fundamentalism. In both cases, confessional vitality is surrendered to alien systems and forms of life.

I have wondered aloud enough for one article, and perhaps too candidly. There are many ways of fleshing out the details of what it might mean practically to see a greater unity of the visible body of Christ in our time. I have simply offered one pattern. But the imperative which I think is inescapable for all of us is to pray for

and to actively seek greater understanding and, where possible (as in our own Refor med/Presbyterian communion), a renewed attention to the scandal of our divided witness in the United States.

After all, in John 17, Jesus does not pray for the church to be sanctified by the truth merely for her own sake: “As you sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world” (v. 18). Ecumenism: What is it good for? It burdened our Savior’s heart on his way to Golgotha. Whatever course or strategies our synods and assemblies choose to take in the new century on these matters, there should be the deep longing in all of our hearts to see a zeal which is too often missing for the fractured Body which is Christ’s visible presence in an already disintegrated and fragmented world.

May the same Spirit who ordered creation out of chaos in the beginning, and brought us into his new creation, sanctify and govern us by that same Word, “that the world may know” that the Father has sent Christ for our salvation. MR Dr. Michael Horton, a member of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.

“[Some] fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort.

Some are necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes—shor t of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness—that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: ‘Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you’ [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without the loss of salvation.”

— Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.12

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

39

IN PRINT The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices Edited by Michael Kinnamon and Brian Cope (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publication, 1997; jointly published with Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1997) This anthology collects the most important documents from the modern ecumenical movement, concentrating especially on the most widely influential texts produced by the assemblies, conferences, and studies of the World Council of Churches.

Together, these documents cover the three broad areas of historic concern within modern ecumenism: faith and order, life and work, and mission and evangelism.

B-KIN-1 Paperback, $30.00 Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement Revised Edition Edited by Geoffrey Wainwright et al.

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) Since it was first published in 1991, the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement has served as the standard reference work on the history, events, and issues of the ecumenical movement. Written by ecumenical leaders from every Christian confession and all parts of the world, this volume is now fully revised and expanded to bring it up to date with the ecumenical movement during the past decade. Among the topics new to this edition are apocalypticism, ecology and environment, ethnic conflicts, gospel and culture, and PentecostalReformed dialogue.

B-DEMR-1 Hardcover, $50.00 We Believe Michael S. Horton (Nashville: Word, 1998) For centuries, believers have clung to the Apostles’ Creed, an ancient document rich in history, as a crystallized expression of the Christian faith. In this carefully researched volume, Michael Horton explores the deep treasures 40

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

of the Creed, and reveals to us the incomparable wealth and stability it offers to Christians.

B–HO–11 Hardcover, $19.00 Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries translated from the German by Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia, 1966, 1998) In an age of concordats, agreements and fellowship statements, and at a time when such concerns affect the local congregation, Werner Elert’s Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries shows how the church’s doctrine has been the basis for such discussion and agreement. Elert explores the resources and practices of the early church to give guidance for the church today— especially in the area of close communion.

B-NAG-1 Paperback, $15.00

OUT OF PRINT: (available at your local library) The Ecumenical Movement Geoffrey Wainwright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) All One Body We John Kromminga (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg P. Matheson (Oxford, 1972)

All books (except out of print) are available from MR by calling (800) 956-2644. Phones are answered from 8:30 am through 4:30 pm Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. For further book recommendations and an on-line resources catalogue, please visit our website at www.AllianceNet.org.

MODERN REFORMATION

WHITE HORSE INN RADIO BROADCAST FEATURING HOSTS MICHAEL HORTON, KEN JONES, KIM RIDDLEBARGER, & ROD ROSENBLADT Arizona Phoenix KPXQ 960 AM, Sun. 9 pm California Lake Tahoe KNIS 91.9 FM, Sat. 8 pm & Sun. 12 Noon Los Angeles KKLA 99.5 FM, Sun. 9 pm Mammoth KNIS 89.9 FM, Sat. 8 pm & Sun. 12 Noon Modesto KCIV 99.9 FM, Sun. 9 pm Palmdale KAVC 105.5 FM, Sun. 9 pm Riverside KKLA 1240 AM, Sun. 9 pm Salinas KKMC 800 AM, Sun. 3 pm San Diego KPRZ 1210 AM, Sun. 9 pm San Francisco KFAX 1100 AM, Sun. 3 pm Ventura KDAR 98.3 FM, Sun. 9 pm Colorado Colorado Springs KGFT 100.7 FM, Sun. 10 pm Denver KRKS 94.7 FM, Sun. 10 pm District of Columbia Washington, DC WAVA 105.1 FM, Sun. 9 pm & 12 Mid. Georgia Augusta WFAM 1050 AM, Sun. 8 pm Idaho Boise KBXL 94.1 FM, Sun. 10 pm Illinois Chicago WYLL 106.7 FM, Sun. 11 pm Kansas Wichita KSGL 900 AM, Sun. 8 pm Maryland Baltimore WAVA 1230 AM, Sun. at 9 pm & 12 Mid. Massachusetts Boston WEZE 590 AM, Sun. 2 pm & 12 Mid. Michigan Detroit WMUZ 103.5 AM, Sun. 8:30 pm Grand Rapids WFUR 102.9 FM/1570 AM, Sun. 9 pm Missouri St. Louis KFUO 850 AM, Sat. 11:05 am & Sun. 7 pm Montana Billings KCSP 100.9 FM, Sat. 8 pm & Sun. 12 Noon Nebraska McCook KNGN 1360 AM, Sat. 1 & 6 pm Nevada Reno/Carson City KNIS 91.3 FM, Sat. 8 pm & Sun. 12 Noon New York New York WMCA 570 AM, Sun. 12 Mid. & Mon. 11 pm North Carolina Asheville WSKY 1230 AM, Sun. 8 pm Pennsylvania Philadelphia WFIL 560 AM, Sun. 6 pm & 12 Mid. Pittsburgh WORD 101.5 FM, Sun. 6 & 12 Mid. Tennessee Chattanooga WLMR 1450 AM, Sun. 9 pm Texas Austin KIXL 970 AM, Sun. 11 pm Dallas KWRD 94.9 AM, Sun. 11 pm Houston KKHT 106.9 FM, Sun. 11 pm Jacksonville KBJS 90.3 FM, Sun. 11 pm San Antonio KDRY 1100 AM, Sun. 9:30 pm Virginia Norfolk WPMH 1010 AM, Sun. 9 pm Washington Collville KCVL 1240 AM, Sun. 9 pm

The White Horse Inn is a weekly radio program produced by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Each week the hosts talk about important theological topics from both the Lutheran and Reformed perspectives.

Dr. Michael S. Horton is the author/editor of ten books, including Beyond Culture Wars and Putting Amazing Back Into Grace.

The Reverend Ken Jones is the pastor of Greater Union Baptist Church in Compton, California. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is copastor of Christ Reformed Church in Placentia, California. Dr. Rod Rosenbladt is a Professor of Theology and Christian Apologetics at Concordia University in Irvine, California.

If the program is not listed in your area, tune in on the internet at www.AllianceNet.org/radio/whi.html

UPCOMING TOPICS September 13—October 4: Unity and the Church October 25—November 29: Great Debates in Church History December 6–27: The Grace of God

RECENT RADIO SERIES NOW AVAILABLE ON TAPE Revivalism How has revivalism shaped contemporary religious life in America? How has it affected our understanding of church life, worship or even of the Gospel, itself? In this six-part White Horse Inn series originally aired in August 1998, Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, Ken Jones and Rod Rosenbladt seek to answer these questions and more as they discuss the history and impact of revivalism.

C-REV-S 6 tapes, $33.00 Eschatology As we approach the end of a millennium, speculation about the end times seems to abound. In this four-part White Horse Inn tape series, hosts Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, Ken Jones, and Rod Rosenbladt provide for us a classical approach to the study of eschatology and why it is important to understand it not merely as various views of the end of the world, but rather, as a way of reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

C-ESC-S, 4 tapes, $23.00 To order call 1-800-956-2644 Seattle KGNW 820 AM, Sun. 9 pm Wyoming Casper KCSP 90.3 FM, Sat. 8 pm & Sun. 12 Noon On the Internet www.AllianceNet.org/radio/whi.html

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

41

ENDNOTES IN THIS ISSUE—Michael S. Horton 1 PK is known for urging its members to repent of “denominationalism.”

Additionally, in 1994 for example, a screaming Coach McCartney informed the men: “Promise Keepers doesn’t care if you’re Protestant.

Promise Keepers doesn’t care if you’re Catholic. We just want people who love Jesus!”

REGENSBURG AND REGENSBURG II—R. S. Clark A. E. McGrath has refuted the claim (repeated recently by R. J. Neuhaus) that this was an eighteenth century Lutheran expression belonging to V. E. Loescher (1673-1749). In fact Luther said virtually the same thing. See A. E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 2 vol. (Oxford, 1986), 2.193, n.3; R. J. Neuhaus, “The Catholic Difference,” in C. Colson and R. J. Neuhaus, ed., Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward A Common Mission (Dallas: Word 1995), 226, n.22.

2 See H. G. Anderson et al., Justification By Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII (Minneapolis, 1985); K. Lehmann and W. Pannenberg, The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide? trans. M. Kohl (Minneapolis, 1989); C. Colson and R. J. Neuhaus, ed., Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

3 See P. Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg (Oxford, 1972).

4 The need for theology to serve a social-cultural agenda was not just a sixteenth century phenomenon. It is evident from Chuck Colson’s essay in Evangelicals and Catholics Together that social-cultural concerns are more important than theological questions such as justification.

5 Melanchthon and Eck had already worked out an agreement on original sin at Worms, in January 1541. There was a formal consensus among the magisterial medieval theologians on Augustine’s doctrine of original sin.

The question was not whether we are sinners (that is a distinctly modern question) but rather the question was on the effects of sin. The dominant medieval doctrine of salvation was not Pelagian, strictly speaking (i.e., denying that “in Adam’s fall sinned we all”), but semi-Pelagian. It affirmed original sin, but like many movements afterward, denied the consequences of original sin, i.e., total inability to cooperate with grace.

6 De iustificatione hominis. See C. G. Bretschneider, ed. Corpus Reformatorum. 101 vol. (Halle, 1834-1959) 4.198-201. Hereafter abbreviated CR. A portion of Article 5 is also published in B. J. Kidd, ed., Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation (Oxford, 1911), 343-4.

7 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 3.3.2. 1987, 1989.

8 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 3.3.2. 1991.

9 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 3.3.2. 1993. This section also quotes Trent 6.7.

10 See L. C. Green, “Faith, Righteousness and Justification: New Light on their Development Under Luther and Melanchthon,” Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): 65-86.

11 There is debate among scholars as to whether Gropper actually taught double justification. Cf. E. Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia: The Sixteenth Century and the Twentieth,” in G. R. Evans ed., Christian Authority: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (Oxford, 1988); A. E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 2.57.

12 Gropper’s doctrine of duplex iustitia developed from c.1538 to 1544 to include imputation and infusion of justice. See Yarnold, 208-9.

13 Romans 4:5 says, in part, in the Vulgate: “iustificat impium.”

14 W. P. Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge, 1970), 49. See also idem, 53.

15 See M. Luther, De duplici iusitia (“Two Kinds of Righteousness”) in Luther’s Works, ed. J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann et al., 55 vol. (St. Louis/Philadelphia, 1955-75), 31.297-306.

16 Stephens, 55.

17 G. Contarini, Epistola de iustificatione, in G. Contareni Cardinalis Opera (Paris, 1571), 588. Cited in Yarnold, 211.

18 CR, 4.198.

19 CR, 4.199.

20 CR, 4.199.

21 CR, 4.199.

22 CR, 4.199.

23 CR, 4.199. The doctrine of faith as the instrument of justification was essential to Protestantism. Trent would later reject this language 1

42

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

altogether to teach that baptism is the instrument of justification. See Canones et decreta concilii Tridentini (Leipzig, 1860), 28.

24 CR, 4.199-200.

25 6.7; “et non modo reputamur, sed vere iusti” (Canones et decreta concilii Tridentini), 28.

26 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 2.61.

27 Ironically, J. I. Packer’s essay in Evangelicals and Catholics Together is a similar attempt to interpret ECT I in a Protestant way.

28 See Heidelberg Catechism, Questions 21, 60, 65, 86.

29 See, Yarnold, Duplex iustitia, 222-23. In a recent audiotaped discussion of ECT held at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, John Woodbridge, one of the signers of “The Gift of Salvation,” appealed to Regensburg as a precedent. See also M. A. Noll, “The History of An Encounter: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals,” in Evangelicals and Catholics Together, 85, 101.

“CAN TWO WALK TOGETHER EXCEPT THEY BE AGREED?”—Paul Schaefer 1 Geoffrey Wainwright, “Ecumenical Movement” and “Ecumenism” in Daniel G. Reid, et al., eds., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 375-7. Also see Geoffrey Wainwright, The Ecumenical Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).

2 George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 102-10.

3 See Norman Goodall, The Ecumenical Movement: What It Is and What It Means (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 4-8. On Carey, see Kevin A. Miller, ed., “William Carey,” Christian History, XI:4, and Timothy George, Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey (New Hope, 1991).

4 On Mott, see R. V. Pierard, “Mott, John Raleigh,” in Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 739, “Mott, John Raleigh,” in F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Second Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), 945, and P. E. Pierson, “Mott, John Raleigh,” in Daniel G. Reed, et al., eds., op.cit., 779-80. Each of these articles gives bibliographic information for further study of this ecumenical pioneer.

5 J. R. Mott, “Concluding Address,” in Michael Kinnamon and Brian Cope, eds., The Ecumenical Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 10-11.

For more on Edinburgh 1910, see Goodall, op. cit., and “Edinburgh Conference (1910)” in Cross, op. cit., 444. The Cross citation notes that the Report published by this World Missionary Conference contained nine volumes of material.

6 Although it is an older work and some of the conclusions have been revised by more contemporary scholars, one nevertheless finds much information on the missionary and revivalistic impulses of the nineteenth century in Kenneth Scott Latourette, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age, Volumes I-III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969, originally published in 1958).

7 E.g., July/August 1998.

8 For a brief overview of nineteenth century theology, see Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson, Twentieth Century Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992).

9 See in this regard the 1997 policy statement of the World Council of Churches, Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches (Geneva, 1997). One can read this at http://www.wcc-coe.org.

10 Many excellent theological and church history dictionaries contain brief yet very fine entries on “ecumenical movement,” “ecumenism,” and “World Council of Churches.” Especially see the entries in Cross, op. cit., Elwell, op. cit., and Reid, op. cit. Goodall’s work already noted also has much useful information even though it is a bit dated coming even before the joining of the IMC into the WCC. Another piece, coming from the World Council itself, might prove helpful to the reader: Marlin VanElderen, Introducing the World Council of Churches (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990).

11 See Kinnamon and Cope, 11-15.

12 The book by Bishop Kallistos Ware published by Penguin, The Orthodox Church, serves as a fine guide for any reader unacquainted with yet interested in the Eastern Churches. One should remember that the Orthodox Church, while having a structure similar to Rome’s, considers its regional churches to be “autocephalos.” In other words, while the various Patriarchates are in communion with one another, there is no one central jurisdictional head to the Orthodox Church. Thus, each Patriarchate

MODERN REFORMATION

decides on its own its relationship to the World Council.

13 “An Appeal to All Christian People,” in Kinnamon and Cope, op. cit., 8183.

14 VanElderen, 19-20.

15 Ibid., 20.

16 On “Neo-Orthodoxy” see Grenz and Olson, op. cit.. In recommending Grenz and Olson here it should also be noted that they are more favorable toward Barth and Brunner than many other evangelicals might be. (There are also some evangelicals who might think they are too critical.)

Nevertheless, they do provide a useful summary of some of the main concerns of this early and mid-twentieth century theological movement.

17 The interested reader with Internet access can read this document at http://www.wcc-coe.org.

18 “The Amsterdam Message” in Kinnamon and Cope, 22.

19 P. A. Crow, “World Council of Churches,” in Reid, op. cit., 1274.

20 Ibid.

21 On postliberalism and postmodernism, see the evangelical critique in Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 191-257.

22 Once again, see Grenz and Olson, op. cit., for a survey and critique of these movements.

23 VanElderen, 6.

24 See John Kromminga, All One Body We (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970).

25 For a discussion of the International Congress of World Evangelization as well as its most representative documents, see John R. W. Stott, ed., Making Christ Known: Historic Documents from the Lausanne Movement, 19741989. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

26 For a brief but clear elucidation on evangelicals and ecumenism, see T. P. Weber, “Ecumenism” in Walter Elwell, op. cit., 342.

27 For a discussion of the “megashift” see the modernREFORMATION issue of that title (January/February 1993), and Millard Erickson, The Evangelical Left (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997).

28 For the “Decree on Ecumenism,” see Walter M. Abbott, ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: The American Press, 1966), 336-70.

29 For a short discussion of these dialogues, see the relevant articles in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).

30 Timothy George, “‘The Gift of Salvation’: A remarkable statement on what we mean by the gospel. An Evangelical Assessment by Timothy George,” Christianity Today. December 8, 1997, 34.

31 The reader will find this caveat in the introductory remarks of most ECT statements.

THE MYTH OF INFLUENCE—W. Robert Godfrey 1 Errol Hulse, Billy Graham: The Pastor’s Dilemma (Hounslow: Maurice Allan, 1966), 45.

2 Billy Graham, Just As I Am (New York: Harper, 1998), 358.

3 John Pollock, Billy Graham, The Authorized Biography (New York: McGrawHill, 1966), 108.

4 Pollock, 103.

5 Graham, 150f.

6 Graham, 169.

7 For confirmation, see Hulse, 18ff.

8 See George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).

9 Taken from a transcript of an interview conducted by Dr. Robert Schuller with Billy Graham via satellite in June 1997.

HOLY COMMUNION OR UNHOLY CHAOS?—Paul T. McCain Perhaps the best treatment of the Early Church’s view of church fellowship, particularly as it relates to the Lord’s Supper, is Werner Elert’s Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, translated from the German by Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia, 1966). This book, presently out of print, will be reissued this summer.

2 Also, in 1580 it is reported that Reformed preachers in Oldenburg required communicants to confess that the Body and Blood of Christ were not present in the Holy Sacrament. See the magisterial article on Supper Fellowship in Martin Wittenberg, Church Fellowship and Altar Fellowship in the Light of Church History, translated by John Bruss in Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology (Reformation 1992) Vol. I, No. I, 23–57.

1

3 Thus, one reads in the Lutheran Formula of Concord, “It is not our faith which makes the sacrament, but solely the Word and institution of our almighty God and Savior, Jesus Christ, which always remains efficacious in Christendom…so whether those who receive the Sacrament believe or do not believe, Christ nonetheless remains truthful in his words when he says, ‘Take eat, this is my body.’ This he effects not through our faith, but solely through his omnipotence.” (Solid Declaration, Article VII.89).

4 John Calvin, Zurich Consensus, translated by Ian D. Bunting in The Journal of Presbyterian History, Volume 44 (1966), 56.

5 Quoted in the Formula of Concord, X.33.

6 Catechism of the Catholic Church (English Translation, United States Catholic Conference, 1994; Liguori Publications, 353).

7 See Michael Kinnamon and Brian Cope, eds., The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publication, 1997; jointly published with Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI), 4.

8 Kinnamon, 4.

9 Kinnamon, 4.

10 Kinnamon, 453, emphasis added.

11 Ecumenical Proposals: Formula of Agreement (Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1996), 21.

WHAT ECT II IGNORES—R.C. Sproul See Christianity Today, December 8, 1997, 35-8.

2 Timothy George, Thomas C. Oden, and J. I. Packer, “An Open Letter About ‘The Gift of Salvation,’” Christianity Today, April 27, 1998, 9.

3 Ibid.

1

LOSING OUR VIRTURE Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision

David F. Wells Can the church truly recover its moral character enough to make a difference in a society whose moral fabric is rent? Wells believes it can. In fact, with postmodernity now so heavily ladened with its own cynicism, he believes that no time in this century has been more opportune for the Christian faith—if the church can muster the courage to regain its moral weight and become a missionary of truth once more to a foundering world.

B-WE-4 Hardcover, $25.00 To order call (800) 956-2644.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

43

ON MY MIND

By James Montgomery Boice

Our All-Too-Easy Conscience hen I went to work at Christianity Today in the fall of 1966, eighteen years had passed since the publication of founding editor Carl F. H. Henry’s book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Eerdmans, 1948), but we still talked about it a lot.

Henry’s work expressed what many of us were sensing at that time: that evangelicals had been avoiding the great social issues of the day, above all racism and the plight of the poor, and we were uneasy about it somewhere deep in our inmost thoughts and hearts.

Today another book needs to be written. It should not be called The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism.

It should be called The Easy Conscience of Modern Evangelicalism.

For what has happened in the fifty years since Henry wrote his penetrating exposure of fundamentalists’ sins and shortcomings is that evangelicals have become the new religious establishment with the same sad theology and practices that overtook the mainline denominations a generation ago, and we are not disturbed.

When I wrote about the mainline denominations years ago, I said that they had become largely secular institutions that were pursuing the world’s wisdom, embracing the world’s theology, following the world’s agenda, and employing the world’s methods. But that is what many evangelicals are doing today, though not in the same precise ways. Like the liberals before us, we too have fixed our eyes on a worldly kingdom and have made politics and money our weapons of choice for grasping it.

Evangelicals are not heretics, at least not consciously.

We believe the Bible is the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. But many have abandoned this ancient wisdom of the Church because they do not think it is adequate for the challenges of our time. We still use the Bible’s vocabulary, but we give it new meaning, pouring bad secular content into spiritual terms. Sin becomes dysfunctional behavior. Salvation is self-esteem or wholeness. Jesus becomes an example for right living more that a Savior from sin. As for our agenda, for many the goal is success, wonderful marriages and nice children; we do not think much about getting right with an offended God. As for methods, many are preoccupied almost exclusively with numerical growth and money.

A few years ago, University of Chicago church

W

44

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1998

historian Martin Marty said in an interview that in his judgment by the end of the century evangelicals would be “the most worldly people in America.” We have fulfilled his prophecy, and it is not yet the year 2000.

The tragic part of this is that evangelicals are largely unaware of what is happening. “We are living in a fool’s paradise,” said David Wells in an address to the National Association of Evangelicals in 1994. We are dying for a lack of that robust, biblical, God-centered, Reformation theology that was always the heart of the evangelical movement. But we are content that it should be so, as long as our churches continue to be prosperous and no one tries too hard to shake us out of our personal peace and affluence.

We should spend some time reading the minor prophet Amos, for he lived in a time like our own. The religious establishment was at its peak of popularity. The temples were full. The sacrifices were offered. The people were living in nice homes. But it was an evil, corrupt time, and Amos called his generation to repent of their sinful complacency. “Woe to you who are complacent in Zion,” he cried (Amos 6:1). The Authorized version reads, “Woe to them who are at ease in Zion.”

I would like to see professed evangelicals become troubled by what is happening. I would like to see us distressed by our loss of a genuine proclamation of the Gospel and an awareness that we have become much like the liberals of the past, who declined into irrelevancy. I would like us to be disturbed by our neglect of evangelism, particularly among our affluent, worldly, and very pagan neighbors. I would like us to become uneasy about our failure to establish strong churches in America’s inner cities, where the breakdown of American culture is so obvious and the needs of the people are so great.

We need what the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has been seeking: To repent of our worldliness, to recover the great doctrines of the Bible, as the Reformers did, and to see that truth embodied in our doctrine, worship practices, and church life.

Dr. James Montgomery Boice is the president of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church (PCA), Philadelphia.

MODERN REFORMATION