Is The Reformation Over?

Jesus' High Priestly prayer, clearly shows the emphasis Jesus places on unity within the church. His desire is that the church show forth the same unity expressed in the relationship between the members of the Trinity - a unity that is perfect and beautiful to behold. This prayer has two dimensions to it: a future fulfillment where the unity among believers will be as perfect as that displayed among the members of the Trinity, and a present fulfillment where believers enjoy unity, albiet imperfect unity, with one another. To be faithful to our Lord we must work towards that present unity while looking forward to the final unity, that the body of Christ may not be fractured.

An important consideration, though, is the cost of unity. In Ephesians 4:5 we read of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." This forms a framework for unity. We cannot have unity with people or groups who deny the absolute essentials of the faith. We must have unity on the foundation of the essentials of the faith, not despite the essentials. In the sixteenth century Protestantism emerged from the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants had tried and failed to bring change to the Roman Church and had seen the necessity of breaking fellowship. The early Reformers did so only with heavy hearts, for they desired unity in the body. Yet they saw that the Catholic Church denied the essentials of the faith. The Reformation has since been viewed by some as a necessary evil, by others as the re-emergence of the true, biblical church, and by still others a terrible tragedy that split the church asunder.

Today, five centuries later, many of the differences between Protestants and Catholics seem to be rapidly disappearing. Protestants and Catholics alike are beginning to ask, "Is the Reformation Over?" Among those asking this question are Mark Noll, Professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, and Carolyn Nystrom, who is a freelance writer and journalist. They subtitle their book, Is The Reformation Over?, "An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism." They are clear on their purposes for this book, which is formal and scholarly in tone. First, "it is intended as an evangelical assessment of contemporary Roman Catholicism, with special attention given to the dramatic changes that have taken place since the Second Vatican Council. It deals primarily with conditions in the United States but not to the exclusion of evidence from Canada, Latin America, Europe, and elsewhere in the world...we do not propose a final, universal, or dogmatic assessment of Roman Catholicism" (page 13). Second, they "to provide evangelical interpretations, grounded in both classical Christian theology and the broad history of Christianity, of what we see in the contemporary Catholic Church" (page 14).

Overview

I will begin this review by providing an overview of each of the nine chapters.

The first chapter, entitled "Things Are Not The Way They Used To Be," surveys the changes in Catholic-Protestant relations over the past few decades. They detail a variety of Protestant leaders who have been instrumental in forging closer ties with Rome. Among these are Billy Graham and Nicky Gumbel (of Alpha Course fame). While the emphasis in this chapter (and indeed, throughout the book) is on Evangelicals who have extended a hand towards Catholicism, there are a few examples of Catholics who have worked to forge closer ties with Protestants.

Chapter two, "Historic Standoff," provides a brief history of the relationship between Catholics and Protestants since the time of the Reformation. The authors detail some of the anti-Catholic thought that dominated American politics and religion for many years.

The third chapter, "Why Did Things Change?," attempts to answer the question of why the situation has changed so rapidly over the past few decades. Why have so many Protestants reversed their position on Catholicism? They cite several reasons: changes in the Catholic Church, changes in world Christianity, changes in American politics and society, changes in the exercise of personal agency, and changes within Evangelicalism. As we might expect, the authors place great emphasis on the Second Vatican Council as the main instrument of change, agreeing with David Wells that "the council opened Catholicism to greater influence from Scripture and more concentration on Christ-centered faith" (page 60).

In the fourth chapter, "Ecumenical Dialogues," the authors provide summaries and assessments of some of the most notable ecumenical dialogues since the 1960's. Among those who have dialogued with the Roman Catholic Church are Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, the Disciples of Christ, Reformed, Lutherans, and Baptists. The primary discovery in all these discussions, say Noll and Nystrom, is that "the most serious differences were rooted in ecclesiology, contrasting versions of what the church is and how it functions" (page 113). While they groups were able to agree in many areas, only the Anglicans would begin to bend on the issue of ecclesiastic authority. "No other Protestant body would accept the infallibility of the pope, even after Catholics carefully qualified that papal infallibility is limited to when the pope speaks ex cathedra" (page 113). At the close of the chapter they ask, "On the basis of ecumenical dialogues, can it be said that the Reformation is over? Probably not. But a once-yawning chasm has certainly narrowed" (page 114). And, indeed, this must be the case if, as the authors suggest, it is true that mere ecclesiology forms that chasm.

Chapter five, "The Catholic Catechism," examines the Catholic Catechism, about which the authors correctly note, "If you are a Catholic, this is your doctrinal statement - whether or not you are fully aware of its contents. This point bears repeating. It is one thing to conclude that many Catholics do not live up to their church's official teaching or to argue that the Catholic hierarchy tolerates too much latitude in promoting official Catholic beliefs. It is an entirely different thing to make mistakes concerning the church's official standard of doctrine. The Catechism, as it was published in the mid-1990's, is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church" (page 116). The authors go on to say that "Evangelicals or confessional Protestants who pick up the Catechism are in for a treat. Sentences, paragraphs, whole pages sound as if they come from evangelical pulpits..." (page 116). The chapter goes on to show many of the areas of agreement, where the Catechism can be easily reconciled with Protestant theology. Among them, according to the authors, are common orthodoxy, common devotion to God, and a common understanding of holy living. There is also an examination of the differences, which include questions of authority, Mary's role in the life of believers, baptism, salvation by works or grace, celibacy and saints, and sacraments and worship. In general the authors do not simply list the differences, but also attempt to minimize them. For example, when discussing salvation, they indicate, "If...both groups can agree (as they appear to) that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, evangelicals and Catholics can welcome each other as brothers and sisters of the family created by God's grace, regardless of whatever else either may want to say" (page 142). They conclude that "The Catechism proclaims a deeply Christian faith, and is does so with grace" (page 150). The chapter closes with a non-answer to the question posed by the book's title. "Is the Reformation over? Maybe a better question we evangelicals should ask ourselves is, Why do we not possess such a thorough, clear, and God-centered account of our faith as the Catechism offers to Roman Catholics" (page 150)?

The sixth chapter, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," examines the content and the impact of the ECT dialogues and documents, begun by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Each of the four ECT documents is examined and some attention is paid to the evangelicals who reacted strongly in opposition to them, including men like John MacArthur, James Boice and Michael Horton. In a discussion of the ramifications of the ECT dialogues the authors correctly understand that at the heart of disagreement is the issue of justification. But, taking their cue from J.I. Packer, they write, "Debate on the exact definition of justification may not be as important as it seems" (page 180). They quote Packer's assertion that Catholics and Protestants have sufficient agreements on the nature of the gospel that they can and should engage in shared evangelistic ministry. Noll and Nystrom also suggest that "the Roman Catholic Church now [post-Vatican II] articulates positions on salvation - even on justification by faith - that are closer to the main teachings of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation than are the beliefs of many Protestants, indeed, of many evangelical Protestants. Strange as it may seem to put it this way, the ECT documents present what can only be called a classically orthodox depiction of Christian salvation, primarily because they empahsize and build upon these official Catholic teachings" (page 180). The chapter concludes with the authors stating their conviction that ECT is a work of the Holy Spirit and one that began far before ECT and will continue long after.

Chapter seven, titled "Reactions From Antagonism to Conversion," describe some of the strong reactions to Catholicism. They discuss the writings, among others, of Jack Chick, Donald Barnhouse, John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul. They go on to detail the stories of several evangelicals, such as Peter Kreeft, Dennis Martin and Thomas Howard, who converted from Protestantism to Catholicism, showing what each of these people gained and lost through their conversion. Notable by their absence are corresponding stories of conversion away from Rome.

The eighth chapter represents the low-point of the book and could (and perhaps should) have been omitted by a discerning editor. "This chapter represents an exercise in prudential reasoning. It is an effort to sort out the current situation by analyzing the position of evangelicals and Catholics with respect to main themes in American history" (page 209). They discuss political antagonism and the sex scandals of recent years, but do so in a terse and unsatisfying manner.

The final chapter returns to the central theme of the book, asking once more, "Is the Reformation Over?" The authors divide the chapter into several unequal sections. "Questions of Belief" turns again to the beliefs the authors feel are shared between Protestant and Catholic. Discerning readers will notice an argument build on a classic red herring: "Whatever differences may still exist between such Catholics and evangelicals with respect to the foundations of Christianity are infinitesimal when compared to differences between traditional Christianity as described above and modernist Christianity of all sorts. Differences on basic Christian convictions between Catholics and evangelicals fade away as if to nothing when compared to secular affirmations about the nature of humanity and the world" (page 230). They repeat their belief that Catholics and evangelicals believe approximately the same thing about justification when they affirm together that salvation is a free gift from God and that there is no Christian salvation that is not manifest in good works. "If it is true, as once was repeated frequently by Protestants conscious of their anchorage in Martin Luther or John Calvin that iustificatio articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae (justification is the article on which the church stands or falls), then the Reformation is over" (page 232).

The second section reitterates the authors' belief that the church is the crux of Catholic-Evangelical disagreement. Issues surrounding the papacy and the magisterum, Mary, the sacraments and mandatory clerical celibacy are the very heart of the disagreement. "In sum," they say, "the central difference that continues to seperate evangelicals and Catholics is not Scripture, justification by faith, the pope, Mary, the sacraments or clerical celibacy - though the central difference is reflected in differences on these matters - but the nature of the church" (page 237).

The authors turn to a section attempting to explain why these differences exist. They use the well-travelled metaphor, popular among missiologists, which shows that Christian traditions are like languages to explain much of this. "What can we make of multiple tongues?" they ask. "Continuing differences between Catholics and evangelicals should be regarded both as a problem and a gift...The gift in this realization is to see that God has always been bigger than our own group's grasp of God, that he has been manifesting himself at times, in places, and through venues where others have not expected him to be present at all" (page 246). They go on to say that "What we see today may be described as an incarnation of Christ in Catholic form and an incarnation of Christ in evangelical form" (page 246).

So "Where Are We Now?" Quoting Jesus' prayer from John 17, the authors affirm the importance of unity. They quote favorably the contributions made to the life and faith of Protestants by Catholics such as Waugh, Muggeridge, Mother Teresa, Nouwen and Vanier. "What in these circumstances, can be concluded?" The conclusion of the authors is that Protestants need to imitate Nathaneal (John 1) and "come and see." We need to study papal encyclicals, read ecumenical dialogues, ponder the Catechism and so on. The authors clearly assume that this will lead Protestants to reach the same conclusions they have. The Reformation is over. "Yet asking whether the Reformation is over may not even be the most pertinent question. It may be more to the point to ask other questions: Is God truly going to draw people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation - and major Christian tradition - to worship together the Lamb who was slain? Can he really make of them - all these tongues and peoples and traditions - a single kingdom united in the body of his Son Jesus Christ? Should believers in an all-powerful, all-merciful God doubt that such signs and wonders might still take place" (page 251)?

In the second part of this review I will provide what I hope will be some helpful analysis of Is The Reformation Over?.

------------------

Analysis

I would like to preface my analysis by expressing that the authors displayed a clear bias throughout the book. Mark Noll is an evangelical, and I believe Carolyn Nystrom is as well, and in this book they spend a great deal of time expressing harsh criticism of evangelicalism. While I am Protestant and am perhaps being sensitive, it seems that they did not return the harsh rhetoric towards the Roman Catholic Church. We can see this bias displayed in the chapter discussing conversion from one tradition to another. In this section the authors provided several examples of evangelicals who converted to Catholicism, but no examples of conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism. This type of conversion is, in my experience, far more common and my church stands as an example. It is probably safe to say that our church is primarily composed of former Roman Catholics who left their church and then became believers. The bias is also clear in the chapter discussing ecumenical dialogues. The authors blame evangelicals for expressing anti-Catholic beliefs, but they provide no similar evidence for anti-Protestantism. They also provide no historical framework of persecution and Inquisition to show why Protestants expressed such distrust of the Catholic Church. Thus the reader needs to understand that this book expresses harsh attitudes towards Protestantism without corresponding harshness towards Roman Catholicism.

Minimizing Theological Considerations

Throughout the book the reader will note that the authors continually minimize theological considerations. Their overarching argument, as I expressed in the introduction to this review, is that the core disagreement between evangelicals and Roman Catholics is ecclesiology. This allows Noll and Nystrom to minimize theological disagreements as being of secondary importance. The authors' main strategy is not to thoroughly examine each point of doctrine where evangelicals disagree with Catholics (and sometimes vice versa), but to prove that issues over which Protestants often express concern are merely minor considerations in the larger area of the nature of the church. "In sum," they say, "the central difference that continues to seperate evangelicals and Catholics is not Scripture, justification by faith, the pope, Mary, the sacraments or clerical celibacy - though the central difference is reflected in differences on these matters - but the nature of the church" (page 237). If the reader does not agree with that premise, he will likely not agree with most of the author's major conclusions.

Issues Not Addressed

It is clear that in a book of this size the authors cannot address every theological issue that seperates Protestant from Catholic. Yet there were at least two major disagreements that received no attention. The first of these is purgatory. The Catechism, which the authors often quote favorably, has this to say about purgatory: "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." Needless to say, purgatory is a view that cannot be supported by a Protestant, biblical understanding of salvation. Purgatory calls into question the sufficiency of Jesus' suffering, for how effective was Christ's death if it needs to be supplemented by our own suffering? Did not Jesus die so that we did not need to suffer this type of torment?

A second issue, and one that is perhaps even more important, has to do with the Eucharist. The authors deal in some depth with transubstatiation in which the bread and wine become the real presence of Christ. Yet this is not the most significant concern posed by the mass. Of far more importance is the understanding of the mass being a propitiation for sin. Protestants, having searched the Scriptures, believe that Christ's sacrifice was made once and had perfect, total efficacy. It does not need to be further supplemented or repeated in any way. Yet the Roman Catholic Church teaches that each celebration of the mass is a new, propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

These two issues are of critical importance, for they call into question the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. Despite this, the authors overlook them altogether.

The Fundamentals

Phil Johnson recently posted an article written by John MacArthur entitled "Essential Christianity, not 'Mere Christianity'." This article discussed the fundamentals of Christianity. MacArthur summarizes a Protestant understanding of the difficulties involved in attaining ecumenical unity. "Certainly any list of fundamentals would have to begin with these doctrines Scripture explicitly identifies as nonnegotiable: the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura), justification by faith alone (sola fide), the deity of Christ, and the Trinity." While Roman Catholics and Protestants are able to agree on some of these issues, such as the deity of Christ and the Trinity, there are others where a vast chasm remains (justification by faith alone and the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition).

There are several places in the book where the authors examine these issues in general, and justification in particular, and declare that there is no longer any critical difference between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of these pivotal issues. "If it is true, as once was repeated frequently by Protestants conscious of their anchorage in Martin Luther or John Calvin that iustificatio articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae (justification is the article on which the church stands or falls), then the Reformation is over" (page 232). Time and space fail me to provide a detailed apologetic for the Protestant understanding of justification, but suffice it to say that the authors do nothing - absolutely nothing - to prove that an informed understanding of the biblical view of justification is now shared between Protestant and Catholic. In fact, the discerning reader will wonder whether the authors even truly understand the Protestant view of justification. Clever wording and ambiguous statements in ecumenical dialogue does not constitute change within the Catholic Church. Perhaps a repeal of the anathemas of the Council of Trent, anathemas which were affirmed at Vatican II, would prove that change had occured. But as it stands in official Roman Catholic statements of theology, the crucial differences remain.

What of Scripture?

Conspicuous by its absence is any real examination of Catholic or Protestant theology in light of the Scripture. There are very few quotes from the Bible and certainly very few attempts to examine either system of doctrine through the Bible. Page 248 finds the authors defending Catholicism by showing that the traditional complaints against Catholicism now exist in Protestantism. But what of Scripture, our guide? Writing, as they are, for a Protestant audience, it seems that proving all things from Scripture would advance their argument. Yet, it appears, they are unable to do so. We see this also in the discussion of justification. "The Roman Catholic Church now [post-Vatican II] articulates positions on salvation - even on justification by faith - that are closer to the main teachings of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation than are the beliefs of many Protestants, indeed, of many evangelical Protestants. Strange as it may seem to put it this way, the ECT documents present what can only be called a classically orthodox depiction of Christian salvation, primarily because they empahsize and build upon these official Catholic teachings" (page 180). But again, what of Scripture? Should we not allow Scripture to be our guide as we examine these issues?

The Arguments

The endorsements for this book would lead the reader to believe that it represents a high level of scholarship. J.I. Packer says, "Here is superb thelogical journalism." David Wells writes that "This book offers a superbly researched, documented and engagingly argued case..." While the book does represent interesting research, I found the argumentation unconvincing. At the beginning of the fifth chapter the authors write, "Comments such as the following are heard frequently when evangelical Protestants talk about Catholicism" (page 115). They go on to list six comments, including "There is much I admire about the Catholic faith. But Catholics think Mary is a god, and the pope is their dictator - and then there is the whole question of celibacy;" "The people in my Baptist Sunday school class think that the Catholic Church is a cult. Should I argue about that?;" "Do Catholics believe they Bible? Are they allowed to read it?;" "I wish Catholics believed in grace. How can you be a Christian if you don't believe in salvation by grace through faith?" It seems to me that people who ask such basic, uneducated questions may be convinced by this book. Protestants who have created a mere caricature of Roman Catholic theology and practice may well be convinced. But those who have researched the issues and know the heart of the disagreement will remain unswayed.

Is the Reformation Over?

In the final analysis, the authors have failed to understand the core disagreement between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. There are clearly important disagreements about ecclesiology, and these are disagreements that are unlikely to be reconciled until Protestants are willing to accept the papacy. But there is a far deeper disagreement. At the heart of the Reformation was the gospel, which, incidentally, is a word and concept the authors use only rarely. The gospel message of justification by grace alone through faith alone, despite the authors' insistence to the contrary, is not present in official Roman Catholic doctrine. I have little doubt that there are some, perhaps many, within the Church who are truly saved. But Roman doctrine is as opposed to biblical theology today as it was during the Reformation.

Is the Reformation Over? proves that Protestants and Catholics can, indeed, enjoy unity. But this unity must be at the expense of the gospel. We can embrace Roman Catholicism as a faithful expression of biblical faith, and enjoy ecumenical unity, but it will cost us the very thing Jesus Christ entrusted to us - the Good News that we are justified by grace alone and through faith alone. It is left to the reader to decide if the benefits outweigh the cost.

Whether or not you are interested in reading Is the Reformation Over?, I would highly recommend reading R.C. Sproul's Getting The Gospel Right, a thorough examination of the issues surrounding the gospel and ecumenism.