On the flight back from Athens last week, I sat in front of a gregarious Irish gentleman. He was a medical doctor in Dallas, but didn’t even come close to losing his native accent. We talked theology most of the flight.

He was fascinated by CSNTM’s work of photographing ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts. And he was a good student of church history. This gentleman affirmed a lot of my most precious beliefs: Jesus Christ, the theanthropic person, died for our sins and was bodily raised from the dead; by putting our faith in him we are saved—indeed, we are saved exclusively by God’s grace; there’s nothing that we can bring to the table to aid in our salvation. The good doctor called himself an evangelical. And he also called himself a Roman Catholic.

To some evangelicals, as soon as they hear that one is a Roman Catholic that immediately excludes such a person from the Pearly Gates. To some Catholics, once they hear that a person is an evangelical, they have the same posture. I wonder if part of the reason for this black-and-white view of salvation is due to a radical, unreflective commitment to one’s tradition. I am a Protestant and an evangelical. I used to think that if someone did not fit within those two labels, he was eternally damned. But part of my reasoning was that since I thought that the evangelical faith was 100% correct, any deviation from it was 100% wrong. The problem with that approach is that many other Christian groups believe in a lot of what evangelicals believe. Obviously, I can’t say that someone who believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ is 100% wrong! Yet, the three major branches of Christendom all embrace the truths that Jesus Christ is fully God, that he died for our sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith. There’s so much right with other groups that it’s impossible to claim that they’re all wrong!

As I suggested in my last blog, I’m questioning some of the tenets of Protestantism and evangelicalism. That doesn’t mean that I’m questioning the whole thing; I still believe that the evangelical faith is the best expression of genuine Christianity today. But I also believe that it is flawed and that we can learn from Catholics and Orthodox. And just as it is possible for someone to be saved and be an evangelical, I think it’s possible for someone to be saved and be a Catholic or eastern Orthodox. So, I’m still at least 51% Protestant (and Luther is still a hero of mine), but I have no qualms criticizing my own tradition and exploring what we can learn from others.

This, of course, raises a significant issue: If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do? What is the value of such distinctions? What purpose do they serve?

Daniel B. Wallace


    82 replies to "51% Protestant"

    • JoanieD

      To jubilee: I went to http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm and poked around in there trying to find the Catechism but couldn’t find it. Can you possibly post a direct link to it?

      I remember as a very young girl that I loved learning the Catechism…Q: “Who made you?” A: “God made me.”
      Q: “Why did God make you?” A: “God made me to know him and to love him and to serve him on this earth.” 🙂

      Joanie D.

    • JoanieD

      http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
      I can find the Catholic Catechism there.

      http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
      And also there.

      I see the last thing on the prologue page from the link above says:

      “Above all – Charity
      25 To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism:

      The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.”

      I do like that.

      Joanie D.

    • esmenegron

      I think the best expression of Christianity was given by Benedict XVI
      (aka Joseph Ratzinger) in his encyclical (a letter written by a Roman Pontiff that
      is considered doctrine (orthodox teaching) in the RC Church)
      God is Love (Deus Caritas Est):

      ¨Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea,
      but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon
      and a decisive direction.¨

      The entire text of the encyclical can be found at:
      http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

      Peace of Christ,
      Emerald

    • jybnntt

      One last thought:

      I was reading from Jonathan Edwards’s “Miscellanies” this morning and ran across an interesting idea. WARNING: the harshness of Edwards’s rhetoric may be troubling to our more modern “enlightened” sensibilities. I DO NOT mean to blatantly offend any individual Roman Catholic by quoting him here. I only mean to share a principle with respect to this discussion that has yet to be considered, and is actually fundamentally opposed to the proposal of common ground in both Dr. Wallace’s and C. Micheal Patton’s posts on this topic. Hopefully, that is enough disclaimer to calm the nerves of those who might be militant tolerationists. 🙂

      Edwards writes in “Miscellainies” No. hh (from the Yale Edition of Works):

      “Antichrist. It is alleged against the Church of Rome being Antichrist–say they, how can he be Antichrist that profess Christ? To that it may be answered, that he is a great deal the more Antichrist for that, for he is a [great] deal the worse for it; and the worse he is, surely the more anti-Christ, against Christ. Now certainly, those wickednesses that are professed, est[ablished] and commanded by that church are much the worse for their profession of Christ, for their professing the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. They ever deny Christ, because they profess him, than it is possible for any of those that do not profess Christ to be; more anti-Christ than it is possible for the heathenish, Jewish, or Mahmetan church to be.

      To illustrate it by example: thus the filthiest of a snake or toad is much more abominable for being joined with life, which is in itself excellent, than the same filthiness and shape would be in lifeless matter. Thus again, the hatefulness of the devil is much greater for its being united with an angelic nature. So there is as much difference [between] the Church of Rome and heathens, Jews, or Mahotmetans, as there is between a viper or some loathsome, poisonous, crawling monster, and lifeless filthy matter of the same shape.”

      AGAIN, if I did not express myself clearly enough in my initial caveat let me reiterate. I do not condone the harsh rhetoric employed by Edwards in his personal notebook (we must remember that that is exactly what it was before passing judgment on his rhetoric in this case) with respect to this conversation. And I don’t mean to quote him in order to bash those who may be my brothers or sisters in Christ while still holding membership in the Roman Catholic Church. I love my brothers and sisters as fellow members of the body of Christ, adopted children of the Father who has loved us and given his Spirit to us.

      I ONLY mean to point out that Edwards makes a salient point that is directly related to the discussion at hand. He is asking and answering the question: Does the fact that Roman Catholicism holds so much in common with Reformed Protestantism necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is in any better position or closer to the true religion than those religions with which we hold very little if anything in common? I think the way Edwards answers that question is quite insightful, and, to the best of my recollection has not been considered throughout this discussion.

    • Dan Wallace

      This blog-comment on Protestants and Catholics is taking on a life of its own! Glad to see the lively exchange. But I think, to some degree, we’re still talking past each other. I don’t have time to respond to every comment since I wrote last (over a dozen comments since!), largely because of my current ministry. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m unwilling to engage in dialogue, so let me be explicit about what this ministry is.

      As director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (www.csntm.org), I am in charge of making sure that CSNTM can go to remote sites that have ancient biblical manuscripts and photograph them. This summer, for the first time, we sent out two teams. I mentioned earlier about the Patmos team, of which I was a part. Currently, there is another team of four people in another country (which shall remain nameless for security reasons), photographing manuscripts there. What I can tell you is this: that team was sent to photograph about a dozen New Testament manuscripts that had never before been photographed (even with microfilm). Many scholars have tried unsuccessfully for decades just to see these manuscripts, let alone photograph them. By God’s grace, CSNTM has been able to do both. But the team was surprised when they got to the site: not only were the dozen MSS there, but so were another two or three dozen MORE! These other documents are all Greek New Testament MSS and are unknown to western scholarship.

      The team is currently in the process of photographing them as well. However, to do so will take more time than the original trip allowed for (instead of 6000 pages to shoot, there are over 16,000!). So CSNTM is scrambling to raise the funds to send more workers to this site so that they can help finish the task by the end of the month.

      The importance of this find can hardly be overestimated. I believe this is the second largest cache of Greek New Testament manuscripts discovered in the last half century. Normally, one or two Greek NT MSS are discovered each year—that is, one or two in the entire world. To find at least two dozen in one site at one time is almost unheard of. The last time this occurred was in 1975 when 1200 MSS were discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai, 90 of which were New Testaments. I am knee deep in negotiations, last-minute fundraising, and correspondence with the team, while we are working to bring this great discovery to light. Please do pray for us as this month unfolds. And if you’re so inclined, we wouldn’t mind some financial help to make sure we can get the job done (just email me at [email protected] for details).

      So, you can understand why I can’t engage in dialogue over the important issue of Catholics vs. Protestants as much as I would like. The little blog I posted is actually shorter than many of the comments I’ve made since (especially this one!), but taking time to read and respond to the comments is taking more time than I really can allow right now. I need to wind this one down, though I do sincerely hope that others will continue the discussion. The most natural place to do that is to put comments on Michael Patton’s blog, “Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism” (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/devblog/2007/07/06/roman-catholicism-and-evangelicalism-has-the-battle-ground-changed/#comments).

      Nevertheless, I would like to offer a couple of comments in passing. Again, I apologize for not having the time to respond to every comment or criticism. It is not for lack of interest! And, in reality, I’m spending much more time on this comment than I had originally planned.

      First, one comment said, “The falsehood of a gospel is not a percentage issue.” I would take strong objection to that. I don’t think that any one of us fully understands the gospel. And certainly the gospel is presented as quite different things by different groups. Pentecostals speak of the “full gospel.” Does this mean that anyone who teaches less than their view has no gospel at all? Calvinists speak of the gospel as requiring perseverance in the faith as evidence of genuine salvation. Other groups say that such a requirement is an addition to the gospel. People on both sides (within evangelicalism, by the way) have declared the other anathema. Some speak of making Christ one’s Lord in order to be saved; others object to that, calling it a roadblock to the pure gospel. Some say that baptism is necessary for salvation (Lutherans, Church of Christ). Others say that unless you believe in an inerrant Bible you can’t be saved; still others, a literal six-day creation. Yet all of these groups are under the umbrella of Protestantism. Some groups say that we are still under the law (Reformed, Presbyterians especially), while others say we are not (Lutherans, dispensationalists). And that viewpoint is often presented as part of the gospel.

      Are we to say that ALL of these groups (except our own, of course) are completely wrong because “the falsehood of a gospel is not a percentage issue”? To be sure, there are some Protestants that are quick to label ANY belief that deviates from their own as anathema. This is the kind of attitude that the Lord is surely not pleased with.

      The one truly remarkable thing about the Christian faith is that in spite of the massive disagreements over numerous issues for the past 2000 years, there is still a core credo that all branches (except, of course, for liberal PROTESTANTS–a very telling comment in itself about an endemic problem to Protestantism) embrace: Jesus Christ is the God-man; he died for our sins on the cross; God raised him bodily from the dead; and we are saved by God’s grace through faith. Surely that speaks volumes for what God has been doing right all these centuries. I’m enough of a Calvinist to think that the Holy Spirit has been able to persuade men and women sufficiently of the truth to get them saved, and that he did not wait till 1517 to begin this process.

      Second, it is true that I quoted from an anonymous source as an interpretation of the Catholic Catechism. The reason, frankly, is that I was concerned that if I revealed the author’s name a few readers would simply use some guilt-by-association or ad hominem argument to discredit his voice. It’s a sad commentary I can’t be completely forthright with fellow Protestants because I can’t trust them to handle the evidence fairly.

      The irony here is that even the names of the three branches of Christendom often unmask our hearts: “Catholic” implies universal agreement; “Orthodox” puts the accent on right belief; “Protestant” says that we are AGAINST something. Only Protestants are pugilistic in their very name. It’s a sad state of affairs that some of us continue with that stance when, as Mark Noll suggests, it may not be nearly as necessary as it was in the 16th century (see his important work, co-authored with Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over?).

      So, allow me to continue to quote from anonymous sources as to what Catholics believe. Again, I am quoting from a Catholic source, not a Protestant source that is looking for chinks in the armor.

      “We must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” In this statement that speaks of the scripture as “without error” I can understand why Frank Beckwith can call himself an evangelical (as defined by the Evangelical Theological Society doctrinal statement) AND a Catholic. Now, I am quite sure that not all Catholics embrace this view of scripture, but at least some do.

      “Everyone who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him.” This almost sounds Calvinistic! Remarkably, at least some Catholics believe this.

      “Our justification comes from the grace of God.”

      “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation…. Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man.” Again, this sounds almost Calvinistic in that the most Reformed members of the faith think of faith as a gift rather than as the act of receiving the gift of God’s grace.

      The devil is the one who “throws himself across God’s plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.” Accomplished in Christ? This too puts a strong accent on God’s initiating work of salvation, and of his accomplishing it. Indeed, it almost sounds like limited atonement to me. But I suspect that that’s just sloppy language on the part of this document. I rather doubt that any informed Catholic holds to particular redemption, even the author of this essay.

      Third, whether the above quotations represent official Catholic dogma is not really the point. One response represented my view as follows: “I would like to comment on the idea that official Roman Catholic documents are no more reliable for determining Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine than the personal opinions of individual Roman Catholics.”

      That really does not accurately represent what I said. I never said that individual Catholic opinion is to be equated with “Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine.” Individual Catholic opinion represents individual Catholic opinion. My point is that many Catholics may well be saved. And the Catholic opinions I have quoted are all written by informed, educated Catholics. They are not uninformed opinions.

      James White correctly distinguishes between a system of belief and individuals who are under the umbrella of that system. He says that it is possible to condemn one while accepting the other. In general, I find this distinction very helpful and it is, in fact, what I’ve been saying all along. Systems don’t get saved; individuals do. But whether we should pronounce anathema over Catholicism as a system is where James and I differ. I do believe there are significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism that affect the HEALTH of the church; but whether they necessarily affect its life is a different matter.

      Many readers continue to make me say that one is not a Catholic unless he holds to everything that Catholic dogma affirms. If that is the case, then Raymond Brown is no Catholic, nor is Joseph Fitzmyer or Frank Matera. None of these priests holds that the story of the woman caught in adultery is authentic, yet that is what Catholic dogma teaches. This is only one illustration, but it at least shows that well-known and influential Catholics can differ on official Catholic doctrine.

      I don’t mean to sound uncharitable here, but it seems to me that if one considers himself first to be an apologist then his entire mindset is bent toward defending the truth. To be sure, there have been great apologists throughout church history. But apologists are usually the last group to show sympathy toward a viewpoint that they disagree with. Christian scholars wear different hats: we are to be impartial investigators of the truth (thus, the image of a scientist comes to mind); we are to be defenders of the truth (the image of a lawyer comes to mind); but above all, we are to be embracers of the one who is truth himself, Jesus Christ.

      Over the years I have found that if I first wear the hat of a lawyer, I tend to misrepresent the opposing view or go after those who are extremists (and thus easy targets). If I only take the stance of an investigator, then it’s easy to never come to any conclusions. Both are needed, but WHERE we draw the line and say “This set of propositions is infallibly true” is what we are discussing here. I believe that too many evangelicals have incorporated way too much in their set of unswerving propositions. At bottom, if what we will not budge on is more than the scripture is clear about, if we listen to no one’s counsel but our own, then we have moved from a humble worship of Jesus Christ to an arrogant defense of propositions about him. And that is an unnecessary sacrifice of one’s heart for one’s head. If I’m not mistaken, Jesus asked us to love God with both.

    • jybnntt

      Dr. Wallace,

      What exciting news about the discovery of new Greek manuscripts! I will pray that our Father might cause CSNTM to be able to fulfill its ministry in photographing those.

      You mentioned that a core credo of all the major branches of Christianity is that Christ “died for our sins on the cross.” I don’t think that is quite true. You also said: “I rather doubt that any informed Catholic holds to particular redemption,”which I agree with. In order for anyone to understand Christ as dying for our sins they must believe in universal redemption, particular redemption, or simply be inconsistent. Granted, Roman Catholicism as well as most forms of Protestantism are simply inconsistent and confess what you have written. However, the truth of the matter is that they can really only understand that Christ “died for sin on the cross.” In other words, Christ died for the concept of sin but not for anyone’s sin in particular who might be identified with the personal pronoun “our.”

      You wrote:

      “James White correctly distinguishes between a system of belief and individuals who are under the umbrella of that system. He says that it is possible to condemn one while accepting the other. In general, I find this distinction very helpful and it is, in fact, what I’ve been saying all along.”

      I absolutely agree with this. This is a VERY important distinction to make.

      And thanks again for the reminder that Christian theologians must diaologue with the utmost humility and charity. Absolutely!

      I look forward to the articles I’m sure you will be writing up soon on the new NT manuscripts. Very exciting news indeed!

    • mghysell

      I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your comments. In fact I am not at all surprised by the Catholic gentleman calling himself an “evangelical”–there is a growing
      trend in the United States of Catholics calling themselves such. I’m probably one of them (except I tend to shy away from labels). However, I have to admit my exasperation that none of the responses to your essay mentioned the CDF document “Dominus Iesus,” in which the Catholic Church
      reaffirmed its belief that Jesus Christ alone is the means of salvation. While many (liberal) Catholics accused the magisterium of being exclusivist, my latent Protestantism was very, very much excited when this document was released. But even for the Protestants who read
      Dominus Iesus, attention was generally shifted away from the thesis that Christ is the only Saviour and onto the assertion that one had to be a member of the Church to be saved. This, however, failed to bear in mind the revolutionary self-understanding of the Church issuing from the Second Vatican Council, in which the document Lumen gentium proclaimed that the Church of Christ “subsists” within the Catholic Church, i.e., that the “Catholic Church” as an institution and the “Body of Christ” are not absolutely coextensive. As you mentioned, Protestants believe (generally) that Protestantism is the best expression of Christianity.

      In the old days, Catholics spoke of “the True Church”–which has, thankfully, become passe. For us, we take our cue from Lumen gentium and say that the Church of Christ subsists within the Catholic Church, which is to say that the essentials of Christianity (that would be minus the Cardinals, tabernacle lamps, and rosaries) are to be found in the
      Catholic Church. In no way does it insist that where the Catholic Church is not, there isn’t the Church of Christ. This is precisely why the magisterium has, on numerous times, expressly forbidden the “rebaptism” of Protestants who come into the Church and why we do not speak of an
      ex-Protestant who becomes a Catholic to be a “convert.” This, I would suggest, is a powerful testimony of the Catholic Church’s recognition of the act of faith professed by evangelical Protestants.

      There is a wonderful book that is, to my mind, the best expression of the Catholic belief in Jesus as our only Saviour (although it is not a magisterial document per se). Written by the Dutch Dominican friar Fr Edward Schillebeeckx, it is called Christ, the Sacrament of the Encounter with God. In it, Fr Edward argues that in Christ is the “primordial sacrament of salvation” and by way of the Incarnation, the human race has found its only rendezvous with God. The Incarnation is what warrants an “organic” (rather than only “forensic”) means of salvation. One of his best lines runs thus: “The man Jesus, as the personal visible realization of the divine grace of redemption, is the
      sacrament, the primordial sacrament, because the man, the Son of God himself, is intended by the Father to be in his humanity the only way to the actuality of redemption” (1.2.1., par. 4).

      Thank you, Dr Wallace, for your timely essay. And thank you, fellow believers, for your thoughtful (and slightly less-than-thoughtful) replies!

      In Christ our God,
      mgh

    • BrittanyB

      I just read through some of these comments, and I couldn’t
      agree with you more, Dr. Wallace. I know many committed Christians
      who are also Roman Catholic, and there is much that we
      can learn from them. I wonder how many of the bloggers
      have even read The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
      It’s incredibly rich, yet it’s presented in a simple,
      punchy, readable manner. I think that they would be
      amazed at the level of theological agreement that
      actually exists between evangelicals and the RCC,
      particularly regarding the essentials of the faith.
      After all, the Protestant Reformation got into high
      gear in 1517. But are Protestants really ready and
      willing to chunk everyone who came before Luther and
      proclaim that their theology was so faulty as to make
      them unregenerate?

      Every other week, we recite the Nicene
      Creed at my church. Whenever I speak it, there is
      always a sense of comfort in the fact that
      Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox stand united
      in their support of this ancient creed. I often wonder
      whether or not it pains many Protestants that the
      bride of Christ is broken. What statement or witness
      does that give to an unbelieving and dying world?
      Certainly there are differences between the branches
      of the faith, but are those differences greater than
      the God-man who unites us? How can the evangelical be
      so arrogant to presume that the Catholic cannot be
      Christian? How can the Catholic be so presumptuous to
      assert that the Protestant must have a low view of
      church/tradition/liturgy? Perhaps we should try
      talking to one another, engaging one another, praying
      for one another, and disturbing some of the myths that
      surround one another. Why are we so afraid to do so?

    • jybnntt

      mghysell,

      You wrote:

      “In no way does it insist that where the Catholic Church is not, there isn’t the Church of Christ.”

      That is true. But it also asserts that there is no where where any believer exists that the universal Catholic church does not exist. In other words it sources all means of salvation, with regard to the church, in the Catholic Church, which has “the fullness of the means of salvation.”

      Vatican II as quoted in the CCC (816) reads:

      “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the the means of salvation can be obtained.”

      There is a very irenic statement on unity in the next few sections in the CCC, which at least in theory (i.e. the call for unity) I applaud. But again the CCC (820) says:

      “This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church.”

      What is the message? Let’s meet in the middle? Not at all. The message is that those who separated from the Catholic Church are in error (see 817) and should return to her so that unity might be achieved.

      And what does the CCC 818 say with respect to the Protestant heritage? Let’s read it:

      “However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation].”

      Implication: Your predecessors, the men from whom your tradition is primarily sourced–Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their followers during the Reformation–were guilty of the sin of separation. They have led you away from “the fullness of the means of salvation.” Therefore, you should recognize their sin, abandon their doctrine, and return to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church. We don’t hold you accountable for their sin, since you just had the unfortunate fate of being born into it.

      I know many in this conversation want to paint post Vatican II Roman Catholicism as a somehow softer, gentler form of Catholicism with respect to the Protestant Reformation. But that simply is not true.

    • jybnntt

      Brittany B,

      Your wrote:

      “But are Protestants really ready and
      willing to chunk everyone who came before Luther and
      proclaim that their theology was so faulty as to make
      them unregenerate?”

      I’ve never read any Reformed Protestant scholar who has been accepted by his peers as knowledgeable and responsible say such a thing. One scholar in particular who is also a primary source from the Reformation is John Calvin. Read Calvin. He consistently quotes teachers from the early church as well as the medieval Western Church. The best Reformed thinkers have always understood that Reformed Protestantism has just as much historical continuity with the past as Roman Catholicism.

    • BrittanyB

      Believe me when I say that I am well aware of Calvin’s appreciation of the Fathers. Luther also had a great respect for them (particularly Augustine), as did many of the Reformers. If I wrote poorly, forgive me. Here is my central point: Luther’s position on forensic justification was certainly not normative for the ancient/medieval church. If you want to say that a person cannot be considered Christian if he/she does not hold to Luther’s position on justification, then the Church has got problems … fifteen centuries of it, actually.

    • jybnntt

      BrittanyB,

      Thanks for attempting to clarify for me. The point you raised is very interesting and certainly pertinent to the discussion.

      But I think you have misunderstood an aspect of historical theological method. I like to call it progressive illumination in the church (aka, the development of doctrine). How that concept relates to your point is this:

      If a doctrine becomes officially recognized and formulated as an essential dogma in one moment in history, that does not necessarily mean that all those who came before it can be held up and evaluated according to it.

      In other words,

      Trinitarianism was officially recognized and formulated at Nicae (325). Prior to that time there was no such worked-out understanding of trinity. The fundamentals of trinity were certainly there implicitly, but the clarified language and nuanced system had yet to be articulated like it was at Nicae and later at Constantinople (381). That does not mean that pre-Nicene teachers can be evaluated according to the more clarified expression. Nor does it mean that the later formulation, because it was later, is therefore unimportant with respect to evaluating those who come after it. Nicae is fundamental for us post-Nicene Christians. To take the logic you communicated to its end would be to deny the authority of all creeds and confessions. Some in the free-church tradition (is that an oxymoron?) 🙂 have gone that direction, but I believe, along with both Dr. Wallace and C Michael Patton if I am not mistaken, that that is a bad way to go. In fact, personally, I think this is one of the main reasons behind this discussion.

      In the end, due to the concept of doctrinal development, we Protestants should not feel as though we cannot say that Luther’s sola fide, perceived this side of Luther, must therefore automatically be regarded as a non-essential. Nor should we judge those who came before according to the more clarified expression.

      I hope that makes sense. Please feel free to ask for more clarification on my part if any of what I wrote doesn’t make sense to you.

      Thanks,

      Jay

    • jybnntt

      Sorry, the first sentence in the second-to-last paragraph above read:

      “In the end, due to the concept of doctrinal development, we Protestants should not feel as though we cannot say that Luther’s sola fide, perceived this side of Luther, must therefore automatically be regarded as a non-essential.”

      It should have read with the bold part omitted:

      “In the end, due to the concept of doctrinal development, we Protestants should not feel as though Luther’s sola fide, perceived this side of Luther, must therefore automatically be regarded as a non-essential.”

    • C Michael Patton

      With regard to what I just said, I think Dan’s post: Is Compromise a Four Letter Word is worth a look.

    • Dan Wallace

      Thank you all for this good discussion. I appreciate especially BrittanyB’s insights (from her comments I assume she is a Protestant) and mghysell’s (from his comments, he’s surely a Catholic). I even appreciated Jay’s comments, even though we do not see eye to eye (even though we are both Calvinists and Dallas Seminary graduates). I’m learning a lot from this discussion, especially about attitudes, perceptions, and priorities. If I may, I’d like to comment on a couple of things that Jay (jybnntt) said.

      First, you argued against my statement about core beliefs: “You mentioned that a core credo of all the major branches of Christianity is that Christ ‘died for our sins on the cross.’ I don’t think that is quite true.” I beg to differ. Roman Catholics explicitly believe that Christ died for our sins. This time I’ll quote from the Catholic Catechism: “By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love….” Now, whether Catholics are consistent on that matter may be where you may wish to take issue, but their “core credo” is that Christ died for our sins.

      Second, regarding your comments to BrittanyB about no knowledgeable and responsible Reformed Protestant scholar, accepted by his peers, has ever said that all those prior to Luther were destined for hell: You have a lot of qualifications about whose opinions on this matter are acceptable (I counted five!). The problem is that many of my Bible college professors certainly gave the impression that, apart from Augustine, virtually all those “Christians” from the second century through the fifteenth were damned. To be sure, they may not have been knowledgeable and responsible, Reformed, or accepted by their peers in such views. But they were Protestants in a position of some authority and influence. And this is precisely the attitude we are trying to change. Besides, the more qualifications you make of Protestant scholars who have the right to speak, the more it sounds like there is some unofficial magisterium that the rest of Protestants must bow to. And this brings us back to where our authority is.

      Third, again with respect to BrittanyB’s comments, you said: “If a doctrine becomes officially recognized and formulated as an essential dogma in one moment in history, that does not necessarily mean that all those who came before it can be held up and evaluated according to it.” I think that’s a fine statement and one that I would heartily endorse. However, you went on to say “In the end, due to the concept of doctrinal development, we Protestants should not feel as though Luther’s sola fide, perceived this side of Luther, must therefore automatically be regarded as a non-essential.” There are two points that I’d like to wrestle with on this matter.

      First, as strongly as I embrace sola fide, this doctrine was never “officially recognized and formulated as an essential dogma” by universally accepted creeds or church councils.

      You packaged your words carefully not to mention such universal acceptance, but the problem is that there have been several local councils, synods, and creedal statements throughout church history that are now considered errant. But all branches of Christendom (except, of course, for liberal Protestants) now accept the major creeds of the early centuries precisely because they were universally accepted then. If we say that the Reformation’s solas are essential, on what basis are we to do so? It can’t be some sort of official teaching body because Protestants don’t have such a hierarchy (one of the problems I noted about Protestantism in my earlier post about what I’ve learned from the Orthodox). And it can’t be universal acceptance, since only Protestants hold to it.

      Your principle would put a terrible burden on Christians in the eleventh century: were they damned if they denied the filioque or if they accepted it? It could, in fact, be argued that the western church split off from the eastern over this controversy by unilaterally adding the filioque clause without first gaining universal acceptance. How was the average Christian to think about such matters if the leaders of the Church were split over them? The same thing applies to the Reformation in many respects: since the Reformation solas were not universally accepted, is it really fair to say that all in the church since 1517 must embrace them to be saved?

      If we say that it’s based on scripture, then we have another problem: Where, exactly, does it say this? I believe I can derive it from Paul’s writings and John’s (though not without some serious exegesis), but I’m far more hard-pressed to do so with the rest of the New Testament.

      I do think that Protestants have to own up to the fact that we essentially hold to a canon WITHIN the canon–viz., Paul’s letters as the clearest articulation of salvation. I, for one, am content to say just that: I hold to a canon within the canon (something for a later blog). But let’s be clear that if we see James as just as inspired as Paul’s letters, then even sola scriptura does not automatically demonstrate sola fide to be an essential creed. Catholics, too, have the right to interpret scripture. And even though they elevate tradition much higher than Protestants do, we need to give them credit for basing their views–in this matter at least–on scripture.

      Second, there is a difference between calling a doctrine an essential component of what saves a person and an essential conscious proposition that they must embrace to be saved. I believe that we are saved by faith alone. But whether someone has to believe that faith alone saves may be a different matter. In other words, is faith that which that God has ordained as the means by which we are saved or is it both the means AND the content of salvation?

    • brent vermillion

      I think that the thinking in this article is open, creative and outside the box of cookie cutter evangelicalism. Having said that I will add a perspective that none of the other commentors on this page could possibly have — the perspective of an evangelical pastor living in a predominantly catholic nation. You see I pastor in Spain where everyone is supposedly Catholic and yet almost none of them have any understanding at all whatsoever about salvation by faith. It may be contained in some form or other in Catholic doctrine but it is not taught in Catholic churches in Spain and Europe. Furthermore, in Spain, France and Italy the Catholic Church leaders boldly proclaim that the Evangelical church is a cult. The Pope himself strongly implied this on his last visit to Brazil. The Catholic church is more ecumenical in North America, England and Germany because it suits their purposes. We should not forget that the Catholic church to different degrees has been persecuting evangelical/protestants since the beginning of the protestant reformation. Of the 45 million people in Spain most have lost interest in the church precisely because it has no life and it preaches no message of salvation by grace through faith.

    • jybnntt

      Dr. Wallace,

      Thanks for continuing in this discussion and thanks for being willing to interact with my comments so extensively.

      On the issue of whether Roman Catholicism actually can believe that Christ died for our sins, I think you said what I said. It is certainly true that RC dogma includes the statement. My point was that, because RC dogma does not also affirm particular redemption, they are inconsistent on that point. They can really only understand that Christ died for a depersonalized consept of sin, which, I think, the idea of a treasury of merit aptly expresses.

      On the second point about Reformed Protestant scholars condemning all who came before the Reformation. Perhaps the times are a changin’. I cannot recall ever hearing from a DTS classroom such a thing. Nor can I ever recall reading such a thing. That’s why my initial qualification was that my comment was based on my own experience. I opened that comment with: “I’ve never read . . . ”

      On sola fide, I think we sometimes place undue weight upon the concept of universal acceptance. Certainly the lack of any significant acceptance should raise eyebrows, but technically speaking, has there ever really been universal acceptance when a creed has been formulated? The Arians could not sign off on Nicae. Nor could the Monophysites on Chalcedon.

      Also, even if we just require the acceptance of a significant majority, that would mean that no doctrine since the Great Schism (1054) could be considered essential Christian doctrine. I understand that there are many who say that, but I wonder if that is the best understanding of doctrinal development within the church.

      You asked:

      “If we say that the Reformation’s solas are essential, on what basis are we to do so?”

      I would say we could do so on the basis of the confessions within the Reformed tradition (i.e., those that express those doctrines).

      You also asked:

      “Your principle would put a terrible burden on Christians in the eleventh century: were they damned if they denied the filioque or if they accepted it?”

      Again, let me reiterate, throughout this discussion I have been very careful not pronounce any individual damned. As a matter of principle I do not believe I can know the human heart, not even my own, that well. My point is to evaluate the official dogma of Roman Catholicism with that of Reformed Protestantism with respect to soteriology.

      Furthermore, there can always be exceptions to the rule when it comes to creedal and confessional tradition. The history surrounding the filioque controversy is complex and quite different, I think, from a primarily theological problem that had arisen in the Church. Things are never quite as black and white as the assumption your question is based on. Nonetheless, while the Reformation was certainly as complex as any other especially significant time in history, I do believe it is apparent that the issue for the reformers was primarily theological.

      You asked:

      “since the Reformation solas were not universally accepted, is it really fair to say that all in the church since 1517 must embrace them to be saved?”

      Please let me reiterate again, I am not arguing that God can only save individuals in Reformed churches. I am arguing that Roman Catholic dogma is wrong at a fundamental soterilogical level. So much so that I would regard it as a false gospel.

      With regard to Scriptural support for Reformed soteriology, I think the whole tenor of Scripture points toward sola gratia, sola fide, and solas Christus. I think I remember a phenomenal exegete reminding me once of an exegetical fallcy called “the classic lexico-conceptual fallacy.” I understand you did not say that the actual words had to be present in order for the concept to be there, but I think that’s what we sometimes think. I agree with the analogy of faith hermeneutical principle, which you called canon within the canon. Scripture must be the primary interpreter of Scripture. However, I’m also aware that all interpretive process can be highly complex. It’s not as easy as we make it sound sometimes. I am very thankful for exegetes like yourself who are able to engage in that process at a scholarly level to help all of us underlings.

      You wrote:

      “But let’s be clear that if we see James as just as inspired as Paul’s letters, then even sola scriptura does not automatically demonstrate sola fide to be an essential creed.”

      In order for this point to hold, we must assume that James and Paul are contradicting one another with respect to sola fide. I do not think that is true (cf. my comment #61 at C Michael Patton’s post “Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?”).

      You wrote:

      “Catholics, too, have the right to interpret scripture. And even though they elevate tradition much higher than Protestants do, we need to give them credit for basing their views–in this matter at least–on scripture.”

      I’m not sure what you mean by “this matter,” but Roman Catholic soteriology on the whole is, I think, quite unscriptural.

      You also wrote:

      “Second, there is a difference between calling a doctrine an essential component of what saves a person and an essential conscious proposition that they must embrace to be saved. I believe that we are saved by faith alone. But whether someone has to believe that faith alone saves may be a different matter. In other words, is faith that which that God has ordained as the means by which we are saved or is it both the means AND the content of salvation?”

      I absolutely agree with you on this distinction. This is an INCREDIBLY important point. Thanks for making it so clearly.

      Faith is the means not the content of salvation. I do not have faith in my faith. I trust the finished work of Christ alone. However, I think that everyone who is saved implicitly or subconsciously understands that they are counted right before by faith in the finished work of Christ alone. I can’t remember who said, I think it was Packer, but whoever it was said: “We’re all Calvinists when we pray.” In other words, we all know that God is God and we are not when we pray to him.

      Respectfully,

      Jay

    • cgiraldo

      This is an intriguing topic to me, because of the readings I did over the past holiday weekend. The readings were based on comic books which I purchased for my older son, but when he showed no interest, I decided to read them myself. The comics were based on the testimony of ex-Jesuits priest Alberto Rivera, which were very graphic and reveal a very dark side of the church, however, it did address various topics that I had questioned in the past or items that I had been confronted on my non-believers, when I first came to Lord and had no foundation. I grew up as a Catholic, but my only joy was when I did my communion at the age of 9, because I felt happy about going to church (I am 29 years old.) However, as time past, I always believed in Jesus, but that was about it. I came to know the Lord for the first time through my second wife, but had no foundation, but last November the Lord called me back after leaving him for several years. I thank the Lord for hearing my wife’s prayers, because God knows she couldn’t talk to me about God or I would blow it. I recall doing a paper for school a few years ago on the origins of Christmas, but everything I read up referred to Constantine and how the end of December was used by pagans to worship the Sun God and Christians were beginning to join the celebration. I changed my paper and wrote on Christmas in my country of birth, because the information startled me and confused my belief in Christ. Well years later, this topic came up in the Alberto Rivera comic, which provided some more detail on Baal worship. It showed me that the Christians who studied the bible were also persecuted by the Crusades, as well as many Jews. Today I have a strong relationship in the Lord and those stories, won’t impact that relationship, but I do have a burden to have a better understanding of theology. My father is a devout Roman Catholic, as it 98% of the people in Colombia and about two months I was sharing my faith with him. Some of the things he mentioned such as Peter being the founder of the Christian Church, the first missionary and the Rock of the church, were puzzling. So I pulled out my bible and explained to him that Paul was the first missionary and he was the one that was chosen by Christ to being the Gospel to the gentiles (us) and I showed him the maps in my bible. He then when on to say that Peter was the first Pope and that’s were this Apostolic Pillar comes from, as well as something regarding the Vatican stating that there is only room for 255 popes and they’re have been about 252 and when it reaches that number and the suppose blood of Peter that lays in Rome dries out that will be the end of the world or the Roman Catholic church will be over. I also now understand why my father prayed to picture of the John Paul II as I was growing up; I though he was just a man, but I guess he is suppose to represent Christ on Earth according to Catholics. That’s pretty scare, as we are all servants of he who created us and dwells in those who accepted him as Lord and Savior. Additionally there is a severe idol worship issue within the Roman Catholic religion and I use to think that there were Catholics who are true Christians, but I would think that the true believers that are Christians at some point will have to flee from that religion, because all though their relationship is with Christ, the fact that they preach other non-Christian values, worship idols and place Mary as the intercessor to Christ would have to bother there conscious knowing that those beliefs are not biblical. I pray that all who want to learn the truth, that goes for me as well, will dive into the Word and let the scriptures and the Holy Spirit reveal the truth.

    • BrittanyB

      Well, I certainly appreciate this lively discussion! Dr. Wallace, thanks so much for your insights. You delineate your arguments very, very well. I’ll try to do the same (although I have no doubt that I will certainly fall below your standard, sir)! 🙂

      Jay, thanks so much for the input. I understand your position, and you make some solid, valid points. As a good supralapsarian, Reformed Baptist, I too uphold the doctrine of justification by faith. (And I certainly love my creeds as well!) I am simply questioning whether or not an assent to forensic justification is necessary for salvation, both before and after Luther. It appears that you would say “no” to the former and “yes” to the latter. You skillfully use the Council of Nicea as a pristine example of the Church taking 325 years to codify her teachings and form a coherent, authoritative statement on the Trinity. You argue that certainly a measure of grace can and should be bestowed upon the pre-Nicene church when it comes to its articulation and understanding of the Trinity; in a post-Nicene age, though, such grace cannot and should not be conferred. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

      I do think that you’re overlooking a couple of things, however. Even though an authoritative statement did not come from the universal Church until 325, Trinitarian teaching was normative throughout the church until that point. You can see the formulation and progression of Trinitarian doctrine in Ignatius, Clement, Hermas, Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertullian (who probably coined the word “Trinitas”) As you well know, some of these men refuted early heresies regarding the nature of the Godhead (modalism is the preeminent example there). So, it’s not as if the concept of the Trinity just came to the fore with the rise of the Athanasius and the Arian heresy. Even prior to Nicea, then, a belief in the Trinity could be affirmed as something “that had always been taught” by the nascent Church. What you have in Nicea is an ecumenical statement by the universal church clearly defining what must be believed by the faithful. According to Eusebius, bishops from all over the world (including Phoenicia, Cilicia, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Pamphylia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Thrace, Macedonia, and Alexandria) came together to act in accord as one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. The universality of agreement cannot be overlooked at Nicea (or at Ephesus, Constantinople, or Chalcedon).

      The same, however, cannot be said of Luther’s position on justification. Unlike the Trinity, which has always been taught by the Church, the idea of forensic justification was certainly not normative within the early/medieval period. In 1500 years, no theologian, historian, or exegete came to understand Paul’s doctrine on justification in the same way that Luther did. That’s fully ¾ of the life and practice of church teaching running counter to the declarations of Luther and his fellow Reformers. While there may be plenty of statements, creeds, and councils which address justification, the universal Church has not met again to formulate a clear, authoritative statement on the issue. Various denominations have their own creeds on the matter, and certain groups have come together to reach some sort of consensus upon the issue. Ironically, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue (see vol. VII) came up with this statement on justification. “Our entire hope of justification and salvation rests on Christ Jesus and on the gospel whereby the good news of God’s merciful action … is made known; we do not place our ultimate trust in anything other than God’s promise and saving work in Christ. This excludes ultimate reliance on our faith, virtues, or merits, even though we acknowledge God’s working in these by grace alone …” (See the Anderson, Murphy, and Burgess edition from 1985.) Even the Catechism of the Church states that “justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for all men (§§ 1992). In light of all this, must a person assent to forensic justification in order to be considered Christian in a post-Luther age? As a Protestant, I believe in a one-time, judicial declaration of righteousness while my Catholic/Orthodox brother believes in progressive justification. But if we both believe that it is nothing other than the work of Christ that has merited our justification, can we not work positively toward that end?

    • jybnntt

      BrittanyB,

      You wrote:

      “I am simply questioning whether or not an assent to forensic justification is necessary for salvation.”

      I have not said, nor do I believe this is true.

      You wrote:

      “I do think that you’re overlooking a couple of things, however. Even though an authoritative statement did not come from the universal Church until 325, Trinitarian teaching was normative throughout the church until that point.”

      I completely agree, which is why I wrote: “Prior to that time [Nicae] there was no such worked-out understanding of trinity. The fundamentals of trinity were certainly there implicitly, but the clarified language and nuanced system had yet to be articulated like it was at Nicae and later at Constantinople (381).”

      BTW, great homework on this point!

      You wrote:

      “What you have in Nicea is an ecumenical statement by the universal church clearly defining what must be believed by the faithful.”

      Not quite technically. It was certainly universal if you don’t count the Arians.

      Again, great homework on this point as well!

      You wrote:

      “The same, however, cannot be said of Luther’s position on justification. Unlike the Trinity, which has always been taught by the Church, the idea of forensic justification was certainly not normative within the early/medieval period. ”

      I covered this argument as well as all of your supporting arguments and evidences in a previous response to Dr. Wallace (comment #67) as well as my previous reply to you (#62 and 63). Slipping on the homework here! 🙂

      You wrote:

      “In light of all this, must a person assent to forensic justification in order to be considered Christian in a post-Luther age?”

      Again, I think I’ve answered this question several times throughout this discussion. Ansolutely not. Our faith is not in our faith, but the finished work of Jesus Christ.

      Thanks for taking the time to interact with my comments BrittanyB. I pray the Lord will continue to bless your study.

      Jay

    • stroxel

      Hi Dan! I love the direction you are taking in this post. One of the problems comes from within the walls of places like your own institution. I recently asked a prof at DTS (an institution which I still hold in every high esteem) to define what it meant to be a Christian. His response went into a whole list of beliefs which sounded much more like what it meant to be an Evangelical – or perhaps what it meant to be an Evangelical at DTS. For example, for some, the issue of Biblical inerrancy is being elevated to a defining point of being a Christian, which by extension becomes a judgment of heaven or hell. Somehow we have lost the essence of the gospel message.

    • Dan Wallace

      I couldn’t agree more. Inerrancy is not vital for salvation. The Bible didn’t die on the cross; Jesus died on the cross.

    • Vance

      Exactly. The way some fundamentalists talk, you wonder how anyone ever gets saved without a Bible in their hands. Think of the first few hundred years of the Church when some had no texts whatsoever, and no one had anything like the complete group of texts we have now.

      And, some had incorrect texts, and some texts now considered non-canonical.

      How on Earth did they ever get saved?! 🙂

      Now, I say that as a member of the Gideons with nothing but love and dedication to the power of the Bible. But our desire for fixed and certain answers, and simple ones at that, can lead us pretty far astray sometimes.

    • jybnntt

      Vance,

      Thank you for your service as a Gideon! I was impacted deeply by the Gideon ministry while in college. I praise God for it.

      Jay

    • Vance

      You’re welcome! It really is a great organization and I love being involved with it!

    • tobias

      I’ve been following this post and its comments and, just for fun, I pasted it all into Word (Microsoft’s, not God’s) to see how much I’ve read and you’ve wrote.

      With standard 1 inch margins and a 12-point Times New Roman font, it spans 59 pages and 27,509 words (not counting this comment)! If you subtract the words that are parts of the blog (names, times, links), you’ve probably got nearly 27,000 words!

      Cool stuff, and great conversation. I’ve never had or seen a dialogue like on, on this topic.

      -T

    • ross.strader

      I wonder if the vatican got wind of this post?

      http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-eur/2007/jul/10/071000950.html

      This has been a great discussion!

      rs

    • Hawke

      I was wondering the same thing Ross.

      I am waiting to see the responses from some of the Protestants/Evangelicals before assuming too much

    • […] it is interesting to read some questions raised by my old mentor Daniel Wallace over at the “Parchment and Pen” blog. Although Wallace’s remarks are not a response to the Pope’s recent […]

    • […] it is interesting to read some questions raised by my old mentor Daniel Wallace over at the “Parchment and Pen” blog. Although Wallace’s remarks are not a response to the Pope’s recent […]

    • ChadS

      M. Jay Bennett,

      I think you have severely misunderstood Roman Catholic theology when you attempted to label the Church as being semi-Pelagian (see posts 3, 21, 25 & 28 for various parts of the discussion). Your assumption seems to be that Catholics believe that their good works and actions achieve some merit with God that acts in addition to the the grace already given freely to us by God.

      This couldn’t be further from the truth.

      Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, by extension, are heresies that the Church has already condemned. First at the Council of Carthage, led by St. Augustine, in 416 & 418 and then further ratified by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. The Church has never taught and never will teach those false teachings. Any idea that the Church has endorsed those teachings comes from an erroneous view of Church theology.

      The book of James provides many examples of verses that praise good works. James 2:18 says “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” Further along, James writes: “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?” and “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”

      These verses provide the Catholic understanding of the role of good works in the life of a Christian. Good works are the fruit of our faith. Faith is partially an action on our part but it is only possible through the grace that God has poured out upon us. Good works result from our faith and desire to serve and please God. None of this is possible without God’s grace.

      Pelagius held that man had the ability to fulfill God’s commands by exercising his free will totally apart from God’s grace or will. The Catholic Church rightly and explicitly rejects this view from the moment it first condemned it in 418 until the present day.

      So, to say that the Catholic Church teaches a semi-Pelagian or cooperationist theology is simply wrong.

      ChadS

    • fbeckwith

      ChadS is right on the money. A book that I believe offers the best account of the different positions in the Pelagian controversy is J. N. D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrine.

Comments are closed.