There used to be a time when your loyalty to the Protestant cause was judged by how much you hated Catholics. But today, with all the ecumenical dialogue, the Manhattan Declarations, the ECT council, and the postmodern virtue of tolerance, people are much more willing to let bygones be bygones. “Maybe we overreacted” is the thought of many.
To the Catholics, Protestants are no longer anathema (which is pretty bad), but are “separated brethren” (which is not so bad).
Attitudes are changing, we could argue, for the better. But have the issues changed?
Four hundred years ago we had a “situation” in the church. We call it the “Great Reformation.” Catholics understand it as yet another rebellious schism. The first major division in the Christian church happened in 1054 when the Eastern church got fed up with the Pope and thumbed its nose at him (or something like that). The Great Reformation was the second. For Protestants, this was not only a reforming of the church, but a reclaiming of the Gospel, which had been obscured and overshadowed by the institutionalized church of the day.
While there were and are a lot of issues that divide Roman Catholics and Protestants, there are two which overshadow the rest: authority and justification. The issue of authority has been called the “formal” cause of the Reformation, while the issue of justification was the “material” cause. In this brief post I would like to focus on these two issues.
1. Authority: Where do we go for truth?
To the institutionalized church of the day (now known as the Roman Catholic Church), both Scripture (written tradition) and Tradition (unwritten tradition – notice the capital “T”) represented the one ”deposit of faith” that was handed down from the Apostles. The church, as represented by the Pope and the congregation of bishops, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, could interpret both infallibly. Think of a three-legged stool. These three entities (Scripture, Tradition, and the Church) support the stool of ultimate authority for the church.
To the Protestants, this represented an abuse of authority. While the institutionalized church had authority, it did not have ultimate authority. While tradition (notice the lower case “t”) was very important and to be respected, it did not share equal authority with Scripture; rather, it served Scripture. Everything, including unwritten tradition, the councils, and the Pope, had to be tested by and submit to Scripture. Protestants repositioned both the church and tradition underneath Scripture.
The battle cry of the Reformers here was sola Scriptura; the Scriptures alone were the final authority and the only infallible missive from God.
2. Justification: How is a person made right with God?
Here the issue was not necessarily the nature of justification, but the instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) of justification. The institutionalized church believed that justification was a process brought about by the individual’s cooperation with God through their faith and works. People were not justified, but were being justified, and they could never really know of their own eternal security. For most, the best that they could hope for was that they died and spent a certain amount of time (usually very extended) in a place called Purgatory, having their venial sins (the ones that are not so bad) purged through a painful process of cleansing. Then, once released from Purgatory, they would move on to heaven. As modern Roman Catholics would put it, “Purgatory is the time to wash before dinner.”
The Protestants believed this was a serious distortion of the Gospel message, likened to the Galatian error. This distortion, argued the Protestants, arose in the late middle ages with the rise of the sacramental system (you know, the necessity of Mass, confession, baptism, etc.). Protestants believed that justification was through the faith of the individual alone and that works did not contribute in any way. Otherwise, it was believed, grace is not really grace. To the Reformers, justification was an event, not a process. It was a “forensic” or a legal act in which the believing sinner was declared righteous, having Christ’s righteousness imputed to their account. There was nothing that man could do to add to or take away from their justification. Any attempts to work for one’s justification (including time spent in Purgatory) diminished the value of the cross; in essence, saying Christ’s work was not enough. As well, Protestants, unlike Catholics, believed that we could have assurance of our ultimate salvation.
The battle cry of the Reformation was sola fide; justification is by faith alone, not by any works man can do.
Again, there were other issues that caused great strife during the Reformation (Mariology, relics, communion of the Saints, etc.), but they all paled in comparison to these two. While the tension and heat that immediately accompany any fight have since cooled, recent events have not changed the centrality of these two issues. Most Protestants and Catholics still believe that these are hills upon which we should die, even if neither side conclusively believes the other is going to hell.
We must keep in mind, however, how much the two sides do agree. When it comes to the person and work of Christ, conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics (along with Eastern Orthodox) all believe that Jesus Christ is the God-man (fully God and fully man) who died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave as the atonement for sin. All believe that salvation is purely by the grace of God and that the faith of the individual is necessary. And, significantly, all believe that Christ is the only way to God.
Was the Reformation necessary? I believe so. The communication and purity of the Gospel was at stake. Amidst all the concessions being made today, we need to keep this in mind: things have not changed that much. We can love each other and appreciate the common heritage we share. We can even learn much from one another. But there is still a serious divide and Protestants dare not compromise the Gospel by sweeping the Reformation under the rug. The Gospel is too important.
207 replies to "The Great Reformation in a Nutshell"
Irene:
Both Przywara and Von Balthasar took Barth seriously, as did the two previous Popes. Again, dismissing someone as irrelevant is hardly the way to deal with a serious issue. 🙂
@James
I didn’t mean he was irrelevant. I just meant that getting me to change my mind would certainly take more than that. It just seemed you were oversimplifying, that’s all.
Here are a few quick answers.
Should we Protestants consider the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox as a true church of Jesus Christ?
–They are both the true Church. (as opposed to ecclesiastical communities).
However, the Apostolic succession of does not guarantee the purity of the teaching of the Church.
–Not necessarily, but being in union with the bishop in the seat of Peter does.
The priests and scribes of Jesus’ day were also the successors of Moses, Aaron and the prophets. They prided themselves as children of Abraham and as teachers of the Law.
— And Jesus said not to do what they do but to do what they say, because they sit in the seat of Moses.
The true disciples are those who believe and obey the Word of God.
–Yes.
Jesus said: ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples.’
–Yes. The trick is to know what that word is.
Hi Irene,
Hope you don’t mind if I jump in here and ask you a question.
Someone made this statement to you: However, the Apostolic succession of does not guarantee the purity of the teaching of the Church.
To which you answered: Not necessarily, but being in union with the bishop in the seat of Peter does.
How do you understand that to work? Are you saying that being in agreement/onion with the Pope on everything that he says/teaches is the guarantee of correct teaching? Or are you only speaking of the times when the Pope makes official doctrinal pronouncements? I suspect you mean the latter, but what you said kind of makes me wonder.
Hi Cherylu! (:
I meant the latter. The bishops of the world in union with the pope. Just having bishops descended from the apostles may or may not do it. (Anglican church no, Orthodox yes, China ?). Honestly, I don’t exactly know the criteria for those cases.
Pete again are you here?
Btw, Eric Przywara, S.J. (German Catholic theologian, died 1972). He was influenced by Augustine, Aquinas and Newman. But was also quite into phenomenology, and here Edmund Husserl for the most part. His use of “analogy” in natural theology was criticized by Barth.
Indeed Barth and Von B. were friends, and Von. B. wrote a theological bio on Barth: The Theology of Karl Barth (German edition 1951). The English edition came out in 1992, Ignatius Press, which I have myself. It is well worth the read! I don’t agree with Barth’s theology overall, but I count him as something of a modern Church Father, myself. And one of the major achievements in my theological life was the reading of his CD, Church Dogmatics (all 14 volumes!). Barth does make one think! But in reality, his theology leads one close, if not to Universalism! However, in spite of his theological errors, myself I expect to see him in the glory! As too Von B! I have not read enough of Przywara to give an opinion. But I have read some of Barth’s criticisms of him.
Btw, Barth is one thing, but “Barthianism” is quite another! And here is the real “Anathema” to me! Barth did not teach “Barthianism”, to my mind.
Note, pronounced “Bart”!
Greg,
You have left me going, “huh?” I don’t have a clue what you mean?? 🙂 What is an onion with the pope?
And which doctrine are you talking about?
And what is an agricultural anathema?
Sorry, but I am afraid you have lost me 100% here!
Btw, I think that Irene has proved my point about the nature of the Papacy being the real issue of division between the Reformational and Reformed! For there is simply NOTHING biblical about the preservation of some Petrine office of infallibility in the church of Roman! And here Luther, as the rest of the Reformers were simply right about the errors of the Papacy! Sadly, the real Anathema posits with the Papacy! And I don’t say this with glee either! For I actually love and have many Catholic friends, and even still some extended Irish family there. But truth is truth, and error, error!
Greg,
I didn’t read this entire article, but what I did read of it expresses what I was getting at in my question to Irene:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
@Greg: For me Barth preached a proper doctrine of Christ and the Incarnation, and too the doctrine of the Trinity of God! Even his doctrine of “nein” (no) to Natural Theology is appealing, though surely after this his “gospel” goes somewhat off, I would agree! But as a “church father” type, he is historically superb! (To my mind) 🙂
PS…Greg, I have a book by Karl Barth: Called Learning Jesus Christ Through The Heidelberg Catechism, (Eerdmans, 1968). Really a reprint of the John Knox Press edition, 1964. Of course the original was German, 1948. Indeed on Christology Barth was orthodox!
@Greg: Charlotte von Kirschbaum was her own Christian, and actually helped Barth on his CD! Pressing our ideas on a 20th century early and mid almost German like Victorian life style, just is not fair! “abominable life”, you will have to give chapter and verse on that one!
And surely God will “sort” us all out! Ouch!
Okay Greg, gotcha! Agricultural anathema–ha!
Btw, let me recommend Eberhard Busch’s fine book: Karl Barth, His life from letters and autobiographical texts. He has many references to Charlotte von Kirschbaum in his Index. My copy is an English First Edition.
And I have too Busch’s book: The Great Passion, An Introduction to Karl Barth’s Theology, (2004, Eerdmans).
Btw, perhaps John Webster’s (a Brit too btw) book: Karl Barth, Second Edition (2000/2004, Continuum), is the most easy read towards Barth’s theology. And yes, I have it too, and have read it! 🙂
@Greg: I am not a Barth fan per se, but I must admit having read his 14 volumes of the CD, he is no light-weight theologian for sure! And again, as a Calvinist myself I surely don’t follow Barth’s theology, but his knowledge of historical and certainly dialectical theology is profound, whether we agree with it or not.
Now concerning Barth and Von Kirschbaum, again I don’t know where your getting your information? And I know there are feminists writing here, that only want to blow this well out of proportion and the historical aspect. I am a Irish Brit, and I grew-up in a sort of upper middle class home myself, house-maids (one was rather young too), cook, etc. And my father was a scientist, and had a few female scientist friends around also. But, this was the way it was in the 50’s and early 60’s, at least when I was around. And there was simply no foolishness going on! I am not saying that there was no tension in the Barth family about some of this, two females, one the wife, and the other close to Barth professionally, both perhaps vying for his time and attention? But I have seen nothing concrete about any physical affair!
Finally, I am sorry to hear that you don’t find Barth worth reading as I have, and he is also considered a Reformed theologian. Again note his no to the natural theology! And it does appear, you might have crossed some line here? I mean I am not sure why you are so negative? There are much worse theolog’s out there than Barth these days, surely!
Anyway, peace mate! 🙂
@Greg: YOU are offending my intellect and historical ability! There can be no doubt I have read much more about Barth, and certainly Barth too, than you are even aware! So I have already “dug” into this issue.
And as to my own father, mother (RIP) and family, we had a great life together! So climb down mate, and get a grip on yourself! I don’t know what has compelled you to write such? And btw, we Irish Brits are not all led by our sexual desire, though we are normal, but we do have some control and class!
And indeed let go of this, you are only showing your own weakness here!
Sincerely mate, ‘In Christ’,
Fr. Robert
135. Fr. Robert (Anglican) says:
June 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Right on.
Greg. . . . Barth, like all of us, went through a theological metamorphous, just before his death he wrote to Bultmann and confessed:
“At the risk of more headshaking and displeasure I will at any rate venture to whisper one thing to you, namely, that I have become increasingly a Zinzendorfian to the extent that in the New Testament only the one central figure as such has begun to occupy me – or each and everything else only in the light and under the sign of this central figure.”*
Seems like he passes the “Born Again” test to me; unless you are willing to pronounce anathema on John Wesley and a host of others.
*(Source) Karl Barth, letter to Rudolf Bultmann, December 24, 1952
Fr. Robert (Anglican):
No question about it, Barth did shake up the theological community in a positive way, I would say. His analogia fidei has some weaknesses which I think needs some adjustments semantically. We must keep in mind, too, that he was notoriously stubborn so that could answer for some of his reluctance to admit to an entis anologia. Eventually, though, in essense that is precisely what his Christological principle did. The danger here was that some feel he advocated a christological monism, which I do not think is a fair assessment.
@James-t-l: Indeed with any pressing of the philosophical category of the overt being of one principle or idea, we loose the doctrine of Evil! This, among others, is one of the grave problems of Barth’s theology! Where is a real doctrine of Theodicy in Barth? Especially at the historical Cross and Death of Christ! Grave theological problems here!
I like Barth myself, both just who he appeared to be, and of course his profound theological thinking! Though of course one must be critical of Barth. But, a real “Zinzendorfian” (Count Zinzendorf) position in Barth? I have not seen it myself. Of course Zinzendorf was a classic evangelical Lutheran type. But I hope this was true in Barth at the end of his life!
Btw, here are some of the historical facts and ideas about Barth and Kirschbaum.
1.) Karl Barth’s marriage to Nelly Barth was pre-arranged by his mother; he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved earlier in life, and he carried a picture of this woman around with him throughout his life, sometimes crying over it (he also visited her grave often)
2.) Kirschbaum’s living with Barth and his wife was not overlooked, as it caused heavy consternation and outrage within his circle of contemporaries (and his mother disapproved… she seemed to be a little too involved in his life and affairs)
3.) Kirschbaum’s contributions to Barth’s work over 35 years was considered vital to his final results, and though there is no agreement as to whether or not their relationship was sexual, it IS described by many who knew them as “an intellectual relationship” (something he did not receive from his wife Nelly)
4.) Whatever the relationship with Kirschbaum, both Karl and Nelly visited her in the nursing home each Sunday, where she spent many years after an illness laid her low; upon her death, Nelly had her buried next to Barth (she would also be buried next to Barth herself upon her own death some years later).
Again for me anyway, this whole issue has been well overcooked! Again this was in the early to mid 20th century, and was more of a European situation & ethic. That Nelly, Barth’s wife had Kirschbaum buried next to Barth, and later herself says it all I believe!
PS..Here are a few more:
–It was her confirmation pastor George Merz, who introduced her to Karl Barth. Merz edited a journal with Barth and served as Barth’s son’s godfather. He brought Charlotte along to here a lecture. At this point she was in poor health, suffering from a poor diet and the hard, long hours of work as a Red Cross nurse.
–She suffered for over ten years with a brain disease and when she became incapacitated Church Dogmatics came to an end.
–a discreet veil was drawn over her by Barth’s circle because of the “scandal”
of their relationship.
–she was treated as a family member and paid a monthly allowance (not a salary)
for her needs.
–this odd relationship caused many rumors on the outside and estranged Barth’s own children, some calling her Auntie but others felt they had to side with Nelly and be estranged from their dad.
In the end, we are all going to have our own personal opinions here, but I myself don’t see this as a so-called “affair”. Perhaps a more intellectual one, and a male-female friendship, among two certain Christians. Nelly and Barth’s marriage and relationship? Nelly stood the test!
So the picture that Barth carried around was not of Kirschbaum, right?
I don’t know this history, but from what you say, yes, that Nelly sounds like a strong lady! Perhaps (considering the living arrangements and the crying over the picture, etc.) he was the one with the brain power, but Nelly was the one with the self-mastery, the will power!
Correct, not Charlotte! But yes, two great Christian souls, both sinners, but both doing what God had given them to do, with great human imperfection! (Of course I am speaking of Barth and Nelly)
Let’s leave poor 165. Greg (Tiribulus) alone, since he has reverted to his juvenile potty talk. 🙁
Btw, this is not the first time that two women loved the same man! No doubt Charlotte loved Barth and her work together with him, but a physical love relationship? I think not! Aye, we could make a real movie here, eh? 😉
As long as they don’t cast the character to resemble that good looking rascal Barth! 🙂 But then what’s looks got to do with it?
Amen! Greg is not “thinking” just responding badly. He just hates Barth!… (quite obvious). And this is most certainly very sad! But, remember our Christian Brotherhood! 🙂
Btw, there are many other theologies and people much worse than Barth, here I think myself of Open Theism, etc. Oh the mess of the scientia media (middle knowledge), and the Catholic Luis de Molina. This has become the new fad with some evangelicals!
and Fr Robert,
Don’t forget your friend Pope Francis!
(I’m kidding of course. I have read some about that athiest bit, and I think much has been misrepresented by those who reported on it. Kind of like Pope Emeritus Benedict’s comment on condom use in Africa. In any case, I bet he will “prove himself” more to you as time goes on.)
@Irene: Indeed only time will tell about “Francis”? But he is certainly NOT my favorite Jesuit, already! I read Catholic stuff still all the time. Being raised Irish Roman Catholic is always part of my history! 🙂
Btw, our brother Greg, has thrown me away, because I like to read Barth, and don’t buy the simple “fundie” view of Barth and his personal life! Funny, one does run into it all on the blogs! 😉
@Greg: YOU need to go back and read what YOU have written to me on this open blog! Just awful stuff, about my Irish father & mother…in some aspect of your dialogue style I suppose? “Fiasco” doesn’t fully cover it! And now you call me a “lair”, wow mate, again get a grip! I will forgive you, but own up to this error, please!
@Greg: Your “hypothetical line” is “tortuous” mate! This was your error with me! And “personalization”, not hardly. Continue? continue what, you and I just don’t disagree as to both Barth’s theology, and his person! What else can be said? And note, I am not a full-on Barth guy, but I do appreciate his great depth, and historical ability in theology!
Btw, just an honest question, but just how much of Barth’s CD have you read.. Any?
Guys, both of you, I’d say this thread is in serious threat of being closed down by the moderators if they read it. And maybe worse.
Take it where and for what reason? WE already are at an impasse! I am not at all anti-Barth, theologically, or personally. And he is just the opposite! Not really much else to say. And note I am a Calvinist, and not a Barthan per se.
Btw, do they ever really “moderate” this blog? 😉 Sadly the nature of the blog is very imperfect!
Fr Robert,
There is something I really don’t understand here. You have said that there are some real problems with Barth’s theology. You said, This, among others, is one of the grave problems of Barth’s theology! Where is a real doctrine of Theodicy in Barth? Especially at the historical Cross and Death of Christ! Grave theological problems here!
So then, what do you mean when you say you are not “anti Barth theologically?”
It sounds like you are saying that you are not against grave theological problems??!?
@cherylu: These issues and areas of theological disagreement with Barth, are very philosophical & theological, and thus “grave” in that place of critical doctrine & theology. But honestly few people on the blogs would see this but other true “theolog” types, who have read Barth deeply somewhat.
As I have written, on general Christology and Trinitarian theology Barth is fine.
I most surely expect to see Barth in the “glory” of God and heaven ‘In Christ’! Even with his most theological errors! Thankfully our salvation is simply but profoundly “Christ Jesus” Himself, HE is our “righteousness”, alone! Sadly, many Calvinist types miss this! And I feel I am a neo-Calvinist!
I should say Hyper-Calvinist types!
Cherylu says:
Cherylu, I assume that you think that Barth did not believe in the efficacy of a historical Cross, etc., as opposed to natural or real history. Barth was far too interested in the meat of theology to get tied down with the apologetics of arguing whether or not Christ died in 33 A.D. or 36, or whatever. For him it was good enough to accept the fact that he was born, lived, died and was resurrected according to the biblical narrative. To say or imply that he did not believe in the efficacy of the Cross is a gross misjudgment or misstatement, I am not sure which it is on your part. As I mentioned previously (above), Barth went through a theological metamorphosis before settling on his apologia fidei and christological principle—the latter of which von Balthazar for one felt that the christological principle was very near, indeed, to his apologia entis. Eberhard Jungel attempted to rectify the two with his analogy of advent—which in evangelicalspeak, means Christ in us, the hope of glory. The advantage of Jungel is that he had these two theological giants from which to build his analogy of advent on. However, Barth’s analogia fidei was too Kierkegaardian and Kantian for Jungel since he, as did von Balthazar was looking for more concrete language which Barth’s lacked. Barth’s position was, in spite of Barth’s protestations, too metaphysical for Jungel. At best, however, Jungel was still left with a metaphorical or parabolic language in which to express himself with the hope of anchoring his faith in a more firm foundation. The problem, Cherylu, is anthropomorphic in nature, as is all language; as Wittgenstein once remarked when we are faced with the inexpressible, we must remain silent. Which reminds me of the old hymn (which unfortunately many in the younger generation are not familiar) by Isaac Watts entitled, “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross.” Barth’s problem was not that he did not believe. His problem was that he failed to remain silent.
James,
Since you start your comment with “Cherylu says:” I am assuming you are replying to a specific quote of mine? If so, which one as you do not supply it?
Cherylu. What I had in mind was the “grave problems statement” in 185. However, after reading your blog more closely I see that you are quoting our dear friend, Fr. Robert. So, although, I did not address the theodicy problem directly, I do feel that Barth’s theology of the Cross covers that more thoroughly by implication, and I might say to Fr. Robert’s glee (perhaps) in a more Calvinistic way. 🙁
James,
Thanks for clarifying that. I really could not figure out where you came up with the assumptions that you did. It is a bit disconcerting to have people make assumptions and accuse one of “a gross misjudgment or misstatement” when one hasn’t said a thing about the subject.
@James: Perhaps I overstated somewhat as “grave”, but I was of course speaking theologically. I like old Barth, but I am always critical of him, biblically-theologically! His Augustinian doctrine is surely often weak, putting aside his “nein” on natural theology. My constant problem with Barth is his use of philosophy, and here of course is Kant, Hegal, etc.
Btw, serious Barth students should read his book: Anselm: Fides Quarens Intellectum!
“There is no way from us to God – not even a ‘via negativa’ – not even a ‘via dialectica’ nor ‘paradoxa’. The god who stood at the end of some human way . . . would not be God.’ This assertation [assertion], which would seem to discourage all theology, is by Karl Barth, the most prominent, prolific, and (it seems to me) persuasive of the twentieth-century theologians….. As a critical theologian, Barth ranks with Kierkegaard; as a constructive one, with Aquinas and Calvin.” (John Updike)
Cherylu, read the statement over again. Your writing needs editing (no grave error here, that’s for sure). In any event please don’t take these things personally. I am sure Heaven doesn’t hang on every word that someone writes mistakenly about you. Notice Fr. Robert’s response. So, I made no assumption. I misread a poorly edited blog. 🙂