Is the Reformation Over?

Mark Noll recently published a book (with Carolyn Nystrom) that has an intriguing title “Is the Reformation Over – an Evangelical Assessment of contemporary Roman Catholicism”. I have not yet read the book, but there is a fascinating review of it at Reformation21.org

The short answer Noll apparently gives to the question is that since Luther stated that justification by grace through faith is the single tenet on which the Reformation stands or falls, recent statements from Catholic/Protestant dialogues in which Catholics acknowledge that very point are evidence that the Reformation is essentially over.



Reviewer Carl Trueman at Reformation 21 clearly writes from a Reformed viewpoint. As such he is not in agreement with Noll. But the focus of Trueman’s disagreement seems to be that the term “Evangelical” is far to flexible and ill-defined to be of much use in comparison with Roman Catholicism. Evangelicals are a loose collection of denominations and parachurch organizations with general agreement on two primary things – the authority of Scripture and salvation by faith. Says Trueman:

“Thus, at the outset, we have an institutional church, with clearly defined authority structures, creeds, and an identifiable history – in other words, a self-conscious identity – being discussed in relation to a movement which lacks all of these things and is really only unified by a somewhat nebulous and ill-defined field of family resemblances – and family resemblances which have, over the years, become increasingly vague.”

Trueman goes on to note that Catholicism has a fairly complete and well thought out body of accepted doctrine in its Catechism. Nothing like it exists that truly spans the various strains of Evangelicalism.

”True enough, this is an impressive document which offers a pretty comprehensive account of the Catholic faith, and evangelicalism certainly has no equivalent. But evangelicalism has no equivalent for the simple reason that it is not an ecclesiastical institution but a broad-based, eclectic movement of various churches and individuals, bound together by “elective affinities,” to use Geoffrey Wainwright’s phrase, not all, nor even many, of which are doctrinal. As such, it is by definition incapable of producing a comprehensive theological document of a kind with the Catholic Catechism. "

He quietly asserts that if the comparison is made between Catholicism and Confessional Protestantism, one would come to a different conclusion.

"Confessional Protestantism has a historic, creedal integrity; it takes history seriously; it refuses to assume that the latest pulp evangelical primer on postmodernism is an adequate basis for ditching the whole of its tradition; and it wants to take seriously what the church has said about the Bible over the centuries. "

This is an interesting point. One of the key criticisms leveled by Evangelicals who convert to Catholicism is the lack of historical connection within the broad scope of evangelicalism. Seeker churches tend to be ahisotirical. Emergent churches tend to swallow postmodern concepts uncritically.

But his evaluation of Evangelicalism as a whole is telling.

"To cut to the chase: what is evangelicalism? It is a title I myself identify with on occasion, especially when marking myself off from liberalism, another ill-defined, amorphous, transdenominational concept. But in a world where there are “evangelicals” who deny justification by faith as understood by the Protestant Reformers, who deny God’s comprehensive knowledge of the future, who deny penal substitutionary atonement, who deny the Messianic self-consciousness of Christ, who have problems with the Nicene Creed, who deny the Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s person, who cannot be trusted to make clear statements on homosexuality, and who advocate epistemologies and other philosophical viewpoints which are entirely unprecedented in the history of the orthodox Christian church, it is clear that the term “evangelical” and its cognates, without any qualifying adjective, such as “confessional” or “open” or “post-conservative,” is in danger of becoming next to meaningless. And, even when one qualifies the noun in these ways, it is not immediately clear that one is then talking about subsets or modifications of a single, overarching, coherent movement. Indeed, there are many ways in which I, as a confessional, Reformed Christian, have far more in common with many Roman Catholic theologians than others who routinely claim the title of evangelical. After all, there are evangelicals who repudiate almost all the cardinal points of faith which Protestants and Catholics at the Reformation held in common and which were never disputed. "

His complaint resonates with me, though there are aspects of the Reformed faith that I found myself uncomfortable with and which seem to be an innovation of the reformation era to me. I too am much more comfortable in the company of C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, Richard John Neuhaus and even Pope Benedict than with Brian McLaren, T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, and a host of others who comfortably fit under the umbrella of Evangelical. His list of specific transgressions against historic faith and practice is telling.

Still I wonder: Though I agree with the basic concept of justification by grace through faith, as do many Catholics in principle, I wonder if the Reformed way of understanding of justification by faith, which is largely built upon a fairly extreme conception of God’s sovereignty, is really representative of the best of historic Christianity? Would the Fathers of the first and second century accepted a conception of Grace that essentially made free will meaningless? And if not, then is there room for genuine dialogue between Catholics, who believe the good works are preceded by grace, and Protestants, who believe that good works are a result of grace? Is that subtle distinction enough to keep Christians divided?