Is The Reformation Over - Scripture

In my last post, I cited a few examples of how Mark Noll’s book "Is The Reformation Over?” documented a forty-year long process of dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and various protestant groups. On the issue of justification by grace through faith, numerous statements seem to indicate that the Roman church has become willing to accept, at the very least, the Protestant phrase “by grace through faith”.

It should be understood that Catholics, in my opinion, do not define grace in quite the same way Protestants do, so the chasm is not completely filled, yet the facts that such dialogue has occurred and led to substantial statements of agreement with Protestant sounding wording is something that needs more attention in both the Evangelical and Catholic world.

Noll’s book discusses as well Rome’s recent stance on the authority of scripture. It is the common view among evangelicals that Rome places tradition over scripture, so that scripture must mean only what the church says it means, sort of like many “living document” theorists view the U.S. Constitution. And certain Catholic dogmas, particularly Purgatory, Papal infallibility and the assumption of Mary, are cited as prime examples where tradition has defined doctrines not clearly found in the written text.



However Noll’s book takes a good look in particular at both the official statement on scripture in the dialogue of Evangelicals and Catholics Together as well as the various individual summaries surrounding it. It has to be at least considered that Protestant insistence that Scripture must be the final authority has had some influence on Catholicism over 400 years. For example,

“the entire teaching, worship, ministry, life and mission of Christ’s church is to be held accountable to the final authority of Holy Scripture, which for Evangelicals and Catholics alike, constitutes the word of God in written form” (p. 162)

Note two phrases: The “final authority of Holy Scripture” ought to be a fairly significant statement. But a phrase like ”the word of God in written form” raises a question. Does “the word of God in written form” leave space for another “word of God” in non-written form, separate and distinct from scripture? Is Tradition still a source of revelation? The answer is:

“Tradition is not a second source of revelation alongside the Bible, but must ever be corrected and informed by it, and scripture itself is not understood in a vacuum apart from the historical existence and life of the community of faith. (p. 162)

Many evangelicals today recognize that Sola Scriptura can be a misused term, meaning for some that the Bible is to be subjectively interpreted by the individual with no necessary connection to the understanding of Christians of other eras in church history. Evangelicals, like Thomas Oden and D. H. Williams, are recognizing the value of the consensus of the early church in guiding us in our understanding of scripture. In particular, the three great creeds are often cited as the undisputed summary of biblical teaching. Many Catholics, by the same token, are recognizing that many early church fathers cited scripture as a necessary limitation of Christian understanding – that whatever tradition is, it cannot go beyond the bounds of scripture. ECT addresses that as well.

“thus Evangelicals acknowledged the importance of the creeds, confessions and wisdom of corporate interpretation of Scripture. Catholics, for their part, placed tradition under, (not alongside) the Bible.

What then is the role of Tradition? The official Vatican II document Dei Verbum tries to strike a balance. Catholics have long been concerned that “private interpretation” of scripture will lead to heterodoxy and so propose that laypersons must seek to understand scripture within the Catholic tradition, a view many evangelicals see as tyrannical. Yet some sort of authoritative interpretation is a part of every denominational tradition, whether that interpretation manifests itself in dispensationalism, prebyterianism or trinitarianism. What Dei Verbum does say is that tradition is not above scripture.

"But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (Dei Verbum 2.10)

Again, a statement that the teaching magisterium is not above the word of God ought to lead to intense curiosity among Bible-believing Protestants. In fact, Dei Verbum teaches a high view of scripture many of today’s Protestants might dismiss as fundamentalist.

"… the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” (Dei Verbum 3.11)

Now of course, this does not remove specific disagreements about certain Catholic dogmas that still trouble Protestants. But what it does do is shift the grounds for discussion on those topics. It is now possible, in conversation between Catholic and Protestant, to quote Dei Verbum, ECT and other documents, and insist that the discussion of what is true apostolic teaching have at its root Biblical reference points. Catholics will still insist that the teaching magisterium has the right to properly interpret scripture, but Protestants can ask for chapter and verse and discuss the matter on the basis of the biblical text. Catholics, by the same token have the right to ask if anyone in the history of the church interpreted certain passages in the way Protestants understand them. The debates will continue, but they can continue on new and common ground.

This again indicates to me that though the Reformation is not “over”, it’s effects are being felt. Harold O. J. Brown once wrote that the Protestant movement in the history of the church is the only movement that was once branded as heretical, but for whom the charge did not stick.. Now that Catholicism refers to protestants as “separated brethren” it must be said that the Reformation originally intended is at least underway.

In the next post on this topic, I will deal with the main conclusion of Noll’s book, that the main obstacle to unity between Catholic and Protestant is ecclesiology.