Category Archives: The Reformation

Preferences vs. Convictions

Posted on by
Reply

we will celebrate Reformation Sunday as a day on the calendar when we remember what was undoubtedly, the greatest move of God outside the pages of the Scripture. Entire countries in Europe were brought under the sound of the true biblical Gospel.

The formal principle of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)

The material principle of the Reformation: Sola Fide (Justification by Faith Alone)

Many “Protestant” Churches today have forgotten what it is they were protesting, and this has led to a very current need to re-evangelize the Church as to some of the very basics of the Christian faith.

In our day, many people choose the Church they go to based on preferences rather than convictions. Much is made of styles of music and worship, what kind of youth and toddler ministry is available, the length of the service, the likeability of the pastor, and adequate parking. Of course, none of these things are mentioned in Scripture, and yet they are things very important to us in a consumer driven society where the customer is king and choices mean everything.

I have much sympathy with the need to listen to people and address concerns, but I would like us to climb a little higher in our thinking to move from preference to conviction. In that regard, I would like to identify two convictions that should be at play in our thinking:

Defining terms: a preference is something that given a choice, we find to be more pleasing or practical than another. One could prefer vanilla to chocolate; jazz to opera, the color red rather than blue, etc.

A conviction is a fixed or firm belief based on knowing the rightness of a position. Convictions are often seen as a new kind of heresy in modern American culture, and yet, the Bible is given to us to convince us of God’s thoughts on an issue, and our role as recipients of this revelation is to be renewed in our mind so that we align our thinking with His.

Convictions are good if they are based on God’s revelation; if not, they can be mere tradition. The traditionalist’s anthem is always “don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve already made up my mind.”

In contrast, the Christian should always be prepared to hold up their beliefs to the light of Scripture to see if the position is based on a true interpretation. This leads us to the first conviction I would like us to consider this morning: Continue reading →

Is the Reformation Over?

Posted on by
Reply

From Tabletalk Magazine, September, 2009, Dr. R. C. Sproul writes:

Is the Reformation over? There have been several observations rendered on this subject by those I would call “erstwhile evangelicals.” One of them wrote, “Luther was right in the sixteenth century, but the question of justification is not an issue now.” A second self-confessed evangelical made a comment in a press conference I attended that “the sixteenth-century Reformation debate over justification by faith alone was a tempest in a teapot.” Still another noted European theologian has argued in print that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is no longer a significant issue in the church. We are faced with a host of people who are defined as Protestants but who have evidently forgotten altogether what it is they are protesting.

Contrary to some of these contemporary assessments of the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, we recall a different perspective by the sixteenth-century magisterial Reformers. Luther made his famous comment that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article upon which the church stands or falls. John Calvin added a different metaphor, saying that justification is the hinge upon which everything turns. In the twentieth century, J.I. Packer used a metaphor indicating that justification by faith alone is the “Atlas upon whose shoulder every other doctrine stands.” Later Packer moved away from that strong metaphor and retreated to a much weaker one, saying that justification by faith alone is “the fine print of the gospel.”

The question we have to face in light of these discussions is, what has changed since the sixteenth century? Well, there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that people have become much more civil and tolerant in theological disputes. We don’t see people being burned at the stake or tortured on the rack over doctrinal differences. We’ve also seen in the past years that the Roman communion has remained solidly steadfast on other key issues of Christian orthodoxy, such as the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, and the inspiration of the Bible, while many Protestant liberals have abandoned these particular doctrines wholesale. We also see that Rome has remained steadfast on critical moral issues such as abortion and ethical relativism. In the nineteenth century at Vatican Council I, Rome referred to Protestants as “heretics and schismatics.” In the twentieth century at Vatican II, Protestants were referred to as “separated brethren.” We see a marked contrast in the tone of the different councils. The bad news, however, is that many doctrines that divided orthodox Protestants from Roman Catholics centuries ago have been declared dogma since the sixteenth century. Virtually all of the significant Mariology decrees have been declared in the last 150 years. The doctrine of papal infallibility, though it de facto functioned long before its formal definition, was nevertheless formally defined and declared de fide (necessary to believe for salvation) in 1870 at Vatican Council I. We also see that in recent years the Roman communion has published a new Catholic catechism, which unequivocally reaffirms the doctrines of the Council of Trent, including Trent’s definition of the doctrine of justification (and thus affirms that council’s anathemas against the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone). Along with the reaffirmations of Trent have come a clear reaffirmation of the Roman doctrine of purgatory, indulgences, and the treasury of merits. Continue reading →