The recent debate about whether the pope is a true Christian reminded me of the helpful book written by my friend Mark Noll, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). I am honored that he mentions me as one person who believes the “Reformation Wars” are over. Mark did not know my church affiliation at the time he wrote this book but he got my story right. It is a tiny part of the whole narrative that he tells very well. I encourage you to read the book.
Various comments that readers recently posted on Michael Mercer’s original iMonk post – “The War Is Over” – moved from responding to the anti-Catholic rhetoric of Tim Challies to making comments about what they felt prompted this debate. One such comment said:
Can all Neo Cals (neo-Calvinists) please never mention Tolkien or Chesterton ever again? This will clear up lots of confusion. Or maybe those are the only two Catholics in heaven or maybe the Neo Cal doesn’t actually think they are really elect but still reference them because they were good writers who God in his common grace used for his glory while damning them of course.
A rather clever respondent then followed the above quote by adding: “Catholic traditionalists should not use C. S. Lewis or Dietrich Bonhoeffer.” Touché!
This kind of banter underscores a serious point about these comments that have made a powerful impact upon my own journey into missional-ecumenism. When I was finding my way out of an anti-Catholic, confessionally rigid and deeply Reformed stance I realized that I failed to actually read Catholic theology from the actual sources. Simply put, I had never had a serious conversation with a Catholic theologian about Catholic theology. Something seemed wrong with this, especially with the part about how I viewed the historical church until after the sixteenth century. If most Catholics before and since the Protestant Reformation were not true Christians (because they believed doctrines that we commonly equate with what we have decided is wrong with the Catholic Church) then why do we quote so many of them as if they were great Christians? To put this another way, “Where was the church of Jesus Christ before the sixteenth century?” And yet further, “Why do hyper-conservative Catholics (often employing apologetics that are clearly aimed at converting Protestants or at explaining why those writers became Catholics) seek to proselytize evangelicals, especially by using voices like C. S. Lewis? I find it amusing, and at times exasperating, that some of these media-driven (popular) Catholic apologists try so hard to show that C. S. Lewis was actually a “closet” Catholic. The same argument has been used to suggest that the late Brother Roger of Taizé was a “secret” Catholic because he was (and this is a fact) communed by Catholics such as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. These three men were all dear friends and mutually supported the ecumenical movement. Some have even insisted that Brother Roger converted (in private) but this is simply untrue. It was never encouraged or done. I believe this is because his iconic status as a global leader in deep ecumenism was respected by both popes and a host of other godly Catholics.
Still another writer noted to the iMonk:
In an interconnected world of 6+ billion people how many false-by-my-standards teachers are there? This is a ludicrous construct in the 21st century. If Tim Challies does not believe I am a true Christian, I am completely comfortable with that.
Bravo! I know more than a few neo-Calvinists who have concluded that I am not a “true Christian” either. I am “completely comfortable” with that opinion since that is all it is – their opinion. My all-knowing and all-loving Father in heaven knows me and this is all that matters. I am safe in his grace and love.
I often ask this: How many people are not true Christians because they are “false-by-my-standards”? When you set up a standard, especially one rooted deeply in your (near) private reading of the Bible, and then decide by this standard who is and is not a true Christian, then you have not only put yourself in the role of the judge of the universe but you have reduced the knowing of Jesus Christ to an agreement with some items in your doctrinal checklist.
Are Catholics Christians?
Yes, Catholics are Christians! There can be no serious doubt about this if the answer is based on a proper confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior. If you read the teaching of the Catholic Church, confess the ancient (faith) creeds and genuinely know Catholics who love Jesus as deeply as you do then you will have no doubt either. Catholics are Christians just as much as Protestants and evangelicals. A Christian is someone who “believes” (trusts) Jesus is the one who lived, died and rose again for their salvation and that of the world. A true Christian believes they have sinned and that Jesus will save them if they trust him and love him. If you wish to argue that within the Catholic Church there are individuals who are not genuinely “born from above” then I freely grant that point. But so does every Catholic theologian that I have ever met. Every serious Christian church knows that there is no guarantee of salvation by membership in it just because you belong to the right church. And every serious Christian should grant that you do not have to pass a “doctrine test” to be a child of God.
The apostle John writes:
And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. All who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us.
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God. So we have known and believe the love that God has for us.
God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world (1 John 3:23–4:17, NRSV).
A respondent to the iMonk cleverly wrote: “But do some Catholics have some un-Christian doctrines. No doubt about that. (The Council of Trent – “Let anyone who says that we are saved by faith alone be anathema.”) It’s hard to change things that one has taught for hundreds of years. So many of these errant doctrines become entrenched. But, they are STILL Christians. Albeit a bit less free (from the spiritual ladder-climbing project) than we would like to see.”
This comment is helpful but only if you peel away some layers. First, the Council of Trent has been badly misunderstood by both Catholics and Protestants. I still recall sitting down to a meal with a Catholic priest (a dear friend) and asking him, “Why would you bow and pray with me if I am condemned by the Council of Trent since I am a Reformed minister?” He answered me by asking a question: “John, do you believe that you will be welcomed into the eternal kingdom by Christ because of an act of faith you had in this life that bore no works or charity at all?” I said, “Of course not.” He then said, “Then the anathemas regarding justification by faith and grace did not apply to me.” I responded by saying, “Then it seems to me Trent was responding to something that they believed was being taught or might be taught by the Reformers but which I believe was not their intent at all.” He completely agreed with that analysis. I have been digging into this for year since that day and I now understand why he spoke that way when I asked him about the anathemas.
The part in this comment that is all to common can be heard in the testimony of many former Catholics who are now evangelicals. These Catholics wrongly heard that they could “earn” salvation step-by-sep by gaining merit through acts of mercy and charity. Then they heard that God saves all who call upon the Lord Jesus Christ for his grace in humble faith. Finding peace with God through the forgiveness of their sins they discovered joy in the good news and (eventually) left their birth church. They had experienced what this writer calls: “the spiritual ladder-climbing project.” Upon hearing the good news that God would accept them on the basis of Christ’s grace and mercy alone they found new life in the Spirit. It should be noted that many other Catholics have discovered the same reality without ever leaving their church.
Pope Paul VI, in On Evangelization, wrote:
Evangelization will also always contain–as the foundation, center and the same time the summit of its dynamism–a clear proclamation that, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, who died and rise from the dead, salvation is offered to all men, as a gift of God’s grace and mercy (On Evangelization in the Modern World, an apostolic exhortation, December 8, 1975, 27).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is equally clear when it says:
Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed (Catechism, 1431).
One of my favorite Catholic teachers and writers is Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher to the papal household for decades, put it this clearly in a 1995 sermon: “To say, ‘Jesus is Lord” means, in fact, to make a decision. It is as though saying: Jesus Christ is ‘my’; Lord . . . (cf. “Faith in Christ Today and at the Beginning of the Church,” 2, Homilies in the Papal Household, December 2, 1995, from web site www.cantalemess.org/en.predicheVIew.php?id=69).
I could site many references that would show how the Catholic Church believes that baptism is the external sign of conversion. Baptism calls the faithful to a total interior renewal that comes about by the gracious work of the Spirit. The Catechism (1226) says, “Baptism is seen as connected with faith: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved’ . . .” The point I wish to make here is that the inner reality (repentance is referenced here) is what constitutes an essential component of accepting the salvation God offers to the sinner.
A distinction here is necessary, one not always clearly made by some Catholics. Conversion is a process. But the process has a definite beginning. Like marriage you “get married” and you remain in the marriage, and work on your marriage, day-by-day. We are saved and we are being saved. This is biblical language. Finally, we will be saved in the final day.
I now tell my Catholic friends that there is no substitute for “faith in the Gospel” is essential to new life (cf. Catechism, 1427). Baptism alone is not enough. Faithfulness to the sacramental life of the church is not enough. These are a part of discipleship but faith must have a beginning. Conversion may not begin at a point where we recall everything that happened to us but all of us must begin. We must trust Christ alone to save us. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that opposes this truth and a great deal that supports it. It is here, and in our moving toward Christ alone who stands at the center of our most holy faith, that I find common ground.
Related Posts
Comments
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
To put this another way, “Where was the church of Jesus Christ before the sixteenth century?”
Funny thing about that comment in your blog… I was just having the same conversation with some LDS friends of mine and the same point could be made to Jehova’s Witnesses.
I’m really enjoying this series John! Thank you!
John H. Armstrong, perhaps you can write about (if you haven’t already) the use of the term “ROMAN Catholicism” by Reformed Christians. When I get into conversations about Catholicism with particularly anti-Catholic Christians they always use the term “ROMAN Catholicism” rather than our name, which is “Catholicism.” I remind them that we Catholics have never historically called ourselves Roman Catholics, but it was the Reformers who gave us this name. Further, I point out that in the Catechism you can search for the term “Roman Catholicism” and it will never appear, because it is not who we are, we are Catholics, not Roman Catholics. I also point to the several Rites of the Catholic Church such as Byzantine, Syro Malabar, Coptic, etc. which are certainly not “Roman” in any sense to stress that Catholicism is what the term means – universal. Obviously 97% of Reformed Christians have encountered Latin Rite Catholics, which is most influenced by Grecco-Roman culture, but none the less, we are not Roman Catholics, we are Latin Rite Catholics. There is a huge difference.
I grant that in America today, many Catholics will refer to themselves as Roman Catholics, but that is out of ignorance and from the habit of being called Roman Catholics in this country by Reformed Christians.
As I have dug into this a bit deeper, I have discovered that it is really a term of derision because it carries an anti-Catholic narrative of Catholicism being corrupted by Roman paganism during the time of Constantine. “Roman” in this sense, a qualifier that means “deformed” or “paganized” Catholicism.
The reason why I bring this up is because the book you reference uses Roman Catholicism in its subtitle and I wonder if it is time for Reformed Christians to begin a discussion about ceasing to use the term “Roman Catholicism” in recognition that indeed the War is Over. Catholics have ceased calling Reformed Christians “heretics” for quite some time now (although, in some rare quarters, it might still be used) and if we are going to begin listening to one another rather than fighting each other, then perhaps we should begin by calling one another by our actual names, rather than the ones we picked up during the War. Thoughts?
To support my point, the term “Romanism” has been used as a term of derision for many many years. Here is one example:
http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mQ4TELz-OiAF6A_Qqvd7dMA.jpg
And again…
http://i11.ebayimg.com/07/i/001/2b/6d/4774_35.JPG?set_id=800005007
More contemporary..
https://www.steps.org.au/img/products/romanism-and-the-reformation.jpg
Must the Reformation Wars continue? Part 4 http://t.co/0117mKMUyB
Great article, John!
Michael Sullivan I understand your point and will do my part to avoid “offensive” and pejorative use of terms. I think you know I already work hard at such an approach. I see your point though the book’s author is anything but using the word in that way I assure you. He is, after all, an esteemed professor at Notre Dame and a frontline scholar, in fact perhaps our best American historian. I believe he uses it, as I do, to refers to the Latin (Roman) rite, etc. Your point is fair, however.
Michael, I wonder if there is a different way to refer to people of a Catholic background other than using only Catholic. I have used the term, Roman Catholic, not as a term of derision, but because I think there are ambiguities created if only ‘Catholic’ is used. For example, though I am a Protestant, I appreciate the meaning of the word ‘catholic’, and I would refer to myself as a catholic Christian. Of course, when you are reading my comment you will recognize that I am referring to myself as a universal Christian and not as someone who is part of the Roman Catholic Church because I used a lowercase ‘c’. However, if someone was only listening to me and I referred to myself as a catholic Christian, they are much more likely to think I am a Roman Catholic. Hence advocating dropping the Roman term likely means that I as a Protestant cannot make use of the ‘catholic’ term in reference to myself – a real loss in my opinion.
Jordan Litchfield makes a point I do agree with Michael Sullivan. How else can I/we use the word Catholic, as in the creed which we too affirm, and distinguish that we are not Latin (Western) Catholics related to the papacy? To say Catholic is fair enough with a cap C but then verbally it doesn’t work as well. I respect your concern but believe Jordan has raised a very fair point. I take it Noll is doing the same in his title.
Excellent post John thanks for sharing. I still remember my first year of seminary hearing N.T. Wright lecture and quoting Richard Hooker in saying “one does not need to have a proper understanding of justification by faith in order to BE justified by faith”. He went on to say similar to you that to be a Christian “In Christ” is to acknowledge fully that Jesus is Lord. I wish more Evangelicals would understand this. I think C.S. Lewis used the analogy of two people may get in the same car and have a different understanding of how the engine actually works. Regardless they trust that the car will actually get them to their final destination. It’s funny how certain Christians almost come across as gnostic in their insistence that one must have a meticulously correct theology in order to be fully Christian. As though Calvin or Luther’s understanding of justification is this secrete knowledge that amazingly they have discovered but no one else has.
Thank you Matt Purmort. I could not agree more. We are saved by Christ alone not by rightly understanding justification by faith alone. The truth is most who debate this doctrinal matter do not agree with one another which is one reason some attack each other over very fine points such as “extra nos” being the deciding issue as was done with me.
We may or may not be entering into a new age. Every time, I think that we might find even some minor points of agreement, new disagreements and schisms happen. While I share your dream of a great reconciliation, some times I would settle for a pan -evangelicalism, a pan Calvinism or even a pan Baptist approach,
What does it mean to be a “universal” Christian in the context in which you both are using this term? In regards to the creed, it is one of the 4 Marks of the Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
The use of the term gets to the heart of the “War.” What does it mean for a Christian to call themselves a catholic Christian when that Christian doesn’t affirm the universal characteristics as they have been historically received (one, holy, catholic and apostolic)? In a sense, it is the Reformed Christian who has redefined the term “catholic” apart from its historical meaning. Catholics began to be called Roman Catholics precisely because Church of England Reformers wanted to hold onto the term Catholic while at the same time redefining catholicity to mean divided from, and with a different canon of scripture, and a different understanding of apostolicity, etc.
With all respect, it is the Catholic’s responsibility to stop calling Protestants “heretics,” but it isn’t the Catholic’s responsibility to change our name to accommodate a reformed redefinition of catholicity so that it can be appropriated to fit a reformed Christian’s desire to identify as “catholic.” Although I don’t agree with Peter J. Leithart’s assessment of Catholicism as “deformed” Christianity, his suggestion is that all the various flavors of Reformed Christianity begin to call themselves “Reformed Catholics” as an expression of the movement towards a new unity. Perhaps this is a solution to the practical problems you raise in using the term “catholic” and “Catholic.”
Call Catholics, Catholic, and call yourselves Reformed Catholics, if that works and fits.
In justice, it is the Reformed Christian that seeks to modify “catholic” with a new meaning from the historical one. Yet, in a move to justify the “protest” the catholicity of the Catholic Church had to be modified in the war of language by calling it “Romanish” catholicism, i.e., Deformed Catholicism. To continue to use the term “Roman Catholic” is a perpetuation of this war of words where we Catholics have to carry this distorted modifier, yet it is really the responsibility of Reformed Christians to make a change in this regard that is both honest and healing.
Thanks for the response, Michael. I think your last post is unnecessarily strong, though. I think you need to give the benefit of the doubt to your Protestant brothers and sisters that they are sincerely and genuinely endeavoring to be catholic in the historical sense, and you will have to respect and appreciate that even if that pursuit to be catholic does not lead them to join the Roman Catholic Church.
I understand your point that ‘Roman’ is probably a later addition (I don’t know, maybe someone with a more detailed grasp of history could confirm this), but we must now deal with present realities. I have Roman Catholic friends, including a priest, and they do not seem to mind that designation. Furthermore, many ‘Protestants’ are becoming uncomfortable with that self-designation (i.e., Protestant) since they recognize that it primarily defines us negatively – as a movement which is defined by protest. However, though we may not like all of its overtones, it is unlikely in the near future that we will be able to find another term which is more suitable, so again we have to deal with present realities.
Finally, not all Protestants are Reformed, as your last post assumes. There is a different brand of Protestantism which falls in between the Reformed, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox branches, which is Wesleyanism, which is again an offshoot of the Anglican tradition. In both of the latter movements, we ascribe to the via media and there is a very strong appreciation for the historical church and catholicity. Wesley himself recognized that not all aspects of the Reformation were good, and he drunk heavily from Roman Catholic and especially Orthodox wells.
I wrote the last paragraph to point out that ‘Reformed Catholics’ would not work for a large branch of Protestantism – including much of the charismatic church around the world, which as you probably know, is probably the largest Protestant movement in the world now.
Michael Sullivan I have to agree with Jordan Litchfield. May I suggest you honestly join me in the ecumenical dialogues with my Catholic bishops and theologians who lead the USCCB in this area. This is NOT how they speak or engage. Respect and understanding goes both ways friend. We need to listen to you but this is mutual. You are selectively reading certain Protestant and Reformed people and I am not such a person as you should know well as my friend. Grant that it takes two to dance a conversation toward unity, not us simply acknowledging that you (Catholics) were right about everything all along. We cannot seek to “win” if the Holy Spirit is going to unite us more and more in real life experience.
Glenn Miller, I understand your response. There is a fatigue to deep ecumenism and many of my friends are tired and discouraged but when people in 1964 look at today they are nothing short of amazed. Here I suggest we take a “faith” view that is long term and focused on what God is doing and has done, not what still goes wrong. This is not optimism but gospel renewal for me. 🙂
John, you misunderstand me, although I know you know my heart.
I’m not accusing you or Jordan of intending a “deformed” use of the term “Roman Catholicism,” nor am I suggesting that Catholics have been right about everything all along. My firm believe is that God intends for a new unity in His body and the Catholic Church can desire a new evangelization and a renewal in the Church for the rest of eternity, but we will not see world wide transformation in Christ until there is a new unity and the fruits of the Holy Spirit raised among Reformed Christians flows into the Catholic body and the riches carried within the Catholic Church flows into the Reformed body for a new grafting together. So, my comments are within this context.
Part of the work of unity is to flush out the dirt that has gotten into the wound of division. My comments about the use of the term “Roman Catholicism” come from this recognition. It is a bit of dirt that needs flushing.
I don’t know the answer, but I do know that it keeps coming up even among well intended Christians among the Charismatic movement. It is part of a grand narrative that early Christianity up to Constantine was pure, but then it was Romanized which then gave us the Dark Ages until Luther. This is a myth, but one perpetuated in books such as “2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity.”
At the level of Bishops of the USCCB, you have other issues to discuss that are more pressing, but it is an issue and one that is not likely to be raised by the Bishops, yet it consistently comes up in discussions on the ground, so to speak.
My point in asking you to think about this and address it is precisely because you are a leader in ecumenism.
Also, I genuinely would like to understand how you and Jordan understand catholicity when you use that term.
http://www.amazon.com/2000-Years-Charismatic-Christianity-pentecostal/dp/0884198723
Michael Sullivan, you rock!!! Thanks friend. I am using the term catholicity in the way the first creed used it which cannot be exclusive to all things Latin or Western since it was used in the East as well. I use it this way in my book which if you do not have I commend to you dear friend. It is not understood as exclusively Western, or related to the papacy directly, in its history or modern use, especially since I, and all series academic ecumenists, use it for all Christians who confess the ancient and early creeds as we do.
As a young man I could not have imagined that I would be eager to learn more about what Catholics believe. John Armstrong has been in the forefront in leading me on an exciting journey. I now enjoy fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ from different traditions. Imagine that….We evangelicals didn’t have a corner on the truth after all.
John, thank you for this series. I love that you are bringing the truth to light. The only way for us to become one is for clearer revelation of Jesus Christ and you are doing that. In the adult Sunday School class I teach, I attempt to accomplish the same, my only hope is that more Catholics would hunger for the truth, many are content in their 8th grade understanding of the faith. Many of us pray each day at 3PM for His will in the RC CHurch and for unity in the Body of Christ.
John, the dialogue you have with the Bishops is essential to this unity and also more evangelization in the RC Church. In many ways they are the arbiters of what is taught, but they need to drive this to the parish level and teach the priest to be shepherds…… right now many are just not there…….. leaders that know and love Jesus are essential to faith life and bringing encouragement to be one in Him
Thanks again for the feedback, Michael. Your thoughts are appreciated.
As far as my definition of ‘catholicity’, it isn’t very technical, but I simply use it in a way that refers to the Church/Body of Christ in all places and in all times. When I refer to myself as catholic Christian, I confess that I am part of an organic body of people, constituted by the Spirit, from any Christian tradition – Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc., both present here on earth and also those absent from the body but present with the Lord.
I hope that isn’t too confusing.
Must the Reformation Wars Continue? (Part Four) http://t.co/BT7ghSWA2k by @JohnA1949
Jordan Litchfield, this is not confusing at all. It is what I believe so if untrue I am confused but many already think that I am. 🙂
i’ll stay out of this Jesus Christ and Him crucified is enough
Amen. I’ve been on a similar journey and then I found your book. It is encouraging to know there are others who can embrace those brothers and sisters we have in Christ, even when we disagree.
RT @JohnA1949: Must the Reformation Wars Continue? (Part Four): In the comments various readers made on Michael Merce… http://t.co/70nMkJ…
I have used small c catholic to describe the universal church, in part to redeem the term to some of my evangelical friends that want to use catholic to mean non-Christian. But it seems to me that Jordan and John may be using catholic to mean Christian (universal, apostolic creed believing). If that is how we mean it shouldn’t we just use Christian? And if we need to convey universal just say universal?
.@JohnA1949 Must the Reformation Wars Continue? http://t.co/5bihoXEcPQ http://t.co/cl0RDHhLn6 http://t.co/90H5tMGJrL http://t.co/Y9z5Yd9kQ6
Actually, no Adam Shields. The word catholic is a better and richer word and was used in the creeds accepted by all Christians. I do not think we should substitute a word for it but explain the meaning.
Russell Almon liked this on Facebook.
Richard Roland liked this on Facebook.
Chaplain Mike liked this on Facebook.
Rick Landry liked this on Facebook.
Daniel A Soares liked this on Facebook.
David Hong liked this on Facebook.
Will Hinton liked this on Facebook.
Thomas Nathan Smith liked this on Facebook.
John A. Bixby liked this on Facebook.
Forrest Lee Horn liked this on Facebook.
Addison Hodges Hart liked this on Facebook.
Joseph L Schafer liked this on Facebook.