April 10, 2014 Broadcast

The Catholic Reformation

A Message by W. Robert Godfrey

Pope Alexander VI had a mistress living in the Vatican, and his daughter was famous for poisoning her enemies. Scandals like this represent just a sliver of the corruption that had crept into the Catholic Church by the end of the 15th Century. Martin Luther and other Protestants responded to the depravity by parting ways with Catholicism. But others remained loyal, seeking reform from within the church. In this lesson, Dr. Robert Godfrey describes the Catholic counter-reformation.

From the series: A Survey of Church History, Part 3 A.D. 1500-1600

Get Upsetting the World National Conference DVD for a Gift of Any Amount

Further Study On This Topic

  1. devotional

    Rome's Analytic View of Justification

  2. devotional

    The Mass and Christology

  3. article

    Is the Reformation Over?

Rome's Analytic View of Justification

Justification by faith alone is a doctrine at the heart of the gospel, and there is more that must be said on the topic. For the next week, Dr. R.C. Sproul will guide our study of some important justification-related issues through his teaching series Justification by Faith Alone.

We begin with the difference between the classical Roman Catholic view of justification and the classical Protestant view of justification. Roman Catholicism affirms what many have called “analytic justification.” To understand what this means, we must define an analytic statement. Essentially, an analytic statement is one in which the predicate gives no new information about the subject. “A bachelor is an unmarried man,” for example, is an analytic statement. By definition, a bachelor is an unmarried man, so there is nothing in the predicate (the unmarried man) that is not found in the subject (the bachelor). There is an identity between both parts of the sentence. Inherently, a bachelor is an unmarried man and vice versa.

Theologians say Roman Catholicism has an analytic view of justification because Rome teaches that we must have some kind of inherent righteousness in order to be justified. In this view, righteousness may be rooted in the grace of God, but the good works that flow from this grace are taken into account in the pronouncement of a righteous status. When discussing justification, a Roman Catholic basically says that “the righteous person is a righteous person.” God only declares people righteous when they have their own righteous deeds to show for it.

Orthodox Protestants affirm synthetic justification. In a synthetic statement, the predicate gives new information about the subject. To say “the bachelor is bald” is to utter a synthetic statement. Baldness is not intrinsic to bachelorhood, so we learn something about a particular bachelor when we call him a bald bachelor.

In the matter of justification, Protestants say that “the righteous person is an unrighteous person to whom the perfect righteousness of Christ has been imputed.” We learn something new in this statement, namely, that justification is not a declaration of our righteousness but of Jesus’ righteousness. The righteousness we enjoy through the gospel is Christ’s righteousness, not our own.

The Mass and Christology

Question and answer 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism contrast the biblical understanding of the Lord's Supper with the Roman Catholic view of the sacrament, highlighting the differences. One problem with the Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper, is the re-sacrifice of Christ in the Roman Catholic Mass. This denies the once-for-all character of the death of Jesus (Heb. 9:23–28). The second major concern with Rome's understanding of the Lord's Supper lies in its view of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

Roman Catholicism's teaching on Jesus' presence in the Lord's Supper is commonly known as transubstantiation. In transubstantiation, the bread and wine actually become the physical body and blood of our Savior when the priest consecrates the communion elements. Since the bread and wine evidence no outward change, Rome must use Aristotelian philosophy to defend its sacramental doctrine.

Aristotle distinguished the essence (or "substance") of an object from its accidents. The essence is that which makes something what it is. If an object's essential properties change, so does the object. For example, roundness is one essential property of a ball. If a ball were to lose its roundness, it would no longer be a ball. At the same time, objects have accidental, or nonessential, properties. An object's accidental properties can change without changing the object's essence. Color, for instance, is an accidental property of a ball. We could change a ball's color from blue to red, but we would still have a ball because color does not make a ball what it is as a ball.

In transubstantiation, the essence of the elements allegedly become our Lord's actual body and blood, but the accidents of bread and wine remain. The elements look, taste, touch, and feel like bread and wine even though they are, in essence, the physical body and blood of Christ. Therefore, transubstantiation ultimately locates Jesus' physical body and blood in more than one place at a time. His physical body ends up literally distributed all around the world every Lord's Day. This cannot be, for Jesus has a true human nature, and His physical body can be in only one place at a time. According to His humanity, Jesus cannot be in two different places at a time, and this is a conclusion we may draw from today's passage and many other texts.

Is the Reformation Over?

R.C. Sproul

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.

At a discussion among leading theologians over the issue of the continued relevance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, Michael Horton asked the question: “What is it in the last decades that has made the first-century gospel unimportant?” The dispute over justification was not over a technical point of theology that could be consigned to the fringes of the depository of biblical truth. Nor could it be seen simply as a tempest in a teapot. This tempest extended far beyond the tiny volume of a single teacup. The question, “what must I do to be saved” is still a critical question for any person who is exposed to the wrath of God.

Even more critical than the question is the answer, because the answer touches the very heart of gospel truth. In the final analysis, the Roman Catholic Church affirmed at Trent and continues to affirm now that the basis by which God will declare a person just or unjust is found in one’s “inherent righteousness.” If righteousness does not inhere in the person, that person at worst goes to hell and at best (if any impurities remain in his life) goes to purgatory for a time that may extend to millions of years. In bold contrast to that, the biblical and Protestant view of justification is that the sole grounds of our justification is the righteousness of Christ, which righteousness is imputed to the believer, so that the moment a person has authentic faith in Christ, all that is necessary for salvation becomes theirs by virtue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The fundamental issue is this: is the basis by which I am justified a righteousness that is my own? Or is it a righteousness that is, as Luther said, “an alien righteousness,” a righteousness that is extra nos, apart from us — the righteousness of another, namely, the righteousness of Christ? From the sixteenth century to the present, Rome has always taught that justification is based upon faith, on Christ, and on grace. The difference, however, is that Rome continues to deny that justification is based on Christ alone, received by faith alone, and given by grace alone. The difference between these two positions is the difference between salvation and its opposite. There is no greater issue facing a person who is alienated from a righteous God.

At the moment the Roman Catholic Church condemned the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, she denied the gospel and ceased to be a legitimate church, regardless of all the rest of her affirmations of Christian orthodoxy. To embrace her as an authentic church while she continues to repudiate the biblical doctrine of salvation is a fatal attribution. We’re living in a time where theological conflict is considered politically incorrect, but to declare peace when there is no peace is to betray the heart and soul of the gospel.

 

Since the beginning,

our aim has been to help Christians know what they believe, why they believe it, how to share it, and how to live it…

More about Renewing Your Mind
 
×

Share