Since the 1994 publication of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), the evangelical body has been convulsed periodically over the doctrine of justification. The patient, to strain a metaphor, sustained a second attack in 1998 with the publication of ECT II or The Gift of Salvation. Those were followed by an attempted remedy, the June 1999 publication, in Christianity Today, of “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration.” So as not to be upstaged, the mainline Lutherans also signed a pact with Roman Catholics in 2000 known as the “Joint Declaration.”
This series of events has puzzled some Reformed Christians. After all, it seemed to many of the Reformed, that over the last fifty years the evangelicals were our friends. We had an arrangement: the Calvinists wrote the books and the enthusiastic evangelicals did the legwork. In that period we had made common cause with the evangelicals on the doctrine of the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture. One had only to think of the founder of Christianity Today, Carl Henry, author of a massive series of works defending the Scriptures to see the strength of the movement. Yes, we have our differences (e.g., on the church and sacraments) but these evangelicals, we said, are our friends. There were warning signals, however. Decades ago Cornelius Van Til at Westminster Seminary had warned that the Reformed are not really evangelicals at all—despite the appearance of family relations, there were deep-seated differences. We Reformed, Van Til said, begin with the triune God, with divine revelation and the objective work of Christ for sinners. The evangelicals, he warned, begin with religious experience.
In 1990 Robert Brow published his now infamous essay, in Christianity Today, “Evangelical Megashift” in which he proved Van Til right and signaled a sharp departure from what had long been regarded as evangelical theological norms. One of megashifts touched the doctrine of justification. We need, he said, to leave the cold courtroom metaphor for justification for a warm family analogy to describe our relations with God. We should not think of him as a judge, but as a Father. Sin is not a judicial problem, it is a family problem. God no more excludes people from his family on account of sin than a father throws out his children because they err.
It is not hard to see the fallacies of Brow’s reasoning and the danger of his assumptions. The same God who has judged our sins in the death of Christ has become, for the sake of his justice, our Father (Heidelberg Catechism Question 26; Romans 8:15–17).
Brow was touting as new nothing more than an elixir made of evangelical pietism, old-fashioned liberal universalism, and a dash of Roman Catholic moralism added for flavor. Condemned by many as a seducer, it turns out that Brow was a prophet of a new wave of baby-boomer evangelicals tired not only of their father’s Oldsmobile, but of the Reformation doctrine of justification.
Why were the evangelicals megashifting? As it turns out, according to some historians of American religion, the evangelicals have been since the eighteenth century, not transformers of culture, nor in antithesis to it, but the products of it. They live in symbiosis with it. As the culture slid into the televised abyss of narcissism, they had to adapt or die. If the culture absolutely rejects a transcendent God or objective reality, the evangelicals had to reject the old Reformed religion in favor of a more marketable commodity. Hence the rise of ECT (1994). Threatened by apparent social decay which could not be halted by Promise Keepers rallies or revivals promised by Campus Crusade for Christ, the evangelicals turned and lifted their eyes to the hills from whence comes their help. In this case, they turned not to the sovereign God of the Scriptures but to Rome, the single largest institutional religious presence in American culture. If the evangelicals could sign a detente with Rome, then perhaps they could not only continue to surf the American cultural wave and perhaps even turn the tide. Father Richard John Neuhaus, a relatively recent convert from mainline Lutheranism to Rome was happy to oblige them.
Neuhaus held a series of high-level meetings, chiefly with evangelical leader and former Nixon aide, Charles “Chuck” Colson. The two of them developed ECT, a document which purported to end the 400-year-old war between Rome and Protestants. What it actually did was ignite a fire storm of protest led by confessional Calvinists.
Prominent evangelical co-signers, such as J. I. Packer, defended the document. When asked to explain how—having defended stoutly the Reformation doctrines of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, he could apparently give them all away—Packer responded with an answer which can only be described as the equivalent of saying, “It seemed like the thing to do at the time.”
Still stinging from rebukes by the likes of Mike Horton and R. C. Sproul, the ECT crowd tried once more to get it right in “The Gift of Salvation” (1998). This time they directly addressed the matter of justification. They found even more common ground between evangelicals and Rome. Whereas it seemed clear to most that the evangelicals had given up too much in ECT, in “The Gift of Salvation,” the evangelicals appeared to win the better of it, declaring that justification “is not earned by any good works or merits of our own.” It continued, “We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).” It even used the expression, “justified sinners,” something which some felt no honest Roman Catholic could ever subscribe.
The list of signatories was truly impressive. Among them were Harold O. J. Brown, Os Guinness, Richard Mouw, Mark Noll and, of course J. I. Packer. There was, however, ambiguity in the statement. One part of the document seemed to create the impression of a Roman Catholic capitulation to the Protestant doctrine, but a later passage asserts that there continues to be questions about “the historic uses of the language of justification as it relates to imputed and transformative righteousness.”
The Confessional Reformed were also troubled by key omissions. For example, though one paragraph emphasizes that we are just before God on the basis of “Christ’s righteousness alone” by virtue of God’s declaration, the statement does not use the language of imputation. Since Rome has always believed that salvation is by God’s transforming grace (Council of Trent 6.7), this is a significant omission. Indeed, the language of imputation occurs only in a section of denials. What the Roman signatories—chief among them Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, papal legate to the evangelicals—gave with one hand, they took away with the other. In effect saying that they retain the right to hold their traditional Tridentine doctrine of justification by sanctification. This was no evangelical victory, rather it only proves that, given the promise of increased social influence, Roman Cardinals can get anxious evangelicals to sign almost anything.
Though the ECT documents may have brought the evangelicals a step closer to Rome, they created a rift between those who signed and those who would not. Into this breach comes “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration” (hereafter “Celebration”). Drafted by evangelical notables such as Don Carson, Harold Myra, J. I. Packer, and R. C. Sproul, this document deserves our attention.
If only because it gets right the decisive matter of imputation, “Celebration” is vastly superior to the two ECT documents. According to it, God justifies sinners by “imputing (reckoning, crediting, counting, accounting) righteousness to them” which benefit they receive “through faith in Christ alone.” It makes clear that sanctification is the fruit of justification and not the ground or instrument of it. The document has a fairly distinctly Reformed tint. For example, it affirms the absolute necessity of teaching the imputation of the active obedience of Christ as part of the Biblical gospel and it rejects categorically the doctrine of the imparting or infusion of justice as the ground of justification.
Perhaps one of the most encouraging signs about this document is the reaction by some evangelicals who feel left out. In Books and Culture, Robert H. Gundry, professor emeritus at Westmont College, lamented not only that not only was he not invited to sign “Celebration” but also that he would not because it was too Reformed.
There are some weaknesses in “Celebration,” however. For example, the statement says that it is through the gospel that we learn, in effect, the greatness of our sin and misery. This, of course, is not correct. We learn of our fallen estate through the Law (HC Q. 3; Romans 3:20). We learn of God’s saving and justifying work for us in Christ through the preaching of the holy gospel (HC Q. 65; Romans 10:17). This confusion of law and gospel is hard to overlook in a document which seeks to establish for all evangelicals what the gospel is.
The evangelical convulsions over justification mean this: Van Til was correct. The fundamental principle of the evangelicals, at least in the Modern period, is religious enthusiasm. Religious experience trumps truth every time. We, on the other hand, are not revivalists or enthusiasts—that is to say, we are not evangelicals.
It is clear to me that, after hearing and reading the explanations of some of the participants in the ECT process, and after talking to others who were at the negotiating table, it is common religious experience, not Biblical and confessional truth, which drives them.
Of the writing of books there is no end, nor it seems, is there an end in sight to attempts to unify evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Reformed Christians, however, should not feel left out. The leading lights of the largest segment of evangelicalism, the Arminians are abandoning historic Christianity, including the doctrine of divine foreknowledge. They have always been uneasy with the Reformation. Perhaps the onset of illness in 1994 was really the result some old errors.
As for us and our households, let us confess the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort—leave the signing of endless compromises to the revivalists. The clear Biblical teaching, as summarized in in all the Canons, in Confession Articles 22–24, and Catechism question 60 is unchanged: The sole ground of our righteousness before God is the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience (Romans 3:27–28; 4:3; Colossians 2:13–15). The sole instrument of our justification is saving faith, which is the gift of God, which looks to Christ and his righteousness alone (Romans 1:17; 3:22; Ephesians 2:8–10). This is what we mean by our solas: by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. About these things there must be no doubt in confessional Reformed churches. The evangelical uncertainty about the gospel and the continuing quest for social influence through alliances with Rome should serve as a reminder not to hold these treasures casually.
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Resources on the Reformation Solas
- Resources On Roman Catholicism
- A Primer on the Active Obedience of Christ (Part One)
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to:
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
fantastic article, thanks so much
I was baptized and raised Catholic–before Vatican II, about which more in a second. There are two major irreconcilable differences between any reformed/evangelical system and that of Rome: (1) The Roman belief in salvation by faith AND works (rendering assurance moot, among other things), and (2) the Roman belief in other sources of revelation than the Bible which are equally valid with the Bible. There are lots and lots of other differences, but these I think are the two cruial ones.
Of course, that’s pre-Vatican II. Vatican II muddied the waters so much that it is just about impossible to say what Rome believes any more. I defy anyone to square “Lumen Gentium,” “Apostolicated Actuositatem,” or especially “Lumen Gentium” with traditional Catholic teaching. They left vast confusion in their wake, which Popes Paul VI and Francis epitomize.
There can be no “together” theologically with Rome because (1) it is impossible to know just what Rome believes these days, and (2) if we do go back to pre-Vatican II doctrine, there is no denying the incompatibility of these doctrines.
I use the Catechism of the Catholic Church as my baseline because that has a relative fixity but you’re right that with Francis, Rome has swung from Pius XIII to Francis, pre-Vatican II, to anti- to pro. I don’t know that Pius XIII was anti- but he was pre. Would Pius VI have invoked papal infallibility to impose the assumption of Mary?
Should be “Apostolicatem Actuositatem” above. Sloppy proofreading!
OK, maybe third time is the charm. I really mean “Apostolicam Actuositatem.”
Thank you, Dr. Clark!! Always a timely article for me!
Please consider posting on Substack,
where we can listen to your articles and support you financially, too!
Very grateful to God for you!
as I’m engaged in this very discussion with a TE at the PCA church I attend, I now know that I have to buy your book “Recovering the Reformed Confession” if I’m going to be able to give a cohesive argument.
The point made that the evangelical rejection of the reformed view of both justification and santification for a more marketable commodity (paraphrase) is just brilliant, which we can clearly see today as spot on.
If I’m going to continue this discussion with the TE, I obviously need to do some more reading. Maybe start with Brow’s essay?
Thank you Nick for the encouragement. See also the resources at the end of the post.
Very interesting that you would criticize evangelicals for being fragile on justification by faith. The criticism may have merit, but the clearest example of denying justification by faith comes from WTS, Philadelphia. The Shepherd controversy was not just seeking compromise with Roman Catholic theology, but an actual denial of justification of faith. Why are the brick throwing Reformed reluctant to look in the mirror? Maybe, because that might lead to theological humility.
It wasn’t Reformed folks who drove or participated (so far as I know) in ECT I. There were some Reformed folk involved in ECT II. I have been publicly criticizing Norm Shepherd’s corruption of the gospel for 20+ years.
Here are the archives of the old URC list from 2001 preserved by CRC Chico.
Here’s the HB resource page on Shepherd.
I edited a volume of essays dedicated, in part, to refuting Shepherd, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry (2007). It’s out of print now. It’s available as an e-book from Apple Books and the HRA is exploring ways to make it available again.
This is supposed to be a reply to you after your comment on mine above…but I can’t figure out how to reply and post. I admit I’m a technological incompetent. Here’s my reply:
Thanks for the comment!
Pedantic correction: Only 12 Piuses. Pius XII definitely pre-Vatican II, so hard to say what he might have thought.
Also dirty little Catholic secret: The Pope has only been infallible since 1871, when Vatican I declared the doctrine (with a bit of an assist from Mary’s appearance to Bernadette Subiroux.) Pius XII was in fact the Pope that used infallibility to impose the assumption of Mary…but if you meant Pius VI, his reign was pre-Vatican I, and so he wasn’t infallible.
As Mark Twain wrote in a different context, Let the candidate for the asylum attempt to memorize all these variations and see how quickly he will be accepted.
Reading your comment one more time, did you mean Paul VI instead of Pius VI?
If so, it is impossible to say what he might have said. He did sincerely try to implement the schemata of the council. But what the council said was so confusing that he did say and do things that were incompatible with each other, to say nothing of Catholic doctrine before 1962. The semi-serious joke during his pontificate was, “What do we believe this week?”
I accept your response and will look into your work on the Shepherd case. I do believe that you have some valuable and important things to say and your criticisms of evangelicalism are valid. I do wish that Christianity did not have to be tribal when there are many important issues of agreement. I do think that the posture of Warfield/ Hodge toward the wider church is more fruitful than Van Til’s.