- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/7)
- Next Post »"The Case for Civility" by Os Guinness
Chuck Colson Blog Tour
- 03/07/08
- 15
Chuck Colson has begun a blog tour to support his new book, The Faith (and interestingly, this blog tour is actually modeled on the one I put together with the publicity team at Crossway after the release of my book). I was asked to participate in this tour and agreed to do so because I wanted to ask a question that would really get to the heart of this book. And while I had Colson’s ear, I wanted to ask a question that I’ve often struggled with as I’ve considered Christians who pursue greater unity with the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a question I would ask Colson if he and I were standing face-to-face. Here is my question and Colson’s response.
Protestants have traditionally held that justification by grace alone through faith alone is at the heart of the Christian faith and thus a non-negotiable doctrine for anyone who considers himself a Christian. Yet this is anathema within the Roman Catholic Church. This would seem to be an unbridgeable divide when seeking communion between the two traditions. Is justification by grace alone through faith alone a doctrine fundamental to the faith? What theological distinctives are non-negotiable in determining who belongs to the Body of Jesus Christ?
It is true that Protestants have traditionally believed that justification by grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone (sola fide) is at the heart of the Christian faith, the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. It was also true that the Roman Catholic Church in Trent anathemized this position. This has been an unbridgeable divide.
In 1992, an informal group of Catholic and evangelical scholars began to meet in New York under the co-chairmanship of Richard Neuhaus and I. One of the items taken up in our consultation was justification by faith alone. And in 1997 we issued a document called “The Gift of Salvation.” You will find it referenced on page 113 of The Faith. It is a remarkable document in which both confessions agreed that we can now affirm what the Reformers meant by sola fide or faith alone.
Admittedly, this was an informal consultation; but Cardinal Cassidy from the Vatican took part in our final discussions, approved the document, and took it back to Rome where it was taught to the bishops in the synods prior to the millennium. Significantly, in the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues, similar agreements were reached, although not quite as explicitly tied to the Reformation. There is an historic shift taking place.
Simply because of its structure, the Roman Catholic Church moves much more slowly than evangelicals do. It will take a generation for these kinds of changes to be reflected in the Catholic catechism. But more and more Catholics are embracing the very doctrine that was at the heart of the Reformation.
Do not be misled here; there are many fundamental differences in how we view the church, methods of worship, baptism, the Eucharist, etc. We’re a long way from having unanimity of belief. We may never achieve it. But, the point of The Faith is that we can agree on the fundamentals laid out in the Nicene Creed, and as we work together and seek unity in a spirit of charity towards one another, it’s amazing how much genuine progress we can make, which eliminates some of the great barriers to the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17.
At some point I would like to respond to this. But not today!
Here is where this blog tour has gone and is going…
March 5 - Acton Institute PowerBlog
March 5 - The Dawn Treader
March 6 - Reasoned Audacity
March 7 - Challies.com
March 10 - Adrian Warnock
March 11 - Tall Skinny Kiwi
March 12 - Mark D. Roberts
March 13 - Rebecca Writes
March 14 - Jolly Blogger

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 


Releasing on April 1, The Next
Comments (15)
Dear Tim,Please do respond in the near future - I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.I’d also like to offer a link to a D.A. Carson lecture that dealt with this topic - http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21108149255The lecture was given at the pastor’s fellowship I go to in Toronto. Paul Martin posted it on sermon audio.In the lecture Carson pointed to a supposedly squeaky clean ecumenical statement. Then he pointed out that it omitted the word ‘alone’ with reference to faith, but not grace. It read ‘we are justified by grace alone through faith…’. As he unpacked the implications of this, it was clear that the statement was not saying enough.In linking to this talk, I’m not correcting Colson. I don’t know if he is working with the same document. I actually haven’t spent enough time on this to be much help. But I thought I’d point to Carson’s lecture and comments, in case they are of any help.In Christ, Ian
Hrmmm … this juxtaposes interestingly with the story from the Vatican saying that Pope Benedict wants to encourage Catholics to re-evaluate Luther. I’d like to see what comes of that - it will be entertaining at the very least.
Though the nuance can get tricky, I was helped by Jimmy Akin’s article on whether Catholics can use the phrase “faith alone” and the different understandings of faith, both in the 16th c. and today:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm
God bless,Chad
Excellent question Tim, that is the very heart of the gospel.
I am sorely disappointed to see Chuck Colson falling for this clever con job. While justification by faith is the pivotal doctrine, it is far from the only irreconcilable difference.
These are perilous times we are heading into.
He responded with what I thought he would: …unity Jesus prayed for in John 17
…and that is why I want him to because I do not think Biblical Unity is unity at the expense of truth or unity at the expense of the Gospel; which must include “justification by grace alone through faith alone” to be the Gospel of the Bible.
Genuine question? Where do we and do we not compromise when it comes to unity?
that is supposed to say “That is why I want him to clarify his definition of Biblical Unity…
Why is justification by grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone anathema to Catholics?
I was having a discussion with a Catholic professor on my [url=http://humblyreforming.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/respecting-other-religions/#comment-180]blog[/url] a bit back that touched on some of the very real differences between the Protestant and Catholic view. I think that often unity is preached and sought after without due consideration for what true unity entails. Unity can only come through adherence to truth. Truth, by its very nature, is exclusive. That there is truth at all indicates that there is untruth. So, if Scripture declares something to be true, and Catholicism declares something contrary to be true, there can be no authentic unity.
Sorry. Here’s the link to that discussion:
http://humblyreforming.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/respecting-other-religions/#comment-180
Catholics read 1 James to imply that both faith and works are necessary. “Faith without works is dead.” So justification by grace alone through faith alone throws away an inspired passage of the Bible, and so was considered anathema. I think that what the commission in question did was to consider what Catholics mean by “salvation through faith” and what Protestants mean by “salvation through faith alone” and concluded that there was little difference today. (Note though, the joint declaration between Lutherans and Catholics a few years ago appeared to be very positive, but it was followed by a declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarifying what Catholics meant by the language of the declaration, and many Protestants would not have read the declaration to say that, so we aren’t at full unity yet, by any stretch of the the imagination.)
By the way, the passage in Romans about salvation by faith does not include the word “alone” in the original Greek (although Luther’s translation did include it).
If Mr. Colson ever reads this, I think his answer is reductionistic, short-sighted, and overly-optimistic.
On the one hand, I think there is no question whatsoever that Rome today has a more-generous view of Protestants than it had 500 years ago — today we are merely “separated brethren” who don’t actually belong to churches, and our salvation and status in grace is under question because we don’t have any right sacraments (excluding, oddly, our baptisms); 500 years ago we were schismatic heretics who could be put to death for any number of things — from our count of the books of the Bible to our stand on sola Fide to our stand on sola Scriptura.
On the other hand, the problem is that this generosity, in spite of ECT, is not based on our status as disciples of Christ, or in a common heritage as the universal/invisible church: it is based on the teachings of Lumen Gentium, which also gives a place in God’s plan of salvation to all Jews and all Muslims who, in the words of the CCC which are lifted from Lumen Gentium, worship the God of Abraham, creator of the universe.
Mr. Colson and his friends in this matter need to consider that the anathemas of Trent are re-affirmed in Vatican I, and that subsequent to that work Protestants are also under the anathema for things like rejecting the position of Mary as mediatrix.
Matt Monge is exactly right in his comment, above, and the excuse that somehow Catholicism works on a geologic scale rather than on a more-pragmatic scale is unconvincing. Catholicism can make radical changes in relatively short periods of time on many issues — like the theology of Mary, or the affirmation of documents like Lumen Gentium. If Rome is truly recanting its anathema of Sola Fide, let it do so clearly and formally so that it can also recant all of its work to hector Protestant dissenters. And let it also repudiate lay Catholic apologetics which, frankly, rejects Mr. Colson’s optimism about the state of Protestant/Catholic dialog.
R.C. Sproul’s book “Getting the Gospel Right” was his response to the ECT. In it he spoke of the language used regarding “saved by faith” as studied ambiguity(stating something that either side of the discussion can say it means what they believe, but really affirming nothung). The beuty of Sproul’s book is that in the statement that he was ivolved with drafting(The Gospel of Jesus Christ:An Evangelical Celebration) in response to ECT was that they included affirmations and denials which is neccassary to put boundries around beliefs. Rome can also try to deny a works righteousness but where protestants believe we can stand before God because of Christ’s Righteousness, IMPUTATION, Rome says it is because of our good works that Christ gives US the grace to do, INFUSION.All of the SOLAS are denied by Rome.J.D. Heinrich
The guys at the White Horse Inn (e.g. Dr. Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary California et al.) addressed this very issue when they interviewed Mark Noll about his book “Is the Reformation Over?”
I can email you the MP3 if you would like (as it is no longer available online). Just email me: nicholashenninghill@yahoo.ca.
On a related note, Michael Horton, in a broadcast called “Roman Catholics and Justification” (Sunday, November 04, 2007) talks with Robert Sungenis, president of Catholic Apologetics International about the Roman Catholic understanding of the doctrine of justification in order to contrast it with the classical Protestant position.
Copy and paste this into your browser: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=11/4/2007
Here is the link; it got cut off:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=11/4/2007
The best book I have read on Catholicism is by a former Catholic; it is warm, discerning, well researched, yet gets to the heart of the issues:
“Nothing in My Hand I Bring: Understanding the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants” (Matthias Media).
http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/Samples/nimh/nimh_sample.pdf