The Logical Chain of the Protestant Solas
Brad East argues that historical Protestant theological claims often overreach, giving as an example the assertion that the traditional five solas logically imply each other. “Any of them might be true—all of them might be true—but irrespective of that question, each principle requires independent demonstration; the solas are not necessarily a package deal.” I think Brad overstates things, and that the solas mostly imply each other as a package deal. A couple of thoughts on the outset before I make my friendly case. First, no magisterial Reformer or Reformed church ever distilled Protestant theology into the five solas or expressed them as a foundational unit. The arrangement of the five solas came centuries later in order to categorize a simplified essence of Protestant thought. Second, the definitions embedded in the terms matter. The solas are slogans, not dogmatic categories, and depending on the definitions used different conclusions are going to be reached about their logical necessitation.
Alright, so the foundational sola is Solus Christus, namely that Christ in his person and work alone sufficiently accomplished all that is necessary for salvation. This sola is not just that Christ is the single savior, but that who he is and what he did alone saves. The Reformers argued that we are justified by the person and work of Christ alone. That logically requires that no other person or activity justifies, saves, or contributes to that salvation in any way
Christ in his person and work alone are what saves/justifies
Any other ground for salvation/justification is in addition to Christ’s work
∴ Salvation/justification is by Christ’s work (grace) alone…
Anthony Burges on the Definition of Justification
“If the word [justification] should signify as much as ‘to make righteous’, as to sanctify does signify ‘to make holy’, still we could grant it, though not in the Popish way; and indeed the Apostle [in] Rom. 5. says, ‘many are made righteous by the second Adam’, which if not meant of inherent holiness, does imply, that the righteousness we have by Christ is not merely declarative, but also constitutive; and indeed one is in order before the other, for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be…so that there are these two things in justifying, whereof one is the ground of the other, first to make righteous, and then to pronounce or declare so.”
-Anthony Burges, The True Doctrine of Justification.
On the Reformed and the JDDJ
On July 5th the World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC) joined the JDDJ. The WCRC’s statement of association, like the World Methodist Council, adds areas of distinct Reformed emphasis on justification. These additions are both far superior to anything produced in the original JDDJ or its subsequent additions, while simultaneously being the most disappointing additions…
On the Methodist Addition to the JDDJ
Christianity Today published a review on Protestant-Catholic relations that focused upon two books, the first written by Protestant-turned Catholic Peter Kreeft, the other co-authored by Protestants Kenneth J. Collins (Catholic converted to Wesleyanism) and Jerry L. Walls, a Baptist. Both books address the JDDJ, with Kreeft calling it, “the greatest ecumenical achievement in the five hundred years since the Reformation.” Collins and Walls dedicate an entire chapter to the JDDJ, in which they echo the concerns of the LCMS and hit the same points that I addressed in my previous post.
The World Methodist Council adopted the JDDJ in August, 2006, with some additions to reflect distinctly Wesleyan understandings of justification. It is interesting that the Methodists constantly cite John Wesley to express their theological points and scriptural interpretation; the Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed all cite their exegetical tradition or confessional statements, not individual theologians.
The Methodist additions to the JDDJ, like the Lutheran comments, functionally defer to the Catholic structure of understanding justification. Any notable doctrinal difference between the Methodists and the initial JDDJ undercuts the common consensus on the foundational nature of justification that the Lutherans and Catholics are attempting to achieve….
On Failed Consensus and Justification
I had intended to keep up my comments on the Joint Declaration on Justification (JDDJ) that I began this summer, but time got away from me.
The JDDJ sets out to demonstrate that there is a common consensus between the Lutheran and Catholic signatories on the fundamental aspects of the doctrine of justification. The JDDJ is a reminder that Protestants need to engage with Roman Catholics as they actually are, not with caricatures of them…
There is much to commend with the report, as I previously mentioned. However, the JDDJ falls short of addressing the primary concerns that confessional Protestants and Trentine Catholics had with the doctrine of justification….
