Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

March 20th, 2012

Reading Justification: The Roman Catholic View (Joel) @ivpacademic

Click to Order

There were no essays in this volume which I approached with any amount of trepidation, except for this one by the Roman Catholic theologians, O’Collins and Rafferty. Perhaps it was because that I have known for sometime my predilection to the Roman Catholic position on Justification. History is never as one-sided as the sectarians would have us believe, and this essay, giving the history of the still-Roman Catholic debate which led to Luther and from Luther to Trent, shows that the usual Protestant banter around this particular topic is often devoid of an objective view of history. Further, the entire essay by these two authors shows that the movement of Scripture is still alive and well in the Roman Catholic Church.

The essay is split in twain, with Rafferty giving the general lead up to Trent, as well as the actual discussion of Trent (although it is light on this subject) and O’Collins adding a theological reflection as well as a personal journey regarding the present topic. If we Protestants continue to see Rome through Trent, we will continue to allow Rome to out pace us in ecumenical moves and theological discussions. Other than the spirituality expressed in this essay, there is not much here to tell. These scholars of theological history show that Trent is often misunderstood, which allows the responders to, rightly, call into question the fact that even with all the change Vatican II put into place, the 16th century council was never revisited. Further, they stress as those before, during, and after Trent, that justification is a many splendored image. If it is misinterpreted, and rarely used rightly, allowing O’Collins to issue his own personal theories, then it should be reexamined and in some way changed. Further, given that both the West and the East have recognized that justification is a theme, an image, that fits into the Scriptural view of salvation, then Trent should be reexamined in such a way as to allow for some of the anathemas to be rescinded, which is a major sticking point for Protestants, and rightly so. But Rome has a great deal to show us in the way it tackles theological questions, often without alienating the factions, but finding a way to strengthen the entire Church.

Full review to follow soon enough…

Tags: Gerald O'Collins, intervarsity press, ivp-academic, Oliver Rafferty
Posted in Books, Justification | 2 Comments »

February 6th, 2012

Justification: Five Views – the Traditional Reformed View @ivpacademic

Click to Order

Remember, this is a read through to which you are all invited, so not really a traditional review.

I find it ironic that this view is called the “Traditional Reformed” View, given the often times anti-Tradition tradition of the Reformed Churches as well as the motto, ‘ever reforming.’ Further, given the attention to detail of historical writings of their tradition, often times ad nauseum, doesn’t transfer to either exegetical revelations or other viewpoints. Horton shows the pitfalls of making dogma, to reverse what Dunn says (119), bow to exegesis in that he makes conflicting statements and shows an almost purposeful ignorance of both Catholic doctrine and New Perspective studies which seem to be his focus of adversus stances. I betray my biasness against the Traditional Reformed view, but upon reading this first view and the responses, I am left wondering where I will eventually end up. Already, I have my suspicion, but we’ll see.

Horton’s writing is almost polemical, beginning with the disagreement that the Progressive Reformed should contain that name, noting that it is not Progressive to fall away from the truth. This is the problem with Horton and others who insist on the Traditional view, that for them, the dogma of justification is the measure by which to test new exegesis, facts and studies. Horton shows that it is not the fair evaluation of the other perspectives and doctrines which he is after, so much as it seems to be the denial of their validity and the attacks to thwart actual consideration of their views. As several of the respondents have shown, Horton misses the many nuances of the other positions in attempt to defend his own. For instance, his usual anti-Catholic biases come forth when he writes of the Council of Trent and dismisses the importance of the document signed between Rome and the World Lutheran Federation. Further, he is unable to truly handle Dunn’s New Perspective, accusing them, not of misunderstanding Paul so much as misunderstanding the Reformation. As Dunn points out, this is simply not true, as for many in the non-monolithic NPP, he wants to bring an added dimension to Paul’s theology which was missing during the Reformation.

My only concern so far is that the responses are a bit disjointing. They aren’t just responding to Horton but responding to Horton while setting up their own stances and responding to others. Overall, however, there is enough fodder in this first view to show not only why Justification is important, but why the various sides struggle to accept one another, albeit, it is generally the Traditional Reformed who simply do not accept the others.