Reformation - Part 2 Good News

Imagine the burden of the guilt from your sin you felt before you were saved, when you realized the depth of your fallenness, unworthiness, and broken relationship with God, your Father.  Imagine the overwhelming realization that you were guilty and you could never please God by your own efforts. That is the burden Martin Luther and many others lived under with no hope.  No Gospel - bad news. 

Then Luther, as a few had before him - John Hus and John Wycliffe, stumbled upon God's Word and the good news that had not been preached to them:  Reconciliation with God was possible through Jesus.  Forgiveness.  A relationship with God.  Gospel - good news.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8

It's hard to imagine living with the burden of sin and never hearing the Gospel.  That is the significance  of the Reformation that was finally sparked on this day in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg hoping to initiate a discussion to reform the church.  And it's the Gospel, the good news, that is the legacy of the Reformation that is our blessing each and every day, to live under the Gospel, the good news.

Here's an excellent description of the significance of the Reformation from Here We Stand by Hermann Sasse (pp. 65-71):

It is not, therefore, the return to the Scriptures in itself which makes the Reformation of the sixteenth century one of the great and unique events of church history. The nature of the Reformation must be sought, rather, in the particular kind of return to the Bible….How often has the church been reformed ‘according to God’s Word’!...[T]he…Reformation, in its essential nature, is nothing else than a rediscovery of the gospel….
 
The rediscovery of the Scriptural truth concerning the justification of the sinner by grace alone, through faith alone, is nothing less than the rediscovery of the Gospel. For, if this truth is forgotten, the Gospel must be interpreted as a system of morals or as a theory of religious metaphysics. Consequently, this discovery constitutes the reformation of the church. It revealed once again that truth by which alone the church lives.
 
For the church does not live by morals, by the knowledge and observance of God’s law. Nor does it live by religion, by lofty experiences of the divine and an awareness of the mysteries of God. It lives solely by the forgiveness of sins. Hence reformation does not consist, as the late Middle Ages believed, and has even been believed in wide circles of the Protestant world, of an ethico-religious correction, of a moral quickening and a spiritual deepening throughout the church. It consists, rather, according to its own peculiar nature, of the revival of the preaching of the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake….
 
The [Reformation] understanding of the Scriptures, we say, came as a result of this rediscovery of the Gospel. At all events, it has been the conviction of the [Reformation] that the sola scriptura is conditioned by the sola fide, that a real return to the Scriptures was made possible only by a new understanding of the Gospel. It is in this sense that the Apology to the Augsburg Confession speaks of Justification as “the chief topic of Christian doctrine…which is of especial service for the clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, and alone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge of Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible." This view alone guards against the false, legalistic conception of the Bible as a law-book ….[T]he Reformation was a renovation of the church brought about by the rediscovery and renewed proclamation of the pure doctrine of the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins.

And, thank God, our renovation as well.

Comments

[Joe]

The Reformation Gospel isn't the Gospel affirmed by the early Church. For quotes from the Father's on justification, see here: http://www.churchfathers.org/category/salvation/reward-and-merit. So the Protestant must either admit that 1) The true Gospel was lost right after the apostles and wasn't rediscovered until the Reformation 2) The Church had it right all along and the Reformation changed the truth. I find it hard to believe that for 1500 years Christians misunderstood the Gospel. But maybe I'm wrong.

[Austin]

All you have to do is read the gospels and decide for yourself if the reformed view is correct or the medieval chuech view is correct. The problem was mainly two-fold: those Christians in high positions (artificially given) let power go to their head and used the gospel for selfish means. Secondly, the laypeople could not read the bible- many were illiterate in everything and most were illiterate in latin, the language which the Bible was translated at the time. There was no check for those in power who told everyone "this is how it is" because the common person had no way of knowing what the gospel actually said.

You say "early church" but I think you mean medieval church. the book of Acts gives a good record of the early Church and it was NOT similar to the way the pre-reformation Church viewed the gospel.

[Austin]

My previous post was directed at Joe. Seems pretty obvious, but I thought I'd clarify :)

[Malebranche]

Imagine the burden of the guilt from your sin you felt before you were saved, when you realized the depth of your fallenness, unworthiness, and broken relationship with God, your Father. Imagine the overwhelming realization that you were guilty and you could never please God by your own efforts. That is the burden Martin Luther and many others lived under with no hope. No Gospel - bad news.

Cheer up buttercup! Even though most of humanity is abandoned to their sin and therefore eternally doomed, at least you aren't! Yay! Happy Reformation Exclusivist Calvinist Sunday everybody! Don't forget to beg and plead for the salvation of your children and loved ones! You might actually get what you ask for! Woo hoo! Happy happy Reformation Sunday everybody!

[dave]

The early church relied upon the gifts of tongues and prophesy (seeing through a glass darkly) until the NT canon came together (seeing face to face). By the time of Augustine, the Calvinistic view (and the original Lutheran view) had been drawn from Scripture.

[Francis Beckwith]

For my take, just click my name.

[Daron]

I have been so irritated by atheists who haunt Christian blogs and have to taunt and ridicule post after post for no real reason. Thanks, Malebranche, for disabusing me of my notion that this is an atheistic trait and for disappointingly showing me and the world that Christians are just as badly behaved.
I guess when you are offended that somebody exists who doesn't exactly agree with you this is the best option.
Carry on.

[Malebranche]

Being incessantly obnoxious is indeed bad behavior. To the extent that I gravitate towards that, I am not doing what I ought.

Accusing God of saving only a few while abandoning most of his children to eternal wickedness and languishing is perverse and blasphemous. Turning around and calling this ‘good news’ worth celebrating is contemptible. Pointing out that one’s dogmas about Scripture compel one to do such things in no way mitigates the perversion.

Holding up such views as the proper objects of derision is, I would have thought, completely appropriate in its right context. But perhaps this was not the context.

[Jason Engwer]

The concept of justification through faith alone is found in sources between the time of the apostles and the Reformation. It was made more popular by the Reformation, but it predates the Reformation both in Biblical times and in post-Biblical times. It's not just a Biblical and Reformation and post-Reformation doctrine. It's also patristic and medieval. For some examples, see here.

It should also be noted that the church fathers and other pre-Reformation sources who advocated some type of justification through works were often inconsistent on the subject and widely contradicted each other. The mere fact that they advocated some form of justification through works doesn't tell us how consistently they did so or whether they all advocated the same view of justification through works. Many church fathers advocated a form of justification through works that's inconsistent with the Roman Catholic view. It's not enough for Catholics to argue that the fathers included works as a means of justification. Many groups that contradict Catholicism concerning justification also include works.

[Daron]

"Perversion, blasphemous, contemptible, derision."

Thanks again.

Carry on.

[Daron]

Malebranche had a chance to defend his taunts with more than derision here:
from here:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/06/christianitys-greatest-foe-video.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e20134846e1346970c#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e20134846e1346970c

to
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/06/christianitys-greatest-foe-video/comments/page/3/#comments

As pointed out there, if Malebranche believed his doctrine he wouldn't be posting it here (ridicule and all) in mockery of his host's blog.

[Les]

Melebranche take a look at this site--http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_12.htm

Instead of calling people names trying proving what you say. Show me in the scriptures that salvation is by any other than through Christ.
If it's just a feeling you have then --- "the gospel is nonsense to the gentile and a stumbling block to the Jew" so where do you stand? Maybe you should stop wasting your time and join Brian Mclarens post-modern liberal group and make things up from your enlightened self.

[Malebranche]

The argument is quite simple.

(1) For any version of the Gospel G, if G explicitly states or entails that God has decided to freely abandon most of humanity to eternal wickedness and languishing while forgiving only a few, then G is not good news to humanity.
(2) The classical, exclusivist Reformed version of the Gospel explicitly states or entails that God has decided to freely abandon most of humanity to eternal wickedness and languishing while forgiving only a few.
(3) Therefore, the classical, exclusivist Reformed version of the Gospel is not good news to humanity.

From what I can tell, Koukl endorses the classical, exclusivist Reformed version of the Gospel. So, (1) and (2) apply to his version of the gospel, from what I can tell.

I’m at a loss as to why anyone would get in a fuss about me saying that it is perverse to celebrate the classical, Reformed Gospel and parade it around our churches under the label ‘good news to the world.’ One gets the impression that these folks would think it good news to their family if God abandoned most of their family to eternal languishing while saving only a few. But trust me, so long as these folks thought that the Bible compelled them to say even this, rather than question their interpretation of the Bible, they would begin proclaiming the good news of God’s abandonment of most of their family.

Labeling the classical, exclusivist Reformed doctrine ‘perverse’ is not ‘name-calling’ any more than it is name-calling for me to label as ‘perverse and blasphemous’ the view according to which God commanded folks to destroy the World Trade Center on 9/11. I am merely describing the doctrine as I see it. Offensive terms are appropriate to describe offensive realities.

[Malebranche]

Perhaps it is best to leave this discussion behind and merely point out the following. Consider the following inconsistent propositions:

(A) For any version of the Gospel G, if G explicitly states or entails that God has decided to freely abandon most of humanity to eternal wickedness and languishing while forgiving only a few, then G is not good news to humanity.
(B) The classical, exclusivist Reformed version of the Gospel explicitly states or entails that God has decided to freely abandon most of humanity to eternal wickedness and languishing while forgiving only a few.
(C) The classical, exclusivist Reformed version of the Gospel is good news to humanity.

One cannot consistently believe (A), (B), and (C).

At this point all I can say is, “Choose wisely what you will reject, and rejoice or beg accordingly.”

[Daron]

One gets the impression that these folks would think it good news to their family if God abandoned most of their family to eternal languishing while saving only a few.

Asked and answered. Go read your last performance on this subject.

Notice while there that you admitted that your qualification of "most" being lost is misleading. You believe that if ONE, even Hitler, or Stalin, is lost then (A) this is not a good news Gospel.

Yes, do choose wisely. As for me, I will serve the LORD and not invent an idol more to your liking.

[Michael Gormley]

Some Protestants have the notion that Catholics do not “believe” in the Bible, so they bring up Second Timothy 3:15-16 to support their belief of Sola Scriptura:"... from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness."

Certainly Catholics believe in the Bible (Catholics put together the Bible!) but this verse does not really support the belief of Sola Scriptura; it does not say that scripture alone is an adequate guide to the faith For that matter, the whole Bible does not say that we should believe in the Bible alone, nor does it say which books are inspired by God. This is only one hole in the belief of Sola Scriptura; there are many more.