Is Evangelical Christianity Clear on Justification by Faith Alone?

We have seen that despite the Great Commission, the very Apostles of Jesus had trouble applying this truth to Gentiles due to their myopic understanding of God’s justifying grace in Christ. They thought justification was only for Jews. The Lord did some arm-twisting with Simon Peter to get him to bring the Gospel to gentile Cornelius (Acts 10,11). Then some years later, thanks to the testimonies of Paul and Peter, the issue was settled at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

The Apostle Paul, not only God’s special apostle to the Gentiles, but also His delineator of the nuances of this doctrine, had to publicly rebuke Peter and correct Barnabas over issues relative to justification; that is, Paul had to straighten out Christian leaders who were distorting by their practice the purity of justification by faith alone (Gal. 2:11-22). These were leaders who should have known better.

We have traced historically the confusion brought on by mystical concepts of water baptism, the Lord’s Table, priestism, and medieval theology; then the glorious rediscovery by the Reformers of the simplicity of the truth of biblical justification through their studies of the New Testament in its original language. Also by necessity, we have looked at the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, completely void of any biblical basis, but fixed in Canon Law by the Council of Trent.

It remains for us to examine the present scenario. The task is not pleasant.

The spirit of ecumenicism is the spirit of our age. It is the dominant thrust of the last half of this century. For example, during this period, nearly every church history text (one of my fields of graduate study) on the collegiate level is ecumenical in its approach. What once were considered cults are now placed under an umbrella called "Christianity" in these textbooks.

It is in these years also that the charismatic-tongues phenomena spread across denominational barriers linking such diverse groups as Assemblies of God, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Roman Catholics. The charismatic movement very willingly casts aside doctrinal truth for what is perceived as spiritual unity; meaning, the capacity to babble in what passes for biblical tongues.

Perhaps it is not strange then that the push for ecumenical unity found a focus in this last decade among some influential "Evangelicals" and Roman Catholics. I am referring of course to the ECT phenomena: Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

The efforts of Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus ("evangelical" and Roman Catholic priest respectively) in this ecumenical scenario have been widely published and criticized.¹

As T. A. McMahon well stated, "Brothers and sisters in Christ are being encouraged to dance with what the entire evangelical church for 1,500 years called the ‘whore of Babylon.’ "² Colson and Neuhaus are set on correcting this image as are other "evangelicals" such as Pat Robertson, Bill Bright, J.I. Packer, Os Guinness, Richard Mouw, Mark Knoll, etc.

Let us look at some of their announcements.

The original document by ECT issued in March, 1994, called for Roman Catholic and evangelical cooperation on social and cultural issues (such as abortion).³ It stressed mutual accord on the Apostles’ Creed and world evangelism. Forty notable evangelicals and Roman Catholic leaders signed it. In essence, they agreed not to evangelize each other!

Justification according to this document was "by grace through faith because of Christ." That is, Christ makes possible justification. Every Roman Catholic is taught that grace is mediated through the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church and is aided by works of the "believer:" Christ makes this possible from their point of view. It is precisely this concept of justification that the Reformers of the 16^th Century attacked! Any Roman Catholic could sign ECT’s statement: no Reformer could! And knowledgeable "evan-gelicals" should have refused.

But in case you have not noticed, ecumenical dialogue is "in:" conviction and solid doctrine based upon God’s Word alone is "out." The passion for unity has superceded the passion for biblical truth.

Criticism generated by the ambiguity in ECT’s first announcement stimulated a second gathering and a second statement.

On January 19, 1995, Charles Colson, J.I. Packer, Bill Bright (all ECT signers) met with ECT critics John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Ankerberg, Michael Horten, and James Kennedy at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church which Kennedy pastors. Where were Colson’s Roman Catholic cohorts?

The five point statement produced at this meeting sought to clarify the original stance of the ECT signers. On "justification," it reads:

NOTE: THERE WAS NO REPUDIATION BY COLSON, PACKER, OR BRIGHT OF THE FIRST ECT ANNOUNCEMENT!

In fact, Colson followed-up with a letter to supporters urging them to support this second statement since it "fully clarifies the Protestant distinctives without in any way detracting from what (the signers) affirmed in ECT." In other words, "The original ECT statement suffers no detraction from the follow-up statement of clarification." Really!

John MacArthur thinks not. "The second statement does not go as far as I would have hoped," he is quoted as saying. ECT signers should in his words "recant." "The bottom line is that Roman Catholicism is ‘another religion.’ "⁵

Obviously, any thinking person would agree. The issue could have been resolved by ECT signers simply repudiating their first statement. But then they would have lost the favor of their Roman Catholic counterparts. Thus the genuineness of their "clarifications" are questioned. Colson, Bright, Packer, et. al., cannot have justification two ways: the Roman Catholic position annunciated at the Council of Trent clearly anathematizes those who hold the biblical position. Sola fide, sola gracia, sola Christo, sola scriptura, – justification by faith alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone, by the scriptures alone, held by all the Reformers, is anathema in the Roman Church.

Are we to believe that Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Msgr. William Murphy, Bishop Francis George, Fr. Avery Dulles, S.J., Fr. Juan Diaz-Vilar, S.J., Archbishop Francis Stafford, all Roman Catholic clerics, all supporters of ECT, have repudiated the decrees of the Council of Trent? If so, let us see it in writing. And let them prepare for excommuni-cation from the Roman Church!

Do not hold your breath. Simply expect more obfuscation: i. e., more of the same. Why? Because ecumenicism is the spirit of the age – the zeitgeist that is gripping and misleading believers everywhere.

And as you would suspect, so are the names of 14 of the original "evangelical" signers of ECT! Included are Charles Colson, J.I. Packer, Bill Bright, Pat Robertson, John Robertson, Richard Land, and Richard Mouw. BUT ROMAN CATHOLIC SIGNATOREES ARE NOTICEABLY ABSENT. Before I address this, I want to point out the clarity with which this doctrine is expressed.

Under the title "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration," a product of unnamed "theologians and top Christian leaders and scholars," we read in its Preamble (verbatim):⁷

Rejoice with me in the clarity of that statement! It goes on:

Amen to that!

Except for a few words that seem to be directed to Lordship salvationists, I would not change much of this marvelous delineation of Justification. But perhaps of equal value is the section entitled "Affirmations and Denials," eighteen points in which the authors clarify what they accept and what they reject. I will point out a few (the numbers are theirs):

This is a knock-out blow to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification!

One more:

A clear declaration of the righteousness of God forensically imputed by God Himself! And an equally clear rejection of any type of works righteousness!

ECT initiators who claim to be "evangelicals" signed an ambiguous statement in 1994 on justification that was totally acceptable to some Roman Catholic prelates. In an effort to placate their detractors, they then sought to clarify it in 1995 by changing the wording slightly, but without disavowing the original statement. They obviously were and still are seeking the continued support of "evangelicals" without losing the few Catholic clerics in their camp.

Now in 1999, they have signed a clear, unambiguous statement on justification. If their ECT testimony is to have any credibility whatsoever, any consistency, the solution is very simple. JUST GET EACH OF THE ROMAN PRIESTS WHO SIGNED THE ORIGINAL ECT AGREEMENT TO SIGN AND PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WHICH CHRISTIANITY TODAY HAS QUOTED IS THE BIBLICAL AND ONLY TRUE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.

Footnotes: