The "gospel" of R.C. Sproul: did Mathew C. Heckel 'get it right'?

In my previous thread, Misreading historical theology, I brought back to the fore an older thread (link) that touched on a JETS essay (link) which explored a number of historical problems with R.C Sproul's assessment of what one must believe in order to experience salvation. In the combox of the above mentioned "previous thread", Ken Temple posted:

David,
I don't have time to go over all this again with a fine-tooth comb, but it seems to me that Heckel mis-understood Sproul.

Also, Sproul's book, Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together (Baker, 1999) answers the questions that Heckel seems to be asking after he read Faith Alone.

Especially important are pages 169-172 - these pages show that Heckel is wrong about Sproul because Heckel projects implications that he gets into his own mind into Faith Alone, but Sproul never meant that everyone before Luther or Trent had to be able to articulate justification by faith alone before Luther, in order to be saved.

So, I think Heckel has interpreted R. C. Sproul's book, "Faith Alone" wrongly. (link)

Did Heckel interpret " R. C. Sproul's book, "Faith Alone" wrongly"? Does Sproul's subsequent book, Getting the Gospel Right, correct any misconceptions Heckel may have had? I do not believe that this is the case at all; in fact, I believe Sproul's, Getting the Gospel Right (GTGR), reinforces Heckel's original assessment. I will now turn to chapter 11 ("Trusting in Christ") of GTGR, wherein Sproul describes at length, one of the "necessary condition[s] of saving faith".  To lay the foundation for the rest of the chapter, Sproul cites Article 16 of the document, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, under his heading—"Saving Faith":

16. We affirm that saving faith includes mental assent to the content of the Gospel, acknowledgment of our own sin and need, and personal trust and reliance upon Christ and his work.

We deny that saving faith includes only mental acceptance of the Gospel, and that justification is secured by a mere outward profession of faith. We further deny that any element of saving faith is a meritorious work or earns salvation for us. (Page 167)

Sproul then writes:

The Reformers delimited three essential elements of saving faith: notitia (knowledge of the data or content of the gospel), assensus (the intellectual acceptance or assent to the truth of the gospel's content), fiducia (personal reliance on or trust in Christ and his gospel). (Page 168)

He then goes on to describe two Biblical accounts of "intellectual acceptance" (i.e. demons and Satan) and states:

But the demons lacked saving faith. They had one of the necessary elements of saving faith, but not all of them. Intellectual acceptance is a necessary condition for saving faith, but not a sufficient condition. That is, without intellectual acceptance we cannot be saved, but its mere presence does not bring salvation...

Article 16 affirms that saving faith includes intellectual acceptance of the gospel's content but is not exhausted by or comprised solely of mental assent.

Article 16 denies that one can have saving faith without intellectual acceptance or assent. This would exclude from salvation even those who call themselves Christians but who at the same time reject essential elements of the gospel...

This raises the question regarding Roman Catholics who, though they may affirm other essential elements of the gospel, reject sola fide. If they do not intellectually accept this element  and if this element is essential to the gospel, can they still be saved? The only honest answer I can give to this question is no. This answer raises the hackles of many who seek to affirm unity Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, and it requires further explanation.

Does this mean that we are saved by the doctrine of sola fide? By no means. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and his saving work. Mere belief in the doctrine of sola fide will save no one. Intellectual acceptance of sola fide does not constitute saving faith. The object of fiducia must be in Christ and his work, not the doctrine of justification. The problem arises when we ask about the consequences of rejecting sola fide, that person rejects an essential element of the gospel. That poses a problem not only at an intellectual or doctrinal level, but at the spiritual level as well. If a person is trusting not in the imputed righteousness of Christ but in his own inherent righteousness, he will not be saved. He lacks a necessary condition of saving faith. In the final analysis he is trusting in another gospel and remains in a state of self-righteousness. By rejecting an essential element of the gospel, he is under the biblical and thus divine anathema. This is precisely why Martin Luther insisted that sola fide is the article by which the church stands of falls. It is the article by which we stand or fall.  (Pages 168-170 - bold emphasis added.)

Now, a couple of points: first, Sproul incorrectly attributes to Martin Luther the dictum, "that sola fide is the article by which the church stands of falls." (See THIS THREAD for documentation of this error.) Second, Sproul makes it quite clear that, "[m]ere belief in the doctrine of sola fide will save no one", and that "[i]f a person is trusting not in the imputed righteousness of Christ but in his own inherent righteousness, he will not be saved."

Can Sproul get any clearer on this issue? I think not. Even though he later tries to make room for the possible salvation of Roman Catholics who either, "consciously, clearly understand and embrace the doctrine of sola fide and posses a true saving faith"; or, "who do not fully grasp the gospel but who intuitively understand that their only hope in Christ and his work in their behalf and trust him fully" (pp. 170, 171), this proposed concession does not somehow mutate his prior assessments. Bottom line: Heckel got Sproul's "gospel" right.

Grace and peace,

David


P.S. I typed up the quotes from Dr. Sproul's book quite quickly; as such, I suspect there may be some typos, and would greatly appreciate notification of any such spelling errors.

Misreading historical theology

While reflecting on the recent charges of semi-Pelagianism leveled by a number of Reformed folk against the newly published SBC document on salvation (see PREVIOUS POST for link and commentary), I recalled Matthew C. Heckel's critique of R.C. Sproul's skewed handling of historical theology (see THIS THREAD). Note the following excerpt from Heckel's essay:

He [Sproul] does introduce Augustine and Aquinas into the conversation to establish that they believed justification to be exclusively by grace, and he uses their theology to accuse the Council of Trent of semi-Pelagianism. Beyond this, Sproul does not substantially treat the views of Augustine or Aquinas on justification. If he had, his thesis would surely have led him, as it did the Reformers, to deal with the question of the Christian status of the pre-Reformation church, since Augustine and the rest of its theologians did not teach that we are justified sola fide in the Reformation sense. In fact, unless Sproul's thesis is qualified, it would lead to the unintended consequence of consigning to perdition the entire Church from the patristic period up to the down of the Reformation, something the Reformers did not do. This is because the Reformation understanding of justification sola fide was unheard of in the pre-Reformation church and thus not believed until Luther. Alister McGrath points out that “there are no ‘Forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification."

To put it another way, Luther’s doctrine of justification sola fide was not a recovery but an innovation within the Western theological tradition. What is provocative about Sproul’s thesis is that the equation of the construct of sola fide with the gospel itself would mean that the Roman Catholic Church not only rejected the gospel at Trent, but the Church never possessed it at all from the post-apostolic period up to the time of Luther. In this unqualified form, Sproul’s thesis would also mean that since no one knew the gospel in the pre-Reformation church, no one experienced justification, and thus there was no Church. ("Is R.C. Sproul Wrong About Martin Luther?", JETS 47.1, pp. 92-94.)

Heckel's entire essay is a must read (IMHO), for it sheds considerable light on difficulties and out-right errors that tend to follow a deficient/faulty (mis)reading of historical theology. It is a pattern that I see repeated in many differing forms, especially by amateur and professional apologists from virtually all the various faith traditions. One could say, without much exaggeration, that the misreading of historical theology has reached epidemic proportions, causing me to wonder if there will ever be a 'cure' for the malady. But then, contributions like Heckel's do offer a ray of hope...

Grace and peace,

David

James White and the Manhattan Declaration

I have not been over to James White’s AOMIN site in awhile; so, while sipping my freshly brewed (and ground) Italian roast coffee, I thought I would take a peek.

It comes as no surprise that James is using the “Manhattan Declaration” as a platform for his anti-Catholic polemics. In his 12-10-09 thread, Sproul, Colson, and You, on the Manhattan Declaration, his polemic begins with a sweeping charge leveled at Chuck Colson:

Once again we see that for Charles Colson, the gospel is no longer a part of "the faith" that he refuses to compromise. That is, "the faith" has been boiled down to a skeleton of basic beliefs (Trinity, resurrection) that can unite varied and disparate religious traditions into one big (and politically powerful) group. This Least Common Denominator (LCD) form of "Christianity" is what is needed, evidently, to "revitalize the church in America." I cannot help but shake my head in disbelief as someone promotes a gospel-less Christianity and says this is what the church needs to be "revitalized" today. But it is truly a matter for deep concern that Mr. Colson believes this document is a "form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith." How can this gospel-less document be a catechism for anything other than cultural Christianity?

IMO, James has completely missed the nature/focus of MD: it is primarily a cultural, societal, political document; yet with that said, this does not make it “gospel-less”. Note the following from St. Paul’s pen (written under inspiration):

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. (1 Tim. 1:8-11.)

James then made this statement:

Without the gospel, you cannot change hearts and minds.

Amen!!! But what is “the gospel”? My threads on JUSTIFICATION and SOTERIOLOGY raise some serious concerns as to whether or not James really understands what “the gospel” is.

Further, if one grants to James that his understanding of “the gospel” is without error, one then cannot ignore the many questions which have been brought to light in MATTHEW HECKEL’S ESSAY, “Is R.C. Sproul Wrong About About Luther? An Analysis of R.C. Sproul’s Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification with Respect to Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Catholic Luther Scholarship.”

And lastly, James’ statement is a bit confusing, for James is a 5-point Calvinist. Is it not the Calvinist teaching that an unregenerate heart cannot accept/respond to “the gospel”; that God regenerates the heart so that one can/will accept/embrace “the gospel”?



Grace and peace,

David

James Swan on justification

The way things unfold in the blogsphere can at times be quite interesting. For instance, my last thread here at AF (09-27-08) dealt with the topic of justification, with the broader picture of the development of doctrine in the background. In the comments section, “Interlocutor” in THIS POST posed a couple of important questions that I chose not to answer at that time. I started ‘hitting-the-books’, focusing on Lane, McGrath, and Oberman. After lunch, I enlisted the internet, and while browsing, came across THIS THREAD, posted yesterday at the AOMIN blog. Though the thread itself is essentially a diatribe directed at James’ all too frequent internet foes, his link to a THREAD at his Beggar’s All blog, which references three books I had read: Oberman’s, The Harvest of Medieval Theology; McGrath’s, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification; and Sproul’s, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, caught my interest.

In that same post, James’ then links to yet another BA THREAD, and cites two more books I have read: Pelikan’s, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation and his, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism. NOTE: all of these books touch on the questions that “Interlocutor” had posed, and all (with the exception of Sproul’s book) are part of my self-imposed re-reading list for a future attempt at try to address those questions. Interesting indeed!

Now, I still have at least a couple more days of intense reading before I attempt an answer to “Interlocutor”, but in the meantime, feel somewhat compelled to address some of the comments I came across in James’ threads:

In dialoging with Roman Catholics on sola fide, I have sometimes argued from their point of view: that is, the doctrine of justification was not, at the time of Luther’s writing, dogmatically defined in the Roman Catholic sense. In other words, Luther had freedom to hold the view on justification that he did within a Roman Catholic framework.

I think James is substantially correct on this, as long a one keeps in mind that Luther did in fact introduce a theological novum—i.e. justification (soteriologically speaking) via imputation alone.

I share this for one reason: don't get sucked into those silly arguments that "sola fide" was a theological "novum" previous to the Reformation.

Now this depends on how one defines “sola fide”. There is, and has always been, a Catholic sense of the phrase. However, the way in which Luther and Calvin qualified the phrase, one finds a clear departure from the Augustinian and Thomistic understanding, which dominated Middle Age thought/theology. (See Heckel’s informative ESSAY.)

I admit, the historical aspect of sola fide is a difficult issue, but applying a historical test to the Catholic notion of justification has its problems as well. Historically, one can make a case that Augustine didn't know Greek and the entire direction of the Church was redirected away from what the Bible says on sola fide.

This issue has been addressed in a concise and cogent manner HERE.

There is so much more that could be commented on, but I do not want to spend too much time on James’ musings. If others wish to engage the content contained in James' threads and links, please feel free to do so. As for me, time to hit-the-books…


Grace and peace,

David

An Evangelical critique of R.C. Sproul’s "Faith Alone"

I have to come clean; it is always a pleasure to find a scholar of another denomination who agrees with my personal musings. While engaging in some online research, I stumbled upon the following ESSAY. Lo and behold, Matthew Heckel has deduced many of the difficulties I had discerned in R.C. Sproul’s, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. (For some of my concerns, see HERE.) The following snippet from Heckel’s essay should pique most readers interest:

Sproul's thesis asserts that justification sola fide, or "by faith alone," is the essence or heart of the gospel. He writes, "I am convinced, as were the Reformers, that justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel and that Rome clearly rejects it." Sproul claims that when Rome rejected the Reformers' doctrine of justification sola fide at the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Roman church rejected the gospel itself and officially became an apostate body. he continues, "The flap over ECT is over this very point: the recognition of Rome as a true church despite its view of justification." Sproul seems to be arguing that a church body must subscribe to justification by faith alone as an article of faith, in order to be, in fact, justified by faith alone, since the context of his statements is the salvation status of those who do not believe the doctrine. Sproul claims support for his position from the Reformers…

Sproul supports his thesis from Reformation sources, but his conclusions are not informed by an engagement with patristic and medieval treatments of justification; this is one of the major weaknesses of the book. he does introduce Augustine and Aquinas into the conversation to establish that they believed justification to be exclusively by grace, and he uses their theology to accuse the Council of Trent of semi-Pelagianism. Beyond this, Sproul does not substantially treat the views of Augustine or Aquinas on justification. If he had, his thesis would surely have led him, as it did the Reformers, to deal with the question of the Christian status of the pre-Reformation church, since Augustine and the rest of its theologians did not teach that we are justified sola fide in the Reformation sense. In fact, unless Sproul's thesis is qualified, it would lead to the unintended consequence of consigning to perdition the entire Church from the patristic period up to the dawn of the Reformation, something the Reformers did not do. This is because the Reformation understanding of justification sola fide was unheard of in the pre-Reformation church and thus not believed until Luther. Alister McGrath points out that "there are no 'Forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification.'"

To put it another way, Luther's doctrine of justification sola fide was not a recovery but an innovation within the Western theological tradition. What is provocative about Sproul's thesis is that the equation of the construct of sola fide with the gospel itself would mean that the Roman Catholic Church not only rejected the gospel at Trent, but the Church never possessed it at all from the post-apostolic period up to the time of Luther. In this unqualified form, Sproul's thesis would also mean that since no one knew the gospel in the pre-Reformation church, no one experienced justification, and thus there was no Church. (Matthew C. Heckel, “IS R. C. SPROUL WRONG ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER? AN ANALYSIS OF R. C. SPROUL'S FAITH ALONE: THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO AUGUSTINE, LUTHER, CALVIN, AND CATHOLIC LUTHER SCHOLARSHIP”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 2004 – see above link.)

That was/is precisely my take…

Grace and peace,

David