This article typifies the myth-making surrounding the
Reformation. First, we're told that before the Reformation you couldn't read
the Bible in your own language. It's as if until the Reformation no one had
even tried or attempted to translate the Scriptures. The only way you could
access it (we're told) is if you had taken holy orders.
But this isn't true. Aside from the most obvious instance of
Wycliffe's translation in the 14th century, the record is clear.
Various Waldensian groups had translated the Scriptures into local dialects and
this was happening at least since the
1200s, a good three centuries prior to the Magisterial Reformation.
Now it is to be granted that in the 16th century
such translations became more widespread and were based on the original Greek
texts as opposed to the Vulgate. But was this due to the Reformation? Certainly
in part and yet perhaps one of the biggest practical realities (apart from
Renaissance impulses) is due to something that had nothing to do with Luther or
Calvin... Gutenberg's printing press.
Indeed we can rejoice that the Scriptures were made available
in the vernacular. Rome's record regarding the Scriptures is disgraceful and
yet hardly surprising. Roman Catholicism was once rightly recognised as a false
church, a whore if not the whore of
Revelation. But how few Protestants and Evangelicals recognise that now, even
while they lavish semi-fictitious praise on the Magisterial Reformers and their
many accomplishments?
It will be granted that such vernacular translations were
able to flourish and survive despite being captured and burnt by Inquisitors
and yet these successes were not due to the Reformation's recapturing of the
gospel but due to its political standing and its political protection. The
success of the Reformation was largely due to this factor. It may very well be
that God in His providence ordained it thus and yet this does not mean the
paradigm of state enforced Protestant Christianity is sanctioned or somehow
reflects New Testament doctrine. These things ought to be considered before one
makes bold and even absolute proclamations about the Reformation and its
standing vis-à-vis the Scriptures.
Second, we're told that before Luther and the Reformers any
kind of forgiveness involved unpleasant acts of penance or some form of
financial cost.
Once again, this isn't quite true. For centuries there had
been those who dissented from the false teachings of the Roman Catholic
organisation and they even did this without the Lutheran formulation of Sola
Fide. While the doctrine is true enough, the formulation given to us by Luther
was in fact a historical novelty, not something reintroduced as the author has suggested. You will not find the
doctrine prior to the 16th century.
You will find Justification by Faith hinted at by some in the
Middle Ages and among the Early Church Fathers but the Lutheran formulation of
Sola Fide and in particular its understanding and import of Sola or 'alone' was an innovation and one greatly
abused by generations subsequent to the Reformers.
Now, were Roman Catholic understandings of this issue in the
majority? Of course. But what really (practically speaking) stopped this from
being the norm? Again, it was politics as the Magisterial Reformers not only
taught against it and rightly so but they effectively were able to legislate
the doctrines so that in some places those who remained Catholic could not
legally attend their services and exercise their faith as they understood it.
In many cases people were forced to accept the new Protestant paradigm just as
they had been compelled to accept the Roman Catholic one. It is no wonder the
16th and 17th centuries were periods of unrest and war. Magisterial
Protestantism represented not just a dissenting form of Christianity but a
rival political order, a new Christendom which of course crumbled and opened
the floodgates for Enlightenment philosophy and modern secularism to come
rushing in.
Rome of course is wrong but the overthrow of Catholic doctrine
in certain parts of Europe was not necessarily due to a massive religious
'conversion' as much as it was once again... politics.
In truth it was both and thus the Reformation contained from
the beginning a rotten seed... and the rot would spread becoming all too apparent
by the 17th and 18th centuries.
The last point of the article is strikingly fictitious. Sola
Scriptura as a concept existed generations even centuries prior to Luther and
Zwingli. The Taborites, Waldensians, Lollards and others insisted on the
authority of Scripture alone and used it to evaluate the doctrines and claims
of Rome. Once again Zwingli, Luther, Calvin and others had political backing and
thus they were able to implement and legally and socially codify their ideas.
Of course whether the Reformation really followed through on applying Sola Scriptura is another story.
Obviously the Lutherans and the Reformed had profoundly different
understandings of what the doctrine meant. For Lutherans Sola Scriptura was really only applicable to Gospel-related issues.
Beyond these basic questions the concept was largely abandoned and under the
banner of adiaphora or things indifferent, gave way to tradition.
Both would eventually succumb (due to pragmatism and political impetus) to the
philosophical demands of coherence in the form of Scholasticism. While closer
to the Scriptures than Rome (though that isn't saying much) these factions have
not been entirely faithful to either the visions of the 16th century
Reformers (which they claim) or the doctrines of the New Testament.
The truth is that everything the author celebrates and
associates with the Reformation existed prior to the 16th century.
This is not to downplay the importance of the Reformation but instead the
claims of some of its apologists who in their zeal have in some cases
oversimplified the history and in other instances have simply played fast and
loose with the truth in order to buttress their claims.
No one can dispute the importance of the 16th
century Magisterial Reformation but we shouldn't romanticise it. It was never
what it purported to be and today the narratives have become something of a
tool in the hands of denominational and factional partisans who in reality
selectively borrow from its heritage in order to buttress their claims of
authority and elevate the status of their particular organisations and
movements.
In this case, New Calvinism tries to selectively borrow from
the heritage of the Reformation but is in reality far removed from its spirit,
let alone the particulars and framework of its doctrine.
