Positive Protestantism; a concise statement of the historical origins, the positive affirmations, and the present position of Protestantism

Preface

This book grew out of a series of sermons on " Protestant Affirmations/' The writer had so many requests to suggest a book which would present the origin, principles, and prospects of Protestantism that he made a diligent search for such. Inability to find a book covering this entire field led to the determination to write one. There are many histories, many theologies, many controversial works, but so far as he could discover no positive constructive statement treating all the field and showing Protestantism as it is to-day. It is the author's hope that this little book may fill the need. Many pastors may find it a useful book to have ready to give inquirers upon this subject.

Much more could have been written upon the various matters treated. The purpose of the author to meet the need of the ordinary reader rather than of experts has guided in the selection of the material. Into the Appendix has been put a considerable amount of valuable evidential material to which many thoughtful readers will wish to refer, but which could not be included in the body of the book without too greatly retarding the movement of thought. The historical statement has been made viii Preface

especially brief, since if longer statements are desired they are readily accessible.

Credit should be given to most of the books cited in the Book-list, but the author desires to make special mention of his indebtedness in historical discussion to T. M. Lindsay and to H. C. Vedder. In the discussion of the doctrinal matters great indebtedness to C. A. Von Hase and F. H. Foster should be acknowledged.

In this abbreviated edition the purpose to make a text-book for study classes dictated the condensation of historical matter into a single introductory chapter to take the place of Part I in the complete edition, the omission entirely of the Appendix, and the subdivision of some of the chapters. Classes using the abbreviated edition will find the footnotes referring to additional material in the complete edition very useful for supplementary study.

Contents

Chapter p AGE

I. Protestant Origins i

PART I Protestant Affirmations of Christian Truth

II. Agreements and Disagreements 13

III. Salvation : By Faith or Law? 20

IV. Salvation: By Faith or Sacrament? 37 V. The Church and the Ministry 66

VI. Religious Authority 83

VII. Faith the Sufficient Means of

Grace 107

VIII. Romanist Deformities 114

IX. Worship and Freedom 131

PART II The Present Protestant Situation

X. The Divisions of Protestantism .... 151

XI. The Unity of Protestantism 184

XII. The Prospects of Protestantism . . . 205

Book-list for Reference and Study. 223

Chapter I

The increase in the number and aggressiveness of Roman Catholics in this country has raised anew the question as to the differences of Romanism and Protestantism. This situation and the apparently growing consideration of a reunion of Christendom demand a clear understanding of the two branches of the church. This study will undertake to set forth constructively and positively the principles and prospects of Protestantism in contrast to Romanism.

With astonishing rapidity the aim of Jesus' last command, which bade the disciples go everywhere with the gospel (Matt. 28 : igf.), was realized in many places throughout the Roman Empire. The apostles and their companions went from place to place, preaching Jesus the Messiah and laying emphasis upon the spiritual and practical sides of religious life. The simplicity of the early Christians is shown in their conception of the Christian ceremonies as symbols of the actual inner experiencing of the Spirit of God, and in the simple democratic

1 For a fuller yet brief statement of the historical origin of Protestantism, see the larger edition of this book, Part I.

church organization whose only ministry consisted of deacons and pastors, the latter of whom were called either " bishop " or " elder."

But this simplicity was sooner or later lost under the influence of ideas which permeated the pagan, and even the Jewish, world. Everywhere saving efficacy was ascribed to religious ceremonies and special prerogatives and powers were thought to inhere in orders of priests. Under the influence of ritualism and priestism the ceremonies became indispensable channels of grace, and the ministry was made a sacerdotal order whose activity was necessary to administering grace. The office of " presbyter " (elder) or "bishop" (pastor) became two distinct offices, of which the bishop was the superior. Gradually certain bishops came to be preeminent above others. Finally, after several centuries, the bishops of Rome and of Constantinople were the supreme officials to whom deference was given. By a long process of development, through a more or less natural growth from certain historical events, by the use of a number of documents forged for the purpose of giving a semblance of legality to the claim of the bishops of Rome to supremacy over the entire church and even over temporal powers, and by an appeal to the superstitious fears of the peoples of various nations the papacy raised itself to the place of supreme power in the western half of Christendom, though the Eastern Church never has completely recognized the authority of the pope.

During the centuries of this development only one ecclesiastical institution raised itself above the papacy. This was the general council, which consisted of all the bishops of the church gathered to determine disputed matters. But even the supreme authority of a general council over the pope came to be disputed before the Reformation. As the Reformation period approached the popes were already beginning to assert their superiority to general councils.

Long before the actual Reformation certain forces had been making in that direction. In a number of nations a national consciousness had so far developed that the papacy was confronted with new forces opposed to papal absolutism. The menace of the Turk, before whom Constantinople fell in 1453, aided not a little in the political forces which were undermining the papacy. Besides, throughout the universities and, after the invention of printing, even among the masses there spread the results of the Renaissance, the awakening from the ideas and methods of thought of the Middle Ages to those of modern times. The new learning and its chief sponsors, the Humanists, greatly influenced the trend toward a reformation of the church and of the world. An additional current was the unrest of the people. A social ferment very similar to that of our own time characterized the period. The deeper current of the popular discontent, however, was religious, and this religious unrest had so far taken shape that there were actually non-conformist groups scattered here and there. Indeed, all classes were weary of the exactions of ecclesiastics and were disgusted and dismayed by the moral corruptions of the papacy and priesthood. The common opinion just before the Reformation was that the unreformed papacy was the running sore of Europe, and all contemporary writers execrated the ecclesiastical corruptions. It is but natural, therefore, that men's minds were expecting a change and were only waiting upon the leadership which would bring it about.

This leadership was to be given by Martin Luther through the Lutheran movement. Luther was a monk professor who, by the most painstaking endeavor, undertaken in the deepest religious spirit, had become convinced that salvation could be secured only through personal confidence in God and not through meeting the many ecclesiastical requirements. When Rome, greatly in need of funds, sent the priest Tetzel through Germany to sell indulgences, Luther, by posting his famous ninetyfive theses on the church door at Wittenberg (Oct. 31, 1 5 17), challenged both the practices and the teachings of the church. Rome resented his action and attempted to deal harshly with him, but he was protected by the Elector Frederick. Rome excommunicated Luther, but he burnt the bull of excommunication publicly. When confronted with the power of the emperor, who was supporting the papacy, he stood firm, and thus challenged for conscience' sake the two mightiest rulers in the world. Luther published many books and pamphlets, and these were carried far and near and aroused the people of all lands, but especially of Germany. In them he gave forceful and clear expression to what multitudes of men had more or less vaguely been feeling and thinking, and thus struck the spark which was to fire the world. A great struggle ensued in which various parts of Germany took sides. The emperor tried by many means to carry out the pope's desires and also to compromise the matter. War was the final resort, and ended in victory for the Protestants. The result was the peace of Augsburg, which established Lutheranism as a legal religion in Germany. Lutheranism also rooted itself in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Thus New Testament Christianity as Luther conceived it was established.

Outside Germany in other countries the same forces which made the Lutheran movement possible worked themselves out in various forms, and came to be established in the Reformed Churches. In Switzerland the Humanist preacher Zwingli started the Protestant movement which led to the war in which he lost his life. John Calvin, next to Luther the greatest of the Reformers and the very greatest theologian of the Reformation, took up the Swiss leadership. He not only wrote the clearest statement of the theological position of Protestantism, but also made Geneva the educational center for the missioners of all the Reformed Churches and the asylum of persecuted Protestants who came from every part of Europe. Geneva was the greatest center and force for spreading and establishing the Protestantism of the Reformed Churches. From Geneva Calvin exercised a determining influence in France, his native land, where Protestantism established itself, grew rapidly to numerical strength, was decimated by fierce and often repeated persecutions, and finally attained a legal status under Henry of Navarre by the Edict of Nantes in 1598. In Holland also Calvin's influence was paramount, for, in spite of the terrible persecutions of the infamous Duke of Alva, who turned the Netherlands into a sea of blood, Protestantism persisted, fought its way under William of Orange, and won the victory under William's son, Maurice, in 1609. In Scotland the leader was John Knox, who was exiled for his Protestant views, and spent some of his exile with Calvin at Geneva, whence he was called to Scotland to aid the Protestants in gaining an establishment. Through an alliance with England Knox saved the Protestantism of all Europe, which was endangered by the menace of the French and Spanish empires.

Calvinism spread also into some other countries. For a time it seemed about to conquer the entire English Church, but ended only in making the Puritan party, which was defeated in its effort to make the whole church Calvinistic and was driven out to make independent churches or to emigrate to America. The Anglican Church remained in many respects medieval, but did not escape some influence from Calvinism. Calvinism was successful in getting a foothold in Germany, where some Reformed churches remain to this day.

Calvinism is to be distinguished from Lutheranism in that while the latter emphasized first of all the value of faith, Calvinism stressed the doctrine of God's sovereignty; but the distinction is one of emphasis rather than of opposed beliefs. Calvinism also freed itself to greater extent than Lutheranism from the medieval type of Christianity, and so developed a more democratic form of church government than Lutheranism did, and also arrived at a conception of the Lord's Supper farther removed from that of Romanism.

Farther removed still from Romanism was the third stream of the Reformation. For a long time before the Reformation various groups had existed, espousing different views of gospel truth, and these gladly welcomed the Reformation movement and were in turn greatly increased in numbers through the influence of the entire development. Many differences of opinion obtained among these different groups which were scattered all over Europe. Yet certain principles were espoused by all and became the marks by which all Anabaptists may be distinguished. They all believed so firmly that faith is the basis of salvation that they refused to baptize except on profession of faith and insisted on rebaptizing (hence their name) all who had been christened in infancy, and this is but an example of their characteristic opposition to all priestism and sacramentalism, as is also their insistence on democratic church government. They insisted too on the authority of the Scripture as the last appeal. A third principle was that of religious liberty for all and the absolute separation of Church and State. Their fourth tenet, held quite generally, was nonresistance, with which was coupled refusal to serve as magistrates. For all of these principles they were bitterly hated by all governments and churches in Europe without exception and received from all the most terrible persecutions. Yet they spread and persisted, and have handed on their tremendous contributions through a number of modern denominations.

The influence of the Reformation did not spend itself in the three streams of Protestantism. Men who remained loyal to Rome felt the need of reform. Indeed, several attempts were made to reform the whole church, so as to include the Protestants without a schism, and these movements had in a measure the approval and cooperation of one or two of the popes. These efforts are known as the Catholic Reformation. They failed, and the work of the Counter-Reformation, which was confined to the church remaining loyal to Rome, was taken up by the Society of Jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola. This order was a matchless fighting machine with a mystical enthusiasm, possessing a military spirit and law, and was governed autocratically by its head. It achieved remarkable success in conserving the interests of the Roman Church. It was very influential in the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which was called by Emperor Charles to settle the whole Protestant trouble, but ended in making Rome's position 'stronger, especially by means of a clearer theological statement than Rome had before possessed. Both in the Catholic and in the Counter-Reformations the Inquisition, which was the punishment of spiritual offenses by physical pains and penalties and had been employed for a long time in Europe wherever State and Church acted jointly, was used with great savagery, especially in Spain and the Netherlands. Later, especially after the Council of Trent, the Index, a list of forbidden books, was used in order to keep Romanists ignorant of publications unwelcome to Rome. Previously the method was to burn all the copies of such books that could be obtained, but the invention of printing made this method ineffective. The Jesuits themselves helped to use these agencies of Romanist repression. To them must be credited the chief part in the reanimating of Rome, however much we may recognize that the society is to be condemned for some of its activities and tenets.

io Positive Protestantism

Quiz

i. What was the emphasis of the early church? 2. How was the early church organized? 3. What two pagan conceptions caused the departure from the simplicity of the early church ? 4. How did the pope come to supremacy? 5. What were the forces which prepared for the Reformation? 6. What was the significance of Lutheranism, of Calvinism, of the Anabaptists? 7. What was the chief influence in the Counter-Reformation?

1. Did Luther, Calvin, and others start "new" religions, or did they continue Christianity in purer forms ? 2. The stream of the Reformation farthest removed from medieval Christianity and nearest to the modern spirit. 3. Failure of Rome to rule the entire Christian church at any period of history. 4. The worth of the Jesuits, a blessing or a curse.

Part T

Protestant Affirmations of Christian truth

Chapter II Agreements And Disagreements

The term " Protestant " may be used with greater or less strictness. Strictly speaking the Protestants were those who had a share in presenting at the Diet of Speyer (1529) the Protest which gave rise to the name. But very quickly the word had a wider use as applying to all of the followers of Luther. It is employed to-day in this country to include all Christians not adherents of the Roman or Oriental Catholic Churches. Such a wide and loose use of the term makes it well-nigh impossible to present what Protestantism teaches. Some limitation is absolutely necessary. For the present purpose the term is meant to include all communions which naturally would be included on account of their historical origin and are generally regarded as constituting the evangelical denominations.

A still further limitation is necessary. It would be possible to define Protestant teaching by an appeal to the historic written creeds of various Protestant bodies and to the writings of the leading Protestant theologians of the Reformation period, such as Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, and Calvin, and to such later theological writers as Arminius,

Swedenborg, Jonathan Edwards, and others, who are responsible for new trends of theological thinking. 1 But many things have transpired in the world since the older Protestanism was formulated. Xew modes of thought and new views of the world have come from a modern spirit and method of investigation which are in part due to the Reformation and in part to other causes. Moreover, great advance has been made in the sciences that concern the Bible, theology, and the history of the church. These facts and forces have had a deep and abiding influence on Protestant Christianity. Even a Romanist writing to-day cannot address himself merely to the older Protestantism, but has quite a different situation to confront him, both within his own communion with its ultramontane exaltation of papal authority and its antagonism to -Modernism, and also in the changed Protestant world. Consequently, any adequate presentation of Protestant teaching must take into account this new atmosphere. 2

A development within Protestantism itself has taken place, and has shown a tendency in the direction of the principles of the Anabaptists. It is

1 Such is the method of the Romanist theologian Moehler. whose book " Symbolism " is by all means the best Romanist theological discussion of the differences between Protestantism and Rome. But the method re-veals its weakness in the fact that a great deal of Moehler'9 criticism is pointless against present-day Protestantism.

2 The religious and theological literature of the last decade or two will furnish ample corroboration of the present statement as a fairly accurate account of present-day Protestant affirmations of Christianteachings.

^Agreements and Disagreements 15

not difficult to mark the trend toward non-sacramentarian views of the ceremonies of the church, or toward the actual acceptance and even espousal of religious liberty, and the separation of Church and State. The pietistic features of the Anabaptists have also found advocates in later denominational developments. Likewise, the emphasis on a membership determined by real and personal loyalty to Christ, rather than one determined by inclusion in the state or by infant baptism, has come to be the ideal of some denominations, which still practise infant baptism or whose European connections still adhere to state churches. The consequent situation in this country is a very different one from that in which the Lutheran and Reformed communions came into being and in which the Anabaptists were regarded and treated with the greatest hatred by all others.

Between the modern spirit and Protestantism a certain affinity exists inasmuch as the modern world is in part a result of the Reformation. For example, the modern denial of the absoluteness of ecclesiastical authority has left its marks even within Romanism itself through the European modernist movement. The exaltation of the individual and the validity of private judgment in so many of the other affairs of life could not fail to affect religion and benefit Protestantism. Confidence in the inherent worth of life and work, issuing in a transfer of emphasis from a future to the present world, would be expected to increase the importance of ethical considerations and thus open the door of opportunity to the growing tendency of Protestant teaching to appeal to the ethical sense of men. This relation of Protestantism and the modern spirit and point of view requires the Protestant affirmations to be stated, not as they might have been set forth in the days of the Reformation, but according to the present situation.

Now the Protestant affirmations as such do not affect all Christian doctrines. As to many Christian conceptions no wide difference exists between Romanism and Protestantism. Allowing for varieties of explanation, Protestantism may be said to accept those ideas which were affirmed by the first four general councils of the early church — ideas summarized perhaps in the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian creeds. Though Protestants do not recognize the infallible or other authority of councils to determine the teachings of the Scripture, they can nevertheless hold to the essential religious ideas of the historic creeds while insisting that their statements must be adjusted to the modern w r orld and its modes of thought.

Among the conceptions upon which agreement is to be had is one of particular importance for this discussion because it leads directly to the consideration of differences, namely, the conception that man is in deep need of God, and without him cannot possibly realize the fullest life here and here-

Agreements and Disagreements 17

after. Romanist and Protestant theologians have discussed with most minute theological refinements the theories underlying this statement of man's need for God and man's moral and religious impotence without God. But for the purposes of a practical understanding of the Christian gospel it is not necessary to enter into these discussions. Only the matters of main importance need be set forth. These concern the meeting of man's need by God.

The fundamental differences are but two, provided that the theological discussion of the relation of justification and sanctification is put aside. It is sufficient for practical religious purposes to state that the points of difference in that discussion have quite entirely to do with the theological definition of terms and the delimiting of psychological religious processes. Since both Romanist and Protestant theologians hold that God's true children are both justified and sanctified by him, it is not of the greatest importance whether these terms refer to an identical process or whether justification is to be considered a separate act of God followed by the process of sanctification. The ethical side of the argument as presented by such a Romanist as Moehler 3 would be entirely in accord with modern Protestant views of justification. This fact would of itself be sufficient warrant for setting aside the discussion of the doctrine of justification. And

3 See Moehler's " Symbolism " (translated by J. B. Robertson, London, 1906) in the discussion of Justification.

again, since such an argument as Moehler's comes later to rest entirely upon the Romanist view of the sacraments as the source of the grace which justifies and sanctifies, all that is pertinent can be considered in connection with the discussion of one of the main differences between Protestantism and Romanism. One of the two remaining differences concerns the function and authority of the church. The other affects the conception of the method by which God's grace is brought to the saving of men. Even here the difference lies in the realm of the explanation of certain religious facts and phenomena which both Romanists and Protestants recognize; as, for example, the fact that Jesus Christ is Saviour and Lord through whom men come to God. The importance of the differences lies in the fact that these explanations are made regulative of religious life and so become the determining elements of religion. They must, therefore, be thoroughly understood. Historically Luther came first to the question of the method of salvation and only to the other question of the church and its authority after it had been inevitably raised by his earlier statements and activities. Our course of thought will follow this order, but will subdivide the consideration of the church into three studies, and will approach the other question from two points of view, since the Protestant conception of the method of salvation contrasts with two distinct view-points held by Romanism. One of these is legalism, or the securing of salvation by

Agreements and Disagreements 19

conforming to the requirements of a definitely stated set of laws. The other is sacramentalism, or salvation mediated through a priestly order possessing special divine powers and by divinely appointed ceremonies which are the only vehicle of the grace of God that enables men to come unto him and to live a life of which he approves. Each of these contrasts will be discussed in successive chapters. Then will be presented in three chapters the Protestant conception of the church's function, religious authority, and the channel of grace, in contradistinction to the Romanist ideas.

Inevitably Protestant principles lead to a condemnation of certain elements of Romanism as useless excrescences. They must also lead to evaluating as valid certain conceptions and applications occasioned by Christianity's contact with civilization as a whole. These condemnations and evaluations will also be noted in two special chapters as negative and positive implications of Protestantism.

4< q* *i* Quiz

1. What does the term " Protestant" mean? 2. Who are Protestants? 3. What is the situation which makes a modern statement of Protestantism necessary? 4. How far do Protestantism and Romanism agree? 5. What are the three differences between Protestantism and Romanism? 6. Which two are of practical religious importance ?

Chapter III

salvation: by faith or law?

One of the world-old religious questions is that which troubled Luther, " How can a man be saved ? " Christianity conceives that all men are sinful except so far as they are saved from that condition by God, who not only rescues men from the menacing results of their sins, but also saves them from the very grip of the tendency to sin, that is, makes them capable of resisting evil and accomplishing a Christian life. Men are saved to a life with God and to all that such a life involves, both here and hereafter. Nothing in Protestantism or Romanism disagrees essentially with these statements. The important difference arises as to the basis on which God is conceived as proceeding to save men and the means by which he cooperates with them in the achievement of a Christian life.

Protestantism teaches that God is willing to forgive sin in view of men's faith and to treat all repentant men as a father treats a repentant child. Salvation is a two-sided process in which God acts with the really fundamental power and man acts out of the really necessary and potential motives. The essential attitude of men is their faith, that is, 20 their devoted reliance on God's readiness to save. A man has only to recognize his sinfulness and need of God, to trust confidently in God and his power and willingness to save, to repudiate sin, and to choose God's standard of life. When such an attitude is taken through faith in Jesus the Christ, who revealed God and his gospel, then God is willing to disregard a man's lack of an actually complete righteous life and to cooperate through personal communion with the man in the achievement of salvation. In other words, a man comes into communion with God and continues in that relation through his devoted reliance on God. This sharing in God's life here gives assurance of life hereafter. This is plainly the conception which is presented in the New Testament, and directly to the New Testament Protestantism sends every inquirer after the truth. In the parable of the Prodigal Son Jesus presents God's fatherly willingness to forgive sinners in contrast to the legalistic conceptions of the Pharisees, for the father in the parable, who is overjoyed to regain a lost son, is a figure of God. Most significant is the omission of reference to any other condition of accepting the son than that of the repentant, submissive, and trusting attitude displayed by the prodigal.

Indeed, Jesus' constant use of the name " Father " for God is a supreme emphasis on this conception, which contrasted so strongly with the popularly current legalistic and ceremonial ideas of his time. To the plain teaching of this parable may be added the implication of Jesus' description of the last great judgment, in which he gives his only definition, intended as such, of the condition of entrance into the heavenly kingdom. In this description the sheep are separated from the goats not on a theological, ceremonial, or legalistic basis, but on the simple ground that the sheep by their daily life in its commonest affairs displayed an attitude toward the King which leads him to count them as his own. The central importance of the inner disposition to loyal service of the King is made still plainer in the Sermon on the Mount. Though denying any intention of destroying the law and asserting that he has come to fulfil the law's meaning, Jesus contrasts (Matt. 5) his understanding of the law with that of the scribes and Pharisees. He makes the point of the contrast turn precisely upon the idea that the inner motive is what determines in the sight of God the ultimate significance of any acts with which the law deals. The condition upon which God judges men favorably, then, is such an inward attitude as that of the returning prodigal or the giver of a cup of cold water. The case of the woman taken in adultery is also pertinent. Here is one actually caught in open violation of a law of first importance. Yet, because of the very attitude which the woman took in her shame, Jesus said: " Neither do I condemn thee ; go, and sin no more." Forgiveness was granted in view of her shown repentance and on condition that she go forth with the purpose to live better. The inner attitude thus referred to is what Protestantism calls faith.