With me today is Dr. Simeon Zahl who
is an expert on
the theology of the Reformation.
And he's going to
try and address the question
>> What is distinctive about
Protestant theology? I would
hate to take that question on myself.
So I'm delighted you are.
Well it's a really interesting question.
That used to be discussed a great deal.
That's something that people
in the 16th century,
the 17th century, 19th
century thought a lot about.
And these days there are a lot of
reasons to think that we we
don't it's hard to say what's
distinctive about Protestant theology.
So the the old answer was two things.
The doctrine of justification
by faith alone that people are
saved just on the basis
of faith in God and not
on any kind of
moral transformation that's necessary.
And secondly sola scriptura, the view that
the Bible alone is authoritative in theology.
Now. .. and that does capture
the the main classical denominations
the reform the Lutherans especially.
However there were exceptions
almost as soon as
those principles were formulated.
So you have the radical reformers
already in Luther's period saying well
experience helps us understand
the Bible in a way
that makes it a little bit different.
Or you have Quakers saying that
the Spirit precedes
the bible is more important than it.
Um and these days you have you
have you have Pentecostal who are
who have a very high view of
the Bible but it's not quite as
strict as straightforward as it
was for the reformers.
And then on justification by
faith you have huge swaths of Christians are
starting especially with the pietas
than Methodist movements
who although they liked that a lot of
the terminology around
justification by faith.
They actually thought that the human will
played a vital role which is
exactly what the principal justification
was designed to combat.
So you have a whole lot of
different people that with
lottery from positions but
they're all called protestant.
So does that just mean that they're
not Catholic and that they're
historically go back to people who
protested
against the medieval Catholic Church.
That's one answer but it
doesn't really tell us very much.
So I think if I
were to give an answer to the question what
is distinctive about
Protestant theology today
I'd say two things that you could have
a narrow definition where people
who had this very radical view of
justification this classical
view of justification.
And so in that sense John Wesley
is moving away from
classical Protestantism and back towards
a vision of the Christian life
that involves moral progress.
The importance of the will
this kind of thing that is quite
distinct from this
original idea in Protestantism.
But I think maybe a more interesting and more
capacious way of thinking about it.
Is that Protestantism.
It's almost a kind of mood.
It's a it's an atmosphere of...
There's a kind of
suspicion of a specific thing
Suspicion of the idea that God is
connected to specific objects or
rituals in and of
themselves rather than simply because
he chooses to be in
a given moment so Huldrych Zwingli
said something about baptism that
a lot of Protestants
don't actually agree with.
But they all have to reckon with a kind
of criticism that you have
to take seriously it
within the Protestant frame and he
said that the baptism isn't about water.
It isn't about the right.
It's about whether the spirit
chooses to baptize you.
And so it's it's all about
this inner spiritual work and
not about anything outside of the person.
So all Protestants even if they disagree with
Zwingli they have to reckon
with that possibility.
That strong criticism of God
being tied outward forms.
And so Luther is
very feels very keen that God should not
be tied to the presence of
God shouldn't be tied to the work of
priests or to the authority
of the church it's it's
it's all dependent on the spirit.
And this helps explain why
Protestants debate so much about the nature
of the Bible and also
the nature of the Sacraments because these
are two places where
they're the instinct is to want to say
somehow God is especially
present through these instruments.
But there's always some protestant saying
well but if you really
think he's present in the elements then
that must be a form of idolatry.
Or if he's really present just
in the Bible as it's
written then that makes the book
God not the living God.
And so Protestant theology
has to reckon with that kind of
suspicion in whatever kind
of claims it wants to make. >> Now of
course that creates certain tensions within
because at one level sola scriptura
is such a such a and and being able to find
something in the Bible the Bible becomes
almost a touchstone. But of course
you can't identify with the Bible.
You can't identify God with the Bible.
And also Luther's emphasis on justification
the moment of baptism and yet you
can't identify with baptism.
So that's a living tension.
It is a living tension and that's why
I want to call it a kind of mood.
Rather than actually a specific position
God is or is not
involved in the Bible a certain way.
Different Protestants have different
views on that.
And likewise on the sacraments
most famously
the subject in which Protestants
almost immediately couldn't agree.
But it's more the sense that
if we're going to say God
is involved with this
thing that's external to us that
isn't just the free work of the Spirit.
We better justify it really well.
Because otherwise it sounds like the kind
of theology that Protestantism
defined itself against initially.
So do you think do you think that if
we were to if these are
the distinctive elements
of a Protestant theology.
Do you think there
is a rapprochement possible
with Catholics are with with the author?
Well let's say let's say with Catholics
because historically so much of
our language and discussion in the West
it forms a single
unity. >> Yes so that's
One of the reasons why I think just
saying sola scriptura is no
longer quite adequate in
defining what Protestants are
although if you look at
the rhetoric of Protestants through
the centuries that we
have that the Bible is the authority.
The Catholics have
the church of the Pope and so on.
But actually in the 20th century
Catholic theology
allowed historical criticism of
the Bible. A lot of...
there are a lot of modernising
moves that blurred the lines a bit
between how Protestants and
Catholics view the Bible and likewise
Protestants have become much
more aware of how the Bible functions to
inform liturgy to inform
practices and not just as a set of
propositions if you just
read it carefully enough.
So I think that's one where
the those borders have
gotten probably helpfully fuzzier.
And with regard to
the sacraments do you think there's a move..?
>>That's more complicated because
the reformer the Protestant,
the main streams within
Protestantism are so different
on that subject already.
I mean Luther has a position
that is in a lot of ways a lot
closer to a Catholic position than
even a Calvinist position.
Perhaps you might disagree
>>No, what I was thinking about is
actually is that Luther
himself you can see you can see
an evolution in Luther's
thought between where
he's saying early on and what
he's saying later. >>Yes
In fact between the two Catechisms
I think you can even see.
You can see a shift in his thoughts.
>>And he becomes... he moves away a
little bit from this very free inward work of
the Spirit justification as
this kind of experienced event and
that's the centre of it, towards
emphasizing more something that's already
there at the beginning but he increasingly
emphasizes the importance of
the sacraments as an external means.
And of course the reason there's been
a movement in Catholic theology
from the mid-twentieth century
of trying to make sure that
sacraments are seen in
terms of the sacramentality of
the whole of human experience rather than
an expression of the fact that God is in
the creation and what's
often called an incarnational principle.
Rather than thinking them as
things or objects
almost automatic rituals. >>Yes and that.
But I think there's a there's
a strange thing, and that is that...
...sometimes when theologians actually
discuss this the disagreements
almost merge into one another.
But somehow or other
that there's the whole sense of
identity and the
histories the different histories.
My people are or your people
are and the whole danger of othering - oh well if
you say that I must say something different...
>>Right I I sometimes wonder
is the is the growth in Christian dialogue
more learning how to discuss
differences rather than trying
to solve theological problems.
>>I think certainly that's one of
the great benefits of
the ecumenical movement in
the 20th century and continuing somewhat is
creating space for
discussion of of difference that
isn't just about getting
it right and therefore no winning.
Yeah but clarifying that
this distinctive attitudes that
you say this distinctive suspicion.
Maybe a help in that discussion.
I hope so. >>Thanks Simeon.