In the controversy between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, there are theological assumptions driving everything that are not often stated baldly. In a recent sermon by Pastor Doug O'Donnell, he said something that encouraged some things that I've been pondering of late. He stated something like this: Christology and soteriology precede and produce ecclesiology (not an exact quotation, but I think I have the substance right).
In Roman Catholocism, ecclesiology (and specifically the offices of the Church) has priority and defines everything else.
In Protestantism, Christology and soteriology (the person and work of Christ) have priority and define everything else.
Which follows the biblical pattern? Which is more foundational? Oftentimes the debate proceeds as though historical theology and exegeting individual texts (particularly those that relate to the doctrine of the nature of the Church) alone can solve the controversy. While exegesis is important, even essential and indispensible, of course, one must ask whether an appropriate method has been used, whether an apostolic way of proceeding has been undertaken. Do the apostles themselves start with the Church in their thinking about Christianity? Or do they and others think about the Church on account of Christ's person and work?
The same kind of question asked of the canon is relevent here. Did the Church produce the canon, or did the canon produce the Church? Answer: The canon produced the Church, of course. Well, now, does the Gospel precede and produce the Church, or does the Church precede and produce the Gospel? The answer should be obvious, and doubtless Rome would agree. And the point then is that this is significant methodologically as the Church thinks about all doctrines, not least those of ecclesiology. So if one gets the Gospel muddled, as Rome most certainly does, then necessarily ecclesiology will be muddled as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment