The Reformation Era

Curialism and Conciliarism: Luther’s Response

Curialism is the position that the Roman Pontiff or Pope has ultimate authority over the church and is “the vicar of Christ on earth… entrusted with the keys of the kingdom as Peter’s proper heir. Therefore, he ha[s] final authority, even over the gathered consensus of councils.”¹ Conciliarism, on the other hand, posits that “church councils were to be the voice of tradition, wielding authority over the most prestigious of popes.”² These two positions clashed on many occasions, two of which were the “Great Western Schism” (1378-1417) and the Council of Constance (1414-1418), the latter in which it had seemed that conciliarism had won.³

However, “less than sixty years before the Reformation… Pius II’s papal bull Execrabilis (1460) announced that anyone who sidelined the pope for the sake of a council would be excommunicated… [and] the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517)… reiterated the pope’s preeminent authority.”⁴ Truly, on the eve of the Reformation, the rivalry between conciliarism and curialism was an unresolved issue.

Yet, “An obscure German Augustinian monk whose conscience refused to be held captive by anything but the Word of God” came into the picture, contributing significantly to the conciliar/curial debate. He presented an alternative: Scripture was to be the church’s sole authority. In response to the Dominican Sylvester Prierias’s Dialogue concerning the Power of the Pope, Luther “appealed to the authority of councils—councils Prieras knew to be catholic (universal) in nature… [and] resurrected Augustine’s testimony that only the Bible was to be labeled God-breathed and insusceptible to error. Luther was implying that popes and councils were not, nor could they ever be, the final court of appeal.”⁵ The answer for Luther was not curialism or conciliarism, but the Word of God, and this conclusion became the Protestant ideal.

John Calvin and Dortian Calvinism

Most Christians with backgrounds other than the Reformed perspective think of the five points of Calvinism or the TULIP acronym when they hear John Calvin’s name. However, “[d]espite the association of his name with predestination, John Calvin understood salvation through the lens of incarnation and the believer’s mystical union with Christ. The person and work of Jesus were central to Calvin’s doctrine of redemption.”⁶ He even “warned about ‘excessive curiosity’ when considering predestination.”⁷ The failure of his future followers to heed that sapient advice set a divisive trajectory for Protestantism.”⁸ Still, Calvin does have much to say about TULIP’s doctrines, although the acronym was later developed and the various doctrines were further fleshed out.

In the early seventeenth century, the Synod of Dort codified “the soteriological convictions of Reformed orthodoxy” into five points—Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (TULIP)—although not in that particular order.⁹ This codification by the Dutch Reformed “established a theology based on reaction to the declaration of Arminius’s followers, the remonstrants, rather than building their position directly from the Bible,” an endeavour that undoubtedly would have upset Calvin.¹⁰

Overall, “the canons of Dort crystallized a Calvinist theology that was distinct from Calvin’s, while branding itself in direct relation to a Reformer who demanded he be buried in an unmarked grave to dissuade theological veneration.”¹¹ In short, despite some good things coming from the Synod and the canons of Dort, their reasoning and origins were displaced, for they aspired to agree with Calvin and those before him who radicalized the position to an unhealthy extent rather than to faithfully exegete and interpret the Scriptures.¹²

The Reformers’ “Mere” Church: Modern Implications

Jason G. Duesing summarizes the idea of a “mere” church well. In contrast to the Roman Catholic Church of the time, he says,

The Reformers’ pursuit of a simplified doctrine of the church followed their initial decisions to pursue a reform movement that returned to the sources of authoritative Scriptures for the establishment of a biblical understanding of the doctrine of salvation. This resulted in a mere ecclesiology centered on notae ecclesiae that affirmed the church as an invisible collection of all believers and a visible gathering that upheld the centrality of the preached Word of God and the gospel and the regular practice of the Lord’s Supper as the ordinances instituted by Christ.¹³

Fundamentally, a “mere” church is composed of a visible covenant community that gathers together to hear the Word preached and participate in Christ’s sacraments.

This recovery of a simple, mere church was a necessity for the Reformers following their initial reforms, for “[h]ad the reformers not wrestled with the doctrine of the church, the recovery of the solas [sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria] might not have lasted more than a generation.”¹⁴ Such loss, as in the former days of the Roman Catholic Church, occurs when the gathering of believers, the reading of the Word, and the participation in the sacraments are not of central importance. Therefore, these crucial elements and proofs of the church became central to preserving the Christian Faith recovered by the Protestants.

Just as the Reformers were determined to have a mere church void of unnecessary and irrelevant features, Christians today must do the same. The Reformers’ emphasis on a mere church remains relevant today, for “church reform needs to continue, not only for the quest of seeking to follow the Scriptures, but also to ensure there remain future visible communions of saints who will treasure and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ until he returns.”¹⁵ If anything comes into an unhealthy church, it should be purged. Indeed, even if something that comes into a church is healthy but unnecessary, it must be abandoned.

What is a False Church?

If the gathering of believers, the reading of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments are marks of the true church, recovered by the Reformers, then the opposite must also be true. A false church is marked by the lack of believers gathered, the lack of Bible reading, and the lack of administration of the sacraments. It deviates from these essential components of a true church. Additionally, a false church may teach doctrines in disagreement with or in addition to the doctrines of the Bible and the gospel. However, the issue is not always black and white.

Because all people are sinful, and the church is composed of imperfect people, “no visible church is pure in a sinful world.”¹⁶ Therefore, just because a church teaches something different, it does not mean it is a false church, insofar as its teaching does not contradict Christian essentials. Calvin’s words are wise here: “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists,” even if some of its teachings are unconventional but not heretical.¹⁷

Bibliography

Duesing, Jason G., and Nathan A. Finn, eds. Historical Theology for the Church. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021.

Footnotes

1. Matthew Barrett, “Scripture,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 189. ↩

2. Ibid., 188-189. ↩

3. Ibid., 189-190. ↩

4. Ibid., 190. ↩

5. Barrett, 191-192. ↩

6. Stephen Brett Eccher, “Salvation,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 215. ↩

7. Ibid., 222. ↩

8. Ibid. ↩

9. Ibid., 223. ↩

10. Ibid. ↩

11. Eccher, 223. ↩

12. Ibid., 222-223. ↩

13. Jason G. Duesing, “The Church,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 245. ↩

14. Ibid. ↩

15. Duesing, 245. ↩

16. Ibid., 237. ↩

17. Institutes 4.1.9, qtd. in Duesing, 237. ↩