One of N.T. Wright’s more important points is the one he has adapted from the teaching of the great Elizabethan Anglican, Richard Hooker. This is the observation that justification by faith is not accomplished by affirming or believing in justification by faith. Believing the doctrine of justification by faith alone as a way of being justified is a fine way of actually denying the doctrine of justification by faith alone. We are not saved by works — ethical or theological. We are not saved because we got better than a ninety on the ethics quiz, or over a ninety-five on the justification section of the theology exam.
One of the common misconceptions of our ministry here is that we cultivate a Reformed insularity, and don’t have anything to do with Christians of other stripes. But I serve on five different ministry boards, counting the session of Christ Church. Out of these five, only two of them are confessionally Reformed — Christ Church and New St. Andrews College. The other three are venues in which committed Christians from different doctrinal backgrounds may work together in ministry. Now the reason Reformed Christians who are interested in catholicity can and do work together with fellow believers is because of the plain truth outlined above. We are responsible to be in fellowship with everyone we believe God to be in fellowship with. Always guard against the ever-present temptation that Christians have, which is to develop “standards” that are higher than God’s.
Now I do this, believing that the doctrinal error that afflicts both evangelical Arminians and Roman Catholics is the error of semi-Pelagianism. In both instances, the theological error is the same one. And this means I think that if God were to give us all a theology exam, that I would do better on that imputed righteous section than they would. I believe that solus Christus is the right answer, and not my own autonomous faith in cooperation with solus Christus. My answer is right, darn it.
Exactly. And because it is right, it is possible to receive as fellow believers people who get some things wrong. I get some things wrong too, and if I knew what they were I would change them. But I haven’t changed them yet, and can I be saved in the meantime? Sure, because we are saved through the perfections of Jesus Christ. Plus nothing.
Does this mean that semi-Pelagianism is no big deal? Do I work together with Arminians who deny sola fide? Sure, that is what Arminianism is (on paper) — a functional denial of sola fide. But that is no reason for me to deny it too, is it? And if I pull away from people that God has not pulled away from, then I am denying it also.
At the same time, semi-Pelagianism is a significant error, it hampers a clear proclamation of the gospel, it gives way too much room for sinners to wiggle on, and so on. Those who are Reformed should challenge it (graciously and regularly) whenever God gives the opportunity. But Arminians can deny sola fide in their creed (their theology exam) and affirm it with their lives, in just the same way that Calvinists can affirm sola gratia in their creed, and deny it through the pride they take for having gotten the correct answer. I was an Arminian Christian for many years, and involved in the ministry as an Arminian pastor for about eleven of those years. I was saved throughout that time for the same reason I am saved now — through the blood of Jesus Christ plus nothing, all in spite of my sins, failings, faults, and screwed up theology. I was saved by grace through faith plus nothing, despite the fact that if you had asked me about it I would hauled out some crap about free will.
Let me finish with what might seem like an odd illustration. Some years ago, before Christ Church began using wine in the Lord’s Supper, we, like so many other evangelical churches, used grape juice. Over time, I became convinced that this was a good, old-fashioned sin. This was not what Jesus told us to do, temperance biddies of the 19th century notwithstanding. So after I became convinced that it was a sin, what did I do? Well, I continued to administer the Lord’s Supper using grape juice. And when I would say the words of institution (aloud), I would silently confess the sin to the Lord. “Lord, you know this is a sin. And please glorify Your name through it. Here goes.” Now, on what basis could I possibly ask God to bless a sin? What kind of theology is that? The answer is that I was also convinced that to tear the congregation apart in a big fight over the meal of communion would be a much greater sin than the mere use of grape juice. And so I asked God to bring the transformation in His time, in His way, which He did, without a church split. Whenever we are dealing like zealous Reformers with some sin or other, we always have to ask, “Is this the only sin in the world?” It usually isn’t.
And this is why I am happy to work together with those godly Arminian Christians (not perfect Christians) who really do trust in Christ plus nothing else for their salvation. We know they are actually doing this because the Spirit of God is blessing them with His fruit in their lives. Are they perfect? Of course not, and neither are we. Fortunately, our perfection, together or apart, is not the ground of our fellowship. And I need to more concerned over my possible denial of sola fide than theirs.