These things need to be pondered by Protestants to-day. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of last mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism to-day become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or do we now, with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).
In our modern day we think we are modern and know how to treat others better. However, we must also remember how Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. He who was love incarnate spoke out of love for God and for the people of God. But He thought that truth was important enough to speak forcefully and clearly. When the Gospel is at stake we must not be more “nice” and “gracious” than Jesus was of the Pharisees. In history when the Gospel was at stake, God used men who spoke the truth of the Gospel forcefully. Not all of them were successful by the standards of our day, but they spoke for God. Men like Erasmus who courted the favor of others and spoke so graciously as to water the truth down were popular in their day but were seen for what they really were later on. Luther saw then that the minimizing and glossing over of theological differences in order to keep party peace was simply doctrinal indifferentism which was really a denial of the Gospel. Yet the spirit and attitude of Erasmus is widespread today.
The man-centeredness of Erasmus was the real problem and is still the problem today. Luther accused Erasmus of being too man-centered and he was correct. Luther was bound to the principle of Soli Deo Gloria or to God alone be the glory. To this end Philip Watson spoke about Luther’s theology in Let God Be God:
Hence the possibility is given, broadly speaking, of two main types of religion, according as one or the other of these two factors predominates and becomes the centre of gravity, so to speak, in the relationship. If the religious relationship centres in man—if my relation to God depends essentially upon me—then it can be described as anthropocentric or egocentric; if it centres in the eternal and the divine, then it is theocentric. Now it might well seem as if all religion must, in the nature of the case, be theocentric; for if the word ‘God’ is to have any meaning at all, it cannot but signify the dominant centre of live and of all existence. And it is true that no religion is entirely lacking in awareness of this fact. All religions display at least some traces of theocentricity. Such traces, however, do not generally suffice to form what may be termed the leitmotif of the religion; they are not determinative of its character as a whole, but in one way and another are subordinated to the egocentric tendency…Similarly in religion, although I do not as readily perceive or accept all that this implies; and it is the most natural thing for me still to live and think as if I myself were the centre around which all else, including God, moved. If find it exceedingly difficult to rid myself of this illusion and allow God really to be the centre, that is, really to be God.
Within the previous quote we see the real problem of trying for unity apart from a pursuit of truth and of solid doctrine. Of course not all would admit that is what they are trying to do. However, a true theocentricity is at the heart of true Christianity. The Lord Jesus Christ was focused and centered upon God and His glory in all He did. He would not refuse to speak the truth to people even when they did not want to hear it. While many excuse doctrinal indifference because they insist on being nice and gracious to others, when they do so it is likely that they are guilty of being man-centered. As Watson says above, all religions have some traces of theocentricity. However, that does not mean that they are truly centered upon God in all ways. But even more, man can pretend to be God-centered as long as he thinks God is centered upon him. A real and robust God-centeredness is when God is understood to be God-centered as well.
Doctrine matters in regards to the Gospel because there is only one Gospel (Gal 1). Without a robust doctrine we have no true Gospel. Without a center upon a God-centered God we have no true Gospel but instead have a man-centered pottage which the birthright of the Reformation has been traded for. We must not mistake what is offered up as Arminianism or Reformed in our day as what came from the Reformation. It is a massive mistake to do so.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment