In 2017, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York released a joint statement calling for Christians to repent of the deep division, mistrust, and violence of the Reformation, stating that, whilst blessings did come from the Reformation, repentance of its darker parts was a step in the right direction towards unity. This was preceded by Pope Francis’s gesture of allowing a Catholic altar to be used for Lutheran worship, and the temporary installation of a statue of Luther in St. Peter’s, much like a saint might be presented. The year 2017 marked 500 years since the Reformation and, for the most part, was not greeted with triumphalism but rather with introspection about the divisions within the Church.
Somewhat late (I was busy with other things at the time), I want to add my own thoughts to the momentous anniversary by posing the question: Should the Church still be divided because of the Solae? There might be many other things to divide over. Still, I am not talking about the nature of Church governments, sacraments, or saints (directly, at least), but about these specific things. I will try to distil to the essence or grind to the nub exactly what the issue is and then weigh whether this is in fact a point of division still worth having, implying, of course, whether it was ever worth dividing over. Obviously, I’ll be throwing in my ecumenical and personal perspective on these questions, so you might see some of the “Bobisms” a few of my critics like to throw at me. I should state that I am not a Roman Catholic. For the record, I am an ecumenical Christian, which should be understood more as a mission than a denomination, a spirituality, rather than a cohesive school of thought (think about the variety of Franciscans). The point I am going to argue is that whilst there are real differences and disagreements, none of them are of such gravitas as to justify a split, then or now!
I am going to start with what, in my own estimation, is the least in this essay, soli Deo gloria, and work to what I think is the most important, sola fidi, with the other Solae filling up the middle of the field.
Soli Deo gloria was the idea that because the Church honoured saints, institutions, objects, and the Pope and Bishops, even places, this, as Calvin put it, “robbed God of His glory” or obscured the true focus of all our glorification. This was connected to the idea that in some ways, these other things were given due honour because they played a role in our salvation, sharing in GOD’s work (though more accurately understood, in our sanctification). All honour was to be given to GOD, as GOD alone saved! This was particularly true of saintly intercession and veneration. The Council of Trent retorted that indeed all things were for the Glory of GOD, and that He was the telos of acts of worship, even acts of veneration, ultimately for the glory of GOD, as that is why we are saved. This is something John Piper would have been happy about, I am sure. Trent stated that statues had no divinity, but that their veneration was properly directed to the realities they represented rather than to the things themselves. The Council of Trent was explicit that in the veneration of statues, “we adore Christ, and we venerate the saints whose similitude they bear” (Council of Trent, Session XXV). Saints were said only to reflect GOD’s glory. Think of a cascade effect in reverse, going up and up until it gathers at a single point – that being GOD.
Now, it is not clear that, in the medieval period, this was evident in Catholic practice, nor is it evident today, all the time. Judging from the way some Catholics behave, this is the case. There is still a real need for stricter discipline in veneration practices to ensure that Catholic teaching is not distorted. However, it is not the case that Protestants are free from the charge of veneration of things other than GOD. Many Protestants (and Catholics) have died for their country, and many a Protestant in America will venerate the flag of the USA, or their favourite preachers. The clothes of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones are still held at Westminster Chapel, and by arrangement, Protestant pilgrims can see his venerable robes and the office in which he wrote his powerful sermons. When William Booth died, even royalty came to pay homage at his coffin. How many people went on pilgrimage to the Toronto blessing (which impacted HTB)? These acts of veneration may be toned down from the medieval and classical forms found in Catholicism, but they are still acts of veneration. On the balance of the arguments, I find myself agreeing in part with the Catholic position; that there is no harm in honouring that which should be honoured, and that such honour can look like religious acts! Consider the worship before the Ark of the Covenant, or the fact that Christians literally died for the Scriptures rather than see them destroyed by pagans, or that Scripture clearly commands we should give honour where honour is due. How can that not include the Apostles, the saints of the Church, and the Mother of GOD? Neither side believes anything other than that GOD is the telos of all divine glorification, and, functionally, neither side is strict about giving glory to GOD alone; both formally and informally give veneration to others apart from GOD.
I want to ask: is giving veneration an issue worth a split? Let’s assume that giving any form of glory to anyone other than GOD, even for their salvation, was wrong (think of how many credit Billy Graham for bringing them the Gospel). Would that be a split issue? I want to suggest not, so long as it is not done in a divine sense. For instance, the Palmarian Catholic Church under false Pope Peter III believes Mary is a co-creator and co-redeemer, existing (in her soul) with the divine Trinity before the world was created. They venerate her as such, which, I think we can all agree, goes so far beyond the line. The line is a dot to them, as Joey from Friends would have put it! However, to venerate others apart from GOD for what they have done, even if it were wrong, would be a sin, but not one so great as to require a break in fellowship. After all, who would be left to fellowship with? Who has not committed this imagined sin? Clearly, an extreme form of teaching cannot hold but collapses, which means degrees of veneration of others and places seem appropriate, though it can be excessive, and this would need to be corrected. However, if it is permitted, like honouring our mothers and fathers and venerating the graves where they rest, by visiting, tidying them, and leaving flowers, we are not therefore saying it is worth a split because it is universally practiced. We venerate people according to what they have done and who they are. We may be wrong about them, thinking a man to be greater than he is. Yet, an error of judgment, even of a saint or the saint of saints, the blessed Theotokos, would not be sufficient grounds to split.
After all, so long as it does not cross the Palmarian line, it is not a grave enough error. The medieval Church also did this, in ways perhaps alien to us now, but this is a matter of aesthetics, not of whether, in principle, it can be done (or is done). There is no difference between singing songs about John Brown’s Body, visiting the grave of John Wilkes Booth, or asking to see the robes of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, any more than there is between singing a song about a saint and visiting their tomb or seeing their bones. So, there is a level of veneration within Catholic circles that is practiced in Protestant circles. The question of praying to the saints will be addressed separately, but the issues of glorifying others apart from GOD seem not to be sufficient to split the Church, because (1) we all do it, (2) it is unavoidable that we do it, (3) it is Scriptural, and (4) we all agree that GOD alone is the summit and telos of our worship, worthy of a form of honour not to be given to others. When it is done, we all agree it should be condemned in principle; whether it is or not is a failure of practice. Conversely, I would also argue that a man cannot commit a grave sin by giving all his glory to GOD without honouring others beneath Him. Though it would be some kind of sin, it would be a point of correction, not one of splitting from communion. Have you ever said to someone that if you do not understand that only glory to GOD should be given, you cannot be saved? No! Neither have I!
The next sola and again, the least grave of the disputes, it seems to me, is that of solus Christus. It was perceived, and not without some merit, that the Church had become an alternative mediator of GOD to man. In addition to Christ along with the saints, the priests, particularly as an alter Christus (another Christ), compromising the idea that Christ was our sole Mediator, which is the very clear teaching of Scripture: “the only Mediator between God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5), that the Church was “usurping the prerogatives of Christ.” As Luther put it, through the way it ‘dispensed grace’ through sacraments. However, once again, as with the first sola here, this was a bit of a constructed conflict (justifiable, one might argue) based upon ‘ignorance,’ rather than formal teaching, as the Council of Trent affirmed that Christ is indeed our sole mediator and redeemer. The canons of the Council stated: “If anyone… denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied… by the sacrament of Baptism… let him be anathema; for there is no other name… whereby we must be saved” (Council of Trent, 1546/1848). Both sides agreed: only Christ saves us! (We will talk about the sacrament questions later). The argument is more on how He does it rather than whether He does it alone. Whilst it might be true, during the heat of the Reformation, that there was an understanding in Catholic circles that you were saved by baptism, regardless of whether you had faith, and even whether the priest doing the baptising had faith, you would be hard-pressed to find Catholics today defending ‘no faith baptism’ or ‘performative’ baptisms.
Both Protestants and Catholics agree that we are all priests and that Christ works through us. As Lutheran theologian Gustaf Wingren summarized it: “Grace creates vocation; the Christian becomes God’s instrument for the neighbour” (Wingren 1957, 23). This understanding is applied in a particular way to the Catholic priest in the alter Christus sense; the priest is ontologically configured to Christ, NOT changed into Christ, and Christ acts through them. Do you not believe that Christ acts through you or any other Christian you know? Protestants would say, “Yes, of course, Christ acts through us and notables like Billy Graham.” So, the argument is not whether in persona Christi acts, but rather, if there is a special order of Christians for whom that is particularly true, and to what end, sacramentally, for Catholics. Whilst both questions can be disputed, is the nature of the question of such gravity that it would require a Church to split off from itself? Many a charismatic preacher claims to be endowed with special favour from GOD. Whilst it might be the cause of some caution, it is not automatically a splitting point. One waits to see how they conduct themselves, whether they prove, as the Marian devotion puts it, “worthy of the promises of Christ.” All Christians are said in Scripture to participate in the divine nature and to sit in the heavenly places. The Catholic priesthood falls into one possible interpretation of such passages. The Catholic position is that Christ dispenses forgiveness through a priest, not that the priest, as a man, forgives you in the same way Christian faith healers say Christ heals through them (not that they heal). Or, Christians might say GOD spoke through someone to someone, not that they themselves gave the wisdom or the revelation that impacted them just so.
The prayers of the saints were called upon: “for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour” (Council of Trent, Session 25). This is something Protestants do all the time when they pray for the salvation of their friends and family. So clearly the argument is about something else; it is not about who saves, that is Christ, and it is not about whether you can pray for someone’s salvation; everyone agrees you can. So, the real argument, it seems, is: Can the saints hear our requests for their prayers? The answer is obviously going to be a yes or a no. Yet, whatever the answer may be, is it of such a central doctrinal matter that we need to anathematise one another for it? I would suggest not! The question of whether those who are alive in Christ but no longer in the body can hear prayers is too niche and secondary to split on, even if we come to a wrong conclusion. At worst, the person who does so resembles an eccentric and confused person, harmlessly asking people to pray for them who cannot hear the request. It is much like shouting at people on the television, or, more precisely, continuing to talk on the phone after the call has been cut off, thinking the line is still connected. If you do not do it when you could, then you are simply forfeiting some help you could have had but are not obliged to ask for; either way, none of these ranks is high enough to split a church.
When requesting prayer is mistaken for the saint being the one to answer prayer, that should be corrected, and I do think the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches need to tighten up their catechesis on this, as sometimes it does not help communicate their own position by some of the language used when asking to pray to saints. One example of this is the prayer “Mary – save us,” which at a prima facie level is clearly heterodox, except that it is a short hand for: “Mary pray for our salvation,” which is not a controversial thing to ask for. We’ve already agreed in practice that those alive in Christ, like your mate at church, can pray for your salvation or someone else’s at your request. The question then only is – can Mary (whom we all agree is alive in Christ) hear my request for my salvation, and the answer to that is so marginal to Christian doctrine, it is not worth splitting over. There is a strong argument in favour of genuine reform of the language in Catholic churches to communicate better what they believe. In such intercessory requests, I would posit, if you mean – “Mary pray for our salvation,” then just say that, rather than the easily misunderstood shorthand! I would agree that denying Christ as our one Mediator to GOD the Father is an issue that affects one’s salvation. It is a salvation matter; however, since Protestants and Catholics both agree that He is, then this is not a matter of division, but a question of how many other mediations there can be between the individual and Christ. Catholics are not compelled to ask a saint to pray for them; they can, and do often, pray directly to all three Persons of the Trinity, and Protestants can, and do often, ask other Christians to pray for them. The question of how many mediators there can be between Christ and us is not a salvation question; one is not damned by asking others to pray for them, as all prayers, even those of Mary, the blessed Theotokos, are understood to go to Christ, who alone presents them to the Father.
A much more important sola is that of sola scriptura, which, in the words of Gavin Ortlund, is the belief that the Scripture is the Church’s only infallible rule, not its only authority, being the final arbiter of all questions of faith and practice, and the only one incapable of error. He goes on to make a spirited defense of it in his book, What it Means to be a Protestant, which I think ultimately fails, or certainly leaves open the push back – that all Protestant churches should look more Catholic than they actually do. This position was a rebuff to the Catholic position that apostolic tradition was an equal authority to Scripture and that it was the right of the papal office and the magisterium of his holy office to interpret both and arbitrate any tensions that might be seen. Luther felt his conscience “was bound to Scripture,” as the disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church had become ‘self-serving’, and in part, corrupt clergy. However, when one looks at the authority of Protestant pastors over their own churches, that authority is often papal in nature, as is their understanding of Scripture for their own congregations and followers. So, functionally, it often looks indistinct; however, formally, Protestants lowered the teaching office of the Pope to that of one Bishop amongst many (and thus their own pastors & Bishops) and were even willing to concede a primacy of honour.
This is a substantial difference for sure; however, whilst there is a difference of emphasis, Protestants do not deny the proper authority of Bishops, tradition, or councils, so long as they do not contradict Scripture. The Catholic church does not believe its traditions contradict Scripture, but flow from it, as affirming, along with Protestants, its infallible nature. The issue, of course, is according to whose interpretation. It is evident from history that all churches change their position on things over time, arguably slower in the Catholic churches, and in a more coordinated way than in the Protestant movement, but neither side can claim stability of praxis, though on core doctrines, they both believe the same unchanged doctrine as Orthodox (no, the filioque is not a defeater here). Therefore, the difference is in emphasis and who your pastor happens to be, the Pope or (name your pastor here). Clearly, in terms of the essential message, Catholics and Protestants are on the same page: the world is dead in sin, Christ came to save it through the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection event following a long salvific history within the life of Israel, and that we in return are part of the New Covenant to serve GOD’s kingdom and glorify the One true GOD as He truly is, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The divisions amongst Protestants are the clearest proof that Scripture does not provide sufficient details to answer every question. Each leans on an interpretive tradition, each church calling out the other for its failure on this or that matter. The Catholic church looks like a much older, bigger brother to this pattern. The emphasis where they can both unite is in the honour and privileged status of all canonically agreed-upon books. They both dip into these books regularly for teaching and by the work of the Spirit’s inspiration for their activities. Since they are both using authorities outside Scripture, as well as Scripture, the division between them on this matter is somewhat artificial, based more on what someone formally recognises as their practice, over and above what functionally they actually do. This is not to deny a real difference – but to suggest that such a difference is one of emphasis, rather than a real difference of such gravity that the church should rip itself apart over it. Tell me, Christian – have you ever gone out to someone and said that unless they believe that Scripture alone or Scripture along with the magisterial teaching of the Church is acknowledged, they cannot be saved? No, neither have I! At best, one way or the other, it may make it harder to see the fullness of the truth, but neither poses an obstacle to Christ as Saviour.
The matter of sola gratia is weightier still. The Protestant position came to be a rejection of the idea of “co-operation” which depends on the idea of free will choices, something many Protestants believe in; the idea being within the Protestant five Solas, that the will cannot move at all toward GOD except by GOD’s grace, whereas the Catholic position is that GOD’s grace allows the will, moves the will to cooperate, at which point it does. The Catholic position breaks down the operation of grace into initial unmerited grace, given without right by any action or desire, from GOD, and then successive installments of GOD’s grace received as we learn to cooperate with the Spirit in the way we live our lives. The distinction is a fine one; does your will play any role at all, the Catholic side saying yes, in an enabled by grace way, and the Protestant side is no, you would not have the will apart from grace. The distinction here is almost like vapour. Both agree that grace impacts the will. Both agree that the will cannot reach towards GOD but by grace, but one sees it as an assist, and the other as the driving force. Let me ask you, Christian, have you ever gone out to evangelise anyone and said to them that they must believe that God, by His grace, has enabled/assisted their will to accept His Son as their Lord and Saviour, or they cannot be saved? No! Neither have I! Do you think the average person thinks about such distinctions, or that a proclamation of Christ as Saviour and faith in such is dependent on such minute differences? Apart from philosophers, who love their distinctions, your average Christian is happy to accept that GOD saves them through Christ; their grasp of the mechanics of grace will be tenuous, at best. The Council of Trent condemns the belief that you are saved by your works apart from grace, so the works of man are enabled by GOD, and Arminian Protestants accept that free will is a real constituent of man’s nature. Since Arminian Christians are accepted as Protestants in Protestant circles, and their position is all but indistinct from the Roman Catholic position on this matter, this vapourous distinction cannot be sufficient to break the bonds of fellowship between the two.
This position of sola gratia is closely linked to the question of sola fide. Luther argued in his 1520 work, De Libertate Christiana, that we are “justified by faith alone, and not by any works,” for “the word of God cannot be received and honoured by any works, but by faith alone.” This was in response to the widespread abuse of indulgences in the Catholic Church; in part to fund vanity projects in Rome. Luther’s position was that Christ’s merit is sufficient, and we are declared righteous before GOD in a forensic, judicial declaration apart from anything we do or can do. This was quite a relief to many, given that Church disciplines had been wrapped up and taken as necessary by many in the medieval Church for salvation. It is important to note that every Protestant in the Reformation was a Catholic, wise enough to see the corruptions of the Church, and so clearly Catholic catechism had not failed so completely. The position of Trent is that by God’s grace alone, man is able to cooperate with the prompting of the Spirit to bear the fruits of faith, faith being expressed in love (Gal: 5.6), and that these works would be rewarded, not by heaven but in heaven. The Church, in its teachings, was trying to avoid a mere intellectual assent as being all that is required for salvation. Ironically, this is something Protestants agree with, who believe that ‘faith without works is dead,’ ironically quoted in Trent against Luther’s position. Faith is never alone, and so once again, functionally, both sides believe works should be present, though for slightly different reasons; one as a proof of faith’s presence, and the other as a development of faith into sanctification. Remember, in the Catholic soteriology, salvation is given as a gift in initial grace at which point you are on the road to salvation. The question is how far along it has progressed, which is then connected to the concept of purgatory. Catholics believe you can lose your salvation, as do many Protestants, yours truly included. Both sides believe faith must express itself in love and will be accompanied by the fruits of the Spirit, particularly. The distinction concerns one’s perseverance, not whether works should accompany faith or whether works are rewarded. Protestants believe in rewards in heaven, and Catholics believe in less time in purgatory (all those in purgatory are saved before they go there, and so this is not about the issue of salvation). It is important to point out that neither side says works merit salvation. The distinction is formal and intellectual.
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Churches says this:
“ . . . by grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”
The statement goes on to say this: “the teaching of the Lutheran Churches… does not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent,” and “the condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church”; like with the arguments over monophysite and miaphyiste positions; the argument is conceptual; rather than a concrete difference, a matter of how we describe the act of GOD in Christ by which we are saved; how we are united to him; not that we are – or that being so saves; the parts are all the same; and the essential element is understood to be the same; grace and faith; expressed in love, hope, and good works amongst other things, but how we string them together conceptually has got us into this mess; and cost millions of Christians their lives most tragically. It is fair to say that how you believe you are saved is a matter of grave importance. Pelagius was condemned for teaching that we save ourselves, a notion condemned by the Roman Church. All Protestants agree on the arguments about Christology, all of which are linked to the importance of soteriology; so I am not trying to play down the issue; it is an issue worth dividing over. However, what exactly is the line? Clearly, it is the idea that we save ourselves and can trust in our own works for salvation; in other words, we heal ourselves of the wound of sin. However, if that is the line, it is demonstrable that the Church of Rome (today at least) does not cross it, even if it might have been crossed in the minds and teachings of many at the Reformation. The argument is not whether GOD saves us or we save ourselves by works, but rather how grace alone, through faith, expressed in love alone, saves us. In other words, the argument is descriptive in nature, and whether persistence is a given. The two explanations are non-contradictory, and the real differences about the roles of free will and persistence are not salvific questions. Have you ever evangelised someone Christian and said that they must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and understand such faith to be imputed/infused so that they might be saved? No! Neither have I! Like all evangelists, I call people to enter a trusting faith-based relationship with Christ as Lord and Saviour. No discussion of how they get such faith by grace even comes up. Since both sides of the divide agree: “as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith and never can merit in any way.” The issue is not a division, except that men want to make it one and persist in making it so! Considering the great value our Lord placed on maintaining unity and the clear importance of its apostolic teaching, and those who work for the unity of the Church, those who persist in trying to pull the Church apart on this matter should tremble at the thought of the judgment to come for their grave sin.
Now, let’s be clear, I don’t live in a fantasy world. I don’t think that the churches will unite in my lifetime. What, then, do I hope by writing this article? I hope that those who read it might be convinced to lower the tone and the stakes of their theological discourse on these matters, whilst still disagreeing about Solas, to do so in such a way as to affirm a familial, covenantal love and brotherhood, if not communion. That the heat continues to die down on the Solas, and that we can focus on other more important and pressing matters that impact all Christians, rather than be distracted by a overheated dispute on issues are not, in any honest mind and charitable reading of the parties involved starting positions, are not salvific; and to make them so relies on a wilful dishonesty or sheer ignorance. Unity at this stage in history does not look structural, sacramental, or even in the description of soteriology. Rather, unity at this stage looks like agreeing to disagree in love and continuing the conversation in love. It looks like fighting the good fight of faith together on other fronts, such as opposing abortion and human trafficking, pushing back against Islamisation across the world, defending the environment, resisting Marxism, progressive liberalism, and ethno-nationalism. It also means seeking to bring the lost together to saving faith in Christ, expressed in love, to the glory of GOD alone, which we know is ours by grace alone. And the best place to begin is by giving them the Bible.
