In 2017 the Archbishop of Canterburies 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 out of the Reformation; repentance of its darker parts, was a step in the right direction towards unity. This was preceded by the gesture of the Pope Francis, allowing a Catholic alter to be used for Lutheran worship; and the temporary installation of a statue of Luther in St Peters, much like one might imagine a saint being presented as such. 2016/17 represented 500 years of the Reformation; and for the most part was not greeted with triumphalism, but rather a tone of introspection – about the divisions of the state; 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 be divided about, but I am not talking about; the nature of Church governments or 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 is the issue; and then weigh whether this is in fact a point of division; still worth having; implying of course, was it ever worth dividing upon. 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; I am not a Roman Catholic – for the record – I am ecumenical Christian; which should be understood more as mission; than denomination, a spirituality; rather than a cohesive school of thought (think about the the variety of Franciscans). The point I am going to argue, is that whilst their are real differences and disagreements, none of them are of such gravitas that they justify a split then or now!
I am going to start – in what to my own estimation is the least to the highest importance in this essay: soli deo gloria; and work to what I think is the most important; soli fidei; 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; were to be done ultimately for the glory of GOD – as that is why we are saved; something John Piper would have been happy about I am sure. Trent articulated that statues had no divinity in them; but that their veneration, was properly directed to the realities they represented; not the things in 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” 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 its not clear – that in the medieval period – this was apparent in the practices of Catholicism; nor – is it even apparent today – all the time; by the way some Catholics behave; that this is the case; and their is still real need; for further, and stricter disciplines on venerational 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 a protestant (and Catholic) 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 in Westminster Chapel and by arrangement, protestant pilgrims can still see his venerable robes and office in which he wrote his powerful sermons. When John Booth died, even royalty came to pay homage at his coffin or how many people went on pilgrimage to the Toronto blessing (that impacted HTB); these acts of veneration may be toned down – from the medieval and classical forms found in Catholicism – but they are acts of veneration non the less. I think on the balance of arguments, I find myself agreeing in part; with the catholic position; that their 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 to where honour is due; and how can that not include the Apostles and the Saints of the Church or 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; but both formally and informally give veneration to others apart from GOD.
I want to ask – is giving veneration an issue worthy of a split, lets assume that giving any form of glory to 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 as a divine sense. So for instance the Palmarian Catholic Church; under false Pope Peter III believe Mary is a co-creator and co – redeemer; being existent (in her soul) with the divine Trinity; before the world was created – and 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 other 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 of fellowship – after all – who would their be left to fellowship with; who has not committed this imagined sin. Clearly an extreme form of teaching can not hold; it collapses; which means degrees of veneration of others and places seems appropriate – though it can be excessive and this would need to be corrected; however, if it is permitted; like honouring our mother 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 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; but an error of judgment; even of a saint – or the saint of saints; the blessed Theotokos, would not be sufficient a grounds to split; after all, so long it does not pass the Palmarian line it is not grave enough an error, it The medieval church – also did this – in ways perhaps alien to us now, but then 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 Browns Body; visiting the dead body of John Booth; or asking to see the robes of Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones, any different from singing a song about a saint; or 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 a) we all do it b) it is unavoidable that we do it c) it is scriptural d) 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, and when it is done so – we all agree it should be condemned in principle; whether it is or not is a failure of practice. The converse I would also argue is true; a man can not 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 off ones communion. Have you ever said to someone; that if you do not understand that only glory to GOD should be given; you can not be saved? No! Neither have I!
The next sola and again least grave of the disputes it seems to me; is that of Sola Christus; it was perceived; and not without some merit; that they Church had become an alternative mediator of GOD to man; in addition to Christ, along with the saints; the priests particularly as an alto christo (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 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 council canons 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”. 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 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.” this understanding is applied in a particular way to the Catholic Priest in the alto 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; and so the argument is not whether in persona Christi; Christ acts; but rather, if their is a special order of Christians for whom that is particularly true; and to what end – sacramentally for Catholics; and whilst both of these 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; and whilst it might be the cause of some caution; it is not automatically, a splitting point; one waits to see on 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 that Christians might say GOD spoke through someone, to someone them, 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” – Trent. This is something Protestant 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 if you can pray for someone 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; but whatever the answer – is that of such a central doctrinal platform that we need anathematise one another for it; I would suggest not; for the question can those alive in Christ, but not in body, hear me; is too niche and side a question to split on, even if we come to wrong answer – at worst, the one that does; does so like an eccentric; confused, but harmlessly asking people to pray for them who can not hear the request; much like when you shout at the people on the TV; or more precisely when you talk down the phone after the call has been cut off, but you think it 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 this ranks 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 needs to tighten up its catechesis on this as sometimes it does not help communicate its 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 facia 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 or someone else’s salvation 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 reformation 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 short hand! I would agree that denying Christ as our one mediator – to GOD the Father, is an issue that affects one 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 questions of how many mediators there can be if we choose to do so, between us and Christ – 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 Ortland 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 defence of it in his book ‘What it means to be a Protestant’; which I think ultimately fails; or certainly leave 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 seat of the Pope – 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’ it is true that the disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church – had become ‘self serving’ of, an in part, corrupt clergy. However, when one looks at the authority of Protestant Pastors over the their own churches; their authority is often papal in nature; as is their understanding of the scripture to 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 meaty difference for sure; however, whilst their 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; and the Catholic Church – does not believe its traditions contradict scripture; but flow from it, as well affirming along with Protestants; its infallible nature. The issue of course, is that according to whose interpretation. It is evident from history, 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 on 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; and 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, privileged status of all canonically agreed books. These books they both dip into regularly for teach and by the work of the spirit 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 actually of emphasis, 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 some one and said; that unless they believe that scripture alone or scripture along with the magisterial teaching of the Church is acknowledged – they can not be saved? No, neither have I! At best one way or the other, may make it harder to see the fullness of the truth, but neither pose 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 protestant believe in; the idea being within the protestant five solas, that the will can move at all to GOD except by GOD’s grace, where as the Catholic Position being, 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 instalments 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 Grace impacts the will; both agree; the will can not 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 anyone evangelising and said to them; that to be saved, they must believe that GOD by His grace; has ‘enabled/assisted’ their will to accept His Son as their Lord and saviour or they can not 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 minutia difference? Apart from the philosophers, who love their distinctions; your average Christian is happy to accept that GOD saves them; through Christ; their grasp of the mechanic of grace will be tenuous at best. The council of Trent condemns the belief you are saved by your works apart from grace; so the works of man, are ‘enabled’ by GOD; and Arminian Protestant 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 vaporous distinction; can not be sufficient to break the bonds of fellowship between the two.
This position is of solo gratia is closely linked to the question of sola fidei. Luther argued in his work 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 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 quiet 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, 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 bare 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 on was trying to avoid – a mere intellectual assent – as being all that is required for salvation; ironically, something Protestants agree with; whom 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 side believe works should be present; though to slightly different reasons; one as a proof of faith’s presence; and the other, as a development of faith into sanctification; because remember – in the Catholic soteriology, salvation is given as a gift in initial grace – at which point you are on the road of Salvation; the question is how far due progress along it; (which is then connected to 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 is about ones perseverance; not, whether works should accompany faith; and that these works are rewarded; amongst Protestants by rewards in heaven; and by Catholics with 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 – neither side says works merit salvation. The distinction is a formal and intellectual one.
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the World Federation Lutheran and 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 onto 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 monophyte and miaphyte 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 we save ourselves; by the Roman Church a condemnation; all Protestants agree with – indeed the arguments about Christology, were all linked to importance of soteriology; so I am not trying to play down the issue; this is an issue worth dividing over. However; what exactly is the line – clearly it is the idea we do 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 IF GOD saves us Vs we save our selves by works; but rather, how is grace alone through faith expressed in love alone saving us; in other words the argument is descriptive in nature; and whether persistence is a given. The two explanations are non contradictory; and the differences that are real – about the role of free will and persistence – are not salvific questions. Have you ever evangelised someone Christian and said; that believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ; and understand such faith to be imputed/infused so that you might be saved? No! Neither have I! I like all evangelists call people to enter into a trusting (faith) based relationship with the 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 want to persist in making it so! Considering the great value our Lord placed on maintaining unity; and the clear importance of it apostolic teaching; those that we work for the unity of the Church; those that persist in trying to pull the Church apart on this matter should tremble at the thought of the judgement to come for their grave sin.
Now, lets be clear – I don’t live in a fantasy world; I don’t think that the Churches will unite in my life time; so what then do I hope by writing this article. I hope that those that read it might be convinced; to lower the tone, the stakes of their theological discourse on these matters; and whilst still disagreeing about Solas; doing so in such a way that affirms 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 matter that impact all Christians; rather than be distracted by a over heated dispute on what are not in any honest mind and charitable reading of the parties involved starting positions – salvific matters; and to make them so relies on a wilful dishonesty or sheer ignorance. Unity at this stage in history – does not look structural or sacramental or even in description of soteriology, unity at this stage; looks like agreeing to disagree in love, keeping up the conversation in love; and fighting the good fight of faith; together on other fronts; such as on abortion, human trafficking, pushing back Islamisation across the world, defending the environment, opposing Marxism, progressive liberalism and ethno – nationalism; seeking to bring the lost, together; to saving faith in Christ – expressed in love, to the glory of GOD alone; which we know is our by grace alone; which starts best by giving them the Bible!
