In an interview posted yesterday at Christianity Today, Charles Colson commented on the recent death of Richard John Neuhaus, and the effect that his death might have on the movement Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT).
In the interview, Colson makes this remarkable statement:
Pope Benedict on November 19 in what was otherwise a routine audience in St. Peter’s square, gave a homily on justification and fully embraced the position that Evangelicals and Catholics Together had taken [in the 1997 document, “Gift of Salvation”]. He didn’t identify it as such, but that’s what he did.
Eleven years after that document was written, the Pope, the head of the church, concluded his homily by saying Luther was right, so long as you don’t exclude charity, that is love, and the works that flow from love. Which of course none of us does.
Almost at the same time that statement was issued, the two Catholics who were willing to say they agreed with what the reformers meant when they said sola fide died. It’s as if “Okay, you finished your task. The big issue that divided us in the Reformation has now been settled, so you guys can come home and rest.”
…I make no pretense that the Reformation is over; but the issue which precipitated it has been solved. [my emphasis.]
So Colson seems to be suggesting that there is accord between not only Catholics and Evangelicals on the primary issue of the Reformation and that the Pope affirms sola fide — justification is by faith alone. Is that right???? If it is, it would be a most remarkable transformation in the Catholic church. [We get a hint that maybe there wasn’t as much movement on sola fide as he suggests when he says about a forthcoming statement on the role of Mary: “We didn’t resolve it by a long shot.” To not have agreement on the role of Mary in justification is to not have agreement on sola fide.]
His comments obviously piqued my curiosity. So I read the Pope’s homily.
Now part of the problem in determining whether or not there is agreement between Rome and Reformation is the use of language. The same words (justification, sanctification, and grace for instance) may be used. But do we use the same words in the same way? Do we have the same definitions and understandings of these words?
As I read the Pope’s homily, yes, he seems to make movement toward Evanglicalism. But is there really agreement? Here are some of the key statements in the message:
Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).…
We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love.…
We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone.…
…faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.
At the end, we can only pray the Lord that he help us to believe; really believe. Believing thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by the love of God and neighbour, we can truly be just in God’s eyes.
Do these statements add up to a man who believes in justification by faith alone? Or do they reflect someone who still believes in justification on the basis of meritorious works performed for Christ?
I submit that the latter is still true. Here are the key statements:
- We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love.
- justice is decided in charity.
How does one become just? This is the key question in the debate. And the Pope said, “By entering into communion with Christ.” What does that mean? How does one enter into Christ’s communion (fellowship)? The Pope defined that for us: By the practice of charity. And he offered further illustration of what he means: When one practices charity (love) through visiting the sick, giving food to the hungry, giving clothes to the naked (references to Christ’s words in Matt. 25:34-40), then that results in making one justified: “we can truly be just in God’s eyes.”
Herein still lies the distinction between Roman Catholicism and Reformation theology: the former teaches that man is made just by his righteous works, the latter teaches that man is declared just by God on the basis of the righteous work of Christ. Paul’s words to the Romans still stand as the dividing line between Catholicism and Evangelicalism:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; [Rom. 3:23-24]
The only means of justification is through the meritorious work of Christ. Nothing else. No man offers anything of merit to God for his justification. Is the Pope moving towards evangelicalism? Is the issue which precipitated the Reformation solved (bringing Catholics and Evangelicals back together)?
Methinks not. Not by a long shot.
Maybe Colson is right. Maybe the Pope is affirming the statement of ECT. But that bespeaks only of the weakness of the ECT statement and not of the Pope’s movement to believe in justification by sola fide.
Words of Grace 
On the understanding of Justification, the 16th century Protestant Reformers broke away from Catholicism. First what is Justification? Following definition given in council of Trent Catholics understand Justification as a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. From Protestant’s side the definition given by Reformed scholar R.C. Sproul is:”The Reformers viewed justification as being forensic, resting on God’s judicial declaration that the sinner is counted as just or righteous by virtue of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.” (R.C. Sproul: Faith Alone, page 44). Comparing the two definitions their striking difference comes from the words “translation” (Catholic) and “declaration” (Protestant). Translation implies a change in our state, from being unrighteous (or sons of Adam) to righteous (or sons of God, 1 John 3:7, 10) through Christ, our Saviour. Declaration does not imply any change within us – we are simply counted as righteous because Christ’ righteousness is imputed on us. Thus John Calvin defined justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as if we were righteous (Institute of Christian Religion, III.11.2). This does not mean that to Protestants change of state does not happen in our salvation. It does! But it happens through our Sanctification, a process we undergo after our conversion to Christ. Protestants believe that we are justified by faith alone and therefore separate Sanctification from Justification. Catholics, on the other hand, consider Sanctification as integral part of Justification. In other words to Catholics Justification comprises both faith and Sanctification. This makes Justification a process to Catholics while to Protestants it is one-time event. Keep in mind that while Protestants separate Sanctification from Justification, these two must come together in a saved person’s life. John Calvin wrote: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable (Calvin: Institute of Christian Religion 3.11.6). The implication of separating Sanctification from Justification (in this case equal to faith alone) while at the same time making these two always come together is well expressed in the words of Reformed scholar R.C. Sproul: “Justification is by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. Saving faith is not a “lonely” faith, having no works following as a companion” (R.C. Sproul: Faith Alone, page 156). Here works refers to works of regeneration, that is, a saved person should turn away from his/her old sinful ways to become new person who obeys God’s commandments. This works of regeneration takes place in Sanctification. Scripture says that we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and through Sanctification (2 Thessalonians 2:13).
The point I was attempting to make was that Colson was asserting that there is now agreement between the Catholic church and Evangelicals over sola fide. In fact, as you point out so well, that is not the case. Catholics and Evangelicals still hold to distinct positions on justification, and there is no less reason for the Reformation now than there was 500 years ago. My sole concern in this entry was to demonstrate the fallacy of Colson’s assertions.
And you are also right in that Evangelicals believe in imputed (declared) righteousness, whereas Roman Catholics hold to a view of justification that “translates” or actually makes men righteous. This latter view is not new to Roman Catholicism; it was the same issue that Christ was combating throughout His ministry. Perhaps the clearest (and most extended) example is in the sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7). There Jesus demonstrates to those religious leaders who presumed their justification on the basis of their own meritorious works, that they were achieving a standard that was far below the standard of God.
Six times Jesus uses the formula “you have heard it said…but I say to you” (5:21-48). Six times He says, “the standard of righteous actions that the Pharisees have supposed is adequate for them to attain the status of ‘righteousness’ is fully inadequate and far below what God has decreed to be righteous.” In fact, the concluding verse to the chapter is penetrating. How greatly had they misunderstood God’s standard? “Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). They could not have misunderstood Jesus at that point — the standard is absolute and complete perfection. (The Pharisees had lowered the standard of perfection to a meaning something along the lines of “pretty good — better than most others,” which was woefully below the absolute standard of God.)
Upon hearing Jesus’ words, the hearers could not have replied in any way other than, “but then who can attain that??? No one is perfect!” Exactly Jesus’ point. There is no way that any man can do any amount of work such that he can be (or be made or make himself) perfect.
If at any point, anyone commits any sin, any small infraction that fails to achieve the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 1 Cor. 10:31), then he is no longer perfect; he no longer measures up to God’s standard. At that point, what might he do to make himself perfect again? Nothing. There is nothing he can do to re-achieve perfection. It is lost and logically impossible to be re-acquired.
At that point, his only hope is that God would apply the blood of Christ and declare the one who is unrighteous to be righteous (see Rom. 4:22-25; 2 Cor. 5:21). This is the great exchange: Christ gets our sin; we get His righteousness. Not by merit, but by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This was the purpose of the reformation, and it remains as important today as then. The issues of the Reformation, with all due respect to Charles Colson, have not been resolved. Catholics and Evangelicals believe in different means of justification, and thus in different gospels.
Christ said: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matthew 5:6) and “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). Blessed are those who do righteousness at all times (Psalms 106:3) and he who walks blamelessly, and does what is right will sojourn in the Lord’s tent and dwell on His holy hill (Psalms 15:1 – 2). Scripture defines our righteousness as he who does right is righteous (1 John 3:7) while “whoever does not do right is not of God” (1 John 3:10) and the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). The Lord loves righteous deeds (Psalms 11:7, Proverbs 15:9). Romans 5:19 plainly declares that through Christ we are made, not declared, righteous.
It seems you still think that Catholics believe in salvation by works. This is far from true – Catholics do believe that our righteousness does come from God, not from ourselves – our sinful nature makes unable to produce any righteous acts. Thus Catholics believe that through Justification the righteousness of God through Christ is infused (by the Holy Spirit) in us. Infused righteousness requires our cooperation and participation – this is something you won’t accept, if you follow Calvinism because you believe that we are totally deprived due to the Fall. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Fall does not make us totally deprived – we still have freeedom to choose whether to cooperate with God’s Grace or not. Note that our freedom comes after we are being moved by His Grace. If it is the other way around then it becomes semi-pelagianism.
Thank you for your response — I appreciate your gentle spirit and the kindness of the dialog.
The first passage you site (Matt. 5) is indeed critical for understanding what man can and cannot do in terms of being righteous. The first statement made by Jesus in verse three of that passage is, “blessed are the poor in spirit…” By this, note that He does not say, “blessed are the poor,” but “the poor in spirit.” In fact, the word “poor” is not an adequate translation. It means destitute, poverty stricken, absolutely empty and devoid of worth or value. That is, one is blessed only when he comes to understand that “in spirit” he is devoid and empty of anything righteous. This same theme is later echoed by Paul (quoting both the Psalms and then Isaiah), “There is none righteous, no not one…” (Rom. 3:10ff). Elsewhere Paul also says that we are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1ff). As a friend of mine says, we were not just “mostly dead; we were all dead…”
All that is simply to affirm that it is impossible for any man to cooperate with Christ in being righteous when he is dead and devoid of righteousness. This was what the Pharisees attempted to do, and Christ said that if that was their attempt, then they had to be as perfect as God Himself (Matt. 5:48). That, obviously was an impossibility, which was Jesus’ point — they could not do righteousness.
So again, the only means to being righteous is that the righteousness be imputed to unrighteous men through the work of Jesus Christ alone. Imputed righteousness was also the means by which OT saints were saved (e.g., Gen. 15:6 — when Abraham believed, it was accounted to him as righteousness — he was not declared righteous on the basis of his own works; cf. also Hab. 2:4). Again, even the great OT Christological passage in Isaiah 53 makes clear that justification is by imputation, not infusion (“My Servant will justify the many,” v. 11).
This is not to say that evangelicals do not believe in the importance of doing good (cf. Titus 2:12-14); it is to say, however, that we understand that the works are not in any way meritorious or on the basis of any “freedom” we have to choose to do good. We cannot choose to do good (prior to our justification, we are enslaved to sin, and could only do sin, Rom. 6:6). We only do good now because of the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, who has been given as a gift subsequent to the declaration of our righteousness through the work of Christ. The only way we can do righteousness acts is by faith in Christ, who is our righteousness (Rom. 8:10; 10:4; 2 Pet. 1:1).
While Romans 3:10 says there is no one righteous, Scripture also mentions the existence of righteous persons (Matthew 13:17, 23:29, Luke 1:6, 1 Peter 3:12 etc.). Old Testament declares Noah, Daniel and Job to be righteous persons (Ezekiel 14:14). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself how do we explain this?
As mentioned in my earlier comment, Catholics believe that our righteousness comes from God, not from ourselves. That’s how Catholics understand Romans 3:10 – by ourselves we are not righteous and will never become ones. Unlike the Reformers Catholics always understand that the righteousness of God is infused in us. Infused righteousness means with our cooperation it becomes inherent part of us – in other words we are made righteous through Christ (Romans 5:19). Scripture both speaks of righteousness that belongs to God (Psalms 24:5, Romans 1:17, 3:5, 21-22; 2 Corinthians 5:21, Philippians 3:9, 2 Peter 1:1 etc.) and righteousness that belongs to us, i.e. we are (made) righteous (Matthew 5:20, 2 Corinthians 9:10, Revelation 19:8). Reformer concept of imputed righteousness means we use Christ’ perfect righteousness to cover our unrighteousness – in other words we remain unrighteous. Then how do you explain the existence of those righteous persons in Scripture?
Romans 4:3 – Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Based on this verse you believe that our righteousness comes only through faith. However Scripture define righteousness as: He who does right is righteous (1 John 3:7). This verse does not say “He who believes is righteous”. To believe is certainly one act that leads to righteousness – that’s what Abraham did and what Christ commanded (John 6:29) but certainly it is not the only one. In Timothy 6:11 and 2 Timothy 2:22 Paul would not bother to ask Timothy to aim for righteousness – if the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, which Timothy already had as Christian, was the only one he need. Revelation 19:8 uses fine linen to symbolize righteous deeds of the saints – it would not say so it their righteousness is external and is only imputed on them. Note that being righteous is not the same as being sinless – doing what is right certainly includes repenting but one needs to repent only when he/she sins in the first place. Scripture says (Proverbs 24:16): “for a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again.” Does God reward us for being righteous? Scripture says He does! (Psalms 18:20, Proverbs 11:18). Catholics always understand that our reward for being righteous or for being good is gift from God – it is not something we deserve because we cannot do it unless God first assists us with His Grace. Does God reward us with eternal life for our good works? Again Scripture says He does (John 5:28-29), which Catholics also understand to be a gift from Him.
Thank you again for your response, which is thoughtful — you obviously have thought long and often about these issues, and I appreciate and respect that.
Our responses are getting longer and broader, and really are not conducive to the format of blog “replies” (which I think are generally shorter in nature). So can we agree to break down our questions and concerns into smaller bites? Let me offer a beginning statement and then some further topics for discussion that we might address in further replies. I welcome your suggestions for topics to discuss as well.
As I said in my first response, my whole purpose in my original post was to posit that Chuck Colson’s assertion that the issue (sola fide) which sparked the reformation and the separation of Catholics and Protestants has now been resolved. And you continue to underscore my assertion. There is a large barrier that still exists between Evangelicals and Catholics. Catholicism holds, as you have said, that believers are infused with the righteousness of Christ at they are made righteous. Evangelicals believe that believers are imputed with Christ’s righteousness — that they are considered by God to be righteous through the work of Christ alone. Our only standing before Christ is on the merit of His finished work. We do not cooperate in the act of justification — it is a gift of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
So, as to my original statement, I think we are agreed that Colson’s statement is not correct, and that there is in fact still a large barrier between Catholics and evangelicals. Do you agree to that?
If you are in agreement that there are some differences, let’s address those differences and ask these questions:
If you are agreeable, that should keep us going for a while (obviously, the first two questions are at the heart of our differences). What do you think?