I am not sure whether such opportunities have been present in other places, but in Holland personal contacts between Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians since the last war have been highly instructive. During the occupation, we came together frequently because we felt a strong need of one another. After the war, we tried to continue something of the same spirit, and a series of conversations was carried on between Roman and Reformed theologians. In the conversations we attempted to review in an open and cordial way the great questions involved in the Rome-Reformation conflict.
There was voiced concern on the part of some lest in such conversations Reformed theologians would tend to minimize the depth of the gulf between us. But those who took part in the discussions know that within the cordial personal relationships, the profound differences of faith were continually manifest. Subjects as mariology, the primacy of the pope, the nature of the church, justification and good Works, all of which were repeatedly discussed, kept us from ever forgetting our tragic differences.
Misunderstandings were frequently cleared up. But even as we came to understand each other better, the differences between us became all the more marked. At the same time, it often struck us that misunderstandings of Rome from the side of Protestants are many and frequently form part of a long tradition of misunderstanding. But it struck us even more deeply that Roman Catholic thinkers carry on a persistent misinterpretation of the Reformation.
It is recognized by Roman scholars that a profound religious motivation was involved in the Reformation. Catholic apologists talk of the profound faith observable in Luther and Calvin, and speak appreciatively of the Reformers’ great respect for the Word of God. But the charge that the Reformation was basically a revolution still is heard. Karl Adam, who often has a good word for Luther, says that Luther committed the great sin, which Augustine called the worst, namely, the sin of raising an altar against an altar. Luther, says Adam, lost the vision of the reality of the body of Christ in the ecclesia catholica.
Of special interest is the fact that Roman polemicists still charge the Reformers with an unwarranted one-sidedness in regard to the doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone. Catholic writers have coined the word solism for this aspect of the Reformers’ theology: sola fide, sola scriptura, sola gratia. The tendency to see things in terms of only this or that forced the Reformers, we are told, to ignore other sides of the truth.
Criticism is directed especially against the sola fide doctrine. Salvation by faith alone tended to remove necessity for good works or sanctification. The Reformation is thus seen as a kind of antinomianism which relied on a perverse interpretation of Paul with no eye for the urgent call to holiness in the Christian life.
Now it is obvious that the Bible puts much emphasis on the necessity of sanctification and good works. It could hardly be said more strongly than in the book of Hebrews which tells us that without consecration it is impossible to see God (Heb. 12:14). Then there is Matthew who recalls that it is the pure in heart who shall see God (Matt. 5:8). Why then do Roman apologists suggest that the Reformers, who were theologians of the Word, had no eye for the biblical urgency of sanctification?
If we recall the sixteenth century, we remember that many, in reaction to Roman ideas of man’s meriting salvation, were hesitant even to talk about good works with any emphasis. Yet it is surely clear that the Reformers without exception never lost sight of the importance of sanctification in their attack on the idea of the merit of sanctification as part payment for salvation.
Calvin probably had Roman criticism in mind when he wrote that salvation by faith alone cannot mean that faith remains alone. Like Luther, he would have no part of the thought that, since justification is by faith and not by works, good works were unnecessary and even harmful. Their protest was in no wise against sanctified living; rather, it was against the notion that a man earned salvation in part by sanctified living. They wanted to maintain sanctification in its biblical perspective.
Roman Catholic theology made a tradition of accusing the Reformers of losing sight of the urgency of the moral and spiritual life. This is parallel with their charge that the Reformers’ rejection of papal primacy meant they were not Reformers but revolutionaries. Such Catholic writers often suggest that the Reformers blazed the trail that led to the French Revolution and the nihilism of our own day. The discouraging aspect of this understanding is that it is seen in the most irenic Catholics, those who want most sincerely to understand the Reformation.
Surely, it is the duty of those who look at the Reformation as a return to the Bible, to make clear in word and deed that such interpretation of the Reformed life is a serious misunderstanding. We cannot rest with saying that the writings of Luther and Calvin make it abundantly clear that they were not enemies of sanctified living and not antagonists of good works. We must make it manifest in our persons and in our congregations that faith does not remain alone, that it is informed with love and holiness, that the faith which alone saves is a source of spiritual life, a power which makes for holiness. If we wish to dispel the Catholic argument that Protestants believe only faith is important and sanctification unimportant, then we must together seriously live the Christian life in the seriousness of the Bible.
The deepest intention of the Reformation was to preach the significance of the Atonement as the redemption of life. Antinomianism is a thrust against the real meaning of the Reformation, the call to life in Christ with all its urgency to holiness. Salvation is through faith alone: this is the Reformation truth. But faith does not remain alone, it is joined by works. This also is Reformation truth.
