An Evangelical Perspective on Roman Catholicism and Christian Unity

INTRODUCTION

In order to gain a broad understanding and appreciation from an evangelical perspective [1] of the theory and practice of Christian unity, it is necessary to trace, beyond an exclusively scriptural approach, the development of the concept of Christian unity throughout church history. Although contributions from early post-apostolic Christian sources have left their mark in one way or another on the views of Christians from all branches of Christendom, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faithful depend in a more significant way on these contributions (not to mention later ones) than do Evangelical Protestants, who, in keeping with the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura, base their belief system on Scripture alone as over against Scripture and extra-biblical tradition. In this paper I will focus specifically on the historical development of the Roman Catholic approach to unity, culminating in a summary of current Catholic teaching and thought on unity, points of agreement and disagreement with Evangelicals, and some reflections on how all of the above impinges on Catholic relations and ecumenical dialogue with Evangelicals. 

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CATHOLIC THOUGHT ON UNITY

According to John Hammett, “The single most influential statement concerning the church from history comes in the line from the Nicene Creed giving the four classical notae of the church: unity or oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. These four marks are the starting point for many discussions of the church and are widely accepted by both Protestants and Catholics.” [2] Although both Protestants and Catholics generally agree that the Church of Jesus Christ is indeed one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, these terms do not have the same connotations and implications for different groups of Christians. To understand the meaning of these terms from a Catholic perspective, we must understand the historical context in which they have developed. Depending on the perspective one takes with regard to the evidence, it is possible to trace either a progression of specificity with regard to already implicit elements of the traditional Catholic understanding of Christian unity—such as apostolic succession, monarchical episcopacy, the primacy of “the chair of Peter,” and the primacy of Rome—or the spontaneous emergence of more and more new and previously unknown elements at various points of history.

Clement of Rome (1st century AD–99 or 101)

One of the earliest post-apostolic sources contributing to this development of the Catholic understanding of unity is Clement, regarded by Catholic tradition as the third Bishop of Rome. [3] He wrote his epistle to the church of Corinth in order to reprimand several church members for their lack of submission to duly appointed church leaders. In order to bolster the authority of these leaders in the eyes of his readers, Clement states that the original bishops and deacons of the church were appointed by the apostles, and that these, in a similar way, appointed their successors “with the consent of the whole Church” (1 Clement 44:3). Though it is not clear that Clement saw these local church leaders as having authority beyond the scope of their own congregation, later interpreters have found in Clement early support for a full-blown theory of apostolic succession. [4] Clement, however, does not regard the presbyters of the church at Corinth (which are plural in number) [5] as independent operators, but rather urges those who are in rebellion not only to submit to their leaders but also to “obey the commands of the people” (1 Clement 54:2).

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 or 50–between 98 and 117)

Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of Clement, “emphasizes unity more than any other Christian author in the first or second century.” [6] Ignatius makes a clear distinction between three different leadership roles in the church: bishop, presbyter, and deacon. He closely links the idea of unity in the local church to submission to and cooperation with the bishop of that church. [7] That the view of church government set forth in the epistles of Ignatius is representative of the church of his time, however, is not quite so clear. As Kenneth J. Howell observes:

No one doubts that Ignatius of Antioch expressed a hierarchical view of the church with a threefold structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The question is why he held this view and how widespread it was in early Christianity. The answer to the question of why Ignatius sees the structure of the church as he does and of what importance that episcopal structure holds for modern views of the church remains of vital practical importance. [8]

There is evidence that Ignatius’ model of a monarchical episcopate (rule by the bishop alone) may not have been universally accepted at the time he wrote his epistles. While in each of his other epistles he makes reference to the bishop of the church to whom it is addressed, in his epistle to the church at Rome he makes no such reference. [9] In addition, it is curious that Polycarp, the companion of Ignatius, and recipient, as the supposed Bishop of Smyrna, of one of his epistles, when writing his own epistle to the Christians in Philippi, does not refer to himself as bishop of the church of Smyrna, but rather addresses his epistle simply as from “Polycarp and the Elders with him,” [10] and, while acknowledging approvingly the epistles of Ignatius, [11] does not echo his insistence on a three-tiered leadership structure nor a monarchical episcopate. [12]

It seems that Ignatius’ true concern was maintaining both the purity of the gospel and the unity of the church, and that at the time the sensible way to do both appeared to him to be through the system of monarchical episcopacy. Glenn Hinson, however, adds the following important insight: “Ignatius did not anticipate the problem which soon became manifest—that is, heretical bishops. For his day, however, he gave the best answer he could.” [13]

In addition to his emphasis on submission to the bishop and the presbyters, another important observation from the epistles of Ignatius is the fact that he also linked unity to mutual participation in the celebration of the Eucharist, provided it was duly carried out under the supervision of the bishop. [14] This idea that the validity of sacraments hinges upon the administration of duly ordained clergy would later play a prominent role in the Novatianist and Donatist controversies of the third and fourth centuries.

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century AD–ca. 202)

Another factor contributing to the developing Catholic concept of Christian unity was the appearance of new heresies among the churches and the corresponding need to divide between those who were regarded as within the bounds of approved Christianity and those who were not. Irenaeus of Lyons, in his work Against Heresies, conjoined the concepts of church unity and catholicity, claiming the existence of one common belief system among all the approved groups of Christians scattered throughout the world. [15] This set of common beliefs enumerated by Irenaeus encompassed basic doctrines accepted equally today by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians. [16]

In the context of denouncing the teachings of heretics such as Valentinus, Marcion, Cerinthus, and Basilides, Irenaeus references the argument put forth by his opponents that Scripture is at times hard to understand and may be interpreted in different ways, but those who are privy to the oral traditions handed down to them by the apostles (i.e., they themselves) will be most likely to have the correct interpretation. It is in answer to this argument that Irenaeus claims that those most likely to correctly represent the teaching of the apostles are not his opponents, but rather those who can be demonstrated to be in a direct chain of succession of presbyters of the churches personally founded by the apostles. [17] As an example of one local congregation in which, according to him, there was such a clearly demonstrable chain of succession, Irenaeus points to the church of Rome, claiming “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” [18] It is important to note, however, that he references the church of Rome (and its supposed bishops) as only one example among others, and specifically includes Polycarp and the church of Ephesus as other examples worthy of emulation. [19]

Irenaeus himself, however, did not always submit to the opinions of the bishop of Rome, as is made evident in the following quote from the early church historian Eusebius:

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom. . .” [20]

There also appears to be some discrepancy between some of what Ireneaus writes and the record of the New Testament. While he claims that the church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, [21] it is clear that Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans to the already existing church in Rome before he had ever been there. In addition, various historians have called into question the existence of a monarchical episcopate in Rome prior to the second half of the second century. For example, Peter Lampe, whose work Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries has been acclaimed as “the most important historical and sociological study ever written on Roman Christianity,” [22] maintains, on the basis of meticulous archaeological and documentary analysis, that,

Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. . . . A plurality of presbyters leads Roman Christianity. This Christianity, conscious of spiritual fellowship within the city, is summed up under the concept “ecclesia,” but that changes nothing in regard to the plurality of those presiding over it. [23]

According to Lampe, the lists of Roman bishops composed by Irenaeus, and earlier by Hegesippus, are with all likelihood projections into the past, based on their reading contemporary circumstances back into former times, and taking the names of elders or presbyters of individual house churches and presenting them as bishops of the entire Christian community in Rome. [24]

Cyprian of Carthage (3rd Century AD–258)

The writings of Cyprian are another key foundational plank in the historical development of the Catholic understanding of Christian unity. By the time of Cyprian, the institution of the monarchical episcopacy, together with the three-tiered leadership structure defended by Ignatius, was firmly entrenched throughout the bulk of Christendom. [25] After persecution under the reign of Decius, however, there was much debate among Christians over the proper response to those who had given in to the demands of persecutors and offered a sacrifice to the emperor or had publicly renounced their devotion to Christ (the lapsi), and later desired to return to the fellowship of the church. With some bishops taking a more lenient position and others a stricter one on the possibility of restoration and the requirements for readmittance into church fellowship, mutual accusations were launched regarding who represented the true church and who the false one. Novatian, who took a stricter position on the lapsi than Cornelius, the newly elected bishop of Rome, was able to convince three other bishops to consecrate him as the “true bishop of Rome,” a position he claimed for seven years with the support of a minority faction. The so-called “heresy” of Novatian did not have to do with any major point of doctrine, such as those spelled out in the creeds of the early church, but rather with his insistence on circumventing the authority structure of the Roman church and his denial of the ability of the church, through its officially approved priests and bishops, to pronounce absolution of sin.

It was in the midst of this context of rivalry and intrigue, with controversy swirling on every side, that Cyprian wrote his best-known work, On the Unity of the Church. In it he recounts and brings to bear various biblical injunctions in favor of unity and proposes criteria for determining who is truly walking in the path of unity and who is not. Although at this time there was no developed organizational infrastructure of the worldwide church, per se, and Christendom was comprised of a simple network of believers who gathered in individual congregations, each with its own local leaders, for Cyprian it was important to regard the composite of believers around the world as one Church and not as autonomous entities. [26] Thus, those who were part of the true Church were those who were in visible fellowship with the others who were also a part of the true Church. Those who separated themselves, even though they might continue to call themselves Christians, and give lip service to Christian unity and doctrine, were not a part of the Church. [27] This was the context of Cyprian’s famous statement that “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother” (On the Unity of the Church 6).

On the basis of several quotations, Catholic apologists have held up Cyprian as an early source in support of the idea that the bishop of Rome as occupant of the Chair of Peter is a determining factor in deciding who is in communion with the Catholic Church and who is not. Since he comes before the legalization of Christianity at the time of Constantine and the subsequent union of church and state under the reign of Theodosius and is thus unstained with the corresponding political motives of that era for recognizing a special role for the bishops of Rome, there is good reason to pay close attention to what Cyprian wrote and the underlying circumstances behind what he wrote. (28]

Although embellished in some editions by the interpolations of later editors, making it seem as if he were saying more than he really was, the best-known text of Cyprian allegedly supporting the primacy of Peter and of Rome is from chapter 4 of On the Unity of the Church. [29] An additional reference comes from Cyprian’s Epistle 54:

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access (Epistle 54, 14).

Catholic apologists such as Bryan Cross have made much of these passages from Cyprian, seeing in them the foundation for later Catholic pretensions:

St. Cyprian isn’t claiming that Rome merely happens to have been protected from error. He is making a much stronger claim, namely, that breaches of faith have no possible access to the Church at Rome, and the basis for this protection is the presence in Rome of the chair of Peter from which priestly unity has its source. In other words, for St. Cyprian, it is not merely an historical accident (de facto) that the Church at Rome happens to have avoided heresy from the time of St. Paul until his own time; there is a principled reason (de jure) for the Church at Rome being divinely protected from breaches in faith, and it has to do with the presence in Rome of the Chair of St. Peter, and the divinely established role of St. Peter as the source of unity among all the priests of the universal Church. [30]

There is good reason, however, for taking these claims with a grain of salt. It is possible to interpret Cyprian’s meaning here as referring not to a judicial authority of Rome but rather merely to a place of honor, respect, or voluntary deference, due to its antiquity.

After Cornelius was exiled by the emperor Gallus, he was succeeded as bishop of Rome by Lucius, and then by Stephen, who adopted a more lenient position regarding the requirement of rebaptism for those who had been baptized by supposed heretical groups such as the Novatianists. Cyprian, however, strongly opposed the lenient position of Stephen and actively campaigned against it. Spanish Evangelical scholar José Grau, commenting on this situation, makes the following observation:

Any bishop could address the Church of Rome on a peer-to-peer basis, as a colleague, and ask that they amend their personal opinion over a matter on which other Churches had expressed a different opinion. Of course, in the same way that Rome could not impose her decisions upon the rest of the Christian communities, neither could these decisions demand a change of attitude or opinion from Rome if Rome did not agree to it of her own accord. We should never forget the historic context of each event. The Church of the third century, eminently episcopal and conciliar, found its unity expressed in the mutual communication and free interchange between the different communities. [31]

Catholic historian Julio Campos sheds additional light on the background of Cyprian’s writing:

For him (Cyprian), then, the chair of Peter is the rallying point of mutual agreement among bishops. He has a certain attitude of respectful deference, as though he ought to notify Cornelius of Rome on matters of great importance . . . this deference to communicate to Rome the serious consequences of Carthage is not a jurisdictional recognition, but rather a matter of conventional courtesy, which notifies other bishops, but above all the first bishop of Christendom, showing him preferential treatment with respect to others. . . This way of doing things manifested itself spontaneously and purposefully in the controversy over the baptism of heretics with Pope Stephen, against whose pretensions of imposing his way [Cyprian] fought, and with his energetic attitude drew along with him the Church of Africa. To support his attitude, he tries to demonstrate that Christ, when he addressed Peter, was only referring to the unity of the Church; that is, that the power attributed to Peter was also granted to all the apostles and from them passed on to the bishops, as is laid out in De Unitate. We must therefore conclude and deduce that Cyprian conceded to the church of Rome and her bishop a primacy, but a primacy of antiquity and preeminence of honor, not of jurisdiction and power. Certainly, the nature and limits of this general preeminence were neither clear nor defined, but from its evangelical seed, that he [Cyprian] himself adduces several times, will continue to germinate and become established as a visible sign and center of the unity of the universal Church, of which he was a staunch defender. [32]

In addition, Firmilian, the bishop of Caesarea Machaca, and confidant of Cyprian, refers to Stephen in his epistle directed to Cyprian and the Council of Carthage with language that makes crystal clear his disagreement with the bishop of Rome, and casts the claims of Cross and other Catholic apologists regarding the position of Cyprian in a whole new light. [33]

The Impact of Constantine

With the accession of Constantine to the emperorship in 306, and his subsequent “conversion” to Christianity, the persecution of Christians came to a halt. In his quest to unite the empire, it was in Constantine’s interest to promote a united Christian Church. It was also in his interest that this unity be centered in Rome. Constantine showed special favoritism to Christian bishops and conferred positions of secular responsibility upon many, but he also expected, in return, the right to meddle in Church matters. [34] As a result, Roman patterns of governance rapidly began to infiltrate Christendom. Also, as a tool for promoting greater unity and uniformity, Constantine and subsequent Roman emperors encouraged the Church to more clearly define its position on secondary points of doctrine and practice. [35]

Councils and Creeds

One of the most important contributions of Constantine for the development of Catholic thought on Christian unity was the convocation of the Council of Nicaea, and the issuance of the Nicene Creed that was debated and approved during the sessions of the Council. Although the so-called “Apostles Creed” dates back a few years earlier, it was not used uniformly in all the churches as was the Nicene Creed, which served not only as a dividing line between the doctrine of the true Church and that of the heretics (most notably, in this case, the ever-increasingly rampant heresy of Arianism), but also as a common point of reference uniting all groups of Christians recognized as forming part of the official state-recognized Church. [36] It is important to note, however, that the creeds of the Church are not all-encompassing in their delineation of correct doctrine. As Cross observes, “The Church has never believed that heresy consisted only in denial of one or more articles of the ecumenical creeds. Pelagianism, for example, is a heresy even though it is not ruled out by the ecumenical creeds. And there are many other examples of heresies recognized by the universal Church as heresies, but which are not ruled out by the ecumenical creeds.” [37] The Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical or universal Church council, and thus set the stage for what would be a key feature of Christendom, guiding the life of the Church for centuries to come. [38]

In time, the calling of ecumenical councils came to be linked in Catholic doctrine with the authority of the Pope. This link, however, was not so clearly established at the beginning. According to Catholic canon law, there are three conditions for a council to be considered as truly ecumenical: it must be called by the Pope; it must be presided by the Pope or a representative of the Pope; and it must be confirmed by the authority of the Pope. The only councils that meet these conditions, however, are those recognized exclusively by the Roman Church itself and not the early councils of a united Christendom, which were all convoked by the reigning emperor of Rome without consulting the bishop of the Roman church. [39] Athanasius, the great theologian whose decisive input left its mark on the council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed, did not depend on the Pope. As Grau observes, “Athanasius appeals to Scripture, to the early fathers, to the councils, and above all, to Nicaea, but never to the infallible judgment of the bishop of Rome. . . . Athanasius was not only ignorant of the infallible magisterium of the Roman bishop, but also of his supremacy and jurisdiction.” [40]

In the following years, however, references linking church unity to the primacy of Peter and Rome increasingly appear in quotes of a wide array of key Church leaders, such as Damasus (382), Ambrose (388), Augustine (396, 397, 400), Boniface (422), and others. [41] From the time of Constantine, it might well be expected that more and more emphasis be given to the Chair of Peter, incarnated in the bishop of Rome, as a rallying point around which the visible unity of the Catholic Church was centered. This process does not come to full flower, however, until the papacy of Leo I (440–461). 

Leo I and the Full-blown Papacy

Among the factors that led to a more central role in Christendom for the bishop of Rome was the evangelization of barbarian tribes from the north of Europe, who tended to view Rome as the mother church and the bishop of Rome as the chief of the Christian bishops. [42] Increasingly audacious claims to a unique authority by Innocent I (401–417), Boniface I (418–422), and Celestinus I (422–432) paved the way for Leo I, who, according to Grau, “picked up all this heritage of privileges and aspirations, and taking advantage of the special circumstances of his moment in history was able to outline that grandiose institution of the papacy which in the Middle Ages held sway as the universal rule in the Church.” [43]

Though, assuredly, during a period of a thousand years, there are many important events and developments worthy of comment, due to the length constraints of this paper we must fast-forward at this point to the period of the Protestant Reformation, limiting ourselves in the meantime to the following observation: The political and spiritual power of the papacy gained footing gradually and persistently until coming to be regarded as a practically unquestioned element of Western Christendom after the Great Schism between East and West. [44] Though there were, no doubt, periods and personalities emanating varying degrees of both light and shadows, the legacy of papal authority during this time is significantly blemished by having been propped up by the claims of fraudulent documents such as the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Letters, the Isidorian Decretals, and the Donation of Constantine, as well as the interpolations of later manuscript copiers into otherwise authentic documents. [45]

The Protestant Reformation

The key factors leading to the Protestant Reformation are generally identified as sola Scriptura (the formal cause) and sola fide (the material cause). We will revisit these crucial issues shortly. For now, however, it is important to note that a break from the administrative oversight of the Pope and the hierarchy of what had by this time evolved into the Roman Catholic Church led the Reformers to rethink the basis of Christian unity. Though still confessing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan formula of “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” they proposed that the unity and catholicity of the Church was not visible, in the sense of being centered in one administrative organization, but rather invisible, or based upon common relationships with spiritual realities, including a common acceptance of a common gospel, [46] and the apostolicity of the church was not based upon the apostolic succession of duly ordained bishops but rather upon faithfulness to the apostolic message as passed down through time by way of the testimony of Holy Scripture. [47]

Visible and Invisible Unity

For the Reformers, the catholicity of the Church was a small ‘c’ catholicity, based upon an agreement on the essentials of the gospel. [48] But, from a Catholic perspective, “The divinely established ecclesial unity that cannot be lost is not only unity of faith, and unity of sacraments, but also unity of visible government.” [49] John Armstrong explains:

In 1519 Luther was publicly attacked by Eck, a papal theologian. Luther was asked to support Eck’s traditional view that divine power was inherit in the papacy. Luther refused, saying that the pope’s power was of human right, not divine. To support this he developed an important thesis that he drew from earlier theologians such as Augustine: The Church is in reality a spiritual fellowship of all those who truly believe in Christ. It was here that Luther demonstrated that popes and councils had erred. It struck a blow that rocked the medieval system at its foundation. [50]

For Cross, however, the need for a visible hierarchy centered in one person (i.e., the pope) is a matter of common sense:

Even nature teaches us that where there is no visible head, there will be no end of quarreling and divisions, to the point of disintegration. That is why Christ established a visible head, to provide a principium unitatis (principle of unity) for the Church. To be in communion with that rock upon which the Church is built, is to be in full union with the Church. To spurn that rock is to be in schism. [51]

The difference between visible and invisible unity is illustrated in the distinction between heresy and schism. The idea of schism is, in this sense, uniquely Catholic. Jerome (387–88) captured this nuance early on: “Between heresy and schism there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church” (Jerome, Ep. ad Tit. 3:10).

The Council of Trent

At the Council of Trent, the Protestant Reformers were accused of both heresy and schism. [52] The accusation of schism at Trent and corresponding anathemas is an important point to keep in consideration with regard to post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. While it may be possible to reconcile some of the doctrinal issues that have divided Catholics and Protestants since Trent, [53] from a Catholic perspective, as long as Protestants continue to refuse to submit to the authority of the Pope and the Roman Magisterium, the issue of schism remains unresolved.

The Path to Ecumenism

The impossibility of rapprochement on these issues between Catholics and Protestants was, with few exceptions, taken for granted during the next several centuries. Though, thankfully, following Trent and the Counter-Reformation, the worst of personal corruption in the papacy remained in the past, the capstone of the evolution of the doctrine of the Chair of Peter as the focal point of unity was yet to be placed. This came in 1870 at Vatican I with the proclamation of papal infallibility (when the pope speaks ex cathedra) as official Church dogma. [54] The advent of the modern ecumenical movement among many Protestant groups in the early years of the twentieth century, however, called for a response from Rome. In 1928, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mortalium animos, in which he forbade to Catholic faithful all participation in the movement, calling it “panchristian,” and incompatible with Catholicism due to postulates involving “relativism of dogma, modernism in theology, and indifferentism in ecclesiology.” [55] As late as 1959, Catholic writer Gustave Weigel could proclaim: “With regard to ecumenism in its abstract and generic sense, the Catholic feels no ambivalence whatsoever. He wholeheartedly desires the union of all Christians, and even non-Christians, in the una sancta” (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church). [56] In other words, according to Weigel, the only valid path of ecumenism was one which united all Christians under the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Magisterium. [57]

Vatican II

Shortly afterward, in the early 1960s, at the watershed Second Vatican Council, a new tone marked the documents issued by the Catholic Church. In the words of Pope John Paul II, “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the ‘signs of the times.’” [58] The language of the Council is hopeful and conciliatory:

In recent times more than ever before, [God] has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. . . . All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God (italics mine). [59]

Though it did not wipe out all of the issues that have historically divided them, the use of the term separated brethren established a new category for Catholics to classify Evangelicals and opened up new avenues of thought with regard to how they relate to one another.

Significantly, Vatican II officially recognized that for the historical divisions in Christendom, “men of both sides were to blame,” and absolved of guilt for the sin of schism those who were born into separated communities of believers and did not choose of their own accord to separate from the Church. [60] The Council also declared that all those who “have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.” [61] Various elements of worship and Christian life in other communities, though imperfect, are recognized as authentic “means of salvation.” [62] However, salvation is not just available for other practicing Christians, but also to those “who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” [63] This openness to salvation on the part of non-Catholics is tempered, though, by that fact that Lumen gentium, another document of Vatican II, declares that “Whosoever . . . knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” [64] 

Bryan Cross does a good job of summarizing in layman’s terms Catholic teaching with regard to the possibility of salvation for Protestants:

The short of it is that through baptism the Protestant is actually, but imperfectly, and only invisibly, joined to the Catholic Church. Baptism is a Catholic sacrament, because it was entrusted by Christ to the Catholic Church, and has its validity through the Catholic Church, even when it is administered by a Protestant. But a Protestant (while Protestant) is not fully incorporated into the Catholic Church, or in “full communion” with the Catholic Church. That is why a Protestant cannot receive the Holy Eucharist at a Catholic parish. Does that mean that a Protestant’s salvation is in jeopardy? Yes and no. Those Protestants who do not know “that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ” can be saved. But no one should use the Church’s acknowledgment that those not in full communion with the Church can be saved as an excuse for not seeking full communion with the Church, or as a justification for remaining in schism from the Church that Christ founded. It is much more difficult to attain to the holiness without which no one will see the Lord, apart from the sacraments Christ established in His Church. [65]

It is also worth pointing out that, as far as other Christian groups are concerned, there are different degrees of communion recognized by the Catholic Church. As Pope John Paul II explains, “Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.” [66]

In practical terms, though, how is this new attitude to be carried into effect in everyday life? The work of ecumenism advocated by Vatican II can be broken down into five different steps: 1) an encouragement to speak of and act toward separated brethren “with truth and fairness”; 2) a call for dialogue between “competent experts from different Churches and Communities”; 3) cooperation in humanitarian projects; 4) joint prayer; and 5) a continual examination of the faithfulness of each believer and a concerted effort toward renewal and reform within the context of each one’s own faith community. [67] A particularly important (and controversial) aspect of the path to unity involves bearing “common witness” with other Christians, a phrase which calls out for further definition, and which will be explored in more depth at a later point in this paper. Though later documents will expand on this concept, the documents of Vatican II limit themselves, on this point, to a call to “before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the triune God, one and three in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord, [with] united efforts, and with mutual respect . . . [bearing] witness to our common hope.” Special focus is given in this same context to “cooperation in social matters.” [68] All of these are viewed, however, merely as steps along the path to a full expression of unity, which, though impossible at present, will ultimately be expressed through the coming together of all Christians in one common Church (i.e., Rome) and joint participation in the sacramental celebration of unity, the Eucharist. [69] This is an especially relevant point for Roman Catholics, who see in the Eucharist “the ultimate sign of the unity that exists among Christians.” [70]

Beyond a different tone in the language used to describe other Christians, though, what actually changed with regard to the Catholic Church’s approach to unity in Vatican II? In spite of the more open tone, according to many (including Church authorities themselves), there was no substantial change made on the fundamental Catholic position on unity. [71] The Council, while affirming the catholicity and diversity of the Church as manifested in different Christian communities (i.e., Catholic parishes) spread throughout the world with different cultural expressions, specified that this catholicity is brought together in unity under “the primacy of the Chair of Peter.” [72]

Pope John Paul II

John Paul II, as the first pope with a reign of any significant length after that of Paul VI and Vatican II, [73] and the pope with the second longest reign of any pope in history, is a key figure with respect to the present position of the Church on ecumenism. While in some ways a pioneer in certain ecumenical endeavors, [74] he also reaffirmed the Church’s traditional stance on the basis and practice of unity. A key document expressing his views is Ut unum sint, his 1995 encyclical “On commitment to Ecumenism.” While employing conciliatory language and affirming Vatican II’s categorization of Evangelicals as separated brethren, [75] he expresses a “sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation,” and calls for “the conversion of hearts” and “the necessary purification of past memories.” [76] He also revisits and adds a bit of meat to the bone of the concept of “common witness”:

Relations between Christians are not aimed merely at mutual knowledge, common prayer and dialogue. They presuppose and from now on call for every possible form of practical cooperation at all levels: pastoral, cultural and social, as well as that of witnessing to the Gospel message. . . . In the eyes of the world, cooperation among Christians becomes a form of common Christian witness and a means of evangelization which benefits all involved. [77]

He ultimately, however, clings to the Chair of Peter as the indispensable focal point of unity:

The Church’s journey began in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and its original expansion in the oikoumene of that time was centred around Peter and the Eleven (cf. Acts 2:14). The structures of the Church in the East and in the West evolved in reference to that Apostolic heritage. Her unity during the first millennium was maintained within those same structures through the Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If today at the end of the second millennium we are seeking to restore full communion, it is to that unity, thus structured, which we must look. [78]

 Indeed, it appears to be a return to Rome what John Paul II ultimately has in mind when he says that “Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity.” [79]

Pope Benedict XVI

Though to the uninitiated observer the following statement of the current pope, Benedict XVI, might appear encouraging with respect to prospects for advances in interconfessional ecumenism, an understanding informed by the use of the term visible unity in Catholic history leaves one to assume that what is really being inferred is his tireless efforts to bring non-Catholics into the Catholic fold: “Peter’s current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers.” [80] While pledging to work with together with adherents of all religions for the cause of social development and to promote contact and understanding with other Christian groups, it is clear for Benedict that his role in Christian unity is wrapped up totally in his occupancy of the Chair of Peter before whose authority all Christians are called to submit. [81]

EVANGELICAL PERSPECTIVES ON CATHOLICISM

Up to this point in this paper, I have limited discussion for the most part to an overview of the historical development of the Catholic concept of unity and specifically Catholic perspectives on the ecumenical movement. I will now briefly mention some general Evangelical perspectives with regard to Catholicism and the possibility of Christian unity between Evangelicals and Catholics.

Though the Protestant Reformation took root in a tension-charged atmosphere manifested in bombastic rhetoric, harsh attitudes, and violent actions on both sides, it is significant that, “the sixteenth century reformers did not deny the presence of elements of the true church in Roman Catholicism.” [82] At the same time, many, if not most, Evangelicals would agree with the following assessment by John Armstrong: “Historically evangelicals have believed that three visible marks determine a faithful New Testament church: a proper preaching of the gospel; a proper doctrine of the sacraments; and biblical discipline. Evangelicals cannot, by their own confession and faith, believe that Roman Catholicism is a standing, faithful New Testament church.” [83] In the meantime, conservative Evangelicals of the stature of Charles Hodge have been somewhat more tempered in their view: “It is, therefore, one thing to denounce the Roman system, and another to say that Romanists are no part of the church catholic. And if they are in the church, their baptism being a washing with water in the name of the Trinity, is Christian baptism; just as the word of God, when read or preached by them, is still his word, and is to be received and obeyed as such.” [84] Since among Evangelicals at large there is no official voice corresponding to the Pope and the Catholic Magisterium to represent them, and since in recent years the views of Evangelicals have diverged more and more from each other on this matter, it is impossible to speak of one united Evangelical position with regard to Rome and ecumenical rapprochement with Rome. Before contemplating various examples of recent attempts at Roman Catholic-Evangelical ecumenical dialogue, though, it will be helpful to lay out both points of agreement as well as points of disagreement on doctrinal matters between the two groups, especially in relation to how they play into the matter of Christian unity. 

POINTS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS

Though some Evangelicals and other broadly “evangelical” groups who, for one reason or another, eschew the label “Evangelical” prefer not to express their doctrinal beliefs by way of creedal formulations, practically all are in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church) in affirming the essential doctrines laid out in the Universal Creeds. [85] For example, a 1994 Resolution on Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics declared that "Southern Baptists have historically confessed with all true Christians everywhere belief in the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the full deity and perfect humanity of Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His substitutionary atonement for sins, His resurrection from the dead, His exaltation to the right hand of God, and His triumphal return.” [86] In addition, the International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (ERCDOM) reported in 2002:

We as Catholics and Evangelicals share Sacred Scripture and belief in its inspiration by the Holy Spirit. We affirm the unique mediatorial role of Christ, his incarnation, his death and resurrection for our salvation. We affirm together our faith in the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are both able to pray the Lord’s Prayer and confess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. We affirm the Gospel call to conversion, to a disciplined life in the grace of Jesus Christ, and the ultimate promise of eternal reward. We recognize a Christian responsibility for service and the promotion of justice in the world. We share a common hope of Christ’s return, as judge and redeemer, to consummate our salvation. We can commemorate together those who have witnessed by their blood to this common faith and now celebrate full communion before the face of our divine Savior. [87]

Though recognizing that different groups of Christians have different views on certain aspects of salvation, former Evangelical and present-day Catholic apologist and ecumenist Keith Fournier states, on the all-important issue of salvation, that, “we all agree that it begins with God, continues with God, and ends with God. Grace surrounds every aspect of salvation. So any role we play in the salvation plan, including the exercise of faith, is ultimately due to God’s unmerited, undeserved, gratuitous grace, which comes to us through Christ’s redemptive work and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Christ alone merits our salvation.” [88]

In addition to purely doctrinal matters, there is a significant degree of agreement between conservative Catholics and Evangelicals on social and moral concerns. The 1994 Southern Baptist Resolution comments, on this point, that, “Many Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists have found in recent years a common area of agreement in their concern for the sanctity of human life, their opposition to the spread of pornography in our society, their commitment to traditional family values, their concern for securing the rights of all individuals without respect to differences of religion, race, gender, and class, and many other areas of moral concern.” [89]

POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS

Though the areas of agreement between Catholics and Evangelicals are very significant, the areas of disagreement are also significant. The 1994 Southern Baptist Resolution succinctly enumerates some of the most important ones:

Baptists have historically differed from Roman Catholics on such matters as: the nature and means of salvation, the character and function of the church, the role and interpretation of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, devotion to the Virgin Mary, the veneration of the Saints, papal infallibility, the structure of church government, and the relation of Scripture and tradition as sources of spiritual and teaching authority for belief and practice. [90]

The Evangelicals and Catholics Together document “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium” provides a similar list of points of difference: “the church as an integral part of the Gospel or the church as a communal consequence of the Gospel;” “the church as visible communion or invisible fellowship of true believers;” “the sole authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) or Scripture as authoritatively interpreted in the church;” “the ‘soul freedom’ of the individual Christian or the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the community;” “the church as local congregation or universal communion;” “ministry ordered in apostolic succession or the priesthood of all believers;” “sacraments and ordinances as symbols of grace or means of grace;” “the Lord’s Supper as eucharistic sacrifice or memorial meal;” “remembrance of Mary and the saints or devotion to Mary and the saints;” and “baptism as sacrament of regeneration or testimony to regeneration.” [91]

From the Catholic perspective, in which schism in and of itself, as well as heresy, is viewed as a breach of Christian unity, and in which visible communion with the Magisterium, including the embracing of all official Church dogma, is seen as non-negotiable, any disagreement on points of doctrine such as those included in the Catechism of the Church is tantamount to heresy. [92] Nevertheless, Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism spoke of a “hierarchy of truths” within Catholic doctrine, in which some points are considered to be more central to “fundamental Christian faith” than others. [93] It is this concept of a “hierarchy of truths” that has opened the door for considering those who are not in official communion with the Catholic Church, and who may have discrepancies on this point or that point of doctrine, as separated brethren.

Alan Schreck explains: “Catholics do not believe that all revealed truths are equally central to the basic gospel message or are equally important for salvation. This is what the Catholic Church means when it teaches that there is a ‘hierarchy of truths.’” [94] He elucidates further on this same point:

Sometimes Catholics are guilty of viewing and talking about Mary, the saints, purgatory, and similar beliefs as if they were the most important Christian truths. This often produces an unnecessary obstacle to unity with other Christians, and may actually be a distortion of authentic Christianity. On the other hand, sometimes other Christians focus unduly on Catholic beliefs about Mary, the saints, purgatory, indulgences, and the like (often rejecting them in a one-sided way, even when they have some basis in the Bible) in order to portray Catholics as ‘un-Christian’, or to accuse the Catholic Church of distorting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These extremes should be avoided, and corrected where they exist. . . . Practically speaking, this means that the beliefs that are most important for Catholics are truths such as the divinity of Jesus, the necessity of his death on the cross for our salvation, the reality and power of the Holy Spirit, and so on. Here Catholics find a common ground of understanding and cooperation with other Christians, because Catholics and most other Christians usually agree on the most central and basic doctrines of Christianity. [95]

Thus, while full communion is unviable as long as neither side converts to the other, there is the possibility of another level of communion based on agreement on the essentials of the gospel. 

Especially for Evangelicals, though, this raises another question: Does the Catholic Church truly teach the gospel? While, undoubtedly, practically all Evangelicals would agree that the Catholic Church faithfully teaches many elements associated with the gospel, such as those included in the Universal Creeds, there is no small disagreement among Evangelicals as to whether the composite body of dogma officially taught by the Catholic Church captures adequately (though not perfectly) the essentials of the gospel, or if it amounts to, in the words of the apostle Paul, “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Gal 1:6–7, NIV). [96] From an Evangelical perspective, the differences between the two communities are huge. In the list of differences presented in this paper there has not even been space to consider such major items as purgatory, the role of the saints, celibacy of priests, etc. If any Evangelical denomination or church were to start teaching any one of these doctrines, it would certainly be considered by other Evangelicals as a major departure from orthodox doctrine. But at the end of the day, it is not error on any one of a number of secondary or tertiary issues that erects a barrier to Christian unity: it is deadly compromise on the gospel. In other words, it is necessary to determine to what degree a certain doctrinal position undermines or compromises the gospel itself.

Galatians and a False Gospel

The Report on The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission 1977–1984 (ERCDOM) gives a good summary of the different perspectives of Evangelicals and Catholics on the gospel:

Evangelicals are particularly sensitive in this matter, which is perhaps not surprising, since their very appellation “evangelical” includes in itself the word “evangel” (gospel). Evangelicals claim to be “gospel” people, and are usually ready, if asked, to give a summary of their understanding of the gospel. This would have at its heart what they often call “the finished work of Christ”, namely that by bearing our sins on the cross Jesus Christ did everything necessary for our salvation, and that we have only to put our trust in him in order to be saved. Although many Evangelicals will admit that their presentation of the gospel is often one-sided or defective, yet they could not contemplate any evangelism in which the good news of God’s justification of sinners by his grace in Christ through faith alone is not proclaimed. Roman Catholics also have their problems of conscience. They would not necessarily want to deny the validity of the message which Evangelicals preach, but would say that important aspects of the gospel are missing from it. In particular, they emphasize the need both to live out the gospel in the sacramental life of the church and to respect the teaching authority of the Church. Indeed, they see evangelism as essentially a Church activity done by the Church in relation to the Church. So long as each side regards the other’s view of the gospel as defective, there exists a formidable obstacle to be overcome. [97]

Though there are several points of discrepancy among Evangelicals as to which specific points of Catholic doctrine do or do not tip the balance toward being a different or a false gospel, the argument has historically centered around the five solas of the Protestant Reformation: sola Scriptura, solus Christus, sola gratia, sola fide, and soli Deo gloria. 

Sola Scriptura

“The inerrant Scripture (the Bible) is the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. It is denied that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.” [98]

Sola Scriptura has been identified as the formal principle (as over against the material principle) of the Reformation. This means that it is the epistemological grounding upholding the key doctrines which are believed (i.e., the material principle). While a denial of sola Scriptura is not, in and of itself, tantamount to a denial of the gospel per se, it undercuts the very foundation upon which it stands, making it very likely that the person (or institution) who (or which) denies sola Scriptura will as a consequence of this denial eventually deny key aspects of the gospel as well.

For the purposes of Catholic-Evangelical dialogue, as well as for correctly understanding one another’s position, it is important to keep in mind several important observations. First of all, from an Evangelical perspective, there are several common misconceptions that must be cleared up. Michael Patton identifies the following points: 1) Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scripture is the only source of spiritual insight; 2) Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are not other authorities in our lives; 3) Sola Scriptura does not mean that if it is not in the Bible it is not divinely binding; and, 4) Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scriptures are an exhaustive source for us to know how to live our lives each day. [99] By the same token, from a Catholic perspective, the denial of Sola Scriptura is not equivalent to a denial of the infallibility or authority of Scripture. [100] It is, rather, the claim that, in order to correctly understand God’s will and Christian doctrine, Scripture alone is not enough: it is also necessary to read the Bible alongside of and through the lens of sacred tradition, as faithfully reflected in the writings of Church Fathers, the decisions of Church councils, and the ex cathedra pronouncements of popes. 

The issue of sola Scriptura is still hotly contested between Catholics and Evangelicals. Each side claims to have the teaching of Early Church Fathers on their side. [101] Some, such as ecumenically minded Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, have posited that “while the questions of fides sola et gratia sola may be solved without difficulty, the issue of Scripture alone is more complicated.” [102] Indeed, there is good reason to maintain that it is the “fork in the road that leads Christians today either to Rome or to any number of evangelical Protestant churches.” [103]

Solus Christus

“Our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father. It is denied that the gospel is preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.” [104]

Though, from an Evangelical perspective, there are many implications and applications of the doctrine of solus Christus with regard to ecumenical dialogue with Roman Catholics, the main issue at stake has to do with the Church as a mediator of salvation by way of the sacraments, the priests necessary to dispense the sacraments (sacerdotalism), and Mary and the saints, etc. as opposed to the sole mediation of Jesus with no need for additional intermediaries. And this all hinges upon one’s fundamental understanding of the Church. For some, this issue is the true focal point of the whole compendium of issues that divide Catholics and Protestants. Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, state, for example, that “The central difference that continues to separate evangelicals and Catholics is . . . the nature of the church.” [105]

All this has important implications with relation to one’s understanding of the gospel itself. So the difference between Evangelicals and Catholics concerns the relationship between the gospel and the Church: “In the one case [the Evangelical perspective], the gospel reconciles us to God through Christ and thus makes us a part of his people; in the other [the Catholic perspective], the gospel is found within the life of his people, and thus we find reconciliation with God.” [106] Though not generally regarded as a faithful exponent of either orthodox Catholic or Evangelical doctrine, Friedrich Schleiermacher , the father of Protestant modernism, voiced an important insight when he observed that “the antithesis between Protestantism and Catholicism may provisionally be conceived in this way: the former makes the individual’s relation to the Church dependent on his relation to Christ, while the latter makes his relation to Christ dependent on his relation to the Church.” [107] Vatican II confirmed this idea: “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [the Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation.” [108]

Sola Gratia

“In salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life. It is denied that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.” [109]

The matter of sola gratia is closely tied to the matter of sola fide, and it is hard to talk about one apart from the other. These, in turn, are both closely tied, as well, to solus Christus, as the sole mediator of saving grace is Christ himself. It is, perhaps, helpful to speak of grace as the meritorious cause of salvation, faith as the instrumental cause, and Christ as the personal cause. Since, from this perspective, Catholics agree with Evangelicals that the ultimate source of any good works that man might do, or sacramental merit that he might attain, is the grace of God, [110] much of the discussion on the difference between their perspectives has focused on sola fide, or the means by which this grace is made manifest in the life of man. [111]

Sola Fide

“Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s perfect justice. Our justification does not rest on any merit to be found in us, nor upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us, nor that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.” [112]

Catholic doctrine teaches that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation (i.e., for justification and for sanctification) [113] but is more ambiguous with regard to the idea of faith alone as the sole channel for receiving grace. [114] For the Reformers, however, this was no small discrepancy. As a matter of fact, the idea that, as disciples of Jesus, we are justified by faith alone apart from the works of the law came to be regarded in standard Protestant theology as “the article by which the church stands of falls” (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae). [115] It is undoubtedly one of the key issues of their theology, widely regarded as the material cause of the Reformation. Though the Reformers found this teaching clearly articulated in the New Testament (especially in the writings of Paul), in addition to considering it to be the logical consequence of the teaching of certain Church Fathers (such as Augustine), it is one point of doctrine not specifically dealt with in the Universal Creeds, nor directly in the writings of many of the Fathers. Though it is possible the issues were overstated and mischaracterized to some degree by representatives of each side, at Trent sola fide manifested itself as a watershed issue with respect to an accurate understanding of the Christian gospel.

Some have suggested the difference between the Catholic and Evangelical views on sola fide may be largely a question of semantics. It is undeniably true that a good bit of the difference between the Catholic and Evangelical positions revolves around a different understanding of the term justification. The Catholic understanding of justification extends beyond a mere forensic transaction in which the sinner is declared righteous on the basis of the righteousness of Christ to include also the process by which the sinner gradually becomes more and more righteous in his way of life, a concept very close to what Evangelicals normally call sanctification. [116] According to Schreck, “It is also a part of Catholic teaching to consider ‘faith’ as a way of life rather than as a major decision that happens once, twice, or a few times in one’s life.” [117] Any true agreement between Catholics and Evangelicals on the question of sola fide, though, will have to deal seriously with the following concepts: alien righteousness, imputed righteousness, and the forensic nature of justification. Though some maintain that the Catholic Church does not officially condemn sola fide, [118] and some that the Church has even embraced sola fide, [119] “the definition of justification found in its official doctrinal statements continues to be at variance with the understanding of justification defended so tirelessly (and often courageously) by Protestant reformers such as John Calvin. To underline this point is not to be churlish or uncharitable; it is to be theologically precise and fair to the historical record.” [120]

This particular point continues to be a real thorn in the side of advocates of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals. Neuhaus describes from a Catholic perspective the problematic nature of a hardline Evangelical position on sola fide:

To oppose the formula “justification by faith alone” was, in the view of some Reformers, to oppose the gospel. Some champions of that position, however, seem to come close to saying “justification by faith alone” is the gospel, and the gospel is “justification by faith alone”—exclusively, exhaustively, and without remainder. Because there can be no Church apart from the gospel, it then follows that, where that formula is not embraced, there is no Church. But surely that cannot be right, for it would require that the entirety of the Christian reality—the Scriptures, as well as the proclamation and living of the Good News by the Christian people through time—is to be judged by a theological formula devised sixteen centuries after that reality came into being. [121]

Though many Evangelicals are not prepared to compromise on the essential nature of sola fide, and different understandings of how the grace of God is actualized in the life of the believer will undoubtedly continue to characterize the doctrinal positions of leading Evangelical groups and the Catholic Church, this does not necessarily imply, however, an impassable barrier with respect to Christian fellowship between individual Evangelicals and Catholics.

Saved by Faith Itself, not by the Doctrine

Without denying either the validity or the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, John Armstrong makes the following insightful observation:

The Reformers referred to this doctrine of justification as “the article by which the church stands or falls.” By this they did not mean that a person was saved by virtue of understanding the full ramifications of this great truth. He or she was saved by faith in Christ alone, and that through grace alone. But here the visible church must stand on Christ alone as the sole basis for justification before a holy God, or it will fall. A person who truly trusts Christ alone will be saved, whether he or she understands this article fully or not. [122]

The implications of what Armstrong is saying here are very important with regard for a gospel-centered approach to Christian unity. Gospel-centered unity, on a personal level, is not based on a perfect understanding of gospel essentials, nor even verbal consent to a list of doctrines—though an individual’s abject denial of gospel essentials will effectively place him outside of the family of God, or the invisible Church, as it betrays the absence of authentic faith. Those who share membership in the family of God are those who have a common saving relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by way of grace through faith, and who do not deny essential gospel doctrine. The fruit of the grace of God received by faith in the life of these individuals is a changed life that manifests itself by means of good works, though the root is faith alone, not faith plus works. From such a perspective, there are many Catholic individuals who share with many Evangelical individuals a common saving relationship with the Holy Trinity, and thus are in a de facto state of unity one with another, independent of the degree to which they express this unity in everyday practice.

Many, if not most, Evangelicals have little problem with this way of thinking. The real issue, for many, though, has to do more with the official doctrinal position of the Catholic Church as an institution, and the consequences of this position with regard to an institutional expression of unity. In other words, does the Church itself teach a true gospel or a false gospel? Some, such as Noll and Nystrom, believe the particular issue of sola fide is not as problematic in this regard as what it might initially appear:

It is unlikely that any group of Catholics and evangelicals will come up with a united statement of forensic justification. Disagreement, however, lies not so much in contradictory affirmations as in affirmations that look at the course of salvation differently. But this kind of disagreement is also widespread among evangelicals. Debate on the exact definition of justification may not be as important as it seems. [123]

Indeed, some have observed an increasing synthesis on the position on justification by faith voiced by both Protestants and Catholics:

There are fewer and fewer Protestants each year, and fewer Catholics, who are misled by that old misunderstanding. It is becoming clear to both sides that we are saved only by Christ, by grace; that faith is our acceptance of that grace, so we are saved by faith; and that good works, the works of love, necessarily follow that faith if it is real and saving faith, so we cannot be saved by a faith that is without good works. Both sides agree with this, because both sides accept the scriptural data and the solution is right there in the data. [124]

At the same time, though, there are still significant voices on both sides of the ledger that continue to see disagreement on sola fide as an impassable barrier to true Christian unity (especially on an institutional level) between the Catholic Church and Evangelicals. [125] We will need to revisit this issue in the final section on contemporary ecumenical dialogue. 

The Sacraments

Though there may indeed be some degree of legitimacy to the argument that the difference between the Catholic and Evangelical positions on justification, in and of itself, is largely a matter of semantics, there is still a major associated issue left to be resolved: the role of the sacraments with regard to salvation. Though somewhat blunt in his description, Robert Zins zeroes in on the major concern from an Evangelical perspective: “In Rome, ‘saved by grace through faith’ means ‘saved on account of grace given through the sacramental system when partaking in faith.’” [126] The Catechism appears to confirm this: “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” [127] Schreck adds: “The sacraments are simply channels through which the grace of God, flowing from the cross of Jesus, comes to us.” [128]

At Trent, the Catholic Church officially went on record as affirming the sacramental system as the approved channel of grace and pronounced an anathema on Protestants (and most specifically, Anabaptists) who affirmed a justification by faith that did not come by way of the sacraments; [129] and, as Armstrong observes, “Despite the many dramatic changes made by Vatican II (1962–1965), the traditional Catholic doctrine of the sacraments remains fundamentally unchanged.” [130] Thus, from a Catholic perspective, the difference between Catholic and Evangelical doctrine with regard to the sacraments is a major barrier to unity. From an Evangelical perspective (especially from a baptistic, non-sacramental one), the barrier is just as significant.

Baptismal Regeneration

One area in which the difference between Catholics and specifically baptistic Evangelicals is especially acute and significant is on the matter of baptismal regeneration. In Catholic theology, though one of the primary means for continuing on the path of faith is through ongoing participation in the sacraments (especially confession and the Eucharist), the entry point for beginning this journey is the sacrament of baptism. As the Catechism teaches, “Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission.” [131] Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism extrapolates further:

Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life . . . Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion. [132]

The anathemas pronounced at Trent with respect to those who do not embrace the Catholic teaching on baptismal regeneration are explicit and firm. [133] Though the argument has been made that the teaching of Lutherans (and some other Protestant groups) today was not the true target of Trent, and that the anathemas directed at them are thus no longer binding, [134] it would truly be far-fetched to somehow posit that the doctrinal beliefs of baptistic Evangelicals today were not in the intended “line of fire” of these anathemas, and thus no longer apply to them.

Some have proposed that the difference between Catholics and Evangelicals on the question of baptism may not be as serious it may seem, as it has to do merely with different understandings of the ordo salutis, or the order (whether chronological and logical) in which the various elements associated with conversion and discipleship take place. [135] However, the chasm between the Catholic understanding of baptism actually conferring grace ex opere operato upon the recipient, and the baptistic understanding of baptism as an act of obedience and public profession of faith on the part of the previously converted individual is wide and, on the surface, unbridgeable. [136]

J. O. Hosler lines out in graphic and compelling terms the difficulty the Catholic teaching on baptismal regeneration supposes, with respect to gospel essentials, for those who hold to a consistent baptistic understanding of salvation:

The fundamental question is: does the belief that salvation can only take place in the visible church and in the sacred water of baptism constitute a saving gospel? To help answer this question, let us consider some graphic parallels as illustrations. Suppose you attended church this Sunday where the minister explained perfectly the sovereign grace of God and justification by faith in the finished work of Christ but then added one point: that this gift is only for those who will stand up in this Baptist church and confess that he too is a Baptist and that no one is saved until he makes this confession that he is a Baptist. Is this a saving Gospel? If you attended the church of Jerusalem and the preacher explained the Gospel perfectly but added that no one is saved until he is circumcised and keeps the whole law, would this still be the saving gospel (Gal. 1:6–9)? Then, if you attended the Augustinian church at Hippo and heard the sovereign grace of God explained perfectly with the addition that no one on earth can receive this by grace through faith but only through the laver of regeneration followed by faith, would this still be the saving gospel of Jesus Christ? Paul calls the gospel of circumcision another gospel (Gal. 1:6, 7). And if baptism is circumcision under another form, it is law and we need to ask ourselves: is baptism our profession of faith in the completed gospel or is it the gospel itself? And if it is proclaimed as the gospel itself, is it not another gospel the same as the gospel of circumcision? Especially is this question relevant if baptism is circumcision under a different form. There is a difference between believing in Jesus Christ and believing that His finished work was only the down payment for your salvation to be paid in full by your baptism and your personal post-baptismal righteousness (Heb. 12:2; Rom. 3:28; 4:5). [137]

Indeed, it appears that, from a specifically baptistic Evangelical perspective, the Catholic position on baptismal regeneration presents one of the most serious obstacles to ecumenical unity.

Soli Deo Gloria

“It is affirmed that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God’s glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone. It is denied that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self- fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.” [138]

The final Reformation sola that has a bearing on the question of unity between Catholics and Evangelicals is soli Deo gloria: “Glory to God alone.” While the issues having to do with mediatorship in salvation are best understood with relation to solus Christus, the issues related to soli Deo Gloria and Evangelical-Catholic relations center around the veneration the Catholic Church maintains should be offered to the Virgin Mary and the saints, and the Evangelical assertion that this amounts to idolatry and is thus incompatible with a gospel that seeks to reconcile lost humanity with the only sovereign Lord of the Universe, who is jealous of the worship due exclusively to him. The discussion on this point revolves around the use of the terms latria, hyperdulia, and dulia, which Catholics maintain absolves them of the accusation of idolatry and many Evangelicals maintain is an artificial construct designed with the sole purpose of providing an answer to this accusation.

EVANGELICAL–CATHOLIC DIALOGUE

During the fifty years since Vatican II, in addition to the documents and actions emanating from the Vatican itself, there have been a number of ecumenical endeavors that have sought to bring increased understanding between Catholics and Evangelicals and, in some cases, cooperation and solidarity in various areas of concern. The index from the Vatican website of documents from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in addition to documents related to dialogue with various Orthodox Churches, contains links to documents from Catholic dialogue sessions with the Anglican Communion, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Methodist Council, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, the Baptist World Alliance, the Christian Church-Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals, the World Council of Churches, and the World Evangelical Alliance. [139] Though there is some degree of overlap between the sets of churches and individuals represented in each of these collectives and the set of churches and individuals considered for the purposes of this paper as Evangelical or gospel-centered, [140] there is not space in this paper to interact with each one. Instead, we will have to limit ourselves to a brief peek at one particularly noteworthy dialogue, and a somewhat more in-depth analysis of the important “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” movement and the documents it has produced.

Joint Declaration on Justification

One of the most ballyhooed ecumenical dialogues of recent years has been that between the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, culminating in the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Since today’s Lutherans are the direct descendants of the movement begun by Martin Luther, who is widely regarded as the initiator and key player of the Reformation, this dialogue has been viewed by many as having special significance. By recognizing that much of the past differences were due to different perspectives on the meaning of justification itself, the participants in this dialogue were able to “formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification.” [141] Statements such as the following appeared to be a major breakthrough in bridging the historical impasse between Lutherans and Catholics: “Together we confess: 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.” [142]

Some Evangelicals have expressed disappointment that, though on the surface the wording appeared to bridge the gap between Protestant and Catholic understanding, the doctrine of justification by faith was dealt with in a way that side-stepped the thorny issues of alien righteousness, imputed righteousness, and the forensic nature of justification. For others, an even more difficult barrier has to do with the fact that many Lutherans (and the statement itself) are in essential agreement with the Catholic position on baptismal regeneration. [143] It should be noted, however, that Luther’s view with regard to baptismal regeneration (and that of Lutherans and other Protestants who follow Luther on this point) is different from that of the Catholic Church, inasmuch as he believed that God actually awakens faith in the heart of the infant being baptized before his baptism, rather than ex opere operato by means of his baptism.

It should also be noted that, as Noll and Nystrom observe, there are certain aspects of the soteriology of Arminians that are more compatible with Catholic soteriology than that of Reformed or Calvinistic Protestants:

Such a question is more uncomfortable for some Protestants than for others. Arminians, including various followers of Wesley, find this view of salvation quite similar to their own. They too believe that God initiates salvation by offering prevenient grace to all. They also believe that personal choice plays a part in deciding whether salvation is received and, if received, whether a Christian will remain faithful until the end. They see an inner assurance of salvation as a part of justification, but they also believe that their own sins may remove them from God’s family. [144]

Others, such as Hosler, make a distinction between fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals, who in the 1940s “softened [their] position in order to retain contact with mainline denominations, and thus made sacramentalism and works salvation nonessential issues in the mass evangelism of the world.” [145]

Evangelicals and Catholics Together

Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) is an initiative organized by an ad hoc group [146] of Evangelicals and Catholics from the United States spearheaded by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Beginning in 1994 with the document “Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,” they have published a total of seven documents, including additionally: “The Gift of Salvation” (1998); “Your Word is Truth” (2002); “The Communion of Saints” (2003); “The Call to Holiness” (2005); “Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life” (2009); and “In Defense of Religious Freedom,” (2012). In many ways, ECT picks up where ERCDOM (The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission 1977–1984) left off. The big difference, however, is the specifically American and non-official makeup of the list of participants, as well as its emphasis on cobelligerency on social and moral issues particularly relevant to the American context. The document on “The Communion of Saints” spells out the purpose of the overall project: “If then anyone asks about the purpose of this statement and of the ongoing project of which it is part, the answer is clear: it is to evangelize more effectively, to bear witness to the world that Jesus is the Lord and Savior sent by the Father, and to bring that truth to bear on every dimension of life—just as we are commanded to do.” [147] Colson clarifies further: “‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together’ seeks to continue the legacy of C. S. Lewis by focusing on the core beliefs of all true Christians so that adherents of both major traditions can work together in the common task of evangelizing the nonbelieving world.” [148]

In order to truly understand ECT, though, it is helpful to point out not only its stated purpose but also what it does not purport to do. According to Colson, “This new cooperation requires neither evangelical nor Catholic to compromise their respective doctrinal convictions.” [149] Neuhaus chimes in as well: “I know for a certainty with respect to my intentions, and I am confident with respect to the intentions of the other Catholic participants, that ECT is not about persuading evangelicals to become Roman Catholic.” [150] He also offers this important observation: “In addition, any talk about ‘ecclesial reconciliation’ between evangelicals and Catholics at this moment in history is, in my judgment, utterly premature and detracts from the great purpose served by ECT.” [151] J. I. Packer, one of the signatories of the original ECT document, points out another significant nuance: “Cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church is not what ECT is about. The path of joint action that ECT envisages is not churchly but parachurchly.” [152]

Though not by any stretch the only contributors to the overall vision and the content of the statements that have been produced, the key role of Colson and Neuhaus has left an indelible mark on the ethos of ECT. Colson, who as an adult converted to Evangelical Christianity after a career in political involvement, is generally regarded as a deep thinker with significant insights on the practical application of Christian values in the public square, but not first and foremost as a theologian. His involvement in ministries—such as Prison Ministry Fellowship—with a dual social and evangelistic emphasis also colored his perspective. Neuhaus, as a former Lutheran minister and convert to Catholicism with a distinguished resume of leadership in various social and political causes, had an inside track on understanding both the issues that divided Evangelicals and Catholics and those which could potentially unite them. According to Colson, the idea for ECT originated in conversations he maintained with Neuhaus in 1992 regarding tensions between Protestants and Catholics in Latin America. Their hope was that some sort of a joint statement might help to soften these tensions and avoid an escalation of the conflict into something of the nature of the conflict in Northern Ireland. [153]

Cobelligerency vs. Spiritual Unity

While direct statements (such as several of those quoted above) point to a motive driven by a concern for more effectively evangelizing the lost, it is clear that a major force driving ECT is that of promoting cobelligerency on political, social, cultural, and moral issues. It was an already existing joint concern for making a positive impact in the cultural arena that pushed forward the effort to discover new avenues for coming to agreement on doctrinal issues as well. [154] Although there was no unanimity either among Evangelicals or Catholics on exactly what constitutes a just social order, it was felt among the conservative wing of both Evangelicals and Catholics represented in ECT that there was a broad consensus on a number of important worldview matters. [155] Prominent among these was “respecting the sanctity of human life at every stage of development and decline, securing the integrity of marriage and family life, protecting the disabled and vulnerable, caring for the marginalized and imprisoned,” as well as a defense of religious freedom in the United States and around the world. [156] Displaying, at one point, a particularly American perspective, ECT also expresses support for the “constitutional order” set forth by the “Founders of the American experiment,” and “a free society, including a vibrant market economy.” [157]

The argument proposed by ECT was that mere political coalitions are insufficient for successfully engaging the cultural challenges faced by those defending a biblical worldview. The culture itself needs to be reevangelized; and this task can be more effectively undertaken by Christians from different traditions working hand in hand than it can be separately or in antagonism one toward another. [158] As Colson observes, “The urgent task before all Christians today far transcends victories in political campaigns. Our task is nothing less than to articulate convincingly the biblical worldview to a culture awash in nihilism and hedonism. Neither a Baptist worldview—and I am a Southern Baptist—nor a Lutheran worldview, nor a Catholic worldview is enough to present a comprehensive, universal Christian worldview.” [159] Though, from one perspective, the hope voiced by ECT is that greater agreement on doctrinal matters can facilitate greater cooperation on social and cultural matters, the inverse idea has also been enunciated by some, that cooperation on social and cultural matters itself will gradually open the door to greater understanding and mutual support on doctrine. [160]

All of this raises the question of exactly what the relationship of the gospel and cultural transformation is. Packer, for instance, speaks of the need for joint action to “re-Christianize the North American milieu,” [161] and Fournier, of “making common cause to transform our culture for the sake of our common Savior and Lord.” [162] Colson, interestingly enough, though, posits a sobering balance on this question from an Evangelical viewpoint:

Ironically the Church must first remember that its principal obligation is not to renew the culture. The task of the Church is to be the Church, to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to make disciples. The Church is called to be faithful to God, to live out his Word, to proclaim his truth, and to assist men and women in growing spiritually as part of a holy, righteous community. Whenever the Church has made culture its first priority, its message has become politicized and the Church has been swallowed up by the surrounding culture. Whenever the Church has focused on being faithful to Christ, it has been used powerfully to influence the culture. [163]

Paradoxically, on the other hand, several of the Catholic signers of ECT point to the need to include not only fellow Christians, but also Jews and Muslims as partners in the task of cultural transformation. [164]

ECT Theological at Heart

Because of the emphasis on cultural transformation, some from the liberal side of the ledger have pejoratively dismissed ECT as “no more than a social-political compact between Christian conservatives,” while others from a more conservative perspective would prefer for it to remain “nothing more than a statement of cobelligerency in the public square.” [165] According to the chief architects of ECT, though, this is a misunderstanding. For Neuhaus, it is “the theological affirmations [that] are the heart of ECT.” [166] And Colson asserts: “A politicized gospel, whether in the form of liberation theology on the left or nationalism on the right, is not biblical. When the Church is acting as the Church, it will avoid partisan alignment.” [167]

ECT and the Basis of Unity

At the forefront of the affirmations of ECT is the following: “All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ. We have not chosen one another, just as we have not chosen Christ. He has chosen us, and he has chosen us to be his together.” [168] Though openly and inquisitively exploring the differences between Evangelical and Catholic perspectives, the focus of ECT is on those beliefs Evangelicals and Catholics have in common: “We confess together one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; we confess Jesus Christ the Incarnate Son of God; we affirm the binding authority of Holy Scripture, God’s inspired Word; and we acknowledge the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds as faithful witnesses to that Word.” [169]

ECT and Justification by Faith

The key doctrinal issue, from the perspective of many, in any Evangelical-Catholic dialogue is the aforementioned articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae: justification by faith alone. The first ECT document, while affirming that salvation is by grace through faith, came short of saying it is by grace alone through faith alone. Neuhaus himself freely admitted: “The solas are conspicuous by their absence, and it is not by accident that they are absent.” [170] On the heels of criticism for glossing over this key question, the second ECT document, “The Gift of Salvation,” sought to arrive at a wording that would be satisfactory for both sides. [171] The wording of this document, issued shortly before the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification of 1999, appeared to some to be a breakthrough:

We agree that justification is not earned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God’s gift, conferred through the Father’s sheer graciousness, out of the love that he bears us in his Son, who suffered on our behalf and rose from the dead for our justification. . . . In justification, God, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so. [172]

The real bombshell, however, was the affirmation: “We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).” [173] Six years later, the ECT document entitled “The Communion of Saints,” reflecting on “The Gift of Salvation,” was even more explicit: “We together affirmed the way we understand justification by faith alone as a gift received by God’s grace alone because of Christ alone.” [174]

What was the explanation for this? Had the Catholic Church actually reversed the position it had “infallibly” proclaimed as dogma at Trent? Apart from the fact that the ECT documents were never official declarations of the Church itself, the nuance of the Catholic position must be understood from within the context of the Catholic concept of the progressive nature of salvation nurtured by ongoing participation in the sacraments. Indeed in 2008, Pope Benedict XVI stated that “Luther’s phrase: ‘faith alone’ is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.” [175] According to Catholic ECT signatory Thomas Guarino, Colson was quick to interpret this as a “profound change” occasioned by the “development of doctrine,” but this way of thinking represents an overly naïve optimism with regard to the possibility of real change on such a crucial matter of dogma. [176]

ECT on Baptism

On the crucial issue of baptismal regeneration, despite significant differences among Evangelicals themselves, and agreement between Evangelicals and Catholics on several other issues related to baptism, [177] ECT has been unable to come to a consensus statement that unifies (especially baptistic) Evangelicals and Catholics: “Repentance and amendment of life do not dissolve remaining differences between us. In the context of evangelization and ‘reevangelization,’ we encounter a major difference in our understanding of the relationship between baptism and the new birth in Christ.” [178]

Other issues on which various ECT documents have identified significant points of both agreement and disagreement, such as the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, [179] the definition of the Church, [180] and the role of Mary, [181] while vitally important, are perhaps not as crucial as the all-important issue of how we are saved, and who is actually saved. This has significant implications for the issue both Colson and Neuhaus cited as the real purpose of ECT: common witness.

Common Witness

A big question with relation to common witness is a common understanding of the meaning of witness. The terms witness, evangelism, evangelization, and mission, though all related, often have somewhat different connotations for Evangelicals and Catholics. The Baptist Roman Catholic International Conversations, for example, pointed out different understandings of evangelism/evangelization:

Even with a growing convergence in terminology, evangelism/evangelization assumes different forms within our two communions. The Baptist stress on conversion as an act of personal faith and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior gives precedence to leading people to an explicit confession of faith through proclamation of the Gospel. Roman Catholics stress that by baptism a person is made new in Christ in the church and stress the establishment of a Christian community through proclamation of the word and through a ministry of presence and service. [182]

This difference led to the participants of the Conversations to clarify what they meant by common witness:

An important area of common concern is the language we use in speaking of our common witness. “Common witness” means that Christians, even though not yet in full communion with one another, bear witness together to many vital aspects of Christian truth and Christian life. We affirm that it embraces the whole of life: divine worship, responsible service, proclamation of the Good News with a view to leading men and women, under the power of the Holy Spirit, to salvation and gathering them into the Body of Christ. [183]

ECT adopted a similarly broad understanding of mission and evangelization:

The entire mission of the Church may be summarized under the rubric of evangelization. Evangelization in the broadest sense is proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ to all people and bringing that gospel to bear, by word and deed, on the totality of things. According to the Scriptures, God’s Word in Jesus Christ should penetrate into the hearts and minds of believers, governing their ideas and activities and, through their ministry, permeating the cultures and social institutions of the world (2 Corinthians 10:5). All of creation, wounded by original sin, is to be healed and redirected in Christ to its true goal, the glory of the Creator (Colossians 1:19-20). [184]

The Catholic Church itself speaks of “new evangelization” and “common witness” with relation to joint efforts for “justice, peace, living with others and the stewardship of creation.” [185]

Both Evangelicals and Catholics who are more doctrinally conscientious have more concerns with regard to certain aspects of common witness than others. When it comes to cooperating together to do good deeds and to work toward a moral and ethical transformation of society, the barriers are not as great as when they are called upon to jointly proclaim the message of the more explicitly spiritual aspects of salvation, such as justification. The problem, according to some, is that key doctrinal differences demand reducing gospel proclamation to a least common denominator approach. [186] ECT attempts to navigate this tension by way of ambiguous language that may be understood in different ways by different readers, [187] while at the same time unequivocally affirming that “Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.” [188]

Evangelism and Proselytism

This brings us to a key concern with regard to the type of “common witness” advocated by ECT: questions regarding the legitimacy of Evangelical evangelistic efforts directed toward Catholics and Catholic evangelistic efforts directed toward Evangelicals. Noll and Nystrom capture well the issue at stake:

A main goal of ECT has been to advance consideration of the meaning of Christian salvation. Debates over evangelism, and hence also over proselytization, arise out of a concern for a correct understanding of salvation. If evangelicals or Catholics view the other as not redeemed, then the biblical Great Commission mandates evangelism. But are active, wholehearted practitioners of the other faith tradition actually lost or simply viewing salvation from a different angle? [189]

The fact of the matter is that faithful adherents of both communities, in order to consistently follow through with the implications of their beliefs, must, of necessity, engage in evangelistic efforts directed toward each other. [190] For Evangelicals, this implies (among other things) urging all those who have not yet placed their faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross as the sole and sufficient remedy for their alienation from God and the requirement for forgiveness of sins and an eternity in heaven to do so. For Catholics, this implies (among other things) urging those who have not submitted to the authority of the Church and who are not coming to Christ by means of participation in the sacraments of the Church in order to receive the grace of God to do so.

While recognizing the legitimacy of interconfessional evangelism, ECT both censures as well as spells out various aspects of what qualifies as illegitimate proselytism: “We condemn the practice of recruiting people from another community for purposes of denominational or institutional aggrandizement.” [191] ERCDOM further identifies other practices associated with illegitimate proselytism, including: “offers to temporal or material advantages . . . improper use of situations of distress . . . using political, social and economic pressure as a means of obtaining conversion . . . casting unjust and uncharitable suspicion on other denominations; [and] comparing the strengths and ideals of one community with the weakness and practices of another community.” [192]

At the same time, ECT recognizes the legitimacy of efforts aimed at conversion, provided it is “authentic conversion” (i.e., “conversion to God in Christ by the power of the Spirit”). The sticky issue has to do with the “attempt to win ‘converts’ from one another’s folds.” While recognizing that, “in some ways, this is perfectly understandable and perhaps inevitable,” it is also stated that, “in many instances . . . such efforts at recruitment undermine the Christian mission by which we are bound by God’s Word.” [193] It is practically inevitable, however, that a faithful Evangelical, when evangelizing a Catholic, will point out certain doctrinal aspects of what he considers to be a biblical understanding of salvation (i.e., the five solas) which are not in accord with the Catholic understanding (i.e., sacramentalism), and a faithful Catholic, when evangelizing an Evangelical, will reciprocate. In certain respects, ECT recognizes this reality: “It is understandable that Christians who bear witness to the Gospel try to persuade others that their communities and traditions are more fully in accord with the Gospel.” [194] ERCDOM also defends the freedom of those being evangelized to choose the faith community they feel best helps them to grow in their faith. [195] At the same time, there are certain aspects of the evangelistic presentations of both faithful Evangelicals and Catholics which will coincide with and support each other (e.g., the teaching of the basic doctrines of the Universal Creeds).

Salvation of Individual Catholics

Evangelicals, for the most part, do not believe that it is impossible for Catholics to be saved (though there are undoubtedly some exceptions). Though we are indeed saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and it may be legitimately questioned whether the Catholic Church teaches this, faith in Christ alone is not necessarily accompanied by a precise doctrinal understanding of the theological grounding of salvation. The key question behind this sticky issue is the degree to which individuals are trusting in the efficacy of the sacraments themselves, the mediation of the Church, or good works for their salvation, or they are trusting in Christ alone, who they believe channels his grace through the sacraments and the Church, and who enables them to do good works.

Different Evangelicals draw attention to different nuances in their response to this question. Michael Patton, arguing in favor of the possible salvation of Catholics who do not understand justification by faith alone, says, “Put it this way: Heaven will not be inhabited by anyone who contributed to their justification. Some will get to heaven and they will find out how radical grace really was.” [196] Armstrong presents another popular Evangelical view:

We must not personally judge the ultimate standing before God of any individual soul. As Scripture says, “The Lord knows those who are His” (2 Timothy 2:19), and, “To his own Master [each person] stands or falls” (Romans 14:4). . . . Because we believe Rome is fallen, we must urge Roman Catholics to trust Christ alone for salvation. We must continue to clearly preach justification by faith alone, through grace alone. This means that individual Catholics must trust in Him, not their church and its system of sacraments and personal mysticism. We believe that some Catholics may well be trusting Christ savingly, but, if they do, it will have to be in spite of the teaching of their church, not because of it. [197]

The perspective of Zins is even more rigorous yet:

The apostasy here is the failure to distinguish between believing something essential about the Gospel and denying something essential about the Gospel. . . . We ask, “Can one be saved while denying imputed righteousness?” Salvation is not for those who later deny the very essence of salvation. Yes, one can be saved without a full grasp of imputed righteousness, but one cannot maintain that he is saved while denying this essential element of the Gospel. He will have only believed a caricature of the gospel and a Jesus of his own imagination. This is idolatry, not salvation. [198]

No matter what nuance one wants to emphasize, though, most all would agree that the eternal destiny of each person’s soul is in the hands of God, and God alone; and while it is helpful to call for doctrinal precision with regard to one’s presentation of the gospel, it is not wise to speculate on the true heart condition of other individuals.

Closely related to the question of the possibility of individual Catholics being saved is that of how many Catholics actually are saved. Most Evangelicals would admit that even those raised in a solidly Evangelical environment may themselves not be truly saved and are thus the legitimate target of evangelistic efforts. It may be argued that, logically, at the very least, the same criteria should be used with regard to evangelizing Catholics. Even Catholic convert Peter Kreeft would appear to agree that many Catholics are not truly saved:

There are still many who do not know the data, the gospel. Most of my Catholic students at Boston College have never heard it. They do not even know how to get to heaven. When I ask them what they would say to God if they died tonight and God asked them why he should take them into heaven, nine out of ten do not even mention Jesus Christ. Most of them say they have been good or kind or sincere or did their best. So I seriously doubt God will undo the Reformation until he sees to it that Luther’s reminder of Paul’s gospel has been heard throughout the church. [199]

After this point, though, the question gets more complicated. Evangelical missionary strategy often takes into account the proportion of resources dedicated to evangelizing people segments which are deemed to be comparatively less evangelized than others. Among some, the degree to which strategic missionary efforts should be directed from Evangelicals to Catholics (and vice versa) is a matter of controversy. Former Evangelical, and Catholic signatory of ECT, Keith Fournier is a good example of someone who takes a critical attitude toward cross-confessional evangelism:

Many Protestants see the Catholic Church as enamored with itself, seeing itself as the “only church” and having little room for adjustment. Many Catholics have felt the same way about Protestant churches. Consequently, Catholics and Protestants often see themselves as the sole possessors of truth. They look upon each other condescendingly, refuse to move toward each other in dialogue but try to evangelize one another, assuming that the “other side” has embraced a false gospel and needs to be set straight. This form of religious bigotry knows no denominational or ecclesiastical boundaries. And when it expresses itself in evangelistic and missionary endeavors, it is particularly harmful and ugly. [200]

Some of the biggest controversy has to do with Evangelical missionary efforts in traditionally Catholic lands. Fournier takes special umbrage to the following words by Dave Hunt:

I have been in contact with thousands of Catholics who were saved and left that Church. Not one ever heard the true gospel preached there. Not one was saved by being a Catholic, but by believing a gospel which is anathema to Catholics. In a recent survey of 2,000 homes in Spain only two Protestants knew the gospel, while 1,998 Catholics thought good works, church attendance, etc. would get them to heaven. In their 15 years of evangelizing in Spain, missionaries with whom I spoke had never met one Catholic who was saved or who knew how to be saved. Knowing that these millions of Catholics are lost causes evangelicals there to work day and night to bring them the gospel! [201]

Fournier interprets this as a personal slap in the face of the testimony of his own wife, who was positively impacted for the gospel through the Cursillo movement, which originated in a Catholic context in Spain. [202] In contrast, Noll and Nystrom give the example of evangelical missionary to France David E. Bjork, who, after encountering a group of 600 Catholics worshiping “in the presence of God’s Spirit” and a three-year dialogue with a local Catholic priest, decided to “merge his ministry into the local Catholic church.” [203]

For many evangelicals, though, the question is not how many common beliefs we have with Catholics, nor whether one can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit during Catholic worship, but whether devout Catholics whose beliefs are consistent with the teachings of the Church are truly saved. Those who are not, no matter how many other commonalities they may share with Evangelicals, should be viewed as legitimate targets for evangelistic efforts with a view to conversion. Muslims, for instance, share with Christians certain beliefs related to Jesus. Does this mean they should be a lower priority for evangelistic efforts than, for example, Buddhists, who do not share these beliefs? A similar argument could be made with regard to efforts to share the gospel with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. A common set of beliefs on many different points of doctrine does not necessarily amount to a soul-saving belief in the gospel, and to withhold or underemphasize an essential element of the gospel in the name of political correctness is not to refrain from arrogance but rather an extreme disservice and evidences a lack of concern for the spiritual well-being and eternal destiny of the souls of men and women.

From an Evangelical stance, however, faithful missionary service does not have to do only with bringing people to the point of conversion. It also has to do with bringing them to maturity in Christ, which involves, among other things, correct doctrinal knowledge and stability. [204] It also implies helping them to grow in an understanding of such doctrines as the assurance of their salvation, and the perseverance of the saints, both of which are incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Indeed, in order to truly “make disciples,” as Evangelicals understand this term, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do so without at the same time planting specifically Evangelical congregations in which the fundamental doctrines of the faith are taught faithfully and unambiguously, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are carried out according to biblical patterns, and healthy, constructive church discipline is consistently practiced.

Evangelical Response to ECT

It is on the point of missionary ministry and proselytism that ECT voiced one of its most controversial opinions: “It is neither theologically legitimate nor a prudent use of resources for one Christian community to proselytize among active adherents of another Christian community.” [205] Though the interpretation of this sentence hinges on the meaning one assigns to the words “proselytize” and “Christian,” [206] a surface reading would appear to infer that ECT was condemning Evangelical missionary efforts in traditionally Catholic lands as well as Catholic missionary efforts in traditionally Evangelical lands.

The response on the part of many Evangelicals has not been totally positive. The 1994 Southern Baptist “Resolution on Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics,” while recognizing common points of doctrine and a shared commitment with regard to various moral and social concerns, and even affirming the general concept of cobelligerency on these concerns, appears to be intended as a specific response to this matter: “Be it further RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention affirm its commitment to evangelism and missionary witness among populations and individuals not characterized by genuine faith in Christ alone, and we reject any suggestion that such witness be characterized as ‘sheep stealing’ proselytizing or a wasteful use of resources.” [207] Some, such as Dave Hunt, have been more direct in voicing their concerns with ECT:

I believe the document represents the most devastating blow against the gospel in at least 1,000 years. . . . It is outrageous that leading evangelicals have placed nearly 25% of the world’s population off limits for evangelisation! Missionaries must now leave Catholic countries such as Spain, Italy and those in Latin America—such is the tragic implication of this document! . . . The most tragic result of this historic development will be to prevent the gospel from being presented to lost millions who have now been wrongly reclassified by evangelical leaders as Christians. A disaster of almost equal proportions will result from this document’s endorsement of Catholicism’s false gospel, thereby encouraging multitudes to believe it. [208]

Others have questioned whether ECT has allowed common concerns over moral, social, cultural, and political causes to override doctrinal precision on matters such as justification and baptismal regeneration. [209] Michael Horton voices a significant criticism implying a certain degree of disingenuousness (and/or naïveté) on the part of the Evangelical signatories:

My own criticism of the impressive initiative known as “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) some years ago was not that such dialogue should not exist or that real consensus on many issues was impossible from the outset, but that the consensus reached affirmed agreement in the gospel while acknowledging disagreement on justification, merit, purgatory, indulgences, and the redemptive intercession of anyone other than Christ. Yet, in step with other recent agreements, here it is only the evangelicals who have moved, accepting the view that justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone is not essential to the gospel. [210]

Certainly, the motive of seeking greater unity in the Body of Christ is not bad in and of itself. At the same time, as our study has pointed out, in the midst of ecumenical dialogue we must be very discerning to make sure that in the process we are not sacrificing something of even greater significance.

A PERSONAL EVALUATION

Though throughout the body of this paper I have not refrained at times from interjecting personal opinions on various questions, I will concentrate in this final stage on giving a summary of my personal perspective on the viability of ecumenical dialogue between Evangelicals and Catholics as well as the approach that Evangelicals ought to take.

Attitudes for Dialogue

I must affirm, to begin with, certain points of agreement with various Catholic spokespersons with regard to the attitudes we should adopt when broaching the matter of Christian unity and ecumenical dialogue. For example, Schreck is undoubtedly on target when he states, “The first step toward restoring the unity of Christians, which is God’s will (Jn 17:21) and so necessary today, is for Christians to understand and respect one another and their beliefs.” [211] Vatican II was also correct to call not only Catholics but all Christians to “a change of heart” with respect to our attitude toward one another that leads to “the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them.” [212] Indeed, we should seek to manifest a charitable attitude of actively seeking points of agreement, looking for ways to understand each other without prejudging. Pope John Paul II was also speaking the truth when he stated, with regard to ecumenism, that, “Intolerant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality,” [213] and that, “When undertaking dialogue, each side must presuppose in the other a desire for reconciliation, for unity in truth.” [214]

At the same time, however, Vatican II is equally right when it states that, “Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism.” [215] This implies studiously avoiding “all forms of reductionism or facile ‘agreement,’” [216] as well as “superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity.” [217] ECT confesses the same resolve when it states that, “We reject any appearance of harmony that is purchased at the price of truth.” [218] And Neuhaus poignantly drives home the same point when he observes that, “Our unity in the truth is more evident in our quarreling about the truth than in our settling for something less than the truth.” [219]

Is Unity Between Evangelicals and Catholics a Realistic Goal?

This commitment to honesty and frankness in dialogue opens the question of the degree to which the goal of unity between Evangelicals and Catholics is realistic. From the Catholic perspective, true unity entails organizational union with the Roman Church and submission to its structures, including the papacy and the Magisterium. Because of this, it also requires embracing the entire corpus of Catholic dogma. [220]

The Catholic Church has traditionally accused Protestants of the sin of schism. From another perspective, however—a more specifically biblical one—might it be Rome itself that is guilty of schism? The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. . . . What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I follow Paul,’ or ‘I follow Apollos,’ or ‘I follow Cephas,’ or ‘I follow Christ’” (1 Cor 1:10–12). Does not setting up the supposed Chair of Peter as the focal point for unity among a certain group of Christians and for the exclusion of others amount to the same thing as saying, “I follow Cephas”? And yet this is precisely what the Roman Catholic Church has done. Even the supposedly ecumenically friendly documents of Vatican II make this abundantly clear: “The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.” [221] It is thus with great acuity that Pope Paul VI once declared, “The pope—as we all know—is undoubtedly the gravest obstacle in the path of ecumenism.” [222]

Though written before Vatican II and the subsequent dialogues with Evangelicals, the following observation of Catholic apologist Gustave Weigel still essentially holds true:

As long as the Catholic is Catholic and the Protestant is Protestant, there is only one way to union—the conversion of one to the views of the other. If that should happen, either Catholicism or Protestantism would disappear. There can never be a Catholic-Protestant Church, or even a Catholic-Protestant fellowship of churches. This is the basic fact. It does no good to anyone to hope that this fact will somehow sublimate into something thinner. Because the Catholic recognizes this fact clearly and unambiguously, his ecumenical strivings are more consistent. He knows what is called for, and he moves toward the goal of the conversion of the non-Catholic. [223]

From an Evangelical perspective, unity implies “a shared experience of having one’s life changed by the same gospel message; a shared relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; and a shared doctrinal agreement on the essentials of the gospel message.” [224] From this perspective, it is possible for Evangelicals as individuals to share Christian fellowship with some Catholics as individuals. The critical point (as mentioned earlier in this paper) is “the degree to which an individual is trusting in the efficacy of the sacraments themselves, the mediation of the Church, or good works for their salvation, or they are trusting in Christ alone.” [225] Even though individual Catholics may differ with Evangelicals on important points of doctrine, if they are truly justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (whether or not they are able to articulate it correctly or truly understand it), they are already brothers and sisters in Christ and fellow members of the Body of Christ. If, however, they are not truly justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, it doesn’t matter whether they identify themselves as Evangelicals, Catholics, or by some other label: they are not members of the Body of Christ and do not share the status of unity with those who are.

If what we are talking about, though, is unity between organizations or churches, and not merely individuals, the question immediately becomes more problematic. For the Catholic Church, which professes to be the true Church, and that there can be no other, it is impossible to achieve unity with non-Catholic organizations, since, by definition, Christian unity for them is embodied in the Church. For Evangelicalism, which is in reality a movement and not an organization, it is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve unity with an organization (such as the Catholic Church), since such unity must be based on a foundation of unequal footing. How does a movement express unity toward an organization, and how does an organization express unity toward a movement? For Evangelicals, it is individual believers who express unity one with another. At the same time, it is true, however, that organizations identified with a certain movement (such as Evangelical denominations and congregations) may have policies and procedures which express (or fail to express) in varying degrees the unity that true brothers and sisters in Christ share with one another.

It is at this level of organizational ecumenism that the third point of gospel-centered unity, shared doctrinal agreement on the essentials of the gospel message, becomes especially relevant. If the officially stated doctrinal position of one organization or congregation is incompatible with that of another organization or congregation on gospel essentials, there can be no unity between the two organizations until one of them changes. It is my understanding that the differences between the official position of the Catholic Church and what I would consider to be a truly “evangelical” position, [226] especially with respect to issues such as justification by faith alone, sacramentalism, and baptismal regeneration, are of such a nature that unity would not be an accurate term to describe the relationship between them. Indeed, it would seem that Weigel is correct when he says that one organization inviting another organization that it considers apostate to come into union with it is tantamount to “an invitation to suicide.” [227]

In light of this, it might be best, when speaking of organizational relationships between the Catholic Church and Evangelical organizations and congregations, to use a term other than unity. Friendship, cobelligerency, solidarity, and cooperation may all be considered as more appropriate categories. And each of these may, in certain cases, be considered as worthy goals. At the same time, Evangelical organizations and congregations should take care not to compromise on key doctrinal convictions for the purpose of furthering relationships of friendship, cobelligerency, solidarity, or cooperation. The mission of the church is to proclaim the gospel and make disciples, not to transform culture, [228] and relationships based on cooperation for cultural causes should never take priority over gospel faithfulness.

But to what degree can Evangelical organizations and congregations and the Catholic Church cooperate on the proclamation of the gospel itself? There is a sense in which, whenever one proclaims elements of the same message as the other (for example, the points of agreement found in the Universal Creeds), to that extent, they do so in solidarity and in agreement with the other. But there is another sense in which, to the degree their messages do not coincide, their proclamation is necessarily done in a spirit of disagreement and discrepancy. This is merely facing the facts. At the same time, such disagreement and discrepancy can be and should be communicated with a spirit of mutual respect and courtesy.

The fact of the matter, however, is, no matter how much goodwill and courtesy may exist on all sides, there are various facets of evangelistic ministry on which it makes no sense for Evangelicals and Catholics to collaborate. When making a simple gospel presentation to someone who has not yet come to the point of trusting Christ alone for her salvation, the way a consistent Evangelical goes about it and the way a consistent Catholic goes about it are not only going to be different but contradictory. When seeking to disciple a new believer in Christ and teach him the fundamentals of the Christian faith and life, though there will no doubt be some areas of commonality, there will also be many areas of discrepancy. When it comes time, for example, to teach about confession and forgiveness of sin, what the Evangelical disciple-maker teaches will almost certainly be very different from what the Catholic catechizer will teach. The faithful Evangelical missionary will seek to plant biblically-based local congregations, which consistent Catholics in the same locality will not be able to completely support with a good conscience. At the same time, the Evangelical disciple-maker, who will want the new believers he is discipling to grow in spiritual maturity and understanding of sound doctrine, will not be content to entrust their spiritual nurture to the spiritual oversight of the local Catholic parish.

There are nevertheless some activities, such as Bible exhibits, pro-life campaigns, and food distribution to needy families, which may well be able to be organized and carried out jointly with success. But these activities are not core activities, but rather secondary or auxiliary activities, when it comes to what both confessions understand as proclaiming the gospel. To talk, with conciliatory language, about “common witness” is one thing, but to actually put it into practice in everyday evangelistic ministry is something else. Either Catholics will have to adjust their style and make it more Evangelical, or Evangelicals will have to adjust their style and make it more Catholic. Even so, Evangelicals cannot truly engage in Catholic evangelism without first becoming Catholics, as the validity of Catholic sacraments (a key element in the Catholic scheme of evangelism) depends on the contribution of duly ordained Catholic priests. As Catholic apologist Devin Rose cogently observes, “Finally, and significantly, Protestants have rejected Apostolic Succession, and even if they believed in it, they do not possess the sacrament of Holy Orders through Apostolic Succession. Hence from a Catholic point of view, Protestantism has completely discarded one of the bonds of visible unity.” [229]

Full Communion in Eucharistic Fellowship?

One final point of practical import with regard to ecumenical dialogue has to do with the role of the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper) in Christian unity. Especially for Catholics, this point is fundamental. From the Catholic perspective, full unity is ultimately expressed in Eucharistic fellowship. However, current Catholic protocol and practice does not allow for Protestants to participate jointly in the Eucharist, and there is no sign that any change on this point is imminently forthcoming. As far as Evangelicals are concerned, there is a significant degree of disparity among different denominations and congregations with respect not only to how the Lord’s Supper is celebrated but also to who is invited to participate. While some Evangelical congregations may invite truly converted Catholics to share the Lord’s Table, once again, this is merely an example of fellowship with individual Catholics, not of unity practiced on an organizational level. The signatories of ECT are perhaps unrealistically optimistic with regard for their hopes for the future, yet at the same time forthright in their acknowledgement of the present situation, when they declare, “We together pray that our imperfect communion will one day give way to full communion in eucharistic fellowship. At present, we cannot see beyond some disagreements that appear to be intractable.” [230]

[1] It is necessary to indicate clearly, from the beginning, that this paper proposes to consider the subject matter from “an evangelical perspective” as opposed to “the evangelical perspective.” Since there is no authorized spokesperson or entity to speak for Evangelicals at large, and since there are important differences among self-identified Evangelicals on these matters, it would be both arrogant and unrealistic to attempt to deal with these matters from a perspective that purports to represent all Evangelicals. The definition of the term evangelical itself is fiercely debated, even among those who embrace the label. Though somewhat related to the topic at hand, a full-fledged discussion on what truly constitutes evangelicalism is beyond the scope of this paper. It should be noted, however, that the motive behind the writing of this paper roots in a broader discussion on “gospel-centered unity,” the proposed topic of my upcoming dissertation. It is recognized that the terms gospel-centered and evangelical share common etymological roots and an overlapping, if not identical, semantic range. The foundation of gospel-centered unity, as proposed in the upcoming dissertation, is delineated as “a shared experience of having one’s life changed by the same gospel message; a shared relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; and a shared doctrinal agreement on the essentials of the gospel message.” This raises the further questions of exactly how one’s life is changed by the gospel, how one enters into a relationship with the Holy Trinity, and what are the essentials of the gospel message. These are all questions which, though touched upon to some degree in the course of this paper, must be dealt with more fully in another context (e.g., my upcoming dissertation). It should also be noted that, while I am a member of a congregation which defines itself as Baptist, and I consider myself to be in general agreement with the doctrinal distinctives of the Southern Baptist Convention, I understand the scope of gospel-centered unity (and correspondingly, of evangelicalism) to extend beyond the confines of specifically Baptist (or baptistic) belief systems and those who embrace them. At the same time, I recognize that my specifically baptistic set of beliefs will inevitably color the “evangelical perspective” from which I write this paper, and that this personal (though not consciously peculiar) perspective will not coincide on every point with that of all other Baptists (or baptistic Evangelicals).

[2] John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 51.

[3] There is good reason, however, to regard Clement as one among a plurality of presbyters among various house churches present at Rome at this time, preceding the appearance of the monarchical episcopate in Rome. See Peter Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (ed. Marshall D. Johnson; trans. Michael Steinhauser; London: T & T Clark International, 2003), 406. There is also discrepancy among early Christian sources accepted as authoritative by the Catholic Church with regard to Clement’s place in the list of Roman bishops, with Tertullian identifying him as the second, immediately following Peter (The Prescription Against Heretics 32), and Irenaeus placing him third, after Linus and Anacletus (Against Heresies 3.3.3). 

[4] See, for example, Bryan Cross, “St. Clement of Rome: Soteriology and Ecclesiology,” Called to Communion, November 23, 2010, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/st-clement-of-rome-soteriology-and-ecclesiology/.

[5] 1 Clement 47:6; 57:1. Clement appears to use the terms bishops and presbyters interchangeably, although it is possible to understand Clement as referring to the bishop as both a fellow member (along with the other presbyters) of the presbytery as well as the head of it. The Didache, an anonymous work from roughly the same time period, does not use the terms presbyters or elders, but does refer to both the bishops and deacons in the plural: “Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons. . .” The Didache 15.1.

[6] Kenneth J. Howell, “Three Frameworks for Interpreting the Church Fathers,” Called to Communion, December 12, 2012, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/12/three-frameworks-for-interpreting-the-church-fathers/. Howell, a Catholic convert, cites liberal Protestants such as Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, and Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers, as representative of those who question the universality of Ignatius’ views. Though there are different lists of epistles attributed to Ignatius, and their authenticity has been contested at various points in history, it is now generally conceded that the seven epistles referenced by Eusebius, and only those seven—i.e. Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp—are authentic. See also the introduction to “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch” in  E. Glenn Hinson, ed., The Early Church Fathers (Christian Classics; Nashville: Broadman Press, 1980), 123–26. The following website provides additional information on the history of the controversy related to the authenticity of the writings attributed to Ignatius: http://www.nndb.com/people/718/000094436/.

]7] Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8:1–2. See also To the Ephesians 2:2; 5:3; 6:1; To the Trallians 2:1–3; 3:1; 7:2; 12:2; 13:2; To Polycarp 6:1. Ignatius, To the Philadelphians, Greeting; 3:2; 7:1; 8:1. Ignatius, To the Magnesians 3:1; 6:1–2; 7:1; 13:1–2.

[8] Howell, “Three Frameworks for Interpreting the Church Fathers.”

[9] Hinson, The Early Church Fathers, 125–26.

[10] Polycarp, To the Philippians, Greeting.

[11] Ibid., 13:2.

[12] Ibid., 5:3. “Wherefore it is necessary to refrain from all these things, and to be subject to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ.”

[13] Hinson, The Early Church Fathers, 126.

[14] Ignatius, To the Philadelphians 4:1; To the Ephesians 5:2.

[15] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10.2–3.

[16] Ibid., 1.10.1. “The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and [His] future manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess,’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.”

[17] Ibid., 3.2.1–2; 3.3.1. Several centuries later, Vincent of Lérins (died c. 445) extrapolated this catholic approach toward biblical interpretation further: “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.” Vincent of Lérins, Commonitory 2.6.

[18] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2. It is curious that, a few years later, Tertullian, in The Prescription Against Heretics 32, makes essentially the same argument, but places Clement as the first bishop of Rome (after Peter), and not Linus.

[19] Ibid., 3.3.4.

[20] Eusebius, Church History 5.24.9–11. In the same context, Eusebius, in Church History 5.24.16–17, records a similar disagreement between Polycarp and Anicetus, an earlier occupant in the list of bishops of Rome: “And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.”

[21] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; 3.3.2.

[22] Robert Jewett, quoted on the cover of Lampe, Christians at Rome.

[23] Lampe, Christians at Rome, 397–98.

[24] Ibid., 404–06. Lampe explains further: “Above all, the framework . . . points in the direction of a fictive construction. The names that were woven into the construction were certainly not freely invented but were borrowed from the tradition of the city of Rome (for example, ‘Clement’ or the brother of Hermas, ‘Pius’). They had belonged to presbyters of Roman church history. These persons, however, would never have understood themselves as monarchical leaders—especially Pius at the time of Hermas,” 406.

[25] For an explanation of the development of the monarchical episcopacy in Rome, see Lampe, pp. 402–408. In the time of Cyprian, in the Roman Church, under the bishopric of Cornelius, “there were forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two ostiarii, and over one thousand five hundred widows and persons in distress.” John Chapman, “Pope Cornelius,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, (ed. Charles George Herbermann, et al.: New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913), 376.

[26] See, for example, Julio Campos, Obras de San Cipriano (Madrid: BAC, 1964), 50. “With regard to the order and operation of the Universal Church, Cyprian is faithful to the sense and spirit of primitive Christianity. He views the Church as a network or set of distinct communities, with equal rights, and independent of each other in their administration, but united by a moral and spiritual bond, manifested visibly through the agreement of the bishops on matters of faith and charity.” Translation mine. Original: “En el orden y funcionamiento de la Iglesia Universal es fiel Cipriano al sentido y espíritu del cristianismo primitivo. Considera la Iglesia como una red o conjunto de comunidades distintas, iguales en derechos e independientes entre sí en su administración, pero unidas por un lazo moral y espiritual, manifestado visiblemente por la concordia de los obispos en la fe y en la caridad.”

[27] See Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church 3 (ANF 5:422).

[28] As Bryan Cross points out, the statements of Optatus (and other post-Constantinian Church leaders) are clearly on the side of a visible, hierarchical unity expressed through the so-called Chair of St. Peter as occupied by the bishop of Rome. On this point, he is no doubt correct. It is important, however, to be able to demonstrate that pre-Constantinian voices, such as that of Cyprian, though similar in some outward aspects, are not saying the same thing. Note, for example, Cross’s argument, which the Protestant apologist must take into consideration: “In the face of such evidence, the only recourse for the Protestant who wishes to remain Protestant is to propose that on account of ecclesial deism, at some point prior to the time of St. Optatus, men had wrongfully and universally imposed a visible hierarchy on the Church, treating what Christ had established to be something invisible, as though it were something visible and essentially unified in a visible hierarchical structure. The Protestant who seeks to remain Protestant must propose that the essential unity of the hierarchy of the Church and the role of the Chair of St. Peter in that hierarchical unity, to which St. Optatus refers in his writings against the Donatists, are man-made constructs that were universally imposed on the Church at some point after the death of the Apostles and prior to the time of St. Optatus.” Bryan Cross, “St. Optatus on Schism and the Bishop of Rome,” Called to Communion, June 1, 2011, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/.

[29] Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church 4, 422. “The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, ‘I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” [Here is interpolated]: “And the primacy is given to Peter, that there might be shown one Church of Christ and one See; and they are all shepherds, and the Rock is one, which is fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent.” . . . “Does he who strives against and resists the Church”—[Here is interpolated]: “Who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded,”—“trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity…”

[30] Bryan Cross, “St. Cyprian on the Unity of the Catholic Church,” Called to Communion, n.d., http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/st-cyprian-on-the-unity-of-the-church/.

[31] José Grau, Catolicismo Romano: Orígenes y Desarrollo, Tomo I, Segunda Edición (Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1987), 77. Translation mine. Original: “Cualquier obispo podía dirigirse a la Iglesia de Roma de igual a igual, como colega, y pedir la revisión de su opinión particular sobre una cuestión en la que otras Iglesias se habían pronunciado diferentemente. Por supuesto que, de la misma manera que Roma no podía imponer sus decisiones a las demás cristiandades, así tampoco éstas podían exigir a Roma un cambio de actitud u opinión si ésta no accedía a ello por su propia voluntad. No hemos de olvidar nunca el contexto histórico de cada acontecimiento. La Iglesia del siglo III, eminentemente episcopal y conciliar, encontraba expresada su unidad en la mutua comunicación e intercambio libre de las diferentes comunidades entre sí.” For quotes from Cyprian demonstrating this point, see, for example, Epistle 72, 26 (to Jubaianus): “These things, dearest brother, I have briefly written to you, according to my abilities, prescribing to none, and prejudging none, so as to prevent any one of the bishops doing what he thinks well, and having the free exercise of his judgment”; and Epistle 71, 3 (to Stephen himself): “We have brought these things, dearest brother, to your knowledge, for the sake of our mutual honour and sincere affection; believing that, according to the truth of your religion and faith, those things which are no less religious than true will be approved by you. But we know that some will not lay aside what they have once imbibed, and do not easily change their purpose; but, keeping fast the bond of peace and concord among their colleagues, retain certain things peculiar to themselves, which have once been adopted among them. In which behalf we neither do violence to, nor impose a law upon, any one, since each prelate has in the administration of the Church the exercise of his will free, as he shall give an account of his conduct to the Lord.”

[32] Campos, Obras de San Cipriano, 53–54, quoted in Grau, 77–78. Translation mine. Original: “Para él (Cipriano), pues, la cátedra de Pedro es el principio y origen de la concordia episcopal. Tiene cierta actitud de deferencia respetuosa, como debiendo notificar a Cornelio de Roma los asuntos de mayor importancia (Ep. 59:9). . . . esta deferencia para comunicar a Roma las consecuencias graves de Cartago no es un reconocimiento jurisdiccional, sino el procedimiento de la comunicación concorde que notifica a otros obispos, pero sobre todo al primer obispo de la cristiandad, con preferencia a otros. . . El modo de obrar a este respecto se manifestó con toda espontaneidad y conciencia en la controversia sobre el bautismo de los herejes frente al papa Esteban, cuyas pretensiones de imponerse combatió y con su actitud enérgica arrastró con él a la Iglesia de Africa. Para apoyar su actitud trata de demostrar que Cristo al dirigirse a Pedro se refería solamente a la unidad de la Iglesia; que el poder atribuído a Pedro también fue otorgado a todos los apóstoles y de ellos pasó a los obispos, como se ha dicho en el De Unitate. Debemos, pues, concluir y deducir que Cipriano concedía a la iglesia de Roma y a su obispo una primacía, pero de antigüedad y de preeminencia de honor, no de jurisdicción y poder. Ciertamente, no estaban claros ni definidos el carácter y límites de esta preeminencia general, que desde su germen evangélico, que alega varias veces él mismo irá germinando y consolidándose como signo y centro visible de la unidad de la Iglesia universal, de la que fue defensor acérrimo.”

[33] Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74, 6 (From Firmilian to Cyprian): “But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone; Epistle 74, 17: “And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. . . . Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace . . . And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice; Epistle 74, 24: “For what strifes and dissensions have you [Stephen] stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all”; Epistle 74, 25: “How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and warnings of the apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind and meekness! For what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord: at one time with the eastern churches, as we are sure you know; at another time with yon who are in the south, from whom he received bishops as messengers sufficiently patiently and meekly not to receive them even to the speech of an ordinary conference; and even more, so mindful of love and charity as to command the entire fraternity, that no one should receive them into his house, so that not only peace and communion, but also a shelter and entertainment, were denied to them when they came! This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects from his brethren, and to rebel against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord! With such a man can there be one Spirit and one body, in whom perchance there is not even one mind, so slippery, and shifting, and uncertain is it?”; Epistle 74, 26: “And yet Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.”

[34] Grau, 88.

[35] Ibid., 89–90.

[36] Ibid., 104.

[37] Comment from Bryan Cross in response to Matt Yonke, “‘Too catholic to be Catholic?’ A Response to Peter Leithart,” Called to Communion, May 24, 2012, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/.

[38] Grau, 111.

[39] Ibid., 112–13. See also Paul VI, Lumen gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican Web site, November 21, 1964, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html, sec. 22.

[40] Grau, 134–35. Translation mine. Original: “Atanasio apela a la Escritura, a los antiguos padres, a los concilios y, sobre todo, a Nicea, pero nunca al juicio infalible del obispo de Roma. . . . Atanasio no sólo era ignorante del magisterio infalible del obispo romano, sino también de su supremacía y jurisdicción.”

[41] For a long list of quotes along this line, see Bryan Cross, “The Chair of St. Peter,” Called to Communion, February 22, 2011, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/the-chair-of-st-peter/.

[42] Grau, 183.

[43] Ibid., 185. Translation mine. Original: “León I recogió toda esta herencia de privilegios y aspiraciones, y aprovechando las especiales coyunturas de su tiempo histórico pudo empezar a bosquejar aquella grandiosa institución del Papado que en la Edad Media se impuso como regla universal a la Iglesia.”

[44] Though, undeniably, from a Catholic perspective, the Great Schism of 1054 is a crucial, and even watershed, development, since this paper focuses particularly on the development of the concept of unity as it relates specifically to relationships between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, we will bypass further comment on it at this time.

[45] Wendell Holmes Rone, The Baptist Faith and Roman Catholicism (Middletown, Ky.: Western Recorder, 1952), 32–33. Cf. Grau, 254–59.

[46] The terms visible and invisible, while commonly used to describe the differences between Catholic and Protestant approaches to unity, are problematic inasmuch as they are potentially misleading and tend to obscure the fact that for Protestants so-called invisible unity has visible repercussions with regard to real relationships with real people and even church structures. The following statement from ECT captures much of this nuance as well: “Although Catholics believe that the Church is visible in its universal dimension and not only in local congregations, we as Catholics and Evangelicals together affirm the statement of Amsterdam 2000: ‘The Church is the people of God, the body and the bride of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Spirit. The one, universal Church is a transnational, transcultural, transdenominational, and multi-ethnic family, the household of faith. In the widest sense, the Church includes all the redeemed of all the ages, being the one body of Christ extended throughout time as well as space. Here in the world, the Church becomes visible in all local congregations that meet to do together the things that according to the Scripture the Church does. Christ is the head of the Church. Everyone who is personally united to Christ by faith belongs to his body and by the Spirit is united with every other true believer in Jesus.’” Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Communion of Saints,” First Things (March 2003), http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-communion-of-saints-17. The following quote from ERCDOM is also helpful on this point: “Evangelicals, like Catholics, recognize the value of worldwide fellowship, but because of different theological presuppositions and different interpretations of certain biblical passages, they have a different view of the relationship between the universal church and local churches. Evangelicals understand by ‘universal church’ all those everywhere and in all ages who believe and trust in Christ for salvation. ‘All’ includes believing Roman Catholics. Evangelicals have made use of Luther’s distinction between the church invisible and the church visible. They affirm the universal church whose bond of unity, the Spirit of Christ, is invisible (Eph 4:3-4); they stress incorporation by ‘faith alone,’ a faith by which all share in the gift of the Spirit (Gal 3:2). Christ, however, also willed the founding of visible churches into which people are incorporated by (water) baptism. While primarily local, these congregations may seek federations and alliances as means to express the universal character of the church’s nature and mission.”  The International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993 - 2002), Church, Evangelization, and the Bonds of Koinonia, A Report of the International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993–2002), Vatican Web site, December 20, 2011, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/evangelicals-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20111220_report-1993-2002_en.html, sec. 33.

[47] See, for example, Scott Manetsch’s reference to Calvin on this point: “Because of this understanding of the Church, Calvin strenuously rejects Catholic claims that the Protestant reformers are schismatics or innovators. In Calvin’s view, the Protestants did not break the spiritual unity of the Christian Church; rather, they are defending the Apostolic message of the gospel and the purity of Christ’s Church. Calvin makes this point forcefully in his treatise On the Necessity of Reforming the Church: ‘It is not enough, therefore, simply to throw out the name of Church, but judgment must be used to ascertain which is the true church, and what is the nature of its unity. And the thing necessary to attend to, first of all, is, to beware of separating the Church from Christ its head. When I say Christ, I include the doctrine of his gospel, which he sealed with his blood. . . . [The] uniform characteristics of a well-ordered Church are the preaching of sound doctrine and the pure administration of the Sacraments.’” Scott M. Manetsch, “Is the Reformation Over? John Calvin, Roman Catholicism, and Contemporary Ecumenical Conversations,” Themelios 36, no. 2 (August 2011), http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/is_the_reformation_over_john_calvin_roman_catholicism_and_contemporary. Cf. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 53. “While the schism called unity into question, the Reformation made some reformulation of the mark of unity a necessity. The Protestant Reformers continued to affirm their faith in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, but they gave the four marks an interpretation quite different than that of the Catholic Church. They were not in fellowship with the bishop of Rome, but they claimed a spiritual unity with all those who were part of the invisible church, composed of all those truly saved.”

[48] Cf., on this point, however, Cross, “St. Cyprian on the Unity of the Church”: “This is why there is no such thing as being a small ‘c’ catholic, rather than a Catholic. The idea of being a small ‘c’ catholic presupposes that visible unity is not essential to the Church’s unity, and hence that one can simply pick and choose from whichever historical doctrines and traditions that agree with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. The person claiming to be a small ‘c’ catholic is affirming an invisible-church ecclesiology, and thus reducing the faith to an arbitrarily-defined ‘mere Christianity.’”

[49] Cross, “St. Cyprian on the Unity of the Catholic Church.” According to Cross, “Addressing the question of unity as a mark of the Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject states the following: ‘The Catholic conception of the mark of unity, which must characterize the one Church founded by Christ, is far more exacting. Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government. Hence the Church which has Christ for its founder is not to be characterized by any merely accidental or internal spiritual union, but, over and above this, it must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself.’” Bryan Cross, “The ‘Catholics are Divided Too’ Objection,” Called to Communion, November 25, 2012, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/the-catholics-are-divided-too-objection/, quoting Charles J. Callan, “Unity (as a Mark of the Church)” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 15, (ed. Charles George Herbermann, et al.: New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913), 181.

[50] John H. Armstrong, A View of Rome (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 32.

[51] Cross, “The Chair of St. Peter.”

[52] Pius IV, Bull for the Celebration of the Council of Trent, EWTN Web site, November 30, 1560, http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT17.HTM.

[53] Cf., for example, the following statements: “Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration”; “Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification. Some were not simply pointless. They remain for us ‘salutary warnings’ to which we must attend in our teaching and practice.” Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Vatican Web site, October 31, 1999, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html, sec. 41–42.

[54] Pius IX, Mortalium animos, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ, EWTN Web site, July 18, 1870, http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6, Chapter 4, “On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff.”

[55] Gustave Weigel, S.J., A Catholic Primer on the Ecumenical Movement (Woodstock Papers No. 1; Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1959), 36.

[56] Ibid., 48–49.

[57] Cf. ibid., 50–51: “The Catholic takes seriously the prayer of Christ ‘that all may be one.’ But he desires thereby the ever greater union of Catholics among themselves and the introduction of the ‘other sheep,’ Christ’s by uncovenanted mercies, into the one fold, so that there will be but one fold and one shepherd. By Catholic faith every Catholic is intensely ecumenist. However, when ecumenism is understood as the current phenomenon best observed in the World Council of Churches, then Catholic ambivalence begins to manifest itself . . . He need not see the World Council as something strange and disturbing; for the Instruction of the Holy Office did not hesitate to call it the fruit of the inspiration of grace. In consequence, the Catholic’s love, good wishes, and prayers move toward the World Council. But here the ambivalence goes to work. He does not want the World Council to continue in definitive existence. He wants it to bring all of its churches into the Catholic Church. He considers the Council good and grace-inspired insofar as it will bring the ‘other sheep’ into the fold of the one Shepherd, visibly represented by His one vicar. He does not at all consider it good if it will only serve to stabilize the alienation of the ‘other sheep.’”

[58] John Paul II, Ut unum sint, Encyclical letter on commitment to ecumenism, Vatican Web site, May 25, 1995, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html, sec. 3. The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism reads: “The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.” Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Web site, November 21, 1964, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html, sec. 4.

[59] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegratio, 1.

[60] Ibid., 3.

[61] Ibid. This same section of the Decree on Ecumenism also affirms the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration: “All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body.” What is not specified is whether those (such as Baptists) who do not believe that justification occurs in baptism itself are included in this number. Sec. 22, treating with further detail the subject of baptism and salvation, states that, in order to be considered valid, baptism must be “duly administered as Our Lord instituted it,” and “received with the right dispositions.”

[62] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegratio, 3; Paul VI, Lumen gentium, 15, echoes this same line of thought.

[63] Paul VI, Lumen gentium, 16.

(64] Ibid., 14.

[65] Bryan Cross, “Baptism, Schism, Full Communion, Salvation,” Principium Unitatis, October 11, 2008, http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/10/baptism-schism-full-communion-salvation.html.

[66] John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 11; cf. Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 13, 15. For this reason, there are more open avenues for ecumenical advance between the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches than Protestants in general, and Protestant groups that teach baptismal regeneration (i.e. Lutherans) than those that do not (i.e., Baptists).

[67] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 4. For additional references on the special priority of and guidelines related to common prayer, see sec. 8; John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 21–22.

[68] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 12.

[69] Ibid., 4. Notice, in this context, however, the following statement by Avery Dulles: “The goal of corporate reunion, leading to a single religious family, is quite legitimate for groups that have a large common heritage, as do, for example, Orthodox and Catholics. But that goal is neither realistic nor desirable for communities as widely separated as evangelicals and Catholics. For the present and foreseeable future the two will continue to constitute distinct religious families.” Avery Dulles, S.J., “The Unity for Which We Hope,” in Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ed by. Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus; Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995), 143. On the present impossibility and ultimate goal of celebrating the Eucharist together with all Christians, see also John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 45; John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Encyclical letter on the Eucharist and its relationship to the Church, Vatican Web site, April 17, 2003, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html, sec. 44.

[70] Alan Schreck, Catholic and Christian: An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books, 1984), 136; cf. Paul VI, Lumen gentium, 3; Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 2; John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 40.

[71] Cf. Paul VI, Lumen gentium, 8: “This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.” Cf. also John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 18: “Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council, the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform. Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth.”

[72] Paul VI, Lumen gentium, 13. The Council was also careful to emphasize the role of each of the bishops in maintaining unity at the level of local churches. See Ibid., 23.

[73] The reign of John Paul I lasted only 33 days.

[74] Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir, “Ecumenism in Pontificate of John Paul II,” EWTN Web site, October 15, 2003, http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ECUMENSM.HTM.

[75] John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 42. He also broadens the terminology slightly by referring to them as “other Christians,” “others who have received Baptism,” and “Christians of other Communities,” and to the groups they represent as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

[76] Ibid., 2. Cf. sec. 38: “In this regard, ecumenical dialogue, which prompts the parties involved to question each other, to understand each other and to explain their positions to each other, makes surprising discoveries possible. Intolerant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality. Nowadays we need to find the formula which, by capturing the reality in its entirety, will enable us to move beyond partial readings and eliminate false interpretations.”

[77] Ibid., 40.

[78] Ibid., 55. Cf. sec. 77, 88, 94, and 97 for statements reaffirming the visible unity of the Church as manifested through communion with and submission to the Bishop of Rome.

[79] Ibid., 14.

[80] Benedict XVI, “First message of Pope Benedict XVI at the end of Mass with the Cardinal electors,” Vatican Web site, April 20, 2005, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/pont-messages/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20050420_missa-pro-ecclesia_en.html, sec. 5.

[81] Ibid., 1, 2, 5, 6.

[82] The International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993–2002), 21.

[83] Armstrong, 113. It is important to point out that Armstrong has softened his view quite a bit since writing these words! Loraine Boettner’s words (echoing the beliefs of many others), however, are even more forceful: “[Rome’s] interpretation of the Scriptures is so erroneous, and its principles are so persistently unchristian that over the long period of time its influence for good is outweighed by its influence for evil. It must, therefore, as a system, be judged to be a false church.” Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962), 459.

[84] Charles Hodge, “The General Assembly,” Princeton Review 17 (July 1845): 471, cited in Mark A Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 44.

[85] i.e., the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, and Athanasian Creed, although the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts the Nicene Creed, but does not use the Apostles’ Creed or the Athanasian Creed, and the United Methodist Church accepts the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed but does not use the Athanasian Creed. Also, certain phrases, however, such as “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins,” are understood differently by different groups of Christians.

[86] Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution on Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics,” SBC Web site, June 1994, http://sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=964.

[87] The International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993–2002), 20.

[88] Keith A. Fournier, A House United? (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1994), 220–21.

[89] Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution on Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics.”

[90] Ibid.

[91] Evangelicals & Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,” First Things (May 1994), http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/evangelicals--catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2.

[92] The Prologue to the Catechism states its role in determining authoritative Catholic doctrine: “This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 11. A later section defines heresy: “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 2089.

[93] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 11.

[94] Schreck, 9–10. On this point, see also, George Carey, A Tale of Two Churches: Can Protestants and Catholics Get Together? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 160; Peter Kreeft, “Ecumenical Jihad,” in Reclaiming the Great Tradition (ed James S. Cutsinger; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 26.

[95] Schreck, 10.

[96] From a Catholic perspective (informed by years as a Lutheran), Richard John Neuhaus minimizes this difference: “In two thousand years of Christian history, the gospel has been construed in different ways. Different ways does not mean conflicting or incompatible ways.” Richard John Neuhaus, “The Catholic Difference,” in Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ed. Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus; Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995), 205.

[97] Basil Meeking and John Stott, eds., The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission 1977-1984: A Report (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 89.

[98] “Five Solas,” Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity, n.d., http://www.theopedia.com/Five_Solas.

[99] C. Michael Patton, “What Sola Scriptura Does NOT Mean,” Parchment & Pen Blog, October 28, 2011, http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/10/what-sola-scriptura-does-not-mean/.

[100] See, for example, Paul VI, Dei verbum, Dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Vatican Web site, November 18, 1965, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html, sec. 11: “Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings.”

[101] For a good list of quotes from Early Church Fathers supporting sola Scriptura, see C. Michael Patton, “Early Church Fathers on Sola Scriptura,” Parchment & Pen Blog, November 26, 2012, http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/11/early-church-fathers-on-sola-sciptura/; for a Catholic perspective, see Sean Patrick, “Is Scripture Sufficient?,” Called to Communion, October 15, 2010, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/is-scripture-sufficient/..

[102] Thomas G. Guarino, “Catholic Reflections on Discerning the Truth of Sacred Scripture,” in Your Word Is Truth (ed. Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 92–93.

[103] Chris Castaldo, “Why Catholics and Protestants Convert”, Chris Castaldo blog, November 20, 2012, http://www.chriscastaldo.com/2012/11/20/why-catholics-and-protestants-convert/.

[104] “Five Solas.”

[105] Noll and Nystrom, 237.

[106] Meeking and Stott, 43–44.

[107] Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1928), 103, cited in Neuhaus, “The Catholic Difference,” 208. Neuhaus gives his perspective on the Catholic position as follows: “The gospel is not a theological proposition or a free-floating idea that touches down here or there, bringing into being the Church wherever it momentarily rests. The gospel is the memory, the message, and the lived experience of a determinate people through time, and that people is the Church. The gospel is God in Christ continuing to reconcile the world to himself through that part of the world that is the Church, the body of Christ.” Ibid. Regarding different understandings of the church, cf. “Your Word Is Truth: Evangelicals and Catholics Together.”

[108] Paul VI, Lumen gentium, 14.

[109] “Five Solas.”

[110] See, for example, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 2008, 2010, and 2011. Cf. Schreck, 27. “Catholics understand that our ‘good works’ or ‘merits’ are really God’s gifts or graces”; Fournier, 218. “Merits are the good works we perform by God’s grace through the virtues of faith, hope, and love. These virtues are supernatural gifts. Therefore, whatever flows from them occurs because God has made it possible”; Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 20. C. Michael Patton voices an Evangelical (and comparatively conciliatory) perspective on this point: “Put it this way: Heaven will not be inhabited by anyone who contributed to their justification. Some will get to heaven and they will find out how radical grace really was. In fact, I think all Christians will be overwhelmed by grace. The sanctification process, in some ways, can be summed up as this: the progressive realization that grace (undeserved and unmerited favor) is our only hope. I don’t think any of us really grasp this. Therefore, both Protestants and Roman Catholics will stand before God with a greater realization and confidence that our works had nothing to do with our present state of eternal blessedness. Roman Catholics will have a bigger learning curve than Protestants, in my opinion, but both of us will be overwhelmed by what grace really is. Most Roman Catholics will have a sudden realization that it truly was their faith in Christ alone that justified (Eph. 2:8-9).” C. Michael Patton, “Are Roman Catholics Saved?,” Parchment & Pen Blog, March 28, 2012, http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/03/are-roman-catholics-christian/.

[111] Though many Evangelicals would not concede the point that the Catholic Church does, in fact, teach sola gratia, the issues at stake are more readily grasped through the lens of the discussion of sola fide, and the ancillary issue of the efficacy and need for sacraments as channels of grace. Thus, I will leave the discussion on sola gratia very brief and inconclusive, for the time being.

[112] “Five Solas.”

[113] See, for example, Schreck, 24: “Receiving the sacraments, observing church teaching, and using the other means of grace are meaningless without a living faith in God”; and 26: “The Council of Trent affirmed that the first and most important way to receive God’s gift of salvation or justification is through faith.”

[114] We will revisit the nuances involved in the Catholic affirmation of sola fide in a subsequent discussion of the documents of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

[115] See Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 1. For a brief discussion on the origin of the phrase articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, see Justin Taylor, “Luther’s Saying: ‘Justification Is the Article by Which the Church Stands and Falls’,” Between Two Worlds, August 31, 2011, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/08/31/luthers-saying/.

[116] Alister McGrath gives the following explanation: “For the Roman Catholic . . . justification means both the event by which the Christian life is initiated and the process by which the believer is regenerated. In other words, the Catholic understands by justification what the Protestant understands by justification and sanctification taken together. Thus, theologically, Protestants and Roman Catholics, more or less, believe the same things regarding God’s active role in both initiating and sustaining the Christian life; however, this convergence is obscured by the different understandings of the term justification.” Alister E. McGrath, “A Review of the New Catholic Catechism,” Christianity Today (December12, 1994): 28–32.

[117] Schreck, 23. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 1229: “From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages.”

[118] Neuhaus, “The Catholic Difference,” 204, 210.

[119] See, for example, Thomas Guarino’s discussion of Colson’s notion that the Catholic Church has actually changed its position on sola fide in Thomas G. Guarino, “A Catholic Appreciation of Chuck Colson,” First Things: On the Square, May 1, 2012, http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/05/a-catholic-appreciation-of-chuck-colson.

[120] Manetsch, “Is the Reformation Over?”

[121] Neuhaus, “The Catholic Difference,” 207.

[122] Armstrong, 36. Cf. J. I. Packer: “What brings salvation, after all, is not any theory about faith in Christ, justification, and the church, but faith itself in Christ himself,” cited in Noll and Nystrom, 180.

[123] Noll and Nystrom, 180.

[124] Kreeft, 27.

[125] See, for example, Michael S. Horton, Evangelicals, Catholics, and Unity (Escondido, Calif.: White Horse Inn: 2012); R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). William Webster, Salvation: The Bible and Roman Catholicism (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990).

[126] Robert M. Zins, On the Edge of Apostasy (Huntsville, Ala.: White Horse Publications, 1998), 259.

[127] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 1129.

[128] Schreck, 119.

[129] The Seventh Session, Canon VI, reads: “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers: let him be anathema”; Canon VIII: “If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.” “The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,” in Philip Schaff, ed. The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, Vol. II (rev. David S. Schaff; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1983), 120–21.

[130] Armstrong, 70.

[131] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 1213. Cf. 1267.

[132] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 22.

[133] See Fifth Session, Canon V; Seventh Session, Canon IX; On Baptism, Canons III, V, and XIII, in “The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,” in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, 87–88, 120, 122–25. The preponderance of references on the issue from post-apostolic early church sources, admittedly, favors the Catholic teaching on baptismal regeneration. Bryan Cross, for example, provides a substantial list of quotes to back this up: Bryan Cross, “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration,” Called to Communion, June 15, 2010, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-church-fathers-on-baptismal-regeneration/. A notable exception is the argument put forth in An Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism (ANF 5:669–676).

[134] See footnote 55.

[135] Note, for example, the following statement: “We have been agreeably surprised to discover a considerable consensus among us that repentance and faith, conversion and baptism, regeneration and incorporation into the Christian community all belong together, although we have needed to debate their relative positions in the scheme of salvation.” Meeking and Stott, 57. A. A. Hodge describes the ordo salutis from Roman Catholic and Evangelical perspectives as follows: “The ordo salutis, therefore, according to the Catholic system, is, (1) Baptism; (2) The cleansing away of pollution of sin; (3) The infusion of gracious habits; (4) The exercise of these gracious habits in the doing of good works, which merit the favor of God, increase of grace, and finally eternal life; (5) The sacrament of penance in this life, and after death purgatory, by the pains of which the penalties incurred by our sins and the imperfections of our obedience are liquidated, and our guilt expiated, and the legal accounts of our souls finally adjusted. The order observed in the application of redemption in the theology of the Reformers is, (1) Regeneration; (2) Faith; (3) Justification.” A. A. Hodge, “The Ordo Salutis,” The Princeton Review 1 (1878): 305.

[136] The language of Baptist–Roman Catholic dialogues on this point, though generally polite and conciliatory, bears this out. See, for example, Baptist Roman Catholic International Conversations (1984-1988), Vatican Web site, July 23, 1988, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/Bapstist%20alliance/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19880723_baptist-convers_en.html, sec. 18.

[137] J. O. Hosler, The Baptismal Regeneration/Believer’s Baptism Debate (Infinity Publishing.com, 1999), 202–03.

[138] “Five Solas.”

[139] Vatican Web site, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/index.htm.

[140] In some cases, this overlap is greater, and in other cases, less..

[141] Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 13.

[142] Ibid., 15.

[143] See Ibid., 11, 25, 28. Zins, for example, is especially direct in his criticism of both Rome and Luther on the point of baptismal regeneration: “It makes it almost impossible to torpedo the Roman ship of sacramental regeneration when one is worried about taking out Luther as well”; “We also think it unwise to call upon Luther as a bridge to help us adjust to Romish thinking and to lend an air of credibility to Rome. . . . Likewise today, it is not that Rome is closer to the Gospel because some Lutherans believe similarly to Rome. Rather, it is that some Lutherans have strayed farther from the truth in their desire to enter into affinity with heresies of Rome.” Zins, 91, 96.

[144] Noll and Nystrom, 141. As Hosler has also observed, “Though Wesley correctly distinguished between baptism and regeneration, he clearly believed that regeneration and salvation began at baptism.” Hosler, 209.

[145] Hosler, 214.

[146] According to one ECT statement, “It must be added that ECT is an unofficial initiative. We speak from and to the communities of which we are part, but we do not presume to speak for them. We wholeheartedly support the several official theological dialogues between Evangelicals and Catholics. ECT is an ancillary initiative, serving as a kind of advance scouting party to explore possibilities, and, as such, has received much appreciated encouragement from many sources, both Evangelical and Catholic.” Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Communion of Saints.” Also, “As in previous statements, we wish to emphasize that we speak from and to, not for, our several communities, and that we are determined honestly to engage differences between our communities, recognizing that the only unity pleasing to God, and therefore the only unity we may seek, is unity in the truth.” Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life,” First Things (November 2009), http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life.

[147] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Communion of Saints.”

[148] Charles Colson, “The Common Cultural Task: The Culture War from a Protestant Perspective,” in Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ed by. Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus; Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995), 36

[149] Ibid.

[150] Neuhaus, “The Catholic Difference,” 179.

[151] Ibid.

[152] J. I. Packer, “Crosscurrents among Evangelicals,” in Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ed by. Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus; Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995), 165.

[153] Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, eds., Evangelicals and Catholics Together (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995), xi. See also, Noll and Nystrom, 152–54.

[154] Colson and Neuhaus, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, x–xi; Noll and Nystrom, 181.

[155] According to Colson, in keeping with the argument put forth previously by Abraham Kuyper and J. Gresham Machen, in light of the threat of theological and social liberalism, “the controversies that divide us are far less significant than the common threat that confronts us” Colson, “The Common Cultural Task,” 38–40. For more on the influence of Kuyper, see Ibid., 39; and Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Communion of Saints.” J. I. Packer also puts forth the argument that the divide between theological conservatives and liberals is greater than that between traditional Protestants and Catholics. See Packer, “Crosscurrents among Evangelicals,” 171–72.

[156] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Communion of Saints.”

[157] Evangelicals & Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[158] Colson, “The Common Cultural Task,” 3. Cf. Pope John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 43: “It happens more and more often that the leaders of Christian Communities join together in taking a stand in the name of Christ on important problems concerning man’s calling and on freedom, justice, peace, and the future of the world. In this way they ‘communicate’ in one of the tasks which constitutes the mission of Christians: that of reminding society of God’s will in a realistic manner, warning the authorities and their fellow-citizens against taking steps which would lead to the trampling of human rights. It is clear, as experience shows, that in some circumstances the united voice of Christians has more impact than any one isolated voice.”

[159] Colson, “The Common Cultural Task,” 36–37.

[160] See, for example, Catholic ECT signatory Fournier: “I also believe that as we work together on social issues, we will discover how much we really do have in common. Our activist efforts will also open much-needed dialogue among us over our differences, and I pray that will eventually lead to the end of much, if not all, of the current suspicion, misunderstandings, and ill feelings between all too many of us. Then, perhaps, we will carry the gospel throughout the world as a single Body,” 267.

[161] Packer, “Crosscurrents among Evangelicals,” 172.

[162] Fournier, 75.

[163] Colson, “The Common Cultural Task,” 15–16.

[164] George Weigel, “Faith, Freedom, Responsibility: Evangelicals and Catholics in the Public Square” (ed by. Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus; Dallas: Word Publishing, 1985), 45–80; Kreeft, 23–24, 28–29, 33. The initial ECT statement on “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium” is more ambivalent on the subject of Islam, calling out the comparative lack of religious freedom in Muslim contexts, while at the same time advocating “Mutually respectful conversation between Muslims and Christians,” with the objective of opening “the door to Christ”; Evangelicals & Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[165] Richard John Neuhaus, “A New Thing: Ecumenism at the Threshold of the Third Millennium,” in Reclaiming the Great Tradition (ed by. James S. Cutsinger; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 54.

[166] Ibid.

[167] Colson, “The Common Cultural Task,” 16.

[168] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[169] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Gift of Salvation,” First Things (January 1998), http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/09/001-the-gift-of-salvation-28.

[170] Neuhaus, “The Catholic Difference,” 200.

]171] Noll and Nystrom, 159.

[172] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Gift of Salvation.”

[173] Ibid.

[174] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Communion of Saints.”

[175] Benedict XVI, “General Audience,” Vatican Web site, November 19, 2008, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html.

[176] Thomas G. Guarino, “A Catholic Appreciation of Chuck Colson,” First Things (May 1, 2012), http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/05/a-catholic-appreciation-of-chuck-colson.

[177] See Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Call to Holiness,” First Things (March 2005), http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-call-to-holiness--4. “Our different traditions, notwithstanding their doctrinal differences, agree that faith and baptism, as the sacrament of faith, belong together. Christian faith should always lead to baptism, and baptism, conversely, should always be accompanied by Christian faith. Baptism is mandated, not optional. It is the gateway to the Christian life. Some of our traditions reckon baptism as a sacrament of constitutive importance for Christian existence. Others see it rather as a sign and expression of a new Christian life already received. But on either view, baptism involves a lifelong engagement to grow in union with Christ and labor in the service of the gospel.”

[178] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[179] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “Your Word Is Truth,” First Things (September 2002), http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/your-word-is-truth-35.

[180] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Communion of Saints.”

[181] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life.”

[182] Baptist Roman Catholic International Conversations (1984-1988), 54.

[183] Ibid., 30.

[184] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Call to Holiness.”

[185] See Synod of Bishops XIII Ordinary General Assembly, The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith: Lineamenta, Vatican Web site, February 2, 2011, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20110202_lineamenta-xiii-assembly_en.html, sec. 7. “In this context, a ‘new evangelization’ means that the Church must convincingly sustain her efforts at uniting all Christians in a common witness to the world of the prophetic and transforming power of the Gospel message. Justice, peace, living with others and the stewardship of creation have characterized ecumenism over the decades. Together, Christians can also offer them to the world as places where the question of God in people’s lives can be addressed. These places, in fact, acquire their true significance only in light of and on the basis of the word of love spoken to us in his Son, Jesus Christ.”

[186] For a Catholic reflection on the difficulties of “common witness,” see, for example, Devin Rose, “A Catholic Reflection on John Armstrong’s Your Church is Too Small,” Called to Communion, March 5, 2012, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/a-catholic-reflection-on-john-armstrong%E2%80%99s-your-church-is-too-small/

[187] Here is a good example from “The Communion of Saints”: “While the ancient formula ‘Outside the Church no salvation’ may lend itself to misunderstanding, we agree that there is no salvation apart from the Church, since to be related to Christ is necessarily to be related, in however full or tenuous a manner, to the Church which is his body.”

[188] Evangelicals & Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[189] Noll and Nystrom, 179.

[190] ECT affirms this basic idea in “The Gift of Salvation”: “In obedience to the Great Commission of our Lord, we commit ourselves to evangelizing everyone. We must share the fullness of God’s saving truth with all, including members of our several communities. Evangelicals must speak the Gospel to Catholics and Catholics to Evangelicals.”

[191] Evangelicals & Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[192] The International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993–2002), 62. For a fuller description of ERCDOM’s understanding of the term proselytism, see p. 61.

[193] Evangelicals & Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[194] Ibid. Cf. also Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Call to Holiness”: “Whether as Catholics or as Evangelicals, we are spiritually responsible for fellow Christians. We should engage in mutual encouragement and correction, performing this duty with love and tact. All of us will be summoned in the end to give an account of our stewardship.”

[195] The International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993 - 2002), 63: “If a Christian, after hearing a responsible presentation of the Gospel, freely chooses to join a different Christian community, it should not automatically be concluded that such a transfer is the result of proselytism.”

[196] Patton, “Are Roman Catholics Saved?”

[197] Armstrong, 113.

[198] Zins, 124–25.

[199] Kreeft, 27.

[200] Fournier, 198. In similar quotes, Fournier calls Protestant missionary efforts directed toward Catholics “arrogant” (p. 195), and “terribly judgmental and narrow-minded” (p. 197).

[201] Dave Hunt, “The Gospel Betrayed,” Berean Call (May 1994) 2.

[202] Fournier, 313–14.

[203] Noll and Nystrom, 199.

[204] See, for example, Ephesians 4:11–16.

[205] Evangelicals & Catholics Together, "The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[206] ECT does, however, clarify its use of these terms in other places. It is clear in the context of ECT, for example, that “Christian,” in a general sense, includes both Evangelicals and Catholics. What is not so clear is whether specific evangelistic efforts targeting individuals who regard themselves as Catholics and were baptized in the Catholic Church automatically qualifies as “proselytism.”

[207] Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution on Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics.”

[208] Hunt, “The Gospel Betrayed.”

[209] Noll and Nystrom are particularly poignant (and pointed) on this point: “Is ECT more than an arm of the American religious Right with an add-on of theology? Does ECT’s cobelligerency equate to American conservative Republicanism?” Noll and Nystrom, 181. See also further comments along this line on pp. 181–182. Cf. Armstrong, A View of Rome, 111–12; 135–36. The framers of ECT I, however, plead innocent to this charge: “We reject the notion that this constitutes a partisan ‘religious agenda’ in American politics.” “Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.” Packer, in a soul-searching defense of his own decision to sign ECT I, acknowledges the ambiguity with regard to conversion, sacramentalism, and baptismal regeneration. Packer, “Crosscurrents among Evangelicals,” 155, 167, 169.

[210] Michael Horton, “Can We Be Confessional and Catholic?: Prospects for Christian Unity Today,” Modern Reformation, vol. 14, no. 5 (Sept./Oct. 2005): 9–18. http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=120&var3=main.

[211] Schreck, 2.

[212] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 7.

[213] John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 38.

[214] Ibid., 29.

[215] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 11.

[216] John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 36.

[217] Paul VI, Unitatis redintegatio, 24.

[218] Evangelicals & Catholics Together, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”

[219] Neuhaus, “A New Thing: Ecumenism at the Threshold of the Third Millennium,” 58.

[220] See, for example, Rose, “A Catholic Reflection on John Armstrong’s Your Church is Too Small”: “The Catholic Church teaches that the Church of Christ subsists in her. There is no ambiguity there and no way for that teaching to change. The Catholic Church teaches that full unity between Protestants and Catholics is achieved ultimately only through Protestants entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. That might be through means that allow them to retain authentic aspects of their patrimony—see the Anglican Ordinariate for an example—but it cannot mean agreeing to a unity that violates or falls short of the three visible bonds of unity, compromises any Catholic dogmas, or makes apostolic succession optional.”

[221] Paul VI, Lumen gentium, 23.

[222] Paul VI, “Speech to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Rome, April 29, 1967,” National Catholic Reporter, May 10, 1967.

[223] Gustave Weigel, 64–65.

[224] See footnote 1.

[225] p. 64.

[226] This once again raises the question mentioned in footnote 1 regarding the definition of Evangelical. Though several broad-based representative self-defined “Evangelical” organizations (such as the World Evangelical Fellowship, the Lausanne Movement, etc) have official doctrinal statements, as do various denominations and congregations that identify themselves as Evangelical, there is no official “Evangelical” doctrinal statement. What qualifies as Evangelical therefore inevitably involves a certain degree of subjectivity, though there is a large degree of agreement among leading groups of Evangelicals on the essentials.

[227] Gustave Weigel, 59–60.

[228] See Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011).

[229] Rose, “A Catholic Reflection on John Armstrong’s Your Church is Too Small.”

[230] Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “The Communion of Saints.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon. Protestants and Catholics: Do They Now Agree? Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1995. 

Armstrong, John H. A View of Rome. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995. 

“Baptist Roman Catholic International Conversations (1984-1988).” Vatican Web site. July 23, 1988. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/Bapstist%20alliance/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19880723_baptist-convers_en.html.

Benedict XVI. “First message of Pope Benedict XVI at the end of Mass with the Cardinal electors.” Vatican Web site. April 20, 2005. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/pont-messages/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20050420_missa-pro-ecclesia_en.html. 

---. “General Audience.” Vatican Web site. November 19, 2008. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html.

Boudreau, Albert H. The Born-Again Catholic. Hauppage, N. Y.: Living Flame Press, 1980.

Bugay, John. “The ‘real substance’ of Optatus of Mileve.” Triablogue. June 3, 2011. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/real-substance-of-optatus-of-mileve.html. 

Burgess, Joseph A. “Lutherans and the Papacy.” Pages 17–47 in A Pope for All Christians? Edited by Peter J. McCord. New York: Paulist Press, 1976.

Callan, Charles J., “Unity (as a Mark of the Church).” Pages 179–81 in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 15. Edited by Charles George Herbermann, et al. 15 vols. New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913), 181. 

Castaldo, Chris. “Why Catholics and Protestants Convert.” Chris Castaldo blog. November 20, 2012. http://www.chriscastaldo.com/2012/11/20/why-catholics-and-protestants-convert/. 

---. “The Disputable Indisputable Fact.” Chris Castaldo blog. November 1, 2012. http://www.chriscastaldo.com/2012/11/01/the-disputable-indisputable-fact/.

Chapman, John. “Pope Cornelius.” Page 375–76 in vol. 4 of The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4. Edited by Charles George Herbermann, et al. 15 vols. New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913.

Colson, Charles. “My Brother in Christ.” First Things. April 2009. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/006-my-brother-in-christ-13. 

Colson, Charles, and Richard John Neuhaus, eds. Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995. 

---. Your Word Is Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Colson, Charles. “The Common Cultural Task: The Culture War from a Protestant Perspective.” Pages 1–44 in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995.

Cross, Bryan. “Baptism, Schism, Full Communion, Salvation.” Principium Unitatis. October 11, 2008. http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/10/baptism-schism-full-communion-salvation.html. 

---. “Michael Horton on Schism as Heresy.” Called to Communion. October 6, 2011. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/michael-horton-on-schism-as-heresy/. 

---. “St. Clement of Rome: Soteriology and Ecclesiology.” Called to Communion. November 23, 2010. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/st-clement-of-rome-soteriology-and-ecclesiology/. 

---. “St. Cyprian on the Unity of the Catholic Church.” Called to Communion. September 16, 2012. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/st-cyprian-on-the-unity-of-the-church/ 

---. “St. Irenaeus on Justification.” Called to Communion. July 31, 2012. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/07/st-irenaeus-on-justification/. 

---. “St. Optatus on Schism and the Bishop of Rome.” Called to Communion. June 1, 2011. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/. 

---. “St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity of the Church.” Called to Communion. January 25, 2010. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/st-thomas-aquinas-on-the-unity-of-the-church/. 

---. “The ‘Catholics are Divided Too’ Objection.” Called to Communion. November 25, 2012. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/the-catholics-are-divided-too-objection/. 

---. “The Chair of St. Peter.” Called to Communion. February 22, 2011. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/the-chair-of-st-peter/.

---. “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.” Called to Communion. June 15, 2010. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-church-fathers-on-baptismal-regeneration/.

Cutsinger, James S., ed. Reclaiming the Great Tradition. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. 

De Chirico, Leonardo. “The Vatican’s Current Flight with Evangelicals.” Chris Castaldo blog December 19, 2011. http://www.chriscastaldo.com/2011/12/19/the-vaticans-current-flight-with-evangelicals/.

DeYoung, Kevin. “Five Key Concepts in the Reformation Understanding of Justification.” DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed. October 31, 2012. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/10/31/five-key-concepts-in-the-reformation-understanding-of-justification/. 

Dulles, S.J., Avery. “Papal Authority and Roman Catholicism.” Pages 48–70 in A Pope for All

Christians? New York: Paulist Press, 1976.

---. “The Unity for Which We Hope.” Pages 115–46 in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995.

---. “Who Can Be Saved?” First Things. February 2008. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8. 

Evangelicals and Catholics Together. “Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” First Things. November 2009. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life. 

---. “In Defense of Religious Freedom.” First Things. March 2012. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/02/in-defense-of-religious-freedom. 

---. “The Call to Holiness” First Things. March 2005. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-call-to-holiness-4. 

---. “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.” First Things. May 1994. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/evangelicals--catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2. 

---. “The Communion of Saints.” First Things. March 2003. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-communion-of-saints-17. 

---. “The Gift of Salvation.” First Things. January 1998. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/09/001-the-gift-of-salvation-28. 

---. “Your Word Is Truth.” First Things. September 2002. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/your-word-is-truth-35.

Fournier, Keith A. A House United? Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1994.

Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. 

George, Timothy. “An Evangelical Reflection on Scripture and Tradition.” Pages 9–34 in Your Word Is Truth. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. 

---. “Reformation Day.” First Things. October 31, 2012. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/10/reformation-day.

Grau, José. Catolicismo Romano: Orígenes y Desarrollo, Tomo I, Segunda Edición. Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1987. 

---. Catolicismo Romano: Orígenes y Desarrollo, Tomo II, Segunda Edición. Barcelona: Ediciones Evangélicas Europeas, 1987.

Guarino, Thomas G. “A Catholic Appreciation of Chuck Colson.” First Things: On the Square. May 1, 2012. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/05/a-catholic-appreciation-of-chuck-colson. 

---. “Catholic Reflections on Discerning the Truth of Sacred Scripture.” Pages 79–101 in Your Word Is Truth. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Hastings, C. Brownlow. “A Baptist View of Authority.” Pages 71–93 in A Pope for All Christians? New York: Paulist Press, 1976.

Helopoulos, Jason. “Disunity, Liberals, & Roman Catholicism.” DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed. November 16, 2012. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/11/16/leaving-the-church/?comments#comments.

Hinson, E. Glenn, ed. The Early Church Fathers. Christian Classics. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1980. 

Hodge, A. A. “The Ordo Salutis.” The Princeton Review 1 (1878): 304–21. 

Horton, Michael. “Can We Be Confessional and Catholic?: Prospects for Christian Unity Today.” Modern Reformation 14, no. 5 (September/October 2005): 9–18.

Hosler, J. O. The Baptismal Regeneration/Believer’s Baptism Debate. West Conshohocken, Pa.: Infinity Publishing, 1999.

Howell, Kenneth J. “Three Frameworks for Interpreting the Church Fathers.” Called to Communion. December 12, 2012. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/12/three-frameworks-for-interpreting-the-church-fathers/.

Hunt, Dave. “The Gospel Betrayed.” Berean Call (May 1994): 2. 

International Dialogue 1990–1997 between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders. Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness. The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue 1990–1997 between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders. Cyberjounal for Pentecostal Charismatic Research. 1997. http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj4/rcpent97.html.

John Paul II. Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Encyclical letter on the eucharist and its relationship to the Church. Vatican Web site. April 17, 2003. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html. 

---. Ut Unum Sint. Encyclical letter on commitment to Ecumenism. Vatican Web site. May 25, 1995. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html.

Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988.

Knox, Alan. “Following Ignatius.” The Assembling of the Church. October 1, 2008. http://www.alanknox.net/2008/10/following-ignatius/. 

---. “Gospel and Monoepiscopacy in Ignatius.” The Assembling of the Church. November 28, 2007. http://www.alanknox.net/2007/11/gospel-and-monoepiscopacy-in-ignatius/.

Kreeft, Peter. “Ecumenical Jihad.” Pages 13–38 in Reclaiming the Great Tradition. Edited by James S. Cutsinger. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Lampe, Peter. Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus. Edited by Marshall D. Johnson. Translated by Michael Steinhauser. London: T & T Clark International, 2003. 

Leithart, Peter. “Too catholic to be Catholic.” First Things: Peter Leithart. May 21, 2012. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2012/05/21/too-catholic-to-be-catholic/. 

Lutheran World Federation, and Roman Catholic Church. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Vatican Web site. October 31, 1999. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html. 

Manetsch, Scott M. “Is the Reformation Over? John Calvin, Roman Catholicism, and Contemporary Ecumenical Conversations.” Themelios 36, no. 2 (August 2011).

Meeking, Basil. Church, Evangelization, and the Bonds of Koinonia. A Report of the International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993–2002). Vatican Web site. December 20, 2011. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/evangelicals-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20111220_report-1993-2002_en.html. 

---. “Commentary Article on the Report Church, Evangelization, and the Bonds of Koinonia.” Vatican Web site. December 20, 2011. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/evangelicals-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20111220_comm-report-1993-2002_en.html.

Meeking, Basil, and John Stott, eds. The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission 1977–1984: A Report. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Neuhaus, Richard John. “A New Thing: Ecumenism at the Threshold of the Third Millennium.” Pages 47–60 in Reclaiming the Great Tradition. Edited by James S. Cutsinger. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. 

---. “The Catholic Difference.” Pages 175–227 in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995. 

Noll, Mark A. “The History of an Encounter.” Pages 81–114 in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995. 

Noll, Mark A, and Carolyn Nystrom. Is the Reformation Over? Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. 

Packer, J. I. “Crosscurrents among Evangelicals.” Pages 147–74 in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995. 

---. “On from Orr: Cultural Crisis, Rational Realism & Incarnational Ontology.” Pages 155–76 in Reclaiming the Great Tradition. Edited by James S. Cutsinger. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. 

---. “The Bible in Use: Evangelicals Seeking Truth from Holy Scripture.” Pages 59–78 in Your Word Is Truth. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Patrick, Sean. “Is Scripture Sufficient?” Called to Communion. October 15, 2010. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/is-scripture-sufficient/.

Patton, C. Michael. “Are Roman Catholics Saved?” Parchment & Pen Blog. March 28, 2012. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/03/are-roman-catholics-christian/. 

---. “Does the Roman Catholic Gospel Save?” Parchment & Pen Blog. April 4, 2012. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/04/does-the-roman-catholic-gospel-save-or-getting-the-gospel-righter/. 

---. “Early Church Fathers on Sola Sciptura.” Parchment & Pen Blog. November 26, 2012. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/11/early-church-fathers-on-sola-sciptura/. 

---. “What Sola Scriptura Does NOT Mean.” Parchment & Pen Blog. October 28, 2011. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/10/what-sola-scriptura-does-not-mean/.

Paul VI. Dei Verbum. Dogmatic constitution on divine revelation. Vatican Web site. November 18, 1965. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html. 

---. Lumen Gentium. Dogmatic constitution on the Church. Vatican Web site. November 21, 1964. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html. 

---. “Speech to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Rome, April 29, 1967.” National Catholic Reporter (May 10, 1967). 

---. Unitatis Redintegratio. Decree on ecumenism. Vatican Web site.November 21, 1964. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html.

Piper, John. “What Must Someone Believe in Order to Be Saved?” Christian Post. August 10, 2012. http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-must-someone-believe-in-order-to-be-saved-79830/.

Pius IV. Bull for the Celebration of the Council of Trent. EWTN Web site. November 30, 1560. http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT17.HTM 

Pius IX. Mortalium animos. First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. EWTN Web site. July 18, 1870. http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6.

Ratzinger, Joseph. “The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church.” EWTN Web site. November 18, 1998. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM.

Reddin, Opal. “Response to Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness.” Berean Publishers. n.d. http://www.bereanpublishers.com/response-to-evangelization-common-witness/.

Rone, Wendell Holmes. The Baptist Faith and Roman Catholicism. Middletown, Ky.: Western Recorder, 1952.

Rose, Devin. “A Catholic Reflection on John Armstrong’s Your Church is Too Small.” Called to Communion. March 5, 2012. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/a-catholic-reflection-on-john-armstrong%E2%80%99s-your-church-is-too-small/.

Schreck, Alan. Catholic and Christian: An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books, 1984. 

Sfeir, Nasrallah Pierre. “Ecumenism in Pontificate of John Paul II.” EWTN Web site. October 15, 2003. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ECUMENSM.HTM.

Southern Baptist Convention. “Resolution on Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics.” SBC Web site. June 1994. http://sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=964. 

Sproul, R. C. Faith Alone. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. 

Stransky, Thomas F. CSP. “Comment on Summons to Witness to Christ in Today’s World: A Report on Baptist Roman Catholic Conversations.” Vatican Web site. November 20, 2011. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/Bapstist%20alliance/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20111020_baptist-comment_en.html. 

Synod of Bishops XIII Ordinary General Assembly. The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith: Instrumentum Laboris. Vatican Web site. May 27, 2012. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20120619_instrumentum-xiii_en.html. 

---. The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith: Lineamenta. Vatican Web site. February 2, 2011. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20110202_lineamenta-xiii-assembly_en.html.

Taylor, Justin. “Luther’s Saying: ‘Justification Is the Article by Which the Church Stands and Falls’.” Between Two Worlds. August 31, 2011. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/08/31/luthers-saying/. 

The Catholic/Reformed Dialogue in United States 2003–2007. These Living Waters: Common Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism. A Report of the Catholic/Reformed Dialogue in United States 2003-2007. n.d. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/reformed/upload/These-Living-Waters.pdf. 

The Committee on Evangelical Unity in the Gospel. “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration.” 1999. http://www.lifeaction.org/static/uploads/media/pdf/revive_magazine/the_gospel_of_jesus_christ.pdf. 

The International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993 - 2002). Church, Evangelization, and the Bonds of Koinonia. A Report of the International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the World Evangelical Alliance (1993 - 2002). Vatican Web site. December 20, 2011. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/evangelicals-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20111220_report-1993-2002_en.html.

Theopedia. “Five Solas.” Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity, n.d. http://www.theopedia.com/Five_Solas.

Trueman, Carl. “Better than Chick Lit II.” Reformation 21. June 2007. http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/carl-truemanbetter-than-chick-lit.php. 

Vila, Samuel. A las Fuentes del Cristianismo. Revised and updated. Grand Rapids: T.S.E.L.F., 1989.

Webster, William. Salvation: The Bible and Roman Catholicism. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990.

Weigel, George. “Faith, Freedom, Responsibility: Evangelicals and Catholics in the Public Square.” Pages 45–80 in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1985. 

---. “The Ecumenical Future.” First Things: On the Square. October 19, 2011. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/10/the-ecumenical-future.

Weigel, Gustave, S. J. A Catholic Primer on the Ecumenical Movement. Woodstock Papers no. 1. Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1959. 

 Yonke, Matt. “‘Too catholic to be Catholic?’ A Response to Peter Leithart.” Called to Communion. May 24, 2012. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/. 

Zins, Robert M. On the Edge of Apostasy. Huntsville, Ala.: White Horse Publications, 1998.