by Charles Hedrick

In October 1989, Charles Hedrick — the moderator of soc.religion.christian at Rutgers University — posted this quiet, careful essay to the group he shepherded. He had been watching Catholic-Protestant debates unfold on the network for months and had noticed something the debaters themselves seemed to miss: the two sides had converged, largely without knowing it.

Hedrick's method is rigorous. He quotes the Baptist Faith and Message, the canons of the Council of Trent, and Luther's Bondage of the Will in the original voices, then traces the history of how the Reformation debates have been misread by both sides ever since. His conclusion — that most modern Protestants have quietly adopted Catholic doctrine on justification while continuing to use Reformation language — is both surprising and carefully argued.

Hedrick himself identifies as closer to the Reformers than to the consensus he documents, which makes his ecumenical precision the more remarkable. He is not advocating convergence; he is mapping it. This is early internet theology at its best: patient, learned, self-aware.

Watching the various Catholic/Protestant dialogues over the last few months, I've begun to think that there's been fairly substantial convergence on the issue of justification. I just took at look again at the Baptist Faith and Message (of which I have only the 1925 edition), some basic Methodist documents, and the relevant section of the canons of the Council of Trent. It seems to me that they are saying very similar things. I'll quote from the Baptist Faith and Message, which says it most concisely:

"Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of righteousness of all sinners who believe in Christ. This blessing is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but through the redemption which is in and through Jesus Christ. It brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other needed blessing. The blessings of salvation are made free to all by the Gospel. It is the duty of all to accept them by penitent and obedient faith. Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teacher, Savior, and Lord."

As far as I can tell, this is in fact consistent with Trent. It is not consistent with the Reformers, but I'll get into this below. Protestants have generally accused Catholics of believing in some sort of salvation by works, and Catholics have generally feared that the Protestant concept of "salvation by faith alone" denied other parts of God's work of salvation. I think these fears are at least partly groundless. Note that I am not saying that there have been no such abuses. However I am trying to see the best representatives of both sides.

Do Catholics Believe in Salvation by Works?

The whole issue of works is complex, because everyone agrees that Christians should do good deeds. The question is their precise significance in salvation. "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." (Trent) In the rest of the document, it seems that Trent is very clear that God's grace goes before any "cooperation" or other act that we may do. However we are required to assent to God's grace. Clearly there is no concept of any merit on our part that isn't given to us by God, but we do have the power to accept or reject grace. This seems quite consistent with what I saw in the Protestant documents mentioned, even if the wording is somewhat different.

What Does "Salvation by Faith" Mean to Protestants?

Here is what Trent seems to think it means: "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema." This is a direct attack on the Reformers' views. But is it an attack on modern Protestants? I think not. It seems clear that most Protestants now believe that we have the power to accept or reject salvation. That is, before God saves us, we must consent to be saved. I believe this is quite consistent with Trent's requirement that we must be "prepared and disposed by the action of his own will." Neither Trent nor modern Protestants consider this something that happens independent of God's grace. God's grace comes first. But both reject the Reformer's concept: "Man's will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills. ... If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan goes. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it." (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Both Trent and most modern Protestants believe that we can choose our rider.

I do not say that we have agreement on all issues. In particular the Catholic view of how Baptism is involved in all of this seems rather strange to Protestants. But there are still things that need to be dealt with. However sacramental theology is a tougher nut to crack, and I'm not dealing with it right now.

The Complication: Modern Protestants Are Not the Reformers

Now, as I hinted above, I see one interesting aspect of all of this: the convergence seems to be possible because most Protestants have abandoned the concepts of the Reformers. This has complicated the dialogue immensely. Protestants are using terms like "salvation by faith alone," leading Catholics to think they are dealing with the positions held by the Reformers. But in fact they are not.

The problem, of course, is election. Luther and Calvin both believed that humans could contribute absolutely nothing to their salvation. They still believed that once we were saved, God restored to us the ability to do good. But this was a consequence of our salvation. The basic decision is made before that, and we are in some sense passive bystanders in that decision. The question, as Trent clearly sees it, is whether we have to say "yes" on our own before God can save us.

Again, no one is suggesting salvation by works. In any case things begin with God's grace. However the sequence is different:

For Catholics: God's grace starts. He restores us to the point where we now can choose. Now we either accept or reject God's free offer of grace. If we accept we are saved; if not, not.

For the Reformers, this was unacceptable. For them, until we are saved, we will turn down any offer from God. So the sequence is simple: God's grace brings us to the point of accepting salvation, or it does not. He does not wait on our choice. Assuming we are one of the elect, he moves us to accept salvation. At that point our regeneration begins, but until then, it is not safe for God to give us any choices.

As far as I can see, most Protestants no longer believe in election. They now believe, as the Baptists testify, that "Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teacher, Savior, and Lord." That is, our choice determines whether we are saved or not. This is Catholic doctrine. That doesn't mean it is wrong. But it generates a good deal of confusion. Protestants continue to use terminology such as "sola fide" taken from the Reformation while accepting the position of Trent.

There seems to have been some change in the Catholic position as well. Luther's most serious opponent on this issue was Erasmus. The semi-Pelagian view seems to have suggested yet another sequence, where man starts things out by making some gesture in God's direction. This opens the way for God to be able to give his grace. This differs from the position that I believe Catholics generally now take, where God's grace goes before any response we make. The term "cooperation" was used in the Reformation debates and suggested to the Reformers a merit that was independent of God's grace. I believe that in current Catholic usage, there is no concept of our having anything independent of God.

It should be clear to those who know me that I do not agree with the view on which everybody seems to have converged. My views are closer to those of the Reformers. However what I'm trying to do at the moment is get clear in my mind what people actually believe.

Colophon

Written by Charles Hedrick, moderator of soc.religion.christian, Rutgers University. Posted to soc.religion.christian on October 23, 1989.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: [email protected].

🌲