One may infer the thesis of Robert Reymond’s The Reformation’s Conflict with Rome: Why It Must Continue! from its title. The conflict between the Reformation and Rome was, and continues to be, both real and necessary for the sake of the gospel. Reymond writes specifically for two purposes, to two different audiences.
Firstly, he writes in response to a call from the late John Paul II for Christians to unite around certain “absolute truths.” These “truths” include things such as the indispensability of Roman Catholic Tradition to the interpretation of Scripture, as well as Roman Catholic teaching that Mary is the mediatrix of salvation. Reymond is especially concerned to examine such notions in light of the central conflict of the Reformation: the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. In this he warns Roman Catholics: “if I am right, you will suffer the loss of your soul if your trust is divided… between Christ and anyone (Mary) or anything (the church and/or your works) else. So please, read on… carefully, thoughtfully, and attentively” (9).
Secondarily, Reymond writes to address confusion that may exist in Protestant circles. For example, in the May 1994 issue of Tabletalk, noted Reformed theologian John Gerstner contributed an article entitled, “Aquinas Was a Protestant.” Reymond asserts strongly that such sentiment is wrong, both doctrinally and historically (cf. his extensive footnote, 82-84). He warns his Protestant readers: “Just because you claim to be ‘Protestants’ is no guarantee in itself that you are genuine Christian with your sins forgiven or that you are on your way to heaven. So you too should read – carefully, thoughtfully, and attentively” (9).
The monograph begins with a brief review that exists between the Roman Catholic and Protestant teachings on justification. Reymond’s explanation is both clear and helpful, and he draws from primary sources on both sides. He articulates Roman Catholic teaching with extensive quotations from the Canons of the Council of Trent. Following this, he shows that the Tridentine understanding is still propagated today by quoting from the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the Protestant side, Reymond presents the classic Reformation understanding of the teaching of Scripture – drawing heavily from the Pauline epistles. He notes from Luther and Calvin that this doctrine of justification is the “article of the standing or falling of the church” and the “keenest subject of controversy” between Roman Catholics and Protestants (18-19). There is really nothing new in this section, yet it serves as a good foundation for what follows.
Having marked the rims of the great gulf fixed between Rome and the Reformation on justification, the rest of Reymond’s monograph examines the long-standing conflict under four heads. The first two examine Roman Catholic teaching on authority and justification. Following this, the third section surveys modern attempts at rapprochement. Finally, Reymond concludes with an extensive treatment of the radical disjunctions that remain – emphasizing the difference between the ‘alone’ of the Reformation and the ‘and’ of Rome on a number of key issues.
Reymond examines Rome’s teaching on authority in two movements. Firstly, he considers the Roman Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition. Once it is clear what Rome believes on the relation between these, he goes on to examine that institution which Rome alleges to be the defender and interpreter of both – namely, the papacy. The claims of the papacy are called into the dock to face detailed scrutiny from Scripture, tradition, and church history.
The discussion of Rome’s view on Scripture and Tradition is helpful, but somewhat off-balance. Reymond’s point is that “historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism do not share the same Bible, either extensively as to the number of books or intensively as to the nature of Holy Scripture itself,” (29). This is a fine summary; unfortunately, Reymond spends eight pages exploring the former while less than three articulating the latter! Nevertheless, this section contains much that is helpful. His in-depth discussion of the Aprocrypha’s troubled canonical history is most informative. Moreover, he quite clearly articulates the danger of forging a “dual authority” from Scripture and Tradition. In such an arrangement, “the Scriptures cannot (and in fact do not) really govern the content of Tradition… given Rome’s view of itself as a living organism in its capacity as ‘the depository of Tradition,’ there can never be a codification of or limitation placed upon the content of this Tradition, not even by Scripture,” (30). Thus “the church is left vulnerable to every kind of innovation,” (31).
One of the most fascinating sections of Reymond’s work is his examination of the papacy. He will concede that Peter may have been “first among equals,” yet he challenges Rome to demonstrate that Peter ever held “primacy of power,” (33). Rome cites Matthew 16:18; yet can it demonstrate exegetically that “this rock” refers personally to Peter and exclusively to Peter – that is, not to the other apostles as well as Peter? Can it demonstrate from Scripture that Peter’s apostolic authority “was transmissible to his ‘papal successors’ and was in fact transmitted to his successors,” (35)? Both tradition and Scripture stand against such claims: Irenaeus and Eusebius of Caesarea identified Linus, not Peter, as Rome’s first bishop. Moreover, if Peter were bishop of Rome, why is it that Paul never mentions him in his epistles to or from that city? Reymond goes on to list twenty-two(!) questions which papal advocates ought to be able to answer. Two of these are most incisive. Firstly: if Christ made Peter his vicar in Matthew 16, why do subsequent passages (Matthew 18:1, 20:20-28) find the apostles bickering as to who is greatest? Why did Christ not set them straight? Moreover, it is demonstrable, from a report prepared for the First Vatican Council in 1870, that Petrine supremacy was favored only by about twenty percent of ancient church writers. As Reymond asks, “Where is Rome’s allegiance to this ancient majority church tradition,” (45)? Secondly, regarding Rome’s claim to papal infallibility: how is dogmatizing one’s authority to dogmatize anything more than a textbook example of question-begging? Reymond closes this section by noting how historical events such as the Great Schism and the Councils of Constance and Basel place two large question marks over the papacy – the first over its claim to supremacy over councils, and the second over its claim to legitimate apostolic succession.
Reymond’s discussion of Rome’s teaching on justification is as potent as it is concise. Eclectically quoting from a wide range of church historians (including several whom even Reymond would not place squarely in the “orthodox Reformed Protestant” category), he ably demonstrates that the root of error in the Roman view on justification came from “the early introduction into the Church of… the sacramentarian principle,” (70). If regeneration and remission of original sin comes mechanistically via baptism, it is but a natural consequence to change the meaning of justification “to mean, not, as in Pauline usage, the absolving of a sinner from guilt, and declaring him to be righteous in God’s sight, on the ground of what Christ has done for him, but peculiarly the making of the sinner righteous by the infusing into him a new nature,” (70). As a result, “by the early second century it is clear that Christians had come to think of themselves as being justified through being sanctified, accepted as righteous according to their actual obedience to the new Law of Christ,” (72). “In the Apostolic Fathers grace did not have radical character…. and it is the primary reason for the degeneration of their Christian faith into something so different from the New Testament,” (73-74). Augustine’s strong teachings on grace and predestination were gradually sanded down, and eventually forgotten. By the late Middle Ages, Rome was teaching that salvation came through the sacraments to such as try their best: “God will not deny his grace to those who do what lies within their power,” (77). Reymond is not treading any new ground in this discussion. What makes it valuable is the way in which he clearly traces the danger of sacerdotalism from seed to fruit.
In the third section of his monograph, Reymond discusses the failure of modern efforts at rapprochement between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The point of this brief survey is simple: warm fuzzies notwithstanding, nothing has really changed. At best, both sides have agreed to “postmodern usage of theological terminology by which terms are used in such a way that both parties can read their respective positions into them,” (94). But at what cost to Protestantism? “The word ‘alone’ after the word ‘faith’ in the [“Evangelicals and Catholics Together” statement] proposition on justification is thundering by its absence,” (86-87).
The final section compares the solas of the Reformation with the ets of Rome. The Reformation understood Christ’s sacrifice to be the conclusive, final, and singular event in the accomplishment of redemption. “Unbloody” nuance notwithstanding, the fact remains that Rome would re-sacrifice Christ every single time it celebrates the mass. The Reformation understood that “the only way to have and to retain the solus Christus of salvation is to insist upon the sola fide of justification,” (87). Sadly, Rome denies this and deifies Mary as their co-redemptrix: “Do Roman Catholics not understand that to believe that Mary can hear the prayers of the millions of Catholic faithful who are praying to her at any one time in the myriad languages of the world … is to ascribe the divine attributes of omniscience to her? Do they not understand that they have deified her,” (106-107)? Rome teaches that “faith in Christ and faith in the Church are one act of faith” (110), yet “never does the New Testament church… self-reflectively represent itself in these roles as the object of saving faith,” (112). The same sort of dichotomy exists in the locus of eschatology: purgatory not only denies the sufficiency of Christ’s merits, but flatters fallen men by telling them they will engage in partial self-atonement after death. In sum, “Romanism in perfection is a gigantic system of Church-worship, Sacrament-worship, Mary-worship, saint-worship, image-worship, relic-worship, and priest-worship… it is, in one word, a huge organized idolatry,” (124).
So far from triumphalism, I cannot help but mourn as I come to the end of Reymond’s monograph. Reymond’s discussion is at every point clear, at many points informative, and at several points most insightful. Yet in the end, it is a damning indictment of Roman Catholicism – and makes me most keenly sad for the millions who strive so hard, yet in vain, to “do enough” to be saved. In pointing out this perilous state of every child of the Roman Catholic Church, Reymond has impressed two things upon me. Firstly, I ought to be more grateful for the grace of God which has saved me through faith alone in Christ alone. “But for the grace of God, there go I.” Secondly, I need to have more of a heart for ministry to the lost children of Rome: like those of whom Paul wrote, Roman Catholics have a zeal for God – but not according to knowledge.
