Was the Reformation a mistake?

TROWEL & SWORD

Was the Reformation a mistake?
(translated from the Dutch by Bert Witvoet – Christian Courier)

Klaas Runia

In 1992, Klaas Runia, who was then the editor of the Dutch weekly Christelijk Weekblad, wrote the following article which CC condensed. Runia’s piece came about after he had read another article in an American Roman Catholic magazine whose author had been Christian Reformed and had studied at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. USA, and is now a well-known Catholic author and theologian. The Catholic author defended the thesis that the Reformation of the 16th century had been a colossal mistake.

Runia writes:

The article starts with the sentence: The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk discovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.” The monk was Martin Luther, the doctrine was the justification through faith and the book was the Bible! Thus the deepest schism in the Christian church came about through a “misunderstanding.”

Good works

What, in fact, had happened? The young monk, Luther, who by nature was impulsive and pessimistic, could not rid himself of his guilt feelings, in spite of all his good works and his doing of penance. His confessor gives him the advice to read the letter to the Romans. There Luther discovers the great truth that God has already forgiven his sins based on Christ’s work. The password for Luther and the whole Reformation becomes a word from Romans 1:17 — “The just shall live by faith.” And what about good works?

Luther does not deny that these are necessary, but discovers that they follow upon faith. According to the American writer, Luther is completely right. But, he adds immediately, it just so happens that this is also the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, even if it formulates that doctrine somewhat differently. This church has said at the great Council of Trent, after the Reformation, that we are saved through faith and good works, but in reality the council meant exactly what Luther had said: we need faith in Christ, and the good works need to follow that. Thus the whole thing is in fact a big “misunderstanding.”

The writer acknowledges that many Roman Catholics do not know this truth at all. The last 25 years he has asked hundreds of Roman Catholic students: “If you were to die tonight, and God would ask you why he should admit you to heaven, what would be your answer? Most of them did not know what to say. Most of the time they did not even mention the name of Jesus. Nevertheless, he maintains that this is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and that the Reformation was a mistake...!

I must say that this is a bit problematic for me. I think we dismiss too easily what really took place in the 17th century. There is no doubt that it concerned essential matters, which touched the very heart of the Christian faith.

Rev. H.M. Akkerboom, academic co-worker at the theological faculty of Tilburg wrote a few years ago: “When Luther shocked the church with the thesis that only God’s grace, through Christ alone, provides salvation for humanity, he stood over against a church which seriously believed that one could earn God’s grace through one’s own good works. In addition, the teaching authorities thought that they could administer the merits of Christ according to their own pleasure.

That was also the background of the selling of indulgences, to which the monk Tetzel’s name has been connected. The church could “sell” indulgences (certificates of pardon); literally sell them for money. After all, the church was the guardian of the treasure chamber of Christ’s merits. People who did not achieve enough good works could thus, through the indulgence, fill up their shortage. The thought that we live out of pure grace and that such grace comes purely and solely from God had disappeared.

Fortunately, the Council of Trent, which started in 1545 and ended in 1563, realised that. Not only did that council remove all kinds of misunderstandings in the church, but it also placed emphasis on the grace character of salvation. That’s not to say that the council said that Luther had been right. On the contrary, it turned sharply against Luther and even condemned his vision that one could be justified only through faith. Justification takes place by the grace which is given through the sacraments and which enables one to carry out meritorious works. Salvation, according to Trent, remained a matter of grace and good works. Good works remain essential for salvation.

No difference

I believe all efforts at shoving Rome and the Reformation into one package and at making them similar are doomed to fail. One of the first to try this after the Second World War was the well-known Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung. He wrote a thesis for Karl Barth about the doctrine of justification wherein he compared Rome and the Reformation on this point. His conclusion already then was that there was no difference. When this dissertation was published, Karl Barth wrote an introduction. He wrote, among other things, that it was a very interesting thesis, but that he himself had not come so far as to believe it. It would mean that throughout the centuries the decisions of Trent had been misunderstood, by Roman Catholic as well as by Reformational theologians. Barth had a hard time believing that.

Moving toward Luther

It is my opinion that Barth was completely right here. It is quite possible that today many Roman Catholic theologians and believers agree with Luther. To be honest, I hope that this is the case. But nothing is gained by doing violence to history and to say now that Rome and Luther have always been in agreement. That certainly is not true. Why else did Trent so sharply judge Luther and his teaching of attributed righteousness and of justification sofa fide (by faith alone)? And why would we some 400 years after Trent discover this so-called unanimity? It’s remarkable that someone like Cardinal Willebrandse [a Dutch cardinal], who spoke such complimentary words about Luther, has recanted nothing that was said by Trent.

The Reformation was by no means a mistake. It definitely had to do with the heart of the gospel. It had to do with the question: How does a poor sinner become righteous before God? Rome said, and still says: “A person must take grace into him – or herself through the sacraments and then perform good works.” Only then can he or she be accepted as a righteous person by God. Ultimately then, salvation is a matter of Christ’s work and my good works. Luther said: “The deepest mystery is that God reckons Christ’s righteousness as my righteousness. If the gospel of Christ’s death on the cross is proclaimed to me and I accept that in childlike faith, I am at that moment righteous in the eyes of God. Of course, I must then live as a disciple of Jesus and do good works, but those good works come after my salvation.” Salvation is not: Jesus’ work and my good works. Salvation is Jesus’ work alone.

This is where the deepest difference remains, at least officially. I do believe that many Roman Catholics have, in fact, moved towards Luther. But the official teaching of the church is still the teaching of Trent. At the official level the deep difference remains, and we must still say, in spite of mutual discussions, the Reformation was not only historically necessary (because of the many abuses in the medieval church) but it was also theologically necessary (because justice was not done by the church of Rome to the all-determining character of Jesus’ work of salvation).

Dr. Klaas Runia, a former editor of Trowel and Sword and a former professor of theology at the Reformed Theological College in Geelong, last year celebrated the 50 anniversary of his ordination.

All reports of problems and comments concerning this site: webmaster@trowelandsword.org.au

Privacy