Soteriological Truths Common to Catholics and Classic Evangelicals

In the light of the recent unpleasantness involving ourselves and a self-proclaimed Calvinist Anglican, I thought it might be worthwhile to approach the fraught issue of soteriology eirenically, first, to clear up misunderstandings and, second, to illuminate as precisely as possible where differences appear to remain.

It is not only the events referred to above that have motivated me to do this. Relatively recently I read a nasty attack on Evangelicals and their admiration for C. S. Lewis, intimating that he would have had no respect for them, their culture or supposed puritanism. So much for his undoubted commitment to “mere Christianity” and history of caring correspondence with all sorts of people.

It might be asked: “Why investigate soteriology ecumenically when it has all been done before? Why re-invent the wheel?” The main reason for repeating the effort is that I wish to do so with maximal specificity, since it has often been claimed that previous ecumenical agreements have been reached only by the deliberate use of equivocal language and ambiguity.

So, I will start by listing beliefs definitely held by the Roman Catholic Church (which is that part of the Church that has most clearly and exhaustively defined its soteriology) and also held, I believe, by Evangelicals. The propositions in this first section are all drawn from pre-Vatican II Roman sources, in particular, St Thomas Aquinas (e.g., Summa Theologiae P2a: Q110 A1, Q113 A1-8 & Q114 A1-5 and P3: Q68 A2 & Q69 A9-10), The Council of Trent (Sessions Five and Six), and the old standard works of moral theology written for confessors. The second section will list apparent differences, either between the RCC and other Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, or between Catholics more generally and Evangelicals.

Proposed Agreements

1. Fallen Humanity is affected, even fatally wounded, in every part of its nature due to the original sin of our primal Parents.
2. Without God taking the initiative with prevenient grace, we cannot freely choose salvation.
3. Forgiveness of sins cannot ever be earned by us at all.
4. Forgiveness is solely earned by Christ and Him crucified.
5. We receive forgiveness of sins by penitent, living faith (which faith includes, at least implicitly, obedient acceptance of the requirement for Baptism precisely because Christ has ordained it), and are thus declared and considered innocent of sin by God, and thus not liable to condemnation and thus eternal punishment.
6. This saving faith is a pure gift of God and cannot be earned by us any more than forgiveness can (see 3). It includes trust in God’s mercy through Christ toward us.
7. This faith does, however, involve an act of will by us, our will being enabled and “freed” by prevenient grace (see 2 and 6).
8. At the same time we are forgiven, we receive an inner transformation by grace, which is connected to a renewed identity. (NB: Inasmuch as the gracious forgiveness subsists in the Divine will, within the eternal and foreknowing love of God, it precedes causally and temporally the inner transformation. Inasmuch as the forgiveness is an experienced reality subsisting in the human subject, it depends on faith in those capable of it, which depends on the inner transformation of the human will spoken of here and in 6 and 7.)
9. This renewal and the continual aid of God's Spirit enables further acts of obedience and growth in grace.
10. The aforementioned acts of obedience, also known as “good works”, receive heavenly (or even, according to God's will, earthly) reward, based on the gracious divine promise. They please God, and demonstrate the reality of our living faith.
11. But they do not transfer us from darkness to light (see 3), or in themselves strictly earn any reward as if they were intrinsically morally perfect insofar as the acts proceed from us, or as if they availed with God other than in the context of His mercy (which includes simultaneously not imputing sins).
12. The salvific process described above (see 5 onwards) can be initiated, (a) before baptism if living faith (which faith is by nature also penitent and informed by love of God) is present, or (b) after baptism if baptism was originally received “in bad faith” or impenitently or insincerely.

Apparent Disagreements

A) For Roman Catholics and many other Catholics, the word “Justification” includes in its definition 5, 8 and (later) 9 above. The latter two are also called “Sanctification”. Therefore, the justness or righteousness of Justification is taken to include the positive aspect of infused righteousness and also the negative aspect of sins remitted unto innocence.
B) For most Roman Catholic theologians (with notable exceptions down the centuries even till today) it is thus implied that St Paul invariably used Justification and the related words (from the Greek dikaio- stem) in the same way as A.
C) For Evangelicals and some Catholics, “Justification” includes 5 but not 8 or 9, the latter belonging only to “Sanctification”. Therefore, the justness of justification is simply a “standing” or status in God's eyes based on the remission of sin, and has no basis in the actual state of the justified.
D) For most Evangelicals, it is generally assumed (with notable exceptions down the centuries even till today) that St Paul invariably used Justification and the related words (from the Greek dikaio- stem) in the same way as C.
E) For Roman Catholics there is a “temporal”, finite punishment for post-baptismal sins which is not automatically remitted by forgiveness and which, other things being equal, must be undergone for the sake of justice and for “purifying”, educative purposes.
F) For Evangelicals (and many Catholics), there is no unremitted, “owed” punishment after forgiveness, though there may be “needed” discipline for purifying, educative purposes (though this would only be while we were “in the body” according to the vast majority of Evangelicals).
G) For Roman Catholics, the reward in 10 above can be considered to include eternal life in itself.
H) For Evangelicals and many Catholics, the reward in 10 must be considered additional to the gift of heaven itself.
I) For Roman Catholics, part of the “superfluous” reward (called, by analogy, “merit”) of one living Christian can be transferred to a dead Christian undergoing E above by prayerful request, in order to partly or wholly wipe out the temporal punishment or penalty.
J) For Roman Catholics, the superfluous (to the one meriting) merits of I form a corporate whole with Christ’s Infinite Merits (which themselves are the ultimate source for I), this corporate whole being called the “Treasury of Merits”.
K) For Evangelicals and many Catholics, the word “merit” is inappropriate and the rewards of good works belong only to the actual workers of good and can be neither superfluous (in the sense of “more than God requires or deserves in obedience”) nor transferred, though the more holy the Christian, the more effective their intercessory prayers in general (though only on earth for most Evangelicals).
L) Thus there is no “Treasury of Merits” insofar as the Saints’ merits would be added to Christ’s. Only Christ’s merits are intrinsically perfect and a fount of salvation or blessing.
M) For Catholics, if 12a and 12b do not occur, then baptism effects 8, even in infants where conscious faith is not possible, and permanently “seals” the soul with a “mark”, so to speak.
N) For Catholics, if 12a occurs then baptism only gives the mark and makes more secure and permanent 5 and 8 already given.
O) For Catholics, if 12b occurs then only the “mark” is given to the soul, identifying it as under the obligation of the New Covenant, but the grace of 5 and 8 are not given until living faith is present.
P) For Evangelicals, 12a should always occur in preparation for “adult” baptism. If it does not, there is no guarantee baptism does anything inwardly (though it outwardly “marks” before God and man the person as in some sense within the New Covenant), even if the person is sincere, intellectually believes and wants to repent and become a Christian, that is, even if he is not described by 12b. [NB: I am not certain this is the Classic Evangelical position, though it seems consistent with their system. I would welcome clarification.]
Q) For Evangelicals, if 12a occurs, baptism grants an increase of grace and outwardly marks the recipient, and signifies and “seals” the regeneration already given.
R) For Evangelicals, if 12b occurs, grace is not given, only the outward mark, until living faith is present.
S) For Catholics, serious sins should be confessed before a priest, but before this happens these sins are forgiven by contrition, an act of repentance motivated by the love of God. (How serious or public the sins must be and whether this obligation is of Divine Right rather than ecclesiastical precept for all non-venial sins is not universally agreed among Catholic theologians.)
T) For Catholics, the abovementioned confession should be as complete as possible and reasonable in revealing serious sins and attrition, which is repentance motivated by hatred of sin and fear of God (though not servile fear of hell alone that would continue the sin if possible), is probably sufficient for obtaining forgiveness, as the act of auricular confession and the grace of absolution will turn this lesser penitence into that of S above.
U) For Evangelicals, no sin must be confessed before men, but they can be, though it need not be a priest. All sins are for given by truly penitent faith.
V) For Evangelicals, there are no rules governing confession before men except honesty. (The lesser repentance of attrition can be demeaned by them as worthless and ineffectual. On the other hand, the necessity of love for God to effectual, saving faith has also been disputed.) Absolution is seen as declaratory only, not effectual, unless perhaps it provides a necessary spiritual assurance to aid faith.
W) For Catholics, 5 to 9 above can occur without final salvation occurring necessarily, though ll given the grace of final perseverance will be finally saved.
X) For Classic Evangelicals, 5 to 9 cannot genuinely occur at all to one not finally saved, but only to those predestined to eternal life, the Elect.
Y) Therefore, for Evangelicals, baptised infants are only regenerated (and not necessarily in baptism?) if they are of the Elect.
Z) For Catholics, one cannot be infallibly or finally certain of final salvation except by private revelation. However, a Christian should be certain through Hope of God’s omnipotent mercy and help achieving this end, barring his own defection by free will.
AA) For Evangelicals, every genuine Christian can and should (as part of living faith) seek and experience a moral certainty of final salvation, also known as “assurance”.
BB) For Catholics, all 7 sacraments contain (in a mysterious sense) grace and confer it as long as the recipient has living faith or is not old enough either to sin seriously and wilfully or to make an act of faith.
CC) For Evangelicals, the 2 great Sacraments promise grace but do not contain it, and confer grace only due to the faith they engender in the promise. Other rites have no promise but may still increase grace through faith being encouraged.

I submit these lists for consideration and discussion. Are the agreements accurately described? The disagreements? Are there ways of reconciling the latter? I believe there are, in many cases, and have sketched some approaches to this end in the past. May the One Lord and Saviour grant us unity in truth.