Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.
Try Tabletalk NowAlready receive Tabletalk magazine every month?
Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.
How should Christians respond to theological controversy? Which Christian truths are worth dividing over? If we must divide, how do we do so with charity and humility?
For more than five hundred years, there has been a significant divide in Western Christendom between Protestants on one side and the Roman Catholic Church on the other. This began in the 1500s, when great truths about biblical worship, justification by faith alone, and the authority of Scripture were rediscovered and clearly proclaimed.
Although many today suggest that what has divided Roman Catholics and Protestants no longer matters, this is simply not true. The differences are significant, and the divide remains.
Charles Hodge knew this well. Hodge was a leader in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. He was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary for more than fifty years, and many recognized him as the most eminent American theologian of his age. In 1868, at the height of his influence, he was given an unusual opportunity. That year, before the start of the First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX extended an invitation to Protestants to join in the council. The Presbyterian Church, having received the invitation, asked Hodge to write a letter to the pope replying to his invitation.
The papacy of Pius IX was one of the longest in history. During his reign, the Roman Catholic Church solidified many of its teachings in response to modernity, nationalism, and Protestantism. In that spirit, Pius issued an encyclical in which he gave a sweeping invitation to Protestants to return to what he called “the one fold of Christ.”
Hodge responded in 1869. His letter provides a model in two specific ways. First, it is an example of Christian conviction. Hodge knew what was at stake. He was not willing to hedge on the biblical truth, and he articulated this truth with remarkable clarity and candor. But second, his clear articulation is marked by charity and humility. He wrote with gentlemanly politeness and respect for his recipients. In a time such as now, when rhetoric is often rude, unclear, or ill-informed, Hodge’s letter stands as a model.
Hodge began by responding directly to the pope’s invitation. He wrote that Presbyterians shared the pope’s stated desire for Christian unity. But he hastened to add that Presbyterians could not accept an invitation to a papal council: “Believing as we do that it is the will of Christ that his church on earth should be one, we deem it right to say in a few words why we cannot comply with your invitation.”
Why reject the invitation? Hodge first appealed to history. This was an intentional tactic. He knew from the recent writings of the Roman Catholic Church that one of the Roman arguments against Protestantism was that it was some kind of modern innovation. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Hodge noted that Protestants embrace the Apostles’ Creed, they embrace the doctrinal decisions of the early ecumenical councils, they are not schismatic, and they recognize all who profess true religion as members of Christ’s body. This common confession was centered on the reality of the incarnation and the mediatorial work of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King:
We believe that the eternal Son of God became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul and so was and continues to be both God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. We believe that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the prophet of God. He is the high priest of our profession. He is our king to whom our allegiance is due not only as his creatures but as the purchase of his blood. To his authority we submit.
Hodge then turned to the doctrines of grace, referring to them as “Augustinian doctrines.” In affirming the doctrines of grace, which are so central in Reformed theology, Protestants teach that which was taught by the councils of Carthage in the early 400s and even by bishops of Rome and the third ecumenical council at Ephesus.
The real schismatics, Hodge wrote, are those in Rome. They have rejected the true teaching of Scripture, along with the clear doctrines found in the earliest centuries of the church. Protestants believe in genuine Christian unity. They recognize as fellow members of Christ’s visible church all who profess the true faith and their children. They genuinely want to maintain Christian fellowship if this does not mean accepting anything that Scripture rejects or doing what Scripture forbids. If the bishop of Rome called the Protestants heretics, then he condemned the ancient church along with them.
Hodge then went further. Not only were Protestants more biblical and historically grounded, but the same principles that drove their ancestors to protest the abuses of the medieval church were at stake in the nineteenth century. It was for those principles that the Council of Trent excommunicated and condemned the Reformers and have condemned all Protestants since.
He summarized these Protestant principles under four headings. Taken together, they are four insurmountable barriers to unity with Rome.
The first is the doctrine of Scripture. Hodge argued that the Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Roman Catholic teaching requires that tradition be received with equal reverence as Scripture. This, Hodge wrote, falls under Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees. He quoted Jesus’ own words: “Ye make void the Word of God by your traditions” (see Mark 7:8). Scripture alone is a principle on which Protestants must always stand and that continues to divide them from the Roman Catholic Church.
Second, Hodge asserted that Scripture is addressed not simply to the clergy but to all believers. He wrote:
They [the Scriptures] speak to us, they command us to search their sacred pages, they require us to believe what they teach and to do what they enjoin. They hold us personally responsible for our faith and conduct. The promise of the Spirit’s inward teaching belongs to all God’s people.
This, too, is at odds with Rome, which places the authority and responsibility for learning and interpreting the Scriptures in the hands of the clergy alone.
Following closely along these lines, Hodge wrote that Protestants affirm the Bible’s teaching on the priesthood of all believers. He wrote that to require a priestly caste for forgiveness is to “involve either the rejection of the priesthood of Christ or a denial of its sufficiency.” Hodge knew the words of Paul: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). This is a truth at the heart of the gospel and at the center of our sanctification and worship. It is a line of demarcation from the Roman Catholic understanding of how ordinary Christians are to live before God.
Finally, Hodge denied papal infallibility and the Roman Catholic notion of the Apostolic succession of the papacy. Interestingly, it was at this council to which the Presbyterians were invited that the Roman Catholic Church codified the doctrine of papal infallibility. Hodge was right to see it as a wall that Rome had erected against biblical truth. He wrote:
The apostles received direct revelation from Christ. They demonstrated their authority with signs and wonders and mighty deeds. Modern bishops claim apostolic authority but they don’t even pretend to possess the gifts on which that authority was founded, nor do they venture to exhibit the signs by which the commission of the messengers of Christ was authenticated. . . . We cannot therefore recognize them either individually or collectively as the infallible teachers and rulers of the church.
Each of these four core principles presents irreconcilable differences with Rome. All of them could be expanded on. They reflect a fundamentally different understanding of the church, the gospel, and the authority of Christ.
Yet Hodge ended not with condemnation but with charity. He wrote:
While loyalty to Christ, obedience to the scriptures, consistent respect for the early councils of the church, and the firm belief that pure religion is the foundation of all human society, compel us to withdraw from fellowship with the church of Rome, we nevertheless desire to live in charity with all men. . . . We cordially recognize as Christian brethren all who worship, trust, and serve him as their God and Savior according to the inspired word.
The issues that Hodge raised are perennial. Since Hodge’s time, there have been several more attempts to smooth over the differences between evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Some of these efforts have been championed by men who were well respected in Reformed circles. Today, there are those who leave Protestant churches for Roman Catholicism. Hodge’s letter reminds us that to do this is to abandon essential biblical convictions. It is to deny the Word of Christ, the sufficiency of Christ, and the authority of Christ over His church.
Hodge’s approach is equally relevant. We must speak the truth in love across theological divides. We dare not compromise on doctrinal precision or pastoral charity.
Hodge did not waver. He held firmly to the authority of Scripture, the sufficiency of Christ, and the truths of the Reformed faith. He contended for the faith without equivocation. He was candid about his disagreements and clear about their implications. But he wrote with charity, and his letter reminds us that we need to draw clear theological lines, but that in all things, we need to act in love.