Catholic apologists commonly point out the extreme diversity in belief among Protestant denominations and theological schools of thought. Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith.
One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.
Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.
For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.
Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura).
Disunity on “Faith Alone”
Lutherans understand the formula of sola fide in a way that does not exclude baptism as a means of justification, as do some Anglicans, some Presbyterians in relation to elect infants, and members of the Campbellite or “Church of Christ” movement. For many Protestants, however, the idea of baptism as a means of salvation is seen as a direct violation of sola fide. This division goes back to the early days of the Protestant Reformation, as illustrated by Luther’s Large Catechism, in which he excoriates Anabaptists for the new, non-baptismal interpretation they were giving his “faith alone” formula.
Following their founder, Lutherans also understand sola fide in a way that allows salvation to be lost, as do most Methodists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and many Anglicans. However, Calvinists, Baptists, and many non-denominational Evangelicals influenced by Calvinists hold that, if it is possible to lose salvation, then justification is accomplished in part by one’s “works” (in this case, avoiding the sins that would cause its loss), which is a violation of sola fide. (Those who concede the possibility of losing salvation are also split on the possibility of regaining it after a fall.)
Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and many Anglicans and Baptists understand sola fide in a way that requires one to repent of one’s sins in order to be justified. However, some Baptists, non-denominational Evangelicals, and especially many Dispensationalists hold that, if repentance is understood as involving a behavioral change whereby one turns away from one’s sinful pattern of life, then salvation is in some measure “by works,” violating sola fide.
One of the most contentious points among Protestants is the meaning of the term faith in “faith alone.” It is widely recognized, per James 2:14–26, that not all forms of faith justify. However, there is great disagreement over the nature of “saving faith” or “justifying faith.” Some Protestants, such as Z. Hodges and C. C. Ryrie, appear to hold that saving faith consists of a person’s recognition and acceptance of the fact that Christ died for him (part of what Catholics call the virtue of faith). Others, such as R. C. Sproul, insist that saving faith includes a conscious decision to trust Christ for salvation (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of hope). Still others, in keeping with Galatians 5:6, insist that saving faith includes trust and results in a life of good works, which are inspired by supernatural love (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of charity).
Various Protestants will also add into the definition of faith the need for faith to be expressed in baptism, the need for faith to be expressed in repentance, the need for faith to be expressed in good works, the need for a particular form of emotional confidence, the need to have faith in God rather than “faith in one’s own faith,” and other qualifiers.
Those who do not share the same understanding of saving faith are, by necessity, looked upon as having a false understanding of “faith alone.”
Disunity on “Scripture Alone”
Protestants also disagree over sola scriptura. Aside from the fact that some Protestants (e.g., some Lutherans) are willing to concede that certain books might not belong in the canon of Scripture—thus disagreeing with fellow Protestants on what counts as Scripture—there is a wide range of exceptions and qualifications that different groups wish to be made.
Many Anglicans and some Lutherans and Calvinists give the early Church Fathers an authoritative—but not binding—role in the interpretation of Scripture. Many of the same individuals give this interpretive role to the early ecumenical councils and certain key creeds (e.g., the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian).
Many Protestants from confessional traditions (Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans) also wish to see the confessions of their particular movements given special weight in the interpretation of Scripture.
Many Protestants honor the principle that academic study tools and techniques should be used in the interpretation of Scripture, such as linguistic, literary, archaeological, cultural, historical, and critical studies). Other Protestants reject some or all of these methods. Some even go to the extreme of limiting interpretation to a single translation (usually the King James Version) as interpreted without academic training or resources.
Pentecostals, Protestant Charismatics, and Word-Faith adherents insist that in interpreting Scripture, information provided as “revelation knowledge” by the charismatic gifts must be taken into account. Other Protestants reject any role for such alleged information.
A Protestant Retort
Because of the difficulties with the “unity in essentials” argument, its advocates typically do not attempt to defend it on its merits. Instead, they commonly resort to a form of tu quoque (Latin, “You are also!”) argument in which they attempt to tar Catholics with similar disunity.
For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”
In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.
Other times, advocates of the “unity in essentials” argument will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.
In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.