The answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" proved to be the cardinal issue during the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation. Luther stated the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article upon which a church stands or falls. Similarly, Calvin weighed in on the subject and stated that justification is the hinge upon which everything turns. Today, however, the dividing line between those who still maintain the decisive factor in one’s theology is the sole merit of Christ’s perfect righteousness as the basis for one’s standing before God against others who insist justification is no longer a major theological issue is growing at an alarming rate.

There was once a time when Evangelicals were fully convinced of the preeminence of justification by faith alone and all the "solas" of the Protestant Reformation, namely, sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, and soli deo gloria! That is to say, when Scripture was used as the foundation of all doctrine, especially when discussing the issue of justification, the Reformers were convinced that their understanding of sola fide would be vindicated in that man’s forensic (or legal) declaration of "not guilty" before God is solely due to grace alone, received through faith alone, in the work of Christ alone—glory to God alone.

It seems today as if Protestantism abounds with people who seemingly have forgotten what exactly Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and countless others were actually protesting. Ecumenical movements are increasingly popular with people of all different stripes and backgrounds continuously seeking to come together for the sake of "unity" and are attempting reconciliation at the expense of conviction. The problem with ecumenism, however, is that each side must continually give up the distinctives that defined their respective positions and each side must then attempt to reach a point where both sides can agree—usually by invoking some nebulous phrases that do not really say much. Two such examples are the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelicals and Catholics Together, a 26-page document outlining a list of "agreements" between Roman Catholics and Protestants. One practical problem with such statements is that each must reinterpret the language and meaning that each side has understood and embraced historically. For instance, when the former declaration agreed that, "We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel ‘apart from works prescribed by the law,’" each side interprets that statement in a different context and the Roman Catholic would inevitably qualify that statement. The casual reader might gloss over the words and think that both sides have reached harmony after five centuries of dispute. The truth, however, is something far greater. The Reformation disagreement was never over the necessity of grace and faith—that much both sides agree upon—but rather, over the sufficiency of grace.

Rome anathematized the sufficiency of grace as understood by the Protestants when they crafted the formulations at the Council of Trent where they unequivocally condemned their theological opponents:

Canon 9:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining [of] the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

Canon 14:

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

The question for the modern day believer is: Has Rome changed her position on these fundamental issues? The answer is a resounding, no. Vatican II upheld the position espoused at Trent, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterated the anathema on anyone who maintains the gospel of justification by an imputed righteousness. So the theological disputes that separated the catholic Evangelicals during the sixteenth century remain just as valid and important today; the differences are equally authentic today as they were in the sixteenth century. It’s time we recognize why the differences really matter—because the purity of the gospel message is at stake today, just as it was during the first century when the Judaizers attempted to add human effort to the apostolic message of grace.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8–9).

The truth of the gospel message is that God saves men freely according to His grace. Adding anything to Christ’s finished work violates God’s revealed truth. For the Reformers, the real issue, the heart of the debate, was the doctrine of justification—the central issue that should keep us separated from anyone who tries to add human works to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, even if those works are purportedly performed while in a state of grace. So yes, there are still differences and they are important—theology matters. Soli deo gloria!