All key officials and theologians were called together to consider how to deal with what they called the Protestant "Revolt" that threatened its very existence. So serious was this threat perceived that Trent sessions continued intermittently for long eighteen years (1545 to 1563).

The Council of Trent thus became the engine for what is known as the Counter Reformation. By it the Roman Catholic hierarchy set about to:

1) Reform numberless abuses of both Papal officials and clergy;

2) Construct doctrinal expressions that would withstand the hammer blows of Scripture, wielded by Protestants who held scripture to be the sole authority for faith and practice, but were unfaithful to that authority; most importantly, they sought to:

3) Preserve the supreme Papal authority--the ultimate issue that had caused the Reformers to separate rather than to continue demanding internal reform. Special attention was, of course, given to the doctrine of justification--the corner stone of Reformation theology.

In this they were greatly aided by Protestant divisions. Whereas all agreed that we are justified by grace alone, without human intercession, there were serious divergences, especially between a minority free will party represented by followers of Melanchthon and determinists who held extreme views of predestination (Calvinists, for example, who insisted on divine election of some to be saved and others to be lost, opposed those who emphasized free will and were opposed by them.

Many of these conflicts related to the theology of Augustine, Father of the Papacy, and all related to remnants of Papal heresies that the Reformers had not yet shed! Yet the Council would now make these imbalances to appear as evidence of the heretical nature of Protestantism!

Nor was it difficult to identify Protestant divergences from the Bible, since opposing groups diligently provided evidence in their attacks upon one another and upon the remaining heresies. Indeed, while warring against each other, the dominant parties often persecuted protesters in their midst even to death for what they called "heresy"--often truth, such as the seventh day Sabbath, adult baptism, or sleep in death, truths not yet perceived by those still blinded by elements of Roman Catholicism to which they still clung.

Thus, instead of following the third principle of the Reformation (priesthood of believers) and listening to one another as they studied Scripture together to know he truth (as the persecuted groups sought), they set about to defeat each other (or to eradicate the smaller “heretical” groups. This left them wide open to their common enemy, the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholic strategy was two-fold: 1) to identify every difference between Protestant groups and use the Bible evidence of one to repudiate the other’s position as unbiblical and to use that evidence to brand the Protestant violation of Scripture as the natural result of revolting from the mother church; and 2) to express their own doctrine in language as nearly biblical as possible to make it appear that they were the real defenders of Bible truth.

Yet, even in claiming the "high ground" as the only true expositor of Scripture, Trent determinedly held its most basic heresy--claiming ultimate authority as God's presumed supreme and only earthly representative. Posing as the sole determiner of heresy, Trent triumphantly set itself as an authority above Scripture!

Indeed, introducing its justification decrees these are identified as the voice of Christ speaking by the Holy Spirit through His official mouth piece, the Roman church, whose authority is itself clearly vested in the pope! For after naming all the civic nobility and church dignitaries, their gathering is identified as "in the name of our most holy father and lord in Christ, Paul III., by the providence of God, Pope, ..."

Thus, to deny anything the document asserts would be considered not only rebellious, but blasphemous. This, of course, is the very human authority the Reformers protested. Yet that authority is artfully set forth so as to appear to be more consistently biblical than Protestantism.

The introduction to the decrees of Trent on justification concludes with respect to:

... the true and sound doctrine touching said justification; which ... Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; ..."

The clincher comes in the succeeding and final clause:

[the RCC] most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.

Thus, two contrary factors are adroitly combined,

1) the Roman Catholic is alone consistently faithful to Scripture; and
2) the Roman Catholic is the only official and sole interpreter of Scripture.

Roman skill is here seen in all its consummate subtlety—Principle #2 directed to "the faithful" (above) denies any Protestant right to challenge their doctrine. But its power lies in #1, that threw Protestantism into confusion by exploiting their differences and simultaneously denying their right of appeal to Scripture as their authority by demonstrating violations of its teaching – teaching, howbeit, representing false Catholic doctrine, but in a manner to disguise the latter.

This marked a great turning point. With internal reformations in practice, relating largely to financial matters, clergy immorality, and administrative abuses, and using theological statements that would be very difficult for Protestants to challenge on the basis of the Bible, but which retained all basic Catholic doctrines intact, the Roman church came out more unified than ever. And this this unity was achieved by exploiting Protestant division in a way to further shatter its unity and to tarnish its image as defender of Scripture.

Many items in the document of Trent thus appear more "Protestant" in expression than the competing Protestant groups. But, as will be demonstrated below, the meanings of verbal statements must always be determined by what the authors mean by their terms. And these must be determined by the underlying principles and pre-suppositions.

Over a period of years the Roman Catholic Church had developed terms and expressions drawn from Scripture that would seem to support their doctrines-- thus pulling the rug out from under Protestant charges even while charging them with their own varied and conflicting heresies.

And it worked. Trent marked a major change in the flow from Catholicism to Protestantism, stalling the Protestant Reformation and rapidly re-taking lost ground--and this with only verbal changes that on the surface belied Protestant claims.

Suddenly, Protestants found themselves on the defensive, scrambling for cover. A seemingly endless series of defeats led to desperate efforts to unify and to re-frame the doctrine of justification so as to nullify the Papal advantage. To accomplish this they needed to close ranks and make a uniform attack on the Council of Trent document as heretical. But instead of affirming their claimed Scriptural authority by coming together to seek to know the truth on contraverted points, they sought to impose unity by forming a creed. And in this process, their purpose was to unify not in truth in general, but in developing statements concerning what they opposed in the doctrines of Trent.

Under “Lutheran Conflicts” we will see that this was a serious mistake; as it is impossible to develop a balanced doctrine when this is attempted in terms of what one opposes. The inevitable result is the creation of an opposite imbalance. And this is greatly complicated when the creed is designed to oppose other Protestant views.

Thus, to understand issues which even now impinge on Adventism, including the use of Trent language to charge Adventists with being Papal, we need to better understand both the Trent document and Protestant reaction leading to “The Articles [or Formula] of Concord” that historians often label “Articles of Discord,” resulting from intense Protestant conflict in an effort to prepare a unified attack upon the Papal decrees. I will later examine the Protestant dilemma and the Lutheran effort to provide a uniform response to Trent doctrines, which led to the Articles of Concord. But for now we will examine further Roman Catholic strategy and then the decrees in detail.

Preliminary Overview of Trent’s Language and Methods
Trent's language is archaic and its style complex; thus further attention to its purpose and methods and how these impacted the Lutheran conflict may be helpful before we examine the decrees. On the other hand, they are both unusually well organized and consistently expressed, which will make the concepts increasingly easy to grasp once we identify the meaning of the expressions. This preliminary overview will facilitate this process.

The 33 decrees (Canons or laws) follow 16 chapters of discussion that contain the Scriptural arguments, which are often valid, but only appear on the surface to represent Papal theology. Indeed, the Protestant error condemned is really Papal doctrine to which they clung.

It will thus become clear how wrong it is to put a Catholic label on Protestant statements that appear similar to Trent's. Similar wording in no way proves sameness of meaning! Especially when we examine Protestant response we will also see the danger of forming theology in terms of what we oppose--as we tend to do today.

Trent's complex strategy focused on the free will, in aiming its primary charges at Calvinist determinism, which holds that salvation is based on divine election of some to be saved and others to be lost. To accomplish its purpose to "divide and conquer," Trent had only to intensify the deep Protestant divisions resulting from the Protestant defense of Catholic error retained.

But this tricky strategy involved two dangers. For Trent must pit two competing Catholic heresies against each other in a way to identify each heresy as Protestant--the inevitable result of breaking away from the Mother Church, the source of truth. This required that:

1) they must avoid identifying Calvinist determinism with Augustine, father of the Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church’s hailed greatest theologian, who was also the author of Calvinist doctrines of original sin and predestination!

2) But perhaps more crucial, they must at the same time avoid affirming the central principle of Protestantism (by their use of Protestant expressions), thus aiding the Protestant cause by appearing to support free will Protestant advocates, whose opposition to Calvinist determinism they echoed.

But the masters of Trent were so subtle that, while appearing more Protestant than Protestants, they successfully intensified internal Protestant conflicts. While exposing Calvinist (including ultra Lutheran) theology, they made it appear that free will, anti-Calvinists held a Roman Catholic theology, by using their terminology. This especially seemed confirmed by their appearing to defend the scholastic, justification vs. sanctification formula, which free-will Protestant defended, but which Calvinists opposed. But, far from reflecting the doctrine of Trent, that formula severely divides all three groups from each other! To understand how, we must first determine just what the "formula" itself is and what was its purpose.

Justification vs. Sanctification Formula and 3-fold Division
The purpose of the justification vs. sanctification formula is valid and vital--to avoid both: a) the legalism Paul opposed when he insisted on justification by faith without works; and b) the antinomianism James confronted by declaring that even Abraham, father of the faithful, was justified by works that revealed his faith.

But, instead of the unity the formula was intended to provide, it became the center of perpetual controversy. The problem lies not in the Biblical analogies, justification and sanctification, but in their theological definitions which do not fit their Bible uses. Contrary to Scriptural usage, they are defined as counter parts of each other – something nowhere found in Scripture:

a) Justification is defined as the strictly objective act of God in accounting man righteous on the basis of Christ's merits. By contrast,

b) Sanctification is defined as the subjective work of the Holy Spirit in producing its fruit in man.

The formula is intended to unite the work of Christ for man and the work of the Spirit in man. But, having defined the two in opposite ways, the challenge is to hold them together and maintain a balance between them – especially when Scripture never even compares them, let alone contrast them.

While Calvinists rejected this doctrine (which involved an active free will which their determinist doctrine repudiated), they themselves retained the definitions but only to deny sanctification any role in the gospel—insisting that it is not a part of the gospel but merely the fruit of the gospel.

But Protestants who rejected the Augustinian doctrine of original sin and predestination and placed a high premium on the active will in faith, strongly defended sanctification as an integral part of the gospel and held its Calvinistic denial to be antinomian – even while Calvinists charged them not only with legalism but with Papalism, identifying them with the doctrine of Trent.

We will see however, that the doctors of Trent only appear to defend the formula, but deliberately subvert it and repudiate its very purpose by insisting that the Spirit’s subjective work in the heart involves meritorious action of the will that precedes and prepares for justification, in receiving Christ's merit. Thus, Romanists attribute merit to the human will as well as to divine justification.

Free Will Protestants More Fully Repudiate Romanism than Determinists
Free will Protestants were as opposed to this Papal subversion as were Calvinists and were also opposed to Protestant mysticism which clung to key Papal doctrines, such as belief in divine decrees which fixed the destinies of all men. They also opposed Calvinist doctrine that repudiates the intimate relation between the work of Christ in heaven (justification) and that of the Holy Spirit on earth (sanctification). Instead, they emphasized the necessity of an active will in receiving justification just as also in sanctification, treating them as two aspects of the same gospel. But free will Protestants were directly opposed to Trent’s for¬m¬u¬la because it claims human merit in sanctification. That which presumably unites the two, thus actually divides all three!

But, if Trent was also opposed to the Protestant defense, why did they consistently challenge Calvinism's repudiation of the formula, yet rarely note their conflict with free will Protestants? Because this would blow its strategy:

1) in order to drive their wedge between the Protestants, the minority, free will position must appear to be the same as their own; yet, at the same time

2) they must not appear to give credence to free will defenders of truth, thus implying Protestant faithfulness to Scripture;

3) but they dare not define the differences between themselves and free will Protestants; for this would expose their own betrayal of the scholastic formula, which they only appeared to support.

External and Internal Purposes of Trent
Before proceeding with an examination of Trent’s decrees (Canons), it might be helpful to summarize the internal and external threats the Papacy faced which Trent was called to fix:

Most urgent was the external threat from the Protestant Reformation, which was rapidly sweeping across Europe and seemed about to claim every country. The primary formula that had shattered Roman unity and strength was Protestantism’s three-fold theological unity in claiming: a) sola Scriptura (Scripture the only authority); sola gratia-sola fide (salvation by grace alone and through faith alone); and priesthood of believers (the doctrine that every member is a minister and is not only to confess his own sins to Christ, but must know the truth of Scripture for himself, and is also responsible as a minister to share truth with others). These three not only spelled death to Papal power, but the ultimate threat was the Protestant unity (despite its disunity) in charging the Pope with being the antichrist of Daniel 7 and 8. Thus, at all costs they must destroy the idea that they were valid interpreters of Scripture.

To accomplish this and make it appear that the Catholic Church was the true custodian of Scripture they recognized that they must carry out an internal reform of the grossest evils within the church and thus appear to be the true reformers. In this they merely dealt (at long last) with the tip of the ice berg of growing internal demands for reform of the countless abuses that had plagued the church for centuries and led to the protest of the princes and the Protestant Reformation.

The council began in December, 1545 and produced its Justification bomb blast only two months before Luther died, which is most significant. Had he lived, the Protestant response to this and to sessions which continued until 1563 would certainly have been very different. For, he had for years maintained the peace between Philip Melanchthon, whom he considered the greatest theologian, and his own ultra followers who, upon his death would open warfare upon Melanchthon and his supporters that would play right into the hands of the counter-reformation, providing them the very weapons they needed to accomplish their purpose.

Meanwhile, it was not the Pope who called the council; for he greatly feared its results. The great question before the council was just how fundamental the reforms would be. Those who favored a full scale reform, including repudiation of Papal authority, were soon over-ruled by those insisting on limiting their dealing to: a) obvious abuses of authority; and b) doctrinal extremes and inconsistencies that had supported Protestant claims.

This was in line with the primary Papal focus on practical issues of power and authority. Thus, major reforms were permitted so long as Papal authority remained supreme. Indeed, Trent's Doctrines led eventually to a formal declaration of the long standing doctrine of Papal infallibility.

The political success of Trent was nothing short of amazing. In political issues, appearance is always more important than substance. To accomplish this, Trent wisely dealt with both the Protestant "revolt" and the internal demands of reform simultaneously. This gave the impression they were accomplishing the real reformation, which ‘heretical’ Protestants only claimed to do. And they effectively did this without any fundamental change! The key to both the internal and external objectives was to denounce the extremes of two opposing Catholic theologies that through the centuries had been in constant competition – by identifying both with Protestantism.

Their bonanza was that opposing Reformation parties retained one or another of these Catholic heresies and were torn by internal conflict between themselves. This permitted Trent to unify Catholicism and reduce its own tensions by repudiating its own extremes, yet leaving Protestants holding the bag, both appearing to be the source of Papal extremes and also facing intensified internal conflicts stimulated by the Papal focus on issues that divided them.

Those opposite theologies were formulated and expressed in reaction to each other early in the fifth century by the famous Augustine of Hippo, in Africa, and Pelagius, a British monk who traveled to Rome. Appalled at the corrupt state of the church and clergy, Pelagius attributed this to Augustine's doctrine of original sin and the total depravity of the human will, so that man must remain totally passive in God’s all controlling hand merely claiming the doctrine of prevenient, irresistible grace.

By contrast, Pelagius held the opposite heresy. In his insistence upon an active will, he stressed moral responsibility, arguing that sin was neither irresistible nor independent of the freedom of choice. In doing so he attributed unwarranted power to the human will to attain perfection.

Because the theology of Trent was Pelagian and focused on the free will, its basic thrust was against Calvinist (Augustinian) determinism. But to accomplish its political purposes, three sharp blows were first directed against an extreme Pelagianism that proclaims the essential goodness of human nature and Pelagius’ doctrine of the adequacy of the will, even without the necessity of grace. But far from being a Protestant doctrine, as Trent implied, this was essentially an anti-Protestant position that severely undermines justification by faith.

Trent’s 33 Canons:

CANON I - If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, ... without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Building on this impression of defending Bible justification, the next anathema camouflages a dagger aimed at the heart of Protestantism.

CANON II - If any one saith that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only ... that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both--though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

Nor does Canon III merely repeat the first two. Indeed, it strategically and subtly introduces the issue that underlies all of its anti-Calvinist charges. Its aim is against a traditional Catholic formula designed to unite law and grace and eliminate conflict between them, but that divides all three parties: Calvinists, free will Protestants, and Catholics.

That traditional, Catholic formula treats justification as a strictly objective act of God in contrast to sanctification, as the united action of the holy Spirit and the human will. But instead of defending it, as appeared to many then and now, Trent actually subverts its purpose to repudiate all human merit, while maintaining unity and establishing a balance between justification and sanctification by complementary, objective-subjective meanings.

Just as do Calvinists, Trent retains the formula's theological definitions. But while Calvinists deny any merit to sanctification by separating it from the gospel as merely the automatic fruit of justification, Trent insists on merit, placing it prior to justification as necessary in preparing for it. Thus in opposite ways both destroy the formula by separating the two principles.

CANON III - If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help [sanctification], man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema. [Page 45]

As we proceed, we will see that Trent continues to avoid any claims that would expose its own semi-Pelagian stance and thus hides its perversion of the formula even as it challenges its defense by free will Protestants.

Most conservative SDAs who do not understand the issues would heartily agree with these Trent Decrees and at least many below. Some years ago, to prove that conservative SDA theology is Roman Catholic, the Trent decrees were presented (in modern language) to an unsuspecting Adventist group. And the hearty Amens were just as expected.

But does that prove their theology to be Catholic? Not at all. To prove that, it would be necessary to establish that underlying principles were the same and they meant the same thing by the terms used. And that just is not possible! For the two positions are as far apart as day and night.

Even Adventists whose imbalanced theology comes closest are far, far from that of Trent, which deliberately framed its doctrine in a way to appear to reflect the free will Protestant view of justification.

As we now examine Trent’s Calvinist indicting canons, it will be increasingly evident that both Protestant theologies that now impact Adventism are equally opposed to Trent--also that the justification vs. sanctification formula divides all three – Catholics, Calvinists, and Adventist who retain the free will Protestant position.

CANON IV - If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V - If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI - If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON VII - If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

These strategically developed canons focus on Calvinist fruits that spring from seeds planted by Augustine, father of the Papacy. His doctrine of original sin forms the root of the doctrine of absolute and total depravity of man so that he cannot exercise his will but must remain totally passive—a concept reflected in the "let go and let God" slogan we used to hear frequently. For, according to Calvin, even the effort to obey produces only further guilt. Thus good deeds only "merit the hatred of God."

While there is a measure of truth in this, heresy is always based on part-truth. While it is true, as Ellen White insists, that even our good deeds are tainted with selfishness and must be purified by the blood of Christ, it is not truth that efforts to obey are wrong because they reflect an active will that must remain passive, to be moved only by God, without our cooperation – as the extreme Calvinism which is targeted claims.

The Trent protest against this error is itself erroneous because it makes the action of the will both meritorious and separate from and prior to justification. The opposite danger to this error is the passivity here anathematized. The possibility of sorting this all out goes out the window so long as one condemns something merely because it is Roman Catholic rather than really understanding and discussing the error itself.

CANON VIII - If any one saith, that the fear of hell,_whereby, by grieving our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,--is a sin, makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.

Indeed, God uses fear to stimulate repentance. Thus, while we seek the maturity of deeper love motivation that comes only with increasing fellowship with God, by virtue of justification He treats us as though our motives were already absolutely pure.

CANON IX - If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining 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.

Divine-human cooperation is intrinsic to the faith that claims justification. Yet, placing co-operation prior to and a condition of justification reverses Paul’s teaching that we are not saved by obedience to the law, but that we are saved by justification which makes true obedience possible.

Trent thus correctly insists on divine-human co-operation. But to support its doctrine that action of the human will in good deeds is meritorious, rather than simply instrumental in claiming divine merit, is to insist on separating the will from faith, when faith is an action of the will or it is nothing at all. It thus repudiates justification by grace alone through faith alone. This error is a product of the classical Roman Catholic justification vs sanctification formula that forms the root from which our own conflicts spring!

CANON X - If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

Instead of faith as a Spirit-indicted act of the will in receiving Christ's righteousness, Trent makes the action of the will itself a meritorious human "work" that is essential to justification--besides Christ's merit! This separate "work" requirement is even clearer in XI, which denies Christ's righteousness ("justice") as the formal cause of justification. Thus, justification results not from a non-meritorious choice to receive Christ's merit, but from a prior, meritorious act of the will that is required as a condition to receive His merit!

CANON XI - If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost [sanctification], and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

The entire issue of authority is wrapped in the same package. To preserve the Papacy, nothing was more important than its authority over all mankind--not merely the believer. For it claimed to be the sole source and dispenser of divine grace, which it dispensed through the sacraments. Key to this, of course, was its system of present penance and a future purgatory for completing human merit for the full satisfaction of sin.

Thus the traditional formula must go. For its non-meritorious, subjective sanctification connected with a divinely meritorious justification must give way to a meritorious sanctification in acts of the will prior to justification. No price was too dear to maintain Papal authority as sole dispenser of grace. Thus the bold step in formally jettisoning the long standing Catholic formula! For the justification vs sanctification formula was the product of early efforts which no doubt helped hold back Papal apostasy, but which also produced confusion which fostered it.

So, to break the Papal dogma of authority and merit, Calvinists treat the subjective work of the Spirit as only fruits of the gospel, thus splitting the subjective from the objective, treating them as separate theological entities, one representing the gospel, the other denied any part in the gospel but declared merely its fruit. Either way significantly alters both Bible analogies--justification and sanctification!

Yet to preserve that Papal authority and merit, Trent claims to retain both. But does so in name only. For sanctification is not merely identified as the work of the Spirit; it is also declared a meritorious work of man. Either way, the formula is broken.

That is Trent's most urgent and deliberate task, to destroy the purpose of the justification/-sanctification formula, even while appearing to preserve it; because nothing is more important than Papal authority. And to prevent this by deliberately breaking the formula, Calvinists exclude all subjective elements from the gospel in order to do what the formula was intended to do–remove any possibility of human merit. This Calvinist threat had to be defused at any cost–even the cost of repudiating the most fundamental teachings of Augustine, father of the Papacy and its greatest theologian!

Calvinists, meanwhile, both rightly repudiate human merit and recognize the formula's inability to do what it was designed to do – to prevent both legalism, which results from a focus upon the human factor in salvation, and antinomianism, which denies human responsibility and identifies obedience as a threat to grace.

But Calvinism fails to resolve the real problem. The formula did not prevent development of the greatest system of legalism and its breeding of antinomianism, because its arbitrary definitions of justification and sanctification do not relate to the Bible usage of these analogies. Nor does Calvinism resolve this problem, but only intensifies it by splitting the work of Christ in justification from the work of the Spirit in obedience, identifying the objective work of Christ as the gospel while seeing the work of the Spirit and obedience as a threat to the gospel.

Both Trent and Calvinists retain the artificial definitions that contrast justification and sanctification. But for opposite reasons, both dismantle the formula, adamantly maintaining separation between the analogies, The difference lies in opposite ways they relate sanctification to justification. Trent identifies sanctification as meritorious and prior to justification; while Calvinists deny its role in the gospel to deny its merit and place it after justification as merely its fruit.

Thus each proclaims a different justification and a different sanctification. But neither theology represents the scholastic formula! Nor does that formula represent Scripture! No wonder the issue is so confusing. So long as the definitions of the formula, which all agree on, is maintained, a definition which in no way harmonizes with Scriptural use of these analogies, there is bound to be confusion, as various groups see to correct the confusion in opposite ways. As it is impossible to get a correct answer to a wrong question, so it is impossible to have a correct understanding of an incorrect formula. For further explanation of the problem of the formula and how sincere Calvinistic efforts only intensify both legalism and antinomianism click here.

Note again Trent's insistent denial of justification by faith alone.

CANON XII - If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII - If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

In every mind a battle always rages between faith and unbelief. It is dangerous to look within to see if one's faith is without any doubt. For Satan ever stimulates doubts that must be resisted by faith. True faith is not an absence of doubts but refusal to accept them. Even Christ was faced doubts. But He was never contaminated by them because He rejected every one.

The demoniac father's response, "Lord I believe; help mine unbelief," illustrates acceptable faith (Mk 9:24). It is by resisting doubt by a focus upon Christ and His word in refusing to consider one's feelings that faith is perfected. Justification does not reside in faith but is merely claimed by an act of the will which we call faith.

CANON XIV - 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.

Christ Himself warned against false assurance in declaring that many will “say, Lord, Lord,” insisting on many wonderful works in His name. But He will say, “depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity; I never did know you (emphasis in Greek; Mt 7:21-22).

But, valid as is the first clause, the second defends the deadly Papal heresy--that "faith alone" is not the ground of justification. Though not evident in every canon, while condemning extreme Pelagian heresy along with Augustinian heresy, the Canons, whether obviously or not, consistently defend the central Pelagian heresy--that human merit is a necessary supplement to divine merit.

As nothing else could, this consistent defense of the most vital root of Papal power and authority proves that Trent's purpose is not to reform Papal doctrine but to defend it.

CANON XV - If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI - If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,_ unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

Brief Mid-Point Review
At this mid-point it may be well to summarize our review of the first 16 Canons.

The first three canons seek to deal with free will problems in quick blows intended to destroy confidence in free will Protestants before defending their own free will position. But, in doing so they deal only with extremists. Their purpose was to tar Philipists (Melanchthon’s followers) with a brush deserved only by extremists who, totally contrary to Melanchthon, adopted a Pelagian approach in reaction to Calvinism that makes grace optional, since the unaided will is sufficient. This was not at all typical of Protestantism but contrary to its basic principle.

In Canon III Trent begins to shift its guns to its main target, Calvin's Augustinian determinism. The same intense focus seen in IV-IX, which insists on meritorious human co-operation with the divine as essential to justification and anathematizes all who deny meritorious co-operation.

The same continues in X-XII, where the emphasis shifts to a direct attack of justification by grace through faith alone. Here the charges are leveled against Calvinistic antinomianism which so earnestly seeks to repudiate human merit that it confuses acts of faith with legalism.

Indeed, the same anti-Calvinism continues unabated in XIII to XVI and will continue in the rest of the canons. But here specific point of attack is Calvin's doctrine of irresistible grace and necessary certainty of being justified (as one of the elect).

CANON XVII - If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

But, as in every decree--even the first two canons against the extreme Pelagian doctrine of the essential goodness of man's nature, so that grace merely assists man in securing approval before God; Papal authority is the underlying issue!

Note three reasons why the wording of many Trent canons is close to Adventist statements of belief, even when the two are contrary in meaning.

1) We tend to relate to issues re: the gospel in terms of the scholastic, justification vs. sanctification formula which, in perverted form, underlies the doctrine of Trent.

2) Trent draws much of its wording from Scripture, as we also do; and we both deny the same non-Biblical doctrines.

3) Meantime, without yielding a single Papal principle, Trent artfully designs its expressions to appear more Protestant than Protestantism!

Similarities appear even greater in Canons XVIII-XXI, as attacks shift specifically to antinomian sentiments resulting from the doctrines of original sin, divine election, and predestination.

These canons begin by enforcing God's moral law but end by calling for obedience to the Church--a shift that is most explicit in Trent's last six canons. Bear in mind as you read these that the Roman Church sees obedience to God and His commandments as obedience to the Church, which they claim has been given authority not only to interpret truth and to enforce, but even to change.

CANON XVIII - If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

Nor is correction of all error ever easy. For all truth by nature involves paradoxical principles that appear to oppose each other, but are actually designed to balance and give meaning to each other. And all heresy is based on truth, but only part truth that is twisted or out of balance.

Thus, heresy cannot be corrected by merely repudiating error. This can only land one in the opposite ditch. Instead, balancing principles must by united in right relation so that truth itself excludes the error. That will happen only as we base our beliefs on the whole Word of God. For, when truth is whole it is self-correcting. And to secure whole truth we must practice the third principle of the Reformation, which gave it its power – a priesthood of believers in which we submit ourselves one to another and we go to Scripture together and, laying aside prejudice, truly seek the Spirit’s guidance to know what Scripture teaches.

God has ordained that we discover truth by trial and error as we study His Word. Thus differences between various groups are inevitable. For the experience and study of each differs. He intends that we share with and listen to each other so that truths found by one are shared by all others.

This would have happened, had Protestants remained true to the third principle of the Reformation, which all Reformers proclaimed. That principle denies all human authority and makes all believers, including leaders, subject one to another under the authority of God's Word alone. Had this always been followed the Papal system–which is based from stem to stern on human authority, never could have developed.

Reformers trained under this system instinctively reverted to it. Understandable as this is, its results were disastrous. For it prevented the divine balancing system to operate, as each member both corrects others by Bible truths he discovers and is corrected by the truths others discover. It is relatively simple to recognize error. But it takes time to grasp the balance of truth.

Thus we need each other's help. For it is instinctive for each to strike out against heresy without realizing the danger of destroying the truth thus distorted. When all believers submit to the word and humble themselves to one another, the Holy Spirit is free to balance and unite them.

Meanwhile, Protestants who clung to the ineffective justification/sanctification formula were more susceptible to legalism, while Calvinists, who recognized its weakness and too quickly repudiated it, led an antinomian reaction. And those are the very parties we have within our movement to this day, which are often identified as Conservative and Liberal.

What a pity that the Reformers did not humble themselves one to another, both sharing with and receiving from others the evidences of God's Word thus mutually discovered. But, instead, even in proclaiming the responsibility of each to study for himself, Protestants then and now co-operated with the arch-enemy's strategy to "divide and conquer."

That strategy works best in the context of human authority–as represented by the council of Trent; for it was neither restricted by either divine authority nor were its members free to think and choose for themselves.

By authoritatively correcting the most serious extremes and abuses that stimulated the Reformation, Catholics -- in contrast to Protestants -- were able to come into much greater unity. Unfortunately that unity was based on both human authority and Pelagian subversion of the formula. Yet, Trent proclaims vital, though distorted truth: perpetuity of the law and human responsibility for obedience in relation to divine grace.

True faith never subverts two-fold, divine-human interaction. Indeed, faith is the very means of obedience. The problem lies in failure to recognize and honor the eternally ordained balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

CANON XIX - If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX - If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments; let him be anathema (bold added).

Nor, in protesting the false doctrine of "only believe," is Trent so concerned to protect the ten commandments as to assert the authority of the Papacy

Is this judging motives? Not at all. The Papal attitude toward God's law is clearly indicated by its elimination of the 2nd command, against idols, which it boldly chooses to violate. It even dares to change the 4th command–the only one God tells us to remember. Moreover, the Roman church consistently claims the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week to be the sign of her authority.

If freely altering and violating God's commandments were not enough to prove that the defense is primarily that of Papal authority, rather than the authority of the moral law, Trent leaves no doubt. For its final decrees clearly enforce the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and necessity of obedience to the decrees of Trent.

CANON XXI - If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

The next six canons return to the issue of human merit. Everything is downhill from here as we coast past issues already dealt with repeatedly. The next six canons do treat Calvinism's persevering faith. But the basic concepts remain and the rest of the decrees merely nail down earlier principles and prepare for Trent's final, authoritative claims.

Note how, as it repudiates Pelagian extremes in its continuing target of Calvinistic determinism, Canon XXII carefully obscures that fact that it upholds Pelagius' root principle of merit and also that the reactionary, Protestant antinomianism it attacks is the fruit of Augustinian theology.

CANON XXII - If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

We heartily agree with both condemnations. Yet, the Calvinist doctrine of the absolute perversion of human nature, on which the latter is based, though extreme, involves a very vital part-truth to which Trent was blinded by its Pelagian focus and one which many Adventists also fail to grasp. While we must protest any denial of the grace of Christ to enable obedience; the Calvinist claim re: the corruption of the will must not be totally denied. For the will is indeed so corrupt that obedience itself, and even our prayers and praise must be purified by the merits of Christ!

****

We need a balance of the truth underlying both this Augustinian insight and Pelagian commitment to the active will and human responsibility to keep God's law. Meanwhile, each extreme view reflects reaction to the opposite extreme and illustrates the serious danger of forming our theology in terms of what we are against.

CANON XXIII - lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial, _except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV - If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works [sanctification] are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

Calvinists recognized that to treat these as separate yet united entities is to permit proclamation of human merits along side of Christ's merits! They saw that this requirement underlies and is essential to the entire system of penance, purgatory, etc. Thus they intensely deny any role to sanctification in the gospel.

It is sad that they did not question the formula itself, so as to discover the parallel nature of both justification and sanctification in Scripture, each of which the formula wrongly delimits. Instead they retained one delimited analogy (justification) and removed the other delimited analogy (sanctification).

In reaction against Calvin's solution, Trent retains a delimited, legal justification and places sanctification prior to it as a meritorious works based on a meritorious will. Against this, Calvinism reacts by also retaining a strictly legal justification, but proclaims this the entire gospel and with human merit, excludes also the very action of the will in faith that accepts the gospel.

Thus, obedience itself has no role in the gospel; for, in compliance with Augustine's predestination Calvinism holds that man's will is so depraved that God Himself must determine not only to whom to give faith, but also virtually functions man's will. Against this that Trent strikes ever more directly as the decrees come to a climax.

CANON XXV - If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just[ified] sins venially at least, or_which is more intolerable still_mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

Yet, Trent's protest is justified, as it repudiates Calvinism's Augustinian determinism that dictates a strictly passive will that is divinely controlled in the elect. Denial of the active exercise of the will is a by-product of the doctrine of original sin. Man's will is declared so absolutely corrupt that its active exercise–even in seeking to obey–is so evil as to only intensify his guilt. Waggoner used similar language but within the context of an entirely different theology.

Venial sins referred to represent relatively innocent sins that are declared not to threaten salvation; while mortal sins are eternally damnable. True, sins are not all of the same magnitude, as some erroneously hold. But this division reflects deep-seated legalism that focuses on behavior in determining merit and guilt, rather than on motives. This is a serious error. For motives re: the action, rather than the action itself, always determine the negative or positive value. Indeed, this was the central point of Christ's entire sermon on the mount.

CANON XXVI - If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema (pp 47-48).

CANON XXVII - If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity; him be anathema.

Indeed, to a large degree, reflection of Pelagian error is a result of our interpreting issues in terms of the traditional, justification vs. sanctification formula, the first half of which was later repudiated by the Formula of Concord. Strangely enough, however, that document, which came to be dubbed as "The formula of discord, embraces elements of both legalism and antinomianism.

As I argue in three other papers, our only hope of avoiding the confusion of the traditional formula which we generally honor (and which precipitated our conflict with Ford, who opted for the Formula of Concord which condemns the scholastic formula but retains the definitions and thus violates Scriptural meaning) is to reject the formula itself and get back to the Bible usage of the justification and sanctification analogies.

Before examining the next three cannons, let us briefly review the primary earmarks of Trent’s consistent and effective strategy to defend the Papacy. It must:

1) target Calvinist determinism, which posed the greatest theological threat to Papal authority; for it places the dispensation of grace in the immediate hands of God by divine, prior election, thus removing its distribution entirely from sacraments administered by the Roman Church;

2) defend human merit, by which alone sacramental authority could be enforced; and do so in a way to

3) intensify Protestant divisions; and

4) appear to be the sole dependable interpreter of Scripture by a method of condemning heresy in a way to draw least attention to its own underlying theological principles that would expose its historical responsibility for such heresies.

But what were their spiritual motives? We might instinctively assume Trent's framers were only seeking to retain authority and power. Only God knows. The motives of each would differ and would be mixed at best, as were those of Protestants. Certainly, if one believes in the divine bestowal of authority and power, their defense would involve high level motivation in a sense of responsibility to fulfill their presumed God given role – just as was the sense of Saul of Tarsus. Doubtless at least some of the framers were as sincere in commitment as were Protestants–whose own mixed motives must be judged by the One Who graciously judged that of Saul, the most intense and purposeful persecutor of His apostolic followers.

Behind the evil actions of Saul Tarsus God saw earnest commitment to defend truth and His kingdom. Instead of condemnation, God chose to use that intense zeal and purposiveness for His own cause. May this perspective guide our thinking as we examine this penultimate trio of canons and see how they intensify the consistent principles that became evident in the first three.

CANON XXVIII - If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema.

The underlying issue (implied in the last clause which identifies as heretical the idea that love relationships are a requirement in true obedience) is the authority of the Church and its sacramental administration of grace. Disconnecting the obedience it earlier demands from love motivation is a direct product of sacramentalism, that makes grace a legal product administered by the church.

This also explains the philosophy of persecution–that even forced obedience is valid. Thus it is a favor to heretics to enforce RC doctrine and force obedience!

CANON XXIX - If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church_instructed by Christ and his Apostles_has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.

Why the qualifier, "who has fallen after baptism"? To Catholics, baptism is not merely an ordinance and testimony, but a sacrament of grace whereby the Church, as God's sole agent, distributes that grace to the believer, beginning with removal of the guilt of "original sin" at baptism.

Baptism in infancy is so important that a baby about to die must be baptized. If no priest is available, a lay person must perform the rite -- even if a non-Catholic. Moreover, if not baptized in infancy, the dead child must be baptized later to remove the fatal guilt of Adam divinely imputed to him, which the non-biblical sacrament alone can remove.

Protestants were severely divided over infant baptism and whether it was a means of grace or a memorial rite in testimony to God's grace. Those who so far repudiated the sacramental Catholic doctrine as to practice and teach adult baptism only, faced persecution and even martyrdom at the hands of Protestants who considered this blasphemous. The second indictment exposes Trent's motivation in its usual protest against ultra Pelagian confidence in man's capacity to live righteously without the merit of God's grace. The reason for its constant insistence on meritorious works is now revealed; it is essential to enforce "the sacrament of penance" -- and hell, purgatory, etc.

Nor is penance merely the Catholic term for repentance. It is "what the holy Roman ... church ... has hitherto professed ... and taught"—the doctrine that provoked the Protestant Reformation. It is the doctrine behind the sale of indulgences and all works of penance in payment for sin. To enforce this is the powerful motivation of terrible suffering in purgatory to make up the balance of debt, and an infinitely more terrifying, eternally burning hell for those whose "mortal sin" cannot be alleviated by purgatory!

The purpose of these pernicious doctrines is precisely that of Trent's decrees–to establish the sole authority of the Roman Church, which alone can distribute God's grace, and that only by its sacraments–most important of which are a) baptism, b) penance, and c) Eucharist. The latter is not identified in the decrees, but it is most central to the reminders that the Church is the divinely ordained distributor of divine grace. With d) confession to a priest, this provides an integrated system underlying the whole RC concept of justifying grace.

From beginning to end, the issue is thus Papal authority, which rests on the doctrine that:

a) Christ's authority has been handed down from the Apostles in unbroken succession through the Roman Catholic Church;

b) the Church is the sole reservoir of grace for all men, to be dispensed only through the seven sacraments; and

c) justification is impossible without "the sacrament of Penance" to supplement the merits of Christ.

CANON XXX - If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

Every canon must thus be evaluated in terms of purgatory. Merit interpenetrates the whole doctrine and involves an absolute requirement of penance. What a different color this gives to Canons, # 1 & 2 that are so Protestant appearing.

By no accident is this openly disclosed only in XXX rather than in III. Trent is now ready to play hard ball. "The debt of eternal punishment is [not] blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt" until that debt is "discharged either in this world [via penance] or in the next in Purgatory." Then only is "entrance to the kingdom of heaven ... opened (to him)"!

Thus the Church not only claims authority over this life;it determines removal of "the debt of eternal punishment"!

Note: this not only emphasizes the ultimate authority of the Church, which can alone provide entrance to the eternal kingdom. But it provides the motivating basis for that Church’s income. For both penance and the threat of purgatory provide a powerful means of assuring Income -- the specific cause of Luther’s challenge and ultimate separation from Romanism.

That the Church claims to control the amount of time in purgatory in a purifying process to prepare the soul for heaven, is a measure of the extent the church controls even the after life!!

That such purification from sin id external and strictly legal in nature is indicated by the possibility of reducing the debt in purgatory not only by prior penance, but by acts of penance in behalf of those who have died.

We will now examine the final trio of canons (XXXI-XXXIII) in light of fact that Trent's entire set of decrees is designed to enforce the power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

CANON XXXI. If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

That we may have mixed motives does not necessarily mean our good deeds represent only sin and are unacceptable to God. He knows whether we are "in Christ" because committed to Him. If so, we are justified and our works are judged on the basis of His perfection.

In any event, Trent is very wrong to attribute human merit to good works, which are but a testimony to the efficacy and power of the gospel to transform lives.

CANON XXXII - If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,_if so be, however, that he depart in grace,_and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

Such legalism is inevitable in Trent's Pelagian approach to justification–where specific sins are justified rather than the sinner. This denies the key to divine judgment–underlying motives. But such a denial is essential to the administration of penance, etc.

According to Scripture, no one is ever partially justified. We are either justified by Christ or in the hopeless state of self-justification. The concept of partial justification always implies the necessity of human merit along with Christ's merit. This is true of any who believe in partial justification -- including Adventists --, even if they abhor the Catholic system of penance.

To be justified is to receive Christ and, with Him, the whole of His righteousness, which is always available to all. We either receive Him by faith or we do not. If we truly receive Christ's merits we are in a justified state and are judged in and through His perfect righteousness. This is what Paul means by justification by grace through faith and not of works.

Trent's climactic insistence on human merit in "good works" whereby the sinner is "justified" is capped by a final, formal decree of Papal authority:

CANON XXXIII - If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod set forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

As we now look back at the 33 decrees we see a few totally consistent threads that bind them all together in a logical package. Both Pelagian and Augustinian extremes are castigated, but in a way to defend, side by side, the primary principles of both Pelagius and of Augustine. The most crucial Catholic dogma is of human merit and Papal authority. This is based upon and empowered by Augustine's doctrine's of immortality, infant baptism, and purgatory.

This is done so skillfully that the focus remains on heresies Protestants retained from Roman Catholicism and in a way that the real perpetrator of these heresies appears to be the champion of Scripture. (See main body of Trent for their Scriptural arguments, as drawn largely from Protestant accusations against each other in pointing out remaining Papal heresies each retains which the other does not).

While unifying the Catholic church by providing a systematic set of answers to Protestant doctrines, Trent thus turned the tables. By intensifying conflict among Protestants they now put Protestantism on the run and threatened their very existence.

Protestantism's best hope was in coming together to listen to each other's testimony of Scripture and, under the influence of the Spirit, testing each by the whole of Scripture. For each held keys to the other's errors. But that did not happen. Nor has that been happening within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, whose doctrinal pillars have been affirmed by God, but theological understanding of those doctrines and practical applications are yet to release the Spirit of God in latter rain power.

We will now consider the Protestant dilemma resulting from Trent under the heading, Lutheran Conflict. There we will see how "The articles of Concord," intended to unite, proved to be articles of discord that continue even yet to divide. Instead of completing the Reformation, the second generation of Protestants went into a defense mode that permitted Catholics to regain much of the ground lost to the initial sixteenth century Reformers.