It is affirmed and repeated by the upholders of Evangelicals and Catholics Together that the justification of sinners ‘is not earned by any good works or merits of our own’. But this is a specious use of words. The Roman Church has always claimed that ‘the good works’ necessary for justification are performed in cooperation with Christ

Thus Cannon XXXII of Trent teaches that good works performed through the grace of God and the merit of Christ ‘truly merit eternal life’. No matter what is credited to Christ, works remain a necessary part of justification, and because no one can know if his works are of sufficient quality Rome denies the possibility of assurance, and teaches the necessity of sacraments and of purgatory for most Christians.

‘The doctrine invented by the papists is that we can do nothing without Christ, but that aided by Him, we have something of ourselves in addition to His grace’ [Calvin]. Contrary to Rome, the Reformers held that justification is not a process but an act of God, accounting the work of Christ to the sinner who receives Him. It is a once-for-all event, of which good works are not a part but a consequence.

In the present fragmented state of Christianity and threatened by rampant secularism and materialism, why should evangelicals remain apart from the ‘greater unity’ which Rome professes to offer? If evangelicals have discovered that the differences do not concern the essentials of the gospel, and there is now agreement ‘on the basics’, why should there not be reunion?

It is by Scripture that the decision must be reached whether a Reformer such as John Hooper was mistaken in being ‘willing to give up his life rather than consent to the wicked papistical religion of the Bishop of Rome’. When urged to recant with the words, ‘Consider that life is sweet, and death is bitter’, the one-time Bishop of Gloucester replied: ‘The life to come is more sweet, and the death to come is more bitter.’

The Reformers were men mighty in the Scriptures. Their eyes were opened to the Church of Rome; what they once thought to be the bride of Christ, became to them the great harlot, and they came out of her. Unless there is a renewal of what made Protestantism, the uncertainties promoted by books like 'Is the Reformation Over?' can only continue to influence larger numbers.

Why is ecumenicalism defined in terms of Protestants coming home to Rome? Instead, why should it not be defined as all Christians being united around the doctrines of Jesus Christ? That is, local and independent churches governed by elders under the authority of Christ through His word given to us in the Holy Scriptures and opened to us by the Holy Spirit; a pure doctrine of justification by faith alone and a complete and sufficient atonement that atones once for all time; an unambiguous salvation that is in Christ alone by grace alone.

Certainly, where there are basic gospel truths, Christians may be found. That such basic truth survives within the formularies of the Roman Church is not denied, nor has such a denial ever been part of the Protestant case against Rome. The issue is whether the system of teaching and practice with which Rome indoctrinates her people is consistent with those basic truths. The Reformers judged that system against Scripture and showed the fundamental contradictions:

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=lloydjones

Mr. Schaeffer did say that ‘God is there’; he also said that ‘God has spoken’. He reveals Himself in Creation and in the Holy Scriptures. The modern Protestant Church has compromised both leading to weakness and irrelevancy.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2009/06/19/picking_a_fight_with_fellow_evangelicals

Many are saying that the Reformation is over and some call the evangelical movement “the richest, most powerful religious movement in history”. But herein is the problem. Our people do not recognize that the Reformation was the act of the triune God reforming His Church. What we have now is a religious movement that has exchanged truth for the wisdom of men.

Who will call for a return to Reformation doctrine? That is, a belief in the absolute sovereignty of God over all things including salvation;

a belief in a victorious and powerful Christ who has all authority in heaven and earth so that nothing is able to prevent Him from accomplishing His will;

a belief in the sufficiency of Scripture for the rule of faith and practice for the Christian and the churches;

a belief in the New Covenant promise that all believers are priests and kings to their God through the merits of Christ alone with the great privilege to read and study the Scriptures for themselves.

Herein are the foundations of liberty that are the first things that led to what we now refer to as conservatism.

If our doctrine is no different than Rome, then why not return to Rome for the sake of a hollow unity? We who call ourselves evangelical would do well to consider 1 Kings 18…

Far from being an obsolete Reformation issue, the 1998 Papal Bull, Incarnationis Mysterium, states in detail how by obtaining an indulgence the pains of purgatory may be reduced for oneself or for the dead.

Yet the spokesmen of Rome tell us that the Holy Spirit has inspired the tradition of the Church as He has inspired Scripture. We may therefore trust Rome as much as we may trust Scripture. Indeed we may trust Rome more, because we cannot depend on our own understanding of Scripture: ‘The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and of the bishops in communion with him.’ These words are not from the sixteenth century, but from the official Vatican teaching of 1994. The convert to Rome today is required to believe what the Church believes.

The charge made by John Owen long ago remains true: ‘The church of Rome lays claim to the very same authority over and conduct of the consciences of men in religion as were committed unto Jesus Christ and His apostles.’ [Works, vol 14, p. 499]

The issue of authority is the real key to the Roman/Protestant division. Far from being an isolated belief it underpins everything that stands against evangelical Christianity. Let Rome’s claim to share in the rule of faith with Scripture be taken away, and her claim to mediate salvation through priest and sacrament must fall. It is irresponsible for Noll and Nystrom to write as though the nature of the church is an issue separable from the way of salvation, especially as they know that Rome claims their Church to be ‘an integral part of the Gospel’. [Evangelicals and Catholics Together] On this point the Roman Catechism is explicit…

‘They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.’ [Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 196-197]

Noll and Nystrom tell us that the anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century on those who left Rome to uphold evangelical belief are now removed. But they are only removed for those ready to blur the evangelical beliefs recovered at the Reformation. How can a person be an evangelical and acquiesce to such official statements of Roman belief as, ‘Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith…It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism’. [Catechism, pp. 433-434]

On the primary issue nothing has changed. The old claim stands that the Roman church of the apostolic age is the same Church of Rome today; the true Church as compared with the communities that only began with Martin Luther and are not to be called churches. So Pope Benedict, in his decree of July 10, 2007, answered the question why the Second Vatican Council did not use the word ‘church’ when speaking of the congregations of the Reformation:

-Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching on ‘The Wiles of the Devil’, January 29, 1961