by
T. A. McMahon
I don't get you people, the
young lady complained. "I'm a Roman Catholic who was placed on
your newsletter list, no doubt by one of my well-meaning Protestant
friends. Some of the stuff you write is
interesting, if not worthwhile, but I'm sick and tired of your continually
picking on my Church! We love Jesus
just as much as any of you non-Catholics.
And why are you promoting ExCatholics For Christ? Why don't you push ex-Baptists,
ex-Methodists, or ex-Presbyterians for Christ? Quit attacking us Catholics!!”
We receive a few such letters
from Roman Catholics voicing their objections to what we write about their
Church's beliefs and practices. That
neither greatly surprises nor disturbs us.
It is disheartening, however, to hear from an increasing number of
professing evangelicals who are just as critical of our "attacking Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ." Even some of our longtime readers wonder why
at times we seem to be "so
preoccupied" with Roman Catholicism.
As many of you know, TBC1
is a ministry actively concerned about trends, movements, events,
organizations, influential church personalities, teachings, practices, etc.,
which adversely affect the body of Christ.
Our bottom-line evaluation of any teaching or practice is simply: Is it
Biblical? (Is. 8:20; Acts 17:11). This
is what God has called us to do, as well as to exhort believers in Christ to
grow in personal discernment, that they may be encouraged to test all things by
the Scriptures (2 Cor. 13:5; 1 Thess. 5:21).
So how does Roman Catholicism
fit into this?
From a Biblical perspective,
nothing impacting the church today, other than possibly the influence of
psychology, is more detrimental to evangelicals' understanding, application and
proclamation of the Gospel that saves souls than is their increasing acceptance
of the Catholic gospel. In this
two-part series, we will detail some of the reasons for giving this so much of
our attention.
Our motivation includes: 1) Our concern for the eternal destiny of
nearly one billion Catholic souls worldwide (one in four in the United States)
who are lost if Roman Catholicism teaches an unbiblical gospel. 2) Our concern over the lack of discernment,
and consequently the decreasing spiritual fruitfulness in the body of Christ
because Catholics are not only being accepted as fellow believers by increasing
numbers of evangelicals today, but some of their false beliefs and rituals are
also being assimilated. 3) Our
compelling love for Christ and our obedience to His Word.
Central to this issue is Roman
Catholicism's gospel of salvation. If
the differences between what the Bible teaches and what the Catholic Church
teaches are insignificant, then we are to be blamed (as some have already
complained) for being divisive, and therefore destructive to the unity of the
faith. However, if the differences are irreconcilable,
then the wrong belief condemns its adherents to an eternity separated from
God. Are the differences
significant? Are they reconcilable?
For all its serious problems,
the Roman Catholic Church cannot be faulted for misunderstanding what
evangelicals believe is the Gospel of salvation, since it is spelled out in no
uncertain terms in Rome's official canons and decrees. The following citations are from the Council
of Trent, which met over a nineteen-year period primarily to denounce the
teachings of the Protestant Reformation.
Although the Council met in the sixteenth century, its decrees were
reaffirmed by the Church's most recent councils, both Vatican I and II. Consider Catholicism's position on what
evangelicals uphold as the Gospel (that is, that salvation is by grace through
faith alone in Christ alone who, through His sacrificial death on the cross,
paid the full penalty for all the sins of humanity):
6th Session, Canon 9: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,
meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate, in order to obtain the
grace of justification...let him be anathema.
6th
Session, Canon 12: If anyone shall say
that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy,
which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that
justifies us, let him be anathema.
6th
Session, Canon 30: If anyone says that
after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and
the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that
no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or
in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
7th Session, Canon 4: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [canons and
decrees of the Church] are not necessary for salvation but...without them...men
obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification...let him be
anathema.
An anathema, according to
Webster's New World Dictionary, is a condemnation, "a formal curse, as in excommunicating a person." As the above decrees demand, Roman
Catholicism requires more than faith in Christ for salvation. Obedience to the laws of the Church,
regarded as "grace-enabled"
works and including participation in the sacraments, is necessary for entrance
into heaven. Breaking the laws (i.e.,
committing mortal sins) consigns one to eternal separation from God if such
sins are not absolved by a priest before death.
In contrast to the Roman
Catholic process of salvation through meritorious works, the Apostle Paul gives
the Biblical teaching that salvation is by grace through faith and not of
works, but it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 6:23). Paul insists that "to him that worketh not, but believeth on [Jesus Christ who]
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom.
4:5). Again in Galatians: "But
that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for,
The just shall live by faith" (3:11).
Demanding that works are necessary for salvation is an outright
rejection of Christ's perfect and complete atonement for sins on the cross. Yet
Roman Catholic dogma insists there is something one can and must do to complete
his redemption and to be reconciled to God.
It teaches that, without personally appeasing God for one's sins through
suffering here on earth and almost certainly in purgatory, there is no hope of
salvation. Referring to those who have
suffered for sins, Vatican II states,
"They have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and
the sins of others" (ID chp
2:5). The Bible, however, declares this
to be an impossibility.
Can the unjust justify
the unjust? No. Christ alone is the justifier of the unjust
(1 Pet. 3:18; Rom. 3:25-26). Divine
justice could only be satisfied sacrificially by one who was not under
condemnation for sin. Peter (whom
Catholics claim as their first infallible pope) writes, "...ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,
...but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and
without spot" (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Furthermore, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins
(Heb. 9:22). Therefore, in order to
remove sins according to the Scriptures, the one atoning must be sinless and
his sacrifice must involve the shedding of blood. That disqualifies everyone except Jesus Christ, "in whom we have redemption through his
blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14) and who "loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood"
(Rev. 1:5). Thus not only is every
penitential work by a Catholic futile, but even more grievous is the fact that
it denies the finished work of Christ on the cross – one's only hope for
salvation.
Vatican II (which many
evangelicals and professing born-again Catholics wrongly assume has redirected
Roman Catholicism on a more Biblical and therefore more evangelically
compatible course) states that "From
the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for
the salvation of sinners, particularly the works [i.e., sufferings and
miseries] which human weakness finds hard....Indeed, the prayers and good works
of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted
that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire
Christian people..." (ID chp
2:5). "Penitential expiation"
in Catholic teaching requires that sins be paid for by the sinner through
purifying punishments. Vatican II explains:
Sins
must be expiated. This may be done on
this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above
all, through death. Otherwise the expiation
must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying
punishments... in purgatory the souls of those..."who had not made
satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions" are
cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt (ID chp 1:2).
On the contrary, believers sing
with profound thankfulness of that which the Bible tells us over and over again
– Christ's sacrifice: "He paid a debt He did not owe, I owed
a debt I could not pay...."
God's Word declares that "Neither
is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven
given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Only the blood of Jesus Christ, i.e., his
death, can cleanse us from sin (1 Jn. 1:7).
Roman Catholicism clearly preaches another gospel condemned by Paul
(Gal. 1:6-9).
Some may be thinking, "Why does TBC spend so much time
telling us something that is so obvious?" The primary reason is that those who see the obvious are a
rapidly decreasing minority. The
majority of evangelicals are simply following their leaders toward Rome. Nearly all the highly visible Christian
personalities and parachurch organizations are either blind to Catholicism's
false salvation, or, for their own reasons or agendas (regarding which I hope
our readers will inquire of them), they choose to dismiss this critical matter
of the eternal destiny of a vast number of souls. They get very upset when we state that the Roman Catholic Church
is an enemy of the Gospel. What other
term should we use? The clear denunciation of the Biblical Gospel by the
Council of Trent, with its more than 100 anathemas (in addition to the four
listed above), and reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, comes
from the highest Roman Catholic authority.
So why would those who claim to
be evangelicals, and whose ministries seem to be effective for God's kingdom,
compromise with a Church which is the enemy of the Gospel? Why would a host of evangelical leaders
(Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, J.I. Packer, Max Lucado, Os Guiness,
Timothy George and others) sign an agreement calling Catholics "brothers
and sisters in Christ" and agreeing not to evangelize them?
Why would James Dobson accept an
honorary degree from Catholic Franciscan University? Or why would Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson, allow a
Catholic bishop to say Mass on campus, or the school's president declare that
his goal was "to make room for all
of the historic Christian traditions, both Protestant and Catholic"?
Why would Billy Graham say in
1952, "Many of the people who have
reached a decision for Christ at our meetings have joined the Catholic Church,
and we have received commendations from Catholic publications for the revived
interest in their church following one of our campaigns" (Pittsburgh
Sun-Telegraph 9/6/52)? And add, 25
years later, "I've found that my
beliefs are essentially the same as those of Orthodox Roman Catholics.... We
only differ on some matters of later Church tradition" (McCall's 1/78)?
How is it that more than 70
percent of the chaplains for Prison Fellowship are Roman Catholic? Why did Chuck Colson, a co-developer with
Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus of the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together"
accord, recently turn over the reins of Prison Fellowship to Michael Timmis, a
practicing Roman Catholic – and why is Timmis a Promise Keeper board member?
Dallas Theological Seminary's
leadership conference for evangelical pastors and seminarians is being held
this month. Why would they have as a
keynote speaker William Bennett, a founding director of Catholic Campaign for
America, which has the following mission statement: "We are a lay Catholic
movement to energize and mobilize Catholics to renew their faith and, through
that renewal, to help transform American public policy, culture, and
society"?
Why would Hank Hanegraaff,
president of the evangelical apologetics organization Christian Research
Institute, and host of "The Bible
Answer Man" radio program, claim that Roman Catholicism is "foundationally Christian"?
The cries we hear from both
Catholics and evangelicals are that TBC is living in the "dark ages," or that we have a "Reformation hangup," or aren't we aware that Vatican II
has redirected the Roman Catholic Church along Biblical lines? If their
concerns are valid, we need to acknowledge it; if however such critics are
mistaken, that should be exposed.
We will explore this aspect of
the evangelical rush toward Rome further in the next issue. g
Editor’s Note:
1 TBC is an abbreviation for the The Berean Call from
which this article is used by permission.
(October, 1999)