Hi everyone,

I would like to share an excellent article by Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn and editor of “Modern Reformation” magazine on the issue of what still keeps true evangelical Christians apart from Roman Catholicism. This is an excellent review article that has wide ranging applications to current evangelicalism, and also relates to those who have been brought up in other legalistic backgrounds:

http://www.the-highway.com/Horton_cath.html

There are some great quotes in here, and I will try to share my favorites as time permits.

Stan

“There is only one thing standing in the way: The gospel itself.”

“I do not say this in a cavalier or cynical fashion. It is the serious conclusion after much reflection on the biblical message–and not only my reflection in this time and place but the considered reflection of classical Protestantism. If we do not get the Evangel right, how much excitement can there be over combining resources and energies in promoting it? That was Paul’s point, indirectly, in Romans 10, where he applauds his fellow Israelites for their zeal for God but laments that it is a zeal “not based on knowledge.” The specific knowledge he has in mind is the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone–the gospel: “Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10:2-4). If Paul concluded that his own brothers by flesh and blood, whom he dearly loved and commended for their zeal, were excluded from the kingdom of God by denying the righteousness that is a gift in an attempt to establish their own works-righteousness, surely we can be no more generous in the seriousness with which God takes His gospel."(Horton)

This is the heart of the matter,

Stan

“Luther himself declared in his debate with Erasmus over free will and grace that if the pope would simply discard his gospel of free will and merit, he would gladly cut his losses and begin negotiations on the rest. That, of course, is a paraphrase, and surely the other matters cannot be severed from the misunderstanding of the gospel. But Luther’s point was that the debate over how a person is accepted before God was the whole issue of the Reformation. Everything else was derivative.”

Stan

THE FORMAL PRINCIPLE OF THE REFORMATION

“Because it is the thing that forms, shapes, and determines what we believe as Christians, the Scriptures were singled out as the sole and sufficient source for faith and practice. “Only Scripture” (sola scriptura) was the phrase, and it meant that the church could not preach, teach, command, or practice anything contrary to Scripture, even for very good reasons. The church had no divine authority except to pass on what was written by the prophets and apostles. What it did not mean (but, too often, has come to mean in Protestantism) is that individuals could decide for themselves what to believe, for the individual is obligated to Scripture every bit as much as when one was obligated to the church. Furthermore, it did not mean that every Christian had the right to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, even if that meant contradicting the consensus of the Christian community. Luther reflected that this would simply mean that “each man could go to hell in his own way.”

“As already mentioned, Luther and Calvin certainly did not argue that they had seen something in Scripture that somehow missed the attention of every other thinker for one and a half millennia; they called upon the Fathers, and especially Augustine, for support. Thus, they demonstrated that their message was not something new but a recovery of something old–something that had been lost by a corrupt curia. It was not a brand-new insight but the recovery of a message that had been taught by the Catholic Church during its best days. Then they formed congregations based on a common confession of faith and immediately drew up catechisms (teaching guides) for the instruction of the faithful. One will notice that in every one of the Protestant confessions and catechisms, each assertion is given a scriptural reference, indicating that Scripture is the final authority and that these distillations are merely authoritative in a derivative sense (in that they are faithful to Scripture), not in an infallible sense (as though they were equal to Scripture in their freedom from the possibility of error). The shared consensus of the churches was not infallible for the Protestants, as it was for Rome, but it was certainly essential, and renegade teachers had to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the whole communion that they understood a certain point in the Bible better than everybody else before it would be accepted...”

Stan

THE MATERIAL PRINCIPLE OF THE REFORMATION

“It is the articulus ecclesiae stantis et cadentis, the “article by which the church stands and falls,” the Reformers declared of the doctrine of justification. “As long as a person is unaware of this doctrine” and the distinction between the law and the gospel, Luther insisted, “he is no different than a Jew, a Turk (Moslem] or a Heathen.” In other words, what distinguishes the Christian message from all others is that salvation is not a project in which God helps humans save themselves, but a rescue operation from start to finish.”

Stan

“When Luther realized, through his study of the Psalms, Romans, and Galatians in particular, that justification is a declaration based on the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer through faith alone, while the sinner remained a sinner–rather than a process based on the righteousness of Christ infused into the believer through faith, the sacraments, love, charity, and obedience–he said it was as if the windows of heaven were “flung open and I was born again.” The Latin Vulgate, the version of the Bible produced by Jerome, which had been used by the medieval scholars, was an inferior translation. This was what the classical humanists within Rome were beginning to say, and even Erasmus, the brilliant Renaissance humanist who never fully joined the Reformation, nevertheless was the first to point out that the Greek word meaning “to declare righteous” had actually been mistranslated by Jerome as “to make righteous” Though Erasmus was not willing to follow this through to its theological conclusion, his scholarship opened the door through which the Reformers would pass.”

“Is such a distinction just playing with words? Surely not. The difference between “to declare righteous” and “to make righteous” is the difference between a definitive, once-and-for-all verdict and a gradual progression. If we are justified by a declaration, through faith alone, then the very moment we believe that Christ is our salvation we are declared righteous in Christ. If we are justified by a process of sanctification, which is never complete in this life, there is not a sufficient basis for God to ever accept us. After all, God does not grade on the curve; He requires absolute, perfect obedience, and anything short of it is sin. A holy God will not–cannot–violate one aspect of His own character (justice and holiness) for the sake of another (love and mercy).”

Stan

WHAT STILL KEEPS US APART?

1. The doctrine of justification, together with its implications for theology, church life, piety, and worship.

Even as the curia began sitting in Rome to draft a conciliar response to the Reformation, there was hope of reconciliation. A number of cardinals who had gathered at the Council of Trent were convinced of one or more of the Reformers’ objections to the popular teaching of the day, and the popular rejection of the gospel by the pope and the monks had not yet been solidified. Since at this stage popes were not regarded as infallible (that was not declared until Vatican I, 1869-70) the door was open to the full reformation of Western Christendom until the Council of Trent (1545-63) finally closed it with its devastating canons against the gospel. Things that had been left to debate in the universities were now closed to discussion as the Council issued what it considered infallible pronouncements on the doctrine of justification and related truths. Now, issues upon which men and women of goodwill could differ were given a single answer: tradition is equal to Scripture in authority; the interpretation of Scripture and the elements of Holy Communion are to be denied to the laity; the Mass is a repetition of Christ’s sacrifice and each Mass atones for the people; transubstantiation was officially affirmed, as was the belief in purgatory.

However, the most important decree was also the longest, Concerning Justification. The decree begins by affirming, against any Pelagianism, the traditional Augustinian insistence on original sin and the need for grace. Human beings cannot even believe until grace first enables them. In fact, “It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called"–then the good news ends and the Roman error begins–"that they who by sin had been cut off from God may be disposed through his quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace.” So, while a person is not “able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in his sight,” he can and must cooperate with grace. Justification is defined as “not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just.”

The Protestants never denied the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, but this was identified in Scripture as sanctification, not as justification. Rome simply combined the two concepts into one: God justifies us through the process of our moving, by the power of God’s Spirit at work in our lives, from being unjust to becoming just. This, however, rejects Paul’s whole point in Romans 4:1-5, that justification comes only to those who (a) are wicked and (b) stop working for it. God justifies the wicked as wicked, the sinner as sinner. That is the good news of the gospel, and the scandal of the Cross!

The most relevant canons are the following:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone (supra, chapters 7-8), meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says 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 (Rom. 5:5), and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works (ibid., chapter 10), but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

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.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

In other words, men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God’s grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ’s finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone. There are indeed two fundamentally different answers to that recurring biblical question, “How can I be saved?” and, therefore, two fundamentally different gospels.”

Stan

Here is a very important conclusion to this matter. Lest we think that Protestants are any better than Catholics (or Adventists), we should carefully consider the following:

NO PLACE FOR SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS

In conclusion, I would be remiss not to point out how inconsistent (perhaps even hypocritical) it is of evangelicals to criticize Roman Catholics while they themselves are ignorant of, or even reject, the very Evangel they claim to protect. Very often evangelical preachers and laypeople speak of being saved by “being born again,” and this expression, much less the emphasis, conveys the same impression we find explicit in the Council of Trent: that justification (that is, being made right with God) is identical to the new birth and sanctification rather than specifically linked to faith in Christ and imputation.

Earlier, I mentioned the Pelagian heresy and the stand the Roman church took (with Augustine) against this destructive teaching. Denying original sin, Pelagianism argues that human nature is not corrupted by the Fall; we sin by following Adam’s poor example but not because we have inherited a corrupt nature. Therefore, all the human race needs is just enough grace to get us going in the right direction so that we will follow the right example, Jesus Christ. In this way we can get back on track (that is, be “saved"). This heresy, repudiated regularly and consistently by the Roman church, is nevertheless embraced by such noteworthy evangelicals in this country as the nineteenth-century revivalist Charles Finney and by a growing flank of evangelical thinkers in the twentieth. It is gaining a wider hearing in evangelical circles today, just as it had in the earlier part of this century, as the optimistic core of the modernist gospel.13

Though Rome may not maintain an official commitment to the gospel in its insistence on justification by grace alone through faith alone, surely, judging by history, it has been no less faithful than Protestants in the last two centuries in defending the doctrine of grace in general. Entire denominations that were committed confessionally to the doctrine of justification have ended up adopting, in actual practice, a Pelagian message. When evangelicals deny human depravity and inability, affirm that human beings cooperate in their own conversion by the use of their free will, and view salvation as a project of moral improvement (especially when that affirms a notion of entire sanctification), they are further afield from the gospel than Rome has ever been.

When it comes to the evangelical doctrine itself, where is the emphasis on the objective work of Christ outside of us, in history? It has taken a back seat, it seems, to spirituality, piety, morality, social and political crusades, inner healing, and psychologized inwardness. No longer are we saved from sin by grace; we are now healed from neuroses by therapy. No longer is condemnation by God for our sins our greatest fear but condemnation by ourselves for our negative self-image. No medieval theologian or mystic could improve on the inwardness of evangelical spirituality in our day. The interior experiences of the Christ within are heralded, while the objective, external work of Christ on the cross, dying for our sins and being raised for our justification, is largely ignored.

My own experience has led me to conclude that most of our people cannot even define justification. In fact, 84 percent of the evangelicals surveyed said that in the matter of salvation, “God helps those who help themselves,” and well over half even thought it was a biblical quotation. Seventy-seven percent of “evangelical” Christians believe that human beings are basically good.14 This means that 77 percent of evangelicals are Pelagian, well beyond the ranks even of traditional Roman Catholic understanding.

These things must be said because I am convinced that we need a second Reformation, but it will not be a reformation in which insults and caricatures will be hurled from Protestants who wonder why Catholics still have not gotten the message; it will be just as heated a debate within Protestantism because of unprecedented unfaithfulness to the Word of God. Who can deny that Protestants have led the way in the twentieth century away from a high view of Scripture and God’s grace in Christ? Which branch of the church has done more to lower the doctrine of Christ to a mere moral example? Which church has gone so far as to deny original sin and affirm the goodness of human nature? Which tradition has done so much to deny not only the sufficiency, but even the reliability of the Word of God? In short, which branch of Christendom has so carelessly capitulated to the spirit of the age?

For these reasons and more, many conservative Protestants correctly perceive in Rome a degree of faithfulness–at least in its official declarations. (One must beware of the degree to which Roman Catholic theologians are now carriers of the modern Protestant virus, as Robert Strimple points out in chapter 4.) The temptation is to abandon an uncertain, confused Protestantism–and even an evangelicalism that is, in James Hunter’s words, “a tradition in disarray"–in order to be part of something that, though it may not have it all right, looks better on a scale of 1-10. I know these temptations and have experienced them myself. Nevertheless, here is where we must constantly remind ourselves of the difference: In Protestantism, an unreformed church–regardless of how unfaithful–may, in principle, be reformed. The Roman Catholic Church, by contrast, will never repudiate its own condemnation of the Evangel until it repudiates the infallibility of the Council of Trent and the popes who have endorsed it. This is the issue upon which authentic ecumenical dialogue must turn. I do not suggest that we should give up trying to seek visible unity, nor that we refuse to dialogue with Roman Catholic laypeople and theologians, many of whom may be our brothers and sisters.

To conclude by returning to the opening query, “What still keeps us apart?” my own reply at the end of a century of Protestant “truth decay” (as Os Guinness has expressed it) is, “Nothing.” Absolutely nothing keeps evangelicals and Catholics apart if evangelicals abandon the distinctive convictions that have made the past divisions so painfully necessary. We need to seek a reformation of both of our traditions.

That will require, on the part of Protestants, a return to Scripture and its Evangel and, for Rome, a repudiation of its anathema on the gospel. Though we may not agree with the total package, mark well the words of the Roman Catholic theologian Johann Baptist Metz:

To speak about the Reformation and make it, not just an object of remembrance, but an object of hope, indeed an incentive to change – change for all of us, including myself as a Catholic – means one thing: we must bring that question and that awareness which inspired the Reformation into a relationship with the present age. . . . Many theologians writing about the Reformation assure us nowadays that Luther’s famous fundamental question regarding a gracious God can scarcely be made intelligible to people today, let alone communicated as relevant to their lives. This question is said to belong to another, noncontemporary world. I do not share this position at all. The heart of the Reformation’s question –How can we attain to grace? – is absolutely central to our most pressing concerns. . . . The second Reformation concerns all Christians, is coming upon all of us, upon the two great churches of our Christianity.”

Is this beyond the sovereignty of God’s Spirit to accomplish? With Christ, in His reply to the disciples, we prayerfully answer, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Stan

Good points, Stan.

It is easy to find fault with the Catholic system but in theory much of their doctrine is sound compared to alot of what is out there in Evangelical Protestantism.

The SDA church has been guilty of bashing Catholicism but I have found more ‘heresy’, biblical misinterpretation and stubborn adherence to falsehoods in Protestantism (including SDAism) then in Catholicism.

Welcome Guibox! Glad you are here.

Yes, there is a lot of sloppy “Protestantism” out there that is not really Biblical.

There is an important article to consider out there by John MacArthur:

http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231488

This may open all of our eyes with regard to the spirit of the papacy.

My problem with SDA’s criticism of RCC is the fact that they are also Roman with regard to Righteousness by Faith, except for the Desmond Ford wing, which seems to be dwindling.

I am looking forward though Guibox to your input. I may be too far removed from SDA to speak, but is the gospel proclaimed as Luther would proclaim it in the SDA church you attend?

Stan

Thanks for the welcome, Stan.

Yes, I believe the gospel is preached in our church and the emphasis is on Christ and not just the law. Of course your idea of what is unacceptable is most likely not mine.

However, I still consider myself ‘evangelical’ enough to have my hackles raise at something that seems contrary to the gospel.

Hey Guibox,

Welcome to the forum, it’s good to have you here.  I remember reading some of your posts on Richard O’Ffill’s http://www.revivalsermons.org and was impressed with your patience and courage in the face of a hostile environment.

I have to respectfully disagree with you about the Roman Catholic Church.  While there are many well-meaning and devout Roman Catholics, their beliefs are far afield of the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ.  While they affirm Jesus Christ as their savior, they pray to Mary to intercede on their behalf to Jesus because they view Jesus as hard-hearted toward sinners and that he must be “softened” by his mother.  Their veneration of Mary effectively creates another god who must be worshiped, and in fact they refer to her as a co-redemptrix with Jesus.

Please don’t think I’m trying to pile onto Roman Catholics because it is fashionable to do so within protestantism, although admittedly increasingly less so in these ecumenical days.  The biggest problem with the RCC is their subversion of the biblical gospel by creating a system where believers are forced to look inward to their own ability to perform good works rather than to look externally at the only One who has the power to save.

By no means is this problem limited to the RCC--it’s found throughout protestantism and of course within historic Adventism.  Just as members of the remnant church are found in every denomination (including RCC), those who adhere to a religion that suits their own human-centered view of salvation are sadly found almost everywhere you look.

Greg

Greg said,

“While they affirm Jesus Christ as their savior, they pray to Mary to intercede on their behalf to Jesus because they view Jesus as hard-hearted toward sinners and that he must be “softened” by his mother. Their veneration of Mary effectively creates another god who must be worshiped, and in fact they refer to her as a co-redemptrix with Jesus.”

Can you, or anyone here, explain HOW and WHY the worship of Mary developed in the RCC? I’m completely mystified by it. I’ve read some Catholic apologetics, but much of that is simply a recitation of the verses in the Bible they believe support the view, along with the reminder that their faith is based as equally if not more so, on tradition than the Bible, which means identifying the basis or rationale for a doctrine is difficult to do.

Glenn,

I’m no expert on Roman Catholicism, but you might find these links useful:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-314.htm

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-315.htm

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-316.htm

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-317.htm

Greg

John 3:16
Maybe I am just to simple, but it appears to me that what keeps us apart is Satan.  He will use anything to get between God’s children and God.  That anything includes doctrinal beliefs, personalities, works or lack there of, even the Bible by twisting what it says.  I am not accusing any of doing any of these, but Satan is a master at doing this.  He has had a lot of practice.  On the other hand, Jesus defeated him at the cross.  That is the most important thing to me.  In my mind what I need to do is pray, a lot, and ask God to give me the words to say to whomever I speak. 
Just my opinion.
Diana

Since this thread is about what separates Protestants from Catholics, I thought I would post this article from Phil Johnson, as this is the first in a series about Christian unity. Very well written and thought provoking:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/02/sola-scriptura-and-proliferation-of.html

Stan