Great Books

The Reformation View of Roman Catholicism

by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Copyright © 1993 by Dr. Robert A. Morey
Research & Education Foundation, P.O. Box 7447, Orange, CA 92863
1–800–41–TRUTH

 

Table of Contents
Introduction
Dr. Plass comments
The Words Of Luther
The Articles of Schmalkald
Christian Dogmatics
The Words Of Calvin
The French Confession Of Faith, A.D. 1559
Second Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1566
The Second Scotch Confession Of Faith, A.D. 1580
The Thirty-nine Articles Of The Church Of England, 1563
The Irish Articles Of Religion, 1615
The Common Prayer Book Of King Edward the Sixth, 1547
The Westminster Confession Of Faith, 1647
The Savoy Declaration, 1658
The Baptist Confession Of 1688
Johannes Wollebius (1586–1629
The Works of James Arminius
The Works Of John Flavel (1628–1691)
The Works Of Richard Sibbes (1577–1635)
The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins (1633–1688)
The Works of Robert Hall (1764–1831)
The Works of John Owen (1616–1683)
Thomas Watson (1620–1686)
Philip Henry (1631–1696)
Matthew Henry (1662–1714)
Charles Spurgeon
McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia (I:258–259)
Ellicot's Commentary (VIII:170)
Bishop J.C. Ryle (1816–1900)
A REFUTATION OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM
The Bible vs. Romanism
The Biblical Doctrine of Authority

 

Introduction

In an age of ecumenism in which there is the concerted effort to unite Protestants and Roman Catholics into one church with the Pope as the head of it, it has became common practice for ecumenical leaders to claim that the Protestant Reformers, the Puritans and the Pilgrim fathers were all ecumenical in their attitude toward the Pope and his church. They pretend that the Reformers did not reject the Pope and his church as a false church but viewed the papal church as just another Christian Church like the Anglican, the Lutheran or Bapist Church. Thus the Reformation was a horrible mistake and it is time for Protestants to return to Rome.

This revisionist history must not be allowed to go unchallenged. If the ecumenical leaders want to deny what the Reformers taught, they have the right to do this. But they do not have the right to fabricate church history and to lie to the public about what the Reformers said about the Pope and his church. The attempt to deceive Protestants into giving up their spiritual heritage for the sake of unity with popery must be unveiled for what it really is. What did the Reformers and those who faithfully followed them believe about the Pope and his church? Did they view them as unchristian, antichrist, idolaters, and apostates? Or, did they accept them as a true Christian church? The only way to answer these questions is to read what they had to say on the subject.

The Reformers at beginning of the Reformation were intimidated by the political power of the papacy which the popes would not hesitate to use to put them to death. Their first task was to secure the necessary political protection which would safeguard their life and liberty. Once that was secured, they had the freedom not only to study the Scriptures in peace but also to say boldly what they thought. Thus ecumenicists will quote from the early days of Luther when he did not know if the Pope was truly the antichrist and when he still had a respect for the papal church. But when you read what the mature Luther said in his later works, there you will find no doubt or hesitation.

The following citations are representative of what the Reformers taught at the end of their lives concerning the papal church. Therefore do not be deceived by those ecumenicists who will quore Luther or Calvin at the beginning of their ministry. We should give the Reformers their due credit by accepting their mature statements. Their opinion of the Pope and his church was only gradually revealed as they secured the safety to say what they really felt. Thus it is no surprise that they became stronger in their attack on Romanism as they matured spiritually and doctrinally.

We will present various passages from the writings and creeds of the Reformers and the Puritans so that the reader can make up his own mind as to what they taught concerning the Pope and his church. We have done our best to make sure that we have not taken any of these statements out of context. We have placed certain statements in italics so the reader does not miss them.

We must be careful to avoid a trick that some ecumenicists are using today to confuse the issues. Like the Reformers, we acknowledge that there might be a few Christians who are members of the papal church. God works in mysterious ways and can save someone despite all the heresies of Rome. But the issue before us is not about whether there might be an exception to what we generally find true about Roman Catholics.

When we discuss the Pope and his church, we are referring to the established structure, the visible organization which is called the Roman Catholic Church which has its headquarters in Rome at the Vatican. That there may a true Christian in some local papal church has no logical bearing on the issue of whether that church as a visible entity is a true or false church. A religious organization is to be judged on the basis of its official teachings and established structure and not on the basis on what an individual member may or may not believe.

But doesn't the pope and his church believe in orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity? Yes. Doesn't this mean that they are Christians? No. James tells us that the demons believe in orthodox doctrines such as monotheism and even tremble before them (James 2:19). Does this mean that they are Christians? No! Nowhere in the Bible is it said that we are saved if we believe in orthodox doctrines. Salvation comes when you accept Christ as your prophet, priest and king. It means to embrace Christ as all you need for your salvation. Those who trust in their good works and in the sacramentalism of the papal church cannot be saved.

With these brief words of introduction, we will begin with what Martin Luther had to say about the Pope and his church. The modern reader must be prepared for the fact that in times past men of God did not mince words when it came to popery. We live in a “wimpish” culture which prides itself on not being judgemental about anything. The bold masculine statements of the Reformers and the Puritans will be deemed unkind and harsh by those who have fallen prey to the spirit of ecumenicism.

Dr. Plass comments,

To ascribe Luther's vehemence against the pope or the papacy to a constitutional distemper or to a congenital furor teutonicus is completely to misunderstand the Reformer. The more ardent his love to Christ became, the more flaming his anger against one and all who, he was convinced, were detracting something from the glory of his Lord (cp. Ps. 139:21f). Even his final biting and bitter blast against the papacy as founded by the devil (1545–SL18, 1019) is rooted in an intense love of the Savior, whom he had sought to glorify.

(What Luther Says. vol. l, p. 35, n. 16)

But, thank God, there will always be those in every generation who have not bowed the knee to Baal. They have the fortitude and the courage to tell it like it is. They may not popular with the theological wimps of our day and those who have betrayed the Reformation, but as long as they have the approval of God. it does not matter to them. So, dear reader, do not be put off by what seems to be harsh comments made by the men of God in times past. They knew the true character of Romanism and as good shepherds they had to warn the people of God concerning the wiles of the devil.

This paper represents just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a condemnation of popery by evangelical scholars and preachers. We did not have the space to reproduce what was said by the pre-Reformers such as Hus, other Reformers such as Zwingli, great theologians such as Jonathan Edwards and modem evangelical leaders such as Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones.

In a future book, God willing, a full record of those who have denounced Romanism for what it really is will be documented. We will also document those so-called Protestant ministries and churches which have betrayed the Reformation and have joined themselves to the Great Whore. They are preparing the way for the one world religion of the last days when all who are deceived by it will receive the mark of the Beast.

From the following material, it will be clear that Luther taught the pope was the antichrist and that the papal church was not a Christian church. As you will see, he called it a blasphemous “cult”.

The Words Of Luther

We are convinced that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist... So far as I personally am concemed, I confess to owing the pope no other obedience than that which I owe the very Antichrist. This teaching shows very forcefully that the pope is the very Antichrist. He exalts himself above Christ and opposes Him, because he will not allow Christians to be saved without his power, which nevertheless is nothing and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This really means to exalt himself above all that is called God, as St. Paul says (II Thess. 2:4). This neither Turks nor Tartars do, great enemies of the Christians though they are; but they allow all who wish to believe in Christ to do so, and they take bodily tribute and obedience from the Christians. But the pope will not permit faith; but he says that in order to be saved one must obey him. This we will not do. We would rather die in God's name... Just as we cannot worship the devil himself as Lord and God, so we cannot put up with his apostle, the pope, or Antichrist, in his regime as head or lord.

We want you to know, good reader, that we wrote this preface in order to inform the world that we are not the first to declare the papacy to be the kingdom of Antichrist, since for so many years before us so many and such great man (whose number is large and whose memory is eternal) have undertaken to express the same thing so clearly and plainly. (What Luther Says, 1:36)

What is the whole papacy but a beautiful false front and a deceptively glittering holiness under which the wreched devil lies in hiding? The devil always desires to imitate God in this way. He cannot bear to observe God speaking. If he cannot prevent it or hinder God's Word by force, he opposes it with a semblance of piety, takes the very words God had spoken and so twist them as to peddle his lies and poison under their name. (What Luther Says, II:1007)

Since the papal church not only neglects the command of Christ but even compels the people to ignore it  and to act against it, it is certain that it is not Christ's church but the synagogue of Satan which prescribes sin and prohibits righteousness. It clearly and indisputably follow that it must be the abomination of Antichrist and the furious harlot of the devil. (What Luther says, II:1009)

The negotiation about doctrinal agreement displeases me altogether, for this is utterly impossible unless the  pope has his papacy abolished. Therefore avoid and flee those who seek the middle of the road. Think of me after I am dead and such middle-of-the-road men arise, for nothing good will come of it. There can be no compromise. (What Luther Says, II:1019)

Let him who does not want to be lost and go to the devil be on his guard with all diligence and earnestness against the papacy and its doctrine, and let him never again accept even the most insignificant and smallest part of the papacy's teaching, no matter what it may cost him. Let him flee from the papacy and its following as from the devil incarnate himself, and let him by no means be silenced by the sweet, slippery words of hypocrites or be persuaded that yielding and conceding something for the sake of peace is a matter of little consequence and that the bond of love should not be disrupted for the sake of something trifling (as they represent and rationalize this to be). Come now, there is assuredly no joking in this matter; eternal salvation and eternal damnation are involved. (What Luther Says, II:1019–1020)

Can anything more horrible be said than that the kingdom of the papists is the kingdom of those who spit at Christ, the Son of God, and crucify Him anew? For they do crucify Christ... in themselves, in the church... and in the hearts of the faithful... Therefore let everyone who is honestly given to piety flee out of this Babylon as quickly as possible.... For so great are its impurity and its abomination that no one can express them in words; they can be discerned only by eyes that are spiritual. (What Luther Says, II:1020)

My dear pope, I will kiss your feet and acknowledge you as supreme bishop if you will worship my Christ and grant that through His death and resurrection, not through keeping your traditions, we have forgiveness sins and life eternal. If you will yield on this point, I shall not take away your crown and power; if not, I shall constantly cry out that you are the Antichrist, and I shall testify that your whole cult and religion are only a denial of God but also the height of blasphemy against God and idolatry. (What Luther Says, II:1069)

Ah, my dear brother in christ, bear with me if here or elsewhere I use such coarse language when speaking of the wretched, confronted, atrocious monster at Rome! He who knows my thoughts must say that I am much, much, much too lenient and have neither words nor thought adequately to describe the shameful, abominable blasphemy to which he subjects the Word and name of Christ, our dear Lord and Savior. There are some Christians, wicked Christians indeed, who now would gloss things over to make the pope appear against in a good light and who, after he does so and has been dragged out of the mud, would like to reinstate him on the altar. But they are wicked people, whoever they may be, who defend the pope and want me to be quiet about the means whereby he has done harm. Truly, I cannot do this, All true, pious Christians, who love Christ and His Word, should, as said, be sincerely hostile to the pope. They should persecute him and injure him... All should do this in their several calling, to the best of their ability, with all faithfulness and diligence. (What Luther Says, II:1072).

What kind of a church is the pope's church? It is an uncertain, vacillating and tottering church. Indeed, it is a deceitful, lying church, doubting and unbelieving, without God's Word. For the pope with his wrong keys teaches his church to doubt and to be uncertain. If it is a vacillating church, then it is not the church of faith, for the latter is founded upon a rock, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it [Matt. 16:18]. If it is not the church of faith, then it is not the Christian church, but it must be an unchristian, antichristian, and faithless church, which destroys and ruins the real, holy, Christians church. (Luther's Works, vol. 40, Church and Ministry II, The Keys, p. 348)

All this is to be noted carefully, so that we can treat with contempt the filthy, foolish twaddle that the popes present in their decrees about their Roman church, that is, about their devil's synagogue [Rev. 2:9], which separates itself from common Christendom and the spiritual edifice built up on this stone, and instead invents for itself a fleshly worldly, worthless, lying, blasphemous, idolatrous authority over all of Christendom. One of these two things must be true: if the Roman church is not built on this rock along with the other churches, then it is the devil's church; but if it is built, along with all the other churches, on this rock, then it cannot be lord or head over the other churches. For Christ the cornestone knows nothing of two unequal churches, but only of one church alone, just as the Children's Faith, that is, the faith of all of Christendom, says, “I believe in one holy, Christian church,” and does not say, I believe in one holy Roman church.” The Roman church is and should be one portion or member of the holy Christian church, not the head, which befits solely Christ the cornerstone. If not, it is not a Christian but an UN-Christian and anti-Christian church, that is, a papal school of scoundrels. (Luther's Works, Volume 41, Church and Ministry III, Against The Roman Papacy, An Institution Of The Devil, p. 311)
These arrogant and unlearned papists can't govern the church because they write nothing, they read nothing, but, firmly saddled in the pride of possession, they cry out that the decrees of the fathers are not to be questioned and decisions made are not to be disputed, otherwise one would have to dance to the tune of every little brother. For this reason the pope, possessed by demons, defends his tyranny with the canon “Si papa.” This canon states clearly: If the pope should lead the whole world into the control of hell, he is nevertheless not to be contradicted. It's a terrible thing that on account of the authority of this man we must lose our souls, which Christ redeemed with his precious blood. Christ says, ‘I will not cast out anybody who comes to me’ [John 6:37]. On the other hand, the pope says, ‘As I will it, so I command it; you must perish rather than resist me’. Therefore the pope, whom our princes adore, is full of devils. He must be exterminated by the Word and by prayer. (Luther's Works, vol. 54, Table Talk, No. 4341, p. 330)

I believe the pope is the masked and incarnate devil because he is the Antichrist. As Christ is God incarnate, so the Antichrist is the devil incarnate. The words are really spoken of the pope when it's said that he's a mixed god, an earthly god, that is, a god of the earth. Here god is understood as god of this world. Why does he call himself an earthly god, as if the one, almighty God weren't also on the earth? The kingdom of the pope really signifies the terrible wrath of God, namely, the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. (Luther's Works, vol.54, Table Talks, No. 4487, p. 346)

The Articles of Schmalkald

One of the earliest Lutheran creeds, the Articles supplement the Confession of Ausburg by defining the Protestant attitude to the Papacy, and as such they contributed towards the final separation. In section ii., on  “the office and work of Christ, or our Redemption,” justification by faith is vigorously maintained against all ecclesiastical and superstitious encroachments: upon it “depends all that we teach and do against the Pope, the Devil, and all the world”; the Mass is an unspeakable “abomination,” purgatory a “Satanic delusion” and the pope “the veritable Antichrist,” inasmuch as “he will not suffer Christians to be saved without his power”

Modern Lutheran Divines
Christian Dogmatics
by Dr. Francis Pieper
Philippi, Lehre vom Antichrist, p. 67:

“In the Papacy we find the exact counterpart, trait by trait, of the Bible's portrayal of Antichrist. Here is, besides apostasy and false doctrine in general, the man who enthrones himself in the temple of God instead of God (just call to mind his latest dogmas of the immaculata conception and infallibility); here human authority takes the place of Holy Scripture, human righteousness the place of the righteousness of Jesus Christ; here the commandments of men are placed above God's Law; here passages of Scripture speaking of Christ (e.g., Is. 28:16; Ps. 72:11; Matt. 28:18; Apoc. 5:5) are applied to a man, the Pope; here a man arrogates to himself the highest power not only on earth, but by indulgences, canonization of the departed, transubstantiation, and the like, also in heaven; here a man claims to be iure divino the legitimate and sole possessor of all spiritual and secular power on earth, so that from his own infallible sovereign power he presumes not only to ordain the form of divine worship and to decree dogmas, but even to make salvation dependent on faith in his divine authority; here one finds the divine ordinance of matrimony despised (celibacy); here is found a struggle for world domination, collusion with the powers of this world, the exploiting of secular powers for egoistic; purpose, the use of unholy means allegedly for a holy purpose; here are found streams of martyr blood shed by him; here one finds lying signs and wonders (just recall Louise Lateau, Lourdes, and Marpingen, the miracle-working images of Mary and of saints, etc.), etc., etc. All these traits are so characteristic of the Papacy that we cannot but say: “The Pope is the Antichrist.” Spencer says: “But how do we prove that the Pope is the great Antichrist? Answer: In the same manner in which we are accustomed to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Christ, or the Messiah, namely: Jesus is the Christ, or the Messiah, because in Him, and Him only, is fulfilled all that has been foretold of the Messiah in the Prophets. Likewise the Pope must be the Antichrist because everything that Scripture foretells of the Antichrist fits him and cannot be shown to be true of any other... We should diligently note this truth and material, that the Roman Pope is the Antichrist, and not regret the time spent in having listened to this truth. For this is an article which our Church expressly professes in the Smalcald Articles; and we, too, certainly dare not relinquish this truth, and the closer we fear the time to be when the Roman Babylon may be permitted to vent its last fury and persecution upon us, the more need is there that we be fully grounded and confirmed in this knowledge in order that we may learn to guard against it the Papacy]; for this I regard as a certainty: Whoever does not recognize the kingdom of the Pope as the kingdom of Antichrist is not yet standing so firm that he may not by this or that seduction be converted to it.”—Righteous Indignation Against the Antichristian Papacy, 1714, p. 39f. (Baier, III, 681).

One cannot blame the Papists for denying from their standpoint the “papam esse ipsum verum antichristum”. But the nearly unanimous denial also on the part of modern Protestant theologians, including Lutherans, that the Pope is the Antichrist (cf. Baier-Walther, III, 683) stems from their opposition to the sola gratia (synergism) and their “liberal” attitude toward Scripture (rejection of Verbal Inspiration). Because of this false position they do not see (1) what an outrage the renunciation and anathematizing of the doctrine of justification is, (2) what a heinous offense the Pope is committing by suppressing the authority of the Word of God, and thus of Christ, and supplanting it with his own authority, and that under the cloak of Christ's name and with a great show of sanctity. (3) It has been urged that the Papacy still confesses “fundamental articles” of the Christ faith, such as the article of the Trinity and of the theanthropic Person of Christ. We answer: These “fundamental articles:” save no man if at the same time he denies and curses the Christian doctrine of justification. Without the article of justification all other doctrine are empty husks. That the Papacy still confesses some “fundamental rights” is part of the external adomment by which it seeks to cover up its apostasy from the Christian doctrine. (4) Some say that there have been several personally honorable, even “pious” Popes. This objection reveals a lack of Christian judgement. There can be no thought of piety in the case of any Pope, since even “pious” Popes head and direct the machinery that does away with and curses the Christian doctrine of justification, that is, the entire Christian faith. The occasional appearance of an outwardly respectable Pope is a part of the external trappings which hide the inward, spiritual iniquity of the Antichrist. All the marks enumerated in 2 Thessalonians 2 fit all Popes. To the point is the remark of Joh. Adam Osiander:

“It should be noted that the essential thing in the case of the Antichrist is ot his personal probity or depravity, but the nature of his office. Now, no pontiff, no matter when he reigns or how decent he may be personally, fails to declare himself the ecumenical head of the Church, or to exercise authority in secular and spiritual affairs, or to approve the condemnatory canons of the Council of Trent, though he may, for political reasons, abstain for the time being from slaughter and tyranny”

This fact is expressed still more clearly by Luther, who shows that here we are concerned not with the viciousness of the Pope, but of the Papacy, the iniquity not of the person, but of the office. “There is a vast difference,” he says, “between the sovereignty which the Pope has, and all other sovereignties in the whole world. To put up with these, be they good or bad, may do no harm, but the Papacy is a sovereignty that exterminates faith and the Gospel Therefore what we condemn is not the wickedness of the sovereign, but the wickedness of the sovereignty, for it is so constituted that it cannot be administered by a pious, upright sovereign, but only by one who is an enemy of Christ.” But every teacher in the Christian Church who is familiar with the historical phenomenon called the Papacy and still does not recognize in this Papacy the Antichrist prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2 is weak in Christ theology. (vol. III, pgs. 466–469)

The Words of Calvin

At the beginning of the Reformation, Calvin like Luther and the other Reformers acknowledged that there were some Christian doctrines, rites and people left in the papal church. But these “vestiges” did not make the pope or his church a Christian Church anymore than the world is Christian because such things are in it. But in his later works, Calvin denied that there any “vestiges” left in the papal church at all. The pope and his church were not part of the Body of Christ. Thus when you move from the Institutes to his later works such as his letter to Sadolet, you will find the mature Calvin bolder in his denouncement of Romanism which he called a “sect.”

 

From The Institutes Of The Christian Religion

That is, wherever the ministry remains whole and uncorrupted, no moral faults or diseases prevent it from bearing the name “church.” As soon as falsehood breaks in to the citadel of religion and the sum of necessary doctrine is overturned and the use of the sacraments is destroyed, surely the death of the church follows—just as a man's life is ended when his throat is pierced or his heart mortally wounded. If the foundation of the church is the teaching of the prophets and apostles, which bids believers entrust their salvation to Christ alone—then take away that teaching, and how will the building continue to stand? Therefore, the church must tumble down when that sum of religion dies which alone can sustain it. Again, if the true church is the pillar and foundation of truth [1. Tim. 3:15], it is certain that no church can exist where lying and falsehood have gained sway. (IV:II:1)

Since conditions are such under popery, one can understand how much of the church remains there. Instead of the ministry of the Word, a perverse government compounded of lies rules there, which partly extinguishes the pure light, partly chokes it. The foulest sacrilege has been introduced in place of the Lord's Supper. The worship of God has been deformed by a diverse and unbearable mass of superstitions. Doctrine (apart from which Christianity cannot stand) has been entirely buried and driven out. Public assemblies have become schools of idolatry and ungodliness. In withdrawing from deadly participation in so many misdeeds, there is accordingly no danger that we be snatched away from the church of Christ.

They conclude that all who dare withdraw from the obedience with which they adorn the church are schismatics; that all who dare mutter against its doctrine are heretics. But what are their reasons to prove that they have the true church? (IV:II:2)

For the Lord nowhere recognizes any temple as his save where his Word is heard and scrupulously observed. those who have only the title and appearance of the church [Rom. 9:6]. And this is Paul's contention in chapters 9 to 12 of the letter to the Romans [Rom., chs. 9 to 11]. For this fact sorely troubled weak consciences, that, while the Jews seemed to be God's people, they not only rejected the teaching of the gospel but also persecuted it. Accordingly, after Paul has expounded the doctrine, he disposes of this difficulty, even though they lacked nothing which could otherwise be desired for the outward form of the church. He denies it, then, because they would not embrace Christ. There is no reason why men should any longer endeavor to deceive in the name of the church, which we reverently honor as we ought. But when they come to the definition of it, not only does water (as the saying goes) cleave to them, but they are stuck in their mire, for they put a foul harlot in place of Christ's sacred bride. (IV:II:3)

In this same way the Romanists vex us today and frighten the uneducated with the name of the church, even though they are Christ's chief adversaries. Therefore, although they put forward Temple, priesthood, and the rest of the outward shows, this empty glitter which blinds the eyes of the simple ought not to move us a whit to grant that the church exists where God's Word is not found. Why do we willfully act like madmen in searching out the church when Christ has marked it with an unmistakable sign, which, wherever it is seen, cannot fail to show the church there; while where it is absent, nothing remains that can give the true meaning of the church? Paul reminds us that the church was founded not upon men's judgments, not upon priesthoods, but upon the teaching of apostles and prophets [Eph. 2:20]. Nay, Jerusalem is to be distinguished from Babylon, Christ's church from Satan's cabal, by the very difference with which Christ distinguishes between them. To sum up, since the church is Christ's Kingdom, and he reigns by his Word alone, will it not be clear to any man that those are lying words [cf. Jer. 7:4] by which the Kingdom of Christ is imagined to exist apart from his scepter (that is, his most holy Word)? (IV:II:4) Now they treat us as persons guilty of schism and heresy because we preach a doctrine unlike theirs, do not obey their laws, and hold our separate assemblies for prayers, baptisms and the celebration of the Supper, and other holy activities. (IV:II:5)

It behooved us to withdraw from them that we might come to Christ. (IV:II:6) Come now, let the papists deny if they can—however much they extenuate their faults—that the conditions of religion among them is as corrupt and debased as it was in the Kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam. But they have a grosser idolatry. And in doctrine they are not one droplet purer, but actually even more impure in this! … they demand two things of us … that we should grant to their church every honor, power and jurisdiction that Christ gives to his church. But among these men—I mean the papists—where is the resemblance? For we can scarcely have any meeting with them in which we do not pollute ourselves with manifest idolatry. Surely, their chief bond of communion is in the Mass, which we abominate as the greatest sacrilege. (IV:II:9) For if we think of the church in this way—that we should reverence its judgment, defer to its authority, obey its warnings, be moved by its chastisements, and keep its communion scrupulously in all respects—then we cannot admit that they have a church without the necessity of subjection and obedience to it awaiting us. If those were churches, then the church is not the pillar of truth [1 Tim. 3:15], but the prop of falsehood; not the Tabernacle of the living God, but a receptacle of idols.

In the same way if anyone recognizes the present congregations—contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and ungodly doctrine—as churches (in full communion of which a Christian man must stand—even to the point of agreeing in doctrine), he will gravely err. For if they are churches, the power of the keys is in their hands; but the keys have an indissoluble bond with the Word, which has been destroyed from among them. Again, if they are churches, Christ's promise prevails among them; “Whatever you bind,” etc. [Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23]. But on the contrary, they disown from their communion all that genuinely profess themselves servants of Christ. Accordingly, either Christ's promise is vain, or they are not, at least in this regard, churches. Finally, instead of the ministry of the Word, they have schools of ungodliness and a sink of all kinds of errors. Consequently, by this reckoning either they are not churches or no mark will remain to distinguish the lawful congregations of believers from the assemblies of Turks. (IV:II:10)

From this the face of the church comes forth and becomes visible to our eyes. Wherever we see the Work of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ's institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists [cf. Eph. 2:20]. (IV:I:9)

Now it behooves us to turn our attention to the order of church government adhered to today by the Roman See and all its satellites, and the whole picture of that hierarchy which they are always talking about; also, to compare with it our description of the first and ancient church. From such a comparison will appear the nature of that church which these men have who are raging to oppress-or rather to destroy-us by its mere title. (IV:V:1) But if anyone should duly weigh and examine this outward form of church government which exists today under the papacy, he will not find a robbers' den in which thieves riot more brazenly without law and restraint. Surely everything there is so unlike, indeed, so alien to, Christ's institution, has so degenerated from the ancient ordinances and customs of the church, and so conflicts with nature and reason, that no greater injury can be done to Christ than when they put forward his name to defend such a disordered government. We, they say, are the pillars of the church, the leaders of religion, the vicars of Christ, the heads of the believers; for the apostolic power has come to us by succession. They are incessantly bragging of these follies as if they were speaking to stocks. But whenever they will boast of this, I shall ask them in turn what they have in common with the apostles. For we are not concerned about some hereditary honor which can be given to men while they are sleeping, but about the office of preaching, from which they so strenuously flee Likewise, when we declare that their rule is the despotism of Antichrist, they unfailingly mention that it is that venerable hierarchy often praised by great and holy men. As if the holy fathers, when they commended the church hierarchy or spiritual government as it had been handed down to them from the apostles, dreamed of this formless chaos, full of desolation, where bishops are for the most part rude asses who do not grasp even the first and commonplace rudiments of faith, or sometimes big boys fresh from their nursemaid; and if any are more learned (of this, however, instances are rare), they deem the bishopric nothing but a title of splendor and magnificence; where the rectors of churches no more think of feeding the flock than a shoemaker of plowing; where everything is so confused with more than Babylonian dispersion [Gen. 11:11] that no single trace of that ordination of the fathers is seen. (IV:V:13) Let those who serve under the banners and protection of the Roman see go now and boast among themselves of the priestly order! The order that they have, it is clear, is neither from Christ, nor from his apostles, nor from the fathers, nor from the ancient church. (IV:V:14) To this point we have reviewed those orders of the church which existed in the government of the ancient church but were afterward corrupted by the times, then more and more perverted, and which now keep only their name in the papal church and are actually but masks. This we have done that the godly reader might judge from comparison what sort of church the Romanists have, for the sake of which they make us guilty of schism, since we have separated from it. (IV:VI:1) Does there exist in Rome any Church or bishopric at all?

Finally, even though all these things were conceded, a brand-new conflict with them arises when we say that there is no church at Rome in Which benefits of this sort can reside; when we deny that any bishop exists there to sustain these privileges of rank. Suppose all these things were true (which we have already convinced them are false): that by Christ's work Peter was appointed head of the whole church; that he deposited in the Roman See the honor conferred upon him; that it was sanctioned by the authority of the ancient church and confirmed by long use; that the supreme power was always given to the Roman pontiff unanimously by all men; that he was the judge of all cases and of all men; and that he was subject to no man's judgment. Let them have even more if they will. I reply with but one word: none of these things has any value unless there be a church and bishop at Rome. This they must concede to me: what is not a church cannot be the mother of churches; he who is not a bishop cannot be the prince of bishops. Do they, then, wish to have the apostolic See at Rome? Let them show me a true and lawful apostolate. Do they wish to have the supreme pontiff? Let them show me a bishop. What then? Where will they show us any semblance of the church? They call it one indeed and have it repeatedly on their lips. Surely a church is recognized by its own clear marks; and “bishopric” is the name of and office. Here I am not speaking of the people but of government itself, which ought perpetually to shine in the church. Where in their church is there a ministry such as Christ's institution requires? (IV:VII:23) What then? Where we see nothing but horrid apostasy there will be no apostolic See, will there? He will be no vicar of Christ, who by persecuting the gospel with furious efforts, openly professes himself to be Antichrist, will he?” “Of old, Rome was indeed the mother of all churches; but after it began to become the See of Antichrist, it ceased to be what it once was. (IV:VII:24)

To some we seem slanderers and railers when we call the Roman pontiff “Antichrist.” But those who think so do not realize they are accusing Paul of intemperate language, after whom we speak, indeed, so speak from his very lips. And lest anyone object that we wickedly twist Paul's words (which apply to another) against the Roman pontiff, I shall briefly show that these cannot be understood otherwise than of the papacy … All the heresies and sects which have been from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist. Nevertheless, when Paul foretells a falling away that is to come [2 Thess. 2:3] by this description, he means that seat of abomination will be raised up when a universal apostasy seizes the church, even though many scattered members of the church persevere in the true unity of faith.” Since, therefore, it is clear that the Roman pontiff has shamelessly transferred to himself what belonged to God alone and especially to Christ, we should have no doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of that impious and hateful kingdom. (IV:VII:25)

And it seems to me I have quite sufficiently proved what I intended: even if Rome had once been the head of churches, today it is not worthy of being regarded among the smallest toes of the church's feet. (IV:VIII:29)

But whatever they once were, inasmuch as they now have no true and lawful office in the church, they retain only the color and empty shell; indeed, inasmuch as they have everything clean contrary to the church. (IV:VIII:30)

From Calvin's Tracts And Treatises

Since there are three things on which the safety of the Church is founded, viz., doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments, and to these a fourth is added, viz., ceremonies, by which to exercise the people in offices of piety, in order that we may be most sparing of the honor of your Church, by which of these things would you have us to judge her? The truth of Prophetical and Evangelical doctrine, on which the Church ought to be founded, has not only in a great measure perished in your Church, but is violently driven away by fire and sword. Will you obtrude upon me, for the Church, a body which furiously persecutes everything sanctioned by our religion, both as delivered by the oracles of God, and embodied in the writings of holy Fathers, and approved by ancient Councils? Where, pray, exist among you any vestiges of that true and holy discipline, which the ancient bishops exercised in the Church? Have you not scorned all their institutions? Have you not trampled all the Canons under foot? Then, your nefarious profanation of the sacraments I cannot think of without the utmost horror.” (I:38) You, in the first place, touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us. Is this a knotty and useless question? Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown That doctrine, then, though of the highest moment, we maintain that you have nefariously effaced from the memory of men. Our books are filled with convincing proofs of this fact, and the gross ignorance of this doctrine, which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill founded. But you very maliciously stir up prejudice against us, alleging that, by attributing every thing to faith, we leave no room for works. (I:41) I will not permit you, Sadolet, By inscribing the name of Church on such abominations, both to defame her against all law and justice, and prejudice the ignorant against us, as if we were determined to wage war with the Church. (I:48) That I may altogether disarm you of the authority of the Church, which, as your shield of Ajax, you ever and anon oppose to us, I will show, by some additional examples, how widely you differ from that holy antiquity. (I:48) First, then, I wish to know, with what face they can call themselves Christians, when they charge us with rashly disturbing the Church with disputes about matters of no importance. For, if they set as much value on our religion as the ancient idolaters did on their superstitions, they would not speak so contemptuously of zeal for its preservation, but, in imitation of idolaters, would give it the precedence of all other cares and business. For, when idolaters spoke of fighting for their altars and their hearths, they alleged what they believed to be the best and strongest of all causes. Our opponents, on the contrary, regard as almost superfluous a contest which is undertaken for the glory of God and the salvation of men. For it is not true, as has been alleged, that we dispute about a worthless shadow. The whole substance of the Christian religion is brought into question. Were nothing else involved, is the eternal and inviolable truth of God, that truth to which he rendered so many illustrious testimonies, in confirming which so many holy prophets and so many martyrs met their death, truth heralded and witnessed by the Son of God himself, and ultimately sealed with his blood, is that truth of so little value, that is may be trampled under foot, while we look on and are silent? (I:187)

The last and principal charge which they bring against us is, that we have made a schism in the Church. And here they boldly maintain against us, that in no case is it lawful to break the unity of the Church. How far they do us injustice, the books of our authors bear witness. Now, however, let them take this brief reply-that we neither dissent from the Church, nor are aliens from her communion. But, as by this specious name of Church, they are wont to cast dust in the eyes even of persons otherwise pious and right-hearted, I beseech your Imperial Majesty, and you, Most Illustrious Princes, first, to divert yourselves of all prejudice, that you may give an impartial ear to our defense; secondly, not to be instantly terrified on hearing the name of Church, but to remember that the Prophets and Apostles had, with the pretended church of their days, a contest similar to that which you see us have in the present day with the Roman Pontiff and his whole train. When they, by the command of God, inveighed freely against idolatry, superstition, and the profanation of the temple, and its sacred rites, against the carelessness and lethargy of priests, and against the general avarice, cruelty, and licentiousness, they were constantly met with the objection which our opponents have ever in their mouths-that by dissenting from the common opinion, they violated the unity of the Church. (I:211–212) But all that is done is to assail us with this battering-ram, “Nothing can excuse withdrawal from the Church.” We deny out and out that we do so. With what, then, do they urge us? With nothing more than this, that to them belongs the ordinary government of the Church. (I:212–213) On the whole, we conclude that the servants of God never felt themselves obstructed by this empty title of Church, when it was put forward to support the reign of impiety. It is not enough, therefore, simply to throw out the name of Church, but judgment must be used to ascertain which is the true Church, and what is the nature of its unity. And the thing necessary to be attended to, first of all, is, to beware of separating the Church from Christ its Head. When I say Christ, I include the doctrine of his gospel, which he sealed with his blood. Our adversaries, therefore, if they would persuade us that they are the true Church, must, first of all, show that the true doctrine of God is among them; and this is the meaning of what we often repeat, viz., that the uniform characteristics of a well-ordered Church are the preaching of sound doctrine, and the pure administration of the Sacraments. For since Paul dealers (Eph. 2:20) that the Church is ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,’ it necessarily follows that any church not resting on this foundation must immediately fall. I come now to our opponents. They, no doubt, boast in lofty terms that Christ is on their side. As soon as they exhibit him in their work we will believe it, but not sooner. They, in the same way, insist on the term Church. But where, we ask, is that doctrine which Paul declares to be the only foundation of the Church? Doubtless your Imperial Majesty now sees that there is a vast difference between assailing us with the reality and assailing us only with the name of Church. We are as ready to confess as they are that those who abandon the Church, the common mother of the faithful, the ‘pillar and ground of the truth,’ revolt from Christ also; but we mean a Church which, from incorruptible seed, begets children for immortality, and, when begotten, nourishes them with spiritual food, (that seed and food being the Work of God,) and which, by its ministry, preserves entire the truth which God deposited in its bosom. This mark is in no degree doubtful, in no degree fallacious, and it is the mark which God himself impressed upon his Church, that she might be discerned thereby. Do we seem unjust in demanding to see this mark? Wherever it exists not, no face of a church is seen. (I:213–214) Let our opponents, then, in the first instance, draw near to Christ, and then let them convict us of schism, in daring to dissent from them in doctrine. But, since I have made it plain, that Christ is banished from their society, and the doctrine of his gospel exterminated, their charge against us simply amounts to this, that we adhere to Christ in preference to them. (I:215)

For several centuries that See has been possessed by impious superstitions, open idolatry, perverse doctrines, while those great truths, in which the Christian religion chiefly consists, have been suppressed. By the prostitution of the Sacraments to filthy lucre, and other abominations, Christ has been held up to such extreme derision, that he has in a manner been crucified afresh. Can she be the mother of all churches, who not only does not retain, I do not say the face, but even a single lineament, of the true Church, and has snapt asunder all those bonds of holy communion by which believers should be linked together? The Roman Pontiff is now opposing himself to the reviving doctrines of the gospel, just as if his head were at stake. Does he not, by this very fact, demonstrate that there will be no safety for his See unless he can put to flight the kingdom of Christ? Your imperial Majesty is aware how wide a field of discussion here opens upon me. But to conclude this point in a few works: I deny that See to be Apostalical, wherein naught is seen but a shocking apostasy—I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist-I deny him to be the successor of Peter, who is doing his utmost to demolish every edifice that Peter built and I deny him to be the head of the Church, who by his tyranny lacerates and dismembers the Church, after dissevering her from Christ, her true and only Head. Let these denials be answered by those who are so bent on chaining the hierarchy of the Church to the Romish See, that they hesitate not to subordinate the sure and tried doctrines of the gospel to the authority of the Pope. (I:219–220) Once, indeed, the specious gloss of the Romish harlot was the boasted unity of the Church, but it has now been worn off by long use.” “But seeing it is impossible to adhere to him without denying Christ, he who turns aside from him makes no departure from the Church, but discriminates between the true Church and a church adulterous and false. (I:259) You, the vicegerent of Christ! You, whose every thought, and wish, and action, are directed to the extinction of Christ, provided only the empty name remain, with which, as with a meretricious glare, you may deceive us! You, the vicegerent of Christ, whom now the very children all know to be very Antichrist! What kind of Christ will you fabricate for us, if you wish his image to be represented in your tyranny? We see a high priest of all impiety, a standard-bearer of Satan, a fierce tyrant, a cruel murderer of souls, in short, the son of perdition, whom the Apostle describes; and must we regard him as the vicegerent of Christ? We see, I say, the wolf by which the sheep of Christ are devoured, we see the thief by whom they are slain, and still must we esteem him the vicegerent of Christ? (I:276)

The French Confession Of Faith, A.D. 1559

(This confession was written by Calvin and reveals his view of the papal church.)
And inasmuch as the Roman Church, forsaking the use and customs of the primitive Church, has introduced new commandments and a new form of worship of God, we esteem it but reasonable to prefer the commandments of God, who is himself truth, to the commandments of men, who by their nature are inclined to deceit and vanity. XXVII. Nevertheless we believe that it is important to discern with care and prudence which is the true Church, for this title has been much abused. XXVII. In this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in these acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ.

 

Second Helvetic Confession, A. D. 1566
(Notes or Signs of the True Church)

Now, as we acknowledge no other head of the Church than Christ, so do we not acknowledge every church to be the true Church which vaunts herself so to be; but we teach that to the true Church indeed in which the marks and tokens of the true Church are to be found. For which cause we condemn all such churches, as strangers from the true Church of Christ, which are not such as we have heard they ought to be, howsoever, in the meantime, they brag of the succession of bishops, of unity, and of antiquity. Moreover, we have in charge from the apostles of Christ ‘to shun the worship of idols’ (I. Cor. x. 14; I John v. 21), and ‘to come out of Babylon,’ and to have no fellowship with her, unless we mean to be partakers with her of all God's plagues laid upon her (Rev. xviii. 4; 2 Cor. vi. 17)

The Second Scotch Confession Of Faith, A.D. 1580

(This Confession was subscribed by the King, the Council and Court, at Holyrood House, 1580, by persons of all ranks in 1581, again in 1590 and 1638. It recites a long list of the false teachings of popery of which we shall only reprint a few. We have also translated it into modern English for the convenience of the reader.)

And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary Religion and Doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and refuted by the word of God and the kirk of Scotland; But in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil Magistrate, and consciences of men: All his tyrannical laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty; His erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ, and his blessed Evangel; His corrupt doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law; the nature, number, use of the holy sacraments; His five bastard sacraments; with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine … seeing that many are stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist…

The Thirty-nine Articles Of The Church Of England, 1563

XIX. Of the Church. So also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXII. Of Purgatory. The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

The Irish Articles Of Religion, 1615

78. As the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in those things which concern matter of practice and point of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

79. The power which the Bishop of Rome now challengeth to be supreme head of the universal Church of Christ, and to be above all emperors, kings, and princes, is a usurped power, contrary to the Scriptures and Word of God, and contrary to the example of the Primitive Church; and therefore is for most just causes taken away and abolished within the King's Majesty's realms and dominions.

80. The Bishop of Rome is so far from being the supreme head of the universal Church of Christ, that his works and doctrine do plainly discover him to be that man of sin, foretold in the holy Scriptures, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and abolish with the brightness of his coming.

102. The doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Limbus Patrum, Limbus Puerorum, Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead, Pardons, Adoration of Images and Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is vainly invented without all warrant of holy Scripture, yea, and is contrary unto the same.

The Common Prayer Book of King Edward the Sixth, 1547

From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good Lord, deliver us!

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647

Chapter XXIII. section IV.

Much less than the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.

Chapter XXIV, section III

And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable here-sies.

Chapter XXV, section V

The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.

Chapter XXV, section VI

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

 

The Savoy Declaration, 1658

III. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error, and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.

IV. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but it [he] is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

The Baptist Confession Of 1688

3. The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.

4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is no other than Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God: whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

Johannes Wollebius (1586–1629)

Compendium Theologiae Christiane
(Chapter XXVII: The False Church)

2. The enemies of the church are both open and concealed.

3. The open enemies are pagans, Jews, and Muhammedans.

7. The hidden enemies are false Christs and antichrists.

(2) The great antichrist is he who, while holding the title of vicar of Christ, is Christ's supreme enemy.
(There follows a long discourse on how we know that the pope will be the Antichrist.)
VII. The beast of Revelation 17 represents the seat of antichrist; the harlot who sits upon it, the “church” of antichrist.
I have discussed this question at some length, because it is as important to recognize antichrist as to recognize Christ.

 

The Works of James Arminius

XII. It is demonstrable by the most evident arguments that the name of ANTICHRIST, and of THE ADVERSARY OF GOD belongs to him … These expressions, we assert, must be understood, and can be understood, solely respecting the Roman pontiff. But the name of “THE ANTICHRIST” belongs to him predominantly, whether the particle signifies opposition, or the substitution of one thing for another. (I:617–618)

II. By the term, “the church of Rome,” we understand, not that congregation of men, who, confined within the walls of the city of Rome, profess the Christian faith, (although this is the only proper interpretation of that term;) not the court of Rome, which consists of the pope and of the cardinals united with him—not the representative church, assembled together in council, and having the Roman pontiff as president, nor the pope of Rome himself, who, under the cover of that title, extols and makes merchandise of his power. But by “the church of Rome” we understand a congregation of Christians which was formerly dispersed through nearly the whole of Europe, but which is now become more contracted, and in which the Roman pontiff sits, either as the head of the church under Christ, but placed above a general council, or as [primus] the principal bishop inferior to a general council, the inspector and guardian of the whole church. This congregation professes, accroding to the canons contained in the council of Trent. (I:620–621)

XII. This is the hinge of the entire controversy. Here, therefore, we must make our stand. If the reformed churches place the beginning of the defection at the true point, then their separation from the modern church of Rome is not a secession from the church of Christ, but it is the termination and completion of a separation formerly made, and merely a return and conversion to the true and pure faith, and to the sincere worship of God—that is, a return to God and Christ, and to the primitive and truly apostolical church, nay to the ancient church of Rome itself. (I:628–629)

The Works Of John Flavel (1628–1691)

(vol. IV, pgs. 572–581)

popery … is the proper cognizance of antichrist.

Abhor popery, and be eminent in your zeal against it. Rome is that Amalek, with whom God will never make peace; neither should we no peace with Rome. My dear countrymen, I beseech you, be not deceived with vain words; suffer not yourselves to be circumvented by a stratagem of the enemy; let not prejudices and discontents which they endeavor to beget and foment in you, against your real friends, cause any of you to fall in with the design and interest of your enemies: It is a dangerous thing to comply with that interest which God hath engaged himself against, and as sure as Christ sits at his Father's right-hand, shall be destroyed: And what cause have you to abhor popery, you will see, by that time I have shewed you, that it is a FALSE, BLOODY, BLASPHEMOUS, UNCOMFORTABLE, AND DAMNABLE RELIGION.

That which is the religion of antichrist, is a false religion; but the popish religion is the religion of antichrist.

O hate popery: for it is not only a bloody, but a blasphemous religion. If we be Christians indeed, the dishonor of God's name should affect us more than the shedding of the warmest blood in our veins; this scarlet whore is “full of the names of “blasphemy,” Rev. 17:3. Popery is a mere rhapsody of blasphemies. Lastly, it is a damnable religion; we have no ground from scripture to conclude the salvation of any among them that know the depth of Satan, and live and die in those destructive opinions. Hear what the scriptures say, Rev. 17:8. “The beast that thou “sawest was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless “pit, and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth “shall wonder, whose names are not written in the book of life, “from the foundation of the world,” when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is: And 2 Thes. 2:11. “And for “this cause, God shall send them strong delusions that they “should believe a lie, that they all might be damned that believe “not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” When their sorest plagues shall come upon them, they shall not have a heart given them to repent: but “shall blaspheme the name of “God because of them,” Rev. 16:9. And therefore to shut up this first counsel, you that love the Lord, hate that by which he is so much dishonored; it will make your blood boil in your veins, to see how he is crucified, dethroned, and trampled on by these his enemies.

The Works Of Richard Sibbes (1577–1635)

Thus, whilst the husbandmen slept, the envious man Satan slept not, but sew his tares. Thus popery grew up by degrees, till it overspread the church, whilst the watchmen that should have kept others awake, fell asleep themselves. And thus we answer the papists, when they quarrel with us about the beginning of their errors. They ask of us, when such and such an heresy began? We answer, that those that should have observed them, were asleep. Popery is a mystery that crept into the church by degrees, under glorious pretenses. (II:42)

Quest. Whether are the papists idolaters or not, like unto these Israelites, who say (being converted), “Neither will we say unto the works of our hands, Ye are our gods?”

Ans. I answer, Yes; as gross as ever the heathens were, and worse. The very Egyptians, they worshipped none for gods but those who were alive; as a papist himself saith (though he were an honest papist); the Egyptians worshipped living creatures, but we are worse than they for we worship stocks and stones, and a piece of bread in the sacrament.

Obj. But they have many shifts for themselves; as among the rest, this is one, that they do not worship the image, but God or Christ before the image.

Ans. To which the answer is, that the fathers who wrote against the heathens meet with this pretense. The Pagans had this excuse. We worship not this statute of Jupiter, but Jupiter himself. Thus they have no allegation for themselves, but the heathen had the same, which the ancient Fathers confuted. They are guilty of idolatry in both the forenamed kinds. For, first, they worship things that they should not, as appears by their invocation of saints, vows to them; their temples, altars, and the like, full of their images, giving them honor due unto God. And then, they worship the true God in a false manner before their images. There is no kind of idolatry but they are grossly guilty of it. (11:288)

Quest. But not another question may be moved, Whether the papists be idolaters or not? For we live amongst many of them; therefore we cannot be too wary of them. Ans. The answer is affirmative. They are idolaters, and worse in some sort than the heathen idolaters were. Only change the names of the popish saints which they in popery worship, and the names that the heathen worship, and they will be all one. Now, names be no realities. (II:378) But what should we speak of their church when they have the pope, who is their church virtually? for what is said of the one may be said of the other. When they come to the issue, the church is nothing but the pope. Whatsoever their church or councils say, he is the whole church. Many ways they are gross idolaters, especially the common people. In this they are worse than the heathens, because they have more light, and still the more light the more sin. For they have been foretold that the whore of Rome should be the mother of all fornications, the spiritual Babylon, Sodom, and Egypt in regard of idolatry, the mother of all these abominations, Rev. 17:5.
Again, if this be true, what do we think of reconcilers of religion? A thing impossible, as the apostle sheweth? ‘For what communion hath God with Belial? Christ with antichrist?’ 2 Cor. 6:14, 15. What communion? The question is a strong negation, as that of Ephraim here. ‘What have I now any more to do with idols?’

Obj. But some may say, We differ from them only in circumstance.

Ans. We may ask any man who hath his brains in his head, whether idolatry be a circumstance or not? it being clear that they are as great idolaters as the heathens, in many instances. If any affirm that idolatry is a circumstance, there is no disputing with such a one. That which is the sin, which makes God abhor and desert his own people, is that a circumstance? Is that a circumstance, which is the chief sin against the first table? Granting that they are idolaters, that the pope is ‘antichrist,’ and Rome to be ‘Babylon’(s) and Babylon to be the ‘mother of all fornication, ‘ this must needs follow, that there can be no reconciling of these two religions. We may come near them, and become papists, but they will never come near us, to be good Christians. (II:379–381)

The devil is a liar and a murderer from the beginning, the father of lies. So likewise the pope is a liar; all popery is nothing but lies. Therefore, 2 Thes. ii. 11, it is said, ‘they are given over to believe lies.’ Popery is a grand lie. It is a lie in the primacy; for it came in by forgery and intrusion. It is a lie in purgatory, which is a mere conceit. It is a lie in their miracles, which they have devised to maintain their false worship with. It is a lie in their works of supererogation, that they can fulfill more than the Law requireth. So that all popery, consider it distinctly from our religion, because they have that which we have, and some patches of their own, consider it by itself, it is a mere lie. (VII:520) So that howsoever the devil, who by St. Paul is called the god of this world, and the pope the subordinate vicar to the devil, and so by consequence he is the devil, for the devil, the dragon rules him. Howsoever, I say there be the devil, the god of this world, and the pope in this world, the vicar of that dragon; yet there is but one monarch, one that rules all, both devil and pope, and all the wicked limbs of both to his own ends. (VII:526) Romish antichrist,—for those two, the Turk and pope, are twins; they had their beginning at once, about seven hundred years after Christ,—what moved this, but only, when God had dealt graciously with them at the first, and gave them his truth to save their souls. (VII:529)

The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins (1633–1688)

Remission of sins belongs only to God … Now for any creature, either in heaven or earth, to assume this to himself, is a most insolent and blasphemous pride; which while the Pope of Rome doth, he hath given us the strongest argument that can be, to assert and prove him to be the Antichrist, and that Son of Perdition. (I:219) So that, in matters of Idolatry, I profess I can find no difference at all between Heathens and Papists: for, as the more learned Papists do profess that they worship the True God by the image; so, likewise, did the more learned Heathens. And, for the ignorant and vulgar Papists, I am very suspect that they do as the ignorant Heathen, terminate and limit their worship in the very images, before which they fall prostrate; esteeming them to have divine power and virtue of their own; for they are most grossly blinded and infatuated in this their image-worship; and may as well take a stone or a block to be a God, as the great dragon to be a saint … And therefore, if the heathen world were ever guilty of idolatry, so is now the Popish Church; their worship, and all the reasons of it, being as exactly parallel. (I:334–335)

 

The Works of Robert Hall (1764–1831)

At a time when popery is making rapid strides, and Protestants in general have lost the zeal which once animated them, we consider the publication we have just announced as peculiarly seasonable. What may be the ultimate effect of the efforts made by the adherents of the Church of Rome to propagate its tenets, aided by the apathy of the opposite party, it is not for us to conjecture. Certain it is, there never was a period when the members of the papal community were so active and enterprising, or Protestants so torpid and indifferent. Innumerable symptoms appear of a prevailing disposition to contemplate the doctrines of popery with less disgust, and to witness their progress with less alarm, that has ever been known since the Reformation. All the zeal and activity are on one side; and while every absurdity is retained, and every pretension defended, which formerly drew upon popery the indignation and abhorrence of all enlightened Christians, we should be ready to conclude from the altered state of public feeling, that a system once so obnoxious had undergone some momentous revolution. We seem on this occasion to have interpreted in its most literal sense the injunction of “hoping all things and believing all things.” We persist in maintaining that the adherents to popery are materially changed, in contradiction to their express disavowal; and while they make a boast of the infallibility of their creed, and the unalterable nature of their religion, we persist in the belief of its having experienced we know not what melioration and improvement. In most instances, when men are deceived, it is the effect of art and contrivance on the part of those who delude them: in this, the deception orginates with ourselves; and instead of bearing false witness against our neighbor, such is the excess of our candor, that we refuse to credit the unfavorable testimony which he bears of himself. (II:335) In exactly the same spirit the appellation of papist is exchanged for catholic a concession which the adherents of the Church of Rome well know how to improve, as amounting to little short of a formal surrender of the point at issue. For if the papists are really entitled to the name of Catholics, Protestants of every denomination are involved in the guilt of schism. (II:336) Popery is still what it always was—a detestable system of impiety, cruelty, and imposture, fabricated by the father of lies. (II:337)

The Works of John Owen (1616–1683)

On supposition that the church of Rome is a church of Christ, it will appear to be the most schismatical church in the world. I say on supposition that it is a church, and that there is such a thing as a schismatical church (as perhaps a church may from its intestine differences be not unfitly so denominated), that is the state and condition thereof … Christ hath ordained no church that inwraps such interests as on the account where of the members of it may murder one another. (13:114) But what need I insist upon this supposition, when I am not more certain that there is any instituted church in the world owned by Christ as such, than I am that the church of Rome is none, properly so called? Nor shall I be thought singular in this persuasion, if it be duly considered what this amounts unto. Some … men … grant that the church of Rome doth not err in fundamentals, or maintained no errors remedilessly pernicious and destructive of salvation. How far they entangled themselves by this concession I argue not. The foundation of it lies in this clear truth, that no church whatever, universal or particular, can possibly err in fundamentals “for by so doing it would cease to be a church. My denying, then, the synagogue of Rome to be a church, according to their principles, amounts to no more than this,—the Papists maintain, in their public confessions, fundamental errors; in which assertion it is known I am not alone. (13:115) The truth is, the whole of it is but an imitation and exemplar of the old imperial government. One is set up in chief, and made in spirituals, as the emperiors were in several things; from him all power flows to others—So that the present Roman church is nothing else but an image or similitude of the Roman empire, set up, in its declining, among and over the same persons in succession, by the craft of Satan, through principles of deceit subtlety, and spiritual wickedness, as the other was by force and violence, for the same ends of power, dominion, flesliness, and persecution with the former. (13:116) But we have forsaken the church of Rome. But, gentlemen, show first how we were ever of it. No man hath lost that which he never had, nor hath left the place or station wherein he never was. Tell me when or how we were members of your church? (13:117) We deny their church, as it is styled, to be the catholic church, or as such any part of it, as particular churches are called or esteemed; so that, of all men in the world, they are least concerned in this assertion. Nay, I shall go father. Suppose all the members of the Roman church to be sound in the faith as to all necessary truths, and no way to prejudice the advantages and privileges which accrue to them by the profession thereof, whereby the several individuals of it would be true members of the catholic church, yet I should not only deny it to be the catholic church, but also—abiding in its present order and constitution, being that which by themselves it is supposed to be—to be any particular church of Christ at all, as wanting many things necessary to constitute them so, and having many things destructive utterly to the very essence and being of that order that Christ hath appointed in his churches. The best plea that I know for their church-state is, that Antichrist sits in the temple of God. Now, although we might justly omit the examination of this pretense until those who are concerned in it will professedly own it as their plea, yet … imports no more but that the man of sin shall set up his power against God in the midst of them who, by their outward visible profession, have right to be called his temple, which entitles him and his copartners in apostasy to the name of the church as much as changing of money and selling of cattle were ordinances of God under the old temple, when, by some men's practicing of them in it, it was made a den of thieves. (13:154) But do we not receive the Scripture itself upon the authority of the church? I say, if we did so, yet this concerns not Rome, which we account no church at all. That we have received the Scriptures from the church of Rome at first,—that is, so much as the book itself,—is an intolerable figment. (13:155) It is most ridiculous that they are this catholic church, or that their communion is comprehensive of it in its latitude. He must be blind, uncharitable, a judge of what he cannot see or know, who can once entertain a thought of any such thing. (13:161) That their plea is so far from truth, that they are, and they only, the catholic church, that indeed they belong not to it, because they keep not the unity of the faith, which is required to constitute any person whatever a member of that church, but fail in all the Conditions of it; for,—

(1) To proceed, by way of instance, they do not profess not believe a justification distinct from sanctification, and acceptance thereof; the doctrine whereof is of absolute and indispensable necessity to the preservation of the unity of the faith; and so fall in the fist condition of professing all necessary truths.

(2) They discover principles corrupt and depraved, utterly inconsistent with those truths and the receiving of them which in general, by owning the Scriptures, they do profess.

(3) That in their doctrine of the pope's supremacy, of merits, satisfaction, the mass, the worshipping of images, they add such things to their profession as enervate the efficacy of all the savings truths they do profess and so fail in the third condition. (13:168)

Thomas Watson (1620–1686)

The Ten Commandments (p.61)

The Church of Rome is reproved and condemned, which, from the Alpha of its religion to the Omega, is wholly idolatrous. Romanists make images of God the Father, painting him in their church windows as an old man; and an image of Christ on the crucifix.

 

Philip Henry (1631–1696)

The father of Matthew Henry, the Commentator.

How often would he commend his hearers, as Dr. Holland, Divinity Professor in Oxford, was wont to do, to the love of God, and the hatred of popery. Besides his preaching professedly to discover the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, (which he would have taken occasion to do more fully, had he seen those he preached to, in any immediate danger of the infection,) there could not be a more effectual antidote against popery, than the instructing and confirming of people in the truth, as it is in Jesus; and advancing the knowledge of, and a value and veneration for, the Holy Scriptures; to which how much Mr. Henry, in his place, did contribute, all that knew him will bear record.
(The Lives of Phillip and Matthew Henry, p.171)

Matthew Henry (1662–1714)

Of popery, likewise, he entertained a great abhorrence. Regarding the whole system as an unhallowed encroachment on the Savior's prerogative, he aimed, by sound and scriptural argument, to overthrow it. Few single discourses shew the tremendous mischief more forcibly than the one he published, and in which the whole Romish hierarchy is designed—“a spiritual tyranny.” (The Lives of Phillip and Matthew Henry, p. 181) See his discussion of II Thess. 2 and Rev. 17 for his demonstration that the papacy is the antichrist.

Charles Spurgeon

It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the descriptive. Popery is contrary to Christ's Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it.It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.

 

McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia (1:258–259)

The Hussites followed the Waldnenses in this theory of Antichrist, applying it to the papal system. So did Wickliffe and his followers: Wickliffe, Trialogus (cited by Schrockh, xxxiv, 509); Janow, Liber de Antichristo (Hist. et Monum. J. Huss, vol. i). Lord Cobham (Sir John Oldcastle), executed as a Wickliffe, 1417, declared to King Henry V that, “as sure as God's word is true, the pope is the great Antichrist foretold in Holy Writ” (New Gen. Dict. s.v. Oldcastle). In the Reformation era the opinion that the papal system is Antichrist was generally adopted; and it is the prevalent opinion among Protestants to this day, although, as will appear below, some writers make Rome only one form of Antichrist. The various classes of opinion, and the writers who maintain them, are given by Smith, s.v., as follows: Bullinger (1504), Chytraues (1571), Aretins (1573), Foxe (1586), Napier (1593), Mede (1632), Jurieu (1685), Bp. Newton (19750), Cunningham (1813), Faber (1814), Woodhouse (1828), Habershon (1943), identify the False Prophet, or Second Apocalyptic Beast, with Antichrist and with the papacy; Marlorat (1574), King James I (1603), Daubuz (1720); Galloway (1802), the First Apocalyptic Beast; Brightman (1600), Pareus (1615), Vitringa (1705), Gill (1776), Bachmair (1778), Fraser (1795), Croly (1828), Fysh (1837), Elliott (1844), both the Beasts. That the pope and his system are Antichrist was taught by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melancthon, Bucer, Beza, Calixtus, Bengel, Michaelis, and by almost all Protestant writers on the Continent. Nor was there any hesitation on the part of English theologians to seize the same weapon of offense. Bishop Bale (1491) like Luther, Bucer, and Melancthon, pronounces the pope in Europe and Mohammed in Africa to be Antichrist. The pope is Antichrist, say Cranmer (Works, ii, 46, Camb. 1844), Latimer (Works, i, 149, Camb. 1844), Ridley (Works, p. 53, Camb. 1841), Hooper (Works, i, 44, Camb. 1852), Hutchinson (Works, p. 304, Camb., 1842), Tyndale (Works, i, 147, Camb. 1848), Sandys (Works, p. 11, Camb. 1841), Philpot (Works, p. 152, Camb. 1842), Jewell (Works, i. 109, Camb. 1845), Rogers (Works, p. 182, Camb. 1854), Fulke (Works, ii, 269, Camb. 1848), Bradford (Works, p. 435, Camb. 1848). Nor is the opinion confined to these 16th century divines, who may be supposed to have been specially incensed against popery. King James held it (Apol. pro Juram. Fidel. Lond. 1609) as strongly as Queen Elizabeth (see Jewell, Letter to Bulling. May 22, 1559, Zurich Letters, First Series, p. 33, Camb. 1842); and the theologians of the 17th century did not repudiate it.

Ellicott's Commentary (VIII:170]

It is not solely a Protestant interpretation, but one which indirectly derives more or less support from several eminent names in past ages in communion with the Roman See (for instance, St. Gregory the Great, and Robert Grosseteste), that the final Antichrist will be a Bishop of Rome. And the present writer does not hesitate to assert his conviction that no other interpretation will so well suit all the requirements of the case—there would be nothing surprising in the literal fulfillment of the prophecies of Antichrist in some future Pope.

Conclusion

Enough has been given to establish the historical Protestant position on the Pope and his church. We close with the words of Bishop J. C. Ryle, who issued a warning in his own day.

 

Bishop J. C. Ryle (1816–1900)

(Knots Untied, pgs. 327–328)

Men need not wonder that we warn them to beware of all leanings towards the Church of Rome. Surely, when the mind of God about idolatry is so plainly revealed to us in His Word, it seems the height of infatuation in any one to join a Church so steeped in idolatries as the Church of Rome. To enter into communion with her, when God is saying, “Come out of her, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues” (Rev. XVIII.4), to seek her when the Lord is warning us to leave her, to become her subjects when the Lord's voice is crying, “Escape for they life, flee form the wrath to come;” all this in mental blindness indeed, a blindness like that of him who, though forewarned, embarks in a sinking ship, a blindness which would be almost incredible, if our own eyes did not see examples of it continually. We must be on our guard. Those who preach must cry aloud and sparenot, and allow no false tenderness to make them hold their peace about the heresies of the day. Is this time for a man to draw closer to Rome? Is it not rather a time to draw further back and stand clear, lest we be involved in her downfall? Is this a time to extenuate and palliate Rome's manifest corruptions, and refuse to see the reality of her sins? beware of Rome. The subject I now touch upon is of deep and pressing importance, and demands the serious attention of all Protestant Churchmen. It is vain to deny that a large party of English clergy and laity in the present day are moving heaven and earth to reunite the Church of England with the idolatrous Church of Rome. The poor Church of England stands on an inclined plane. Her very existence, as a Protestant Church, is in peril. I hold, for one, that this Romish movement ought to be steadily and firmly resisted. I regard it as a most mischievous, soul-ruining, and unscriptural movement. To say that re-union with Rome would be an insult to our martyred Reformers, is a very light thing; it is far more than this: it would be a sin and an offense against God! Rather than be re-united with the idolatrous Church of Rome, I would willingly see my own beloved Church perished and go to pieces. Rather than become Popish once more, she had better die! Unity in the abstract is no doubt an excellent thing: but unity without truth is useless. Peace and uniformity are beautiful and valuable: but peace without the Gospel, peace based on a common Episcopacy, and not on a common faith, is worthless peace, not deserving of the name. When Rome has repealed the decrees of Trent, and her additions to the Creed, when Rome has recanted her false and unscriptural doctrines, when Rome has formally recanted image worship, Mary-worship, and transubstantiation, then, and not till then, it will be time to talk of reunion with her. Till then I call on all Churchmen to resist to the death this idea of reunion with Rome. Till then let our watchwords be, “No peace with Rome! No communion with idolaters!”

 

 

Supplement to The Reformation View of Roman Catholicism:
A Refutation of Roman Catholicism
Parts 1 & 2
by Dr. Robert A. Morey
Part I

 

Introduction

Let us state at the outset that throughout this two part series that it is not our intent to offend those Roman Catholics who trust in Jesus Christ alone and rest their hope of salvation on God's grace alone. We gladly embrace them as fellow Christians.

But there are those Roman Catholics who trust in their own good works to get them into heaven. They openly venerate Mary and pray to the saints. And, when they do these things, they are actually following the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church!

It is our intent to refute a visible, earthly organization called the “ROMAN Catholic Church” whose headquarters is at Vatican City in Rome and whose earthly “head” is the Pope, considered the “Vicar of Christ”.

Please note that we are NOT attacking Catholics as people or their motives. We are dealing with those historic issues which caused the Protestant Reformation.

We did not invent these issues and we are quite aware of the fact that we will not solve them either. But we feel the time has come to clarify once again what exactly those issues are and why we are still “protesting” against the Roman system.

The first issue concerns the heart of the Gospel: Justification by faith apart from works. If Romanism is in error on justification, then it is preaching another gospel and cannot be described as a true Christian church.

 

The Biblical Doctrine of Justification

I.  The Greek verb dikaiow in Roman Law and society meant “to declare not guilty” or “to declare innocent of all charges” as a legal vindication in court. It was the opposite of a verdict or declaration of “guilty as charged.”

II.  When it is used in a non-technical sense, it simply meant “to be vindicated” before others. O.T.: Gen. 44:16; Job 33:2, 32; Isa. 43:9. N.T.: Matt. 13:37; Lk. 10:29, 16:15.

III.  But when it is used in its technical or theological sense in the Old and New Testaments, this word has the same legal or forensic declaratory meaning as in Roman Law. O.T.: Deut. 25:1; Isa. 5:23; Micah 6:11. N.T.: Rom. 8:33–34.

IV.  It is clearly in this sense that both the Father and the Son are said to be “justified.” This can ONLY mean that God is “declared innocent,” “declared not guilty” or “vindicated from all charges.” O.T.: Psa. 51:4. N.T.: Lk. 7:29; Rom. 3:4
I Tim. 3:16 Rotherham  translation says, “declared righteous” and the Twentieth Century “pronounced righteous”.

V.  The Greek verb “to justify” is used in opposition to the word “to condemn” i.e., “to pronounce a verdict of guilty as charged.” O.T.: Deut. 25:1; Job 40:8; I Kings. 8:32. N.T.: Rom. 8:33–34.

VI.  Just as “to condemn” someone does not MAKE them wicked, neither does “to justify” someone MAKE them righteous.

VII.  The equivalent words and phrases which are used as literary parallels to the word “to justify” mean “to declare innocent” and “to treat as not guilty.” None of them means to MAKE someone righteous.
O.T.: Psa. 32:2 “transgression is forgiven” “sin covered” “does not impute iniquity” N.T.: Rom. 4:3 “reckoned to him as righteous” 4:4 “reckoned” 4:5 “reckoned as righteousness” 4:6 “reckoned as righteousness” 4:7 “forgiven” 4:7 “sins covered” 4:8 “will not take into account (sin)” 4:9 “reckoned as righteousness” 4:10 “reckoned” 4:22 “reckoned as righteousness” 4:23 “reckoned” 4:24 “reckoned” 5:10 “reconciled” (cf. vs. 9 & 10).

VIII.  Man's justification before God is always based on God's grace through Christ's life, death and resurrection. O.T.: Isa. 53:11. N.T.: Rom. 3:4, 24, 28; 4:25; 5:9; II Cor. 5:21; Tit. 3:7.

IX.  Thus justification is a free gift and not something merited by works. N.T.: Rom. 3:20–30; 4:1–12; 5:15–17; 6:23; Gal. 2:16–21.

X.  The instrumental means of justification is FAITH apart from such works as baptism. N.T.: Rom. 3:22, 26–30; 4:1–12, 16; 5:1; Gal. 3:8, 11.

XI.  The Protestant view of justification is the doctrine of the early church while the Romanist doctrine cannot be found anywhere in the early church.

 

The Bible vs. Romanism
How Romanists Try to Refute The Reformers

I.    Romanists usually misrepresent the Reformers. They often claim that the Reformers taught that sinners are justified “by faith alone” in order to contrast this statement with James 2:24 “not by faith alone.” But this is not what they taught.

The Reformers taught that the ungodly are justified “solely,” (i.e. “only”) through faith. They did not say that we are justified “by faith that is alone.” They were careful to make the distinction between “only” and “alone.”

They stated that the faith that justifies is “not alone” but is always accompanied by all the other virtues such as love, obedience, etc. Hence, it is “not alone.”

But what they did say was that the Bible makes it abundantly clear that THE SOLE INSTRUMENTAL MEANS by which one receives salvation is FAITH viewed as set apart from the other virtues such as obedience.

Why? FAITH is the only “empty” virtue which has no merit in and of itself. Faith is not to be viewed as being the meritorious basis of salvation. Christ's work-not ours-is the meritorious basis of salvation.
Thus while salvation is “through” faith as its sole means of reception, it is accompanied by all the other VIRTUES.

II.  Objection: What About James vs. Paul?
A.   James uses the word “justify” in its non-technical sense of a personal “vindication” before man of one's profession of faith. He emphasizes that you should validate your faith before others by the kind of life you live.
B.   Thus James is emphasizing the DEMONSTRATING of justification and not how to achieve it.
C.   Nowhere does James use the word “justify” to mean to MAKE someone righteous.
II.  Questions which Romanists must answer:
A.   Can you produce a single verse in the Bible where the concept of grace as a “substance” is taught?
C.   Can you show us a single verse where justification is described as “infused righteousness?”
D.  Is not the concept of “grace as a divine substance infused into the soul” a Medieval idea?
E.   On what basis do you ignore the legal, cultural and exegetical meaning of the word dikaiow?
F.   Is there a single passage in the Bible which links baptism with justification as the means of its reception?
G.   Can you produce a single citation from the Apostolic Fathers where they taught the concept of “infused righteousness?”

The Biblical Doctrine of Authority
Part II
by Dr. Robert A. Morey

The Reformers did NOT say that the Bible was the ONLY authority. This is why they appealed to logic, history, science, the Church fathers, tradition, councils, creeds, confessions, commentators, Greek and Hebrew scholars, etc.

But what they did say was that when it came to DOCTRINE, there can be ONLY ONE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY - the Bible.

The “buck” has to stop somewhere. Thus the “final court of appeal” is the Bible and not the Pope, councils, creeds, tradition, etc.

The other authorities (logic, history, etc.) are as good as far as they go. But they are not THE ULTIMATE DECIDING FACTOR IN DOCTRINE.

Just like the prophets, apostles, Jesus and the N.T. Church, Protestants appeal to the scriptures as the “final court of appeal” i.e., the ultimate authority in all matters of faith.

1. Question: When deciding doctrine, to what did the prophets, Jesus, the apostles and the N.T. Church appeal as their ultimate authority, i.e., what was their “final court of appeal” when seeking to establish doctrine?

Answer: They always appealed to the scriptures as the determining authority in matters of faith.

2. Question: How do we know this?

Answer: Throughout the Bible, the prophets, Jesus, the Apostles and the N.T. Church used certain key literary phrases which indicated an appeal to authority (Isa. 8:20; Matt. 22:23–46; I Cor. 15:3–4; Acts 15:12–18).
I.    “as it is written” used 46 times:
A.   O.T.: 13 times (ex. II Kings 23:21).
B.   N.T.: 33 times (ex. Rom. 1:17).
II.  “Scripture says” used 7 times:
ex. Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2.
III. “according to the Scriptures” used 3 times: ex. I Cor. 15:3–4.
IV. “the law and the prophets” used 38 times: ex. Lk. 24:44–47.

4. Question: Did the prophets, Jesus, the apostles or the N.T. Church ever appeal to “tradition” as the authority for their doctrines?

Answer: Not once did the prophets, Jesus, the apostles or N.T. church appeal to tradition as the authority of their doctrines.

As a matter of fact, the idea of people appealing to “tradition” instead of Scripture is condemned by the prophets (Isa. 29:13), Jesus (Matt. 15:1–9) and the Apostles (Col. 2:8).

The ONLY Biblical author to use the word “tradition” in a positive way is the Apostle Paul who clearly used it to refer to the handing down of scriptural doctrines  such as the Gospel.

Since the Church had just begun, it would be logically impossible for him to be referring to “historical traditions” when the history of the Church had only just begun! How could it have any “historical traditions” when it did not have any history yet?

 

The Romanist View of Authority

I.    Romanism's view of religious authority is usually based on the fallacy of circular reasoning.
They appeal to their church's authority to prove their church's authority! This is like rowing with one oar. All you do is go around in circles.

Romanist: The “Church” is the ultimate authority. Protestant: Who says so? Romanist: The “Church” says so. Protestant: By what authority? Romanist: The “Church” is the ultimate authority.

II.  Romanists are guilty of setting up a false dichotomy between Scripture and tradition. This is the fundamental logical error underlying their entire arguments.
The moment it is admitted that there is such a thing as a “scriptural tradition,” the dichotomy falls apart. For example, in I Cor. 15:3–4, the Apostle Paul clearly appeals to the authority of Scripture as the basis for the Gospel. Then this scriptural teaching on the atonement is called a “tradition” to hand down to others in I Cor. 11:2.

III. Romanists use the logical fallacy of appealing to human authority. Some papists argue, “Since there are so many denominations and interpretations of Scripture, we need someone to decide what is true. Thus we need the Pope!”
Of course we can point out that Hitler, Joseph Smith, Rev. Moon and many other people have all made that same exact argument! We have no more reason to let the Pope do our thinking for us than to let all the other cult leaders!

 

Romanist Objection #1:

Note: Karl Keating is a Roman Catholic apologist and author of  Catholicism And Fundamentalism. “Nowhere does the Bible say, ‘Scripture alone is sufficient” ’ (Karl Keating, “What's Your Authority For That?”).

 

Protestant Response:

First, this is a logical fallacy. The fact that the Bible does not contain the exact words “Scripture alone is sufficient” does not logically imply that the concept which underlies those words cannot be found in the Bible.

For example, where does the word “Trinity” appear in the Bible? Where does it explicitly say “God in three persons?” Yet, the concept which underlies the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Bible even though the terminology was developed later on in Church history.

Second, this argument is self-refuting. Where does the Bible explicitly say “immaculate conception,” “papal infallibility,” “the mass,” etc.? If this argument were valid, it would do far more damage to Romanism than to us.

Third, the Reformation doctrine simply states that the prophets, Jesus, the Apostles and the N.T. Church always appealed to whatever written Scriptures existed in their day as the basis for their doctrines (for example, see I Cor. 15:3–4). They never appealed to “tradition,” “the Church,” “the pope,” etc.

Fourth, logically, since they only appealed to Scripture as the basis of their doctrine, then the burden of proof falls on the Romanists to demonstrate why we should appeal to anything else.

Lastly, in I Cor. 4:6 we are told “not to go beyond what is written” in Scripture. This statement of Paul is the sum and substance of “sola scriptura.”

Catholic Bibles:  Jerusalem Bible: “Keep to what is written.”  New American Bible: “do not go beyond what is set down.”

 

Romanist Objection #2:

“The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith” (Karl Keating,  Catholicism And Fundamentalism. p.136).

 

Protestant Response:

First, this negative argument claims, without substantiation, that the authors of Scripture explicitly knew of and then clearly denied the doctrine of “sola scriptura.”

Second, please show us passages in the Bible where the authors deny that Scripture is the complete rule of faith. Protestants have been waiting several centuries for Romanists to “put up or shut up.” Yet, they never found a single text to support their argument.

 

Romanist Objection #3:

“The Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church's word for it precisely because the Church is infallible” (Karl Keating,  Catholicism And Fundamentalism, p. 125).

 

Protestant Response:

This argument is based on circular reasoning: He “proves” the Bible by the Church and then “proves” the Church by the Bible! This is irrational to say the least!

 

Romanist Objection #4:

“The Church existed BEFORE the Bible. The Church MADE the Bible. Therefore: a) The Church is OVER the Bible. b) The Church has GREATER authority than the Bible” (see Keating,  Catholicism And Fundamentalism, pgs. 121–133 and also “How to Talk To Fundamentalists” tract).

 

Protestant Response:

There are major problems with this typical Romanist argument.

First, it is a logical fallacy to assume that:

If x precedes y in z, then x has greater authority than y.

In logic, chronology does not determine authority. This is the fallacy of irrelevance. For example, the Buddha came several centuries BEFORE Jesus. Is Buddha therefore OVER Jesus and does he have GREATER authority than Jesus? NO!

Second, historically, Romanism did not exist in the first century. So how could it have anything to do with the canon of Scripture? The truth is that popery did not exist until many centuries AFTER the canon was closed.

Third, Romanists are once again guilty of the fallacy of ambiguilty. They speak of “the Bible” as if no part of it existed BEFORE the church came into existence. (see: Karl Keating, “How To Talk To Fundamentalists,” “it was the Church that formed the Bible”).

But a set of writings called the “Holy Scriptures” existed BEFORE the church was created. That more Scripture was added to this “set” of writings does not logically imply that the Church “made” the Bible.
Fourth, they have the chronology backwards. Faith comes through hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:11–17). The church is the community of believers which is created by the Word. It does not matter if Scripture is heard or read. Thus the Word of God creates faith and not the other way around.

 

Romanist Objection #5

“But didn't the Church decide doctrine in Acts 15 on the basis of its own authority instead of Scripture”? (Dr. Robert Fastiggi, The Classic Debate, VT: 53)

 

Protestant Response:

In Acts 15:13–22, James appealed to the Scriptures to settle the Gentile issue. Once he quoted the Scriptures which applied to the issue, the discussion was concluded. No further words needed to be said. The Scriptures had solved the issue.

 

Questions Which Romanists Must Answer

1. Just as “no man can serve two masters,: is it not logically impossible to have MORE than one ULTIMATE authority?

2. When “push comes to shove,” is it not true that the Romanist's ULTIMATE authority rests in the decrees of its Popes and church councils and not in Scripture or tradition?

3. Is it not self-contradictory to appeal to the Bible as your authority to prove that you should not appeal to the Bible as your authority.

4. Is it not self-contradictory to appeal to the Bible as the authority of your doctrines while saying that the Protestants are in error because they appeal to the Bible as the authority for their doctrines?

5. Is it not self-contradictory to appeal to the bible as your authority to prove that the Pope or the “church” and not the Bible is your authority?

6. Where in the Bible did the Old Testament prophets appeal to “tradition” or any other authority than Scripture when establishing doctrine?

7. Can you show us just one verse where Jesus ever appealed to “tradition” as the basis of his authority?

8. Can you show us just one verse where the apostles ever referred to “tradition” as the basis of their doctrines?

Listen to Alex Jones
from 12:00 to 3:00 PM EST (Infowars)

	In Memory of Dr. Bob Morey (11/13/46 -- 01/05/19)

Issues

• Covid-19 Information: Legal Help, Where to get Ivermectin, Are the Vaccines Safe?, Dr. Fauci Exposed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. & Other Info.
• Take the Test: How would God Vote? (HTML)
• Trump vs. Biden (2020) Non-Globalist Presidential Voter Guide -- PDF
• Sheriff's Office Information on Supplemental Coverage & Mergers -- PDF (2017/2020 Tri-fold Tract)
• Will a One World Religion & Government Bring World Peace? -- PDF (Tri-fold Tract)
• Trump vs. Clinton (2016) Non-Globalist Presidential Voter Guide -- PDF
• Holocaust Survivor Visits Hunterdon Central High School on 03/26/14 & Exposes the Ideology of the Nazis -- PDF
• Holocaust Survivor Visits Hunterdon Central High School on 03/26/14 & Exposes the Ideology of the Nazis (HTML)
• Is Conservatism, Liberalism & Libertarianism Anti-Christian?
• A Simple Fallacy the Natural Theologians Commit (HTML)
• Ayan Rand (1905-1982)
• Tracking False Conservatives
• Beware of False Conservatives
• The Truth about Black Liberation Theology (HTML)
• Black Liberation Theology—the enemy within
• Ten Propositions on the religious Attempt to Change the Law
• Constitution 101
• Christianity and Humanism
• Christianity and Humanism (HTML)
• Christ and Civilization
• Rebuilding America in the 21st Century
• The Gandhi Nobody Knows (HTML)
• Death by Gun Control
• ‘Gay-rights’ leader quits homosexuality
• The Purpose Driven Church?—Rick Warren’s Global Peace
• Psychology & The Church
• High School Students Lose More of Their Rights (1957 vs. 2020) - HTML
• Ted Kennedy: Reagan’s Benedict Arnold
• A critique of Walter Cronkit—was He anti-American?
• CIA Black OPS Commander (Dr. Steve Pieczenik): The American Republic Restored by President Donald J. Trump

Great Magazines