A few months ago I arrived in England from Spain, after having left the Church of Rome, and now enjoy that liberty of the gospel which is the prerogative of the true children of God.
Why did I leave the Church of Rome at all? And why leave on the eve of the Second Vatican Council? The declared aims of the latter are the revitalizing of Christian life, the reorientation of the machinery of administration of the Roman Church to bring it more into line with modern trends, and the encouragement of the unity of all Christendom against the common enemy, Communism. In view of such an apparently meritorious program, it might be thought that I had made a premature decision, and that I should have first awaited the outcome. Shortly after my conversion, I did in fact ask myself whether it might not be advisable to postpone action until I saw the results of these professed endeavors to bring together all confessing Christians, but it was soon brought home to me that this whole prospect of unity is a vain hope.
For 14 years I had been a professor of dogmatic theology in the Roman Church. Familiar as I now am with evangelical truth, and in the light of the Word of God and my knowledge of Romanist thinking, I am utterly convinced of the impossibility of all attempts to bring about the union of the evangelical churches and the Church of Rome, except on terms of utter surrender to the conditions laid down by the Vatican. It is still Rome’s claim that the only basis for approach is the necessary admission on the part of all other denominations that the Church of Rome alone possesses the whole of revealed truth. Other churches have only small particles of this truth, and only the infallible authority and sovereignty of the Roman Church and her visible head have the true control, mediation, and resolution of all matters pertaining to the faith. Further, the Roman Church claims that:
1. The Bible without Romanist notes is unprofitable and even dangerous. Its reading is therefore forbidden.
2. The forgiveness of sins is unattainable save through the complete and full confession of each sin in detail to a priest, who uses authority vested in him known as that of “the keys” to free the penitent from sin.
3. The only valid means of sanctification is that which is derived by a communication of the rites and ceremonies of the church which, after the manner of a magic amulet or charm, confer blessing on the faithful.
All these claims are set out in detail in a book on present-day theology written in German by M. Schmaus, one of the most celebrated Romanist apologists of our time. It has been translated into Spanish, and is remarkable in that it contains the first dialogue of a controversial nature between Romanists and Protestants permitted to be published and circulated in Spain with the sanction of the church. It was against such views that Luther wrote, and it was because of my own inability to accept them that I left the Church of Rome.
How far removed all this is from the glorious simplicity of the truth in the Gospel! Scripture explains salvation as a loving call from a forgiving God who demands only a personal response of faith from man, in humble and joyful surrender, without any need of the mediation of a priest or an ecclesiastical organization. Romanist dogmas stand revealed as accretions to the Word of God over the centuries, piling up into unwieldy, grotesque superstructures, one on top of another, the fruit of pagan logistics and superstitious mystification intermixed infamously with the Word of God by a process known as “dogmatic homogeneous progress.” Thus it is that Rome has been able to define as “dogmas of the faith” such doctrines as the sacrifice of the mass, purgatory, indulgences, the worship of Mary, the infallibility of the pope, auricular confession to a priest, and so on. Such doctrines are not only at variance with clear Bible teaching and the preaching of Paul, but they are often diametrically opposed to fundamental scriptural principles.
It may be of interest to mention the basis of Romanist teaching and of the progressive evolution of her dogmatic theology. Thomas Aquinas establishes in his book In Boethium de Trinitate that to deduce theological conclusions from a revealed premise to another produced by analytical reasoning—these conclusions can be made into dogmas of faith. This, says Aquinas, is not to mix wine (the Word of God) with water (human logic), but to change water into wine. What a blasphemous principle! The philosophical reasonings of a pagan mind (Aquinas takes the principle of his doctrine from Aristotle) are to be put on the same level as revealed truth from Scripture! The Roman Church refers to these sophistries as “analytical reasoning, not philosophical deductions,” and is careful to point out the distinction. This is just not true. They are conclusions arrived at on the basis of well-known philosophical concepts, and as such are very far removed from the body of God-breathed truth which is revealed to us in Scripture.
In addition to these philosophical deductions, there is a whole host of sentimental phantasies of doubtful origin surrounding the Virgin Mary which builds up around her a novel system of attributes investing her with semi-divinity quite contrary to the express teaching of the Word of God. Thus not only does Rome blur true doctrine, but she has reduced spiritual life to the pagan level in the multiplication of her spurious rites and ceremonies. Consequently, Roman Catholics currently attach far more importance to the scrupulous fulfillment of prescribed ceremonial than to the attributes of a truly spiritual life. The act itself of confession to a priest is far more meritorious than the need to repent of the sins confessed. How strange all this is in the light of the Word of God, which so clearly establishes that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”
In my reading of Scripture I came across a verse which made a profound impression on my thinking. Galatians 1:8, 9 says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than … we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.… If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” In the light of this, the only reasonable method of testing any doctrine is to bring it face to face with the Bible and test it on that basis. So the believers in Berea acted, and in Acts 17:11 they are commended as being “more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” It was clear to me that Rome on very many counts teaches a gospel other than that of Paul and the Bible. After much prayer and meditation I made my decision: rather than fall under the displeasure of God and the condemnation of his Word, I was prepared to face the wrath of men and the excommunication of the church. Rome decrees in her Codex Juris Canonici the immediate excommunication ipso facto of all who dare to join a “heretical sect,” meaning, of course, any Christian denomination.
In like manner did Luther on December 10, 1520, dare to burn the bull of his excommunication after nailing his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church.
Rome And The Bible
The only possible basis for a mutual approach between the evangelical church and Rome would be that both parties recognized the supreme and indisputable authority of Holy Scripture, accepting the interpretations which Scripture itself places on its teaching—analogia fidei, not analogia entis. But if the Church of Rome agreed to this, setting on one side all her notes and traditions, her dogmas and explanations of the Word of God, she would be placing herself on the same ground as Bible-believing Protestants, and obviously this is a position she will never agree to adopt. It must be remembered that Rome’s basic dogma is that of the infallibility of the pope, and none of the dogmatic definitions of the popes down the ages can be set aside whilst this position is maintained. It is therefore idle to suppose that Rome will ever adopt this attitude; if she did, her whole system would collapse and she would virtually commit suicide.
Let us not be blind to the facts—Rome will never actually take a single step of real consequence towards unity. She ever demands the return of the “prodigal sons” (Protestants) to the “Father’s House” (the Vatican). The sad truth is quite the opposite: it is Rome who has left the Father’s house, and Bible-loving Christians who inhabit it. An approach to Rome will never lead us to the truth; it will lead us inevitably to apostasy. May I conclude with a concise answer to the question posed at the head of this article, which asks, “Should we return to Rome?” My answer is, “No, let Rome return to the Bible.”
END
