You are on page 1of 16

The Papal Visit: Why We Oppose It

September 2010 is to witness the visit of one Joseph Alois Ratzinger to the United
Kingdom. Better known as Benedict XVI, Ratzinger was elected Pope in 2005, and he
comes to these shores as sovereign of the Vatican State. Once here, he will attend events in
England and Scotland – where he is also due to meet Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11.

Recent scandals in the Roman Catholic Church have ensured that Pope Benedict will not
receive a universal welcome. Representatives of a variety of interest groups have organized
protests, and the Church hierarchy stands in fear of a rising tide of negative publicity.

The Free Presbyterian Church opposes the visit of Pope Benedict to this realm. Our
opposition is not on grounds of blind sectarianism: it is not the product of an innate hatred
of all things Roman Catholic. We bear no ill will towards our Roman Catholic neighbours,
but rather wish that they might enter into the freedom of the glorious Gospel of Christ.
Thus, while we might speak of concerns that are constitutional, moral and financial, we
choose instead to highlight matters spiritual – for it is with the spiritual well being of
citizens in this kingdom that we are occupied first and foremost.

What follows is a compilation of brief articles penned by some Free Presbyterian ministers,
giving a summary of our church’s position on this issue. We commend it and the Scriptures
on which it is based, to your careful consideration.

Rev Timothy Nelson


Editor
The Man: Peter’s Successor or Papal Usurper?
Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XV1, was elected ‘Pope’ in April 2005. He serves as Bishop of
Rome, head of the Roman Catholic Church, and is frequently styled ‘Holy Father’,
‘Supreme Pontiff’ and ‘Vicar of Christ’. And here, immediately, for Bible-believing
Christians, is confirmation of an institution that stands at variance with Scripture. These
papal titles are “a very grave usurpation of the titles of the Godhead. We bow and worship
the Holy Father, our Creator, Lord and Judge. We come through the sole mediator-ship of
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and the great High Priest (Hebrews 4:15). We
rejoice in the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, the Vicar of Christ, who makes the
presence of the heavenly Christ a deep reality in our own experience. To take on our lips
these great titles, is to tread on holy ground as we are in the presence not of man, but of the
triune God”. (H. Carson, The Faith of the Vatican). Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church
argues that every Pope stands in succession to the apostle Peter. But is the Pope really the
Peter we know from the New Testament?

‘On this rock’


There can be no doubt that Peter was a prominent figure among the apostles in the New
Testament church. Some see him as first among equals (‘primus inter pares’) in that body,
and, within limits, this may be acknowledged. The Gospels contain more references to
Peter than to all of the others combined. He is at the head of every list of the twelve
(Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13), and, with James and John, was
privileged to witness some events denied to the nine. He appears to be ‘spokesman’ for the
group on numerous occasions (cf. Matthew 15:15, 17:24-25, 19:27). He remained to the
fore after the ascension – overseeing the selection of Judas’s successor, preaching on the
Day of Pentecost, and continuing to evangelise boldly for years to come.

The Roman Catholic Church views all of these things, and more, as confirmation of the
primacy of Peter – a position supposedly established by Christ when He addressed His
servant memorably at Caesarea Philippi: “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Is this Christ’s institution of what
we now know as the Papacy? Was Peter himself, and in the person of his successors, to be
‘the rock’ on which He would build His church? There are very many reasons for rejecting
such an interpretation. The Jewish disciples who listened that day would have recognised
the symbol of the rock as an image of the Divine (see Deuteronomy 32:4, 1 Samuel 2:2,
Psalm 18:31), in this case, Christ, the Son of God (cf. v16-17) – and this would square with
Matthew’s purpose in presenting Him as the Messiah, the stone (rock) which Israel would
reject (cf. 21:42). Further, it is clear that the theme of this passage is the identity of Christ,
not Peter (v 13f) – Christ does not say ‘Peter, upon you I will build my church’, but “upon
this rock”, making a rather obvious distinction. Much is made of the Greek words for
“Peter” (‘petros’) and “rock” (‘petra’), and they are different. Roman Catholic writers who
seek to sweep aside this point by suggesting that, in all likelihood, Christ spoke in Aramaic,
where there is but one word, miss the point. Why would Matthew, directed by the Holy
Spirit, have used two Greek words? “Christ evidently made a play on words. Peter was a
small rock hewn out of the large rock mountain. Peter recognised this difference (1 Peter
2:4-8)” (Gromacki).

The truth is that Papal apologists have altogether failed to make the case for identifying
Peter as ‘the rock’ in Matthew 16:18. And even if they could, on what grounds do they
maintain that this singular authority may be transmitted, and actually has been so
transmitted, to those who profess to be Peter’s successors?

Chequered history
The Roman Catholic position finds no support in history, neither in the New Testament age
nor beyond. There is no evidence that Peter laboured in Rome, and it is doubtful if he was
ever there. Paul’s letter to the Romans is not addressed to him, does not refer to him, and
does not greet him even though no less than twenty-six individuals are mentioned in the
final chapter! Later, when Paul was resident at Rome, and wrote various letters in
confinement, he makes no reference to Peter. And this is not surprising since Peter had been
commissioned to labour among the Jews: his ministry would not have brought him to the
imperial city (Galatians 2:7-8 cf. 1 Peter1:1).

It is significant that the orthodox Roman Catholic understanding of Christ’s’ words in


Matthew 16:18 did not have majority support in the early centuries. In a paper prepared for
Vatican 1 (1870), but not permitted to be read, Archbishop Kennick showed that only about
20% of the ‘Fathers’ held this view, with many of the most important individuals dissenting
– a case where church tradition doesn’t really count!

And what of the ‘unbroken line of succession’? Roman Catholic sources acknowledge that
from the 4th – 11th centuries many papal elections were manipulated and corrupted by
secular political forces. The 14th and 15th centuries saw rival popes ‘reign’ at Rome and
Avignon, France, and it is “impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants
were popes or anti-popes” (New Catholic Encyclopaedia).

To survey the history of the Papacy is to discover that many of those who occupied the
office in the middle ages and beyond were guilty of moral bankruptcy, and the story of the
institution is “a horror show of madness, mayhem and murder, and is a damning
contradiction to the biblical account of true church leadership” (De Courcy). How could
such men claim to stand in the line of Peter? And how could any mere man claim
infallibility – pronounced at Vatican 1 in 1870 – while professing to stand in the shoes of
the one who said “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Luke 5:8)?

Unanswered questions
To recognise any pope as the legitimate successor of Peter is to fly in the face of scripture.
It is to leave many key questions unanswered. Even after that momentous conversation at
Caesarea Philippi, Peter is far from being the forerunner of flawless and infallible popes.
And his frailty, his humanity, is not long in manifesting itself, Matthew 16:21-23 cf. John
13:8-9, Matthew 26:36-45,51-54,69-75, John 21:21-22, Galatians 2:11-14. It is evident that
Peter’s companions did not bow before the concept of his primacy, Matthew 18:1, 20:20-28
cf. Acts 11:1-18. Peter himself claims to be no more than “an apostle of Jesus Christ” and
“an elder” (1 Peter 1:1,5:1), and throughout his writings he stands in direct opposition to
cardinal Roman Catholic teachings on such things as indulgences, the priesthood, papal
authority, the mediation of Mary and the ‘sacrifice’ of the mass. Peter is at pains to make
much of Christ, who has “once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring
us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).

It is not difficult then to see why the reformer John Calvin should reach his own pointed
verdict on the Papacy: “I deny him to be the successor of Peter who is doing his utmost to
demolish every edifice that Peter built”. And it is understandable why one Roman Catholic
writer, surveying the tumultuous history of this office, observed, that “Luther, in the
conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to
experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation”. This verdict
was delivered in 1989. It was pronounced by Joseph Ratzinger.

Rev Timothy Nelson


The Mediator: Jesus Christ Alone
Protestantism affirms the supreme importance of the office and work of Christ as mediator.
This emphasis flows from the significance placed upon this doctrine in scripture. The
apostle Paul wrote, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Here we observe that:

1. The mediator is ‘a middle person’, standing between God and men, with the view to
reconciliation.
2. The man Christ Jesus is specifically identified as this mediator.
3. He is the only mediator between God and men.

Christ applied these distinctive aspects of the mediator’s office to Himself when he said, “I
am the way, the truth and life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6). He is
the only mediator between a holy God and sinful mankind. The sinner may only come to
God to receive pardon and reconciliation by Jesus Christ.

At this juncture, Protestantism stands at variance with the claims of Roman Catholicism.
Throughout the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has developed a system of theology
that not only undermines, but also usurps Christ’s position and prerogative as the sole
mediator between God and sinners.

Christ exercises his office as mediator in three distinct functions: as prophet, priest and
king. All are necessary in the grand scheme of salvation, but all are usurped by the
unscriptural claims of Roman Catholicism.

First: Roman Catholicism usurps Christ’s role as Prophet


As prophet, Christ reveals to us the will of God in all things concerning salvation and
edification. Moses wrote of a prophet whom God would raise up to communicate the Word
of God to the people (Deuteronomy 18:15-19), and Christ is the fulfilment of that promise.
Addressing His disciples, He said: “All things that I have heard of my Father I have made
known unto you” (John 15:15). He gave a full and sufficient revelation of the truth now
preserved in the Holy Scriptures. Thus Protestants view the Bible as the sole means by
which Christ governs and guides his church.

Roman Catholicism, however, usurps Christ’s position by giving the Pope supreme
apostolic authority to define all doctrine – infallibly – concerning faith or morals.
Successive Pontiffs have exercised this power to promulgate dogmas binding upon all the
faithful, dogmas that have no foundation in Scripture, and indeed are contrary to the Word
of God!
One example is the doctrine of the assumption of Mary, decreed by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
Pius asserted that when Mary died, all the apostles except Thomas were miraculously
conveyed in the clouds to witness her death. They buried her in Gethsemane, and three
days later, when Thomas was present, they opened her tomb to find only her grave clothes,
from which they concluded that she had been taken up into heaven!

Scripture contains no mention of Mary’s death, or her alleged assumption into heaven. This
is but one example of how Roman Catholicism has replaced truth with tradition, and
thereby usurped Christ’s position as the true prophet of God.

Second: Roman Catholicism usurps Christ’s role as Priest


As priest, Christ made atonement for the sins of His people by the sacrifice of Himself, and
He now lives to intercede for them.

His priestly ministry was represented throughout the Old Testament era by the sacrifice of
animals offered by the patriarchs and later by the Levitical priesthood. The one chief
difference, however, was that all the sacrifices of that economy had to be repeated: they had
no power to take away sin. They were but types and shadows.

But Christ “offered one sacrifice for sin forever” and “sat down at the right hand of
God” (Hebrews 10:12). His sacrifice was final and never to be repeated, thereby bringing to
an end the priesthood and sacrifices of the Old Testament.

Roman Catholicism has rejected Biblical teaching by introducing a sacerdotal priesthood


with the power to offer a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass. And in relation to the ongoing
intercessory work of Christ at the Father’s right hand, she has set in place an array of
‘intercessors’ in thone’se saints and, chiefly, in the Virgin Mary. In fact she has made Mary
a co-mediator with Christ in the work of redemption.

Alphonsus de Ligouri in ‘The Glories of Mary’ declares: “Because men fear Jesus Christ,
that Divine Person who is destined one day to judge them, it has been necessary to give
them a Mediator with the Mediator, and none was so fit for this office as Mary His mother.”
He continues, “No grace, no pardon emanates from the Throne of the King of Kings
without passing through the hands of Mary … no one enters heaven without passing
through her.”

And the Decree of the Second Vatican Council issued in 1964 states: “In an utterly singular
way she (Mary) cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the
Saviour’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For taken up to heaven she did not
lay aside this saving role but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us
gifts of eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the
Titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix” (Paragraph 61-62, chapter 8 of the
Dogmatic Constitution of the Church).

The Bible clearly states that there is only one mediator between God and men – allowing
no room for Mary, or any other ‘saint’, to stand alongside Christ in the work of redemption.

Third: Roman Catholicism usurps Christ’s role as King


As King, Christ exercises sovereign headship over the church He has redeemed with His
own blood. He is identified in the New Testament as the head of the church (Ephesians
5:23, Colossians 1:18). He has not delegated His supreme authority to any person on earth.

Yet, in Roman Catholicism, the Pope assumes Christ’s kingly power by claiming to be the
‘Vicar of Christ’, the representative of Christ upon this earth. Thus the Second Vatican
Council decreed: “For in virtue of his office, that is as vicar of Christ and pastor of the
whole church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the church.
And he can always exercise this power freely” (Paragraph 22, Dogmatic Constitution of the
Church).

This statement vindicates the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith who wrote:
“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” (Chapter 25
Section VI).

Truly, in the Church, there is no King but Christ!

Rev Noel Hughes


The Message: Justification by Faith
With the most acute insight, Martin Luther declared that a church’s doctrine of justification
indicates whether that church is standing or falling. His observation is in keeping with the
inspired words of Paul in Galatians 1: 8-9. Here, presenting the centrality of justification in
the Gospel message, the apostle pronounced a divine anathema on anyone, even an angel
from heaven, who would deviate from God’s way of justifying sinners. The inescapable
conclusion is that to err on this doctrine is to contribute to the eternal damnation of souls!
The church must be right on justification; this doctrine lies at the very heart of Divine
revelation concerning the salvation of the sinner.

What is this justification? It is the establishment of the sinner in a standing of righteousness


before God. The New Testament verb translated ‘justify’ means “to declare or demonstrate
to be righteous”. A careful and honest study of this verb will reach the conclusion that it is a
purely legal term. Therefore, justification is God’s action in declaring sinners ‘righteous’
and placing them in a state of legal perfection before His law (Luke 18: 14).

Foundation
Scripture shows that God’s pronouncement of a sinner to be righteous is not arbitrary but
has a clear foundation. God justifies sinners (Romans 8: 33); and does so on the basis of a
perfect righteousness freely provided in Christ (Romans 5: 19). The obedience mentioned
here is Christ’s perfect obedience to the law – given in His sinless life to the law’s precept,
and in His atoning death to the law’s penalty – thereby providing a perfect righteousness
for sinners. For this reason, Christ Himself is revealed in Scripture to be the sinner’s
righteousness (Jeremiah 23: 6). God, through the obedience of Christ, has provided a
perfect righteousness for sinners, a righteousness whereby they may be justified (1
Corinthians 1: 30). Thus, He may freely justify the sinner without compromising His own
holiness (Romans 3: 26). And so, when the sinner trusts in Christ for salvation, Christ’s
perfect righteousness is imputed to his account before God, and he receives the forgiveness
of his sin and full acceptance before the moral law (Romans 4: 6-7, 5: 1).

Features
The chief feature of justification is that it is an act of God (Romans 8: 33, Luke 18: 13-14).
In faith alone, the publican cried to God to be “merciful” to him, the word meaning ‘to be
appeased toward’. The immediate result was that the publican was “justified” – the word
denoting a completed act that is neither reversed nor repeated, an act that cannot be
supplemented or diminished (Romans 8: 30, Hebrews 10: 2). It is therefore the act of God’s
grace (Romans 3: 25), and is legal or forensic in nature. As a result of Christ’s obedience
“shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) – this too is indicative of a legal act,
because the verb translated “made” means ‘to appoint’ or ‘to constitute’. The word defines
the place of legal acceptance that the sinner possesses through faith alone, in Christ alone,
and by grace alone. In 1 John 4: 17 the Apostle sums up this acceptance in the thrilling
statement: “As He (Christ) is, so are we in this world.”

Falsehood
Despite the clear teaching of Scripture on this matter, confusion has prevailed and error has
abounded. This is often a consequence of the failure to understand the legal nature of
justification.
Before the Reformation, justification was confused with regeneration and sanctification.
Thomas Aquinas taught that the first element of justification was the infusion of grace, on
the basis of which the second element, forgiveness, was given. In this manner, the
foundation of Roman Catholic teaching on justification by baptism was laid, and then
further developed, with the assertion that the justification thus received could be increased
or lost depending on ones actions. The ultimate result of this teaching is that justification
depends upon personal merit.

Furthermore, Roman Catholicism confuses justification and sanctification by teaching that


as a result of grace infused at baptism, the individual is enabled to obey or observe certain
rites and ceremonies, and thereby become holy – and so he finds favour with God. This is
to place sanctification before justification, and results in justification being viewed as a
process. This contradicts Scriptural teaching: justification is at once complete, and is
irreversible.

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on justification was formally endorsed in the
documents produced at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). At this Council, convened
specifically in order to counter the Protestant Reformation, she affirmed that justification
consists of the two elements already noted – the infusion of grace in baptism and the
forgiveness of sins. But it is vital to note that in the teachings of Trent, the first element is
the crucial one, with the second being merely supplemental. Thus the grace infused in
baptism results in the individual being enabled to follow rituals such as confirmation,
penance, confession, and the celebration of the mass. Moreover, depending on one’s
performance in these rituals, the forgiveness of sin was held out as a mere possibility, so
that no one could ever be assured of having that blessing.

And this teaching on justification is also clearly documented in the most recent writings to
receive the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, to determine present and
official teaching, one needs only to turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published
in 1994. In paragraphs 1996/7 the catechism states: “by baptism the Christian participates
in the grace of Christ.” This element of ‘baptismal grace’ is as evident in the 1994
catechism as it was in the documents of Trent! Again, in the catechism, the unscriptural
notion of the sinner meriting justification and eternal life is equally present – “Moved by
the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves, and for others, the graces
needed for our sanctification…and for the attainment of eternal life.”

Since the attitude to the doctrine of justification indicates whether a church is standing or
falling, we may conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is fallen! It fails the test. It is
not, in the scriptural sense, a truly Christian church, and should not be accepted as such.
With such a church, there can be no fellowship. To enter into communion with a body that
embraces and promulgates the most blatant error, and pronounces anathemas on those who
hold the truth, is a gross betrayal of the Gospel. Many in pursuit of an ecumenical agenda
are guilty of pursuing such a course, but the true Christian must not follow their lead. It is
to lend credence to a body that has long flouted Scripture, and which has hounded those
who dared believe in the simple but scriptural doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Rev John Greer


The Mass: Sham not Sacrifice
Today, the notion is propagated that there is little difference between the Roman Catholic
mass and the simple observance of the Lord’s Supper as practised by Protestants. This is
not so. Roman Catholicism makes the mass the central and supreme act of worship, a
ceremony upon which everything else hinges, and around which everything else revolves.

Meaning
According to Roman Catholic teaching, the mass is a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ.
It is claimed that, at ordination, the priest is given special power by the bishop to display
the wafer, bless it, and change it into the actual body of the Lord Jesus Christ! The Roman
Catholic Church claims that Christ Himself descends upon the altar, that He comes
whenever the priests call Him and as often as they call Him, and that He places Himself in
their hands. The Church states: “The bread and wine are not the type of the body and blood
of Christ, God forbid, but they are the very deified body itself of the Lord”.

This supposed change of the bread into the body and the wine into the blood of Christ is
termed ‘transubstantiation’. Before consecration, the wafer is just bread. However, after
consecration, the wafer, now called “the host”, is to be worshipped and adored as truly
God. Often on “holy days”, the host is carried out of the church in procession and adored
by the people, who fall on their knees as it passes.

Roman Catholic doctrine is that “the sacrifice in the Mass is identical with the sacrifice of
the cross” and “that in the Mass is offered to God, a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice
for the living and the dead”.

Mockery
So much of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is indeed a sham and a mockery of
the truth.
• The mass mocks at common sense. What a mockery to claim that a mere man
pronouncing, “This is my body”, over a piece of bread, could change it into the
Lord! There is no visible change. It has the same taste, colour, smell, weight and
dimensions. It still looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, and feels
like bread, yet the Roman Catholic says it is no longer bread, it is now the actual
body of Christ!
• The mass mocks at clear scripture. At the Passover ceremony Christ took bread
and wine, and said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood of the new
testament” (Matthew 26:26, 28). He did not mean His literal body and blood. He
meant it in a figurative sense, just as He referred to Himself elsewhere as “the vine”
and “the door”.
• The mass mocks at Christ’s sacrifice. Because of the infinite worth and the
absolute perfection of Christ’s one sacrifice of Himself, scripture calls us to rest our
hope of salvation and eternal life upon Him alone. Roman Catholicism, however,
teaches that the priest has the power to bring Christ repeatedly from heaven and to
offer Him as a sacrifice for sins over and over again! The Mass is therefore nothing
less than an attack upon efficacy and sufficiency of the one true sacrifice of Christ.
• The mass mocks at completed salvation. Scripture teaches that the work of
salvation is complete. On Calvary Christ cried, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Christ
cannot be brought back to earth at the whim of a priest to be sacrificed again
because we read “But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat
down on the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12). Yet Rome claims that there can
be no hope of salvation except by the repeated sacrifice of the Mass. No wonder the
historic creeds of Protestant churches reject the Mass! The articles of the Anglican
Church refer to masses as “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits”, while the
Westminster Confession of Faith says, “the Popish sacrifice of the Mass, as they
call it, is most injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all
the sins of the elect”.

Money
Roman Catholics are taught that when a priest says a mass, some of their sins (or the sins of
a loved one, living or dead) will be remitted. But the priest must be paid to say mass.
Family and friends are assured that if they pay to have masses said for departed loved-ones,
this will atone for some of their sins and earn them an earlier release from purgatory, thus
sparing them years of agony. The Church states, “The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered
for the faithful departed who have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified, so that
they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ”.

It is interesting to note that many years after the death of Pope John XXIII, masses were
still being said for the release of his soul from purgatory. One wonders, what hope is there,
then, for ‘ordinary’ people? The truth is, God’s salvation cannot be obtained through any
man or purchased with any amount of money. It is a free gift (Ephesians 2:9). To attempt to
buy it is an insult to God!

Martyrs
Throughout the history of the church, many faithful believers in Christ have suffered severe
persecution and some have been martyred because they refused to attend the mass.

Bishop J.C. Ryle, the former Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, wrote a tract entitled, “Why
were our reformers burned?” In it he described the cruel deaths which many suffered
because they denied that the “host was to be worshipped and adored as God…did they or
did they not believe that the real body of Christ … was present on the so-called altar so
soon as the mystical words had passed the lips of the priest? Did they or did they not? That
was the simple question, if they did not believe and admit it, they were burned”.

One of the aims of the modern ecumenical movement is to devise a form of words that will
enable Roman Catholic theologians and compromising Protestant counterparts to claim that
agreement has been reached on the understanding of the mass. But we can be sure that the
substance of Roman Catholic dogma will remain unchanged. The Vatican has publicly
declared that participation in ecumenical discussions is on the basis that Roman Catholic
doctrine is “irreformable” – it cannot be altered.

And indeed her doctrine of the mass has not changed. It leads sinners to trust in the priest
and in the ritual of the church, rather than in Jesus Christ, the great High Priest who made
the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever. His is the only sacrifice that can deliver from sin!

Those who hold to the truth that man is justified through grace alone, by faith alone, in
Christ alone, can never be at peace with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass.

Rev Ron Johnstone


The Mandate: Exposing Error
Today the lines of demarcation between truth and error are more blurred than ever. Many
denominations and inter-church organizations are sadly divided on the fundamentals of the
gospel. False teachers are tolerated and even accompanied in evangelistic ventures. And we
find some in the main Protestant churches, or in other evangelical fellowships, associating
with liberals, modernists and Roman Catholics in acts of worship.

Ministers from a variety of Protestant denominations will perjure their ordination vows
when they meet the Pope and accept him as head of a Christian church. Sadly, many
professing evangelicals see no wrong in such meetings! The argument is that every
opportunity must be taken to preach the truth – wherever it takes us. We are not to judge
other ‘Christians’ therefore we must allow the wheat and tares to grow together until the
time of harvest. Did not Christ pray for unity? Surely all Christians must work to bring this
about; to embark on any other course is to be guilty of the sin of schism.

There is a degree of plausibility about all of this. However, it makes unwarranted


assumptions, and it fails to take account of what the Bible teaches regarding our response to
false teaching and departure from the faith. We must stand apart from any form of religious
teaching or practice that contradicts or undermines the fundamentals of the gospel.

There are five specific New Testament commands relating to this matter:

1. We are to mark those who teach error. “Now I beseech you brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid
them.” (Romans 16:17) Here, the word ‘mark’ has the sense of ‘scrutinizing’. We are
required to examine that which professes to be of God. We are not to accept things at face
value. We are warned: “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:
because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1) There are many
who corrupt the Word of God (2 Corinthians 2:17). It is wholly unscriptural to accept and
believe everything that comes along professing to be of the Lord! We must mark out those
who depart from the truth, and so cause divisions and offences.

2. We are to reprove those who teach error. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Ephesians 5:11) Silence is not an option in
the face of false teaching and departure from the faith! When error has been observed, we
are not to remain silent, fearful of creating division. Truth is more important than false
unity. There is an onus upon those who love the Lord Jesus to speak out for His truth. And
this is not to be a token expression of unhappiness. The word ‘reprove’ suggests a firm
rebuke, made with the intention of convincing someone of the wrong he is teaching or
practicing. There must be the strongest refuting of error that is possible. Nothing less is
agreeable to God’s Word. Thus, the true minister of Christ will speak out against error
wherever it is found. He has a God given duty to do so.

3. We are to reject those who teach error. “A man that is an heretic after the first and
second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10) Instead of associating with false teachers and
seeking to bring them around to our way of thinking, we are to reject them when there has
been a repeated refusal to forsake false teaching or practice. We must reject those who
persist in propagating error. Just as the physical body seeks to eradicate and reject a virus
that is harming it, so the spiritual body must do likewise. These false teachers are not to be
looked upon as belonging to the Church of Christ. They are to be denounced as those who
bring in damnable heresies (2 Peter 2:1).

4. We are to have no fellowship with those who teach error. “Be ye not unequally yoked
together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of
God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16) There is no common ground between truth and
error. It is impossible to worship the Lord ‘jointly’ – such as we find in many modern
ecumenical services. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth” (John 4:24). Truth and error cannot worship God side by side. There can be no
fellowship, communion, concord, part or agreement between those who are essentially
different in nature!

5. We are to separate from those who teach error. “Wherefore come out from among
them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive
you” (2 Corinthians 6:18). This word ‘separate’ means ‘to mark off by boundaries’. We are
required to mark off a boundary beyond which we will not cross. False teachers and their
errors must be out of bounds to us. They are beyond the pale. We are not to be involved
with denominations or alliances where false teachers are given recognition or
encouragement, nor are we to co-operate with them in any supposed evangelistic venture.

In separating from false teachers we are assured that the Lord will receive us and be a
Father unto us. The Lord is outside the camp. He has no part with those who deny His truth
and despise His name. In separating we go outside the camp unto Him (Hebrews 13:13).

Rev Brian McClung


Conclusion

Having considered some of the fundamental differences between justification by faith alone
and justification by works, it is important, finally, to highlight the spiritual pedigree of all
who are born into this world.

The Word of God reveals that, by nature, we all are sinners. “ For all have sinned, and
come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Our sins and iniquities have separated us
from God (Isaiah 59 v 2). In such a state, we are totally incapable of initiating
reconciliation between ourselves, and the holy God of Heaven. And so the answer to this
universal problem must come from God – there must be a divine plan of redemption.

Mercifully, God has revealed, in the person of His Son, the one effectual means of
salvation. Moved with love for the sinner, the Lord Jesus Christ became bone of our bone
and flesh of our flesh, in order to lay down His life on the cross at Calvary as a ransom for
many.

But not everyone who dies goes to heaven. Men and women who die rejecting the free
offer of God's salvation will be forever separated from Him in hell (Luke 16:19-31).
Responding to this solemn fact, Paul exclaimed: “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord
we persuade men” (2 Corinthians chapter 5:l1). And this the apostle did by exposing the
error of those whose teaching was centred purely upon human structures, human
institutions and human leadership – rather than upon the One who is the way, the truth and
the life (John 14:6).

Reader, the message of the Gospel still points to Christ, and only to Christ! He shed His
precious blood to make atonement for the sins of His people. Only His perfect sacrifice is
able to reconcile man with God. Will you turn from your sin and come to God through
Him?
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me. And him that cometh to me I will in no
wise cast out” (John 6:37).
“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans10:13).

Rev David McIlveen

You might also like