Evangelical Answers : Is the Roman Catholic Church a True Church?

Outline.

1. An Historical Examination: Is Rome a True Church? An Equivocal Yes?

A. Antichrist?

B. Excursus: Objection and Reply.

C. Baptism.

2. Is Rome a True Church? Yes.

D. Excursus: Objections and Replies.

E. For Further Study.

3. Appendix: Ecumenism.

4. Appendix: The Gospel.

5. Appendix: Unity in the Church.

6. Appendix: The Purpose of Reformation.

7. Appendix: Dialogue and the Necessity of Humility and Love.

8. Endnotes.

1. An Historical Examination: Is Rome a True Church? An Equivocal Yes? Return to Outline.

Robert Letham (born 1947 A.D.):

Is Rome a true church or not? Rome retains some of the marks of the church. The Reformers accepted its baptism. Most Reformed denominations accept Roman Catholic baptism since it is Trinitarian; baptism belongs to God, not to a denomination. Consequently, Rome retains something of the truth. Indeed, as J. Gresham Machen remarked, the Reformed are far closer to Rome than to Protestant liberalism; Rome has a defective view of the gospel, placing church authority on a par with Scripture, but liberalism is another religion entirely. There is a wide area of common ground and common doctrine; the heritage of the Latin church belongs as much to Protestantism. The answer to the question of whether Rome is a true church must be equivocal. Something similar applies to Orthodoxy. There are many ways in which the Reformed are closer to the Orthodox than to Rome; the East has fewer dogmas to divide, and no pope. Yet there are huge differences too, and in other ways the Reformed are closer to Rome, sharing the common Latin Christian heritage. Can we lump Rome and Orthodoxy together? No.

(Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2019], 27.3, pp. 794-795.) Preview.

Note: The view espoused above by Robert Letham seems to be the most common among historical (classical) Reformed writers.

William Perkins (1558-1602 A.D.): (Original spelling)

If it be said, that then the true sacraments may be out of the true church, as in the church of Rome at this day; because hereticks and such like ministers are not of the church. I answer, that there is in the church of Rome, the hidden church of God, & the Sacraments are there used, not for the Romish church, but for the hidden church which is in the midst of Papacie; like as the lanterne beareth light not for it selfe, but for the passengers…

(William Perkins, The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience, Distinguished Into Three Bookes, [London: John Legat, 1611], Booke II, Chap. VIII, pp. 178-179.)

John Davenant (1572-1641 A.D.):

…when we call this Roman Church apostate, we mean not a full and entire defection from the Christian profession, such as we perceive in those who follow Mahomet; but a departure from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion, which the Apostle charges upon some among the Galatians and Corinthians. Nor must this word apostate be thought too severe, which Paul in 1 Tim. iv. 1, uses in the same sense. Some (to adopt the words of Cyprian) shall apostatize from the faith; and yet they had not renounced Christianity, but mingled heresies with the Christian faith. We, therefore, say that the Roman Church is apostate, both because the Prelates of the Papacy have infected the doctrine of the Gospel with their poisoned errors, and more especially, because the people of the Papacy, through that blind obedience which they yield to their pastors, have eagerly imbibed the same errors.

(John Davenant, The Determinationes; Or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Question 21; In: A Treatise on Justification, Or the Disputatio de Justitia Habituali et Actuali, Of the Right Rev. John Davenant, D.D., Bishop of Salisbury: Vol. II, trans. Josiah Allport, [London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1846], Appendix, pp. 334-335.)

Joseph Hall (1574-1656 A.D.):

Obj. “But do you not say, It is a true visible church? Do you not yield some kind of communion with these clients of Antichrist? What is, if this be not, favour?”

Resp. Mark well, Christian reader, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

To begin with the latter. No man can say but the church of Rome holds some truths: those truths are God’s, and in his right ours: why should not we challenge our own, wheresoever we find it? If a very devil shall say of Christ, Thou art the Son of the living God, we will snatch this truth out of his mouth, as usurped; and in spite of him proclaim it for our own Indeed, there is no communion betwixt light and darkness; but there is communion betwixt light and light. Now all truth is light, and therefore symbolizeth with itself: with that light therefore, whose glimmering yet remains in their darkness, our clearer light will and must hold communion. If they profess three Persons in one Godhead, two Natures in one Person of Christ; shall we detrect to join with them in this Christian verity? We abhor to have any communion with them in their errors, in their idolatrous or superstitious practices: these are their own, not ours. If we durst have taken their part in these, this breach had not been: now, who can but say that we must hate their evil and allow their good? It is no countenance to their errors that we embrace our own truths: it is no disparagement to our truths that they have blended them with their errors. Here can be no difference then, if this communion be not mis-taken. No man will say that we may sever from their common truths: no man will say that we may join with them in their hateful errors.

For the former; he that saith a thief is truly a man, doth he therein favour that thief? He that saith a diseased, dropsied, dying body is a true, though corrupt body, doth he favour that disease, or that living carcass! It is no other, no more, that I say of the church of Rome. Trueness of being and outward visibility are no praise to her: yea, these are aggravations to her falsehood. The advantage that is both sought and found in this assertion is only ours, as we shall see in the sequel, without any danger of their gain. I say then, that she is a true church; but I say, withal, she is a false church: true in existence, but false in belief. Let not the homonymy of a word breed jars, where the sense is accorded. If we do not yield her the true being of a church, why do we call her the church of Rome? What speak we of? or where is the subject of our question? Who sees not that there is a moral trueness and a natural? He that is morally the falsest man, is in nature as truly a man as the honestest, and therefore in this regard as true a man. In the same sense therefore that we say the devil is a true, though false spirit; that a cheater is a true, though false man; we may and must say, that the church of Rome is a true, though false church. Certainly, there hath been a true error and mistaking of the sense, that is guilty of this quarrel. As for the visibility, there can be no question. Would God that church did not too much fill our eye; yea, the world! There is nothing wherein it doth more pride itself than in a glorious conspicuity; scorning, in this regard, the obscure paucity of their opposers.

Obj. But, you say, “What is this, but to play with ambiguities? That the church of Rome is itself, that is, a church, that it is visible, that it is truly existent, there can be no doubt: but is it still a part of the truly existent visible church of Christ?

Resp. Surely, no otherwise than an heretical and apostatical church is and may be. Reader, whosoever thou art, for God’s sake, for thy soul’s sake, mark where thou treadest, else thou shalt be sure to fall, either into an open gulf of uncharitableness, or into a dangerous precipice of error. There is no fear nor favour to say that the church of Rome, under a Christian face, hath an antichristian heart: overturning that foundation by necessary inferences, which by open profession it avoweth. That face, that profession, those avowed principles are enough to give it claim to a true outward visibility of a Christian church; while those damnable inferences are enough to feoff it in the true style of heresy and antichristianism. Now this heresy, this antichristianism makes Rome justly odious and execrable to God, to angels, and men; but cannot utterly dischurch it, while those main principles maintain a weak life in that crazy and corrupted body.

(Joseph Hall, The Reconciler; In: The Works of the Right Reverend Joseph Hall, D.D., Bishop of Exeter and Afterwards of Norwich: A New Edition: Vol. VIII, ed. Philip Wynter, [Oxford: At the University Press, 1863], pp. 728-730.)

Samuel Rutherford [Westminster Divine] (1600-1661 A.D.): (Original spelling)

…England may well separate from Rome everting the fundamentall parts of Faith, and not separate from Romes baptisme, or ministery, in so farre, as they be essentially the ordinances of Christ: and I retort this argument; How can Separatists separate from both us and Rome, and yet retaine the baptisme in both our Church and Rome. 2. A ministery true in the essence may make a Church true κατὰ τὶ in so far; but because of many other substantiall corruptions in Rome, it is a Church which we ought to forsake.

(Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries: Or, A Peaceable Plea for the Government of the Church of Scotland, [London: Printed by E. Griffin for Richard Whittaker and Andrew Crook, 1644], Chap. 8, Sect. 8, p. 240.)

Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646 A.D.): (25.4)

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.4; trans. Phillip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877], p. 658.)

Robert Sanderson (1587-1663 A.D.):

…taking the Church of Rome, it may be considered either,

First, Materialiter, as it is a Church professing the Faith of Christ, as we also do in the common points of agreement.

Secondly, Formaliter, and in regard of that we call Popery: viz. the point of difference, whether concerning the doctrine or worship: wherein we charge her to have added to the substance of Faith her own inventions.

Thirdly, Conjunctim pro toto aggregato, taking both together. As in any unsound body, we may consider the body by itself, the disease by itself, and the body and the disease both together, as they make a diseased body.

…The Church of Rome, ever since the first plantation of it, hath continued a true Church, taking Truth in the first sense, and considering the Church of Rome materially as it is a Church. But so hath the Church of England also, and many other Churches.

…The Church of Rome, which way soever taken, hath long since failed from the purity of Faith, both in the doctrine and worship of it. And so, considered formally, in regard of those points which are properly of Popery, is become a false and corrupt Church; and is indeed an Antichristian Synagogue, and not a true Christian Church, taking truth in the second sense.

(Robert Sanderson, A Discourse Concerning the Visibility of the True Church; In: The Works of Robert Sanderson, D.D., Sometime Bishop of Lincoln: In Six Volumes: Vol. V, ed. William Jacobson, [Oxford: At the University Press, 1854], pp. 244-245, 246, 246.)

Cf. Robert Sanderson (1587-1663 A.D.):

The word TRUTH, applied to any subject, is taken either absolute or respective.

Absolutely a thing is true, when it hath veritatem entis et essentiae; with all those essential things that are requisite to the bare being and existence of it. Respectively, when, over and above these essentials, it hath also such accidental conditions and qualities as should make it perfect and commendably good.

A thing may be true in the first sense, and yet not true in the second, but false. As a man may be a true man, animal rationale, and yet a false knave; a woman a true wife, nupta viro, and yet a false quean; a speech a true proposition, having subjectum, praedicatum, et copulam, and yet a false lie.

Francis Turretin (1623-1687 A.D.):

III. The church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view (schesei): either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of gospel truth which it retains; or papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as in morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the word of God. We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny that it can be called Christian and apostolic, but Antichristian and apostate. In this sense, we confess that it can still improperly and relatively be called a Christian church in a threefold respect. First, with respect to the people of God or the elect still remaining in it, who are ordered to come out of her, even at the time of the destruction of Babylon (Rev. 18:4). (2) With respect to external form or certain ruins of a scattered church, in which its traces are seen to this day, both with respect to the word of God and the preaching of it (which, although corrupted, still remains in her); and with respect to the administration of the sacraments and especially of baptism, which is still preserved entire in her as to substance. (3) With respect to Christian and evangelical truths concerning the one and triune God, Christ the God-man (theanthrōpō) Mediator, his incarnation, death and resurrection and other heads of doctrine by which she is distinguished from assemblies of pagans and infidels. But we deny that she can simply and properly be called a true church, much less the one and only catholic church, as they contend.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1997], 18.14.3, p. 121.) [1.]

Cf. Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

Turrettin expressly makes the distinction between “a true church,” i. e., a church which conforms to the true standard of what a church ought to be, and a heretical, corrupt, and apostate church. True, in his use of the term, corresponds with orthodox or pure; not with real. A body, therefore, according to him may be a church, and yet not a true church.

(Charles Hodge, “Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?” In: The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review: For the Year 1846: Vol. XVIII, [Philadelphia: M. B. Hope, 1846], No. 2, April, 1846, Art. V, p. 324.) See also: archive.org.

Cf. Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

It is very evident, therefore, that Rome, according to Turrettin, is to be viewed under two aspects; under the one she is a church, i. e., a body in which the people of God still are; which retains the word of God and the preaching of it, though corrupted, and the sacraments, especially baptism. Under the other aspect, i. e., as a papal body, she is not a church; i. e., her popery and all her corruptions are anti-christian and apostate. She is not therefore a true church, for a true church is free from heresy, from superstition, from oppressive regimen, from corruption of manners, and from doubt or diffidence. Whether Theophilus approves of these distinctions or not: whether he thinks that the English word true can be used in the latitude which Turrettin gives the Latin word verus, or not; still he ought to give the Geneva professor the benefit of his own statements and definitions; and not represent him as denying that the church of Rome is a church, when he denies that she is a true i. e., a pure church.

Cf. Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

Professor Thornwell very correctly remarked, in his effective speech before the General Assembly, that it is very plain that though the Reformers denied Rome to be the true church, they admitted her to be in some sense a church. The fact is, they used the word true as Turrettin does, as implying conformity with the true model or standard. They made a distinction between a description of a church including all the excellencies such a body ought to possess; and a definition including nothing but what is essential to the being of a church. It is to the danger of confounding these two things, that the foregoing remarks are directed.

Richard Baxter (1615-1691 A.D.):

7. Our divines therefore that say that the church of Rome is a true church, though corrupt, do not speak of it formally as to the papal policy or headship, but materially. 1. That all papists that are visible christians are visible parts of the universal church. 2. That their particular congregations considered abstractedly from the Roman headship may be true particular churches, though corrupt…

(Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory: Or, A Sum of Practical Theology, And Cases of Conscience, Part III: Christian Ecclesiastics, “Ecclesiastical Cases of Conscience,” Quest. II; In: The Practical Works of Richard Baxter: In Twenty-Three Volumes: Vol. V, [London: James Duncan, 1830], p. 255.)

Rufus [A Presbyterian Minister] (Early 19th Century):

I have already mentioned the important distinction between a true church and a pure church. A church may retain the principal doctrines and ordinances of the christian religion in her profession, in such a measure, that she may be justly called a true church; and yet she may, as an ecclesiastical body, have such errors in doctrine; such human inventions as integral parts of her worship; such unscriptural officers and usages in her government; or may be chargeable with such defection from reformation, formerly attained, that we cannot be faithful to the cause of Christ, which, in these respects, is opposed; nor to the catholic church, for whose true interest we are bound to use our best endeavours; nor to the souls of men, which are deeply injured by such evils; without withdrawing from her communion. A particular church, in this case, though she ceases to be a pure church, may still be called a true church of Christ on account of the measure, in which she retains the profession of his truths and ordinances.

(John Anderson, ed., Alexander and Rufus: Or, A Series of Dialogues on Church Communion: In Two Parts, [Pittsburgh: Cramer & Spear, 1820], Part First, Dialogue IV, p. 66.)

J. V. Fesko (born 1970 A.D.):

…whatever denominational boundaries people might establish to protect themselves from others, in the end there is only one body, one catholic church. This means that if the visible church is defined materially, in terms of the individuals who profess the true religion (which is the thrust of WCF 25.2), then the visible church extends across denominational boundaries. The visible church then materially extends into institutions, such as the RCC, that formally are not a part of the visible church. In other words, the visible church qua those who profess the true religion is within the RCC, but the RCC is not itself formally part of the visible church.

(J. V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013], p. 387.)

A. Antichrist? Return to Outline.

Note: It is not my intention to assert that the bishop of Rome (currently Francis I) is an antichrist. I do not believe that he is. Although I suspect there are some conservative Roman Catholics who might disagree with me on that particular point. All jesting aside, my intention in the following historical survey is simply to demonstrate that even during the height of tensions between Rome and the Reformers there were many notable figures who were willing to concede to Rome the title of “church” (albeit equivocally and with qualifications).

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646 A.D.): (25.6)

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 [in Ecclesia] against Christ, and all that is called God.

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.6; trans. Phillip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877], pp. 658-659.)

Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.):

I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. …The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it.

(Martin Luther, “Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter of Martin Luther to Two Pastors;” In: Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. Timothy F. Lull, [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989], p. 344. Cf. Luther’s Works: Volume 40: Church and Ministry II, ed. Conrad Bergendoff, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958], p. 232.)

Cf. Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.):

Jerome moveth here a great question, why Paul calleth those churches, which were no churches: for Paul (saith he) writeth to the Galatians that were perverted and turned back from Christ and from grace, unto Moses and the law. Hereunto I answer, that Paul calleth them the churches of Galatia, by putting a part for the whole, which is a common thing in the Scriptures. For writing in like manner to the Corinthians, he rejoiceth on their behalf, that the grace of God was given them in Christ, namely, that they were made rich through him in all utterance and knowledge. And yet many of them were misled by false apostles, and believed not the resurrection of the dead. So we also at this day call the Roman church holy, and all its bishoprics holy, even though they be abused and the ministers of them ungodly. For God ‘ruleth in the midst of his enemies’ (Ps. cx. 2), ‘Antichrist sitteth in the temple of God’ (2 Thess. ii. 4), and Satan is present in the midst of the sons of God (Job i. 6). Even if the Church is ‘an the midst of a crooked and perverse nation’ (as Paul saith, Phil. ii. 15), even if it is in the midst of wolves and robbers, that is to say, spiritual tyrants, it is none the less the Church. Although the city of Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorrha, yet there remain in it Baptism, the Sacrament, the voice and text of the Gospel, the Holy Scripture, the Ministries, the name of Christ and the name of God. Those who have these things, have them; those who have not are not excused, for the treasure is there. Therefore the Roman church is holy, because it hath the holy name of God, the Gospel, Baptism, &c. If these things are found among a people, that people is called holy. So our Wittenberg is a holy town, and we are truly holy because we have been baptised, communicated, taught and called of God; we have God’s works among us, namely the Word and Sacraments, and these make us holy.

I say these things to the end that we may diligently distinguish Christian holiness from other kinds of holiness. The monks called their orders holy (although they durst not call themselves holy); but they are not holy; because, as we said above, Christian holiness is not active, but passive holiness. Wherefore let no man call himself holy on account of his manner of life or his works, if he fasteth, prayeth, scourgeth his body, giveth alms to the poor, comforteth the sorrowful and afflicted, &c. Else should the Pharisee in Luke (xviii. 11f.) also be holy. The works indeed are good, and God straitly requireth them of us, but they make us not holy. Thou and I are holy, Church, city and people are holy, not by their own, but by an alien holiness, not by active, but by passive holiness, because they possess divine and holy things, to wit, the vocation of the ministry, the Gospel, baptism, &c., whereby they are holy.

Albeit then, that the Galatians were fallen away from the doctrine of Paul, yet did Baptism, the Word, and the name of Christ, remain among them. There were also some good men that were not revolted, which had a right opinion of the Word and Sacraments, and used them well. Moreover, these things could not be defiled through them that were revolted. For Baptism, the Gospel, and other things, are not therefore made unholy, because many are polluted and unholy, and have an evil opinion of them: but they abide holy and the same that they were, whether they be among the godly or the ungodly: by whom they can neither be polluted, nor made holy. By our good or evil conversation, by our good or evil life and manners, they be polluted or made holy in the sight of the heathen, but not afore God. Wherefore, the Church is holy even where fantastical spirits do reign, if only they deny not the Word and Sacraments. For if these be denied, there cannot be the Church. Wherefore, wheresoever the substance of the Word and Sacraments remaineth, there is the holy Church, although Antichrist there reign, who (as the Scripture witnesseth) sitteth not in a stable of fiends, or in a swinesty, or in a company of infidels, but in the highest and holiest place of all, namely, in the temple of God. Wherefore, although spiritual tyrants reign, yet there must be a temple of God, and the same must be preserved under them. Therefore I answer briefly to this question, that the Church is universal throughout the whole world, wheresoever the Gospel of God and the Sacraments be. The Jews, the Turks, and other vain spirits, are not the Church, because they fight against these things and deny them.

(Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians: Based on Lectures Delivered at the University of Wittenberg in the Year 1531, [London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1953], pp. 38-40.)

John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.):

When I allow some remains of a Church to the Papists, I do not confine it to the elect who are dispersed among them; but mean, that some ruins of a scattered Church exist there; which is confirmed by St. Paul’s declaration, that Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God. [Quod ecclesiae reliquias manere in papatu dico, nor restringo ad electos, qui illic dispersi sunt: sed ruinas dissipatae ecclesiae illic exstare intelligo. Ac ne mihi longis rationibus disputandum sit, nos Pauli autoritate contentos esse decet, qui Antichristum in templo Dei sessurum pronunciat.]

(Ioannis Calvinus, Epistola, 1323, “Calvinus Socino;” In: Corpus Reformatorum: Volumen XXXX: Ioannis Calvini: Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia: Volumen XII: Thesaurus Epistolicus Calvinianus: Volumen III: Epistolae ad Annos 1545—1548, ediderunt Eduardus Cunitz et Eduardus Reuss, [Brunsvigae: Apud C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1874], col. 487; trans. Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal, ed. J. Williams, [New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1895], p. 464.) [2.]

Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590 A.D.):

Moreover, Satan could not in the very Roman church do what he listed, as he had done in the Eastern; to bring all things to such pass, as that it should no more have the form of a Christian church: for in spite of Satan, that church retained still the chief foundations of the faith, although weakened with the doctrines of men: it retained the public preaching of the word of God, though in many places misunderstood and misconstrued; the invocation of the name of Christ, though joined also with the invocation of dead men; the administration of baptism, instituted by Christ himself, howsoever defiled with the addition of many superstitions. So as, together with the symbol of the covenant, the covenant itself remained still in her, I mean in all the churches of the west, no otherwise than it did in the Church of Israel, even after that all things were in part profaned by Jeroboam and other impious and idolatrous kings, upon the defection made by them from the church and tribe of Judah. For neither do I assent to them, which would have the church of Rome to have no less ceased to be the church of Christ, than those Eastern churches which afterwards turned Mahometan. What church was ever more corrupt than the church of the ten tribes? yet we learn from the Scriptures, that it was still the Church of God. And how doth St. Paul call that church, wherein antichrist, he saith, shall sit, the temple of God? Neither is it any baptism at all that is administered out of the Church of Christ. The wife, that is an adulteress, doth not cease to be a wife, unless, being despoiled of her marriage-ring, she be manifestly divorced. The church of Rome therefore is yet the church of Christ: but what manner of church? Surely, so corrupted and depraved, and with so great tyranny oppressed, that you can neither with a good conscience partake with them in their holy things, nor safely dwell amongst them. [Deinde non potuit Satan vel in ipsa Roman Ecclesia quæcunque voluit efficere, sicut in Orientali feceratieò scilicet redigere omnia, ut nullam ampliùs haberet Ecclesiæ Chriftianæ formam: Inuito enim Satana, retinuit Ecclesia illa præcipua fidei fundamenta, quanquam humanis doctrinis labefactata: publicam diuini verbi, licet multis in locis perperam intellecti & explicati, prædicationem: nominis Christi inuocationem, tametsi cum inuocatione quoque hominum demortuorum coniunctam: Baptismi à Christo instituti, utut multis superstitionibus additis contaminati, administrationemieóque cum Symbolo fœderis, fœdus ipsum in ea, hoc est, in omnibus Ecclesiis Occidentalibus remansit: non secus atque in Ecclesia Israel, etiam posteaquam defectione facta ab Ecclesia & tribu Iuda, omni ex parte fuit profanata per Ieroboamum, aliosque Reges impios atqueidololatras. Neque enim assentior illis, qui perinde volunt Ecclesiam Rom. desiisle esse Ecclesiam Christi, atque Ecclesia Orientales, quæ postea factæ sunt Mahometanæ. Quænam Ecclesia suit unquam corruptior, Ecclesia decem tribuum? Ecclesiam tamen Dei fuisse, è factis literis didicimus. Et quomodo Paulus Ecclesiam, in qua sessurum dixit Antichristum, vocauit templum Dei? Baptismus quoque nullus est, qui extra Ecclesiam Christi administratur. Neque uxor, quia adultera est, ideò desinit esse uxorinisi annulo connubialis fœderis symbolo spoliata, manifestè repudietur. Est igitur Rom. Ecclesia adhuc Ecclesia Christi: sed qualísnam Ecclesia? ita corrupta, ita deprauata, tantáque tyrannide oppressa, ut neque illorum facris participare bona queas conscientia, neque apud ipsos tutò habitare.]

(Hieronymi Zanchii, De Natura Dei, Præfatio; In: Operum Theologicorum D. Hieronymi Zanchii: Tomus Secundus, [Sumptibus Samuelis Crispini, 1619], pp. iiib-iva; trans. Joseph Hall, The Reconciler; In: The Works of the Right Reverend Joseph Hall, D.D., Bishop of Exeter and Afterwards of Norwich: A New Edition: Vol. VIII, ed. Philip Wynter, [Oxford: At the University Press, 1863], pp. 731-732.)

Richard Hooker (1544-1600 A.D.):

Wherefore I come to the last question: “whether the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the necessity of works unto salvation be a direct denial of the foundation of our faith.”

I seek not to obtrude upon you any private opinions of mine own. The best learned in our profession are of this judgment, that all the heresies and corruptions of the Church of Rome do not prove her to deny the foundation directly. If they did, they should prove her simply to be no Christian Church. “But I suppose,” saith one[John Calvin], “that in the papacy some church remaineth, a church crazed, or, if you will, broken quite in pieces, forlorn, misshapen, yet some church.” His reason is this: “Antichrist must sit in the temple of God.” Lest any man should think such sentences as this to be true only in regard of them whom that church is supposed to have kept by the special providence of God, as it were in the secret corners of his bosom, free from infection and as sound in the faith as, we trust, by his mercy we ourselves are, I permit it to your wise considerations whether it be not more likely that, as phrensy, though itself take away the use of reason, doth notwithstanding prove them reasonable creatures who have it, because none can be frantic but they, so antichristianity, being the bane and plain overthrow of Christianity, may nevertheless argue the church wherein Antichrist sitteth to be Christian. Neither have I ever hitherto heard or read any one word alleged of force to warrant that God doth otherwise than, so as hath been in the next two questions before declared, bind himself to keep his elect from worshipping the beast and from receiving his mark in their foreheads; but he hath preserved and will preserve them from receiving any deadly wound at the hands of the man of sin, whose deceit hath prevailed over none to death but only such as never loved the truth and such as took pleasure in unrighteousness. They, in all ages, whose hearts have delighted in the principal truth and whose souls have thirsted after righteousness, if they received the mark of error, even erring and dangerously erring, the mercy of God might save them; if they received the mark of heresy, the same mercy did, I doubt not, convert them. How far Romish heresies may prevail over God’s elect, how many God hath kept from falling into them, how many have been converted from them, is not the question now in hand; for if heaven had not received any one of that coat for these thousand years it may still be true that the doctrine which at this day they do profess doth not directly deny the foundation and so prove them to be no Christian Church. One I have alleged whose words, in my ears, sound that way. Shall I add another whose speech is plainer? “I deny her not the name of a church,” saith another[Philip Mornay du Plessis], “no more than to a man the name of a man as long as he liveth, what sickness soever he hath.” His reason is this: “Salvation in Jesus Christ, which is the mark joineth the Head with the body, Jesus Christ with his church, it is so cut off by man’s merits, by the merits of saints, by the pope’s pardons, and such other wickedness that the life of the Church holdeth by a very little thread,” yet still the life of the Church holdeth. A third hath these words[Girolamo Zanchi]: “I acknowledge the church of Rome, even at this present day, for a church of Christ, such a church as Israel under Jeroboam, yet a church.” His reason is this: “Every man seeth, except he willingly hoodwink himself, that as always so now the church of Rome holdeth firmly and steadfastly the doctrine of truth concerning God and the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, and baptizeth in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, confesseth and avoucheth Christ for the only Redeemer of the world and the Judge that shall sit upon quick and dead, receiving true believers into endless joy, faithless and godless men being cast with Satan and his angels into flames unquenchable.”

I may, and will rein the question shorter than they do. Let the pope take down his top and captivate no more men’s souls by his papal jurisdiction; let him no longer count himself Lord Paramount over the princes of the earth, no longer use kings as his tenants paravaile; let his stately senate submit their necks to the yoke of Christ and cease to dye their garments, like Edom, in blood; let them, from the highest to the lowest, hate and foresake their idolatry, abjure all their errors and heresies wherewith they have perverted the truth; let them strip their church till they have no polluted rag but this one about her: “By Christ alone, without works, we cannot be saved.” It is enough for me if I show that the holding of this one thing doth not prove the foundation of faith directly denied in the Church of Rome.

Works are an addition to the foundation. Be it so, what then? The foundation is not subverted by every kind of addition. Simply to add unto those fundamental words is not to mingle wine with puddle, heaven with earth, things polluted with the sanctified blood of Christ: of which crime indict them who attribute those operations, in whole or in part, to any creature which in the work of our salvation are wholly peculiar unto Christ; and if I open my mouth to speak in their defence, if I hold my peace and plead not against them as long as breath is in my body, let me be guilty of all the dishonour that ever hath been done to the Son of God. But the more dreadful a thing it is to deny salvation by Christ alone, the more slow and fearful I am, except it be too manifest, to lay a thing so grievous unto any man’s charge. Let us beware lest, if we make too many ways of denying Christ, we scarce leave any way for ourselves truly and soundly to confess him. Salvation only by Christ is the true foundation whereupon indeed Christianity standeth. But what if I say, Ye cannot be saved only by Christ without this addition: Christ believed in heart, confessed with mouth, obeyed in life and conversation? Because I add, do I therefore deny that which directly I did affirm? There may be an additament of explication which overthroweth not but proveth and concludeth the proposition whereunto it is annexed. He that saith Peter was a chief apostle doth prove that Peter was an apostle. He who saith our salvation is of the Lord, through sanctification of the Spirit and faith of the truth, proveth that our salvation is of the Lord. But if that which is added be such a privation as taketh away the very essence of that whereunto it is adjoined, then by sequel it overthroweth. In like sort, he that should say, Our election is of grace for our works’ sake, should then grant in sound of words, but indeed by consequent deny, that our election is of grace; for the grace which electeth us is no grace if it elect us for our works’ sake.

Now whereas the Church of Rome addeth works, we must note, further, that the adding works is not like the adding of circumcision unto Christ. Christ came not to abrogate and take away good works: he did, to change circumcision; for we see that in place thereof he hath substituted holy baptism. To say, Ye cannot be saved by Christ except ye be circumcised, is to add a thing excluded, a thing not only not necessary to be kept, but necessary not to be kept by them that will be saved. On the other side, to say, Ye cannot be saved by Christ without works, is to add things not only not excluded, but commanded, as being in place and in their kind necessary, and therefore subordinated unto Christ, even by Christ himself, by whom the web of salvation is spun: “Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” They were rigorous exacters of things not utterly to be neglected and left undone, washings and tithings, etc. As they were in these things, so must we be in judgment and the love of God. Christ, in works ceremonial, giveth more liberty, in moral, much less, than they did. Works of righteousness therefore are not so repugnantly added in the one proposition as in the other circumcision is.

(Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown, §§. 26-30; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: With an Account of His Life and Death: Seventh Edition: Vol. III, arranged by J. Keble, revised by R. W. Church & F. Paget, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1888], pp. 524-530.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Richard Hooker (1544-1600 A.D.):

The indisposition therefore of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us from performing our duty to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them could be no excuse if we did not perform that duty.

Notwithstanding so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one respect enemies but in another beloved of God; in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ; and our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be his will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in any thing, but that we “all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God the Father of our Lord and Saviour,” whose Church we are.

As there are which make the Church of Rome utterly no Church at all, by reason of so many, so grievous errors in their doctrines; so we have them amongst us, who under pretence of imagined corruptions in our discipline do give even as hard a judgment of the Church of England itself.

But whatsoever either the one sort or the other teach, we must acknowledge even heretics themselves to be, though a maimed part, yet a part of the visible Church. If an infidel should pursue to death an heretic professing Christianity, only for Christian profession’s sake, could we deny unto him the honour of martyrdom? Yet this honour all men know to be proper unto the Church. Heretics therefore are not utterly cut off from the visible Church of Christ.

If the Fathers do any where, as oftentimes they do, make the true visible Church of Christ and heretical companies opposite; they are to be construed as separating heretics, not altogether from the company of believers, but from the fellowship of sound believers.

(Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 3.1.10-11; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: With an Account of His Life and Death: Seventh Edition: Vol. I, arranged by J. Keble, revised by R. W. Church & F. Paget, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1888], pp. 347-348.) See also: ofthelaws.com.

Joseph Hall (1574-1656 A.D.):

…I am now ready to make clear by the instance of learned Zanchius, whose pregnant testimonies, compared together, shall plainly teach us how easy a reconcilement may be made betwixt these two seemingly-contrary opinions.

That worthy author, in his “Profession of Christian Religion,” which he wrote and published in the seventieth year of his age, having defined the Church of Christ in general, and passed through the properties of it, at last descending to the subdivision of the Church militant, comes to inquire how particular churches may be known to be the true churches of Christ: whereof he determines thus, Illas igitur, &c. “Those churches, therefore, do we acknowledge for the true churches of Christ, in which, first of all, the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached, heard, admitted; and so only admitted, that there is neither place nor ear given to the contrary: for both these are the just property of the flock or sheep of Christ; namely, both to hear the voice of their own Pastor, and to reject the voice of strangers, John x. 4. 5. In which, secondly, the sacraments instituted by Christ are lawfully, and, as much as may be, according to Christ’s institution, administered and received; and, therefore, in which the sacraments devised by men are not admitted and allowed. In which, lastly, the discipline of Christ hath the due place: that is, where both publicly and privately charitable care is had, both by admonitions, corrections, and at last, if need be, by excommunications, that the commandments of God be duly kept; and that all persons live soberly, justly, and piously, to the glory of God and edification of their neighbour.” Thus he: wherein who sees not how directly he aims both at the justifying of our churches, and the cashiering of the Roman, which is palpably guilty of the violation of these wholesome rules? And indeed it must needs be said, if we bring the Roman church to this touch, she is cast for a mere counterfeit: she is as far from truth as truth is from falsehood.

Now, by this time, you go away with an opinion that learned Zanchy is my professed adversary, and hath directly condemned my position of the trueness and visibility of the Roman church.

Have but patience, I beseech you, to read what the same excellent author writes in his golden preface to that noble work, De Natura Dei, where this question is clearly and punctually decided. There you shall find, that having passed through the woful and gloomy offuscations of the Church of God in all former ages, he, descending to the darkness of the present Babylon, concludes thus, Deinde non potuit Satan, &c. “Moreover, Satan could not in the very Roman church do what he listed, as he had done in the Eastern; to bring all things to such pass, as that it should no more have the form of a Christian church: for in spite of Satan, that church retained still the chief foundations of the faith, although weakened with the doctrines of men: it retained the public preaching of the word of God, though in many places misunderstood and misconstrued; the invocation of the name of Christ, though joined also with the invocation of dead men; the administration of baptism, instituted by Christ himself, howsoever defiled with the addition of many superstitions. So as, together with the symbol of the covenant, the covenant itself remained still in her, I mean in all the churches of the west, no otherwise than it did in the Church of Israel, even after that all things were in part profaned by Jeroboam and other impious and idola- trous kings, upon the defection made by them from the church and tribe of Judah. For neither do I assent to them, which would have the church of Rome to have no less ceased to be the church of Christ, than those Eastern churches which afterwards turned Mahometan. What church was ever more corrupt than the church of the ten tribes? yet we learn from the Scriptures, that it was still the Church of God. And how doth St. Paul call that church, wherein antichrist, he saith, shall sit, the temple of God? Neither is it any baptism at all that is administered out of the Church of Christ. The wife, that is an adulteress, doth not cease to be a wife, unless, being despoiled of her marriage-ring, she be manifestly divorced. The church of Rome therefore is yet the church of Christ: but what manner of church? Surely, so corrupted and depraved, and with so great tyranny oppressed, that you can neither with a good conscience partake with them in their holy things, nor safely dwell amongst them.” Thus he again: wherein, you see, he speaks as home for me as I could devise to speak for myself, and as appositely professeth to oppose the contrary.

Look now how this learned author may be reconciled to his own pen, and by the very same way shall my pen be reconciled with others. Either he agrees not with himself, or else, in his sense, I agree with my gainsayers. Nothing is more plain, than that he, in that former speech, and all other classic authors that speak in that key, mean, by a “true church,” a sound, pure, right-believing church; so as their vera is rather verax. Zanchy explicates the term while he joins veram and puram together: so as, in this construction, it is no true church that is an unsound one, as if truth of existence were all one with truth of doctrine. In this sense, whosoever shall say the church of Rome is a true church, I say he calls evil good, and is no better than a teacher of lies. But, if we measure the true being of a visible church by the direct maintenance of fundamental principles, though by consequences indirectly overturned, and by the possession of the word of God and his sacraments, though not without foul adulteration; what judicious Christian can but with me subscribe to learned Zanchius, that the church of Rome hath yet the true visibility of a Church of Christ?

What should I need to press the latitude and multiplicity of sense of the word church? there is no one term, that I know, in all use of speech so various. If, in a large sense, it be taken to comprehend the society of all that profess Christian religion through the whole world, howsoever impured, who can deny this title to the Roman? If, in a strict sense, it be taken, as it is by Zanchius here, and all those divines who refuse to give this style to the synagogue of Rome, for the company of elect faithful men gathered into one mystical body under one head Christ, washed by his blood, justified by his merits, sanctified by his Spirit, conscionably waiting upon the true ordinances of God in his pure word and holy sacraments, who can be so shameless as to give this title to the Roman church? Both these sentences, then, are equally true, “The church of Rome is yet a true church, in the first sense;” “The church of Rome long since ceased to be a true church, in the second.”

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

If Roman Catholics are no part of the visible church, then the Romish hierarchy is not “the man of sin” spoken of by the apostle, for he was to rise and rule in the church.

(Charles Hodge, “The General Assembly of 1845: Romish Baptism;” In: The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review for the Year 1845: Vol. XVII, [Philadelphia: M. B. Hope, 1845], No. III, Art. IV, p. 471.) [3.]

B. Excursus: Objection and Reply. Return to Outline.

Objection.

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890 A.D.):

…it is most necessary to bring before all thinking men the real state of the case, and respectfully and anxiously to warn them what they are doing, when they so confidently and solemnly pronounce Christian Rome to be Babylon. Do they know what they say? do they really resign themselves in faith, as they profess to do, to the sovereign word of God as they interpret it? Do they in faith make over the millions upon millions now and in former times who have been in subjection to the Roman See to utter and hopeless perdition? Do they in very truth look upon them as the direct and open enemies of God, and children of Satan?

(John Henry Cardinal Newman, “The Protestant Idea of Antichrist;” In: John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essays: Critical and Historical: New Impression: Volume II, [London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1914], pp. 147-148.)

Reply.

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

Dr. John Henry Newman says, that if Protestants insist on making the Church of Rome Antichrist, they thereby make over all Roman Catholics, past and present, “to utter and hopeless perdition.” This does not follow. The Church of Rome is to be viewed under different aspects; as the papacy, an external organized hierarchy, with the pope, with all his arrogant claims, at its head; and also as a body of men professing certain religious doctrines. Much may be said of it in the one aspect, which is not true of it in the other. Much may be said of Russia as an empire that cannot be said of all Russians. At one time the first Napoleon was regarded by many as Antichrist; that did not involve the belief that all Frenchmen who acknowledged him as emperor, or all soldiers who followed him as their leader, were the sons of perdition. That many Roman Catholics, past and present, are true Christians, is a palpable fact. It is a fact which no man can deny without committing a great sin. It is a sin against Christ not to acknowledge as true Christians those who bear his image, and whom He recognizes as his brethren. It is a sin also against ourselves. We are not born of God unless we love the children of God. If we hate and denounce those whom Christ loves as members of his own body, what are we? It is best to be found on the side of Christ, let what will happen. It is perfectly consistent, then, for a man to denounce the papacy as the man of sin, and yet rejoice in believing, and in openly acknowledging, that there are, and ever have been, many Romanists who are the true children of God.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], p. 822.)

Cf. Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

It was very common with the reformers and their successors to distinguish between the Papacy, and the body of people professing Christianity under its dominion. When, by the church of Rome they meant the Papacy, they denounced it as the Mystical Babylon, and Synagogue of Satan; when they meant by it the people, considered as a community professing the essential doctrines of the gospel, they admitted it to be a church. This distinction is natural and just, though it imposes the necessity of affirming and denying the same proposition. If by the church of Rome, you mean one thing, it is not a church; if you mean another, it is a church. People will not trouble themselves, however, with such distinctions, though they often unconsciously make them, and are forced to act upon them. Thus by the word England, we sometimes mean the country, sometimes the government, and sometimes the people. If we mean by it the government, we may say (in reference to some periods of its history), that it is unjust, cruel, persecuting, rapacious, opposed to Christ and his kingdom: when these things could not be said with truth of the people.

Cf. Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

If the church of Rome is antichrist, a synagogue of Satan, how can its ordinances be Christian sacraments? This we doubt not is the difficulty which weighs most with those who reject Romish baptisms as invalid. We would ask such persons, whether they admit that a Roman Catholic can be a child of God? If he can, how can a man be a a [sic] member of the synagogue of Satan and of the body of Christ at the same time? Is there no inconsistency here? If not, then there is no inconsistency in declaring that the Romish system, so far as it is distinguished from that of evangelical churches, is antichristian, and yet that those who are groaning under that system are in the visible church. The terms antichrist, synagogue of Satan, &c., refer not to the mass of the people, nor to the presbyters of that communion, nor the word of God, nor the saving truths which they profess, but to the Popish hierarchy and its corruptions. That hierarchy with its usurpations and errors, is the mystery of iniquity, the man of sin, which in the church catholic, the temple of God, exalts itself above all that is called God or that is worshipped. If Roman Catholics are no part of the visible church, then the Romish hierarchy is not “the man of sin” spoken of by the apostle, for he was to rise and rule in the church. It is, therefore, one thing to denounce the Romish system, and another to say that Romanists are no part of the church catholic. And if they are in the church, their baptism being a washing with water in the name of the Trinity, is Christian baptism; just as the word of God, when read or preached by them, is still his word, and is to be received and obeyed as such.

Keith A. Mathison (born 1967 A.D.):

The most obvious objection that can be raised against Hodge’s argument . . . is the fact that the Reformers often referred to the Roman Catholic church as “antichrist.” If the Reformers adhered to Tradition I and if Tradition I requires that any church (such as Rome) that adheres to the common creeds of the Church be considered a visible church in some sense, then how do we understand the Reformers’ condemnations of Rome? In response it could be suggested that the Reformers at this point were not being entirely consistent with their own doctrines, but Hodge points out a more reasonable explanation. He points out that the Reformers denied that Rome was a true church in the sense of being a pure church, not in the sense of being a real church.

The Reformers viewed Rome in two different senses—either in reference to the profession of Christianity she makes or in reference to her subjection to the papacy. In the first sense it was admitted that Rome may still be called a Christian church. In the other sense she was considered anti-Christian and apostate.

(Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: Canon Press, 2001], p. 332.)

C. Baptism. Return to Outline.

Note: All of the historical (classical) Reformation churches (Presbyterian/Reformed, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran and Methodist) have been nearly unanimous in their affirmation (at least prior to the 19th century) of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.

The French Confession of Faith (1559 A.D.):

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. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it, we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we can not present children to be baptized in it without incurring pollution.

(The French Confession of Faith (1559), 28; trans. Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, ed. Arthur C. Cochrane, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966], p. 154.)

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

Without anticipating that point, however, we maintain that as the Romish priests are appointed and recognised as presbyters in a community professing to believe the scriptures, the early creeds, and the decisions of the first four general councils, they are ordained ministers in the sense above stated; and consequently baptism administered by them is valid. It has accordingly been received as valid by all Protestant churches from the Reformation to the present day.

Cf. Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

Baptism therefore, not being an ordinance of any particular church, but of the church catholic, and every man who professes saving truth being a member of that church, Romish baptism if administered by a man professing such truth, is Christian baptism. It is baptism administered by a member of the visible church, having public authority in that church, which is all that can be said of baptism administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, or by the moderator of our Assembly.

We maintain therefore Romish baptism to be valid; that is, that it avails to make the recipient a member of the church catholic, because it is a washing with water, in the name of the Trinity, with the design to signify, seal and apply the benefits of the covenant of grace. It is administered by ordained ministers; for a Romish priest is a man publicly called to the office of a presbyter. It is administered by a member of the visible church; for every man who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, is a member of that church. It is only by adopting the hierarchical or Puseyite doctrine of the church, and of orders, that the opposite conclusion can be sustained. We must restrict the church to miserably narrow limits, within which the truth and Spirit of God refuse to be confined; and we must claim an authority and virtue for specific forms of ordination, which the scriptures no where sanction. We are therefore, constrained to regard the decision of the Assembly as in direct conflict with our standards, and with the word of God; and as incompatible with Protestant principles, as well as with the practice of the whole Protestant world. We have no scruple in saying this. For in protesting against the decision of 169 members of the Assembly, we can hide ourselves in the crowd of 169 millions of faithful men, who since the Reformation, have maintained the opposite, and more catholic doctrine.

Keith A. Mathison (born 1967 A.D.):

The issue of Roman Catholic baptism raises an important point. As noted above, many of the Reformers referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “antichrist.” Yet virtually all of the magisterial Reformers also taught that Roman Catholic baptism was valid. This is a common position among the heirs of the Reformation as well. It is not unusual to find the staunchest critics of Rome following the Reformers and granting the validity of Roman baptism. This, however, raises a significant question. Can there be such a thing as a valid baptism that is not a Christian baptism? Obviously, the answer to this question is “no.” In order for a baptism to be considered valid, it must be a Christian baptism. A non-Christian baptism is by definition an invalid baptism. So, if Roman Catholic baptism is valid, then Roman Catholic baptism is Christian, and if Roman Catholic baptism is Christian, the Roman Catholic church must be a part of the true Church in some sense because a non-Christian church cannot administer Christian baptism. The Christian sacrament of baptism can only be administered within the context of the Christian Church.

(Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: Canon Press, 2001], pp. 333-334.)

2. Is Rome a True Church? Yes. Return to Outline.

Robert Sanderson (1587-1663 A.D.):

…taking the Church of Rome, it may be considered either,

First, Materialiter, as it is a Church professing the Faith of Christ, as we also do in the common points of agreement.

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

It is neither by research nor argument the question whether Romanists are members of the visible church is to be answered. It is a simple matter of definition and statement. All that can be done is first to determine what is meant by the word church; and secondly what is meant by Rome, church of Rome, Romanists, or whatever term is used, and then see whether the two agree, whether Rome falls within or without the definition of the church.

By a definition we do not mean a description including a specification of all the attributes which properly pertain to the thing defined; but an enumeration of its essential attributes and of none other. We may say that a Christian is a man who believes all that Christ taught, who obeys all that he commanded, and trusts all his promises. This, however, is a description of an ideal or perfect Christian. It is not a definition which is to guide our judgment, whether a particular individual is to be regarded and treated as a Christian. We may say that a church is a society in which the pure word of God is preached, the sacraments duly administered, and discipline properly exercised by legitimate officers. This, however, is a description of a pure and orderly church, and not an enumeration of the essential attributes of such a body. If we use that description as a definition, we must exclude all but orthodox Presbyterians from the pale of the church. The eastern churches, the Church of England, the Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists would without exception be cut off. Every one of these classes of Christians fails, according to our standard, in some one or more of the above specifications. They are all defective either as to doctrine, or as to the sacraments, or as to the proper exercise of discipline, or as to the organs through which such discipline is exercised. This distinction between a description and definition, between an enumeration of what belongs to a pure church, and what is necessary to the being of a church, is often disregarded.

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

There is a fourth established meaning of the word church, which has more direct reference to the question before us. It often means an organized society professing the true religion, united for the purpose of worship and discipline, and subject to the same form of government and to some common tribunal. A multitude of controversies turn upon the correctness of this definition. It includes the following particulars. 1. A church is an organized society. It is thus distinguished from the casual or temporary assemblies of Christians, for the purpose of divine worship. 2. It must profess the true religion. By the true religion cannot be meant all the doctrines of the true religion, and nothing more or less. For then no human society would be a church unless perfect both in knowledge and faith. Nor can it mean all the clearly revealed and important doctrines of the Bible. For then no man could be a Christian and no body of men a church, who rejects or is ignorant of any of those doctrines. But it must mean the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines without the knowledge and possession of which, no man can be saved. This is plain, because nothing can be essential, as far as truth is concerned, to a church, which is not essential to union with Christ. We are prohibited by our allegiance to the word of God from recognising as a true Christian, any man who rejects any doctrine which the scriptures declare to be essential to salvation; and we are bound by that allegiance not to refuse such recognition, on account of ignorance or error, to any man who professes what the Bible teaches is saving truth. It is absurd that we should make more truth essential to a visible church, than Christ has made essential to the church invisible and to salvation.

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

4. This definition is one to which the principles laid down on this subject in scripture necessarily lead. The scriptures teach that the faith in Christ makes a man a Christian; the profession of that faith makes him a professing Christian. The true, or invisible church consists of true believers; the visible church catholic, of all professed believers; a particular visible church, of a society of such professors, united for church purposes and separated from other societies by subjection to some one tribunal. These seem to be plain scriptural principles. If any thing else or more than faith in Christ is absolutely necessary to union with him, and therefore to salvation; then something more than faith is necessary to make a man a Christian, and something more than the profession of that faith to make him a professing Christian, and consequently some other sign of a visible church must be necessary than the profession of the true religion. But we do not see how consistently with the evangelical system of doctrine, and especially with the great doctrine that salvation is by faith, we can avoid the conclusion that all true believers are in the true church, and all professing believers are in the visible church.

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

All we contend for is that the church is the body of Christ, that those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells are members of that body; and consequently that whenever we have evidence of the presence of the Spirit there we have evidence of the presence of the church. And if these evidences occur in a society professing certain doctrines by which men are thus born unto God, it is God’s own testimony that such society is still a part of the visible church. It strikes us as one of the greatest absurdities of Ritualism . . . that it sets up a definition of the church, not at all commensurate with its actual and obvious extent. What more glaring absurdity can be uttered than that the Episcopal church in this country is here the only church, when nine-tenths of the true religion of the country exists without its pale. It may be man’s church, but God’s church is much wider. Wherever, therefore, there is a society professing truth, by which men are actually born unto God, that society is within the definition of the church given in our standards, and if as a society, it is united under one tribunal, for church purposes, it is itself a church.

Cf. Keith A. Mathison (born 1967 A.D.):

The question boils down to whether or not the Roman church professes the true religion. It is at this point that Protestants can sometimes fall into the same violation of the law of noncontradiction that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy fall into. All but a handful of individual Protestants grant that there are those who are genuinely saved within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. But many Protestants will also say that neither of these two communions is a visible church in any sense and that neither profess or teach the true religion in any sense. These communions would be referred to as completely severed branches. The difficulty . . . is that if this is the true status of these visible communions; if the true religion is not professed in any way, shape or form; then salvation is not possible for anyone within them any more than it is for anyone within Judaism, Mormonism, or Unitarianism. If there are true Christians within these communions, then the true religion, however obscured it may be, must be present in some sense.

(Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: Canon Press, 2001], pp. 329-330.)

Cf. Philip Ryken (born 1966 A.D.):

Sometimes we forget that Luther, Calvin, and the rest of the Reformers were born and bred within the Roman church. When Catholics were catholic, they were Catholic too, and it was within the Roman church that they came to saving faith in Jesus Christ. To be sure, the pope would not tolerate their plain teaching of the gospel, so eventually they were thrown out of the church. But God can and does carry out his saving work to this day, even where his gospel is not preached in all its clarity.

(Philip Ryken, My Father’s World: Meditations on Christianity and Culture, [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2002], pp. 230-231.)

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

Though we regard the above distinction as sound, and though we can see no more real contradiction in saying Rome is a church, and is not a church, than in saying man is mortal and yet immortal, spiritual yet carnal, a child of God yet sold under sin; yet as the distinction is not necessary for the sake either of truth or perspicuity, we do not intend to avail ourselves of it. All that we have to beg is, that brethren would not quote against us the sweeping declarations and denunciations of our Protestant forefathers against Popery as the man of sin, antichrist, the mystical Babylon, and synagogue of Satan, as proof of our departure from the Protestant faith. In all those denunciations we could consistently join; just as our fathers, as Professor Thornwell acknowledges, while uttering those denunciations, still admitted Rome, in one sense, to be a church. Our present object is to enquire whether the church of Rome, taking the term as Bishop Sanderson says, Conjunctim pro toto aggregate, just as we take the term, Church of England, falls within the definition of a church given above.

That it is an organized society, is of course plain; that it is united for the purpose of worship and discipline is no less so. That is, it is the professed ostensible object of the society, to teach and promote the Christian religion, to convert men to the faith, to edify believers, to celebrate the worship of God, and to exercise the power of the keys, i. e., the peculiar prerogatives of a church in matters of doctrine and discipline. This is the ostensible professed object of the society. That its rulers have left its true end out of view, and perverted it into an engine of government and self-aggrandizement is true, and very wicked; but the same thing is true of almost all established churches. It has been palpably true of the church of England, and scarcely less obviously true of the church of Prussia, as well as of the Greek church in Russia. When a church is perverted by its rulers into an engine of state, it does not cease to be a church, because it is by the church as such, i. e., as a society designed for the worship of God and the edification of his people, such rulers endeavour to secure their own secular ends.

Cf. Keith A. Mathison (born 1967 A.D.):

The perversion of the true ends of a visible Church can be found within the leadership of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.

(Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: Canon Press, 2001], p. 329.)

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

It is a historical fact, as far as such a fact can be historically known, that men have been saved who knew nothing of the gospel but that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. The scriptures do not warrant us in fixing the minimum of divine truth by which the Spirit may save the soul. We do know however that if any man believes that Jesus is the Son of God, he is born of God; that no true worshipper of Christ ever perishes. Paul sends his Christian salutations to all in every place, theirs and ours, who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, their Lord and ours.

That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think plain. 1. Because they believe the scriptures to be the word of God. 2. They direct that the Scriptures should be understood and received as they were understood by the Christian Fathers. 3. They receive the three general creeds of the church, the Apostle’s, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, or as these are summed up in the creed of Pius V. 4. They believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. In one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary, and was made man. And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And the third day rose again, according to the scriptures; and ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kindom shall have no end. And they believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And they believe in one catholic apostolic church. They acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

If this creed were submitted to any intelligent Christian, without his knowing whence it came, could he hesitate to say that it was the creed of a Christian church? Could he deny that these are the very terms in which for ages the general faith of Christendom has been expressed? Could he, without renouncing the Bible, say that the sincere belief of these doctrines would not secure eternal life? Can any man take it upon himself in the sight of God, to assert, there is not truth enough in the above summary to save the soul? If not, then a society professing that creed professes the true religion, in the sense stated above. 5. We argue from the acknowledged fact that God has always had, still has, and is to have a people in that church until its final destruction; just as he had in the midst of corrupt and apostate Israel. We admit that Rome has grievously apostatized from the faith, the order and the worship of the church, that she has introduced a multitude of false doctrines, a corrupt and superstitious and even idolatrous worship, and a most oppressive and cruel government; but since as a society she still retains the profession of saving doctrines, and as in point of fact, by those doctrines men are born unto God and nurtured for heaven, we dare not deny that she is still a part of the visible church. We consider such a denial a direct contradiction of the Bible, and of the facts of God’s providence. It was within the limits of the church the great antichristian power was to arise; it was in the church the man of sin was to exalt himself; and it was over the church he was to exercise his baneful and cruel power.

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

The most common and plausible objections to the admission that the church of Rome is still a part of the visible church are the following. First, it is said that she does not profess the true religion, because though she retains the forms or propositions in which the truth is stated, she vitiates them by her explanations. To which we answer 1, That in her general creeds, adopted and professed by the people, no explanations are given. The doctrines are asserted in the general terms, just as they were presented and professed before the Romish apostacy. 2. That the explanations, as given by the Council of Trent, are as stated by Theophilus, designedly two-sided and ambiguous; so that while one class of Romanists take them in a sense consistent with their saving efficacy, others take them in a sense which destroy their value. It is notorious that the 39 Articles of the church of England are taken in a Calvinistic sense, by one class of her theologians; in a semiPelagian sense by another class; and in a Romish sense by a third. 3. While we admit the truth of the objection as a fact, viz., that the dominant class of Romish theologians do explain away most of the saving doctrines of her ancient creeds, yet we deny that this destroys the argument from the profession of those creeds, in proof that as a society she retains saving truth. Because it is the creeds and not the explanations, that constitute the profession of the people.

Secondly, it is objected that Rome professes fundamental ererors. To this we answer 1, That we acknowledge that the teaching of many of her most authoritative authors is fatally erroneous. 2. That the decisions of the council of Trent, as understood by one class of the Romish theologians, are not less at variance with the truth; but not as they are in fact explained by another class of her doctors. 3. That these decisions and explanations are not incorporated in the creed professed by the people. 4. That the profession of fundamental error by a society, does not necessarily destroy its character as a church, provided it retains with such error, the essential truths of religion. The Jewish church at the time of Christ, by her officers, in the synagogues and in the sanhedrim, and by all her great parties, professed fundamental error, justification by the law for example; and yet retained its being as a church, in the bosom of which the elect of God still lived.

Cf. Keith A. Mathison (born 1967 A.D.):

The situation is similar to that which existed in the Galatian churches. Paul is able to address them as a church while at the same time admonishing them for turning away from the gospel (Gal. 1:2, 6; 3:1-3).

The matter boils down to this: Many Protestants object to Hodge’s argumentation with the counter-argument that Rome does not teach the true religion and therefore cannot be considered a visible church. The problem is that Rome’s teaching contradicts the Protestant interpretation of Scripture. This is obviously true. And Protestantism contradicts Rome’s interpretation of the Scripture. But is Protestantism correct simply because Protestantism does not contradict Protestantism’s interpretation of Scripture? The question dramatically illustrates the very problem that we have sought to address throughout these pages. It demonstrates how easily Protestants can fall into an individualistic and subjectivistic solo scriptura type of thinking.

…Rome has veered way off course doctrinally, but if Tradition I (sola scriptura) is true, then Rome’s interpretation cannot be measured only against another branch’s interpretation of Scripture. Unless we wish to fall into the same question-begging circular argumentation that Rome and Orthodoxy fall into, we cannot simply assert that our communion is the correct branch because our communion’s interpretation of Scripture comes closest to our communion’s interpretation of Scripture. Rome’s aberrations must be measured against the ancient rule of faith to which she claims adherence. Her errant doctrines and practices must be demonstrated to be inconsistent with these foundational doctrines.

(Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: Canon Press, 2001], pp. 331, 334.)

Note: See further: Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, quoted above.

A. A. Hodge (1823-1886 A.D.):

Mar Johanan, the Nestorian bishop, when solicited by High-Churchmen to separate himself from non-prelatical Christians, exclaimed, “All who love the Lord Jesus Christ are my brethren.” Above all the narrow, meagre patriotism on earth is the large, free ecumenical patriotism of those who embrace in their love and fealty the whole body of the baptized. All who are baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, recognizing the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, the incarnation of the Son and his priestly sacrifice, whether they be Greeks or Arminians or Romanists or Lutherans or Calvinists, or the simple souls who do not know what to call themselves, are our brethren. Baptism is our common countersign. It is the common rallying standard at the head of our several columns, It is our common battle-flag, which we carry forward across the enemy’s line and nail aloft in the heights crowned with victory. We will be confined in our love and allegiance by no party lines. We follow and serve one common Lord. Hence there can be only “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” and hence only one indivisible, inalienable “sacramental host of God’s elect.”

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], Lecture XVI: The Sacraments.—Baptism, p. 389.) [4.]

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920 A.D.):

Calvin in his day already acknowledged that, as against a spirit from the Great Deep, he considered Romish believers his allies. A so-called orthodox Protestant need only mark in his confession and catechism such doctrines of religion and morals as are not subject to controversy between Rome and ourselves, to perceive immediately that what we have in common with Rome concerns precisely those fundamentals of our Christian creed now most fiercely assaulted by the modern spirit. Undoubtedly on the points of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, of man’s nature before and after the Fall, of justification, of the mass, of the invocation of saints and angels, of the worship of images, of purgatory, and many others, we are as unflinchingly opposed to Rome as our fathers were. But does not current literature show that these are not now the points on which the struggle of the age is concentrated? Are not the lines of battle drawn as follows: Theism over against Pantheism; sin over against imperfection; the divine Christ of God over against Jesus the mere man; the cross a sacrifice of reconciliation over against the cross as a symbol of martyrdom; the Bible as given by inspiration of God over against a purely human product; the ten commandments as ordained by God over against a mere archaeological document; the ordinances of God absolutely established over against an ever-changing law and morality spun out of man’s subjective consciousness? Now, in this conflict Rome is not an antagonist, but stands on our side, inasmuch as she also recognizes and maintains the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Cross as an atoning sacrifice, the Scriptures as the Word of God, and the Ten Commandments as a divinely-imposed rule of life. Therefore, let me ask if Romish theologians take up the sword to do valiant and skillful battle against the same tendency that we ourselves mean to fight to the death, is it not the part of wisdom to accept the valuable help of their elucidation? Calvin at least was accustomed to appeal to Thomas of Aquino. And I for my part am not ashamed to confess that on many points my views have been clarified through my study of the Romish theologians.

(Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism: Six Stone Foundation Lectures, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1943], “Calvinism and the Future,” pp. 183-184.)

B. B. Warfield (1851-1921 A.D.):

For, however much naturalistic views have seeped into the membership of the churches, the entire organized Church—Orthodox Greek, Roman Catholic Latin, and Protestant in all its great historical forms, Lutheran and Reformed, Calvinistic and Arminian—bears its consentient, firm and emphatic testimony to the supernaturalistic conception of salvation. We shall have to journey to the periphery of Christendom, to such sects of doubtful standing in the Christian body as, say, the Unitarians, to find an organized body of Christians with aught but a supernaturalistic confession.

(Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Plan of Salvation: Five Lectures Delivered at The Princeton Summer School of Theology: June, 1914, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1915], “The Differing Conceptions,” pp. 16-17.)

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921 A.D.):

…we must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride. Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentance, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians. The Christian life is so rich that it develops to its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.

Nevertheless, Catholic piety, even in its best form, is different in character from that of protestantism. It always remains unfree, unemancipated, formal, legalistic. Complete inner certainty of faith is lacking. It always leaves room for the question: Have I done enough, and what else should I do? Rome deliberately keeps the souls of believers in a restless, so-called healthy tension. Spiritual life fluctuates between false assurance and painful uncertainty. Catholicism does not understand the word of Holy Scripture that the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God and that all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

(Herman Bavinck, The Certainty of Faith, trans. Harry der Nederlanden, [St. Catharines: Paideia Press, 1980], p. 37.)

Cf. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921 A.D.):

On the one hand, one had to admit that a true church in an absolute sense is impossible here on earth; there is not a single church that completely and in all its parts, in doctrine and in life, in the ministry of the Word and sacrament, meets the demand of God. On the other hand, it also became clear that an absolutely false church cannot possibly exist, for in that case it would no longer be a church at all. Even though Rome was a false church insofar as it was papal, nevertheless there were many remnants of the true church left in it. There was a difference, therefore, between a true and a pure church. “True church” became the term, not for one church to the exclusion of all others, but for an array of churches that still upheld the fundamental articles of Christian faith but for the rest differed a great deal from each other in degrees of purity. And “false church” became the term for the hierarchical power of superstition or unbelief that set itself up in local churches and accorded itself and its ordinances more authority than the Word of God.

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume Four, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], §. 494, pp. 315-316.)

Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646 A.D.): (25.4)

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937 A.D.):

Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today! We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all.

(J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, [New York: The Macmillan Company, 1923], p. 52.)

Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949 A.D.):

Regarding heretical baptism, the Reformed church also takes the standpoint mentioned above by distinguishing between fundamental heresy and non-fundamental deviation in doctrine. We do not recognize a baptism by Arians and Socinians. We do recognize baptism by Roman Catholics and Remonstrants. When someone comes over to us from the first two groups, we do not rebaptize. We baptize for the first time, for he has not been truly baptized. The point is not whether or not the person who administers baptism has been corrupted by fundamental heresy; at issue is only the standpoint of the church in which and for which he has administered baptism.

(Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Single-Volume Edition, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2020], 5.4.19, p. 983.) Preview.

D. Excursus: Objections and Replies. Return to Outline.

Objection.

R. C. Sproul:

I have written in strong terms in this book because I believe the errors of the Roman Catholic Church are deep and significant. As I noted in the introduction, I am happy to make common cause with Roman Catholics on social issues, but we have no common cause in the gospel. Rome has compromised the gospel with her unbiblical doctrines. I firmly believe that she is “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9).

How then should we proceed? How should we relate to Roman Catholics?

I believe that as individuals, we should reach out to Roman Catholics. We should love our neighbors who are in the Church of Rome. We should befriend them and spend time with them. By doing so, we earn the right to lovingly critique their views.

As churches, we must stand for the biblical gospel—and nothing more. It is our calling to hold high the truth and expose falsehood. To this end, it is essential that we know and understand what Rome is teaching, so distinctions can be made. It is important that the people in the pews be educated about what Protestants believe over against what Roman Catholics teach.

Pastors should preach the gospel and point out ways in which it is twisted by men, including the Roman Catholic Church. I am not saying that every sermon must attack Rome, but given the attraction that Roman Catholicism is exerting on some Protestants, it is essential that its errors be exposed. By faithfully preaching the gospel, pastors will defend the Reformation.

When our involvement in social issues brings us into contact and camaraderie with Roman Catholics, we need not draw back. But we must not assume that we are brothers and sisters with them in the gospel. They are members of a church that has anathematized the gospel, so we ought to pray for them and seek to reach them for Christ.

(R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism, [Sanford: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2012], pp. 121-122.)

Reply.

Charles Hodge:

Note: Click here for additional information on the Rule of Faith (Tradition).

Note: Click here for more on the Gospel (Historical Creeds).

Charles Hodge:

Cf. Keith A. Mathison:

(Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: Canon Press, 2001], pp. 329-330.)

Objection.

James White:

If merely saying “Jesus is Lord” is enough, doesn’t that mean that we have “unity” with groups such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), who likewise can make this confession, though with a fundamentally different meaning and intent? Jehovah’s Witnesses say “Jesus is Lord,” but they also believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel and they deny He rose physically from the dead. Christians have historically insisted that belief in the deity of Christ and in the Resurrection is central to what it means to be a Christian and have denied fellowship to those who say “Jesus is Lord” yet deny these beliefs. If unity in doctrine on the person of Christ is necessary for meaningful unity, is unity on the doctrine of the Gospel itself also just as necessary? …Does it matter? My answer is an unequivocal yes. I believe the differences that separate Roman Catholics and Protestants on the matter of the Gospel itself are fundamental. I know many Roman Catholics who agree with me in that evaluation, I hasten to add. We do not share a common evangel, a common Gospel, and therefore cannot, logically, share a common evangelistic mission, a common evangelistic goal. We do not have a common message. Yes, we both say, “Jesus is Lord,” but the Apostles went beyond those three words to explain what that means. And when Roman Catholics and Protestants go beyond the bare confession, the hoped-for unity disappears in the particulars of what the Gospel is and how people are made right before God. The gulf is too wide to be bridged by good intentions. Ultimately there is an impasse on the nature of the Gospel itself.

I am not saying that there are no professing Roman Catholics who are truly saved, or that there are no Roman Catholic leaders who embrace God’s grace in a saving manner. When I speak of Rome’s “teachings,” I refer to the official teachings of Rome, enshrined in her creeds, encyclicals, and conciliar documents. It is plain to all who will look that there is as wide a diversity of understandings of those teachings among Catholics as there are differing perspectives among Protestants on similar issues. It is vital to differentiate between the official teachings of Rome and the individual understandings of those teachings.

(James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996], pp. 24-25, 26.)

Reply.

G. W. Bromiley:

The fact that all Christian bodies confess in some way their faith in Jesus Christ, whether in a simple affirmation or in the expanded form of the creeds, is obviously a unifying factor in the midst of division. The majority of Protestant churches, for example, can join hands with the Roman and Eastern Orthodox in saying the great creeds which embody the Christian faith in the triune God and His saving work in Jesus Christ. Even those who might stumble at individual phrases, e.g., in the Nicene or Athanasian creeds, can confess that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord. For all the differences which arise in detailed beliefs, the Christian community as a whole presents a more or less united front to the world in its basic confession; and perhaps it is not always sufficiently realized that these fundamental beliefs which unite are no less, and perhaps greater, than the beliefs which separate.

Yet the confession, like the Bible, can be an instrument of disunity as well as unity. Even the very simplest affirmation that Jesus Christ is Lord (I Cor. 12:3) can (rightly) mark off those who wish to follow Jesus on their own terms but not on His. An expansion like the Apostles’ Creed is obviously adapted to exclude those who hold erroneous teachings in relation to individual aspects of faith, and with the continual development of creeds and statements of faith to express belief on individual points the process of disruption is obviously accelerated. Christians of many allegiances may perhaps come together in the basic affirmations, but when they present their detailed confessions of faith they are at once plunged into more or less bitter and hopeless contention. Nor does this apply only to the great divisions between Roman, Orthodox, and Protestant. It applies equally to the lesser but important differences within Protestantism, e.g., between Lutherans and Reformed, Arminians and Calvinists, Baptists and Paedobaptists, etc. Not every difference is regarded as a ground of actual division by every body, but schisms innumerable have taken place for detailed points of confession, and the “infallible” pronouncements of the Pope make any genuine unity in confession almost impossible so far as the Roman communion is concerned.

If the confession is to be a genuine means and focus of unity, the first essential is to see it in its proper function as a response of faith to Jesus Christ. This means that it is not the ground of unity. Nor is it an instrument for the testing of orthodoxy. Nor is it a guarantee of unity in accepted and infallible dogma. In the first instance, confession is simply the expression of a genuine but perhaps very imperfect and ill-instructed faith in Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ who saves and unites, not our beliefs about Him or the expression which we give to these beliefs. To abstract the confession from Jesus Christ as an independent ground or guarantee of unity or catholicity is to turn it from its true function, to pervert the faith which it is designed to state, and to introduce inevitable dissension. To be sure, Jesus Christ must be accepted and confessed as the One He is, i.e., the Savior and Lord. But in confession we must never lose sight of the fact that it is He whom we are confessing, not our detailed beliefs concerning Him, and that even though we may differ widely in our doctrine and interpretation we are united in our faith in Him.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], pp. 75-77.)

Stanley J. Grenz:

Dogmatism. As Christian theologians we are likewise faced with the temptation toward dogmatism. We run the risk of confusing one specific model of reality with reality itself or one theological system with truth itself, thereby “canonizing” a particular theological construct or a specific theologian. Because all systems are models of reality, we must maintain a stance of openness to other models, aware of the tentativeness and incompleteness of all systems. In the final analysis, theology is a human enterprise, helpful for the task of the church, to be sure, but a human construct nevertheless.

(Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], pp. 16-17.)

Cf. J. I. Packer:

What brings salvation, after all, is not any theory about faith in Christ, justification, and the church, but faith itself in Christ himself.

(J. I. Packer, “Why I Signed ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together;’” In: Christianity Today, December 12, 1994.) Preview.

J. I. Packer:

Though Protestant and Catholic church systems stand opposed and official beliefs diverge on major aspects of the doctrine of salvation, those who love and trust the Lord Jesus Christ on both sides of the Reformation divide know that they are in a real sense united in him and are joint heirs of glory not only with him but with each other.

(J. I. Packer, “Crosscurrents Among Evangelicals;” In: Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, eds. Charles Colson, Richard John Neuhaus, [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996], p. 171.)

Objection.

Loraine Boettner:

That the Roman Church has within it much of truth is not to be denied, It teaches the inspiration of the Scriptures, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection of the body, a future judgment, heaven and hell, and many other Scripture truths, In every instance, however, it nullifies these truths to a considerable extent by adding to or subtracting from what the Bible teaches.

…The Roman Church thus has such serious inherent defects that over the broad course of history it cannot possibly emerge successful. Clearly it has lost its power to evangelize the world, and instead has become so confirmed in its present course that it cannot be reformed either from within or from without. In the main it is as antagonistic and as much an obstacle to evangelical Christianity as are the pagan religions. Admittedly there have been many high-minded and saintly souls in the Roman Church, as on the other hand many in the evangelical churches have not been true to their profession. In every church some are better and some are worse than their creed. But a church must be judged, not by individuals, but as a system.

(Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, [Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962], pp. 455, 459.)

Reply.

Charles Hodge:

Secondly, it is objected that Rome professes fundamental ererors. [sic] To this we answer 1, That we acknowledge that the teaching of many of her most authoritative authors is fatally erroneous. 2. That the decisions of the council of Trent, as understood by one class of the Romish theologians, are not less at variance with the truth; but not as they are in fact explained by another class of her doctors. 3. That these decisions and explanations are not incorporated in the creed professed by the people. 4. That the profession of fundamental error by a society, does not necessarily destroy its character as a church, provided it retains with such error, the essential truths of religion. The Jewish church at the time of Christ, by her officers, in the synagogues and in the sanhedrim, and by all her great parties, professed fundamental error, justification by the law for example; and yet retained its being as a church, in the bosom of which the elect of God still lived.

Richard Hooker:

(Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown, §§. 29-30; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: With an Account of His Life and Death: Seventh Edition: Vol. III, arranged by J. Keble, revised by R. W. Church & F. Paget, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1888], pp. 528-530.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Richard Hooker:

E. For Further Study. Return to Outline.

Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: Canon Press, 2001], “Is Rome a Part of the Visible Church?” pp. 326-335.

Charles Hodge, “Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?” In: The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review: For the Year 1846: Vol. XVIII, [Philadelphia: M. B. Hope, 1846], No. 2, April, 1846, Art. V, pp. 320-344. See also: archive.org.

Cf. Charles Hodge, “Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?” In: Charles Hodge, Essays and Reviews: Selected from the Princeton Review, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1857], pp. 221-244.

John Wesley, “A Letter to a Roman Catholic;” In: John Wesley’s Letter to a Roman Catholic, ed. Michael Hurley, S.J., [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968], pp. 48-57. Cf. The Works of the Rev. John Wesley: Volume XV, [London: Thomas Cordeux, 1812], pp. 110-117. See also: goodnewsmag.org.

Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005].

Cf. Gavin Ortlund, “Some Thoughts on Noll and Nystrom’s Is The Reformation Over?” (2012). https://gavinortlund.com/2012/05/23/some-thoughts-on-noll-and-nystroms-is-the-reformation-over/.

3. Appendix: Ecumenism. Return to Outline.

George Carey:

How can Protestants with their faith anchored in the New Testament have unity with Catholics, whose official teachings include doctrines they cannot accept? The question is reciprocated from the Catholic side. How can the historical faith of the church be reconciled with the somewhat reduced faith of the Protestants? Good will is clearly not enough. We have not got a goodnatured, ecclesiastical fairy godmother who can wave history away with a flourish of her magic wand. We are stuck with our opposing views. Or are we?

There is, I believe, a way through this dilemma. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, opened new possibilities through a statement in the Decree on Ecumenism. The decree suggested that closer agreement among Christians is possible if we think in terms of a hierarchy of truths. What the decree is getting at is this: unity is often barred by the attention given to our differences, but not all doctrines have the same importance for faith. Could we arrive at an understanding of the common core of the faith we share while allowing freedom with respect to other teachings less essential?

This looks like a promising way forward. It is biblically true that not all the doctrines of the Christian faith have the same value for saving faith even if they are regarded as important in their own right.

(George Carey, A Tale of Two Churches: Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together? [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985], p. 160.)

Note: See further: Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020]. Preview.

George Carey:

My own view is that the Christian who wants to be true to the Bible and to historic Christianity will wish to cling to the following six central points enshrined in the ancient creed of the church.

1. That Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. The New Testament is emphatic about this. The life and deeds of Jesus are definitive. We can speak of him, testify to him and represent him, but we can never add anything new to his work. He is unique and incomparable. He is Christianity’s cornerstone or, in the eyes of the world, its stumbling block. The cardinal importance of the Lord is underlined by the fact that the heresies and squabbles of the first five centuries centered mainly on the person of Christ; the church had to resist the pressure to move him from its heart.

2. That the nature of God is Trinitarian. God has revealed himself visibly in Jesus and powerfully through the Spirit. Christians embrace a Trinitarian faith in which God is experienced as Creator, Savior and Sanctifier. We dare not slide away into a theism which makes God the Father an aloof, uncomprehending deity, or the Son a benign man from Galilee, or the Spirit merely an influence of God. The Trinity is the formulation of the outworking of the ministry of God in our world. Indeed, the testimony of Christians down the centuries is that they have experienced God as Creator, Savior and Sanctifier.

3. That faith in Jesus and baptism into him through the Trinitarian confession constitute the new birth and the initiatory rite into the church. The believer is made a child of God and a member of Christ’s universal church. Through baptism we enter into God’s family.

4. That through the Holy Spirit the Christian church is constituted and that it takes all ministries and gifts in the body to express the fullness of the catholic faith. The church is brought into existence by two commands of Christ. The first constitutes it as a worshiping body: “Do this in remembrance of me.” As the church obeys that command and meets around the table of the Lord, where he is the host and we his guests, we are built up to be a body for his glory. The second command constitutes the church as a witnessing and serving body: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel.” As a missionary body the church exists for the benefit of others and grows in faithfully caring for others and proclaiming Christ to them.

5. That our faith is divinely revealed in Scripture and expressed in the ancient creeds of the church. All Christian teaching must be rooted in Scripture and consistent with it. Tradition will, indeed, have its proper place in the life of God’s people. The church of God is a historical community, and the riches of the faith, as well as the experience of God’s love and power, are handed on from generation to generation. But church teaching, however venerable its history, must conform to the testimony of Scripture. Tradition has no independent status of its own.

6. That Jesus Christ will come again in glory as Lord, Judge and Savior. History awaits its fulfillment in him. His kingdom is coming.

Now, a basis of belief along these lines has much to commend it because it is recognizably orthodox and scriptural, yet not too tight to exclude justifiable variations. If there is a common heart to our faith, we can allow theological variations out of respect for the insights of different traditions.

(George Carey, A Tale of Two Churches: Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together? [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985], pp. 161-163.)

Cf. John Wesley: (“A Letter to a Roman Catholic”)

Are we not thus far agreed? Let us thank God for this, and receive it as a fresh token of his love. But if God still loveth us, we ought also to love one another. We ought, without this endless jangling about opinions, to provoke one another to love and to good works. Let the points wherein we differ stand aside: here are enough wherein we agree, enough be the ground of every Christian temper and of every Christian action. …if we cannot as yet think alike in all things, at least we may love alike. Herein we cannot possibly do amiss. For of one point none can doubt a moment: God is love; and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.

(John Wesley, “A Letter to a Roman Catholic,” 16; In: John Wesley’s Letter to a Roman Catholic, ed. Michael Hurley, S.J., [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968], pp. 55, 56. Cf. The Works of the Rev. John Wesley: Volume XV, [London: Thomas Cordeux, 1812], p. 116.) See also: goodnewsmag.org.

Leo Tolstoy:

These questions were: first the relation of the Orthodox Eastern Church to other Churches—to the Catholics and to the so-called sectarians. At that time, in consequence of my interest in religion, I came into touch with believers of various faiths: Catholics, Protestants, Old-Believers, Molokans, and others. And I met among them many men of lofty morals who were truly religious. I wished to be a brother to them. And what happened? That teaching which promised to unite all in one faith and love—that very teaching, in the person of its best representatives, told me that these men were all living a lie; that what gave them their power of life was a temptation of the devil; and what we alone possess the only possible truth. And I saw that all who do not profess an identical faith with themselves are considered by the Orthodox to be heretics; just as the Catholics and others consider the Orthodox to be heretics. And I saw that the Orthodox (though they try to hide this) regard with hostility all who do not express their faith by the same external symbols and words as themselves…

…for every unbeliever turning to belief (and all our young generation are in a position to do so) the question that presents itself first is, why is truth not in Lutheranism nor in Catholicism, but in Orthodoxy? Educated in the high school, he cannot help knowing—what the peasants do not know—that the Protestants and Catholics equally affirm that their faith is the only true one. Historical evidence, twisted by each religion in its own favour, is insufficient. Is it not possible, said I, to understand the teaching in a loftier way, so that from its height the differences should disappear, as they do for one who believes truly? Can we not go further along a path like the one we are following with the Old-Believers? They emphasize the fact that they have a differently shaped cross and different alleluias and a different procession round the altar. We reply: You believe in the Nicene Creed, in the seven sacraments, and so do we. Let us hold to that, and in other matters do as you please. We have united with them by placing the essentials of faith above the unessentials. Now with the Catholics, can we not say: You believe in so and so and in so and so, which are the chief things, and as for the Filioque clause and the Pope—do as you please. Can we not say the same to the Protestants, uniting with them in what is most important?

(Leo Tolstoy, A Confession, chapter 15; trans. Leo Tolstoy, A Confession and What I Believe, The World’s Classics: CCXXIX, trans. Aylmer Maude, [London: Oxford University Press, 1921; reprinted 1927 and 1932], pp. 89, 91-92.)

Note: Click here for additional information on the Rule of Faith (Tradition).

Note: Click here for more on the Gospel (Historical Creeds).

J. I. Packer:

…if I am any judge, the cobelligerence of Catholics and Protestants fighting together for the basics of the creed is nowadays more important, if only because until the cancerous spread of theological pluralism on both sides of the Reformation divide is stopped, any talk of our having achieved unity of faith will be so irrelevant to the real situation as to be both comic and pathetic. Comic because it will be so false, and pathetic because the unity formulas will at once be swallowed and relativized by the socio-secularist juggernaut ideology which is currently devouring the true, intended sense of formulas of faith in our separate circles of communion.

(J. I. Packer, “Forward;” In: George Carey, A Tale of Two Churches: Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together? [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985], p. viii.)

John Daillé:

All the difference of religion, which is at this day between the Church of Rome and the Protestants, lies in some certain points which the Church of Rome maintains as important and necessary articles of the Christian faith: whereas the Protestants, on the contrary, neither believe nor will receive them as such. For as for those matters which the Protestants believe, which they conceive to be the fundamentals of religion, they are evidently and undeniably such, that even their enemies admit and receive them as well as they: inasmuch as they are both clearly delivered in the Scriptures, and expressly admitted by the ancient councils and Fathers; and are indeed unanimously received by the greatest part of Christians in all ages, and in different parts of the world. Such, for example, are the maxims, “That there is a God who is supreme over all, and who created the heavens and the earth:—that he created man after his own image; and that this man, revolting from his obedience, is fallen, together with his whole posterity, into most extr and eternal misery, and become infected with sin, Bfi with a mortal leprosy, and is therefore obnoxious to the wrath of God, and liable to his curse:—thai the merciful Creator, pitying man’s estate, graciously sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world:—that his Son La God eternal with him; and that having taken flesh upon himself in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and become man, lie has done and suffered in this flesh all things necessary for our salvation, having by this means sufficiently expiated for our sins by his blood; and that having finished all this, he ascended again into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; from whence he shall one day come to judge all mankind, rendering to every one according to their works;—that to enable us to communicate of this salvation by his merits, he sends us down his Holy Spirit, proceeding both from the Father and the Son, and who is also one and the same God with them; so that these three persons are notwithstanding but one God, who is blessed for ever;—that this Spirit enlightens our understanding, and generates faith in us, whereby we are justified:—that after all this, the Lord sent his Apostles to preach this doctrine of salvation throughout the whole world:—that these have planted churches, and placed in each of them pastors and teachers, whom we are to hear with all reverence, and to receive from them Baptism, the sacrament of our regeneration, and the holy Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, which is the sacrament of our communion with Jesus Christ:—that we are likewise all of us bound fervently to love God and our neighbour; observing diligently that holy doctrine which is laid down for us in the books of the New Testament, which have been inspired by his Spirit of truth; as also those other of the Old; there being nothing, either in the one or in the other, but what is most true.

These articles, and there may be some few others of a similar nature, are the substance of the Protestant’s whole belief: and if all other Christians would but content themselves with these, there would never be any schism in the Church. But now their adversaries add to these many other points, which they press and command men to believe as necessary; and such as; without believing in; there is no possible hope of salvation.

(John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of the Controversies Existing at this Day in Religion: Second American Edition, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856], pp. 17-19.)

Excursus: Pluralism, A Problem for the Reformation and Rome.

Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom:

A last word on the contemporary situation for Catholics and evangelicals is required concerning the wide diversity now found in both traditions. The time is long past when responsible analysts could speak of either Catholics or evangelicals as a homogenous unit. An awareness of pluralism has been a truism in the discussion of American Protestants since the end of the nineteenth century, but only in recent decades have historians taken seriously the near impossibility of lumping together (as only a partial list) Protestant mainliners, fundamentalists, liberals, Lutheran “evangelical catholics,” Lutheran Americanists, Pentecostals, Disciples of Christ, Plymouth Brethren, and a thousand and one other variations.

The larger Protestant reality is true also of evangelicals. With no formal structure uniting those who share evangelical faith, with evangelicals strewn across multitudes of denominations, with no institutional voice presuming to speak for or to all evangelical Protestants, with deep theological, ecclesiastical, and social differences dividing evangelicals from one another, it is presumptuous ever to speak casually about a common evangelical attitude toward Catholics or anything else.

…The same reality is equally true on the other side as well. Despite persisting tendencies, especially among non-Catholics, to speak of a unified Catholic Church, such efforts are nearly as indefensible as applying generalities to Protestants. Catholics do retain a structural unity symbolized by the pope and the church’s hierarchy, but it would be wise for Protestants to let Catholics say what that structure means. Speaking as a Catholic theologian, Richard McBrien once described the current scene as one in which “there are sometimes sharper divisions within the Roman Catholic Church than there are between certain Catholics and certain Protestants.” Sociologist Andrew Greeley (who is also a Catholic priest) has made the same point: “Every generalization about values that begins with the word ‘Catholic’ is likely to be misleading, if not erroneous, precisely because the generalization will mask substantial differences in values that exist among the Catholic subpopulations.” Given the religious pluralism within Christian families, there is much more opportunity now than even fifty years ago to find meaningful fellowship across, as well as significant strife within, traditional evangelical and Catholic communities.

(Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], pp. 225-226, 226-227.)

Cf. Richard P. McBrien (Roman Catholic Theologian):

But much has happened since that council to suggest that the traditional lines of distinction have been blurred. Is it really so easy to tell the difference between a Roman Catholic and an Anglican, for example? Is it not becoming increasingly evident that there are sometimes sharper divisions within the Roman Catholic Church than there are between certain Catholics and certain Protestants? Anyone who reads the Catholic press in the United States might legitimately wonder if the editors and readers of The Wanderer and the National Catholic Reporter belong to the same Church.

(Richard P. McBrien, “Roman Catholicism: E Pluribus Unum;” In: Religion and America: Spiritual Life in a Secular Age, eds. Mary Douglas, Steven Tipton, [Boston: Beacon Press, 1983], p. 181.)

Cf. Andrew M. Greeley (Roman Catholic Priest):

Every generalization about values that begins with the word “Catholic” is likely to be misleading, if not erroneous, precisely because the generalization will mask substantial differences in values that exist among the Catholic subpopulations.

(Andrew M. Greeley, The American Catholic: A Social Portrait, [New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1977], p. 252.)

Note: If I were to pull a dozen Roman Catholics off the street and ask a single theological question I would likely receive a dozen different answers (just as I would with a dozen Protestants).

Gerald Bray:

…it is rather pointless to ask what Evangelicals think about the spiritual state of Roman Catholics in general. They look at Catholics (as at everyone else) as individuals, and make up their minds accordingly. Of course, they will usually try to persuade converted Catholics to leave the Catholic Church and join an Evangelical congregation somewhere, but this is so that they can be properly fed spiritually, not (usually) because they are just bigoted Protestants. They would say exactly the same thing to a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Baptist who was attending the wrong church—“wrong” being defined as not having an Evangelical ministry.

(Gerald Bray, “Evangelicals, Salvation, and Church History;” In: Catholics and Evangelicals: Do They Share a Common Future? ed. Thomas P. Rausch, [New York: Paulist Press, 2000], pp. 92-93.)

Cf. Gerald Bray:

Whatever his or her background or denominational affiliation may be, an Evangelical is someone who believes that an experience of personal conversion to Christ is the supremely authentic hallmark of a true Christian. This experience may take different forms, but for an Evangelical to recognize it, it must include a prior conviction of sin—which makes individuals aware that they cannot please God by their own actions—repentance, and a changed life. The last of these is extremely important, because in the final analysis, it is a changed life which puts the seal on the conversion experience and validates it. Salvation must be “visible,” at least in the sense that its effects must be noticeable. Most Evangelicals would not hesitate to say that if a person does not live a life consonant with what Jesus expects of his followers, then that person is not truly born again, whatever he or she may claim.

(Gerald Bray, “Evangelicals, Salvation, and Church History;” In: Catholics and Evangelicals: Do They Share a Common Future? ed. Thomas P. Rausch, [New York: Paulist Press, 2000], pp. 77-78.)

4. Appendix: The Gospel. Return to Outline.

Herman Bavinck:

…the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is . . . presented throughout all of Scripture in such simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily . . . learn to know that truth from Scripture… The way of salvation, not as it concerns the matter itself but as it concerns the mode of transmission, has been clearly set down there for the reader desirous of salvation. While that reader may not understand the “how” (πως) of it, the “that” (ὁτι) is clear.

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1: Prolegomena, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], §. 125, p. 477.)

Note: The Gospel is that we are saved by the Incarnate life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Son of God. The Gospel is not how we are saved by the Incarnate life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Son of God.

Note: Click here for additional information on the Rule of Faith (Tradition).

Note: Click here for more on the Gospel (Historical Creeds).

Charles Surgeon:

In Brussels I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The church was crowded with people, many of them standing, though you might have a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing. But I stood too. And that good man—for I believe he is a good man—preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he spoke of the beauties of Christ and the preciousness of his blood, and of his power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say ‘justification by faith,’ but he did say, ‘efficacy of the blood,’ which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace and not by our works, but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when they were brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that that blood was in itself enough. True there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be, but I could have gone to that man and could have said, ‘Brother, you have spoken the truth;’ and if I had been handling that text myself, I must have done it in the same way, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified in that case, that there are some, even in the apostate church, who cleave unto the Lord,—some sparks of heavenly fire that tremble amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus.

(Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “The Proceedings of the Great Meeting in the Metropolitan Tabernacle,” August 21, 1860 (New Park Street Pulpit Volume 6); In: Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon: Compiled From His Diary, Letters and Records by His Wife and His Private Secretary: Vol. II: 1854-1860, [Cincinnati: Curts & Jennings, 1899], pp. 364-365.) See also: spurgeon.org.

Charles Hodge:

Keith A. Mathison:

(Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: Canon Press, 2001], pp. 329-330.)

Philip Ryken:

(Philip Ryken, My Father’s World: Meditations on Christianity and Culture, [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2002], pp. 230-231.)

John Owen:

Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which, in opinion, they deny to be imputed: for the faith of it is included in that general assent which they give unto the truth of the gospel, and such an adherence unto Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of the way whereby they are saved by him shall not defraud them of a real interest therein.

(John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Ch. VII: Imputation, and the nature of it; In: The Works of John Owen: Vol. V, ed. William H. Goold, [London & Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1851], p. 164.)

Francis Turretin:

XXXI. Although the church which was in the papacy before the Reformation did not have among the articles of its faith justification by faith alone, the rejection of all sensible sacrifices besides the sacrifice of Christ and the repudiation of the worship of images and of the invocation of saints and other articles (concerning which there is a controversy between us), it does not follow that believers did not have in the doctrine received for that time the necessary food for salvation.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1997], 18.10.31, p. 67.) [5.]

Charles Hodge:

Romanism retains the supernatural element of Christianity throughout. Indeed it is a matter of devout thankfulness to God that underneath the numerous grievous and destructive errors of the Romish Church, the great truths of the Gospel are preserved. The Trinity, the true divinity of Christ, the true doctrine concerning his person as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever; salvation through his blood, regeneration and sanctification through the almighty power of the Spirit, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life, are doctrines on which the people of God in that communion live, and which have produced such saintly men as St. Bernard, Fénélon, and doubtless thousands of others who are of the number of God’s elect. Every true worshipper of Christ must in his heart recognize as a Christian brother, wherever he may be found, any one who loves, worships, and trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh and the only Saviour of men.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], pp. 135-136.)

Thomas R. Schreiner:

How important is “faith alone”—the doctrine of justification? I am not arguing that sola fide is the gospel, though I believe it is one element or entailment of the gospel. Those who reject the motto aren’t necessarily proclaiming a different gospel. It is possible, as I said above, that they are responding to a misunderstanding of the phrase or they have heard an inadequate presentation of what faith alone means, and they rightly disagree with the explanation they have heard. Slogans are helpful, for they summarize briefly our theology, but slogans can also be dangerous, for we may be in a conversation or a debate where we are unknowingly operating with different definitions and concepts. Before we indict someone else, we must be sure that we have heard what they are truly saying.

(Thomas R. Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015], p. 18.) Preview.

Gavin Ortlund:

We might say that justification is not, in itself, the whole gospel; but it nonetheless touches the whole gospel.

(Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020], p. 90.) Preview.

Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom:

Therefore, while Catholics and Protestants agree on many areas related to salvation, disagreements remain and will likely continue, though the nature of disagreement varies from one Protestant tradition to another. Because questions of salvation are so intimately related to what it means to be Christian, differences on these issues remain particularly crucial. If, however, both groups can agree (as they appear to) that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, evangelicals and Catholics can welcome each other as brothers and sisters of the family created by God’s grace, regardless of whatever else either may want to say.

(Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 142.)

5. Appendix: Unity in the Church. Return to Outline.

Francis A. Schaeffer:

Now comes the sobering part. Jesus goes on in this 21st verse to say something that always causes me to cringe. If as Christians we do not cringe, it seems to me we are not very sensitive or very honest, because Jesus here gives us the final apologetic. What is the final apologetic? “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” This is the final apologetic.

In John 13 the point was that, if an individual Christian does not show love toward other true Christians, the world has a right to judge that he is not a Christian. Here Jesus is stating something else which is much more cutting, much more profound: We cannot expect the world to believe that the Father sent the Son, that Jesus’ claims are true, and that Christianity is true, unless the world sees some reality of the oneness of true Christians.

(Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1970], p. 15.)

Cf. John 17:20-23:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

(New International Version.)

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-253 A.D.):

…he makes his defence in the lives of his genuine disciples, for their lives cry out the real facts and defeat all false charges, refuting and overthrowing the slanders and accusations.

(Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum, Preface, §. 2; trans. Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1953], p. 4.)

Westminster Confession of Faith: (25.1-2)

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.1-2; trans. Phillip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877], p. 657.)

Westminster Confession of Faith: (25.4-5)

V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error…

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.4-5; trans. Phillip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877], p. 658.)

Oscar Cullmann:

It is a fundamental conviction for each believing Catholic that that which I call the eschatological tension between present and future, between already-fulfilled and not-yet-completed, has been in part removed in his church, most particularly in the infallible teaching office. He believes, furthermore, that according to the will of Christ himself the unity of the church is only guaranteed through the papacy; and that, as a consequence, unity can only be secured by the submission of all Christians, including the Protestants, to the Pope. The Catholic church asserts on the basis of this conviction that she personifies within herself the only legitimate principle of unity. She no longer needs to seek unity. We on the Protestant side are too often inclined to see only autocracy and clericalism in this Catholic claim. Certainly these tendencies have often stood in the foreground of church history. However, we must keep in mind the fact that, when all is said and done, a question of faith is at stake when the Catholics assume that the reign of Christ, which began with his resurrection and ascension and in which we also believe, has already removed the eschatological tension between the present and future as far as the papal office is concerned.

…On the other hand, it is a firm conviction on the part of the Protestants that the eschatological tension between present and future, between “already fulfilled” and “not yet finished,” has in no way been removed in the human members of the church in spite of the resurrection and ascension. For this reason they believe that actual infallibility cannot exist in the church any more than actual sinlessness, although she represents the body of Christ and there is nothing higher on earth. For the Protestant it is also a question of being faithful to Christ when he bases the unity of the church only on the Word and Sacraments and not on an infallible teaching office, and when he tries to realize this unity by working together with different churches. The Protestant cannot submit himself to the Pope for reasons of faith, just as the Catholic church cannot join the World Council of Churches on the same basis as the non-Roman churches, that is, on the basis of equality. The Roman Catholic church would no longer be the Roman Catholic church, and the Pope would no longer be the Pope, if he were to sit down to negotiate at the same table with the oriental Patriarchs, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the evangelical Bishop Dibelius, Pastor Boegner, or President F. C. Frye, without presiding; otherwise he would implicitly admit that God had not appointed him to be sovereign.

…what prevents the Protestants from returning to Rome is primarily the Roman concept of the church, of infallibility, of unity, just as our concept of the church and her unity must prevent the Catholic church from recognizing the Protestant churches as legitimate churches. At best, the Catholics are able to find “traces” (vestigia) of a church in us.

We must face up to this painful situation; it does not help to have illusions at this point. From a human point of view (we must always make this qualification) the unity of the church is no longer possible as far as Catholics and Protestants are concerned, unless the Catholics submit to the Protestant concept of the church or the Protestants to the Catholic concept. Either possibility would mean the disappearance of one or the other — and thus has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

(Oscar Cullmann, Message to Catholics and Protestants, trans. Joseph A. Burgess, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1959], pp. 19, 20-21, 22-23.)

Oscar Cullmann:

…the Catholic church would not have to recognize our Protestant churches as legitimate churches; we know that they cannot because of their idea of the church. And we Protestants would in no way have to recognize the Catholic claim as compatible with the gospel; we cannot because of our faith. What we can do and to a large extent already practice is this: we can recognize one another as brothers in Christ — in the same Christ, our mutual Lord.

(Oscar Cullmann, Message to Catholics and Protestants, trans. Joseph A. Burgess, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1959], p. 36.)

John 10:16:

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold [αὐλῆς]; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice; and they will become one flock [ποίμνη], with one shepherd.

(New American Standard Bible.)

James Montgomery Boice:

The church about which Christ was speaking is not an organization (though it obviously has organized parts) but rather the entire company of those who have the Lord Jesus Christ as their shepherd. Thus, the unity comes not from forcing all the sheep into one great organization, but in the fact that all have heard Jesus and have left lesser loyalties to follow him. Moreover, to the degree that they do follow him, a visible (though not necessarily structural) unity follows.

The question is, Do we truly have or acknowledge such unity? We often do not. The error of the older Roman Catholic Church is in supposing that the Holy Spirit must work along ecclesiastical lines. It is a real error. But although it expresses itself differently, the same error often exists within Protestantism. The problem is not so much that there are different denominations within Protestantism. People are different, and there is no reason why there ought not to be different organizations with different forms of service and church government to express those differences. To insist that there must be one Protestant denomination (which some in the ecumenical movement insist on) is a similar error.

The real problem is that believers in one denomination refuse to cooperate with believers in another denomination, justifying their noncooperation on grounds that other Christians are somehow contaminated by their associations or are disobeying the Lord by remaining in their church or are not actually Christians. That attitude is a great hindrance to the advance of the gospel in the world today. Moreover, it is sin, and we will not have great revival until believers repent of that sin and ask God to cleanse them of it.

What are we to conclude about the church on the basis of these and other biblical passages? We can say:

1. There is one church to which all who confess Jesus as Lord and Savior belong. All who are Christians are one with all other Christians and should acknowledge that to be true, even though the other believer is wrong about or denies what we consider to be important doctrines.

2. Nothing in the Bible tells us that there should be or even that we should desire to have one all-encompassing organization. Instead we may expect God to call people to faith within various organizations and lead believers into Christian service within those or other organizations. We dare not say that another believer is out of God’s will because he or she is serving somewhere else.

3. God’s people need one another and must learn from one another, whether Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Methodists, independents or members of any other denomination. It does not mean that each of us will therefore think those other believers are completely right in church matters or even in doctrine—we do not dare say that we are totally right—but it does mean that we need to learn something about the body of Christ and receive help for the body of Christ from many Christians.

4. Because of the love which is to bind the true church together, we also have an obligation to demonstrate that love-unity tangibly, over and above denominational programs and concerns. To do so is the indispensable basis for our mission. “By this [your love for one another] all men will know that you are my disciples,” said Jesus (Jn. 13:35).

(James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology: Revised in One Volume, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986], pp. 570-572.)

G. C. Berkouwer:

Because of the nature of the Church, as described in the gospel, one could take unity for granted, not in a simplistic or trivial sense, but because the being of the Church, as willed by God, implies unity. This is so clear from the entire New Testament that all disunity, rupture, and schism within Christ’s Church, which is His body, appear to be ridiculous and impossible. The New Testament does speak in the plural of “churches” (ekklēsiai), but that does not signify any rupture or disunity, since different groups of believers in different places are meant; they together form the Church of Christ (cf. Gal. 1:2; Acts 15:41; 16:5, etc.). It is a unity that cannot be affected by any “diaspora.” The light of grace and of reconciliation falls on this one Church. She has not arisen from her own initiative, but has been called, gathered, and chosen as the people of God, obtained by the blood of the cross (cf. Acts 20:28). Who can think here of multiplicity, of many churches, or of divided churches?

…The extreme concentration and responsibility of the Church’s whole life does not require a forced, unattractive uniformity (in place of “pluriformity”). The Lord of the Church Who is the Shepherd of the flock, knows all the sheep — in all variation, in need and threat, and in the dangers of doubt and temptation. In only one thing are they “uniform”: He cares for them all, in their individuality, their history, their problems, their time, their cares, their new tasks, their gifts, and their lacks. This care makes room for an unexpected, enriching pluriformity, which is manifold and inexhaustible; and here there is room for all of Kuyper’s fascinating images. Yet this pluriformity is possible only within the one fellowship, within which the possibilities of all times, lands, and circumstances are unlimited. Because the many questions today are so different and complicated, there cannot be uniformity in all solutions. But “pluralism” in various provisional solutions is subject to “necessity” as the decisive aspect of the good Shepherd’s messianic life-work. The necessity was related to a new reality, to deep fellowship in Him: “I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16). Whoever abstracts in this pluralism even for an instant from the necessity of Christ’s bringing the others must despair of unity and fellowship in the Church, since there is so much variation in the many problems that face the Church. That can make us so anxious that we end up quite removed from Paul’s calm statement in a concrete situation: “and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you” (Phil. 3:15f. — ei ti hetérōs phroneite). This calm can only be recovered when we bear in mind that Paul begins by holding true to what has been attained (3:16) — not as absolute solutions, and not as if it had been made his own already, but as having been made Christ Jesus’s own, and thus of pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God (3:13f.). Here is where the light shines in all pluriformity, and this pluriformity must be preserved and protected in the reality of an unassailable fellowship.

(G. C. Berkouwer, The Church, Studies in Dogmatics, trans. E. Davison, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1976], pp. 30, 75-76.)

G. W. Bromiley:

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], pp. 75-77.)

Stanley J. Grenz:

(Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], pp. 16-17.)

Cf. J. I. Packer:

What brings salvation, after all, is not any theory about faith in Christ, justification, and the church, but faith itself in Christ himself.

(J. I. Packer, “Why I Signed ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together;’” In: Christianity Today, December 12, 1994.) Preview.

J. I. Packer:

6. Appendix: The Purpose of Reformation. Return to Outline.

G. C. Berkouwer:

Whenever we thus occupy ourselves with the Roman Catholic Church we must keep in mind that we may not adopt a negative attitude, a barren anti-papism. The note of anti is sounded in the Reformation, but this anti is positive, not negative. Every kind of Protestantism that stands merely in a protest-relationship is stricken with unfruitfulness.

(G. C. Berkouwer, Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought, trans. J. J. Lamberts, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1961], pp. 9-10.)

E.g. Cornelius Van Til:

The principle of “free will” was so precious to the Church of Rome that it was willing to make an evil alliance with Greece in order to defend it. The Church of Rome loved Aristotle almost as much as Christ. …Like the Church of Rome the Remonstrants too loved the freedom or autonomy of man almost as well as they loved Christ. Like the Church of Rome the Remonstrants were blind to the fact that with their commitment to their notion of the freedom of man they were in effect also committing themselves to a view of reality as a whole that excludes the truth of the whole Christian scheme of things.

(Cornelius Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace: An Appraisal of G. C. Berkouwer’s View of Dordt, [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1975], pp. 12, 13.)

Note: Van Til serves as an exemplar of the “unfruitfulness” Berkouwer spoke of.

Cf. Stephen Williams:

Such an identification of perceived theological error with spiritual unfaithfulness contrasts strikingly with Berkouwet’s own attitude in theological debate, clear as he could be in riposte when it was needed.

(Stephen Williams, “Observations on the Future of System;” In: Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, ed. A. T. B. McGowan, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006], p. 63 fn. 50.)

Cf. Eduardo Echeverria:

Its unfruitfulness stems partly from its working with caricatures, bypassing the real differences, and hence the real controversy, between Catholicism and Protestantism.

(Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions, Studies in Reformed Theology: Volume 24, [Leiden: Brill, 2013], p. 29.)

G. C. Berkouwer:

Anti-Catholicism [or anti-Protestantism] is a slippery phenomenon, hardly susceptible of definition, but it does have this characteristic, that it is unreceptive to any corrections in the caricature that it fights because it fears that correcting the caricature will mean a weakening of its own negative position. Anti-Catholicism [or anti-Protestantism], with all its apparent emotional force, is powerless to make a contribution to the controversy between Rome and the Reformation. We need not guess as to the psychological background to anti-Catholicism [or anti-Protestantism] with its caricatures, but we can say that it offers a weak response to the challenge since it refuses to understand the opponent by means of an objective analysis. Anti-Catholicism usually concentrates on certain practices of the Roman Church, without keeping in mind other practices of other churches, and tries to get at the essence of the Church through observation of these practices. Anti-Catholics therefore are a priori skeptical of any talk of attempts at renewal of the Catholic Church.

The emotional anti-Catholic [or anti-Protestantism] feels uncomfortable in a new situation in which by means of new confrontations and new investigations into exegesis and dogmatics the controversy is stripped of its simplistic forms. Many Protestants [and Roman Catholics] suspect that by taking these confrontations seriously, we may water down the differences and lose some of the old convictions of the struggle. These people forget that the Reformers expressed their convictions in earnest religious discussions by means of which they sought to set the controversy clearly within the actual situation. Responsible encounter is not a sign of weakness; it is rather a recognition of the seriousness of the division of the Church. Aware of the seriousness of the situation, we can follow the progress of the council with intense interest and take full account of all efforts at renewal going on in the Roman Church. To count all this as worthless because of the unchangeability of Catholicism would be irresponsible.

(G. C. Berkouwer, The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism, trans. Lewis B. Smedes, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1965], pp. 29-30.) [brackets are mine]

Note: Berkouwer’s criticism of anti-Catholicism applies just as readily to anti-Protestantism.

Cf. Eduardo Echeverria:

…what Berkouwer says about anti-Catholicism applies with equal force to Contra-Reformation anti-Protestantism.

(Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions, Studies in Reformed Theology: Volume 24, [Leiden: Brill, 2013], p. 29.)

G. C. Berkouwer:

In Rome’s view the happiness and the true future of any nation are insolubly bound up with the Roman claim that the Catholica is the only church of Jesus Christ on earth.

For this reason every nation is called upon to return to the Mother Church, which offers a way of escape in our chaotic times and in the unceasing process of the demonization of life. Rome alleges it can provide the counter forces against this ever extending corruption.

Our present concern is with Rome’s claim that it is the only church, a claim which is of a religious character.

(Gerrit C. Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, trans. David H. Freeman, [Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1958], p. 4.)

Cf. Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom:

For Catholics, the church constitutes believers; for evangelicals, believers constitute the church. For Catholics, individual believers are a function of the church; for evangelicals, the church is a function of individual believers.

(Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 238.)

7. Appendix: Dialogue and the Necessity of Humility and Love. Return to Outline.

Flannery O’Connor:

Conviction without experience makes for harshness.

(Flannery O’Connor, Letter, “To. A.,” Milledgeville, 28 August, 1955; In: Flannery O’Connor, Collected Works, ed. Sally Fitzgerald, [New York: The Library of America, 1988], p. 949. Cf. Flannery O’Connor, The Habit of Being, ed. Sally Fitzgerald, [New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1979], p. 97.)

Gavin Ortlund:

…one short definition of humility is “teachableness.” A humble person is capable of being instructed. Being taught requires humility because it requires admitting you don’t yet know that which you are learning.

No matter how old we are, how much we’ve studied, or how much experience we have, we will always be learning and growing. Therefore, we must remain teachable for our entire lives. Interestingly, we often learn the most from unlikely sources—from people we are tempted to look down on or people who are very different from us.

(Gavin Ortlund, Humility: The Joy of Self-Forgetfulness, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2023], pp. 77-78.)

Gavin Ortlund:

…the divisiveness surrounding a doctrine involves not merely its content but also the attitude with which it is held. The greatest impediment to theological triage is not a lack of theological skill or savvy but a lack of humility. A lack of skill can simply be the occasion for growth and learning, but when someone approaches theological disagreement with a self-assured, haughty spirit that has only answers and no questions, conflict becomes virtually inevitable.

Therefore, we must engage those with whom we have theological disagreements with humility, asking questions to make sure we understand, remembering that we don’t see things perfectly, and always seeking to grow in understanding where we may have blind spots. Our attitude toward theology should be, and should always remain, like the Old Breton prayer inscribed on a block of wood on John F. Kennedy’s desk: “O God, thy sea is so great, and my boat is so small.”

(Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020], pp. 146-147.)

John Stott:

So then, although it is right to glory in the givenness and finality of God’s revelation, it is also right to confess our ignorance of many things. We know and we don’t know. ‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may follow all the words of this law.’ It is very important to maintain this distinction between the revealed things and the secret things, for then we shall be confident, even dogmatic, about the former, which belong to us, while remaining agnostic about the latter, which belong to God. Then too we will be free to explore the revealed things, and firm in not trespassing into God’s secrets. Conversely, while holding ourselves in check before the secret things, we must not be diffident in believing, expounding and defending what God has disclosed. I would like to see among us more boldness in proclaiming what has been revealed, and more reticence before what has been kept secret. Agreement in plainly revealed truth will be necessary for unity, even while we give each other liberty in the area of the adiaphora, the ‘matters indifferent’. The criterion for discerning these will be when Christians who are equally anxious to be submissive to Scripture nevertheless reach different conclusions about them. I am thinking, for example, about controversies over baptism, church government, liturgy and ceremonial, charismatic claims and the fulfilment of prophecy.

(John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992], pp. 384-385.)

Timothy Keller:

The kingdom of God is already here, but not yet in its fullness. We must not underestimate how present the kingdom of God is, but we must also not underestimate how unrealized it is, how much it exists only in the future. Because the kingdom is present partially but not fully, we must expect substantial healing but not total healing in all areas of life. . . . God has spoken. In a time in which many insist that no one can know any truth for certain, our King has given us his Word. But on the other hand, we must be humble about our ability to understand the Word perfectly. In those areas where Christians cannot agree, we should be less triumphalistic. The “not yet” means more charity in nonessentials, more humility and dialogue and tolerance and openness in areas of disagreement.

(Timothy Keller, Hope in Times of Fear: The Resurrection and the Meaning of Easter, [New York: Viking, 2021], pp. 29, 29-30.)

Wayne Grudem:

…it is important that we criticize people on the basis of views they actually hold, and distinguish those views clearly from positions we think they would hold if they were consistent with their stated views.

(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994], pp. 100-101 fn. 13.)

John Stott:

Life is a pilgrimage of learning, a voyage of discovery, in which our mistaken views are corrected, our distorted notions adjusted, our shallow opinions deepened and some of our vast ignorances diminished.

(John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, [Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2008], p. 12.)

John Stott:

Dialogue is a token of genuine Christian love, because it indicates our steadfast resolve to rid our minds of the prejudices and caricatures which we may entertain about other people; to struggle to listen through their ears and look through their eyes…

(John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, [Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2008], p. 86.)

George MacDonald:

When I am successful in any argument, my one dread is of humiliating my opponent. Indeed I cannot bear it. It humiliates me. And if you want him to think about anything, you must leave him room, and not give him such associations with the question that the very idea of it will be painful and irritating to him. Let him have a hand in the convincing of himself. I have been surprised sometimes to see my own arguments come up fresh and green, when I thought the fowls of the air had devoured them up. When a man reasons for victory and not for the truth in the other soul, he is sure of just one ally, the same that Faust had in fighting Gretchen’s brother—that is, the Devil. But God and good men are against him. So I never follow up a victory of that kind, for, as I said, the defeat of the intellect is not the object in fighting with the sword of the Spirit, but the acceptance of the heart.

(George Macdonald, Annals of a Quiet Neighbourhood, [New York: George Routledge and Sons, 1873], Chapter IV: The Coffin, pp. 46-47.)

John Stott:

People who disagree with one another usually avoid one another. They keep apart, and then they write books against one another and lob hand grenades at one another across no man’s land. Then a grotesque image of that person develops in my mind, and I can clearly see his image, his horns and hoof and tail. This develops within my mind when he is thousands of miles away. But once we have the courage to meet one another and look one another in the face and listen to one another, we discover to our surprise that he is a human being. And not only a human being but a brother or sister in the Lord, and even reasonable!

(John Stott, Problems of Christian Leadership, [Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2014], pp. 57-58.)

John R. W. Stott:

Faith gives freedom; love limits its exercise. No-one has put it better than Rupert Meldenius: In essentials unity; In non-essentials liberty; In all things charity.

(John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: Revised Edition, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020], p. 380.) Preview.

H. Norman Wright:

Since the Word of God calls each believer to be a ready listener, we must understand what it means to listen. There is a difference between listening and hearing. Hearing is basically to gain content or information for your own purpose. In hearing, you are concerned about what is going on inside you during the conversation. You are tuned in to your own reactions, responses, thoughts, and feelings.

…Listening means caring for and empathizing with the person you are listening to. In listening, you are trying to understand the thoughts and feelings of the speaker. You are listening for the person’s sake, not your own. You are not thinking about what you are going to say when the speaker stops talking. You are not engrossed in formulating your own response. You are concentrating on what is being said.

(H. Norman Wright, Recovering from Losses in Life, [Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 2006], pp. 196, 197.)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

There is a kind of listening with half an ear that presumes already to know what the other person has to say. It is an impatient, inattentive listening, that despises the brother and is only waiting for a chance to speak and thus get rid of the other person. This is no fulfillment of our obligation, and it is certain that here too our attitude toward our brother only reflects our relationship to God. It is little wonder that we are no longer capable of the greatest service of listening that God has committed to us, that of hearing our brother’s confession, if we refuse to give ear to our brother on lesser subjects. Secular education today is aware that often a person can be helped merely by having someone who will listen to him seriously, and upon this insight it has constructed its own soul therapy, which has attracted great numbers of people, including Christians. But Christians have forgotten that the ministry of listening has been committed to them by Him who is Himself the great listener and whose work they should share. We should listen with the ears of God that we may speak the Word of God.

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. John W. Doberstein, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954], pp. 98-99.)

Gavin Ortlund:

1. Humility actually values the input of the speaker. It is not simply waiting until he or she is done to talk again. It approaches conversation more like a dance than a lecture, and as an opportunity to show love.

2. Humility refrains from too quickly arriving at a judgment. It feels no need to interpret and categorize others’ words immediately. It is not threatened by the tension of uncertainty, learning, and growth. It is willing to patiently wrestle with new information. It heeds the wonderful counsel of James: “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak” (James 1:19).

3. Humility does not filter information through its own previous categories. It does not assume that one idea is identical to another just because it is similar. It can make fine distinctions and appreciate the little nuances of a speaker’s perspective.

4. Humility considers someone’s speech in relation to that person’s presuppositions. It asks, “How does this make sense to him?” and genuinely seeks to understand a different perspective on its own terms. It moves toward the speaker and exerts energy in trying to understand her.

5. Humility is not controlling. It doesn’t need to run every conversation. It gives the speaker unhurried, unthreatened space in which to operate. It may sit in silence in one moment; in another, it may ask probing questions to draw the speaker out.

(Gavin Ortlund, Humility: The Joy of Self-Forgetfulness, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2023], pp. 28-29.)

Christian Smith:

Establishing difference from others is a primary way that people and groups come to understand their own identities and continue to mobilize resources. Having an “other” from whom one is different helps one to know who one is and why one is committed to that particular self. …building in-group identity and commitment through difference from out-groups has the almost inevitable effect of each group ceasing to take the substantive claims and positions of those out-groups seriously. The point becomes not to understand the other’s reasons, perspectives, and beliefs, or to honor them as fellow believers and come to a deeper understanding and perhaps resolution of differences. The point, rather, is to remain on guard from being contaminated by the out-group or allowing them to grow in influence. And in that process the other is very easily turned into an impersonal, two-dimensional caricature. Out-groups are reduced to an abstract “them” whose beliefs are abridged into a few bullet points of greatest disagreement, which need not actually be taken seriously on their own terms but rather simply need to be refuted and discredited as a means to validate the views of one’s own group. In this way, differences between Christian groups cease to be existentially troubling facts that divide Christians. Instead they become dismissible ideas of people far away, ideas already known to be wrong.

(Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture, [Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2011], pp. 62, 63.)

Gavin Ortlund:

…our love of theology should never exceed our love of real people, and therefore we must learn to love people amid our theological disagreements. …Much doctrinal separatism stems from finding our identity in our theological distinctives when we should be finding it in the gospel. …We know there is a spirit of self-justification about our theology when we feel superior to Christians from other tribes and groups, or when a particular believer, church, or group unduly annoys us. It is one thing to disagree with another Christian. That is inevitable to anyone who thinks. It is another thing when our disagreement takes an attitude of contempt, condescension, or undue suspicion toward those with whom we disagree. If our identity is riding on our differences with other believers, we will tend to major in the study of differences. We may even find ourselves looking for faults in others in order to define ourselves.

(Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020], pp. 36-37, 42, 42.)

Collin Hansen:

It’s so easy to see the fault in someone else or in another group but so difficult to see the limitations in ourselves. Unless you learn to see the faults in yourself and your heroes, though, you can’t appreciate how God has gifted other Christians. Only then can you understand that Jesus died for this body, which only accepts the sick. Only then can we together meet the challenges of our rapidly changing age.

(Collin Hansen, Blind Spots: Becoming a Courageous, Compassionate, and Commissioned Church, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2015], p. 26.) Preview.

Christian Smith:

…beliefs are always set in historical, sociological, and psychological contexts…

(Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture, [Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2011], p. 64.)

Note: This includes not only the beliefs of others but also my own.

John Paul II:

Love for the truth is the deepest dimension of any authentic quest for full communion between Christians. Without this love it would be impossible to face the objective theological, cultural, psychological and social difficulties which appear when disagreements are examined. This dimension, which is interior and personal, must be inseparably accompanied by a spirit of charity and humility. There must be charity toward one’s partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes.

(John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 36.2; In: The Encyclicals of John Paul II, ed. J. Michael Miller, C.S.B., [Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996], p. 936.)

John Newton:

Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge, rather than to repress this wrong disposition; and, therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savour of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

(John Newton, Forty-One Letters on Religious Subjects, Letter XIX: On Controversy; In: The Works of the Rev. John Newton: Complete in Two Volumes: Vol. I, [Philadelphia: Uriah Hunt, 1839], p. 155.)

Richard Baxter:

They are dangerously mistaken that think that Satan hath but one way to mens damnation. There are as many wayes to Hell, as there be to the extinguishing of Love. And all tendeth unto this, which tendeth to hide or deny the Loveliness, that is, the Goodness, of them whom I must Love: much more that which representeth them as odious. And there are many pretenses and wayes to make my neighbour seem unlovely to me: One doth it as effectually by unjust or unproved accusations of ungodliness, or saying, Their worship is Antichristian, formal, ridiculous, vain; as another doth by unjust and unproved accusations of Schism, Disobedience or Sedition. And they that love Godliness, may be tempted to cast off their love of their Neighbours, yea of the truly Godly, when they once believe that they are ungodly. …Satan will pretend to any sort of strictness, by which he can but mortifie Love. If you can devise any fuch strictness of opinions, or exactness in Church orders, or strictness in worship, as will but help to kill mens love, and set the Churches in divisions, Satan will be your helper, and will be the strictest and exactest of you all: he will reprove Christ as a Sabbath-breaker, and as a gluttenous person, and a Wine-bibber, and a friend (or Companion) of Publicans and Sinners, and as an enemy to Cæsar too. We are not altogether ignorant of his wiles, as young unexperienced Christians are. You think when a wrathful envious heat is kindled in you against men for their faults, that it is certainly a zeal of Gods exciting: But mark whether it have not more wrath than Love in it: and whether it tend not more to disgrace your brother than to cure him, or to make parties and divisions, than to heal them: If it be so, if St. James be not deceived, you are deceived as to the author of your zeal, Jam. 3. 15, 16. and it hath a worse Original than you suspect.

(Richard Baxter, The Cure of Church-Divisions: The Third Edition, [London: Nevil Symmons, 1670], “The Authors I. Purpose, II. Reasons and III. Prognosticks of this Book,” 1.2.6.)

Charles Spurgeon:

Where the Spirit of God is there must be love, and if I have once known and recognised any man to be my brother in Christ Jesus, the love of Christ constraineth me no more to think of him as a stranger or foreigner, but a fellow citizen with the saints. Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his High Churchism, but I love George Herbert from, my very soul, and I have a warm comer in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. Here is George Fox, the Quaker, a strange sort of body it is true, going about the world making much noise and stir; but I love the man with all my soul, because he had an awful respect for the presence of God and an intense love for everything spiritual. How is it that I cannot help loving George Herbert and George Fox, who are in some things complete opposites? Because they both loved, the Master. I will defy you, if you have any love to Jesus Christ to pick or choose among his people; you may hate as much as you will the shells, in which the pearls lie, and the dross with which the gold is mixed, but the true, the precious blood-bought gold, the true pearl, heaven-dyed, you must esteem. You must love a spiritual man find him wherever you may. Such love does exist among the people of God, and if anybody says it does not, I can only fear that the speaker is unfit to judge. If I come across a man in whom there is the Spirit of Christ, I must love him, and if I did not I should prove I was not in the unity at all.

(C. H. Spurgeon, “Unity in Christ,” n. 668, January 7th, 1886; In: The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Volume 12.)

Gavin Ortlund:

Kindness and civility are becoming scarce these days. More and more, outrage is the norm. Therefore, we can testify to the truth of the gospel by speaking with kindness and moderation as we navigate our theological disagreements. Go out of your way to show love and respect to the other person, even when that person infuriates you.

(Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020], p. 151.)

Peter Enns:

It has been my experience that sometimes our first impulse is to react to new ideas and vilify the person holding them, not considering that person’s Christian character. We jump to conclusions and assume the worst rather than hearing—really hearing—each other out. What would be a breath of fresh air, not to mention a testimony to those around us, is to see an atmosphere, a culture, among conservative, traditional, orthodox Christians that models basic principles of the gospel:

Humility on the part of scholars to be sensitive to how others will hear them and on the part of those whose preconceptions are being challenged.
Love that assumes the best of brothers and sisters in Christ, not that looks for any difference of opinion as an excuse to go on the attack.
Patience to know that no person or tradition is beyond correction, and therefore no one should jump to conclusions about another’s motives.

How we carry on this very important conversation is a direct result of why. Ultimately, it is not about us, but about God. We must be very careful not to confuse God’s kingdom with our own. We do not engage in biblical study to build our own private kingdoms; we do so because God in Christ has allowed us to co-labor with him in a kingdom he has already built.

(Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], pp. 172-173.)

N. T. Wright:

…the knower never knows in isolation. All serious academic study takes place in the context of a community of knowers. …True wisdom is both bold and humble. It is never afraid to say what it thinks it has seen, but will always covet other angles of vision.

(N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues, [New York: HarperOne, 2014], p. 147.)

Michael F. Bird:

…biblical interpretation is useless, futile, and even offensive to God when it is divorced from the virtue of love. For where there are Greek nouns and Hebrew verbs, they will be parsed and will pass. Where there are dictionaries of theology, they will soon be dated. Where there are theological tongues flapping about the minutiae of doctrine, they will be stilled. Where there are arguments over points of doctrine, they will be drowned out by the symphony of God’s glory. In my experience, people are less likely to remember your exegesis, your sermon, or your Bible study than they are to remember your love for them or lack of love toward them. Your demonstration of love is the greatest sermon you will ever preach and the most lasting sermon anyone will ever remember. Or as John Wesley said, the Christian life is “the royal way of universal love.”

(Michael F. Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew About the Bible, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2021], p. 164.)

Cf. John Wesley:

And now run the race which is set before thee, in the royal way of universal love. Take heed, lest thou be either wavering in thy judgement, or straitened in thy bowels: but keep an even pace, rooted in the faith once delivered to the saints, and grounded in love, in true catholic love, till thou art swallowed up in love for ever and ever!

(John Wesley, “Catholic Spirit;” In: Wesley’s Standard Sermons: Volume II, ed. Edward H. Sugden, [London: The Epworth Press, 1964], Sermon XXXIV, p. 146.)

John H. Walton:

“FAITHFUL” RATHER THAN “RIGHT”

Note that I frame this quest by the word faithful—not by the word right. People who take the Bible seriously have perhaps spent too much time and energy trying to insist that their interpretation is right and the interpretations of others are wrong. This is not to say that interpretations cannot be right or wrong. Nevertheless, in the cases of the most controversial issues, “right” is precisely what is under discussion. Everyone cannot be right, but we should recognize what commends one interpretation over another. That is why I have framed this as “faithful” interpretation. Our methodology should be faithful even though sometimes we might arrive at different answers.

Simply put, an interpretation is the result of identifying evidence (for example, linguistic, literary, historical, theological, cultural) and assessing that evidence, then applying it to a base of presuppositions one holds. Such presuppositions may pertain to what readers believe about the Bible or to the theology they deduce from the Bible. They may be presuppositions held consciously, by choice, or subconsciously, adopted through long years of passive reception and tradition. In the process, interpreters prioritize and shape the various pieces of evidence to accord with their presuppositions and cultural locations to arrive at an interpretation. That interpretation, then, reflects what the interpreters consider having the strongest evidence in light of their governing presuppositions.

Unfortunately, it is common for all of us to consider the interpretation that we prefer, given our perspectives and presuppositions, as simply “right.” It is logical to conclude that the interpretation with the strongest evidence carries the highest probability. But for another reader who has different presuppositions, or who prioritizes the evidence differently, or who is not persuaded that one piece of evidence is legitimate, a different interpretation will take pride of place and be considered as having the strongest evidence.

Using the adjective “faithful” instead of “right” humbly recognizes that we all fall into the pitfalls of blind presuppositions and overlooked evidence. We can only seek to be as faithful as possible. No interpreter is infallible. Maybe sometimes we will even be right, but that is not our claim to make. Certain interpretations may be disproved by evidence, but interpretations cannot be proved true. Evidence supports an interpretation and therefore lends it a higher degree of probability. The greater the evidence that supports a particular interpretation, the higher the probability we are understanding God’s message, and the higher our confidence in our conclusions can be.

(John H. Walton, Wisdom for Faithful Reading: Principles and Practices for Old Testament Interpretation, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023], pp. 4-5.) Preview.

Francis A. Schaeffer:

…In the less important differences we show more love toward true Christians, but as the difference gets into more important areas, we tend to show less love. The reverse must be the case: As the differences among true Christians get greater, we must consciously love and show a love which has some manifestation the world may see.

So let us consider this: is my difference with my brother in Christ really crucially important? If so, it is doubly important that I spend time upon my knees asking the Holy Spirit, asking Christ, to do his work through me and my group, that I and we might show love even in this larger difference that we have come to with a brother in Christ or with another group of true Christians.

(Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1970], pp. 27-28.)

Cf. Francis A. Schaeffer:

What then shall we conclude but that as the Samaritan loved the wounded man, we as Christians are called upon to love all men as neighbors, loving them as ourselves. Second, that we are to love all true Christian brothers in a way that the world may observe. This means showing love to our brothers in the midst of our differences—great or small—loving our brothers when it costs us something, loving them even under times of tremendous emotional tension, loving them in a way the world can see. In short, we are to practice and exhibit the holiness of God and the love of God, for without this we grieve the Holy Spirit.

Love—and the unity it attests to—is the mark Christ gave Christians to wear before the world. Only with this mark may the world know that Christians are indeed Christians and that Jesus was sent by the Father.

(Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1970], p. 35.)

8. Endnotes. Return to Outline.

[1.] Francis Turretin:

XIV. Hence we properly gather that Roman baptism is not to be repeated. (1) The essence of baptism still remains entire in it. (2) The power and efficacy of baptism do not depend on an erring minister or heretic, but on Christ (Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:5). (3) There are still remains of the church in the papacy (Rev. 18:4) and God has not yet wholly left that church. Now baptism is proper to the church and is administered for him, although by very corrupt ministers.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1997], 19.18.14, p. 409.)

Francis Turretin:

XXVII. The verity of baptism proves indeed that truth of a church with regard to Christianity in general, in opposition to assemblies of unbelievers; but not with regard to Christianity pure and purged from the errors of heretics.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1997], 18.14.27, pp. 135-136.)

Francis Turretin:

XXXIII. It is rightly said that the church before the Reformation was in the papacy and the papacy in the church in diverse respects. The church was in the papacy as to external form, inasmuch as it lay concealed under that deformed and corrupt surface; while the papacy was in the church because as an accident attached to and corruptive of the subject, it adhered to it. Hence we must accurately distinguish between the church which is in the papacy and the papacy itself. The papacy was indeed in the church, but was not the church itself, only an ulcer and a gangrene feeding upon it. And the pious who lived under the papacy remained, it is true, as to place and seat in that assembly; but not as papal and Antichristian. They who seceded, seceded only from the papacy and not from the church.

XXXIV. Although the external appearance of the church as to polity and external rights and form of government was different in the church which preceded the Reformation from that Reformed church which exists today, it does not follow that it was a different church from ours as to essentials, because the former (which are circumstantial and accidental) do not take away or establish the essential truth and unity of the church; nor does external union or disagreement as to them make its identity or diversity.

XXXV. The things which pertain to the essence of the church must not be confounded with those which belong to its external state and form. That is immutable and always continues the same. This, however, can be changed in different ways. The essence of the church consists in this—that it is one body composed of many believers united together in communion and worship of the true God under one Christ, their Mediator and head. This being removed, the church is removed; without it the church cannot be and with it, it cannot but be. The state, however, according to which it can be changed, is placed in all those things which depend upon a different disposition of times, places and persons. For example, to have the bodily presence of Christ, to have apostles and evangelists for their pastors, to enjoy the gift of miracles and the like, is the state of the primitive church, but a state which was changed in subsequent ages. To have pastors distinguished and remarkable for zeal, knowledge and piety; to be tranquil and conspicuous without persecution, without schism, without error, is the state in which the church was and can be, but neither always, nor everywhere, nor with respect to all the persons of whom it is composed, but only sometimes, somewhere and with respect to certain persons. Thus the multitude, external splendor, peace and freedom of profession, visibility of assemblies, purity of ministry, and form of government and of discipline are things which belong not to the essence of the church, but to her state (of which she can be deprived either wholly or in part and yet not totally fail). Therefore, although our church could be changed as to these things in various ways, still it always remained the same as to essence. Nor can novelty in this respect be objected against her, unless it is proved (which can never be done) that our society and faith are essentially different from those which Christ and his apostles founded in the beginning and which have continued even up to this time and that something is wanting to her which is necessary to the constitution of the church.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1997], 18.10.33-35, pp. 68-69.)

Cf. Francis Turretin:

XXIV. (1) It is one thing to retain the foundation alone without addition, the whole without subtraction, the pure and untouched without corruption; another to retain it mixed, mutilated and adulterated. The church which retains the foundation in the former sense is a true church, but not that which only in the latter, as the church of Rome, which, although professing to retain the foundation, retains it neither alone (because beside the fundamental heads concerning which we are agreed, very many other articles are added by our opponents as to belief and practice, and are commanded as necessary as to faith and morals under pain of a curse); nor whole because they withdraw various heads; nor pure (because in different ways they corrupt it). But what good is it to retain certain heads of Christianity if others of Antichristianity are added; and to appoint salutary foods if they are mixed with an added poison; to hold certain truths but many more erroneously? (2) It is one thing to retain something of the true church; another to be the true church simply; as it is one thing for the body to have some sound parts, another for the body to be sound simply. The Pharisaic church retained something of the true church in the time of Christ, nor yet on that account was she a true church. The same is the judgment concerning the Arian, Donatist and other factions whose baptism and ordinations the Catholics never repeated.

XXV. It is one thing to retain the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the decalogue, in which the substance of the Christian religion is contained, with a literal faith only, but not with a mental faith; with the mouth and as to words and profession. But it is another to retain with a sincere heart as to meaning and truth. The church of Rome can be said to hold these in the former, not in the latter way (about which she greatly errs in the exposition of these heads). Nor does the consequence hold good from the profession of all the articles of the Apostles’ Creed to the truth of the church, not even according to the Romanists, who are unwilling that we should be a true church, although we receive the whole Creed; nor are the Socinians considered a true church either by the Romanists or by us, although they profess the Creed, because they retain it in words, not in meaning.

XXVI. If some of our divines have said that the fundamentals remain in the papacy, they did not on that account think that the Roman church is a true church in which salvation can be obtained—the contrary of which they maintained with so much zeal, urging secession from her as a thing of the highest necessity for salvation. But thus they wished only to demonstrate the verity of our faith from this—that nothing is believed by us as to articles purely affirmative, which is not equally retained by the Romanists. So that on this account, it is not necessary to trouble ourselves with proving our faith, which is not controverted by our opponents. Although concerning other things they maintain that there is a great difference both in the mode in which these fundamentals are retained by each and in the negative articles in which we differ in all respects (dis dia pasōn).

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1997], 18.14.24-26, p. 135.) Return to Article.

[2.] John Calvin:

But what arrogance, you will say, to boast that you alone are the Church, and to deny it to all the rest of the world! We indeed, Sadolet, do not deny that those over which you preside are Churches of Christ; but we maintain that the Roman pontiff, with all the herd of pseudo-bishops who have seized the pastor’s office, are savage wolves, whose only interest has hitherto been to scatter and trample upon the kingdom of Christ, filling it with devastation and ruin. Nor are we the first to make the complaint.

(John Calvin, “Reply by John Calvin to the letter by Cardinal Sadolet to the Senate and People of Geneva;” In: The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition: Calvin: Theological Treatises, trans. J. K. S. Reid, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954], p. 241.)

John Calvin:

The name of God is indeed called indiscriminately on all, who are deemed his people. As it was formerly given to the whole seed of Abraham, so it is at this day conferred on all who are consecrated to his name by holy baptism, and who boast themselves to be Christians and the sons of the Church; and this belongs even to the Papists.

(John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Volume Second, trans. & ed. John Owen, [Edinburg: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1851], p. 285.) See also: ccel.org.

John Calvin:

However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.2.12; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume Two, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeil, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], p. 1052.) Preview.

Cf. John T. McNeil:

An oft-quoted statement indicating Calvin’s recognition of sound elements left in the Roman communion, while the papacy as an entity is repudiated.

John T. McNeil, ed., The Library of Christian Classics: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume Two, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], p. 1052 fn. 15.) Preview.

Full. John Calvin:

Of old, certain peculiar prerogatives of the church remained among the Jews. In like manner, today we do not deprive the papists of those traces of the church which the Lord willed should among them survive the destruction. God had once for all made his covenant with the Jews, but it was not they who preserved the covenant; rather, leaning upon its own strength, it kept itself alive by struggling against their impiety. Therefore—such was the certainty and constancy of God’s goodness—the Lord’s covenant abode there. Their treachery could not obliterate his faithfulness, and circumcision could not be so profaned by their unclean hands as to cease to be the true sign and sacrament of his covenant. Whence the Lord called the children born to them his children [Ezek. 16:20-21], when these belonged to him only by a special blessing. So it was in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and England after the Lord established his covenant there. When those countries were oppressed by the tyranny of Antichrist, the Lord used two means to keep his covenant inviolable. First, he maintained baptism there, a witness to this covenant; consecrated by his own mouth, it retains its force despite the impiety of men. Secondly, by his own providence he caused other vestiges to remain, that the church might not utterly die. And just as often happens when buildings are pulled down the foundations and ruins remain, so he did not allow his church either to be destroyed to the very foundations by Antichrist or to be leveled to the ground, even though to punish the ungratefulness of men who had despised his word he let it undergo frightful shaking and shattering, but even after this very destruction willed that a half-demolished building remain.

However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them. Rather, we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine. Daniel [Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. The fact that his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that his reign was not to be such as to wipe out either the name of Christ or of the church. From this it therefore is evident that we by no means deny that the churches under his tyranny remain churches. But these he has profaned by his sacrilegious impiety, afflicted by his inhuman domination, corrupted and well-nigh killed by his evil and deadly doctrines, which are like poisoned drinks. In them Christ lies hidden, half buried, the gospel overthrown, piety scattered, the worship of God nearly wiped out. In them, briefly, everything is so confused that there we see the face of Babylon rather than that of the Holy City of God. To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of the church remain—especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devil’s wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.2.11-12; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume Two, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeil, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], pp. 1051-1053.) Preview.

Cf. John Calvin:

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 word 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 an 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? Let us remember what has already been said of the presbyters’ and bishop’s office. If we test the office of cardinals by that rule, we shall admit that they are nothing less than they are presbyters. I should like to know what one episcopal quality the pontiff himself has. The first task of the bishop’s office is to teach the people from God’s Word. The second and next is to administer the sacraments. The third is to admonish and exhort, also to correct those who sin and to keep the people under holy discipline. What of these offices does he perform? Indeed, what does he even pretend to do? Let them say, therefore, in what way they would have him regarded a bishop, who does not even in pretense touch any part of this office with his little finger.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.7.23; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume Two, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeil, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], pp. 1142-1143.) Preview.

Cf. I. John Hesselink:

…in Calvin’s various discussions of the Church of Rome he rarely, if ever, opposes a true church to a totally false church. Even where he compares a corrupt church (Rome) to the ideal church, he compares two states of the church, not two churches.

(I. John Hesselink, “Calvinus Oecumenicus—Calvin’s Vision of the Unity and Catholicity of the Church;” In: The Unity of the Church: A Theological State of the Art and Beyond, Studies in Reformed Theology: Volume 18, ed. Eduardus van der Borght, [Leiden: Brill, 2010], p. 78.)

Cf. Alexandre Ganoczy:

Let us note how Calvin turns the accusations against his adversaries but does not call them the “false Church.” Thus he agrees with Luther’s position. Even in the beginning of the epistle when he is speaking of the “poor little Church” which for centuries was mishandled and ruined by evil pastors, Calvin is careful not to oppose the “true Church” and the “false Church.” He is content to speak of the confrontation between the “pious” and the “impious” which, after all, occurs within the Church.

This way of seeing things corresponds well to what Calvin said in the first Institutes concerning the unity and the indivisibility of the catholic Church, the mystical body of Christ, the antagonism between the “kingdom of Christ” and the “papal kingdom,” and the Church’s continuity which is assured by the incorruptible sacrament of baptism. In only one place does he use the expression “the church of the Antichrist” to stigmatize those who “in the name of the Church” introduced communion in one kind; Calvin opposes them to the “apostolic Church.” But even here the context shows that he intended to compare two states, the one corrupt and the other ideal, of the same catholic Church.

(Alexandre Ganoczy, The Young Calvin, trans. David Foxgrover & Wade Provo, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987], p. 273.)

Cf. Geddes MacGregor:

…Calvin does not deny to a corrupt Church the title of Church; he distinguishes, rather, between the right and the wrong state of the Church.

(Geddes MacGregor, Corpus Christi: The Nature of the Church According to the Reformed Tradition, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958], p. 51.)

Cf. G. C. Berkouwer:

Contemporary ecclesiological discussions often appeal to Calvin in one of two ways. One person lays strong emphasis on the elements of recognition, while another points to the extremely critical elements in Calvin’s view of the Roman Church. This is a clear indication of the influence of such ecclesiological insight on the interpretation of Calvin. However, one may not approach Calvin’s statements from particular emphases and play recognition and criticism off against each other. For precisely the extremely sharp criticism makes Calvin’s recognition the more remarkable! The vestiges do not stand next to the ruins, but have reference to them. There is not simply recognition of individual belief among “the papists,” but also reflection on the Church on the basis of God’s preservation and faithfulness. Schilder said that one may not expand the vestigia which Calvin mentions to a Church; but the vestigia are vestigia ecclesiae, and Calvin denies that he is dealing here only with a reference to the “elect.” The elements of recognition in connection with the continuance of the Church are not a friendly ecumenical concession since that would be in conflict with the sharp criticism; rather, they are connected to the outlook on God’s preservation and faithfulness, in which the vestigia ecclesiae are founded.

(G. C. Berkouwer, The Church, Studies in Dogmatics, trans. E. Davison, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1976], pp. 65-66.)

Note: See further, G. C. Berkouwer, “Calvin and Rome;” In: John Calvin: Contemporary Prophet: A Symposium, ed. Jacob T. Hoogstra, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959], pp. 185ff. Return to Article.

[3.] Note: The following collection of quotations from Charles Hodge is fairly eclectic, however I wished to include them in my notes and could think of no more appropriate category to place them in.

Charles Hodge: (Letter To Pope Pius IX)

Nevertheless, although we cannot return to the fellowship of the Church of Rome, we desire to live in charity with all men. We love all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We regard as Christian brethren all who worship, love and obey him as their God and Saviour, and we hope to be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth in saying, ‘Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen’ (Rev. 1:6).

(Charles Hodge, Letter, “To Pope Pius IX,” https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2010/charles-hodges-letter-to-pope-pius-ix/. This letter can also be found in The Banner of Truth magazine, Issue 415 (April 1998), pp. 22-25.)

Charles Hodge:

The doctrine of Romanists on this subject [i.e., works not being the ground of justification] is much higher. Romanism retains the supernatural element of Christianity throughout. Indeed it is a matter of devout thankfulness to God that underneath the numerous grievous and destructive errors of the Romish Church, the great truths of the Gospel are preserved. The Trinity, the true divinity of Christ, the true doctrine concerning his person as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever; salvation through his blood, regeneration and sanctification through the almighty power of the Spirit, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life, are doctrines on which the people of God in that communion live, and which have produced such saintly men as St. Bernard, Fénélon, and doubtless thousands of others who are of the number of God’s elect. Every true worshipper of Christ must in his heart recognize as a Christian brother, wherever he may be found, any one who loves, worships, and trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh and the only Saviour of men. On the matter of justification the Romish theologians have marred and defaced the truth as they have almost all other doctrines pertaining to the mode in which the merits of Christ are made available to our salvation. They admit, indeed, that there is no good in fallen man; that he can merit nothing and claim nothing on the ground of anything he is or can do of himself. He is by nature dead in sin; and until made partaker of a new life by the supernatural power of the Holy Ghost, he can do nothing but sin. For Christ’s sake, and only through his merits, as a matter of grace, this new life is imparted to the soul in regeneration (i.e., as Romanists teach, in baptism). As life expels death; as light banishes darkness, so the entrance of this new divine life into the soul expels sin (i.e., sinful habits), and brings forth the fruits of righteousness. Works done after regeneration have real merit, “meritum condigni,” and are the ground of the second justification the first justification consisting in making the soul inherently just by the infusion of righteousness. According to this view, we are not justified by works done before regeneration, but we are justified for gracious works, i.e., for works which spring from the principle of divine life infused into the heart. The whole ground of our acceptance with God is thus made to be what we are and what we do.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], pp. 135-136.)

Charles Hodge:

The whole system, so far as it is distinctive, is a system of falsehood, or false pretensions, supported by deceit. …This qualification is necessary. Papists of course hold the truths of natural religion; and many of the distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel. This is to be acknowledged. We are not to deny that truth is truth, because held by Romanists; nor are we to deny, that where truth is, there may be its fruits. While condemning Papacy, Protestants can, and do joyfully admit that there are among Romanists such godly men as St. Bernard, Fénélon, and Pascal, and doubtless thousands more known only unto God.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], p. 817, 817 fn. 1.)

Charles Hodge:

By the Church doctrine [i.e., of the final judgment] is meant that doctrine which is held by the Church universal; by Romanists and Protestants in the West, and by the Greeks in the East. That doctrine includes the following points: —

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], p. 845.)

Charles Hodge:

The true method in theology requires that the facts of religious experience should be accepted as facts, and when duly authenticated by Scripture, be allowed to interpret the doctrinal statements of the Word of God. So legitimate and powerful is this inward teaching of the Spirit, that it is no uncommon thing to find men having two theologies, — one of the intellect, and another of the heart. The one may find expression in creeds and systems of divinity, the other in their prayers and hymns. It would be safe for a man to resolve to admit into his theology nothing which is not sustained by the devotional writings of true Christians of every denomination. It would be easy to construct from such writings, received and sanctioned by Romanists, Lutherans, Reformed, and Remonstrants, a system of Pauline or Augustinian theology, such as would satisfy any intelligent and devout Calvinist in the world.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1871], pp. 16-17.)

Charles Hodge:

As all denominations of Christians, Romanists and Protestants, are of one mind on this subject, it is matter of astonishment that these objectionable divorce laws are allowed to stand on the statute-books of so many of our states. This fact proves either that public attention has not to a sufficient degree been called to the subject, or that the public conscience is lamentably blinded or seared. The remedy is with the Church, which is the witness of God on earth, bound to testify to his truth and to uphold his law. If Christians, in their individual capacity and in their Church courts, would unite in their efforts to arouse and guide public sentiment on this subject, there is little doubt that these objectionable laws would be repealed.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], p. 406.)

Charles Hodge:

Ritualism is a broad, smooth, and easy road to heaven, and is always crowded. It was much easier in Paul’s time to be a Jew outwardly than to be one inwardly; and circumcision of the flesh was a slight matter when compared to the circumcision of the heart. A theory which allows a man to be religious, without being holy; to serve both God and mammon; to gain heaven without renouncing the world, will never fail to find numerous supporters. That there is such a theory: that it has prevailed extensively and influentially in the Church; and that it is prevalent over a large part of Christendom, cannot be disputed. It does not follow, however, that all who are called ritualists, or who in fact attribute undue importance to external rites, are mere formalists. Many of them are, no doubt, not only sincere, but spiritual Christian men. This is no proof that the system is not false and evil, All Protestants cheerfully admit that many Romanists are holy men; but they no less strenuously denounce Romanism as an apostasy from the pure Gospel.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], p. 583.)

Charles Hodge:

The first remark which suggests itself on the comparison of these several schemes is, that the relation between the believer and Christ is far more close, peculiar, and constant on the Protestant scheme than on any other. He is dependent on Him every hour; for the imputation of his righteousness; for the supplies of the Spirit of life; and for his care, guidance, and intercession. He must look to Him continually; and continually exercise faith in Him as an ever present Saviour in order to live. According to the other schemes, Christ has merely made the salvation of all men possible. There his work ended. According to Romanists, He has made it possible that God should give sanctifying grace in baptism; according to the Remonstrants, He has rendered it possible for Him to give sufficient grace to all men whereby to sanctify and save themselves. We are well aware that this is theory; that the true people of God, whether Romanists or Remonstrants, do not look on Christ thus as a Saviour afar off. They doubtless have the same exercises towards Him that their fellow believers have; nevertheless, such is the theory. The theory places a great gulf between the soul and Christ.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], pp. 193-194.)

Charles Hodge:

Fourthly, the Protestant doctrine is the only one on which the soul can live. This has been urged before when speaking of the work of Christ. It is fair to appeal from theology to hymnology from the head to the heart; from what man thinks to what God makes men feel. It is enough to say on this point, that Lutheran and Reformed Christians can find nowhere, out of the Bible, more clear, definite, soul-satisfying expression of their doctrinal views upon this subject, than are to be found in many, of the hymns of the Latin and Arminian churches.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], pp. 194-195.) Return to Article.

[4.] Note: The following collection of quotations from A. A. Hodge is fairly eclectic, however I wished to include them in my notes and could think of no more appropriate category to place them in.

A. A. Hodge:

These United States of North America are, and from the beginning were, of law, of right and of actual fact, a Christian nation. The original colonies were settled by bodies of men of conspicuous Christian character, who emigrated from their European homes for religious reasons. They were Puritans, Huguenots, Scotch, Scotch-Irish, Dutch and German Presbyterians, Quakers, Episcopalians and Roman Catholics, but all alike Christians.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], Lecture XII: The Kingly Office of Christ, p. 278.)

A. A. Hodge:

…while in the mean time between six and seven millions of our Roman Catholic fellow-Christians have come into existence.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], Lecture XII: The Kingly Office of Christ, p. 279.)

A. A. Hodge:

This is the doctrine of the whole historical Church of God. The Roman Catholic Church declares it de fide to believe that God is the Author of every part of both Testaments (Can. Council of Trent, sec. 4; Dog. Decrees of Vatican Council, 1870, sec. 3, chap. 2). Also every branch of the Reformed Church—e. g. Belgic Confession, Art. 3; Second Helvetic Confession, chap. 1; Westminster Confession, chap. 1.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], Lecture IV: The Holy Scriptures.—The Canon and Inspiration, p. 90.)

A. A. Hodge:

All churches agree that “the efficacy of a sacrament does not depend upon the piety of him that doth administer it.”––“Conf. Faith,” Ch. xxvii., § 3, “Can. Conc. Trident,” Sess. 7, can. 11. And the “Gallic Conf.,” Art. 28, states the common opinion and practice of all the Protestant churches with respect to Romish baptism. “Because, nevertheless, that in the papacy some scant vestiges of the true church remain, and especially the substance of baptism, the efficacy of which does not depend on him that administers it, we acknowledge those baptized by them, not to need to be rebaptized, although on account of the corruptions adhering, no one can offer his infants to be baptized by them, without suffering pollution himself.”

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879], pp. 598-599.) Return to Article.

[5.] Francis Turretin:

XXXVI. If a ministry although corrupt was sufficient for the salvation of the pious before the Reformation without an open secession, it could not on that account be sufficient for us also because the times and the situation of affairs are different. The times of captivity existed then in which God had as yet not opened the way for secession and errors although grievous and dangerous had not yet (akmēn) reached their highest point, nor been so incorporated into laws as that they were to be received with unavoidable necessity and under the pain of an anathema. But from the time when the evil became wholly incurable and the error intolerable and sanctioned under the penalty of a curse; from the time when God raised the standard of the gospel everywhere for casting off the yoke of Antichrist and calling believers to liberty, a positive secession was necessary because provision was to be made for the consciences of that and following ages and the church was to be purified of her filthiness that she might have her faith and public worship, her riches and sacred things cleaned from their pristine corruptions.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1997], 18.10.36, p. 69.) Return to Article.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Evangelical Answers

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Is the Roman Catholic Church a True Church?

No comments:

Post a Comment