W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

THE ORTHODOX AND THE ROAMING CATHOLIC,

AND THE NEED FOR SEPARATION

CONTRAST

It is with sorrow that one has seen report of shared classes in the education of Romanist and Lutheran divinity students, and heard directly of the Lutheran Church in Australia having in Adelaide a celebration of the noted rapprochement of Romanist and Lutheran approaches to the justification by faith issue, some years ago. It is not just that Luther would have turned in his grave, had he been there and able: it is a capitulation, a denial of the biblical doctrine of separation, a conjoining of Gospel and idolatry, very much like similar cases of reversion noted in the history of Israel, as in the day of Ahaz (cf. Isaiah 7). Let us examine that for its principles.

Refusing to believe by faith in the prodigious character of the Lord's provision, that spiritually sickly king compromised, sought help from Assyria and blasted the land with his unbelieving and pestiferous pollutions at the spiritual level, even daring to assault the sanctity of the temple. Small wonder his kingdom was invaded, and even weak and declining Israel took a few liberties with this erring Judah to its South, such as slaying 120,000 men in one day, in the land of that Ahaz (II Chronicles 28:7). Even the enemy (II Chron. 28:11-12) knew why Judah had fallen.

Similar in kind, though less severe in measure, is the case of Jehoshaphat, great king though he was, wrongly related in military partnership with Ahab, the wicked king of Israel, first having made an even more foolish marriage (II Chron. 18:1). For this, the Lord gave the good king a sharp rebuke.

"And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to King Jehoshaphat, 'Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?
Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you. Nevertheless good things are found in you, in that you have removed the wooden images from the land, and have prepared your heart to seek God.' "

All throughout the Bible, there is emphasis on separation in holiness, in spiritual fellowship from what defiles, is impure and polluted and does not repent, but carries on in evil principle. Thus Paul declaims in Romans 16:17, these words: "Mark those who cause divisions and offences  contrary to the doctrine which you have learned; and avoid them."

He then proceeds to show the gravity of the case of people who make such changes as Romanism later in fact did. Indeed, the word "AVOID" is not hard to understand; and it does not mean 'pray with them', 'have fellowship with them' or 'share theological education with them.' It means rather what Luther correctly saw: you may not change, but we will and must: back to the Bible. Your error we can, do and must condemn! Fellowship became zero, and Luther's life was papally put at the mercy of any assailant.

The Lutheran Church in Adelaide has changed so much since Luther's day, that they were not interested in displaying one of Rev.  Robert Donaldson's books BECAUSE they were told  that his views on Romanism were quite like those of Luther! Thus it can celebrate the agreement on justification by faith, with Roman Catholicism: a body which in its Vatican Council INSISTS on all its previous formulations, one of which is this.

If anyone says, that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to co-operate in the acquisition of the grace of justification, and that it is in no way necessary for a man to be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will; let him be anathema.

That assault on the Bible and on the faithful is found in Canon IX, Session V1, Council of Trent 1547. That Council is repeatedly confirmed in more modern times, in the religion of Romanism.

Paul to the contrary declares with John (Romans 9:16, John 1:12), that it is not of the one who wills but of God who shows mercy; and that they are born not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The will of man is categorically excluded in the actual operation of salvation, that of being born of God. SO far from necessary, it is an impertinence to include it (John 15:16).

Being born is not a voluntary phenomenon; nature and the word of God teach alike, against the assault of Rome on the word of God. It is difficult to dispose one's will when as Paul declares, "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him"! (I Cor. 2:14). To opt for life when one is dead (Ephesians 2:1-12, 4:17-19), is a ghoulish imagination, while to opt for what one deems foolish, is insanity! It is here excluded by name. The complete biblical teaching on this topic is not found by saying things, but by adhering to what God has given in the Bible (cf. The Glow of Predestination ... Ch. 8).

This Rome in its contrary teaching is moreover in treble idolatry (cf. A Question of Gifts II), and doubly is not available for fellowship (cf. I Corinthians 5:9-11, II Cor. 6:9ff.).

CONTRADICTION

Indeed, says Paul, with any such, idiolaters, DO NOT EVEN EAT!  To Mary popes have given titles Queen of Heaven and Redemptrix (cf. Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 5, *2, Ch. 8). This in the area of deity, but Jesus said that EVERYONE that does the will of God is His mother, sister, brother (Matthew 12:48ff.). How many queens then does heaven allegedly have, in this Romanist heresy ? And how is a woman a co-worker in redemption, even made to bear the name of an agent in the same, when "God forbid that I should glory except in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me and I to the world" glares at the contradiction, from Galatians 6:14!

Was Mary on the Cross ? She had a sword to her body, not a Cross for her labours.

Is a sinner a redeemer ? and does someone who gives a sacrifice for sin at circumcision time, have no account of her own to settle with the Almighty! (cf. Luke 2:23-24)!

By whose blood is atonement made ? that of Mary or of Christ ? (cf. Ephesians 1:7). Is the blood of the placenta an atonement ? or is the shed blood of the Cross, where a man is cursed, that which rightly bears the name where the Agent Himself bears the sin! (Galatians 3:13).

Christ, says Paul, has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for such is what is written concerning such death. What enormities come, with the Queen of heaven in the space of deity as 'one of us', when the difference is infinite between God and man. Small wonder then that the priest thinks in the Mass he can move God around, as if putty. Christ ? MY WORDS ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE.  True man (Hebrews 2), He is in heaven (Acts 3:19ff.), pending His return, so that He declares, If someone says Christ is in the desert, or the inner room (as in Mass), do not believe him! (Matthew 24:26).

For the Mass, Romanism gives the name of the most absolute worship; but Jesus, having declared one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, challenged them: What if He should return to heaven! It is the Spirit which gives life, He corrected! The words that I speak to you, said He, they are spirit and they are life (John 6:62-63).

He was not becoming a personal cafeteria, but a sacrificial offering for substitutionary cover for all who believe (Galatians 3:13, Matthew 20:28). NOW ONCE in the end of the world has He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Hebrews 9): not often! says Hebrews. Often, say the Mass people. Without blood, say the makers of the Mass. By blood ONLY is it effective, says the word of God (Hebrews 9:22-24). You add a queen, a lord and a piece of worshipped bread to the Lord: not bad for a substitute form of the religion.  Swallow that and you can swallow anything.

This is not merely addition (against Proverbs 30:6) to the word of God; it is addition to God Himself in His unique and infinite purity and power,  prerogatives and functions; and it is blatant contradiction.

He did not mean that in breaking the bread at the Last Supper He was committing suicide, any more than that in being the door for faith, He had hinges.

The papal teaching authority itself is the third divine feature, seized by Romanism; for Jesus declared this, Call NO MAN on earth father, for One is your father; nor call any teacher, for one is your teacher, JESUS CHRIST! (Matthew 23:8-10). Is the pope then sinless ? and eternal ? that he should so presume against the words of Jesus Christ. Is he not rather some form of opposition, expressly performing what is precisely forbidden!

SUBVERSION

This in short form shows something of the necessity to leave what Luther left, Romanism, condemning its false teaching at great length. It shows the need to take the step the Reformation took, exposing its teaching of the mass as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits" (Anglican 39 Articles, Article XXXI), as the Presbyterians also did, deeming the pope, an antichrist (Westminster Confession XXV); and indeed Gregory I, a bishop of Rome near the first, declared that this elevation of the Roman bishop above the brethren was a work of antichrist.  The church is built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles says Paul in Ephesians 2; nay more: it HAS BEEN BUILT on this. It is not being built on some other personnel.

Who are these who come with rank heresy, and additions to self-made specifications of deity and His affairs!

On this, compare SMR p. 1036: Small wonder Pope Gregory I (590-604) called anyone taking the title of 'Universal Bishop' an antichrist! (surely one of the best 'papal' utterances).

After all, the term objected to by this pope is pregnant with unscriptural arrogance (compare Matthew 20:25 ff., especially 20:28; I Peter 2:6; 5:1-4; 2:2-4,20-25; 4:12-15; Matthew 11:28-9).

For detail and data, on the Romanist heresies and divisions from the word of God, in practice and teaching, in formulation and condemnation: see the following: SMR pp. 911-931, 1032-10088H, with  News 101.

SEPARATION

For action, consult Separation 1997.

This presents a large field of biblical commands and intimations that one must divide the holy from the unholy, the idolatrous from the biblical, the orthodox from the heretical, the light from the darkness. It is not only atheism, or agnosticism with which one can have no fellowship; but ANY variation from the clear teaching of the word of God which MUST be removed.

If not, then one simply must remove oneself. Whatever the situation, ONE thing is FORBIDDEN multiply, on many fronts, in principle and in practice is this: Abiding in, having fellowship with, remaining a member or attender of any body, any church, which will not change from what contradicts or adds to the Bible. Either cause divisions contrary to what has been taught as final (Galatians 1, Revelation 22). People who become 'teachers' not brethren under the one Teacher Jesus Christ are tolerated to the number of NONE by Jesus Christ. Paul declares that even if HE HIMSELF preached any other Gospel then HE WOULD BE ACCURSED! The thing is final, devastating to presumption, ineluctable to addition, invulnerable to change. Do not add, says Proverbs 30:6 to His words, lest you become a LIAR! (cf. SMR Appendix C).

If anyone should refuse this, then the word of Christ bites like a tiger: "Why do you call Me, Lord, Lord, and not do the things that I say" - Luke 6:46. How is a person one's LORD, if one ignores what He requires, and commands what He abhors ? Would you be present at a Nazi Jew-extermination action ? Hardly. How then do you stay at a Gospel or bible deformation action, when

	1) it is continual
	2) it is not a mere matter of education, being a reversion back to darkness, those concerned having already met the light!

This matter can be avoided, in precisely the same way as cancer can, if you ignore it. It tramples on you, or tramps through you, taking more and more vital organs. If you desire this not at all, then as one dermatologist repeatedly declares, "Cut it out!"