Evangelical and Catholics
Together
By Gary E Gilley, Pastor Teacher
Southern View
Chapel
Part
1
Think On These
Things, Volume 1 Issue
2 December
1994
Was the
Reformation a mistake, or do fundamental points of
doctrine still separate the Roman Catholic Church from
us?
Perhaps
no one has been more productive for the cause of
ecumenicalism in recent years than Chuck Colson, founder
of Prison Fellowship. Colson, in particular, has
defended the concept of the evangelical Catholic. That
the teachings of the Catholic Church is "another
gospel," does not seem to be of concern to Colson. As a
matter of fact, Colson is constantly offended by
believers who would challenge the salvation of his wife
(a practicing Catholic) or Mother Teresa (one of his
favorite "heros of the faith").
In His
book, The Body, Catholic leaders throughout the world
serve as his examples of truly born again, dedicated
Christians. So, anyone familiar with Colson's work
should not be overly shocked by his recent publication
of "Evangelical and Catholics Together: The Christian
Mission in the Third Millennium." This is a statement
hammered out by Colson and Catholic priest, Richard John
Neuhaus of NYC. It has been signed by both leading
Catholics and evangelicals including: Bill Bright, Os
Guinness, J.I. Packer, and Pat Robertson.
This
document, among other things, calls for Catholics and
Protestants to cease "proselytizing" one another's
people. In other words, if a Catholic is a believer
(which would be possible only if that believer denies
the official teachings of the RCC) then we must allow
those believers to remain within the Catholic church. We
must stop stealing Catholic sheep, instead we must unite
in our efforts against the common enemy: the humanistic
world. To accept this concept would completely reverse
the Reformation and bring to a halt evangelistic efforts
all over the world. For, according to this document,
Catholics are believers every bit as much as
evangelicals are. To be sure "dialogue" between the two
sides needs to be continued, but our differences are not
so fundamental as to call for separation.
Luther
was apparently mistaken. And so was Paul who pronounced
an anathema upon any who would dare preach "another
gospel" (Gal 1:6-10). Rather than unite with those who
teach false doctrine Paul told Titus that the elders of
the local church must ,"(Hold) fast the faithful word
which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be
able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute
those who contradict" (Titus 1:9).
Ecumenicalism is running rampant
in the church today. Many, who should know better, are
choosing to close their eyes to fundamental differences
of faith and practice for the sake of unity. What has
brought the evangelical church to this point? Although
many things could be identified let us suggest three
steps that have led us to the present condition: 1)
Ecumenical evangelism. For decades many believers have
been willing to compromise essential doctrines for the
sake of winning the lost. Ultimately, of course, such
compromise always leads to the watering down of certain
Biblical teachings in order to avoid offending certain
groups. 2) Ecumenical social involvement: It has become
increasing popular to unite with moral conservatives of
all stripes in order to change society. Thus, we are
becoming comfortable working with those who cling to
some of our values, even while they deny our Lord. 3)
The minimizing of the importance of doctrine. Experience
rather than truth is the battle cry of the church today.
People want life, not doctrine, having forgotten that it
is TRUTH that sets us free (Jh 8:32). With this view of
the Christian life, God's people are set up to be blown
about by any and every wind of doctrine.
David
Wells has written on excellent book that powerfully
deals with the third step above. It is entitled, No
Place for Truth, and carefully examines the trend in our
churches toward programs, entertainment, great music and
productions in place of sound Biblical teaching. For
example Wells says, "Within the church, strong winds are
blowing from a range of religious consumers who look to
the churches and ministers to meet their needs — and who
quickly look elsewhere if they feel those needs are not
being met. Basically, these consumers are looking for
the sort of thing the self movement is offering; they
just want it in evangelical dress. A genuinely biblical
and God-centered ministry is almost certain to collide
head-on with the self-absorption and anthropocentric
focus that are now normative in so many evangelical
churches" (p256). The church in Brazil may as yet not
face this exact problem — but it is coming. Solid
teaching now is
imperative.
Part
2
Think On These
Things, Volume 4 Issue
3 March
1998
A
few years ago a coalition of evangelical believers
headed by Chuck Colson, and including men such as J. I.
Packer, Max Lucado and Bill Bright, shocked the
Christian world by composing and signing a document with
several well-known Roman Catholics, led by Father John
Neuhaus. That document is known as Evangelicals and
Catholics Together (ECT). It basically declared that the
gospel proclaimed by evangelicals and Catholics is the
same gospel, and always has been — we have just been
misunderstanding each other since the time of the
Reformation.
Evangelical Protestants were of
course amazed and surprised, since they have claimed for
almost five hundred years that the gospel of the Roman
Catholic Church is a different gospel than that which is
taught in the New Testament. Some applauded the
Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, others
were outraged. How, this latter group protested, can we
possibly think that evangelicals and Catholics are
preaching the same gospel? Hasn’t the Roman Catholic
Church always added works to
faith?
In
response, the Evangelicals and Catholics Together
committee went to work. The fruit of their labor is a
second document entitled, The Gift of Salvation. This is
an attempt by Colson and his friends to define the "true
gospel." After all, as Paul clearly affirms in Gal.
1:6-9, there cannot be two gospels — one for Catholics
and one for evangelicals. Here is the "gospel" as
defined by the ECT
committee:
We agree
that justification is not earned by any good works or
merits of our own: it is entirely God’s gift, conferred
through the Father’s sheer graciousness, out of the love
that he bears us in his Son, who suffered on our behalf
and rose from the dead for our justification. Jesus was
"put to death for our trespasses and raised for our
justification" (Romans 4:25). In justification, God, on
the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, declares us
to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven
friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so. The
New Testament makes it clear that the gift of
justification is received through faith (Ephesians
2:8).
This
certainly seems to be in line with sola fide (faith
alone) — so why not throw down our arms and accept one
another as brothers and sisters in Christ? Well, there
seems to be at least two
problems:
First,
Sola Fide is not the official teaching and doctrine of
the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has long
taught faith + works = righteousness. Stand outside of
any Roman Catholic Church and ask the attendees how they
can be saved and you will quickly discern that Catholics
are not being taught the true gospel. By watching the
Catholic Television Station you will discover the same
thing.
The
Reformers knew this and broke away from Rome, which in
turn pronounced anathemas on the Reformers for teaching
sola fide. The Catholic Church was not at all ashamed of
any of this, and at the council of Trent they
declared:
If
anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified,
so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate
in order to obtain the grace of justification. . . let
him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon
9).
If
anyone says that the righteousness received is not
preserved and also not increased before God by good
works, but that those works are merely the fruits and
signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its
increase, let him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon
24).
The
Roman Catholic Church has never recanted these
anathemas. How can the Evangelical and Catholics
Together committee claim that the Roman Catholic Church
teaches sola fide when it officially damns those who
believe in it?
The second problem is that
both of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together
documents, even while making strong statements to the
contrary, actually present or allow for two different
gospels. In the original document this statement is
made: "Those converted — whether understood as having
received the new birth for the first time or as having
experienced the reawakening of the new birth originally
bestowed in the sacrament of baptism. . ." Which is it?
Regeneration by faith or by baptism? It cannot be both!
The gospel cannot be presented in plan A and B forms, in
which we choose the option that best fits our
views.
In the
latest document, after declaring that both Evangelicals
and Catholics believe in sola fide, this incredible
disclaimer is found:
"We
recognize that there are necessarily interrelated
questions that require further and urgent exploration.
Among such questions are these: the meaning of baptismal
regeneration, the Eucharist, and sacramental grace; the
historic uses of the language of justification as it
relates to imputed and transformative righteousness; the
normative status of justification in relation to all
Christian doctrine; the assertion that while
justification is by faith alone, the faith that receives
salvation is never alone; diverse understandings of
merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences; Marian
devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of
salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those
who have not been
evangelized."
Who is
kidding whom here? How can the subjects of baptismal
regeneration, sacramental grace, diverse understandings
of merit, purgatory, indulgences and universalism still
be on the table, yet with great conviction pronouncement
is made that agreement concerning the gospel has been
found? Colson seems to have borrowed a page or two from
his political days, where a politician can affirm two
opposites and expect his audience to believe both. But
we are not playing politics here; we are talking about
eternal salvation. If an individual (Protestant or
Catholic) claims to believe in sola fide, but also
believes in baptismal regeneration, or saving grace
being received through the elements of the Lord’s table,
then he clearly does not believe in sola fide — case
closed! Apparently the Evangelicals and Catholics
Together committee believes that if they tell the
Christian community that the emperor is wearing clothes,
then though he is as naked as a new baby, he is wearing
clothes. Maybe the Evangelical and Catholics Together
signatories should review a couple more anathemas from
the Council of Trent
(1545-1563):
"If
anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,
meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in
order to obtain the grace of justification let him be
anathema (Canon 9)."
"If
anyone says that after the reception of the grace of
justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of
eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant
sinner, that no debt of temporary punishment remains to
be discharged either in this world or in purgatory
before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be
anathema (Canon 30)."
Strange
words for believers in sola
fide.
What Catholics
Believe
Before
it can be decided whether or not the Roman Catholic
Church is teaching the same gospel as the evangelical
church, it is only right that we examine the official
teachings of Rome. What does Rome teach in regard to
soteriology?
Roman
Catholicism is a sacramental religion, meaning that
Catholics believe that grace does not come directly from
God, but indirectly through another source — sacraments.
It is not denied that Christ died on the cross for our
sins, but it is said that that atoning act is mixed with
the sacraments to effect salvation. The seven sacraments
of Rome are understood to be means of infusing grace
into the life of the participant. The Catechism of the
Catholic Church (published in 1994 and accepted by Rome
as official teachings of the Church) says, "Celebrated
worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that
they signify. They are efficacious because in them
Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who
acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace
that each sacrament signifies. . . . The church affirms
that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant
are necessary for salvation" (italics are in the
original) (p.292). Take baptism for example — Rome says,
"Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes
the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God,
who has become ‘a partaker of the divine nature,’ member
of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy
Spirit" (ibid, p.322). Especially in light of the fact
that in the Catholic Church it is usually infants who
are being baptized, babies who are incapable of
expressing faith, it is rather obvious that it is the
act of baptism that is supposedly producing new
life.
The Seven
Sacraments
(The
Roman Catholic Church believes that the following
sacraments infuse saving grace into the
believer.)
Baptism:
This was explained
above.
Confirmation: A sealing with the
Holy Spirit that enables mature defense of the
faith.
Penance
(confession): Certain sins (known as mortal) committed
following baptism cause an individual to lose his or her
salvation. The church however, having been given —
supposedly by Christ — the power to forgive sins,
restores lost justification through the sacrament of
penance.
Holy
Eucharist: The Eucharist (or thanksgiving), which takes
place during the Mass, is very different from the
partaking of the Lord’s table, as observed by most
evangelicals. To Rome the Eucharist is the continuing
sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. See below for more
details.
Anointing of the sick (extreme
unction or the Last Rites): "Bestowing of grace on the
sick, old, or near death and helps in forgiveness of
sins and sometimes in the physical healing of the body"
(Protestants and Catholics, Do They Now Agree,
p.68).
Marriage: "Theologically it
(marriage) is considered a sacrament because it reflects
Christ’s union with His bride, the church. . . . For
Catholics who receive it properly in the fellowship of
the church it is a sacrament because it is viewed as a
means of encountering Christ in a special way and of
bringing about the salvation of spouses" (A View of
Rome, pp.67,68).
Holy
Orders: "This is the sacrament in which a bishop imposes
hands upon a man, and uses the prescribed prayer, to
confer spiritual power and grace to conduct ordained
ministry in the Catholic Church" (Ibid,
p.67).
The Mass — the Heart of
Catholicism
To
understand the Roman Catholic religion one must
understand the Mass. Catholicism centers around the Mass
in general, and the Eucharist in particular. According
to A Cathechism of Christian Doctrine (a standard
catechism of the Roman Catholic Church) "The Holy Mass
is one and the same with that of the Cross, inasmuch as
Christ, who offered Himself, a bleeding victim, on the
Cross to His Heavenly Father continues to offer Himself
in an unbloody manner on the altar, through the ministry
of His Priests" (page
47).
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church, concerning the Mass,
says "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the
Eucharist are one single sacrifice. . . .In this divine
sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same
Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on
the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an
unbloody manner" (page 344). "The Eucharistic sacrifice
is also offered for the faithful departed (in purgatory)
who have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified,
so that they may be able to enter into the light of
peace of Christ" (page 345). And "Holy Communion . . .
preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace
received at Baptism. . . . The Eucharist cannot unite us
to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from
past sins and preserving us from future sins" (page
351). The significance of these quotes will become more
evident as we better understand Rome’s view of
justification, but at this point it would be hard to
miss the role that the Mass is believed to play.
How
central is the Mass to Catholic theology? The council of
Trent leaves no doubt in its Canons on the Sacrifice of
the Mass:
Canon 1.
If anyone says that in the mass a true and real
sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered
is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat,
let him be anathema.
Canon 3.
If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one and
only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is merely
commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross
and not a propitiatory one, let him be
anathema.
Rome
pronounced (and still pronounces) an anathema on any who
dare claim that the Lord’s supper is a memorial, rather
than a propitiatory act (an act that pleases God so as
to appease His divine
wrath).
It must
be kept in mind that the Catholic Church believes in the
doctrine of transubstantiation (i.e. that the bread and
wine are converted into the actual body and blood of
Christ at the miracle of the Mass). Thus Christ is truly
being offered as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. In
the mind of Rome, the Eucharist is not another sacrifice
of Christ, but a continual sacrifice. Christ, in a very
real sense is still on the Cross, and without the
sacrifice of the Mass we cannot be
saved.
As
stated in Protestants & Catholics, Do They Now
Agree?, "Clearly, [Mass] carries out the work of
redemption;
1.
forgives sins; 2. helps purify those in purgatory; 3.
"increases the life of grace received at baptism;" 4.
cleanses past sins and sanctifies or preserves from
future sins — even mortal ones; and 5 .pours out the
grace of salvation upon all the Church. Who then can
deny that participation in the Mass is necessary for
salvation and also is a form of salvation by
faith/works" (page 78)?
Evangelical
Signatories
Given
the facts above, how do the evangelical signatories
justify the signing of the original ECT document and the
more recent The Gift of Salvation? Perhaps I am a
reductionist, but I can only think of two possible
reasons why Christian leaders who claim to be
evangelical would sign these documents. The first would
be that they do not really understand the issues. I
could possibly buy this explanation for men such as
Chuck Colson, Bill Bright and Max Lucado, largely
popularizers of the Christian faith. But the same slack
cannot be afforded to Os Guinness, Mark Noll and of all
people J.I. Packer. As a well-studied and highly
respected Reformed theologian, Packer’s support of these
documents has brought gasps of amazement and disbelief.
How can a man like Packer, who has spent a lifetime
defending Reformed theology, sign documents that in
essence declare the Reformation a mistake? In response,
Packer wrote an article for Christianity Today (Dec.
12,1994) entitled "Why I Signed It," in which he clearly
presents his case. Early in the article Packer affirms
that he could not become a Roman Catholic because he
disagrees with many of its fundamental doctrines
including, sacramentalist soteriology, the Mary cult,
purgatory, indulgences and claims of infallibility. Then
he enumerates the reasons he signed the document
anyway:
1)
Because good Catholics and good evangelical Protestants
are Christians together. I find this concept, which is
the heart of the ECT position, absolutely incredible. A
"good" Catholic is one who believes the doctrines of
Rome — including its sacramental form of salvation.
While the New Testament pronounces an anathema on any
who teach and believe such doctrines (Gal 1:6-9) —
Packer declares them
Christians!
2)
Because the enemies: relativist, monist, pluralist,
liberationist, feminist, etc. need to meet a united
front. He greatly minimizes that which divides us (and
ought to) by stating, "Their domestic differences about
salvation and the church should not hinder them from
joint action in seeking to re-Christianize the North
American milieu."
3)
Because evangelicals and Catholics are already linked in
ministry. His three examples are Francis Schaeffer’s
co-belligerence on the social front, Billy Graham’s
ecumenicism in the area of evangelism, and the
experience oriented unity of the various charismatic
rallies. "So the togetherness that ECT pleads for has
already begun," he affirms. In other words, if we can’t
beat them — join them. This is leadership at its
best(?).
The
second reason that I would posit as to why evangelical
leaders would sign these documents, is simply because
unity (at almost any cost, it seems) has now become more
important than truth — even the truth of the gospel.
Colson claims that "when confronting the non-Christian
world — whether in evangelism or political activism — we
should present a united front. This is the goal of ECT"
(CT, 1994). If, in order to present this united front,
we must lay down, or at least ignore cardinal doctrines,
then it is apparently a small price to pay. Case in
point — is any doctrine more important than that of the
gospel? Surely not! Do Roman Catholics and evangelicals
embrace the same gospel message? Packer, in a sad piece
of "double-speak" says "Yes and No." Packer knows that
Catholics do not preach the gospel but since they focus
on many of the same things that evangelicals do, "This
constitutes a sufficient account of the gospel of
salvation for shared evangelistic ministry." Just how
far Packer is willing to compromise is evident when he
states, "We need to put sola fide in small print because
it is no longer one of the large-print issues that ought
to divide us, nor should it divide us in common
mission."
Rome’s
doctrine of salvation is so divergent from that of the
evangelical (Rome teaches that righteousness is infused
and then built upon, rather than imputed) that one
theologian writes, "The authors of Evangelicals and
Catholics Together are guilty of almost criminal
deception to say that both parties can affirm the
doctrine of justification, when the distinction between
their understanding of this doctrine constitutes two
entirely different systems of religion" (Dr. James Grier
as found in Sword & Trowel, 1997, Issue
4).
The
signers of this new document assure us that, "For the
first time in 450 years, evangelical Protestants and
Roman Catholics have publicly agreed to a common
understanding of salvation." Others rightly challenge,
"The basic agreements regarding salvation appear to be
nullified by the questions which the document says
require further exploration. How is it that sacramental
grace is still an outstanding question [when] salvation
by faith alone is affirmed by the document" (Phil
Roberts, Christianity Today, Jan 12,1998). I fear that
Dr. Grier is correct when he writes, "I say to you with
sorrow that the foundations are crumbling, and people
who once appeared to stand with us have become our
opponents" (op.cit.). Just how true this statement is
will be reflected in our next paper when we carefully
examine Evangelical’s and Catholics Together’s official
defense of its positions in their book, Evangelicals and
Catholics Together Toward A Common
Mission.
For
further study I
recommend:
Protestants and Catholics, Do
They Now Agree, by John Ankerberg and John
Weldow
A
View of Rome, by John H.
Armstrong
[Editor's Note: We at Sola Scriptura
Ministries would more strongly recommend the
following: Far From Rome Near To God: The
Testimony of 50 Converted Catholic Priests
(Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors,
Inc.). Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner
(Sola Scriptura CD-ROM Library, Vol. 2) and
The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (Sola
Scriptura CD-ROM Library, Vol.
2).
