Romanism – The Protestant Perspective
Introduction
The title to the paper communicates that we are looking at a subject from the outside, as those who have taken a stand against it and join with such as in the past were Protestants – who protested solemnly against the errors of the Church of Rome, which they saw. What was it that led to the Reformation? Was it not when men, enlightened by the Holy Spirit compared what they saw in Romanism to what they read in the Bible? When they began to see how far the Papacy had gone from scripture truth. And truth matters, as Jesus tells us in John chapter 8, verses 31 and 32, where we read:
“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Romanism
When we refer to Romanism we are referring to the Roman Catholic Church. Often, because of its size and great number of adherents, whom she calls the faithful, the Church of Rome is thought by many to be the Christian Church. However, when we look at her teachings and departures from the word of God over the centuries we see that Rome is not the true Church of Christ. For example, Christ is the Head of the Church, yet in Rome, the Pope is the head of the Church. Yes, Romanists may say he is only the earthly head whilst the heavenly head is Christ but can there be two heads of the one body? Faithful protestants, saw unambiguously as the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:
“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.” [1]
The Church of Rome, as we may suspect, has much to do with Rome given its name and history. This is very telling. It was the Pilate, the Roman governor, who passed sentence to crucify Christ. Paul was martyred in Rome. Rome was the seat of the Roman empire, before there was a Papal Rome there was a Pagan Rome. Both, at times, as is well documented, have persecuted true Christians.
Romanism, or the Papacy, is a system of error that has developed over time. Indeed, over many centuries. Error corrupts and leads to further error and corruption. We see that clearly in Romanism. To chart the development of this system in detail would require many papers and we have not time for that. Romanism began by departures from the truth. Error is by definition a departure from the truth. It is a serious sin and like leaven works mysteriously to promote yet more error and, in Rome’s case, corruption. When, as Protestants, we compare what we see in the Church of Rome with what we read in scripture with regard to the true Church of Christ, we see many differences.
The Priesthood
When we think of the Roman Catholic Church we often think of the Pope and the priests. They are visible, well known and essential to the system. They are also very different to what we find in faithful protestant churches. The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, for example, has no Pope and has no Priest. Rome has a Pope and many priests. Especially in protestant nations, if one were to speak of a priest, we would automatically think first of a Roman Catholic priest, so well associated is the priesthood with The Roman Catholic system.
In Romanism, the priest holds a venerated place. He it is who leads the worship of the Roman Catholic congregation. He it is that offers the so-called sacrifice of the mass. He it is that teaches the people the doctrines and practices they should believe and follow. It is ordinarily from among the cardinals of Rome that a Pope is elected and every cardinal is a priest. Thus a young man who is ordained a priest may ultimately be elected Pope. That is one reason why it is such a solemn and fearful thing for any young man to enter the priesthood in Romanism.
In a practical way the priest embodies the system of Rome, ultimately in the person of the Pope who we can think of as being the high priest of Romanism. Without the priesthood, the Roman Catholic Church would collapse. She relies on her priests, as well as monks and nuns and others, but chiefly priests, as essential to run the whole system. Indeed, we can think of Rome as a religion of priesthood and of committing the saving of the soul to the priest, whose intentions truly matter to the faithful Roman Catholic. We can readily see then the vital place the priest holds in Rome. How the priest may be held in high esteem, even with superstitious regard.
However, are there to be priests in the New Testament Church? We know there were priests and a priesthood in the Old Testament Church – Aaron and his sons and descendants. But does the Aaronic priesthood continue? Is it now to be found in the Christian Church? We read nothing from the four gospels to lead us to conclude that it should. Christ did not by His own authority or through his apostles and the inspired epistles establish a standing priesthood of men in the church, who would be called priests and offer sacrifice and hear confession and so on. Rather, Christ called men to be preachers of the gospel. His apostles and their successors are to be teachers and preachers of the word. They do not offer sacrifice but teach the people about the perfect sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary. The priests of Rome are called ‘father’. Yet we see how unscriptural that is, for Jesus tells us that we are to call no man father in a religious sense.
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)
In the Roman Catholic priesthood we see and hear that which alarms and concerns us. We see a priesthood, but find no warrant for it from Christ. We hear the exalted titles given to priests and Popes yet find no allowance for such in God’s word.
The Sacraments
One obvious difference between Rome and Protestants is the number of the sacraments and the place given to the sacraments in the life of the church. In Rome these are seven sacraments even though in the Bible we find but two sacraments in the New Testament Church as holy ordinances instituted by Christ – Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In Rome there are – Baptism; confirmation; penance; the Mass; orders, matrimony and extreme unction. Rev Alexander Stewart in his book Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth comments:
“There is perhaps nothing which more clearly marks the difference between the religion of Roman Catholics and that of Protestants than the place which they respectively assign to the Sacraments. For Roman Catholics the sacraments may be said to be all-important. Their religion is predominantly sacramentarian. The Church of Rome has multiplied her sacramental rites until they cover all the outstanding events and experiences of life from the cradle to the grave, and she invests them with an inherent virtue by reason of which they directly confer the grace of God on her people. Through her use of the sacraments she has achieved the mechanisation of the Christian religion, and it is largely for that reason because the working of the mechanism is in the hands of her priests that she exercises her tremendous sway over the hearts and lives of her adherents.” [2]
Consequently there is little preaching from the Bible in Rome and among its priests. This is very different in protestant churches or should be if they be faithful. Alexander Stewart again:
“Protestants do not depreciate the value of the Sacraments in the Christian life, but, as a means of grace, they assign a higher place to the preaching of the Gospel. In their view the pulpit occupies the central position in the ministries of the Church; the place of the Communion Table is supplementary and secondary. ‘That which is treasured up in Christ alone,’ declared John Calvin, ‘we know to be communicated not less by the preaching of the Gospel than by the seal of a sacrament, and it may be completely enjoyed without this seal.'” [3]
The Mass
A priest must have a sacrifice. When we think of priests in the Bible we commonly think of Aaron and his sons the Levitical priesthood. Sacrificing animals in the worship of God was a critical feature of their work. It was heavy manual labour in these days. Much blood was shed. All of this blood and these offerings pointed to Christ who was to come. But Christ has come. The Bible tells us of His coming and His death and His resurrection. Jesus died on the cross. Are we then to have priests who go on offering sacrifice? Rome might object that the sacrifice its priests offer is bloodless. Yet, is it not called a sacrifice and the language savours much of sacrifice?
The matter we refer to is of course another leading feature and error of Rome – the Roman Catholic mass. As Lorraine Boettner a renowned author on Romanism writes:
“It is surprising how many Protestants do not understand the significance of the Roman Catholic mass. Some think of it as merely a church ritual and dismiss it as just another form of the Lord’s supper or holy communion.” [4]
He goes on to observe:
“…for Roman Catholics it is something quite different. For them it is also a sacrifice, performed by a priest. And its sacrificial element is by far the most important. In fact the sacrifice of the mass is the central point in their worship…” [5]
The sacrifice of the Mass is a leading error of Rome. It is obligatory for a Roman Catholic to be present to hear Mass on the Christian Sabbath and special ‘so called’ holy days. Absence is taught to be a mortal sin unless the person is excused for serious reasons. Alexander Stewart writes:
“The essence of the Romish doctrine of the Mass is that it is a real propitiatory sacrifice which makes atonement for the sins of the living and the dead.” [6]
Friends and relations pay large sums of money to the priest of Rome to ‘say mass’ for their dear departed loved ones. Yet it is all a deceit, perpetrated every day throughout the Roman Church. Boettner again:
“The mass is the most important ceremony of the Roman Church, the central and supreme act of worship. Everything else depends on this. It becomes, therefore, the rule of discipline for all Roman Catholics, a mighty instrument in the hands of the clergy for the supervision of the laity.” [7]
Alexander Stewart quotes Dr William Cunningham a renowned theologian in the Disruption Free Church of Scotland:
“The sacrifice of the Mass,” says Dr William Cunningham, “is the great idol of Popery, and may be considered as a kind of concentration of the corruptions of the apostacy.” [8]
Transubstantiation
One especially fearful error of Rome is the dogma of transubstantiation. This doctrine is the foundation on which the so called sacrifice of the Mass rests. Thus it is also a foundational doctrine of the whole Romanist system. Alexander Stewart writes:
“The Council of Trent declared that ‘by the consecration of the bread and the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.'” [9]
He adds,
“The Creed of Pius IV. is in agreement with this definition. ‘In the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist,’ it says, ‘there are truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ.'” [10]
Rome lays great weight on the words of Jesus “this is my body…” It interprets them literally, and the Council of Trent says to interpret them figuratively is satanical. [11] Yet was this not what the Saviour meant? He was there in His body and held forth the bread which was not His body. He means of course – this represents my body. Jesus also said “I am the door”, “I am the Light of the world” and so on.
Stewart also mentions another text of the Bible Rome points to in John 6:53-56:
“Romanists also appeal to our Lord’s striking words in the Fourth Gospel, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.’ It is clear, however (he points out) that these words can have no reference to the Lord’s Supper which had not then been instituted. Christ is speaking of an eating and drinking which are absolutely necessary to salvation, and even the Church of Rome does not assign that essential importance to the Eucharist. The words unmistakably refer to a spiritual appropriation by faith of the benefits of our Lord’s atoning death. This fact is placed beyond the range of doubt by that other saying of Jesus which explains His meaning in simpler terms: ‘I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.’ The eating and drinking He has in view are the figurative equivalent of believing.” [12]
Transubstantiation is a fearful perversion of the words of Jesus and His precious ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. The true and faithful protestant will have nothing to do with this great evil and blasphemous error.
The Worship of Mary
Another leading error of Rome is the extraordinary place it gives to Mary the mother of Jesus. Through its false teachings the Roman Catholic Church elevates Mary to a place to which she is not entitled. From what we know of Mary in the Bible we find her a humble sinner who was herself saved by Christ. Blasphemous and most wicked assertions are made regarding her such as that she was born without sin, lived a sinless life and when she died was received up bodily to heaven. These unscriptural teachings must be rejected. They have no warrant in the word of God. We must protest most solemnly against such heresy. Indeed such teachings were not always the official teachings of Rome but have developed over time.
It seems there has been a concerted effort by the devotees of Mary within Rome to elevate her more and more over the centuries. Often one error leads to another. If she was born without sin, might she also not live a sinless life and be bodily taken to glory? Yet they look in vain in scripture for such teachings, indeed they don’t even claim scripture warrant anymore for many of their teachings about the mother of the Lord Jesus. As Boettner writes:
“The Roman Church commits grievous sin in promoting the worship of Mary. It dishonors God, first, by its use of images; and secondly, by giving to a creature the worship that belongs to the Creator. We have here merely another example of Rome’s persistent tendency to add to the divinely prescribed way of salvation. Romanism sets forth faith and works, Scripture and tradition, Christ and Mary, as the means of salvation.” [13]
From youth, the priests teach the people that the way to Christ is through Mary. It is suggested that Christ is angry with the sinner and the way to be reconciled is to come to Him through the mother of the Lord. The titles Rome gives to Mary are indicative of the idolatrous place given her in Rome:
“‘She is called,’ as Boettner notes: ‘Mother of God, Queen of the Apostles, Queen of Heaven, Queen of Angels, the Door of Paradise, The Gate of Heaven, Our Life, Mother of Grace, Mother of Mercy, and many others which ascribe to her supernatural power.'” [14]
Many of the religious orders in Rome are dedicated to her, and her shrines are among the most popular places of pilgrimage among the faithful. Boettner again:
“Almost every religious order dedicates itself to the Virgin Mary. National shrines, such as those at Lourdes in France, Fatima in Portugal, and Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, are dedicated to her and attract millions. The shrine of Ste. Anne de Beaupre, in Quebec, the most popular shrine in Canada, is dedicated to Saint Anne, who according to apocryphal literature was the mother of Mary. Thousands of churches, schools, hospitals, convents, and shrines are dedicated to her glory.” [15]
The Pope
When many people think of the Roman Catholic Church they think of the Pope. He is the visible head of the body. Of course, as popes are mere men and die there have been a great number of men who have occupied this position over the centuries. Some 250 men are thought to have been Pope. What justification is given for such a position? It is certainly not in scripture, where we find that Christ is the Head of the Church, not the bishop of Rome. Jesus said to His apostles in announcing the Great Commission at the end of Matthew’s gospel, in Matthew 28:18-20, ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.’
Note, given the remarkable place afforded to the Pope in Romanism, there is in fact no warrant in scriptures for a Pope in Christ’s church, nor who that person might be. Rome, of course, takes Peter to be the first Pope. The seat of the Papacy in Rome is St Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City. Rome takes great pride in the false idea that all the Popes are successors of Peter. But did Jesus give a special place to Peter? Certainly there were times when Peter was favoured – along with James and John to witness what others, even among the disciples did not. For example, the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead by the power of Jesus, the transfiguration of Christ and the agony of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Romanists quote with great confidence the words of Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16, following the grand statement of faith in Christ the Son of God that Peter declared. Simon Peter had said to Jesus: “… Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then we read that Jesus replied:
“…Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Surely, Roman apologists say, this indicates that Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build his Church. Boettner gives a good response:
“Romanists quote this verse with great relish, and add their own interpretation to establish their claim for papal authority. But in the Greek the word Peter is Petros, a person, masculine, while the word ‘rock,’ petra, is feminine and refers not to a person but to the declaration of Christ’s deity that Peter had just uttered – ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Using Peter’s name and making, as it were, a play upon words, Jesus said to Peter, ‘You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.’ The truth that Peter had just confessed was the foundation upon which Christ would build His church.” [16]
Christ, the Son of God, and Saviour of sinners is the sole Head of the Church that bears His name. Robert Shaw, in his Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith writes:
“…Christ has a peculiar headship over the Church, which is his body. This is expressly asserted: ‘He is the head of the body, the Church’ (Col. 1:18). Here he is compared to the head of the natural body; and in Ephesians 5:23, he is declared to be the head of the Church, as the husband is the head of the wife.” [17]
Again he comments:
“To the visible Church Christ is a head of government and direction. He is the ‘Ruler in Israel,’ and ‘the government shall be upon his shoulder’ (Isa. 9:6). ‘Yet, have I set my King,’ says Jehovah, ‘upon my holy hill of Zion’ (Ps. 2:6).” [18]
Alas then that the Roman Pontiff should blasphemously claim to be the universal Bishop of the Church and Christ’s viceregent on earth. Notes Shaw:
“Daring encroachments have been often made upon this royal prerogative of Christ, both by ecclesiastical and civil powers. Long has the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition blasphemously arrogated universal headship and lordly dominion;” [19]
Tradition
One leading feature of Romanism is the influence of tradition. The regulative principle teaches us that the practice of the Church is to follow the word of God. However in Romanism, we find many practices and teachings not found in God’s word and often she claims tradition as an authoritative reason for her people to follow what she teaches. Boettner comments:
“Every religious movement that develops some unity and continues to live has its traditions. These traditions gather up the beliefs, thinking, practices and rules of the group, particularly as these are expressed in its doctrinal standards and forms of government. In this manner the movement gives stability to and regulates its own manner of life, and hands that stability and manner of life on to the next generations.” [20]
In other words, not all tradition is bad. But it is bad when tradition supplants the testimony of the Bible. So it is in Romanism. Boettner again:
“‘The Council of Trent, the most authoritative of all Roman councils and the one of greatest historical importance, in the year 1546, declared that the word of God is contained both in the Bible and in tradition, that the two are of equal authority, and that it is the duty of every Christian to accord them equal veneration and respect.'” [21]
One Protestant Confession of Faith The Westminster Confession of Faith a subordinate standard of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, teaches in its first chapter that:
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture.” [22]
One notable difference between the Roman Catholic Bible and the Protestant is that she includes the books called the Apocrypha. Romanism holds these books such as Tobit, Baruch, Bell and the Dragon and The First and Second Books of Maccabees to be equally inspired and authoritative as Genesis, the Book of Psalms and the Gospel According to John. Yet as one writer comments:
“‘There is no record that Christ or any the apostles ever quoted from the Apocryphal books or that they made any reference to them, although they undoubtedly knew of them. There are in the New Testament about 260 direct quotations from and about 370 allusions to passages in the Old Testament; yet among all of those there is not a single reference either by Christ or any of the apostles to the Apocryphal writings.'” [23]
The Confessional
One part of the power of Rome is the confessional. In Romanism, the faithful worshipper is expected to confess his or her sins to the priest. In the Bible we do read of confession of our sin to others in the sense we ought to confess the wrongs we have committed against that person or group of people. But this is far removed from the practice of telling a sinful priest the most intimate of matters and looking to him to prescribe us a course of penance to work out forgiveness with God. Telling a fellow sinner all our sins is not always wise and may even tempt that person to sin. Certainly, in Rome, the confessional is a key source of its power over the consciences of its people and may even be a means to extract information that could, if wished, be used against a person or others.
Purgatory and Penance
Two more unscriptural doctrines of the Church of Rome are Purgatory and Penance. The first of these purgatory is an imagined place of intense suffering after death where the Roman Catholic guilty of sin is purified and made ready for heaven. There is no definite period during which a person will endure the sufferings of purgatory, naturally this is unknown, given there is no such place. Through this doctrine Rome terrorizes her adherents and yet gives them a false hope that although they may have no assurance of going to heaven yet they will not go to hell but to this middle state of suffering and preparation after death for heaven. Giving people a false hope on their way to eternity is a heinous sin.
Through the doctrine of penance Rome keeps her faithful adherents close. Those who are more committed to working out their salvation are the more ready to do the works of penance ascribed by the priest of Rome following confession. Or perhaps even of their own volition to show how sorry they are for their sin. Works of penance may include praying the rosary, giving money to the church or to charity, or going on a pilgrimage to a venerated religious site so identified by Rome. Boettner comments:
“In the Roman system penance is one of the seven sacraments, the fourth in the series. The word, however, is used in two different senses. As a sacrament and in the broad sense it refers to the act of confession on the part of the penitent, together with the priest’s pronouncement of absolution and his assigning of certain works to be done by the penitent. In the narrow sense penance has reference only to the works assigned by the priest and their performance by the penitent.” [24]
Penance and the doing thereof is solemnly fixed to the pronouncement of forgiveness by the priest. There is a connection between the two so that it amounts to a works righteousness to perform penance. Boettner again
“The Church of Rome thus demands acts of penance before she grants forgiveness, inferring that the sacrifice of Christ was not sufficient to atone fully for sin and that it must be supplemented to some extent by these good works. But what God demands is not acts of penance, but repentance, which means turning from sin, vices, injustice and all wickedness in whatever form: ‘Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon’ (Is. 55:7). From the Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus, Luther discovered that Jesus did not say, ‘Do penance,’ as interpreted by the Roman Church, but ‘Repent.'” [25]
Papal Infallibility
Another most pernicious doctrine of Romanism is that of supposed Papal Infallibility. Only God is infallible – He is the One who cannot err. Yet astonishingly Rome officially claims this for the Pope. It did not always do so but since 1870 has done. The doctrine of papal infallibility was officially adopted by Rome as a result of determinations of the First Vatican Council which met from 1870. Boettner quotes from the definition agreed to by that Council:
“…We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defending doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church – are irreformable.” [26]
This shocking statement reminds us why we are protestants. We protest against such a wicked pronouncement. All who reject this statement though in Rome’s eyes are accursed. To it was added the anathema as follows:
“But if any one which may God avert – presume to contradict this definition: let him be anathema.” [27]
Thus every Roman Catholic must on pain of the anathema believe that the Pope may speak with infallibility. It should be noted that papal infallibility does not refer to every statement a Pope may utter at any time but firstly, it is claimed for every statement of the Pope speaking ex cathedra, that is when seated in the Papal chair as Pope. Secondly, it must be regarded as a matter binding on the whole church. Thirdly, it must be to do with faith and morals, however that term is very elastic as Boettner observes for almost anything can be covered under faith and morals. The same writer comments that:
“The practical effect of the infallibility decree has been to stifle the development of theological doctrine within the Roman Church. For only the pope can speak with authority, and when he speaks there can be no opposition. No longer can a church council or a theologian appeal to the Scriptures as against the pope.” [28]
The decree of 1870 is a further proof of the Pope being the Antichrist who blasphemously seeks to stand in the place of the very divine Son of God, who is the alone infallible Head of the Church.
The 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation
One way to highlight the difference between the Protestant position and Romanism is to note that Protestantism declares the five Solas of the Reformation. The word Sola is a Latin term meaning ‘alone.’ These are: Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (to God’s glory alone).
Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone. Many good protestants have written valuable books, such as Calvin’s Institutes and Luther’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. However, we hold to Scripture alone. And, in distinction from Rome, we take the Bible to be the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments excluding uninspired writings such as the Apocrypha that Rome holds to be canonical (part of the word of God). Protestants preach from the Bible and take it, as the Westminster Confession of Faith notes, to be the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined.
Solus Christus – By Christ alone. Rome speaks of Jesus, and allows that he is Christ but it also gives great and unwarranted place to Mary the mother of Jesus. As this paper noted it ascribes blasphemous titles to Mary calling her the Queen of heaven. Protestants look at Rome and its teachings of Christ and Mary, Christ and works, Christ and the Pope and says – Christ alone.
Sola Gracia – By grace alone. This is scriptural, for Paul writes to the Ephesian Christians reminding them that it was by grace alone they were saved. We read this in Ephesians chapter 2:1-9:
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Sola Fide – This means by faith alone. It reminds us that as protestants we stand on the ground of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Rome is faith and works, not faith in Christ alone. It repudiates justification by faith alone. Paul touches on faith alone in many of his epistles not least that quote we just read from Ephesians 2:8-9 – ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.’ And that found in Romans 5:1 ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:’
Soli deo Gloria – This means to the glory of God alone. Salvation, being the work of God from beginning to end, it must be He who gets all the glory. The true believer is ready to give God the glory. Yet Rome with her emphasis on tradition and the church and human works and merit does not give God the glory and He alone.
Biblical References to Romanism
Given how great and large Romanism has grown over the centuries and the fact it sprung from error in the true Christian church, we might wonder if there are any references to this system of error in the Bible. For itself it claims to have an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter who it claims as the first Pope. We have previously noted that the text in Matthew 16, which is supposed to confirm Peter’s papacy, does no such thing. It rather confirms the glorious truth that Peter confessed about Jesus. Peter was not the rock on which Christ built His Church but Jesus is the Rock.
In a way, we can see from the very nature of the claim Rome makes for the Pope, that this is the essence of the antichrist. A man in place of Christ. A visible head of the Church on earth in place of Christ who is the alone Head of the Church that bears His name. In 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, the apostle Paul writes a warning for the Church. A great evil would arise within the Church to threaten the Church itself. This we believe points to Rome.
Paul informs them by the Holy Spirit that there must first come a falling away when the man of sin would be revealed. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12:
“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God… For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
Does this not remind us of the Papacy and the Pope as head thereof? The Pope wears distinct dress, often in white, while the priests are in black and the cardinals in scarlet. He is adored by many and has many blasphemous titles. It is thought by some that, “he that now letteth will let, until he be taken away…’ speaks of the Pagan Roman Emperor. Rome Papal replaced over time Rome Pagan. Both are recorded in history as having, at times, viciously persecuted Christians to the death.
In Revelation, Rome is depicted as a harlot drunk with the blood of the saints. When one thinks back to the evils of the St Bartholomew’s Day massacre in France and the burnings in England under Queen Mary Tudor one sees how Rome fits the picture. Given the abundance of idolatry in Romanism which is very well known, such as idols of Mary and false images of the Saviour, we must heed the word of God in 1 Corinthians 10:14, ‘Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.’
Conclusion
And what is the conclusion we must draw, having considered some of the leading errors of Romanism? It is that Rome is none other than that scripturally revealed mystery of iniquity, the antichrist. It is, that the Pope of Rome is none other than that scripturally prophesied son of perdition. The very son of sin, as it were, who opposes Himself against the true and only Son of God, the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ and, indeed, all three Persons of the Trinity.
Let us then stand against the errors of Rome. Looking on as faithful Protestants from a distance at this solemn and terrible soul-destroying system. Must we not also pray that the Lord would bring down Rome and cause that the true light of the gospel would shine in the hearts of poor sinners who have been sadly led astray by its teachings. May we also be warned lest we be taken in by the errors of Rome ourselves and cleave rather to Christ, ever committing the keeping of our soul to the Lord Jesus who said:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)
References
[1] Westminster Confession of Faith (The Publications Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1967) Chapter XXV para. VI 109-110.
[2] Alexander Stewart, D.D. Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth – The Protestant Institute Lectures for 1930-31 (Edinburgh: W.F. Henderson, 1931), 144.
[3] Stewart, Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth, 145.
[4] Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962), 169.
[5] Boettner Roman Catholicism 169.
[6] Stewart, Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth, 179.
[7] Boettner Roman Catholicism 184.
[8] William Cunningham Notes on Stillingfleet on Popery, p. 267 quoted in Stewart, Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth, 172.
[9] Stewart, Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth, 173.
[10] Stewart, Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth, 173.
[11] Stewart, Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth, 173.
[12] Stewart, Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth, 174-175
[13] Boettner Roman Catholicism 143.
[14] Boettner Roman Catholicism 142.
[15] Boettner Roman Catholicism 141.
[16] Boettner Roman Catholicism 105-106.
[17] Robert Shaw The Reformed Faith – Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications) 341.
[18] Shaw, The Reformed Faith – Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 341.
[19] Shaw, The Reformed Faith – Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 342.
[20] Boettner Roman Catholicism 75.
[21] Boettner Roman Catholicism 77.
[22] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I Para. X, 24.
[23] Boettner Roman Catholicism 81.
[24] Boettner Roman Catholicism 254.
[25] Boettner Roman Catholicism 255.
[26] Boettner Roman Catholicism 235.
[27] Boettner Roman Catholicism 235.
[28] Boettner Roman Catholicism 247.
Speaker: Rev G B Macdonald
Congregation
Text:
Date: 16 December 2025
Series: 2025 New Zealand Youth Conference