|
PART I MY (a Brief Testimony of a Great
Personal Experience) "Sirs, what must I do to be
saved?" "And they said, Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy
house" (Acts 16 : 30-31) |
|
FOREWORD
TO THE FIRST EDITION |
|
by the
REV. F. W. MARTIN, L.TH., former Editor
of "The English Churchman" and Rector of Great Horkesley, Essex |
|
|
|
IT is with
great pleasure that I accede to a request to contribute a short foreword to
Don Francisco Lacueva's testimony. I have had the joy of meeting him and
hearing him testify to the saving grace of Christ which he has personally
experienced. This experience--spoken of by him as his " |
|
I find
this testimony of great value for several reasons. |
|
First, it
shows the Church of Rome as it really is today. Don Lacueva points out,
simply and without malice or bitterness, that the Church of Rome is astray
from the Bible. Judged by the Word of God, that Church is still in grievous
error. |
|
Secondly,
it bears eloquent testimony to the sovereign grace of God, calling out our
dear brother from the darkness and error, by wonderful paths, into the full
light of Gospel Truth. May this little book lead many to the only Saviour of
sinful men and women! |
|
Thirdly, it
underlines the dangers of some aspects of the modern ecumenical movement.
Unity at the expense of truth is worthless. We see from this book that there
can be no peace with |
|
I wish this
book every blessing. May God graciously use it to awaken Roman Catholics to
their need, and nominal Protestants to their dangers. |
|
FRANK W.
MARTIN. |
|
|
|
AUTHOR'S
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION |
|
|
|
THE first
edition of "My Damascus Road" was written in 1962, shortly after my
conversion to the Gospel. The book was used of the Lord to help many people,
and this more than compensated me, in view of adverse criticisms on the part
of many of my former co-religionists. |
|
The six
years which have elapsed since I wrote it enable me
now to assess calmly and impartially its value and its defects. |
|
Its value
as the testimony of a sincere and total conversion to Christ remains
undisputed. I cannot deny a single doctrinal or spiritual assertion contained
in it; I feel the same as I felt then and my opinions remain unchanged. My
decision to leave the Church of Rome was premeditated and based on what I
considered evidence of its falsity, although this conviction was not so
strong then as it is today. |
|
But,
perhaps the tone of the book held something of the exaltation of a recent
convert. A certain air of challenge, defiance, and self-confidence lay in its
pages. On the other hand, the size of the book did not allow me to make a
detailed refutation of the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism. For both
these reasons, my brief exposition, almost superficial and somewhat rough and
ready, presented weak points, vulnerable to criticism as easy as it was
bitter. |
|
Since
then, the Lord has allowed me to pass through a serious spiritual crisis
which, under the title "What Happened!", I
have endeavoured to present in the second
part of this book. This crisis has taught me many profitable lessons, and
these I should like to share with my readers, so that my experience may bear
testimony and bring a message of real help to all who may pass through times
of perplexity and spiritual affliction. |
|
I have
decided, therefore, to modify somewhat the text of the first edition,
omitting nothing of my story or personal convictions, but improving its tone
and doctrinal exposition. At the same time, certain details which experience
has proved to be weak, unnecessary, and even harmful. I have left out. |
|
Another
change in this Second Edition has been made necessary by the book, "Tu Camino de Damasco?" ("Your Damascus Road?"), written by
Dr. Manuel Fernández, a former pupil of mine, later fellow-Professor in the
Seminary and in the Chapter of the Cathedral of Tarazona, and today Magister
Canon of Santander (Spain). He wrote it to refute my own booklet, "My Damascus
Road". |
|
Although
my future book, "The Problem of Christian Unity", is a complete and
detailed reply to all his objections, I have considered it advisable to
answer briefly, with the use of foot-notes, the most outstanding of his
criticism. It is to be regretted that an author who presumes to be "my
best friend" [1] should have written more than
fifteen pages (15-30) of personal allusions, some humiliating and in very bad
taste, under the pretext of exposing certain weaknesses of my character as
the only explanation for my conversion to the Gospel. |
|
|
|
|
|
Contents |
|
|
|
Foreword |
|
PART I |
|
Foreword
to the First Edition |
|
Author's
Preface to the Second Edition |
|
Introduction |
|
The Road
to |
|
A Light from
Above |
|
There is
only One Gospel |
|
A
Nefarious Principle has become the Leaven of Corruption |
|
|
|
My New
Birth |
|
PART II |
|
Foreword |
|
An
Appreciation |
|
Introduction |
|
A Serious
Danger |
|
The Dark
Night of the Spirit |
|
Escape from
the Desert |
|
An Example
of Roman Curial Proceedings |
|
The Final
Stages |
|
My Return
Home |
|
Notes to
Part I |
|
PLATES |
|
With my
late Mother |
|
The
Cathedral of Tarazona |
|
Main
Entrance to Monastery of the Benedictines |
|
With my Wife
and Daughter |
|
|
|
Introduction |
|
|
|
I SHOULD
like to commence this account of my deep and intimate experience of my
conversion to Jesus Christ and the sublime truth of His Gospel by cordially greeting
all my compatriots and Spanish-speaking readers, and especially my former
colleagues in the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. I would to God that
all who read this "were such as I
am" (Acts 26:29) except for the sufferings of my recent spiritual
crisis! I earnestly pray God that they may all be enlightened by His Holy
Spirit, and thereby enter into the same happy experience which changed the
whole course of my life. |
|
Oh that I
could bear testimony of my conversion to the Gospel from the very pulpit in
the Cathedral of Tarazona, where for thirteen years I was the official
preacher of the Chapter! Unfortunately, this is impossible even after the
recent promulgation (A.D. 1967) of the law of religious liberty in my
country. |
|
From the outset
I would make it quite clear that I have left the Roman Church fully persuaded
of the anti-biblical falseness of many of her dogmas [2].
I have come out with the sole purpose of following Christ with sincerity and
humility, and I have no ulterior motives. I would redeem the past years of a
colourless life, and dedicate myself to a constant and fervent testimony of
Christ, as the only "name under
heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts |
|
light"
(1 Peter 2:9). |
|
I have not
run away with any woman, nor have I been bribed to leave the Roman Church in
which I enjoyed a very good living and held a high position. Quite to the
contrary, the servants of God who led me to Christ did not hide from me the
fact that I should be prepared for material loss [3].
But for the true Christian, this should never be a matter for concern, and it
is not so for me. I believe in the Providence of God and I know that our
heavenly Father only asks that we should "seek first the |
|
If anyone
thinks that I have strayed from the fold I beg him to pray for me and, in
grateful response, I shall also pray for him and for all my former
co-religionists who remain enchained by a false system, contrary to the Word
of God. It should not be forgotten that official representatives of the
Jewish faith furiously faced the Apostle Paul with the infamous insult of
"this pestilent fellow, and a
mover of sedition ... throughout the world" (Acts 24:5). Paul's
reply is well worth meditation: "But
this I confess unto thee that after the way which they call heresy, so
worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in
the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14). |
|
This shows
how, by a way which religious officialdom regarded as mistaken and
"heretical", Paul found the true "orthodox" road to
worship God according to the Scriptures!
Similarly, the Roman hierarchy have branded as apostates and heretics all who
rise against the "another
Gospel" (Gal. 1:6), and go in search of the pure waters of the Word of
God. |
|
I am not
attempting now a treatise on apologetics, but wish to set down simply my own
personal experiences. I have no personal animosity against any one in
particular. Moreover, I am ready, like Paul, to be "anathema" for
my former co-religionists. I have only gratitude for many of them and my only
desire is that they all may open their eyes to the great truth that the only
ground for our salvation is "The
righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all
them that believe: for there is no difference: |
|
"For all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God; |
|
"Being justified freely by His grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: |
|
"Whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the
remissions of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"
(Rom. 3:22-25) [4]. |
|
We must be
convinced that the Holy Scriptures are the only touchstone by which to
discover whether a doctrine is truly "orthodox" or not. This is why
even the preaching of an Apostle such as Paul, who spoke what he was taught
"by the revelation of Jesus Christ"
(Gal. 1:12) could be tested according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament
by a group of Jews who, far from having any ecclesiastical authority, were
not yet members of the Christian community, as we read in Acts 17:11 of the
Berean Jews: |
|
"These were more noble
than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness
of mind, AND SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, WHETHER THOSE THINGS (which
Paul was preaching) WERE so". |
|
Therefore,
I exhort all my readers to read the Bible daily, to ponder it closely and to
study it deeply with fervent prayer to the Holy Spirit which inspired it. I
recommend to my former companions to read also evangelical literature and
commentaries on the Scriptures devoid of dogmatic prejudice and
mystification. Do not fear the empty "anathemas" of men. The real
"anathema" from God Himself, as promulgated by Paul, under the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is found in Gal. 1:8,9, and threatens not only
those who deny the only true Gospel of justification by faith, but also those
who try to mystify it by adding
something to the revealed truth: |
|
"But though we or an angel from heaven,
preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, LET HIM BE ACCURSED. |
|
"As we said before, so say we now again. If
any man preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto
you than that ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED." |
|
When considered
honestly and impartially, is it possible really to believe in the fundamental
dogmas of the Roman Church? Every sincere reader both of the Bible and of the
History of the Church will find immediately that many basic doctrines of the
Roman Church such as the sacrifice of the Mass, transubstantiation,
obligatory confession of sins made orally to a man and, above all, marian and
papal dogmas solemnly defined since A.D. 1854, are not only strange to
Scripture but even contrary to all the teaching of the New Testament. If any
reader should believe in them sincerely, let him continue to read these
pages, especially the second chapter ("A Light from Above") of this
first part. |
|
I would
not conclude this introduction without expressing my very deep joy and
happiness in the Lord, in spite of all my past crises and tribulations, for
the blessed assurance of salvation which I share with all true believers.
This is not an arrogant presumption, but humble and grateful acceptation of
the explicit message of the Word of God, manifest in many passages. Let us
read the most relevant of them: |
|
"All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me; and him that cometh to me I WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT ... |
|
"And this is the Father's will which hath
sent me, that of all which he hath given me I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING"
(Jn. |
|
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me: |
|
"And I give unto them eternal life; AND
THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH, NEITHER SHALL ANY MAN PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND. |
|
"My Father, which gave them me, is greater
than all; AND NO MAN IS ABLE TO PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY FATHER'S HAND"
(Jn. |
|
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God: |
|
"And if children, then heirs . . .
" (Rom. |
|
Will our
Heavenly Father ever disinherit His children? |
|
No! |
|
"For the gifts and calling of God are
without repentance" (Rom. |
|
"For I know whom I have believed, and am
persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have |
|
committed
(all the precious things that Paul had put under God's care) unto Him against that day (obviously,
the "Parousia") (2 Tim. |
|
And,
finally, the wonderful hymn of Christian optimism: |
|
"Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ? ... |
|
"For I am persuaded, that neither death,
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor
things to come. |
|
|
|
"Nor height, nor depth, NOR ANY OTHER
CREATURE, SHALL BE ABLE TO SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD WHICH IS IN CHRIST
JESUS OUR LORD" (Rom. |
|
8:35,38,39). |
|
The
Apostle John emphasizes that this assurance is not presumption, but a sure
and certain thing, so that to doubt it is to make God a liar: |
|
"He that believeth on the Son of God hath
the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar . . . |
|
"And this is the record, THAT GOD HATH
GIVEN TO US ETERNAL LIFE . . |
|
"These things have I written unto you that
believe on the name of the Son of God; THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE
ETERNAL LIFE" (1 Jn. |
|
|
|
The Road to |
|
|
|
IN
September, 1948, I was promoted by my bishop to the chair of Special Dogmatic
Theology in the Diocesan Seminary of Tarazona ( |
|
Up to that
time, all doubts and difficulties which I had experienced with regard to many
of the doctrines of the Roman Church which her subjects are taught and
obliged to believe as "de fide
divina" (by divine faith), I
had managed to suppress. This had been achieved partly because of the
immediate and unconditional submission which, under the penalty of
excommunication, all true Romanists render to the definitions of the Councils
and the decisions of the Popes, whose infallibility is a fundamental
postulate of Roman Dogmatics [6]. |
|
However,
when my professional studies of theology led me to the fundamental concepts
which became the framework of Romanist theological conclusions, I found
myself in many a cul-de-sac out of which I could find no exit. I therefore
found I could not give satisfactory answers to my pupils' questions, nor was
I able to solve my own intellectual problems. |
|
I see now
that there were two main reasons why I could not find the answer to my
difficulties: |
|
(A)
Firstly because Romanist Theology, in trying to uncover the mysteries of
faith, seeks above all to find scientific solutions for every theological problem.
Thence, the effort which we, Professors of Dogmatics, had to make in order to
satisfy, in some way, the persistent questions of our pupils. The Church of
Rome forgets that faith does not require for its defence the metaphysical
niceties of a pagan mind, such as that of Aristotle, but the acceptance of
divinely revealed truth. To the "we
know" of Nicodemus in his dialogue with Jesus, recorded in Jn. 3,
the Lord does not reply with reasons to supplement the religious knowledge of
the Rabbi, but immediately emphasizes the necessity of a "new birth" in order to be able to
"see the kingdom of God" [7]. |
|
(B)
Another main reason for my not being able to find a satisfactory answer to
the doubts that filled my mind, the more I entered into theological theses,
was the very inconsistency of many Roman dogmas, studied impartially in the
light of the Bible and of the history of the primitive Church, that is, of
the oldest and purest "tradition". I shall never forget the
powerful effect made during a discussion which flared up at a public
theological academy in the main hall of my Seminary in 1957. The subject was
auricular confession and the penitential discipline of the first centuries.
As the discussion was over, I came to the conclusion that the primitive
Church did not practice the confession of
every mortal sin to a priest as something absolutely necessary for
salvation "by Divine Right",
as the Council of Trent defined solemnly (v.
Denzinger, no. 1707, formerly 917). If the auricular confession of every
mortal sin is necessary for salvation by
Divine Commandment, why did not
the Church observe this commandment from the beginning? In fact, the practice
of putting outside the Church those who offended grievously their Christian
communities with some notorious crimes, and the practice of reconciling them
after a period of probation, had nothing in common with the "Sacrament
of Penance" [8]. |
|
So, I said
to myself: where, then, is the infallibility of the Church? And, if the Church
is not infallible in this particular subject of the confessional, how can I
believe that she is infallible in other matters? Because the Roman system is
so strongly bound together under the claims of an infallible and irreformable
teaching, that if a particular dogma falls down at the evidence of the facts,
the whole system must altogether fall down. |
|
But, my
discoveries with respect to the inconsistencies in Roman doctrines were, of
necessity, as exceedingly slow for me as for any other Roman Catholic priest
or layman, for the following reasons: (a) The false security that the Church
of Rome seeks to impose on her subjects, that she alone is the repository of all Truth; which obliged us thus, to
submit blindly, even in the face of the most serious theological
difficulties. (b) The excommunication with which the Canon Law threatens all
who dare to buy, sell, read, retain or pass on to others, "prohibited
books", amongst which are included all which criticise and pass judgment
on the dogmas of Rome. (c) The tendentious, and even slanderous, manner in
which the doctrines and characters of the great Reformers of the sixteenth
century were presented to us in the Manuals of Theology and History of the
Roman Church. There are still Roman Catholics who believe that the Bible is a
"Protestant" book, and who, upon hearing the term
"protestant", believe it to be associated with heretics to be
shunned, enemies, not only of the Church, but, above all, of the Virgin Mary,
and even of Jesus Christ Himself; and who teaches doctrines so immoral as
that "as long as you believe, you may sin as much as you want". |
|
I do have
to acknowledge, however, that during the last ten years, the Roman
theologians and historians have been taking a more sympathetic approach to the
persons of the Reformers of the sixteenth century. In the official organ of
the Roman Catholic Missions in |
|
Alongside
the growing desire on the part of multitudes of Roman Catholics to know the
Word of God, another encouraging sign is the foundation of Chairs of
Protestant Theology in some Seminaries; and also the meeting together, openly
or clandestinely, of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals in some Spanish
localities (and even more so in other countries) in order to discuss mutual
differences and Biblical foundations of the Christian faith, in a calm,
peaceful and friendly manner. I know of evangelical preachers who have been
allowed to proclaim the true Gospel in Roman Catholic churches, to the great
satisfaction of all in attendance. |
|
Returning
to my own experiences I would add that, in view of the insoluble difficulties
which the study of theology presented to my mind in the light of the Bible,
and not having at my disposal truly Evangelical information, I began to slide
down the slope of scepticism, towards religious agnosticism, with all the
lamentable consequences of such a state, both in the intellectual and in the
moral side. |
|
On the
other hand, from a child I had been brought up to the niceties of human
behaviour and self-control by trusting in my own strength, trying always to
do good deeds and obtain "merits" before God. From my childhood I
had been taught, also, to flee to the Virgin Mary in moments of temptation or
spiritual danger; whose intercession is presented by Romanist theologians not
only as omnipotent, but also as more accessible and certain than that of our
Lord Jesus Christ Himself. How contrary this is to such biblical passages
like Jn. 14:6; Acts |
|
Only later
I realized, by the reading of evangelical literature and the unprejudiced
study of the Bible, that: (a) The spiritual victory of a Christian is granted
not upon his "efforts" or "merits", but upon his docility
to the Spirit of God (v. Rom.
8:14); (b) we are not saved for being righteous,
but as repenting and believing sinners,
hanging only on God's mercy, saved by pure grace through faith, which is as
well a pure gift of God (v. Rom.
3:21-28; Eph. 2:8,9) ; (c) we are justified by the bestowal upon us, sinners,
of the righteousness of Christ, our Substitute on Calvary's Cross: "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him"
(2 Cor. 5:21). (d) We do not need any other Mediator but Christ, "for if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we
shall be saved by His life" (Rom. |
|
Even
although I had turned my back on Him, God, from eternity, had had a merciful
plan and purpose for me. There is an axiom in Roman Theology which says:
"God abandons no man, unless that man first abandons God". But the Word
of God tells us something very different: "I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them
that asked not for me" (Isaiah 65:1; Rom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Light from Above |
|
|
|
TEN years
before my spiritual experience, I had read in a Romanist magazine, "Cultura Biblica" ("Biblical
Culture"), the name of a Spanish evangelical pastor, Rev. Don Samuel
Vila. He was attacked for some remarks he made in his book "To the
Fountain of Christianity" with reference to the brothers of Jesus. |
|
After so
many years, I still happened to remember the name of this pastor. But, how to
find his address? Ten years ago, it was not easy for a priest to contact a
Protestant minister. Another providential thing happened. As I was talking
with a group of priests along the street in Tarazona, the conversation arose about
a pastoral letter of Cardinal Segura against Protestants. "I think there
is in |
|
This is
all I wanted to know. Immediately I went to the telephone directory, my eyes
went down quickly: A, B, C, D. . . . |
|
Pastor
Vila replied with a letter full of understanding, serenity, and unction of
the Holy Spirit, in which he explained many of the fundamental truths of the
Word of God, which nevertheless amazed me. |
|
Against
everything which I had supposed, Mr. Vila did not ask me to become a
Protestant but told me candidly which was the real matter with me in the
following terms: |
|
"My
dear friend: the solution of your spiritual problems does not lie in changing
from one religious denomination to another, but IN A TRUE CONVERSION TO GOD
THROUGH CHRIST. Your salvation depends purely and entirely on your reception,
by faith, of Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour. Then, you must consider
Christian life as a spiritual, intimate, idyl with Christ, for nobody ought
to be called a Christian unless he or she could openly proclaim that the love
of Christ has conquered in an irresistible manner his or her heart". |
|
This was to
me extraordinary. So these were the maligned Protestants! |
|
Up until
then, I was convinced that the justification of the sinner, and his personal
salvation, consisted in the duty of keeping oneself in the baptismal grace,
and, when necessary, recovering the same by means of an act of confession
made to, and absolution received from, a fellowpriest. Like so many Roman
Catholics, I did not understand how the sinner could be justified and saved
simply by receiving Jesus Christ by faith, as his own personal Saviour. The poetic term "idyl" used
by |
|
this
manner of defining true Christianity was, in the truest sense of the word, a
complete revelation to me. |
|
I
continued my correspondence with Pastor Vila, and, after the first letters I
received, he sent me a great deal of chosen evangelical literature. I shall
always remember the impression I received from the reading of such books like
the above quoted "To the Fountain of Christianity", by Vila (a
simple and thorough refutation of Roman dogmas in view of the Bible and the
History of the primitive Church); "Evangelical Christianity along the
centuries", by the same author; "Peace with God", by Billy
Graham (a blessed book for many souls, although I do not agree with the
author in his evangelistic methods and ecumenical mind); "Your Christian
Life", by Pastor José M. Martínez of Barcelona; "A Great Protestant:
The Apostle Paul", by the Spanish ex-priest José M. Rico Avila; the
"Commentary on Romans", by W. Newell; the "Commentary on
Hebrews", by J. Calvin; and the fascinating book "Christianity is
Christ", by Prof. Griffith Thomas. |
|
But the
correspondence with Vila and the reading of these books stimulated me above
all to devote myself to the detailed and assiduous study and meditation of
the Word of God, accompanied by much prayer in which I sought abundant grace
of the Holy Spirit to discover the real sense of the Word as He inspired it,
to treasure it in my memory and heart, to live it through in my life and
communicate it by my conversation and preaching. In a little over a year I
read the whole Bible through twice and the New Testament many times. I also
studied the best Romanist and Protestant commentaries. |
|
I was soon
enjoying the fruits of this very pleasant task. My students were often amazed
at the pertinent and varied biblical references with which I supported my
theological explanations. |
|
As I say in
the second part of this book, it takes many months and sometimes many years
for a priest to change completely his mind, however converted he may be,
because all the theological background accumulated from the childhood. This
was one of the motives of my spiritual crisis in the years shortly following
my conversion. But even so, from the very beginning, I saw with meridian
clarity, for the first time, the falsity of many of the doctrines which are
"dogmas" of faith in the Roman Church, and I could grasp immediately
the main points of the message of salvation which constitute the kernel of
the Reformed faith, although at that time I did not understand exactly the
root of the matter, namely the problems of unity and authority of the Church. |
|
Why had I
not realised before the errors of the Roman Church? The answer is quite
simple. A Roman Catholic brought up from childhood in the belief that the
Church of Rome is the only true Church of Christ, and that she alone
possesses the Truth, finds it an almost insuperable difficulty (even though
he reads the Holy Bible) to be convinced that all the religious teaching he
has received is contrary to the Word of God. This is especially true when he
has been moulded in Roman Catholic Philosophy and Theology for thirteen years
in a Seminary. There, he has been taught with insistence that the Roman
Catholic Hierarchy alone is able correctly to interpret the Bible, since it
is "the only really binding rule of faith", and it is enough for
him to accept blindly, and without doubts, what the Hierarchy presents as
"object of divine and catholic faith". On the other hand, should he
be a person with an extremely sensitive conscience, he will not dare to
listen to, or read, anything which questions the legitimacy of the authority
which the Church claims for herself in matters of religion. To be saved he
needs only "believe what the |
|
But this
ecclesiastical "rule of faith" which has produced the Denzinger or
Manual of Symbols, Definitions and Declarations, containing the unappealable
decisions of the Councils and of the Popes, in many of its teachings is
contrary to the only rule of faith which is the Word of God, indisputable
deposit of divine revelation. Where does the Word of God teach the doctrines
of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Transubstantiation, the obligatory
auricular confession at the feet of a man, of Purgatory, the dogmas on the
Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, all fundamental doctrines of the
Roman Theology? Nowhere in Scripture. [9] |
|
Let us
give a brief summary which will convince anyone who has studied THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE
without dogmatic prejudice, for there is no better interpreter of the Bible
than the Bible itself (of course, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit) with
its admirable network of references and parallel passages which mutually
illuminate, interpret and explain each other. It is not lawful to take one
loose Scriptural phrase and from it elaborate a dogma (even the devil can do
this (v. Mt. 4:6; Lk. |
|
|
|
1. THE
SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. |
|
According
to the Council of Trent, Christ offers Himself in every Mass, "by the
ministry of priests", so that the salutary effects of Calvary may be
applied as propitiation for the sins which we daily commit and as expiation
for the departed souls who left this earth without having fully satisfied for
their sins (v. Denz. 1739-1743,
formerly 938-940, and 1751-1754, formerly 948-951). |
|
But the
Bible says : "But this man
(Christ), after he had offered one sacrifice
for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12),
meaning clearly by this highly symbolical sentence that He has totally
finished His offering, since the priest must always stand while he is offering a sacrifice. Now the Holy Spirit goes
on saying: "For by one offering he
had perfected for ever them that are sanctified . . . Now where remissions of these (sins
and iniquities--v. 17) is, there is no more offering for sin"
(Heb. |
|
What, then,
must believers do to propitiate God for their daily sins, that is, to apply to themselves "the salutary
effects of |
|
Does it
mean that we "Protestants" are without daily sacrifice or that the
prophecy of Malachi (Mal. |
|
|
|
2.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. |
|
According
to the Council of Trent, Christ is truly, really and substantially, with
body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Sacrament of Eucharist, by virtue of
the "singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body
and the whole substance of the wine into the blood" (Denz. |
|
1651-1652,
formerly 883-884). |
|
The Bible
teaches us that Jesus, having obtained eternal redemption for us, "entered in once into the holy place"
(Heb. |
|
But, did
He not say that He would remain with us for ever? Yes, by His Spirit: "It is expedient for you that I go away;
for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart I
will send Him unto you" (Jn. 16:7). It is His Spirit that He has
left with us, and not His "flesh", and in order to dispel all
misunderstanding, He Himself said: "The
flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and
they are life" (Jn. 6:63). |
|
How, then,
are we to understand the words, "This
is My body"--"This is My
blood" (Mt. 26:26,28, and other
references), and also, "My flesh
is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed" (Jn. |
|
|
|
"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to
Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst"
(verse 35). |
|
|
|
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink His blood, ye have (Greek "échete"--present tense) no life in you" (verse 53, in the
Latin Vulgate, 54). |
|
|
|
Christ's
words clearly indicate a "necessity of means" (something absolutely
necessary for salvation), whilst Roman Theology
declares that the reception of the Eucharistic Sacrament is necessary by
"necessity of commandment" (only because communion is commanded).
It is clear, then, that Christ did not mean to command that His body should
be eaten "literally", nor His blood "literally" drunk. |
|
Finally,
it is noteworthy that Jesus, after
saying: "This is My blood",
goes on to say: "I shall not drink again OF THE FRUIT OF 'THE VINE until I drink it new with you in the |
|
Speaking
of the Lord's Supper, Paul repeatedly uses the words "bread" and
"wine", in remembrance of the broken Body and the shed Blood (v. 1 Cor. 11:20, 23-29). The
subterfuge of Roman Theology, that he spoke in this way because in the
Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ are contained under the
"accidents" or appearances ("sub speciebus"--says the
Council of Trent. V. Denz. 1652,
formerly 884) of bread and wine, is to put into the divinely-inspired pen of
the Apostle an error and inexactness that could only be found in the
tendentious commentaries of Roman Catholic expositors [11]. |
|
|
|
3.
AURICULAR CONFESSION. |
|
I have
quoted in a previous chapter the definition of |
|
The only
confession necessary for the believer who may sin (and we all sin as we can
see in 1 Jn. 1:8,10; Jas. 3:2) in order that our fellowship and full
communion with the Lord be maintained and restored, must be made to God
alone, through Christ, our Advocate: |
|
"If we walk in the light (by faith--see
Jn. |
|
...we have fellowship one with another, and
the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin. |
|
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us. |
|
"If we CONFESS OUR SINS, He is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness". |
|
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. AND IF ANY MAN SIN, WE
HAVE AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS: "AND HE IS
THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS" (1 Jn. 1:7-9 and 2:1,2). |
|
The only
"mortal" sin, in the
sense that it leads to eternal perdition (v.
1 Jn. 5:16), is to refuse to believe in Jesus (cf. 1 Jn. 5:1, with 1 Jn.
5:10-12; 16-18; and Jn. 3:18; 8:24; 9:41; 12:48; 15:24), and thus
deliberately reject the light (cf. Mt. 12:32 and parallel Scriptures, with
Jn. 3:19 and Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26,27--Scriptures which, through lack of Biblical
perspective, the Manuals of Roman Theology find extremely difficult to
interpret). |
|
If there
were Biblical authority for "auricular confession, with absolution from
a priest", the most appropriate places to speak of it would be in Acts
8:22 (where the Apostle Peter calls to repentance,
without mentioning the confessional), and Heb. 6:6 (where "to renew again unto repentance"
is excluded as impossible unless there first be faith--not apparent or
superficial, but authentic--vv. 4,5). However, in
neither of these Scriptures do we find any mention of the so-called
"priestly power of the keys in the Sacrament of Penance" [12]. |
|
|
|
4.
DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. |
|
The Roman Catholic
doctrine of Purgatory (as also that of indulgences, penances and sacramental
satisfaction or expiation) is based upon the false assumption that, although sins as far as guilt is concerned, are
pardoned, this is not always true in respect to the full punishment such as sins deserve ("dogma of faith"
according to the Council of Trent. See Denz., 1712-1715, formerly 922-925). |
|
This is in
open contradiction to the New Testament. Hebrews 10:12-18 assures us that Christ,
by offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, put away our sins, never more to
remember them, and opened for us the way to heaven (see also 9:28). We are
told in Rom. 8:1 that there is now "no
condemnation", or guilt to be
expiated, since Christ has nailed to the Cross the complete list of all our
debts to the Law (Col. 2:14) and God laid all
the punishment which our sins merited (Is. 53:5) upon the shoulders of
His Son, so that we might be entirely cleansed and clothed in the very
righteousness of Christ Himself (2 Cor. 5:21). |
|
In a few
words: It is impossible for God to demand payment twice for the same debt.
Very well--Jesus Christ on the Cross paid the full debt of our sins. So, for
God to demand a supplementary payment would be blasphemy against Christ, and
slanderous to those whom Christ has
washed in His own blood (Rev. 1:5; 3:5; 7:9,13,14; 19:8; 22:14). |
|
This is
true not only for those who accept Christ for the first time, by faith in His
redemption, but for those who are already justified, since John says of them : "The
blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us FROM ALL SIN" (1 Jn.
1:7), and repeats it in verse 9: "AND TO CLEANSE US FROM ALL
UNRIGHTEOUSNESS"). On the other hand, we have the following facts: (a)
The beggar of Luke |
|
It is hard
to understand how modern theologians, such as L. Ott, continue to cite
passages of Scripture such as Mt. 5:26; |
|
|
|
5. THE
DOCTRINE OF MARY |
|
If an average
Roman Catholic (above all in such countries like Spain) were asked what was
his idea of a Protestant, he would say, "He is a heretic who believes
that, provided that you have faith, you can do whatever you like, and who
does not believe in the Pope nor in the
Virgin Mary". |
|
About five
years ago, in |
|
The
corrupted doctrines about Mary began with a misunderstanding of the human generation
of the Son of God from Mary. Against Nestorius, who conceived the distinction
of the two natures in Christ as a dual personality and so denied Mary the
title of "Mother of God", the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)
defined: "If anyone do not confess that Emmanuel is truly God and the
blessed Virgin therefore Mother of God (Greek "Theotókos") because
she bore according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh, --anathema sit" (Denz., 252,
formerly 113). Although the statement might appear to be correct, the
theological conclusions in Roman Theology have overlooked that Mary is mother
of Christ only "according to the flesh" and have emphasized the
maternal relationship of Mary with the Son of God as far as to exalt Mary
above all creation and inside the trinitarian hypostatic order, with all the
most blasphemous consequences. |
|
If we
realize that the dogmatic definition of the Divine Motherhood of Mary was
pronounced in Ephesus, after the massive entrance of heathen into the Church,
it will be clear the connection of this declaration with the cult of Diana (v. Acts 19:34). So, from the
beginning, we can see the title of "Mother of God" in conjunction
with the influence of paganism with its feminine deities (cf. "Queen of
Heaven" in the Litany, with the Roman hymns to Vesta, and "the Queen of Heaven" in Jer.
44:17-19,25), giving increasing occasion to the greatest errors. |
|
Thus: (A)
while Jesus in the Gospels reiterates that salvation and sanctification are
dependent upon a spiritual, and not a carnal, relationship with Himself (v. Mat. 12:48-50; Mk. 3:33-35; Lk.
11:27,28), Roman Theology claims that, because she was the mother of Jesus
according to the flesh, Mary was holy, sinless, immaculate and ascended to
Heaven. Furthermore, the Roman Hierarchy continues to permit the publication
and distribution of Alphonso Liguori's famous book, "The Glories of
Mary" which is full of statements contrary to Bible teaching and a
blasphemy against the unique Mediation of Christ. In the same way, they still
permit extreme Mariologists to assert that since Mary belongs to an
"order" superior to that of "Redemption", she was,
therefore, sanctified originally and primarily, not by the Blood of Christ
shed on Calvary, but by virtue of the superior grace of her Divine Motherhood,
and thus she could be, with Christ, CoRedeemer of the rest of mankind. This
opinion is directly opposed even to the particular formula in the dogmatic
definition of the Immaculate Conception ("she was preserved immune from
all stain of original sin, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of the human race",
--Denz., 2803, formerly 1641), but on this point the Hierarchy is silent, in
accordance with the proverb: "De
Maria nunquam satis" ("Enough can never be said about
Mary"). |
|
(B) Rom.
3:9-31 and 5:12-18 make it very clear that there is no human being without
sin, and the only means by which one may be freed from sin is faith (cf. Lk. 1:45 --"Blessed is she that believed"--says Elizabeth of
Mary--), and Heb. 4:15; 7:26 confirm the uniqueness of Christ as being "like as we are, yet without sin",
and, therefore, the only One who is
able to intercede before God on our behalf (1 Jn. 2:1,2), and the only One by Whose Name we can be saved
(Acts 4:12); in a word, "the only
Mediator between God and man" (1 Tim. 2:5). Again, Jesus
emphatically repudiated all interference on the part of His mother in matters
relative to the work of Redemption--in which matters He was subject to His
heavenly Father alone (v. Lk.
2:48-50; Jn. 2:3,4). |
|
(C) The
dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption imply an anti-Biblical
anticipation of the second coming of Christ. Besides all this, there are
theologians who assert that the Virgin Mary did not die, and the Hierarchy
permits this, even against the clear teaching of Romans 5:12; 6:3-8; 8:11,
etc.... It is pointless to cite texts such as Gen. 3:15, based upon a
tendentious translation of the Latin Vulgate or upon a fanciful
interpretation of the word "woman", and Lk. 1:28 (from the term
"kecharitoméne", as if this verb implied "fulness of
sanctifying grace, both intensive and extensive"--fully and always--when
Paul uses exactly the same verb in Eph. 1:6, "echarítosen", for all
believers). |
|
(D) Mary's
privilege, as mother of the Lord, according to the flesh, does not grant her
entrance into "the trinitarian hypostatic order", such as Roman
theologians affirm, nor any authority over her Son, Who is God as well as divinely appointed Saviour (in
opposition to Denz., 3370, formerly 1978a, and 3915). Although |
|
|
|
6. THE
SUPREME, INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE |
|
In effect,
the two most fundamental doctrines of the Church of Rome are: the universal
Primacy of papal jurisdiction, in accordance with the definition of Boniface
VIII and of the First Vatican Council, and the Pope's pretension to
"infallibility" when speaking "ex cathedra", that is, "when, fulfilling his duty as
Supreme Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, he, by virtue of his supreme
Apostolic authority, defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held
by the universal Church" (Denz., 3074, form. 1839). |
|
What Bible
texts does |
|
(A) Mat. |
|
Peter used
the "keys" of the Kingdom (not of the Church) in a special way on
the Day of Pentecost, to open the door of the Kingdom of God to the Jews, and
again, in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10) to give admittance to the Kingdom
to the first "Gentile" (name given to those not belonging to the
"chosen people", Israel). |
|
According
to rabbinical jargon, "to bind or to loose" refers to the power of
the Jewish scribe to apply the "Law" in particular cases (today we
would say, to establish "jurisprudence" or "law"), in
order to permit or prohibit, or admit or exclude, from the community. Mt.
18:18; Jn. 20:23 show that this is not the privilege of a "hierarchical
power", but the common function of the Church. As in Jn. 9:34,35, it has
often been the case that Jesus is very close to those whom the
"Hierarchy" excommunicates. |
|
(B) Luke 22:32. Here Christ does not
promise to Peter any "infallibility" whatsoever. On the contrary,
He predicts Peter's "fallibility", and commissions him to encourage
and strengthen his brethren in the faith, after having learned from his own
experience that conviction of sin and personal weakness are the best ground
to prepare a man for preaching to others the message of salvation from a God
merciful towards the most miserable of sinners. |
|
(C) John 21:15-17. Here, Jesus does not
confer upon Peter any supreme papal jurisdiction over the whole Church but, rather,
restores him to the office of pastoring, not
Peter's flock, but Christ's (v.
also 1 Pet. 5:2-4), after his three-fold affirmation to love Christ more than
the others precisely because he had denied Him three times, having vehemently
assured Christ beforehand that "though all men shall be offended because
of Thee, yet will I never be offended" (Mt. 26:33; Mk. 14:29). |
|
That Peter
never officiated as Supreme Head of the Church is clearly seen from
references such as Acts 11, where he gives a report and excuses himself; Acts
15, where it is James (not Peter) who presides over the Council of Jerusalem;
Acts 18:14, where Peter is sent by
others on a certain mission (the first Pope acting as "Apostolic
Delegate"?); 1 Cor. 1:10-12; 3:3-6 (in the latter reference Peter is not
even mentioned), when Paul could most easily have settled the discussions by
appealing to an "infallible papal Head"; Gal. 2:11, when a
subordinate would appear to be insolent to the "Pope" and says to
him, "if thou, being a Jew",
when it would have been more to the point to add "and the visible Head of the Church"; Eph. 4:4-6, where Paul
does not mention Peter among the seven bonds of Christian unity, in spite of
the Roman teaching that the Pope is "the root and the kernel of Church's
unity"; etc. |
|
Finally,
Peter was neither Bishop of Rome (Paul does not mention him either writing to
Rome or writing from Rome), nor had he successors (because the Apostles were
not "bishops", nor had they successors, since their task was unique), neither did the Bishop of
Rome claim for himself the title "Universal Bishop" until the
beginning of the 7th century, and that as an indirect result or by--product
of political circumstances which favoured the gradual predominance of the
Roman See [15]. |
|
|
|
There is only One Gospel |
|
|
|
IT must
not be supposed from what I have already written that doubts and perplexities
disappeared immediately and entirely from my heart. In the crisis which comes
during the experience of conversion, a certain guilt complex is
psychologically possible by fear of leaving the only true "fold"
and one is tempted not to complicate life and to continue the old comfortable
habits and beliefs followed by our forebears, our comrades and friends in our
familiar surroundings. In these moments of indecision the helpers of Satan
are ever at hand to advise one to conform to the usual pattern and thus to
hinder rather than help. Sometimes, you can find among those helpers of Satan
people who have passed through the same experience but who do not bother even
to reply to a letter or to stimulate an incipient conversion. |
|
How many
times in the midst of doubts and fears I cried to the Lord and prayed:
Father, do not permit me to take a wrong road at this crucial time in my
life! Do not allow me to be the victim of some mirage nor to be guided
subconsciously by unworthy motives! I want only to choose for Thy greater
service and glory, my own salvation and sanctification, and for a brighter
testimony to Jesus and the Gospel! |
|
I waited
even for a miracle from Heaven that would confirm me in the decision I was
contemplating of leaving the ranks of Romanism. |
|
This
miracle never happened, but suddenly I remembered the passage in the Gospel where
Jesus explains the parable of Dives and Lazarus. When the rich man in hell
insisted that Abraham should allow Lazarus to rise from the dead and preach
repentance to the five brothers he still had in the world and who lived the
same life of sin which he had himself led, Abraham replies: |
|
|
|
"If they hear not Moses and the Prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Lk. |
|
|
|
Therefore,
neither did I need miracles, for I had "the Law and the Prophets", that
is to say--the Word of God. Did I not then have enough to test whether or not
my new ideas were true to God, or against His will? Whether it was
inspiration from heaven or the suggestion of the devil? But, was it enough?
Should it not be wiser to listen to the teaching authority of the Church, as
Roman Theology states? |
|
Then I
opened the Holy Bible in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles and read the
following in chapter 17, verse 11: |
|
|
|
"These (the Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED
THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO". |
|
|
|
So, even
the preaching of an Apostle could be tested according to the Bible by a group
of Jewish laymen, who at that time were not even Christians! |
|
There was
no doubt! Holy Scripture is the only touchstone by which to test any doctrine
that calls itself "Christian" whether it is so in fact. Where was
then the Christianity of the Church of Rome, with so many doctrines different
from and even contrary to the Bible? Were they merely theological
super-structures added to the Gospel, but without affecting its kernel? |
|
Once more
I opened my Bible, this time at the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, and
read verses 8 and 9 of the first chapter: |
|
|
|
"If we or an angel from heaven, preach
ANY OTHER GOSPEL (Greek "par'hó",
that is, "different", "alongside", not
"contrary") unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, LET HIM BE ACCURSED (Latin: "anathema sit"). |
|
"As we said before, so say I now again, if
any man preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto
you than that ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED". |
|
|
|
Were the Galatians
denying straightaway the very kernel of the Gospel, which is Justification by
Faith? No! But they added certain works of the Law; circumcision, for example
(read carefully the whole of chapter 3 of the same epistle). The Church of
Rome does similarly: it does not deny Calvary, but adds the Mass; it does not deny faith, but demands "works" for justification and, above all, for
final salvation; it does not deny the mediation of Christ, but adds that of Mary; it does not deny
the expiation of sins in the Cross, but adds
the expiation of Purgatory, etc. And all these additions change the Gospel,
making Roman Theology to be "another
Gospel", just as it happened with the Galatians. For the Word of God
suffers as much when taken away from
(as Modernism does) [16] as when added
to (as Roman Church does), since for it to be "the Word of God"
it has to be WHOLLY and SOLELY the Word of God (Rev. 22:18,19 and many other
passages), because God has only ONE WORD: THE WORD! (Jn. 1:1,14,18). And,
with what the Word (Christ) has spoken, afterwards made clear to the Apostles
by the Holy Spirit (Jn. |
|
The Church
cannot arrogantly claim to be "the continuation of the Incarnation"
(Vatican II, Dogmat. Const. on the Church, point 8), with the object of
proclaiming new doctrines under the pretext that they are a
"growth" by which "the Church constantly moves forward toward
the fullness of divine truth", and so on, to the extent of stating, even
in contradiction of Heb. 1:1,2-"God, who spoke of old, UNINTERRUPTEDLY
CONVERSES WITH THE BRIDE OF HIS BELOVED SON" (Vatican II, Dogm. Const.
on Divine Revelation, point 8). The mission of the Church is to transmit,
without adding to, taking away from or altering, the message of "the faith which was once delivered unto
the saints" (Jude 3). What would we say of a telegraphist who dared
to alter the wording of a telegram in order to "explain" it, or
"make it grow", adding something to its meaning? |
|
After
these considerations, it can be seen how mistaken is the Church of Rome in
claiming that she alone is the possessor of the whole truth, allowing that other religious faiths conserve
"many elements of sanctification and of truth. . . . These elements, however,
as gifts properly belonging to the |
|
Coming
back to the passage in Gal. 1:8,9, in which Paul, divinely inspired,
pronounces the "curse" or "anathema"
on all who preach and accept ANOTHER GOSPEL, I must say that I did not want
to come under such an "anathema".
I was unwilling to bring upon myself the only true "anathema" or "excommunication", which God alone
can pronounce! And so, fearing not the vain "anathemas" of men (let
them call themselves what they will), I continued to hold fast to the Word of
God alone, and to do this, I had to decide to come out of the ANOTHER GOSPEL,
knowing full well that this would mean for me to automatically incur the
penalty of excommunication which the Roman Canon Law inflicts upon
"heretics" or "apostates". |
|
|
|
A Nefarious Principle has become
the Leaven of Corruption |
|
|
|
ALL those
who have studied in detail the essence of Roman Theology and the radical difference
between it and the Reformed Faith will have realised that, whilst evangelical
doctrine proposes the direct personal relation between God and man, the Roman
Church demands the need for an intermediary organisation with a triple
mediation: |
|
|
|
(1) The
Holy Spirit, according to the Word of God, leads believers into a right
interpretation of the Biblical message of salvation (v. Jn. 16:13, and compare with Acts 2:17 and 1 Jn. 2:20,27),
since all are kings, priests and prophets (1 Pet. 2:9), with no distinction
between "laity" and "clergy" (see 1 Pet. 2:10 in the
original Greek, and compare with 1 Pet. 5:3). On the other hand, |
|
|
|
(2)
According to the Bible, the forgiveness of sins is the direct result of faith
in the blood shed on |
|
|
|
(3) The
justification of a sinner which, the Bible says, is "by grace …. through
faith" (Eph. 2:8), and the progressive sanctification by the
guidance of the Holy Spirit ("For
as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"
--Rom. |
|
|
|
To get
some idea of the dogmatical evolution that the Church of Rome has
accomplished throughout the centuries, resulting in its present doctrinal
system so far removed from the Gospel, the following facts must be taken into
account: |
|
|
|
(A) From
the beginning of the 2nd century, various streams of Greek philosophical
thought began to make their way into the Church, favouring the so-called in
recent times "Incarnational view of the Church", by which Christ,
as Head of the Church, identifies Himself in all His attributes with the
Body, which is the Church itself. At the same time, pagan philosophies were
being mixed with the divinely revealed message and the natural human capacities were put in such a
level that contrasted with "the foolishness of the Cross" and
"the incapability of the natural man to discern spiritual things",
which Paul proclaimed with such emphasis in 1 Cor., chaps. .1 and 2. |
|
(B) From the
beginning of the 3rd century, and especially with the great influx of
Gentiles into the Church when Constantine proclaimed Christianity as
"the official State religion", doctrines, customs, and rites of
pagan origin began to be introduced into the Church, and, above all, a
"priestly caste" (as reminiscence of levitical priesthood and as
adoption of pagan rites), and, consequently, the sacrifice of the Mass, the
concept of a supplementary expiation, prayers to and cult of the departed,
etc. After the "priestly" power came an increased
"episcopal" power, and, finally, the "papal" power,
culminating in the absolutism of Innocent III, with his famous assertion:
"God has given me the mitre as the sign of spiritual power, and the
tiara as the sign of temporal power". |
|
|
|
(C) The
greatest doctrinal corruption occurs in the so-called
"Christianization" of Aristotle, effected by Thomas Aquinas, and by
which the philosophical system of pagan Aristotle (considered to be a
rationalist, and even an atheist by the early "Fathers of the
Church", Augustine among them) becomes the basis and cultural structure
of "Scholastic" Theology, still valid in the Church of Rome (v. ;Denz., 3892-3894, formerly
2320-2323). |
|
How was it
possible that "the oppositions of
science falsely so called, which some professing have erred from the faith"
(1 Tim. |
|
It was
Thomas Aquinas who tried to solve this problem by introducing a deadly
principle. We can find it in his "In Boëthium de Trinitate", quest.
2, art. 3, obj. 5. After his own peculiar method, he himself raises the objection
that to mix the revealed truth with the philosophical concepts is something
similar to mix wine (Word of God) with water (human reasoning), and he
replies: "It is not to mix water
with wine, but to convert water into wine" (perhaps he alluded to the
miracle of Cana). |
|
To
understand the meaning of the Word of God, and, by assimilating it, bring
forth spiritual fruit, it is obvious that we must use a heart and mind moved
by the grace of the Holy Spirit. But we cannot pretend that the theological conclusions
we draw from the objective content
of the Divine Revelation by analytical reasoning may be raised to the
category of "dogmas", or "object of divine faith", since
the "water" of human reason can never be transformed into the
"wine" of divine faith [18]. |
|
In order
to bring about this sham miracle of a rational "transformation" of
the revealed word, the Church of Rome has employed another method, no less
spurious and corruptive of the faith: it is the allegorical interpretation of
the Scriptures, in accordance with the Alexandrian method of exegesis which
spread rapidly in the West. If the Bible can be made to say what one wants it
to say, or what suits one's opinions, by an allegorical interpretation of its
literal content, then in order to avoid the "scandalous error that all Christians should be able to read the
Holy Scriptures" (Denz., 2485, formerly 1435, when condemning P.
Quesnel's proposition 85), the most natural thing is to appeal to an
"infallible teaching authority", and to a "Tradition", of
which the Pope claims to be the only authentic interpreter. |
|
By this I
refute what I myself wrote seventeen years ago in the pamphlet "The New
Theology in the Light of the Encyclical 'Humani Generis' (Synthesis of
exposition and refutation)"--Tarazona, 1952 [19].
|
|
My readers
will forgive me if I have enlarged upon my principal arguments in a way that
may appear to be too "metaphysical". I have felt obliged to do this
because I am convinced that it is of
the greatest importance, if the deviation in the evolutionary process of
Roman dogmas is to be understood. |
|
Once the
process I have sought to explain is understood, it is then easier to
comprehend how the Church, sometimes making use of the
"intellective" system of procedure, and at other times, the
"affective" (so-called "senses Ecclesiæ" ) system, has
reached a solemn dogmatic definition of doctrines as anti-Biblical as those
mentioned under the heading "A LIGHT FROM ABOVE". To pretend that
it deals with a "homogeneous" evolution similar to the development
of a seed into a leafy, luxuriant tree, is to be ignorant both of Botany and
of Revelation. |
|
Another
notable aspect of this Roman deflection, although only contributory (external
details also have their significance) is the ostentation and
authoritativeness of the Roman hierarchy, more fitting to feudal lords
(before whom the vassal bows the knee) than to "servants (ministers) of
the servants of God" and ministers of the meek, humble and guileless
Jesus. Peter, the so-called "first Pope", thought and behaved in a
very different way. In his First Epistle, chap. 5:1-4, he expresses himself
in the following manner: |
|
|
|
"The elders (Greek
"presbytéros") which are
among you I exhort, who am also an elder (not "the Pope") |
|
… |
|
"Feed the flock of God (v. Jn. |
|
"Neither
as being lords over God's heritage (Greek "klerôn"!), but being ensamples to the flock. |
|
"And when the chief Shepherd shall appear
(Christ, not the Roman Pontiff"), ye
shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away". |
|
|
|
And, when
Cornelius, upon receiving a visit from Peter, fell down at his feet, and
worshipped him, the same so-called "first Pope" hastened to raise him
up, saying: |
|
"Stand up; I myself also am a man"
(Acts |
|
Peter had
not forgotten the exhortations of the Master (v. Matt. |
|
I want to
conclude this chapter by saying that the most urgent thing we evangelicals
hone for, and desire from the Church of Rome is a greater understanding of
the principles of Reformation, a better comprehension of our spiritual
position according to the Word of God, and freedom to preach the pure Gospel
in accordance with Christ's command to "testify" to His Person and
message throughout all the world (Acts 1:8). As Christians and Spaniards, we
cannot but feel wounded in spirit that the recent Law on religious liberty,
proclaimed in 1967, should so identify the Roman Catholic religion with the
"Spanish nation", as to
continue committing the same grave and injurious error of Menéndez Pelayo,
viz.: "One cannot be a good Spaniard without being a Catholic". The
criminals who fill Spanish prisons, or are listed in police files as
undesirable characters, are they, by chance, Protestants? Let us remember
what is the Word of God for all true Christians: |
|
|
|
"Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or
as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. |
|
"Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let
him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf" (1 Pet. |
|
|
|
He who is
sure he possesses the truth has no need to fear religious liberty (which holds us responsible before God, but admits of no compulsion on the part
of man, because faith is "essentially a free act", in accordance with Roman Theology, and a liberating gift--a gift which brings
true liberty--in accordance with John's Gospel, 8:32). |
|
Truth is
not afraid of the light nor fears the outward profession of a religious
belief, but the darkness of ignorance and the shadows of prejudice. Let both
civil and ecclesiastical authorities in Roman countries ponder the wise words
of a young professor of philosophy in a certain Spanish university: "He
who tries to close all the doors to the entrance of error runs the risk of
also closing the door of truth". (This, by the way, was the utterance of
a Roman Catholic.) The wise counsel of Gamaliel should be heeded: |
|
"Refrain from these men and let them alone:
for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought. |
|
"But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow
it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE
present section is perhaps rather outside the scope of my present writing,
but I believe the subject to be of importance and interest to my readers. |
|
I am of
the opinion that a real approach to |
|
This pretension
of the Church of Rome to be the ultimate, immediate, rule of faith and the
only authentic interpreter of the divinely revealed truth is manifestly
anti-Biblical, since the Word of God makes it clear that the Holy Spirit
teaches and leads to the divine truth all true believers, without
discrimination (v. Is. 54:13; Jn.
6:45; 1 Jn. 2:20,27). The whole "Church
of the living God is the pillar and
ground of the truth" (1 Tim. |
|
I believe,
therefore, that the position taken up by the World Council of Churches with
its pretended "Ecumenism" is false, dangerous and anti-Biblical.
Every genuine Evangelical, true to the principles of the Reformation (which
are also those of the Bible) cannot fail to see that it is impossible to seek
unity on the basis of denying or avoiding such fundamental truths as the
Deity of Christ, the historic character of the Bible miracles, the infallible
authority of Scripture, and the verbal inspiration of the Bible. |
|
The true
basis of Christian unity is established by the Bible itself (v. Jn. 17:21; Eph. 4:1-16; 1 Cor.
10:17, etc. --See the 2nd Part of this book, under the heading "THE DARK
NIGHT OF THE SPIRIT"), without the need of a "Programme of minimum
truths" to be agreed, for such a programme can only be valid if it is
foursquare on Scripture, legitimately interpreted. If it is not so based, no
true Christian can accept it. There have been lamentable compromises at the
New Delhi Congress (1961), probably due to a mistaken concept of the
"Church". In imitation of the Roman Church it is proposed to
establish a "visible organization" which united
"Christians" can join to make a show of force to counterbalance the
notorious impact which |
|
Nevertheless,
it should be remembered that the Bible states quite categorically that the
Spirit of God breathes the force of life on the small, the ignorant in the
eyes of the world, those without outward splendour. The Apostles were a very
small group, they had neither eloquence, arms nor money, yet they turned the
world upside down, allowing themselves
to be led by the Holy Spirit. He transformed them into preachers with
power, courageous before the Jewish and Roman authorities, and declared
enemies of procrastination, half-tones and compromises, or "minimum
programmes" by which they might have saved their temporal lives, but for
them we should still be groaning under the darkness of paganism. |
|
Prof.
Hendriksen wisely warns in his commentary on John's Gospel: "Believers
should always yearn for peace, but
never for peace at the expense of truth, for "unity" which has been gained by means of such a sacrifice is
not worthy of the name" (italics his) [20]. |
|
These
remarks were written in 1962. After the 2nd Vatican Council, things have
changed, not for the better, but for the worse. With its
"incarnational" line (v.
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, point 8), Rome emphasizes now more than
ever before that she is the only full reservoir of means of salvation,
although stating, on the other hand, that all men of "good will"
can attain to everlasting salvation (v.
the same document, point 16). |
|
Unfortunately,
many Protestants, in agreement with the "incarnational" point of
view of |
|
As I
pointed out in my address at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Protestant
Society in Belfast, in September, 1968, the "New Theology" of the
Ecumenical Movement involves three corrupted currents of thought in every
side: (A) In the social side, it involves "social salvation". If we
read the documents of Vatican II, as well as the famous Dutch "New
Catechism" or the booklets edited by the World Council of Churches, we
find immediately the emphasis on the "social" side of salvation.
According to the "New Catechism", all men can share in the
blessings of Jesus' redemption by the fact that they have been born and can
make their lives whole by sufferings and death. The Catechism states that we
can "believe for others".
I found the same statement in the letter to the Editor of an English
periodical from a Protestant minister, and he quoted 1 Cor. 7:14 in support
of his statement! Now, a social salvation favours a corporate and visible
organization of the Church, and this leads to a bureaucratic and hierarchical
structure. Social salvation leads to Roman Catholicism. |
|
(B) In
Biblical matters, we have Modernism. Only ten years ago I could not imagine
that Roman Biblical scholars could be involved in Biblical Modernism. But in
recent years High Criticism and Bultmanian "demythologizing" system
have entered into the Roman Church, in spite of all efforts of the Roman
Curia and the opposition from the conservative wing. Everything supernatural
is taken away. Manuals of Theology and Philosophy, after the triumph of the
evolutionist Jesuit French Teilhard de Chardin, are drawing farther and
farther the line of providential intervention in human affairs. Historical,
miraculous facts in the Bible are considered as a legendary decoration of a
vague message of salvation. Roman priests begin to deny a personal God in a
more advanced way than that of J. Robinson in his "Honest to God".
From the objective truth of the Bible we are moving to a "humanism"
in which only subjective feelings matter. But we men cannot live without
objective ground. If we deny the
authority of the Divine Message, we must go to the message of human
authority. |
|
So Modernism
leads also to the teaching authority of the Roman Church. |
|
(C) Last,
but not least, in the philosophical side, we have Existentialism.
Existentialism places pure existence, pure freedom, vital decisions, as the
only human values. Nothing is really true or false, nothing right or wrong.
Man is, by birth, thrown into the world and must make himself by choosing his
life, through vital decisions, from a handful of "possibilities".
The only thing that really matters is sincerity and "good will". By
reading the documents of Vatican II, we realise quickly that the new line of |
|
|
|
My New Birth |
|
|
|
AFTER all
the theological digressions of the last pages, I wish to set out, with God's help,
the last stage of my conversion. |
|
Though the
light had commenced to filter into my soul in January, 1961, even though I
was convinced of the falseness of Romanism, I was still not saved. I had made
up my mind to join the |
|
I was most
encouraged at this stage of my conversion, by the first personal visit I made
to Rev. Samuel Vila in |
|
I still harboured
a certain doubt which I thought was justifiable. The Manuals of Roman
Theology usually cite the text in Malachi |
|
Several
years have passed, but how perfectly I still remember Sr. Vila, as if he had
known beforehand my objection, quickly opening his Bible at Hebrews 13:15,
and saying: "Here you have the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi: 'By Him (Christ), therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually,
that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name'." The
meaning of Malachi 1:11 appeared before me, in all its perfect foreshadowing,
as something completely new. Not at all in favour of the Mass! |
|
But what
most impressed me was the unction with which he spoke and the spontaneous
prayer, not taken out of a Missal or book of Devotions, which, with his
brother-in-law, D. José Martínez (also an evangelical pastor), he raised to
God, beseeching Him to bring to a happy conclusion the work of salvation He
had already commenced in my heart. |
|
I also
remember that, in a letter he sent me later on, Don Samuel, amongst other
things, said this to me: "If you decide to serve the Lord with all your
heart, you will experience the blessing of a God Who can say: `Prove me now' (Mal. 3:10)". Following
Señor Vila's advice, I "proved" the Lord in times of trouble and
perplexity, with marvellous results. |
|
At last,
on a glorious 16th of October, 1961, and in the midst of a trial which hemmed
me in like a veritable bull of Bashan, I raised my eyes and heart to heaven
and, convinced by the Holy Spirit of my sinful condition and of the need of a
Saviour, I was led by the free and merciful grace of God to give my heart to
Christ once and for all, to turn over a new leaf, abandoning my life of sin
and error, and surrender unconditionally to my heavenly King, ready to take
up His Cross and follow faithfully in His footsteps, not resting any longer
on my own strength, but sure of the power of the grace of God, which harvests
its greatest triumphs in the face of human weakness and impotence (v. 2 Cor. 12:9), to the end that all
the glory be of God and not ours (v.
Eph. 2:8-10). |
|
Since that
time I have seen quite clearly that I
have been born into a new life. Every day I have prayed that the Holy
Spirit may keep me ever on the alert, to obey His slightest wish, and that I
may be a docile instrument under His almighty guidance. From October, 1961,
to June, 1962 (the date on which I left my home in Tarazona, |
|
One thing
worried me, even though I had unlimited confidence in God that I would obtain
it. It was my passport which had to be authorised by my Bishop so that I
could travel abroad. At the time, I did not consider it wise to remain in my
country, although there are many ex-priests and ex-members of religious
orders who stay on in |
|
This
matter of the passport would not have been so difficult in some other dioceses,
but in ours it was, since the Bishop had given strict instructions to the
Vicar General that no passports should be issued to priests under his
jurisdiction. A little after my conversion I approached the Vicar General to
find out whether an exception would be made in my case because of my high
rank, but in vain. |
|
I was
sorry to lose some months of time and disappoint my English friends who were
waiting for me. Nevertheless, the months that followed were not wasted. My
evangelical faith was greatly strengthened in those months. Then, I sought to
preach the Gospel from Roman Catholic pulpits in the clearest way possible. I
preached two or three series of sermons from the book of Billy Graham,
"Peace with God". Although I do not agree with some evangelistic
methods and ecumenical views of Billy Graham, I must confess that his book
has been a real blessing to many Roman Catholics. Also in the Seminary itself
I read and defended evangelical doctrines--for example, the magnificent
commentary of William Newell on Romans--and
it has not only been a surprise to my pupils, but it has been to the evident
satisfaction of many of them who desired to read and copy pages of the
commentary, which they knew to be Protestant. |
|
At last,
on |
|
By that
time, I had the thesis for my doctorate all written out and approved, ready
to be presented and defended before the Theological Faculty of the
Ecclesiastical University of Salamanca ( |
|
Once I had
obtained the passport and finished my classes in the Seminary, I left my town
of Tarazona on Saturday, the 16th of June, 1962, and went to Barcelona, where
the following day, Sunday, the 17th, for the first time I attended a morning
service in an evangelical chapel, and preached at the evening service at
"Bethel", the evangelical chapel of Rev. Samuel Vila in Tarrasa,
where I enjoyed the hospitality and courtesies of my spiritual mentor. |
|
On the
21st June I wrote letters dated the 16th of the same month in |
|
That same
21st June I crossed the French-Spanish frontier at Port-Bou, and in the afternoon
of the following 22nd I disembarked at the port of Newhaven, on the South
coast of England, where I was awaited with open arms by Mr. Luis de Wirtz, at
whose side I had the satisfaction of working in the grand task of
broadcasting Gospel messages in Spanish by means of Radios "Monte
Carlo" and "Elwa", besides preaching and bearing testimony to
my conversion to Jesus Christ on the many tours I made in Great Britain, a
centre of such distinction, culture and liberty. |
|
Another
memorable date for me was that of my baptism, by immersion, by Rev. Rudman at
the |
|
There are
four main things which have surprised and moved me as I have come to know the
Evangelical Church: (1) The simplicity and authenticity of its services; (2)
Evangelical preachers are simple, practical, extremely competent and true to
the Gospel; (3) Another matter of marvel was the frequent and spontaneous
prayer, both in private and in the religious services, in contrast to the mechanical
telling of the Rosary and the prayers read from the Breviary, the Ritual or
the Missal; (4) The knowledge of the Bible which I found not only in
regularly attending members of the evangelical chapels, but even in the
children who go to the Sunday School and, even at the age of seven, they know
more about the Bible than the vast majority of Roman priests in Spain. |
|
It grieves
me that the majority of my compatriots are ignorant of the true Gospel of
Jesus Christ, due to a lack of impartial information concerning it. My sorrow
is the more when I consider that the great majority of my former companions
of the priesthood and teaching Faculty, for many different reasons
(especially, lack of knowledge of the true teaching of the Reformation, or
the false persuasion that they belong to the only true Church of Christ),
have their eyes closed against the pure evangelical faith. On the other hand,
I have no doubt that many of them, although admitting the whole system to be
credible, do have saving faith, truly love Jesus Christ, protest against
superstitions, and humbly recognise that they are "saved by grace through faith", which "is the gift of God: not of works, lest any
man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9). |
|
I extend
to them all my affection, my prayer (begging that they also pray for me), and
an exhortation, directed, chiefly, to the young priests, many of them full of
sincerity and apostolic fervour, and weary of routine and fed up with
religious hypocrisy: |
|
My friends:
preach the Gospel; abstain from vain rhetorics and foolish displays of
learning, as well as from negatively-moralising sermons. Be done with
novenas, rosaries, processions, empty devoted books, first Fridays, first
Saturdays, pilgrimages, veneration of images, etc. Be convinced, and convince
all that THE ONLY WAY OF SALVATION IS A PERSONAL SURRENDER TO JESUS CHRIST,
BY LIVING FAITH AND SINCERE REPENTANCE. Persuade all men of the need of being
convinced that we are all sinners, and need salvation as a gift from God,
merciful towards the repentant and believing sinner. Study and meditate on
the |
|
Word of God: "SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES" (John
|