There is currently a resurgence of feeling within the Christian community that churches should abandon disagreements over theological matters and come together as one physical church. After all, they argue, "Isn't this what Christ Himself wanted when He prayed that we may "be one""? This is a difficult question because, in order for us to become one with all "Christian" churches, we will inevitably need to compromise our own beliefs to fit in with those of others. The question then arises, how far can we compromise before we have gone too far?
Let's take, for example, the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. In present times there is a very strong push from individuals within both churches to forget about the issues that caused us to divide in the reformation, and become closer to each other. However this situation provides a classic example of some of the dangers that ecumenicalism can produce. Many early founders of the Protestant church were severely persecuted, because of their beliefs, by the Catholic church. If those beliefs were not important enough to warrant the separation of these two churches, why then did people choose to suffer such vilification and even death for the sake of them? Some of these doctrines included sola fide (justification by faith alone), and the teaching that our justification before God is totally complete through the work of Christ alone (solo Christo) and does not require us to contribute towards, or share in the punishment that Christ solely bore on the cross in our place.
However, in opposition to these doctrines, the Catholic church teaches that "if anyone says that the sacraments [including works of satisfaction]...are not necessary unto salvation...and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification...let him be anathema." And also, "If any one says, that the justice received [i.e. justification] is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema." And again, "if anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema."
By their own admission, the Catholic church is saying that faith alone in Christ, or indeed even Christ's life and sacrifice alone, is not enough to secure salvation for us and that work remains for the Christian in order to prove themselves inherently righteous and therefore worthy of justification and salvation. In regard to the Catholics' teaching that not all "guilt is…remitted" or punishment "blotted out" after our justification in Christ, we in opposition believe that "…there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)
At best, the Roman system has Christ buying a 'second chance' at salvation, but certainly provides no guarantee of our final state. Even the Pope, along with all Catholics, has no assurance of his salvation. This is because, in the Catholic view, justification does not rest on Christ alone but also on us as well. Rome would agree that 'we are justified by faith because of Christ', but they blatantly denounce that 'we are justified by faith alone because of Christ alone'. At first glance this difference might seem purely semantic, and it may be hard to understand why so many men were martyred because of it, but when we look closer we see that the very essence and truth of the gospel hinges on this one word, "alone". Do we rely on Christ's righteousness alone, imputed to us through faith alone, or do we rely on a combination of Christ's works and our own works in order to become truly righteous in our own right? As the Apostle Paul says, it is "…by grace you have been saved through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) To trust, even in part, on our own work is to rob Christ of His all-sufficient work, therefore bankrupting ourselves of the true and only means of salvation. Rejection of sola fide is a rejection of the true gospel, which in turn is a direct rejection of God's salvation because "by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:16) Martin Luther was certainly not exaggerating when he said that sola fide was 'the article by which the Church stands or falls'.
The Roman Catholic church has also taught that "there is one holy Catholic and apostolic church [i.e. the Roman Catholic church], outside of which there is no salvation...[and]…it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." So, according to Rome, in order to be saved we must be a member of their church only, and give our allegiance to the Pope. But how can this be reconciled with the teaching that, in Jesus Christ, "salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved"? (Acts 4:12) In recent times there has been some 'softening' of the harshness of these statements in documents like Vatican II, but they have never been formally recanted by Rome and remain in full force today.
So here we have two churches, one teaching that we are saved by faith alone because of Christ alone, and the other church teaching that our salvation is through faith combined with works and that we still must suffer punishment and do these works in order to receive it. To finish off, in the ultimate curse, the Catholic church says of those who teach against their doctrines, "let [them] be anathema" (i.e. eternally cursed!) Given Catholicism's foundation on Papal infallibility, and belief that their doctrines need not and can not ever be 'corrected', only possibly 'expounded', it is erroneous to believe or hope that Rome will ever back-flip on their official doctrines to the extent of accepting truths like sola fide. If they were to do that, they would be admitting that not only was the Papacy and their traditions wrong, but also that it is they, not Protestants, who are the apostate church and would incur their own anathema! Sadly, the possibility of the growing ecumenical movement has been mostly based on the Protestant church compromising to Rome through their own ignorance of the importance of the doctrines of which their forefathers were prepared to die for believing it was for the very sake of the gospel.
The issues discussed above are vitally important and fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Our response to them will literally mean the difference of eternal life or death. These points are also just a small sample of the important differences between the Catholic and Protestant church. How then can we justify these differences with the modern-day human philosophy of 'religious tolerance' to the point where we flush away the very essence of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ? I do not believe that we should hate those who are of another faith, nor should we act in any sort of violence either physical or emotional. But by holding hands with other churches like Roman Catholicism, we are saying to the rest of the 'unsaved' world, as well as those within these churches, that we think it is perfectly okay to be a party to a church where these horrendously flawed and lethal doctrines are being taught.
Of course the Catholic church is just one example, and we must carefully consider any affiliations with other churches just as closely. There is also great pressure from 'Christian'-orientated cults to manoeuvre mainstream churches into validating them also as part of the mainstream. These include the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, both of which include such heresies as denying the Deity of Christ and the unity of the Godhead, as well as a 'work for salvation' theology. Any validation offered to cults like these only serve to give unsaved and uneducated people false security to enter into these organisations, to their own peril.
We should love all those who profess to follow Christ, just as we should love all those who do not; however, we must be firm in our own foundations, lest in trying to rescue others who are drowning in false doctrines we might also get swept away. The apostle Paul warns us that "… there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute." (2 Peter 2:1-2)
I believe Jesus' prayer for His disciples to be "one" was not referring to a human concept of 'religious tolerance' and doctrinal compromise. Rather, I believe the true church is already "one" in that all those who truly belong to Christ have received the same unifying blessing, the receiving of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul speaks of this unity in saying that "we were all baptised by one Spirit into one body." (1 Corinthians 12:13) We may use different denominational names and have minor differences of scriptural interpretation from time to time, but the 'body' is made up of all believers who have received the full atonement of Christ by faith alone and so have been given the promised seal of the Holy Spirit. In this sense the true Church is one, not relying on our human efforts of togetherness but already totally unified in spirit and purpose due to the work of God within us.
(Quotes of Catholic Doctrine taken from Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent)
This article was taken from "Statement of Belief - by Cameron Stefferson". You can view the complete document by clicking on 'Statement of Belief' in the top menu.
