|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations Back To Main Index APPENDIX D: SOME GUIDANCE ON THE DENOMINATIONS Anyone who accepts the Truth of the Gospel and who then seeks fellowship among Christians will appreciate some insight into what appears to be 'Denominations' of Christianity. To begin with, not all who call themselves 'Christian' are believers in the Gospel. The ' Protestants' And The 'Catholics' While the followers of Islam already know enough to avoid Roman Catholicism because the people in it bow before statues (of Mary, Joseph, etc.), reverence them and think they can use them as objects through which to direct their 'prayers', it is necessary to understand that this and much else declares 'Rome' to be non-Christian. Those Christians who understand what 'Rome' is have no fellowship with it. At present the writer is sitting with a copy of the book Pope Or Gospel in his hand. The title says everything that needs to be said - if one has the 'Pope' and his teachings one does not have the Gospel! But even for the present writer reading this book has shed a greater light on the differences between these groups. The importance of a follower of Islam understanding the vast disagreement between 'Protestants' ['Protestant' meaning those who stand opposed to, or 'protesting' against, the teachings of Roman Catholicism] and Roman Catholics was not evident to the present writer until the day after a small Islamic uprising had failed in an East African city. In conversation, an Islamic neighbour confided to the present writer that some of the followers of Islam were considering going to the home of the Pope's envoy and driving him out, out of fear that if they didn't all the 'Christians' would gather together 'under the Pope' and retaliate against Islam for the attempted uprising! I burst out laughing knowing that the history of these groups shows that they are separate because of insurmountable differences concerning the Faith. However, for my Islamic neighbour who was unaware of this, a genuine fear was evident. This type of thinking is prevalent within Islam even though among those perceived as 'Christian' only 'Rome' has any political motivations. Despite this, Islam lives in what may only be described as a paranoid mindset, thinking everyone is plotting against it. But no wonder, since from the beginning, the mentality of Islam has only been plotting against everyone else! lxx |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations Some History - How Did The Modern Denominations Arise? The writings of the Tabi'i Luke record how the Gospel was first preached in Jerusalem, and how from there the people went out into the whole world with the Message of the Gospel's Salvation. This was fulfilling Jesus' word "repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [al-Masih's] name to all nations beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:47). Thus they preached in Rome, Greece, etc., and 'churches', or the local bodies of Believers, arose in each locality. As the centuries passed, the churches became Institutions which wandered from Scripture in their beliefs, and innovated in many areas including becoming entangled in political motivations. The church at Rome was the worst of these. The mind which is held by what is today known world wide as 'the Roman Catholic church' [or in religious discussion simply termed 'Rome'] can be seen in the following statement by a Protestant concerning the early shift in perception within the church at Rome: "There is a shifting movement from Christ to the Church, from apostles to bishops, from revelation to dogma, from Gospel to tradition... So it is but natural that the attitude of discipleship, submission, obedience that is due to Christ, be applied to the Church, that he who is Dominus et Magister [i.e. the 'Pope'] be represented by the Church, Domina et Magistra and that the one name that is given to men whereby we must be saved, be attributed not only to the Lord, but to his legitimate representative on earth, Sanctissimus Dominus noster Papa [i.e. the 'Pope']." (Pope Or Gospel, p. 67; emphasis added) This Roman Catholic Institution under 'Popes' became increasingly separated from the writings of the Companions and the Tabi'un accepting instead innovations, things not in agreement with the Scripture, which it later decreed to be its 'tradition'. This is the same type of thing that Jesus accused Bani Israel of when he said: "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (Injil Matt. 15:6-9) Such corruption exists in its beliefs that Roman Catholicism is non-Christian even in the foundational things! Its beliefs are well stated in the following comments relating a statement from the Papal council known as Vatican II (1970): "The new prominence given to the Bible since Vatican II must be understood in terms of the teaching of that council itself, which states, '... It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and scared Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with lxxi |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations the same sense of devotion and reverence.' Also, besides adding tradition, or the oral teaching of the church and placing it no the same level as Scripture, the Church of 'Rome' insists that the Bible can only be interpreted by the magisterium or teaching office of the church. Thus the same decree of Vatican II goes on, 'The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the teaching office of the Church.' This of course is vested in the Pope himself." (Pope..., p. 151) One must not confuse the Islamic word 'Traditions' (meaning Ahadith believed to originate from early times and to transmit what is believed to be 'original teaching') and the term here referred to as 'tradition' ('the oral teaching of the church'). The word 'tradition' when in reference to Romanism refers to those things which Romanist 'Popes' invented and called 'doctrines' and which they implemented on their own authority and passed off as 'Divine teachings'. This attention to the opinions of 'Popes' by a group which Islam thinks is 'a large group of Christians' needs closer examination. It is evidence that the 'Popes' had allocated to themselves the term 'the Vicar of Christ on Earth', something else which became known as their 'tradition'. The meaning of this term was that in Christ's absence they claimed to hold his full authority, not only over all who professed to be Christians, but over the entire world population. Thus, the 'Popes' claimed to be 'vice-regents' on earth, a 'doctrine' which may well have been known in the Hijaz in Muhammad's day. It is not surprising, then, to find that while all Protestant groups have men who are symbolic spiritual leaders (bishops, pastor/shepherds) who are to dispense the teachings of the Scriptures, the so-called "church of 'Rome'' declares the 'Pope' to be both a spiritual and a temporal (worldly) ruler and his 'priests' to represent his interests in the 'local' situation world-wide. The Pope thus believes he rules an earthly kingdom. It is the same mind as Islam and the Caliphs. It is based on this false sense of self-worth that the 'Popes' have been the sources of ever greater deviance from the Gospel of the New Testament until they brought forth teachings which are clearly anti-Christian. The word 'Protestant' arose in later centuries when some who had been raised in Roman Catholicism and who had even become 'priests and monks', began to sense that they had no Assurance of Salvation. This occurred in what is known as the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century AD. lxxii |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations Both the Old and New Testaments were in Latin and were possessed by none besides the 'priests' who alone were able to understand the language [much like Islam and the Qur'an] and whose teachings and interpretations of Scripture were thus not able to be tested by the ordinary person. Among these 'priests' were men who earnestly sought peace with God. However, they were not finding that peace in the teachings of 'Rome'. As they read the New Testament of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus, they came to recognise that the reason the religious system of Roman Catholicism had not given them Assurance was because it did not agree with what the Companions and Tabi'un had recorded was God's Way, the True Religion! In turning and believing in the Truth, God gave them Peace and Assurance that they had entered His Salvation and had peace with Him through the True Way. Each one came to understand that men were 'Justified' (Acquitted - declared exonerated) before God by faith in what Jesus had accomplished on their behalf, not by obeying the self-styled teachings of Roman Catholicism. The Innovations Of 'Rome' The Protestant / Roman Catholic differences are thus not some mere 'squabble' over 'interpretation' of Scripture. Rather, 'Rome', having declared itself to the 'Mother of churches' and the holder of Divine authority to interpret Scripture, declared its own innovations ('tradition') something as necessary to be believed for Salvation as the Scripture of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus! The Protestants (protesters) of the Reformation, stood against these innovations declaring that Scripture alone revealed the Way of Salvation as their own experience with God had proved. Thus they made statements of faith such as: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." (Article VI of the Church of England; cited from Pope..., p. 108) In deviating from the evidence of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus, the Popes had forsaken the Gospel, as the evidence we will present will show. For example, in relation to what was mentioned above concerning the word "Justified" (Acquitted). It is a word used in the Scripture, and asserts lxxiii |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations that God dismisses all charges of sin against the individual who believes that Christ's Atonement was for them. In 'Rome', however, it is asserted that each follower is only initially 'Justified' (Acquitted) by his faith in what Jesus did on the cross, but this, it asserts, does not actually and finally save them! For, while on the one hand it acknowledges that Jesus died for sin, 'Rome' does not in fact believe that it is faith in that which alone finally 'saves' anyone from God's Judgement. After that initial 'justification', 'Rome' teaches that its 'sacraments'- as consecrated and dispensed only by its 'priests' - must continuously be partaken of in order to remain 'Justified' until death! It is the obedience to these 'traditions' (i.e. innovations) which 'Rome' declares keeps one in right relationship to God and so finally 'saves' anyone. Of course this is utterly false because it is not faith in the Blood Atonement which saves in such a system, but faith in one's obedience to the innovations of 'Rome'. This system, obviously, operates solely under the oversight of what 'Rome' declares are its 'priests'. These are the men whom, it declares, have been made the recipients of supposed 'apostolic powers', which are alleged by the Popes to have been conferred upon them through the apostle Peter. The 'Popes' thus have established a system of 'priests' who must be 'consecrated' by a 'Pope' or given authority by a 'Pope'. The powers alleged by 'Rome' to have been passed to this 'priesthood' include the ability to forgive sins, perform the 'sacrifice of the Mass' (believed to be a real though bloodless sacrifice for sins), perform baptism for 'regeneration', and other beliefs associated with the Roman Catholic system - all things which it declares must be partaken of by the 'faithful', or they are declared unable to partake of God's mercy and grace! 'Rome', though ignoring the teachings in the records of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus, thus believes it is the ONLY true channel of God's grace and forgiveness to mankind. It is with such an attitude that it is recorded from its adherents: "As the Roman Catholic Bishop B. C. Butler declares in his summing up of the significance of this council [i.e. Vatican I]: 'The defining of the position of the Pope as successor and heir of St. Peter, according to the mind of the Catholic Church, and the setting forth in unmistakable terms the implication of his primacy and infallible teaching authority, was surely a right act: in that it shuts out the possibility of anyone seeking union with the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church - be it separated Eastern Orthodox Churches, or be it lxxiv |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations Christian religious bodies in the West, or individuals - doing so under misapprehension of what is involved." (Pope or Gospel, p. 53f) And again: "There is no service rendered properly and acceptably to God and none can come to him, except through Jesus Christ. It is not possible to be united with Christ except in the Church and through the Church, which is his mystical body. It is not indeed impossible to belong to the church, except through the bishops, the successors of the apostles, united to the supreme Pastor, the successor of peter." (Pope..., p. 68) The assertion which this begs is made clear by the Protestant author of this same book: "Either the Pope is what he claims to be, the Vicar of Christ and the Viceregent of God on earth, wielding full and immediate authority over the universal Church, or he is an impostor. There would seem to be no middle path. The decree of the Vatican Council should leave us in no doubt: 'If anyone says... That (the Pope) received... Only a primacy of honour and not a true and proper jurisdiction: Let him be anathema." (Pope..., p. 145) The answer of the Reformation Christians (Protestants) was: "Luther's rejection of Popes and councils, because they are human authorities and can err, is written into all the Protestant Confessions: General councils... For asmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and Word of God... May err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength not authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. (Article XXI)" (Pope..., p. 109f) Some of the beliefs which Romanism holds which are anti-Christian are more clearly defined as follows: 1/ The 'Mass': It was an adulteration of the commemoration of the Last Supper, the last meal which Jesus shared with his disciples the night before he was crucified. In 'Rome' it was changed by the 'Popes' into a rite wherein the bread and wine (only under the claimed 'priestly powers') would, it was alleged, become the actual Body and Blood of Jesus and so be part of what was declared to be an actual 'sacrifice', as the following shows: "II. The priests have the power to consecrate ... To make present the Body of the Lord with the precious Blood, with his entire Manhood and his Godhead under the form of bread and wine ... There at Bethlehem Mary bore the divine Child and wrapped him in swaddling clothes: the priest does the same as he lays the Host on the Corporal. Once did Mary bring the divine Child into the world. But, lo! the priest does this not once, but hundreds and thousands of times as often as he celebrates ... But do they make the Body and Blood of the Lord merely present? No, they sacrifice; they offer the sacrifice to the heavenly Father. It is the same sacrifice that Christ lxxv |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations made by shedding his Blood on Calvary..." (1905 Pastoral letter by Johannes Katschtaler, Prince Bishop of Salzburg; cited from Pope..., p. 72) As the following also states, even when in modern times 'Rome' has had the outward appearance of changing its ways, it still has retained the same heretical Beliefs: "The real difference is still there under the new form. In the Church of 'Rome' it is still believed and taught that the priest is offering a real sacrifice for sins, whereas Protestants teach that the Lord's supper or the Holy Communion is for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ." (Pope..., p. 61f) And: "The teaching of transubstantiation is essential to the idea of the sacrifice of the mass. A priest must have something to offer and if he claims to offer the sacrifice of Christ then he must have the actual body and blood of Christ to do it. Thus one error grows out of another until you have a whole system of error." (Pope..., p. 149) Of course one of the 'errors' in this system was that it maintained that without being able to eat this 'sacrifice', no-one could be saved from God's Judgement!! Thus the people could be intimidated into believing that the 'priests' held their Salvation in their hands, when in fact the people had yet to understand Salvation! The Scripture of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus declare unequivocally that Jesus was the last sacrifice, and that "no sacrifice for sins remains". For those who are already saved from the Judgement through faith in the Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, when sins are confessed to God, the blood of Jesus continues to cover them! This is the evidence of the Covenant-love of God to those in the New Covenant!! What a difference from Romanism! 2/ The 'priesthood' claims the power to forgive sins: "Honour the priest because of two inexpressibly high powers with which he is endowed. I. ... The Catholic priest has the power to forgive sins... God has, as it were, to this end surrendered his omnipotence for this moment to his representative on earth, the duly empowered priest. Of course, the priest does not possess this altogether wonderful power of himself, but because of his ordination and because he is so empowered through the holy Church ... Protestant pastors have not the priestly ordination". (Pope..., p. 72) The following quotation from a 'non-Catholic' speaking of a 'Catholic' who has said 'confession' to a 'priest' shows the continued lack of 'confidence' before God after having done it: lxxvi |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations "The sacrament of penance is one of the principle means of grace in the Roman Catholic Church. It is necessary to confess your sins to a priest. The Roman Catholic catechism (revised edition 1971), defines penance as '... A sacrament whereby sins, whether mortal or venial, which we have committed after baptism are forgiven'. Thus the Church of 'Rome' teaches that all must ordinarily come to the priest to have sins forgiven. Baptism remits all sins up to the point at which it is received, that of course is usually in infancy. But every sin committed afterwards must be removed by penance, and only a priest can give absolution. ... Confession, which the Roman catechism defines as, 'to accuse ourselves of sins to a priest', was not made compulsory until 1215 AD... "When confession has been made and absolution given there is still penance to be done. This is sometimes no more than saying a few 'Hail Marys', but whatever the penance given the catechism warns that it does, 'not always make full satisfaction for our sins. We should therefore add to it other good works and penances, and try to gain indulgences'. There is always some debt or other to be paid for sin and what is not met in this life is to be met in the life to come in purgatory. For those familiar with the teaching of the Bible about forgiveness and justification by free grace there can be no greater travesty of the Gospel than this system which has been fabricated by the Church of 'Rome'. The wonder is that people still believe it. But they do and that makes it imperative that we should set forth plainly the true path of justification by faith alone." (Pope..., p. 157; emphasis added) Not surprisingly 'Rome' invented new ways to uphold such teachings. For example, instead of adhering to the original language (Greek) texts of the writings of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus to certify Beliefs, it derived innovations from errant Latin translations (Jerome's)! This is noted clearly in the following: "The Roman Church did eventually authorize translation, but with the Latin Vulgate as the chief authority. The translation "repent" as "do penance" is justified only in translating from the Latin (cf. The Authorized Version and Douay at Matt. 3:2; Luke 3:3; Mark 6:12). This is a hallmark in translation to this day, and has important doctrinal implications." (Memoirs, Gilmour, Ch. 4, ft 6, p. 39) In this way the 'Popes' were able to turn "repentance" (i.e. turn from sin with sorrow toward God) into "do penance" (i.e. undertake some action as a penalty for your sin)! The result is obvious in the lives of many in 'Rome', for they keep on sinning in the same ways and keep on doing 'penances' every time they 'confess them to a priest'!! They have never been taught the need to 'repent'! But then they have never heard the Gospel. As just noted, 'Rome' also declares that many will need to suffer in 'purgatory' [a place of suffering for sin after death - something else not lxxvii |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations mentioned in the writings of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus!] before ' final justification' can be received from God! This sounds like Islam, not Christianity! The records of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus state clearly: "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." (2 Cor. 5:8) To die 'in Christ' means to be with Christ immediately - forever!! This is the JOY!!!!!! The 'Popes' also claimed the power to 'grant' (sometimes by selling!) 'indulgences' (i.e. one can pay and 'God's representative the Pope' will grant pardon to a the person for whom it is purchased even someone thought to be in 'purgatory')!! As is the intention of the 'Popes', people are thus subjugated to the 'priests' who alone can dispense all this! Of course this gives men power over other men - through fear that one man (the 'priest') can separate another man from God by not granting 'the sacraments'!! The people who continue to believe and follow Romanism do not, nor will they ever, have Peace nor Assurance of Salvation because they have not believed what God has said about how people are to be saved once for all time through trusting in what Jesus did on the cross. They admit freely that they do not know where they are going when they die or whether they will be saved. The continuous mercy of God is only for those who continue to trust in the Blood Atonement alone after they are saved from sin. God does not give Peace nor Assurance to those who reject His Way. 3/ Only the 'priests' can perform 'baptism for regeneration': Infants are baptised in water and declared to be "born again", and so part of the Romanist 'church'. Yet, even the adults have no Faith in God's true salvation, and so have no part in the Body of Christ! In true Christianity any true Believer can baptise a new Believer, although if the circumstances allow, then it is preferable to be done in the presence of witnesses so one's faith can be confessed publicly and the Community pray for that one. 4/ Mariolatry: Through the years the 'Popes' have added other gross errors, such as the exaltation of Mary in which they call her the 'co-Redemptress' with Christ. The council of 'Rome' called Vatican II (1970) declared: "In an utterly singular way she co-operated by her obedience, faith, hope, lxxiii |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations and burning charity in the Saviour's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace." "This maternity will last without interruption until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. For, taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix..." (Pope..., p139) The Protestant perception of this is: "The Roman Church has created difficulty because it has supplemented the Birth narratives with two dogmas, both repudiated by Protestants and both relatively recent dogmas. The "Immaculate Conception" (changed from pious opinion to dogma in 1854) teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived in her own mother's womb, thus breaking the entail of original sin as it affected her. The dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary (1950), in turn, gives to Mary a place of at least semi-divine importance that non-Romans respectfully deny to her, since there is no New Testament evidence or accepted historical corroboration of the dogma. The New Testament evidence is that Mary appears but once outside the gospels, in Acts 1:14, and that in the gospels, apart from salutations in Luke 1:28, 42-45 (and cf. 11:27-28), she is pictured only as an exemplary woman.... She is therefore honoured by Protestants as an example of piety and because of her high privilege in bearing her Son, but is never regarded as a mediatrix or heavenly advocate." (Memoirs..., Gilmour, Ch. 8, ft. 43, p. 43) And also: "What all this really means doctrinally is perhaps best brought out in the words of the present [1984] Pope John Paul II, who closes his book Sign of Contradiction, (which was a series of addresses given in Lent 1976 in the presence of Paul VI), with a powerful exposition of what the significance of mariolatry is for the Roman Catholic Church. After reminding Pope Paul VI that he had proclaimed Mary to be the Mother of the Church, he then goes on to draw out what that means. It means that God has put the Church under her care for all time. God 'demonstrated the greatest trust in mankind by giving mankind his Son... The human creature to whom he first entrusted him was Mary... And until the end of time she will remain the one to whom God entrusts the whole of his mystery of salvation... 'Within the dimensions of the universe the Son of God, the eternal Word, the Lord of the ages to come is her son and she is his mother. Therefore all that goes to make up what he bequeathed - the work of salvation, the mystical Body of Christ, the People of God, the Church - is taken care of, and always will be taken care of by her..." (Pope..., p. 140) Of course this can mean only one thing, that the Pope credits Mary with maintaining the life of all of his 'church' instead of Jesus: "It is the reason why everything that happens in the Church [i.e. 'Rome'] is committed to the protection of Mary, 'the Immaculate Queen of the Church and the mother of unity', as was the Second Vatican Council itself in these very words by Pope John XXIII. It is the reason why the present Pope lxxix |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations [1984] in his first public utterance after the attempt upon his life in St. Peter's Square, ascribed his deliverance to Mary and professed he was 'totally hers'." (Pope..., p. 141) To Protestants all this is totally blasphemous. 'Rome' Does Not Keep To The Companion And Tabi'un Records Since the 'Popes' have made belief in all their 'innovations' necessary for 'salvation', from the many 'innovations' quoted it can be plainly seen that their 'plan of salvation' is not based upon the Scripture of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus! The adherents of Romanism freely admit this: "In 1950, pope Pius XII declared the Dogma of the Bodily Assumption, that is, that Mary was taken bodily into heaven after her burial and crowned the Queen of Heaven. There is nothing in the Bible to support such a teaching. Without the least trace of embarrassment a Roman catholic theologian has written of it, '...indeed this most glorious assumption of Mary is veiled in the mystery of silence: Scripture knows nothing of it'. Yet it is declared by the Church of 'Rome' that those who do not believe this dogma cannot be saved." "Still Fundamentalists will ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." (Romanism The Relentless Roman Catholic Assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Robert M. Zins, p. 160; underlining added) And: "...His [the Pope's] definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and assistance promised to him in blessed Peter. Therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgement." (Pope..., p. 59) The Protestants, on the other hand, hold that God's intention was that everything pertaining to Salvation MUST be upheld by Scripture. As to the attitude of the 'Popes' that 'God gave us the rulership', this is precisely the stand which Islam also takes for itself. We find that in truth while Romanism declares that it is the only bearer of God's authority for Christians, it despises the content of the Companion and Tabi'un evidence which proves it is false. By declaring it is the sole repository of Divine authority on earth, and that thus all its decisions are 'automatically' in line with God's will, it berates all who accept the verdict of those records of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus as 'Fundamentalist'. lxxx |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations However, it was on account of having their eyes opened to such gross departure from the source of true teachings, the records of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus, that the Reformers abandoned Romanism. From among these Reformers the "Fundamentalist" Lutheran and Calvinist denominations began to be formed and flourish as more and more people (even priests and monks) saw the truth about the Salvation of God as written in the Scriptures of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus and abandoned Romanism. Of course, through all this time of the ascendancy of Romanism there remained the witness not only of the New Testament Scripture but of the early extra-Scriptural writings of the Tabi'un, Tab Tabi'un, etc., which concur with the Scripture showing what the true Beliefs of the true Community had been at the beginning. Thus when the adherents of Islam speak of the innovations which the 'priests and monks' taught the people in Muhammad's day, they should also realise that the Companion and Tabi'un records with the PURE GOSPEL MESSAGE remained all along as testimony, not only against that of the 'priests and monks' but against that of Islam also! But, we must take note of the above snub to the 'Fundamentalist' (i.e. Bible-believing Christians) who are almost exclusively among the Protestant groups, for there is a good reason behind it. We find it unfolding in another statement by the Romanist concerning his Mariolatry (Worship of Mary and associated beliefs) and rejection of the Scripture: "But,' ask Fundamentalists, 'if Mary was immaculately conceived, and if death was a consequence of original sin, why did she die?' Although she was wholly innocent and never committed a sin, she died in order to be in union with Jesus. Keep in mind that he did not have to die to effect our redemption; he could have just willed it, and that would have been sufficient. But, he chose to die." (Romanism...., Zins, p. 158; underlining added) While in one breath trying to uphold Mary worship, in the other this writer makes an outright denial of the Prophets' Scripture which declare that a sacrifice was God's requirement and that Jesus fulfilled it! And this statement is not alone as the following testify: "Catholic theology began to move away from the system of substitutional penal expiation with St. Thomas. Today there is a positive theological reaction against the theory itself and not simply against distortions, exaggerations" (New Catholic Encyclopaedia, p. 157, cited from Romanism...., Zins, p. 69) THIS IS NOT CHRISTIANITY! It might as well be Islam, as every follower of Islam will admit! lxxxi |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations Perhaps most striking to those in Islam would be an acknowledgement that modern Romanism declares that idolaters, the followers of Islam, and many more, are to share in the Romanism's 'salvation' as the following Papal statement declares: "There are finally those who have not received the Gospel; they too are ordained in various ways to the People of God... The plan of salvation includes those also who acknowledge the Creator; foremost among these are the Muslims: they profess fidelity to the faith of Abraham and, with us, adore the one and merciful God who will Judge mankind on the last day. Nor is God far from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God;... Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without fault on their part, have not yet reached an explicit knowledge of God, and yet endeavour, not without divine grace, to live a good life, for whatever goodness or truth is found among them is considered by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel." (Romanism..., Zins, p. 205) Here we find that the 'Popes' believe that 'salvation' can be had without a belief in the 'Blood Atonement' of Jesus Christ, and that a 'belief in God', even when that 'God' is not the God of the Judaeo-Christian Scripture, is also 'good enough'!! This should be enough to cause anyone searching for fellowship with those who love the Gospel's Salvation to avoid 'Rome'. We must, however, remember that although the 'Popes' and their 'priests' have led many to Hell, the Scripture of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus remains in their hands as a testimony against their 'Beliefs' for God's Guidance is available among them to this day. As in Muhammad's day it is not a case that the content of the Scriptures became 'corrupt' but that the men who claimed to represent them deviated from them following innovations instead. Differences In The Protestant Groups While we have examined some of the insurmountable differences which separate Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Denominations, it is important to understand those differences which exist among the groups which call themselves 'Protestant'. [This section too is a very simple but necessary presentation.] Not all Protestants rely solely upon the Scripture of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus although they all assert that anything not provable by Scripture cannot be necessary to Salvation. Some have accrued over the centuries a certain amount of 'tradition' into their ways. These are termed 'Traditional' churches. lxxxii |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations Perhaps the most noteworthy distinction amongst groups termed 'Protestant' is that some are termed 'Evangelicals', the word 'evangel' meaning 'Good News'. They really believe in the Salvation of God through faith in the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. They adhere to the Scriptures alone. Not many 'Traditional' churches seem to be Evangelical. Instead they tend to be more 'formalist', i.e. observing outward forms of 'worship' which give them the appearance of piety while many are in fact 'nominal' Christians (i.e. Christians in name only). Even amongst Protestant groups which adhere to 'Scripture only' there are certain perceptions which vary on particular issues. For example, some Reformed groups [this name is derived from their arising in the Protestant Reformation] adhere to infant baptism. This may vary from the Church of England which teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, to the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches which teach that baptism of infants brings them into the New Covenant under the faith of their parents. Not only does a careful study of the writings of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus refute this, but so does the history of the actions of the early Believers as recorded in the extra-Biblical writings. Among Evangelical groups we would mention that there is some difference of opinion as to the purpose of water baptism. Some maintain that water baptism by immersion (i.e. immersing the person totally in water as if laying them in a grave) is a sign of what has already taken place in one's life - i.e. a sign that the old life has gone now that they have believed. Others, however, maintain the words signify more than this, and that in the Believer's baptism there is an actual dying of the old man and a rising of the new man. They would both cite: "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means. We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus have been baptised into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now, if we died with Christ, we believe we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. ... lxxxiii |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations For sin shall not be your master since you are not under law but under grace." (Rom. 6:1- 9, 14) They would both also point to the Scripture: "For Christ died for sin once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous to bring you to God.... He went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago in the days of Noah when the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand - with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." (1 Peter 3:20- 22) Finally we note that many in even Evangelical churches lack any knowledge or evidence of what the Scripture terms a 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' either through the evidence of God's Presence being recognised in the midst, so that for example they see evil spirits come out of people, or the manifestation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (e.g. speaking in languages given by God's Spirit usually termed 'tongues', prophesying, healing, etc.) written about in the records of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus. Amongst these individuals are those who have been misled into believing that God intended to work for only a limited time in terms of the Holy Spirit's gifts. This is termed 'dispensationalism' as it perceives this as functioning for a certain time only. To deny, or not recognise, God's purpose in the Holy Spirit's true ongoing manifestations in the Body of Christ is to deny their ongoing purpose in God's Kingdom among His people. Many who are Traditional or Reformed fall into such a grouping. It is feared that Satan has led many captive to believe they have received the Holy Spirit when they have not. Aside from scattered individuals, those Evangelicals who believe in and experience the gifts of the Holy Spirit are generally found in churches called Pentecostal (a reference to the day the Holy Spirit first came to the Apostles of Jesus) or Charismatic (a use of the Greek word charismata meaning 'gifts'), although they are found scattered in other churches. These would be the most significant differences one would find amongst the groups which call themselves Evangelical Christians. In Christianity each individual has the freedom to, and indeed is expected to, approach the Sources [the Companion and Tabi'un Gospel records and the Epistles - and also the Old Testament] for himself, and it is to these records, and the indwelling Holy Spirit, that each Believer is to 'taqleed'. lxxxiv |
|
Appendix D: Some Guidance On The Denominations We must leave it with our reader to read the Scripture of the Companion and Tabi'un of Jesus and ask Jesus to make obvious the truth of the Gospel record. Jesus is alive! Ask Him. NOTE: We have not mentioned the Orthodox churches since their use of icons (images) and the declarations that they can 'draw near to God' through invocations before such objects is in itself sufficient reason to reject those churches and seek fellowship elsewhere. One cannot accept their ways as approved of God. Aren't There More Books In Some Bibles? While those in Islam may think this topic should be dealt with elsewhere, in fact it has solely to do with one false denomination, namely Roman Catholicism. The true denominations of Christianity are based on the same 'New Testament', and this is verified in that they all accept only these records of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus as written 'source', nothing else. However, many in Islam who perceive Roman Catholicism to be a 'denomination' of Christianity wonder how we can say that all denominations of Christianity recognise only the same 'Last Testament' as their authority when the Roman Catholics have 73 books in their Bible and the Protestants only 66! In answer to this, firstly, let us examine the list of the names of these 'extra books' which Mr. Deedat has provided along with the meaning of the name 'Apocrypha' which is attached to them: "The Book of Judith, the Book of Tobias, The Book of Baruch, The Book of Ester, etc." (Is The Bible God's Word?, p. 9) We note first that these are what are known as 'Old Testament Apocrypha' - being not only books which both Jews and Protestants reject, but they reject them because as Mr. Deedat notes, the name 'Apocrypha' means "of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY" (Is The Bible God's Word, p. 9). Secondly, we note that they are all 'additions' by Roman Catholicism to the Old Testament - not to the New Testament! Thus they are materials which Roman Catholicism accepted ON TOP OF all the rest and which do not change the remainder. Thus, even Roman Catholicism purports to believe the same New Testament as everyone else. However, we have seen that it has strayed far from what is in it. lxxxv |
