Tag Archives: Romanism

Arminianism’s Malignant Spirit of Persecution

I’m sad to have to say this, but I have found this to be true in my own life before I found a good reformed church.  While attending Arminian churches, I was repeatedly lied to, lied about, stolen from, and subjected to seriously abusive threats and treatment by those who had adopted the spirit spoken of here:

William Laud
William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury
“Arminianism was not more rampant than it is now in England, Scotland, and our own North American continent. Let us not think that the malignant spirit of persecution that moved the Arminians—led by Bishop Sydserff, Archbishop Laud, and others—died at the end of the Covenanting struggles of long ago. The Arminians of today hold precisely the same false doctrines, and are just as relentlessly opposed to the absolute sovereignty of God and unconditional election as were the Arminians of old.” (The Contender—Nova Scotia, April, 1955.)”

~Rev. William MacLean, M.A., “Arminiamism: Another Gospel”

Source: http://www.truecovenanter.com/gospel/arminianism_another_gospel.html

Arminianism the Very Essence of Popery

Granite Falls 26428

“Arminianism is the very essence of Popery.  Christopher Ness of St. John’s College, Cambridge, a Puritan divine, in his treatise “An Antidote Against Arminianism,” recommended by the great Dr. John Owen, writes, “As blessed Athanasius sighed out in his day, ‘The world is overrun with Arianism; so it is the sad sigh of our present times, the Christian world is overrun, yea, overwhelmed with the flood of Arminianism; which cometh as it were, out of the mouth of the serpent, that he might cause the woman (the Church) to be carried away of the flood thereof.’ [Rev. 12.15.] He quotes Mr. Rous, Master of Eton College, as saying, ‘Arminianism is the spawn of Popery, which the warmth of favour may easily turn into frogs of the bottomless pit,’ and Dr. Alexander Leighton who calls Arminianism ‘the Pope’s Benjamin, the last and greatest monster of the man of sin: the elixir of Anti-Christianism; the mystery of the mystery of iniquity; the Pope’s cabinet; the very quintessence of equivocation.'””

~Rev. William MacLean, M.A., “Arminiamism: Another Gospel”

Source: http://www.truecovenanter.com/gospel/arminianism_another_gospel.html

Purgatorial Presuppositions

Triablogue on arguments for the existence of purgatory:


Sola Scriptura and Appeals to Authority

Triablogue on Catholicism’s self-refuting argument for the Magisterium:


From Justification By Faith To Justification By Works


Jaroslav Pelikan, from his chapter on “The Tragic Necessity of the Reformation”:

Not a new “Protestant” gospel, then, but the gospel of the true church, the catholic church of all generations, is what the Reformers claimed to be espousing. Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures; but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable. Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition.

~Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 48-49.

Jaroslav Pelikan, from his chapter on “The Tragic Necessity of the Reformation”:

All the more tragic, therefore, was the Roman reaction on the front which was most important to the reformers, the message and teaching of the church. This had to be reformed according to the word of God; unless it was, no moral improvement would be able to alter the basic problem. Rome´s reactions were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone””a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers””Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.

~Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52.

Source: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/martin-luther-invented-justification-by-faith-alone.3362/, Comment 13

Has Rome Really Changed Its Tune?

JogralI don’t normally support Desiring God Ministries, but this article is informative:


Copper in Exchange for Gold

Rev. Hendrick DeCock writing to the Netherlands Reformed Churches on the error of using uninspired hymns in the worship of God:

Lucas Bacmeister d.Ä.

Will you, I say, trample and disobey and stray from the path and do away with all the decisions of the general Synods of our fathers regarding their pronouncements from God’s Word against these songs? This ought to be far from you, the faithful and upright, who tremble before God’s word, and who, along with our God-fearing forefathers should resist degenerate lies and perverse sin. They opposed Rome and Spain, and will you be charged with the blood of our fathers?!

Beloved, these songs were not imported solely by the early heretics and emigrants from God’s Word, but also by those who came after. Of this the learned and God-fearing Peter Martyr11 gives evidence, as well as the Reformers in Italy and in Germany, that by this means the Roman church received copper in exchange for gold.

Read more: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/DeCockonHymns.htm

Till Mother Church Do Us Part

A sad article from The Still Man:

Gold-Wedding-Rings-1920x1200Grace and peace, to the Saints of God, and greetings to those who have yet to make a decision for the Lord Jesus.

The media has always portrayed the Roman Catholic Church as a stark advocate of marriage, family, and family values. Roman Catholics have always maintained that it is because of its belief in the sanctity of marriage that the Catholic Church has historically denied Catholics the right to divorce.

In support of this claim, the case of King Henry VIII of Great Britain is often cited. It is said that the Protestant Reformation got started in England because the Catholic Church refused to grant a divorce to King Henry from his wife Catherine in order for him to marry Ann Boleyn.

But while it ostensibly upholds and defends marriage, the Catholic Church’s own doctrine actually destroys marriage. You may find it interesting to learn that the Catholic Church not only permits, but actually encourages a Catholic husband or wife not to perform their marital duties if he or she is married to a Protestant, or heretic, as Christians are referred to by Catholics.

The Roman Catholic Council of Constance (1414-1418), the same council that burned the Bohemian Reformer John Huss at the stake in 1415, decreed:

“A Catholic wife is not obliged to any duty to her heretical husband, because by the husband’s heresy she is freed from her duty. In like manner, a Catholic husband is freed from all duty to his wife, if she be a heretic. Nevertheless, they cannot marry with others, because the bond of matrimony is not dissolved.

“A husband cannot be forced to cohabit with his wife, if she is fallen into heresy, even though she is reconciled: nor is he bound to maintain her, because her dowry is confiscated by heresy: and as she is stripped of her dowry by her own fault, the husband is not obliged to maintain an unendowed wife.”

Moreover, Pope Gregory IX said, “A Catholic wife is not obliged to perform the marriage contract with a heretical husband.”

And Zanchinus Ugolinus, author of a highly regarded Roman Catholic work on heresy, wrote:

“Yea, the very bond of matrimony with [a heretic] is dissolved. For if one departs from the orthodox faith, and falls into heresy, his [Catholic] wife is not obliged to cohabit with him, but may seek to be separated from him by the judgment of the church: such separation from the bed being as reasonable on account of spiritual fornication, as for carnal.” [brackets mine.]

With this decree, the Roman Catholic church denies the will of the Lord Jesus Christ who, with regard to marriage, said:

“What therefore God hath joined together, let no man [or church] put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9). [Brackets mine.]

And Roman Catholicism not only comes between a man and wife, but also between parents and their children, as Ugolinus adds:

“The very children, brothers, and sisters, ought to forsake them (Protestants).”

This is further evidence that the Roman Catholic church are the modern-day Pharisees, who taught the children of Israel that they were not obliged to respect their parents. Jesus told them:

“Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and Whosoever curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, it is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoevr thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition…” (Mark 7:10-13).

Now, if the Catholic Church advises the children of a Protestant parent to disown that parent, then, it must follow that parents of Protestant children are permitted to do the same. “Mother Church” even severs the natural bond of love and affection between a mother and her children! And it adds that a Catholic should forsake his Protestant brother or sister, thus completely destroying the family.

An obedient Roman Catholic, therefore, cannot love anyone unconditionally. If the husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, grandparent, or even child of a Roman Catholic is a Bible-believing Christian, then the Catholic is not bound to love, honor, obey, respect, or keep faith with him or her in any way, shape or form. Is this not a manifestation of the lack of “natural affection” which the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:3 said would characterize the last days?

And, since the Council of Constance was a very important general, or ecumenical council, and the Roman Catholic church considers itself infallible, meaning it does not make mistakes, then this decree regarding the relationship of a Catholic to a Protestant is still in full effect today and will never be repealed.

Let me say that I offer this information not to cast any dispersion on Roman Catholics in general, but only to offer further evidence to Protestant Christians that the Roman Catholic church has always been and will always be the implacable enemy of Protestant Christianity, and their history and doctrines prove it. While this information may not reflect the personal beliefs of some Catholics, it nevertheless happens to be a doctrine of the Catholic church, which means that any good Catholic will be called upon at some point to obey this decree and will consider it his duty to hold to this doctrine if he wants to be obedient. He may do so neither openly nor consistently, but, make no mistake: at some point, he will do so.

The faithful Christian needs to be aware of this doctrine and allow it to inform his relationship with Roman Catholics, remembering always that the Lord Jesus commanded us to love our enemies.

This information may help explain some things that may be going on in your personal life that seem to be inexplicable from any other perspective. If, for instance, you are a Christian, such as I, who is married to a Roman Catholic, and your spouse does not do what a spouse is supposed to do and/or your children do not behave as your children should behave, and are disobedient, disrespectful, or unloving, it may very well be that they are doing so out of obedience to Roman Catholic church doctrine. The same may be true if you are a Bible-believing child of a Roman Catholic parent(s) who behave(s) in the same manner.

Remember, the Catholic wife or husband is under no obligation to keep their marital vows or perform their marital duties if the husband or wife is a Bible-believing Christian. And, by the same token, Catholic children do not have to honor or obey their Protestant parents.

Catholics fervently maintain that Jesus Christ Himself established the Roman Catholic  church, yet Romanism disobeys the Lord Jesus.

“Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition…” (Mark 7:13).

Be encouraged and look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.


Republished under the following license:

Copyright Notice

You may copy any content on this website, create derivative work from it, and re-publish it for non-commercial purposes, provided you include an overt attribution to me, the author, and the re-publication must itself be under the terms of this license or similar.


Beating Showed A Concern For The Wife’s Soul

Judge Thumb“The Catholic Church’s endorsement of “The Rules of Marriage” in  the 15th century exhorted the husband to stand as judge of his wife. He was to beat her with a stick upon her commission of an offense. According to the “Rules,” beating showed a concern for the wife’s soul.

The common law in England gave a man the right to beat his wife in the interest of maintaining family discipline. The phrase “rule of thumb” referred Domestic Abuse to the English common law, which allowed a husband to beat his wife as long as he used a stick that was no bigger than his thumb. (Violence Against Women 1994). Women were not the only ones subject to abuse. In 18th Century France, if it became public that his wife had beaten a man, he was forced to wear an outlandish costume and ride backwards around the village on a donkey. (www.vix.com/men/battery/commentary).  In early America, English law greatly affected the decisions of the colonial courts.

The Puritans openly banned family violence. The laws, however,  lacked strict enforcement. It was not until the 1870’s that the first states banned a man’s right to beat his family. The laws were moderately enforced until the feminist movement of the 1960’s started bringing the problems of domestic abuse to the attention of the media. By the 1980’s most states had adopted legislation regarding domestic violence. (Violence Against Women 1994).”


A Blind Transfer Of Personal Responsibility To Others

Francis Inauguration fc06

REV. EDWARD HOARE, M.A. on how Rome satisfies the mind inquiring after Christian truth:

It is impossible to give the slightest attention to the Word of God without perceiving the vast importance attached to the reception of Christian truth; and it is equally impossible to avoid the conviction that it is declared in Scripture to be there revealed decisively.  It is the plain doctrine of the Word of God that there is one way, one truth, and one life, and that we are responsible for its rejection or reception.  Now, just in proportion as a man feels the pressure of a surrounding religious atmosphere, does he feel the weight attaching to this responsibility; and the more anxious does he naturally become to have his mind settled and his doubts satisfied.  It is true that the humble believer, being led by the Spirit, quickly finds an happy assurance in the simple statements of the Bible; but there are many, like Noah’s dove, who can find amidst the troubled waters of the world no resting-place for their soul.  Many shrink from the labour of investigation, and many more from the responsibility of decision.  The truth is not arranged in a system of dogmatical statements, but lies embodied in every portion of the book, from whence it arises that men must search for it as for hid treasure; a duty in direct opposition to the natural indolence of our nature.  But, still more, faith requires conviction and decision—qualifications yet more opposed to the wavering and vacillating tendencies of man.  You see many men in life who appear to have no power to take a consistent course alone.  If they are led they will follow, and, perhaps, will follow well; but they do not appear to have the mental faculty of decision.  Indeed, this power of decision is the characteristic of great men.  They are not always either wiser or better than those they lead, but they have this faculty, that they are thoroughly persuaded in their own mind, and are capable of full and unwavering conviction of any truth which they are led to embrace.  Such persons are sure to have a cluster of dependent minds around them, and others of superior ability are glad to lean on their superior decision.  The fact is, that man is a parasitic plant, and he must lean on something.  Now see the influence of such a fact on our connexion with Divine truth.  A thoughtful mind at once discovers that the reception of truth is of the utmost importance to his soul, and at the same time his conscience assures him that he is but partially acquainted either with its evidence or its statements.  What, then, is the result?  He begins to lean on the judgment of those whom he considers better informed, and to pin his faith on other men.  Thus there are thousands and tens of thousands who abhor the name of Rome, who are depending wholly on the judgment of others in religion.  This is always the danger in those congregations where there is a beloved and gifted minister.  It is the case also amongst those whom you would suppose to be at the antipodes of Popery, viz., those who boast that they are peculiarly men of reason in their faith.  A friend of mine was conversing the other day with an Unitarian, and proving to him the clear doctrine of the eternal divinity of the Saviour.  The man could make no reply to the clear proofs adduced from Scripture, till at length, when completely baffled, he said, “I cannot explain those texts myself, but my minister can.”  Could you have a stronger proof that it is the tendency of human nature, even when it boasts its own reason, to lean on other men for truth?  Now, from this tendency has arisen the whole system of Romish infallibility.  Anxious minds felt the necessity of leaning upon something.  Had they leaned on Scripture they would have been at peace; but, in default of that, they required some human judgment.  The first and most natural process was to lean on individuals, and, accordingly, most heresies bear the names of their first leaders.  But this fails in giving peace, for individuals differ, and the authority of the individual is too often weakened by his faults and errors.  Hence it follows, that these leaning minds are often involved in perplexity of the most painful character.  Not having the one anchor, they are driven about by every wind that bloweth.  Was there ever a system more beautifully adapted to such a case than that which steps in to the chamber of doubt, and says, “Be still, it is not your business to decide at all: it is for you, as a humble believer, to believe what the Church believes?”  All responsibility is thus taken off the conscience, and thrown on an ideal object, the Church; the indolence of human nature is at once satisfied, for investigation is represented as a sin; and even the piety of the heart is called into exercise, for blind reliance is honoured by the hallowed name of faith.  The whole weight of perplexity is thrown off beyond the reach of investigation, and by that one stroke a false relief is given.  There are a thousand questions which ought to be answered before the leap is taken.  What is the Catholic Church?  Where is the proof of its infallibility?  What does it teach? and is the teaching scriptural?  But these it is said to be a sin to ask.  At one stroke the responsibility is transferred, and the anxious mind finds what it terms “rest in the Church.”  Hence men often begin with anxious interest, advance as a second step to perplexity, and then, at length, abandon inquiry in a blind reliance on what they are told is the teaching of the Church.  One of the late perverts to Rome said, when a gentleman quoted to her the Word of God, “I thank God I am not called to perplex myself any more with the perplexities of Scripture.  I have placed the interests of my soul in safe keeping, and shall not suffer myself again to be disturbed.”  She had plainly felt perplexity, and she had found a false peace in throwing off her personal responsibility.  So there is mention made in “Milner’s End of Controversy,” of one Anthony Ulric, Duke of Brunswick, who, having commenced a search for true religion, ended in writing a book entitled his “Fifty Reasons for preferring the Roman Catholic Religion,” in which he says, “The Catholics to whom I spoke concerning my conversion, assured me, that if I were to be damned for embracing the Catholic faith, they were ready to answer for me at the day of judgment, and to take my damnation upon themselves.”  As he could find no Protestants who were willing to undertake a similar responsibility, he decided on joining the Church of Rome:—showing again how a state of perplexity leads on to a blind transfer of personal responsibility to others.

Source:  POPERY THE ACCOMMODATION OF CHRISTIANITY TO THE NATURAL HEART at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42280/42280-h/42280-h.htm, p. 7-9

Per Project Gutenberg:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project  Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net