They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19, KJV)

It’s Way Past Time To Look At The Actual Witness Of Church History

When approaching the subject of the Church of Rome, with her man-made façade of apostate Roman Catholicism, it’s vital to remember that the battle is over the very heart of God’s glorious Gospel, which by His grace alone; through faith alone, in Christ alone. In our time of squalid compromise of proper Christian doctrine, with Emergence Christianity viewing itself as the new reformation, we simply must continue to make this firm stand for Jesus against Rome’s false system of religion.

Right now there is a call from God for actual evangelical fellowships to draw attention back to the original Protestant Reformation. You may rest assured this does not mean that we need to be doing anything “new”; no, brothers and sisters, in fact, it’s really quite the contrary. First of all, as far back as 1958 the late Dr. Walter Martin founder of the Christian Research Institute, which sadly has since been perverted, had been writing and speaking about the subject of Roman Catholicism.

And following is what Dr. Martin, a recognized expert in the field of Comparative Religion whose doctorate was in the Church Fathers of the first five hundred years of the Christian Church, had to say about the tradition surrounding the Church of Rome:

Let us learn what history has to say. Before the year 590 AD, with the ascension of Gregory the First, there was no centralized Roman authority. It was not until the tenth century, when the eastern and western churches split, that there was anything known as the Roman Catholic Church–tenth century of the Christian Era–a thousand years after the fact (Roman Catholicism, CR Rom, available at Walter Martin Religious InfoNet).

These are the facts. Prior to that time there just wasn’t any primacy of the Roman Bishop. He was treated the same as any of the other prominent Bishops within the various early Councils of the ancient “Catholic” [Greek: katholikos], or universal, Church. Consider the following from William Webster in his book The Matthew 16 Controversy :

What was the attitude of the Ecumenical Councils towards the bishops of Rome? If Roman Catholic teaching is correct and [really] has been accepted throughout the history of the Church as orthodox, then the popes should have always exercised supreme authority over the Church and all Church Councils. We should find this historically acknowledged by the Councils both in teaching and proceedings. But the facts reveal a different story. The Ecumenical Councils never viewed the position of the bishop of Rome as one of supreme authority over the Church.

The Councils, in fact, always operated independently of Rome and with authority derived, in their view, directly from the Holy Spirit, and not in any sense dependent on Roman approval. Contrary to seeing themselves under the authority of the Roman see, the Councils viewed the popes as subject to the authority of the Council itself,… (161,162, emphasis added).

We only have space here for one example. Webster discusses the famous Council of Nicea which was “convoked by the emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. Canon 6 of this Council demonstrates that the church of Rome had a very limited jurisdiction which was not universal” (163). Then in eminent church historian Philip Schaff’s classic History Of The Christian Church we’re informed that canon 6 of this Council states:

The ancient custom, which has obtained in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, shall continue in force, viz.: that the bishop of Alexandria have rule over all these [provinces], since this also is customary with the bishop of Rome [that is, not in Egypt, but with reference to his own diocese]. Likewise also at Antioch and in the other eparchies, the churches shall retain their prerogatives. Now, it is perfectly clear, that, if any one has been made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great council does not allow him to be bishop (Vol. 3, 275).

Schaff then goes on to tell us:

The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights.506 The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing, yet in such tone, that Antioch, as the third capital of the Roman empire, already stands as a stepping stone to the ordinary metropolitans.

By the “other eparchies” of the canon are to be understood either all provinces, and therefore all metropolitan districts, or more probably, as in the second canon of the first council of Constantinople, only the three eparchates of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Ephesus, and Asia Minor, and Heraclea in Thrace, which, after Constantine’s division of the East, possessed similar prerogatives, but were subsequently overshadowed and absorbed by Constantinople. In any case, however, this addition proves that at that time the rights and dignity of the patriarchs were not yet strictly distinguished from those of the other metropolitans. The bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch here appear in relation to the other bishops simply as primi inter pares, or as metropolitans of the first rank, in whom the highest political eminence was joined with the highest ecclesiastical” (ibid., 275,276, emphasis added).

Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries, and a leading Christian apologist against Roman Catholicism, brings out an extremely important truth in What Really Happened At Nicea? when he says:

This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority. This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope.

The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West (Online source, emphasis added).

Dr. White, who has also debated a number of top representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, then goes on to make this salient point:

For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” that existed in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church?

Of course not. Yet, the church of 325 had none of these beliefs, either. Hence, while they called themselves “Catholics,” they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant (ibid., n21, emphasis added).

You need to realize that this is what actually happened; and yet, the deceitful Church of Rome continues to tell people a story that is quite different. Brothers and sisters, the time has come for us to step up to the plate, so to speak, and to get on with our mission to reach with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ those who have been lied to by the Roman Catholic Church. Trust me, because the Lord is with us, there are many of these people who will listen to the truth when it is presented to them. The important thing is that you go.

See also:

WHY THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION CANNOT BE UNDONE

HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?

THE HOLY AND CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: ANOTHER GOSPEL OF BAPTISM AND SACRAMENTS 

THE DECEIVERS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A FALSE HOPE IS NO HOPE AT ALL

THINK YOU’RE A ROMAN CATHOLIC IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE POPE; BETTER THINK AGAIN