Dominus iesus: the one church Gary W. Summers
Although some newspapers paid little or no attention to the Vatican’s recent document, Dominus Iesus (literally, “Lord Jesus”), a substantial amount of material was presented in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram? (hereafter abbreviated FWST) and the Oklahoma City Daily News (hereafter abbreviated OCDN) on September 6th. Before examining the bold statements of this declaration, its purpose should be set forth.
Aimed mainly at Catholic theologians, the 36–page document was the latest parry by Vatican conservatives in a test of strength with liberals in John Paul’s deeply divided flock (FWST 12A).
…the document was issued to correct the “errors and ambiguities” of unnamed moderate Catholic theologians that have become “widespread” (FWST 12A).
Censuring what it called the spread of “religious relativism,” the Vatican instructed Roman Catholics on Tuesday to uphold the dogma that their church is the sole path to spiritual salvation for all humanity (FWST 1A).
If our understanding is correct, then, based on these few comments it would appear that the Catholic Church, like any other religious group, is having an internal struggle between liberals and conservatives. This battle is not a new one; we have occasionally heard comments from Catholics distressed over fairly liberal school curricula (their own private schools) and disgruntled about liberal professors at Catholic universities. Therefore, that some sort of papal document might come forth is scarcely astonishing; what is surprising that the focal point would be “the one church.”
Following are some statements from Dominus Iesus:
The idea that “one religion is as good as another” endangers the church’s missionary message, the declaration said (OCDN).
The way that news commentator Paul Harvey mentioned this point was to say that the pope had said that not all religions were equal. This statement is true, and the time to say it loudly is now. We are in the midst of an “I’m OK; you’re OK” society, which has applied this precept especially to religion. Every religion is supposed to be of equal value. Who made up such a rule? Such a philosophy assumes that not even one religion could be superior and that all of the differences and variations are of no importance.
Now if there are contradictions between religions, some teachings will be in harmony with the truth, and some must therefore be erroneous. To say that all are equal is to affirm that truth and error are the same. Jesus, for example, taught that “no man comes to the Father but by Me” (John 14:6). Yet other world religions disagree; they argue that man may come to God in several ways. Either Jesus is correct and all the others are wrong, or Jesus is wrong, and all the others are correct. Both cannot be right–unless truth equals error. Amongst those who claim to be Christians, the same principle holds true. Either baptism is necessary as part of God’s plan of salvation, or it is not. To teach that one can be saved by “faith only” cannot equal teaching that in addition to faith one must repent of sins, confess that Jesus is Lord, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Truth and error are not equal.
The idea that one religion is as good as another is a false idea; therefore, the doctrine must originate with Satan–not God. This idea does indeed endanger the church’s missionary message. In fact, if all churches are equal, then what need is there to do any missionary work at all? Surely no one could challenge the religion that allows cannibalism. [Being voted off the island does not compare with being eaten off the island.] Those religious groups that practice voodoo or female circumcision must certainly be considered equal with those that do not. Those who genuinely believe this “equality of religions” rubbish should cease being evangelistic. It is inconsistency of the highest order to teach that all religions are of equal value and then go out and try to win over all the others. Evangelism can only rightly belong to those who think they have something superior to offer.
Dominus Iesus is correct in challenging the notion that one religion is as good as another and that this philosophy endangers the church’s missionary efforts. They are wrong in thinking that they are the superior religion, which brings us to the next point, which was not in this document, but it was affirmed just three months ago.
A similar fundamentalist position prevailed in June when the Vatican ordered bishops to avoid references to “sister churches” and instead remember that “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is not sister but ‘mother’ of all the particular [Christian] churches” (FWST 12A).
The Roman Catholic Church is not the “mother” of all churches; she is the “mother” of all apostate churches. The Roman Catholic Church was not established by Jesus or the apostles. It grew out of the true church which was bought by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). The New Testament states that Jesus built His church (Matt. 16:13-18). That church is a spiritual kingdom–not a physical one (John 6:15; Col. 1:13-14). Jesus is the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23) on earth as well as in heaven (Matt. 28:18).
The New Testament neither says nor remotely implies that the Lord’s church would have an earthly headquarters in Rome or anywhere else. If it did, we would certainly expect to find Paul wanting to come to Rome to visit the current or future headquarters of the church, but the apostle is silent on this subject.
When the church that Jesus established corrupted herself, she grew into the Roman Catholic Church. One of the earliest and most flagrant departures from the Truth was to establish a religious hierarchy for which there is no Biblical authority. In vain one searches the Scriptures to find such terms as pope, cardinal, archbishop, or diocese. The church government that the apostle Paul authorized is for a plurality of elders (and deacons) in each congregation (1 Tim. 3).
Nowhere do the apostles authorize a superstructure of any kind with men to govern over various congregations. This pattern was supplied by the Roman government rather than Heaven. Correct organization was not the only departure from the New Testament, but it was significant, and it precipitated many others. All other churches that have come into existence as a reaction to Roman Catholicism have retained her unscriptural organization to one degree or another (which is the reason that she is the mother of all apostate churches). Only those seeking to restore New Testament Christianity have returned to the Biblical concept of local autonomy under the leadership of the bishops (also called elders or pastors) and deacons. The next quote relates to this subject:
…other Christian churches have “defects,” partly because they do not recognize the authority of the pope (FWST 12A).
First of all, the phrase other Christian churches belies their own claim to be the true church. No one can consistently argue that there is but one church and then discuss other ones. The Bible teaches that there is but one body (church, Eph. 4:4). No church, except the one over which Christ is Head, has the right to exist. Those that were begun by men (or captured and controlled by men) lack authority for their existence.
Second, although there may be several defects in various man–made religious groups, failure to recognize the authority of the pope is not one of them. What authority? The office is not described anywhere in the pages of the Holy Scriptures. Jesus never selected one person to oversee the church; the apostles all possessed equal authority (Matt. 18:1, 18; John 14:25-26; 16:12-13). Jesus did not appoint anyone to head His church on the earth; He heads it (Matt. 28:18). The elders (shepherds) of each congregation are all subject to the Chief Shepherd, according to what Peter wrote (1 Peter 5:1-4).
Referring to other Christian denominations, the document said “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church” (OCDN).
First, does referring to “other Christian denominations” imply that the Catholic Church is itself a denomination? Second, neither grace nor truth was entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church. When they conducted the inquisition, they exercised ZERO amount of grace, and what they did had nothing to do with Truth. Third, God inspired men to record the Truth in writing. Truth is available to all who read and study the Word of God; the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with it. All of the New Testament was revealed before this organization ever came into existence. It is the gospel of Christ that is the power of God unto salvation–not the Roman Catholic Church (Rom. 1:16).
This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect that the [Catholic] Church has for the religions of the world. But it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism [that] leads to the belief that one religion is as good as another (FWST 1A).
Why does the Roman Catholic Church respect other world religions, when they are false and cannot save anyone? Some of those religions leave people in poverty, worshipping worthless and dumb idols, which can never save anyone, no matter how earnestly and fervently one may pray to them. False religion keeps many people in misery, ill health, and horrible living conditions. The governments of these countries may contribute to such folly, but it is false religion that strangles its practitioners, leaves them living in squalor and filth, and provides for them a false hope.
Buddhism is wrong, Hinduism is wrong, the Muslim religion is wrong. They cannot save anyone. Within their teachings there may be some good principles, but the religion itself will cause its adherents to be lost, and there is nothing admirable or worthy of respect in the results of believing these errors. These statements are not made out of arrogance, but rather out of love of the Truth and the love for men’s souls. The easiest thing to do would be to keep silent or assent to our culture’s prevailing philosophy that any religion will do, as well as none at all. Who would be benefited by such silence? Their souls would be lost, as well as ours for being indifferent.
If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that, objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation (OCDN).
What does this carefully worded politically correct gobble-de-gook mean? Apparently, the affirmation is made that those in other world religions can receive Divine grace. On what basis is this assertion made? What is there in the Bible that makes anyone think that those outside of Christ have the opportunity for salvation? In addition to John 14:6 Peter proclaimed: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Muhammed cannot save; Buddha cannot save; the Dalai Lama cannot save; Shirley MacLaine cannot save; Louis Farakhan cannot save. While it is true that the grace of God is extended toward all, it is also true that it can only be appropriated (received) through Jesus.The claim is then made that those in the church “have the fullness of the means of salvation.” Does this claim imply that those in other religions have part or a fraction of the means of salvation? What does that mean–that they are “sort of” saved? Chances are that people who think they are somewhat saved will be content.
How can people be “gravely deficient” with respect to salvation? The New Testament teaches that those in this category are lost (Heb. 2:1-4). It is the Truth that makes one free; error makes one lost. One is either walking in the light (1 John 1:7) or walking in darkness. Every person on earth has either repented of his sins and been baptized for their forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38), or he has not. The blood of Christ can only wash away a penitent person’s sins if He knows that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and confesses that fact (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16). Gravely deficient is not a Biblical concept; it is merely a concession to the current social ideology.
…the “principle of tolerance and respect for freedom” promoted by the reforms of the Second Vatican Council are today being manipulated” and “wrongfully surpassed” (OCDN).
Here is the crux of the problem for Roman Catholicism. The Second Vatican Council made several concessions that had never been made before. It was an ecumenical document, and much of what John Paul II has done has been along those lines. “In October, for example, the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation signed a landmark joint declaration saying they agreed on most major points of doctrine” (FWST 12A).
This statement backtracks from that agreement. Several expressed dismay with the Dominus Iesus because it seems to promote exclusivism. We are not bothered by the emphasis on the one church, which is what the Bible teaches; we object to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church insists that she is the one church when, in actuality, there is no resemblance between her and the church of the New Testament.
Paul said that Jesus is the Savior of the body (church, Eph. 5:23). Salvation can only be found in Christ and His church (1 Cor. 12:13). Other religions cannot save anyone from sin; various denominations lack the same authority for existence that the Roman Catholic Church does. None of them teaches the truth regarding salvation, acceptable worship, or church organization.
May the day come when more and more people will be willing to give up the traditions of men that they have been taught and be willing to abide by the teachings of the Scriptures. They are given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Authority resides in Them; the Word of God is Truth (John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13). It is not some supposed representative of Christ that is to be listened to, but the Word of God (2 Thess. 2:15). For this reason we are to continue in the Word (John 8:31-32). The Word that Jesus and His apostles taught is that by which we shall be judged (John 12:48: 16:13). May we trust the Word as “a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path” (Ps. 119:105). Let us not despise, but take advantage of, that which God has revealed and preserved for us to this very hour.