Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland 
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

I have recently come across in a couple of quarters the somewhat strange allegation leveled by other evangelical Christians that many of us are members of churches which are but daughters of the Papal Whore. Since this is no mean allegation, rising far above the contention that one form of church polity is more scriptural than another, I feel it should be answered.

The main contention is that those churches who can trace their modern historical roots back to the Reformation i.e. the Anglican and Presbyterian churches (some of the others i.e. the Methodists etc., in turn came out of these churches) are but the offspring of the Papal system. It is something which can be quite easily said, without its implications being duly considered. For implications it truly has:

1) DOES IT MEAN THAT THOSE IN MEMBERSHIP OF THESE CHURCHES ARE NOT PART OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST?
I am asking sincere questions here. I am not building straw men (Not my scene) If we are not part of the true Church of Jesus Christ…then are we even saved? Are we brethren…if so…do we have the same mother?

2) IS THIS ALLEGATION LEVELLED MERELY TO TRY AND ESTABLISH THAT A CERTAIN FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT IS SCRIPTURAL?
If so…why not try and establish the point from the Bible alone rather than resort to this kind of thing? Personally I believe that Presbyterianism is the New Testament model of Church government. It is largely established on the principle that led to the formation of the Church Council in Acts 15. Problems in one church (Antioch) were dealt with by the elders of other churches (Acts 15) and the findings of the elders were binding on other Christians (Acts 16:4) To my mind, this certainly rules out the autonomy of the local church idea and is the germ of Presbyterianism. I have typed “autonomous church government” into search engines but apart from finding where it is affirmed, I found practically nothing where it was argued for from the Bible. The fact that Paul wrote to individual churches or that Christ did so in Revelation 2-3 does not in itself tell us how they were governed. It certainly does not rule out the Presbyterian model. To say it implies the autonomous church model is not a very strong argument. I would rather "defend" Presbyterianism than “prosecute” for autonomous church government on the New Testament evidence. Even within a Presbytery of churches, some individual congregations can be commended and others condemned.

It seems to me to be a pretty extreme way to try and establish a certain form of church government by insulting other believers. Must I denigrate and stigmatise others in order to build myself up?

3) THE PAPAL WHORE HAD MANY FACETS TO HER BEING  - IS THE ISSUE OF  CHURCH GOVERNMENT ONLY ONE OF THEM?
Although the Episcopalian model is almost identical to that of Rome, this cannot be said of Presbyterianism. Fair enough, we overlap on our rejection of the autonomous church  government model…but it is but a slight overlap and hardly enough in itself to justify the allegation leveled above.

What if a certain interpretation of the cherished “freewill” doctrine cannot be established by the Bible but is in fact a leftover from Rome…does this justify me branding those churches who hold to it “daughters of the Papal Whore?” (I stand on safe ground here, because Rome holds me accursed for my interpretation of the freewill issue) I might be justified in saying that those who believe in man’s ability to come to Christ got this belief from Rome - they certainly share it with Rome - but it is entirely another thing to categorically brand entire denominations who hold to such a freewill interpretation as daughters of the Papal Whore. I would not dream of doing so.

4) CAN  A MAN BE BOTH A PROTESTANT AND A BAPTIST?
I wanted to avoid naming denominations, but it is necessary to do so here. (Readers should understand that I am defending rather than attacking) Even if we concede for argument sake, that Baptists have a line that goes back beyond the Reformation, the question still holds good. Spurgeon’s Baptist credentials are beyond reproach. In one place (New Park Street Pulpit Volume 6:121) he stated his belief that Baptists predated the Reformation:

"I am not ashamed of the denomination to which I belong, sprung, as we are, direct from the loins of Christ, having never passed through the turbid stream of Romanism, and having an origin apart from all dissent or Protestantism, because we have existed before all other sects; but I am equally clear as to our innumerable faults."

This is, of course, consistent with his view on Church Government. But elsewhere the great Baptist stoutly affirmed that he was also a Protestant. Emphasis mine:

"I have journeyed happily to the borders of Switzerland, and already feel that the removing of the yoke from the shoulder is one of the readiest means of restoring the metal powers. Much of Popish superstition and idolatry has passed under my observation, and if nothing else could make me a Protestant, what I have seen would do so. One thing I have learned anew, which I would have all my brethren learn, the power of a personal Christ. We Protestants are too apt to make doctrine everything, and the person of Christ is not held in sufficient remembrance; with the Roman Catholic doctrine is nothing, but the person is ever kept in view." (New Park Street Pulpit Volume 6:486)

"Never did I feel my Protestant feelings boiling over so tremendously, as in this city of idols, for I am not an outrageous Protestant generally, and I rejoice to confess that I feel there are some of God’s people in the Romish Church, as I shall have to show you by-and-bye." (New Park Street Pulpit Volume 6:657)

"In the name of our Protestant religion, I ask whether a minister of the Church of England is allowed to bow before the altar of a Popish church?" (New Park Street Pulpit Volume 6:667)

“…These sermons smell of Popery, yet the savour of our Lord’s good ointment cannot be hid. Our Protestantism is not of so questionable a character that we are afraid to do justice to Papists and Anglicans…” (Commenting and Commentaries P105)

5) DOES SUCH A STIGMA DENOTE A DESPISING OF THE REFORMATION?
Again…in question form and (again) with no desire to build a straw man. I believe that, by and large, the events that surrounded the Reformation as seen in the ministries of Calvin and Luther etc., represented a great work of the Spirit of God. To brand the churches associated with these men must surely bring their work into serious question. It is one thing to say that they did not reform enough…another to brand them as daughters of the Papal  Whore.

Let me make an observation here. If we so despise what was essentially a great work of God, then we should not be surprised if God should withhold such blessings again from us. There was a great deliverance wrought in Europe in the days of the Reformation. Europe desperately needs another such deliverance. It is one thing for Rome to hurl her vilest abuses at the Reformation churches. This we expect and indeed glory in. It is another thing for those who profess the Lord Jesus to do so. This we find exceedingly hard to bear…not because we are weak or insipid, but because the house of friends is the last place we should expect to be wounded.

6) WHAT IF THIS DESIGNATION IS WRONG?
I believe it is. Obviously those who wield it -whether with much thought or none - believe it is not. We both cannot be right. If I am wrong in my defence, where does it leave me? I am merely trying to defend good men. Unless the designation does mean that we who worship where we do are damned, I can hardly be faulted. But if I am right, where does it leave these accusers of the brethren? The points of disagreement could be dealt with without resorting to this. Short of calling us the Papal Whore herself, there is hardly any further depths left to go. This in itself must without doubt demand some heart searching? Surely when the issues are weighed in the balances, the obvious thing to do is to withdraw the charge and seek another method, more in line with the spirit of Christ, to bring men into what is perceived to be the way of God more perfectly?

LATER ADDITION:  I liked the following paragraph from an explanatory leaflet for Eyemouth Baptist Church. Under the heading, "What is a Baptist?" we are told, "The Baptists grew out of the religious ferment of the Reformation. An amalgamation from various Protestant groups, the first Baptist congregations formed in the  Netherlands during the latter part of the 16th Century, chiefly among English Nonconformists who fled there from religious persecution." I agree.

THE END

FREE PRESBYTERIAN  ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -- CALVINISM ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE