Section 4:

Roman Catholicism’s Deadly Broken Link

1. Did the Councils of Nicea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) go far enough in understanding the humanity of Christ?

Those early post-apostolic centuries were dominated by fierce theological controversies over the humanity of Christ Stalwart Greek theologians fought bravely to save the church from the heresy of Arianism. The formula hammered out by the debates of these general councils on the humanity of Christ is commendably orthodox.

But though it was orthodox, the following centuries saw it as a stale orthodoxy that eventually led to a denial of Christ’s true humanity. As Harry Johnson remarks, the “orthodox” church leaders throughout history continued to persecute bitterly those who dared to uphold the clear New Testament concepts of Christ’s humanity (op. cit., pp. 129 ff.). The reason is that although the early councils did firmly uphold the humanity of Christ as well as His divinity, they did not clearly spell out what kind of humanity He took, and that humanity came to be understood as the sinless nature of the pre-Fall Adam.

Nicea and Chalcedon cannot escape being a part of the great controversy history. Speaking of the context of that era, Ellen White says:

Almost imperceptibly the customs of heathenism found their way into the Christian church. … As persecution ceased, and Christianity entered the courts and palaces of kings, she laid aside the humble simplicity of Christ and His apostles for the pomp of pagan priests and rulers; and in place of the requirements of God, she substituted human theories and traditions. The nominal conversion of Constantine, in the early part of the fourth century, caused great rejoicing; and the world, cloaked with a form of righteousness, walked into the church. Now the work of corruption rapidly progressed (GC 49, 50).

In the early part of the fourth century, … the bishops of the church [were] inspired by ambition and thirst for power (p. 53).

Indeed, by the time of Chalcedon (451 A. D.) “the work of corruption [had] rapidly progressed,” and the “era of spiritual darkness” was well on its way. “Paganism, while appearing to be vanquished, became the conqueror. Her spirit controlled the church. Her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ” (p. 50).

At Chalcedon Pope Leo the Great’s influence led the bishops to favor the doctrines of Mary being “the Mother of God” (Theotokos), clergy celibacy, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome over the universal church. His leadership was so highly respected that his “Tome was triumphantly received” there (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 17, p. 242; 1968; the Tome established that “Peter had truly spoken through Leo,” Vol. 13, p. 955). Cyril may have been clear in his understanding himself, but if so, he was misunderstood. While his influence was dominant at Chalcedon, his position was regarded by many as “a denial of the human nature of Christ, which, they said, was reduced by Cyril to a mere appearance of human nature” (idem). Such is, in fact, the germ of the Immaculate Conception idea.

While it is true that the formula of Chalcedon clearly affirms the human as well as the divine nature of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church built its theology in the centuries after Chalcedon on the idea that Christ is “afar off” and not “nigh at hand.” It denies that 1 John 4:1-3 applies to them ("every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh … is the spirit of the Antichrist"). They profess to believe in the “real humanity” of Christ; yet their dogma of the Immaculate Conception neatly denies it in fact Surely it is time to recover the full New Testament truth as clearly as the apostles saw it It will be a distinctive part of the message that will go to the world in the loud cry of Revelation 18.

2. What is “original sin”? Is it a Seventh-day Adventist doctrine?

The term does not appear in the Bible, nor as a theological concept in the writings of Ellen White. A simple definition is as follows:

ORIGINAL SIN. Theological term for man’s congenital depravity, inherited or acquired from Adam’s disobedience in the garden of Eden. Thus, original sin differs from specific acts of sin, which may result from this depraved condition (Donald T. Kauffman, The Dictionary of Religious Terms, p. 341).

The idea is that every baby (Christ exempted) has been conceived actually a sinner and automatically guilty of Adam’s sin genetically inherited. Infant baptism is derived from the doctrine. The idea was chiefly developed by Augustine (354-450 A.D.) and through unfortunate circumstances adopted by “orthodox” Christianity along with Sunday sacredness and other extra-Biblical doctrines. As a pagan, young Augustine had become deeply enmeshed in sexual vice. When he became a Christian, he retained the pagan idea that sex was inherently evil (even in marriage) and thus he became celibate. To him, sex became the sin of sins. He assumed that temptation is automatically sin.

He soon discovered that sexual desires could not be eradicated. The result was that through extended, tortuous reasoning he concluded that since sexual desire was for him ineradicable, sin itself is also so deeply rooted in human nature that it can never be eradicated so long as we are imprisoned in mortal flesh. The Hellenistic view of the dichotomy of man’s nature doubtless contributed to his thinking. God-implanted physical desires and love were mistakenly considered a hindrance to holiness.

Having concluded that sin is ineradicable in human nature, Augustine went further in his efforts to find some reason for God’s acceptance of “the elect” Thus he developed his doctrine of predestination. This again was a distortion of truth but was complementary to his idea of “original sin.”

Pelagius opposed Augustine. But as happens so often, he apparently went to another extreme, giving an unacceptable alternative. He is understood to have said that Adam’s descendants inherit neither guilt nor weakness from him, but that every child starts off on an equal footing with the sinless Adam. This of course is not true, “for in Adam all die."

Neither Augustine or (it seems) Pelagius correctly understood the relationship of Christ “the second Adam” to our genetic inheritance from our first father. Everyone, including every baby, desperately needs a Saviour and none can live apart from sin, without Him. A miraculous new birth is needed by everyone. But through faith in Him “every man” may overcome “even as [Christ] overcame” (Revelation 3:21). Thus “we need not retain one sinful propensity” (7BC 943).

3. If we leave out Augustine’s error, can we salvage the term “original sin” and still use it?

The extra-Biblical idea of “original sin” involves endless debate and philosophical contention. It muddies the waters of Biblical righteousness by faith. Seventh-day Adventist pioneers wisely avoided the term, largely because they believed that Zwingli, Arminius, and Wesley saw more light than did Luther and Calvin in their day. As noted above, Ellen White never took her pen to write the term as a theological concept Instead, it appears certain that she opposed the idea. For example:

There are many who in their hearts murmur against God. They say, “We inherit the fallen nature of Adam, and are not responsible for our natural imperfections.” They find fault with God’s requirements, and complain that He demands what they have no power to give. Satan made the same complaint in heaven, but such thoughts dishonor God  (ST, August 29, 1892).

However, this is not to say that we should try to define sin as merely outward acts of transgression. While Ellen White says that the “only definition of sin” is John’s phrase “transgression of the law” (1 John 5:4, KJV), the Greek word is anomia which means rebellion or lawlessness. It is deep within the human heart, even beneath the layer of consciousness. Sin is a condition of rebellion against God, more than mere outward alienation. While on the cross Christ cried out “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” but that alienation from God which He felt did not mean that He rebelled against God. We have “all sinned.” In our spiritual pride we may not want to admit that we have rebelled against God, but we have. Christ felt the full force of our alienation from His Father, but He never participated in our rebellion against Him.

4. What is the doctrine of the “Immaculate Conception”?

New Testament righteousness by faith is closely intertwined with a correct understanding of the humanity of Christ. If the doctrine of “original sin” is true, and if it is maintained that Christ is “Immanuel, … God with us,” then some way must be found or invented to “exempt” Him from this “original sin” which is assumed to be our human genetic inheritance from Adam. The fiction of “original sin” must have a corresponding fiction of “exemption” for our Saviour. Unlike “every child of Adam,” He must somehow be made not to accept “the results of the working of the great law of heredity” (cf. DA 49).

Thus the Roman Catholic invention for accomplishing this maneuver is known as the dogma of the “Immaculate Conception,” which requires the faithful to believe that the Virgin Mary herself in the moment of her conception in the womb of her mother was “exempt” from all trace of “original sin.” It follows of course that although the Virgin Mary was a woman, she lacked normal God-given sexual desire; and having such virtual “holy flesh,” she passed on the same to Jesus.

5. But what is the harm in this apparently innocent invention? It looks so beautiful!

But it is deadly. A little thought will show that sexual irresponsibility and consequent permissiveness become the natural ethical result of this false doctrine, for Christ as Saviour is forced into an unnatural role that precludes the possibility that He can be a true Substitute for us. He cannot redeem what He does not assume. Nor can He be a true Example to believers if He bypassed taking our true fallen nature. The popular doctrine of Christ taking the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall is next door to the Catholic idea. The word “exempt” is a favorite with Roman Catholics in discussing the nature of Christ:

The whole mind of the Oriental church … drew from St Augustine, the great Doctor of grace, those remarkable declarations which exempt the Blessed Virgin from all sin. …

In the same spirit, and with a like implied exemption from the curse, St. Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, says, speaking first of our Saviour: “He was the ark formed of corruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from sin, of wood not obnoxious to corruption according to man; that is, of the Virgin, and of the Holy Ghost, covered within and without with the pure gold of the word of God” (Berington and Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Confirmed and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, vol. III, pp. 443-446, emphasis supplied).

The difficulty with the word “exempt” and the idea associated with it is that it divorces the incarnate Christ from the exercise of His free choice. It bypasses the “right action of the will, the power of choice” (SC 47). The Word of God has described this twisted, confused, apostate system of thought that permeates the Roman Catholic idea of “righteousness by faith” as “the abomination that maketh desolate” and “the mystery of iniquity” (see Daniel 11:31; 2 Thessalonians 2:7). Its clever doctrine concerning the nature of Christ fulfills the prophecies, for its natural consequence is the perpetuation of sin. While ostensibly warning and preaching against sin, it spreads the underlying belief that sin is ineradicable, and that Christ is irrelevant to us as a Saviour from it. “The mystery of iniquity” “is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with [the] fatal sophistry that it is impossible for them to overcome” (GC 489). Inevitably, the one who accepts the doctrine feels that sin is ultimately excusable. Nevertheless, he wants to go to heaven. So a life of vague fear is the consequence. Oh that these millions who lack the gospel may have an opportunity to hear it!

There is a remnant church which is called to prepare a people for the second coming of Christ. Would Satan be Satan if he did not make heroic efforts to intrude this false doctrine into that remnant church?

6. Those who disparage the 1888 view of Christ’s humanity insist that they believe that victory over sin is still possible for us even if it wasn’t possible for Christ if He had taken our fallen nature. Does this indicate that the 1888 view is unnecessary?

Merely to say that victory over sin is possible is not good enough. A high standard is commendable, but the how of overcoming is necessary. And that how is faith in Christ and His righteousness. No saint can ever accomplish a greater feat of righteousness than did Christ. If He would have sinned if He had taken our fallen, sinful nature, then it is not possible for anyone to overcome as long as he has a sinful nature. Any highly laudable goal of overcoming becomes merely an exercise in human will-power if we do not grasp by faith the reality of Christ’s identity with us and His condemning sin in the likeness of our sinful flesh.