# Books/Articles for RCs



## ADKing (Jul 13, 2007)

I am sure there must have been a discussion about this at some point. However, I searched and did not readily find it. 

What sources, either books or articles, would you suggest (or have even found profitible!) to give to Romanists who inquire about the reason for the Protestant Reformation? I am particularly interested in works that avoid inflammatory language such as "whore of Babylon" or "antichrist" (however appropriate those terms may be). 

There are all sorts of great articles out there, I am just curious what personal favorites are and especially ones that people have found to be useful.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 13, 2007)

There are many historical works which might be useful to demonstrate the necessity of the Protestant Reformation. 

Calvin's _Institutes_, Book IV comes to mind, which compares the true church and the false (see also the Belgic Confession, Art. 27-29 or the Westminster Confession, Chap. 25) with special focus on the ever-growing tyranny of the bishop of Rome. 

Foxe's _Book of Martyrs_ shows the persecution by Rome towards Protestants. (It is difficult to be reconciled to a church that is trying to kill you for adhering to the gospel.)

A study of the life of Martin Luther (Roland Bainton's biography is quite good) shows how he was treated (excommunicated) by the Pope and why he wrote those 95 Theses. 

J.A. Wylie's _History of Protestantism_ and _History of the Papacy_ provide a long view through history of how things came to be. 

William Webster's _Church of Rome at the Bar of History_ is a good more modern resource along those lines. 

I have provided other Roman Catholic apologetics links here including Matthew Poole's _Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant_ and _The Nullity of the Romish Faith_; Charles Chiniquy's _Fifty Years in the Church of Rome_; Pierre du Moulin's _The Anatomy of the Mass_; Loraine Boettner's _Roman Catholicism_; and Charles Hodge's Letter to Pope Pius IX testifying to the grounds of Protestant separation from Rome. Turretin and Owen have both justified Protestant separation from Rome from the charge of schism, as I recall, and a highly-regarded work on that subject, which ought to be reprinted, is Jean Daille's _Apology of the Reformed Churches_. 

It is difficult to avoid the term "Antichrist" since Protestants were virtually unamimous in viewing Rome as such and this view permeates their writings. Their separation from Rome was not separation from another denomination because of mere difference of opinion over church government or baptism, but based on the Biblical admonition to join with the true church and depart from that which is false (corrupted, usurped). But they were careful to uphold the doctrine of the true "catholic" church in opposition to the charge of schism by pointing to the marks of the church as taught by Scripture and comparing them with the dogmas of Rome (a useful resource for Roman Catholics to study is the decrees of the Council of Trent with all of its anathemas of Protestants or perhaps the Index of Prohibited Books which banned the Bible in the vernacular -- the words of the Church of Rome are self-condemning). The first Reformers and their followers asserted that they were not teaching a new gospel but recovering the Biblical and apostolic gospel which had been corrupted by Rome. Thus, it was Rome that separated itself from the true church, not the Reformers. Hence, the term Reformation.


----------



## ADKing (Jul 13, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> It is difficult to avoid the term "Antichrist" since Protestants were virtually unamimous in viewing Rome as such and this view permeates their writings.



Thanks for the extensive list of sources. I fully agree with the historic Protestant viewpoint on this subject that Rome is antichristian and the pope is antichrist. I agree, many of the historical sources will include this. I also know how shocking this can come across to someone who has not thought carefully through the issues. It is not to deny the truth, but the force of the rhetorical pitch might tend to keep a person from actually getting the point. That is why I was looking fo something a bit more irenic. However, as someone seriously does look at the issue he cannot come away with any other conclusion In my humble opinion.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jul 13, 2007)

ADKing said:


> I am sure there must have been a discussion about this at some point. However, I searched and did not readily find it.
> 
> What sources, either books or articles, would you suggest (or have even found profitible!) to give to Romanists who inquire about the reason for the Protestant Reformation? I am particularly interested in works that avoid inflammatory language such as "whore of Babylon" or "antichrist" (however appropriate those terms may be).
> 
> There are all sorts of great articles out there, I am just curious what personal favorites are and especially ones that people have found to be useful.



Click here


----------



## etexas (Jul 13, 2007)

ADKing said:


> I am sure there must have been a discussion about this at some point. However, I searched and did not readily find it.
> 
> What sources, either books or articles, would you suggest (or have even found profitible!) to give to Romanists who inquire about the reason for the Protestant Reformation? I am particularly interested in works that avoid inflammatory language such as "whore of Babylon" or "antichrist" (however appropriate those terms may be).
> 
> There are all sorts of great articles out there, I am just curious what personal favorites are and especially ones that people have found to be useful.


James White has a book on his site.......I have never read it, but he is skillful and polished in debate.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 13, 2007)

ADKing said:


> Thanks for the extensive list of sources. I fully agree with the historic Protestant viewpoint on this subject that Rome is antichristian and the pope is antichrist. I agree, many of the historical sources will include this. I also know how shocking this can come across to someone who has not thought carefully through the issues. It is not to deny the truth, but the force of the rhetorical pitch might tend to keep a person from actually getting the point. That is why I was looking fo something a bit more irenic. However, as someone seriously does look at the issue he cannot come away with any other conclusion In my humble opinion.



You're welcome, brother, and I understand what you mean (Eph. 4.15). Not every Roman Catholic is receptive to an Ian Paisley-style frontal assault. 

For a typical 21st century Roman Catholic to understand the _need for_ or _why of_ the Protestant Reformation, I think it is necessary for such a person to get inside the 16th century Protestant mind, ie., to grasp why the Protestants were saying they weren't schismatics and did affirm the ecumenical creeds, yet also believed that Rome was not merely in need of a little fixin' (a la Ignatius Loyola) but had actually departed from the faith, or apostasized. A good dose of history may be needed to penetrate the Vatican II warm and fuzzy mindset of many American Catholics to see from whence we Protestants came. I was raised a Papist myself so I speak from my own personal experience. It's hard to see what's wrong with the Roman Church until you can understand what the true church is like, according to the Scriptures (hence, focus on the marks of the true church), and how the Roman Church has treated those who profess the true faith. 

Of course, maybe you don't need to point them to the Council of Trent after all, maybe just point them to what Pope Benedict has said himself.


----------



## ADKing (Jul 13, 2007)

Thank you all for the responses.

Yes, Andrew. I agree that many of us today do not see Rome the same way our 16th century forefathers did. We have not had the same experiences (and we are not as well read!). Pastorally speaking I find it difficult when asked to give someone an article (or even one book!) that sums up something that takes a lot of background to explain. It is easier to ask someone if they have a weekend to listen to the whole story in lectures and then give them 100 tomes to read. Go read the whole acts of the Council of Trent first and then we'll talk... 

I appreciate the leads and suggestions.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 14, 2007)

Adam -- Here is another potential resource for you:

William Cunningham, _The Principles of the Reformation not the cause of Sects and Heresies_


----------

