A Ministerial institute was held in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 17-20, 1945, to which all evangelical or Protestant ministers were invited. It was my privilege to attend all the sessions of this institute.
Last January 25 the cardinal primate, archbishops, and bishops of the Argentine Republic addressed to the clergy and the faithful of all the dioceses a lengthy collective pastoral letter in which the activities carried on by the various Protestant sects were denounced. The newspapers printed this letter and so did all Catholic papers. As a result of this agitation some government authorities began to restrict the activities of the Protestants.
Representatives of most of the Protestant churches met and formulated a reply to the cardinal's pastoral letter, refuting his charges and showing that Protestantism functions in all countries of the world in obedience to the divine command. They pointed out that according to the Holy Scriptures, religious liberty is a God-given, inalienable right of man, and that this liberty does not mean simply the right to worship according to one's conscience, but also the right to share one's ideas and experiences with others, both privately and publicly. They also gave prominence to the fact that the Argentine constitution guarantees its citizens and others who reside here religious liberty. The newspapers published this reply, and as a result of these counteragitations, restrictions against Protestants began to be lifted.
The effect of this polemic was a general stir among the Protestants, and the beginning of a restudy of Protestant principles. Consequently the institute already mentioned was called to consider the general subject, "The Spirit and Message of Protestantism." This subject was divided into three parts : the history of Protestantism; the interpretations of Protestantism ; and the present opportunities of Protestantism in the various countries of earth. Some had been asked to prepare papers on different subtopics of these three divisions. After these had been presented, there was a general discussion in which all were invited to take part.
It was emphasized that Luther's greatest triumph was when at the Diet of Worms in 1521 he substituted as supreme authority the Scriptures, reason, and conscience for the former supreme authority of the infallible pope, the church council, and the emperor—thus substituting a new trinity of spiritual power for the old trinity of human authority. This was considered of so great .importance that, if any one event can be considered as marking the beginning of the modern world, this would be the noteworthy event.
While the grand principles of the Reformation were justification by faith and the supreme authority of the Word, it was pointed out that whereas during the Dark Ages, faith had been a form of knowledge, a consent to doctrine, and a submission to an institution or a liturgy, it now meant confidence and a full surrender of one's life; or, in the words of Zwingli, that the death of Christ was the only price for the remission of sin, and faith is the key which opens to the soul the treasures of remission.
Methodism in England and Pietism in Continental Europe, it was shown, were not a reaction against Catholicism, as they arose in Protestant countries. These movements were a spiritual fountain which surged in an arid desert. They were a challenge to the dull ethics of that epoch with a new emphasis on sanctification.
The basic difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the matter of the interpretation of the Bible, and not the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. The Romanists hold that the inspired church is the only true interpreter, while the Protestants teach that the individual, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, can interpret the Bible. It was observed that this fundamental difference in doctrine caused the Roman Catholic Church to deny the individual the right of private judgment in matters of religious questions, while the Protestants affirmed these rights. It was acknowledged, however, that the Reformers were somewhat confused as pertains to the right of private judgment. For example, Luther believed that given the right of private interpretation, all would interpret the Bible in harmony with his understanding of it. When this did not result, he-was ready to limit the individual's liberty to the dissemination of truth and not error, or that which was contrary to Luther's interpretation.
The Baptists, it was admitted, 'were the first ones to enunciate clearly the true principles of religious liberty as the inalienable right of man, and defend the individual against all religious oppression. All in attendance seemed to be wide-awake to the importance of defending our liberty to believe what we understand the Bible to teach, and to preach the same freely. It was also pointed out that never had Protestantism been faced with a world with so many opportunities to preach the gospel as at present. Though it was realized that the problems confronting the church are tremendous, it was felt that these should constitute a challenge to the church to find a way to overcome all obstacles.
The chairman expressed himself as happy that the Seventh-day Adventists were represented at this institute. He said that it was the first time they had accepted an invitation to attend such a union meeting. With appropriate remarks he urged all to listen to all speakers with an open and unprejudiced mind. Privately, he told me that he made these remarks especially for our benefit, as he knew that there were some who used to be prejudiced against us. A change in this respect in late years is, however, quite in evidence.
One reason for this is an evident indifference with respect to the doctrines on which the churches differ. The attitude on the part of the majority of Protestant ministers is that the Bible presents clearly a few fundamental principles, such as the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, loving God and our fellow men, living a moral life, and aiding those in need. On these essentials it is felt that we can all agree. Other doctrines considered less essential are said not to be clearly revealed, and therefore these cannot be presented with the same degree of certainty.
The Anglican Church was severely criticized because it does not consider itself Protestant, and because its canon in Buenos Aires had told the cardinal that he was in agreement with his pastoral letter, as he did not believe that the Protestants should proselytize among members of other denominations. When the criticism was nearing its climax, the chairman advised that in view of the fact that the Anglican Church had no representative present that day, the remaining speakers on that subject should wait until the next day. But even though the canon was present the next day, the subject did not come up again for discussion.
At the close of one session I heard one Mennonite minister say to one of his fellow ministers that in El Conflict de los Siglos (The Great Controversy) Mrs. E. G. White outlines the same principles as had been presented at that meeting. I asked him if he had the Great Controversy. He replied that he had had two copies, but had sold one to ,this other minister. During meal hours and other intermissions I was continually meeting ministers who desired to know more about our belief and work. All were most friendly and kindly disposed.
