ARE CATHOLICS CHRISTIANS?

I remember as a child in elementary school going to one of my Catholic catechism classes.  We were reading from one of the books that we were using with the Catechism at the time, and this word kept popping up… the word “Christian.”  I was young and naïve and I asked the teacher what that word meant.  And she responded by saying, “It means Catholic.”  I didn’t know any better, but I kept that in mind over the years.  But later on, I realized that the two terms (“Catholic” and “Christian”) are certainly not the same thing.  A person can be a Catholic and not be a Christian, or he can be a Christian and not be a Catholic.  It seems that she was either ignorant of the difference, or she was just brushing me off.  Either way, as a catechism teacher, she should have been clearer.  At the very best, she failed to explain the correlation between the two terms.

Of course, the word “Christian” means a follower of Christ, a person who is saved – one who is serving God and headed for Heaven.  On the other hand, a “Catholic” is one who is a member of the Catholic Church, which is considered by most people a branch, denomination, or subset of Christianity. 

So, the question arises, “Are Catholics saved, are they Christians?”  I hear it often, but this question requires more than just a simple “yes” or “no.”  The answer to the question certainly has to be nuanced. 

The Heart Matters

Of course, the question can also be asked of Protestants – are they saved?  And of course, the answer is that some are and some aren’t.  The bottom line is that God looks at the heart.   It is not just being part of a certain group – just being a Lutheran, or Assembly of God, or Baptist, or Presbyterian, etc., doesn’t make one a true follower of Christ.  What does is a changed life/heart, one that is surrendered to God, believing and trusting in the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross for salvation and trusting nothing else (John 3:16; Galatians 3:1-3). 

But What About Catholics?

The biblical requirement for salvation (articulated just above) is the same for everyone.  But Catholics believe that the requirement(s) for making it to Heaven are different than what some (or maybe most) Protestants believe. 

First and most important, Catholics believe in a “faith plus works” system to be saved (CCC #2068; #1129), just like the Judaizers did in the book of Galatians, but the apostle Paul harshly rebuked the Galatian church for starting to accept this false teaching (Galatians 1:8-9; 3:1-3).  Adding the merits of any kind of work/sacrament/suffering to the cross is a direct violation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, an attack on the very core of the Christian faith.  Faith, apart from the merit of works (Romans 3:28; 4:6; 4:4-5), is a non-negotiable condition of salvation. 

See this link on the concept of merit in Catholicism:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-concept-of-merit-in-catholicism.html

But this system of salvation through works is not the only problem with the teachings of Catholicism.  There are also many other false teachings in the Catholic Church, as well, as is demonstrated throughout this blog.

If a Catholic person truly trusts in Jesus and gets saved, it is vitally important for him to then embrace correct doctrine to maintain his faith, because doctrine can (and will) affect your relationship with God.  If one believes in any kind of false doctrine, this will skew his understanding of the nature, purpose and instructions of the God of the Bible.  And this can certainly put him in grave spiritual danger.  I personally believe that the less you trust in the tenets of Catholicism, the better off you are.  The longer you stay in this church, the more likely you will betray the Scriptures.  For a “more sure word” (2 Peter 1:19), you must stick to the principles of the Bible.

I often say that a Catholic can indeed be saved, but his salvation would be IN SPITE OF being in the Catholic Church, not BECAUSE OF IT!

God’s Grace and Man’s Accountability

God is so gracious and patient with us, even when we are being foolish and participating in an unbiblical church (whether Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise), but this kindness must not be abused or taken for granted (Romans 2:4).  There are probably many people in these churches today, honestly seeking for truth, and who are still innocent, not yet irrevocably tainted by one of these churches or its doctrines.  Perhaps they are there through no fault of their own, but how long can one be in one of these unbiblical churches before he is corrupted by the false doctrine taught within?

Only God knows that answer, but we should never put ourselves in that position to start with!  Each one of us is ultimately responsible for our own spiritual well-being.  The Bible tells us to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  If we are already very familiar with the Scriptures, we are far more likely to find a good, Bible-based church.

Again, each believer is ultimately responsible for his own soul and no one will be able to say on Judgment Day, “Hey, I was just obeying the Church, like they told me I must do!  It is all THEIR fault if I believed the wrong things” (Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10)!  I actually had a co-worker that told me this and she was very serious about it.  I tried to convince her otherwise, but she would not listen.

“But We have So Much in Common…”

In fairness, I want to say that the Catholic Church does have many teachings that are orthodox (i.e., generally accepted as right or true), for example, the resurrection, the doctrine of the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, and the Bible’s inspiration are things that Protestants and Catholics can agree on.

But I want to emphatically state that it is not how many teachings Protestants and Catholics have in common that matter most, but there are certain critical differences which corrupt the essential teaching of salvation that remove Catholics from biblical orthodoxy!

For example, I once heard a great analogy by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason where he draws two small circles on a blackboard.  By one, he writes the word “aspirin.”  By the other, he writes the word “arsenic.”  He then asks the audience, “What do these two have in common?”  Greg points out that they are both small and they are both round, and they both start with the letter “a”.  Therefore, should we treat them the same, since they have more in common than they do differences?  Absolutely not!  The problem is obviously that one will cure your headache, but the other would kill you!  The point being that their one difference is far more important than any similarities they may have. 

And that’s how it is with the Catholic Church.  Even though Protestants may agree with them about some (or maybe even many) things, there are some teachings in the Catholic Church that are far too spiritually dangerous to embrace.  This fact greatly affects the answer to the question of “Are Catholics Christians?” 

Truth vs. False Doctrine

For those who would say that Catholics really are Christians, what exactly is it that convinces them of this?  Is it because that they are the largest single group in the world claiming to be Christian?  But we know that “majority rule” has not always been a good test for veracity.

Is it because Catholicism claims that they have a lawful and unbroken line of successors tracing all the way back to the apostles?  Most Catholics would say yes, but this has been shown to be false:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/08/those-nagging-gaps.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-mythical-chain.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-papacy-foundation-of-sand.html

Is it because the Catholic Church claims to have as its foundation/authority, a “three-legged stool” [i.e., 1) Scripture, 2) the Magisterium, and 3) Sacred Tradition]?

Many Catholics will say yes, but I find it interesting that 1) many of their teachings contradict the Scriptures, 2) there is no papal Magisterium in the New Testament, and 3) they vehemently claim to be true to the Sacred Traditions of the Church, yet they find it so hard to be able to tell us exactly what all this Sacred Tradition is.  See these links on Sacred Tradition:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

We could go on and on like this, but the main issue is that there are so many unbiblical teachings within the Catholic Church.

Also, I think that another problematic issue with the Church is the fact that Catholics love to invite outsiders to “Come home to the Catholic Church,” as though joining the Church is the ultimate goal of Catholic evangelism.  We Protestants don’t ask people to specifically pursue “Protestantism” or Lutheranism, or the Baptist Church, etc., but we usually invite them to have a relationship with Jesus.  No church institution is the final destination, but Jesus Christ is!

Conclusion

So, to ask the question again, “Can a Catholic be saved?”  Yes, he can be.  But let’s ask it in a different way: “Can a devout Catholic be saved?”  That’s a different question.  If the person is a devout Catholic and is unapologetically entrenched in the Catholic Church and refuses to let go of Catholic teaching (especially if he is presented with what the Bible teaches) – then the possibility of him being saved is greatly reduced.

I am not making an ultimate spiritual judgment here.  No one can absolutely conclude that a person (Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise) is eternally lost – only God knows their heart perfectly. 

Yet, God has given us (Christians) the ability to imperfectly see the state of a person’s heart through his actions and his fruit (Matthew 7:15-17).  For those who claim to be Christians, but do not have the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), or they are steeped in false doctrine, we must warn.  That is, we are obligated to prayerfully and lovingly point to the spiritual danger in which one may be living.  It is not an act of love to allow someone to continue down a road that will obviously lead to disaster!

We are obligated to let Catholics know that theirs is a false gospel.  And a false gospel certainly excludes one from true Christianity.

May the words of John, the prophet and apostle, be heeded:

“And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4)

DOES ISAIAH 22 SUPPORT THE PAPACY?

 

Ok, what exactly is the papacy?  The papacy is the office and jurisdiction of the pope, who is the human head over the Roman Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ established the New Testament church by building it upon the apostle Peter and He designated Peter as the head over all the other apostles.  Jesus also gave Peter the power of “binding and loosing,” he can forgive people of all their sins and he can even operate infallibly (without error) under certain conditions.  Furthermore, his line of successors after him will also be considered popes with the same power through “Apostolic Succession.”

Of course, we Protestants don’t agree with this, but right now I’d like to recap what Jesus said and to address how Catholics use the Isaiah passage.

In Matthew 16:13-15, Jesus asks His disciples what the public thought about Him, and then He asked them what they (the disciples) thought about Him:

16 – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’

17 – And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.

18 – And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 – And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’”

This is the main and foundational passage of Scripture that the Catholic Church uses to prove its papacy.  They will emphasize that Jesus gave to Peter the “keys” to the kingdom of Heaven and thus, the authority to “bind” and “loose.”

Enter Shebna and Eliakim

Another passage they use to try and support the idea of a papacy is in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22:15-25.  In this passage, God, through the prophet Isaiah, rebukes the present treasurer/prime minister (Shebna) of Judah for his pride and for abusing his position and tells him that he will be removed from his lofty position and replaced by a righteous man named Eliakim.  Then, in v. 22-23, Shebna is told:

22 – “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his [Eliakim’s] shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23 – And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.”

Catholics believe that there is a connection between Peter in Matthew 16 and Eliakim in Isaiah 22.  They are convinced that the typology of Eliakim points precisely to the person of Peter, and that both these passages point to the Catholic papacy.

Comparison

Ok, I will admit that there are some similarities between the two passages in that they both reference a key or keys, which point to some kind of authority/power.  And I will admit that Isaiah 22:22 is the first passage in all of Scripture that mentions anything about spiritual/metaphorical “keys.”  And the Jews of Jesus’ day more than likely recognized (from Isaiah) the terminology that Jesus used concerning keys.  It is interesting, though, that Isaiah references the “key” (singular) of David, whereas Jesus references the “keys” (plural) of the kingdom of Heaven.

But is this really typology about the papacy?  If it is, and if Eliakim replaced Shebna, then what person did Peter the apostle replace?  If both passages are referring to the papacy, then why is Isaiah’s key about David’s throne and Jesus’ keys about the church?  If Isaiah 22 is really about the papacy (a purely spiritual, non-political authority), then where is this reflected in the office of Shebna and Eliakim? 

If Isaiah was pointing to a modern papacy, where is infallible spiritual authority alluded to in this scenario?  Where is the reference to a human authority having “full, supreme, and universal power” over a religious body? Moreover, neither Isaiah 22 nor Matthew 16 suggests anything about a chain of perpetual and infallible successors (as the modern papacy supposedly has). 

Well, someone may say that typology does not have to match in every detail.  That is true, but the similarities are so few that one has to question if there is enough here to indicate anything about Peter.  It is the amount of details that are missing that are very telling.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Isaiah 22:25 mentions Eliakim’s “peg” breaking off.  So, if this is about the Catholic papacy, when did Peter’s “peg” (authority) break off?  Let’s look a little farther into the passage in Isaiah.

A Better Fulfillment

Isaiah 22:25:

In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord has spoken it.

Notice the term “cut off.”  Now compare this to Daniel 9:26:
“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself…”

These are both prophecies of the Messiah to come.  They are both using the same Hebrew word for “cut off” (“karath”).  Both Isaiah and Daniel are referring to the Messiah’s death, so Isaiah is NOT speaking about Peter at all!

The name “Shebna” means “vigor” or “youthful strength” or “to grow.”  The name Eliakim means “God will establish” or “my God will arise.”

The character Shebna represents man trusting in his ability/strength/wisdom (Isaiah 22:8-11), but Eliakim represents the Messiah who does not depend on man’s strength or wisdom! 

The key referred to in Isaiah 22:22 is singular, and it is “the key of the house of David,” which can only point to the Messiah, Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:9; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 1:31-33), not to Peter or any type of papacy.  This is confirmed in Revelation 3:7:

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Here, we see the Savior, the One who shuts and opens at will.  Revelation 3:7 seems to be a much better passage to fulfill the typology of Isaiah 22 than the Catholic Church’s attempt to use Peter.  It does not point to Peter, but to Christ.

The Gospel Brings it into Focus

But what is this “opening” and “shutting” that Jesus is speaking of in Revelation 3:7 just above?  I believe it has to do with the gospel and the “doors” of opportunity that are opened or closed by Jesus. 

Note that in 1 Corinthians 16:9, Paul speaks of an “open door” for ministry, and again in 2 Corinthians 2:12.  In other cases, Paul encountered the opposite when he tried to enter Asia, but was hindered by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6), i.e., it was a closed door.  And again, he tried to go into Bithynia and the same thing happened (Acts 16:7).  “Doors of ministry” are controlled (open and shut) by Jesus alone. 

Remember, Jesus, who holds the key of David (Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3:7) is not only the One who supernaturally opens and shuts doors of opportunity, but He is also the One who has given us the keys of the kingdom of Heaven in preaching the gospel (Matthew 16).

“Binding and loosing”/“opening and shutting” is NOT about Peter making laws which God is obligated to uphold, or Peter wielding authority over the other apostles!  The keys of Matthew 16 are all about the gospel:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16)

Note the phrase “power of God.”  This indicates the exceptional, inherent and divine quality within the gospel message itself.  An integral part of the function of the keys is the person’s repentance (or lack thereof) and his acceptance or rejection of the gospel, which will determine his destiny.   

By the way, note that Peter did not receive the keys of Heaven in Matthew 16, because Jesus was speaking of a future event (“…I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”).  Jesus gave them to all the apostles later, possibly in Matthew 18:18.  We know this because the effects of being given the keys (binding and loosing) were the same in Matthew 18. 

In this way, this authority/power was first given to the apostles themselves, then it was given again in the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-47) where it was entrusted to all believers.  Even the Catholic Catechism agrees that the “Great Commission” (evangelizing/sharing the gospel) is for all believers (CCC #900).

Conclusion

Therefore, this “binding and loosing” of which Jesus spoke is about sharing the gospel with people, and if the hearers accept its message (“… he that hears you hears Me…” – Luke 10:16), then the gates of Heaven are open to them; and the one who shared the gospel can say with authority, “Since you have accepted the message of Jesus Christ, you have been forgiven – you are saved.” 

But if they reject the gospel (“… and he that despises you despises Me…” – Luke 10:16), they are refused entrance into Heaven.  And he who shared the gospel can say with authority, “Since you have rejected the message, your sins are retained – you are not right with God.”  The keys are for opening and closing the kingdom of Heaven.  The apostles certainly wielded authority, but it is all true believers who have the power of “binding” and “loosing,” not just the apostles and not just church leaders.  Matthew 16:19 is not what the Catholic Church thinks it is. 

So, to answer the question, no, Isaiah 22 does NOT support the doctrine of the Catholic papacy.  But even if Isaiah 22:22 did somehow refer to Peter, that still would not prove the modern concept of the Catholic papacy, with all its unbiblical teachings, its allegedly infallible Magisterium, and its nebulous traditions – not to mention the papacy’s “foundation” which was built on forgeries.

See these links for more information:

LINKS:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-papacy-foundation-of-sand.html

ARE COUNCILS AUTHORITATIVE?

 

I recently came across an article from Catholic Answers written by an author named Parker Manning.  The title of the article was, “Do Protestants Care About Church Councils?” [With the subtitle, “Church councils aren’t worth much if you accept in them only what you agree with”]

You can find the article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-protestants-care-about-church-councils

In the article, Manning correctly points out that Protestants, who believe in Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”), also believe that other valid authorities exist, such as traditions and councils, but that they are less authoritative.  Protestants believe that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority for the church today, because it is the only infallible source in the post-apostolic church (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

But Manning doesn’t like the way that Protestants view the Church councils.  He says:

“Protestants like [James] White, [Jeff] Durbin, and [Matt] Slick will often try to persuade their audience into believing that they care about the early church councils when they really do not.  Or at the very least, they care about them only when they agree with their interpretation of Scripture.  Once we recognize this, it only makes sense to conclude that these Protestants really do not care about what these councils teach.”

But as Christians, we’re not obligated to embrace every word just because it comes from a council, nor are we obligated to support unbiblical concepts when presented by said council.  Having some truth mixed in with error does not make it ok.  How can a council be acceptable, much less infallible, if it contradicts Scripture?  If a council contains false teaching, those parts should be publicly rejected. 

It looks like Manning is suggesting that if we Protestants are going to accept anything from church councils, we should accept everything in these councils! 

Inconsistent?

He also stated:

“… [I]t makes little sense to argue for something because a council said so when they agree with only that part of the council that agrees with their interpretation of Scripture?  Why not just argue with Scripture?”

And I would say, “Amen to that!”  That’s where the real issue lies. 

Catholics will claim that Protestants are inconsistent when they point to Church councils because Protestants will only pick and choose the things within the councils that they like.  But I think that sometimes the reason certain Protestants even bother to point to something said in a church council at all is not to pretend to agree with everything in it, but I believe that sometimes Protestants are simply saying, “Even your Catholic council XYZ agrees with us on this particular point!” 

But that certainly does not mean that we agree with everything within that council. 

Interpretation Dilemma?

Notice that in Manning’s article, he keeps talking about when councils don’t agree with the Protestant’s interpretation of Scripture.  As if to continually expect him to interpret it wrong.  For example, in the article, Manning says things like, “They care about only what they believe Scripture says…” (emphasis added).  In using the word “believe” here, he seems to be implying that the Protestant interpretation will likely be incorrect.  Since Protestants don’t have an infallible Magisterium to interpret for them (like Catholics allegedly do), they are apparently very unlikely to get it right.

But the truth is Catholics are in the same situation.  They too are obligated to use their fallible understanding and reasoning to interpret what their “infallible” Magisterium is saying.  There’s no way out of it.  If it is a dilemma for Protestants, then it is also a dilemma for Catholics.

See these links on Bible interpretation:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/07/private-interpretation.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

Arbitrary Dismissal?

Manning also says:

“This arbitrary dismissal of certain things councils teach is known as special pleading – a logical fallacy in which someone applies a principle or rule to others but exempts himself (or his position) without providing a valid reason for the exception.  By being inconsistent and appealing to councils and also rejecting certain parts of them, Protestants are committing this fallacy.”

Notice that he says, “…without providing a valid reason for the exception.”  Protestants will accept particular parts of a council, yet indeed reject other parts, but he does this on the basis of agreement with a greater authority – Scripture!  So, it is not an “arbitrary” dismissal at all, but a biblical one.

Perhaps we Protestants would care for councils more if they would fully align with the Bible.  Then there should be no issue from either side.

Conclusion

To answer the question, yes, councils are authoritative – they carry weight in the church.  Councils are often useful to articulate or codify the core beliefs of the church and these beliefs are fine, as long as they align with the truth of God’s Word (John 17:17), which, by the way, will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).

But if any council contradicts the principles of Scripture in any way, its words are no more than man-made traditions as Jesus said (Mark 7:1-13), “laying aside the commandment of God” (v. 8) by “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (v.7).  

You see, “authoritative” does not necessarily mean infallible.  There are real authorities in our churches, just as there are in our everyday lives (parents, teachers, doctors, law enforcement, judges, etc.), and most people have no problem obeying these authorities, even if they are not infallible.  Councils may be authoritative, but we only have one source that is infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The apostles enjoyed, at least in a limited sense, the gift of infallibility in their day, but today it is the apostolic MESSAGE that has the built-in authority/infallibility:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation…” (Romans 1:16). 

We don’t have apostles today, but to the extent that one is faithful with the apostolic message (Scripture), he is authoritative.  Jesus said:

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; but the one who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16 - NASB)

If you are faithful in bringing the true gospel message to others, they are indeed not just hearing you, but hearing Jesus.  In the context of Luke 10, Jesus was not just speaking to the apostles, but to the seventy disciples, as well – and by extension, the universal church.  Jesus gave us the “Great Commission,” i.e., the responsibility of the whole church to spread the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-49; John 20:19-23).  If the gospel message being delivered is perverted/wrong, the presenter of the message is not authoritative.  But whoever hears the person commissioned and faithfully bringing the true gospel is also hearing Jesus – and the faithful messenger is therefore authoritative.  He is authoritative because he is correctly using the highest authority.

 

THE TWO FATAL FLAWS OF CATHOLICS WHEN USING THE “CANON ARGUMENT” AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA

 

Well, folks, it looks like we Protestants, who love having Bible discussions, cannot possibly win any kind of debate or have any kind of meaningful discussion with Catholics, simply because we don’t know the canon (official list of books) of Scripture.  Because knowing the canon is a “must” for all believers, right?  If we happen to use the wrong books, we could possibly be in danger and end up believing false doctrine!  Too bad no Protestant can really know the canon, though, since (according to Catholics) we don’t have the certainty on the canon that they enjoy.  Apparently, God just doesn’t allow “sufficient certainty” for anyone on the canon.  

What we need is what all Catholics have on the canon – INFALLIBLE certainty!  You see, they have an infallible Church that has infallibly declared the full canon for them.  According to the following Catholic source:

“Only the Church, the infallible bearer of tradition, can furnish us invincible certainty as to the number of the
Divinely inspired books of both the Old and the New Testament.” (Online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Scripture”)

Because of this, Catholics can have absolute certainty, and never need to worry about that issue again.  They simply submit to their infallible Magisterium and all is well.

But according to this paradigm, it seems that we Protestants can’t even use the contents found in any supposed Bible book, since we don’t know if this material is actually part of the true canon, right?  Any doubt about its contents would seem to neutralize any argument we Protestants can put forward.  The Catholic can say, “Hey, you Protestants don’t have the right canon and you don’t even realize it.  It was the Catholic Church who determined the books of the Bible for you!” 

So it looks like Protestants are kept at a major disadvantage here, doesn’t it?  Apparently, the Catholic’s “infallible certainty” is the coup de grace that allows them to prevail in all apologetics with us… 

But of course, all this is absurd.

Fatal Flaw #1

In case you missed it, Protestants DO NOT agree with the Catholic Church’s concept of “infallible certainty” on the canon.  Catholics use this “canon argument” to try and disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

This is how the argument unfolds: 1) Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura (i.e., only Scripture is infallible), 2) But the Bible does not contain an infallible list of its canon, 3) So, Catholics believe that the canon MUST be found in some other infallible source (like the Catholic Church), and 4) Therefore, the Catholic Church becomes that source and provides the needed infallible certainty on the canon.

But the first fatal flaw in this argument is this:

·      THERE WAS NEVER ANY NEED FOR “INFALLIBLE CERTAINTY” ON THE CANON

The truth is that the Catholic must always ASSUME infallibility from the outset.  They bear the burden of PROVING that they have this gift of infallibility in the church today – something they cannot do.

Some Catholics act as though the knowledge of the canon is a requirement for salvation!  But the fact is that millions of people in the Old Testament era have been saved and lived for God without ever knowing the full canon – and they did this long before the “infallible” Catholic Church ever existed! 

So, there was never a need for this level of certainty – “sufficient” certainty has always been sufficient in God’s eyes.

And for the record, even if we believed that they did have an infallible canon, Catholics didn’t get it until 1546 during the Council of Trent:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.  This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent).  Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill, Copyright 1967, Volume 3, Canon, Biblical,” p. 29)

If there was such a “need” for infallible certainty on the canon this whole time, then why did the Catholic Church wait 1500 years before “infallibly” determining said canon?   

Here are some related links on this canon issue:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/08/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-8.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/12/using-canon-as-smokescreen.html

Fatal Flaw #2

·      THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OR PROMISE IN SCRIPTURE THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH WOULD HAVE THE GIFT OF INFALLIBILITY – EITHER IN HIS DOCTRINE OR IN DISCERNING THE CANON

Of course, Catholics will try to argue that the Catholic Church does indeed have the gift of infallibility.   They will say that Jesus built a church (Matthew 16:18) and promised that the Holy Spirit would be directing and guiding that church (John 16:13).  And they believe that since the infallible Holy Spirit is guiding the church, this has to mean that the church can never fall into false teaching.

But Matthew 16:18 says nothing whatsoever about infallibility for the church nor anything about protection against false teaching.  And neither does John 16:13 say anything about infallible guidance.  

But there is a difference between receiving 1) general/indirect guidance from the Holy Spirit (e.g., John 16:13) and 2) receiving direct/infallible guidance from the Holy Spirit – which has only been offered to those individuals writing Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21).  It was the former guidance that the church received, not the latter. 

See this article on John 16:13:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/05/catholic-apologists-abuse-john-1613.html

Conclusion  

Catholics really seem to have issues with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and they sometimes offer the “canon argument” as one of their best arguments.  So that’s why I wanted to focus in on this argument for this particular article.

Hopefully, the two fatal flaws mentioned above should put this particular Catholic argument to rest.  There’s nothing wrong with having “only” sufficient certainty on the canon of the Bible.  We’re all fallible humans and everything we do, even our greatest endeavors, stems from our fallible mind/understanding/faculties.  But “fallible” does not necessarily mean “wrong.” 

Insisting on infallibility on our part only drives us into an infinite regress: “A” is infallible and can only be recognized/interpreted by an infallible entity.  So we must press infallible “B” into service to recognize/interpret “A”.  But for us to deal with “B”, we must now turn to infallible “C”, etc., etc.  We need to recognize that at some point, the fallible must meet the infallible.  As I said before, if the infallible (God) cannot intersect with the fallible (us), then we could never know anything about Him!

Since we, as humans, cannot have infallibility, sufficient certainty of the canon is enough.  

 

YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY (Part 4)

This is the fourth and final article in this series on Mary and why I say that Catholics actually worship her.

There seems to be a silly false dichotomy that is common in Catholicism: Either 1) Protestants should pray to Mary, or 2) if they don’t, they must hate her!

First of all, I want to emphasize that no Protestant that I know hates Mary and we are in no way trying to denigrate her.  In fact, I am glad that God chose her for this great distinction and we know that God knows what He’s doing.  She proved to be a humble, faithful servant of God and a fitting mother and nurturer to bear the Savior.  All of us should agree on that.  This was a great honor and indeed all generations are calling her blessed, as Mary stated (Luke 1:48).  Yes, she had a definite, God-given role in history, but that does not justify praying to her.  As I said in the beginning, the only recipient of prayer should be God.

Putting Things into Perspective

Catholics love to stress that Mary “cooperated” with God by saying “Yes” to Him and agreeing to bear the Savior.  But what if she had said “No”?  Would the will of God have been frustrated?  Would we now be without a Savior?  Of course not.

God is not limited, but Catholics act as though the Messiah coming to earth would have been absolutely impossible if it weren’t for this one humble virgin!  But I’m sure there were very many young, godly and capable virgins in that day who would have done anything to have the honor of bearing the Messiah.  Catholics need to quit acting like God’s hands would have been tied without Mary accepting this honor.  They act as though Mary came to the rescue and saved the day when no one else was willing or able.  In this way, Catholics are almost making her the Savior.  But the truth is that God could have used someone else!

“Mother” of the Church?

In John 19:26-27, Catholics find an interesting concept.  Jesus, from the cross, told the apostle John, “Behold your mother.”  From this statement, Catholics deduce that this is intended to convey the idea that Mary is now going to be the “Mother” of the whole church.  And from this idea, there are a multitude of privileges and special honors that follow her. 

But if that’s true, then what about the second half of the equation?  Does this also mean that John is the “son” of the whole church, since Jesus also told Mary, “Woman, behold your son”?  Why doesn’t the Catholic Church make a big deal over that, as well?  No, Jesus was not giving Mary a new exalted role here, but was simply putting His mother into the care of the apostle as she grew old.  Just as there is no universal “son of the church,” neither is there a universal “Mother of the church.”

Spirit Over Family

“And it came to pass, as He spoke these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked.’  But He said, ‘Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.’”  (Luke 11:27-28)

No, Jesus was not being rude to His mother here, as some suggest.  But in this passage, Jesus is showing everyone here how it is more blessed to be a follower of Christ than to be the physical mother of Christ!  Jesus emphasizes the importance of the spiritual aspect of the believer’s relationship with Him, over the familial aspect between Him and His mother. 

Abusing James

“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.  The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16)

Catholics almost always point to this passage when appealing to the Catholic teaching of praying to Mary and the saints in Heaven.  They’ll eagerly point out the fact that “… The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” and that Mary and the saints in Heaven are far more righteous than we are.  Therefore (according to Catholics), we should ask for their intercession, i.e., for their prayers for us. 

But if Catholics want to be consistent in their use of James 5:16, they should also obey the part that says (“… pray one for another”).  So, if that’s true, Catholics on earth should also have to pray FOR Mary and FOR those same saints in Heaven who are (supposedly) praying for those on earth!  The context of this verse is clearly not just one-way prayer, but RECIPROCAL PRAYER (… pray one for another…)! 

But why would anyone need to pray for Mary and the saints in Heaven?  They have need of nothing in the presence of Jesus!  But this is the logical conclusion when trying to use the context of this passage to prove prayers to Mary/saints.  It just doesn’t work.

Again, James is talking about reciprocal prayer – he is actually telling the saints on earth to pray for one another here on earth!  This passage fails to support the teaching of prayer to Mary and the saints.

Marian Mantras

I would like to address some very common sayings that Catholics have of Mary.  These are like mindless mantras and are often blurted out without even thinking:

• A Catholic once said, “We never give more honor to Jesus than when we honor His mother.”

So, let’s take that idea to its logical conclusion.  According to this logic, the more we honor Mary, the more we honor Christ.  If that’s true, then maybe we should whole-heartedly adore/latria/worship Mary as God, so that Jesus can then be super-duper worshipped!  He would be getting absolutely unlimited honor and worship, right?  But something tells me that Catholics would take issue with this idea.

No, Catholics think that this “more-honor-to-Mary” equals “more-honor-to-Jesus” idea sounds good, but it is utterly false and absurd.

• Another false mantra is that “Mary always points to Jesus!” 

This was true of the biblical Mary, but not with the “Catholic Mary.”  According to one of the popular visions of Fatima, “Mary” gave instructions to pray the rosary every day “to bring peace to the world and the end of the War” [WW1].  But why the rosary, since its prayers to Mary far outnumber those directed to God/Jesus?  This is pointing more toward her. 

This “Mary” also told the children that God wished for “devotion to her Immaculate Heart for world peace and the salvation of souls.”  Again, she requested that they pray that Russia would be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart.  Is this pointing to Jesus or to “Mary”?  Furthermore, she asked that a chapel be built in her honor!  It is her exaltation that seems to be the goal here, not Jesus.’

Amazingly, she also said that peace with Russia would be granted and that “ONLY I CAN HELP YOU.  My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.” (Emphasis added)

See this article:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-visions-of-fatima.html

It is clear that the “Mary” to whom Catholics pray does not always point to Jesus.

• Mary is a “shortcut to Jesus”!

While this might sound good, the Scriptures tell us that we can go directly to God through Jesus (Hebrews 4:14-16), since He is fully able to sympathize with our needs and weaknesses, and that we can approach the throne of grace with confidence.  Was the author of Hebrews lying when he said this?  No, but adding Mary to the list only adds one more layer to the process.  Some “shortcut”!

• Mary is “the surest way to her Son”!

If we come to Jesus humbly for salvation, we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10).  If we come to Him with other needs, it is the same.  But Mary is needed in neither case.  Again, I would repeat what I said just above: Hebrews 4:14-16 assures us that we will be heard, if we approach Him with confidence and with humility.   The surest way to Jesus is by faith in His word, not faith in His mother.

“The Bible Doesn’t Say…”

When Protestants claim that praying to Mary is wrong, Catholics will often say, “But the Bible doesn’t say NOT to pray to Mary, does it?”

But there are countless things that the Bible doesn’t address specifically.  For example, it never says, “Don’t throw your trash over your neighbor’s fence into his yard,” or “Don’t slash your co-worker’s tires.”  There is nothing in the Bible that specifically addresses these things.  But we all know that these things are prohibited because of the command to “love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39).  That is a general principle found throughout Scripture that overrides any act that would violate that command.

The Bible may not specifically say, “Don’t pray to Mary,” or “Never address the saints or angels in prayer,” but there is a way that we can know if these things are allowed.  We have biblical principles throughout the Scriptures, and patterns in which to cling when there is no specific instruction.  We should look to examples of what the people of God did, and what they avoided.  And the continuous pattern throughout Scripture is very simple – it is that people prayed to God alone!

Conclusion

It seems that Mary is the only mother in history who has been dignified with such incredible titles of exaltation from the Catholic Church.  Granted, her Son is indeed the Savior and is of immeasurable worth.  But one would think that other mothers of great children would also be dignified in a similar manner for their child’s sake.

For example, Moses is recognized as the greatest Old Testament prophet ever.  Few people are as revered by the Jews as Moses was.  Yet, his mother, Jochebed, was never considered to be:

“Co-Mediatrix between God and the Jews,” Co-Redemptrix of the Jews,” “Mother of the Jews,” “Mother of the Mosaic Law,” “Queen over the Red Sea,” “Co-Provider of manna,” “Sovereign Princess of plagues,” “Mother of the brazen serpent,” “Co-Intercessor of the Israelites,” or “Queen of the Promised Land.”

Someone might say, “But that’s ridiculous!”  But why is it ridiculous for Jochebed when the same thing is being done for Mary?  None of Moses’ exploits, prophecies and great miracles would have been done if Jochebed had not given birth to him.  That seems to be the criteria for Mary’s exaltation, so why not Jochebed, as well?  After all, she literally saved Moses’ life, as a child, when she kept him from the Egyptians and placed him in a basket in the Nile River.  So why is Jochebed not also sharing the attributes of her son, Moses, and the honor he held? 

Funny, but we see very little of Jochebed in the Scriptures, in spite of the great exploits of her son.  The truth is, we also see very little of Mary in the Scriptures, yet her titles, honor and attributes of Jesus abound.

You have to wonder, how many other godly, humble and faithful mothers out there are being deprived by the Catholic Church of the honor and veneration they deserve?  Is it because the Church would see this as usurping the honor their sons deserve?  Yes, it should be.  Then how much more is the Catholic Church usurping the honor and uniqueness of the Savior of mankind when giving Mary the honor and attributes that only her Son should have?

Once again, I would have to say that Mary, by biblical standards, is being worshipped and this is the sin of idolatry.  There is no other way to see it.  And the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with that.

Whom have I in Heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee? (Psalm 73:25)

See also these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/03/excessive-devotion-to-mary-in-catholic.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/02/praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/10/worship-and-prayer.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-you-cant-find-jesus-look-for-his.html