THE POINT OF NO RETURN

 

Imagine yourself in a canoe, peacefully floating around on a large lake.  It’s a beautiful day and you haven’t a care in the world.  After a while, you begin to hear a sound, a continuous sound that is slowly getting louder and louder.  In horror, you finally realize the sound is a very large waterfall – and you’re headed straight toward it!  You franticly paddle, trying to move back to safety, but no, you realize that you are at the point of no return and you are sucked into the giant waterfall and perish on the rocks below.  If only someone had warned you.

Life is full of dangerous circumstances, some more serious than others.  You get it.  Those situations where you are in deep trouble (physically, financially, with relationships, etc.) and you are just unable to get out.  There is no turning back.  This point of no return is cold and ruthless.  It doesn’t care about your feelings.  It doesn’t care about your excuses or your careless attitude toward common sense rules, nor does it care about your poor decisions.  You messed up and you’re now paying the price. 

The “point of no return” concept is bad enough in the physical realm.  But it is even more terrifying in the spiritual realm.  There, it is eternal.  Death may bring relief for some who have suffered greatly, but for all those who have not surrendered to the Savior (Jesus Christ), for those who have rejected Him and His doctrine, there is no relief and there is no turning back.  They will fall paralyzed and speechless (Revelation 1:17) before Him on that day in utter horror (Revelation 6:16).  Once again, it will be too late.  But in this case, it will be the ULTIMATE point of no return!  You won’t have the time nor the chance to change your mind.  You will have made your choice.

Do We Really Love the Truth?

But what brings people to this point in their lives?  Here is a passage telling us exactly how we end up in this situation…

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12:

8 - And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 

9 - Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 

10 - And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 

11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 

12 - That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The context here is the last days when the antichrist comes on the scene.  At this time (and even now), the world will be so conditioned to believe false teachings that they will easily believe the antichrist’s lies.  They will be fully convinced through his lying signs and wonders.  These people will have had opportunity after opportunity to cling to the truth of the gospel, but they willfully continue to reject it.  They have loved and embraced false teachings so long that God is basically saying, “Ok, I won’t force you to come to Me, but if the life you’re living is what you really want, then stay there and live with your decision!”  Notice that in the passage above, they simply didn’t have a love for the truth, but favored a life of selfish pleasure and perverted doctrine, rather than godliness.

Especially for Catholics

Alright, many readers of this blog know that this blog is dedicated to articles about Catholicism.  One might ask what all this has to do with the Catholic Church.  Well, a lot, actually.  I strongly believe, and have firmly held to, the idea that the Catholic Church has always had a false gospel, one that has deceived millions and millions of its followers.  Furthermore, the Catholic Church not only has a false gospel, but it has multiple false doctrines. 

If all that I am saying is true, what will be the fate of these Catholics?  I believe that after being presented the truth of Scripture, if they continue to embrace unbiblical Catholic doctrines, their “canoe” will perish in the “waterfall,” metaphorically speaking.  To put it bluntly, they will perish in the Lake of Fire… eternally.  And they, too, will be saying, “If only someone had warned me!”  Well, I am just one of the many voices warning you now.

Common Ground

But one might ask, “But what if what the Catholic Church teaches is true?”  Well, if they really are teaching truth, then they don’t have anything to worry about.  But a little study will show that it is very obvious that they contradict many of the Scriptures, and they even contradict some of their own traditions!  See here:

 https://www.equip.org/articles/what-are-some-arguments-against-apostolic-tradition/

The question is, for Protestants and Catholics, who (if either of them) is right?  Catholics and Protestants have been debating for centuries, and of course both sides believe they are right.  Obviously, they can’t both be right, since both sides contradict each other in many areas.  The one thing both sides have in common is the fact that the Bible is God’s Word.  So I think we can use this common ground to get to the truth.  Jesus tells us that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17).

Conclusion

But the key issue is the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16).  And I believe that the Catholic Church has rejected that gospel. 

But how many times can you reject the gospel before God says “That’s enough!”?  Where is the point of no return, spiritually speaking?  I know that saying that the Catholic Church does not have the gospel of Jesus Christ may sound cruel and intolerant, but I’ve pointed out time after time on this blog that the Catholic Church has a different gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4) which has a works-based salvation, and that is an anti-biblical teaching (Romans 3:27-28; 4:4-5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5). 

This blog is full of warnings about many of the teachings of the Catholic Church.  There is something here on almost every major/significant Catholic doctrine.  And there are tons more in many other places on the internet by authors who are very knowledgeable in Catholic teachings and/or who were once Catholic themselves.

A Catholic may say, “But there are also many former Protestants who became Catholic, so this doesn’t prove anything!”  True, but those Protestants who have heard the gospel, but who now embrace the Catholic Church will have no excuse.  Again, we must look at the source of truth, i.e., Scripture, and we must take an honest look at the whole of Scripture, in its context!  I believe that if someone does this and is truly seeking after God, he will be saved.  For that person, the point of no return (i.e., eternity) is something to look forward to, and not a terror.

 

CATHOLICISM PORTRAYS GOD AS A FORMALIST

 

 

•      Formalism:   the practice or the doctrine of strict adherence to prescribed or external forms (as in religion or art)

In 1990, Matthew Hood was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant.  Thirty years later, in August of 2020, while Hood was an ordained Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit, he decided to go back and watch his childhood baptism on video.  But something bothered him when he saw that video.  He realized that the wrong formula had been used in his baptism, therefore, according to the Church, he was not actually baptized!

So, exactly, what were the implications of that?  Would he have to be re-baptized?  Would this affect his ordination as a priest?  Or is it no big deal?

It turns out that, to the Catholic Church, it is indeed a big deal.  This caused quite a stir in the Catholic world.  According to one Catholic Answers article, this story “unleashed a torrent of anxieties and questions around the sacraments.”  See here:

Why the Fuss About Sacraments? | Catholic Answers

So What’s the Problem?

The person who performed Hood’s baptism was Mark Springer, a deacon in the Catholic Church at that time.  But according to his archdiocese, the deacon is now retired “and no longer in active ministry.”  The problem is not the fact that he was a deacon, but that the wording in the ritual was unacceptable.

So, what was this great deviation from the Catholic faith, this great error, in the prescribed formula in Matthew Hood’s infant baptism?  What exactly was it that was done wrong?

Well, according to the Church, Springer used the phrase, “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” rather than, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  No kidding.  The Vatican said that using “we” is not acceptable, since it is not the congregation, nor the community that baptizes, but rather, Jesus, Himself, working through the person baptizing.  “I” is signifying that a baptism is done through the singular person of Jesus Christ.  Otherwise, the baptism is invalid, according to the Catholic Church.

Domino Effect

It is a Catholic rule that a man who wishes to become a priest must have been properly baptized.  Since Matthew Hood was not correctly baptized, that meant that his own ordination to the priesthood was null and void.  Furthermore, this brought into question the marriages of each and every couple that he had performed, and that all the confessions that he presided over were void (meaning that those confessing were not forgiven after all), all the masses that he celebrated were invalid, and no one was rightly “confirmed” under him.  All because of a faulty wording in his baptism ritual!

Questions

Worse yet, where was Hood’s soul in the meantime?  By the Catholic Church’s own standards, he was not even saved (CCC # 1257), much less was he an actual priest.  So, hypothetically, what about those individuals who went to (Catholic) Confession under Hood, but may have died shortly after, being supposedly absolved (forgiven of their sins)?  Apparently, they would not be forgiven after all, would they?  Do they end up in Hell because of a mis-wording in Hood’s childhood baptism?  What about those who were “married” under Hood and died since?  Were these living in sin (living together unmarried) and raising illegitimate children, only to be in Hell now?

Are these poor, unaware Catholics guilty due to the mistakes of their leaders?  Is God a formalist?  Is He so nitpicky and so hairsplitting in the Catholic Church’s eyes that He would (just because of a technicality) consign a person to Hell whose heart may have actually been right when he confessed his sins?  
Would God really eternally condemn those who are “illegally” married through no fault of their own?  All over a slight mis-wording of a sacrament ritual?  Didn’t Jesus say that God looks at the heart rather than a person’s performance of rituals (Mark 7:1-8; Luke 11:37-42; 18:9-14)?  Indeed He did.

Not God’s Nature

All this confusion is actually an insult to God.  It goes against His graceful, loving and merciful nature to intervene in mankind’s affairs when we are powerless to do anything (even when our hearts are right) - for example, like in the case of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43).

But this puts Catholics in an awkward position.  On the one hand, it is an absolute necessity (for Catholics) to have the proper wording for sacraments.  But on the other hand, they’ll admit that this can’t limit God, since He is omnipotent.  So, to avoid the Catholic Church’s obvious contradiction toward God’s nature, Catholics will try to backpedal and say, “Well, God would do the right thing in the case of an invalid marriage or confession,” or they’ll say, “The person would still obtain SOME grace… although not the fullness of grace which sacraments normally provide.” 

But it is not in God’s nature to allow such a petty restriction to keep someone out of Heaven.  Catholics may claim that the people in these circumstances would go to Purgatory, and not Hell.  But this argument doesn’t fly, since there is no Purgatory.  It is not a biblical concept.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-2.html

Furthermore, there is no need for perfectly performed/worded sacraments in God’s eyes. 

Good Intentions, Bad Theology

One Catholic article stated:

“Yet in this case, Springer almost literally destroyed the village in order to save it.”

See here:

Priest baptism story offers memo for reformers: Look before you leap | Crux (cruxnow.com)

What the quote means is that Springer attempted to save everyone by baptizing them, but ended up endangering them through a not-so-carefully worded ritual. 

This is the mentality of the Catholic world.  But this is all a misunderstanding of biblical principles.

The truth is, baptism does not save anyone when done correctly, nor does it destroy anyone when done incorrectly!  See these relevant articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

What About Sacraments?

To start with, the concept of sacraments is an unbiblical one.  Sacraments don’t save anyone, and grace doesn’t even come from sacraments (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6)!  In fact, the performance of sacraments is actually trying to buy the grace of God, which is impossible (Romans 11:6). 

I have an article written specifically on that topic which I hope can be of help.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=sacraments

Apparently, if a sacramental ritual is not precise, it won’t “work.”  It almost appears that the Catholic Church sees the ritual of sacraments as akin to using a spell or incantation, where the wording has to be precise, rather than seeing baptism simply as a Christian ordinance (as intended by God). 

But there is no specific formula for baptism in Scripture, other than it being done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).  Furthermore, we see no babies being baptized in the Bible.  All the examples of baptism in Scripture show that it was only done for those who were of age, repentant, and who knew what they were doing (for example, Matthew 3:13-16; Acts 2:40-41; 8:12-13; 8:36-38; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 16:29-33; 18:7-8; 19:3-5).

And by the way, nothing in Scripture says that Jesus is the one doing the baptism through the baptizer.  So the “I/we” distinction is irrelevant.  Baptism is simply a picture of what happened to you at salvation… you die to self, i.e., to the “old you” and are buried, putting to death the old man; and then you are raised to new life in Jesus Christ.

Repercussions  

Research by the Catholic Church showed that there were a total of 782 presumed invalid baptisms due to Hood’s ministry of 13 years, and the Church was still trying to remedy this.

See here:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/24/us/michigan-invalid-baptisms/index.html#:~:text=CNN%20Store-,Catholic%20church%20in%20Michigan%20still%20trying%20to%20remedy%20hundreds,baptisms%20performed%20over%2013%20years&text=Father%20Matthew%20Hood%2C%20a%20priest,the%20problem%20with%20the%20language.

By the way, this was not an isolated case.  A similar incident happened in Arizona (and Oklahoma, as well):

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-catholic-priest-resigns-over-wrongly-used-word-during-baptism-what-you-should-know-about-the-mix-up

Conclusion

One article I saw had a meme, a depiction of a priest about to give the last rites to a Catholic lying in bed.  The caption reads: “Father, before you hear my confession and give me last rites, I’d like to see video proof of your valid baptism.”

Of course this is silly, but it does address a valid point.  When one is about to die, he desperately needs to know that his soul is safe and he is going to Heaven.  If something as trivial as a slight mis-wording of a ritual can prevent him from getting into Heaven, he should not be in a church that teaches such and should call for someone who can share the true gospel (of salvation by faith alone) with him.

Catholics are consumed with the idea of grace coming through sacraments and rituals, but once you open that can of worms, it opens the door to all sorts of problems. 

Remember, it is Catholics who are the formalists, not God.  We should be thankful that He looks at the heart.

 

THE “QUEENSHIP” OF MARY

There are lots of Catholic-inspired articles out there on the idea that Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ) is some sort of queen, even the “Queen of the Universe,” or the “Queen of Heaven.”  But one would think that such a concept, if true, would have an abundance of solid evidence for it, since it is such an extraordinary claim and so heavily pushed by the Catholic Church.

So, where does this idea of Mary being a queen come from?  One Catholic source for this idea can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which calls Mary the “Queen over All Things” (CCC #966).  

Also, Lumen Gentium, a Dogmatic Constitution of the (Catholic) Church by Pope Paul VI, says that Mary is the “Queen of the Universe,” and she was “taken up body and soul into heavenly glory.” (Chapter VIII, paragraph 59)

Another source is a papal encyclical written by Pope Pius XII called Ad Caeli Reginam (Latin for “to the queen of heavens”).  In this encyclical, the pope not only refers to her as a queen, but he also speaks of her as the “Queen of the human race” (par. 17), “Queen of creation” (par. 50), and “Queen and Mother of Christendom” (par. 52).

According to paragraph 6 in this document, Pius XII said:

“In this matter We do not wish to propose a new truth to be believed by Christians, since the title and the arguments on which Mary's queenly dignity is based have already been clearly set forth, and are to be found in ancient documents of the Church and in the books of the sacred liturgy.”

Furthermore, another document to consider by Pope Pius XII is Munificentissimus Deus.   This Apostolic Constitution is about the dogma of the bodily Assumption of Mary, supposedly like Jesus’ assumption into Heaven (Mark 16:19).  It states that Mary is “the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer” and she is “that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom” (par. 26).

But Is It Biblical?

Ok, first, I want to make a few comments about statements in these sources:

When one calls Mary “Queen over All Things,” what exactly does such a label entitle her to?  Does she now own the earth and everything in it?  Or maybe she owns the whole universe and all existing matter?  I could see someone saying this about Jesus, since He is the Creator and carries the title Kings of kings and Lord of lords (1 Timothy 6:15)… but not anyone else.

The same idea goes for the title “Queen of the Universe” and “Queen of Heaven.”

Concerning Pius XII’s statement about the “truth” about Mary found in the ancient documents of the Church and the sacred liturgy: I’m not exactly sure what all the “books of the sacred liturgy” includes, nor to which of the “ancient documents” he’s referring, but one thing is sure – if their claims don’t line up with Scripture, they are merely claims, that’s all.  It doesn’t matter what the church fathers thought about Mary if they contradict the principles of the Bible.

There are a few biblical references in the above encyclical (Ad Caeli Reginam), but absolutely none of these Scriptures refer to Mary being a queen.  Amazing!  It seems that an official document about the “queenship” of Mary, written by a pope, would have in it some kind of scriptural backing.  But no.

Ok, so let’s look now to some of the “biblical evidence” given by Catholics for Mary being a queen.

Bathsheba

Many Catholics will point to 1 Kings Chapter 2 and Bathsheba as evidence of Mary’s queenship:

1 Kings 2:19-20

19) So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. The king stood up to greet her, bowed to her, and sat down on his throne. Then the king had a throne brought for his mother, who sat down at his right hand.

20) “I have just one small request of you,” she said. “Do not deny me.”  “Make your request, my mother,” the king replied, “for I will not deny you.”

According to one article, Catholics will say that Bathsheba is the one who most clearly illustrates the queen mother’s “royal prerogatives.”  

This author also says, concerning the Scripture passage above:

“Nowhere else in Scripture does the King honor someone as much as Solomon honors the queen mother in this scene.” 

See here:

Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical? | Edward Sri

These two quotes seem to be the consensus amongst Catholics everywhere.  So, with these two quotes in mind, let’s dig farther.

It seems that Catholics tie in the queen’s intercession in the Old Testament directly with a guarantee of her being granted a request.

Furthermore, Catholics see Solomon as an Old Testament type of Jesus and Bathsheba as a type of Mary (who will never be refused a request from Jesus). 

And since Solomon is about to grant Bathsheba’s petition in the passage above, we can be assured that Jesus will grant any petition of Mary’s… right?  Not so fast.

There are many Catholic articles about Mary’s queenship, but the great majority of Catholics who mention this passage in 1 Kings 2 don’t go all the way down to the part where the request is ACTUALLY DENIED.  They will take you as far as Solomon saying, “I will not deny you,” and no further, and they’ll say, “See!  Just as King Solomon will grant the requests of Bathsheba, King Jesus will grant the requests of Queen Mary.” 

But here is the rest of the passage:

1 Kings 2:21-25:

21-So Bathsheba said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to your brother Adonijah as his wife.”

22-King Solomon answered his mother, “Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Since he is my older brother, you might as well request the kingdom for him and for Abiathar the priest and for Joab son of Zeruiah!”

23-Then King Solomon swore by the LORD: “May God punish me, and ever so severely, if Adonijah has not made this request at the expense of his life. 

24-And now, as surely as the LORD lives—the One who established me, who set me on the throne of my father David, and who founded for me a dynasty as He promised—surely Adonijah shall be put to death today!”

25-So King Solomon sent the order to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, who struck down Adonijah, and he died.

From the Catholic perspective, it should seem strange that the only request that we can find in Scripture from the queen mother toward King Solomon is one that was denied!  And Catholics want to use this passage as a model of Mary’s queenship?  Isn’t she supposed to be granted all her requests?

It seems that Queen Bathsheba’s “royal prerogatives” didn’t include such a guarantee after all!

Those few Catholic writers who do actually point out the denial of the king will say, “But this does not negate her position as queen!” 

But this is just begging the question.  The whole reason for Catholics pointing out that Bathsheba would supposedly gain the king’s favor in the first place was an attempt to prove Mary’s queenship!  So, they are assuming her queenship before proving it.  This logic backfires on them, since this in no way proves that MARY is a queen!

Typology

Question: So, if Catholics would ask Mary for something they shouldn’t, or for the wrong reason, i.e., asking amiss (James 4:3), is Jesus obligated to grant her request just because she is His mother?  The obvious answer is no.  So why is Mary needed in this equation at all?  She is not.  There is no biblical evidence whatsoever that she is a queen, or that she intercedes for us.

But even if Solomon would have granted Bathsheba’s petition, this is still a strained attempt at typology.  We must certainly give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but Catholics take great liberties with typology, especially when it comes to Mary.  The Bible depicts Mary simply as a humble and faithful peasant girl who had the great honor of giving birth to the Jewish Messiah.  But once more, Scripture never implies that she would be a queen.

But the bottom line is that a king is not obligated to grant anyone’s specific request.  But the king must consider, is it God’s will?  And it is obvious that in the case of Bathsheba’s request, it was not.

Perhaps Catholics will say that Mary would never ask for something apart from God’s will… but again, that is just begging the question.  It’s an assertion that needs to be proven.

Conclusion

Ok, so what’s the big deal?  What if Mary would be a queen?  What does it hurt?

My answer is that I wouldn’t have an issue with it if it were a true biblical concept.  But it isn’t.  And if it isn’t, Catholics are making claims that put her in a fake category.

And the big deal is this:  If she isn’t all they say she is, there is the danger of idolatry, and idolatry has always been a big deal in God’s eyes!  If Catholics are praying to Mary and trusting in her to do spiritual things for them that only God can do, it is idolatry! 

Just as the rebellious, devil-inspired Israelites in the Old Testament lusted after the Asherim (female deities) and served them, there seems to be in Catholicism a similar desperate, devil-inspired need for a female deity.  Could this be why they are so anxious to make her a queen? 

Catholics may say, “But we don’t think that Mary is a deity!  The Catholic Church does not teach that.” 

Well, you can SAY that she’s not a deity, but it’s your actions that count.  Praying to someone and giving them that much “devotion” and attention puts that someone on a level with God.

Concerning idols, I don’t know of anyone who believes that their money is actually a deity, nor do I know anyone who prays to their money, but there certainly are those for whom money is their god (Matthew 6:24).  Even though they don’t consider their money as a deity, their devotion and attention given to riches reveal that they are idolaters at heart.

There are also other Catholic reasons for seeing Mary as a queen, but let me just mention one more.  In Revelation 12, we see a “woman” clothed with the sun and Catholics insist that this is Mary.  But a closer look will reveal that this is a picture of Israel, not Mary.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/09/is-mary-woman-clothed-with-sun.html

 

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE?

 

Imagine with me this scenario:

Once upon a time in a far away land, there was this wonderful and mystical church.  And God was very pleased with it.  This church remained faithful to the Word of God, even in spite of persecution.  Then, one day the emperor of the land made it illegal to persecute the church any more.  Also, the emperor’s new laws allowed the teachings of the pagans to blend with the teachings of the church.  This immediately caused problems for the church, and as time went on, this church got farther and farther away from the Scriptures.  Over time, the leaders in the church grew more and more corrupt, and embraced many false doctrines that were unique to that church.  Then, one day a group of resisters arose and challenged the corruption and false teachings of this church.  The resisters demonstrated that this church’s teachings were no longer according to the Bible.  It soon became clear that the church’s arguments did not hold up to the reasoning of the resisters.  So, the church found a man who presented a new concept, proposing that the church’s teachings had developed over time.  And they told everyone, “That’s how come our teachings didn’t seem to line up with Scripture – they were there all along, but were simply in ‘seed form!’”  So, this “development” idea seemed to save the day for the church – but not everyone lived happily ever after…

Of course, anyone (Protestant or Catholic) can easily determine who the characters are in this story:

The church is the Church of Rome (later to become the Roman Catholic Church).  The emperor is Constantine.  The leaders are (mainly) the popes.  The resisters are the Protestants of the Reformation.  And the man who proposed the “development” theory is Cardinal John Henry Newman in the 1800’s.

Of course, some Catholics will say that this story/scenario is indeed a fairy tale.  But, in spite of its simplicity, I believe that this story is exactly what happened.

To Grow or Not to Grow

Many great minds (both Catholic and Protestant) have debated the topic of “development of doctrine” for a long time, so I don’t pretend to have all the answers.  I just want to present a simple case.  Catholics say that the development of doctrine does not mean that doctrine changes, but that it “grows” and its essence or substance remains over time (even if it looks different later on). 

They claim that all these uniquely Catholic teachings were there in Scripture the whole time.  They just needed to be drawn out by “development.”  You know, like an acorn becomes an oak tree.  It has the same DNA, i.e., the same essence, just a different appearance.  So, they would say that this is what happened to doctrines like Purgatory, papal primacy, the Marian doctrines, etc.

But a doctrine is either true or false from the beginning and it remains that way unless someone changes it.  It doesn’t grow or morph by itself into something more complex.  It is constant.  I don’t believe that a doctrine develops; only our understanding of it does!  But it is a corruption (not growth) when one’s doctrine ends up contradicting Scripture. 

What If?

Now who’s to say that Catholic doctrines will not undergo even further “development” later on?  For example, what if they “discover” one day that Mary’s mom was actually also immaculately conceived (like Mary was)?  Seems like a logical development, right?  Jesus was conceived without sin, therefore (they say) Mary had to be conceived without sin first.  If that’s the case, then why didn’t this also happen to Mary’s mother, and Mary’s grandmother, on and on, all the way back to Eve?  Given enough time, couldn’t this development of doctrine theory justify almost any form of “development” [read change]?  Yes, my friends, this theory is a slippery slope!

The Pagan Connection

I mentioned paganism in the beginning of this article.  It is very interesting that Newman, himself, admits that the Catholic Church has blended with paganism.  In his very famous book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he writes:

“We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion [Christianity] to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own… The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” (Chap. 8, Section 2, Paragraph 6 – emphasis added)

See the online version here:

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html

So, again, Newman admits that many additions Rome made to Christianity were of pagan origin, i.e., they were pagan practices and rituals - some acceptable, some not so good.  Several of these are closely related to idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:14).  At the very least, they could be a stumbling block for others (1 Corinthians 8:9-13; 2 Corinthians 6:3).

Notice that Newman says they were “sanctified” by their adoption into the Church.  But author/theologian/philosopher, Norman Geisler in his article, “An Evaluation of John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” states:

“The Gospel does not “change” a false doctrine into a true one, nor take pagan practices and “make them right.”  (Emphasis in original) 

He also said:

“Newman’s theory of ‘development’ is a beautiful theory, but it is ruined by a brutal gang of facts about the Paganism that was adopted by Catholicism.  It is clearly a corruption of biblical truth, not a true development of it.”  See Geisler’s article here:

https://normangeisler.com/evaluation-jhnewman-dev-christian-doctrine/

The late Christian researcher Dave Hunt sounded this warning:

“In all pagan/nature religions there is a presumed cause-and-effect relationship between the ritual or ceremony performed and the obtaining of the power or healing or other blessing sought. The whole idea of pagan ceremonies — the rites of the shaman or witch, the burning of candles, the making of potions, the use of fetishes, etc. — is that they will (if done correctly) elicit a response from the gods or spirits.”

See here:

https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/paganism/

 

How to Become Catholic

According to the National Catholic Register :

 

“Blessed John Henry Newman's intensive study of the development of doctrine eventually led him to the Catholic Church.”  See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/development-of-catholic-doctrine-a-primer

Yes, a false method like the “development of doctrine” can indeed lead people to Catholicism.  Another false method that has led many to the Catholic Church is an over-emphasis on the church fathers and/or church history, essentially putting them above Scripture.  Another is the unbiblical personal experiences that some have had with the Eucharist.  And yet another is trusting in the flimsy arguments that certain people have used against the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) or Sola Fide (“Faith Alone”). 

So, yes, wrong teaching and wrong perspectives can lead one to the Catholic Church.

Conclusion

Catholics will claim that the development of doctrine helps us to better articulate the doctrines we have today.  But clear articulation does not make a false doctrine true.  Which begs the question – where does one find truth? 

Catholics will answer, “The truth is whatever the Catholic Church teaches!”  But that’s just begging the question.  It is this “development of doctrine” that is on trial here in the first place.  But the correct answer to the question of finding truth is that we must look to Scripture (John 17:17).

Catholics also love to point out that Newman was a former Protestant (Anglican).  Maybe so, but in my opinion, there is not a great amount of distance between Catholicism and the Anglican/Episcopalian religions.  There are a number of those from this camp who have ended up joining the Catholic Church.  Sadly, they had much in common to start with.

Calling it “development” is no justification for teaching and promoting false doctrine. This theory of the “development of doctrine” is simply an excuse for Catholics to continue to embrace certain unbiblical, paganistic, and idol-infected teachings.

The bottom line is that, in these strictly Catholic “developed” doctrines, there is always a contradiction involved when tested against the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

See also this link on the “development” of the papacy:

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

“WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?”

 

Many readers will no doubt be familiar with the above title.  They might recognize it as the name of a song by singer/actress Tina Turner.  But this phrase is also the title of Catholic apologist John Martignoni’s Newsletter #353.  This newsletter is actually Part 2 of his theme, “Problems with Protestantism,” and it can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/470-apologetics-for-the-masses-353-problems-with-protestantism-2

In this particular newsletter, John attempts to deal with the doctrine of Sola Fide (salvation by “Faith Alone”).  John’s whole theme in this newsletter is the question of the role of love in salvation.

John says:

“In Protestant theology, one of the two main dogmas is Sola Fide - salvation by faith ALONE!  That is the belief that all I have to do is believe that Jesus is God incarnate and that He died on the Cross for my sins and - BOOM! - I'm saved.  I don't have to do any works.  I don't have to be baptized. I don't have to worry about sacraments or growing in holiness or anything else.  All I have to do...the only thing I have to do...the only thing I can do that counts for anything...is to have faith.  I am saved by my faith, and by my faith alone, period!”

Ok, I must say that John Martignoni goes out of his way to mischaracterize this doctrine, as I’ve seen him do before.  But the truth is, he knows better!  No doubt John has spoken to many Protestants about this topic and he has heard many of the arguments for it.  So this is not at all new to him.  But let’s break his comments down a little.

Notice that he says that a person who believes in Sola Fide does not have to do any works or be baptized.  He says that the person doesn’t have to grow in holiness – only have faith.

Yes, getting saved/justified is the beginning of a person’s spiritual journey.  But John makes it sound like this person can choose to never, ever do works, get baptized or grow in holiness!  This is an utter misrepresentation of Sola Fide and John Martignoni knows this. 

Please hear me on this: Sola Fide means that a person gets saved/justified by faith, through God changing his heart.  Salvation is caused by faith in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross APART FROM THE MERIT OF OUR OWN WORK.  Protestants don’t hate good works nor do they try to avoid them.  John knows well that Protestants will, and gladly do, perform good works.  But these works are done because we are ALREADY saved/justified at this point, by God giving us a new heart.  It is this faith, this trusting Him alone that saves us, not works, sacraments, or rituals. 

How Does Love Fit In?

Now, John is basically asking, “But what about love?  Don’t we find love anywhere in this equation when a person gets saved?”

Again, Sola Fide is about denying the merit of good works to cause salvation.  It doesn’t say that you won’t afterward do any works, or mandate that you can’t have any feelings of love, joy, peace, thankfulness or desire to serve God.  This is John’s faulty definition, his misrepresentation of “Faith Alone”: He’s trying to say that in Sola Fide, only faith can exist and absolutely nothing else!  But this is not Sola Fide. 

According to his faulty reasoning, he states:

“If we are saved by faith, and faith alone, then love has absolutely nothing to do with our salvation.” 

Not so, John.  Every true Christian exhibits love.  Love toward God and love toward his fellow man.  But according to Scripture, it is his faith, his trust in God that saves him (Ephesians 2:8-10).

But You Gotta Have Love!

John Martignoni goes on, using Scripture, to tell us the great importance of love (as though we Protestants didn’t think it was important).  He goes on a ridiculous rant to try to convince people that we MUST love.  Well, of course we do, John!  Nobody’s denying that.  But the Bible tells us very clearly, over and over, that the medium that God continually used over the centuries to cause salvation is faith (Romans 4:1-3).  Of course, we’ll exercise love toward God and man.  But John is attempting to say that our love (i.e., through our actions/works) is necessary to save us. 

But no, it is through faith in GOD’S love that saves us, not our own.  We cannot possibly love in the perfect way that God loves, since we are sinful creatures who so often fall short in our walk with God.  And that is exactly why NONE of our works can save us.  Sola Fide believers are not against love or any other fruit of the Spirit. 

Our good works are beautiful in the eyes of God… UNLESS we are trying to use them to accomplish our salvation!  Then, they are loathsome in His eyes (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10) and they disqualify us from salvation (Romans 4:4-5).  Sola Fide is an acknowledgment that our puny works are insufficient to save.  Nothing we do can compare with His work on the cross.   That’s why God basically says, “Let this, and this alone, save you.  And quit trying to add your tainted works to the equation” (Galatians 3:1-3).  Catholics actually believe in faith plus works.  But salvation/justification is either all Jesus’ work, or it is not of Jesus at all.

Misrepresentation

John goes on to say:

 "For God so loved the world that He gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life," (John 3:16).  Awesome!  God loves me.  He loves me so much that I don't have to do a thing...not one thing...other than believe in Him...and I am saved.  He loves me, but I don't have to love Him, and I am still saved.  I can sin all I want, and as long as I have accepted Jesus into my heart as my personal Lord and Savior, I'm saved.  And who was it that said the road to salvation is narrow and difficult?  Silly rabbit...no it's not...it's pretty easy actually.”

John continues to mock this biblical doctrine and suggests that “I can sin all I want” and still be saved.  This is an utter perversion of Sola Fide.  No valid biblical argument is saying that we can continually sin to our heart’s desire without repentance and still be saved (Hebrews 10:26-29).  The person who is truly saved will not want to sin, knowing that sin grieves our Lord. 

Interestingly, John’s description of the Sola Fide believer in his newsletter happens in the Catholic Church, as well!  For example, in the confessional, many believe you can flippantly say three ‘Hail Marys’ and you are absolved of all your sin.  You might object that any person who flippantly says the prayers of the sacrament of penance is not a true Catholic.  But that’s exactly my point!  Likewise, no truly saved person will say that he can purposely sin all he wants without repenting and still be saved.  What John is talking about is a person who has had a false conversion.   

But both of these scenarios are unbiblical!  The Catholic mindlessly repeating canned prayers (Matthew 6:7-8) to get right with God is just as futile as the Protestant mindlessly quoting some form of “sinner’s prayer,” but intending to continue living in sin (1 Timothy 5:20; 1 John 3:6, 9). 

John continues:

“Now, someone might say, ‘John, you're being ridiculous.  That's not what Sola Fide folks believe.’  First point in response, it is actually what a number of them believe.”

Maybe so, John, but these are not mainstream.  And even if they were – even if most people believed it – that still wouldn’t make it right.  The “sin-as-much-as-you-want” mentality is obviously wrong and unbiblical.  But the misuse or misunderstanding of Sola Fide by some people does not negate its truth. 

You may complain that Protestants don’t have a “fixed” or “authoritative” definition of the term, and then dismiss all Sola Fide arguments based on the one you choose to attack.  But that’s dishonest.  If you want to tear down those non-mainstream arguments, then that’s fine, but don’t pretend that you have disproved the doctrine when you do that.

John says that his statements, his reasoning and examples of Sola Fide in this newsletter are the logical consequence of the doctrine.  No, John, neither the Bible nor the doctrine of Sola Fide says that freely and purposely continuing to sin has no impact on your salvation (Hebrews 3:12-13)!  Again, you are misrepresenting Sola Fide.

James Settles It

He goes on:

“One final matter: Someone might say, "Well, if you don't love the Lord, or do the works of the Lord, then that means you haven't really accepted Him into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior."  My response: Really?!  Where does the Bible tell me such a thing?”

Concerning us doing the works of the Lord, yes, saved people certainly will.  Of course, it is not in those exact words, but James 2:18 expresses that same concept – a person’s salvation is shown/demonstrated by his works:

But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; SHOW ME your faith without the works, and I will SHOW YOU my faith by my works.” (Emphasis added)

See that, John?  Your works demonstrate the reality of your faith.  That whole context in James chapter 2 confirms this fact.  So, your argument is with James! 

Now, James’ point was not that works are absolute proof of salvation (because even atheists can do “good” works), but rather his point is, if you really are saved, you will have some good works to show for it.

John continues:

“Furthermore, how many works do I have to do to ‘prove’ that I have truly accepted Jesus into my heart as my personal Lord and Savior?  10?  20? 5 years worth?  10 years worth?  How many works does it take to ‘prove’ that you're saved?”

Of course, there is no precise number of works that will absolutely “prove” that one is actually saved.  And of course, there is no totally foolproof test, since only God knows your neighbor’s heart perfectly.  But we can have a pretty good idea if he is saved or not, by his works, as James said above. 

Furthermore, I could turn the tables on John and ask him, “If good works contribute to one’s salvation, as the Catholic Church’s teachings insist, how many good works must one do to be saved?  Exactly where is the threshold?” 

There really is no answer to either of our questions, but my question here is based on a scriptural concept (that works cannot save you).  But John’s question is based on an unbiblical concept (that works don’t demonstrate you are saved).  It is indeed important to know if a person is saved, so if works don’t show that you are saved, then by what biblical measure can you tell if someone is saved or not?

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that (without a revelation) a Catholic can never really know if he will be saved, because that would be the sin of presumption (CCC #2092).  So, according to this, no matter how many good works are done, I guess that no Catholic can assume that any other Catholic is saved, can he?  You see, John, your question cuts both ways.

Conclusion

Ok, John knows what Sola Fide is really all about, but he has resorted to nit-picking the less-than-perfect NAME of the doctrine so that it will appear foolish.  The term “Faith Alone” may not be precise, but he knows what it really means. 

So maybe the term “Faith Alone” is not a perfect name, so what?  Here is an excerpt from one of my previous articles on Sola Fide:   

“First off, we want to say that the term ‘faith alone’ is not a perfectly accurate term, in the sense that faith is not the only thing present at the moment of conversion. Along with faith, there will certainly be joy, thankfulness, sorrow for one’s sins, a love for God and a willingness to serve Him, etc. A similar (imperfect) expression would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church saying that ‘Christ alone’ teaches us (CCC #427), yet the Catholic Church (as well as every other church) also has human teachers. Another example is the phrase ‘salvation comes from God alone’ (CCC #169), yet Catholics will argue that the Church certainly has a part in it. Just as these Catholic phrases are not precise, so it is with the phrase ‘faith alone.’  The focus of the term “faith alone” is on the absence of WORK done in attempting to make Heaven.”

See that article here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-1.html

The word “alone” in “Faith Alone” is simply meant to deny any saving merit of our works – it is not to suggest the absence of love or any of the fruit of the Spirit.  In other words, man’s works are never a cause of salvation, but rather a sign that he has already been saved.

It is important to understand that good works don’t save you at ANY point of your spiritual journey – beginning, middle or end (Galatians 3:1-3).  But if you continue in faith till the end, your works will bring you rewards in Heaven.  Faith is about salvation itself and works are about rewards.

Salvation – what does love have to do with it?  Love is a vital ingredient in the life of the Christian.  It should be embraced and used throughout his spiritual journey.  But the love and works that man expresses is not what saves us (Romans 4:4-5; Titus 3:5).