Answering Catholic Claims

DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GIVE US THE BIBLE?

2012-02-17T20:57:00.009-08:00

You will hear it often when Catholics and Protestants are discussing their faith. The Protestant quotes a Scripture verse and points to the fact that the Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. But the Catholic will often say something like, “But without the Catholic Church’s Tradition, you Protestants would not have a Bible. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore you should submit to our Church.” Quite a statement… but is this really true?

Some Questions

Before answering him, we should start off by asking the Catholic a couple of important questions. First, we should ask, “What do you mean by saying the Catholic Church ‘gave us the Bible’?” Is he suggesting that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? If so, this certainly cannot be the case, since the Old Testament was written long before the Catholic Church existed. Neither can they claim to have written the New Testament, since that was written by the apostles and their close associates. And the apostles knew nothing of those teachings which are uniquely Catholic.

What Catholics generally mean when they say that their Church gave us the Bible is that the Catholic Church, through certain councils, was responsible for revealing to us the “canon” of the Bible, i.e., which books are inspired by God and actually belong in the Bible.

If this is indeed what they mean, then we need to ask him our second question: “When did this happen?” And they will usually say that the canon was finally settled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), and it was later restated / reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.).

This sounds really nice, but there are a number of problems with their claims.

Local, Not Ecumenical

Point #1 - The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were local or “provincial” councils (synods), and they could not “finally settle” the canon or any other issue that affected all the churches. They were not “ecumenical” councils, because their rulings were not binding on the whole church. The reason that this is a problem is because Catholics often stress the idea that we really “need” infallible certainty on the canon. But according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the canon of Scripture was not “infallibly” declared until the Council of Trent did so in 1546:

“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)

Likewise, the online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) says:

“The Tridentine decrees [i.e., from the Council of Trent] from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, according to this, the church existed for over 1500 years without an infallibly-pronounced canon. Why is this, if “infallible certainty” is so important?

For more on infallible certainty and the canon, see our article here:

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

Wrong Canon

Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek – written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin translation – written 382-405 A.D.):

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added]

The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint’s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate’s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, “The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added]

So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was “removed” from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church’s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent’s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils’ canon is wrong.

To confirm this with another Catholic source:

“Except for Jerome’s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek.” (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100)

The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate’s.

So, what if the Catholic says, “Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?” But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic “Tradition” failed to protect the early canon from error in this case.

There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint’s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

The Apocrypha

Point #3 – The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the “Deuterocanonical” books. Protestants usually refer to them as the “Apocrypha,” and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:

1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the “inspiration” of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.

Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha:

“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”)

For much more information on the Apocrypha, see the William Webster link that we mentioned above.

Teachings Not Biblical

Point #4 - If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us.

Used by God

Point #5 - When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them. It was simply used by God in identifying the canon.

But apparently, some Catholics believe that if God uses someone, then we must submit to them.” But this does not logically or necessarily follow because God can use anybody or anything, good or bad, to accomplish His will. But this only proves that God is sovereign. God has used a whale (Jonah 1:17), a rooster (Matthew 26:74-75), and even a donkey (Numbers 22:22-34) to do His will, but that doesn’t mean that we are to submit to whales, roosters or donkeys, does it?

God can also use evil men to prophesy (John 11:49-52), but are we expected to yield to them? Obviously not. God can even use the devil to accomplish His will (Job 1:6-12; 42:10), but does this mean that we should be obedient to Satan? Again, the point is, just because God has USED a person or group in some way to bring about His will, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we must now submit to them. We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.

This same misguided reasoning would also require us to submit to Judaism, the religion of the Jews (including any of its un-Christian traditions), since God used the Jews to write and preserve three-fourths of the Bible which we have today (the Old Testament). After all, it was to the Jews that the oracles of God were first given (Romans 3:2). In light of this, the Jews would have more right to claim to have “given us the Bible” than the Catholic Church has.

So Where Did it Come From?

Many Catholics act as though there was nothing but utter confusion over the canon in the early church and the multitudes were desperate to find someone, an infallible authority, who could “determine” the canon for them. Then the Catholic Church stepped in with their councils and saved the day… or at least that’s what many Catholics would like us to believe. But it was not so.

Ok, so where did we get the Bible from, if it wasn’t from the Catholic Church?

Demanding an answer to questions like “Who gave us the Bible?” is actually misleading. There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. Just as the books of the Old Testament were, little by little, accumulated over the years by God’s people who recognized His Spirit moving in His prophets (and eventually writing it down)… it was the same with the apostles and the New Testament. It was a gradual process with many believers involved over time. And just as the Jews recognized Old Testament Scripture without an infallible authority, it was the same with the early Christians.

Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”

Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.

It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, as we mentioned earlier. But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”

Conclusion

The implications of all this are sobering and far-reaching. When Catholics say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, they are in effect saying that this Church (along with its “Tradition”) is the final authority, and that we must submit to them. They are implying that the Bible gets its authority from that Church and only they have the authority to properly interpret it. But this is certainly not true. The universal church recognized the inspired writings. However, the Scriptures are not “church-breathed,” but God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Simply recognizing something (the canon) is not the same thing as being responsible for its existence. The Bible no more owes its existence to the Catholic Church than gravity owes its existence to Sir Isaac Newton.

The idea of the Catholic Church giving the Bible to the world is yet another boastful (but empty) claim coming from the Catholic side. One has to wonder… how many of the Catholic Church’s claims need to be exposed as false, before the “lay Catholic” in the pew will see the light? How many exaggerated claims from his leaders must he endure before he breaks free of the Catholic Church’s shackles? Hopefully, very few.

MESSAGES FROM GOD?

2011-09-05T15:30:00.000-07:00

This brief article will have little, if anything, to do with Catholics, for a change, except maybe some in the Catholic Charismatic Movement. No, this is mainly for those Protestants who believe in “personal prophecy,” especially those in the “Word of Faith” type churches. Now, the serious problems in the Word of Faith Movement are many, but our focus today will be on this single issue of personal prophecy, i.e., when someone gives a special “word from the Lord” to either an individual or to the whole congregation.

We have a dear Christian friend who used to be part of this Word of Faith Movement. She has a sweet spirit, loves God with all her heart, and would do anything to please God. But her life was pretty much ruined by the Word of Faith church she attended. Through several personal prophecies from others in her church and in prayer meetings, she was led to believe that it was God’s will to marry a particular man in her church to whom she was not physically attracted, nor had any desire whatsoever to even date. But the prophecies seemed to imply that it was her “duty” to marry him. Wanting to be obedient to God, she gave in and married this man. After they got married, the man became very controlling and the spiritual lives of both of them were sorely affected, and they both realized their mistake. They are both now miserable and (not wanting to grieve God further through divorce) are trapped in a very unhappy marriage. These particular “prophecies” deceived them both and swallowed them up into a life of bondage.

No doubt, there are many more tragic stories similar to this one. All too often, this happens because 1) there are many false prophets out there, like Jesus said there would be (Matthew 24:11), and 2) there is a desperate lack of biblical discernment in the church today. These facts provide a major reason that we are in this great apostasy (falling away from the faith) in these last days. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)

Not everything uttered as a “prophecy” is from God. Some of these utterances may simply come from peer pressure, since everyone else in the group may be prophesying, and the person doesn’t want to appear “unspiritual”; or he gets caught up in the moment and all the emotion; or a person’s prophecy can be from his own spirit (Jeremiah 14:14; 23:16); and then there are some that will be directly given by the “inspiration” of demons. Either way, none of these are from God. These false messages have done more harm to the body of Christ than we can imagine.

Many have fallen prey to the effects of such prophecies, and this is especially true if one is desperately seeking to “hear from God.” His life can be drastically changed by a single false prophecy.

Now, there is such a thing as the gift of prophecy in Scripture (1 Corinthians 12:10), and God does not want us to despise this gift (1 Thessalonians 5:20), but there is also much abuse in this area. So, to balance this, the Bible tells us to “examine everything carefully [and] hold fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21 - NASB), and we do this with God’s Word, the Scriptures.

Christians, be very careful. The next time you hear someone say, “Thus saith the Lord…”, ask yourself these questions:

First and foremost, is what the “prophet” saying lining up with Scripture? Even if what he says comes to pass, and even if miracles are involved, his message should not be accepted if it goes against God’s Word. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
Are the people saying, “Wow! What a great prophet this guy is! What wonderful prophecies!”, or is Jesus Christ the One being glorified?
Is he going on and on using flowery speech or “King James” language, or is he getting straight to the point and speaking like he normally would?
Is the “prophet” blasting someone with threats and warnings, or is he encouraging / consoling and confirming in the faith (which is the purpose of prophecy in the church)? (1 Corinthians 14:3)
Did the prophecy “come out of nowhere,” or was it a confirmation of something that God was already dealing with you about?
Is the person known to have given false prophecies before?
What is this “prophet’s” life like? Is he really a man of God, showing the fruit of the spirit (before AND after the giving of the message)?

Christians should never rush to accept any prophetic message. All prophecies MUST be tested first. The only prophecies that are infallible (i.e., without the possibility of error) are those in Scripture, and thus, the Bible is our standard by which we test everything.

Let us learn from the mistakes of those who have failed to apply this test, and have suffered the consequences. Because of this failure, some have lost physical / temporal things, some have lost their lives, and it is very likely that some have lost their eternal souls.

THE HI-JACKING OF JOHN 20:23

2011-08-08T19:31:00.000-07:00

If you are a Catholic or if you know many Catholics, then you are probably familiar with the concept of confessing your sins to a priest in a small private room called a “confessional.” While much has been written about the abuses of the Catholic confessional, our focus today will instead be on the Catholic Church’s abuse of John 20:23 (which they claim supports this type of confession). Here is the passage and its context:

19) So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20) And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21) So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22) And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23) If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." (John 20:19-23 - NASV)

The Catholic Church tells us that when Jesus said, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them: if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained”… that He was not only giving the disciples the authority to forgive sins, but He also intended to establish the “Sacrament of Penance,” part of which involves the Catholic practice of confessing sins to a priest (also known as “auricular confession”).

CONDEMNATION AND FALSE CLAIMS

Not only do they claim this, but the Catholic Church also condemns anyone who denies this interpretation. According to the Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent:

If any one saith, that those words of the Lord the Saviour, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and of retaining sins in the Sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them; but wrests them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the gospel; let him be anathema. (Canon III – emphasis added)

AND

If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema. (Canon VI – emphasis added)

Note the anathemas at the end of each Canon. When the Catholic Church declares someone “anathema,” she is pronouncing the gravest form of excommunication possible… one which eternally condemns the person to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction (see the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – under the topic, “anathema”).

Note also the claim that this type of secret auricular confession was “always from the beginning understood” by the Church in this way, and “ever observed from the beginning.” But this is not true, even according to the Church’s own teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that private confession to a priest was a NEW practice introduced in the seventh century:

…During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on [i.e., from the seventh century], the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament… (CCC #1447)

So, private confession to a priest was NOT “ever observed from the beginning,” and church history verifies this fact. Remember that these statements above (Canon III and VI) are dogmatic statements from a supposedly “infallible ecumenical council” and must be believed by every Catholic, yet they contradict (and condemn) the Catholic Catechism on this point. It seems that the Council of Trent, in a knee-jerk reaction to the Reformation, made false claims, forcing today’s Catholic to have to do damage control.

CAN A PRIEST FORGIVE SINS?

Just to be clear, we’re not talking here about when someone sins against you personally and you need to forgive him for it. This is about someone officially absolving (forgiving) all your sins, giving you a clean slate. So, in light of this, what about the Catholic Church’s interpretation of John 20:23? Is it really speaking of auricular confession to a priest? Did Jesus actually give anyone the power to forgive sins (like He does)? On the surface, it may look like it, but no, there is something else going on here. The Catholic interpretation is not valid for several reasons…

First of all, although there were “ministerial” priests in the Old Testament, there are NONE in the New Testament, contrary to what the Catholic Church claims. According to the Bible, all Christians are considered to be priests (1 Peter 2: 5, 9; Revelation 1:6). So this special class of ministers does not exist anymore. See this article on the priesthood:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=priesthood

Just this point alone destroys the foundation of the Catholic concept of auricular confession.

Second, there are absolutely no New Testament examples of anyone having his sins absolved by confessing to a designated person (unless that Person was Jesus). There are examples of public confession (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:4-5; Acts 19:18-19), but we find no special person whose “job” it was to hear confessions (as in the Catholic Church).

Third, we DO have examples of those who prayed (or were instructed to pray) directly to God for forgiveness (Matthew 6:9,12; Acts 8:20-22; Luke 18:13-14). Jesus’ dying on the cross gives us direct access to God, without a ministerial priesthood.

Fourth, the structure of the Greek grammar in John 20:23 is rare, and important to recognize. The first pair of verbs (“forgive” and “retain”) are present tense. But the second pair of verbs, ("are forgiven" and "are retained") are both perfect tense, indicating a continual state that began before the action of the first verbs. In other words, the grammar indicates that God’s forgiving or retaining comes first, and then man’s PROCLAIMING of it afterward (based on what the person has chosen to do).

Many scholars will admit that the literal meaning of this verse, although awkward, is more accurately, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins HAVE ALREADY BEEN forgiven,” or … “SHALL HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN.” So, Jesus was simply giving the disciples authority to announce forgiveness to people that God had forgiven already. This is not a situation where a man DECIDES to forgive or retain your sins – it is a situation in which a man simply declares / proclaims / confirms what God has already clearly stated in His Word, concerning your response to the gospel. Forgiveness depends on whether a person is repentant and how he reacts to the gospel, not on some special formula that the “priest,” rabbi, or minister uses.

By the way, a very similar type of Greek construction is found in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 concerning “binding” and “loosing.” Here again, it is NOT a case of a man deciding something and afterward, God being obligated to give His seal of approval. It is simply a proclaiming of what God has already done.

For those who may not be quite sure what we mean when we use the term “the gospel,” it means “good news” and is simply the message that God loves us enough to have sent His Son Jesus Christ to Earth to suffer and die on the cross for our sins. He paid our penalty. It is a gift that none of us deserve and the payment of a debt that we could never pay. So, we don’t have to try and earn it… all we need to do is believe / trust Him for it. This is indeed good news.

Fifth, when it comes to absolving (i.e., forgiving all of a person’s sins), it is impossible to do unless you first know with absolute certainty what’s in the person’s heart. That’s why only God can absolve, and He doesn’t need a “middle man” to do it.

It is possible for a Catholic in the confessional to fool a priest into thinking that he is genuinely sorry for his sins, when he is not. And if the priest is convinced, he will mistakenly declare that the person is forgiven. In this case, we would agree with Catholics that this person is certainly not forgiven, since he is not fooling God. On the other hand, the priest could also retain the person’s sins when he is actually repentant. The job of the Catholic priest here is (supposedly) to forgive or retain sins. Yet, he cannot faithfully and “accurately” do it because he does not positively know the person’s heart. The priest is dependent on the honesty of the penitent (the one confessing). But only God really knows the heart of man, therefore, only He can absolve sins. Even the pompous scribes and Pharisees recognized this. (Luke 5:21)

Sixth, we must look to other verses that pertain to the same topic to get a fuller understanding of a passage. Jesus’ words in John 20:23 can be understood in a non-Catholic way when reconciled with the other three gospels. Let’s be sure not to miss the fact that this passage is unmistakably connected to the “Great Commission,” to the preaching of the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus said, “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you,” He was sending them to preach the gospel. When He breathed on them, He was empowering them by the Holy Spirit to do exactly that.

There are three times in the gospels where a specific group is given this Great Commission of preaching the gospel message and being sent out with power. The first time was after Jesus chose His twelve apostles. (Matthew 10:1-15; Mark 6:7-11; Luke 9:1-5) The second was when He sent out the seventy disciples. (Luke 10:1-12) The third was after He arose from the dead, when He addresses His apostles again. (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:45-49; John 20:19-23). A close look at all these passages in their contexts will tie them all together as a unit, while never suggesting the concept of auricular confession. John 20:23 must not be interpreted apart from the other three gospel accounts where the Great Commission was issued. When placing the four gospels side-by-side, you can begin to see how John 20:23 is simply the Great Commission stated another way.

Also, within the gospels, there is a common theme of shaking off the dust from the feet of the preacher of the good news, condemning those who have rejected the message:

And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15 - NASV)

This practice was to show those who rejected the gospel that he (the preacher) wanted nothing to do with their evil ways, not even wanting their dust clinging to his feet. The concept of shaking off the dust in protest is also found in Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5; 10:10-11, and Acts 13:50-51. This act is an excellent example of “retaining” one’s sins, and is actually applying the principle of John 20:23 to those who reject the message.

Speaking of rejecting the gospel, notice what Jesus says:

The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. (Luke 10:16 - NASV)

This ties in directly with the concepts of “dusting off the feet” and “retaining one’s sins,” yet, notice that Jesus was speaking here to the seventy disciples, not just the apostles. Both of these concepts are about rejecting the gospel, and those who reject the message / messenger are actually rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, there is a common thread here, a continuous line of thought within the four gospel accounts and when they are viewed together, there is no auricular confession.

As stated before, it is the acceptance (believing) of this gospel message with an attitude of repentance that will cause a person to be forgiven of his sins. The gospel has everything to do with forgiveness. This is because it is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16)

CATHOLIC ARGUMENTS

CATHOLIC CLAIM: ALTHOUGH WE CATHOLICS CONFESS TO A PRIEST, IT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN’T CONFESS DIRECTLY TO GOD. IN FACT, WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO DO SO.

Perhaps so, but this seems to be somewhat confusing, since the Catechism repeatedly tells us that confessing to a priest is “essential.” (CCC #1424, #1448, #1449, #1456) So, this “freedom” for Catholics to go directly to God for forgiveness is questionable. It is either essential to go through the priest, or it’s not. Which is it?

CATHOLIC CLAIM: JESUS SAID, “AS THE FATHER HAS SENT ME, I ALSO SEND YOU.” JESUS WAS SENT TO FORGIVE SINS, THEREFORE, THE APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS MUST HAVE THE SAME OBLIGATION.

Using this line of reasoning, we could also say that since Jesus came to die on a cross, then every one of the apostles and every one of their “successors” were also expected to be crucified… right? Of course not. Did God also expect all the apostles (and “successors”) to be born of a virgin, since this too, was part of Jesus’ mission? Did He expect each one to be the Messiah, or to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? Absolutely not. These things (including forgiving sins) were specific to Jesus and His ministry, not anyone else’s. Not everything that applies to Him applies to us. Being fully God and fully human, He is in a different category than we are. Once again, when Jesus said, “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you,” He was simply referring to the spreading of the gospel.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: PRIESTS ARE NOT MIND READERS, SO THEREFORE, JESUS MUST HAVE INTENDED FOR THE PEOPLE TO ORALLY CONFESS THEIR SINS TO THEM IN ORDER TO BE FORGIVEN. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN’T FORGIVE THEM IF YOU DON’T HEAR THEIR CONFESSIONS.

The very fact that priests are not mind readers weakens the Catholic position. The power to absolve sins would necessarily require infallible knowledge of what’s in the person’s heart and mind. Priests don’t have this infallible knowledge and they can’t be absolutely sure if the person is repentant, so therefore, they can’t absolve sin.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: MATTHEW 9:8 SHOWS THAT GOD HAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS “TO MEN”… PLURAL. NOT JUST TO JESUS. HENCE, IF “MEN” HAVE THIS POWER, THEN IT MUST ALSO BE FOR THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES, i.e., THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Notice what Matthew 9:8 actually says:

But when the multitudes saw this, they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (NASV)

What the crowds actually SAW was the miracle of a healing (v. 6-7) – that’s what they were marveling about.

Furthermore, (if we’re going to be consistent with this passage) if “men” have the power to forgive sins today, then shouldn’t they also have the power to heal today? Can the priest say, “…which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, and walk…’” (v. 5) and then back up his claim like Jesus did? Hardly. The whole point of Jesus’ saying, “Which is easier…” was to demonstrate His authority to do BOTH, because He is God. If priests have the authority for one, why not for both? If the priest can forgive at will (like Jesus), then why can’t he also heal at will (like Jesus)? Because of inconsistent logic, Catholics cannot use this verse to support their claim.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: JAMES 5:16 SAYS TO CALL FOR THE PRIESTS IF SOMEONE IS SICK, AND TO CONFESS YOUR SINS TO ONE ANOTHER. THIS IS INDEED CATHOLIC CONFESSION.

First of all, it says to call for the elders of the church, not the “priests.” These are two different words in the Greek. Secondly, if we should “confess to one another,” then why do we never see Catholic priests confessing their sins to a lay person (non-priest)? That’s what “confessing to one another” would be, wouldn’t it? It means BOTH PARTIES confessing. The confessing is mutual… it is to “each other,” just as this same verse also says to “pray for one another.” Here again, the Catholic argument is inconsistent. If “confessing” is a “one-way” street in this context, then “praying” would have to be also. But we know that Catholics expect both sides (priests and “laity”) to pray for each other. So, the Catholic interpretation reduces this verse to nonsense.

When the Bible says to “confess to one another” or “forgive each other,” it is simply saying that we must be willing to humble ourselves and admit our faults and shortcomings to our brothers and sisters, in order to reconcile with each other. THAT’S what James 5:16 is about. This verse in no way supports auricular confession.

CONCLUSION

The apostle Paul, when expressing his deep concern for the souls of men, did not ask, “How will they be forgiven without an ‘official absolver’?” No, he asked, “How will they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14) He was most concerned with the spread of the life-giving message of the gospel. Paul knew very well where to find truth and forgiveness.

Please don’t be deceived – no one -- no “priest,” no rabbi, no minister… has the power to absolve sins. That is reserved for God, alone. God expects men to proclaim the gospel by the authority of His Word. And IF you repent of your sins and trust only in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, then you are indeed forgiven. We are never told in Scripture to confess our sins to a particular person. Again, forgiveness does not depend on a man telling you that you are forgiven, but it depends on your repenting and accepting the gospel.

The Catholic Church’s attempt to hi-jack John 20:23 and force it (under penalty of anathema, no less) to apply to auricular confession is:

· contradicting many scriptural principles

· ignoring the continuity and context of all four gospels as a unit

· simply reading a Catholic concept into the passage, and

· attempting to put people in bondage to the Catholic sacramental system.

Yes, we CAN and SHOULD go directly to God for forgiveness. We don’t need a “middle man,” a “professional forgiver” – what we do need is a right relationship with the One Who died on the cross for us… because He is the only one who knows our heart.

THE DANGER OF THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

2011-06-27T06:43:00.000-07:00

We already defined the Ecumenical Movement (EM) in a previous article – namely, that it is a movement headed by the Catholic Church, which will bring about the merging of all religions in the last days, that the Bible speaks of in Revelation 13:8, 12, 15. It will be the religion of the antichrist and it will be a perversion of Christianity. This coming together of all religions is being done today in the name of “peace” and “unity” and is actually a move toward the Catholic Church.

This EM is multi-faceted and it will appeal to all the world’s religions, even to many individuals within Christianity. We can see much of this movement in the church world today. It is attracting many, like Rick Warren’s “purpose driven” crowd, the “seeker sensitive” churches, the “emerging church,” the Church Growth Movement (CGM), and those promoting a “social gospel” (who are far more concerned with poverty, social change, civil rights, etc., than they are with saving souls through the gospel).

This ecumenical concept is also welcomed by the “unity at any cost” crowd, those looking for a “mystical” experience, the “contemplative prayer” types, “self-esteem” proponents and the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) crowd. There are even some who are pushing “Chrislam”, which is the merging of Christianity with Islam!

Other promoters of ecumenism are the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship, Promise Keepers, some in the “Positive Confession” and the “Word of Faith” arenas, and many Charismatics, as well. The EM also includes Freemasons, New Agers, nature worshipers / tree huggers / environmentalists and evolutionists. There will be something for everyone in this movement, even for atheists! It seems that one can find the ecumenical spirit almost everywhere today.

Those involved in the EM today are insisting that we put aside our differences and join hands. But consider this analogy:

Imagine a building with many people in it. Everyone in it is in poor health except for only one person, Bill, who happens to have the medicine that can cure everyone in the building. But the sick people complain that Bill is much too “exclusive” and thinks much too highly of himself and his medicine, and that he is always wanting to heal everybody. Bill always talks about his “cure” and wants to “push” it on everyone else. They say, “Who does he think he is? We like the way we are… after all, don’t we sick people also have some value? Let’s put aside the medicine and the good health, because it makes everybody else feel inferior.” So, they get together and demand that they all put their differences aside, tolerate each other, and consider everyone as an equal.

But wouldn’t this be silly? Shouldn’t they be thanking Bill that he has the cure and that he is willing to share it? But this is what the EM is doing with Christianity… they are trying to neutralize Christianity by making it equal to all other religions. Jesus Christ truly is the only cure for this sin-sick world, but the people within the EM don’t like any religion that is “exclusive,” that is, claiming to be the only one that has the answers. It makes others feel “inferior” and it hurts their feelings. When the ecumenists say they want us to “put aside our differences,” they want us to put aside DOCTRINE, so that no one is offended.

But it is this doctrine, this gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the answer to the world’s problems. It is the only “medicine” for solving the world’s hurts, and it is this exclusive nature of Christianity that is most important:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

The message of Jesus Christ certainly is exclusive, and it would be senseless to abandon that which is our only hope.

Now, we’re NOT saying that we shouldn’t feed the hungry or help the poor or the sick, etc. But sharing the gospel and changing hearts should be the church’s MAIN priority. (Mark 16:15) We should not overlook man’s GREATEST need (i.e., salvation) by over-emphasizing his temporal needs. The gospel is God’s gift from which all other blessings flow.

But what could possibly be wrong with joining hands with others, or having a desire for world peace, or social justice? Aren’t these worthy goals? Yes, but they are not going to be achieved by the EM. On the surface, the EM sounds good, but it is a trap, a scheme of the devil. It is a rejection of Christianity and a denial of the gospel, and it is gaining momentum like a runaway freight train. The EM will give the church and the world a false sense of security, which will ultimately lead the majority of the world into apostasy and into the grip of the antichrist, who will be worshiped by the whole world and will cause them to take his mark… 666. (Revelation 13:16-18)

With this in mind, we are urging our Catholic friends to come out of the Catholic Church, and we are urging our Protestant friends to steer clear of these groups mentioned above and any group that embraces unbiblical ideas.

For more information, see this article, which is an online excerpt from chapter 12 of Dave Hunt’s book, “Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist.” Go down to the section “Ecumenism and the Coming New World Order” in this article to find an eye-opening message about the EM:

http://bernsstories.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/the-berean-call-january-2011-newsletter/

Another article is by Roger Oakland and it carries a solemn warning and a heartfelt appeal to the Evangelical and Protestant pastors of the world to avoid the EM:

http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c95.shtml

WAS MARY WITHOUT SIN?

2011-05-29T19:52:00.000-07:00

For those who may not be familiar with the Catholic teaching of the "Immaculate Conception," it is not referring to the conception or sinlessness of Jesus Christ, but to Mary’s. The Catholic Church considers this teaching to be an infallible dogma that must be believed by all Catholics. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (CCC #491)

But there are several problems with this concept of “Immaculate Conception” and sinlessness...

Not Biblical

First, it is an unscriptural concept - that is, except for Christ, Himself (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:21), a whole life of sinlessness applies to no human found in the Bible. However, the Catholic Church insists that it also applies to Mary in the passage in Luke chapter 1 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary and tells her that she is to give birth to the Savior.

The great majority of Bible versions render verse 28 as the angel saying, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you”... or something very similar. But the Catholic Church leans toward the Latin Vulgate (Jerome’s translation of the Bible into Latin). Catholics translate verse 28 in the Vulgate as “Hail, full of grace...” which they take to mean that Mary was so “full” of grace that there was no room in her life for any sin, and she was this way since the moment of her own conception and throughout her whole life.

In spite of its plain context, Catholics will go to great lengths to explain how they believe this simple verse really means much more than it appears to be saying. They will attempt to take advantage of every possible nuance in the Greek grammar and stretch it into a new meaning altogether. They have attained an amazing level of special pleading in attempting to defend this teaching. But it is a giant and illogical leap to go from the Bible’s description of Mary as a humble handmaid whom God has highly favored... to a person whose own conception was “different from the conception of all other human beings," who has obtained “an entirely unique holiness,” who possessed “a sanctity surpassing... the combined holiness of all angels and other men...”, and was conceived without sin and remained so throughout her lifetime. That’s an awfully big jump.

But how trustworthy is the Catholic interpretation of the Vulgate? As we stated before, most Bible versions we have do not agree with the Vulgate’s “full of grace.” Even Catholic Bibles like the New American Bible (NAB) and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) do not use “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. But, try as they may, Catholics cannot use this verse as proof of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Concerning the Greek word used for this phrase, one online Catholic source says:

But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Immaculate Conception”)

To further weaken the Catholic interpretation of Luke 1:28, we read in this Catholic source:

The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378)

So, by their own admission, this exaggerated interpretation of this simple passage in Luke is not at all what many Catholics are wanting us to believe.

Common Sense

But if we look at the context of Luke chapter 1, we can see that Mary is blessed among women (Luke 1:42; and in later manuscripts, 1:28). It is about childbearing. Elizabeth, Mary and the angel Gabriel all make significant statements here in chapter one, but NONE mention anything about Mary‘s “sinlessness” - ALL three refer to the special privilege of giving birth to the Messiah. THIS was how she was favored. No doubt, in those days, most every young Jewish woman would have given anything to have that honor.

But IF the angel is speaking here of Mary being “immaculately conceived,” why would he announce the news of these “special circumstances” surrounding her own conception so late in her lifetime (that is, so many years AFTER it happened)? This would be highly unusual. Why was this special news not announced at or around the time of her birth, like in the case of Jesus and John the Baptist? It seems that most every major announcement about someone in the Bible was “predictive” in nature (before it happens), not AFTER the fact. But this passage is about Jesus’ conception, not Mary’s.

All Have Sinned

The second problem is, not only is the Immaculate Conception not found in Scripture, but it is AGAINST the Scriptures. The Apostle John said:

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8 - KJV)

Also, the Apostle Paul said:

... that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19 - KJV)

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23 - KJV)

The first three chapters of the book of Romans paint a very bleak picture for anyone who thinks he is free from sin, either Jew or Gentile (Romans 3:10-19).

“But,” the Catholic objects, “there are exceptions to this rule!” He will insist that the phrase “all have sinned” does not really mean all. He’ll say, “Is not Jesus, Himself, an exception?” Of course, He is, but this is Paul’s whole point in the opening chapters of Romans. It goes without saying that He is the only reason that we can be saved at all. This is the common theme throughout Scripture... every person is a sinner and Jesus is the “cure.” He is not AN exception, He is THE ONLY exception.

Some may say that Adam and Eve were exceptions because they were created without sin. Well, that may be true but they later fell into sin, so no one can suggest that they were sinless throughout their lives. They still fall into the category of “all have sinned.”

What about unborn children, babies, or the mentally handicapped? They don’t have any sin, do they? These, like everyone else, are born with the sin nature, and given the chance, they would inevitably sin somewhere down the line. But these are not proper exceptions. They are exceptions only in the sense that they are not responsible for what they do. When Catholics speak of Mary as an exception, they are referring to a person who is accountable. A baby or a mentally ill person may sin, but God, in His grace, does not hold it against them. According to James 4:17:

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (KJV)

So, babies and the mentally handicapped who are not aware of sin are not accountable, and therefore, are not true exceptions to the rule. A true exception would be another human who was tempted in all things, yet victorious over sin, as Jesus was (Hebrews 4:15). Since Mary doesn’t fit into any of these categories, appealing to babies, the mentally handicapped, or Adam and Eve is useless and does not prove that she is (or can be) an exception.

Who Crushes/Bruises the Head of the Serpent?

With very little effort, one can find a multitude of images of Mary standing with her foot on the head of a serpent, because Catholics usually link the Immaculate Conception of Mary with Genesis 3:15, where God says to the serpent:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel. (NASV)

Many Catholics reason something along these lines: Satan is the epitome of sin, but Mary had a perfect “enmity” (hostility or opposition) toward the devil. This perfect enmity could not exist if there was any sin in Mary. So, since enmity exists between her and Satan, she could not have any sin. Therefore, somehow she is the one who crushes the head of the serpent. But can this be true? No, it’s not. It is Jesus Who does the crushing. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Much confusion has resulted from the fact that the second half of this verse [Genesis 3:15] was inaccurately translated in the Vulgate to read, “SHE shall crush your head.” This translation, which has strongly affected the traditional representations of the Blessed Virgin, is today generally recognized to be a mistake for “it [or “he,” i.e., the seed of the woman] shall crush...,” and consequently CAN NO LONGER BE CITED in favor of the Immaculate Conception. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, page 378 - emphasis added)

Most Catholics today seem to be unaware of this correction.

It Just Has to Be

The third problem is that the Catholic Church insists that the Immaculate Conception is not just “fitting,” but necessary:

If it was necessary that the precursor of the Lord [i.e., John the Baptist] should be so pure and "filled with the Holy Ghost" even from his mother’s womb, such a purity was assuredly not less befitting His Mother. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Immaculate Conception” - Emphasis added)

To become the Mother of the Savior, Mary, 'was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role'. The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as 'full of grace.' In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace. (CCC #490 - Emphasis added)

[Apparently, here, the writers of this Catechism seem to be unaware of the problems associated with “full of grace,” as mentioned above in the New Catholic Encyclopedia]

In one papal article, we read:

In order to be the irreconcilable enemy of the serpent and his offspring, Mary had to be free from all power of sin, and to be so from the first moment of her existence.”

AND

The absolute hostility put between the woman and the devil [Referring to Genesis 3:15] thus demands in Mary the Immaculate Conception, that is, a total absence of sin, from the very beginning of her life.

[Once again, even Pope John Paul II must also have been confused or unaware that Genesis 3:15 “can no longer be cited in favor of the Immaculate Conception," according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (copyright 1967) above... which was, by the way, in circulation long before the pope uttered this statement]

AND

St Irenaeus presents Mary as the new Eve, who by her faith and obedience compensated for the disbelief and disobedience of Eve. Such a role in the economy of salvation requires the absence of sin. It was fitting that like Christ, the new Adam, Mary too, the new Eve did not know sin and was thus capable of co-operating in the Redemption.

(“MARY’S ENMITY TOWARDS SATAN WAS ABSOLUTE” - Pope John Paul 2 - The Pope's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 29 May (1996) - the 21st in the series on the Blessed Virgin - Emphasis added)

And in another papal article:

This great doctor of the Church [Augustine] certainly realized that Mary's status as Mother of a completely holy Son required total purity and an extraordinary holiness.”

AND

“...a fundamental insight of faith: the Mother of Christ had to be perfectly holy from the very beginning of her life."

(“CHRIST’S GRACE PRESERVED MARY FROM SIN” - Pope John Paul 2 - The Pope's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 5 June (1996) - the 22nd in the series on the Blessed Virgin - Emphasis added)

Having said all this, if it was absolutely necessary for Jesus (Who is sinless) to live in a sinless womb, then it was ALSO logically necessary that MARY must have been born in a sinless womb. In other words, if Mary had to be unstained by sin in order to carry Jesus in her womb, then Mary’s mother also had to be sinless in order to carry Mary, and her grandmother before that, and her great grandmother before her, etc, etc... But, of course, this would be absurd.

So, the Catholic has a dilemma: Either, 1) this absurd line of continual sinless pregnancies must have taken place, or 2) these official Catholic sources that insist that sinlessness was necessary, can’t be trusted. If anyone claims a third option here, he will have to show proof of it, from either logic or Scripture.

A Sinless Environment?

The fourth problem with the Immaculate Conception is, if Jesus had to be conceived and sustained in a sinless environment (like Mary’s body), then wouldn’t He also need to be born and raised in a sinless environment? One would think so.

Or does this great “need” to maintain such a pure environment when in the womb, suddenly become irrelevant after Jesus was born? Shouldn’t those places and people in His “outside environment” need to be just as sinless as Mary’s womb? If no, why not? One has to wonder... why would the Catholic Church insist that the only thing in His environment that needed to be sinless was His mother?

Catholics insist that a sinless womb was “deserved” and “fitting" for Him. But, was being born in a smelly stable (Luke 2:7) “fitting"? Did not the Savior of the world deserve better? Of course He did. Did He deserve to die on a cross like a hardened criminal? Absolutely not. But it was NOT His purpose in coming to this earth to receive what people thought He “deserved,” or to receive what “seemed fitting” to man. If that would have been His purpose, then He would not have suffered and died on the cross, and we would all be lost. The bottom line is, He didn’t need to live in a sinless womb, just as He didn’t need to live in a sinless atmosphere outside the womb. His sinlessness did not come from His mother - it came from Himself (being God), so it could not be tainted or defiled by His environment.

So what?

OK, so why would any of this matter to us as Christians? What possible harm could this teaching of the Immaculate Conception cause? Why do we Protestants “pick on Mary," do we hate her or something?

No, we don’t hate Mary and we are not trying to take anything away from her. We believe that Mary was a godly, humble servant who was chosen to give birth to and raise the Christ. But the Catholic Church gives her a role that the Bible does not. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is an extraordinary claim which demands extraordinary proof. Could God have made her sinless? Sure, God could have easily done it if He wanted to, but again, although they claim otherwise, we certainly find no biblical support for this teaching.

Ultimately, it is Catholic Tradition which has produced this teaching and not Scripture. But, unfortunately for the Catholic, Sacred Tradition has a special set of problems all its own. See here: http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

The idea of someone else being sinless violates one of the main distinctions between Jesus Christ and mere men. This distracts from our focus on the uniqueness of Christ - in fact, it seems that most of the Catholic teachings on Mary seem to blur His uniqueness - and thus will turn some away from Him to over-focus on Mary. For example, in the eyes of many Catholics, Mary seems to be “more approachable” than God. But this is an unbiblical, dangerous and slippery slope. Embracing this kind of mindset will make it much easier to fall victim to false apparitions (visions) of Mary, as well.

No doubt, what started out in the early church as a genuine and well-intentioned study into the life of Mary and how she fits into the scheme of things, has over the centuries gradually transformed into an out-of-control infatuation, obsession, and even idolatry, toward Mary. Catholics will try to downplay this and say that the teaching was always there from the beginning, but that it simply “developed” over the years, like many other Catholic teachings. But this excessive devotion was a result of ignoring scriptural truth and has caused multitudes to fall away from God through idolatry.

My friends, souls are at stake here. If we can’t trust the Catholic Church when she solemnly declares an infallible teaching, then which of her teachings CAN we trust? Let us, rather, learn to trust in the God-inspired Bible, and only those teachings that agree with its principles.

DID THE APOSTLES PRACTICE SOLA SCRIPTURA?

2011-03-13T11:06:00.000-07:00

Having already dealt with the concept of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) in more detail elsewhere on this blog, this article will briefly address one particular Catholic argument against it.

Many, if not most, of us who believe in Sola Scriptura will admit that this doctrine did not apply during the time of Jesus or His apostles, since the apostolic period was definitely a time when they were still receiving new, infallible, “oral” revelation. But we believe Sola Scriptura came into play in the post-apostolic church, when the apostles were all gone and new divine revelation had ceased.

But some Catholic apologists will say, “For Sola Scriptura to be true, it must have been the norm all along. Jesus and the apostles did not observe it, so we shouldn’t practice it today.”

In other words, they are saying that if it was operating in the beginning of the church, it has to be operating now, and if it was not operating in the beginning, it can’t be operating now. If THEY (the apostles) didn’t practice it, then WE shouldn’t practice it.

But if that’s true, then can anyone show where Jesus or the apostles taught people to pray to the saints in Heaven? Did they believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary or practice indulgences? Did they teach of miracles with no accompanying evidence (like bread and wine supposedly “changing” into flesh and blood)? Do we have any biblical evidence of any of these teachings at that time? No, we don’t. Then why are all of these teachings accepted in the Catholic Church? By their own standard, no one today should be doing these things either, since Jesus and the apostles didn’t teach them.

Catholics may say that these teachings somehow “developed” over time, but then we could also say Sola Scriptura “developed” and was, in fact, a process, a “transition.” Just as the Old Covenant transitioned into the New, just as Judaism is fulfilled in Christianity, just as the “types and shadows” of the Law had to give way to the “real thing,” so does Sola Scriptura emerge as the ultimate Rule of Faith.

Stop and think… if the Bible, as a Rule of Faith, really is “God-breathed” and able to equip the believer for EVERY GOOD WORK (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then it necessarily and effectively eclipses and replaces any other source that claims to be an infallible Rule of Faith. Thus, the transition from “oral plus written,” to “written only.”

In conclusion, the fact that the apostles didn’t practice Sola Scriptura does not nullify that teaching, but pointing out the practices of the apostles does not help the Catholic, since it undercuts his own position.

PRAYING TO SAINTS

2011-02-27T17:38:00.000-08:00

When we are going through life’s problems and trials, it is very comforting to have family, friends and neighbors pray with us and for us. God expects us to pray for each other. But we need to ask an important question about prayer. Is it possible to get help from those who are in Heaven, like Mary or the saints / believers who have gone on before us? The Catholic Church teaches the concept of “the Communion of Saints” which includes the idea that you can indeed pray to, and receive help from, certain saints (and even angels) in Heaven. But is this true? Is this scriptural? Let us look deeper into this topic and respond to some of the Catholic arguments for praying to Mary, saints and angels.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – PROTESTANTS DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE CATHOLIC CONCEPT OF PRAYER. TO PRAY SIMPLY MEANS “TO ASK” OR “TO BESEECH.” FOR INSTANCE, THE TERM “PRAY TELL” IS SIMPLY AN EXPRESSION THAT SOME WILL USE WHEN ASKING SOMETHING. EVEN IN THE BIBLE, WE SEE THE TERM “I PRAY THEE” WHEN ASKING FOR A FAVOR. SO, WHEN WE PRAY TO MARY OR THE SAINTS, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THEM TO PRAY TO GOD ON OUR BEHALF. SO PRAYER IS JUST ASKING.

First, if the word “pray” just means “to ask,” then the words of Jesus, “Ask in prayer” (Matthew 21:22) would simply be redundant.

Using the logic of this Catholic argument, if you “asked” me for any kind of help, wouldn’t you be praying to me? When Jesus “asked” the woman at the well for a drink (John 4:7), was the Son of God praying to her? Or, when Jesus “asked” His disciples for something to eat (Luke 24:41), was He praying to them? Of course not. That would be absurd.

Second, although asking is one component of prayer, Catholics should be well aware that the biblical concept of prayer cannot be reduced to merely asking, since prayer can include praise, thanksgiving, meditation, etc.

Third, the language involved in some of the common prayers to the saints certainly seems to be more than just “asking for prayer.” A brief search on the internet will reveal that much of the language used in praying to the saints seems to contain excessive devotion, and oftentimes appears to be asking the saint himself / herself to fill the need (instead of God), especially some of the prayers directed to Mary. After reading a number of these, it would become easy to completely miss the idea that one is simply “asking them to pray.”

Finally, we must remember that the Catholic Church teaches that there are three different levels of honor when a Catholic prays (which we will discuss further in just a minute). Each level carries with it a corresponding and increasing attitude of honor. To keep things simple for now, there is “praying with ‘little’ honor”, “praying with ‘bigger’ honor,” and “praying with ‘greatest’ honor.” All three are “asking,” but is all their asking, at each individual level, the same? If it is, then how is one level different from another? If “pray” only means ask, then having these different levels of honor is meaningless. The simple fact that Catholics recognize different levels of prayer destroys this silly notion that “pray just means ask.”

To be fair, I don’t know of any official Catholic sources that make this argument (I don’t think that they do), but let’s hope that the many Catholic apologists who do use this faulty “pray just means ask” argument would be more honest and stop using it.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHEN ADDRESSING MARY OR THE SAINTS, WE’RE NOT REALLY PRAYING *TO* THEM, WE’RE JUST ASKING THEM TO PRAY *FOR* US.

But note these statements from official Catholic sources:

Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray TO her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and TO her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC #2679 – Emphasis added)

One prays TO the Blessed Virgin, TO the angels and saints in heaven, but only in the sense that they may intercede before God for us. (New Catholic Encyclopedia [1967], Volume 11, page 673 –Emphasis added)

…the saints intercede for us in virtue of His merits, not their own. Consequently when we pray TO them, it is to ask for their intercession in our behalf, not to expect that they can bestow gifts on us of their own power, or obtain them in virtue of their own merit. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, online, under the topic “Prayer” – Emphasis added)

Let all the children of the Catholic Church… continue to venerate, invoke and pray TO the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God… (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution, December 8, 1854 - Emphasis added)

It is clear from these sources that Catholics can and do, indeed, pray TO Mary and the saints. In fact, the Church encourages it. To deny this is simply playing word games and ignoring official teaching. So, Catholics need to stop repeating this falsehood, also.

Ok, at this point many Catholics will say, “But our prayer to them is a ‘lesser’ type of prayer than what is offered to God”… which leads us to the next Catholic claim:

CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOU ARE CONFUSING PRAYER WITH WORSHIP. PROTESTANTS ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TYPES OF HONOR WE GIVE TO SAINTS, MARY, AND TO GOD. PRAYER TO THE SAINTS IS CALLED “DULIA.” PRAYER TO MARY IS ON A HIGHER LEVEL AND IS KNOWN AS “HYPERDULIA.” BUT WHEN WE PRAY TO GOD, WE USE “LATRIA,” THE HIGHEST FORM OF HONOR (i.e., WORSHIP). WE DO NOT *WORSHIP* MARY OR THE SAINTS, BUT ONLY GOD.

In the Bible, prayer is always an act of WORSHIP. All throughout Scripture, people worshipped through prayer and their prayers were always directed to God. We find not one single case of anyone in the Bible praying (with God’s approval) to anyone other than God. No angels, saints, elders, patriarchs, prophets, kings… no one. These may have been honored, but never were they prayed to. It is ok to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but praying to someone (dead or alive) is beyond honor; it is worship. In spite of Catholic claims to the contrary, prayer to saints is NOT the same as just asking a friend to pray for you. It is idolatry.

The Jews were God’s chosen people in the Old Testament, yet they continually fell into idolatry. What makes anyone think today that they can, while praying, easily distinguish between these three forms of “honor” (dulia, hyperdulia, latria) and move from one to the other without falling into the same problem that the Old Testament Jews did? Even in the case of Moses’ brazen serpent (which God had him erect for the people), we find that the honor that was first directed toward the statue turned into something more. It was later destroyed because it had become an idol to which the people burned incense. (2 Kings 18:4)

And just for the record, the Catholic Church admits that “dulia” and “hyperdulia” are forms of worship. (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Beatification and Canonization”)

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IF ALL WORSHIP MUST BE DIRECTED TO GOD ALONE, THEN WHAT ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT SPOUSES MAKE TO EACH OTHER IN THE ANGLICAN WEDDING CEREMONY: “WITH MY BODY, I THEE WORSHIP”? (CHARLES AND DIANA REPORTEDLY USED THIS FORM IN THEIR WEDDING.) ALSO, IN THE UK, JUDGES ARE GIVEN WORSHIP AND ARE EVEN ADDRESSED, “MY WORSHIP.”

But we need to realize that the biblical concept of worship is not based on Anglican wedding vows or British courtroom practices. The biblical concept is that prayer is recognized as worship and is clearly illustrated by multiple examples of praying only to God.

ASSUMPTIONS

There are some basic underlying assumptions here with the concept of praying to saints:

1) That these saints which are being prayed to are actually in Heaven
2) That they can actually hear us when we pray
3) That they can actually do something about our situation (offer aid or intercession for us)

Concerning #1 above, how does one know with certainty if the person to whom they are praying is actually in Heaven? Suppose this “saint” is actually in Hell and therefore an enemy of God? Is it acceptable to pray to God’s enemies? Suppose that there was hidden “mortal sin” in this “saint’s” life that only God knew about? If this is indeed the case, then there are some serious repercussions. Remember, the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5).

Concerning #2 and #3, maybe God allows all the saints to hear our prayers. Maybe only some of them can hear us, or maybe He allows none of them to hear us. We just don’t know. It would be speculation. Saints hearing prayer is simply an assumption for Catholics, and there is no clear biblical proof for it. Nor is there any biblical reason to believe that even if they could hear us, that they could do anything about it anyway.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE NOT DEAD; THEY ARE MORE ALIVE AND RIGHTEOUS THAN ANY OF US HERE ON EARTH. AND SURELY, WITH THEIR EXALTED STATUS, GOD GIVES THEM SPECIAL POWER TO INTERCEDE FOR US. DON’T YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO GRANT THIS SPECIAL ABILITY? WHY DO YOU PROTESTANTS LIMIT GOD?

Yes, it’s possible, but “possible” does not make it true. It is also “possible” that God made the moon out of green cheese, but that doesn’t mean that He has. Of course, God is able to grant them “special powers,” but God’s ability is not the issue. The question is not, “What can God do?” It’s “What did God do?” Restricting our prayer life to the multitude of examples in Scripture (where prayer to saints is never found) is not “limiting” God.

But is it Biblical?

CATHOLIC CLAIM – PRAYING TO SAINTS IS INDEED A BIBLICAL PRACTICE. REVELATION 5:8 SAYS, “AND WHEN HE HAD TAKEN THE BOOK, THE FOUR LIVING CREATURES AND THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS FELL DOWN BEFORE THE LAMB, HAVING EACH ONE A HARP, AND GOLDEN BOWLS FULL OF INCENSE, WHICH ARE THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS.” (SEE ALSO REVELATION 8:3-4) IF THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE OFFERING OUR PRAYERS TO GOD, THEN THEY MUST ALSO BE AWARE OF OUR PRAYERS AND ARE INTERCEDING FOR US.

Again, this conclusion is pure speculation. This does not mean that the saints (on earth) prayed to them, or that the saints in Heaven could even hear their prayers; it just means that God allowed them to “handle” the bowls of prayers. This says absolutely nothing about us being free to pray to Mary, angels, or to saints in Heaven. It never suggests that the prayers were ever directed to them.

According to Catholic logic, since the prayers in the bowls of Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 were (supposedly) directed to the beings who carried them, then the WRATH in the bowls of Revelation 16:1-12 must have ALSO been directed to the angels who carried those. But I don’t think that anyone would agree with this conclusion. So, this Catholic argument is another one that fails.

We see no reason to believe that there is anyone in Heaven to whom prayer is directed but God. Look what Psalm 73:25 says: "Whom have I in heaven BUT THEE? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee." In Scripture, we are never encouraged to pray to anyone in Heaven, except God. Not to saints, not to Mary, not to angels. There are hundreds of verses on prayer in the Bible, but there are absolutely none where a believer prays to anyone other than God. We are never told that heavenly saints intercede for us by their prayers. But we are told that Jesus Christ intercedes for us (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25).

CATHOLIC CLAIM – ANOTHER VERSE IS PSALM 103:20-21, “BLESS THE LORD, YOU HIS ANGELS, MIGHTY IN STRENGTH, WHO PERFORM HIS WORD, OBEYING THE VOICE OF HIS WORD! BLESS THE LORD, ALL YOU HIS HOSTS, YOU WHO SERVE HIM DOING HIS WILL.” (SEE ALSO PSALM 148:2) THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE BIBLE DIRECTS US TO PRAY TO HIS ANGELS.

These verses are not directing us to pray to the angels, but the psalmist is just using a rhetorical device to exhort all (including the Heavenly hosts) to praise and exalt God, because He is worthy. Note the next verse (103:22), which encourages His "works" (not just living creatures) to also praise Him. Does that mean that we pray to all His "works" also? What about when people (on earth) are admonished to praise Him? Are we praying to those people?” Psalm 148:3 is telling the sun, moon and stars to praise Him, also. But no one is expected to pray to these.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT HEBREWS 12:1 TELLS US OF THE “GREAT CLOUD OF WITNESSES” FROM HEAVEN THAT SURROUNDS US. THESE ARE THE SAINTS WHO ARE PRAYING FOR US. ALSO, IN VERSES 22-24, THE WRITER OF HEBREWS IS TELLING US TO NOT ONLY COME TO JESUS AND TO GOD, BUT ALSO TO ANGELS, TO THE CHURCH OF THE FIRSTBORN AND TO THE SPIRITS OF RIGHTEOUS MEN MADE PERFECT (i.e., THE SAINTS). SO, GOD EXPECTS US TO DIRECT OUR PRAYER TO ALL OF THESE.

Let’s first look at the verses mentioned:

Hebrews 12:1 - Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.

Hebrews 12:22-24 - But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Concerning Hebrews 12:1, this verse is a continuation of the previous chapter, and the context is not so much about the saints in Heaven “observing” our lives on earth as it is of their being “examples” to us on earth – they made it through in spite of persecutions, and we are encouraged to do the same, e.g., “let us run with endurance…”

It is true that the angels and saints in Heaven may be aware of some things here on earth, but if this passage really is about us praying to saints this would be a great time to mention their “intercession.” But we don’t see anything here about asking those saints for prayer, or anything about Noah (11:7) or Rahab (11:31) wanting to intercede for us. Once again, I am not aware of any Catholic who prays to any of these heroes of faith listed in chapter 11. So why do Catholics insist that this passage proves the concept of prayer to saints if they never pray to these?

Concerning Hebrews 12:22-24, and our “coming to” Jesus and the saints in prayer, this passage is speaking of our entering into the new and better covenant. It is not permitting us to pray to angels and saints. If you take this to its logical conclusion, then we should also ask the “Heavenly Jerusalem,” “Mount Zion” and the “sprinkled blood” for prayer, also. If we “come to” all of these equally in the sense you’re suggesting, then they should all be prayed to. Catholics take this totally out of context, since they are equating “come to” with “pray to.” But this is not the case. Once again, there is nothing here about prayer to, or intercession from, saints and angels.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WE HAVE EXAMPLES IN THE BIBLE OF THOSE WHO SPOKE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE ON BEFORE US TO HEAVEN. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN JESUS WAS UP ON THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION (MATTHEW 17:3), HE SPOKE TO MOSES AND ELIJAH. AREN’T WE TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE?

First of all, this was a special and unique event. The lesson here is not that Jesus was giving them permission to pray to saints in Heaven. To the Jews, Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets. This event was simply to validate the ministry of Jesus in the eyes of the apostles. But as soon as Peter began to show an unhealthy interest in Moses and Elijah, they were taken away. There was no encouragement to “contact saints.” In fact there was nothing at all about prayer in this context.

Secondly, it is interesting to note that Catholics will use this argument in attempting to prove prayer to saints is ok, but (once again) I have never heard of any Catholic who actually prays to either Moses or Elijah.

By the way, when Peter asked to build tabernacles for Moses and Elijah, Jesus didn’t say, “Well, it’s ok, but only if you honor them with ‘dulia’.” No, there were no tabernacles intended for these great men of God, nor were prayers intended for them… the same goes for all saints.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE PRAYERS TO THE SAINTS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ANSWERED? SURELY, THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS. THESE PRAYERS ARE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE FAR MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN WE ARE.

Let’s assume that these prayers that were directed to saints have indeed been answered. Maybe (because of God’s grace) the prayer was answered in spite of your unbiblical prayer, rather than because of it. And of course, there is the possibility that it’s because others were praying directly to God for the same thing about the same time that you were praying to your saints.

Or perhaps, this “answered prayer” is just a deception of the enemy, specifically manifested to mislead people. If a teaching is false and unbiblical, yet seems to be "verified" by a miracle, then we must reject that miracle as evidence for that teaching. It is just like the sorcerers in Exodus 7:11, who produced a "miracle" similar to Aaron's rod turning into a serpent. Should we believe that these magicians were also from God just because they showed “signs and wonders?” They MUST have been from God, since they were able to duplicate Aaron’s miracle, right? No, not at all. Their “message” was not from God. The enemy can (to some extent, at least) duplicate (or counterfeit) miracles to deceive God's people. The Bible speaks of lying signs and wonders in the last days (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12), in order to deceive many. These “miracles” from the saints would fit in that very category.

We also see the unfortunate fate of the “prophet” in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, whose message does not line up with God’s commandments, even though he is exhibiting “signs and wonders.” Remember, you can’t depend on a “miracle” that confirms an UNBIBLICAL teaching.

How Does a Person Become Recognized as a “Saint”?

The Catholic Church teaches that a person today can only receive “sainthood” after his death. For the Church to recognize someone as a saint, his life must have been marked by “heroic virtue.” Furthermore, there must be (generally) at least two verified miracles attributed to him, “proving” that the saint has the power to intercede for those praying to him.

His life must be investigated by the Church and he must first go through the process of “beatification” and finally the process of “canonization.” Once he has been canonized, he is officially recognized by the Church as a “saint,” and the faithful are assured that he is in Heaven. Faithful Catholics can now pray to him publicly. By the way, many Catholics are not aware that all faithful Catholics are obligated to pray to “canonized” saints. The Church does not just encourage it, but commands public veneration for them. (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Beatification and Canonization”)

Note this official statement concerning whom Catholics are allowed to pray to:

It is permitted to reverence through public veneration only those servants of God whom the authority of the Church has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed. (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1187)

In other words, only those saints who are declared saints by the Church are the ones to whom Catholics can pray publicly. Catholics are forbidden to give public veneration / honor to anyone who is not beatified or canonized as a saint.

But this question begs to be asked: For the Catholic, are there limits to private prayer to those believed to be in Heaven? As for as I can tell, there are no official Catholic sources that limit the number of people to whom the Catholic can pray in private. They seem to be free to pray to Uncle Harry or to Aunt Susie, or anyone whom they feel has led a holy life.

But what if Uncle Harry is NOT in Heaven? The Catholic has no certainty of this, since Uncle Harry is not on the official “list of saints.” Suppose he is in Hell. Does the Catholic Church allow prayer to someone in Hell? At this point, it doesn’t matter if one’s prayer is public or private! Would not the individual be guilty of praying to an enemy of God? Can the person praying simply plead ignorance and still be innocent? Is the Church responsible for giving Catholics too much liberty in private prayer? It would appear so. But the Catholic Church seems to be more concerned about canonizing saints than it is about warning its members against idolatry.

Excessive Devotion

Many Catholics are aware of, and admit to, certain abuses and “excessive devotion” to saints by some members of the Church (especially in “majority Catholic” countries), and the Church would agree that this is wrong. The pope has the authority and the responsibility to deal with these problems, but never seems to really address it. If excessive devotion really is a problem (and it is), then why does he allow such “devotion” to continue? Why does he not set an example and openly rebuke those who, even by Catholic standards, engage in idolatry? This lack of concern will only increase the level of sinful, idolatrous practices in the Catholic Church. It is our prayer that everyone would see the danger involved in praying to anyone but the Living God.

The Bible’s company of saints is not restricted to the group that the Catholic Church calls “saints.” The Bible calls all true believers saints (e.g., Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1)… not just some special group in Heaven.

SACRAMENTS (God's Grace for Sale)

2011-01-09T19:23:00.000-08:00

Today we will take a look at the concept of sacraments. The word “sacrament” comes from the Latin “sacramentum”, signifying something sacred, namely, an oath. It also denotes a “mystery.” Sacraments may be used differently by various groups and can be found in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and even in some Protestant churches. But since they are most prominent in the Catholic Church, we will deal with the Catholic view of sacraments.

Portrait of a Sacrament

So what are Catholic sacraments, and how important are they?

There are many descriptions of them, e.g., sacraments are said to be visible signs of an invisible reality… visible signs instituted by Christ to give grace… signs that really effect what they symbolize… outward signs of inward grace… signs that accomplish what they signify… vehicles of grace… signs that cause us to be united to Christ in the deepest and greatest possible way... etc., etc.

Here are some statements from Catholic sources concerning their importance:

The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1113)

By His power He [Christ] is present in the sacraments… (Pope Paul VI, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” a Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Paragraph 7)

His purpose also was that they might accomplish the work of salvation which they had proclaimed, by means of sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical life revolves. (Ibid., Paragraph 6)

Sacraments are "powers that come forth" from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant. (CCC #1116)

The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. (CCC #1129)

Therefore, sacraments are extremely important to the Catholic Church. They are foundational to its existence and welfare, since they are “necessary for salvation.”

So, according to the Catholic Church, how does a sacrament actually work?

Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. (CCC #1127)

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions. (CCC #1131)

What the Catechism is saying is that sacraments are symbols that have the power to “confer” / furnish / supply grace and to actually do what they symbolize (e.g., baptism actually washes away sin, and the Eucharist actually becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood, etc.)

Warning

Finally, what happens if one does not believe it?

The Council of Trent declares:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VI)

If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VIII)

So, we see here that if one does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the sacraments, he is declared “anathema” by the Catholic Church. An anathema is the gravest (most severe) form of excommunication, where one is eternally condemned to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction (see the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – under the topic, “anathema”).

Symbol or Reality?

There is a confusing problem with the Catholic idea of sacraments. In the Eucharist, for example, Catholics believe that Christ is somehow present in a “sacramental” way (whatever that means). But if sacraments “accomplish what they signify”, if they actually do what they symbolize, then why do they need to symbolize at all? Catholics believe the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is both “the real thing” (i.e., Christ’s actual body and blood) and at the same time, a SYMBOL of the “real thing.” But a certain object cannot be BOTH a symbol of something else AND its reality. It is either one or the other. If it is a symbol of a particular thing, then it is not that particular thing. If it is literally the “real thing,” then there is no need for it to be a “symbol of itself.” You can’t have it both ways. This is simply equivocation. No such thing exists in Scripture, nor in the modern world that we live in.

A Biblical Concept?

The concept of sacraments with “special powers” that can earn (or control the amount of) grace given to someone is certainly not biblical. How can a person “control grace” by rituals, objects and ceremonies? How can grace be dependent on works (especially grace for salvation)? It isn’t. But this is a typical example of the works-based salvation of the Catholic Church.

But grace is not something you can buy through the performance of a ritual. By its very definition, grace excludes works. Grace is usually defined as “the UNMERITED favor of God.” It cannot be earned or bought.

Then how do we get grace, according to the Bible? Grace is received by FAITH, not by works, ceremonies or “sacraments.” (Romans 4:16; 5:2; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9) See also our three-part series on “Faith Alone” and our “Sola Fide Revisited” article, elsewhere on this blog.

Conclusion

Some may accuse us of being “anti-sacramental,” and automatically assume that we believe that “matter is evil.” But this is ridiculous and does not necessarily follow. We don’t think that matter is “evil,” nor do we make it a “spirit versus matter” issue.

And we are not against symbolism. Symbols are fine. Symbols help us to understand many concepts. They are very useful and meaningful in our everyday lives and in Scripture. But they don’t save anyone. One is saved by simply trusting in the work and the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross for us, and that alone.

Not only is the Catholic concept of sacraments NOT IN SCRIPTURE, it is also AGAINST Scripture. It is a system of obtaining the priceless grace of God by works and rituals. Any system that can buy the grace of God is corrupt and anti-biblical, and anyone who believes in this view of sacraments is in serious doctrinal error, whether they claim to be Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND DIVISIONS

2010-12-09T19:30:00.000-08:00

Sola Scriptura (Latin for “Bible Alone”) is the teaching that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Catholics reject this teaching for several reasons, but this particular article will address only one of those Catholic objections. That tired, overused, but ever-so-popular Catholic argument is this: Sola Scriptura is “unworkable” as a rule of faith because it uses “private interpretation,” and this causes divisions / arguments / disagreements in Protestantism. But is this sound reasoning? Is this a fair argument?

Well, it is no secret that there are many divisions within Protestantism. Some estimate that there are 25,000 different denominations, some 30,000, others 33,000, etc., etc. One popular Catholic apologist claims that there may even be MILLIONS of Protestant denominations. While we believe that all of these numbers are wildly exaggerated, the focus of this article will not be on how many denominations there really are, nor on who has “more unity.” The focus is on the hypocrisy of Catholics who make the claim that Sola Scriptura is false because of divisions within Protestantism, while knowing that they, too, have divisions.

The Catholic Church claims to be “one” (i.e., unified), yet there are also many divisions / arguments / disagreements within its own ranks. This fact is undeniable. A little time spent searching on the internet will demonstrate that point. And some of these disagreements are on major, essential issues… even between higher officials in the Church. Even some of the early church fathers had disagreements with each other. There have been disagreements on all levels in the Catholic Church, from amateur lay apologists, to priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Some modern points of disagreement between Catholics include the issue of contraception, the significance and effects of Vatican II, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Traditionalists, Novus Ordo (New Mass), evolution, Charismatic Catholics, and the concept of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Latin for “no salvation outside the [Catholic] Church”) … to name just a few.

So, if Sola Scriptura is disqualified as a rule of faith because Protestants have divisions, then the Catholic Magisterium must also be disqualified. If “Bible Alone” is negated due to the existence of disagreements, then so is Catholic Tradition. If divisions cancel out one rule of faith, they cancel out all of them, making this Catholic argument self-refuting. This is certainly a double standard.

Just because you may not have “physical” divisions (denominations with separate names) doesn’t mean you don’t have divisions. And if Sola Scriptura is the cause of disagreements, then how is it that YOU have them, also? Apparently, the Catholic rule of faith is not as “clear” as many Catholics claim it to be.

Someone may respond that Catholic divisions simply stem from those who disagree with the Church’s clear and official teaching and are thus actually heretics, and not true Catholics; therefore they “don’t count” when comparing disagreements.

But, first of all, Protestants could use this same argument and say that Protestant divisions also occur because of disobedience to the Bible’s clear teaching, and that those who disagree with us are not true Sola Scriptura believers, either.

Secondly, if these Catholic “heretics” are never excommunicated, and they continue to attend and participate in Catholic services, give financially to the Catholic Church, partake of the sacraments, and continue to identify with the Church, then it certainly does not appear that the Church, herself, considers them “heretics,” does it?

So, the “heretic” argument doesn’t prove anything, nor does it erase the fact that Catholicism has its divisions.

Catholics may say, “But we have a leader (the pope) who can decide infallibly for us when disagreements arise.”

And how many times have popes “infallibly” decided anything? It is an extremely rare event. But this just causes more confusion, because Catholics can’t even know exactly how many times this has happened in history. There is no “official” list of infallible statements, so an appeal to this supposed infallibility does little or nothing to help this Catholic argument.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, disagreements in interpretation are inevitable in this life; it’s something we just have to learn to live with. Remember, there were many who saw Jesus Christ, Himself, face to face, and they still disagreed among themselves on what He taught. Does this mean that Jesus’ teachings were also “unworkable”? Of course not. The ABUSE of a sufficient rule of faith does not void that rule of faith.

Dear Catholic friends, I am not trying to justify Protestant divisions, but I’m simply challenging the idea that disagreements cause a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, but not for the Catholic rule of faith. This idea is inconsistent on the part of Catholics.

Yes, of course Jesus wants Christians to have unity in the truth (John 17:11, 21-23), and we should always strive for it, yet we ALL fall short… some of us more than others. But, please don’t pretend you have no divisions in Catholicism, or that your rule of faith is somehow exempt when you use the “disagreements nullify Sola Scriptura” argument.

Catholics lose credibility each time this argument is used. So, let’s put this faulty and deceptive argument to rest, once and for all.

THE SAME GOD?

2010-10-31T14:09:00.000-07:00

In her quest for “common ground” and unity with other religions, the Catholic Church assures Muslims that the God of Christianity and the god of Islam are one and the same. Lest anyone say that this is not an actual teaching of the Catholic Church, note these quotes from official sources:

“As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham. Thus it is natural that we have much to discuss concerning true holiness in obedience and worship to God.” (Address of Pope John Paul II to the participants in the Colloquium on “Holiness in Christianity and Islam” in Rome, Thursday, 9 May 1985)

“Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection’.” (John Paul II to a General Audience, Wednesday, 5 May 1999)

"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham." (Benedict XVI, to a General Audience, World Youth Day in Cologne, Wednesday, 24 August 2005)

“The Church's relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #841)

The above quote from the Catechism is referencing two major documents (Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate), both given by Pope Paul VI from the Second Vatican Council (a supposedly infallible Council of the Catholic Church). So, here we have the Catholic Catechism, three different popes, and an “infallible” Catholic council clearly telling us that Muslims and Christians worship the SAME God. But, can this possibly be true? Do Muslims really worship the God of the Bible? No, they don’t.

The Christian Bible teaches that God is a Trinity. The Muslim Bible (the Qur’an / Koran) teaches that Allah (the Muslim god) is NOT a Trinity (Surah 4:171). The God of Christianity has a Son. The god of Islam has NO SON (Surah 4:171). The Christian Bible teaches that God shares His Deity with His Son, Jesus Christ. The Qur’an DENIES the deity of Jesus Christ (Surah 23:91). The Christian Bible teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, was crucified and died on a cross. The Qur’an DENIES that Jesus died on a cross (Surah 4:157). And this is only a partial list of key differences. So, they can’t both be right, since they teach opposites. God does not have two sets of conflicting Scriptures.

Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham, yet they reject God’s chosen lineage through Abraham (it is Isaac who possessed the covenant and the promises, not Ishmael - Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:3-8). It is interesting that the Pharisees ALSO claimed to be children of Abraham (John 8:33), but they certainly were NOT (Matt. 3:7-9). Although the Pharisees THOUGHT they were worshipping the God of Abraham, Jesus told them, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44). Like the Pharisees, true Muslims worship the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), and will never truly worship the God of Abraham until they renounce Islam.

The issue is not, “We worship the same God, but it’s just that Christians know God ‘more fully’ than Muslims.” No, the issue is the fact that Christians worship the God Who inspired the Bible, and Muslims worship the god who inspired the Qur’an. Surely, two different Gods.

Dear Catholic friends, this article is more about you than it is about the Muslims. You’re not helping Muslims when you claim that they are worshipping the God of the Bible… you’re deceiving them. As we said before, if Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God, our Bibles would not contradict each other. In your zeal to appease the Muslims, you’re not only deceiving them, but you are deceiving your fellow Catholics and your own selves, as well.

You can give two different people the same name, but that doesn’t make them the same person. Again, Christians and Muslims do NOT worship the same God, as the Catholic Church teaches. We want (and need) to reach out to Muslims, yes, but with the truth… with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Catholics, we sincerely urge you to not let your desire for “unity” override the simple truth.

CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? (The Ecumenical Movement)

2010-08-29T13:15:00.000-07:00

This article is intended to deal with not just Catholics, but all those who claim to be Christian. It concerns the prevailing Ecumenical Movement. This movement is generally defined as a campaign aimed at promoting understanding, cooperation, and unity among Christian groups. But many in the church world today have gone far beyond biblical Christian unity, and have embraced the idol of “tolerance,” where we are told to respect (and accept) the differences of even those who hold the most unscriptural teachings. Today, it seems that correct doctrine is far less important than “unity” (another god of the Ecumenical Movement), since many will seek unity at any price.

It is the Catholic Church who seems to be spearheading this movement. In 2002, former Pope John Paul II led a special prayer meeting in Assisi, Italy. The event was the “World Prayer Day” that consisted of 200 of the world’s religious leaders, including Christians, Muslims, Jewish rabbis, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahais, Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, and witch doctors, who all came to “worship together.” This same pope had previously held similar meetings in Assisi in 1986, and again in 1993. All for the sake of “peace” and “unity.”

But consider the example of Jesus Christ - the Author of the prayer for true unity (John 17). We see no biblical evidence whatsoever of Jesus trying to unite the religious leaders of His day. He made no appeal to the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, Essenes, Herodians, and Zealots, along with the neighboring heathen nations, to join together in “common prayer,” and “fraternal knowledge” of each other. Why not, if that kind of unity is so important? He didn’t try to point out all the good qualities of each group, nor focus on what they had in common. He did, however, tell them to repent (Matthew 4:17), and pointed out their sin (Matthew 23:1-36) and their doctrinal error (Matthew 15:1-9). He never advocated unity with those promoting false doctrine, but instead, He called for unity in the TRUTH, as revealed in His Word. (John 17:17)

So, as Christians, what about our relationship with people from other religions, or with Christians who embrace error? Should we seek to correct and / or convert them? Or must we accept them the way they are, welcoming their “diversity”? As some may ask, aren’t we all one big family? Are we not all God’s children? Aren’t there many paths to God? No, indeed. Jesus’ words were plain and simple:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

This is not rocket science. There is only one way to Heaven. And it is not through Buddha, Mohammed, Mary, the pope, or anyone else. Nor is it through any particular church. It is through trusting in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and that, alone. Non-Christian religions do not offer the truth, but rather, deception and eternal damnation. How can we, as Christians, walk together with them? (Amos 3:3) As far as doctrine goes, what can we have in common with them? (2 Corinthians 6:14-17) And Christians who embrace error need to be firmly, but lovingly, shown their error. This is true love.

But the “Christian” church today is afraid to offend sinners, and its quest for “common ground” has seriously compromised the gospel. It does matter what we believe. All religions are not ok. Let us not embrace the “herd mentality” of the Ecumenical Movement, and don’t be taken in by the large numbers or the impressive membership of ANY group. Jesus said:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Mankind has already attempted such an ecumenism long ago, but God thwarted their plans (Genesis 11:1-9). Yet, another (final) attempt is being made in these last days to unify the world’s religions (Revelation 13:8, 12-15) against the will of God; and although it will last for a short while, this attempt will also ultimately fail.

The Catholic Church and all others pushing the Ecumenical Movement are ushering in the man of sin, the son of perdition, the antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Christians, take heed! Those who continue to embrace the false unity of this movement will one day find themselves neck-deep in the one-world church, wearing the mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:8, 16-18) - and then, it will be too late…

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)

SOLA FIDE – REVISITED

2010-08-01T13:24:00.000-07:00

We previously shared a three-part article on the topic of “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone), but we now want to focus specifically on one aspect of that topic in Romans chapter 3, 4 & 5. In Romans 3:28 the apostle Paul says that we are justified by faith “apart from works of the law.” The question is, exactly what works was Paul talking about? Many (if not most) Catholics would argue that he is here referring to ONLY the works of the Jewish / Mosaic Law. But we believe he was saying apart from any and all good works.

Let’s Suppose…

For the sake of argument, let’s assume for now that the verse is only about the Jewish Law. Ok, but what was Paul’s reason for saying that we’re saved “apart” from its works? Was something wrong with the Jewish Law? Are the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) somehow defective? Not at all, remember, salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). If any works were able to save, surely it would be those of the God-given Jewish Law.

So, it is understandable that the people in the Old Testament and in Paul’s day would think that following the works of the Mosaic Law could save them. After all, wasn’t this law the very highest law around? Indeed it was. It was God’s standard of morality.

The Problem

But the problem is not the Law. No, the problem is with US! The purpose of the Law was to act as a “tutor,” to show us that we are not able to follow God perfectly, and to show us that we could only be saved by faith / trusting in Christ (Galatians 3:24). The Law was “weak” (Romans 8:3), but not because of some inherent flaw; it was only weak because of man’s sinful heart. Therefore, salvation has always had to be by grace through faith, and never by good works… not even the works of the Jewish Law… which includes the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:7).

New Works?

But according to Catholics, the Old Testament “works of the Law” (which don’t save) were replaced with works of the “New Law,” “works of grace” and “charitable acts” (which supposedly do save, or at least, contribute to salvation). But were there no “charitable acts” in the Jewish Law? Indeed, there were. Wouldn’t Jesus’ summary of the Jewish Law cover every good work or “work of grace” that we could possibly think of? It certainly would. He said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind…” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40). Sounds to me like that would cover every possible work. In fact, there is no good work (of the Old or New Testament) that won’t pertain to one of these two commandments. This Catholic distinction of “New Testament works that save” versus “Old Testament works that don’t save” is a false one.

We are saved by faith APART FROM works, whether it is the “ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law,” the Ten Commandments, “works of grace,” “works of charity,” or any “new” works – it is apart from ALL works. Does this mean we should avoid good works? Of course not. As Dr. Joe Mizzi says, salvation is by faith, apart from the merit of works, but not apart from the presence of works.

The Context

What evidence is there in Romans chapters 3-5 that would lead a person to believe that there are any works at all which save us? If Catholics are right, it certainly seems strange that Paul would never list the “works that save” in the context in which the doctrine of justification is defined. If these “saving works” exist at all, Paul would be seriously lacking as a teacher if he mentions none of them when he’s teaching us how to be saved! Where is baptism, or giving to the poor, or helping your neighbor, etc., in the context of Romans 3 thru 5? Over and over in this context, he only mentions faith as that which saves.

Catholics sometimes argue against Sola Fide by saying that Romans 3-5 does not use the words “faith alone.” That may be true, but we can use this same type of argument against them and say that Romans 3-5 doesn’t use the words “apart from only the Jewish Law,” either.

In denying salvation by deeds, sometimes Paul just uses the word “works” (as opposed to “works of the law”), e.g., in Romans 4:2, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 3:5. But notice that the contexts of these last three are NOT about Jewish law at all. So the Catholic argument fails completely here.

Only Two Options…

Consider this:

Romans 4:4 - Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.

Romans 4:5 - But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (NASB)

Notice that this passage offers only two choices: the one who works, and the one who believes (without working); one trusts in the merits of his work, and the other trusts only in the suffering of Jesus on the cross. There is no third choice and no distinction between “types of works” here.

Galatians 3:2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (NASB)

Notice here also that Paul, when asking this question, does not give the Galatians a third option. They were saved either by works of the Law, or by faith. Again, only two choices. It is one or the other. He doesn’t add the merits of baptism or any “new” works to their faith as a third choice. This indicates that any and all works would fall into the “works of the Law” category. All that’s left is faith alone (i.e., apart from the merits of any work).

Some may still insist that there is a third option… the “Law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). No, the concept of salvation by faith apart from works IS the Law of Christ. It is a law that freely saves the undeserving sinner and then gives him the desire and ability to do works that are pleasing to God.

Examples

In conclusion, consider the example of Abraham. Not only was Abraham not saved by the works of the Mosaic Law, but according to Romans 4:2, he was not saved by any of his works. Likewise, for David, it was “apart from works” (Romans 4:6). And the same goes for Gentiles, since God is the God of both Jew and Gentile, alike (Romans 3:29), saving both by faith, apart from their respective works.

So, once more, when the context of Romans 3, 4 and 5 says that we are saved “apart from” the works of the law, it is NOT just referring to those of the Mosaic Law, but every work. And the good works we do, we do out of love for God… not to try and earn / merit salvation.

WHAT ABOUT TRADITION?

2010-05-27T20:14:00.000-07:00

The Bible tells us of only one inspired (God-breathed) and absolutely trustworthy source of information for the church today. Only this source can infallibly (without error) supply us with doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. And this source is Scripture, itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It equips us for every good work. As our ultimate rule of faith, it is more than sufficient. It is God, Himself, speaking to us (Matthew 22:31-32).

However, Catholics have another source, or rule of faith, along with, and supposedly EQUAL TO, the Scriptures. According to the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal…Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit…As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'" (CCC #80, #81, #82)

So we see that in Catholicism, “Sacred Tradition” is on the same level as the Bible. Therefore, according to the Catholic Church, Tradition must also be infallible, since both it and Scripture are to be honored with the SAME level of “devotion and reverence.”

The Big Question

But how does the Catholic Church define tradition? They speak of small “t” traditions, which are only “disciplines,” like not eating meat on Friday, or observing certain holy days, etc. These can be changed by the Church, if they so desire. But they also have big “T” Traditions, which are the main and binding teachings (doctrines) that allegedly cannot be changed.

But, what about an actual, meaningful definition of Tradition from the Catholic Church? What is it, precisely? What does it consist of? And where can we actually find all of it? Some Catholics will say that Tradition is the “living and growing truth.” Or it is the “common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church.” Still, others say that it is the “sense of the faithful.” The Second Vatican Council says that tradition is “all that she herself [the Catholic Church] is, all that she believes.” (Dei Verbum, 8, 1) Or, maybe it is what former Pope Pius IX arrogantly proclaimed: “I AM TRADITION!” In light of these extremely vague definitions, it seems that Tradition can become anything that the Catholic Church wants it to be. The Catholic concept of Tradition is so broad and so vague that it seems to be a subjective assortment of teachings, practices, historical events, and interpretations of fathers, along with an unknown number of doctrinal "developments.” But, what are the parameters of such a rule of faith? How does one know if he goes beyond the borders of Tradition? And how can the Catholic Church answer these questions without using circular reasoning?

So again, we must ask, “What is it?” Is there an official, unchanging, “infallible” list of Catholic Traditions that we can turn to, so that we can know for sure? No, there isn’t. Interestingly, the Catholic Church claims that only she can authentically interpret this Tradition (CCC #100). Suspiciously convenient, isn't it? But this is simply circular reasoning…like saying, ”It is true, because we SAY so.” In this way, the Catholic Church can force new (and false) doctrines onto the people at will. So, it is just too dangerous to ascribe infallibility to something so vague, so unclear.

Tradition in the Bible

But, tradition (Greek, “paradosis”), according to Scripture, is simply the biblical principles and teachings that were handed down from the apostles to each successive generation. The Bible does use the word in a positive way, but more often in the negative sense. There is good tradition (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 3:6), and there is bad tradition (e.g., Mark 7:1-13; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18). Acceptable tradition is linked with the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Traditions that are acceptable will either be in the Bible, or they will line up with the principles of the Bible; and those that don’t, should be rejected.

The “Oral” and the “Written”

There is a popular response from Catholics who try to defend their Tradition’s “equality” with Scripture. They contend that we don’t have ALL of God’s Word unless we have the “written” (Scripture), and the “oral” (Sacred Tradition), and they quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the Thessalonians:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth, or by letter from us."

Catholics often use this verse in an attempt to show a distinction or a difference between “infallible oral" teachings and "infallible written" teachings, insisting that they are EQUAL and we need BOTH today. According to them, the Bible is not enough as a rule of faith.

First of all, Paul's "distinction" here was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but rather, to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms. Here, Paul was addressing the fact that someone (an imposter) had apparently written a letter in Paul’s name to the Thessalonians, saying that they missed the Day of the Lord (2:2), causing the Thessalonian church to be shaken and disturbed. He is now writing to correct that false letter and to bring comfort and strength to the church. So, Paul was basically telling them, "Why are you disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from me? Any true letter from me will agree with the message I already gave to you personally / orally. I wouldn't contradict that message, or give you two different gospels."

So, when Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in this way, it is out of context and they are misusing and abusing this verse. It is NOT AT ALL saying that we need two infallible sources today. There is no need for an “infallible” Tradition to supplement the Bible.

Secondly, the Catholic Church claims to have this Tradition (that is supposedly different from Scripture) which Paul said to hold on to. Yet, what infallible information do we have from Paul that is not found in the Scriptures? None. Does the Catholic Church have any infallible statements from Jesus (or any of the apostles), apart from the Bible? No, they don’t. Then why do they claim to have this extrabiblical (i.e., outside of the Bible) Tradition that they say Paul is speaking of, if they can’t tell us what it is? Remember, we don’t have access today to all of the information that Paul taught them.

It is not that God was unable to infallibly preserve all this information, it's just that He chose not to. There may even be other writings that Paul sent them that we don't have access to today. But we don't NEED to know every single thing he told them. We can know the essence of what he taught them by looking to God-breathed Scripture, which we do have available to us. But we can be sure that the things that Paul wrote to them will not contradict the things he spoke to them. This is his whole point. They would be the same basic message, the same Gospel.

The Test

But this Catholic argument just begs the question. It's easy to say, "Oh, yeah, that was us back then and that was our tradition, and that was the same church as ours, back in Jesus’ day", etc. It's easy to claim a traditional "link" to the past, but it's another thing to prove the legitimacy of that "link"… especially when it contains teachings that contradict Scripture.

If Catholics want to claim that Paul was speaking of infallible Tradition as something different from Scripture, then they have the responsibility to do three things:

1) Identify exactly what that "Tradition" is,
2) Demonstrate that it is indeed DIFFERENT from Scripture, and
3) Demonstrate that it is Apostolic and infallible...

And she must do this WITHOUT CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But we don’t see this type of proof from the Catholic Church. In fact, we don't see anything near "extraordinary proof." Remember, any message today claiming to be "Apostolic Tradition" must line up with, and be tested by, Scripture (Mark 7:1-13).

History has shown us that when anything is considered “equal” to Scripture, it will eventually, and inevitably, override Scripture and produce unbiblical doctrines (like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory, indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, etc.). Catholic Tradition supposedly complements the Bible, but has actually steered multitudes away from the pure truth of the Scriptures… perhaps gradually, yet surely.

Long ago, the Lord Jesus Christ showed us that the Pharisees and the scribes were guilty of usurping the authority of Scripture with their own traditions (Matthew 15:1-9). The Catholic Church is guilty of that same error today.

THE CATHOLIC ROSARY

2010-05-09T13:33:00.000-07:00

Different types of rosaries have been used throughout history and in many cultures. Shamans, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans (witches), and other Pagan religions used them, and still do today. By no means is the rosary a biblical concept, but sad to say, rosaries are even sometimes used by some who claim to follow Jesus Christ: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and even some Lutherans and Methodists. But this article will deal specifically with the Catholic rosary.

The word “rosary” comes from the Latin term “rosarium,” meaning “rose garden,” and later came to mean “garland of roses.” The traditional Catholic rosary is a stringed loop of different-sized beads (each bead representing a particular prayer) with a crucifix (cross) on the end. The beads are used to keep track of the number of prayers said during the many repetitions. Rosaries are not only used to make supplication (prayer requests), but are also supposedly an aid to “contemplative prayer.” They are sometimes worn around the neck, and can often be seen hanging from a vehicle’s rearview mirror.

DEVOTED TO MARY

The first, and greatest, problem with the Catholic rosary is its frequent repetition of the “Hail Mary” prayer. It is a fact that this rosary is dedicated to the veneration of the “Virgin Mary.” The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. (CCC #971)

If there is any doubt as to the purpose of the Catholic rosary, and its devotion to Mary, read the following quotes from “Rosarium Virginis Mariae,” an official “apostolic” letter on the rosary, written by former Pope John Paul II:

…With the Rosary, the Christian people sit at the school of Mary... Through the Rosary the faithful receive abundant grace, as though from the very hands of the Mother of the Redeemer… In the recitation of the Rosary, the Christian community enters into contact with the memories and the contemplative gaze of Mary… In this process of being conformed to Christ in the Rosary, we entrust ourselves in a special way to the maternal care of the Blessed Virgin... Never as in the Rosary do the life of Jesus and that of Mary appear so deeply joined… The Rosary is both meditation and supplication. Insistent prayer to the Mother of God is based on confidence that her maternal intercession can obtain all things from the heart of her Son… The Rosary is at the service of this ideal; it offers the “secret” which leads easily to a profound and inward knowledge of Christ. We might call it Mary's way… To pray the Rosary is to hand over our burdens to the merciful hearts of Christ and his Mother…

This is totally unscriptural, and should be deeply disturbing to every true, God-fearing Christian. Nowhere, in all of Scripture, are we encouraged to pray to ANYONE other than God. Prayer to anyone else is nothing short of idolatry. The Psalmist said of God, “Whom have I in heaven BUT THEE? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. (Psalm 73:25) This point, alone, should cause every Catholic to put away his rosary and leave the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, the great majority of the rosary’s prayers are “Hail Mary’s,” (which request her “help”). But the Catholic Church has given Mary a role that Scripture does not give her. The Bible nowhere tells us of Mary, or anyone else, who intercedes for us from Heaven, with the exception of Jesus Christ, Himself (Romans 8:34). We are never told that Mary prays for us, and the Bible will never encourage us to pray to her. Let us remember that the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:15).

OUR FATHER…

Another prayer that is recited in the rosary is the “Lord’s Prayer” (or the “Our Father”). Catholics will often be quick to point out that this prayer is found in the Bible (Matthew 6:9-13). Although it is in the Bible, it was never meant to be used as a specific FORMULA (a fixed, mechanical prayer to be repeated over and over), but rather, as an outline, a guide, as an example of how to pray.

But, because of its specific number of repetitions, reciting the rosary more closely resembles some sort of self-hypnosis technique, or the casting of a spell, rather than any prayer request found in the Bible. Using the rosary is worship that is reduced to a formula, which is not true worship of God at all. (John 4:23-24)

KEEPING TRACK

We mentioned that the rosary is a string of beads used to help keep track of the number of prayers that one says while reciting it. But this raises some important questions: Why would anyone need to keep track of the number of prayers said? What happens if someone says “too few” or “too many” prayers while reciting the rosary? Why is the number of repetitions even an object of consideration? Does the number of prayers matter, as in some sort of magical formula or spell? If the number doesn’t really matter, then why use the rosary at all? The truth is, the counting of prayers is a PAGAN practice.

Jesus said: “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)

Some will consider this verse to be a condemnation of the rosary, and it may well be, but there is debate over what the Greek word “battalogeo” actually means. While the King James Version says “use not vain repetitions,” some Bible versions say “do not keep on babbling” or “do not heap up empty phrases.” Unfortunately, the Lord Jesus gave us no specific examples of this type of praying, so the debate remains. Now, not all repetition in prayer is bad, but we see no one in the New Testament using pre-fabricated, mechanical prayers, much less in continuous repetition.

BIBLICAL PERSISTENCE?

However, a Catholic may say that he is simply being “persistent in prayer” when praying the rosary. But using multiple repetitions of prescribed, fixed prayers is NOT the same as biblical persistence in prayer. In the Bible, persistence is simply “not losing heart / not fainting,” but trusting God and continuing in faith, even when we don’t see the answer. (Luke 18:1-8)

We need to remember that Christianity is based on a RELATIONSHIP with God. Constant repetition of the same pre-packaged, mechanical “prayers” does nothing to nurture a true relationship. As parents, would we want our own children to ask us for something by using a fixed number of repetitive requests? Of course not. So, why should anyone think that God would respond to such prayer?

DARK ORIGINS

While the Catechism of the Catholic Church claims that the rosary is a Christian concept (CCC #2708, #1674), we must realize that:

1) The concept of the rosary is totally absent from the Scriptures
2) Tradition tells us that the Catholic rosary did not come along until about 1200 A.D.
3) Rosaries have been used by pagans long before Christianity began.

Interestingly, in “Rosarium Virginis Mariae,” (mentioned above) the pope links the rosary with a prayer “rhythm” (paragraph 12), with prayer repetitions (paragraph 26), and with the “rhythm of breathing” (paragraph 27). Taken together, these concepts tie in with the OCCULT, and can be found within the schools of Transcendental Meditation (TM), Yoga, and Wicca (Witchcraft), in which an altered state of consciousness can be obtained. But the Bible warns us against such activity (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27).

On the one hand, the Catholic Church condemns occult activity (CCC #2116, #2117), and yet, on the other hand, it encourages the use of occultic concepts in using the rosary. This would be like a dad telling his teenage son that he must totally abstain from sexual activity, but then turn around and give him condoms. Why does the Catholic Church forbid its people to engage in something, but then give them the tools and the encouragement to do that very thing?

AN AID TO UNITY

In the above-mentioned letter by Pope John Paul II, the rosary is considered a tool for unity, and is called “an aid…to ecumenism.” The rosary is one of the things that the Catholic Church and many pagan religions have in common, so it is very likely that the rosary will play a significant role in the end-time Ecumenical Movement. This movement (spearheaded by the Roman Catholic Church) is an attempt to draw all the religions of the world together in the name of “peace.” But this is a totally unbiblical “unity”, and the beginning of the one-world church that the Bible describes in Revelation 13.

The problems associated with the rosary cancel out any Catholic claims of “benefits” for the one who would pray the rosary. Bottom line: Christians should have nothing to do with any kind of rosary… Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise.

The Priesthood

2010-03-30T09:19:00.000-07:00

“If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.” (The Catholic Church’s Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 1)

While many of the world’s religions have an ordained priesthood, the concept of a Christian ministerial priesthood is not found in the New Testament, but is something that has evolved over time. There are a number of groups who claim to follow Jesus Christ that maintain a priesthood. For example, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and even some Protestant churches, like Anglican / Episcopalian, and some Lutheran churches. The Mormon Church also has a priesthood. Yet, none of these “priesthoods” are valid (according to the Bible), but we will focus on the most prominent: the Catholic priesthood.

The Catholic Church insists that we must have a distinct, ordained, “hierarchical” priesthood today. But, the truth is, the only types of Christian “priesthood” that we find within the pages of the New Testament are the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1), and the “universal priesthood” of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6). While we are able to find Jewish and pagan priests mentioned in the New Testament, we don’t see any Christian “ministerial” priests to mediate between God and man (as we find in the Old Testament).

The Apostle Paul mentions the functions and offices of the New Testament church in chapters 3 and 5 of 1 Timothy, and Titus chapter 1. He also gives specific instructions for ministry, church order, gifts and service in 1 Corinthians chapters 11-14, and in Ephesians chapter 4… and yet, the ministerial office of “priest” is strangely absent. There is not a single mention of a “priesthood” in these contexts. If God had intended a Christian ministerial priesthood for today, one would think that such a critical position should be evident in the New Testament. But it isn’t there.

But, let’s look at some of the Catholic arguments for the priesthood:

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, THERE WERE THREE TYPES OF PRIESTS: HIGH PRIESTS (LEVITICUS 21:10), MINISTERIAL PRIESTS (EXODUS 29:1), AND A “UNIVERSAL” PRIESTHOOD (EXODUS 19:6). THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS THAT THIS HAS CHANGED, SO THE “THREE-FOLD PRIESTHOOD” IS STILL HERE TODAY.

We agree that there was a “high priesthood” and a “ministerial priesthood” in the Old Testament. But it is wrong to think that Exodus 19:6 proves that there was a “universal priesthood” in Old Testament times. Let’s look at the context:

Exodus 19:5 - Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Exodus 19:6 - And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Yes, God promised Israel that they would be a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation.” But, this is a yet UNFULFILLED promise to the Jews. Notice that God’s promise to Israel was CONDITIONAL; that this would happen IF (and ONLY if) they would obey God’s voice and keep His covenant (Exodus 19:5). But they didn’t. Over and over, Israel had broken God’s covenant and disobeyed His commands (e.g., Jeremiah chapter 11, 13, 22, 34, etc.). This continued even until the very end of the Old Testament period, where even the “ministerial” priests had profaned the covenant (Malachi 2:8-10). Even to this day, Israel (as a nation) is disobedient and blinded to the truth (2 Corinthians 3:12-14; Romans 11:25, 31).

Therefore, Israel could not claim that it was a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation,” and thus, has not yet become that “universal priesthood.” This will not happen for the Jews, as a nation, until Jesus Christ returns, as Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 61:6). So, since the “universal priesthood” never happened in the Old Testament, this “three-fold priesthood” concept didn’t exist then, and there is no reason to think that it must be a model for the church today.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE PRIESTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT BECAUSE THE ENGLISH WORD FOR “PRIEST” IS DERIVED FROM THE GREEK “PRESBUTEROS”, TRANSLATED AS “ELDER” IN MOST ENGLISH BIBLES. SO, “ELDER” ACTUALLY MEANS “PRIEST”.

While it is true that our modern word “priest” is derived from the Greek word “presbuteros”, it does not mean that the two words are the same. Derivatives are not definitions. The modern word “Presbyterian” is ALSO a derivative of “presbuteros”, but I don’t think any Catholic would try to say that the New Testament “elders” were Presbyterians. Anyway, the New Testament ALREADY has a Greek word for priest, “hiereus,” not “presbuteros,” and these two Greek words are never used interchangeably. So, this argument certainly does not prove that biblical “elders” were priests.

CATHOLIC CLAIM - “HIEREUS” REFERS TO THE PRIESTS OF THE OLD COVENANT. SO, A SEPARATE WORD, “PRESBUTEROS”, IS USED TO REFER TO THE PRIESTS OF THE NEW. THERE IS STILL A DISTINCTIVENESS AND UNIQUENESS TO THE NEW COVENANT PRIESTHOOD THAT WARRANTS THE USE OF A DIFFERENT WORD.

“Hiereus” does indeed refer to the priests of the Old Covenant, but not just to the Old Testament priests. It ALSO refers to the New Testament universal priesthood of believers (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). Furthermore, asserting that “presbuteros” is the “new” term for priest is simply begging the question, i.e., just an assumption without proof. We also believe that the fact that “hiereus” is used to describe priests from both Testaments is further evidence that the priesthood has changed from a “ministerial” form (Old Testament) to a “universal” form (New Testament).

CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOU MAY ASK, WHY DON’T WE SEE THE WORD “PRIEST” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? THE CHRISTIANS OF THE FIRST CENTURY WOULD AVOID USING “PRIEST” IN NAMING THE MINISTERIAL OFFICES OF THE CHURCH, BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO THE SAME TERM BEING USED BY MANY JEWISH AND PAGAN PRIESTS. SO, TO AVOID CONFUSION, EARLY CHRISTIANS USED LANGUAGE TO DISTINGUISH THEIR PRIESTS FROM THE OTHERS.

There were plenty pagan priests in the time of the Old Testament. But it seems that neither the Lord nor the Jews had any problem calling their own ministers “priests” at that time. They didn’t seem to be concerned about any confusion that might arise between the names of the two groups. Furthermore, the term “elder” was kept over from the Old Testament. The New Testament word used for the Jewish elder (“presbuteros”) is exactly the same word used for the Christian elder. If confusing terms were an issue, why didn’t the early Christians avoid the term “elder” altogether? So, this Catholic argument is just too weak to be credible.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – THE VERY REASON THAT ENGLISH SPEAKERS REFER TO THE ORDAINED MINISTRY WITH A WORD (PRIEST) THAT IS DERIVED FROM “PRESBUTEROS” IS BECAUSE THESE MINISTERS SERVE THE SAME FUNCTION AS BIBLICAL ELDERS DID.

But one could argue that many of today’s Protestant pastors / ministers ALSO serve the same function as the New Testament “elders” did, because they also preach the gospel and administer communion, baptism, etc. So this claim proves nothing.

Another thing… if Catholic priests (especially those of the Latin rite) are supposed to be the same as New Testament “elders,” then why are they not allowed (required?) to be the “husband of [but] one wife” (Titus 1:6)? We know that there are exceptions in the Catholic Church, but Paul is speaking of the NORM for elders, here. And the norm is to be married. (We are not debating the virtues of celibacy, but our point is simply that, according to Titus, the great majority of Roman Catholic priests cannot be biblical elders). So, it can’t be said that priests and elders are one and the same.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN ROMANS 15:15-16, PAUL CALLS HIMSELF A PRIEST WHEN HE REFERS TO HIS MINISTRY AS A “PRIESTLY SERVICE” (GREEK, “HIEROURGOUNTA”).

First of all, Paul never uses the word “priest” to describe his own office, but considers himself an “apostle.”

Secondly, in NONE of his epistles does he call any leader in the church a “priest,” when he had ample opportunity to do so.

Thirdly, this “priestly service” is simply describing the work of spreading the gospel, which ALL Christians are commissioned to do.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT IF WE DON’T HAVE ANY PRIESTS TODAY, HOW CAN WE OBTAIN THE SACRAMENTS, OR PRESENT SACRIFICES TO THE LORD, LIKE THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS?

Ok, first, just because there are no ministerial priests, this doesn’t mean that there are no church leaders to minister to the people.

Furthermore, without getting into the concept of “sacraments,” and any role they might play, the point still remains that ministerial priests are NOT found in the New Testament, regardless of whether someone believes they should be there.

And finally, the only sacrifices that need to be offered today are spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), our praise (Hebrews 13:15), our bodies (Romans 12:1), our finances (Philippians 4:18), etc. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, see our two-part article on the Eucharist, elsewhere on this blog.

Note that the author of the book of Hebrews takes great pains to distinguish the difference between the Old Covenant (types and shadows) and the New (and better) Covenant. The main function of a ministerial priest of the Old Testament was to offer sacrifices (repeatedly) to God in order to atone for sin. But Hebrews 10:10-12, 18 tells us that the price has now been paid, and there is “NO MORE offering [sacrifice] for sin.” Therefore, no more atoning sacrifices are needed. Jesus Christ has paid the full penalty on the cross of Calvary. We now have a perfect atonement to embrace, once for all (Hebrews 9:12, 28; 10:10). No ministerial priests are needed now to offer sacrifice to God. Their “job” is cancelled out. This was demonstrated by God’s tearing of the veil in the temple (Matthew 27:51). It means all believers now have direct access to God without “ministerial” priests. Jesus Christ is the FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament type of priesthood and its sacrifices.

CONCLUSION

We are not saying that there are no leaders in the church today, just that there are no “ordained / ministerial” priests. As important as the priesthood is to Catholics, it is hard to ignore the fact that this priesthood is never mentioned in Paul’s writings. To emphasize the point once more, it is not as though it is absent from only a tiny letter in the Bible, like Philemon or 3 John, but it is absent from the WHOLE New Testament. This is too much of a glaring omission to ignore.

The life, the very core, of a priestly system is the sacrifice. The sacrifice is the whole focus of the priesthood. If you remove the core of any such system, you take away the life and purpose of that system. If there is no more sacrifice, there is no more system. Its purpose has been served. This is the Achilles’ heel of the Catholic priesthood. Not only is the priesthood NOT in the New Testament, but it also contradicts the New Testament, since Hebrews tells us that there is NO MORE SACRIFICE for sin (Hebrews 10:18).

According to its Catechism, the Catholic Church makes some very special claims about its priests. For example, they are supposedly able to absolve (forgive) a man’s sins (CCC #1495); they have “a ‘sacred power’ which is none other than that of Christ” (CCC #1551); they “possess the authority to act in the power and place of the Person of Christ, Himself” (CCC #1548); and the priest “divinizes” and he “is divinized” (CCC #1589), i.e., he makes divine and is made divine…

Once again, we see the Catholic Church making some extraordinary claims about itself, and then it asserts that these claims have (at least some) biblical support. But upon examination, these claims are found to be just that… mere claims, and not truth; they are deceptive claims that actually deny biblical truth.

So, this creates some serious implications for the Catholic faithful, and should be disturbing to those Catholics who would take an honest look at the evidence presented. We have to ask ourselves: Are we going to believe the Catholic hierarchy, or are we going to believe God’s infallible Scripture?

THE CANON AND “INFALLIBLE CERTAINTY”

2010-02-24T17:49:00.000-08:00

One of the arguments that Catholics will use against the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura (“Scripture Alone”) is the “canon” argument. The “canon” refers to the list of inspired books that belong in the Bible. The Catholic argument is that Protestants can’t even know which books belong in the Bible without the help of the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church is the one that “infallibly determined” which books go into it. Without this guarantee, Protestants can’t be sure that they have the correct canon. At least, that’s what Catholics believe.

Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox all have a different canon, but the purpose of this article is not to address the precise books that fall into this list, but rather, whether or not a person can know infallibly (i.e., without the possibility of error) which books make up this list. Many Catholics seem to think that we can have “infallible certainty” on this, and in fact, insist that we must have this level of certainty. One Catholic source says:

"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”)

Concerning the canon, and how we know which books are inspired, we all realize that no one alive today had anything to do with the formation of the canon, and therefore, we are dependent on others for this information. And, of course, we get this information from the writings of the early church. Now, the church did not “determine” the canon… the canon was “determined” by God. The early church fathers simply “recognized” the inspired books. But it doesn’t mean that recognizing the inspired books made those fathers infallible, nor that they needed to be infallible in order to recognize those books. Catholics just assume that the church is infallible, when there is no biblical evidence for it. (Another topic for another day)

But the truth is, we are all fallible creatures with fallible minds and hearts, and we all make fallible decisions. No matter what we end up choosing, or who we end up trusting, we all start out with fallibility… including the final authority(ies) that we choose to follow.

But we have to ask, how did the Old Testament saints know that Deuteronomy or Isaiah or Malachi were inspired books, when they didn’t have the Catholic Church there to tell them? Just like the fathers who recognized the books of the New Testament, they too, had to use their discernment, evaluate the available evidence, and reason with their fallible minds to come to a conclusion on their canon. But God does give us sufficient certainty on the canon today, just as He did for the Old Testament believers then. Once again, we don’t need to be infallible to recognize “the Infallible,” or else none of us would ever be able to recognize God and His dealings with us.

We so often see Catholics presenting a false dilemma concerning the canon: They say that either,

1) the early church fathers must have INFALLIBLY chosen the right books, or
2) they must have been WRONG in their choices

But these two are not the only options. The truth can be found somewhere in between those two extremes. For example, it is certainly possible to be fallible, yet correct. But I don’t believe that any human can have infallible certainty on the canon (or on anything else, for that matter). Infallible certainty is strictly God’s domain. But again, that doesn’t mean that He won’t give us sufficient certainty about the things of God.

Now, let us pose this important question: Is it mandatory for EVERY believer to have INFALLIBLE certainty on the FULL canon in order to be saved and to live for God?

If the answer is yes, then wouldn’t we have to say that out of the multitudes of godly people who lived before the fourth century, that not one was saved, or not one could live for God, until after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (which supposedly settled the canon issue)?

If the answer to the above question is no, then why do Catholics put so much emphasis on INFALLIBLE certainty of the canon in the first place?

Actually, according to another Catholic Source, the first time that the canon of Scripture was infallibly declared was at the Council of Trent (1546):

“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, Volume 3, page 29, Copyright 1967; Under “Canon, Biblical”)

The online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) also confirms the above source:

“The Tridentine [i.e., from the Council of Trent] decrees from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, if these Catholic encyclopedias are correct, and if we really do need infallible certainty on the canon of Scripture, we find it strange that the Catholic Church waited for 1500 years before giving an infallible judgment on the canon.

But, Catholics can’t have it both ways. You can’t INSIST that we “really need” infallible certainty on the one hand, and on the other hand, say it’s no big deal that we DIDN’T have it until Trent in 1546. Again, the truth is, “infallible certainty” was not needed then, and is not needed now. If it were, then the Catholic Church has done a very poor job of providing this “certainty” for its members.

Another question is, why does the Catholic insist on the need for infallible certainty on the canon of Scripture for Protestants, when he (the Catholic) can’t have anywhere near this level of certainty on HIS OWN “canon” of Sacred Tradition… since he really doesn’t even know what it is? “Sacred Tradition” is supposedly equal to Scripture and is a critical part of the Catholic’s rule of faith, but can anyone tell us exactly what its contents are? No, they can’t. They always seem to dance around this question, when asked, and seem to purposely use extremely vague definitions for it. What kind of “certainty” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #82) can be derived from such a mysterious and nebulous Tradition? Does the Catholic Church have an official, infallible, and unchanging list of all of its “Sacred Traditions”? No, they don’t. We’re still waiting for a clear and meaningful defintion of “Sacred Tradition” before anyone can ever claim that it is “inspired.”

So, if the Catholic can demand from us an infallible list of the full contents of Scripture, then Protestants can also demand that Catholics provide an infallible list of the full contents of “Sacred Tradition” – so, please show us the list. Otherwise, demanding “infallible certainty” from anyone else, when you, yourself don’t have it, is hypocrisy.

So, the concept of “infallible certainty” on the canon is just another inflated Catholic claim that actually hurts the Catholic Church more than helps it. And furthermore, this canon argument does nothing to disprove “Sola Scriptura.”

“FAITH ALONE” (PART 3)

2010-02-11T17:37:00.000-08:00

The First Attempt

The story of the offerings of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-5), the first sons of Adam, is very revealing to us, and relevant to this topic. It demonstrates the fact that, since the beginning, God never intended that man’s works would ever contribute to his salvation. Both Cain and Abel brought a sacrifice to God: Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground (i.e., the labor of his hands), while Abel brought an innocent animal, an unblemished victim, of his flock. And of course, the Bible tells us that God accepted Abel’s offering, and not Cain’s. Cain’s offering is man’s first recorded attempt to earn salvation.

The very fact that the work of Cain’s hands was rejected, indicates that God wants us to trust in the Innocent Substitute in order to be saved, rather than our good works. Abel’s sacrifice represents Jesus on the cross, an innocent and perfectly unblemished and righteous Person to die in the place of sinful man; while Cain’s sacrifice represents all of man’s energy, work, and suffering in his futile attempts to become right with God. But that didn’t save anyone at that time, and it doesn’t save today. If “faith PLUS works” is what saves (as Catholics believe), then why didn’t Abel offer fruits and vegetables ALONG WITH the animal sacrifice? No, there is only one thing that saves, and that is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to which Abel’s offering pointed.

Cain’s offering was rejected for the same reason that the fig leaves were taken away from his parents, and replaced with animal skins (Genesis 3:7, 21). That is, an innocent one had to shed his blood and die to cover their nakedness. The fig leaves were not good enough, because they too, represented the work of man’s hands. Cain was not recognizing the seriousness of his condition as a sinner and the need for an innocent life to be sacrificed. Once again, if man is saved by “faith plus works,” then why didn’t God just ADD the animal skins to the fig leaves?

To Work or Not to Work...

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WHAT ABOUT VERSES LIKE PHILIPPIANS 2:12, WHICH SAYS TO “WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING”? DOESN’T THIS MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO WORK TO BE JUSTIFIED?

No, Paul is talking about the outworking, or the “living out” of our salvation. Once again, the context is not “how to be saved,” but Paul is describing the glorious Second Person of the Trinity, what He gave up for us, and how we should live, in light of that. It’s not about doing works in order to obtain our salvation, but it’s about our time of growth, our sanctification. We are not saved “by good works,” we are saved “in order to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10).

Catholics speak of their works being done in a “state of grace.” That is, if one does good works in this state of grace, his works will then count toward his salvation. According to them, God still gets the credit, since HE gave them the ability to do the good works in the first place. Therefore, it is “all God,” they say. And since God does these grace-infused works through us, He is glorified when we are justified through those works, right? Well… not exactly.

It is true that God is glorified when we do good works. And yes, it is true that everything good comes from God, but that doesn’t mean that everything good is salvific, (i.e., has the power to save us). God is the One Who determines what saves and what doesn’t save… and He tells us in His Word that we are justified (in the “saving” sense) – not by works – but by faith APART FROM WORKS (Romans 3:28; 4:4-6; Titus 3:5). [See Part 2 of this series]

Someone once said that people who think that these ‘grace-infused works’ will save them, will either:

1) downplay God’s demand for PERFECTION, or
2) exaggerate on their OWN righteousness

I happen to agree with that. None of us are perfect in our good works, so we must trust in that perfect work of Jesus and HIS righteousness, not ours.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHAT ABOUT ALL THE “ENDURE-TO-THE-END” TYPE VERSES (MATTHEW 24:13; MARK 13:13)? DON’T THESE INDICATE THAT ENDURING HARDSHIP AND DOING GOOD WORKS TILL THE END, ARE THE KEY TO SALVATION?

No, the apostle Paul said:

“You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by HEARING WITH FAITH? Are you so foolish? Having BEGUN by the Spirit, are you now being PERFECTED by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3 NASB)

Paul is saying that the thing which has “birthed” us into the body of Christ (faith / trust in Jesus), will be the SAME THING which will MAINTAIN us in our Christian walk. Yes, we will have to endure to the end, but it is the maintaining of our FAITH that brings this about, and works are just a natural by-product of that (true) faith. Remember, our good works do please God, and we will be rewarded for our good works, but they are the result, not the cause, of salvation. Faith is what “gets” us saved, and faith is what “keeps” us saved. Not works.

CATHOLIC CLAIM - BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR SUFFERINGS THAT WE EXPERIENCE FOR HIM? DOESN’T THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR SALVATION? (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, #1435) AFTER ALL, PAUL DOES TELL US THAT HE “…FILL[S] UP THAT WHICH IS BEHIND [LACKING] OF THE AFFLICTIONS OF CHRIST IN MY FLESH FOR HIS BODY’S SAKE, WHICH IS THE CHURCH.” (COLOSSIANS 1:24)

But there is absolutely nothing lacking in the afflictions of Christ, concerning His payment for sin. So, Paul is speaking of what is lacking in the church and is reminding us of his (Paul’s) suffering for them. But Paul never says that man’s suffering justifies anyone.

Jesus suffered for a DIFFERENT reason than we do. He suffered to pay for the sins of mankind, but we (the church) suffer in the sense of bearing each other’s burdens, and laboring to win souls.

Again, there is no “lack” in Christ’s work. Sadly, this verse is so often twisted by Catholics to say something that it doesn’t say.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SCRIPTURE TELLS US THAT FAITH, ITSELF, IS A “WORK”, ACCORDING TO JOHN 6:29: "JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO THEM, 'THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD, THAT YE BELIEVE ON HIM WHOM HE HATH SENT'.”

But those who say this miss Jesus’ whole point. Jesus was NOT defining faith as a “work” at all. The Jews were the ones who first brought up the subject of works. So Jesus just uses this as a springboard and responds to them on that topic. He is basically saying, “You’re asking what WORKS should be done to be right with God? This is the only so-called ‘work’ that God requires: You must BELIEVE IN ME. You’re looking for works, but God is requiring faith.” Jesus is actually re-directing their misguided view of works.

We believe that all of the verses that Catholics use when defending their “faith plus works” view, can be explained and reconciled with the Protestant understanding of "Faith Alone." However, we don’t believe that Catholics can reconcile their view of “faith plus works” with the context of Romans 3, 4, and 5, which clearly teaches the “Faith Alone” view.

Galatians

Probably the most devastating argument in the Bible against the “faith plus works” concept can be found in the book of Galatians. The apostle Paul was dealing with the error of the Judaizers, who convinced the Galatian churches that one must not only believe in Jesus’ work on the cross to be saved, but must also be circumcised. (Galatians 6:12) We see these same Judaizers in Acts 15:1, also.

Paul’s whole point was that they were (wrongly) adding to the work of the cross. They were teaching salvation by their works IN ADDITION TO faith in the cross, just as the Catholic Church does today (and unfortunately, many Protestants, also).

So, what’s the big deal? Why was Paul so disturbed by this? Isn’t it enough that Jesus’ work is being recognized? And can’t WE get at least some credit for our salvation?

Absolutely not! It’s either ALL Jesus, or not Jesus AT ALL. It can never be “Jesus PLUS my works.”

Notice the phrases used by Paul in Galatians to describe those who would add any works to the cross:

1) They NULLIFY / FRUSTRATE God’s grace (Galatians 2:21)

2) They have been SEVERED FROM CHRIST and have FALLEN FROM GRACE (Galatians 5:4 NASV)

3) They have DESERTED JESUS for a DIFFERENT GOSPEL (Galatians 1:6)

4) They are ACCURSED (Galatians 1:8-9)

Does anyone STILL want to claim that he can add to the cross, or cause some type of “increase” in his justification, through his works? [as the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 24 teaches]

Examples

Finally, we have actual examples of people who were saved by faith, apart from their works.

Romans 4:2-3 tells us that Abraham (who lived before the Mosaic Law) was justified by faith alone, and just a few verses later (verse 6), we see that David (who lived under the Mosaic Law) was likewise saved.

Jesus also told the story of the Pharisee and the publican (tax collector) in Luke 18:9-14. In this short story, it is the unlikely (and usually hated) tax collector who goes home justified, simply because he humbled himself, knowing that he was an undeserving sinner, and he surrendered to God. The bragging Pharisee, who thought surely that God would be impressed with his works, made sure to tell God how great he (the Pharisee) was. The whole reason that Jesus presented this story is to caution against the attitude of those who “trusted in themselves” (verse 9).

And of course, we have the classic example of someone saved by faith alone: the thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43). He was one of two thieves hanging on their own crosses on either side of Jesus. At first, the “good thief” (as he came to be known) was mocking and ridiculing Jesus, like everyone else was (Matthew 27:38-44), but a little later, had a change of heart, defended Jesus, and condemned the other thief for his attitude (Luke 23:39-40). Then, with repentance, he uttered those immortal words, “Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom” (23:42). And of course, Jesus tells him, “Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise.” Jesus didn’t say, “I’m sorry, but you’ll have to come down from that cross, get baptized, participate in the Eucharist, and do this list of works I’ll give you…” No, He recognized the man’s change of heart (repentance and faith in Him) and accepted him on that basis. And He does the same for us today.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has a number of teachings that put too much emphasis on works. Teachings like Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, the idea that man can atone for sin by almsgiving (giving money), and mixing / confusing justification with sanctification… these all detract from the work of Jesus on the cross. These teachings are telling us that His suffering and dying was just not quite enough to pay the penalty for sin. WE must ADD something to make salvation complete. Catholics may not say it in these words, but this is truly the bottom line in their logic. In other words, they are saying that Jesus’ words, “It is finished,” (John 19:30) were not true. He apparently needs our “help” (according to the Catholic Church). Can any honest person deny that this is blasphemy?

But to be fair, the Catholic Church is not the only church that teaches that works contribute to a person’s justification. Sadly, there are also some Protestant churches that believe this teaching. It is also a fact that most (if not all) other world religions believe this same concept, in one form or another. You see, man (because of his nature) wants to take credit for things that he shouldn’t.

I pray that no one reading this will ever think that on Judgment Day, he will be able to stand before Jesus Christ and say, “Yes, Lord, You did Your 99% and I did my 1%, so I helped to pay for my own salvation...” God forbid.

It is my sincere prayer that no one (Catholic or Protestant) would ever fall prey to the deception and half-truths of this “faith plus works” doctrine. And may God have mercy on those who teach it.

“FAITH ALONE” (PART 2)

2010-01-27T11:59:00.000-08:00

In part 1, we shared some basic thoughts on the doctrine of “Sola Fide” (faith alone). Today, we will focus on some common Catholic objections to this teaching and see how they hold up. So, let’s jump right in.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – THE DOCTRINE OF “FAITH ALONE” IS NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE. IN FACT, THE ONLY TIME THE WORDS “FAITH” AND “ALONE” ARE USED TOGETHER IN THE BIBLE IS IN JAMES 2:24, WHERE IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE.

James and Justification

At first, this sounds like a good argument. But the Apostle Paul tells us that a man is justified by faith APART FROM (i.e., WITHOUT) WORKS (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5). Are James and Paul contradicting each other, or is something else going on?

This can be easily cleared up by looking at the CONTEXT in each passage. James is dealing with members of the church who claim to be Christian, yet are not showing the evidence of it. He is asking, “Where is the demonstration of your Christianity? Are you ‘walking the walk’ or just ‘talking the talk’?” James is demanding PROOF of a man’s faith: “What use is it, my brethren, if a man SAYS he has faith but he has no works?" (Romans 2:14 NASV). "SHOW me your faith without the works, and I will SHOW you my faith by my works" (James 2:18 NASV). It's all about whether one's faith is a true (demonstrable) faith or a dead one.

On the other hand, Paul (in Romans chapter 3, 4, and 5) is specifically dealing with the issue of how a man can be made right in the eyes of God, i.e., how to become justified / saved. So, these are two different contexts altogether. Romans is about achieving justification, James is about demonstrating the proof of your justification.

But, what exactly IS James talking about in chapter 2, when he says a man is “justified” by works? In this context, “justified” means VINDICATED, or PROVEN, in the eyes of men, not God. God already knows if our faith is real. There may be someone in the church who claims to be a Christian, yet demonstrates no evidence of it. If there is no proof of his salvation, why should anyone believe that he is a Christian? But the person is justified in the eyes of man, i.e., vindicated, when he exhibits the fruit of the Spirit in his life (by good works) and other people can see this proof. This same word, “justify / justified” is used in this way (to mean “vindication”) elsewhere in Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29, 10:29, and 16:15), so Paul’s use of the term “justified” in this way in the context of James 2, makes perfect sense.

CATHOLIC CLAIM - BUT THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER BIBLE VERSES THAT TIE SALVATION IN WITH WORKS. WHY DO PROTESTANTS ALWAYS TURN TO ROMANS 3, 4, AND 5?

The “Owner’s Manual” Analogy

Ok, let me ask a simple question. If you were having problems with the headlights on your car, to what section of the owner’s manual would you turn to fix the problem? Would you look under “Tires” or “Engine” or “Exhaust System”? No, of course not. You would go directly to the section on “Headlights” because that’s where the solution would most likely be found. Now, you might also find some relevant information on your headlight problem in other areas of the owner’s manual, like under “Fuses” or the “Electrical System”. But the most useful information, the most helpful, the most important info you would find would be under the section on headlights. To understand your headlights, this MAIN and primary section should be sought first and foremost, and all the other (secondary) sections that just touch on headlight information, would have to revolve around that main section.

In the same way, to understand justification (in the salvation sense), you would go to the section in the Bible that deals specifically and directly with that topic as a doctrine, and that would be Romans chapter 3, 4, and 5. This answers the question, “How is a person made right with God?” If there is any other section that mentions justification, it must be understood in light of those three chapters in Romans, because these chapters make up the most comprehensive, clearest, and longest-running, continuous passage in all of Scripture that SPECIFICALLY deals with how a man is made right with God. They DEFINE the doctrine of justification. Bible verses that specifically deal with a particular topic, in depth, have primacy over “passing reference” verses.

And the message of these chapters clearly indicates that justification is by faith, apart from works:

“Because BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW NO FLESH WILL BE JUSTIFIED in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” (3:20)

“Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of WORKS? NO, but by a law of FAITH.” (3:27)

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith APART FROM WORKS of the Law.” (3:28)

“For IF Abraham was justified BY WORKS, he has something to boast about; but NOT BEFORE GOD.” (4:2)

“Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But TO THE ONE WHO DOES NOT WORK, BUT BELIEVES in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (4:4-5)

“Just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness APART FROM WORKS” (4:6)

“Therefore having been JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:1)

Looking at these passages, it’s hard to ignore Paul’s message. Over and over, we see the same idea. God justifies man by faith and not by works. God justifies the Jew by faith [“apart from his works”], and He justifies the Gentile by faith [“apart from his works”, also]. (Romans 3:27-30) Very simple and very direct.

Other verses throughout Scripture that support this concept include:

Ephesians 2:8-9 – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Galatians 2:16 – Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Titus 3:5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 11:6 – But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (All verses above from the NASV)

CATHOLIC CLAIM - BUT IN ROMANS (CHAPTERS 3, 4, AND 5), PAUL IS REFERRING TO “THE LAW,” THAT IS, THE CEREMONIAL WORKS OF THE OLD MOSAIC LAW. PAUL IS NOT SPEAKING HERE OF THE “MORAL LAW,” WHERE OUR GOOD WORKS OF MERCY ARE DONE IN THE STATE OF GRACE.

Works of the Law

The “works” that Paul spoke of did indeed include those Old Testament, ceremonial works, but were certainly NOT LIMITED to those. For example, in Romans 3, he mentions “the law” (v. 21 and v.31), and “the deeds [works] of the law” (v. 28). And immediately after, in 4:1, where the same context is continued, Paul speaks of Abraham, and how he was saved by faith, apart from “the law”.

But wait a minute! Abraham lived 430 years before the Mosaic Law existed! (Galatians 3:17) So Abraham was not under that law. So why would Paul mention Abraham’s works at all, if he was limiting “works of the law” to mean those of the Mosaic Law? It was because Paul was speaking of ALL works, and not just those ceremonial laws and rituals from Moses’ time.

Paul uses Abraham (4:1) as his first example of someone saved apart from works, and then he also uses David (4:6), who WAS under the Mosaic Law. So we see here that BOTH those who were under this Law (the Jews), and also those who were not under this Law (everyone else, including us today) were ALL saved by grace, through faith, and APART from their works. That is the whole point of Romans 3, 4, and 5.

So, we see that Paul's mention of Abraham and David in the same context refutes the idea that Paul alluded ONLY to the works of the old Mosaic Law. He was, in fact, speaking of ANYONE'S works throughout history, because he included:

1) Those BEFORE the Mosaic Law existed (like Abraham)
2) Those DURING the Mosaic Law (like David), and
3) Those AFTER the Mosaic Law (like the Christians to whom he is writing in the book of Romans).

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? JESUS WARNED US THAT WE MUST OBEY THEM, DIDN’T HE? (MATTHEW 19:17; LUKE 10:25-28) THESE ARE GOOD WORKS DONE UNDER GOD’S SYSTEM OF GRACE. THIS IS “FAITH WORKING THROUGH LOVE” (GALATIANS 5:6)

The Ten Commandments

We will demonstrate that the Ten Commandments are indeed part of "the Law.” Romans 7:7 (NASV) says, "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’" Obviously, this refers to the last one of the Ten Commandments.

Now read Romans 2:20-22 (NASV). "...having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?…" Again, these works are clearly referring to the Ten Commandments.

So here we see that the Ten Commandments ARE part of "the Law". So when Scripture speaks of works of "the Law", it refers to the WHOLE Law: the ceremonial law AND the moral law. The apostle Paul places them in the SAME category. If one saves, then they both save. If one does not save, then neither saves. If "the Law" does not save (and it doesn’t), then the Ten Commandments don't save either, and if the Ten Commandments don't save, then NO WORKS CAN SAVE, since they are God's highest standard.

So, there is no biblical distinction between “works that save” and “works that don't save,” contrary to what Catholics often assert. Therefore, justification "apart from the works of the Law" (Romans 3:28) means justification apart from ANY and ALL works. This doesn’t mean that we don’t ever do good works, it just means that our works don’t contribute to our justification.

Here is an interesting point. Romans 4:9-11 tells us that Abraham was NOT justified by his circumcision. But why not? After all, it was a God-ordained work of obedience, wasn’t it? (Genesis 17:10) It certainly was. But, the answer to this question is simply this: Abraham was not justified by circumcision, because circumcision is a WORK.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WEREN’T THE PEOPLE IN MATTHEW 25:31-46 SAVED OR CONDEMNED ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS, AND NOT THEIR FAITH? EVERY “JUDGMENT SCENE” IN THE BIBLE SHOWS US THAT THE FATE OF EACH PERSON IS DETERMINED BY HIS WORKS.

Sheep and Goats

Does anyone think that here, Jesus is providing a specific list of things to do to get saved? As a Catholic, one could not believe this, since things like faith, partaking of the Eucharist, baptism (and other sacraments), etc., are not mentioned here.

No, Jesus is speaking in a general sense, describing, on the one hand, the “sheep” as the type of people whose hearts were right, which then caused them to follow through with good works; and on the other hand, the “goats,” as those whose hearts were not right, and neglected God’s will.

The works mentioned here are not PREscribed (as criteria for salvation), but rather, they DEscribe (give a description of) the type of person in each category. The context is NOT how a person is made right with God. This whole chapter is about faithfulness, not justification. And the reason God points to their works in every “judgment scene” is because their works of obedience are the PROOF of their faithfulness, the evidence of what was already in their hearts, by faith. Wouldn’t these works in Matthew 25 be considered “works of righteousness”? Absolutely. But NO ONE is justified (in the “saving” sense) by works of righteousness (Titus 3:5)…

Remember, we WILL be rewarded for our good works, but justification is something totally different. It is strictly a GIFT. Again, it is not “works that save” versus “works that don’t save.” And neither are we justified by the works that God does THROUGH us, but only by the work that He has done on the cross. Nothing else.

See how great a love God has for His children! We DON’T have to try to gain enough “points” from our works and our sufferings to finally make it into Heaven. We must simply trust in His work at the cross. Let us rejoice in the simplicity of the gospel!

Stay with us as we conclude our series with the next post.

“FAITH ALONE” (Part 1)

2010-01-12T21:15:00.000-08:00

Introduction

Perhaps the most important question that could ever be asked is, “How can a person be made right in the sight of God, that is, how can he be eligible for Heaven?” Or, as the Philippian jailer asked, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30)

Thankfully, the apostle Paul gave the Philippian jailer a very simple and direct answer… “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (v. 31). No complicated formulas, no list of good works, no sacraments to observe, no prayers or Bible verses to memorize, no Jewish laws to maintain… Just believe on (trust in) the Lord Jesus, i.e., on the work that He accomplished on the cross. This is the biblical answer to that most important question, and it reflects a teaching called “Sola Fide” (faith alone), that many (if not most) Protestants believe in. Of course, Catholics will strongly deny this teaching, and will insist that one is saved by faith PLUS WORKS, and not by “faith alone.”

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. As the Scripture says, it is by faith APART FROM WORKS (Romans 3:28). It doesn’t mean that you never do any good works, it just means that none of your works contribute to your salvation. Justification is a trusting, a changed attitude of the heart (repentance), a surrender toward God, not a work which deserves a reward. Justification is always seen as a GIFT in Scripture, not a reward. Attempting to achieve justification (even partially) through works only disqualifies a person from receiving it (Romans 4:4-5).

Secondly, we are not against Christians doing good works. We should be anxious to do good works, and should do them out of love and thankfulness. However, good works are not the cause of justification, but the result; they are not the root, but the fruit of our salvation; we don’t do good works to be saved, we do them because we are saved. We do get heavenly rewards for our works, but justification itself is purely a GIFT.

The Catholic View

But what is the stance of the Catholic Church on the role of works in the believer’s life? To their credit, the Catechism says that a person is justified by grace (CCC #1996), through faith in Jesus Christ (CCC #1987). So far, so good. But we need to note some other things, as well. Here are a few quotes from official Catholic sources:

“Of this justification the causes are these… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism…” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Decree on Justification, Chapter 7)

“From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners… indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people.” (Second Vatican Council, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences)

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation…” (CCC #1129)

“If anyone saith that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 24)

“If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation… Let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 4)

There is no doubt or mystery here. The Catholic Church is telling us plainly and openly that one’s works are the CAUSE of his salvation. According to these sources, we discover that a person is justified (at least partially) by good works, prayer, and sacraments (especially baptism). Faith plus works.

But if we are indeed justified by “faith plus works,” we must ask, “How many good works does it take to save someone? When does a person know that he has accumulated enough of them to make it to Heaven?” As for as anyone can tell, we don’t know.

But, there is another problem. According to the Bible, if we are going to follow the law (any law of works) to be saved, we had better follow it PERFECTLY:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for “The just shall live by faith.” And the law is not of faith: but, “The man that doeth them shall live in them.” (Galatians 3:10-12)

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (Galatians 5:3)

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)

If anyone is trusting in good works to be justified, then he must do them completely and perfectly. But it’s too late for that. Every one of us has already defiled his own “record,” since we have all sinned (Romans 3:23). God demands moral perfection, but there is only One Who is perfect and able to follow the Law flawlessly. There is only One Who was ever able to pay the debt for our sins… Jesus Christ. And He already paid this penalty 2000 years ago on the cross to make us eligible for Heaven, that is, IF we trust in that work alone.

This is one of the reasons that it is called “the gospel.” The Greek word for “gospel” means good news. It is good news because we don’t have to wonder and fret about whether we have done enough good deeds to make it into Heaven. This is a foretaste of that Christian “rest” that God has for us. (Hebrews 4:1-11)

Two Kinds of Righteousness

No one is “good enough” to be saved on his own. We all need the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Remember, there are two kinds of righteousness in Scripture:

1) Our Personal Righteousness

A. It is imperfect (I John 1:8)
B. It can grow (John 15:2,5; 2 Corinthians 9:10)
C. We all have unequal “amounts” of it (I Samuel 24:17)
D. It is part of our Sanctification (Philippians 2:12-13; Titus 3:5)
E. It is inherent (since the new birth) (I John 2:29)
F. It is a result of Salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10)

2) The Righteousness of Jesus Christ

A. It is absolutely perfect (Ephesians 5:27; 2 Corinthians 5:21)
B. It cannot grow (Hebrews 13:8)
C. We all have the same “amount” (Romans 5:18)
D. It is for our Justification (Romans 10:3)
E. It is imputed (from outside) (Romans 4:6, 11, 22-24)
F. It is the cause of Salvation (Romans 5:18-19)

The Christian possesses both. Number 1 above (what people see in us) is a direct result of Number 2 (what happens in our heart).

One final thing: The Catholic Church sees essentially no distinction between “sanctification” and “justification” (CCC #1989; CCC #2019), but the Bible shows that justification is a one-time event (Romans chap. 3, 4, and 5), while sanctification is a process which begins at the new birth, and continues throughout the life of the believer (2 Timothy 2:21). There are no human works to do in justification, rather our works are used by God during the process of sanctification, which is our time of growth. The two terms are closely related, but still distinct.

In Part 2, we will look at some Catholic arguments against Sola Fide and see if they are valid. Until then…

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

2009-12-27T20:09:00.000-08:00

“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #77; referencing “Dei Verbum,” a document of the Second Vatican Council)

One of the foundational claims of the Catholic Church is that of “Apostolic Succession,” which means that they (supposedly) possess an unbroken, uninterrupted, and lawful chain of legitimate successors (popes) from the Apostle Peter all the way down to the present pope, and this will last until the return of Jesus Christ. But is this claim true? Does such a continuous, lawful chain of popes really exist?

Much could be said about the incredible amount of corruption in the lives of some of the popes while in office. But rather than deal with the lives of popes after they got in office, the focus of this article will be on some of the actual methods which were used to obtain this office. Even if the office of “pope” were a valid and biblical one (and it is not), there is still a serious problem in the way that some popes acquired this position.

According to some church scholars / historians, a number of popes have obtained their positions 1) by buying their office [a form of simony], 2) through the working of influential prostitutes, or 3) by the use of force, even murdering the previous pope! These facts are validated by some eye-opening books (written by Catholics or former Catholics), which include Peter De Rosa’s “Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy”; “Lives of the Popes” by Richard P. McBrien; Former Catholic priest Joseph McCabe and his “A History of the Popes”; J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger’s “The Pope and the Council”; and “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,” by Malachi Martin.

Lest anyone say that these authors / scholars / historians were not good Catholics, or that they are not credible historians, we also provide the following quotes from these official Catholic sources…

1) Concerning Simony:

To uproot the evil of simony so prevalent during the Middle Ages, the Church decreed the severest penalties against its perpetrators. Pope Julius II declared simoniacal papal elections invalid, an enactment which has since been rescinded, however, by Pope Pius X. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, online, under “Simony.”)

“The worst period was from the ninth to the eleventh century when simony pervaded the monasteries, the lower clergy, the episcopacy, and even the papacy.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIII, page 228)

Pope Benedict IX and simony:

“He was a son of Alberic III, leader of the Tusculani, and he simoniacally succeeded his uncles, Benedict VIII and John XIX.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 274)

“Then on May 1 Benedict sold his papal office to his baptismal sponsor, the reforming archpriest John Gratian, Pope Gregory VI.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 275)

Benedict IX not only purchased his office, but he later sold it to another pope-to-be when he was finished with it. Remember, for every “transaction” in simony, there are two guilty popes, a “buyer” AND a “seller.”

In one of his papal documents, Pope John Paul II states that if simony occurs in the election of a pope, then those guilty will be excommunicated. But at the same time, he still honors the outcome of that election, so that the validity of the election of that pope “may not… be challenged.” (“Universi Dominici Gregis,” paragraph 78, Feb. 22, 1996)

May not be challenged? Why should the validity of any simony-induced election NOT be challenged? Doesn’t such an election COMPLETELY DISPROVE the idea of God-ordained “Apostolic Succession”? In his statement, Pope John Paul II was (unsuccessfully) attempting damage control in light of an embarrassing past (when simony was common among popes). So he rebukes those who commit simony (as he should), but he then declares that it’s really not a problem for the papacy. To the Catholic Church, such an election is still “official” because “Apostolic Succession” needs to remain intact at all costs, right? Is it just me, or does anyone else see the inconsistency here?

2) Concerning the prostitute Marozia, who was the mistress of Pope Sergius III, during the era commonly known as the “pornocracy” (Rule of the Harlots):

“She imprisoned Pope John X in Castel Sant’ Angelo, where he died in 928 either by assassination…or from other causes. In 931 she had her son, probably by Sergius III…elected to the papacy as Pope John XI.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. IX, page 253-54)

Concerning the prostitute Theodora (the mother of Marozia):

“Besides being personally avaricious, she – together with her family – exercised undue influence on Pope Sergius III and Pope John X, thus causing grave harm to the authority of the popes.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIV, page 15-16)

Here, influential prostitutes were able to place in office the pope of their choice, or put him in prison, if they so desired. Indeed, “grave harm” was done to the papacy, since this influence of prostitutes reveals to all of us the false nature of this claim of “Apostolic Succession.”

3) Concerning the papal office being taken by force:

In the beginning, the Bishop of Rome was elected by the local clergy and laity along with neighboring bishops. In time, this process came under the influence of secular leaders with negative results. Influencing papal elections, powerful lords and kings hoped to manipulate the office of the papacy in order to advance their temporal ambitions. (The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, page 653)

“From the fourth to the eleventh century the influence of temporal rulers in papal elections reached its zenith… This civil intervention ranged from the approval of elected candidates to the actual nomination of candidates (with tremendous pressure exerted on the electors to secure their acceptance), and even to the extreme of forcible deposition and imposition.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XI, page 572)

So, here we see heathen kings exerting their military might to forcibly depose (remove) and forcibly impose (put in office) the popes they wanted!

Should we consider any of this “lawful” or “legitimate” Apostolic Succession? Were these popes ordained by God? Anyone who obtains an ecclesiastical (church) office illegally, immorally, or violently has wrongfully acquired that position, and simply cannot be considered a legitimate holder of that office.

Would we tolerate any of this from those seeking a position in “non-religious” fields? Would you trust a medical doctor who purchased his degree? Or a schoolteacher who committed fornication to get his teaching position? Or how about a senator who took his office by force, or killed the previous senator to obtain that office? Of course, no honest institution would allow their people to obtain an office in such a way. Should we not expect far more from the “Vicar of Christ,” the (supposedly) highest ecclesiastical office of all? We rightfully demand moral accountability in the business, financial, political and medical fields, so why should a religious institution like the Catholic Church not likewise be morally accountable? There are definitely some illegitimate “links” in this “apostolic chain of successors.” But then again, all it takes is one “infected” link to make this Catholic claim (and the whole system) collapse.

Interestingly, the New Catholic Encyclopedia also states, “But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or antipopes.” (Volume I, page 632)
[Note: An antipope is one who makes an illegal or false claim to the office of pope.]

By this statement alone, they have refuted their own position on Apostolic Succession. If the Catholic Church can’t really know who was actually pope at any given time, then Apostolic Succession is a myth.

The words of John the Baptist come to mind: “And think not to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham to our father’; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9) John was condemning the unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees, who looked to some physical lineage all the way back to Abraham for their “righteousness.” But John was showing them that God is more concerned with a person’s heart than his lineage or ancestry. The same principle applies today. All true believers are successors of the apostles (Acts 2:42), not just certain leaders. We should look to the teachings of the apostles, as outlined in Scripture, not to a physical line of successors. It may sound good, but the Catholic concept of “Apostolic Succession” is simply an unbiblical, arrogant and false claim. And since it is a foundational claim of the Catholic Church, what will happen to this “house built upon the sand”? (Matthew 7:26-27)

DIALOGUE ON BIBLE INTERPRETATION

2009-12-17T14:17:00.000-08:00

[Catholics who deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”) will often do so because they believe that we can’t interpret the Scriptures apart from the authority of the Catholic Church. The following is a fictional dialogue, but it is based on numerous real encounters (personal, internet, and otherwise) between Catholics and Protestants. Catholic comments will be in blue, while the Sola Scriptura believer’s comments will be in black.]

That’s just YOUR interpretation. You Protestants only have your subjective (personal) interpretation of the Bible. But we need to be CERTAIN about Scripture interpretation, because the correct meaning is vitally important. Therefore, we need someone who is INFALLIBLE to interpret for us.

And who might that be?

The Church, of course.

Meaning…the Catholic Church, right?

That’s correct.

But how does one who is searching for the truth, first determine that the Catholic Church is really the true Church, the (supposedly) infallible source of truth?

Matthew 16:18-19 tells us that Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus builds His Church, and Peter is the visible head of that Church, and it will never let the gates of hell prevail. Also, the Catholic Church has power to bind and loose, and no other church does.

So, you’re telling me that my interpretation of Scripture is “subjective” and therefore, insufficient, so I must look to the Catholic Church to interpret for me, right? Yet, in order to recognize the Catholic Church as the “true” Church, I must go to Matthew 16 to find out… but (according to you) I can’t really be sure of my interpretation in the first place. You tell me that I can’t really understand it, yet you point me to that same Bible to verify your assertion. Am I understanding you correctly?

You Protestants misread Matthew 16. But it is obvious that Jesus established His Church here.

So, the meaning of Matthew 16 should be “obvious” to an outsider (non-Catholic) who is searching for truth?

We believe an honest person would see the same truth that we see when reading Matthew 16. It is very clear to anyone seeking the truth.

Again, that seems to be a contradiction. First, you say we CAN’T trust our interpretation of the Bible, but then you say that if we read a particular passage in the Bible (Matthew 16), it is obviously telling us who CAN interpret it. In other words, we need to interpret the Bible in order to understand that our interpretation of the Bible will be wrong? Is this what you are saying?

I’m saying that we need to be absolutely SURE that our interpretation is correct.

But, would you agree that it is POSSIBLE for a seeker, apart from the Catholic Church, to correctly interpret a particular passage?

Yes, it is possible, but we need CERTAINTY, not just “possibility”.

And the Catholic has that certainty?

Yes, because he depends on the infallible Church as the authentic interpreter.

So, when a person seeking the truth chooses to join the Catholic Church, is that a fallible choice?

Yes, we, as individuals, are fallible, but we know the Church is infallible.

And you determined this (the Church’s infallibility) by your FALLIBLE reading of Matthew 16? If your original decision to join that church was a FALLIBLE one, how can you boast of having infallible certainty now? Suppose you find out later that the Catholic Church is wrong?

We can be infallibly certain because the Catholic Church IS infallible, and she tells us that we are right – that we made the right choice.

Of course she tells you that you made the right choice! Would you expect her to tell you that you were WRONG to join her? In the same way, certain cults will tell you that their leaders are also infallible, and you made the right choice in joining THEM. So how do you test them? How do you know whether THEIR church is right or wrong?

Because we Catholics not only have Scripture, but we also have Sacred Tradition to help us in deciding these things.

And exactly what IS this Tradition?

In a nutshell, it is simply the teachings of the Church.

So, let me recap… you know that the Catholic Church has infallibility based on your fallible interpretation of Matthew 16, “supported” by the Church’s Sacred Tradition, which is simply based on its OWN teachings? In other words, you are saying, “The Church is infallible because that’s what it teaches!” Sounds pretty weak and circular to me. But suppose some Catholics disagree on the interpretation of Matthew 16. What then?

We have an ultimate human leader (the pope) who can settle all disputes, unlike Protestants with their many divisions. If an interpretation is needed, he can give an official and infallible one.

Then who “infallibly interprets” HIS interpretation if there are any misunderstandings / disagreements / divisions on what HE said? At some point, the “fallible” must meet the “Infallible,” and it is still the fallible individual who must ultimately determine what the “Infallible” has said, whether it is God, the Pope, the Council of Trent, or whoever.

We believe that once the Pope has spoken, it is understandable and clear enough for the individual who exercises humble obedience and common sense.

But that is exactly how the Protestant sees the interpretation of SCRIPTURE…using humility and common sense (along with basic hermeneutical principles, of course). If interpretation by humble obedience and common sense works in understanding the Pope, then why would it not work for Scripture?

But there are things in the Bible that are hard to understand. The Bible, itself, admits this (2 Peter 3:16). When people privately interpret, they end up twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction!

This passage only says that SOME things are hard to understand. But does that mean that we give up? Stop studying? Do we neglect our responsibility to “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) and turn the whole thing over to some (supposedly) infallible leader just because a certain passage is hard to understand? Of course not. We continue to prayerfully study and learn. Now, this doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from others, because we certainly can. We all need help interpreting now and then. But we have no biblical reason to believe in a single human leader (or organization) who MUST arbitrate for us. And by the way, 2 Peter 3:16 says nothing about an infallible human interpreter, although this would be an excellent place to mention it. Also, that passage in 2 Peter is speaking of the error of the “wicked” and unbelieving (verse 17), not the humble and prayerful person who is truly trying to find the will of God.

But the Protestant puts too much emphasis on the individual. There is too much risk here of private interpretation. The Bible also warns us against that (2 Peter 1:20).

But 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one’s READING of Scripture, but rather, the ORIGIN of Scripture. This passage is often taken out of context by Catholics, as you just did. It is saying that no prophecy was given to the prophet by HIS OWN interpretation, but was directly from God. It is NOT telling us that the common man can’t (or shouldn’t) interpret, nor is it saying that a particular organization (like the Catholic Church) must be the only authentic interpreter.

But the Bible also tells us that we must obey our leaders (Hebrews 13:17). THEY have the truth, and THEY have the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s why God put them there.

Does the person who happens to be in a church that teaches serious heresy have the responsibility to obey HIS leaders, too? It is true that we should obey our leaders WHO ARE BIBLICALLY SOUND, but how is one to know, if we cannot rightly divide the Word? God expects Church leaders to be “tested” and “evaluated” by their congregation to be sure that they are in line with Scripture, just as the Bereans tested the message of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:11).

As I said before, the Catholic Church is infallible, as Matthew 16 and other passages clearly indicate. There is no need for the individual to strain and travail with his private interpretations, because he may let his prejudice and presuppositions cloud the true interpretation. God established the Catholic Church and its leaders to take care of all that.

That is the problem with many Catholics. They operate on a false assumption. That is: Either 1) One must have an INFALLIBLE interpretation of Scripture, or 2) he will inevitably have a WRONG interpretation. To these Catholics, there seems to be no middle ground… but “infallible” and “wrong” are not the only possibilities. It is certainly possible to be fallible (as all of us are) and yet be RIGHT in one’s Bible interpretation.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Catholics often ask, “What use is an infallible book (the Bible), without an infallible interpreter (the Catholic Church)?” But this is like asking, “What use is an infallible God without an infallible human mind to understand Him?” But that’s ridiculous. He doesn’t expect us to understand Him infallibly. Infallibility is GOD’S domain. Only HE can have infallible certainty, but we humans can have sufficient certainty. So, all these Catholics who insist on “infallible certainty” are simply engaging in futility and unnecessary hype.

And one has to wonder, if infallible interpretations are so critical, then why are there only a tiny handful of Bible verses “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?

When we encourage each person to interpret Scripture, we do not mean that one can interpret it recklessly or just any way he feels like it. As mentioned above, there are basic hermeneutical principles involved, along with common sense. And it is important that one’s heart should be right, also (Luke 8:11-15). Many times, the problem is not hard Scripture, but hard hearts.

Catholics will often ask Protestants, “By what authority do you interpret Scripture?” But why should we need some special “authority” or “permission” to do something that God has already told us to do? He has already told us to “rightly divide” (interpret) His Word. This question is like asking, “By what authority do you obey the Commandments?” It has nothing to do with authority on our part. It’s simply something that God EXPECTS us to do.

Instead of telling me, “That’s just YOUR interpretation,” let’s look at the Scriptures together and exegete the relevant passages, and perhaps you can SHOW me where I am wrong in my interpretation. Let’s see which interpretation is most reasonable.

I just can’t see how a loving God would give us inspired revelation and not give the ability to understand it to those who need it most, the ones who Jesus favored…the common folk, the poor, the uneducated, and the lost… those who cried out to God. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”) does not mean that all Scripture is perfectly clear to everyone, or even equally clear to everyone, but we are ALL expected to interpret, at least to some degree. More than a dozen times in the New Testament we see the call, “WHOSOEVER has an ear, let him hear.” Anyone who “has an ear” is someone who is able to hear, interpret, and understand God’s message. The word “whosoever” is not restricted to church leaders.

Remember, Jesus, at a most critical time in His ministry, showed us how Scripture interprets Scripture. When He was tempted in the wilderness and the devil quoted Scripture to Him, Jesus didn’t say, “Oh, well, I guess I’ll have to appeal to Tradition now!” No, He went deeper into Scripture and said, “It is written AGAIN…” (Matthew 4:5-7)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Catholic Church boasts that she is the sole authentic interpreter of the Word of God (Catechism of the Catholic Church #100), yet she has provided us with many teachings that contradict the Bible. Therefore, saying that we need the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible for us is like saying that we need the fox to guard the henhouse. Eternal souls are too precious to be put into the hands of, and be dependent upon, an organization who makes such sweeping claims, but cannot deliver the goods.

The gospel message that God has given us is not complex or hard to interpret. It is simply this: To enter Heaven, we need to believe / trust in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and not in a Church, organization, pope, good works, or anything else. Let’s not complicate something so simple, yet so important. To be sure, we don’t need the Catholic Church to interpret this for us.

THE CHURCH FATHERS

2009-12-06T12:59:00.000-08:00

We stated in a previous post that the Catholic Church’s dependence on the church fathers to prove the truth of a particular teaching raises more questions than answers. For example, exactly which of the early Christians were considered to be church fathers? How do we know for sure? Does the Catholic Church have an infallible list of these? How do we know that we are correctly interpreting a certain father when we read his writings? If we can correctly interpret the fathers, shouldn’t we also be able to correctly interpret the Scriptures? Why is it that some of the fathers contradict each other? Why do they sometimes contradict the Catholic Church? And how do we know that the “heretics” were not the real fathers and the ones believed to be “fathers” weren’t the real heretics? Can the Catholic Church answer any of these questions without using circular reasoning (e.g., saying the fathers are right because the Church says so, and the Church is right because the fathers say so)?

Although Catholics are quick to use the fathers as authoritative sources, someone may find it difficult to find an “official” statement by the Catholic Church that clearly defines exactly who the fathers are, and precisely what type of authority they hold. But it seems, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) that the teachings of the fathers somehow tie in closely with Sacred Tradition (CCC #78; CCC #688). In fact, the fathers of the Church are said to be one of the “principal sources” in the creation of the Catholic Catechism (CCC #11). With this in mind, we must ask, “Are all the fathers’ teachings correct?” How do we know (again, without using circular reasoning)? The answer is simple…we compare their teachings with the Bible.

The Pope Has Spoken

But, according to a papal encyclical by Pope Pius XII, it is wrong to “judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.” (“Humani Generis”, paragraph 22, August 12, 1950.)

In other words, according to the Catholic Church, we are not allowed to judge the teachings of the church fathers in light of Scripture without the “mind of the Church.” But the “mind” of the Catholic Church clearly contradicts the Scriptures in many of its teachings, so its claim of being the “guardian and interpreter” of the “whole deposit” of truth is an empty and deceitful boast.

The Test

The Bible commands us to TEST ALL THINGS (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1), which would include the fathers, and we test them with the Scriptures, just as Jesus did (Matthew 15:1-9). No one’s teachings are exempt from this test, whether it’s the Catholic Church, a Protestant church, any church father, or any individual or group. We are all subject to God’s ultimate authority, the Scriptures, which will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). Even the teachings of the APOSTLES were to be tested (Acts 17:11), as well as those who claimed to be apostles (Revelation 2:2). And if we can test an angel from Heaven (Galatians 1:8-9), we can certainly test the church fathers.

What If…?

But, just for the sake of argument, what if there were a perfectly unanimous agreement between all the fathers on all their teachings and Scripture interpretations? Would even this prove that the fathers’ teachings are true? The answer is still no. It’s not the level of unity on a doctrine that proves its truthfulness, but it’s whether it lines up with God’s revelation…the Scriptures.

To demonstrate the point, what if every single father firmly believed in a particular false teaching? Would that kind of unity make the teaching true? Of course not. Someone may answer, “But God wouldn’t have let them believe in it if it were false.” But this answer is just an unprovable assumption.

Apostasy in the Early Church

Can we always trust the fathers? Is it possible that even a church father could fall into error or apostasy? Yes, indeed. Note that apostasy, in one form or another, has entered the church from earliest times. Although not a complete apostasy, it was nevertheless present in different degrees and in different places early on, even in the days of the apostles. Note what the Apostle Paul said to the Ephesian elders:

28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock.

30) Also OF YOUR OWN SELVES shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

Paul also dealt with the errors of the Judaizers in the early church era, in his epistle to the Galatians, and he dealt with Gnosticism in his epistle to the Colossians.

The Apostle John also had to deal with the false teachings of the Gnostics in the epistle of I John. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus pointed out, through John, the false teachings within two of the seven churches of Asia that needed to be dealt with. (Revelation 2:14-15, 20)

Now, this does NOT mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed over the church (Matthew 16:18), but only that some had fallen prey to false doctrine. So, there was no guarantee that a father would automatically be right. One’s position or ecclesiastical (church) office does not make his message true. His faithfulness to God’s Truth does. (John 17:17)

“Closer-in-Time” Proves Truth?

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SURELY THE FATHERS WERE IN A BETTER POSITION TO KNOW WHAT THE APOSTLES REALLY MEANT, THAN WE ARE TODAY. THEY WERE MUCH CLOSER IN TIME TO THE APOSTLES, AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS LESS CHANCE THAT THE MESSAGE WAS CORRUPTED.

Being “closer” to the time of the apostles does not necessarily mean the fathers’ teachings had to be true. Just as the apostles sometimes had problems understanding Jesus, Himself, the students of the apostles no doubt also sometimes had trouble understanding the apostles. And so on, down the line. Error can, and did, creep into the church and led to more and more false teaching. But, if “closer-in-time” proves a teaching is true, then why did heretics exist during the time of the apostles? And if “farther-in-time” weakens the truth, then wouldn’t it be pretty hopeless for us today, since we are so far removed from the time of Jesus and the apostles? How could we know any truth today? Perhaps the likelihood of being correct in those days was greater, but proximity in time does not guarantee truth. The fact is, there was both truth AND error in their day, just as it is now. We don’t have living, infallible apostles today to keep us on track, but we do have infallible Scripture.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT THE FATHERS BELIEVED IN CATHOLIC DOCTRINES, LIKE THE EUCHARIST, INFANT BAPTISM, PENANCE, THE PRIESTHOOD, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, ETC., AND SOME OF THESE MEN WERE TAUGHT BY ACTUAL APOSTLES! SO THESE TEACHINGS HAD TO BE TRUE.

This does not necessarily follow. The New Testament speaks of men who were probably directly taught by apostles, yet were teaching false doctrine, like Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Worse yet, no doubt some had even stood in the very presence of Jesus Christ and claimed to be His disciples, and yet, misunderstood or misconstrued what He taught, and then went out and taught heresy. So, being in a line of students directly up to the apostles does not prove one’s doctrine. The Pharisees claimed a pedigree (lineage) from Abraham, but they didn’t do Abraham’s works or teach what Abraham taught (Matthew 3:7-9; Mark 7:6-8; John 8:39). Remember, these Pharisees were Jewish leaders to whom the oracles of God had been entrusted (Romans 3:2), just as the apostles had also been entrusted with the oracles of God. But this did not eliminate the possibility of error, abuse, or misunderstanding (even shortly) down the line. Once again, the teachings of the students of the apostles were true and accurate only in relation to their faithfulness to God’s Word.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOUR PROTESTANT ARGUMENTS ARE MERELY A “JOHNNY-COME-LATELY” THEOLOGY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS AND HAS ALWAYS TRUSTED THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS. SO, WHO ARE YOU GUYS TO GO AGAINST THIS VENERABLE INSTITUTION WITH YOUR NOVEL IDEAS?

First of all, we’re not saying that the teachings of the fathers are never to be trusted…they just all need to be tested before they’re accepted.

Secondly, longevity does not prove truth. Just because the Catholic Church has been around a long time doesn’t mean they’re right. The Hindus have been around for about five thousand years (more than twice as long as Christianity), but I don’t think that any reputable Catholic would say that the Hindus have more truth than Christianity does.

Thirdly, there is an extraordinary assumption in the above claim: that the modern day Catholic Church is the same church that existed in the first century, i.e., the church we find in the Bible. But how can the Catholic Church be that same one when many of its teachings are not found in the Bible, and oftentimes even contradict the Bible?

It’s easy to say, “Yeah, that was US back then, and we’re still here, doing and teaching the same things as then!” But the proof of the true church is in its faithfulness to Scripture. Catholics like to say, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” But if someone wants to see the historical church, the church of the Bible, and what THEY taught, why look so much to the fathers in the fourth, third, or second century, as many Catholics do? Why not go all the way back in history to the Author of Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself, i.e., to Him Whose words were infallible? What someone else SAID He taught does not override our responsibility to go directly to His Words in Scripture to see what He actually did teach.

Conclusion

The Pharisees and scribes were sharply rebuked by the Lord Jesus when they put their man-made traditions above God’s Word. And just as the Pharisees put too much trust in their “tradition of the elders” (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3), so do Catholics today when they look to the church fathers. Let us never embrace the words of the church fathers at the neglect of the words of the Heavenly Father. (Matthew 6:26)

Please understand, we are in no way attempting to belittle the church fathers. They had good and valuable insight, their teachings were useful and informative, and they were important to the church. But we are trying to avoid the over-emphasis of their importance. Some of them were more important than others, and they had different levels of authority and recognition. But the fathers were human, just like you and me. They sometimes disagreed with each other, contradicted each other, changed their minds on certain things, and sometimes even fell into heresy.

Were the church fathers great men of God? We believe that most of them probably were. Were they good role models? Again, we believe that probably the majority of them were good Christian examples. But the real question is, “Were their teachings INFALLIBLE?” And the answer is no. Therefore, let us hold on to that which IS God-breathed and infallible, God’s Word, the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and let us use that as our Standard to test every teaching that comes our way.

THE EUCHARIST (Part 2)

2009-11-01T21:03:00.000-08:00

In Part 1, we demonstrated that the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper / Communion service are symbols, or signs, of the work that Jesus Christ did on the cross, but the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine miraculously change into the actual, literal body, blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus. We dealt with several Catholic arguments for this and found them lacking. This is a very extraordinary claim, and if one is going to make such a claim, he should likewise have extraordinary proof for it. But the Catholic Church doesn’t. They will attempt to use Scripture to prove the Eucharist, but it’s just not there. So, let us now look at more Catholic claims and see whether these will line up with Scripture.

John 6 (Once More)

CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE LANGUAGE THAT JESUS USED IN THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF JOHN CONCERNING “EATING HIS FLESH” AND “DRINKING HIS BLOOD” IS FORCEFUL AND VIVID, AND THEREFORE, VERY LITERAL.

Perhaps, by “forceful,” the Catholic means it was repeated again and again. But the “repetition argument” was already covered in Part 1. As for as “vivid” language, if one takes a look at the book of Revelation (which is, interestingly enough, also written by John) he would see some very “vivid” language used there also, and very much of it is undeniably symbolic. So this Catholic argument that “vivid means literal” is another one that fails.

There are some in both Protestant and Catholic circles who will often go to great lengths in dissecting the meaning of certain words in John 6. Now, we are not against word studies to improve our understanding of the Scriptures, but rather than trying to nit-pick to death individual words, we should allow the CONTEXT to be the main focus in determining the meaning of this (or any) passage. And, as demonstrated in Part 1, the context of John 6 strongly suggests the symbolism of the bread and wine.

The Last Supper

Here is another reason that Jesus’ words, “This is My body…This is My blood” cannot be taken literally. The Bible gives us four accounts of the Lord’s Supper: Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and I Corinthians 11:23-25. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus does indeed say, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” However, in the other two accounts, we see Jesus saying of the bread, “This is My body…”, but of the wine, He says, “This cup [wine] is the new testament in My blood…”. Now, right away the Catholic has a problem. If Jesus meant, “This bread is LITERALLY My body,” then He also had to mean, “This wine is LITERALLY a testament (covenant).”

But the wine is obviously not a literal covenant. A covenant is an intangible thing. It is not something you can hold in your hand. It is an agreement, a contract, a promise or vow. The wine itself is NOT a covenant… it is a SYMBOL of the New Covenant. The only way that these passages would make sense when compared to Matthew and Mark is if both the bread and the wine are symbolic in all four accounts.

Remember, just as God called Abraham’s circumcision (which was a SYMBOL) a “covenant” (Genesis 17:10-11), so does Jesus call the SYMBOL of the bread and wine, a “covenant” (Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25).

Indeed a Sign

It seems that some Catholics avoid any mention of symbolism toward the elements as they would avoid the plague. But there are some Catholics who will admit that the bread and wine have at least SOME “symbolic value.” Please note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Eucharist IS a sign (CCC # 1333-1336).

Furthermore, the Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments of the Church, and the very definition of “sacrament” tells us it is a symbol: “Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace…” (Online “New Advent Encyclopedia”). [See also CCC #1145-1152] So, no true Catholic can deny that the bread and the wine are signs, or symbols.

Now, what the Catholic will do at this point is to insist that the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is much more. They’ll say that it can be both a symbol and its reality at the same time, because Jesus is present “sacramentally.” Of course, this is all a great “mystery” (CCC #1336), and it is at this point that the Catholic arguments must necessarily degenerate into the “mystical” realm. According to one encyclical (official papal statement) of Pope Paul VI, this mystery of the Eucharist "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith, which rests upon divine authority” (Mysterium Fidei, paragraph 18). How interesting. But this type of argument could be used to support almost any “mysterious” concept (whether true or false) as long as they claim it rests upon “divine authority.” This is a cop-out and does nothing to help the credibility of the Catholic Church, but rather weakens it.

Miracle?

CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE CHANGE (TRANSUBSTANTIATION) THAT OCCURS IN THE BREAD AND WINE DURING THE MASS IS A SPECIAL MIRACLE. THE BREAD AND WINE MIRACULOUSLY CHANGE INTO THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS, BUT ARE UNDER THE APPEARANCE OF REMAINING BREAD AND WINE.

Although Catholics claim a “special” miracle in the Eucharist, the miracles we see in Scripture were very different from this. They were VERIFIABLE and OBSERVABLE. What if Jesus' miracles were like the "miracle" of the Eucharist? What if Jesus said, "I am raising Lazarus from the dead, but ‘under the appearance’ of him remaining in the grave"? Or, "I am walking on water, but ‘under the appearance’ of swimming"? Or, how about, "I am healing the sick, but ‘under the appearance’ of them remaining diseased"? That would be nothing less than a cruel hoax, wouldn't it? But how is the consecration of the Eucharist any different than these scenarios? If the Catholic Church wants credibility in its claims, then its “Eucharistic miracle” needs to parallel the miracles in the Bible.

Catholics will no doubt point to certain occurrences of “bleeding hosts” which have been reported at different times and places in Italy. They insist that this proves that it is a miracle. But if the Eucharist is a true miracle, then it will be verifiable EACH AND EVERY TIME the bread and wine are consecrated. But this is certainly not the case.

The Eucharist equals Calvary?

CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE EUCHARIST IN THE CATHOLIC MASS AND THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY (i.e., THE EVENT OF JESUS SUFFERING ON THE CROSS) ARE “ONE AND THE SAME” (CCC #1367). WHEN THE PRIEST CONSECRATES THE HOST, CALVARY IS “RE-PRESENTED” OR “MADE PRESENT” (CCC #1366).

Calvary is a historical event, which is no more physically “made present” at the Mass than the death of every Egyptian first-born son was physically “made present” every time the Old Testament Jews celebrated the Passover. It is absurd to think that a past historical event would be physically “made present.” To claim that this event is made present in a “sacramental” sense (as some say) is simply begging the question. There is no such thing in Scripture. But you could rightly say that it is “made present” MENTALLY, i.e., in remembering His work on the cross. After all, the Communion service IS a memorial, and Jesus did say, “This do in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19)

Is it Really a Sacrifice?

CATHOLIC CLAIM – THE EUCHARIST IS A HOLY SACRIFICE (CCC #1330), RE-PRESENTED FOR THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND (CCC #1846). THIS SACRIFICE IS TRULY PROPITIATORY [i.e., ATONES FOR SIN]. (CCC #1367)

They call it a sacrifice, but Who is it that is able to offer this sacrifice (which is supposedly the same as Calvary)? The work that Jesus did on the cross is the perfect sacrifice offered ONLY by the perfect Person, the Son of God. The Catholic Catechism claims that both the priest and the Church “offer” Jesus as a sacrifice (CCC #1350; #1354; #1369). But the truth is, no other person, no priest, no church is even ABLE to “offer Him to God” as a sacrifice. Christ alone has offered it. Nor does Jesus offer it “through priests” (as the Catechism also claims - CCC #1367). Jesus is not mankind’s offering to God, but rather, JESUS OFFERED HIMSELF to God as a sacrifice on behalf of mankind (Hebrews 7:27; 9:14). There’s a big difference.

And to whom must this sacrifice be “re-presented?” To God? No, because Jesus presented Himself as a sacrifice to God ONCE FOR ALL (Hebrews 10:10). Please read it again… “ONCE…FOR…ALL.” He does not NEED to be “re-presented” to God, nor CAN He be. Why the need to “re-present” the payment for a debt that has been paid? While souls are hanging in the balance, the Catholic Church is playing word games and inventing special terminology, in an attempt to justify its twisting of the gospel. This “RE-presenting” concept is a dangerous and unbiblical idea which only blurs and complicates the simple message of the gospel, and it attempts to give a power to the priest that few have ever dared to dream of.

According to at least two encyclicals by two different popes, Jesus Christ supposedly “daily offers Himself” to the Father (Pope Pius XII, “Mediator Dei”, Section 73, November 20, 1947 and Pope Leo XIII, “Caritatis Studium”, Section 9, July 25, 1898). But as we just mentioned, the Bible tells us that Jesus offered Himself only ONCE, not “daily” (Hebrews 9:28). There is an obvious contradiction here, so which is it? Are we going to believe the popes on this matter… or the Bible? And just for the record, the Bible never views the bread and wine of the Communion service as a “sacrifice” at all, but rather, as elements that POINT TO His one, perfect sacrifice at Calvary.

Furthermore, if the Eucharist is the sacrifice that the Catholic Church claims it is, then why don't we see it in the book of Hebrews, since that book speaks more of sacrifices than any other New Testament book? But what we DO see in that same book is that there is NO MORE offering (sacrifice) for sin (Hebrews 10:18). This is the gaping hole in Catholic theology. Jesus paid the full penalty for our sins, once for all. There is absolutely no biblical need to “re-present” that sacrifice. According to Scripture, we get the benefits of Calvary through BELIEVING in it, not by “RE-presenting” it. (John 3:16)

Consequently, there is no more need for a ministerial priesthood, either, as there was in the Old Testament. The veil separating us from God is torn (Matthew 27:51) and now ALL believers have access to the throne room without the aid of a priest or a daily sacrifice (Hebrews 10:18-19).

God is Able

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT DON’T YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ABLE TO TURN COMMON BREAD AND WINE INTO HIS BODY AND BLOOD? ISN’T HE CAPABLE OF SUCH A THING, SINCE HE CREATED THIS WHOLE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT?

Of course He is able. But that’s not the point. This whole thing is not about God’s ability (which we have never questioned). The issue is not, “CAN God do it,” but it is, “DID He do it?” And we find this out by looking to His own Word, the Bible. But a miracle with no proof is foreign to the Scriptures.

Where’s Your Faith?

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IT MAY BE HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT IT BY FAITH, AND NOT BE GUILTY OF UNBELIEF. YOU NEED TO TRUST THE CHURCH AND KNOW THAT THE EUCHARIST REQUIRES A SPECIAL FAITH.

No, an unbiblical faith is what we are being asked to embrace. We don’t reject the Eucharist because it is “hard to believe,” we reject it because there is no support for this doctrine in the Scriptures.

Conclusion

We have examined some extraordinary Catholic claims concerning the Eucharist, and all of these Catholic arguments have fallen short. My heart goes out to you, my Catholic friends, and I pray that you would realize that you have been deceived. Please don’t trust in a “personal experience” that you may have had with the Eucharist, like many Catholics do. Experiences are very subjective, even “supernatural” ones. Look to the testimony of Scripture and ask God, prayerfully and humbly, to show you the truth.

Please notice that there are absolutely no examples in the Old Testament of any man-made objects (like bread or wine) that “changed into God” or were worshipped by God’s people (with God’s approval). We don’t have a precedent for that, but we can sure find verses where God sternly warns His people (repeatedly) to avoid idolatry. That is abundantly clear. The New Testament also commands us to FLEE from this sin (I Corinthians 10:14), but so many Catholics take much too lightly the many biblical warnings. As we said before, if this Eucharist is not really Jesus, then Catholics are guilty of the sin of idolatry. In view of the evidence presented against it, are you still willing to risk your soul and bow down to the Eucharist?

Of course, the Lord’s Supper / Communion service is important, but it IS a ritual, just as the Passover was. The Passover pointed FORWARD to the cross and the Communion service points BACKWARD to that same event. But a religious ritual like Communion is not an end in itself, nor is it the fulfillment of what it points to. The fulfillment of the Lord’s Supper is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. Remember, the bread and wine don’t save us… they are simply symbols that commemorate and point to that Person and event that DOES save us.

The Eucharist (Part 1)

2009-10-01T21:12:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Today we will do something different and take on a new topic, namely the Lord’s Supper, from a Catholic point of view. Most Protestants that I know view the Lord’s Supper (or Communion) as a solemn ritual, a symbolic yet profound commemoration, or reminder, of the saving work that Jesus Christ did on the cross.

But to the Catholic, it is much more. The Catholic version of the biblical communion service is the celebration of the Eucharist, and the Catholic Church celebrates it daily in its Mass (church service). To the Catholic, the Eucharist (bread and wine) is considered a sacrifice, and is the ACTUAL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], paragraph #1374). They believe that when the priest consecrates these two elements, that the bread miraculously changes into Jesus’ literal, physical body, and the wine into His literal, physical blood. They call this “transubstantiation,” which means the appearance of the elements remains the same, but the actual substance or essence is (supposedly) changed. And because they believe that the bread and wine are now actually JESUS, HIMSELF, then these two elements are worthy to be worshipped (CCC #1378).

Having said that, I don’t see how anyone, Catholic or otherwise, can be indifferent, apathetic, or “neutral” on this issue. Can anyone say, “Well, I like it, but that’s just me,” or, “Yeah, it’s OK, but I can do without it,” or, “It’s no big deal,” or “It may be OK for you, but I don’t have to do it”…? If it is indeed the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ, if it is really HIM, then we should ALL be eagerly lining up to worship this bread and wine (Eucharist). But if these are NOT actually Jesus… then it is, by definition, idolatry.

Folks, we need to understand the seriousness of this contrast. I repeat, it is either Jesus Christ, Himself…or it is not Jesus at all. There is no middle ground here. The Eucharist is either a very good thing… or a very bad thing. It cannot be “kind of good,” or “kind of bad.” Either it is acceptable and wonderful worship of the Savior… or it is an abominable and disgusting act of idolatry. That’s why I say that we cannot be indifferent on this topic.

Remember, the Eucharist is one of THE central teachings in the Catholic Church, and is considered “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC #1324). Since it is a very extraordinary claim, Catholics need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Eucharist is what they say it is. The stakes are high, so let us examine the Catholic arguments and see if they hold water.

Literal or Symbolic?

CATHOLIC CLAIM – JESUS SAID IN JOHN CHAPTER 6, “WHOEVER EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE.” HE COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF THE EUCHARIST, AND WAS THEREFORE SPEAKING LITERALLY.

There are several reasons to believe that Jesus was NOT speaking literally in John chapter 6. First, we need to ask, to whom was Jesus speaking? He was speaking to the multitudes (the people), v. 22 and 24. But whenever He spoke to the multitudes, He spoke to them in parables (figurative language). This was the NORM:

Matthew 13:10-11 - And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:34 - "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them"

Mark 4:11 - And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Mark 4:34 - But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

If this is true, then we have strong evidence that He was NOT speaking to this multitude literally, but metaphorically, or symbolically.

Secondly, right in the middle of this very same sermon, we see symbolic language used (John 6:35):

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Are we to believe that whoever came to Jesus and believed on Him would never physically hunger or thirst again? Of course not. Jesus was simply using an analogy and comparing one's coming to Him with "hunger", and one's believing on Him with "thirst." Obviously figurative language. Starting with verse 26, Jesus is contrasting the physical with the spiritual, and He uses symbolic language to do it.

Thirdly, notice that the author of this gospel (John) records many of the symbolic remarks of Jesus. For example, of the four gospels, only in John are these terms used by Jesus: “born again,” “living water,” “meat that ye know not of,” “destroy this temple,” and the “I am” sayings (see below). Therefore, we have good reason to believe that Jesus was speaking symbolically in John chapter 6.

No Pampering for the Non-Committed

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SINCE HIS DISCIPLES WALKED AWAY FROM HIM (John 6:66) WHEN HE SAID, “EAT MY FLESH” AND “DRINK MY BLOOD,” HE HAD TO BE SPEAKING LITERALLY. JESUS WAS A GOOD TEACHER AND ANY GOOD TEACHER, IF SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY, WOULD NOT HAVE LET THEM WALK AWAY. HE WOULD HAVE SAID, “HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, COME BACK… I WAS ONLY USING SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE!”

No, Jesus was not obligated to chase after these false "followers" and beg them to come back. They didn't have the commitment or trust to stick with Him, thus proving that they were not true believers. His job is not to "baby" or pacify those who reject His teachings. Like we said earlier, the norm is that He would only explain things privately to His own disciples, not to the crowds publicly. If the Catholic wants to say that John 6 is NOT the norm, then the burden is on him to prove that.

Repetition

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN CHAPTER 6 OF JOHN, WE FIND, NOT JUST ONCE, BUT SEVERAL TIMES, JESUS SAYING THAT WE MUST “EAT HIS FLESH” AND “DRINK HIS BLOOD”. THIS REPETITION INTENSIFIES HIS STATEMENT AND LETS US KNOW THAT HE MEANT IT LITERALLY.

No, not at all. THIRTY times in the New Testament, Jesus is presented as the “Lamb of God,” or “the Lamb.” If repetition proves that something is literal, then He must be a literal, physical lamb. But everyone knows that this is symbolic language. So, this Catholic argument doesn’t work, either.

Dangerous Symbols?

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IF YOU DESTROY A STATUE OR PHOTOGRAPH OF SOMEONE, YOU WOULD NOT BE GUILTY OF HARMING THAT PERSON, SINCE STATUES AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ONLY SYMBOLS. I CORINTHIANS 11:27-29 SAYS THAT WE CAN BE GUILTY OF PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD DURING COMMUNION AND THUS, SUFFER CONDEMNATION. SO, HOW COULD PROFANING A MERE SYMBOL CAUSE SOMEONE TO BE CONDEMNED?

One can indeed, suffer condemnation because of a “mere symbol.” Consider this:

Genesis 17:10 - This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

What if the Old Testament Jews despised, or somehow profaned, their God-given sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-11)? Would they have escaped judgment for this? Circumcision was their very identity (physically) as God's people. Would God have said, "Oh, well, that's OK, since it's just a symbol"? No, God would have cut them off from the very covenant they despised. To despise the sign / symbol of the covenant (circumcision) is to despise the One with Whom the covenant is made. In the same way, to despise or profane the symbols of the bread and wine of the New Covenant is to despise the One to Whom the elements point, i.e., Jesus and His work on the cross.

Context, Context, Context

SYMBOLICALLY SPEAKING, EATING FLESH AND DRINKING BLOOD WAS ALWAYS USED IN A NEGATIVE WAY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT (PSALM 27:2; ISAIAH 9:20; 49:26; MICAH 3:3; 2 SAMUEL 23:17), AS IN DESTROYING, REVILING OR ASSAULTING AN ENEMY. SINCE THAT IS THE SYMBOLIC MEANING, WOULDN’T JESUS’ WORDS IN JOHN 6 MEAN, “HE WHO REVILES OR ASSAULTS ME HAS ETERNAL LIFE”? THIS, OF COURSE, IS ABSURD. IT MAKES FAR MORE SENSE IF LITERAL.

These terms were indeed used in that way in some Old Testament passages. But this argument is assuming that there can only be one symbolic interpretation possible for phrases that are similar. Jesus sets the context for us in John 6 and it is certainly not the same context as those Old Testament verses mentioned. Those contexts were about war, mistreatment, judgment and punishment, NONE of which have to do with Jesus’ meaning here. To limit the meaning of Jesus’ words to “destroying, reviling, or assaulting” as the only possible symbolism, is to utterly ignore the overall context, as well as to ignore the very symbolism used within it.

So, what DID Jesus really mean when He said to “eat My flesh” and “drink My blood” if He wasn’t referring to the Eucharist? He was referring to His work on the cross, where His body would be “broken” (like bread) and His blood would be “poured out” (like wine). In this context, to “eat” and “drink” (spiritually and symbolically) means to PARTAKE OF, to ACCEPT, to BELIEVE, to TRUST IN His work at Calvary.

He Didn’t Say…

CATHOLIC CLAIM – DURING THE LORD’S SUPPER, JESUS NEVER SAID, “PRETEND THAT THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD,” AND HE DIDN’T SAY, “THIS IS LIKE MY BODY AND BLOOD.” HE SAID, “THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD.” THIS PROVES HE WAS BEING LITERAL.

He also said, "I AM the vine..." (John 15:5), "I AM the light of the world..." (John 8:12), "I AM the good Shepherd..." (John 10:11), and "I AM the door..." (John 10:7). Does anyone think that any of these statements were meant physically and literally? Hardly. He didn't say, "PRETEND that I am the vine," etc., in these contexts either. But how are any of these statements any different from, "I AM the Bread of Life..." (John 6:35)? The point is, they’re not any different…they’re all symbolic.

By the way, if Catholics want to be specific about which words were NOT used at the Last Supper, it can be pointed out that neither did He use the words “miracle,” “changed,” “soul and divinity,” “real presence,” “to make present,” “RE-presented,” or “merits grace.” He doesn’t call the bread or wine a “propitiation” or a “sacrament,” much less a “sacrament of redemption.” And He mentions nothing of a “priesthood.” The Catholic Church connects ALL of these with the Eucharistic Mass, but the biblical accounts of the Last Supper mention NONE of these. Many extraordinary claims, but no proof.

Unanimous Consent?

CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE WHAT PROTESTANTS SAY WHEN ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS WERE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR BELIEF ABOUT THE EUCHARIST? EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER BELIEVED AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IT TODAY. NONE OF THEM, BEFORE THE REFORMATION, EVER BELIEVED THAT THE EUCHARIST WAS ONLY SYMBOLIC.

This is certainly debatable, and a number of Protestant apologists have dealt with this topic already (quite successfully, I believe). I will leave the specific views of each church father to those more qualified to debate that. However, my point here is simply this: Depending on the church fathers to prove the truth of a particular doctrine is risky and it raises more questions than it answers.

The fact is that the church fathers, however wise and respected, were not infallible. Their writings are useful and informative, but they had faults just like you and me. They too, needed to “study to show themselves approved.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

But even if they WOULD HAVE unanimously agreed on the Eucharist (and I certainly do not believe this is the case), this still would not prove the argument. Majority vote does not prove truth. As the Scripture says, “…let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Romans 3:4)

The question is, can this Catholic doctrine be found within the pages of the ultimate Standard, God’s Word? If no, then why WOULD it not be found in the Bible, since the Eucharist is such an IMPORTANT teaching of the Catholic Church? If yes, then please show it to us. So far, this extraordinary claim has not been proven at all.

Pillar and Ground of the Truth

2009-09-10T20:23:00.000-07:00

Catholic Claim – We can’t go by “the Bible Alone,” because the Bible itself, in I Timothy 3:15, calls the Church (and not the Bible) the “Pillar and Ground of the Truth.” So, we need the Church also.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Tim. 3:15)

Catholics seem to believe that this verse somehow suggests infallibility for the church, making the church equal with Scripture, and thus disproving the concept of Sola Scriptura. But this is simply wishful thinking on their part. Now, I am not saying that we don’t need the church. The church is established by God and it certainly has its place. But if you look at the context of I Timothy 3, Paul is describing the RESPONSIBILITIES and OBLIGATIONS of church leaders. He is speaking of the EXPECTATIONS of the church (…that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself). He is not speaking of privileges and special powers. He is not saying, “Hey Timothy, just kick back and relax, and bask in your infallibility, since we never have to worry about teaching false doctrine.” No, there is absolutely nothing in this context to suggest infallibility, nor is there any guarantee of being exempt from error. But again, he IS speaking of the duty and responsibility of those in the church (especially leaders) to preach, proclaim, and share the Truth.

Yes, the church is a “pillar,” but remember, a pillar is a support which holds something ELSE up. If a person sees the pillars / supports on your porch or balcony, and he says, “Hey, these are a nice roof.” You would think he is pretty naive and would tell him that these are not the roof, itself, but rather, they are SUPPORTS which hold up the roof. In the same way, the responsibility / obligation of the church is to “hold up,” “proclaim,” and “support” the truth. The church itself is not the Truth, but is called to be the support (pillar) of it. Scripture is that standard, that Truth, which the church is obligated to hold up (John 17:17).

Another problem with this Catholic argument is that if this verse is indeed saying that the “church” is infallible, it is proving too much. A “house” / “household” is not just composed of leaders, but of subordinates, as well. If the church is the household of God, and the church is infallible, then the whole household is infallible. But I don’t think that Catholics would want to say that. And neither would I. So, for more than one reason, this is another Catholic argument that doesn’t wash, and it certainly does not disprove Sola Scriptura.

In His Name,
Russell

Welcome

2009-08-20T05:42:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Answering Catholic Claims. This blog exists to share Truth with both Catholics and non-Catholics, alike. It is not intended to make fun of, harass, or humiliate Catholics. I just want to give Catholics some food for thought. I want them to consider the claims of the Catholic Church and to compare those claims with the words of Scripture. The purpose of this blog is mainly to confront certain arguments put forth by Catholics on a variety of issues, and to demonstrate that these arguments are weak, invalid, unbiblical, or they contradict Scripture. For the record, I will point out that the Catholic Church does have some truth in some of its teachings, but it falls far short of having the “fullness of truth” that it so often claims to have. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. With that in mind, let us begin to evaluate some of these claims.

FINAL AUTHORITY

The first topic (and one of the most foundational ones) that we will discuss is the issue of authority. Catholics look to a combination of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium as their final authority, while most Protestants believe in “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible Alone). But what do Catholics think of Sola Scriptura? This concept is very often misunderstood and misrepresented by most Catholics (and some Protestants, as well). When we say “Bible Alone,” we do not mean that we cannot use other sources of information to help us along in our Christian walk. Neither does it mean that the Bible contains every bit of spiritual information that exists. It is not an exhaustive encyclopedia containing every word that God, the Father, or Jesus Christ, the Son, has ever spoken, nor does it tell us of every single event in Church history. Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are no other authorities, or that the writings of the church fathers are useless. It does not mean that all tradition is bad, or that the Holy Spirit cannot deal with our hearts by other means, as well. It also does not mean that something has to be specifically mentioned in the Bible to be true, or that a person can wrecklessly interpret the Bible any way he wants to.

Ok, so what does Sola Scriptura mean then? Here is a simple definition:

It means that the Bible is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the
church today.

That’s it. It is a simple concept. The Scriptures are therefore the ultimate authority for the Christian, since there is nothing above, or equal to, their authority. All other sources, teachings, tradition, “revelation,” etc., are subject to this ultimate authority. We must test all of these and determine if they line up with God’s Word (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1; Matthew 15:1-9; Acts 17:11). If any teaching does not line up with the Scriptures, it cannot be binding on the Christian.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A SELF-REFUTING CONCEPT, SINCE IT IS NOT BIBLICAL, THAT IS, IT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE

Let us now turn to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. There we find the apostle Paul telling Timothy:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [NASB]

This passage, to me, seems to be pretty simple and straightforward, but there are a number of Catholic objections to this verse, as to whether it proves Sola Scriptura, and I will address some of them now.

Objection #1- “Paul says all Scripture, not ONLY Scripture, is inspired. And anyway, he says that it is merely ‘profitable / useful’. ‘Profitable’ does not mean sufficient.”

Answer – It is true that the word “only” is not used in this verse, but the impact of the phrase “for every good work” in the next verse seems to be ignored by those using this type of logic. If Scripture equips us for every good work, then by definition, it is sufficient as a Rule of Faith.

Let me use an analogy. If you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for every mechanic’s job that you could possibly run into, would that toolbox be sufficient? Yes, it would. Do you need another toolbox for foreign cars or pick-up trucks? No, not if the one he gave you equips you for every mechanic’s job.

In the same way, Scripture is our “toolbox” which equips us for every good work. Since this is true, there is no other source needed today TO FUNCTION AS AN INFALIBLE RULE OF FAITH. By definition, Scripture is all that is needed.

Objection #2 – “It is the ‘man of God’ which is described as adequate, not the Scriptures.”

Answer – The “teacher” is always greater than the student. Is that which is infallible and which teaches and equips us, LESS THAN the one that it is teaching? Absolutely not. If the “man of God” becomes adequate through the teaching of Scripture, how much more adequate is the Word of God?

Objection #3 – “Paul is not only speaking of Scripture in this context, but he is also speaking of Sacred Tradition which was handed down to Timothy when he says, ‘You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them’ (verse 14). So, we need Tradition also.”

Answer – First, no external “tradition” is named or identified in the context here. Secondly, can anyone say exactly what it was that Timothy had learned from Paul? To say that Paul was speaking of some “Catholic Tradition” is just begging the question. And even if he WAS speaking of some kind of external traditions, Paul definitely shifts gears in the very next verse (15), and he starts focusing on and speaking specifically of Scripture through to the end of the chapter.

Objection #4 – “Paul could not have meant Sola Scriptura here, since he was speaking of the only Scripture that was available at that time: the Old Testament. If Sola Scriptura applied here, wouldn’t we have to say that the Old Testament is all we need?

Answer – It is probably true that very little of the New Testament was written when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, but verse 16 says “All Scripture”, not all Scripture given to us “up until this point.”

As an example, if a Catholic stated that all official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are true, would anyone think that he was trying to say that only those official pronouncements which were given up to the present were true, but future ones may be false? Of course not. “All official pronouncements” means all official pronouncements, and “All Scripture” means just that… ALL Scripture… not just the Scriptures which happened to be available at the time.

Objection #5 – “There are other things besides Scripture that can make us ‘perfect and entire’, ‘lacking in nothing’, like patience (James 1:4). Or, we can exercise purity to make us ‘ready for any good work’ (2 Timothy 2:21), and good deeds are also said to be ‘profitable’ for us (Titus 3:8). So, Scripture is not the only thing that we need.”

Answer – The context in these verses is NOT the establishing of a Rule of Faith, as 2 Timothy chapter 3 is. But the context in the above verses is about sanctification, or the APPLICATION of that Rule, i.e., actually LIVING by its principles. For example, you can have a Bible sitting on your coffee table gathering dust, but if you don’t APPLY yourself to it, it won’t do you any good. Just as failing to apply the principles of Catholicism will make you a less-than-ideal Catholic. A Rule of Faith is a critically important guide, but it is not expected to do the work for you.

In 2 Timothy chapter 3, Paul is giving instructions on what to do when difficult times will come (verse 1), when men (even those in the church) will be boastful, arrogant, unholy, etc. (verses 2-5), opposing the truth (verse 8), and deceiving and being deceived (verse 13). Paul is showing us where to turn in these times of deception and uncertainty… to our Rule of Faith, which will be an anchor to keep us from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine… to the Word of God, that which is inspired (which means “God-breathed”– verse 16). If this Rule of Faith (Scripture) is the only thing that is ever called “God-breathed” in the New Testament, and it gives us doctrine / teaching, corrects us, trains us in the way of righteousness, and equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK, then what else do we need as a Rule of Faith?

Thus, we see that these Catholic arguments do not hold water, and that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, a biblical concept. We will tackle another Catholic claim next time. Comments, questions, and objections are welcome.

In His Name,
Russell