THE POINT OF NO RETURN

 

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

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

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

Do We Really Love the Truth?

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

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Especially for Catholics

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

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

Common Ground

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

 

“JESUS DIDN'T LEAVE US A BOOK – HE LEFT US A CHURCH!”

“Sola Scriptura” (Latin for “Bible only”) – you’ll hear this term often in discussions and debates between Catholics and Protestants.  It simply means that Scripture is the final authority for the church, since it is the only infallible authority we have today. 

Protestants generally believe in Sola Scriptura, but Catholics will often tell us that Jesus didn’t leave us a book, He left us a church.

But what does that mean, “Jesus left us a church”?  Who is the “us” in this sentence?  I think that we can safely assume that Catholics mean the “us” is referring to believers, those who are saved, those who are right with God.  But according to the Bible, believers ARE the church!  Since we are the church, it doesn’t make sense to say that Jesus left the church a church!  That would mean that He left us ourselves, and that is ridiculous.

When they say that Jesus didn’t leave us a book, but a church, what they mean is He left a final authority for all believers, and they believe that this authority is the Catholic Magisterium.

But Catholics are defining “church” in an unbiblical way.  According to Scripture, the church is not a building, nor is it a “magisterium” of infallible leaders.  Catholics will often say things like, “The Church teaches…” or “The Church has always believed…”, etc.  When they use the term in this way, they are speaking of their leaders, the Magisterium.  But the Bible never uses the term “church” when referring to leaders only.  Never.  The Bible uses the term to mean either the local assembly of believers, e.g., the church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) or the church of Ephesus (Revelation 2:1), or to mean the universal assembly of believers worldwide (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18).

Yes, Jesus did indeed establish a church.  No one is denying that.  But we Protestants could counter and say that Jesus didn’t give us an infallible church, but an infallible book, the Bible, as the final authority.  Catholics act as though the Bible has less authority than the church.  Are they suggesting that Jesus did not leave us an infallible book?  Would they dare say that Scripture is not inspired (God-breathed)?  2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work. (BSB)

Keep in mind the fact that 2 Timothy is the Apostle Paul’s last letter he ever wrote to the church, and that he knew he would soon be martyred.  And because of that, we know that he wanted to impart some very critical information to believers in this letter, but he never said that the church or church leaders were God-breathed.  Not in this or any other of his many letters does he state or imply this.  If the church’s leaders were the final authority for the rest of the church, it seems that this would have been the time to say so.  But Paul leaves us with the understanding that Scripture is the only thing God-breathed today.  Not only is it inspired/God-breathed, it also equips us for every good work.   

Catholics admit that Scripture is inspired.  In fact, it is the official position of the Catholic Church that Scripture is above, or greater than, the Magisterium:

“This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it…” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, chapter 2, paragraph 10)

“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #86)

Ok, that sounds really good, even biblical.  But in actual practice, it is the Catholic Magisterium that is over Scripture.  I say this because it is supposedly the Magisterium alone that infallibly determines what Scripture is, and it is the Catholic Magisterium alone that officially and infallibly interprets Scripture.  Therefore, for the Catholic, the Magisterium is really the ultimate authority.

If common sense dictates that verse “A” should be interpreted a certain way, but the Magisterium demands that it be interpreted a different way (even if it appears to be contradictory), then they must obey the Magisterium.

If other Bible passages, as a whole, taken together, dictate that verse “A” should be interpreted a certain way, but the Magisterium demands that it be interpreted a different way (even if it makes the Bible contradict itself) the will of the Magisterium must prevail.  That’s why they say that Jesus gave us a church, not a book.

For Catholics, lip service to the idea of the Bible being over the Magisterium is just that – lip service.  But the Catholic idea of an infallible Magisterium does not line up with the very Bible that the Magisterium claims to follow!  They want their members to think that the Catholic Church holds the Bible in high regard, yet in practice, the Bible is down-played. 

But according to Scripture, the bottom line is this:  Jesus Christ made believers (imperfect, common, fallible people) to be a church, both as part of a universal entity and as part of a local assembly, and He gave us an infallible book to guide us.

THE CATHOLIC “VACCINE”

After watching, reading, and participating in hundreds of discussions and debates with Catholics, it has become obvious that some, if not most, Catholic apologists believe that their church can never teach anything wrong, even when it is obvious to others that certain Catholic teachings contradict the Bible.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is immune to any arguments against it from Scripture.  It seems there is always a reason that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it clearly seems to be saying.  What is clear to the avid Bible student is philosophized away by these Catholic apologists. 

   

So, what about philosophical arguments?  Philosophy can be a good thing, but the apostle Paul warned us against using philosophy wrongly:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

There are some Catholics today who will start off with, and base their arguments almost entirely upon, philosophy, rather than on the principles and exegesis of Scripture.  But any philosophy that is not first based on biblical principles is a deceptive philosophy (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

  

But philosophy is not the Catholic apologist’s only tactic.  There are many others.  It is as though Catholic apologists have received an “argument vaccine” and feel that they are therefore immune to any biblical arguments used against them, no matter how common-sense, scripturally accurate, or logical the Protestant arguments are. 

   

So, how does this Catholic system of arguments work?  Here are only a few of the many tactics that Catholic apologists use to deny the clear teachings of Scripture in order to promote Catholicism:

1  1)  When the Catholic is at a loss to refute common-sense arguments that are based on simple biblical statements or principles, he “waxes eloquent” and tries to use philosophy to prove his point (as mentioned above), but philosophy that twists biblical concepts.  

    2)  They’ll tell you that you don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches (even though you are directly quoting official Catholic sources)

3   3) They’ll tell you that their argument is based on a “mystery” (even though this particular “mystery” is not a biblical concept)

4   4) They’ll tell you that you’re just a “Johnny come lately,” and you are ignoring the Church that Jesus has established, which has been around for 2000 years (although the Catholic can never prove from the Bible that the teachings of the church in the New Testament match his own church’s teachings – They often place their version of church history above Scripture)

5    5) When they are in a real bind and at a loss for answers, they’ll tell you that what you’re saying is “just your interpretation” of the Bible, and that we can’t really know anything for sure without an infallible interpreter of Scripture

6    6) They’ll play word games or change the defintion of certain words (for example, when Catholics claim they don’t use “their own authority” in Bible interpretation, but claim that Protestants do – or they will effectively re-define terms by clouding the meaning of words like devotion, vereration, and worship)  

7    7) They will often ignore the apostle Paul’s teaching in order to favor certain things that Jesus said, for example, when dealing with justification (even though Jesus is the One who inspired Paul to deal with the doctrine of justification at length, and inspired him to say exactly what he said in Scripture)

8    8) The Catholic will point to “development of doctrine” to prove his point (even though this “developed” doctrine totally contradicts God’s Word)

9    9) They’ll use ideas that are unfalsifiable, or untestable (For example, the concept of transubstantiation, or the changing of bread and wine into Jesus’ actual body and blood.  If someone says, “There is no change in these elements after consecration,” the Catholic will respond with, “Oh, yes, but it DOES change.  It’s just that the appearance does not change, but only the essence.”  To this nonsense, we will only say that no miracle in the Bible was ever done with this kind of fake “evidence.”

1   10) They believe that “submit to your leaders” (Hebrews 13:17) means submit to the Church, i.e., the Catholic Church, and that we Protestants should do the same (but they seemingly forget that we must follow our leaders ONLY AS THEY FOLLOW CHRIST [1 Corinthians 11:1]!  To be biblical, one does not submit to the Catholic Church) 

1   11) Sometimes they’ll protray us (Protestants) as automatically guilty by association, as they brand us as “followers of Luther” or “followers of Calvin” (even though we may be neither Lutheran nor Calvinist)

1    12) The Catholic can’t give you an answer to your scriptural points, so he casually diverts your attention by claiming that you don’t know the canon, i.e., the correct list of Bible books (even though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand)

1   13) He may argue against your point because the exact wording you used is not in the passage, for example, when denying Sola Scriptura (2 Timothy 3:16-17) they’ll say, “But it doesn’t say only Scripture!” (although the concept is there; and furthermore, we can present many, many instances where specific Catholic terminology is NOT used in Scripture, yet they can make these teachings into infallible dogmas!) 

1    14) They’ll very often ignore CONTEXT (for example, when Catholics try to refute “Faith Alone,” they use James 2 when we point to Romans 3 and 4, which specifically deals with, and defines, justification, whereas James does not)

1    15) They’ll isolate a verse without considering the whole of Scripture (like when they try to promote “prayer to the saints,” yet, they ignore the fact that NOWHERE in Scripture do we see the actual practice, but on the contrary, there are multiple warnings about prayer to someone other than God)

1    16) When losing an argument, they’ll refer to a very ambiguous (unclear, vague) term like, “But ‘Tradition’ says…” (and worse yet, they even attribute infallibility to it)

1    17) They will use special pleading, for example, when speaking of Mary’s “sinlessness.”  (Why is Mary exempt from mankind’s sin when Scripture never suggests such?)

1    18) They are very often guilty of using eisegesis, i.e., reading something into the text that isn’t there (for example, deriving Mary’s “sinlessness” from Luke 1:28)

Ok, so these are just a few of the many tactics that Catholics use in their arguments.  But what all of these tactics have in common is that they either directly violate the principles of sacred Scripture, or they point to the fact that Catholics have a low view of it.  Catholics can talk all they want about how they love the Scriptures, but these types of arguments betray them. 

This is not to say that none of these fallacies ever occur in Protestant circles.  They sometimes do.  But anyone using these types of invalid arguments is just as wrong.  The problem in either case is that they are not giving the Word of God its rightful place.

Conclusion

Someone once said that the dogmatic Catholic teaching concerning the pope is a lawyer’s dream.  There are all kinds of qualifications and exceptions so that no matter what the pope teaches, no matter how much nonsense appears to exist in his statements, there can never be an official contradiction in that teaching (paraphrased).

This same idea seems to be the goal of the tactics mentioned above.  They want to teach and promote Catholic concepts and they don’t want Scripture to interfere with that process.  But suppose there are a few Catholics who disagree with the Church?  Is a Catholic layman allowed to protest against any teachings in his church?  

Not according to Pope Pius X.  In a 1906 papal encyclical, he said:  the “one duty” of the laity “is to allow themselves to be led, and like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” (Vehementer Nos, paragraph 8)

Well, there you have it, folks.  Rome has spoken!  And, according to Pius X, don’t you dare question your leaders!  According to this pope, you should check your mind out at the door when you come in.  And they call this “unity.”

 

Beware of the Catholic apologist who believes that he is unstoppable.  No “Bible evidence” can sway him.  He is immune!  He has taken the powerful “Catholic vaccine” and all is well… 

until Judgment Day when he is reminded what Jesus Christ said about His Word:

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48).

MARTIGNONI AND THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET

In the latest edition of his Bible Christian Society newsletter, popular Catholic apologist John Martignoni is addressing comments that were made to him by a Protestant named Don Jackson.  We don’t know Don Jackson and our purpose here is not to defend him or the things he said.  We simply want to comment on just one specific aspect of what John Martignoni said.  Martignoni’s newsletter article can be found here:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/detail/339

In this newsletter (#268), Martignoni encourages his readers, when debating with Protestants, to “get to the issue of authority as soon as possible.”  He feels that this is a strong point for Catholics.  He assures his readers that Protestants are unable to answer his questions concerning authority without somehow falling back on the authority of the Catholic Church. 

 

At one point, he asks, “Who is it that can authoritatively interpret Scripture?”

 

But the question contains a false premise.  Martignoni is assuming that one must have some special authority to interpret Scripture correctly.  But that’s not true at all.  This would be like asking, “What authority must I have to follow the Ten Commandments?”  In either case, it’s not about authority; it’s just something that God wants and expects us to do.

And it’s not just church leaders who are expected to rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 3:15; Acts 17:11; Matthew 13:3-9).  The people that followed Jesus were not mostly the rich, or scholars, church leaders, teachers or the elite.  Most of them were just plain folk, the uneducated, the poor, the down and out, and the lost.  It was these people who cried out to God, recognizing their need, and followed Jesus.  It was those who were spiritually hungry and those who pressed in and wanted to do God’s will that understood His message (John 7:15-17).  Jesus never said or implied that one needed “special authority” to understand His words.  See these articles:

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

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

Toward the end of the newsletter, Martignoni tells Jackson, “I do not follow my own teachings based solely upon my own authority and my own private interpretations of Scripture as you do, so I have no need of being infallible.  You, however, relying on your own authority and your own private interpretations, which you have admitted could be wrong, have need of being infallible – but you’re not.”

Here, Martignoni now goes a step farther and implies that not only does one need an “authoritative” interpretation, but he needs an infallible one!  Again, this is a false premise.  First of all, who says that one has to be infallible to interpret Scripture?  He certainly doesn’t get this idea from the Bible (Mark 4:3-9).  Second, let’s break down what he said.  He implies that his teachings are not based on his own authority / interpretations, but those of the “infallible” Catholic Church, as opposed to the Protestant, who merely follows his own interpretation of the Bible.

 

But in order to understand and follow the (supposedly infallible) teachings of the Catholic Church, Martignoni must still use his own fallible understanding to do so, just as the Protestant does when interpreting his infallible source (the Bible).  There is no escaping the fact that we are ALL fallible today, and must ALL use our fallible minds to understand an infallible source.

 

So, Martignoni is simply playing word games when he says he doesn’t follow his own authority or his own private interpretation.  It is still his fallible interpretation of what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

Just before the previous quote that we gave from the newsletter, Martignoni had asked Jackson,  “Will you admit that you could be wrong in your interpretations of Scripture and that you could mistakenly be following the father of all lies by relying on your own private, fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretations of Scripture?”  Martignoni thinks that he has Jackson over a barrel here and that Jackson cannot escape his trap.  But we would turn this question around on him and ask:  “John Martignoni, will you admit that you could be wrong in your interpretations of the Church and that you could mistakenly be following the father of all lies by relying on your own private, fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretations of the Church?”  Is Martignoni humble enough to answer yes to this?  He needs to remember that this sword cuts both ways.

 

The bottom line… one does not need infallibility, or even “authority,” to interpret Scripture correctly.

We just might do some commentary on more of John Martignoni’s newsletters in the very near future.  By the way, we’d also like to refer our readers to a very good website that deals in-depth with many of Martignoni’s teachings here: 

 

http://www.martignonirevealed.com/index.html

[Update - This link is no longer in service]