YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN

Jesus answered and said unto him [Nicodemus], “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:3)

Marvel not that I said unto thee, “Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)

In the context of these two passages, Jesus is confronted by a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who approaches Him secretly at night.  Jesus immediately tells Nicodemus that, to be right with God, he “must be born again.”  This then leads to a discussion where Jesus is contrasting physical things and spiritual things.  However, Nicodemus just doesn’t seem to get it and he stays stuck in the “physical” mindset (3:4), while Jesus’ point about being born again is about the spiritual realm (3:8).  Thus, the statement, “You must be born again” is a spiritual concept. 

The word “must” is a strong word, especially when used by Jesus Christ.  The implication here is, you MUST be born again IF you want to go to Heaven.  And who doesn’t?  It seems that everyone (at least outside the atheist camp) wants to go to Heaven.

But the question is how?  How is one born again?  What does it really mean?  I know that Protestants use the term all the time.  But why is it that when witnessing to Catholics, it happens very often that they have no idea what Protestants are talking about?  You can see that, amongst many Catholics, there is confusion and there are misconceptions about what “born again” means.  As an example, see the first five minutes of this video:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=ray+comfort+asking+catholics%2c+have+you+been+%22born+again%22+&&mid=751F5C79A6218169E455751F5C79A6218169E455&FORM=VAMGZC

It seems that Catholics very seldom use the term “born again,” but Catholic apologists will insist that it is just referring to water baptism.  But whatever it means, we have to recognize that these words are coming from Jesus Christ, and we have to recognize His emphasis on the term – and that whatever it is, it is a must and not a suggestion!

The Fathers

Ok, so how can we find out what Jesus really meant when He said “born again” in John 3:3 and 3:7?  The Catholic Church stresses that the early church fathers were unanimous in the belief that “born again” means that one is forgiven/saved/regenerated by the very act of being baptized in water. 

Personally, I am very limited when it comes to the beliefs of the early church fathers, so I will leave this topic to those who are much more qualified.  But for those who think that the fathers were indeed “unanimous” on the concept of baptismal regeneration (as the great majority of Catholic apologists claim), see this article:

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/

Catholics seem to believe that no one can argue with the early church fathers because a few of them lived at the time of the apostles’ students and their students’ students.  They’ll say that if anyone knew what Jesus or the apostles taught, it had to be these guys. 

But my question is why stop there?  The church fathers were not infallible, so they are not the final word!  Why not go all the way back to the words of Jesus, Himself, and His apostles – the words we find in Scripture?  If what the fathers said does not line up with the Scriptures, or gives a perverted view of them, then we need to reject their views.

If there was a bank robbery in your town and the police needed the facts, whose word would be more trusted, first-hand witnesses (the ones who were actually there at that exact time) or some third- or fourth-hand account?

Furthermore, IF it is found that the early church fathers happen to be wrong, does any Catholic think that he can simply blame THEM on Judgment Day?: “Lord, I didn’t know!  The Church told me to trust in what THEY said, since they were close to the time of the apostles, so it’s THEIR fault for telling us the wrong things!”

Yes, these so-called church fathers will indeed be accountable for any wrong teachings they may have spread.  But it is each person’s responsibility to search the Scriptures, not the fathers, to see what God wants from us (Acts 17:11).  I’m not saying that the fathers were wrong on everything they taught, but I am saying that they were fallible in everything they taught.  But the Scriptures are indeed infallible in everything they teach (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

God Looks At the Heart (Not the Ritual)

According to the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27-31), a person must have the right disposition (attitude, temperament, frame of mind) when receiving communion.  And we believe the same mindset applies to water baptism, as well.  These church ordinances must not be trivialized.

The Catholic Church will agree with this.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a person partaking of the sacraments (including baptism) must have the correct disposition beforehand (See CCC #1131 and CCC #1388).

So, both Protestants and Catholics agree that a person’s heart has to be right before he is baptized.  Therefore, without the right state of the heart, the ritual is useless!  Catholics will say that both the disposition and the ritual are necessary for salvation.  Ok, but what if a person has the right heart and is on his way to be baptized, but is run over by a Mack truck before he can get to the church?

Catholics will say, “But he had the ‘baptism of desire’ and he intended to get baptized (CCC #1259), so God will be merciful to him.”  Well, we Protestants would agree!  But again, this just proves that water baptism is actually not mandatory.

More proof of that is demonstrated by the Catechism where it will point out that God is not bound by sacraments/rituals (CCC #1257).  Well, (most) Protestants would agree, yet in this very same paragraph of the Catechism it states again that baptism IS necessary for salvation!  Ok, so which is it?  Is the ritual of water baptism necessary for a person to be saved or not?  This is an obvious contradiction in the same paragraph.

Now, I’m not saying that water baptism is a bad thing.  As I said earlier, it should not be trivialized.  It is something that God expects us to do, and we should indeed honor Him in doing it, because it is a way of expressing our commitment to Him.  But baptism is for those who are already saved.

Grace vs. Merit

According to the Catholic Church, water baptism is a “sacrament,” which is described as something that “merits” grace (Canon XXXII, Council of Trent).  But according to Scripture, grace, by definition, is something that CANNOT be merited:

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6) 

Again, there is no such thing as “meriting grace.”  Therefore, none of those seven things that Catholics call “sacraments” are meritorious toward salvation. 

So how does one actually receive grace?  Is it through sacraments, rituals, or good works – or is it some other way?

“Surely He scorneth the scorners: but He giveth grace unto the lowly.” (Proverbs 3:34)

“… God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (James 4:6)

“… for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)

Starting to see a pattern here?  The Bible tells us that we receive grace through true humility, not by earning it or by some sort of “meriting.”  It is exactly the opposite.  Grace is given to the humble, not to the one who performs sacraments or any other kind of works in order to try to merit his way to Heaven, giving him reason to boast.

The Catholic Church loves to re-define words like “merit,” and loves to play these semantic games that turn scriptural concepts on their head!  And they will indeed have to answer to God for that.

The Hard Lesson of the Galatians

But let’s say for just a moment that we concede that water baptism actually saves a person.  Ok, so what happens when this baptized person sins after baptism (and he certainly will)?  Since it is baptism itself that saves (in the mind of the Catholic), then must he be re-baptized after every sin? 

Catholics will say no, and that he must do something else.  He must now go to confession, receive communion, do penance, etc., and then these things will cause him to stay in God’s favor through merit. 

Apparently, in Catholic teaching, one thing (baptism) saves you, then other things (rituals like confession to a priest, communion, and penance) will keep you saved.

But the Bible tells us that there is ONE thing that both saves us and keeps us, and that thing is our faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross:

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?  This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?  Are ye so foolish, having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3)

Note here that the term “made perfect by the flesh” refers to man’s attempts to earn Heaven through his good works, and the term “by the hearing of faith” of course refers to one’s faith/believing/trusting in Jesus. 

Furthermore, Paul forcefully rebuked the Galatians because Jesus Christ was preached to them and plainly set forth before their eyes as the One who suffered for all sins and the One who paid the full penalty for all men.  So Paul is emphatic: there is no room for works that are salvific (including baptism)!

Paul calls the Galatians foolish because they gave in to the ungodly Judaizers (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:4) who thought they could add their works to the suffering and work of Christ on the cross.  In this way, the Galatians rejected the original gospel that Paul preached to them, incurring a curse on themselves! (Galatians 1:8-9) 

Conclusion

So according to the Catholic Church, it seems that Jesus SHOULD HAVE SAID in John 3:3, “You must partake of the sacraments to be saved.”  But that’s not at all what He said or implied.  There are no sacraments in the Bible because there are no works or rituals that can merit salvation.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for Jesus to simply address the heart of man, thus pointing to the meaning of “born again”?  Being born again is not a sacrament or ritual, but it is your heart being honest with God, recognizing your sin and corruption, and allowing Him to deal with your heart.  It is an ultimate surrender towards Him.  And it is given by God’s grace and activated by simple faith!

There’s certainly nothing wrong with being baptized or receiving communion, etc., but these are simply for us to identify with Jesus Christ – which is a statement to the rest of the world of your allegiance to Him (for example, Matthew 10:37; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:62).

I can understand how that many Catholics see water baptism as getting saved, since baptism seems to be so closely tied in with repentance and salvation, but common sense and a closer look at Scripture will clarify the matter. 

Being born again biblically is of the utmost importance.  If a person has not been born again, he will one day wish that he was never born at all!

For a fuller treatment of the meaning, role and effect of baptism, see this three-part series:

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

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

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

“CATHOLIC TRUTH” AND SOLA SCRIPTURA

I saw a video recently by a Catholic named Bryan Mercier, who seems to be an intelligent guy who is passionate about the Catholic faith.  He is a Catholic speaker, author, and apologist and is also president of an organization called Catholic Truth.  

In his video titled “2 Catholic Questions Protestants can’t Answer,” Bryan attempts to tackle the issue of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone).  His video can be found here:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=bryan+mercier%2c+you+tube%2c+%222+catholic+questions+protestants+can%27t+answer%22&mid=36C4E8BC37275A01786D36C4E8BC37275A01786D&FORM=VIRE

Definitions

Bryan sees, as part of the problem, that Protestants can’t even agree on a definition of Sola Scriptura.  Well, that may be somewhat true, but in my opinion, most of the serious adherents of Sola Scriptura in Protestantism do pretty much agree on the definition that I would use, and that is:

“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today.”

They may word it slightly differently from each other, but in general, the definitions I’ve seen are very similar.  Even though we don’t have a “pope” in Protestantism to make everything “official,” we still very much agree on the concept of the “Bible alone.” 

By the way, Bryan is bemoaning the division in Protestantism on this topic, but I would like to point out that many Catholics disagree amongst themselves on different doctrines of the Catholic Church.  So Catholics need not act as though they have the high ground here.

I do want to say, though, that I find most of the bad definitions of Sola Scriptura are in Catholic circles.  And by “bad” definitions, I mean unbiblical ones.  I believe that the concept of Sola Scriptura is indeed biblical, but of course there are many (mostly Catholic) people who would disagree.  That’s why we have these discussions.

First Question to Protestants

Having said that, here is the first question that Bryan Mercier poses to Protestants:

·      Question 1:

“Can you show me from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) where does it say, or where does it give a definition for Sola Scriptura?”

He then brings out certain Scripture passages that some Protestants would use to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and then tries to debunk the Protestant arguments.  For example, he brings up Acts 17, where the apostle Paul and Silas come to the city of Berea:

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

Bryan then implies, “So what?”  The Catholic Church has searched the Scriptures for 2,000 years.  Yet simply searching the Scriptures doesn’t prove the concept of Sola Scriptura.

That might be true, but while this verse alone may not fully prove the concept of Sola Scriptura, it is a valid and biblical move in that direction, because the Bereans were searching “whether those things were so.”  In other words, they were verifying the words of an apostle of the church (Paul).  That is, they were confirming what a highest-ranking church leader was telling them and not just taking his word for it simply because he was a church official!  They were testing an apostle with Scripture (just as the church of Ephesus did in Revelation 2:2)!  Yes, that’s right, even the apostle Paul had to be tested to make sure that his message lined up with what was already recognized as Scripture (the Old Testament).  Notice that Paul didn’t say, “Hey, why are you guys looking this up?  Don’t you trust me?  I am a church leader (just like Peter) and you need to take me at my word!  How dare you check up on me!”

No, rather the Bereans were actually commended in Acts 17:11 for checking out what Paul was teaching, like they were supposed to.  Like I said, while this text alone may not be a proof of Sola Scriptura, it was a definite move in that direction, to be ultimately realized when the last apostle died and there would be no more new revelation from God.

An Example of Scripture Over Everything Else

Furthermore, Paul, though he was an apostle, told the Galatian church that anyone, including himself, who dared to bring another gospel to the church, one which was different than what he had first preached, was condemned!  In fact, his words were:

 “But though WE [i.e., Paul and Silas], or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

If you think that Paul was not serious, he then repeats it in the next verse:

“As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”  (Galatians 1:9)

So, again, we see here that Scripture (the gospel message) was above even the authority of the apostles and angels, and that any other/different gospel brought by anyone should be tested by the Bible and rejected.

One of Bryan’s comments was that the Jews (being God’s chosen people) didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura.  Well that’s true, at least at the beginning of the church/New Testament age, but that’s because there was still new and ongoing revelation from God in that day, coming through the apostles.  As long as there were apostles around, new revelation was coming from God to the church.  Therefore, “Scripture alone,” as an infallible source was not a possibility at that point.  Protestants believe that Sola Scriptura exists only for the post-apostolic church. 

Second Question to Protestants

Bryan now mentions (part of) the most common Scripture passage that Protestants use to support Sola Scriptura.

·      Question 2:

“In 2 Timothy 3:16, where does it say, and how do you know, that it said, ‘All Scripture is inspired…’ or God-breathed?”

Notice that Bryan never mentions the next verse (v. 17), which is indeed key to understanding the concept of Sola Scriptura.  But he goes on to point out that the New Testament word in v. 16 for “inspired” is “theopneustos” (literally translated “God-breathed” in the Greek), but that it could be rendered as “life-giving” instead.  In fact, he falsely says that “There is no evidence of it meaning God-breathed in that whole chapter.”

So Bryan leans heavily toward its meaning as “life-giving,” because (he claims) 90%-95% of the time, external Greek sources used it that way. 

And he is convinced that the context of 2 Timothy 3 is exactly about that – about “people who are dead in their sins and how they can come to life…”  Therefore, (he says) it should mean “life-giving” more than “inspired.”  In fact, Bryan claims that the context of the passage supports “infinitely more” the idea of life-giving rather than God-breathed. 

Well, that sounds nice, but no, the context of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 is not primarily about “people who are dead in their sins and how they can come to life…” as Bryan is suggesting.  But this passage is primarily and specifically about the origin, nature and power of the Scriptures, as a rule of faith, to instruct, convict, correct and enable the man of God to fully equip the Christian.  Yes, the Bible is indeed “life-giving,” but it is far more than that.  Not only is this passage saying that Scripture originates with God, but it is inspired by God as the only infallible source and rule of faith for the church today. 

Bryan is deliberately trying to downplay the power and authority of the Scriptures – something I’m sure he would never do with the authority of the Catholic Church.  He is purposely trying to introduce a more watered-down term to describe the Holy Scriptures!  But the Bible is indeed God-breathed, since it eclipses every other source.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-apostles-practice-sola-scriptura.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/11/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

And the first of a series of eight articles on Sola Scriptura, starting here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html

There are also many other articles on Sola Scriptura on this blog – not to mention many excellent articles throughout the internet done by other highly qualified Protestants.

Hit and Run

Toward the end of the video, Bryan hints at a “freebie,” a third question for Protestants.  And this freebie question is on the biblical canon, i.e., the “official” list of books in the Bible that the church recognizes.  But this freebie is simply a “hit and run” diversion.  He brings it up as though it is a valid argument against “Bible Alone.”  But the canon is a topic that is impossible to do justice on, by only mentioning it in passing, as Bryan does.  Some of my dealings with this topic can be found in these links:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

Catholics will say that Protestants always assume the concept of Sola Scriptura when they debate.  Maybe so, but I think that there is good reason to do so. 

I know that it is hard to shake off one’s bias and preconceived notions, but I find it hard to believe that an honest Catholic and an honest Protestant would not be able to come to the table, using Scripture (the main thing that we have in common), trying to remain as unbiased and unemotional as possible, lay out all the evidence on either side, and NOT come to the same conclusion.  I believe that it is these preconceived traditions (and emotions) that we hold that suppress the truth.  Both sides need to be careful not to allow excess emotion in proving their respective cases.  To me, the evidence in the Bible for Sola Scriptura is overwhelming.  Again, see the links just above.

A large part of the disagreement, I believe, is the different Catholic and Protestant goals.  The stated goal of the Catholic is too often to bring people to the Church, while the goal of the Protestant is to bring people to Jesus Christ.  I know that many Catholics will deny this, but in practice, this is often absolutely true.

Sola Scriptura is an extremely important topic, but I feel that Bryan Mercier’s arguments were weak and unconvincing. 

No other rule of faith mentioned in Scripture is considered God-breathed and able to equip us (the church) for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).    

THE MYTHICAL CHAIN

 

Once upon a time in a land far, far away lived a man who owned a chain.  But it was no ordinary chain – this was a magical chain that gave him great powers.  It was reported that its links were beautiful and golden and its power was legendary.  The news of it travelled far and wide.  Everyone, young and old, rich and poor, knew about this magical and powerful chain.  No one dared to mistreat this man because of the special power that this chain gave him.  It gave the man great authority and everyone looked up to him.  The only problem is no one ever saw this chain.  He kept it hidden from sight, safely tucked away in a locked box.  If anyone rose up against him, he would hold the box high and shake it vigorously.  The noise of the rattling chain within the box scared the people, and in great fear, they would submit to the man.  But one day the man accidently left the box unlocked and a curious child opened it.  To everyone’s surprise the chain was ugly and rusted and broken in many pieces.  It was not at all what he proclaimed it to be.  All the people saw it, but the man insisted that it was beautiful and magical and that its links were held together perfectly.  The people became very skeptical, yet they still submitted to the man who lied to them. 

And the moral of the story is: Don’t believe anyone who hides the truth from you. 

Many people enjoy a good fairy tale once in a while, but the message in this fairy tale should be disturbing to all, especially Catholics, since it represents a fact about the Catholic Church.  The man in this story represents the line of popes over the centuries and the chain represents the Catholic doctrine of “Apostolic Succession.”

Office Not Biblical

Now, you may be surprised to learn that I believe in apostolic succession – just not the Catholic Church’s version of it.  Biblical apostolic succession is simply about passing down the true teachings of the apostles, those which we find in the Scriptures.  It’s that simple.

It’s been quite a while since I’ve posted an article on this topic and I would like to remind everyone once again what the Catholic version of this teaching is all about and how utterly false and unsubstantiated it is.

The Catholic Church claims to have an office of “pope,” the supposed “Vicar of Christ” and “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church,” who is the human head over all Christendom worldwide.  They claim that the apostle Peter was the first of many popes and that a pope could even sometimes, under certain conditions, teach the Church infallibly.  Not only that, but this power and privilege was supposedly passed on to others through the laying on of hands, creating a long line of successors.  As of today, on the official list of popes, there have been 266 popes on the “throne of Saint Peter.” 

See here:    

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Ok, so here is the first problem with this teaching – there is no pope in Scripture, and even if there were, Catholics cannot demonstrate that Peter was one.  I have several articles on this here:

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

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/08/matthew-16-have-gates-of-hell-prevailed.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/

According to the New Testament, there is no single human being who is over the whole church of Jesus Christ.

Continuous and Lawful?

Apostolic Succession (when the term is capitalized like this, I am referring to the Catholic Church’s version of it) is indeed a foundational teaching of the Church.   Catholics believe that the present pope (Francis), or any legitimate pope, can be traced all the way back to the apostle Peter.

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church has “an unbroken chain” and an “uninterrupted lawful succession” of popes. 

See here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Again, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is a “continuous line of succession until the end of time” (CCC #77, referencing Dei Verbum, an official Catholic document of the Second Vatican Council.)

Ok, so I want to address this concept from two different angles to prove that their Apostolic Succession is a false teaching.  I want to demonstrate that this “chain” is NEITHER CONTINUOUS NOR LAWFUL. 

Holes in the Record

Let’s start with the claim that this “apostolic chain” is unbroken. 

I am providing two official lists of popes: the first I provide from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia linked above (which carries the official Catholic seals of approval – the nihil obstat and the imprimatur), and the other from the Original Catholic Encyclopedia.

In both of these we can see that there are obvious unaccounted-for spaces in the years in which the popes reigned.

Notice that there are a number of gaps when there were NO POPES reigning at all.  For example, during the years of 259, 305, 306, 307, 639, 1242, 1269, 1270, 1293, 1315, and 1416, there are strangely no popes listed!  You can see for yourself that there is no “continuous” or “unbroken” line of successors of Catholic popes, as claimed.

Now, of course Catholics have some “reasons” for these discrepancies, and they will try to do damage control using certain arguments.  But I deal with these Catholic counter-arguments in the article I wrote several years ago.  These can be found here:

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

Even more crippling to the concept of Apostolic Succession, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967):

“… the scarcity of documents leave much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate…” (Volume 1, page 696)

And worse yet, this very same source also says:

“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 1, page 632)

This is the last nail in the coffin of the Catholic version of Apostolic Succession.  I don’t see how anything can be more damaging to their case than this.

So the fact that there are literally holes in their own list of an “unbroken” and “continuous” chain of popes is very telling and shows their claims to be false. 

How Did You Get That Job???

But there is yet another argument against the Catholic version of Apostolic Succession.  They claim that their “chain” is not only continuous, but they also claim that each link in this holy apostolic chain is “lawful.” 

All right, I want to stress from the beginning that I know that the Catholic Church does not claim that their popes are impeccable or that they are perfect in any way.  We all (Protestants and Catholics, alike) know that the popes are human, and can and do make mistakes.  We also all know that at least some of the popes over the centuries were wicked and lived lives of debauchery, greed and corruption.  But this is NOT the point I wish to make here.  I want to say this up front so no one misunderstands me or tries to use this argument as a straw man.

The point that I am making here is that it is an absolute fact that some popes have OBTAINED THEIR POSITION as pope through ungodly means.  I am not pointing to any lifestyle of wickedness before or after they got into office, but I am focusing on, and pointing to, the METHOD itself by which some have acquired the very office of pope.  Please understand the difference.

With that said, I want to demonstrate that some (not all) popes have acquired their office 1) by the use of simony (buying their office), 2) through the use of prostitutes who were highly influential, and 3) through the use of force.

Simony

If anyone wants to try and deny these facts, please note the following Catholic sources addressing 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)

“He [Pope Benedict IX] 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.”

Influential Prostitutes

Secondly, in addressing the issue of prostitutes tampering with the results of the papacy:

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, exposing the false nature of this claim of Catholic “Apostolic Succession.”

Force

Thirdly, 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)

Note again that these are all Catholic sources. 

“Anything Goes” For Popes!

If this office of pope were indeed of God, the point is that the man who desires to get into such an important religious office should have acquired it in a God-ordained and God-approved manner. 

Would any sane person argue that God actually approves of a pope who got into office by simony, by killing the previous pope, or by the manipulations of prostitutes?  This is sick!  There is no justification whatsoever for such a thing.  No argument can make it right.  Every one of those men who got in by these methods were, BY DEFINITION, unlawful and illegitimate holders of this office.  You can’t just casually brush aside these significant and embarrassing facts of history and say it doesn’t really matter.

Does the term “anything goes” apply when it comes to acquiring (what Catholics consider) the highest spiritual office in the world?  I have talked to many Catholics about this and none of them could give a meaningful and coherent answer.  They refuse to see this behavior as illegitimate.

Double Standard

What if the Catholic claims that God did not approve of it, but “allowed” it?  So, if it’s ok for the pope to do this, then why would it not be allowed for cardinals, bishops and priests, as well?  I’d like to know. 

The New Testament has lists of church offices (e.g., 1 Timothy chapters 3 and 5; Titus chapter 1; 1 Corinthians chapters 11-14; Ephesians chapter 4), but absolutely none of them allow for such maneuvers to obtain a Christian office.  The apostle Paul insisted on certain requirements for office in the church.  Do none of these requirements apply to the office of “pope” (which doesn’t even exist in the apostle Paul’s lists in the first place)?

You may say, yes, but there were “only” a few bad apples in this line of popes.  But that’s no excuse!  Even if only ONE pope achieved his office in such an illegitimate way, the so-called “unbroken” and “uninterrupted” chain of successors is STILL BROKEN!

Catholics should understand where I am coming from.  The strange thing is, they would actually accept my line of reasoning here when compared to the concept of annulments: If a couple gets married in the Catholic Church, but later discovers that some part of the marriage was “illegitimate” (underage, mentally incompetent, coercion, etc.), the marriage will be considered INVALID.  So, in essence, “they were never really married to start with.” 

In the same way, if a man becomes pope, but it is later discovered that he acquired the office illegitimately or in a corrupt manner, then he should be removed, because his office is also invalid.  It’s the same principal, but these corrupt popes seem to be untouchable.

Why does this concept work for annulments, but not for a church office?

Conclusion

Some might say, “But there was no constant and specific ‘God-ordained manner’ in selecting a pope, since it has been done in different ways over the centuries.”  But that doesn’t excuse ungodly methods like the ones I mentioned!  Just because it was done in different ways doesn’t mean every way is legitimate!

Some try to justify it by saying, “The fact that a priest may be unfaithful in his duty does not negate the power of the sacraments that he administers.”  But (aside from the fact that the concept of sacraments isn’t biblical) that’s like comparing apples and oranges.  We are talking about the legitimacy of the method of entering his office, not the fact that he can make mistakes. 

The question here would be, has that priest entered the priesthood in an illegal and God-dishonoring way?  Did he buy his way in?  Did influential prostitutes get him in?  Would that be acceptable?  Absolutely not, and THAT’S the point!  Why does this fact not apply also to the position of pope? 

The eternal implications of this false doctrine are no fairy tale, but once again, the moral of the story is the same: Don’t believe the Catholic Church, who is hiding the truth from you.

MARTIGNONI AND THE GOD OF THE MUSLIMS

 

I would like to address another one (actually two) of Catholic apologist John Martignoni’s newsletter articles, namely:

Newsletter #496 (Part 1) which can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/705-apologetics-for-the-masses-496-do-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god

And #497 (Part 2) which is here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/706-apologetics-for-the-masses-497-do-muslims-and-catholics-worship-the-same-god-part-2

Now John, as a faithful son of the Catholic Church, is in the unenviable position of having to do what I would call damage control for the Church.  I’ve seen Catholic apologists like John and others who struggle on the front lines in the apologetics war to try and reconcile what the Church is saying when it is not so clear in its official teachings. 

Case in point is paragraph #841 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“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.’” (CCC# 841)

Ok, so John Martignoni takes us on somewhat of a rollercoaster ride – at times seemingly defending the spiritual status of the Muslims and at other times, questioning it.

In Part 1, John quotes paragraph #841 and then states:

“In other words, the Church teaches – at least in the Catechism – that Muslims do indeed worship the same God as Christians.  However, that is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church…” (Emphasis added)

Not a doctrinal teaching?  That’s a strange thing to say for a Catholic apologist.  If it comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I would think that it is indeed doctrine.  On what basis does John Martignoni say such a thing?  Why would paragraph #841 NOT be a doctrine of the Catholic Church?

In at least one Catholic Answers article, it explains:

“In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals.”

See here:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-difference-between-doctrine-and-dogma

And I think that this is the general consensus of the Catholic Church.

So, does this mean that the salvation referred to in paragraph #841 is NOT about faith and morals?  What about the “acknowledging the Creator” part, or the “faith of Abraham,” or the “mankind’s judge” part?  Aren’t these obviously about faith and morals?  I would think yes, absolutely!

By Whose Authority?

So, who has given John Martignoni the authority to declare that this paragraph in the Catechism is not about matters of faith and morals?  I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Magisterium (Church leaders) would disagree with him.

Then John goes on to state, “… it is my belief that Muslims do indeed worship the same God as Catholics.  However, they obviously have serious misunderstandings about the God they worship.  But a misunderstanding about the nature of God does not constitute worshipping a false god… Just because they have erroneous beliefs about God, it doesn’t mean they are actually worshipping a different God.”

So, in other words, John is saying that the Muslims do indeed worship the true God of the Bible, but they are just doing it in an incomplete and deficient way, like the Samaritan woman in John 4:22. 

Martignoni’s Dilemma

A little later in this newsletter, John Martignoni says that the Muslims “profess” to hold the faith of Abraham, but he then says, “Just because they claim it, doesn’t make it true.”  I would agree wholeheartedly with John here.  But (in spite of what the Catechism says) he seems to be doubting the Muslims’ relationship with God here.  The language used in Paragraph #841 in the Catechism seems to strongly indicate that Muslims are indeed “brothers” with Catholics – for example, they “adore” the same God as the Catholic Church does.

To further demonstrate this idea, here is a quote from former pope John Paul II:

“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)

And again, Pope John Paul II later states:

“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)

So, if Catholics and Muslims are “brothers and sisters” and if you both believe in and adore “the same God,” “the one God,” “the living God,” then according to the former pope AND the Catechism, you (Catholics and Muslims) must both be believers and both in right standing with God, right, John?

But I don’t think that John is comfortable with that idea.  I agree with him that Muslims are not in right standing with God, but doesn’t he have to comply with his Church and isn’t he obligated to agree with its doctrines? 

John is correct to suggest that Muslim teaching does not line up with the (biblical) faith of Abraham.  It’s tough when the Church puts you on the spot, isn’t it John?  In doing this, the Church is setting up its apologists for failure.  You shouldn’t have to clean up their mess.  But regretfully, John, you still choose to remain with the Catholic Church.

The Plan of Salvation

But then John Martignoni is forced to nuance paragraph #841 by stating:

“Saying that the Muslims are included in the plan of salvation is not the same thing as saying the Muslims are saved.”

And he goes on to mention (as examples) the Assyrians capturing the northern tribes of Israel, the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites, and the scribes and Pharisees arranging Jesus’ crucifixion.  He says this to prove that none of these were godly, yet even these guys were included in the “plan of salvation” in the sense that they helped bring about the ultimate plan of God.

Come on, John, you can do better than that!  First, I already demonstrated that the language of paragraph #841 and the language of Pope John Paul II is clear that you Catholics and the Muslims are “brothers and sisters.” 

Secondly, saying that the “plan of salvation” includes all these people that you mentioned does nothing to prove your case.  If you want to go that route, we could say that every human on earth is part of the “plan of salvation,” since Jesus (because of OUR sin) had to die for ALL OF US.  We all played a part in it – according to Scripture, we have all sinned (Romans 3:23), so, in a sense, we all had a part in Calvary – it’s just that we humans played a very negative and embarrassing part!  So your argument is meaningless, John.  It reduces your definition of the “plan of salvation” to nonsense.

I agree that Muslims are not “brothers” with Christians, but you have a dilemma in defending your Church.  Both the Catechism and the former pope are teaching Catholic doctrine because they are both addressing faith and morals.

Times of Ignorance

In the second newsletter mentioned (Part 2), John Martignoni asks:

“So the Jews of the Old Testament did not worship the real God?  It wasn’t the real God that gave the Jews the Old Testament Scriptures?  It wasn’t the real God that divided the Red Sea?  It wasn’t the real God that fed them in the desert with manna from Heaven?  It wasn’t the real God that created Adam and Eve along with the rest of the universe?”

To answer John’s question, of course it was the real God, the biblical God, who did all those things in the Old Testament.  Although the Jews truly worshipped the real God as best they could, they could only do so with a limited understanding (John 4:21-24).  But once they met the Savior (who is the very image of the Father), they could then begin to know and understand the Father much better. 

But before Jesus came to earth, they didn’t know the exact identity of the Savior of mankind.  They had many passages in the Old Testament that pointed to this Messiah, but they weren’t expected to know what we know today from the New Testament.  All they had was the “faith of Abraham,” which looked forward to the promise of the Jewish Messiah. 

But the Jews of the Old Testament were allowed to worship the real God while in a certain amount of ignorance:

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.” (Acts 17:30)

But all we (i.e., all mankind) have no excuse today!  The gospel of Jesus Christ has pretty much been spread throughout the world, with very few exceptions, I think.  So the Jew, the Muslim, the Zoroastrian, the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the witch doctor in the deepest and darkest part of Africa – everyone who is searching for spiritual truth – now has possible access to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  God promises that if you humbly and truly reach out to Him, He will make a way for you to find Him (Acts 17: 27; Romans 1:18-20).  So this gives no one an excuse to wrongly worship Him today, Muslim or otherwise.

Misunderstood God or False God?

In Part 2, John also made this statement:

“Even if the worship of Muslims, and Jews, is not pleasing to God, that still doesn’t mean those whose worship is not pleasing to Him are somehow worshipping some other God.  It simply means, again, that their worship is deficient.  I don’t understand why some believe improper worship of God necessarily equates to worshipping a different God.  Where does Scripture say that deficient worship of the one true God = worshipping a false God?”

In answering that question, the apostle Paul was grieved with the church at Corinth, who seemed to be eager to accept almost any message from almost anyone, and he told them:

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

Notice that Paul complained that the Corinthians were quick to accept “another Jesus,” “another spirit,” or “another gospel.”  You see, not every “gospel” message has the right “spirit,” or the right “Jesus.”  It’s a package deal.  And take note – Paul didn’t say that they were trying to worship the correct Jesus, just in a deficient way – he calls it another Jesus, thus pointing out that they were committing idolatry.

If one is not preaching the right Jesus, he is not preaching the right gospel.  Just calling the one you’re worshipping “Jesus,” doesn’t make it Him.

The Muslim “Jesus” (“Isa” in Arabic) is a holy prophet, but not the Son of God.  They agree that he did great works and even miracles, but he did not die on the cross to save mankind. 

This is, by definition, another Jesus, i.e., a false one.

If you are praying to the Muslim “Jesus,” you are praying to a false god.  You can call it Jesus if you want to, but it is not the Jesus of the Bible.  It is not just a “deficient” worship, it would be idolatry.

Conclusion

Of course, we know that no one has perfect worship.  All worship of God is deficient to some extent.  No one knows God, or the things of God, perfectly or completely.  But certain things about God are absolutely necessary to believe in order to truly worship Him.  Our worship of Him is totally dependent on recognizing both the person and work of Jesus Christ on Calvary.  Only then can you truly worship the Father.

The apostle John said:

“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:23)

For proper worship, you need the Father AND the Son.  Again, you can’t have one without the other, or you end up with neither. (1 John 2:23; 2 John 1:9)

The apostle Paul gives us a stern warning about the message he first presented to the Galatians:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

Whoever doesn’t believe in Paul’s original gospel message and his original Jesus is utterly condemned.  The Muslims may believe in a “Jesus” (and a particular “gospel” that goes along with it), but they do not have the biblical message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, because they don’t recognize His true person and work.

Christians worship the God who inspired the Bible, Muslims worship the god who inspired the Qur’an.  Two different messages altogether.  Therefore, they DON’T have the same God as the Christians do. 

This refutes the claim of the Catholic Catechism and Pope John Paul II.  Muslims are guilty of idolatry in the eyes of God and the Catholic Church will be held accountable for the part they played in deceiving the Muslims.

See also this article on the topic of the Muslim god and the Christian God:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/10/same-god.html