JOHN MARTIGNONI AND HIS THOUGHTS ON “BIBLE” CHURCHES

Today, we again visit Catholic apologist and speaker, John Martignoni, and we’ll take a look at his Newsletter #538.  In this issue, John addresses “The Problem with So-Called ‘Bible’ Churches.”

You can find the link here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/758-the-problem-with-so-called-bible-churches-apologetics-for-the-masses-538

According to John:

“They say that all of their beliefs come straight from the Bible.  Sola Scriptura! is their rallying cry.  The Bible is their sole authority for what they believe and teach.  Or, they might say it’s their ‘ultimate’ authority or their only ‘infallible’ authority or some such thing… Regardless of whatever particular verbiage they use, it boils down to this: Protestant churches claim to take their beliefs and teachings on doctrine and morals straight ‘from’ the Bible.” 

He then says:

“… I realized that every church that claims Sola Scriptura as its most fundamental principle, and claims to take its beliefs and teachings straight from the Bible – well, every one of those churches, by claiming  to be a ‘Bible church’ – is, at the very same time, claiming not to be the church of the Bible.” (Emphasis in original)

So what in the world does he mean by this?

John then says:

“In order for the church to get its beliefs ‘from’ the Bible, the Bible would have to exist before the church did.  Yet, as we have seen, from the Word of God, the Church founded by Jesus Christ - the Church that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide (John 16:13) - that Church existed before a single word of the New Testament was ever written!” (Emphasis in original)

And a little later:

“But here’s the thing.  The Catholic Church is not a ‘Bible’ church in the sense that we take our beliefs/teachings ‘from’ the Bible; it is, however, a ‘Bible’ church in the sense that we put our beliefs/teachings ‘into’ the Bible.  So, we are not a ‘Bible’ church; rather, we are the Bible Church…we are the Church ‘of’ the Bible.” (Emphasis in original)

So, basically, John is saying, “Why would anyone want to be in a church that takes its beliefs FROM the Bible when you can be in the Church who GAVE YOU the Bible?”

For starters, see this link that challenges this idea:

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

The Truth

Well, John, that all sounds great, but no, if you (Catholics) were THE Bible church, you wouldn’t have so many false doctrines, as demonstrated throughout this blog.

If you had the true gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), you would not be like the Judaizers (Acts 15:1, 5), who believed that Jesus died on the cross, but also trusted in their works to be saved, and added them to the cross of Jesus Christ.  You would steer clear of idolatry and stop praying to anyone other than God.  You would put away the shrines to Mary and speak out against the papacy and your ministerial priesthood, all of which are totally unbiblical.  And there are many, many other issues with which to deal.  I know that this is a lot for most Catholics to take in, but I must be blunt with you and tell you the truth (Galatians 4:16).  The time is getting late and we are nearer the Lord’s Return than ever before (Romans 13:11).  It is certainly not safe to have all these unbiblical teachings hanging over your head.  John, you’re deceiving many Catholics and you’ll have to answer to God for each of these souls.

Which Came First?

The question often comes up in Catholic/Protestant discussions: Which came first, the Bible or the Church?  John contends that we can have a Church without the Bible, but it is not possible to have a Bible without the Church.  But is this true? 

No, the church did not come first.  Many Old Testament Scriptures existed hundreds, and even thousands, of years before the church ever existed.  God has chosen to give us Scripture little by little over the centuries.  He then created the church, with those Old Testament writings as its foundation (Isaiah 53; Jeremiah 31:31-34; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 1:1-2).  And by His design, God then gradually added more Scripture (the New Testament) after the church was in place.  So, yes, the New Testament came after the church was born, but there was much Scripture which existed long before that.

Let’s Use the Term Correctly!

John says:

“Furthermore, who wrote the Bible?  Let me refine that by asking: Who wrote the New Testament part of the Bible?  Members of the Church.  Every author of a New Testament book was a member of the Church.  So, it is entirely accurate to say that the Bible came from the Church.”

John is playing word games here.  Yes, the writers of the Sacred Scriptures were all saved – that is, they were members of the church (the global assembly of believers).  But John, like many other Catholics, often uses “the church” to mean “only the leaders of the church,” i.e., the Magisterium.  In fact, they will use “the church” and “the Catholic Magisterium” as if the terms are fully interchangeable, but Scripture will not allow such a concept.  Like I said, Catholics, including John Martignoni, will often play fast and loose with biblical terms.

For example, in this newsletter, John says 1) “the entire Bible came from the church,” 2) “without the church, you don’t have the Bible,” 3) that church wrote the New Testament and gave it to the world,” 4) “that church vouched for the fact that the New Testament, as well as the Old, is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God,” 5) the church that gave us the Bible in the first place,” 6) the Church founded by Jesus Christ,” 7) the Church that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide (John 16:13),” 8) a “Bible” Church in the sense that we put our beliefs/teachings ‘into’ the Bible,” and 9) the Church that serves as the authoritative witness that the books of the Bible are indeed the inspired, inerrant, Word of God.”

In all these instances, John is using the term to mean a Magisterium.

But none of these descriptions of the church are biblical.  None of these refers to the universal church, worldwide, nor do they simply refer to the local body of believers.  Rather, Catholics are referring to an unbiblical (and supposedly infallible) “Magisterium,” which Scripture knows nothing about!

Let’s get the definition of “church” right, once and for all.  The Catholic Magisterium is NOT the church.  Scripture never refers to the “leaders only” as the church – there is no such thing.  Again, Scripture only uses the term “church(es)” in two ways: 1) as the local body of believers (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18, 3:1, 7, 14), and 2) as the universal body of believers, worldwide (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18).  According to the Bible, there is no single person on earth who is head over the whole church, and there is no single body of certain believers over the whole church.

John continues:

“And since Israel is the Old Testament ‘church’ and the Church is the New Testament “Israel”, it is also fair to say that the entire Bible came from the ‘church’.”

Again, John is playing fast and loose with the term.  But Israel and the church are two separate entities.  Yes, they are both the people of God, but each group has a separate role to play in history. 

Same Doctrine?

But who was it that actually wrote the Bible?  Did any of these Bible authors (e.g., Matthew, Mark, John, Paul) claim to be Roman Catholic?  No, not one.  John, as many Catholics apologists do, is trying to force the teachings of these authors of Scripture into the mold of modern Catholicism, and it doesn’t work.  The teachings of the modern Catholic Church are not the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostolic authors.  John Martignoni conflates the two.

Conclusion

And John, for the record – on the one hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with men getting their teachings/doctrine from the Scriptures, which is what we are to be doing in the first place (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:15; 1 John 4:1).  You act as though those who do use the Bible for doctrine are some kind of second class Christians (or worse). 

But on the other hand, it IS wrong for anyone to claim that they are the only ones who have the fullness of the truth, especially with all the false doctrine the Catholic Church has.  John, no matter how you slice it, Scripture is not on your side.

You may say, “It’s not false doctrine, it’s just that you Protestants are using your own fallible private interpretation when reading the Bible!”  Well, we can get into that with my next scheduled post…

 

SACRED TRADITION’S IDENTITY CRISIS

 

Sacred Tradition is a really big deal in Catholicism.  It is one of the foundational “legs” on which the Catholic Church stands.  According to the Catholic Church’s Vatican II document Dei Verbum:

“Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” (chapter 2, paragraph 9, emphasis added)

In other words, they are to be considered equal.  So if Scripture is infallible/God-breathed, then (according to them) so is Sacred Tradition.  One is not above the other.

But is there biblical evidence for this Catholic concept of infallible Sacred Tradition?  Catholics will usually point to several Scriptures to make their case, but they will turn to one particular verse more than any other:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

And Catholics will say, “See, there it is.  We must obey BOTH the oral tradition (“… by word”) and the written tradition (“… [by] our epistle,”), i.e., Scripture.

When Catholics see the terms “oral” and “written” in this context, they treat it as though they are two different (and equal) bodies of information, and that we need BOTH of them to have the complete picture, God’s word in two different forms.  They see Tradition as something outside of, and distinguishable from Scripture, otherwise it is all just the written Word of God.   

A Closer Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Ok, let’s actually look at the context of this passage to see what the apostle Paul is actually saying about this.  Since this is the main and pivotal verse for Catholic Sacred Tradition, we must make sure that we understand Paul.  Here is the context:

In chapter 2, we see that the Thessalonians were disturbed about news they had received, i.e., they were “shaken” and “troubled” (2:2).  Someone made them believe that the Day of the Lord had already come upon them (v. 2), apparently through a letter, falsely claiming to be from Paul.  In this second letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul goes on to calm their fears and he reminds them that he had already told them in person (orally) all about the timing of the Day of the Lord (v. 5) and that they need not worry.  Then, after explaining it to them again in this letter (v. 6-12), he says to hold fast to those traditions (those teachings about the Day of the Lord that he first handed on to them) (v. 15), whether they received them orally, or by writing.  This is important – Paul is telling them that the message he gave to them at the beginning (orally) is the SAME message he was writing to them now!  How could they have forgotten already?  He did not give them two different messages, but the same one in two forms (written and oral)!  He is NOT telling them that we don’t have all of God’s Word unless we have it in both written form and some kind of oral form.  This is where Catholics deviate from Scripture.

Paul is basically asking them, “Why are you so disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from my hand?  Any true letter from me will agree with the message that I already gave to you in person!  I will never contradict the original message I gave to you in person, just as I would never give you a different gospel than the one I already gave to you (e.g., Galatians 1:6-9).”

Paul’s distinction between the two forms was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but the very opposite – to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms.  Catholics seem to think that the Word of God is somehow emasculated if it is only contained in infallible writing, but that is certainly not the case.  The point Paul was making here was that you can forever trust what Jesus and the apostles have given you!  His point was not that infallible revelation for the church always has to be in two forms.

But the content of this “oral” aspect of Sacred Tradition is now in question, and this brings us to our main point…

For God’s Sake, Show Us What It Is!

Again, what exactly was/is the content of this “Sacred Tradition”?  The Catholic Church is more than happy to point out the contents of their infallible seventy-three books of Scripture (the written Tradition) to all who would ask.  But many (both Catholics and Protestants) have often asked about the contents of this oral Sacred Tradition, as well.  But curiously, we find that the Catholic Church is unable (or not so anxious) to expose the contents of this “infallible” oral entity.

Oh sure, they’ll give us some incredibly vague, hazy and imprecise “definitions,” for example, it is said to be:

“… not simply a collection of pious practices but the living transmission of Christ’s teaching entrusted to the apostles and perpetuated in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”  See here:

https://catholicus.eu/en/sacred-tradition-an-unchanging-pillar-of-faith-in-a-changing-world/

But how can the person in the pew gain an understanding of such phraseology?  It seems the Church is purposely being vague when it talks like this.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.  Through Tradition, ‘the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes… ’” (CCC #78 – emphasis added)

Any honest person has to admit that this is just too nebulous to help anyone to know its content.

Sacred Tradition has also been called “the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church.”  See here:

https://markpshea.com/archive_sheavings/what-is-sacred-tradition/

This is simply more obfuscation.

According to one other source:

“Catholic Tradition is the living transmission of the faith…”

That tells us absolutely nothing meaningful.

“… encompassing teachings, practices and worship passed down from the apostles through the church over centuries…”

Again, nothing.  Which practices/teachings/worship?  And how do we know they actually came from the apostles?  It would sure help if the Catholic Church could be more specific, especially if we are talking about something that is supposedly infallible.  Protestants are not looking for examples of Sacred Tradition, but the whole of it!  Where exactly can this “infallible” information be found?  How can any generation know that the correct information has been properly handed down to them if no one can articulate exactly what it is?

One source calls it an “unbroken transmission of Christ’s revelation” and then names things that are/include non-infallible things (e.g., liturgy, creeds, writings of the church fathers, spiritual practices).  

These are just a tiny sampling of the Catholic Church’s attempt at a usable definition of Sacred Tradition.  But none of these are convincing.  The Church is not being transparent at all and these “definitions” are meaningless!  They might sound good, but are absolutely useless to help the common person understand what its contents actually are.

The Church Retaliates

Ok, when pressed to provide a meaningful definition of Sacred Tradition, the Church will often retaliate with comments like this:

• ·      “Where is ‘Sacred Tradition’ in the Protestant faith?”

If Protestant churches do claim some kind of “Sacred Tradition,” they have the same obligation to show it as the Catholic Church does.  If anyone claims to have any kind of Tradition, it is their responsibility, their burden of proof to show what it is.  You can’t just say something is infallible, and not even be able to tell us what it is!

• ·      Is this really the question for you Protestants… if we Catholics would indeed actually show you the list of all Tradition, the real question is, “Would you then become Catholic?” 

Nice try, but the answer is no.  Asking the Catholic Church to show us what Tradition is, is only the beginning of the work ahead of you!  Answering the “Tradition location question” is just the FIRST step!  There are many, many more logical and biblical issues to settle before any Protestant should even think about becoming Catholic.  By the way, I could reciprocate and ask, “If you Catholics CAN’T show us this list, will YOU become Protestant?

• ·      Your request is unreasonable!  Sacred Tradition is not just a “static” entity that can be “listed,” but is “living,” “unchangeable,” “dynamic,” and it is something that is practiced and it develops over time.  One priest said, “Asking for a list of Sacred Traditions is a bit like asking, ‘What is culture and where can I find a list of it?’  It is not that simple.”

Well, you know what?  Culture has nothing to do with infallibility, while this Tradition supposedly specifically does.  If something is considered infallible, it must be validly identified.  The Catholic Church certainly fails to do that! 

They like to claim that Sacred Tradition is the “lived experience” of the Church, but this is far too broad a description.  Let me ask a question – Wouldn’t the pedophilia in the Catholic Church also be part of the “lived experience” of many of its victims?  So, is THAT rightly considered part of Sacred Tradition, as well?  After all, it is a real experience, isn’t it?  This frequently-used “lived experience” phrase is simply meaningless when describing Sacred Tradition.  There were millions of “lived experiences” in the history of the church, many of which were bad.  The Catholic Church is purposely deflecting the question of what its Tradition is and where it can be found.

Let’s Be Honest

Ok, Catholics, let’s be honest.  If you wanted some specific information from a Protestant, especially if it was claimed to be infallible, and the Protestant answered you with such vague and meaningless terms like the Church does, you would (rightly) accuse him of deflecting or withholding the desired information.  You would claim that he was simply obfuscating and insulting your intelligence with such phrases.

And this is exactly what happens when Catholics tell us that Sacred Tradition is “the living transmission of the faith,” or “the common life, worship and teaching of the Catholic faith,” or “the unbroken transmission of Christ’s revelation,” etc., etc.  These are simply nebulous and meaningless descriptions of something that is supposed to be equal to Scripture!  The fact that you withhold any meaningful description of this Tradition, shows us that you don’t really know exactly what it is.  Otherwise, you’d be glad to tell us.

Conclusion

Does anyone, especially the common man, have time to read/research 2000 years of church history?  Because it seems that this is what it would take for one to have any clue of what “Sacred Tradition” is.

If Sacred Tradition is THAT “living” and THAT “dynamic,” and THAT elusive and uncertain – if it’s THAT hard to pin down, then we have an obligation to proclaim that no such entity can claim, by any biblical standard, to be infallible.

When Cardinal Guidi of Bologna pointed out to Pope Pius IX that his (the pope’s) views on papal infallibility were not supported by Sacred Tradition, Pius roared, “I AM TRADITION!”  In one short statement, the pope said out loud what everybody already knew: that Tradition, in effect, is whatever the pope says it is!  But the corrupt and power-hungry Pope Pius IX was at least more honest about the definition of Sacred Tradition than the Church has ever been.  Pius, in his private meeting with Guidi, didn’t try to sugarcoat it or offer vague and nonsensical definitions, as we see so many do today.

It seems that none of the Church’s popes, councils, “infallible” documents, or its modern apologists are able to convincingly identify this elusive and baffling entity the Church calls Tradition.  Therefore, Sacred Tradition, a foundational claim of the Catholic Church, suffers an identity crisis about which Catholics should be quite embarrassed.

 

JOE HESCHMEYER AND THE EUCHARIST

 

“Well, if it’s just a symbol, to Hell with it!”

The above quote is from a Catholic author and apologist, Mary Flannery O’Connor, at a literary gathering, and it was intended as a rebuke toward a writer who commented that the Catholic Eucharist was a symbol.  It seems that emotions run high between Catholics and Protestants when speaking on this particular topic.

But the quote from O’Connor makes one think.  If the Catholic Eucharist is really all that the Catholic Church says it is, then every single one of us who names the name of Christ should line up to worship this Eucharist. However… if Catholics are wrong about this, they are guilty of outright idolatry.  Yes, the stakes are high, so we should make sure of what the Living God says on this topic.

There is much written on this subject, for and against, but our only sure hope of finding the truth is in God’s Word:

“Thy Word is truth…” (John 17:17).

Joe’s Article

I would now like to address an article from Catholic Answers written by Catholic author, apologist, and speaker, Joe Heschmeyer, who seems to be a likeable and intelligent guy.  His article is titled, “5 Tests for Your Faith in the Eucharist” and it was written May 18, 2026.  You can find it here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/5-tests-for-your-faith-in-the-eucharist

In order to know if you have the correct and biblical interpretation on the subject of the Eucharist, Joe suggests that your beliefs should be “strange, sacrificial, serious, sacramental and shocking.”

Ok, that’s an interesting statement, to say the least, so let’s dig in and see what Joe has to say.

Strange

First, he says the proper Christian understanding of the Eucharist should be strange and hard to accept. 

Joe is referring to the events in the gospel of John in chapter 6, where Jesus keeps telling His listeners that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to be saved.  Joe is also saying that Jesus is referring to the Eucharist when He said these things.  At this time, many of Jesus’ followers walked away from Him because they felt that the words of Jesus were hard.  (By the way, Jesus was never obligated to chase after, or explain anything to, anyone who purposely walks away from Him!)

It seems that Joe is suggesting that since this teaching was initially received as strange and hard-to-accept for Jesus’ audience (John 6), it should be taken that way by everybody. 

But the truthfulness of a particular teaching is not determined by the reaction of the audience, but rather by measuring that teaching against the whole of Scripture. 

More to the point, either the “literalness” or the symbolism of any teaching is determined by context and common sense.  As many people know, Catholics believe that after the priest consecrates the Eucharist, it is changed into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation).  To promote this teaching, Catholic apologists lean heavily on John 6, which is also called the “Bread of Life” discourse.  They believe that this chapter helps to prove that Jesus was speaking literally here about changes in the bread and wine.

If there were no symbolism at all in the “Bread of Life” discourse, I might agree with the Catholic Church, but symbolism is not only present, it is abundant in this chapter:

“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.’” (John 6:35)

This is a pivotal verse for this whole chapter, where “coming to Him” is equated with no longer hungering, and “believing on Him” is equated with no longer thirsting.  This is obviously symbolic language.  I don’t think that anyone in this audience is thinking that they would never physically hunger or thirst again if they came to Jesus and believed on Him.

Interestingly, Jesus continues to refer to “believing in Him” in v. 29, 36, 40, 47, and 64 – and this extends into, and well past, the “eat My flesh and drink My blood” language, which ends at v. 58.

Furthermore, Jesus also continues to use this “coming to Him” language in v. 37, 44, 45, and 65 – and again, it extends well into the “eat My flesh” passages. 

So, because of this, there is obviously figurative language throughout John 6, pointing strongly toward a symbolic eating of His flesh and a symbolic drinking of His blood.  This imagery simply refers to embracing, partaking of, and trusting in what Jesus was going to do on the cross, where man’s sin-debt was to be paid.

Sacrificial

Joe also points out that the apostle Paul compares the Jewish sacrifices with the heathen sacrifices of his day and that a person becomes a partner with whichever altar he chooses to partake of (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).  This is true, but this does absolutely nothing to prove transubstantiation, nor does it prove that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice.  Joe then says:

“If your understanding of the Eucharist isn’t a sacrifice comparable to the fleshly sacrifices offered in the temple in Jerusalem or in pagan rites, then you don’t believe what Paul believed.”

Catholics love to point out the “sacrificial overtones” in Paul’s description of the Lord’s Supper/Communion service (1 Corinthians 10:14-22; 11:20-34).  But of course there are sacrificial overtones – the bread and wine in Communion are pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the cross!  The bread represents His broken body and the wine, His shed blood.  The ritual itself is not a sacrifice, but it points to the sacrifice that happened on Calvary!

Serious

Joe then points out that Paul directly received the information he got from Jesus concerning the Eucharist/Communion.  According to Joe, this is how seriously Jesus takes the Eucharist and adds:

“He doesn’t just leave it up to us to figure out how best to commemorate or honor or worship him.”

Joe then points to how some in the church eat and drink of the elements unworthily and profane the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:28-30).  He then says:

“It’s hard to square this seriousness with a symbolic view of the Eucharist.”

But I would say, no, it’s not hard at all.  Consider Genesis 17:9-14: 

(v. 9) – “And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep My covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 

(v. 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. 

(v. 11) – And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token [sign] of the covenant betwixt Me and you.”

(v. 13) – “… and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.”

(v. 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.”

Ok, so here we have circumcision, which is a TOKEN of the covenant (v. 11) between God and Abraham.  A token is a SIGN, a SYMBOL of the covenant.  Yet, notice the consequences for ignoring or abusing this “mere sign.”  The penalty was for one to be CUT OFF from God’s people!  (See also Exodus 31:14-15)

That sounds like a pretty stiff punishment for profaning a mere symbol, doesn’t it? 

So, yes, the Eucharist/Communion (like circumcision) can indeed be just a symbol, yet still endanger the one who abuses or disrespects the elements involved.  The reason is because of what the elements in the Lord’s Supper POINT TO – i.e., the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on Calvary.  These people in the church at Corinth were not discerning what these elements represented.  THAT’S why church members were sick and dying (1 Corinthians 11:30), not because the bread and wine supposedly turn into Jesus’ body and blood through transubstantiation. 

If you want to see a real, biblical and verifiable miraculous example of transubstantiation, look to the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-10).  The Catholic “miracle” of the Eucharist at Mass is none of these.

By the way, Jesus uses the same type of language in the New Testament as the Father did in the Old Testament: 

Genesis 17:10 – This [circumcision] is My covenant… between Me and you…

Luke 22:20 – … This cup [wine] is the New Testament [New Covenant] in My blood…

1 Corinthians 11:25 – This cup [wine] is the New Testament [New Covenant] in My blood…

Both the Father and Jesus call the symbols a “covenant” in the passages just above.  Now, we all know that a covenant is an intangible thing – an agreement, a contract, or a promise to do something.  But the tangible bread and wine (as well as Abraham’s circumcision) are not the actual covenant, itself, but are simply symbols of that covenant between God and man.  (See also Exodus 31:12-13; 16).

No doubt, the apostles at the Last Supper recognized Jesus’ use of the symbolic language from Genesis 17 and Exodus 31.  So, if the cup (wine) is a symbol, so is the bread. 

Thus, we see that symbolism is used in John 6 (as demonstrated earlier) and symbolism is also used again at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).  This would cancel out any purely “literal” language of transubstantiation.

Catholics will say that since Jesus didn’t explain His reasoning for the “strong language” in John 6, then He must have been speaking literally.  Well, Jesus most likely had explained it to His true followers later on (privately) in the John 6 event, but He certainly made the symbolism known at the Last Supper.

Sacramental

Joe then points out that Ignatius of Antioch “adopts a sacramentarian stance” concerning the events of John 6 and says that Ignatius seems to have been a disciple of John.  Joe then states:

“If anyone can shed light on what John 6 means, surely it is one of John’s own students.”

Well, no doubt we can learn some things from John’s students, but I think that we should not be overlooking the very words of the apostle John and Jesus Christ, Himself!  Why turn to fallible church fathers when you can go directly to the infallible and inspired words of Jesus and the apostles in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17)?

We should follow the example of Jesus: When He quoted Scripture to the devil (Matthew 4:3-4) and the devil quoted Scripture right back at Him (v. 5-6), did Jesus turn to someone else for clarity and authority, like the venerable rabbis, scribes or scholars of His day?  No, Jesus simply went EVEN DEEPER INTO THE SCRIPTURES (v. 7) as an example of where to turn (… it is also written)!  Thus, He provided a fuller understanding.  So, we do have enough evidence in the Scriptures to determine that Jesus was speaking symbolically in the “Bread of Life” discourse, as pointed out above.

Concerning sacraments, I would like to point out that there is no such thing in Scripture as a sacrament, as described by the Catholic Church.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify” (CCC #1127) and “the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace” (CCC #1131), etc., etc.

So, according to Catholicism, sacraments are rituals/signs that supposedly convey grace to the individual.  But grace (by definition) is not something that can be bought, earned or merited by doing a prescribed ritual.  Rituals are works and, according to Scripture, we don’t get grace by works (Romans 11:6).  We get grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and through humility (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). 

See this article on sacraments:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

Note also that the Catholic Church is forced to admit that the Eucharist is indeed a symbol (since it is known to them as a sacrament), but they say that it is not just a symbol.  In other words, according to Catholics, the Eucharist is both a symbol of Jesus, and it is also actually Jesus after consecration!

But how can something be a symbol of XYZ and at the same time, be the actual XYZ, itself?  If you were holding a photograph of yourself and you told someone “This is me,” what you really mean is “This is a picture, or symbol, or representation of me.”  The picture cannot be the actual “you.”  Only YOU, YOURSELF are the actual “you.” 

By definition, nothing can be both a symbol of something AND its reality.  It is either one or the other, but it can’t be a symbol of itself!  You can’t have it both ways.  There is nothing like this in nature or in Scripture.  You can’t just create unbiblical concepts just so your theology can work.  Again, this is not a biblical concept, but is simply a deceptive game of semantics used by the Catholic Church.

Shocking

Finally, Joe goes on to say that the crowd in John 6 found Jesus’ words shocking and even repulsive, and that later on in the ancient world, some even saw Christians as cannibalistic, because of the Eucharist.  I can see their point!  But Catholics seem to somehow take this as a badge of honor. 

Nevertheless, the New Testament tells us that the ritual of Communion/Eucharist is simply a memorial (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) of what Jesus did for us on the cross.  Paul tells us its purpose is to proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).  And we do exactly that.  This goal of proclaiming His death can certainly be achieved without any kind of literal or physical change in the elements. 

Conclusion

Time and time again, the Old Testament Jews were lured into the snare of idolatry (Exodus 23:32-33).  Many lost their souls because of it.  It seemed to be the devil’s most useful tool in the Old Testament.  Many people today seem to think that idolatry has largely “gone away,” but we also have New Testament warnings against this sin (e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:14; Galatians 5:19-21).

Like I said earlier, the stakes are high.  If there is ANY symbolism at all in the “Eucharistic” passages (and there is), I would be extremely cautious about embracing a “literal” understanding of it.  Any and all of us can freely pray to, spend time with, and worship Jesus Christ whenever we want to and wherever we are in the world, even if we are nowhere near the elements of bread and wine.  Transubstantiation is not at all needed to perform these acts of worship.

Remember, the Last Supper is not about the Church’s sacrifice to God in the Mass, but it is about God’s sacrifice provided for mankind on the cross.

The bottom line is that the Catholic Eucharist is a deception and a dangerous trap that leads to idolatry.

See this link for more on the Eucharist:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-sacrament-of-eucharist.html

 

 

CATEGORIES OF WORKS

 

Protestants accuse Catholics of believing in a “faith plus works” salvation system.  But popular Catholic apologists will deny that and say that they are not saved by their works.  Yet, they will soon after point to passages like Matthew 25:31-46, Galatians 5:6, James 2:24 and many other verses that mention works, insisting that works will merit salvation after all.

But I believe that some of the confusion can be cleared up by recognizing the types, or categories, of work(s) that the Bible speaks of, and comparing this to what Catholics believe.

Different Types

First of all, the Bible mentions the “works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21), and it also mentions “dead works” (Hebrews 6:1 and 9:14).  But of course these do not impart merit of any kind, since they are sinful works.  I think that both Catholics and Protestants would agree here.

Another category would be “works of debt,” which would be understood as works that obligate God to save you – works that produce an attitude of putting God in debt to you – but we can never put God in our debt.  These “works of debt” also would not necessarily be considered by Catholics to be the kind of works that contribute to one’s salvation, and I think again that Catholics and Protestants will agree on this.

What about works of “the Law” (Romans 3-4)?  There is a lot of confusion about this one.  Some believe that this term only refers to the “ceremonial” laws of the Old Testament (like circumcision, diet restrictions, etc.) and not the “moral” laws (like the Ten Commandments).  But Paul shows that “the Law” does indeed include the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:6-7). 

It is important to note that the apostle Paul (Romans 3-4) is not only saying that “the Law” consists of the whole Mosaic Law (Exodus through Deuteronomy), but he is also saying that we are saved apart from the merit of any and all laws/good works.  Notice that I am NOT saying that those who are saved don’t ever have to do good works – of course we do good works – I’m just saying that these good works do not contribute to one’s salvation, since they are done AFTER one is already saved.  

A Look at Paul and Abraham

Ok, so now we come to the works that Catholics would consider salvific, or saving – works that somehow contribute to one’s salvation by accumulating a certain amount of merit each time one of these good works are done.  These works are called by many names and they would include:

Good works, works of righteousness, works of faith, works of obedience, grace-filled works, God-assisted works, grace-empowered works, works done in a state of grace, works of the New Law of Christ, meritorious works, works of God, etc.

These are the types of works (along with faith) that Catholics say will merit salvation.  But notice two things here before we go on:  1) We know from Scripture that circumcision is a work.  And 2) We know that circumcision did not save Abraham.  Both Catholics and Protestants should agree with these two points, since according to Romans 4:

(v. 9) “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?  For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.”

(v. 10) “How was it then reckoned?  When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?  Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”

(v. 11) “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.”

“This blessedness” (v. 9) about which Paul is speaking is salvation/justification/the act of being forgiven and made righteous.  This is exactly what he is talking about.  And “this blessedness” is acquired by faith, not circumcision.

But why?  Was not Abraham’s circumcision a work of righteousness?  Didn’t God specifically tell him to do this work (Genesis 17:7-11) and wasn’t he obedient?  The answer is a resounding “YES”! 

Then why wasn’t this God-ordained work salvific?  Why was he not justified by it?  Was there something wrong with circumcision?  Not at all, but the reason it did not save anyone is simply because circumcision is a work.  And works don’t save us.  That’s the bottom line.

Comparing the list of the names of the good works that Catholics hold to (above), wasn’t Abraham’s circumcision a “work of obedience,” a “work of faith,” a “work of God,” a “grace-empowered” work?  Absolutely!  Is there any evidence that Abraham had some kind of ulterior motive in getting circumcised?  No, there is not.  So how was his circumcision somehow inferior to the works of the New Testament?  It wasn’t!

If this work of Abraham (circumcision) was not salvific or meritorious, then neither are any other works in the New Testament!

Context

But what about all those passages that seem to tie works in with salvation?  Fair question.  There is indeed a close relationship between the two.  But many of those passages are simply DE-scriptive in nature, i.e., describing the type of person (and the works he does) who is already saved.  But when the context of a passage is “How to get right with God” (i.e., become justified), then it is PRE-scriptive, it is prescribing how to get saved.  That’s what we don’t see in most (if not all) of the passages that Catholics quote to us Protestants.

With this in mind, we must also remember to take Scripture as a whole, and we must take Scripture passages in context.  This is the only way that all the passages make sense, that is, to determine whether they are descriptive or prescriptive.  This would clear up a lot of the issues.  As Protestants, we can reconcile passages that seem to involve works in salvation.  But I don’t think that Catholics can do the same thing when dealing with passages that talk about salvation “apart from works.”  Catholics really seem to struggle with (or avoid) such passages of Scripture.

Works of Righteousness

Speaking of salvation, observe what the apostle Paul told Titus:

“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.” (Titus 3:5)

Did you catch that?  Salvation is NOT by works of righteousness!  And every single (biblical) good work that Catholics can name is a work of righteousness!  So this verse effectively excludes the merit of any and all works that Catholics claim will contribute to salvation.

But couldn’t they say that such passages are only speaking of “initial” justification?  No, because “initial” justification would include water baptism (by their own admission, a work of righteousness)!

The Catholic may say that all these God-assisted works of obedience are not just the works of men, but are “works of God’s grace.”  But isn’t absolutely EVERYTHING we (the saved and the unsaved alike) have, given to us by the grace of God?  Yes, indeed.  Even the air we breathe is purely God’s grace.  But that doesn’t make breathing redemptive, does it?  Just because grace is involved doesn’t mean that the act is a cause of salvation!

God’s grace may abound in all gifts, but there is only one biblical way to receive the gracious gift of salvation – and that is by the conduit of faith.  We just have to trust Him.  His work on the cross, His merit.

Conclusion

As we have seen, there are several categories and types of works for the believer.  But when we diligently study the Scriptures, we find that NONE of these works cause salvation.  I can just hear someone screaming, “But the Bible itself says that ‘baptism now saves us’ (1 Peter 3:21)!  Again, a diligent study of Scripture will show that this verse is often misunderstood.  See these links, especially Part 3:

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

There is no special category of work that merits salvation.  An honest look at Galatians 3:3 should settle the matter, since it points out that works will not merit salvation AT ANY POINT in your spiritual walk:

“Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” 

We begin our salvation journey by faith, we maintain it by faith, and it is concluded by faith (Philippians 1:6). 

Salvation is all about the Savior, Jesus Christ, and the sufficiency of His work on the cross, His honor, His bragging rights, His merit – and none of man’s.

A SELF-REFUTING CATHOLIC ARGUMENT

There is an old saying that basically states, “He shot himself in the foot.”  This is when someone inadvertently undermines his own chances of success or he achieves the opposite of his intended outcome. 

I would say that this is exactly what happens when applied to the Catholic Church when they put forth their “certainty of the canon” argument.

As for as I can remember, I have never heard of, spoken with, or met a Catholic who did not believe in the supposed NEED for infallible certainty on the list of books in the canon of Scripture.  This basically means that one cannot have any meaningful assurance that we have the right Bible books unless an “infallible source” (like the Catholic Church) infallibly declares exactly which books are intended to be in the canon.  It appears that this is a universal concept within Catholicism. 

One Catholic source, which bears the Catholic seals of approval (the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur) states:

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

A few months ago I posted an article concerning the canon and Catholicism’s claims, and I presented two major premises to demonstrate the error of the Catholic Church’s teaching.  You can see it here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/10/the-two-fatal-flaws-of-catholics-when.html

Today, I will again address two premises concerning the Catholic Church’s canon, but with a different twist.

Two Premises

Major premise #1 – The Catholic Church has always proposed a NEED for infallible certainty of the canon (as just mentioned).  And Catholics (supposedly) have this infallible level of certainty while Protestants don’t.  Note that this idea also assumes that any kind of “sufficient certainty” on the canon can never be enough.

Major premise #2 – It is clear that there was no infallibly-declared canon until the Council of Trent in A.D. 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”)

By the way, this particular encyclopedia also contains the Catholic seals of approval.

Two Questions

•      So, the first big question is, how did the Catholic Church operate in the first 1500 years of its existence if there was any kind of doubt about its canon?

To answer that, they will often claim something like they were able to operate on a broadly accepted 4^th century consensus.  They were also able to make use of local councils, apostolic tradition, the Church fathers, the living Magisterium of the Church, etc., etc. 

•        Ok, so this brings us to the second big question:

Exactly what kind of certainty did these things (consensus, councils, tradition, etc.) actually produce for the Church?

And the answer to that question is most important.  It seems to me that there can only be three ways to answer this question, so here is what I believe the possible answers are:

    1) Either, these things produced infallible certainty on the canon for the Church before Trent, or

    2) These things produced reasonable/sufficient certainty on the canon for the Church before Trent, or

    3) These things produced no certainty at all on the canon for the Church before Trent

I don’t see any other possibilities. 

Ok, if the Catholic Church answers with #1 above, they would be lying, since they know and agree that the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) was the earliest time that the canon of Scripture was infallibly declared/recognized (as described by the New Catholic Encyclopedia above).

If the Catholic Church answers with #2, they would have to admit that sufficient certainty is indeed good enough and that Protestants were right all along concerning this.

If the Catholic Church answers with #3, they’d have to admit that they had a bad, or false, canon that gave them no certainty, and all their books (and the teachings therein) are in danger of being false.

This produces a trilemma for the Catholic Church and puts them in a very awkward position.  All three answers are embarrassing for them, but the best and most accurate answer of the three is to agree with the Protestants and the possibility of a sufficient certainty being good enough. 

But if they do this, it questions the very need for infallible certainty in the first place, and Major premise #1 would be false.  Either way, whether they deny or admit that Protestants have a sufficient canon, Catholics are trapped by their own argument.

If infallible certainty was never needed before A.D. 1546, it is not needed now.  This teaching of the Catholic Church is indeed a self-refuting argument.