Today we will take a look at the concept of sacraments. The word “sacrament” comes from the Latin “sacramentum”, signifying something sacred, namely, an oath. It also denotes a “mystery.” Sacraments may be used differently by various groups and can be found in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and even in some Protestant churches. But since they are most prominent in the Catholic Church, we will deal with the Catholic view of sacraments.
Portrait of a Sacrament
So what are Catholic sacraments, and how important are they?
There are many descriptions of them, e.g., sacraments are said to be visible signs of an invisible reality… visible signs instituted by Christ to give grace… signs that really effect what they symbolize… outward signs of inward grace… signs that accomplish what they signify… vehicles of grace… signs that cause us to be united to Christ in the deepest and greatest possible way... etc., etc.
Here are some statements from Catholic sources concerning their importance:
The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1113)
By His power He [Christ] is present in the sacraments… (Pope Paul VI, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” a Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Paragraph 7)
His purpose also was that they might accomplish the work of salvation which they had proclaimed, by means of sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical life revolves. (Ibid., Paragraph 6)
Sacraments are "powers that come forth" from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant. (CCC #1116)
The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. (CCC #1129)
Therefore, sacraments are extremely important to the Catholic Church. They are foundational to its existence and welfare, since they are “necessary for salvation.”
So, according to the Catholic Church, how does a sacrament actually work?
Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. (CCC #1127)
The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions. (CCC #1131)
What the Catechism is saying is that sacraments are symbols that have the power to “confer” / furnish / supply grace and to actually do what they symbolize (e.g., baptism actually washes away sin, and the Eucharist actually becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood, etc.)
Warning
Finally, what happens if one does not believe it?
The Council of Trent declares:
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VI)
If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VIII)
So, we see here that if one does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the sacraments, he is declared “anathema” by the Catholic Church. An anathema is the gravest (most severe) form of excommunication, where one is eternally condemned to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction (see the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – under the topic, “anathema”).
Symbol or Reality?
There is a confusing problem with the Catholic idea of sacraments. In the Eucharist, for example, Catholics believe that Christ is somehow present in a “sacramental” way (whatever that means). But if sacraments “accomplish what they signify”, if they actually do what they symbolize, then why do they need to symbolize at all? Catholics believe the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is both “the real thing” (i.e., Christ’s actual body and blood) and at the same time, a SYMBOL of the “real thing.” But a certain object cannot be BOTH a symbol of something else AND its reality. It is either one or the other. If it is a symbol of a particular thing, then it is not that particular thing. If it is literally the “real thing,” then there is no need for it to be a “symbol of itself.” You can’t have it both ways. This is simply equivocation. No such thing exists in Scripture, nor in the modern world that we live in.
A Biblical Concept?
The concept of sacraments with “special powers” that can earn (or control the amount of) grace given to someone is certainly not biblical. How can a person “control grace” by rituals, objects and ceremonies? How can grace be dependent on works (especially grace for salvation)? It isn’t. But this is a typical example of the works-based salvation of the Catholic Church.
But grace is not something you can buy through the performance of a ritual. By its very definition, grace excludes works. Grace is usually defined as “the UNMERITED favor of God.” It cannot be earned or bought.
Then how do we get grace, according to the Bible? Grace is received by FAITH, not by works, ceremonies or “sacraments.” (Romans 4:16; 5:2; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9) See also our three-part series on “Faith Alone” and our “Sola Fide Revisited” article, elsewhere on this blog.
Conclusion
Some may accuse us of being “anti-sacramental,” and automatically assume that we believe that “matter is evil.” But this is ridiculous and does not necessarily follow. We don’t think that matter is “evil,” nor do we make it a “spirit versus matter” issue.
And we are not against symbolism. Symbols are fine. Symbols help us to understand many concepts. They are very useful and meaningful in our everyday lives and in Scripture. But they don’t save anyone. One is saved by simply trusting in the work and the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross for us, and that alone.
Not only is the Catholic concept of sacraments NOT IN SCRIPTURE, it is also AGAINST Scripture. It is a system of obtaining the priceless grace of God by works and rituals. Any system that can buy the grace of God is corrupt and anti-biblical, and anyone who believes in this view of sacraments is in serious doctrinal error, whether they claim to be Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Thursday, December 9, 2010
SOLA SCRIPTURA AND DIVISIONS
Sola Scriptura (Latin for “Bible Alone”) is the teaching that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Catholics reject this teaching for several reasons, but this particular article will address only one of those Catholic objections. That tired, overused, but ever-so-popular Catholic argument is this: Sola Scriptura is “unworkable” as a rule of faith because it uses “private interpretation,” and this causes divisions / arguments / disagreements in Protestantism. But is this sound reasoning? Is this a fair argument?
Well, it is no secret that there are many divisions within Protestantism. Some estimate that there are 25,000 different denominations, some 30,000, others 33,000, etc., etc. One popular Catholic apologist claims that there may even be MILLIONS of Protestant denominations. While we believe that all of these numbers are wildly exaggerated, the focus of this article will not be on how many denominations there really are, nor on who has “more unity.” The focus is on the hypocrisy of Catholics who make the claim that Sola Scriptura is false because of divisions within Protestantism, while knowing that they, too, have divisions.
The Catholic Church claims to be “one” (i.e., unified), yet there are also many divisions / arguments / disagreements within its own ranks. This fact is undeniable. A little time spent searching on the internet will demonstrate that point. And some of these disagreements are on major, essential issues… even between higher officials in the Church. Even some of the early church fathers had disagreements with each other. There have been disagreements on all levels in the Catholic Church, from amateur lay apologists, to priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Some modern points of disagreement between Catholics include the issue of contraception, the significance and effects of Vatican II, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Traditionalists, Novus Ordo (New Mass), evolution, Charismatic Catholics, and the concept of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Latin for “no salvation outside the [Catholic] Church”) … to name just a few.
So, if Sola Scriptura is disqualified as a rule of faith because Protestants have divisions, then the Catholic Magisterium must also be disqualified. If “Bible Alone” is negated due to the existence of disagreements, then so is Catholic Tradition. If divisions cancel out one rule of faith, they cancel out all of them, making this Catholic argument self-refuting. This is certainly a double standard.
Just because you may not have “physical” divisions (denominations with separate names) doesn’t mean you don’t have divisions. And if Sola Scriptura is the cause of disagreements, then how is it that YOU have them, also? Apparently, the Catholic rule of faith is not as “clear” as many Catholics claim it to be.
Someone may respond that Catholic divisions simply stem from those who disagree with the Church’s clear and official teaching and are thus actually heretics, and not true Catholics; therefore they “don’t count” when comparing disagreements.
But, first of all, Protestants could use this same argument and say that Protestant divisions also occur because of disobedience to the Bible’s clear teaching, and that those who disagree with us are not true Sola Scriptura believers, either.
Secondly, if these Catholic “heretics” are never excommunicated, and they continue to attend and participate in Catholic services, give financially to the Catholic Church, partake of the sacraments, and continue to identify with the Church, then it certainly does not appear that the Church, herself, considers them “heretics,” does it?
So, the “heretic” argument doesn’t prove anything, nor does it erase the fact that Catholicism has its divisions.
Catholics may say, “But we have a leader (the pope) who can decide infallibly for us when disagreements arise.”
And how many times have popes “infallibly” decided anything? It is an extremely rare event. But this just causes more confusion, because Catholics can’t even know exactly how many times this has happened in history. There is no “official” list of infallible statements, so an appeal to this supposed infallibility does little or nothing to help this Catholic argument.
CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, disagreements in interpretation are inevitable in this life; it’s something we just have to learn to live with. Remember, there were many who saw Jesus Christ, Himself, face to face, and they still disagreed among themselves on what He taught. Does this mean that Jesus’ teachings were also “unworkable”? Of course not. The ABUSE of a sufficient rule of faith does not void that rule of faith.
Dear Catholic friends, I am not trying to justify Protestant divisions, but I’m simply challenging the idea that disagreements cause a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, but not for the Catholic rule of faith. This idea is inconsistent on the part of Catholics.
Yes, of course Jesus wants Christians to have unity in the truth (John 17:11, 21-23), and we should always strive for it, yet we ALL fall short… some of us more than others. But, please don’t pretend you have no divisions in Catholicism, or that your rule of faith is somehow exempt when you use the “disagreements nullify Sola Scriptura” argument.
Catholics lose credibility each time this argument is used. So, let’s put this faulty and deceptive argument to rest, once and for all.
Well, it is no secret that there are many divisions within Protestantism. Some estimate that there are 25,000 different denominations, some 30,000, others 33,000, etc., etc. One popular Catholic apologist claims that there may even be MILLIONS of Protestant denominations. While we believe that all of these numbers are wildly exaggerated, the focus of this article will not be on how many denominations there really are, nor on who has “more unity.” The focus is on the hypocrisy of Catholics who make the claim that Sola Scriptura is false because of divisions within Protestantism, while knowing that they, too, have divisions.
The Catholic Church claims to be “one” (i.e., unified), yet there are also many divisions / arguments / disagreements within its own ranks. This fact is undeniable. A little time spent searching on the internet will demonstrate that point. And some of these disagreements are on major, essential issues… even between higher officials in the Church. Even some of the early church fathers had disagreements with each other. There have been disagreements on all levels in the Catholic Church, from amateur lay apologists, to priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Some modern points of disagreement between Catholics include the issue of contraception, the significance and effects of Vatican II, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Traditionalists, Novus Ordo (New Mass), evolution, Charismatic Catholics, and the concept of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Latin for “no salvation outside the [Catholic] Church”) … to name just a few.
So, if Sola Scriptura is disqualified as a rule of faith because Protestants have divisions, then the Catholic Magisterium must also be disqualified. If “Bible Alone” is negated due to the existence of disagreements, then so is Catholic Tradition. If divisions cancel out one rule of faith, they cancel out all of them, making this Catholic argument self-refuting. This is certainly a double standard.
Just because you may not have “physical” divisions (denominations with separate names) doesn’t mean you don’t have divisions. And if Sola Scriptura is the cause of disagreements, then how is it that YOU have them, also? Apparently, the Catholic rule of faith is not as “clear” as many Catholics claim it to be.
Someone may respond that Catholic divisions simply stem from those who disagree with the Church’s clear and official teaching and are thus actually heretics, and not true Catholics; therefore they “don’t count” when comparing disagreements.
But, first of all, Protestants could use this same argument and say that Protestant divisions also occur because of disobedience to the Bible’s clear teaching, and that those who disagree with us are not true Sola Scriptura believers, either.
Secondly, if these Catholic “heretics” are never excommunicated, and they continue to attend and participate in Catholic services, give financially to the Catholic Church, partake of the sacraments, and continue to identify with the Church, then it certainly does not appear that the Church, herself, considers them “heretics,” does it?
So, the “heretic” argument doesn’t prove anything, nor does it erase the fact that Catholicism has its divisions.
Catholics may say, “But we have a leader (the pope) who can decide infallibly for us when disagreements arise.”
And how many times have popes “infallibly” decided anything? It is an extremely rare event. But this just causes more confusion, because Catholics can’t even know exactly how many times this has happened in history. There is no “official” list of infallible statements, so an appeal to this supposed infallibility does little or nothing to help this Catholic argument.
CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, disagreements in interpretation are inevitable in this life; it’s something we just have to learn to live with. Remember, there were many who saw Jesus Christ, Himself, face to face, and they still disagreed among themselves on what He taught. Does this mean that Jesus’ teachings were also “unworkable”? Of course not. The ABUSE of a sufficient rule of faith does not void that rule of faith.
Dear Catholic friends, I am not trying to justify Protestant divisions, but I’m simply challenging the idea that disagreements cause a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, but not for the Catholic rule of faith. This idea is inconsistent on the part of Catholics.
Yes, of course Jesus wants Christians to have unity in the truth (John 17:11, 21-23), and we should always strive for it, yet we ALL fall short… some of us more than others. But, please don’t pretend you have no divisions in Catholicism, or that your rule of faith is somehow exempt when you use the “disagreements nullify Sola Scriptura” argument.
Catholics lose credibility each time this argument is used. So, let’s put this faulty and deceptive argument to rest, once and for all.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
THE SAME GOD?
In her quest for “common ground” and unity with other religions, the Catholic Church assures Muslims that the God of Christianity and the god of Islam are one and the same. Lest anyone say that this is not an actual teaching of the Catholic Church, note these quotes from official sources:
“As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham. Thus it is natural that we have much to discuss concerning true holiness in obedience and worship to God.” (Address of Pope John Paul II to the participants in the Colloquium on “Holiness in Christianity and Islam” in Rome, Thursday, 9 May 1985)
“Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection’.” (John Paul II to a General Audience, Wednesday, 5 May 1999)
"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham." (Benedict XVI, to a General Audience, World Youth Day in Cologne, Wednesday, 24 August 2005)
“The Church's relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #841)
The above quote from the Catechism is referencing two major documents (Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate), both given by Pope Paul VI from the Second Vatican Council (a supposedly infallible Council of the Catholic Church). So, here we have the Catholic Catechism, three different popes, and an “infallible” Catholic council clearly telling us that Muslims and Christians worship the SAME God. But, can this possibly be true? Do Muslims really worship the God of the Bible? No, they don’t.
The Christian Bible teaches that God is a Trinity. The Muslim Bible (the Qur’an / Koran) teaches that Allah (the Muslim god) is NOT a Trinity (Surah 4:171). The God of Christianity has a Son. The god of Islam has NO SON (Surah 4:171). The Christian Bible teaches that God shares His Deity with His Son, Jesus Christ. The Qur’an DENIES the deity of Jesus Christ (Surah 23:91). The Christian Bible teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, was crucified and died on a cross. The Qur’an DENIES that Jesus died on a cross (Surah 4:157). And this is only a partial list of key differences. So, they can’t both be right, since they teach opposites. God does not have two sets of conflicting Scriptures.
Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham, yet they reject God’s chosen lineage through Abraham (it is Isaac who possessed the covenant and the promises, not Ishmael - Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:3-8). It is interesting that the Pharisees ALSO claimed to be children of Abraham (John 8:33), but they certainly were NOT (Matt. 3:7-9). Although the Pharisees THOUGHT they were worshipping the God of Abraham, Jesus told them, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44). Like the Pharisees, true Muslims worship the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), and will never truly worship the God of Abraham until they renounce Islam.
The issue is not, “We worship the same God, but it’s just that Christians know God ‘more fully’ than Muslims.” No, the issue is the fact that Christians worship the God Who inspired the Bible, and Muslims worship the god who inspired the Qur’an. Surely, two different Gods.
Dear Catholic friends, this article is more about you than it is about the Muslims. You’re not helping Muslims when you claim that they are worshipping the God of the Bible… you’re deceiving them. As we said before, if Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God, our Bibles would not contradict each other. In your zeal to appease the Muslims, you’re not only deceiving them, but you are deceiving your fellow Catholics and your own selves, as well.
You can give two different people the same name, but that doesn’t make them the same person. Again, Christians and Muslims do NOT worship the same God, as the Catholic Church teaches. We want (and need) to reach out to Muslims, yes, but with the truth… with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Catholics, we sincerely urge you to not let your desire for “unity” override the simple truth.
“As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham. Thus it is natural that we have much to discuss concerning true holiness in obedience and worship to God.” (Address of Pope John Paul II to the participants in the Colloquium on “Holiness in Christianity and Islam” in Rome, Thursday, 9 May 1985)
“Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection’.” (John Paul II to a General Audience, Wednesday, 5 May 1999)
"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham." (Benedict XVI, to a General Audience, World Youth Day in Cologne, Wednesday, 24 August 2005)
“The Church's relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #841)
The above quote from the Catechism is referencing two major documents (Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate), both given by Pope Paul VI from the Second Vatican Council (a supposedly infallible Council of the Catholic Church). So, here we have the Catholic Catechism, three different popes, and an “infallible” Catholic council clearly telling us that Muslims and Christians worship the SAME God. But, can this possibly be true? Do Muslims really worship the God of the Bible? No, they don’t.
The Christian Bible teaches that God is a Trinity. The Muslim Bible (the Qur’an / Koran) teaches that Allah (the Muslim god) is NOT a Trinity (Surah 4:171). The God of Christianity has a Son. The god of Islam has NO SON (Surah 4:171). The Christian Bible teaches that God shares His Deity with His Son, Jesus Christ. The Qur’an DENIES the deity of Jesus Christ (Surah 23:91). The Christian Bible teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, was crucified and died on a cross. The Qur’an DENIES that Jesus died on a cross (Surah 4:157). And this is only a partial list of key differences. So, they can’t both be right, since they teach opposites. God does not have two sets of conflicting Scriptures.
Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham, yet they reject God’s chosen lineage through Abraham (it is Isaac who possessed the covenant and the promises, not Ishmael - Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:3-8). It is interesting that the Pharisees ALSO claimed to be children of Abraham (John 8:33), but they certainly were NOT (Matt. 3:7-9). Although the Pharisees THOUGHT they were worshipping the God of Abraham, Jesus told them, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44). Like the Pharisees, true Muslims worship the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), and will never truly worship the God of Abraham until they renounce Islam.
The issue is not, “We worship the same God, but it’s just that Christians know God ‘more fully’ than Muslims.” No, the issue is the fact that Christians worship the God Who inspired the Bible, and Muslims worship the god who inspired the Qur’an. Surely, two different Gods.
Dear Catholic friends, this article is more about you than it is about the Muslims. You’re not helping Muslims when you claim that they are worshipping the God of the Bible… you’re deceiving them. As we said before, if Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God, our Bibles would not contradict each other. In your zeal to appease the Muslims, you’re not only deceiving them, but you are deceiving your fellow Catholics and your own selves, as well.
You can give two different people the same name, but that doesn’t make them the same person. Again, Christians and Muslims do NOT worship the same God, as the Catholic Church teaches. We want (and need) to reach out to Muslims, yes, but with the truth… with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Catholics, we sincerely urge you to not let your desire for “unity” override the simple truth.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? (The Ecumenical Movement)
This article is intended to deal with not just Catholics, but all those who claim to be Christian. It concerns the prevailing Ecumenical Movement. This movement is generally defined as a campaign aimed at promoting understanding, cooperation, and unity among Christian groups. But many in the church world today have gone far beyond biblical Christian unity, and have embraced the idol of “tolerance,” where we are told to respect (and accept) the differences of even those who hold the most unscriptural teachings. Today, it seems that correct doctrine is far less important than “unity” (another god of the Ecumenical Movement), since many will seek unity at any price.
It is the Catholic Church who seems to be spearheading this movement. In 2002, former Pope John Paul II led a special prayer meeting in Assisi, Italy. The event was the “World Prayer Day” that consisted of 200 of the world’s religious leaders, including Christians, Muslims, Jewish rabbis, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahais, Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, and witch doctors, who all came to “worship together.” This same pope had previously held similar meetings in Assisi in 1986, and again in 1993. All for the sake of “peace” and “unity.”
But consider the example of Jesus Christ - the Author of the prayer for true unity (John 17). We see no biblical evidence whatsoever of Jesus trying to unite the religious leaders of His day. He made no appeal to the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, Essenes, Herodians, and Zealots, along with the neighboring heathen nations, to join together in “common prayer,” and “fraternal knowledge” of each other. Why not, if that kind of unity is so important? He didn’t try to point out all the good qualities of each group, nor focus on what they had in common. He did, however, tell them to repent (Matthew 4:17), and pointed out their sin (Matthew 23:1-36) and their doctrinal error (Matthew 15:1-9). He never advocated unity with those promoting false doctrine, but instead, He called for unity in the TRUTH, as revealed in His Word. (John 17:17)
So, as Christians, what about our relationship with people from other religions, or with Christians who embrace error? Should we seek to correct and / or convert them? Or must we accept them the way they are, welcoming their “diversity”? As some may ask, aren’t we all one big family? Are we not all God’s children? Aren’t there many paths to God? No, indeed. Jesus’ words were plain and simple:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)
This is not rocket science. There is only one way to Heaven. And it is not through Buddha, Mohammed, Mary, the pope, or anyone else. Nor is it through any particular church. It is through trusting in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and that, alone. Non-Christian religions do not offer the truth, but rather, deception and eternal damnation. How can we, as Christians, walk together with them? (Amos 3:3) As far as doctrine goes, what can we have in common with them? (2 Corinthians 6:14-17) And Christians who embrace error need to be firmly, but lovingly, shown their error. This is true love.
But the “Christian” church today is afraid to offend sinners, and its quest for “common ground” has seriously compromised the gospel. It does matter what we believe. All religions are not ok. Let us not embrace the “herd mentality” of the Ecumenical Movement, and don’t be taken in by the large numbers or the impressive membership of ANY group. Jesus said:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)
Mankind has already attempted such an ecumenism long ago, but God thwarted their plans (Genesis 11:1-9). Yet, another (final) attempt is being made in these last days to unify the world’s religions (Revelation 13:8, 12-15) against the will of God; and although it will last for a short while, this attempt will also ultimately fail.
The Catholic Church and all others pushing the Ecumenical Movement are ushering in the man of sin, the son of perdition, the antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Christians, take heed! Those who continue to embrace the false unity of this movement will one day find themselves neck-deep in the one-world church, wearing the mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:8, 16-18) - and then, it will be too late…
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4)
It is the Catholic Church who seems to be spearheading this movement. In 2002, former Pope John Paul II led a special prayer meeting in Assisi, Italy. The event was the “World Prayer Day” that consisted of 200 of the world’s religious leaders, including Christians, Muslims, Jewish rabbis, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahais, Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, and witch doctors, who all came to “worship together.” This same pope had previously held similar meetings in Assisi in 1986, and again in 1993. All for the sake of “peace” and “unity.”
But consider the example of Jesus Christ - the Author of the prayer for true unity (John 17). We see no biblical evidence whatsoever of Jesus trying to unite the religious leaders of His day. He made no appeal to the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, Essenes, Herodians, and Zealots, along with the neighboring heathen nations, to join together in “common prayer,” and “fraternal knowledge” of each other. Why not, if that kind of unity is so important? He didn’t try to point out all the good qualities of each group, nor focus on what they had in common. He did, however, tell them to repent (Matthew 4:17), and pointed out their sin (Matthew 23:1-36) and their doctrinal error (Matthew 15:1-9). He never advocated unity with those promoting false doctrine, but instead, He called for unity in the TRUTH, as revealed in His Word. (John 17:17)
So, as Christians, what about our relationship with people from other religions, or with Christians who embrace error? Should we seek to correct and / or convert them? Or must we accept them the way they are, welcoming their “diversity”? As some may ask, aren’t we all one big family? Are we not all God’s children? Aren’t there many paths to God? No, indeed. Jesus’ words were plain and simple:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)
This is not rocket science. There is only one way to Heaven. And it is not through Buddha, Mohammed, Mary, the pope, or anyone else. Nor is it through any particular church. It is through trusting in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and that, alone. Non-Christian religions do not offer the truth, but rather, deception and eternal damnation. How can we, as Christians, walk together with them? (Amos 3:3) As far as doctrine goes, what can we have in common with them? (2 Corinthians 6:14-17) And Christians who embrace error need to be firmly, but lovingly, shown their error. This is true love.
But the “Christian” church today is afraid to offend sinners, and its quest for “common ground” has seriously compromised the gospel. It does matter what we believe. All religions are not ok. Let us not embrace the “herd mentality” of the Ecumenical Movement, and don’t be taken in by the large numbers or the impressive membership of ANY group. Jesus said:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)
Mankind has already attempted such an ecumenism long ago, but God thwarted their plans (Genesis 11:1-9). Yet, another (final) attempt is being made in these last days to unify the world’s religions (Revelation 13:8, 12-15) against the will of God; and although it will last for a short while, this attempt will also ultimately fail.
The Catholic Church and all others pushing the Ecumenical Movement are ushering in the man of sin, the son of perdition, the antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Christians, take heed! Those who continue to embrace the false unity of this movement will one day find themselves neck-deep in the one-world church, wearing the mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:8, 16-18) - and then, it will be too late…
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4)
Sunday, August 1, 2010
SOLA FIDE – REVISITED
We previously shared a three-part article on the topic of “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone), but we now want to focus specifically on one aspect of that topic in Romans chapter 3, 4 & 5. In Romans 3:28 the apostle Paul says that we are justified by faith “apart from works of the law.” The question is, exactly what works was Paul talking about? Many (if not most) Catholics would argue that he is here referring to ONLY the works of the Jewish / Mosaic Law. But we believe he was saying apart from any and all good works.
Let’s Suppose…
For the sake of argument, let’s assume for now that the verse is only about the Jewish Law. Ok, but what was Paul’s reason for saying that we’re saved “apart” from its works? Was something wrong with the Jewish Law? Are the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) somehow defective? Not at all, remember, salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). If any works were able to save, surely it would be those of the God-given Jewish Law.
So, it is understandable that the people in the Old Testament and in Paul’s day would think that following the works of the Mosaic Law could save them. After all, wasn’t this law the very highest law around? Indeed it was. It was God’s standard of morality.
The Problem
But the problem is not the Law. No, the problem is with US! The purpose of the Law was to act as a “tutor,” to show us that we are not able to follow God perfectly, and to show us that we could only be saved by faith / trusting in Christ (Galatians 3:24). The Law was “weak” (Romans 8:3), but not because of some inherent flaw; it was only weak because of man’s sinful heart. Therefore, salvation has always had to be by grace through faith, and never by good works… not even the works of the Jewish Law… which includes the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:7).
New Works?
But according to Catholics, the Old Testament “works of the Law” (which don’t save) were replaced with works of the “New Law,” “works of grace” and “charitable acts” (which supposedly do save, or at least, contribute to salvation). But were there no “charitable acts” in the Jewish Law? Indeed, there were. Wouldn’t Jesus’ summary of the Jewish Law cover every good work or “work of grace” that we could possibly think of? It certainly would. He said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind…” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40). Sounds to me like that would cover every possible work. In fact, there is no good work (of the Old or New Testament) that won’t pertain to one of these two commandments. This Catholic distinction of “New Testament works that save” versus “Old Testament works that don’t save” is a false one.
We are saved by faith APART FROM works, whether it is the “ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law,” the Ten Commandments, “works of grace,” “works of charity,” or any “new” works – it is apart from ALL works. Does this mean we should avoid good works? Of course not. As Dr. Joe Mizzi says, salvation is by faith, apart from the merit of works, but not apart from the presence of works.
The Context
What evidence is there in Romans chapters 3-5 that would lead a person to believe that there are any works at all which save us? If Catholics are right, it certainly seems strange that Paul would never list the “works that save” in the context in which the doctrine of justification is defined. If these “saving works” exist at all, Paul would be seriously lacking as a teacher if he mentions none of them when he’s teaching us how to be saved! Where is baptism, or giving to the poor, or helping your neighbor, etc., in the context of Romans 3 thru 5? Over and over in this context, he only mentions faith as that which saves.
Catholics sometimes argue against Sola Fide by saying that Romans 3-5 does not use the words “faith alone.” That may be true, but we can use this same type of argument against them and say that Romans 3-5 doesn’t use the words “apart from only the Jewish Law,” either.
In denying salvation by deeds, sometimes Paul just uses the word “works” (as opposed to “works of the law”), e.g., in Romans 4:2, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 3:5. But notice that the contexts of these last three are NOT about Jewish law at all. So the Catholic argument fails completely here.
Only Two Options…
Consider this:
Romans 4:4 - Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.
Romans 4:5 - But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (NASB)
Notice that this passage offers only two choices: the one who works, and the one who believes (without working); one trusts in the merits of his work, and the other trusts only in the suffering of Jesus on the cross. There is no third choice and no distinction between “types of works” here.
Galatians 3:2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (NASB)
Notice here also that Paul, when asking this question, does not give the Galatians a third option. They were saved either by works of the Law, or by faith. Again, only two choices. It is one or the other. He doesn’t add the merits of baptism or any “new” works to their faith as a third choice. This indicates that any and all works would fall into the “works of the Law” category. All that’s left is faith alone (i.e., apart from the merits of any work).
Some may still insist that there is a third option… the “Law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). No, the concept of salvation by faith apart from works IS the Law of Christ. It is a law that freely saves the undeserving sinner and then gives him the desire and ability to do works that are pleasing to God.
Examples
In conclusion, consider the example of Abraham. Not only was Abraham not saved by the works of the Mosaic Law, but according to Romans 4:2, he was not saved by any of his works. Likewise, for David, it was “apart from works” (Romans 4:6). And the same goes for Gentiles, since God is the God of both Jew and Gentile, alike (Romans 3:29), saving both by faith, apart from their respective works.
So, once more, when the context of Romans 3, 4 and 5 says that we are saved “apart from” the works of the law, it is NOT just referring to those of the Mosaic Law, but every work. And the good works we do, we do out of love for God… not to try and earn / merit salvation.
Let’s Suppose…
For the sake of argument, let’s assume for now that the verse is only about the Jewish Law. Ok, but what was Paul’s reason for saying that we’re saved “apart” from its works? Was something wrong with the Jewish Law? Are the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) somehow defective? Not at all, remember, salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). If any works were able to save, surely it would be those of the God-given Jewish Law.
So, it is understandable that the people in the Old Testament and in Paul’s day would think that following the works of the Mosaic Law could save them. After all, wasn’t this law the very highest law around? Indeed it was. It was God’s standard of morality.
The Problem
But the problem is not the Law. No, the problem is with US! The purpose of the Law was to act as a “tutor,” to show us that we are not able to follow God perfectly, and to show us that we could only be saved by faith / trusting in Christ (Galatians 3:24). The Law was “weak” (Romans 8:3), but not because of some inherent flaw; it was only weak because of man’s sinful heart. Therefore, salvation has always had to be by grace through faith, and never by good works… not even the works of the Jewish Law… which includes the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:7).
New Works?
But according to Catholics, the Old Testament “works of the Law” (which don’t save) were replaced with works of the “New Law,” “works of grace” and “charitable acts” (which supposedly do save, or at least, contribute to salvation). But were there no “charitable acts” in the Jewish Law? Indeed, there were. Wouldn’t Jesus’ summary of the Jewish Law cover every good work or “work of grace” that we could possibly think of? It certainly would. He said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind…” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40). Sounds to me like that would cover every possible work. In fact, there is no good work (of the Old or New Testament) that won’t pertain to one of these two commandments. This Catholic distinction of “New Testament works that save” versus “Old Testament works that don’t save” is a false one.
We are saved by faith APART FROM works, whether it is the “ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law,” the Ten Commandments, “works of grace,” “works of charity,” or any “new” works – it is apart from ALL works. Does this mean we should avoid good works? Of course not. As Dr. Joe Mizzi says, salvation is by faith, apart from the merit of works, but not apart from the presence of works.
The Context
What evidence is there in Romans chapters 3-5 that would lead a person to believe that there are any works at all which save us? If Catholics are right, it certainly seems strange that Paul would never list the “works that save” in the context in which the doctrine of justification is defined. If these “saving works” exist at all, Paul would be seriously lacking as a teacher if he mentions none of them when he’s teaching us how to be saved! Where is baptism, or giving to the poor, or helping your neighbor, etc., in the context of Romans 3 thru 5? Over and over in this context, he only mentions faith as that which saves.
Catholics sometimes argue against Sola Fide by saying that Romans 3-5 does not use the words “faith alone.” That may be true, but we can use this same type of argument against them and say that Romans 3-5 doesn’t use the words “apart from only the Jewish Law,” either.
In denying salvation by deeds, sometimes Paul just uses the word “works” (as opposed to “works of the law”), e.g., in Romans 4:2, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 3:5. But notice that the contexts of these last three are NOT about Jewish law at all. So the Catholic argument fails completely here.
Only Two Options…
Consider this:
Romans 4:4 - Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.
Romans 4:5 - But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (NASB)
Notice that this passage offers only two choices: the one who works, and the one who believes (without working); one trusts in the merits of his work, and the other trusts only in the suffering of Jesus on the cross. There is no third choice and no distinction between “types of works” here.
Galatians 3:2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (NASB)
Notice here also that Paul, when asking this question, does not give the Galatians a third option. They were saved either by works of the Law, or by faith. Again, only two choices. It is one or the other. He doesn’t add the merits of baptism or any “new” works to their faith as a third choice. This indicates that any and all works would fall into the “works of the Law” category. All that’s left is faith alone (i.e., apart from the merits of any work).
Some may still insist that there is a third option… the “Law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). No, the concept of salvation by faith apart from works IS the Law of Christ. It is a law that freely saves the undeserving sinner and then gives him the desire and ability to do works that are pleasing to God.
Examples
In conclusion, consider the example of Abraham. Not only was Abraham not saved by the works of the Mosaic Law, but according to Romans 4:2, he was not saved by any of his works. Likewise, for David, it was “apart from works” (Romans 4:6). And the same goes for Gentiles, since God is the God of both Jew and Gentile, alike (Romans 3:29), saving both by faith, apart from their respective works.
So, once more, when the context of Romans 3, 4 and 5 says that we are saved “apart from” the works of the law, it is NOT just referring to those of the Mosaic Law, but every work. And the good works we do, we do out of love for God… not to try and earn / merit salvation.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
WHAT ABOUT TRADITION?
The Bible tells us of only one inspired (God-breathed) and absolutely trustworthy source of information for the church today. Only this source can infallibly (without error) supply us with doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. And this source is Scripture, itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It equips us for every good work. As our ultimate rule of faith, it is more than sufficient. It is God, Himself, speaking to us (Matthew 22:31-32).
However, Catholics have another source, or rule of faith, along with, and supposedly EQUAL TO, the Scriptures. According to the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal…Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit…As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'" (CCC #80, #81, #82)
So we see that in Catholicism, “Sacred Tradition” is on the same level as the Bible. Therefore, according to the Catholic Church, Tradition must also be infallible, since both it and Scripture are to be honored with the SAME level of “devotion and reverence.”
The Big Question
But how does the Catholic Church define tradition? They speak of small “t” traditions, which are only “disciplines,” like not eating meat on Friday, or observing certain holy days, etc. These can be changed by the Church, if they so desire. But they also have big “T” Traditions, which are the main and binding teachings (doctrines) that allegedly cannot be changed.
But, what about an actual, meaningful definition of Tradition from the Catholic Church? What is it, precisely? What does it consist of? And where can we actually find all of it? Some Catholics will say that Tradition is the “living and growing truth.” Or it is the “common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church.” Still, others say that it is the “sense of the faithful.” The Second Vatican Council says that tradition is “all that she herself [the Catholic Church] is, all that she believes.” (Dei Verbum, 8, 1) Or, maybe it is what former Pope Pius IX arrogantly proclaimed: “I AM TRADITION!” In light of these extremely vague definitions, it seems that Tradition can become anything that the Catholic Church wants it to be. The Catholic concept of Tradition is so broad and so vague that it seems to be a subjective assortment of teachings, practices, historical events, and interpretations of fathers, along with an unknown number of doctrinal "developments.” But, what are the parameters of such a rule of faith? How does one know if he goes beyond the borders of Tradition? And how can the Catholic Church answer these questions without using circular reasoning?
So again, we must ask, “What is it?” Is there an official, unchanging, “infallible” list of Catholic Traditions that we can turn to, so that we can know for sure? No, there isn’t. Interestingly, the Catholic Church claims that only she can authentically interpret this Tradition (CCC #100). Suspiciously convenient, isn't it? But this is simply circular reasoning…like saying, ”It is true, because we SAY so.” In this way, the Catholic Church can force new (and false) doctrines onto the people at will. So, it is just too dangerous to ascribe infallibility to something so vague, so unclear.
Tradition in the Bible
But, tradition (Greek, “paradosis”), according to Scripture, is simply the biblical principles and teachings that were handed down from the apostles to each successive generation. The Bible does use the word in a positive way, but more often in the negative sense. There is good tradition (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 3:6), and there is bad tradition (e.g., Mark 7:1-13; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18). Acceptable tradition is linked with the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Traditions that are acceptable will either be in the Bible, or they will line up with the principles of the Bible; and those that don’t, should be rejected.
The “Oral” and the “Written”
There is a popular response from Catholics who try to defend their Tradition’s “equality” with Scripture. They contend that we don’t have ALL of God’s Word unless we have the “written” (Scripture), and the “oral” (Sacred Tradition), and they quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the Thessalonians:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth, or by letter from us."
Catholics often use this verse in an attempt to show a distinction or a difference between “infallible oral" teachings and "infallible written" teachings, insisting that they are EQUAL and we need BOTH today. According to them, the Bible is not enough as a rule of faith.
First of all, Paul's "distinction" here was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but rather, to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms. Here, Paul was addressing the fact that someone (an imposter) had apparently written a letter in Paul’s name to the Thessalonians, saying that they missed the Day of the Lord (2:2), causing the Thessalonian church to be shaken and disturbed. He is now writing to correct that false letter and to bring comfort and strength to the church. So, Paul was basically telling them, "Why are you disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from me? Any true letter from me will agree with the message I already gave to you personally / orally. I wouldn't contradict that message, or give you two different gospels."
So, when Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in this way, it is out of context and they are misusing and abusing this verse. It is NOT AT ALL saying that we need two infallible sources today. There is no need for an “infallible” Tradition to supplement the Bible.
Secondly, the Catholic Church claims to have this Tradition (that is supposedly different from Scripture) which Paul said to hold on to. Yet, what infallible information do we have from Paul that is not found in the Scriptures? None. Does the Catholic Church have any infallible statements from Jesus (or any of the apostles), apart from the Bible? No, they don’t. Then why do they claim to have this extrabiblical (i.e., outside of the Bible) Tradition that they say Paul is speaking of, if they can’t tell us what it is? Remember, we don’t have access today to all of the information that Paul taught them.
It is not that God was unable to infallibly preserve all this information, it's just that He chose not to. There may even be other writings that Paul sent them that we don't have access to today. But we don't NEED to know every single thing he told them. We can know the essence of what he taught them by looking to God-breathed Scripture, which we do have available to us. But we can be sure that the things that Paul wrote to them will not contradict the things he spoke to them. This is his whole point. They would be the same basic message, the same Gospel.
The Test
But this Catholic argument just begs the question. It's easy to say, "Oh, yeah, that was us back then and that was our tradition, and that was the same church as ours, back in Jesus’ day", etc. It's easy to claim a traditional "link" to the past, but it's another thing to prove the legitimacy of that "link"… especially when it contains teachings that contradict Scripture.
If Catholics want to claim that Paul was speaking of infallible Tradition as something different from Scripture, then they have the responsibility to do three things:
1) Identify exactly what that "Tradition" is,
2) Demonstrate that it is indeed DIFFERENT from Scripture, and
3) Demonstrate that it is Apostolic and infallible...
And she must do this WITHOUT CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But we don’t see this type of proof from the Catholic Church. In fact, we don't see anything near "extraordinary proof." Remember, any message today claiming to be "Apostolic Tradition" must line up with, and be tested by, Scripture (Mark 7:1-13).
History has shown us that when anything is considered “equal” to Scripture, it will eventually, and inevitably, override Scripture and produce unbiblical doctrines (like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory, indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, etc.). Catholic Tradition supposedly complements the Bible, but has actually steered multitudes away from the pure truth of the Scriptures… perhaps gradually, yet surely.
Long ago, the Lord Jesus Christ showed us that the Pharisees and the scribes were guilty of usurping the authority of Scripture with their own traditions (Matthew 15:1-9). The Catholic Church is guilty of that same error today.
However, Catholics have another source, or rule of faith, along with, and supposedly EQUAL TO, the Scriptures. According to the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal…Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit…As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'" (CCC #80, #81, #82)
So we see that in Catholicism, “Sacred Tradition” is on the same level as the Bible. Therefore, according to the Catholic Church, Tradition must also be infallible, since both it and Scripture are to be honored with the SAME level of “devotion and reverence.”
The Big Question
But how does the Catholic Church define tradition? They speak of small “t” traditions, which are only “disciplines,” like not eating meat on Friday, or observing certain holy days, etc. These can be changed by the Church, if they so desire. But they also have big “T” Traditions, which are the main and binding teachings (doctrines) that allegedly cannot be changed.
But, what about an actual, meaningful definition of Tradition from the Catholic Church? What is it, precisely? What does it consist of? And where can we actually find all of it? Some Catholics will say that Tradition is the “living and growing truth.” Or it is the “common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church.” Still, others say that it is the “sense of the faithful.” The Second Vatican Council says that tradition is “all that she herself [the Catholic Church] is, all that she believes.” (Dei Verbum, 8, 1) Or, maybe it is what former Pope Pius IX arrogantly proclaimed: “I AM TRADITION!” In light of these extremely vague definitions, it seems that Tradition can become anything that the Catholic Church wants it to be. The Catholic concept of Tradition is so broad and so vague that it seems to be a subjective assortment of teachings, practices, historical events, and interpretations of fathers, along with an unknown number of doctrinal "developments.” But, what are the parameters of such a rule of faith? How does one know if he goes beyond the borders of Tradition? And how can the Catholic Church answer these questions without using circular reasoning?
So again, we must ask, “What is it?” Is there an official, unchanging, “infallible” list of Catholic Traditions that we can turn to, so that we can know for sure? No, there isn’t. Interestingly, the Catholic Church claims that only she can authentically interpret this Tradition (CCC #100). Suspiciously convenient, isn't it? But this is simply circular reasoning…like saying, ”It is true, because we SAY so.” In this way, the Catholic Church can force new (and false) doctrines onto the people at will. So, it is just too dangerous to ascribe infallibility to something so vague, so unclear.
Tradition in the Bible
But, tradition (Greek, “paradosis”), according to Scripture, is simply the biblical principles and teachings that were handed down from the apostles to each successive generation. The Bible does use the word in a positive way, but more often in the negative sense. There is good tradition (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 3:6), and there is bad tradition (e.g., Mark 7:1-13; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18). Acceptable tradition is linked with the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Traditions that are acceptable will either be in the Bible, or they will line up with the principles of the Bible; and those that don’t, should be rejected.
The “Oral” and the “Written”
There is a popular response from Catholics who try to defend their Tradition’s “equality” with Scripture. They contend that we don’t have ALL of God’s Word unless we have the “written” (Scripture), and the “oral” (Sacred Tradition), and they quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the Thessalonians:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth, or by letter from us."
Catholics often use this verse in an attempt to show a distinction or a difference between “infallible oral" teachings and "infallible written" teachings, insisting that they are EQUAL and we need BOTH today. According to them, the Bible is not enough as a rule of faith.
First of all, Paul's "distinction" here was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but rather, to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms. Here, Paul was addressing the fact that someone (an imposter) had apparently written a letter in Paul’s name to the Thessalonians, saying that they missed the Day of the Lord (2:2), causing the Thessalonian church to be shaken and disturbed. He is now writing to correct that false letter and to bring comfort and strength to the church. So, Paul was basically telling them, "Why are you disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from me? Any true letter from me will agree with the message I already gave to you personally / orally. I wouldn't contradict that message, or give you two different gospels."
So, when Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in this way, it is out of context and they are misusing and abusing this verse. It is NOT AT ALL saying that we need two infallible sources today. There is no need for an “infallible” Tradition to supplement the Bible.
Secondly, the Catholic Church claims to have this Tradition (that is supposedly different from Scripture) which Paul said to hold on to. Yet, what infallible information do we have from Paul that is not found in the Scriptures? None. Does the Catholic Church have any infallible statements from Jesus (or any of the apostles), apart from the Bible? No, they don’t. Then why do they claim to have this extrabiblical (i.e., outside of the Bible) Tradition that they say Paul is speaking of, if they can’t tell us what it is? Remember, we don’t have access today to all of the information that Paul taught them.
It is not that God was unable to infallibly preserve all this information, it's just that He chose not to. There may even be other writings that Paul sent them that we don't have access to today. But we don't NEED to know every single thing he told them. We can know the essence of what he taught them by looking to God-breathed Scripture, which we do have available to us. But we can be sure that the things that Paul wrote to them will not contradict the things he spoke to them. This is his whole point. They would be the same basic message, the same Gospel.
The Test
But this Catholic argument just begs the question. It's easy to say, "Oh, yeah, that was us back then and that was our tradition, and that was the same church as ours, back in Jesus’ day", etc. It's easy to claim a traditional "link" to the past, but it's another thing to prove the legitimacy of that "link"… especially when it contains teachings that contradict Scripture.
If Catholics want to claim that Paul was speaking of infallible Tradition as something different from Scripture, then they have the responsibility to do three things:
1) Identify exactly what that "Tradition" is,
2) Demonstrate that it is indeed DIFFERENT from Scripture, and
3) Demonstrate that it is Apostolic and infallible...
And she must do this WITHOUT CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But we don’t see this type of proof from the Catholic Church. In fact, we don't see anything near "extraordinary proof." Remember, any message today claiming to be "Apostolic Tradition" must line up with, and be tested by, Scripture (Mark 7:1-13).
History has shown us that when anything is considered “equal” to Scripture, it will eventually, and inevitably, override Scripture and produce unbiblical doctrines (like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory, indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, etc.). Catholic Tradition supposedly complements the Bible, but has actually steered multitudes away from the pure truth of the Scriptures… perhaps gradually, yet surely.
Long ago, the Lord Jesus Christ showed us that the Pharisees and the scribes were guilty of usurping the authority of Scripture with their own traditions (Matthew 15:1-9). The Catholic Church is guilty of that same error today.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
THE CATHOLIC ROSARY
Different types of rosaries have been used throughout history and in many cultures. Shamans, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans (witches), and other Pagan religions used them, and still do today. By no means is the rosary a biblical concept, but sad to say, rosaries are even sometimes used by some who claim to follow Jesus Christ: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and even some Lutherans and Methodists. But this article will deal specifically with the Catholic rosary.
The word “rosary” comes from the Latin term “rosarium,” meaning “rose garden,” and later came to mean “garland of roses.” The traditional Catholic rosary is a stringed loop of different-sized beads (each bead representing a particular prayer) with a crucifix (cross) on the end. The beads are used to keep track of the number of prayers said during the many repetitions. Rosaries are not only used to make supplication (prayer requests), but are also supposedly an aid to “contemplative prayer.” They are sometimes worn around the neck, and can often be seen hanging from a vehicle’s rearview mirror.
DEVOTED TO MARY
The first, and greatest, problem with the Catholic rosary is its frequent repetition of the “Hail Mary” prayer. It is a fact that this rosary is dedicated to the veneration of the “Virgin Mary.” The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. (CCC #971)
If there is any doubt as to the purpose of the Catholic rosary, and its devotion to Mary, read the following quotes from “Rosarium Virginis Mariae,” an official “apostolic” letter on the rosary, written by former Pope John Paul II:
…With the Rosary, the Christian people sit at the school of Mary... Through the Rosary the faithful receive abundant grace, as though from the very hands of the Mother of the Redeemer… In the recitation of the Rosary, the Christian community enters into contact with the memories and the contemplative gaze of Mary… In this process of being conformed to Christ in the Rosary, we entrust ourselves in a special way to the maternal care of the Blessed Virgin... Never as in the Rosary do the life of Jesus and that of Mary appear so deeply joined… The Rosary is both meditation and supplication. Insistent prayer to the Mother of God is based on confidence that her maternal intercession can obtain all things from the heart of her Son… The Rosary is at the service of this ideal; it offers the “secret” which leads easily to a profound and inward knowledge of Christ. We might call it Mary's way… To pray the Rosary is to hand over our burdens to the merciful hearts of Christ and his Mother…
This is totally unscriptural, and should be deeply disturbing to every true, God-fearing Christian. Nowhere, in all of Scripture, are we encouraged to pray to ANYONE other than God. Prayer to anyone else is nothing short of idolatry. The Psalmist said of God, “Whom have I in heaven BUT THEE? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. (Psalm 73:25) This point, alone, should cause every Catholic to put away his rosary and leave the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, the great majority of the rosary’s prayers are “Hail Mary’s,” (which request her “help”). But the Catholic Church has given Mary a role that Scripture does not give her. The Bible nowhere tells us of Mary, or anyone else, who intercedes for us from Heaven, with the exception of Jesus Christ, Himself (Romans 8:34). We are never told that Mary prays for us, and the Bible will never encourage us to pray to her. Let us remember that the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:15).
OUR FATHER…
Another prayer that is recited in the rosary is the “Lord’s Prayer” (or the “Our Father”). Catholics will often be quick to point out that this prayer is found in the Bible (Matthew 6:9-13). Although it is in the Bible, it was never meant to be used as a specific FORMULA (a fixed, mechanical prayer to be repeated over and over), but rather, as an outline, a guide, as an example of how to pray.
But, because of its specific number of repetitions, reciting the rosary more closely resembles some sort of self-hypnosis technique, or the casting of a spell, rather than any prayer request found in the Bible. Using the rosary is worship that is reduced to a formula, which is not true worship of God at all. (John 4:23-24)
KEEPING TRACK
We mentioned that the rosary is a string of beads used to help keep track of the number of prayers that one says while reciting it. But this raises some important questions: Why would anyone need to keep track of the number of prayers said? What happens if someone says “too few” or “too many” prayers while reciting the rosary? Why is the number of repetitions even an object of consideration? Does the number of prayers matter, as in some sort of magical formula or spell? If the number doesn’t really matter, then why use the rosary at all? The truth is, the counting of prayers is a PAGAN practice.
Jesus said: “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
Some will consider this verse to be a condemnation of the rosary, and it may well be, but there is debate over what the Greek word “battalogeo” actually means. While the King James Version says “use not vain repetitions,” some Bible versions say “do not keep on babbling” or “do not heap up empty phrases.” Unfortunately, the Lord Jesus gave us no specific examples of this type of praying, so the debate remains. Now, not all repetition in prayer is bad, but we see no one in the New Testament using pre-fabricated, mechanical prayers, much less in continuous repetition.
BIBLICAL PERSISTENCE?
However, a Catholic may say that he is simply being “persistent in prayer” when praying the rosary. But using multiple repetitions of prescribed, fixed prayers is NOT the same as biblical persistence in prayer. In the Bible, persistence is simply “not losing heart / not fainting,” but trusting God and continuing in faith, even when we don’t see the answer. (Luke 18:1-8)
We need to remember that Christianity is based on a RELATIONSHIP with God. Constant repetition of the same pre-packaged, mechanical “prayers” does nothing to nurture a true relationship. As parents, would we want our own children to ask us for something by using a fixed number of repetitive requests? Of course not. So, why should anyone think that God would respond to such prayer?
DARK ORIGINS
While the Catechism of the Catholic Church claims that the rosary is a Christian concept (CCC #2708, #1674), we must realize that:
1) The concept of the rosary is totally absent from the Scriptures
2) Tradition tells us that the Catholic rosary did not come along until about 1200 A.D.
3) Rosaries have been used by pagans long before Christianity began.
Interestingly, in “Rosarium Virginis Mariae,” (mentioned above) the pope links the rosary with a prayer “rhythm” (paragraph 12), with prayer repetitions (paragraph 26), and with the “rhythm of breathing” (paragraph 27). Taken together, these concepts tie in with the OCCULT, and can be found within the schools of Transcendental Meditation (TM), Yoga, and Wicca (Witchcraft), in which an altered state of consciousness can be obtained. But the Bible warns us against such activity (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27).
On the one hand, the Catholic Church condemns occult activity (CCC #2116, #2117), and yet, on the other hand, it encourages the use of occultic concepts in using the rosary. This would be like a dad telling his teenage son that he must totally abstain from sexual activity, but then turn around and give him condoms. Why does the Catholic Church forbid its people to engage in something, but then give them the tools and the encouragement to do that very thing?
AN AID TO UNITY
In the above-mentioned letter by Pope John Paul II, the rosary is considered a tool for unity, and is called “an aid…to ecumenism.” The rosary is one of the things that the Catholic Church and many pagan religions have in common, so it is very likely that the rosary will play a significant role in the end-time Ecumenical Movement. This movement (spearheaded by the Roman Catholic Church) is an attempt to draw all the religions of the world together in the name of “peace.” But this is a totally unbiblical “unity”, and the beginning of the one-world church that the Bible describes in Revelation 13.
The problems associated with the rosary cancel out any Catholic claims of “benefits” for the one who would pray the rosary. Bottom line: Christians should have nothing to do with any kind of rosary… Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise.
The word “rosary” comes from the Latin term “rosarium,” meaning “rose garden,” and later came to mean “garland of roses.” The traditional Catholic rosary is a stringed loop of different-sized beads (each bead representing a particular prayer) with a crucifix (cross) on the end. The beads are used to keep track of the number of prayers said during the many repetitions. Rosaries are not only used to make supplication (prayer requests), but are also supposedly an aid to “contemplative prayer.” They are sometimes worn around the neck, and can often be seen hanging from a vehicle’s rearview mirror.
DEVOTED TO MARY
The first, and greatest, problem with the Catholic rosary is its frequent repetition of the “Hail Mary” prayer. It is a fact that this rosary is dedicated to the veneration of the “Virgin Mary.” The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. (CCC #971)
If there is any doubt as to the purpose of the Catholic rosary, and its devotion to Mary, read the following quotes from “Rosarium Virginis Mariae,” an official “apostolic” letter on the rosary, written by former Pope John Paul II:
…With the Rosary, the Christian people sit at the school of Mary... Through the Rosary the faithful receive abundant grace, as though from the very hands of the Mother of the Redeemer… In the recitation of the Rosary, the Christian community enters into contact with the memories and the contemplative gaze of Mary… In this process of being conformed to Christ in the Rosary, we entrust ourselves in a special way to the maternal care of the Blessed Virgin... Never as in the Rosary do the life of Jesus and that of Mary appear so deeply joined… The Rosary is both meditation and supplication. Insistent prayer to the Mother of God is based on confidence that her maternal intercession can obtain all things from the heart of her Son… The Rosary is at the service of this ideal; it offers the “secret” which leads easily to a profound and inward knowledge of Christ. We might call it Mary's way… To pray the Rosary is to hand over our burdens to the merciful hearts of Christ and his Mother…
This is totally unscriptural, and should be deeply disturbing to every true, God-fearing Christian. Nowhere, in all of Scripture, are we encouraged to pray to ANYONE other than God. Prayer to anyone else is nothing short of idolatry. The Psalmist said of God, “Whom have I in heaven BUT THEE? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. (Psalm 73:25) This point, alone, should cause every Catholic to put away his rosary and leave the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, the great majority of the rosary’s prayers are “Hail Mary’s,” (which request her “help”). But the Catholic Church has given Mary a role that Scripture does not give her. The Bible nowhere tells us of Mary, or anyone else, who intercedes for us from Heaven, with the exception of Jesus Christ, Himself (Romans 8:34). We are never told that Mary prays for us, and the Bible will never encourage us to pray to her. Let us remember that the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:15).
OUR FATHER…
Another prayer that is recited in the rosary is the “Lord’s Prayer” (or the “Our Father”). Catholics will often be quick to point out that this prayer is found in the Bible (Matthew 6:9-13). Although it is in the Bible, it was never meant to be used as a specific FORMULA (a fixed, mechanical prayer to be repeated over and over), but rather, as an outline, a guide, as an example of how to pray.
But, because of its specific number of repetitions, reciting the rosary more closely resembles some sort of self-hypnosis technique, or the casting of a spell, rather than any prayer request found in the Bible. Using the rosary is worship that is reduced to a formula, which is not true worship of God at all. (John 4:23-24)
KEEPING TRACK
We mentioned that the rosary is a string of beads used to help keep track of the number of prayers that one says while reciting it. But this raises some important questions: Why would anyone need to keep track of the number of prayers said? What happens if someone says “too few” or “too many” prayers while reciting the rosary? Why is the number of repetitions even an object of consideration? Does the number of prayers matter, as in some sort of magical formula or spell? If the number doesn’t really matter, then why use the rosary at all? The truth is, the counting of prayers is a PAGAN practice.
Jesus said: “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
Some will consider this verse to be a condemnation of the rosary, and it may well be, but there is debate over what the Greek word “battalogeo” actually means. While the King James Version says “use not vain repetitions,” some Bible versions say “do not keep on babbling” or “do not heap up empty phrases.” Unfortunately, the Lord Jesus gave us no specific examples of this type of praying, so the debate remains. Now, not all repetition in prayer is bad, but we see no one in the New Testament using pre-fabricated, mechanical prayers, much less in continuous repetition.
BIBLICAL PERSISTENCE?
However, a Catholic may say that he is simply being “persistent in prayer” when praying the rosary. But using multiple repetitions of prescribed, fixed prayers is NOT the same as biblical persistence in prayer. In the Bible, persistence is simply “not losing heart / not fainting,” but trusting God and continuing in faith, even when we don’t see the answer. (Luke 18:1-8)
We need to remember that Christianity is based on a RELATIONSHIP with God. Constant repetition of the same pre-packaged, mechanical “prayers” does nothing to nurture a true relationship. As parents, would we want our own children to ask us for something by using a fixed number of repetitive requests? Of course not. So, why should anyone think that God would respond to such prayer?
DARK ORIGINS
While the Catechism of the Catholic Church claims that the rosary is a Christian concept (CCC #2708, #1674), we must realize that:
1) The concept of the rosary is totally absent from the Scriptures
2) Tradition tells us that the Catholic rosary did not come along until about 1200 A.D.
3) Rosaries have been used by pagans long before Christianity began.
Interestingly, in “Rosarium Virginis Mariae,” (mentioned above) the pope links the rosary with a prayer “rhythm” (paragraph 12), with prayer repetitions (paragraph 26), and with the “rhythm of breathing” (paragraph 27). Taken together, these concepts tie in with the OCCULT, and can be found within the schools of Transcendental Meditation (TM), Yoga, and Wicca (Witchcraft), in which an altered state of consciousness can be obtained. But the Bible warns us against such activity (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27).
On the one hand, the Catholic Church condemns occult activity (CCC #2116, #2117), and yet, on the other hand, it encourages the use of occultic concepts in using the rosary. This would be like a dad telling his teenage son that he must totally abstain from sexual activity, but then turn around and give him condoms. Why does the Catholic Church forbid its people to engage in something, but then give them the tools and the encouragement to do that very thing?
AN AID TO UNITY
In the above-mentioned letter by Pope John Paul II, the rosary is considered a tool for unity, and is called “an aid…to ecumenism.” The rosary is one of the things that the Catholic Church and many pagan religions have in common, so it is very likely that the rosary will play a significant role in the end-time Ecumenical Movement. This movement (spearheaded by the Roman Catholic Church) is an attempt to draw all the religions of the world together in the name of “peace.” But this is a totally unbiblical “unity”, and the beginning of the one-world church that the Bible describes in Revelation 13.
The problems associated with the rosary cancel out any Catholic claims of “benefits” for the one who would pray the rosary. Bottom line: Christians should have nothing to do with any kind of rosary… Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)