POPE FRANCIS SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE

When I was a kid, we watched many “cowboy and Indian” television shows.  One of the phrases that the Indians would sometimes use was, “White man speak with forked tongue.”  They would say this when someone would speak out of both sides of his mouth, i.e., when he would say one thing and then say something that contradicts what he first said.

Double Standard

Recently, Pope Francis has done exactly this when speaking to two different groups.  On November 5, 2019, an article from Catholic News Service, states that the pope recently said, “The Catholic Church must follow Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to every person, otherwise it will not fulfill its mission of bearing witness to Christ.” 

He also said in that article, “Either she [the Church] evangelizes or she is not (the) Church.”  And again, “…to evangelize means to deliver Christ’s teachings ‘in simple and precise words like the apostles did.’”  See here:

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/11/if-church-does-not-evangelize-it-will-decay-pope-says/

Ok, assuming that the Catholic Church did evangelize with the true gospel, the pope’s comments sound pretty good, but a month later in December, 2019, at Pilo Albertell high school in Rome, Pope Francis had a totally different message for the students there.  Here are a couple of articles that cover the pope’s statements:

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/12/22/pope-francis-tells-christians-not-to-try-to-convert-nonbelievers/

https://disrn.com/news/pope-says-christians-should-never-try-to-convert-unbelievers-anyone-who-proselytizes-is-not-a-disciple-of-jesus

These are some of his comments:

•           After being asked by a student about people of other faiths, the pope said, “We are all the same, all children of God.
•   "If someone says they are a disciple of Jesus and comes to you with proselytism [sharing his faith or attempting to convert], they are not a disciple of Jesus.”
•       “In front of an unbeliever, the last thing I have to do is try to convince him.  Never.  The last thing I have to do is speak.  I have to live consistent with my faith.  And it will be my testimony to awaken the curiosity of the other who says: ‘But why do you do this?’  And yes, I can speak then.”
•       “Never, never bring the gospel by proselytizing.”
•       “Proselytism is not done, the church does not grow by proselytism.”
•       “We are not in the time of the Crusades.”
•       He stated that football teams and political parties proselytize, but there is no proselytizing with the faith.

So, to sum up his message to these high school students, a believer should never approach anyone to share his faith (proselytize) to win him over to the truth.  He must first live out his faith in front of that person for an undetermined amount of time, and wait until the person comes up to him and asks him about his beliefs.  Then (and only then) should he share the truth with him.  Anyone who does share his faith before he is approached is NOT a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Never try to convince anyone of the truth of Jesus Christ by speaking first.  One must awaken their curiosity first.

Wow!  This is so anti-biblical, it is unbelievable.  Neither Jesus nor any of His apostles evangelized this way. The early church certainly lived out the gospel before others, but they didn’t wait until someone questioned them before verbally sharing the gospel with them.

God’s Commandment to the Church

Jesus gave us the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28:18-20:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.  Amen.”

I would think that Jesus’ parting words to mankind were pretty important, but He says nothing whatsoever about waiting for people to approach you first.  On the contrary, there is a sense of urgency in His words.

Peter, the supposed “first pope,” boldly proclaimed the gospel to a large and mixed crowd (Acts 2:14-40).  But notice that Peter approached THEM with the truth – the truth that they were sinners who cooperated in the death of Jesus, the Messiah – and after this, the crowds asked Peter what they should do (v. 37).  He then continues to share how they could get saved.  But he did not wait around for them to approach him first.   And there are many other cases in Scripture that refute the pope’s method of witnessing (e.g., Matthew 4:17, 23; John 4:7-26; Acts 8:4-5, 26-35; 13:4-5;14:1; 18:24-28, etc.).

If we really believe that many are going to Hell (Matthew 7:13), how can we delay?  If you have the message of eternal life, shouldn’t you be quick to share it, both passionately and often?

 

Yes, as the pope suggests, we should be so faithful and obedient to live out the gospel message that unbelievers would take notice and approach us to ask about the gospel.  But we dare not remain silent until that day comes!

And today, there should be an even greater urgency to verbally and clearly share the gospel, seeing that the time is short before Jesus’ return (Matthew 24; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1-5).

The world would never have been turned upside down by Christianity if the apostles had taken the pope’s advice.

Defining the Term

But in an attempt to defend the pope’s comments, some Catholics have said the issue has to do with the pope’s use of the term, “proselytize,” and that he uses the word to mean a forced conversion.  Thus, the reference to “we are not in the times of the Crusades” (when forced conversions were common).

But that doesn’t seem to be a good argument.  According to the Meriam-Webster dictionary, “proselytize” means:

“To induce someone to convert to one’s faith; to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause.”

Cambridge English Dictionary:

“To try to persuade someone to change his or her religious beliefs, political party, etc., to your own.”

Dictionary.com:

“To convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.”

There is no hint of a forced conversion in these definitions.  Even more authoritative, the New Testament uses the word “proselyte” four times, and it simply refers to one who is the result of proselytizing… a convert.  Nowhere in the New Testament are proselytes shown to be forced converts. (Matthew 23:15, Acts 2:10, 6:5, and 13:43)

I just want to remind the reader that the pope had said above that football teams and political parties “proselytize,” and he also said that this shouldn’t happen in the church.  Does he mean that football teams and political parties FORCE their members to join, under threat of penalty or death?  This is highly unlikely, but to be consistent, he would have to say this.  But I doubt seriously that political parties and football teams use this method to obtain members.

 

Furthermore, since the word “proselyte” is a biblical term, it should be agreed upon by all who follow Christ.  The biblical concept of “proselyte / proselytism” cannot properly mean one thing in English and something else in Italian, or Russian, or Japanese.  For Christians, our understanding of it should always line up with the biblical use of it, since the Bible is inspired.  It doesn’t matter how the Vatican defines the term, nor the World Council of Churches, nor any individual church.  The God-breathed Scriptures are greater than all of these (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Conclusion

The pope’s “evangelizing” method is neither practical nor biblical.  Ironically, we should actually welcome the pope’s desire to NOT share his Catholic gospel, since this false, works-based gospel has done enough spiritual damage already.  But for true believers, it is imperative to share the biblical gospel message as often and as fervently as possible, using any good (and biblical) means to open doors, and to take advantage of every opportunity – not wait for the lost to approach us. 

We should all agree that our witnessing should not involve force, deception, threats, manipulation, etc.  Anyone who does that is not acting as a Christian, just as the Catholic Church was not acting Christ-like in the Crusades.  But the pope is now going to the other extreme.

 

I believe that what is happening is that, in the Catholic Church’s ongoing quest to promote the ecumenical movement, Pope Francis is playing both sides.  On the one hand, to his own people, he wants to appear biblical by insisting that the gospel is preached (as we saw in the very first article linked above), but on the other hand, he wants to appear friendly and willing to cooperate with, and accept, all other religious groups.  But this is very dangerous.  There is such a thing as spiritual unity, but only unity in the TRUTH is biblical. 

Remember at the beginning of this article when the pope was asked about people of other faiths, and he said that “We are all the same, all children of God”?  This is an extremely irresponsible and false claim.  We are all created by God, but we are certainly not all His children (Matthew 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10).  It seems that no one wants to say it, but the truth is that all non-Christians (whether atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, etc.) need to be evangelized.  This is the greatest love we can show them.

I believe that most people in Christianity understand the terms “proselytize,” “evangelize,” and “convert” to be synonyms.  According to the dictionary and the Bible, they all mean basically the same thing.  And since the pope’s message to these high schoolers will be made known to the whole world, don’t you think that there will be very much confusion because of it?  The evidence shows that there is indeed.  Did he believe that everyone would automatically think that “proselytize” means to “force” a conversion?  This pope is very controversial and has a knack for not being very clear on some key spiritual issues.  It almost appears that he is doing this on purpose.

So, my Catholic friends, what is it that the pope is asking you to do?  Does he want you to “follow Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to every creature”?  Or does he want you to just live the Christian life while waiting to “awaken the curiosity” of others until they question you about your faith?

How can Pope Francis be trusted if he can’t be consistent with what he said just a month before on a key spiritual issue?  This man is indeed highly intelligent, but he speaks with a forked tongue.  

FLINGING ANATHEMAS

There is a big push today in the Catholic Church for ecumenism.  According to the Oxford dictionary of English, ecumenism is “the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world’s Christian churches.”  In fact, not only are they interested in uniting with Christian denominations, but with those in other world religions, as well.  So, how would this unity with other religions affect the groups involved?  Would they each be able to keep their respective beliefs or would they have to change their doctrines in order to unify?

A Schoolyard Story

There were several elementary school kids playing a game together on the schoolyard.  One of them was older, bigger and stronger than all the others.  Although all the kids knew the rules of the game, the big kid was cheating.  Not only was it quite obvious that the big kid was cheating, but his cheating was getting worse and worse.  But no one dared to point out his dishonesty, since they were afraid of him and didn’t want to be kicked out of the game.  Finally, a few of the other kids had enough!  They must face this cheating giant and confront his dishonesty.  

The group was relieved that someone finally spoke up.  But after their protest (which humiliated him) the big kid not only continued cheating, but he began to create ridiculous new rules for the game to his advantage, while all the others were harshly treated when they didn’t give in to his unfair demands and his new rules.  He was showing his true colors by demonstrating his childishness.  In any case, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

An Analogy

The story above is an analogy (although not perfect) of something that actually happened in history.  The Catholic Church was a large and powerful force in the 1500’s.  She had no equal in the religious world.  Not only was she corrupt, but the corruption kept increasing.  It seemed that no one dared to point out her corruption, lest they be kicked out of the church (excommunicated), and therefore, be unable to partake of her sacraments and lose “access to Heaven.”  Finally, a few men (later known as reformers) had had enough of this corrupt giant.  They were going to confront the Catholic Church concerning her unbiblical teachings and her corruption, thus starting the Protestant Reformation.  The people were relieved that someone finally spoke up and this movement caused many to leave the Catholic Church after hearing biblical truth.

But the Catholic Church didn’t take this lying down.  After the reformers’ protest, which humiliated and angered the Church, she began to persecute the reformers and made ridiculous and unscriptural demands on these “protesters.”  The Catholic Church didn’t want to play by the biblical rules, so she started the “Counter Reformation” and established the Council of Trent in 1545.  In this council, she issued multiple “anathemas” (formal curses) to those who refused to play by the Church’s rules, thus demonstrating her childishness and her unwillingness to abide by Scripture.  Again, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

“Let Him be Anathema!”

But what exactly were these anathemas with which the Catholic Church was threatening these protesters?  According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, an anathema is:

“A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.”

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is:

“A ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.”

According to the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, an anathema from the Church is declaring the gravest, most serious, form of excommunication possible within the Catholic Church… an excommunication which eternally condemns the person to Hell… unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction.

The word “anathema” is used 150 times in the Council of Trent (including a couple of times using the variant, “anathematize”).  The anathemas of the Council of Trent pertain to, and protected, teachings like the canon (list of Bible books) of the Catholic Bible, veneration of saints, relics and “sacred images,” indulgences, the Catholic priesthood, the Mass, the Eucharist, sacraments, the Catholic view of justification (salvation), and original sin.  Interestingly, they seemed to focus their anathemas on those who were against these mostly Catholic ideas, desiring to maintain their unbiblical teachings and (through the power of anathema) force people into accepting them.

Catholics will tell us today that these anathemas were intended only for Catholics, since it is an excommunication (they can’t excommunicate non-members), but in practice it is obvious that the anathemas were directed toward the protesters and their biblical arguments.

But what about the unity that we mentioned at the beginning of the article, and this desire in the Catholic Church for “peace” and “cooperation” with other religions?  How can any group enjoy peace while having anathemas hanging over their heads?  How can all these different religions cooperate if they don’t even believe in these teachings?

Catholics will sometimes tell us that all these anathemas were canceled in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  So, does this mean that there are no more anathemas?  You mean to tell me that these anathemas were all just a big mistake, after all?  Do they not count today?  If this is the case, this change in policy is little comfort for those profoundly affected by these anathemas in the past.  What about those who refused to comply and ended up persecuted or killed?  Would an apology hundreds of years later help them?  Because of this “change” in 1983, are those who perished because of these anathemas now released from Hell? 

The Catholic Church likes to brag that it has not changed its doctrine for 2000 years.  But if these “infallibly pronounced” anathemas are wrong or somehow unacceptable now, they must have also been wrong back then!  So much for an “infallible” church.  I pray that Catholics will see and understand this deception.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church has been flinging anathemas for a long time now.  If they really are considered to be in force today by the Church, it is irrelevant because many, if not most, of the Council of Trent’s anathemas were not even biblical to start with, therefore, were never binding.  If they are considered to be no longer in force today, then the Catholic Church’s supposed “infallibility” has been exposed as fraudulent.  Either way, she has a problem.

Worst of all, it is ironic that the Catholic Church anathematizes HERSELF by preaching a false gospel, according to Galatians 1:8-9.

THE END OF SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Sola Scriptura – the “Bible Alone” doctrine – is one of the main teachings of the Reformation.  It can be briefly and accurately described in one short sentence: “Scripture is the only infallible source of truth for the post-apostolic church.”  That is, after the apostles died off, there is no more need of new revelation from God.  We have all the infallible truth we need today in the Bible.  (2 Timothy 3:16)

“Infallible” means “unable to make mistakes or be wrong.”  This teaching of “Bible Alone” is loved by some and hated by others, often either fully embraced or completely rejected.  Many Catholics (and others) would love to see the end of Sola Scriptura.  It seems that those who believe in “the Bible plus some other source for infallible guidance” would prefer that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura just die.

Catholic apologist John Martignoni is one of those people and he often openly speaks against this doctrine.  In a recent newsletter of his (Apologetics for the Masses #357), he attempts to tackle a very important and relevant question.  His newsletter can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/480-apologetics-for-the-masses-357-isn-t-that-just-your-opinion

In John’s newsletter, a fellow Catholic named Robert writes in and asks him:

“You constantly argue against the Protestant view because it is strictly their opinion and carries no more weight than my opinion, but can’t the same be said about the claims of the Catholic church being infallible just be your opinion and your interpretation of those verses in the bible?”

Excellent question!  I have often seen John attack Sola Scriptura (and often misrepresent it, by the way), but I have never seen him address this particular question before.  So I was eager to see how he would answer this.

To answer, John Martignoni starts off by presenting three premises.  In a nutshell, they are:

        1) Jesus Christ is God and He is a historical fact

        2) Jesus started a church

        3) The Bible is inspired

Ok, Protestants and Catholics will both agree with these premises. 

But then he says that the idea that “anyone’s opinions or interpretation of Scripture are no more valid than anyone else’s” is only true in Protestantism, and that this “fact” is the Catholic’s “ace in the hole” when discussing theology with a Protestant.  He also calls it the “Achilles heel of Protestantism.”  Then Martignoni says that it all comes down to the question of who wrote the Bible and how do we know we have the right canon? 

Actually, Robert’s question has nothing to do with the canon (list of Bible books) and much more to do with proper interpretation of the Bible texts.  But anyway, let’s address his assumption about who wrote the Bible.

Of course, John’s answer to that question is the Catholic Church, which is supposedly “the Church founded by Jesus Christ.”  He says that for us to trust that the Bible is inspired and without error, we have to trust “someone, somewhere, that we can rely on as being absolutely authoritative and trustworthy.”  I would actually agree with that, and those with such authority were the prophets and apostles, and those very close to the apostles, those who were inspired by God to infallibly write Scripture down (2 Peter 1:20-21).  So John, there’s your answer to the question of who wrote the Bible:  It was GOD who wrote the Bible, through certain temporarily inspired men: Old Testament prophets (Hebrews 1:1), New Testament apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) and some very close associates of the apostles (e.g., non-apostle Bible authors like Mark, Luke, James and Jude).

  

But John Martignoni goes on to say that we can know for sure that we can trust the Bible only if we have someone who came after the apostles who is “infallible in their decision regarding which books are, and are not, to be considered the inspired, inerrant, Word of God.”  In other words, we can only be sure of the Bible if we have someone today who knows the canon of Scripture infallibly.

See how he unnecessarily brings the canon into the equation?  But this has nothing to do with Robert’s question.

At the beginning of his answer, Martignoni first gives three premises, with which we agree.  But his conclusion is that we can only trust Scripture if an infallible person or persons (the Catholic Church) gives Scripture to us and tells us what it is.  In other words, he is telling us that one has to be infallible to recognize infallible Scripture.  But that’s not true.

An infallible person is not needed to recognize an infallible source (Matthew 27:54).  If he were, a fallible person could NEVER recognize when God (Who is infallible) is speaking to him.  But Martignoni’s view would create an infinite regress like this:

        1) God speaks infallibly to person A. 

        2) Person A (who must be infallible to recognize it) hands down the infallible information to Person B. 

        3) But since infallible information is being passed on, Person B must necessarily be infallible, also… etc., etc.  Thus, producing a never-ending chain of “infallible” people.  But this is ridiculous.

If Martignoni were correct about this, an infallible leadership would be no good to a fallible congregation.  At some point, the fallible MUST meet, and understand, the infallible.  And this is, in fact, exactly what happened in history – infallible Scripture was given to fallible men (the universal church – all true believers worldwide).

John also mentions “logic” a dozen times in this particular newsletter, but ironically his conclusion here is not based on good logic, because his belief that the Catholic Church is infallible does not at all follow from his premises.  Catholics start off with the assumption of the need for an infallible church.  But that is neither logical nor scriptural.

He also claims that his arguments are based on common sense.  We agree that common sense is certainly useful, so why can’t we simply use that common sense up front when interpreting Scripture to start with?

The bottom line is that John Martignoni does not really answer Robert’s question in a satisfactory way.  Robert’s question was basically, “If Protestants can never be sure of their interpretation of Scripture because Protestants are fallible, then shouldn’t we say the same thing about Catholics, since they, too, are fallible?”

The answer to this question is yes, because we are all fallible, and we are all prone to make mistakes.  No one today is infallible, individually or collectively.  Only the Scriptures (God’s word) are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17) – that’s why it is called “Sola Scriptura.”

But John’s response to Robert’s question was basically, “We have an infallible Church to interpret for us and Protestants don’t.”

That is not true, but even if that were true, it wouldn’t help Catholics at all.  If the Catholic Church is infallible, they’d have to have another infallible middle-man between the infallible Magisterium and the Catholic in the pew.  But, as we pointed out above, that wouldn’t solve what Catholics see as the “problem.” 

The point is, fallible interpretation of Scripture is not a problem at all, but simply a fact of life.  Again, because every one of us is fallible, and if we want to approach and interpret infallible Scripture, we must use our own fallible reasoning and imperfect understanding to do so.  And that goes for every person on the planet. 

John Martignoni needs to quit pretending that Protestants are “reduced” to using their fallible reasoning to interpret Scripture, but that Catholics are not.  Catholics are not exempt from fallible interpretation, even when it comes to trying to prove the infallibility of their Church.  They appeal to Scripture, but when they do that, they must still first use their fallible reasoning to interpret those Scripture passages that they claim “prove” the Church’s infallibility.  Fallible interpretation is unavoidable.

Again, the infallible must intersect with the fallible somewhere down the line.  There is no need for the existence of infallible people or infallible institutions today in order for “the common man” to understand the Bible (Matthew 7:24; Mark 4:9; Luke 6:47). 

Now, no one is suggesting that we can interpret Scripture just any way we want.  It is possible for someone to carelessly, foolishly, or unreasonably interpret the Bible.  But a fallible interpretation does not automatically mean a WRONG interpretation.  There are basic hermeneutical (interpretation) principles that we use all the time, e.g., context, history, Scripture interpreting Scripture, etc.  Though we are not infallible, God gives us sufficient ability to interpret and understand.

In the newsletter, John Martignoni states that he is not merely expressing his own opinion, but rather, his logic, based on “what the Church founded by Jesus Christ teaches.”  But have the verses that he uses to attack Sola Scriptura been “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?  No, most of them he generally uses have not.  In fact, there are very, very few verses that have this exalted status. 

But why are there actually so few Bible passages that are supposedly interpreted “infallibly” by the Catholic Church to become dogma?  Why is there such a very tiny percentage interpreted in this way if there is such a need for it?  Shouldn’t the Catholic Church have infallibly interpreted all of the Bible, or at least most of it if infallible interpretation is really that important?  One has to wonder.  See also this related article:

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

Catholics put down Protestants because of their “lack of certainty” in Bible interpretation, but you see, Catholics don’t really have the certainty that they claim to have, or would like to have.  Their “infallible certainty” is simply a mirage.

So, with all the Catholic apologists attacking the “Bible Alone” doctrine today, is this the end of Sola Scriptura?  Not even close.  The Bible and its teachings are not merely profitable, but they are God-breathed (i.e., God-inspired) and sufficient to equip Christians for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and it will be so until the end of time.

THE TREASURY OF MERIT

In the teaching of the Catholic Church, there is a sort of spiritual “bank” called the Treasury of Merit.  In it are the merits (good works, righteousness) of Christ and of Mary and of the “saints.”  These merits are obtained through something called indulgences, which can only be granted through the authority of the pope (CCC 1478), and are offered to man so that all who partake of them might be “set free from sin and attain communion with the Father.” 

In other words, the Treasury of Merit exists to help people by applying its contents toward their salvation, i.e., to pay for their sins.

The Catechism

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints ‘the Church’s treasury’, which is not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries.  On the contrary the ‘treasury of the Church’ is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God.  They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father.  In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy.” (CCC 1476)

Furthermore, it says:

“This treasury includes, as well, the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God.  In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord… In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.” (CCC 1477)

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

First of all, is this an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church?  Indeed, according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the Treasury of Merit is a dogmatic teaching, and therefore, an “infallible” doctrine of the Catholic Church.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

This same link admits that Christ’s satisfaction / payment for sins is “infinite”:

“Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin.”

Yet, the Catholic Church adds the “merits” of Mary and the “saints” to this treasury, as well.  But if Christ’s merits are infinite, why add the merits of anyone else?  If they are adding anything, they must not really believe that His merits are “more than sufficient,” after all.  So, is there something lacking in the work of the Savior on the cross so that the merits of others must be added?  It would seem so in the Catholic system of salvation.

Nowhere does Scripture describe or even imply a “treasury” in which human merit is mixed with the merit of Jesus Christ to bring about justification / salvation.  The Catholic Treasury of Merit offers a false hope.  Salvation cannot be purchased with money, human merit, or good works.  It comes only from a surrender to Jesus Christ and trusting in His work on the cross, which results in a changed heart.

The Great Insult

Imagine that you owed someone a hundred million dollars (in other words, an impossible debt).  But a generous billionaire felt sorry for you and offered to fully pay that debt for you.  But let’s say that you wanted to “chip in” and you added five cents to the billionaire’s payment, then you went around bragging to your friends that you “participated” in paying your incredibly enormous debt.  But this would be an awful insult to the billionaire, whose ample wealth more than covered your debt, and he (not you) had every reason to boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

It is the same thing with salvation.  Trying to add human merits (even from the “saints” or from Mary) to the perfect and completely sufficient merit of Jesus’ work on the cross is an incredible insult to God.  It would be poisoning the pure and infinite well of salvation that Jesus provided.

No Mixture Allowed

If anyone appears before God on Judgment Day with the hope of such mixed merit, he will be rejected!  Only the pure merit of Jesus Christ will be sufficient to allow us to enter glory, and He needed no help from anyone to do it.

If you attempt to add anything (any work, any merit) to the cross, you bring upon yourself the curse of the Judaizers (Acts 15:1, 5; Galatians 1:8-9).  See this link:

https://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-curse-of-judaizers.html

A Catholic Objection

But the Catholic may say, “But there are two types of punishments for sins:  One is eternal punishment (which has to do with the guilt of sin – CCC 1472, 1473).  In this case, a person is forgiven the guilt, yet still requires work, effort, or suffering by the sinner.  That is, he is still required to satisfy some temporal punishment (CCC 1471, 1472, and 1473), which is satisfied either by suffering and / or good deeds done here in this life, or suffering in Purgatory.  This Treasury of Merit is to provide remission (forgiveness) only for the temporal punishments for sin.”

But isn’t this Treasury supposed to contain Christ’s merits?  And isn’t His merit “inexhaustible” and “more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin”?  So why would this “treasury” not be enough to take care of ALL punishment for sin, both temporal and eternal?

 

Again, the following are the phrases that the Catholic Church itself uses in describing the contents of the Treasury of Merit:  Its merits supposedly “set [a person] free from sin,” they “attain communion with the Father,” they are “truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value,” they are “an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin,” and they consist of Christ’s merits, which are “the infinite value, which can never be exhausted.” 

All this, yet this treasury’s merits can only satisfy the so-called temporal punishments of sin?!!!  The best we can say is that it is only partially effective in setting one “free from [his] sin.”  The Catholic Church speaks highly of this treasury’s “efficacy,” but apparently, it is not effective against the eternal penalty for sins, i.e., it is not enough to satisfy one’s guilt.  Therefore, it cannot be of Christ (John 1:29; 19:30; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

There is a great contradiction here!

Conclusion

One last thing.  Note that CCC 1477 above says that Mary and the “saints,” through their own merits, have not only attained their own salvation, but have merit left over to apply to others in need of merit.  This would mean that they were able to obtain for themselves excess righteousness!  They were able to earn more than enough to be saved!  This is an absurd and absolutely unbiblical concept.  According to Scripture, we can’t pay for our own salvation (Romans chapters 3 and 4; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:5), and if we can’t even pay for our own, then how in the world could we get “extra” merit to pay for others?!!!  If anyone could merit salvation for himself, then Jesus came and died for nothing! (Galatians 2:21) 

This concept of the Treasury of Merit totally nullifies the sufficiency of the Savior’s suffering and work on the cross.  And not only that, according to Indulgentiarum Doctrina (an Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI – Chapter 4, Section 8) the Catholic Church threatens an anathema (condemnation) for anyone who says that indulgences are useless, or for anyone who denies the power of the Catholic Church to grant them.  So the Catholic is obligated to believe in this false “treasury.”

It is obvious that the Treasury of Merit is part of a system designed to make its members totally dependent on a man-centered, works-based salvation… which is no salvation at all.

See also this article on indulgences: 

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B171030/the-obscenity-of-indulgences

JOHN MARTIGNONI AND “DECAPITATING” JESUS

In a fairly recent newsletter (#352 of his “Apologetics for the Masses”) put out by Catholic John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society, he again brings up the topic of infallibility when he says that “…no one – absolutely no one! – in Protestantism can make an authoritative interpretation of Scripture that is binding on anyone else, because each and any interpretation, being fallible, could be wrong.”   And because of this, he says that Protestantism is a “free-for-all.”  See the newsletter here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/466-apologetics-for-the-masses-352-problems-with-protestantism-1

It is interesting that John says that any fallible interpretation could be wrong, yet, in this very same newsletter, he tells us what John 1:16-17 “very clearly states.”  Now, I agree with John Martignoni concerning what John 1:16-17 states, but we have to ask, has this verse been “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?  No, it hasn’t.  So how can John know that his interpretation of this verse is “authoritative” or even correct?  After all, as John himself said, if it hasn’t been infallibly interpreted by the Church, then it could be wrong, right?  But by telling us what this verse “very clearly states,” he’s using his fallible interpretation of this passage to make it “binding” on everyone.

You see, John is trying to play both sides.  He knows that many Bible verses are absolutely clear for both Protestants and Catholics, alike.  He is enjoying the freedom to fallibly interpret Scripture according to what it plainly says without worrying about his interpretation being wrong.  But he doesn’t want Protestants to be able to do the same thing.  He’s concerned about the “problem” of fallible interpretations for Protestants, yet it’s not a problem when he fallibly interprets a verse.  

He does the same thing with a couple of other passages right after this (Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9-10) and says that these are also clear to both Catholics and Protestants.  Again, he doesn’t seem to care that the verses he mentions are fallibly interpreted by him.  I suspect that the real reason that Catholic apologists push infallibility is to protect those very few “infallibly defined” uniquely Catholic interpretations of certain passages that falsely exalt the Catholic Church. 

Anyway, we’ve already dealt with this issue of Protestants lacking infallibility when we addressed some of John’s other articles.  For example, see here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html

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

But in this more recent newsletter (#352), John has added a unique accusation against Protestants… he accuses us of “decapitating” Jesus.

He says that we Protestants are “pitting the Bible against the Church.”  And he claims that Protestants say 1) that “we can’t trust what a church tells us,” 2) that “you don’t need the church as long as you’ve got the Bible,” and 3) “the church isn’t necessary for one’s salvation.”  John accuses us of “separating the Church from Jesus,” thus cutting the Head (Jesus) off the body (the church).   

   

First of all, I believe that very few knowledgeable Protestants would say these things using the biblical definition of “the church,” and they would certainly need to qualify these statements.

One problem is, when Catholics mention “the church,” they are often thinking of the Magisterium, or the leadership of the Catholic Church, specifically.  But there is absolutely no biblical reason to describe the church this way.

But John Martignoni then quotes Ephesians 1:22-23, which says that the body (the church) is the “fullness of Jesus Christ.”  Then he strings this verse together with Colossians 2:9-10, which tells us that Jesus is Head over “all rule and authority.”  But John’s logic gets twisted here and leads him to believe that the church itself is somehow “all rule and authority!”  But it doesn’t say that about the church. 

His logic here says, 1) “Jesus is the Head over the church,” and 2) “Jesus is the Head over all rule and authority.”  Therefore, the church is “all rule and authority!” 

But that would be like saying, 1) God is Head over the planet Mars, and 2) God is Head over the planet Neptune.  Therefore, Neptune is the same thing as Mars!  It just doesn’t follow.  But it does show their desperation to exalt the authority of the Catholic Church.  We can’t let John get away with this.  If he wants to be recognized as a credible and trustworthy apologist, he can’t be using this kind of logic.

Then John claims that this concept is “further strengthened” by Matthew 18:15-18 where Jesus speaks of “binding authority” in the church. 

Therefore, he concludes that all this, taken together, means that the church must enjoy “infallibility” and “freedom from error” in its judgments.  But that is a giant illogical and unbiblical step to take.

When the apostle Paul says that the church is the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23), he is saying that the church, the universal body of believers, in its best light, is the fullness of the expression of Christ.  It cannot mean that the church is infallible, as John Martignoni says, because Ephesians 3:19 also speaks of “fullness” (using the exact same Greek word):

“… that you may be filled up to all the fullness [“pleroma”] of God.” [NASV]

If this “fullness” means “infallibility” in Ephesians 1:22-23, then it also means “infallibility” in Ephesians 3:19, as well.  But in Ephesians 3, it was speaking directly to the members of the church of Ephesus.  So does this mean that all the members of the Ephesian church were infallible, also?  Someone might point out that it applies to all Christians, by extension, not just to the Ephesians.  Ok, if that’s true, then by John Martignoni’s reasoning, it would mean that all Christians world-wide are infallible.  But does John Martignoni want to say this?  I seriously doubt that.

So there is no infallibility in the New Testament church (after the apostles).  The Protestants that John Martignoni complains about are simply reacting (possibly over-reacting) to Catholics’ unbiblical over-emphasis of the authority of the church.  There is a balance here.  Yes, the church is indeed made up of God’s people, but Protestants honor the Bible more than the church because Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  It is the very message of God to mankind.  It is the infallible standard and guide by which the church should live. 

  

And finally, there is no “decapitation” on the part of Protestants.  Putting the church in its proper biblical role is not “decapitating Jesus.”  Christ and the church are intertwined, but not on the same level.  The Head (Jesus) doesn’t need the church in order for Him to exist, but the church needs Him.  It is almost as if some Catholic apologists try to make the church [read “Catholic Magisterium”] equal to Jesus.

"WHY I AM NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC"

Greetings! 

I just want to share a brief story / testimony with you today.  I am sharing a link to Tim Challies’ website, in which he tells his personal short story titled Why I am not Roman Catholic.

In this story, he briefly tells of how he grew up and the things he believed about the Catholic Church in his early years.  He, like me, had some misunderstandings at first about what exactly the Catholic Church teaches.

 

I want to point out that I don’t agree with everything Tim believes, since he is a Calvinist and I am not.  But he tells his story with grace and respect.  He gives a respectful, yet honest, assessment of the Catholic Church’s teachings.  He briefly summarizes his thoughts and gives three main (and compelling) reasons why he is not a Catholic and why Catholics should seriously and prayerfully consider these reasons.

And he also shares his belief that in spite of Catholic teaching, there are still some individuals in the Church who are saved.  But their being saved is, again, in spite of what the Catholic Church teaches, and not because of it.

Hope you enjoy the article.  Here is the link:

https://www.challies.com/articles/why-i-am-not-roman-catholic/