Having already dealt with the concept of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) in more detail elsewhere on this blog, this article will briefly address one particular Catholic argument against it.
Many, if not most, of us who believe in Sola Scriptura will admit that this doctrine did not apply during the time of Jesus or His apostles, since the apostolic period was definitely a time when they were still receiving new, infallible, “oral” revelation. But we believe Sola Scriptura came into play in the post-apostolic church, when the apostles were all gone and new divine revelation had ceased.
But some Catholic apologists will say, “For Sola Scriptura to be true, it must have been the norm all along. Jesus and the apostles did not observe it, so we shouldn’t practice it today.”
In other words, they are saying that if it was operating in the beginning of the church, it has to be operating now, and if it was not operating in the beginning, it can’t be operating now. If THEY (the apostles) didn’t practice it, then WE shouldn’t practice it.
But if that’s true, then can anyone show where Jesus or the apostles taught people to pray to the saints in Heaven? Did they believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary or practice indulgences? Did they teach of miracles with no accompanying evidence (like bread and wine supposedly “changing” into flesh and blood)? Do we have any biblical evidence of any of these teachings at that time? No, we don’t. Then why are all of these teachings accepted in the Catholic Church? By their own standard, no one today should be doing these things either, since Jesus and the apostles didn’t teach them.
Catholics may say that these teachings somehow “developed” over time, but then we could also say Sola Scriptura “developed” and was, in fact, a process, a “transition.” Just as the Old Covenant transitioned into the New, just as Judaism is fulfilled in Christianity, just as the “types and shadows” of the Law had to give way to the “real thing,” so does Sola Scriptura emerge as the ultimate Rule of Faith.
Stop and think… if the Bible, as a Rule of Faith, really is “God-breathed” and able to equip the believer for EVERY GOOD WORK (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then it necessarily and effectively eclipses and replaces any other source that claims to be an infallible Rule of Faith. Thus, the transition from “oral plus written,” to “written only.”
In conclusion, the fact that the apostles didn’t practice Sola Scriptura does not nullify that teaching, but pointing out the practices of the apostles does not help the Catholic, since it undercuts his own position.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
PRAYING TO SAINTS
When we are going through life’s problems and trials, it is very comforting to have family, friends and neighbors pray with us and for us. God expects us to pray for each other. But we need to ask an important question about prayer. Is it possible to get help from those who are in Heaven, like Mary or the saints / believers who have gone on before us? The Catholic Church teaches the concept of “the Communion of Saints” which includes the idea that you can indeed pray to, and receive help from, certain saints (and even angels) in Heaven. But is this true? Is this scriptural? Let us look deeper into this topic and respond to some of the Catholic arguments for praying to Mary, saints and angels.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – PROTESTANTS DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE CATHOLIC CONCEPT OF PRAYER. TO PRAY SIMPLY MEANS “TO ASK” OR “TO BESEECH.” FOR INSTANCE, THE TERM “PRAY TELL” IS SIMPLY AN EXPRESSION THAT SOME WILL USE WHEN ASKING SOMETHING. EVEN IN THE BIBLE, WE SEE THE TERM “I PRAY THEE” WHEN ASKING FOR A FAVOR. SO, WHEN WE PRAY TO MARY OR THE SAINTS, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THEM TO PRAY TO GOD ON OUR BEHALF. SO PRAYER IS JUST ASKING.
First, if the word “pray” just means “to ask,” then the words of Jesus, “Ask in prayer” (Matthew 21:22) would simply be redundant.
Using the logic of this Catholic argument, if you “asked” me for any kind of help, wouldn’t you be praying to me? When Jesus “asked” the woman at the well for a drink (John 4:7), was the Son of God praying to her? Or, when Jesus “asked” His disciples for something to eat (Luke 24:41), was He praying to them? Of course not. That would be absurd.
Second, although asking is one component of prayer, Catholics should be well aware that the biblical concept of prayer cannot be reduced to merely asking, since prayer can include praise, thanksgiving, meditation, etc.
Third, the language involved in some of the common prayers to the saints certainly seems to be more than just “asking for prayer.” A brief search on the internet will reveal that much of the language used in praying to the saints seems to contain excessive devotion, and oftentimes appears to be asking the saint himself / herself to fill the need (instead of God), especially some of the prayers directed to Mary. After reading a number of these, it would become easy to completely miss the idea that one is simply “asking them to pray.”
Finally, we must remember that the Catholic Church teaches that there are three different levels of honor when a Catholic prays (which we will discuss further in just a minute). Each level carries with it a corresponding and increasing attitude of honor. To keep things simple for now, there is “praying with ‘little’ honor”, “praying with ‘bigger’ honor,” and “praying with ‘greatest’ honor.” All three are “asking,” but is all their asking, at each individual level, the same? If it is, then how is one level different from another? If “pray” only means ask, then having these different levels of honor is meaningless. The simple fact that Catholics recognize different levels of prayer destroys this silly notion that “pray just means ask.”
To be fair, I don’t know of any official Catholic sources that make this argument (I don’t think that they do), but let’s hope that the many Catholic apologists who do use this faulty “pray just means ask” argument would be more honest and stop using it.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHEN ADDRESSING MARY OR THE SAINTS, WE’RE NOT REALLY PRAYING *TO* THEM, WE’RE JUST ASKING THEM TO PRAY *FOR* US.
But note these statements from official Catholic sources:
Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray TO her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and TO her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC #2679 – Emphasis added)
One prays TO the Blessed Virgin, TO the angels and saints in heaven, but only in the sense that they may intercede before God for us. (New Catholic Encyclopedia [1967], Volume 11, page 673 –Emphasis added)
…the saints intercede for us in virtue of His merits, not their own. Consequently when we pray TO them, it is to ask for their intercession in our behalf, not to expect that they can bestow gifts on us of their own power, or obtain them in virtue of their own merit. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, online, under the topic “Prayer” – Emphasis added)
Let all the children of the Catholic Church… continue to venerate, invoke and pray TO the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God… (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution, December 8, 1854 - Emphasis added)
It is clear from these sources that Catholics can and do, indeed, pray TO Mary and the saints. In fact, the Church encourages it. To deny this is simply playing word games and ignoring official teaching. So, Catholics need to stop repeating this falsehood, also.
Ok, at this point many Catholics will say, “But our prayer to them is a ‘lesser’ type of prayer than what is offered to God”… which leads us to the next Catholic claim:
CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOU ARE CONFUSING PRAYER WITH WORSHIP. PROTESTANTS ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TYPES OF HONOR WE GIVE TO SAINTS, MARY, AND TO GOD. PRAYER TO THE SAINTS IS CALLED “DULIA.” PRAYER TO MARY IS ON A HIGHER LEVEL AND IS KNOWN AS “HYPERDULIA.” BUT WHEN WE PRAY TO GOD, WE USE “LATRIA,” THE HIGHEST FORM OF HONOR (i.e., WORSHIP). WE DO NOT *WORSHIP* MARY OR THE SAINTS, BUT ONLY GOD.
In the Bible, prayer is always an act of WORSHIP. All throughout Scripture, people worshipped through prayer and their prayers were always directed to God. We find not one single case of anyone in the Bible praying (with God’s approval) to anyone other than God. No angels, saints, elders, patriarchs, prophets, kings… no one. These may have been honored, but never were they prayed to. It is ok to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but praying to someone (dead or alive) is beyond honor; it is worship. In spite of Catholic claims to the contrary, prayer to saints is NOT the same as just asking a friend to pray for you. It is idolatry.
The Jews were God’s chosen people in the Old Testament, yet they continually fell into idolatry. What makes anyone think today that they can, while praying, easily distinguish between these three forms of “honor” (dulia, hyperdulia, latria) and move from one to the other without falling into the same problem that the Old Testament Jews did? Even in the case of Moses’ brazen serpent (which God had him erect for the people), we find that the honor that was first directed toward the statue turned into something more. It was later destroyed because it had become an idol to which the people burned incense. (2 Kings 18:4)
And just for the record, the Catholic Church admits that “dulia” and “hyperdulia” are forms of worship. (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Beatification and Canonization”)
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IF ALL WORSHIP MUST BE DIRECTED TO GOD ALONE, THEN WHAT ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT SPOUSES MAKE TO EACH OTHER IN THE ANGLICAN WEDDING CEREMONY: “WITH MY BODY, I THEE WORSHIP”? (CHARLES AND DIANA REPORTEDLY USED THIS FORM IN THEIR WEDDING.) ALSO, IN THE UK, JUDGES ARE GIVEN WORSHIP AND ARE EVEN ADDRESSED, “MY WORSHIP.”
But we need to realize that the biblical concept of worship is not based on Anglican wedding vows or British courtroom practices. The biblical concept is that prayer is recognized as worship and is clearly illustrated by multiple examples of praying only to God.
ASSUMPTIONS
There are some basic underlying assumptions here with the concept of praying to saints:
1) That these saints which are being prayed to are actually in Heaven
2) That they can actually hear us when we pray
3) That they can actually do something about our situation (offer aid or intercession for us)
Concerning #1 above, how does one know with certainty if the person to whom they are praying is actually in Heaven? Suppose this “saint” is actually in Hell and therefore an enemy of God? Is it acceptable to pray to God’s enemies? Suppose that there was hidden “mortal sin” in this “saint’s” life that only God knew about? If this is indeed the case, then there are some serious repercussions. Remember, the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5).
Concerning #2 and #3, maybe God allows all the saints to hear our prayers. Maybe only some of them can hear us, or maybe He allows none of them to hear us. We just don’t know. It would be speculation. Saints hearing prayer is simply an assumption for Catholics, and there is no clear biblical proof for it. Nor is there any biblical reason to believe that even if they could hear us, that they could do anything about it anyway.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE NOT DEAD; THEY ARE MORE ALIVE AND RIGHTEOUS THAN ANY OF US HERE ON EARTH. AND SURELY, WITH THEIR EXALTED STATUS, GOD GIVES THEM SPECIAL POWER TO INTERCEDE FOR US. DON’T YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO GRANT THIS SPECIAL ABILITY? WHY DO YOU PROTESTANTS LIMIT GOD?
Yes, it’s possible, but “possible” does not make it true. It is also “possible” that God made the moon out of green cheese, but that doesn’t mean that He has. Of course, God is able to grant them “special powers,” but God’s ability is not the issue. The question is not, “What can God do?” It’s “What did God do?” Restricting our prayer life to the multitude of examples in Scripture (where prayer to saints is never found) is not “limiting” God.
But is it Biblical?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – PRAYING TO SAINTS IS INDEED A BIBLICAL PRACTICE. REVELATION 5:8 SAYS, “AND WHEN HE HAD TAKEN THE BOOK, THE FOUR LIVING CREATURES AND THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS FELL DOWN BEFORE THE LAMB, HAVING EACH ONE A HARP, AND GOLDEN BOWLS FULL OF INCENSE, WHICH ARE THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS.” (SEE ALSO REVELATION 8:3-4) IF THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE OFFERING OUR PRAYERS TO GOD, THEN THEY MUST ALSO BE AWARE OF OUR PRAYERS AND ARE INTERCEDING FOR US.
Again, this conclusion is pure speculation. This does not mean that the saints (on earth) prayed to them, or that the saints in Heaven could even hear their prayers; it just means that God allowed them to “handle” the bowls of prayers. This says absolutely nothing about us being free to pray to Mary, angels, or to saints in Heaven. It never suggests that the prayers were ever directed to them.
According to Catholic logic, since the prayers in the bowls of Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 were (supposedly) directed to the beings who carried them, then the WRATH in the bowls of Revelation 16:1-12 must have ALSO been directed to the angels who carried those. But I don’t think that anyone would agree with this conclusion. So, this Catholic argument is another one that fails.
We see no reason to believe that there is anyone in Heaven to whom prayer is directed but God. Look what Psalm 73:25 says: "Whom have I in heaven BUT THEE? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee." In Scripture, we are never encouraged to pray to anyone in Heaven, except God. Not to saints, not to Mary, not to angels. There are hundreds of verses on prayer in the Bible, but there are absolutely none where a believer prays to anyone other than God. We are never told that heavenly saints intercede for us by their prayers. But we are told that Jesus Christ intercedes for us (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25).
CATHOLIC CLAIM – ANOTHER VERSE IS PSALM 103:20-21, “BLESS THE LORD, YOU HIS ANGELS, MIGHTY IN STRENGTH, WHO PERFORM HIS WORD, OBEYING THE VOICE OF HIS WORD! BLESS THE LORD, ALL YOU HIS HOSTS, YOU WHO SERVE HIM DOING HIS WILL.” (SEE ALSO PSALM 148:2) THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE BIBLE DIRECTS US TO PRAY TO HIS ANGELS.
These verses are not directing us to pray to the angels, but the psalmist is just using a rhetorical device to exhort all (including the Heavenly hosts) to praise and exalt God, because He is worthy. Note the next verse (103:22), which encourages His "works" (not just living creatures) to also praise Him. Does that mean that we pray to all His "works" also? What about when people (on earth) are admonished to praise Him? Are we praying to those people?” Psalm 148:3 is telling the sun, moon and stars to praise Him, also. But no one is expected to pray to these.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT HEBREWS 12:1 TELLS US OF THE “GREAT CLOUD OF WITNESSES” FROM HEAVEN THAT SURROUNDS US. THESE ARE THE SAINTS WHO ARE PRAYING FOR US. ALSO, IN VERSES 22-24, THE WRITER OF HEBREWS IS TELLING US TO NOT ONLY COME TO JESUS AND TO GOD, BUT ALSO TO ANGELS, TO THE CHURCH OF THE FIRSTBORN AND TO THE SPIRITS OF RIGHTEOUS MEN MADE PERFECT (i.e., THE SAINTS). SO, GOD EXPECTS US TO DIRECT OUR PRAYER TO ALL OF THESE.
Let’s first look at the verses mentioned:
Hebrews 12:1 - Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.
Hebrews 12:22-24 - But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
Concerning Hebrews 12:1, this verse is a continuation of the previous chapter, and the context is not so much about the saints in Heaven “observing” our lives on earth as it is of their being “examples” to us on earth – they made it through in spite of persecutions, and we are encouraged to do the same, e.g., “let us run with endurance…”
It is true that the angels and saints in Heaven may be aware of some things here on earth, but if this passage really is about us praying to saints this would be a great time to mention their “intercession.” But we don’t see anything here about asking those saints for prayer, or anything about Noah (11:7) or Rahab (11:31) wanting to intercede for us. Once again, I am not aware of any Catholic who prays to any of these heroes of faith listed in chapter 11. So why do Catholics insist that this passage proves the concept of prayer to saints if they never pray to these?
Concerning Hebrews 12:22-24, and our “coming to” Jesus and the saints in prayer, this passage is speaking of our entering into the new and better covenant. It is not permitting us to pray to angels and saints. If you take this to its logical conclusion, then we should also ask the “Heavenly Jerusalem,” “Mount Zion” and the “sprinkled blood” for prayer, also. If we “come to” all of these equally in the sense you’re suggesting, then they should all be prayed to. Catholics take this totally out of context, since they are equating “come to” with “pray to.” But this is not the case. Once again, there is nothing here about prayer to, or intercession from, saints and angels.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WE HAVE EXAMPLES IN THE BIBLE OF THOSE WHO SPOKE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE ON BEFORE US TO HEAVEN. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN JESUS WAS UP ON THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION (MATTHEW 17:3), HE SPOKE TO MOSES AND ELIJAH. AREN’T WE TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE?
First of all, this was a special and unique event. The lesson here is not that Jesus was giving them permission to pray to saints in Heaven. To the Jews, Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets. This event was simply to validate the ministry of Jesus in the eyes of the apostles. But as soon as Peter began to show an unhealthy interest in Moses and Elijah, they were taken away. There was no encouragement to “contact saints.” In fact there was nothing at all about prayer in this context.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that Catholics will use this argument in attempting to prove prayer to saints is ok, but (once again) I have never heard of any Catholic who actually prays to either Moses or Elijah.
By the way, when Peter asked to build tabernacles for Moses and Elijah, Jesus didn’t say, “Well, it’s ok, but only if you honor them with ‘dulia’.” No, there were no tabernacles intended for these great men of God, nor were prayers intended for them… the same goes for all saints.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE PRAYERS TO THE SAINTS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ANSWERED? SURELY, THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS. THESE PRAYERS ARE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE FAR MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN WE ARE.
Let’s assume that these prayers that were directed to saints have indeed been answered. Maybe (because of God’s grace) the prayer was answered in spite of your unbiblical prayer, rather than because of it. And of course, there is the possibility that it’s because others were praying directly to God for the same thing about the same time that you were praying to your saints.
Or perhaps, this “answered prayer” is just a deception of the enemy, specifically manifested to mislead people. If a teaching is false and unbiblical, yet seems to be "verified" by a miracle, then we must reject that miracle as evidence for that teaching. It is just like the sorcerers in Exodus 7:11, who produced a "miracle" similar to Aaron's rod turning into a serpent. Should we believe that these magicians were also from God just because they showed “signs and wonders?” They MUST have been from God, since they were able to duplicate Aaron’s miracle, right? No, not at all. Their “message” was not from God. The enemy can (to some extent, at least) duplicate (or counterfeit) miracles to deceive God's people. The Bible speaks of lying signs and wonders in the last days (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12), in order to deceive many. These “miracles” from the saints would fit in that very category.
We also see the unfortunate fate of the “prophet” in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, whose message does not line up with God’s commandments, even though he is exhibiting “signs and wonders.” Remember, you can’t depend on a “miracle” that confirms an UNBIBLICAL teaching.
How Does a Person Become Recognized as a “Saint”?
The Catholic Church teaches that a person today can only receive “sainthood” after his death. For the Church to recognize someone as a saint, his life must have been marked by “heroic virtue.” Furthermore, there must be (generally) at least two verified miracles attributed to him, “proving” that the saint has the power to intercede for those praying to him.
His life must be investigated by the Church and he must first go through the process of “beatification” and finally the process of “canonization.” Once he has been canonized, he is officially recognized by the Church as a “saint,” and the faithful are assured that he is in Heaven. Faithful Catholics can now pray to him publicly. By the way, many Catholics are not aware that all faithful Catholics are obligated to pray to “canonized” saints. The Church does not just encourage it, but commands public veneration for them. (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Beatification and Canonization”)
Note this official statement concerning whom Catholics are allowed to pray to:
It is permitted to reverence through public veneration only those servants of God whom the authority of the Church has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed. (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1187)
In other words, only those saints who are declared saints by the Church are the ones to whom Catholics can pray publicly. Catholics are forbidden to give public veneration / honor to anyone who is not beatified or canonized as a saint.
But this question begs to be asked: For the Catholic, are there limits to private prayer to those believed to be in Heaven? As for as I can tell, there are no official Catholic sources that limit the number of people to whom the Catholic can pray in private. They seem to be free to pray to Uncle Harry or to Aunt Susie, or anyone whom they feel has led a holy life.
But what if Uncle Harry is NOT in Heaven? The Catholic has no certainty of this, since Uncle Harry is not on the official “list of saints.” Suppose he is in Hell. Does the Catholic Church allow prayer to someone in Hell? At this point, it doesn’t matter if one’s prayer is public or private! Would not the individual be guilty of praying to an enemy of God? Can the person praying simply plead ignorance and still be innocent? Is the Church responsible for giving Catholics too much liberty in private prayer? It would appear so. But the Catholic Church seems to be more concerned about canonizing saints than it is about warning its members against idolatry.
Excessive Devotion
Many Catholics are aware of, and admit to, certain abuses and “excessive devotion” to saints by some members of the Church (especially in “majority Catholic” countries), and the Church would agree that this is wrong. The pope has the authority and the responsibility to deal with these problems, but never seems to really address it. If excessive devotion really is a problem (and it is), then why does he allow such “devotion” to continue? Why does he not set an example and openly rebuke those who, even by Catholic standards, engage in idolatry? This lack of concern will only increase the level of sinful, idolatrous practices in the Catholic Church. It is our prayer that everyone would see the danger involved in praying to anyone but the Living God.
The Bible’s company of saints is not restricted to the group that the Catholic Church calls “saints.” The Bible calls all true believers saints (e.g., Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1)… not just some special group in Heaven.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – PROTESTANTS DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE CATHOLIC CONCEPT OF PRAYER. TO PRAY SIMPLY MEANS “TO ASK” OR “TO BESEECH.” FOR INSTANCE, THE TERM “PRAY TELL” IS SIMPLY AN EXPRESSION THAT SOME WILL USE WHEN ASKING SOMETHING. EVEN IN THE BIBLE, WE SEE THE TERM “I PRAY THEE” WHEN ASKING FOR A FAVOR. SO, WHEN WE PRAY TO MARY OR THE SAINTS, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THEM TO PRAY TO GOD ON OUR BEHALF. SO PRAYER IS JUST ASKING.
First, if the word “pray” just means “to ask,” then the words of Jesus, “Ask in prayer” (Matthew 21:22) would simply be redundant.
Using the logic of this Catholic argument, if you “asked” me for any kind of help, wouldn’t you be praying to me? When Jesus “asked” the woman at the well for a drink (John 4:7), was the Son of God praying to her? Or, when Jesus “asked” His disciples for something to eat (Luke 24:41), was He praying to them? Of course not. That would be absurd.
Second, although asking is one component of prayer, Catholics should be well aware that the biblical concept of prayer cannot be reduced to merely asking, since prayer can include praise, thanksgiving, meditation, etc.
Third, the language involved in some of the common prayers to the saints certainly seems to be more than just “asking for prayer.” A brief search on the internet will reveal that much of the language used in praying to the saints seems to contain excessive devotion, and oftentimes appears to be asking the saint himself / herself to fill the need (instead of God), especially some of the prayers directed to Mary. After reading a number of these, it would become easy to completely miss the idea that one is simply “asking them to pray.”
Finally, we must remember that the Catholic Church teaches that there are three different levels of honor when a Catholic prays (which we will discuss further in just a minute). Each level carries with it a corresponding and increasing attitude of honor. To keep things simple for now, there is “praying with ‘little’ honor”, “praying with ‘bigger’ honor,” and “praying with ‘greatest’ honor.” All three are “asking,” but is all their asking, at each individual level, the same? If it is, then how is one level different from another? If “pray” only means ask, then having these different levels of honor is meaningless. The simple fact that Catholics recognize different levels of prayer destroys this silly notion that “pray just means ask.”
To be fair, I don’t know of any official Catholic sources that make this argument (I don’t think that they do), but let’s hope that the many Catholic apologists who do use this faulty “pray just means ask” argument would be more honest and stop using it.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHEN ADDRESSING MARY OR THE SAINTS, WE’RE NOT REALLY PRAYING *TO* THEM, WE’RE JUST ASKING THEM TO PRAY *FOR* US.
But note these statements from official Catholic sources:
Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray TO her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and TO her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC #2679 – Emphasis added)
One prays TO the Blessed Virgin, TO the angels and saints in heaven, but only in the sense that they may intercede before God for us. (New Catholic Encyclopedia [1967], Volume 11, page 673 –Emphasis added)
…the saints intercede for us in virtue of His merits, not their own. Consequently when we pray TO them, it is to ask for their intercession in our behalf, not to expect that they can bestow gifts on us of their own power, or obtain them in virtue of their own merit. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, online, under the topic “Prayer” – Emphasis added)
Let all the children of the Catholic Church… continue to venerate, invoke and pray TO the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God… (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution, December 8, 1854 - Emphasis added)
It is clear from these sources that Catholics can and do, indeed, pray TO Mary and the saints. In fact, the Church encourages it. To deny this is simply playing word games and ignoring official teaching. So, Catholics need to stop repeating this falsehood, also.
Ok, at this point many Catholics will say, “But our prayer to them is a ‘lesser’ type of prayer than what is offered to God”… which leads us to the next Catholic claim:
CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOU ARE CONFUSING PRAYER WITH WORSHIP. PROTESTANTS ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TYPES OF HONOR WE GIVE TO SAINTS, MARY, AND TO GOD. PRAYER TO THE SAINTS IS CALLED “DULIA.” PRAYER TO MARY IS ON A HIGHER LEVEL AND IS KNOWN AS “HYPERDULIA.” BUT WHEN WE PRAY TO GOD, WE USE “LATRIA,” THE HIGHEST FORM OF HONOR (i.e., WORSHIP). WE DO NOT *WORSHIP* MARY OR THE SAINTS, BUT ONLY GOD.
In the Bible, prayer is always an act of WORSHIP. All throughout Scripture, people worshipped through prayer and their prayers were always directed to God. We find not one single case of anyone in the Bible praying (with God’s approval) to anyone other than God. No angels, saints, elders, patriarchs, prophets, kings… no one. These may have been honored, but never were they prayed to. It is ok to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but praying to someone (dead or alive) is beyond honor; it is worship. In spite of Catholic claims to the contrary, prayer to saints is NOT the same as just asking a friend to pray for you. It is idolatry.
The Jews were God’s chosen people in the Old Testament, yet they continually fell into idolatry. What makes anyone think today that they can, while praying, easily distinguish between these three forms of “honor” (dulia, hyperdulia, latria) and move from one to the other without falling into the same problem that the Old Testament Jews did? Even in the case of Moses’ brazen serpent (which God had him erect for the people), we find that the honor that was first directed toward the statue turned into something more. It was later destroyed because it had become an idol to which the people burned incense. (2 Kings 18:4)
And just for the record, the Catholic Church admits that “dulia” and “hyperdulia” are forms of worship. (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Beatification and Canonization”)
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IF ALL WORSHIP MUST BE DIRECTED TO GOD ALONE, THEN WHAT ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT SPOUSES MAKE TO EACH OTHER IN THE ANGLICAN WEDDING CEREMONY: “WITH MY BODY, I THEE WORSHIP”? (CHARLES AND DIANA REPORTEDLY USED THIS FORM IN THEIR WEDDING.) ALSO, IN THE UK, JUDGES ARE GIVEN WORSHIP AND ARE EVEN ADDRESSED, “MY WORSHIP.”
But we need to realize that the biblical concept of worship is not based on Anglican wedding vows or British courtroom practices. The biblical concept is that prayer is recognized as worship and is clearly illustrated by multiple examples of praying only to God.
ASSUMPTIONS
There are some basic underlying assumptions here with the concept of praying to saints:
1) That these saints which are being prayed to are actually in Heaven
2) That they can actually hear us when we pray
3) That they can actually do something about our situation (offer aid or intercession for us)
Concerning #1 above, how does one know with certainty if the person to whom they are praying is actually in Heaven? Suppose this “saint” is actually in Hell and therefore an enemy of God? Is it acceptable to pray to God’s enemies? Suppose that there was hidden “mortal sin” in this “saint’s” life that only God knew about? If this is indeed the case, then there are some serious repercussions. Remember, the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5).
Concerning #2 and #3, maybe God allows all the saints to hear our prayers. Maybe only some of them can hear us, or maybe He allows none of them to hear us. We just don’t know. It would be speculation. Saints hearing prayer is simply an assumption for Catholics, and there is no clear biblical proof for it. Nor is there any biblical reason to believe that even if they could hear us, that they could do anything about it anyway.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE NOT DEAD; THEY ARE MORE ALIVE AND RIGHTEOUS THAN ANY OF US HERE ON EARTH. AND SURELY, WITH THEIR EXALTED STATUS, GOD GIVES THEM SPECIAL POWER TO INTERCEDE FOR US. DON’T YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO GRANT THIS SPECIAL ABILITY? WHY DO YOU PROTESTANTS LIMIT GOD?
Yes, it’s possible, but “possible” does not make it true. It is also “possible” that God made the moon out of green cheese, but that doesn’t mean that He has. Of course, God is able to grant them “special powers,” but God’s ability is not the issue. The question is not, “What can God do?” It’s “What did God do?” Restricting our prayer life to the multitude of examples in Scripture (where prayer to saints is never found) is not “limiting” God.
But is it Biblical?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – PRAYING TO SAINTS IS INDEED A BIBLICAL PRACTICE. REVELATION 5:8 SAYS, “AND WHEN HE HAD TAKEN THE BOOK, THE FOUR LIVING CREATURES AND THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS FELL DOWN BEFORE THE LAMB, HAVING EACH ONE A HARP, AND GOLDEN BOWLS FULL OF INCENSE, WHICH ARE THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS.” (SEE ALSO REVELATION 8:3-4) IF THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE OFFERING OUR PRAYERS TO GOD, THEN THEY MUST ALSO BE AWARE OF OUR PRAYERS AND ARE INTERCEDING FOR US.
Again, this conclusion is pure speculation. This does not mean that the saints (on earth) prayed to them, or that the saints in Heaven could even hear their prayers; it just means that God allowed them to “handle” the bowls of prayers. This says absolutely nothing about us being free to pray to Mary, angels, or to saints in Heaven. It never suggests that the prayers were ever directed to them.
According to Catholic logic, since the prayers in the bowls of Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 were (supposedly) directed to the beings who carried them, then the WRATH in the bowls of Revelation 16:1-12 must have ALSO been directed to the angels who carried those. But I don’t think that anyone would agree with this conclusion. So, this Catholic argument is another one that fails.
We see no reason to believe that there is anyone in Heaven to whom prayer is directed but God. Look what Psalm 73:25 says: "Whom have I in heaven BUT THEE? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee." In Scripture, we are never encouraged to pray to anyone in Heaven, except God. Not to saints, not to Mary, not to angels. There are hundreds of verses on prayer in the Bible, but there are absolutely none where a believer prays to anyone other than God. We are never told that heavenly saints intercede for us by their prayers. But we are told that Jesus Christ intercedes for us (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25).
CATHOLIC CLAIM – ANOTHER VERSE IS PSALM 103:20-21, “BLESS THE LORD, YOU HIS ANGELS, MIGHTY IN STRENGTH, WHO PERFORM HIS WORD, OBEYING THE VOICE OF HIS WORD! BLESS THE LORD, ALL YOU HIS HOSTS, YOU WHO SERVE HIM DOING HIS WILL.” (SEE ALSO PSALM 148:2) THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE BIBLE DIRECTS US TO PRAY TO HIS ANGELS.
These verses are not directing us to pray to the angels, but the psalmist is just using a rhetorical device to exhort all (including the Heavenly hosts) to praise and exalt God, because He is worthy. Note the next verse (103:22), which encourages His "works" (not just living creatures) to also praise Him. Does that mean that we pray to all His "works" also? What about when people (on earth) are admonished to praise Him? Are we praying to those people?” Psalm 148:3 is telling the sun, moon and stars to praise Him, also. But no one is expected to pray to these.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT HEBREWS 12:1 TELLS US OF THE “GREAT CLOUD OF WITNESSES” FROM HEAVEN THAT SURROUNDS US. THESE ARE THE SAINTS WHO ARE PRAYING FOR US. ALSO, IN VERSES 22-24, THE WRITER OF HEBREWS IS TELLING US TO NOT ONLY COME TO JESUS AND TO GOD, BUT ALSO TO ANGELS, TO THE CHURCH OF THE FIRSTBORN AND TO THE SPIRITS OF RIGHTEOUS MEN MADE PERFECT (i.e., THE SAINTS). SO, GOD EXPECTS US TO DIRECT OUR PRAYER TO ALL OF THESE.
Let’s first look at the verses mentioned:
Hebrews 12:1 - Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.
Hebrews 12:22-24 - But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
Concerning Hebrews 12:1, this verse is a continuation of the previous chapter, and the context is not so much about the saints in Heaven “observing” our lives on earth as it is of their being “examples” to us on earth – they made it through in spite of persecutions, and we are encouraged to do the same, e.g., “let us run with endurance…”
It is true that the angels and saints in Heaven may be aware of some things here on earth, but if this passage really is about us praying to saints this would be a great time to mention their “intercession.” But we don’t see anything here about asking those saints for prayer, or anything about Noah (11:7) or Rahab (11:31) wanting to intercede for us. Once again, I am not aware of any Catholic who prays to any of these heroes of faith listed in chapter 11. So why do Catholics insist that this passage proves the concept of prayer to saints if they never pray to these?
Concerning Hebrews 12:22-24, and our “coming to” Jesus and the saints in prayer, this passage is speaking of our entering into the new and better covenant. It is not permitting us to pray to angels and saints. If you take this to its logical conclusion, then we should also ask the “Heavenly Jerusalem,” “Mount Zion” and the “sprinkled blood” for prayer, also. If we “come to” all of these equally in the sense you’re suggesting, then they should all be prayed to. Catholics take this totally out of context, since they are equating “come to” with “pray to.” But this is not the case. Once again, there is nothing here about prayer to, or intercession from, saints and angels.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WE HAVE EXAMPLES IN THE BIBLE OF THOSE WHO SPOKE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE ON BEFORE US TO HEAVEN. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN JESUS WAS UP ON THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION (MATTHEW 17:3), HE SPOKE TO MOSES AND ELIJAH. AREN’T WE TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE?
First of all, this was a special and unique event. The lesson here is not that Jesus was giving them permission to pray to saints in Heaven. To the Jews, Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets. This event was simply to validate the ministry of Jesus in the eyes of the apostles. But as soon as Peter began to show an unhealthy interest in Moses and Elijah, they were taken away. There was no encouragement to “contact saints.” In fact there was nothing at all about prayer in this context.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that Catholics will use this argument in attempting to prove prayer to saints is ok, but (once again) I have never heard of any Catholic who actually prays to either Moses or Elijah.
By the way, when Peter asked to build tabernacles for Moses and Elijah, Jesus didn’t say, “Well, it’s ok, but only if you honor them with ‘dulia’.” No, there were no tabernacles intended for these great men of God, nor were prayers intended for them… the same goes for all saints.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE PRAYERS TO THE SAINTS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ANSWERED? SURELY, THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS. THESE PRAYERS ARE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE FAR MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN WE ARE.
Let’s assume that these prayers that were directed to saints have indeed been answered. Maybe (because of God’s grace) the prayer was answered in spite of your unbiblical prayer, rather than because of it. And of course, there is the possibility that it’s because others were praying directly to God for the same thing about the same time that you were praying to your saints.
Or perhaps, this “answered prayer” is just a deception of the enemy, specifically manifested to mislead people. If a teaching is false and unbiblical, yet seems to be "verified" by a miracle, then we must reject that miracle as evidence for that teaching. It is just like the sorcerers in Exodus 7:11, who produced a "miracle" similar to Aaron's rod turning into a serpent. Should we believe that these magicians were also from God just because they showed “signs and wonders?” They MUST have been from God, since they were able to duplicate Aaron’s miracle, right? No, not at all. Their “message” was not from God. The enemy can (to some extent, at least) duplicate (or counterfeit) miracles to deceive God's people. The Bible speaks of lying signs and wonders in the last days (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12), in order to deceive many. These “miracles” from the saints would fit in that very category.
We also see the unfortunate fate of the “prophet” in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, whose message does not line up with God’s commandments, even though he is exhibiting “signs and wonders.” Remember, you can’t depend on a “miracle” that confirms an UNBIBLICAL teaching.
How Does a Person Become Recognized as a “Saint”?
The Catholic Church teaches that a person today can only receive “sainthood” after his death. For the Church to recognize someone as a saint, his life must have been marked by “heroic virtue.” Furthermore, there must be (generally) at least two verified miracles attributed to him, “proving” that the saint has the power to intercede for those praying to him.
His life must be investigated by the Church and he must first go through the process of “beatification” and finally the process of “canonization.” Once he has been canonized, he is officially recognized by the Church as a “saint,” and the faithful are assured that he is in Heaven. Faithful Catholics can now pray to him publicly. By the way, many Catholics are not aware that all faithful Catholics are obligated to pray to “canonized” saints. The Church does not just encourage it, but commands public veneration for them. (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Beatification and Canonization”)
Note this official statement concerning whom Catholics are allowed to pray to:
It is permitted to reverence through public veneration only those servants of God whom the authority of the Church has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed. (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1187)
In other words, only those saints who are declared saints by the Church are the ones to whom Catholics can pray publicly. Catholics are forbidden to give public veneration / honor to anyone who is not beatified or canonized as a saint.
But this question begs to be asked: For the Catholic, are there limits to private prayer to those believed to be in Heaven? As for as I can tell, there are no official Catholic sources that limit the number of people to whom the Catholic can pray in private. They seem to be free to pray to Uncle Harry or to Aunt Susie, or anyone whom they feel has led a holy life.
But what if Uncle Harry is NOT in Heaven? The Catholic has no certainty of this, since Uncle Harry is not on the official “list of saints.” Suppose he is in Hell. Does the Catholic Church allow prayer to someone in Hell? At this point, it doesn’t matter if one’s prayer is public or private! Would not the individual be guilty of praying to an enemy of God? Can the person praying simply plead ignorance and still be innocent? Is the Church responsible for giving Catholics too much liberty in private prayer? It would appear so. But the Catholic Church seems to be more concerned about canonizing saints than it is about warning its members against idolatry.
Excessive Devotion
Many Catholics are aware of, and admit to, certain abuses and “excessive devotion” to saints by some members of the Church (especially in “majority Catholic” countries), and the Church would agree that this is wrong. The pope has the authority and the responsibility to deal with these problems, but never seems to really address it. If excessive devotion really is a problem (and it is), then why does he allow such “devotion” to continue? Why does he not set an example and openly rebuke those who, even by Catholic standards, engage in idolatry? This lack of concern will only increase the level of sinful, idolatrous practices in the Catholic Church. It is our prayer that everyone would see the danger involved in praying to anyone but the Living God.
The Bible’s company of saints is not restricted to the group that the Catholic Church calls “saints.” The Bible calls all true believers saints (e.g., Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1)… not just some special group in Heaven.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
SACRAMENTS (God's Grace for Sale)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)