The following 20 misrepresentations and distortions on Catholic theology were found on Calvary Community church's website under a search for “Catholic” in “Ask Calvary.”#1 A question asks: “Do Non-Catholic Christians observe and practice the “Sign of the Cross?” Answer: NO.” This is grossly untrue. Elementary research would prevent such statements from being taught by a Bible Church. The site makes it sound like the “Sign of the Cross,” a remembrance and profession of faith in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is somehow bad or wrong??... The fact is, just a little basic research would reveal that it is used and embraced by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglicans, the Episcopals, the Lutherans and some United Methodists and Presbyterians. To denigrate the Sign of the Cross is beyond comprehension in a Christian community. Update: To Calvary's credit, my last check of their website has revealed that they have changed their answer to this question to: "Yes, there are some non-Catholic Christians who practice the Sign of the Cross." #2. Another answer discussing the Sign of the Cross states: “Does it mean something else in Catholicism: Yes.” (I don’t know what that “something else” might be, so how do the Pastors at Calvary? They are not Catholic and their knowledge of it is wanting.) One should always go to the source for accurate information, i.e. the Catechism of the Catholic Faith or a Catholic Apologist. You wouldn't’t ask Democrats to comment on Republican ideals. So why would one ask Protestant Pastors what the Catholic Faith teaches? This is what the Catholic Faith teaches: -Click here: The Catechism of the Catholic Faith, what the Catholic Faith really teaches (with Search Engine), (This is what Pastor Martin should use for his research about the Catholic Faith.) #3 A question asks about Catholics not being taught they are “Saved by Grace.” Calvary's Answer: “Salvation by grace is an advanced concept that took centuries for the church fathers to develop in an effort to reform the Catholic Church.” Unfortunately Calvary is again misrepresenting Catholic theology. Catholic theology teaches that all are “saved by Grace and grace alone.” Our Catechism, (where Calvary should get their information) states: - a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life (Para 1697) This has always been the Catholic position. See Faith Alone and Saved by Grace Alone, Both Catholic positions #4. Still another question dealing with “nuns,” makes the inaccurate statement: “Tradition is often equal to or greater than scripture in the practice and governance of Roman Catholicism.” Again, a simply search of the Catechism, would reveal what the Catholic Church really teaches is the same doctrine espoused by the Apostle Paul who wrote in: 2 Thess 2:15 "Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form. Tradition is NEVER greater than Scripture, they are both the Word of God and equal to each other. Just as the Apostle Paul tells us. Catholic theology is the verses not underlined in the Bibles of Calvary Chapel, and that is one reason why these misrepresentations are placed on the Calvary website. Contrary to what Calvary’s Pastors have told you, not everything is “in the Bible” and the Bible tells us this.
The “Bible Only” idea that Pastor Martin has taught you, is Unbiblical, for not one verse says or even implies “the Bible is the SOLE infallible Rule of Faith or all you need or any way Pastor Martin wants to phrase it.” 2 Tim 3:16 only says Scripture is “profitable.” Not a SOLE source. The Apostle Paul agrees. ( 2 Thess 2:15 ) And 2 Tim 3: 15 tells us it was only referring to the Old Testament. So maybe the Old Testament is all we need... The Bible Only idea is Unbiblical and Unhistorical. See
#5 Question: On the subject of the "Apocrypha", (the 7 books missing from Protestant Bibles), Calvary Community Church gives two different and opposite answers. The site mistakenly dates the Council of Carthage at 406AD. The Council was actually in 397AD. One answer on one site says: "The Apocrypha consists of books added to the Old Testament by the Catholic Church that Protestants do not believe are canonical." And then another answer to a question about adding books to the Bible Calvary says: "The Catholics DID NOT add books to the Bible." So which is it? The real Answer is that the Christian canon has ALWAYS included the 7 books missing from Protestant Bibles. Martin Luther took these books out because they conflicted with his new theology. If you don't believe this, ask Pastor Martin to show you a Bible BEFORE Luther's time that is missing the 7 books. Even the John Tyndale's Bible and John Wycliffe's Bible embraced the 7 books. This is elementary logic by process of elimination. There was never a Bible before Luther that lacked the 7 books. Because it was Luther who took them out of the Christian Canon in his translation. The site is correct in saying "However, it was not until AD 1546, in a polemical action at the Counter Reformation Council of Trent, did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church." That is because once the the canon of 73 books was completed in the 4th century, it was not challenged and therefore the Church had no need to define the canon further. It was only at the Protestant reformation that the canon was challenged. Luther, contradicting Christian thought for over 1000+ years sided with the Hebrew Canon which was finally canonized by the Jews in the 1st century after the Passion of our Lord. These are the same Jews who Crucified our Lord and who strongly resented the new Christian "Sect." Believers who are "Christian" have always embraced the Christian canon that includes the 7 books in question. Jews in the 1st century who embrace Judaism and rejected Christ as the messiah reject the 7 books. Modern Protestantism sides with the Jews and accepts the Hebrew canon and consequently rejects all Christian thought on this subject up until Martin Luther. Why do Protestants side with 1st century Jews who rejected our Lord? No other Christian does. Did the Jews consider the Septuagint, the Greek translation that contains the Apocrypha Canonical? Yes, for even Jesus who was Jewish quotes from it the majority of the time. Why would Christians embrace a Jewish canon of the Bible and reject the canon Christ quoted from (The Septuagint?) and embrace the Hebrew Canon of the 1st century Jews? If Pastor Martin cannot show you a Bible that existed before Martin Luther that excluded the 7 books, this means that all Christians embraced the Greek Translation from which Christ quoted. By what authority did Martin Luther have to take out 7 books from the OT canon? Doesn't Scripture forbid adding or subtracting to the Bible?
#6 Question: Does the Bible teach that Mary the mother of Jesus ascended into Heaven. Calvary's Answer: The Bible is silent about Mary after the Day of Pentecost. The belief of the "Bodily Assumption of Mary" is one that is made by the Roman Catholic Church. There is no biblical basis for this teaching."
The Catholic does not teach that the Virgin Mary "ascended" into heaven as Christ did under his own power. It teaches that either before or after her natural life, she was assumed into heaven by the power of God. Is there explicit Biblical support for this? No. Is there implicit support or Biblical precedent? Yes. The Bible gives three instances of people being assumed into heaven. The first example is Enoch. "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him" (Gen 5:24). St. Paul tells us in (Heb 11:5) that Enoch did not experience death and he was not found, because God had taken him. The prophet Elijah is our second case history. "As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. " (2 Kg's 2:11). Moses is our third and final example of assumption. We are told in the (Deut 34:6) that Moses was buried but no one has ever known the location. Next, Michael,the archangel, contended with the devil for the body of Moses (Jude 9), and lastly Moses (and Elijah) appeared with Christ during the transfiguration. "Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with Him" (Mt 17:3). The Biblical evidence is overwhelming that holy people have been assumed into heaven. Does the Bible explicitly teach that Mary was assumed into Heaven? No, but if you were Jesus and you had assumed 3 other believers into Heaven, would you also assume your Blessed Mother, the vessel of the Word Incarnate into Heaven? Or would you leave her, as most Protestants would have it, to be food for the maggots and worms? What would you do for your own Mother if you had the power to do so?
#7 A question on the practice of "Christening children" makes references to it being a pagan practice and Calvary states "They [Catholics] are simply unaware of the truth, or lack of truth in the practice of christening children."
First of all, Catholics do not "Christen" children, they Baptism them as do the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Methodist, the Calvinist, the Anglicans, the Episcopalians and many other Protestant churches do. In fact all of Mark Martin's own Protestants reformers embraced the Baptism of children Why is he at odds with his own Protestant reformers and 2000 years of historic Christianity? If it is his contention that this is a pagan practice and children should not be baptized, where does he get the authority and knowledge to say such a thing. Or are we to understand that the Apostles and Christ's early Church baptized children and his own reformers baptized children and all Christians up to the Anabaptist sect in the 17th century baptized children, yet his and only his personal interpretation of the Bible is correct. How can his personal spin on the Holy Bible be factual or "Biblical" if the Apostles did not teach this idea nor did his own Protestant reformers? How did this idea of his get into the Bible if the Apostles did not teach it and write it in there? Ask Pastor Martin how he makes the Quantum Leap from the Anabaptist sect in the 17th century,,, past his own Protestant reformers,,,to the Apostles who taught otherwise? The Bible never tells us that Christian infants were denied baptism until the age of reason and then Baptized as he teaches. His distinctive ideas on this are not only Unbiblical (for the Apostles did not teach this) but also un-refomational and un-Protestant if one wants to be true to the Protestant reformation of the 16th century. If one is not true to one's own reformers, then one is free to believe and embrace anything they want... as long as they call it "Biblical." Case in point: the Mormons and the JW's, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggart, James Bakker etc. #8 Two questions on being "Saved by Grace and the Catholic faith" give two different and contradictory answers.
The response to the first question about cults states:
"While Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses are considered cults, Roman Catholicism is typically not considered a cult, though they state that salvation is a free gift but ONLY through the power of the Holy Catholic Church."
Salvation IS a free gift but the Church does not distribute this gift nor does it have the power to do so. Only God does. I don't know where Calvary gets their information but I wish they would consult the Catechism or at least a Catholic Apologist before they "decide" what the Catholic Church teaches. The second answer on the same subject states: "Salvation by grace is an advanced concept that took centuries for the church fathers to develop in an effort to reform the Catholic Church. Ultimately, this reform was achieved by creating the Protestant church, of which all evangelical Christians are part of today. "
Catholic theology teaches that one IS saved by grace. This has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church. This was taught at the Council of Orange in the 6th century and reiterated at the Council of Trent in response to the Protestant reformation of the 16th century. The canons of the Council of Orange in the 6th century state the same doctrine as the canon of the Council of Trent in the 16th century: Christians are saved by Grace and Grace alone. Works do not save us.
In the 6th century, the Council of Orange's 7th Canon states: we are "saved by grace" and that we can do nothing of ourselves without God. This is from the 6th century which reiterates what the Catholic Faith has always believed.
Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD), note canons 5,6,7
Click here: The Canons of the Council of Trent (16th century), most notably the first 3 canons
Bottom line is that regardless of what Protestant pastors have taught you about Catholic theology, the fact is that Catholic beliefs are that we are saved by Grace and Grace alone. Works do not save us, but they are a reflection of our Faith. Pastor Martin speaks of the Church Fathers in his response, but is he even following the teachings of his own reformers? Please ask him 3 Questions about why he rejects the faith of his own reformers.
Calvary states: "All that is required for salvation is a childlike faith (Matthew 18:4 – 5) that conforms to Romans 10:9- 10. Matthew 18:4 Therefore, anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. 5 And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me. Romans 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved." Using this definition, the Mormons and the JW need do nothing more to go to Heaven. They can continue to follow their "new gospels" as long as they adhere to Matt 18 and Romans 10. Obviously my friend there is more to salvation than simply "confessing with your lips." We must also LIVE our faith and actually FOLLOW Jesus and all he taught after we ACCEPT him. For Scripture says:
#10 A question concerning the Virgin Mary, citing alleged "Traditions of the Catholic Church," states "Catholic doctrine is quite simply the folly of unchecked power and misguided authority." It continues:
"Catholic doctrine is plainly heretical concerning Mary’s deity and power in the essential fact that she is ascribed deity by church tradition and is given Christ’s glory through the same agency. “The Glories of Mary,” written by Bishop Alphonse de Liguori, also a saint in the Catholic Church, describe in detail these heresies."
The distortion here is that Calvary is trying to make it's parishioners think that Catholic theology teaches the Virgin Mary is a Deity or a god or god like. First of all the Virgin Mary has no power except that given to her by her Son, Jesus Christ. Her power is her prayer. That's it. Mary's a deity? Contrary to what Pastor Martin falsely teaches 9000 people about the Catholic Faith, Catholic Theology teaches there is only One Deity, the Holy Trinity. One God, three persons. The Virgin Mary is the Mother of our Lord, a special woman whom the Bible calls "Blessed" and "Full of Grace."
The Bible states that all nations will called her Blessed. This would include the Protestant communities, but unfortunately Protestant pastors preach that Mary was not blessed and that she was just another peasant, no different from the commoner "Mrs Smith" down the street. Unlike Mrs Smith however, Mary and Only Mary was chosen from all woman to be the vessel of our Lord. Mary is not a deity but she is venerated as the Bible commands, she is respected and honored for saying "Yes" to the Angle Gabriel and thus being part of the salvation process. For having free will she could have said no. This "Yes" is the reason she is sometimes referred to as "co-redemptrix" because she CO-operated in the salvation plan. That's it. It is not because she is GOD or that she saved us from sin. She simply cooperated with God's plan. CO does not mean equal as your pastor might have told you. Your medical co-payment is not equal nor is this. Pastor Martin would have you believe that Mary is viewed in Catholic theology as equal to Christ. This is not true. As for the Glories of Mary, these are hyperbolic poetic verses that sing her praise and Bless her as the Bible commands. They must be viewed in the context of what Catholic theology has always taught, which is what Alphonse de Liguori believed as a Catholic Bishop and it must be viewed in the century they were written (1600's). Alphonse de Liguori, a Catholic Bishop did not believe she was a deity or equal to Christ nor has the Church ever taught that. If it did it would cease to be the Bride of Christ. She participated in the salvation plan simply by saying YES to the Angel Gabriel. She is the Mother of our Lord and should be honored as such, just as the Bible commands.
#11 The Calvary site states: "The failing of the Catholic Church in these matters of doctrine, as well as many others, is simply in the fact that they place tradition equal to or above the authority of Scripture."
Again, a simply search of the Catechism, would reveal the same doctrine espoused by the Apostle Paul who wrote in: 2 Thess 2:15 "Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form. Tradition is NEVER greater than Scripture, they are both the Word of God and equal to each other. Just as the Apostle Paul tells us. Catholic theology is the verses not underlined in the Bibles of Calvary Chapel, and that is one reason why these misrepresentations are placed the Calvary website. Contrary to what Calvary’s Pastors have told you, not everything is “in the Bible” and the Bible tells us this.
The “Bible Only” idea that Pastor Martin has taught you , is Unbiblical , for not one verse says or even implies “the Bible is the SOLE infallible Rule of Faith or all you need.” 2 Tim 3:16 only says Scripture is “profitable.” Not a SOLE source. The Apostle Paul agrees. ( 2 Thess 2:15 ) And 2 Tim 3: 15 tells us it was only referring to the Old Testament.
#12. Another question concerning Purgatory and the alleged"Traditions of the Catholic Church" states again: "Catholic doctrine is quite simply the folly of unchecked power and misguided authority." It continues:
"The doctrine of Purgatory appeared first in some of Augustine’s writings (though he questioned some of the tenets) and was established by Gregory the Great around 600 AD. There is no biblical basis for, NOR is there any reason to believe that these traditions are Apostolic in nature. The failing of the Catholic Church in these matters of doctrine, as well as many others, is simply in the fact that they place tradition equal to or above the authority of Scripture."
But there IS Biblical support for it and it was not invented by the Catholic Church and again, Catholic theology does not place Tradition ABOVE Scripture. It is equal with Scripture, just as the Bible tells us. "Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form 2 Thess 2:15. Again a little research would reveal that the doctrine of Purgatory is actually a Jewish concept that is still embraced today by Judaism. The Jewish Talmud may be thought to indicate Purgatory in Sabbath 33b and Rosh HaShanah 16b-17a; a similar belief in the efficacy of prayers for the dead is manifest in the Mourner's Qaddish which is prayed for 11 months after a loved one dies. The Septuagint Scriptures do include the Maccabees which incorporate prayer for the dead (2 Mac 12:42-45). (This is why Martin Luther removed this book and 6 others from the Bible because they supported this Jewish doctrine.) It was not established by Gregory the Great around 600AD and there is Biblical support for it. These would be the verses not underlined in Pastor Martins Bible. Purgatory is simply a place where one is purified before entering Heaven. The Bible tells us this purification is by fire. For the Holy Scriptures say "But nothing unclean shall enter it [heaven] . . ." (Rev. 21:27). So if one dies with the "punishment due to sin" on their soul, (not the forgiveness of sin), but the punishment DUE to sin, purgatory would be where they would go to become clean as Rev. 21:27 states. Below is more Biblical support.
#13 A response to a question states: "Certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are, we believe, outside of biblical Christianity. Namely... that you need a Priest to help absolve you from your sin after you are saved.
First a definition:
Catholics confess their sins to priests because-- as it is clearly stated in Sacred Scripture--God in the Person of Jesus Christ authorized the priests of His Church to hear confessions and empowered them to forgive sins in His Name. To the Apostles, the first priests of His Church, Christ said: ``Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.... Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.'' (John 20:21-23). Then again: ``Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.'' (Matt. 18:18). In other words, Catholics confess their sins to priests because priests are God's duly authorized agents in the world, representing Him in all matters pertaining to the ways and means of attaining eternal salvation. When Catholics confess their sins to a priest they are, in reality, confessing their sins to God, for God hears their confessions and it is He who, in the final analysis, does the forgiving. If their confessions are not sincere, their sins are not forgiven.
Furthermore, Catholics do confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do: Catholics are taught to make an act of contrition at least every night before retiring, to ask God to forgive them their sins of that day. Catholics are also taught to say this same prayer of contrition if they should have the misfortune to commit a serious sin (called a ``mortal sin'' by Catholics).
#14 A question asked: "My sister says the book of Revelation is not to be taken literally. She says that John was just sending secret messages to fellow Christians. Is that a possibility? I know Catholics don't believe the book of Revelation either."
The Catholic Church does "believe in the Book of Revelation," Did Calvary teach this person this? The Church included the book in the canon of NT books when the Bible was finally put in one volume in the 4th century. It was the Catholic Church that preserved the Bible through the dark ages, it was the Catholic Church who copied the Bible and added verses to it for study and reference, and it was the Catholic Church's Apostles who wrote the Bible in the 1st century. If you were a Christian in the first 1000 years of Christianity, you would embrace the One Catholic Faith for there was no other Christian Faith. All the Protestant denominations originated in the 16th century at the earliest, and in the case of Calvary Community Chapel, it got it's start in the twilight of the 20th century, almost 2000 years after the Apostles preached Christ's One Gospel. All churches find their link to Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church, even Calvary Community Chapel.
#15 A response to a question concerning marriage incorrectly states: "Many Roman Catholic practices have no basis in scripture. Concerning marriage, 1Timothy 4 condemns celibacy." Yet the same Apostles wrote other verses not underlined in Pastor Martin's Bible that advocate celibacy. Catholic priests do not marry because, while Christ does indeed approve of marriage for the Christian clergy, He much prefers that they do not marry. He made this quite clear when He praised the Apostles for giving up ``all'' to follow Him, saying, ``And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.'' (Matt. 19:27-29). The Apostle Paul explained why the unmarried state is preferable to the married state for the Christian clergy: ``He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.'' (1 Cor. 7:32-33). In other words, matrimony is good-- Christ made it one of the holy sacraments of His Church--but it is not conducive to that complete dedication which is incumbent upon those who submit themselves to another of Christ's holy sacraments--that of Holy Orders. Even so, the unmarried state of the Catholic priesthood is not an inflexible law--under certain conditions a priest may be dispensed from this law.
#16 A response to a question states: "A marked distinction between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church did not begin until the early 1500's when Martin Luther, a discerning catholic monk, noticed discrepancies between the way the Roman Catholic Church was practicing Christianity and the Bible's prescription for practicing the faith."
Martin Luther's claim to fame is the introduction of an idea he coined "Sola Scriptura" or the Bible Alone idea. That the Bible is the Sole infallible Rule of faith and the teachings of Christ's Church and that of the Apostles (who wrote the Bible) can be superseded by one's personal interpretation of the Bible. This is why Protestant pastors constantly denigrate Apostolic Tradition or of the Teachings of the Apostles, because their modern interpretation of the Bible does not coincide with the teachings of the Apostles who wrote the Bible. Does not Scripture say:
We have absolutely zero historical evidence for this "Bible Only" idea, because it was not espoused by the Apostles or anyone else before the Renaissance era. We also do not even find a shred of evidence of it implied in the Holy Scriptures. Have you ever checked for Biblical evidence for this idea? That the Bible and the Bible alone is the Sole INFALLIBLE rule of faith? Contrary to what Calvary’s Pastors have told you, not everything is “in the Bible” and the Bible tells us this.
The “Bible Only” idea that Pastor Martin has taught you , is Unbiblical , for not one verse says or even implies “the Bible is the SOLE infallible Rule of Faith or all you need.” 2 Tim 3:16 only says Scripture is “profitable.” Not a SOLE source. The Apostle Paul agrees. ( 2 Thess 2:15 ) And 2 Tim 3: 15 tells us it was only referring to the Old Testament.
#17 A question asks "Was Peter the First Pope." Of course he was the first Pope and any encyclopedia will show you the list of popes from John Paul II to St Peter. The following site lists all 263 popes from 33AD-Present. So is Mark Martin right in his version of history and all the encyclopedias in the world are wrong? Calvary's site says Peter wasn't because the argument of the words for Rock: "petra" and petros" in Matt 16:16-19. The problem with this "explanation" is that when one looks at the Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, the argument falls apart because there is no distinction of "Big Rock and Little Rock" as the petra/petros argument leans on. In Aramaic, Peter is Kepha, and Kepha means Rock. Period. The Aramaic tells us that Peter is indeed the Rock upon which the Church was started and only Peter was given the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and earth." Matt 16:16-19 Hence the leader of Christ's Church on earth. This is what Christians have always believed. What doesn't Calvary? Click here: Peter the Rock in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.
"The Saints (Statues) that are in the Roman Catholic churches, were they real people at one time? Are they mentioned in the Bible? Example St. Barbara, St. Martin etc...If not, were these Saints made up?"
Calvary's Answer: "Some of the Roman Catholic “saints” are biblical figures: Peter, Paul, etc.; most are not. Scripture repeatedly labels all believers as “saints;” therefore, it is contradictory to scripture to insist that only a few “good” people throughout history are able to be called saints. As far as we know, all of the Roman Catholic Saints are historical figures in the Catholic Church who lived “good” lives and served mankind selflessly. Nowhere does scripture indicate that it is permissible to pray to anyone but God Himself; this would exclude prayer to Mary or any of the saints of the Catholic Church.
The Church does teach that all believers are saints for that is what the Holy Bible tells us. It also uses the term "saints" in another context to designate those who are known to be in Heaven. The site continues: "Nowhere does scripture indicate that it is permissible to pray to anyone but God Himself; this would exclude prayer to Mary or any of the saints of the Catholic Church." To "PRAY" means nothing but to "ASK." It is an Old English word of the Shakespearian era meaning "to ask." As in "I pray thee" or I ask thee. Protestants pray to each other when they seek intercession and mediation from God through prayer chains or asking others to pray for them. Asking a loved one in Heaven to pray for you is no different from asking your spouse or mother to pray for you. It's called the Communion of Saints from the Apostles Creed of the 1st century. The Bible never says not to ask those in Heaven to pray for you. It says not to seek predictions of the future from the deceased as in the case of Samuel, but never does it tell us not to "pray" (ask) to those in Heaven to pray for us or ask for their prayers. To pray to one in Heaven is simple to ask for their prays. The Holy Bible commands us to pray for others.
It tells us that those in Heaven are aware of the Saints on earth:
And that those in Heaven do pray for us:
What then is the difference between you asking your spouse or mother to pray for you and asking those in Heaven close to Jesus to pray for you? Why Biblical principle can Calvary give to not seek their intercession?
#19 Concerning the "Bride of Christ" Calvary responds: "The Roman Catholic church incorrectly believes that they are the one, true church based upon Peter as the original Pope (Bishop of Rome). We are as Christians a part of God's one and true church. We are the "Bride of Christ"...His church.
Everything in this statement is Unbiblical. The Bible never says or even implies that: "We are as Christians a part of God's one and true church. We are the "Bride of Christ"...His church." Where then did this statement come from? It is not grounded in Scripture. The Bible never implies this in any manner whatsoever. Only those who believe in Christ's One Gospel are considered Christians, not anyone and everyone who claims to follow Christ. As for the term "Bride of Christ," this term is Unbiblical as well. To read what the Bible really says about Christ's Church and who is his Bride, See:
#20 A question make the statement: "When it comes to non-essentials, Paul tells us in Romans Chapter 14 that if we have faith in these things and are not convicted, then not to worry. "
My question is, where in the Holy Bible does it say Protestants can believe anything they want as long as they agree on the "essentials" Where does the Bible tell us what parts of Christ's Gospel is "Essential" and what part is "Non essential?" Does not the Bible tell us that there is but ONE Faith and One Gospel?
Does it not say that anyone who believes "another" gospel is to be accursed? How then can modern Protestantism condone the 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of gospels of each church's "statement of faith"? Does not the Apostles Paul repeats twice in
Who is right? Who is teaching this Other gospel? Is it another gospel not to even embrace one's own Protestant reformers? Why does Calvary not even embrace the teachings of their own reformers? What good were the reformers if their teachings are to be ignored and ridiculed as pagan practices? Can one believe anything one wants as a Protestant or a member of Calvary Community Chapel? If not who is there to stop them or refrain them from just starting a new church teaching these new "Biblical ideas?" Isn't that exactly what Pastor Martin did when he quit his old church and started his new one?? Ask Pastor Martin the 3 Questions And demand an answer. And if you don't get one, seek elsewhere. Attend a church that is true to the teachings of the Apostles and historic Christianity for 2000 years. The Holy Bible calls Christ's Church: "The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15. How did it become apostate or come to teach the "devils doctrine" with pagan rituals if the Holy Bible tells us it will prevail against the "Gates of Hell" for all time? Either we believe the Words of the Holy Bible or we don't.
After you ask Pastor Martin the 3 Questions , peruse the following site on who really is the Bride of Christ. It might change your mind.
God Bless you, Daniel
Click here: 10 SOBERING QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVOUT CHRISTIAN =>Discover the verses not underlined in your Bible and often overlooked in Protestant churches and seminaries.Click here: The Bible Only? 25 Protestant Practices and Doctrines Calvary teaches are in the Bible, but aren't.
|
Please email me with your questions, objections or comments.
===============================================
Below is a list of questions from "Ask Calvary" about the Catholic Faith. Click on each to read what Pastor Martin says Catholics believe and contrast these distortions and misrepresentations with what the Catholic Faith really teaches from its own Catechism.
1. “Do Non-Catholic Christians observe and practice the “Sign of the Cross?” Calvary answers incorrectly.
2. “Does the Sign of the Cross mean something else in Catholicism." Again Calvary answers incorrectly.
The following misrepresentations and distortions on Catholic theology were found on Calvary Community church's website under a search for “Catholic” in “Ask Calvary.”
#1 A question asks: “Do Non-Catholic Christians observe and practice the “Sign of the Cross?” Answer: NO.”
This is grossly untrue. Elementary research would prevent such statements from being taught by a Bible Church. The site makes it sound like the “Sign of the Cross,” a remembrance and profession of faith in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is somehow bad or wrong??... The fact is, just a little basic research would reveal that it is used and embraced by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglicans, the Episcopals, the Lutherans and some United Methodists and Presbyterians. To denigrate the Sign of the Cross is beyond comprehension in a Christian community.
Update: To Calvary's credit, my last check of their website has revealed that they have changed their answer to this question to: "Yes, there are some non-Catholic Christians who practice the Sign of the Cross."
#2. Another answer discussing the Sign of the Cross states: “Does it mean something else in Catholicism: Yes.”
(I don’t know what that “something else” might be, so how do the Pastors at Calvary? They are not Catholic and their knowledge of it is wanting.) One should always go to the source for accurate information, i.e. the Catechism of the Catholic Faith or a Catholic Apologist. You wouldn't’t ask Democrats to comment on Republican ideals. So why would one ask Protestant Pastors what the Catholic Faith teaches? This is what the Catholic Faith teaches: -Click here: The Catechism of the Catholic Faith, what the Catholic Faith really teaches (with Search Engine), (This is what Pastor Martin should use for his research about the Catholic Faith.)
#3 A question asks about Catholics not being taught they are “Saved by Grace.”
Calvary's Answer: “Salvation by grace is an advanced concept that took centuries for the church fathers to develop in an effort to reform the Catholic Church.”
Unfortunately Calvary is again misrepresenting Catholic theology. Catholic theology teaches that all are “saved by Grace and grace alone.” Our Catechism, (where Calvary should get their information) states:
- a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life (Para 1697) This has always been the Catholic position. See Faith Alone and Saved by Grace Alone, Both Catholic positions
#4. Still another question dealing with “nuns,” makes the inaccurate statement: “Tradition is often equal to or greater than scripture in the practice and governance of Roman Catholicism.”
Again, a simply search of the Catechism, would reveal what the Catholic Church really teaches is the same doctrine espoused by the Apostle Paul who wrote in: 2 Thess 2:15 "Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form. Tradition is NEVER greater than Scripture, they are both the Word of God and equal to each other. Just as the Apostle Paul tells us. Catholic theology is the verses not underlined in the Bibles of Calvary Chapel, and that is one reason why these misrepresentations are placed on the Calvary website. Contrary to what Calvary’s Pastors have told you, not everything is “in the Bible” and the Bible tells us this.
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book" (John 20:30)
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
The “Bible Only” idea that Pastor Martin has taught you, is Unbiblical, for not one verse says or even implies “the Bible is the SOLE infallible Rule of Faith or all you need or any way Pastor Martin wants to phrase it.” 2 Tim 3:16 only says Scripture is “profitable.” Not a SOLE source. The Apostle Paul agrees. ( 2 Thess 2:15 ) And 2 Tim 3: 15 tells us it was only referring to the Old Testament. So maybe the Old Testament is all we need... The Bible Only idea is Unbiblical and Unhistorical. See
#5 Question: On the subject of the "Apocrypha", (the 7 books missing from Protestant Bibles), Calvary Community Church gives two different and opposite answers.
The site mistakenly dates the Council of Carthage at 406AD. The Council was actually in 397AD. One answer on one site says: "The Apocrypha consists of books added to the Old Testament by the Catholic Church that Protestants do not believe are canonical." And then another answer to a question about adding books to the Bible Calvary says: "The Catholics DID NOT add books to the Bible." So which is it? The real Answer is that the Christian canon has ALWAYS included the 7 books missing from Protestant Bibles. Martin Luther took these books out because they conflicted with his new theology. If you don't believe this, ask Pastor Martin to show you a Bible BEFORE Luther's time that is missing the 7 books. Even the John Tyndale's Bible and John Wycliffe's Bible embraced the 7 books. This is elementary logic by process of elimination. There was never a Bible before Luther that lacked the 7 books. Because it was Luther who took them out of the Christian Canon in his translation.
The site is correct in saying "However, it was not until AD 1546, in a polemical action at the Counter Reformation Council of Trent, did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church." That is because once the the canon of 73 books was completed in the 4th century, it was not challenged and therefore the Church had no need to define the canon further. It was only at the Protestant reformation that the canon was challenged. Luther, contradicting Christian thought for over 1000+ years sided with the Hebrew Canon which was finally canonized by the Jews in the 1st century after the Passion of our Lord. These are the same Jews who Crucified our Lord and who strongly resented the new Christian "Sect." Believers who are "Christian" have always embraced the Christian canon that includes the 7 books in question. Jews in the 1st century who embrace Judaism and rejected Christ as the messiah reject the 7 books. Modern Protestantism sides with the Jews and accepts the Hebrew canon and consequently rejects all Christian thought on this subject up until Martin Luther. Why do Protestants side with 1st century Jews who rejected our Lord? No other Christian does.
Did the Jews consider the Septuagint, the Greek translation that contains the Apocrypha Canonical? Yes, for even Jesus who was Jewish quotes from it the majority of the time. Why would Christians embrace a Jewish canon of the Bible and reject the canon Christ quoted from (The Septuagint?) and embrace the Hebrew Canon of the 1st century Jews?
Salvation IS a free gift but the Church does not distribute this gift nor does it have the power to do so. Only God does. I don't know where Calvary gets their information but I wish they would consult the Catechism or at least a Catholic Apologist before they "decide" what the Catholic Church teaches.
The second answer on the same subject states:
In the 6th century, the Council of Orange's 7th Canon states: we are "saved by grace" and that we can do nothing of ourselves without God. This is from the 6th century which reiterates what the Catholic Faith has always believed.
Canon 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD), note canons 5,6,7
Here is the 3rd canon of the Council of Trent in the 16th century in response to the Protestant reformation.
"CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema. " (anathema=outside the Church of God)
Click here: The Canons of the Council of Trent (16th century), most notably the first 3 canons
Bottom line is that regardless of what Protestant pastors have taught you about Catholic theology, the fact is that Catholic beliefs are that we are saved by Grace and Grace alone. Works do not save us, but they are a reflection of our Faith. Pastor Martin speaks of the Church Fathers in his response, but is he even following the teachings of his own reformers? Please ask him 3 Questions about why he rejects the faith of his own reformers.
Calvary states: "All that is required for salvation is a childlike faith (Matthew 18:4 – 5) that conforms to Romans 10:9- 10.
Matthew 18:4 Therefore, anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. 5 And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me.
Romans 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved."
"‘Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’" (Matt. 7:21).
"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" (Jas. 2:14).
"But some one will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . .Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? (Jas. 2:18-20).
‘Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’" (Luke 1:41-43).
"And Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name’" (Luke 1:46-49).
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name’" (Luke 1:46-49).
Again, a simply search of the Catechism, would reveal the same doctrine espoused by the Apostle Paul who wrote in: 2 Thess 2:15 "Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form. Tradition is NEVER greater than Scripture, they are both the Word of God and equal to each other. Just as the Apostle Paul tells us. Catholic theology is the verses not underlined in the Bibles of Calvary Chapel, and that is one reason why these misrepresentations are placed the Calvary website. Contrary to what Calvary’s Pastors have told you, not everything is “in the Bible” and the Bible tells us this.
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book" (John 20:30)
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
The “Bible Only” idea that Pastor Martin has taught you , is Unbiblical , for not one verse says or even implies “the Bible is the SOLE infallible Rule of Faith or all you need.” 2 Tim 3:16 only says Scripture is “profitable.” Not a SOLE source. The Apostle Paul agrees. ( 2 Thess 2:15 ) And 2 Tim 3: 15 tells us it was only referring to the Old Testament.
But there IS Biblical support for it and it was not invented by the Catholic Church and again, Catholic theology does not place Tradition ABOVE Scripture. It is equal with Scripture, just as the Bible tells us. "Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form 2 Thess 2:15.
Again a little research would reveal that the doctrine of Purgatory is actually a Jewish concept that is still embraced today by Judaism. The Jewish Talmud may be thought to indicate Purgatory in Sabbath 33b and Rosh HaShanah 16b-17a; a similar belief in the efficacy of prayers for the dead is manifest in the Mourner's Qaddish which is prayed for 11 months after a loved one dies. The Septuagint Scriptures do include the Maccabees which incorporate prayer for the dead (2 Mac 12:42-45). (This is why Martin Luther removed this book and 6 others from the Bible because they supported this Jewish doctrine.) It was not established by Gregory the Great around 600AD and there is Biblical support for it. These would be the verses not underlined in Pastor Martins Bible. Purgatory is simply a place where one is purified before entering Heaven. The Bible tells us this purification is by fire. For the Holy Scriptures say "But nothing unclean shall enter it [heaven] . . ." (Rev. 21:27). So if one dies with the "punishment due to sin" on their soul, (not the forgiveness of sin), but the punishment DUE to sin, purgatory would be where they would go to become clean as Rev. 21:27 states. Below is more Biblical support.
Purgatory is actually a Jewish concept.
"For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (2 Macc. 12:44-45).
"Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny" (Matt. 5:25-26).
"Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:13-15).
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey . . ." (1 Peter 3:18-20).
First a definition:
PENANCE--the sacrament, also known as Confession, through which Christ forgives sin and restores the soul to grace. Catholics only follow what the Holy Bible says when it states: ``Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. '' (John 20:22-23. Also see Matt. 18:18).
St Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Apostle and Catholic Bishop wrote in 110AD:
"Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
#15 A response to a question concerning marriage incorrectly states: "Many Roman Catholic practices have no basis in scripture. Concerning marriage, 1Timothy 4 condemns celibacy."
Yet the same Apostles wrote other verses not underlined in Pastor Martin's Bible that advocate celibacy.
Martin Luther's claim to fame is the introduction of an idea he coined "Sola Scriptura" or the Bible Alone idea. That the Bible is the Sole infallible Rule of faith and the teachings of Christ's Church and that of the Apostles (who wrote the Bible) can be superseded by one's personal interpretation of the Bible. This is why Protestant pastors constantly denigrate Apostolic Tradition or of the Teachings of the Apostles, because their modern interpretation of the Bible does not coincide with the teachings of the Apostles who wrote the Bible. Does not Scripture say:
2 Peter 1:20 "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."
We have absolutely zero historical evidence for this "Bible Only" idea, because it was not espoused by the Apostles or anyone else before the Renaissance era. We also do not even find a shred of evidence of it implied in the Holy Scriptures. Have you ever checked for Biblical evidence for this idea? That the Bible and the Bible alone is the Sole INFALLIBLE rule of faith?
The “Bible Only” idea that Pastor Martin has taught you , is Unbiblical , for not one verse says or even implies “the Bible is the SOLE infallible Rule of Faith or all you need.” 2 Tim 3:16 only says Scripture is “profitable.” Not a SOLE source. The Apostle Paul agrees. ( 2 Thess 2:15 ) And 2 Tim 3: 15 tells us it was only referring to the Old Testament."And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book" (John 20:30)
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
#17 A question asks "Was Peter the First Pope."
Calvary's site says no because the argument of the words for Rock: "petra" and petros" in Matt 16:16-19. The problem with this "explanation" is that when one looks at the Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, the argument falls apart because there is no distinction of "Big Rock and Little Rock" as the petra/petros argument leans on. In Aramaic, Peter is Kepha, and Kepha means Rock. Period. The Aramaic tells us that Peter is indeed the Rock upon which the Church was started and only Peter was given the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and earth." Matt 16:16-19 Hence the leader of Christ's Church on earth. This is what Christians have always believed. What doesn't Calvary? Click here: Peter the Rock in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.
Calvary's Answer: "Some of the Roman Catholic “saints” are biblical figures: Peter, Paul, etc.; most are not. Scripture repeatedly labels all believers as “saints;” therefore, it is contradictory to scripture to insist that only a few “good” people throughout history are able to be called saints. As far as we know, all of the Roman Catholic Saints are historical figures in the Catholic Church who lived “good” lives and served mankind selflessly. Nowhere does scripture indicate that it is permissible to pray to anyone but God Himself; this would exclude prayer to Mary or any of the saints of the Catholic Church.
"Pray at all times in the Spirit with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me . . ." (Eph. 6:18).
"‘And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not God of the dead, but of the living . . .’" (Mark 12:26-27)
"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints . . ." (Rev. 5:8).
What then is the difference between you asking your spouse or mother to pray for you and asking those in Heaven close to Jesus to pray for you? Why Biblical principle can Calvary give to not seek their intercession?
"There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God." (Eph 4:4)
Does it not say that anyone who believes "another" gospel is to be accursed? How then can modern Protestantism condone the 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of gospels of each church's "statement of faith"? Does not the Apostles Paul repeats twice in
"As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8-9
Who is right? Who is teaching this Other gospel? Is it another gospel not to even embrace one's own Protestant reformers? Why does Calvary not even embrace the teachings of their own reformers? What good were the reformers if their teachings are to be ignored and ridiculed as pagan practices? Can one believe anything one wants as a Protestant or a member of Calvary Community Chapel? If not who is there to stop them or refrain them from just starting a new church teaching these new "Biblical ideas?" Isn't that exactly what Pastor Martin did when he quit his old church and started his new one??
Ask Pastor Martin the 3 Questions And demand an answer. And if you don't get one, seek elsewhere. Attend a church that is true to the teachings of the Apostles and historic Christianity for 2000 years. The Holy Bible calls Christ's Church: "The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15. How did it become apostate or come to teach the "devils doctrine" with pagan rituals if the Holy Bible tells us it will prevail against the "Gates of Hell" for all time? Either we believe the Words of the Holy Bible or we don't.
For Christ said: "And I say that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, I give you the keys to kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what ever you loosen on earth will be loosened in Heaven." Matt 16:16-19.
Ask Pastor Martin the 3 Questions , and peruse the following site on who the Bible says is really the Bride of Christ
Protestants often ask after learning that the Bible Only idea is not in the Bible:
Click here: What else is there? What else has Christ's Authority besides the Holy Bible?
God Bless you,
Daniel