Rebuttal of Catholic Answer's "Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth"

as received via e-mail from a Catholic apologist. Any errors in the text are contained in this original e-mail, and will be corrected if necessary. [All remarks by Dr. Jackson will be in italics. Quotations from Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth in regular type. ("CCC" = Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs)]

Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization.

Matthew 5:14 does not say that the Church would be the light of the world. Christ is speaking to His disciples (Matthew 5:2). It simply means that individual Christians will enlighten the world.

Catholics place a strong emphasis on the visibility of the Church. By this they mean that the church can be identified by visible sacraments and organization. On the contrary, Jesus said being born of the Spirit is like the wind which you cannot see. The effects of the wind are all you can see. In every truly born again believers life, one can see evidence of the new creation in Christ. However, ultimately, it is to the Lord alone that true believers are known. (2 Timothy 2:19).

There are religious tares that, to men, look much like wheat. Therefore visibility can be very deceptive to human sight, and a perfect example is Roman Catholicism. We see a Church possessing many good deeds but drunk with the blood of martyrs. We see a benevolent pope who is condoning the most blatant blasphemy by allowing himself to be called the Vicar of Christ.

Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

When we see the biblical church not as an organization, but as the body of Christ, we know that the members of the body of Christ will never be destroyed. This is His promise to every believer (Jn 10:28).

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus.

No proof has been offered that it was the (Roman) Catholic Church that was in existence at the time of the New Testament. We will see that this system of religion is vastly different from the blood-bought Church of Jesus Christ.

Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.

False. Anabaptist groups have never been part of the Roman Church, nor has any believer ever been part of this system.

The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054.

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes Rome broke away from them.

The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today's Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

When Martin Luther and other Reformers were part of the Roman Catholic church, this was prior to their salvation.

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century,

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church did exist in the tenth and fifth centuries, but not in the first century. Its origin can be traced to the union of decadent Christianity with paganism when Emperor Theodosius declared the Roman Catholic system the state religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century.

faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing.

As we progress, we will have an opportunity for Catholic apologists themselves to try to back up this statement.

The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequalled by any institution in history.

This is a fairy tale. Until recent years, the Catholic Church in official books gave a different listing of the popes.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime.

Age has nothing to do with genuineness. A one day old baby is more human than a 100 year old tortoise.

None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

Every born again believer is a part of the Body of Christ, which is the only church that Jesus Christ established.(1 Cor 12:27, Col 2:14)

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church's divine origin.

This is a flagrant travesty of actual history. The Roman Catholic Church, for most of its history, was not the persecuted one but the persecutor. It was not being attacked by the worldly governments, it was ruling over the monarchs of Europe. Granted, the Roman Catholic Church has been supernaturally preserved, but not by God. It is an intrinsic part of Satan's Mystery of Iniquity (2 Thes 2:7)

It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members even some of its leaders have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

This is an understatement. For hundreds of years "infallible" popes were guilty of some of the greatest wickedness and corruption ever witnessed on the earth.

The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members.

That proves the Roman Catholic Church is not the body that Jesus spoke about, for He said that narrow is the way, and few there be that find it.

1/6 of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church's leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Since Islam is bigger, what does that prove about Islam?
FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

While we will gladly enter into the oncoming discussions, who determined the validity of these four marks? The Bible says that a member of the true Church is a saved, born again, justified child of God, not the member of a humanly defined organization.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)

These scriptures speak about "we" being members of the body of Christ. The Roman Church is not alluded to in this scripture. Paul is writing to believers. It is born again believers who compose the Body of Christ.

Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). CCC 813-822

Believing Lutherans, Anglicans and Baptists are all members of one Body, the Body of Christ,

The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23,32).

These verses do not call the Church the Bride of Christ. We are clearly taught that the Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem, into which will come no sin. (Revelation 21:9,10,27)

Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

We will await proof that the Catholic Church is even a Christian Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3)

This will be interesting to try to prove.

This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2)

"The faith of the gospel" has nothing to do with doctrinal unanimity, nor does "being of one accord." Eph 4:3 commands us to keep the unity of the spirit UNTIL we come to the unity of the faith (verse 13).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church's official teachers, the pope and the bishops united with him have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12,13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
There have been historical instances where doctrines were changed for convenience, and popes that were tried by their successors for heresy.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25) CCC 823,829

We agree that Christians are made holy by application of the precious blood of Christ.

By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn't mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70)

John 6:70 is speaking of Judas Iscariot, who was never a member of the Body of Christ.

and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21-23)

Of those spoken of in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said, "I never knew you." They were never a part of His Church. It is certainly true that not all members of the Roman Catholic church will go to Heaven, but every born again believer will. This statement is interesting when compared to a later Catholic claim that, according to the Catholic interpretation of Ephesians 5:24-32, Christians are inseparably united to Christ.

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26)

Ephesians 5:26 says nothing about the sacraments.
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19,20, Rev. 5:9,10 (CCC 830,856) Jesus' Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19,20)

The fact that the Gospel is preached throughout the world does not signify the Roman Catholic Church as the body of Christ

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

The Catholic Church has withheld the Gospel message from countless millions of people, and has yet to present the true Good News of the Gospel.

Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius's time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The term "Catholic Church" as used by Ignatius, did not refer to the Roman Catholic Church but to the universal church.
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19,20. (CCC 857,865) The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops,

Biblical bishops (overseers or elders) have nothing in common with Roman Catholic bishops. Titus was ordained (Greek: to appoint by vote) a bishop; Roman Catholic bishops are not voted on, but are consecrated bishops by the pope. We do not have any instance in the Bible where Peter, supposedly the first pope, ordained or consecrated any bishops.

and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

2 Timothy 2:2 says nothing about oral Tradition. The words "Oral Tradition" are not found in the Bible. Ten out of eleven times the word tradition is used in the New Testament it has a bad connotation. The exception is 2 Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul tells them to hold the traditions they have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. The word tradition, in the Greek, means teaching. Paul had taught by word, but he testified in Acts 26:22 that he taught nothing that was not written in the Old Testament. The other avenue of teaching was by his epistles, which are scripture. (2 Peter 3:16)

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus

Christians also believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but believe He rose again for our justification, or judicial pardon. The Catholics do not believe in full and free justification, therefore a head assent to the Resurrection is not proof of their orthodoxy.

the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

This is not taught in scripture

the sacrificial nature of the Mass

The Mass is a continuing sacrifice; Jesus' sacrifice was finished. For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified Hebrews 10:14.

the forgiveness of sins through a priest

The Bible no where commands us to confess our sins to a priest.

baptismal regeneration

Regeneration (being born again) is a work to which man's instrumentality cannot be deemed necessary (John 1:13), yet the priest must do certain things (say the form, apply the matter) for the sacrament of Baptism to be valid

the existence of purgatory

There is no possibility of a purgatory that is necessary for final cleansing, for Jesus has by Himself purged our sins (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary's special role

Besides having the blessing of being chosen as Christ's earthly mother, the Bible does not speak of any continuing mother-child relationship between Christ and His mother. Jesus said, "Those that do the will of God, the same is brother and sister and mother to me." The only exception is Jesus caring for His mother at Calvary, where, because his brothers were not Christians, He gave Mary into the care of the Apostle John.

and much more - even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself

The Catholic concept of apostolic succession cannot be biblically proved.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

This is a preposterous statement. Every New Testament local church not only claims to teach the same as did the Apostles, they do so in actual fact, not adding such unbiblical fables as Immaculate Conception of Mary or Purgatory. We do not have any original copies of early Christian writers; we only have copies of copies of copies. As the Catholic Church controlled the flow of literature in Europe for over a millennium, we do not know what the "Church Fathers" said. We only know what the Catholic Church scribes have copied as to what they taught.
Man's ingenuity cannot account for this

As has been said, Satan is using the Catholic Church as part of his Mystery of Iniquity.

The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus' authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamouring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)

The Bible does not call the Roman Catholic church the pillar and foundation of truth. The church spoken of in 1 Timothy 3 had married bishops and deacons. Until after Vatican 2, Catholic deacons had to be unmarried. The Bible doesn't say "foundation;" it says "ground". The word means that which supports.

A pillar is something which hold something else up. The true church of Jesus Christ upholds the truth. While modern Catholics like to use the scriptures to champion their cause, most do not seem to realize that for centuries, the Bible was a Book unknown to the vast majority of Catholics. To claim to uphold the word of God is a downright lie. The true church is not the truth; it upholds and supports the truth. For an answer to the question "What is truth?" we will not turn to Pontius Pilate but to Jesus Christ Himself. He said, "Sanctify them through the truth; Thy word is truth (John 17:17)

Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16)

My Bible does say that popes and bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12,13).

This concerns the promise of the coming Holy Spirit, the Author of the Word of God, which is Truth (John 17:17).

We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.

but we certainly cannot rely on the Bible-burning, wicked-pope, martyr-killing institution called the Roman Catholic church. We have confidence in bona fide members of His Body, born again, Bible believing Christians.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH
Jesus chose the apostles to be the earthly leaders of the Church. He gave them his own authority to teach and to govern

He specifically taught His followers not to be governed in the way Gentile rulers governed. Who can deny the absolute dictatorial powers exercised by popes for centuries, and the spiritual legacy present now through the doctrine of papal infallibility which was pushed through the First Vatican council by a power-hungry pope?

not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders "father." In doing so we follow Paul's example: "I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15)

Paul had a legitimate claim to the position, (not the title), of father. Roman Catholic priests have the title but do not have any father function. Fathers are to provide for their children; the worthless sacraments given to Catholics (one even before they are old enough to understand it) is a weak foundation upon which to base the title of Father given to priests. Perhaps a more ludicrous attempt at condoning the "father-priest" concept of Rome was given to me on the steps of a Roman Catholic Church in San Diego, California where James White had just debated Mitch Pakwa. I asked Scott Hahn where in the Bible they justified this concept, and Scott replied that it was found in Judges 17:10, where Micah asked the Levite to be "unto me a father and a priest."
The apostles, fulfilling Jesus' will, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons and thus handed on their apostolic ministry to them; the fullest degree of ordination to the bishops, lesser degrees to the priests and deacons

It is easy to see that this booklet was written for the sole purpose of promoting Catholicism and not to seek answers from the Bible. The biblical examples of ordination are few and far between. Titus was told to ordain (Greek: appoint) elders (Titus 1:5), and he himself was ordained (Greek, choose by vote) bishop or overseer of the of the church of the Cretians. Acts 1:22 speaks of ordaining someone to fill the place of Judas. But the word used has nothing to do with liturgical ordination, but merely a "coming into existence." Paul and Barnabas give the only example of apostolic ordination, but the word used still has the meaning of voting, as is the same for Timothy's having been ordained bishop or overseer at Ephesus.
The Pope and Bishops. (CCC 880,883) Jesus gave Peter special authority among the apostles (Jn 21:15-17) and signified this by chang-ing his name from Simon to Peter, which means "rock" (John 1:42)

It is interesting that John 1:42 was used to prove that Peter's name was changed to Rock. Jesus said "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (which comes from the Aramaic kafe meaning the hollow of a rock). Roman Catholic expositors of Matthew 16:18 say that the word Cephas in Aramaic means rock or stone. If this be the case, then the Holy Spirit has done us a service when He continues, in John 1:42 to give the meaning of Cephas. He said, "which is by interpretation, a stone." Notice the word the Holy Spirit used - Petros, which means a small stone, in contrast to Petra, which means a large foundation rock. Catholics like to say "Petra" could not have been used for Peter, as it is a feminine noun. Yet in 1 Corinthians 10:4, it says, "And that Rock (Petra) was Christ."

He said Peter was to be the rock on which he would build his Church (Matt. 16:18). In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, Simon's new name was Kepha (which means a massive rock).

As was noted, Kepha means the hollow of a rock, not a massive rock. If there is any question, read the preceding paragraph concerning the Holy Spirit's using Petros (a small rock) in John 1:42

Later this name was translated into Greek as Petros (John 1:42) and into English as Peter. Christ gave Peter alone the "keys of the kingdom" (Matt. 16:19)

Keys are for opening doors, and, once a door is opened, they lose their significance unless the door is locked again. Peter used the keys to open the door to the Church first to the Jews in Acts 2:14-41 and to the Gentiles in Acts 10. After the privilege of using the keys is accomplished, Peter fades away from being the most significant person in the Book of Acts.

and promised that Peter's decisions would be binding in heaven

The word "bind" means "to fasten with chains" and has nothing to do with decisions.

He also gave similar power to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), but only Peter was given the keys, symbols of his authority to rule the Church on earth in Jesus' absence.

It is the Holy Spirit that was sent to take the place of Christ as His Vicar. His ministry is to teach (John 14:26), to testify of Christ (John 15:26, which we share with Him, John 15:27), and to convict the world (John 16:7-11)

Christ, the Good Shepherd, called Peter to be the chief shepherd of his Church (John 21:15-17).

The Bible is silent about Peter's being named the chief Shepherd. We are told that the chief Shepherd is the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 5:4). Certainly if Peter knew he was the chief shepherd, he would have acknowledged this. Christ is also called the Great Shepherd in Hebrews 13:20. Peter's being told to feed and care for the sheep is much the same as the admonition given by Paul to the Ephesians elders in Acts 20:28. This is likewise the duty of every Christian teacher ordained by God.

He gave Peter the task of strengthening the other apostles in their faith, ensuring that they taught only what was true (Luke 22:31,32)

When Jesus said, "When thou are converted (returned - from his coming denials) strengthen thy brethren." Peter would have gone through the agony of realizing he had denied Christ, and this soul shattering experience could be used by God to strengthen other Christians. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests that Peter was to ensure that they taught only what was true. Peter himself taught error, as recorded by Paul in Galatians 2:11-13. In the early church, one of the doctrinal errors (outlined especially in the Book of Galatians) was to fall back into keeping the law and Jewish notions such as not eating with Gentiles. In order to illustrate the oneness that Jew and Gentile now had in Christ, Paul very forcibly stresses the truth of this oneness. Peter, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, was guilty of the error of not understanding or disobeying the Biblical precept that we are all one in Him, and therefore was guilty of doctrinal error.

Peter led the Church in proclaiming the gospel and making decisions (Acts 2:1-41, 15:7-12).

Peter was a leader in the early church. Whether his decision for the disciples to vote on a successor to Judas, or whether God Himself chose Paul is for theologians to discuss. The point is that Dr. Murray of Maynooth Catholic Seminary, Ireland, said that Matthew 16:18 gave Peter (and now the pope) right to appoint all its clergy. If this had been the case in Acts 1, there would have been no need for a vote Peter would have simply appointed Matthias.

Early Christian writings tell us that Peter's successors, the bishops of Rome (who from the earliest times have been called by the affectionate title of "pope," which means "papa"), continued to exercise Peter's ministry in the Church.

Again, we place no credence on "early writers." They may have had some things right, but God did not promise to preserve their writings, so we can offer no proof either way by using the Church Fathers. It wasn't just bishops of Rome, but all bishops, who were known as "papa."

The pope is the successor to Peter as bishop of Rome. The world's other bishops are successors to the apostles in general

There is no proof that Peter was bishop of Rome. Credible Roman Catholic historians have named Linus as the first bishop of Rome.
As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church's teaching authority, the magisterium, so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility. Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

Rather than have a three legged stool deemed by man to be sufficient, we would prefer a one-legged stool, with the only assurance of its viability the Mighty Power of God.
Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God's commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn't even condemn all human tradition.

Jesus never spoke of what the Catholics call "sacred Tradition."

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel.

I have often asked Roman Catholics to cite one teaching in their Tradition that spells out the assurances of Heaven as are clearly taught in the Bible (1 Peter 1:3,4; 1 John 5:11-13). In over 45 years of Catholic evangelism, I have not received one.

Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity

The Catholic Church gives lip-service to the word "Trinity." That is why some converted Catholics prefer use of the term "Persons of the Godhead." While a Catholic will say he believes in the Trinity every time he recites one of the creeds, in actual fact, to most Catholics, God the Father is so remote they don't know where He is. God the Son is either a dead Christ on the Cross or a baby Christ in His mother's arms. The Holy Spirit might be a dove floating around a charismatic Catholic church, but they have little real understanding of the Trinity. In the 1932 Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, Ireland, there was a big sign on the General Post Office building in O'Connell Street. It read, "GOD BLESS THE TRINITY."

infant baptism

This is one clear instance of Tradition contradicting the Bible. The Bible plainly gives repentance and belief as pre-requisites to Baptism. A baby can do neither, so infant Baptism is a clear denial of the Bible.

the inerrancy of the Bible

The Council of Trent gave assent to the Bible's inerrancy, They even put forth the dictation theory, to which even Fundamentalists don't subscribe. They promoted Tradition to an equal standing with the Bible, and in the race for pre-eminence, Tradition has been steadily gaining. A majority of the Catholic responses I get to my website (dodone.com) are about sola scriptura. It seems Catholics have a sneaky suspicion that the Bible will unmask the falsehoods of their religion, so they are more than eager to disregard or at least minimalize the Bible. There are very few Catholic scholars today who accept the historicity of Genesis 1-10, and even the present pope has questioned the sole authority of God's creation story.

purgatory

This is another instance of Tradition contradicting the Bible. Not only is "Purgatory" not mentioned, we have the record that God has, by Himself, purged our sins. The Confraternity translation of the Bible says, in Heb 1:3, "Christ has effected man's purgation from sin."

and Mary's perpetual virginity

This is a totally unbiblical teaching. It stems from a desire to promote Mary coupled with a misunderstanding of the Person of Christ. Ever since Marian veneration got off the ground in the 5^th century, popular piety has constantly elevated her. Mary is, to many Catholics, the only approachable person in Heaven, and her cult (to use a Catholic term) has grown by leaps and bounds. Then the theory came along that, in order to be the sinless Saviour, Jesus had to come to earth through a spotless vessel. This is a failure to understand the impeccability of Christ; He is God and He cannot sin. If God had so willed it, Jesus could have been born of a harlot and maintained His sinlessness. Mary did not contribute to the sinless nature of Christ.

have been most clearly taught through Tradition

Since almost all of these are unbiblical, we can understand the Catholic's need for Tradition.

although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible

This is a false statement. The "implicit presence" of these doctrines in the Bible is a quantum leap from what the passages are really referring to, and sometimes their use actually contradicts Catholic thought. For instance, a text used for Mary's perpetual virginity is Ezekiel 44:2, "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut."

Catholic teaching is that Jesus' entry into the world did not disrupt the biological virginity of Mary. But an identical Hebrew word is used for no man being able to enter, and because Christ has entered in by it. No one could open her womb because Jesus, in coming into the world, opened her womb which, by the way, is the meaning of firstborn found in Matthew 1:25 (see Exodus 13:2, Numbers 8:16),

With the Immaculate Conception, Tradition says that, because she was conceived without sin, she did not have labor pains, which were the result of sin. Tradition also says that the woman in Revelation 12 is a picture of Mary, yet this woman had labor pains.

Purgatory has generally been "proved" by 2 Maccabees 12, "It is a good and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins." Those for whom this prayer was made had died because of the sin of idolatry, which is a mortal sin. For mortal sins people go to Hell, and no one can pray them out. More recently, Catholics have used Onesiphorus from 2 Timothy 1:16-18. They maintain that the words "that day" refer to Purgatory. The term "that day" is found in the Bible 219 times, and never has any reference to Purgatory.

The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2)

While it is true that "ordinances" in 1 Corinthians 11:2 could be translated "traditions," there is clear evidence that the traditions or ordinances given by Paul were, according to Acts 26:22, the Old Testament scripture and, according to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the New Testament scripture.

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary

The rosary is not a discipline or custom, but a sacramental.

priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent

It is true these are disciplines and the laws of fasting and abstinence have been changed. However, most older Catholics were plainly given to understand that eating meat on any Friday was a mortal sin for which, if absolution was not received, they would go to Hell.

These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles' successors, the bishops.

There is no record of Jesus having taught anything to His disciples that is not found in the Bible. There is no provision made for passing on of non-biblical traditions anywhere in the Bible, and, since Christ has given us all we need, Tradition is of no value whatsoever.
Scripture (CCC 101 - 141)
Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true. Some Christians claim, "The Bible is all I need," but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20,21,

Because holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the Bible, the Holy Spirit is the only authorized interpreter. Of course Catholics will ask you why different churches or Christians get different interpretations all, supposedly, from the same Holy Spirit.

Since the Holy Spirit is God, we know that the interpretation that comes from Him is always perfect. However, it must be transmitted though our finite, imperfect, prejudiced minds. This does not take away from the truth that the Holy Spirit is the only authorized interpreter. It is a discipline for Christians to study that they may rightly divide the word of truth. It is also good for us to learn how to maintain the unity of the Spirit with other Christians (note, not liberal ecumenists) with whom we don't agree. Some day we will all come to the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:3.13).

The difference is still DO or DONE. As far as Bible study goes, the Roman Catholic is DONE and the Christian is DO. As far as salvation goes, the Christian is DONE and the Catholic is still trying to DO. (See following article)

3:15-16). The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church. It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1-8)

Paul believed the "Bible-only theory" if he believed what the Holy Spirit caused him to write in 2 Timothy 3:16,17. Since the Word of God can make the believer perfect, nothing else is needed.

While it is difficult to find any pre-Reformation non-Catholic groups that specifically spoke out against Tradition, it must be remembered that Tradition was not infallibly defined until the Council of Trent. Numerous pre-Reformation anti-Catholic groups so defined their allegiance to the Word of God that they would have been the first to oppose Tradition if it was infallibly taught by Rome. Among these groups are Paulicians, Valentinians, Massalians, Vigilantians and Iconoclasts, all of whom were operating during the first millennium of Christianity.

Although popular with many "Bible Christian" churches, the "Bible alone" theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among "Bible-believing" religions. Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians. Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the "Bible alone," but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means. We know this for sure: The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because his truth is one. The conclusion? The "Bible alone" theory must be false.

These charges were answered in a previous paragraph. One of the errors into which Catholic apologists fall is to assume the Church is primarily a teaching Church. While correct doctrine is essential, every member of the Body of Christ is united to every other member through the Person of Christ, not through teaching about Christ. Organic unity tends to lead to elegiac and finally dictatorship, as can be plainly seen in the history of the Catholic Church. It is amazing how Catholics can pretend that certain centuries never happened.

In the fourth and fifth centuries, paganisms were introduced to the Church under the guise of their being Christianized, or baptized. In Acts 19:19, true believers burned their paganisms. During much of the second Christian millennium, the moral degradation of the papacy was too obvious to be covered over. One Catholic apologist wrote to me and said the bad popes were only three in number. He would have said three hundred years of a rotting papacy if he had been honest.

The rise of Biblical Christianity did spawn doctrinal differences, because God had ordained that men should not be educated robots,

believing what the Church believes even if they don't know what the Church believes. Some of the Protestant differences were the result of geography, othe rs of differing emphases by men who are not intellectual zombies but are led by God to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good(1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The Church has a Head Who will not only keep individually different men and women in a living, vibrant fellowship, He will allow differences for the reasons stated above. Hats off to the unity of the Spirit which is abundantly manifested in true believers who gladly obey the Word of God and love, not other robots, but men of the faith with honest differences.

The Magisterium (CCC 85,87,888 - 892)
Together the pope and the bishops form the teaching authority of the Church, which is called the magisterium (from the Latin for "teacher"). The magisterium, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, gives us certainty in matters of doctrine. The Church is the custodian of the Bible and faithfully and accurately proclaims its message, a task which God has empowered it to do. Keep in mind that the Church came before the New Testament

The divine truth that makes up the New Testament was in the heart of God before the creation of the world. The Bible says, Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89). "Forever" covers both antiquity and futurity.

not the New Testament before the Church

This is an absurd argument. How could a Christian write the Bible before he became a Christian? The need for teaching was adequately covered by the command of the Lord Jesus to teach all He had commanded, and the gifts of revelation were sufficient to keep a healthy, vibrant church in doctrinal correctness. The Church was not primarily a teaching Church; it was a living organism pulsating with the very life of God through the transforming power of the New Birth.

Divinely-inspired members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament, just as divinely-inspired writers had written the Old Testament, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and interpret the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Such an official interpreter is absolutely necessary if we are to understand the Bible properly. (We all know what the Constitution says, but we still need a Supreme Court to interpret what it means.)

Rather a poor argument, especially in these days of judicial legislation. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit is not as capricious as the Supreme Court, nor as spiritually poverty-stricken as the Catholic Church. A Jesuit scholar has written that there are only seven verses of scripture which the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted. If you asked a priest what John 3:16 means, if he were honest he would have to say, "I don't know what it means. I can give you my interpretation, but the Church has never infallibly interpreted this verse."

The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors "into all truth" (John 16:12,13).

That is, of course, if the magisterium is Christian, which so far we have found not to be the case.

HOW GOD DISTRIBUTES HIS GIFTS
Jesus promised he would not leave us orphans (John 14:18) but would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect us (John 15:26). He gave the sacraments to heal, feed, and strengthen us. The seven sacraments - baptism, the Eucharist, penance (also called reconciliation or confession), confirmation, holy orders, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick

Before we let the Bible dismantle the sacraments one by one, we will ask why the writer didn't also give the normal names of the last sacrament and say, "Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (previously known as Extreme Unction or Last Rites.)"

Baptism is the first sacrament, usually given to people too young to ask for it or remember having received it. In order for this sacrament to be valid, the priest (or other administrator in times of emergency) must do two things. He must repeat the form ("I baptize thee in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) and apply the matter (water). While sprinkling or immersion are valid, the usual mode is pouring.

This cannot be the same as the new birth, because, in introducing this in John 1:12-13, God told us the new birth is not brought about by the will of man. Certainly the priest must exert his will to do the things the Catholic church says is necessary for the validity of this sacrament.

Confirmation is supposed to signify the renewal of baptismal vows which were made for you and to enlist you as a true soldier of Christ. Aside from the usual fanfare that goes on in the family, and the confirmation gifts that are often presented by proud relatives, this sacrament has no practical value for the average Catholic.

Penance sounds harsher than reconciliation, but either name can be applied to what is normally called confession. The problem with confession is that there is absolutely no guarantee that you sins have been actually absolved (due to the technicalities of the Catholic doctrine of Intention), and there is no power to enable you to keep from committing the same sin again. You are supposed to have a firm resolve not to sin again, but true Christian forgiveness (1 John 1:9) includes Divine forgiveness and cleansing from all unrighteousness.

Although "the Eucharist" is named in this booklet as a sacrament, historically it is Holy Communion, which is at the tail end of the Eucharistic sacrifice. A church bulletin from a Catholic church in Oakland, California admonished people not to leave church immediately after receiving Communion. They advised Catholics to stay and pray as Jesus is actually in your body, and that you should not leave the church "until Our Lord is no longer with you."

Holy Orders has, for a number of priests, been an open door to unholy activity, which activity has been conveniently passed over by many in charge, lest scandal should result in people leaving the church. However, this sacrament and its complimentary one, Matrimony are the least offensive of Catholic sacraments.

Last rites, or what was officially called Extreme Unction, has had a name change. In what some theologians called the most important work of Vatican 2 to that point, this sacrament became officially known as the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. It did suffice to establish the sacrament more along the lines of the scripture that was used to prove it, James 5:14,15. But, even after a life of obedient Catholicity, reception of this sacrament still gives no assurance of eternal bliss.

The sacraments were foreshadowed in the Old Testament by things that did not actually convey grace but merely symbolized it (circumcision, for example, prefigured baptism

There is no similarity between the two. Men were Israelites before they were circumcised (Joshua 5:5) and it was only given to men. It did not give any indication of eternal promise, and there is no indication of this theory of circumcision prefiguring baptism in the New Testament.

and the Passover meal prefigured the Eucharist.

Roman Apologists like to say that eating the slain lamb was part of the deliverance of the Israelites from the destroying angel. The angel that killed the first born was not looking for people eating lamb, or even for a slain lamb. Neither was the destroying angel just looking for blood - but for APPLIED blood. Since no blood is shed or applied in the Eucharist, no similarity is present.

When Christ came, he did not do away with symbols of God's grace. He supernaturalized them, energizing them with grace. He made them more than symbols. God constantly uses material things to show his love and power. After all, matter is not evil. When he created the physical universe, everything God created was "very good" (Gen. 1:31).

Every thing was created "very good," but then man fell and with him nature fell. The bondage of creation is a fact testified to in the New Testament (Romans 8:21). Because of this bondage, matter cannot be used as part of God's salvation.

He takes such delight in matter that he even dignified it through his own Incarnation (John 1:14).
He came as a man in His incarnation, and humbled Himself in His death. His resurrection, not with a natural body, but with a spiritual body demonstrated His triumph over the matter with which He deigned to be identified.

During his earthly ministry Jesus healed, fed, and strengthened people through humble elements such as mud,

The use of clay (John 9:6) made with His spittle signifies His ability to take something mundane and make it spiritually effective.

water, bread

The truth behind the feeding of the 5,000 was His ability to make a physical insufficiency into an abundance. He showed also that He can use the most obscure physical thing and make it spiritually healthy. He could have turned the stones into bread, but this would have given Satan, the tempter, victory over Him.

oil, and wine

This might be an allusion to the bread at the Last Supper which Catholics believe to be His physical Body and Blood as well as His Soul and Divinity. In actual fact, the bread was still bread and the wine still wine, but we are reminded that in the normal affairs of life, we are to remember Him.

He could have performed his miracles directly, but he preferred to use material things to bestow his grace. In his first public miracle Jesus turned water into wine, at the request of his mother, Mary (John 2:1-11)

Catholics like to try to give the impression that this was "at the request of His mother." In actual fact, of you read the passage, you will find quite the opposite. Mary did come to Him with a request, but rather than heed her request, Jesus' reply was "Mine hour is not yet come." In other words, it was not the time for Him to do a miracle.

The Mary said to the servants, "Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it." If we read Luke 2:51 we see that Jesus was subject to Mary and Joseph. This subjection would last far beyond childhood for a normal Israelite. It was on the basis of her maternal control that Mary first came to Him, causing Him to reject her plea.

However, five minutes later He performed the miracle. The first request was from the servants to Mary and then Mary to Jesus, which was rejected. The next request was from the servants directly to Jesus. That allowed Him, freed from maternal control, to perform the miracle.

There was an important reason for this. If Jesus had performed the miracle at Mary's behest, we would have been taught that, in order to get your prayers answered, the best way is to come through Mary. Jesus wanted to highlight the truth that we all have the same access to Him. The story in John 2 disproves, rather than proves, the need for Mary mediation.

He healed a blind man by rubbing mud on his eyes (John 9:1-7). He multiplied a few loaves and fish into a meal for thousands (John 6:5-13). He changed bread and wine into his own body and blood (Matt. 26:26-28). Through the sacraments he continues to heal, feed, and strengthen us.

Yet there is nothing built into the Catholic teaching on sacraments that gives us any guarantee of spiritual blessing. For any sacrament to be valid, the priest must not withhold his intention. For confession we have to be sorry (how sorry?) for our sins. For Extreme Unction, we must be conscious to receive full benefit of the sacrament, which still does not guarantee Heaven, and Holy Viaticum (Communion given as preparation for a journey) still does not guarantee where we are going.

Baptism (CCC 1213 - 1284)
Because of original sin, we are born without grace in our souls, so there is no way for us to have fellowship with God. Jesus became man to bring us into union with his Father. He said no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is first born of "water and the Spirit" (John 3:5) this refers to baptism.

Jesus referred to the first birth (natural birth) as the water birth. We see this mainly from the context. When Jesus first mentioned being born again, Nicodemus thought of a natural birth. After telling him man must be born of water and of the Spirit, He said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." He clearly made a distinction between the first (natural or water) birth and the new birth which is of the Spirit.

Through baptism we are born again, but this time on a spiritual level instead of a physical level. We are washed in the bath of rebirth (Titus 3:5)

Titus 3:5 says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Regeneration does include the washing away of sin. 1 Corinthians 6:11 links this washing with sanctification and justification. It cannot refer to baptism, because Titus is clear that we are not saved by works of righteousness. In Matthew 3:15, Jesus spoke of His baptism as a work of righteousness.

We are baptized into Christ's death and therefore share in his Resurrection (Rom. 6:3 - 7).

Romans 6:3-7 is speaking of Spirit Baptism, as outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:13. We know it could not refer to infant baptism, because babies are not baptized into His death (v. 3), do not walk in newness of life because of baptism (v. 4), are not assured of resurrection in Him (v. 5), do not experience a true crucifixion of the old man (v. 6) and are not freed from sin (v. 8)

Baptism cleanses us of sins and brings the Holy Spirit and his grace into our souls (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

Receiving the Holy Spirit does not demand a prior baptism (Acts 10:10:47). Acts 22:16 records what Ananias said; it does not vouch for the veracity of Ananias' words.

And the apostle Peter is perhaps the most blunt of all: "Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism is the gateway into the Church.

This verse can cause problems for Christians who witness to Catholics who know something about how to defend their faith. Right in the midst of this verse are the words, "baptism doth now also save us." These words can seem to be a proof of the Roman Catholic idea of baptismal regeneration.

You can ask your Catholic friend if he is saved because of his baptism. Although Catholics don't like to use the word "saved" (they prefer to say they are redeemed and they hope to be saved), if he is going to use this verse against you he would have to say that baptism saved him. You could also ask him if he was born again at his baptism, and, since he apparently knows something about Catholic theology, he would have to agree that he was.

Ask him if he is saved now, and if he has the assurance he will be finally saved at the last judgment. At some point he will have to back down on the quality of the salvation he received, for his own church teaches him that although Baptism gave him a new birth and made him a member of Christ's Body the Church, there are many things he must do to maintain that position. If nothing else, one thing he must do is to keep from committing a mortal sin.

You should then be able to tell him about what happened when you were born again. You became a new creature in Christ (1 Cor 5:17) and God has given a written guarantee to those who are born again by saying you have a place in Heaven reserved for you (1 Peter 1:3,4).

If he counters by saying having a ticket to a reserved seat doesn't guarantee you will actually be there, point him to 1 Peter 3:18 - that He might bring us to God. Not only is there a reserved seat, there is a Savior Who guarantees that He will get you there.

It was water that lifted Noah above the waters of judgment. It is in this sense he was "saved by water." No water was applied to him, so it was not like water baptism. The Resurrected Christ in like manner lifts us above the judgment. Since it is in like manner, no water is applied.

Since there is no water applied, we must understand that it cannot be water baptism. There is, however, a non-water baptism spoken of that brings us into the Body of Christ - Spirit Baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Then deal with "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh [application of water] but the answer of as good conscience toward God." An answer is a response, and conscience is the faculty that tells right from wrong. When we positively respond to God's assessment of our goodness (Romans 3:23, etc.), we receive not a physical application of water, but the Baptism of the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.

Penance (CCC 1422 - 1498)
Sometimes on our journey toward the heavenly promised land we stumble and fall into sin. God is always ready to lift us up and to restore us to grace-filled fellowship with him. He does this through the sacrament of penance (which is also known as confession or reconciliation).
Jesus gave his apostles power and authority to reconcile us to the Father. They received Jesus own power to forgive sins when he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained" (John 20:22,23).
Paul notes that "all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation. . . . So, we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us" (2 Cor. 5:18 - 20). Through confession to a priest, God's minister, we have our sins forgiven, and we receive grace to help us resist future temptations.

We know that during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus, there were many things that He said that the disciples did not understand. It was for this reason that He taught them after His resurrection and before His ascension and then sent the Holy Spirit to "teach (them) all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26)

If Jesus had meant that they were to hear confessions and grant absolution, either He Himself after His resurrection or the Holy Spirit Whom they received on the Day of Pentecost would have this clear to them. If this was to be a foundation stone of evangelical belief, certainly there would be some record in the thirty year existence of the early Church as recorded in the Book of Acts telling us of the use of this sacrament in the early church. Any Catholic catechism abounds in references to Penance, but the Bible is silent. We can safely assume that this is not what Jesus meant. What the disciples did do during the time when Acts was recorded was to loose sins through the proclamation of the Gospel.
The Eucharist (CCC 1322, 1419)
Once we become members of Christ's family, he does not let us go hungry, but feeds us with his own body and blood through the Eucharist. In the Old Testament, as they prepared for their journey in the wilderness, God commanded his people to sacrifice a lamb and sprinkle its blood on their doorposts, so the Angel of Death would pass by their homes. Then they ate the lamb to seal their covenant with God.

There is no mention in the story of the Passover about sealing their covenant with God. We must not add to the words of the Bible (Proverbs 30:6 - Add thou not to his words, lest he rebuke thee, and thou be found a liar.)
This lamb prefigured Jesus. He is the real "Lamb of God," who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Through Jesus we enter into a New Covenant with God (Luke 22:20)

Luke 22:20 says nothing about entering a new covenant with God, see Proverbs 30:6, above.

who protects us from eternal death. God's Old Testament people ate the Passover lamb. Now we must eat the Lamb that is the Eucharist. Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you" (John 6:53).

But for an Israelite to eat the lamb was not the means of preservation from the destroying angel. God said "When I see the blood (applied) I will pass over you.

At the Last Supper he took bread and wine and said, "Take and eat. This is my body . . . This is my blood which will be shed for you" (Mark 14:22-24). In this way Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, the sacrificial meal Catholics consume at each Mass.

The Bible says "which is shed" and the lexicon assures us this is present tense.

The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred "once for all"; it cannot be repeated (Heb. 9:28). Christ does not "die again" during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar. That's why the Mass is not "another" sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

The Catholic catechism tells us this is not identical to Calvary, as it is unbloody instead of bloody. Things that are different are not the same. Instead of the double-speak of modern apologists, Catholics used to admit that Christ is sacrificed daily on Roman Catholic altars. A recent tape from a famous Catholic apologist tells us that as the Eucharist is acted out on earth, Jesus Christ pours out His blood in Heaven.
Paul reminds us that the bread and the wine really become, by a miracle of God's grace, the actual body and blood of Jesus: "Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

I Corinthians 11:27-29 does not say that the bread and wine, by a miracle of God's grace, becomes the actual body and blood of Christ. This is reading an assumption into the actual text of the Bible; adding man's interpretation to God's words.

Confirmation (CCC 1285 - 1321)
God strengthens our souls in another way, through the sacrament of confirmation. Even though Jesus' disciples received grace before his Resurrection, on Pentecost the Holy Spirit came to strengthen them with new graces for the difficult work ahead.
They went out and preached the gospel fearlessly and carried out the mission Christ had given them. Later, they laid hands on others to strengthen them as well (Acts 8:14-17).

The Bible says nothing about the reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 being a sacrament. Neither does it say in Acts 8:14-17 that they laid hands on others to strengthen them. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was the formation of the Church, all of whose members are baptized with the Holy Spirit at the time of their conversion to Christ.

A sacramental marriage is permanent; only death can break it (Mark 10:1-12

These verses tell man he should not put asunder that which God has joined; it does not say man cannot (disobediently) put it asunder. Both the Hebrews and Greek words for divorce are defined as an actual annihilation of marriage.

This holy union is a living symbol of the unbreakable relationship between Christ and his Church (Eph. 5:21-33)

This is convenient for Catholics to say this at this juncture, but before it has been admitted that a member of the Catholic Church may not get to Heaven, proving they do not believe in an unbreakable relationship.
Holy Orders (CCC 1536 - 1600)
Jesus calls certain men to a special priestly ministry (Rom. 15:15,16).

Romans 15:15,16 says nothing about a priesthood, The word Catholics use for priests comes from the Greek hierus (from whence comes the term hierarchy, rule of priests).This is never used in the New Testament as an individual Christian minister. It only refers to Christ or the Jewish high priest, and is used in 1 Peter 2:5,9 and Revelation 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6 to indicate a company of believers.

Anointing of the Sick (CCC 1499 - 1532)
Priests care for us when we are physically ill. They do this through the sacrament known as the anointing of the sick. The Bible instructs us, "Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray. . . . Is any one among you sick? He should summon the presbyters [priests] of the Church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven" (Jas. 5:14,15). Anointing of the sick not only helps us endure illness, but it cleanses our souls and helps us prepare to meet God.

The word for presbyters in the Bible is the Greek presbuteros; the word for priest is hierus. A New Testament minister is not a priest. Regardless of the change in the title of this sacrament from Extreme Unction to Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, it is still regarded as a sacrament for the dying. The Communion given is called Holy Viaticum, a preparation for a journey (into the next life). How many Catholics call for a priest every time they get a headache? The Biblical practice had to do with restoring the sick person, not getting him ready to die.
TALKING WITH GOD AND HIS SAINTS
Through prayer we grow in our relationship with Christ and with members of God's family This family includes all members of the Church, whether on earth, in heaven, or in purgatory (CCC 2663 - 2696).
To understand Purgatory, we must first know what it means. It comes from the verb "Purge," which means to cleanse. When we understand Purgatory as a place of cleansing, we see why it is so important.

Cleansing is necessary because men and women are sinners. Besides all the proof in the Bible (e.g., Romans 3:10-19, 23), our own experience tells us that we are sinners.

We cannot cleanse ourselves. Even our good deeds cannot stand before Him (Isaiah 64:6). St. Paul, writing in Titus 3:5 assures us that our salvation isn't based on acts of goodness. No one can be good enough to effect his own salvation; God's purgation, or cleansing, is necessary.

Sin can't enter Heaven (Revelation 21:27). It is impossible to think of sin being tolerated in Heaven. Therefore, before we can enter the Presence of God, a cleansing process is needed.

There are two distinct teachings concerning this place of cleansing. One of these is from God. He reveals in His Word a sure and complete cleansing from sin. This cleansing takes place during our earthly life.

The other teaching about Purgatory is man's invention. It grew from Tradition, and has never been defined in detail. It is a mystery and is still at the mercy of interpretations by different theologians. Some dread it; some hope for it; the Irish called it "a place of happy pains." It takes place, we are told, after death. It is the Purgatory of the Catholic Church.

I John 1:7 tells us that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin. This is a complete, Divine purgation, or cleansing. Hebrews 1:3 (Roman Catholic Bible) tells us that Christ has effected man's purgation from sin.

If purgation is effected by the Lord Jesus, and His blood cleanses from all sin, why should we look for cleansing after death? A study of the Roman Catholic idea of some place of cleansing after death is something they are not even sure about. This should prove to us the wisdom of placing our trust -- for eternity -- in the certain work of cleansing finished by Jesus Christ on Calvary.

The blessedness spoken of in Romans 4:8 (Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not credit sin) is ours when we embrace the Lord Jesus Christ and by faith call on Him for cleansing and forgiveness. Then, trusting His death for us (I Peter 2:24, 3:18), we willingly forsake every religious ceremony that professes to aid in this forgiveness. We realize He has done the work of cleansing, and it is impossible to add to His completed work. Yes, cleansing is essential. The Word of God tells us that "the wages of sin is death, " but that same verse continues, "the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Those in heaven love us more intensely than they ever could have loved us while on earth. They pray for us constantly (Rev. 5:8)

Revelation 5:8 says nothing about saints in Heaven praying for us.

Mary's prayers are especially effective on our behalf because of her relationship with her Son (John 2:1 - 11).

As has been noted , the marriage in Cana proves absolutely nothing about Mary's ability to pray for us.

God gave Mary a special role (CCC 490 - 511, 963 - 975). He saved her from all sin (Luke 1:28, 47)

Just as He saves all believers from sin (Luke 19:10).

made her uniquely blessed among all women (Luke 1:42)

Judges 5:24 says Jael was blessed ABOVE women.

and made her a model for all Christians (Luke 1:48)

Luke 1:48 says nothing about her being a model for Christians.

At the end of her life he took her, body and soul, into heaven - an image of our own resurrection at the end of the world (Rev. 12:1,2).

This says nothing about Mary's assumption. The woman in Revelation 12 could not have been the Roman Catholic Mary, who, because of her Immaculate Conception, did not have labor pains when Jesus was born.
What You Must Do to Be Saved
Our initial forgiveness and justification are not things we "earn"

Initial justification, according to Rome, is Baptism.

When we come to God and are justified (that is, enter a right relationship with God), nothing preceding justification, whether faith or good works, earns grace. (A)cts of love please him, and he promises to reward them with eternal life Thus good works are meritorious. When we first come to God in faith, we have nothing in our hands to offer him. Then he gives us grace to obey his commandments in love, and he rewards us with salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him (Rom. 2:6 - 11, Gal. 6:6 - 10, Matt. 5:34 - 40).

Regarding Romans 2, we have to understand, from the entire context, what Paul is building toward. It is true that IF a person were to seek honor , immortality and eternal life, he would be rewarded. As Paul continues his argument, he speaks of the condemnation of the Jew (2:17-29) and the advantage of the Jew (3:1-3). Then he launches into 3:9-19 where he gives the final verdict - that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. This is his complete preface to the glorious truth of Justification, which starts in 3:21 and continues in doctrinal truth and practical living throughout the rest of the epistle.

Galatians 6 speaks of reward, not destiny; "Matthew 5" probably should be chapter 25 which speaks of the judgment of the nations.

Since no gift can be forced on the recipient, gifts always can be rejected, even after we become justified

This demonstrates the lack of understanding the Catholics have of the judicial decree of God which pronounces us righteous because of Christ and is, in the Bible called justification.

we can throw away the gift of salvation. We throw it away through grave (mortal) sin (John 15:5,6, Rom. 11:22,23, 1 Cor. 15:1,2;

None of these have to do with destiny, but reward.

see how often Paul warned Christians against sin! He would not have felt compelled to do so if their sins could not exclude them from heaven (see, for example, 1 Cor. 6:9,10

If we would just keep reading the context, we would see that 1 Corinthians is speaking of what Christians used to be, but, continues Paul, ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified.

Gal. 5:19 - 21).
Likewise Galatians 5:19-21 is a catalog of the works of the flesh. But even if we were to admit that some (or all) of the sins of 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 and Galatians 5:19-21 could be committed by saved people, the exclusion is not from Heaven, but from the rewards of faithfulness.

Are You Guaranteed Heaven?
Some people promote an especially attractive idea: All true Christians, regardless of how they live, have an absolute assurance of salvation, once they accept Jesus into their hearts as "their personal Lord and Savior." The problem is that this belief is contrary to the Bible and constant Christian teaching

"Accepting Jesus . . ." has nothing to do with salvation. This is a subjective definition of what happens when one is saved. True salvation is when one has received a regenerative work of the Holy Spirit in being born again.

While thy have an assurance of salvation, they have no assurance of passing muster at the Judgment Seat of Christ which, as the following paragraph indicates, is unknown to Catholics.

Keep in mind what Paul told the Christians of his day: "If we have died with him [in baptism; see Rom. 6:3,4] we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:11,12). If we do not persevere, we shall not reign with him. In other words, Christians can forfeit heaven

The Bible does not say we will not get to Heaven, but that we will not reign with Him. Remember, it is foolish to add to His words.

. You cannot win a popularity contest by being a faithful Catholic. If a Catholic is praised, it is for the worldly skills he demonstrates, not for his Christian virtues.
What about Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II?

Incomplete Christianity Is Not Enough
This may be the first correct statement in the booklet. A "Christianity" that follows a "Christ" Who left His work of redeeming lost man incomplete when He left for Heaven is not the Christ to follow. One of the proofs of the finished work of Christ is that He was not a shoddy workman. It was stated, before His Advent, that He would save His people from their sins. If He had not completed the work He came to do, it would picture for us a Christ Who is not true to the Divine mission God gave Him.

His first mission was to declare God unto men (John 1:18). This was declared finished in His prayer recorded in John 17. In verse 4 He says, "I have glorified thee on the earth. I have FINISHED the work which thou gavest me to do."

Secondly, Christ came to seek and to save. We read of this ministry first in Matthew 1:21, and He declared this portion of His ministry to men completed when on the Cross He shouted triumphantly, "It is FINISHED."

When He went to Heaven, He commenced His high priestly duties, which are spoken of in Hebrews 7:25. He will continue this ministry for all His children, and the work will be FINISHED when He says, (Revelation 22:6), "It is done."

Back to Home Page