Really???


Sometimes, I hear someone go into a rant in public on why you don’t believe in God.

Really?

You didn’t get your selfish brat way, so you petulantly disbelieve in God?

I wonder if this is what boils down to many Atheists decisions?

“I didn’t get an Oscar Meyer Weinie Whistle for Christmas, so I don’t believe in God.”

“I didn’t win that new Mercedes, so I don’t believe in God.”

“I didn’t (whatever) so I don’t believe in God!” (stamps foot)

Maybe you could stop and say, “Why – I’m a selfish brat, God is much bigger than me, and He does not have to bow down to my every whim!”

Think about it.

Common Mistake #1 (MVO)


The first common mistake – which I’ve dealt with several times – among MVO-ists (Multiple Version Only) is that all King James Version Only-ists are a). Ruckmanites B). Riplingerites and C). Michael/Debbie Pearl-ites

I suppose I need to explain this a little. One church I went to was quasi-Ruckmanite/Riplingerite/Pearlite. We left after a few months.

One good thing about Seminary is that you get every doctrine and belief you have challenged. And in defense, you have to turn to the Bible to ensure you understand what it is you believe. So, none of the doctrines of Ruckman, Riplinger or Pearl adhered to me.

Peter S. Ruckman runs the Bible Baptist Bookstore and Church. He is a prolific writer, dealing with such bizarre things as UFOs and other oddities. He is a champion of the King James only movement. Alas.

Because he delves into heresies, such as the Gap Theory (A belief in an old Earth, from a mythological gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2).

Another of his heresies is the Second Inspiration/Advanced Revelation theory. This states the translators of the King James Bible received advanced, additional Revelation which was written in English as the King James Bible. He goes so far as to state that the Biblical Canon was reopened and then closed again once and for all in 1611. He then boldly states that if you were saved reading any other Bible than the King James, you are not saved at all.

These are Heresy, with a capital Heresy.

Yes, the Bible is inspired, God Breathed. It is preserved, inspired, infallible, perfect.

But it is heresy to state that a second inspiration happened in 1611, or that advanced revelation was given after the sealing of the Biblical Canon in 1611.

Ruckman teaches that the English of the King James corrects the Greek and Hebrew. This is foolishness, heresy and false teaching. If the translators of the King James held to that theory, they’d never have translated the Bible for us!

Gail Riplinger is a prolific writer as well, but instead of writing hundreds of books, she concentrates her efforts into thousand-plus-page books.

She holds to all the same errors as Ruckman, but goes even farther into the Second Inspiration, teaching we should never own (let alone use) Concordances, or even copies of the Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts. According to both Riplinger and Ruckman, we should be interpreting the words of the King James Bible only by the words of the King James Bible. And when the tense or meaning of the English is unclear, we may use a Webster’s 1828 – but only that.

And a lot of Baptists agree with this! I’m astounded every time I hear it. The Greek language is incredibly precise and accurate. English is not. The Greek will tell you who, what, when, where – and the English can only hint at it.

While I agree we need to understand the meanings of the original English words that the Bible was translated into, we must not lose sight of the fact it was translated from Greek and Hebrew.

When we are unsure of the exact tense of a word, or whom it is referring to – we must turn to the original Greek to understand why the translators of the King James chose to write it that way. There is no heresy in this! Else, God would have caused the Romans to speak English, and the original Greek autographs and all the true copies made thereafter would have all been preserved in English.

The translators of the King James examined not only the English translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Matthew’s Bible and the Bishop’s Bible – but also the Diodati and other translations made by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and other ancient Baptists. They also examined Luthor’s German bible. They also read the Peshitta (an Aramaic translation of the New Testament), and the Old Latin.

However, the manuscripts they translated was the Textus Receptus, Stephanus’s 3rd Edition and the work by the Elziver brothers, where the 2400 manuscripts, lectionaries, Uncials, Papyri, and vellum were diligently compared.

If they saw fit to use the Greek, so may we. And indeed we should as the Lord chose to preserve those Greek manuscripts. The New Testament was written in that language (Matthew alone is said to have been written at first in Hebrew, and then Matthew re-wrote it in Greek. However, the Hebrew text was not preserved.)

The translators of the King James did an amazing job, creating a masterpiece of a translation – so good that despite the nebulousness of the English language, that translation shines forth, understandable, precise, readable, and deliberately translated with meter involved, to make memorizing easier. I would say that 99.99% of the King James is immediately understandable on first reading. And the remaining .01% vanishes upon re-reading the text a second time.

Incidentally, as the Holy Spirit is what makes the text alive in us, and enables us to understand the Bible… I wonder if one of the reason so many critics of the King James Bible complain about lack of understandability is… the fact that they’re not saved?

And so the insistence that Strong’s, Young’s and Cruden’s are all “Toxic”, as Riplinger triumphantly accuses… is simply nonsense. Yes, I’ve questioned a particular interpretation Mr. Strong gave a Hebrew word… but he was correct, for the most part. I’ve never seen a wrong translation of a Hebrew word in Strong’s – I’ve just felt he could have added one or two English words to help emphasize the inherent meaning of the word.

So, a great many KJV-O people reject Ruckman and Riplinger. I don’t have facts and figures on how many Baptists take which stance, but I’ve found that of the KJV-O websites I’ve been to, only about 5-10% seem to be Ruckman-Riplinger.

That means a vast majority of KJV-O Baptists are being called by an epithet that belongs to a relative minority of KJV-O!

And suddenly a pattern of either ignorance or dishonesty on the part of MVO’ists emerges. If 5-10% of KJV-O’ists are Ruckman/Riplinger, then they should be considered a minority. And the debates and accusations of people like James White, John Ankerberg, and Doug Kutilek should therefore reflect that.

Yet, for the most part, they insist on treating all KJV-O as if they are Ruckmanite. I’ve seen the “Bible For Today” website, the “Dean Burgon Society” website, and David Cloud’s “Way of Life” website – where all three websites (major champions of KJV-O) patiently explain they are not Riplingerite or Ruckmanite – and STILL Kutilek, Ankerberg and White insist on treating all KJV-O as if they are Ruckmanite/Riplingerite.

On to the Pearl’s. The problem is laziness on the part of many Independent Baptist pastors, or overwhelming busyness – I don’t know which. The intention is good – “We need a book discussing modesty and appropriate dress that we can teach from for our congregations.” Good. Write one. Or investigate the other options.

“Dressing for the Lord” by David Cloud is available, and affordable. Cloud prices his books too low, in my opinion. He offers very good material at a price that the average Baptist is willing to pay – which means he’s not reaping the proper harvest for his efforts. however, that is a choice he’s willing to make. Many other Baptist authors take excerpts from their sermons or Sunday School classes, compile it as a book with less than 5% new material, and charge $40. I cannot say if I agree with “Dressing for the Lord” or not – never having read it. I just point out there is a Fundamentalist alternative to Pearl’s writings.

Pearl could be described as a Fundamentalist Methodist, as his doctrines clearly involve Sinless Perfectionism and I believe also Armenianism (You can lose your salvation, a clear violation of the Scriptural assurance of Once Saved, Always Saved).

He and Debbie advocate the disciplining of children in an extreme form that can correctly be called Child Abuse. Indeed, they’re even famous for a case in which a child was beaten to death – and the defense involved the “No Greater Joy” materials produced by the Pearls.

I’m not going to address the odd and cultish principles advocated by the Pearl’s. I’ve attended a Church that advocated Pearl standards of dress for women, which included the odd notion of women wearing men’s shirts and long skirts, the idea being that the women look more like men in kilts than women. That gets a lot odder as you begin to think about the implications of that! And Pearl’s odd insistence that women refrain from friendships with other women is patently unScriptural. There’s more of mysogeny about Pearl than Scripture.

When I say I am a bible Believing, King James Only, separatist Independent Baptist – This description should not in any way bring to mind Riplinger, Ruckman, or Pearl. I reject all three.

There. You are now educated. Let’s drop the assumptions.

Multiple Version Only-ism


One of the hindrances to the truth is the peculiar attitude known as Multiple Version Only-ism.

This is a response to King James Only-ism, in which a few well-meaning Christians (and more than a few heretics and false teachers) persecute King James Only-ism.

It’s peculiar, because I (and many other KJV-O believers) merely print what we believe, and all the evidences for our beliefs. And LO! Cometh the Philistines to battle. Why call them Philistines?

1Sa 13:19 Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:

…and of course, the best sword for an English Speaking Christian is the King James Bible!

The MVO-ists are somehow threatened by anyone taking a stand and saying, “I believe the only Bible for English Speaking People is the King James Bible!”

And they rush in to take that away from us. “No! You must read all other translations – but never the outdated and poorly translated King James Bible!”

Question – if it’s so poorly translated – the first refuge of every scoundrel who attempts to debate a KJV-O believer – why does Zondervan and Thomas Nelson always print charts that list the ‘Most Literal-hardest to understand’ list, and ALWAYS puts the KJV as 2nd most literal? Out of the mouths of the Philistines themselves!

And yet, I make no insistance you stop using defective bibles or heretical modern versions!

As I go along in this blog, I’ll write a “Common attacks of MVO-ists” and refute them all.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 22


So far, we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible (Sola Scriptura)
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCC has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted
  • The Apocrypha was never quoted by the New Testament
  • The Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone for at least 400 years – after all the official lists of the inspired canon had been done
  • The apocrypha was never quoted by church fathers for at least 2 centuries after the time of Christ
  • The Bible is only the 66 books of the bible
  • Papal Infallibility is unScriptural
  • Papal Infallibility places the Pope in the place of God, elevating him to being God’s “Equal”, a goal that Lucifer desired
  • Papal Infallibility is also patently illogical, as Inerrant Word Ex Cathedra must also imply inerrant thought and inerrant action
  • There is no evidence Peter ever went to Rome, besides the earliest tradition he was brought there to be crucified upside down. That is tradition, not church history.
  • Peter was not given the choice of who goes to heaven or not.
  • There is no evidence Peter was the first Pope
  • The pastor of the Church at Rome at the timme of the book of Romans, late in Paul’s career, was either Rufus or Aquila, and history records the name of the first pastor of the Roman Church as Linus.
  • The letter to the Romans does not list Peter’s name as among the church at Rome. Nor do any of Paul’s epistles to the other churches mention him, unless referring to Jerusalem.
  • The practive of dividing the congregation into two classes, clergy and laity, with the clergy exalted over the congregation, is called Nicolaitanism. The Lord Jesus Christ hates this practice (Rev. 2:15)
  • The Catholic priesthood usurps the position of the Born again believer
  • The Catholic priesthood steals the concept of the Levitical priesthood under the erroneos assumption the Church replaces Israel.
  • Pastor, minister, Bishop and elder are synonymous terms for the same job.
  • There is no Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic priesthood.
  • There is no scriptural basis for a hierarchy of the priesthood
  • There is no Scriptural basis for the Papal office
  • The Cardinal’s hat originates from the Babylonian/Canaanite cult of Dagon worship
  • There is no truth to any claim of apostolic successionism.
  • There is no documentation for almost 5 centuries of Papal successionism, and even that one is spurious and questionable at best.
  • There is no Biblical basis for the seven sacraments
  • There is no way for a Roman Catholic to keep all seven sacraments
  • Sacramentalism is based upon Salvation by works, which the Bible condemns
  • Confirmation is unBiblical
  • There is no Biblical basis for a belief that the “host “bread becomes the literal, physical or even mystically becomes the body of the Lord Jesus Christ
  • The mass is based upon the need for Christ to offer His sacrifice daily, which is the opposite of what the Bible says.
  • The Lord Jesus Christ made one offering once for all, the Bible says – not daily, as the Roman Catholic church mantains.
  • The bread is mentioned only in Luke and 1 Corinthians – the Gospels represent the Blood as far more important.
  • The Lord’s Supper is to be done as a remembrance only, according to Scripture – it is not a means of salvation or “Added Grace”.
  • Mary is given worship that belongs to God alone
  • Man lives once, dies once, and after that, the judgment.
  • believers wake up in Heaven immediately after death, the unSaved wake up in Hell. There is no limbo or purgatory.
  • Purgatory is completely lacking in any scriptural basis.

At this point, having written 23 posts in a row on Roman Catholicism, I’m going to turn to other topics. I will revisit this subject again as time permits, to continue answering Rome and its unChristian beliefs.

Roman Catholicism is so vast in its UnBiblical nature, so completely contradictory to everything the Bible teaches, I could post every day for a year on every last heresy!

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 21


Temporarily leaving the subject of Mary, let’s examine Purgatory, as we keep coming back to it again and again. AS I promised earlier, the subject of Mary is so huge, I’ll have to return to it again in the future, to fill it out as time permits. I have too many other subjects to write on, and too little time.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE – Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition)

There’s so many problems with that definition, I hardly know where to start.

There is no “place or condition of temporal punishment.” There is the world of the living, Heaven, Hell, the bottomless Pit, and the Lake of Fire.

  • The world of the living – is where you live now.
  • Heaven – this is the place where God dwells, the angels, and the souls of the redeemed in Christ.
  • Hell. This is currently where the souls of those who are not redeemed dwell. It is a place of eternal punishment.
  • The bottomless pit. There is nobody there right now. It is the future prison of Satan during the Millennium.
  • The Lake of Fire – this is the future abode of Satan, his demons, the antichrist and false prophet, and the souls of those who never were born again.

There is nothing in the Bible to support purgatory.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:27-28 (KJV)

“…but after this the judgment”. You die, and quite simply wake up in heaven… or hell. If you trust in your own good works to save you, then you will not wake up in heaven.

Job, one of the first books of the Bible to be written, teaches the doctrine even then that man cannot save himself.

7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. 8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? 9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? 10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. 11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him. 12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place. 13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret. 14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee. Job 40:7-14 (KJV)

The Lord begins asking Job a series of 84 questions – designed to show that Job is not God, and has no right to demand anything of God. The Lord tells Job after demanding a series of tasks that only God can perform, “Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.” In other words, the only person that could earn their own salvation would have to be God. Who, being God, would not have to earn Salvation!

24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? 27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Luke 18:24-27 (KJV)

I have elsewhere dealt, at length, with the subject of Salvation. Make sure you carefully read all the pages on Roman Catholicism, as I’ve dealt with this subject at length several times.

The doctrine of Purgatory was not instituted until the first man to truly be a Pope, Pope Gregory I, instituted the false doctrine in 593. It would not be officially considered a doctrine of the Catholic church for another 900 years.

“The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in Purgatory, the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who have not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions, are cleansed after death with punishment designed to purge away their debt” (Vatican Council II, p. 75).

as we’ve seen already, the Bible teaches otherwise.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke 23:42-43 (KJV)

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV)

21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Philippians 1:21-23 (KJV)

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 (KJV)

“Well, we don’t believe in Purgatory any more.”

Do you believe that the Pope is infallible? The Popes have repeatedly affirmed this false doctrine as a Catholic belief. Father William Saunders, writing for the Arlington Herald in 2005, recently answered the question, “Do Catholics still believe in Purgatory?”

On Sept. 17, 2002, our late beloved Pope John Paul II stressed the need to pray for the Souls in Purgatory. He said, “The first and highest form of charity for brothers is the ardent desire for their eternal salvation … . Christian love knows no boundaries and goes beyond the limits of space and time, enabling us to love those who have already left this earth.” Therefore, not only the belief in purgatory but also the spiritual duty to pray for the souls there remains part of our Catholic faith.

Contrary to what some may erroneously believe, Vatican II’s “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” asserted, “This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of Heaven or who are yet being purified after their death; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of the Council of Trent” (No. 51). (Do Catholics Still Believe In Purgatory? Fr. William Saunders, www.catholiceducation.org)

Indeed, the whole Catholic sacramental system is based in part upon a Purgatory to purge one of their sins. Should Roman Catholics give up belief in purgatory? Absolutely. But they also need to give up belief in the other unBiblical doctrines as well – such as the Priesthood, infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling, the Mass, transubstantiation, Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mary’s perpetual virginity, the assumption of Mary, the Magisterium, auricular confession, salvation by works, the Pope, Papal infallibility, Celibacy for the priesthood, nuns, Fathers, Brothers, Cardinals, archbishops, incense, idolatry and prayers for the dead, etc. etc.

“You’re asking us to give up everything that is Roman Catholic!”

If it’s contradictory to the Bible, sure! And I’ll make the same request of anyone whose denomination makes unBiblical doctrines. Almost all protestants perform infant baptism, like Catholics. They too need to abandon such an unBiblical doctrine.

“You’re just trying to turn us into Baptists!”

If that’s your definition of a Bible believing Christian, sure. You can call it what you want. Baptists have been called many things throughout the centuries, such as Lollards, Donatists, Albigeneses, Waldenses, Catharists, Anabaptists, and other names. They always called themselves Christians. Today, we proudly wear the title Baptist to reflect 2000 years of persecution, torture, banishment and destruction.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 20


This is the 21st post I’ve written, challenging the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. You’d be a very rare catholic to make it this far.

If you’re a Roman Catholic and have read every post so far, the answer is this – God wanted you to read all these pages, so you can come to repentance. Odds are, if you have, you’re either completely in shock that almost everything your church has taught has been wrong, in which case I’m going to appeal to you to be born again biblically, so that you can enter the kingdom of heaven.

Odds are far more likely that you’re a Roman Catholic apologist, going through all these pages to look for a way to argue. I’m going to repeat what I said above – God obviously brought you here to be saved. Don’t wait. Pray about it. Seek the Lord. Not your priest, the Lord.

Now we turn to something I’m definitely not going to be able to sum up all the problems with briefly. I’ll have to add posts to this topic later, as I’m needing to tend to many other subjects, and this one is going to be far from done.

That subject is the virgin Mary.

I could write dozens of posts refuting everything on this subject. Again, I’ll have to come back later and add more to this.

1 The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the Jews which dwell in the land of Egypt, which dwell at Migdol, and at Tahpanhes, and at Noph, and in the country of Pathros, saying, 2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, and upon all the cities of Judah; and, behold, this day they are a desolation, and no man dwelleth therein, 3 Because of their wickedness which they have committed to provoke me to anger, in that they went to burn incense, and to serve other gods, whom they knew not, neither they, ye, nor your fathers. 4 Howbeit I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate. 5 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear to turn from their wickedness, to burn no incense unto other gods. 6 Wherefore my fury and mine anger was poured forth, and was kindled in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they are wasted and desolate, as at this day. 7 Therefore now thus saith the LORD, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; Wherefore commit ye this great evil against your souls, to cut off from you man and woman, child and suckling, out of Judah, to leave you none to remain; 8 In that ye provoke me unto wrath with the works of your hands, burning incense unto other gods in the land of Egypt, whither ye be gone to dwell, that ye might cut yourselves off, and that ye might be a curse and a reproach among all the nations of the earth? 9 Have ye forgotten the wickedness of your fathers, and the wickedness of the kings of Judah, and the wickedness of their wives, and your own wickedness, and the wickedness of your wives, which they have committed in the land of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem? 10 They are not humbled even unto this day, neither have they feared, nor walked in my law, nor in my statutes, that I set before you and before your fathers. 11 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all Judah. Jeremiah 44:1-11 (KJV)

I know that the tendancy of fallen humanity is to skip over bible verses, to keep reading the commentary- but that’s why I’m having to write so many pages, correcting errors! I’ve made it easier, by highlighting certain words, but please do NOT take my word for what the Bible says, read it!

Who are the other gods, that they went in to worship and serve, and burn incesnse before? Ba’al and Ashtaroth, also known in Egypt as Rah and Isis.

cakes… queen of heaven—Cakes were made of honey, fine flour, &c., in a round flat shape to resemble the disc of the moon, to which they were offered. Others read as Margin, “the frame of heaven,” that is, the planets generally; so the Septuagint here; but elsewhere the Septuagint translates, “queen of heaven.” The Phoenicians called the moon Ashtoreth or Astarte: the wife of Baal or Moloch, the king of heaven. The male and female pair of deities symbolized the generative powers of nature; hence arose the introduction of prostitution in the worship. The Babylonians worshipped Ashtoreth as Mylitta, that is, generative. Our Monday, or Moon-day, indicates the former prevalence of moon worship . (A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. Jamison, Fosset & Brown)

The Bible is speaking against worship of the Queen of Heaven.

16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee. 17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. 19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces? 20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched. Jeremiah 7:16-20 (KJV)

The Lord God will not tolerate worship of any other than Himself.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:3-6 (KJV)

(“High places” (2 Chron. 14:3). God does not share His people with foreign deities. Again and again purging pagan worship centers was the first visible sign of O.T. revival. We are not to worship God first. We are to worship Him alone. (Bible Reader’s Companion.))

Worship belongs to God Himself in His three persons of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost.

16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; Deuteronomy 11:16 (KJV)

Nobody is to be worshipped besides God.

2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments: 3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. Genesis 35:2-3 (KJV)

The Roman Catholic Church worships Mary.

“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.” (The Salve Regina, Roman Catholic prayer to Mary)

The Roman Catholic Church identifies Mary as Queen of Heaven.

Jesus is called the Righteous King; Mary is called the Merciful Queen. In the papal bull of Sixtus IV, adopted by the Council of Trent, she is called “Queen of Heaven, who intercedes with the King, whom she has brought forth.” Although God is willing to pardon men, His righteousness makes Him very stern, so much so that He caused His Son to atone for our sins. The Son of God is also severe, and although He sacrificed Himself, and died upon the cross, He also commanded His disciples to carry their crosses, and by and by He will judge the world, casting those who have not believed on Him into the everlasting punishment of Hell. Only Mary is filled with mercy. Roman Catholicism attributes to Mary most of the characteristics of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Roman Catholicism in the Light Of Scripture, F.C.H. Dreyer, E-Sword Module)

Now, Roman Catholic apologists will try to object that Catholics do not worship Mary. Actions speak louder than words. How does it look to God? When you pray to anything, that is worship. When you bow before a graven image or painting of any person, that is worship, and idolatry. Offering incense before a painting or image, that is worship and idolatry. Wearing any special items with the image of any person designed to curry their favor and blessings, that is worship and idolatrty.

On the last item, I wore as a 10 year old, a t-shirt with “Arnold Horshack” from Welcome Back, Kotter on it. I was not trying to curry his favor, I was not trying to extend my life, gain blessings spiritually or physically, was not trying to keep myself out of torment for any length of time – I was just wearing a stupid t-shirt. I assume today that shirt would be too small for me. Wearing the t-shirt was just… silly. Which was why I wore it.

I did not decorate the t-shirt with gold and jewels, nor did I offer incense before it, nor pray to it. I did not count the ribbings on the collar as I prayed to Arnold Horshack. As a matter of fact, I never prayed to silly old Arnold. And after watching the silly tv show for 2 years… I was done with it. The t-shirt probably went in the trash. I can’t say I’ve ever missed it.

When you wear special medallions or medals with Mary on them (or Saint Jude or Saint Christopher), you are trying to curry her favor. You are trying to earn merit, favor, blessings in this world and the world to come. You are trying, by wearing the scapular, to lessen the time you spend in Purgatory.

When you pray the Rosary, the “mystery” (the circuit of white beads vs. black) has far more white beads (prayers to Mary) than Black (The Lord’s Prayer).

That’s worship. That’s idolatry. Wearing those items are an offense to God.

Roman Catholic Apologists can try to say what they like. Your words may say one thing, your actions speak another. I’d again, almost prefer the honesty of an apologist to admit, “Okay, we worship her. Here’s why.” Doesn’t make it right, it would just be refreshing to read a Catholic saying, “I know its idolatry! But it’s our tradition.”

The Roman Catholic Church does indeed teach that there is a difference in the kind of worship given to Mary and to God . However, what they do is far different from what they say. And to the common Roman Catholic, that distinction is often not taught – and never practiced, even by the clergy.
They claim we should worship the Lord more than Mary – but in reality, they pray far more often to Mary. There are many, many shrines to Mary. There are countless hundreds of thousands of Churches named for Mary, and perhaps a handful named for the Lord Jesus Christ (John Macarthur claims he can find only one). As already mentioned, the Rosary prays to Mary 9 times per mystery, and only once to the Lord.

By their actions, the Roman Catholic church exalts Mary over God Himself. You may protest again that this is not what the church teaches – I would disagree with that. And certainly, it is what the Roman Catholic Church practices. How does it look to the Lord?

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 19


So far we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible (Sola Scriptura)
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCC has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted
  • The Apocrypha was never quoted by the New Testament
  • The Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone for at least 400 years – after all the official lists of the inspired canon had been done
  • The apocrypha was never quoted by church fathers for at least 2 centuries after the time of Christ
  • The Bible is only the 66 books of the bible
  • Papal Infallibility is unScriptural
  • Papal Infallibility places the Pope in the place of God, elevating him to being God’s “Equal”, a goal that Lucifer desired
  • Papal Infallibility is also patently illogical, as Inerrant Word Ex Cathedra must also imply inerrant thought and inerrant action
  • There is no evidence Peter ever went to Rome, besides the earliest tradition he was brought there to be crucified upside down. That is tradition, not church history.
  • Peter was not given the choice of who goes to heaven or not.
  • There is no evidence Peter was the first Pope
  • The pastor of the Church at Rome at the timme of the book of Romans, late in Paul’s career, was either Rufus or Aquila, and history records the name of the first pastor of the Roman Church as Linus.
  • The letter to the Romans does not list Peter’s name as among the church at Rome. Nor do any of Paul’s epistles to the other churches mention him, unless referring to Jerusalem.
  • The practive of dividing the congregation into two classes, clergy and laity, with the clergy exalted over the congregation, is called Nicolaitanism. The Lord Jesus Christ hates this practice (Rev. 2:15)
  • The Catholic priesthood usurps the position of the Born again believer
  • The Catholic priesthood steals the concept of the Levitical priesthood under the erroneos assumption the Church replaces Israel.
  • Pastor, minister, Bishop and elder are synonymous terms for the same job.
  • There is no Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic priesthood.
  • There is no scriptural basis for a hierarchy of the priesthood
  • There is no Scriptural basis for the Papal office
  • The Cardinal’s hat originates from the Babylonian/Canaanite cult of Dagon worship
  • There is no truth to any claim of apostolic successionism.
  • There is no documentation for almost 5 centuries of Papal successionism, and even that one is spurious and questionable at best.
  • There is no Biblical basis for the seven sacraments
  • There is no way for a Roman Catholic to keep all seven sacraments
  • Sacramentalism is based upon Salvation by works, which the Bible condemns
  • Confirmation is unBiblical
  • There is no Biblical basis for a belief that the “host “bread becomes the literal, physical or even mystically becomes the body of the Lord Jesus Christ
  • The mass is based upon the need for Christ to offer His sacrifice daily, which is the opposite of what the Bible says.
  • The Lord Jesus Christ made one offering once for all, the Bible says – not daily, as the Roman Catholic church mantains.
  • The bread is mentioned only in Luke and 1 Corinthians – the Gospels represent the Blood as far more important.
  • The Lord’s Supper is to be done as a remembrance only, according to Scripture – it is not a means of salvation or “Added Grace”.
  • There is nothing in the Bible about “Last rites”
  • Last Rites are truly evil, giving false hope to a dying unSaved person, who could have spent those last moments seeking the Lord, repenting of their sins and praying to be forgiven – and possibly being born again before death.

We’ve still got a long ways to go! We’re examining right now the last of the seven “Sacraments”.

  • Baptism
  • Confirmation
  • “Holy Eucharist”
  • “Extreme Unction”
  • Penance
  • Matrimony
  • Holy orders

Now we turn to penance. Penance goes coupled with Auricular confession, an unBiblical practice. So far, it seems there is nothing Biblical about Roman Catholicism! Here – I’ll put you at ease. There is something Biblical about the Roman Catholic Church. They meet on Sundays, and the Father gives a sermon. That’s about it. Although it would be far more biblical to call him a Pastor, Minister or a Bishop.

“Well, he’s not a Bishop yet…”

See again the pages on the Priesthood, and the clergy-laity distinction.

Auricular confession (confessing into the ear of a priest) dates back only to the 12th century, possibly one of the last of the sacraments to be invented instuted by Pope Innocent III, the same Pope who murdered Baptists wholesale, ordering a Crusade that put to death thousands of Albigenses throughout Europe who would not recant and join the Roman Catholic Church.

the concept was that the priest now usurps the role of the Lord Jesus Christ, and stands in the place of God. This way, the Roman church imagines the priest alone has the power to forgive sins, an outrageous corrupting of Matthew 16:18-19.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19 (KJV)

We’ve dealt with this verse already, and that is not the meaning of that verse.

Another verse used to justify this practice is,

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. John 20:22-23 (KJV)

Adam Clarke writes,

It is certain God alone can forgive sins; and it would not only be blasphemous, but grossly absurd, to say that any creature could remit the guilt of a transgression which had been committed against the Creator. The apostles received from the Lord the doctrine of reconciliation, and the doctrine of condemnation. They who believed on the Son of God, in consequence of their preaching, had their sins remitted; and they who would not believe were declared to lie under condemnation… Dr. Lightfoot supposes that the power of life and death, and the power of delivering over to Satan, which was granted to the apostles, is here referred to. This was a power which the primitive apostles exclusively possessed. (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible)

I would agree, this is the most likely explanation of these verses. How else did Peter know he had the ability to curse a man to death? This gift passed from the earth, dying out with the last apostle, and possibly before then. As the New Testament was being written, one sign gift after another was dissapearing.

so the priest wrongfully hears a confession that should be given to God, and pronunces a penance, by which the confessant can purge the sins. Again, this is works based, something the Bible condemns in the strongest terms. If this is the first page on Roman Catholicism you’ve found, I recommend you go back to the first one and start from there, as I describe in much detail why any works based religion is unBiblical and unGodly.

Certainly there is nothing in the Bible about saying the rosary, or repeating the same prayer a few dozen times. Indeed, the Bible has much to say against it!

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. Matthew 6:7-8 (KJV)

The last two sacraments are Marriage, and Holy Orders. It is interesting that both subjects are described in the Scriptures as a “good thing” – if one desires to enter the ministry and not an unBiblical priesthood. However, neither can confer any grace. All they do is change your life. It will not prevent an unrepentant sinner from a single moment in hell. See my other pages on works vs. grace, and on the unBiblical nature of the Roman Catholic priesthood.