I’m resuming this subject again, because it’s come up three times in the last year, in a variety of exchanges between Roman Catholics and myself, ranging from nice and polite to downright hostile.
Now, if you’ve never read the other parts in this series, it’s easy to find… scroll down the left hand side of the page in the blog categories and choose “Roman Catholicism”. Then scroll down and hit “older posts” until you reach the very beginning. Or you can choose March 2013, and start there (this way is a little easier, I think).
I’ve dealt with a LOT of subjects already, but I’d stopped it before as it had ran a month, with a promise to resume it.
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 erroneous 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.
- The Mass is a re-sacrficing of Christ
Now, the last point is hotly argued on Roman Catholic websites. “we don’t re-sacrifice Christ”, they say, and yet yesterday we looked at an interview with Sister Ann who worked with Mother Teresa, Vatican II and the Catechism, in which the Mass is most definitely portrayed as a re-sacrifice.
It’s important we understand that, as I demonstrated very early on that Roman Catholicism fits every definition of a cult, right down to the “Do not let the initiates know or understand what we really teach.” in that sense, they’re even more successful than the Jehovah’s Witnesses!
Most Roman Catholics are completely unaware what their cult teaches.
For instance, I dealt with the born again issue early on. Now when you say “born again” to a Christian, they understand you’re talking about a spiritual birth. Your first birth is physical, but your second birth is spiritual. This comes when you admit you are a sinner in need of salvation. If at that point you bow the knee to God and ask Jesus Christ to save you… you become born again. I’m simplifying, but that’s in essence what we understand.
The Roman Catholic does not think of the same thing when you use those words. This is another hallmark of a cult, codifying your words so that you can talk to a Christian and use the same words, without tipping off that you’re in a cult. Seventh Day Adventists do this so well, they have the Christian world almost convinced they’re regular Christians.
Born again to a Catholic is the oddest expression, as it means.. baptized.
So, when we ask them, “Are you born again?”, the Roman Catholic will almost always answer, “Yes!” The next question should be, “tell me your testimony.” That to a Christian means, “tell me how you came to the decision that you needed to be saved.”
When the Roman Catholic says, “I don’t understand…” clarify that you’re asking when they realized they needed a saviour. Now, here’s the catch – explain that these should be the same event. Your decision you needed a saviour should be accompanied by a prayer to be saved.
Now, John MacArthur asked once, “Can a Catholic be a Christian?” his answer was controversial but correct. The answer was, “Yes… you can be a Catholic and be a Christian… but you cannot be a good Catholic and be a Christian.”
The reason is, you can try reading your Bible for yourself, and realize that you stand condemned without Christ. You can believe the Bible, and not the RCC. And thus, you can ask the Lord Jesus Christ to save you.
bingo… you’re born again, and a Christian. But you’ve violated the basic tenets and teachings of the Roman Church, in that the RCC teaches Christ purchased Salvation and gave it to the Roman Church to dispense in the form of sacraments.
Christians tend to use another phrase to describe Born Again. The phrase is, “accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.” The phrase again confuses the Roman Catholic, who thinks of receiving the Host at the Mass as “Accepting Jesus Christ.” Indeed, the RCC began changing their wording back in the 1960’s to reflect this.
As a result, a GREAT many Christians assume that Roman Catholics are Christian, when indeed they are not. You must be born again to be a Christian, believe in the finished work of the Cross, and believe that we are saved by grace through faith alone.
AS I’ve demonstrated, Roman Catholics do not believe this, although they are being taught nowadays to say exactly these things!
Here are a series of questions to ask your Roman Catholic friend – or if you’re a Roman Catholic, here are some questions to answer… These are questions by Alex Dunlap, from David Cloud’s Way Of Life Encyclopedia – these are actually designed to show that Catholics are not Christians, and that the words they use do not have the same meanings that they do for Fundamentalist Christians.
- When were you converted?
- How were you converted?
- To what, or to whom, were you converted?
- What do you believe now that you did not believe before your conversion?
- What does it mean to be saved?
- On what scriptural promises do you base your salvation?
- What does it mean to be born again?
- Are you sure today that if you die tomorrow, or at any time in the future, you will be in heaven immediately after death?
- What do you believe about Purgatory?
- What do you believe about the Mass?
- Do you still participate in the Mass?
- Do you believe that any sinner can be saved who dies without trusting in Jesus Christ alone for the salvation of his soul and forgiveness of his sins?
- Do you believe that Mary and Roman Catholic saints can answer your prayers or help you get to heaven?
- How do you believe that the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ is applied to your soul?
- Have you told your priest you have been saved?
- Do you believe you will still go to heaven if you leave the Roman Catholic Church, receive believer’s baptism and join a fundamentalist Bible believing, non-Catholic church?
- When and where do you plan to do this?
I am of course interested in any Roman Catholic who is sincere about wanting to find the truth to answer these questions in the comment selection below. More tomorrow.