Simple truth: Catholics are not Christians

Logos opened this morning… to show in its startup screen a book by G. K . Chesterton.

I’ve got a headache – one of my sinus headaches – so right away Philip is grumpy. Plus my cats woke me at 5:30 howling for food, and I’ve gotten 292 steps so far because I have to keep getting up and shutting the door to my office because they keep opening it ALL THE WAY OPEN to shine out the light from my office and wake everyone else up at 6:08 am on a Saturday!

Here’s my point: Official Roman Catholic literature says that we are saved by works. As a matter of fact, official Roman Catholic literature specifically pronounces damnation on anyone who declares that we are saved by faith through grace – it is a gift of God lest any man should boast.

So Roman Catholic literature specifically pronounces damnation not only upon me, but upon the Apostle Paul.

Christianity, on the other hand, adheres to the clear teachings of the Bible, which states that we are saved by grace through faith.

It’s a simple truth, a simple math equation – Roman Catholicism teaches that we are saved by works, Christianity teaches we are saved by faith – thus Roman Catholicism is not Christianity.

If I’d written this and used the term “Hinduism”, nobody would be upset. But skillful public relations have gotten a vast majority of Christians to assume Roman Catholics are Christians when they are not.

If I dissemble, and try to say it any nicer, nobody will get the point. The man who witnessed to me showed absolutely no worry in the world if he offended me when he preached at me. Any offense he gave to me is of course long forgotten, let alone forgiven!

But if I come out and tell Roman Catholics, “I’m sorry, but you’re not a Christian – you’re in a cult that pretends to be Christian, but secretly is not” – then I stand a good, good chance of reaching people.

Of getting you saved.

If, on the other hand, I keep silent, the moment you realize there is no purgatory and that you are in hell will be way too late. You’ll be pulled out for the Great White Throne judgment, and you may even shout to me, “Why didn’t you warn me?”

And that really is the entire point to my blog.


8 Important Series to read on Narrow is the Way!

A few of you here are new. You’ll notice I sometimes use an odd structuring of English when I speak. Kind of a throwback to growing up in New England, and also a throwback to growing up speaking Yiddish. Mostly that. A Little.

Anyway, many of you who are new aren’t familiar with some of my earlier articles. I thought I’d give a list to the ones I thought were the most important.

  1. Evolution. My series on Evolution was the liveliest one I ever did. Atheists flocked to it, and we actually had some good exchanges. One thing I found in this series was many Atheists don’t like being called atheists, they prefer agnostic. I told them over and over again their definition of their beliefs was not agnostic, and they’d get upset. But it was a surprisingly respectful conversation with many of them. A couple of really insulting and aggressive ones popped in, but for the most part, really good responses. I was proud of this series, because I really hammered Evolution in many ways, including ways most other people have never brought up. I don’t think anyone else really ever dealt with the Warm Little Pond theory before I did, and I destroyed that one. I actually visited a link back someone placed on an article in this series, and it was an atheist telling others to go read my description of Hell “if they could take it”, so they could know what Christians really believe. To know my less than vivid descriptions of Hell were having an effect on Atheists means a lot – I pray the Lord some of these smart and yes, sometimes very funny men get saved. Atomic Mutant, still praying for ya, buddy!

  2. Jehovah’s Witnesses
    . This one I was REALLY proud of. I love how it turned out. I had a few nasty comments, including some from a Christadelphian who was incensed that I called Russell a Seventh Day Adventist. I wish I’d had Evernote back then, because I found an official SDA webpage where they’d admitted they consider Charles T Russell to be a Seventh Day Adventist, which was why I put the comment up. Once my article hit the web, suddenly that SDA page was edited to remove the admission. But on the whole, I dealt with every aspect of their theology and debunked it. For over two years, someone was coming back every day and re-reading the articles. Then suddenly three or four a day. I only hope I  meet just one person, just one in Heaven, who says “I left the Watchtower Society because of your blog.” Everything will be worth it to hear that.
  3. Roman Catholicism. This one produced a lot of hate. Funny how I’m Catholic bashing, but they’re not Baptist Bashing. And one of them responded in anger how offended he was that I claimed to be Jewish. So I answered him with some Yiddish, and he was perplexed. I guess his assumption was that if he was a catholic, he was a Jew. Mine is the only series I’ve ever seen where anyone dealt with the Magisterium first. A Catholic apologist once left a comment on my web site he wanted to see someone answer Rome without using the “same old defeated arguments”. I reposted the entire series and he said not a word. One that gave me the most trouble was so nice – but to no avail. He simply would not listen to reason, and I cut the whole exchange off.
  4. Word Faith/Charismatic. Surprisingly, this still remains one of the top draw items to my blog – not the entire series, just article #10, where I present a timeline people can download. Despite EVERYTHING I wrote in this series, a Charismatic came on to the blog and proceeded to tell me I was studying the Bible too much, and needed to let go, let this be my moment of desperation, my moment of expectation, and I would begin speaking in tongues… needless to say, after a couple of exchanges, she left, and I still don’t speak in tongues.
  5. Church Planting. I sincerely hope that since bloggers consider this kind of in depth series an “evergreen” article, that someone out there uses it to start a church plant. I got right into naming the church, starting it, materials, church covenant, statement of faith and by-laws, etc. If you feel called to the ministry, here you go – I’ve done EVERYTHING for you!
  6. Messianic Judaism – the series that started a thousand angry responses… on other websites. To my knowledge, I’m one of the only blogs ever to take on Messianic Judaism. There’s another I’ve seen, but as far as I know.. That’s it. Everyone else is just content to sit back and let them lead people astray with nary a comment. Read this, borrow the principles I’m using, and write your own articles on why Messianic Judaism is heresy. Most of the responses I got was people on their own websites challenging me to debates, resorting to straw man arguments, then knocking those down. In reality, my arguments were on my website, and.. They never addressed the points I raised, merely repeating their own flawed and overly circular reasoning. This one I may end up re-doing!
  7. Textual Criticism series. Good series. I made a number of people angry with this one, though, and it eventually led to my decision to stop allowing comments.
  8. Seventh Day Adventist series. Also very good. I was happy with this one, but got nary a comment except from an Adventist over 18 months later, who wouldn’t admit he was an Adventist – which of course a quick internet search revealed the fact that not only was he SDA, but his family heralded back to those who knew Ellen G. White. His technique was the tried and true method of repeat yourself until we both get annoyed and you leave. I put the entire comment exchange online.

One series I wasn’t happy with was the Mormonism series. It was correctly deduced by one Mormon that I had never read the book of Mormon. However, I just don’t have the time to engage in a lengthy study of the BoM, PGP and D&C to refute them – so this series never really lived up to its potential (I should mention that it was enthusiastically received by other Mormon apologetic sites at the time). It will have to wait until I retire to fully deal with this series.

The State of Christianity


Photo by Jay Ruzesky on Unsplash

One key element of my blog has been to examine the state of Christianity.

Whenever I do this, I go into rants.

Today, it’s time to explode a little.

Dealing with Faithlife, the parent company for Logos has shown me that what I dislike about Faithlife is pretty much the tip of the iceberg of Christianity.

What do I mean?

The prevailing attitudes I see evidenced in Faithlife are pretty much representative in modern Christianity.

Roman Catholicism is not Christianity.
Roman Catholicism (by the time you’re really done analyzing it) is anti-Christianity! Christianity is salvation by faith through grace. Roman Catholicism is salvation by works.

Christianity is praying to God through Jesus Christ. Roman catholicism is about praying to saints, who will intercede on your behalf to Mary, who takes the prayers to God.

Christianity has the Bible for sole authority of faith and practice. Roman Catholicism has Church tradition and the magisterium.

By the time you really analyze it, Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, but rather a modified form of Hinduism!

Yet most Christians today consider Roman Catholics to be Christians! This is so great an error among Evangelical Christians today, that it really deserves its own rant!

Seventh Day Adventism is not Christianity
Just as you can buy the Verbum software for Roman Catholics, you can buy the Logos package for the SDA, with such great SDA teachers as…

Wait. Anyone see a problem with this? They believe Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael. We rightly reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult for believing this, but we turn a blind eye to the SDA. We call the Jehovah’s witnesses a cult for believing in soul sleep, but we turn a blind eye to the SDA. We call the Jehovah’s witnesses a cult for rejecting a literal hell, but then we turn a blind eye to the SDA.

By the time we’re done with it, the only real difference between the JW’s and the SDA really is vegetarianism (SDA) and blood transfusions (JW’s).

But one is a cult, and the other a denomination. Listen, if the one is a cult then so is the other.

Church of Christ (Campbellite) is salvation by works
If we reject other cults for salvation by works, then we should reject all groups that preach salvation by works as well. It violates the Bible, and the Bible calls it a damnable heresy to teach you must work your way into heaven.

The only real issue with Campbellites is that they claim baptism saves us. Baptism is a work. It’s the first essential sign, the first essential work you perform to PROVE you’re saved.

They’re absolutely right when you say that if you refuse to be baptized you’re not saved. But it’s not the BAPTISM that saves – it’s faith in Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice!

By transferring the faith from Jesus Christ to a work you yourself perform… you have gone from faith to works.

Famous People
There’s a lot of famous people who claim to be Christians. One thing that astounds me is when Christians tell me Jane Fonda is a Christian. Her own remark after supposedly getting saved was, “I’m not one of those born again Christian types.” Then… you’re not a Christian!

There’s a football player who made millions selling his autobiography about how Christian he is. Technically, if he mentioned his conviction for animal cruelty in his book for dog fighting, he’s in violation of the law – you cannot legally make a profit writing about your crime. I’m not going to mention any names, but there’s ample evidence he’s an active gang member. I’m sorry, that’s not really evidence of a changed life.

Are you Christian?
The numbers I’m seeing in polls are shocking. Most Christians today evidence beliefs that 30 years ago mainstream Christianity would have decried as not being Christian!

Have you read your Bible all the way through, at least once?

If I were to drag you into court to prove you were a Christian, would the evidence of your life show you were a Christian? There has to be some kind of evidence!

Do you believe that there is only one way to heaven? Hint – John 14:4…
Do you believe the righteous of every faith will wake up in heaven, surprised and a little embarrassed about how wrong they were? Or do you believe that if you are not born again, there remains no other fate for you than eternal hellfire? (hint – the answer to this is far more revealing than you believe!)

Do you believe your Bible is inerrant, inspired, the preserved word of God? Or do you assume your Bible has errors, and only the Scholars can really decipher what the Bible really says? (this answer reveals a lot)

Most people who think they’re Christians are in for a horrible surprise. Guess what? Eternity is not going to be good.

Let’s see how you do…

  • Do you believe in salvation by grace through faith alone?
  • Do you believe in Jesus Christ as God in human flesh, eternally the Son of God, died on the Cross and rose again, one third of the trinity?
  • Do you believe Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven?
  • Do you believe the only propitiation for sin is the atoning blood of Jesus Christ?
  • Do you believe Jesus Christ is not just a man, and never was just a manDo you believe in a literal six day creation?
  • Do you believe in a literal flood that covered the entire earth?
  • Do you believe that no matter what, you cannot earn your salvation?
  • Do you believe your Bible is the preserved word of God without error?
  • Do you have one moment in your life you can point to where you came to Jesus for salvation, and that there was a change in your life after that?

“Yes” answers are good. There should have been no “No” answers in that list.

If you have one or more “No” answers… can you tell me why you think you’re a Christian? Because your definition of what a Christian is and what the Bible teaches one is apparently are two different things!

I’d keep going with this one, but I’m worn out after the work week I had!

Issues with the Faithlife Company

I’m going to take the time to discuss my wife’s conclusion about Logos, that it is not a Christian company. I do have to agree with her. It’s a business. The prices they charge, and the tactics they use to force people to constantly give them money may be sound business practice, but it’s not Christian principles. Christian principles is that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and to pay your people fairly, and charge an honest price for your software. Bibleworks was an honest contender until I found out that they really didn’t give you much in the way of Bible dictionaries, grammars, etc. At least with that software, you pay one price… and you get everything.

But let’s not forget Logos was started by a Christian employee of Microsoft, who went on his own. He turned it into a major software business, eventually creating the greatest Bible software package.

And then recently, he began offering packages for cults and unSaved people, as if lending legitimacy to them. You can buy Verbum, for Roman Catholics. He must have hired some Roman Catholics for the Content teams, because now you get Roman Catholic materials in almost every base package of Logos. What, pray tell, am I going to do with the Roman Catholic lectionary, or the Confessions of “St.” Augustine? The Standard Silver package has a devotional to Mary!!! Are they offering Baptist materials in Verbum, I wonder? Hmmm… let’s see… no.

So, sadly, Logos will probably after the Rapture be instrumental in building a one world religion. I’m not saying that Christians do not work at Logos. I am not saying that there’s something wrong with the software, or the materials they offer (except the RCC stuff). But if you’ve learned to spot agendas (something I taught my readers to do two years ago) – these facts should be setting off alarm bells.

IFB Blogs

Out of all the IFB blogs there were out there, a number of them – most of them – are gone.

I think it’s just battle fatigue. When you start a IFB, Narrow is the way, King James only blog, you immediately are beset on all sides from apostates and heretics who want to argue with you. And precious few people come on and say, “That article was great!”

no, they want to argue.

It takes a toll on you.

There were some that started a year ago, when I was writing articles on how to start one. They’re gone now.

It’s really tough. And you, after a few months, struggle through the feeling you’re fighting this alone.

You’re not, but boy, it really feels that way.

Oddly enough, the most common challenges I was getting was from Roman Catholic apologists, most of whom are apostate Protestants. So this last year, i did something I needed to do, and took a month off. And I threw up my entire Roman Catholic apologetics series again, after a Roman Catholic apologist demanded that “just ONCE I’d like to see a protestant answer these questions!”

So, I’m not a protestant – I’m a Baptist – but I obliged him. He made no comment at all, because the very first thing in that series I challenge is the Magisterium.

So, if you’re one of the few left with IFB blogs, when it gets tough, consider taking a month off. It helps. Then back into the battle.

If you’re debating whether you should start one… yes. Go back through my archives to find the blog articles on starting an apologetics blog.

Answering Roman Catholicism #31 Worship of Mary

We’ve tackled a lot of Roman Catholicism already, and at some point in the future, I’m going to repost the entire series so that any new reader to the blog can read the whole thing from start to finish.

The big problem is, there’s so much wrong with Roman Catholicism that I keep looking at it and finding something else! So, it may not be until next YEAR before I finish with it!

Another problem is, Roman Catholicism is often like a little kid caught with his hand iin the cookie jar. “Are you stealing a cookie?” “No.” “Is your hand in the cookie jar?” “Uh… no…”

In other words, they come right out and do something, they talk amongst themselves as doing something, but when a Christian says they do that very thing, they protest, “no we don’t!” Then rush off to Mass the next day, and do that very thing.

David Cloud reports that in examinations of thousands of Roman Catholic shrines and churches, there are literally thousands dedicated and named for Mary – but he could find only one for Jesus Christ.

The truth is, God is perceived among Roman Catholics to be unreachable, too holy to be worshiped.

That’s a really strange idea, in that the Bible is full of Jews and even Gentiles engaged in active worship of God. Indeed, God WANTS us to worship Him. It is one of the tasks we are designed for. We find a great deal of fulfillment in doing exactly that!

14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Exodus 34:14 (KJV)

“we worship God! Why are you bashing Roman Catholics?”

The “bashing” comment comes far too often. Why is it your religion can write realms on Baptists and protestants and it’s okay… but if a Baptist analyzes your doctrines when compared to the bible, you freak out and call it “bashing”?

Ever read Trent? The entire document – an official roman Catholic document – condemns Baptists to Hell just for believing what the Bible teaches. Wouldn’t that be Baptist bashing?

There’s a chapel in Rome that shows Mary casting Martin Luther out of heaven. That’s Protestant bashing, isn’t it?

So, if Roman Catholicism doesn’t worship God, who does it worship?

Jesus Christ?

No, He’s going to be the judge of mankind, and therefore harsh, according to Roman Catholicism. Please, don’t tell me what your religion teaches and doesn’t teach… that doctrine has been recorded more than once.

God is too holy to worship, Christ the harsh Judge… but Mary is caring, like a mother. And she can intercede for man with a Holy Father God that’s too holy and angry to listen to men.

Can I find that in Roman documents? I’m sure I can.

Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was a principal proponent of the Marianist Movement, which glorifies Mary. He wrote a book titled The Glories of Mary which is famous, influential and widely read. In this book, de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God—Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice. De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary. — (Esword Module, Catholic concerns: Where does the road to Rome lead? Mary Ann Collins)

I can also find it in Catholic practice. The rosary beads…. how many beads are for Mary, and how many for God? That’s a 10 to 1 ratio per mystery.

Ever said these words?

“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.”

Yeah, um… that’s worship. Where does it say in the Bible to pray to anyone but to God?

And isn’t that praying to Mary to save you?

The Bible says only Jesus Christ can save.

Why are you praying to a human woman, and not to Jesus Christ, who is very God of Very God? Fully God and Fully Man, something that theologians call the Hypostatic Union. Jesus Christ is the one who atones for us. Only HIS death on the cross can atone.

Despite the Roman Catholic art that portrays Mary on the Cross, or Mary sitting on the throne that belongs to Jesus Christ, the entire Roman Catholic religion is about replacing Jesus Christ with Mary. Mary is given worship that the bible forbids to be given to anyone except God.

By saying Mary is the Mother of God, doesn’t that elevate her to a goddess?

By saying Mary is Queen of Heaven, doesn’t that make her a Goddess? and RULING IN HEAVEN?

How does God feel about worshiping 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)

Answering Roman Catholicism #30

I’ve mentioned before there was so much wrong with Roman Catholicism, that I almost didn’t know where to start. In the beginning of this blog, I used to actually have a list at the beginning of each post telling you all the things wrong with each topic, and all the points I’d answered. With Roman Catholicism, the post was so long you had to page down three times to get to the article.

Because it’s been months since I began the series, let me first state I demolished the RCc doctrine of the Magisterium. When I insist that all Roman Catholic apologists read my articles first, they always ignore that requirement. How do I know? Because many of them turn to the Magisterium, which is the entire reason I dealt with the Magisterium first.

The next tactic is to claim I’m “Catholic bashing.” Let’s get the terminology correct – it is Roman Catholic, not Catholic. I do not believe in an invisible, Universal church, as I’ve written before – I know many cultists like to blame everything from Easter to toothbrushes on the Roman Catholic church, but the concept of a Universal church WAS invented by the RCc. When the Bible speaks of a church, it is 99 times out of 108 referring to a local, visible institution. And it’s probable that the other 9 uses conform to that reading. Else why did Paul, John, & Peter all address their letters to the “church which is at Rome” “at Corinth…” Why not “To the church…”?

Answer: Because the correct word is “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of Heaven” when talking about all the believers as a group.

The Catholic Church is the most attacked church both from within the church and from outside of the church. — Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible Study E-Sword module

Answer… Yes. That perfectly explains the Crusades and the Inquisition. If by your statement, you mean that the Roman Catholic church cult is the most attacked cult, then that answer would be false.

There are entire RCc documents that are nothing but attacks on any interpretation which conforms to the Bible, meaning Baptists and to some extent, Protestants. The Council of Trent was a violent ideological attack on Biblical Christianity (although aimed primarily at Protestants, it also was aimed at Baptists). The RCc church constantly physically tortured and murdered Christians and Jews, in the name of religion. That has never been repented of, decried, or apologized for by Rome. Instead, those that were put to death for the crime of attempting to kill the King of England were canonized.

Many Protestants will say that Catholics do not know their Bible, do not believe in Bible studies. Some will go so far as to say that the Church does not allow, or discourages Bible study. — Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible Study E-Sword module

Yes, I know. I guess it’s wrong of us to quote official Catholic doctrine, but okay for you. Like it or not, the Vatican has forbidden any reading of the bible. They TOLERATE reading of the Bible. As recently as the 19th century, a Canadian Roman Catholic Priest wrote a book on his experiences in the Roman “church”. He reported seeing a bookshelf as he was being trained for Holy Orders that contained forbidden books… and one was the Bible. He also reported that he took an oath never to read nor interpret the Bible without the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church to tell him the interpretation of it.

The Roman cult officially forbid the private reading of Scripture at the Council of Trent. Jerome and Augustine can say what they like – the RCc considers itself above the teachings of its founders. Question: is the Pope fallible or not? You say no. Well, if the Pope declares it wrong to read the Bible for yourself, BY yourself, then it’s as if God spoke it, right? Isn’t that what the Roman cult teaches? Then you’ve got a major conflict now, in that some popes forbid the reading of the Bible – look it up, it can be found in the council of Trent – and some encouraged it, as long as it’s an “Approved” Bible.

Didn’t Roman Catholics, on the orders of Rome, burn “Protestant” Bibles? I’ve got to say, Roman Catholics are as bad as Calvinists when it comes to generalizations. Calvinists insist that anyone that disagrees with them is Armininanist, no matter how many times you prove it to them they’re wrong. Roman Catholics have a habit of calling every Christian a “protestant”, which is a biased and EXTREMELY flawed view of History. Baptists are not Protestants.

One of the biggest insults was to call us by the name of one of our biggest Protestant persecutors, when flogging Baptists – Inquisitors called it “painting Calvin’s back” when they’d flog Baptists.

since Inquistitors would write down every scream, moan or shriek of tortured Baptists, try this – go back to the Vatican library and ask to see the transcripts of “inquisitions” of Baptists. Look at what they would shout when you referred to them as Calvin? “I am a Baptist, not a Calvinist!”

600 years later, you’re still calling Baptists “Protestants”.

“After nearly 20 yrs of study, and being in solid Bible-teaching churches, I approached my pastor. He is a nationally syndicated radio preacher. After service one day I asked him the million dollar question. “Which Bible commentary and which “Systematic Theology” should I get, so I know my understanding of all the Scriptures are ‘correct?’ (I had no idea that the only correct answer to that is the Catholic Church.) He looked at me and laughed his signature laugh. I was serious. I wanted to know. He basically said that he picks and chooses what he agrees with from several different sources. Okay,… that works for him, but not for me. That would basically make him THE POPE.”

Answer: This very statement showed that this person had lied to themselves for 20 years and thought they were a Christian. how can you claim to have been a Christian for 20 years, and not understood the simple fact that you are required by God to READ THE BIBLE FOR YOURSELF?

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; Matthew 12:3 (KJV)

5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? Matthew 12:5 (KJV)

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, Matthew 19:4 (KJV)

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, Matthew 22:31 (KJV)

10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: Mark 12:10 (KJV)

26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? Mark 12:26 (KJV)

3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him; Luke 6:3 (KJV)

You are REQUIRED TO READ the Bible for yourself.

So, how does it make me the Pope, a position not ordained in the Bible, not commanded to nor referenced in a positive way… if I read Adam Clarke say something in a Commentary that I know is wrong, and dismiss it?

The commentaries of the bible are written by men. Sometimes men are bound by the thinking of their denominations. Adam Clarke advocated one or two things his denomination taught, but the Bible forbids.

Should I BLINDY accept that as Biblical truth, when I know for a fact it is wrong?

some commentaries equate the Jewish commandment of circumcision with the unScriptural habit of sprinkling babies. That’s completely unBiblical. But it can be found in Protestant commentaries, because these are MEN writing them, not like the Bible.

commentaries aid our understanding of the Bible, but they are not the EQUIVALENT of the Bible.

Roman Catholic doctrine elevates Roman Catholic teaching ABOVE the Bible.

It’s like Judaism. If the Rabbis say one thing and the Bible another, who do observant Jews follow? The Rabbis. “You shall follow the majority opinion.” The Rabbis teach. “Do not follow a multitude to do evil” is what the Bible commands.

If you cannot read the Bible for yourself, you will be at the mercy of every false teacher – like Pope Francis, the “pope of hope” – that comes along.

If you went to a church for 20 years, and could not grasp this simple fact, you were deluded. You were still a Roman Catholic, and never a Christian.

If you think you cannot read the bible for yourself, and cannot understand the words, then you are not only deluded, but definitely unSaved.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24 (KJV)

Can you understand those words? “verily” means “truth” or “truly.” “I say unto you…” means “I say unto you.” “he that heareth my word” means… “He that heareth my word”.

It’s not complicated. Give it a try.

If you sat in a church for 20 years and did not read your Bible for yourself, then you were lying to yourself the entire time.

“okay, that works for him but not for me.”


“but it’s not translated from the Latin!!!”

News flash – the BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN IN THE LATIN. Who CARES how Jerome translated the Greek and Hebrew? WHO CARES????


So, let’s try this…. I want you to read Romans for yourself. By yourself. Do not consult any Catholic commentaries. Don’t go asking your pastor what it means. Read Romans and tell me if it sounds like it’s saying you must be saved by faith? That all you have to do is believe?

The roman Catholic church pronounces damnation on anyone who believes it. So tell me, is this consistent with the Bible or not?

If it’s not… then you need to leave the Roman Catholic cult as soon as possible. Get saved. Go to a church, a Bible believing one. And write to your old Roman Catholic pastor, and let him know that you’ve left, and why.

You might get him saved, too.