Apprising Ministries will show you in this piece that the subtitle would be: Nor can she; not without admitting her popes are but fallible men, not vicars of Christ, and that her dogma asseverated at the Council of Trent was wrong.

I have already covered this further in Has The Roman Catholic Church Really Changed? Here I’m going to point out a rather huge fallacy that’s being perptrated by Roman Catholics and spiritually obtuse evangelicals right now.

Take for example this lunacy in the Lord’s name, Southern Baptists Assist The Roman Catholic Church To Infiltrate Evangelicalism. The fallacy is that the Church of Rome has somehow actually become orthodox.

However, it can’t; not without destroying itself as an institution. Let’s take a moment to consider the following from the Second Vatican Council, which was held by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in the early 1960’s.

Please look very carefully at the following quote from Lumen Gentium – “Solemnly Promulgated By Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964.” I have added emphasis:

just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. (14*)

Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ. (149)(16*) (source).

Click the source and you’ll see I quote this right from the online Vatican Library itself. Note: “the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors.”

We must ask ourselves an important question here: In all its ecumenical dialogues, do we really think that the RCC ever had any actual intention of changing that dogma, which is the very reason the Church of Rome exists?

No, it can’t and still remain the RCC. It doesn’t matter what individual Roman Catholics or RCC theologians believe; it matters what the RCC itself set in stone. Here is her official position concerning herself and her pope.

From the Code of Canon Law, again my emphasis:

Art. 1. THE ROMAN PONTIFF Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. (source)

Again, individual Romans Catholics might disagree; but it doesn’t change the fact that the RCC sees its pope as the head of the Body of Christ on earth. Next let me show you a critical part of the document Unam Sanctum.

This was “a Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302.” And it’s never been rescinded even to this day; nor can it ever be. Pope Boniface the VIII said:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,… she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5].

We venerate this Church [of Rome] as one,… Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, [the Pope]… For since the Apostle said: “There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God” [Rom 13:1-2],…

Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal…This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine,granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19].

Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2],…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (source)

Certainly, this is a Roman Catholic pope speaking concerning faith and morals. The late Dr. Walter Martin, who founded the Christian Research Institute, was a recognized authority in the field of Comparative Religion.

He informs us that this papal decree Unam Sanctam was declared by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning—himself “an authority on papal bulls and decrees”—to be “infallible and beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra.”[1]

Ex cathedra is an RCC term which refers to when the Roman Pontiff—the pope—speaks “from the Chair of Peter,” with his alleged supreme apostolic authority as the supposed Vicar of Christ—Head of the universal Church.

It’s important at this point to consider the following from the First Vatican Council of the RCC:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  • that is, when,
  • 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  • 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  • 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
• he possesses,
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. (source)

The meaning is crystal clear: When the pope makes a decree on faith and morals, this statement would therefore be considered an infallible decree. And as such then, Unam Sanctum also has to be considered as irreformable.

So also the Canons from the Council of Trent; they cannot be changed[2], so leading RCC apologist Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers is correct when he tells us:

An infallible definition, by its very nature, can never be “undone.” The [Roman Catholic] Church still believes and teaches all the definitions Trent issued…

Many of Trent’s definitions concern articles of faith, and for a Catholic to doubt them culpably or to deny them constitutes heresy (CIC 751), which in turn incurs excommunication (CIC 1364 §1) (source)

This now properly positions you upon the battlefield to better understand what’s being discussed by John Ankerberg, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and the late D. James Kennedy in the video to follow below.

You’re about to see the second of six programs by The John Ankerberg Show entitled Protestants and Catholics: Do They Now Agree? on Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.

Even though that ecumenical document came out in 1994, what they talk about on this edition of Ankerberg’s show is crucial for people to understand as the spread of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism continues.

With it has come a romanticizing of apostate Roman Catholic mystics and a sappy sentimentality that somehow the RCC is now to be considered part of the Body of Christ. However, our difference involves the very Gospel itself.

And as you’ll hear Dr. R.C. Sproul say below:

The Roman Catholic Church condemns “sola fide! (L.)” Now if, please understand this, if “sola fide (L.)” is the gospel, then the Roman Catholic Church has condemned the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, nobody who went to the Council of Trent, as a delegate, went there with the intention of condemning the gospel. The theologians of Rome really believed that they were defending the gospel and that the Protestants had in fact committed apostasy.

And I admire the Church, the Roman communion of the 16th century for at least understanding what apparently people don’t understand today, and that is what is at stake here. That they understood that somebody is under the anathema of God! And we can be as nice, and as pleasant, and as gentle, and as loving, and as charitable, and tolerant as we can possibly be, but it’s not going to change that folks.

Somebody is preaching a different gospel! And when Rome condemned the Protestant declaration of “Justification by faith alone” I believe, Rome, when placing the anathema on “sola fide (L.),” placed the anathema of God upon themselves. I agree with his [John MacArthur] assessment, that the institution [Roman Catholic Church] is apostate!

Part 2

JOHN ANKERBERG: Welcome. We’re here in Fort Lauderdale, Florida at the beautiful Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church with this wonderful audience tonight. And my guests are Dr. D. James Kennedy, who is the pastor of this beautiful church. The well known and popular Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. R.C. Sproul. Now our program is about a document called Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. We’re also going to be talking about a new clarifying statement that was just written by the evangelical signees of this document. You may not know, but the Evangelicals & Catholics Together document was written by evangelicals and Protestants and signed by twenty well known leaders in the evangelical world and twenty well known Roman Catholic leaders. Now Chuck Colson, who helped to draft this document, has acknowledged that it has caused a lot of controversy.

And he has admitted that it raised genuine concerns over whether this document clearly represents what evangelical Christians believe. So just a few weeks ago we met with Chuck, at his request; we had ten evangelical leaders there—the for of us were there. And Chuck expressed his concern over the confusion the document has caused—the lack of clarity concerning what evangelicals believe. And he wanted to resolve and remove any contentious issues, so that there would no longer be any doubt as to where he and the other Protestant signees stood. To this end—together—we all composed a statement that clarifies, and clearly defines, our evangelical distinctives. Not all of them, but some of the primary ones.

Now, Dr. John MacArthur, when we met together, we agreed that the ECT document, the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was attempting to join Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants together as “cobelligerents,” the word the Francis Schaeffer coined “working at the grass-roots level” in terms of social issues. And we were going to work together against the many social evils, including secular humanism, the riding tide of Islam, pornography, abortion, and things like that. But we also agreed that this work [ECT] has been perceived as going too far in proclaiming the kind of unity that exists. I would like you to define the kind of unity that can exist between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, and the kind of unity that cannot exist until the doctrine of “Justification by faith alone” has been dealt with clearly.

JOHN MACARTHUR: Well, I might be a little bit radical on this, but I will go ahead. I think the way we can work together on it is for the Catholics to work against those things, like they want to work against them, and we will work against those things, like we want to work against them, but we can’t really throw our arms around each other in a common effort because that confounds the issue of spiritual truth.

Look, if the Catholic Church is already a cobelligerent, if they are already anti-abortion, and pornography, and homosexuality; they are going to use all of their energies within the framework of their system to go after that. We are committed to that, and we are going after that. There is already a collective movement. Once you then sort of try to define that as “common spiritual mission” built on “common spiritual unity” you just take doctrine and throw it out the window, and perception is violated, particularly because the Catholic Church claims to be true Christianity, and when we reverse 450 years of history, and just throw our arms around the Roman system, which I think we have to say, John, in all honesty, is not a group of wayward brothers but is an apostate form of Christianity.

It is a false religion, it is another religion. When you throw your arms around that you literally have to undo any doctrinal distinction. In fact, ECT doesn’t just do that implicitly, they do that explicitly. In the document, in effect, they say, “we have to accept all baptized Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ. In an article that followed that up in Christianity Today, J. I. Packer said, “We should acknowledge as brothers and sisters in Christ, anyone who lives to the highest ideals of their communion.” My response to that is the opposite. I maybe could fellowship with a bad Roman Catholic, that is, one who has rejected the system, but was still in the church and came to know Christ. But one who holds the highest ideals of Roman Catholicism—on what grounds do I have spiritual unity? And when you get spiritual leaders from both churches, coming together to sign a common effort—you may say that it is to fight a cultural war, but people are going to see it as confusion over doctrine.

R. C. SPROUL: John, can I say something?

JOHN ANKERBERG: Yes, let me just throw in here, that is why we put in here, paragraph one in this new doctrinal statement, which, let me read it:

“Our parachurch cooperation with evangelically committed Roman Catholics, for the pursuit of agreed objectives, does not imply acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctives, or endorsement of the Roman Catholic Church system.”

R. C. SPROUL: That is important, John, that Chuck and Dr. Packer, and Bill Bright wanted to make that point clear. I just wanted to comment on John’s statement that he prefaced by saying he was “a little bit radical,” you know, like being a “little bit pregnant” I think. Because when somebody, representing evangelicalism makes the comment, “that in their opinion or their judgment, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate—it is not a true Christian community.” In this day and age of tolerance and pluralism and relativism, and the milieu or irenic peaceful, gentle coexistence. . . .we live in a world that is fed up with theological controversy and disputes, and divisions and all of that. You see we don’t live back in the 16th century where people burned each other at the stake over that.

For John MacArthur to make a statement like that, about the Roman Catholic Church, which is the largest professing body in the world, that claims a Christian position—it’s just flame inflammatory, incinderary (sp.), and will provoke a howling outcry of people—you’re going to get an enormous amount of mail for saying that John, you know that! [Great Applause].

The one thing that the spirit of tolerance of our day cannot tolerate is intolerance, because relationships have become more important than truth. Now what’s at stake here, if I understand the New Testament where the Apostle Paul writes the Galatians and says, “If anybody, anybody, if it’s Peter, if it’s Barnabus, if it’s an angel from heaven teaches any other gospel—let him be anathema.” That’s not Sproul, that’s not MacArthur, that’s not Kennedy, that’s not Ankerberg—that is the Apostolic position, and Paul wanted to make sure that he made himself clear so he repeated that.

And then he goes on to say that he had to resist Peter himself, as Peter started to crack and compromise and negotiate the gospel. Now think about the people in the first century who got that letter—they were horrified. They said the last thing we can have happen is a break-up of fellowship and unity between Peter and Paul! All I have listened to for ten months is “Oh, my goodness, what would happen if we saw a split among people like Colson, Packer, and Sproul, and MacArthur—we cannot have that happen! Well, I am the last person in the world to want to have that happen—I can’t stand that either, these people are my friends, my comrades and everything. But John, what he [John MacArthur] is saying here, the Catholic Church understood in the 16th century, and Trent and Rome placed its unambiguous anathema on the Protestant doctrine of “Justification by faith alone” and has never, in any magisterial sense removed that anathema.

The Roman Catholic Church condemns “sola fide! (L.)” Now if, please understand this, if “sola fide (L.)” is the gospel, then the Roman Catholic Church has condemned the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, nobody who went to the Council of Trent, as a delegate, went there with the intention of condemning the gospel. The theologians of Rome really believed that they were defending the gospel and that the Protestants had in fact committed apostasy. And I admire the Church, the Roman communion of the 16th century for at least understanding what apparently people don’t understand today, and that is what is at stake here. That they understood that somebody is under the anathema of God! And we can be as nice, and as pleasant, and as gentle, and as loving, and as charitable, and tolerant as we can possibly be, but it’s not going to change that folks. Somebody is preaching a different gospel! And when Rome condemned the Protestant declaration of “Justification by faith alone” I believe, Rome, when placing the anathema on “sola fide (L.),” placed the anathema of God upon themselves. I agree with his [John MacArthur] assessment, that the institution [Roman Catholic Church] is apostate!

JOHN MACARTHUR: I don’t want to leave Jim [James Kennedy] out of this, but I think that it is so important to know this. In a time like this of tolerance, listen, false teaching will always cry intolerance. It will always say you are being divisive, you are being unloving, you are being ungracious, because it can only survive when it doesn’t get scrutinized. So it cries against any intolerance. It cries against any examination, any scrutiny—just let’s embrace each other; let’s love each other; let’s put all that behind us. False doctrine cries the loudest about unity. Listen carefully when you hear the cry for unity, because it may be the cover of false doctrine encroaching. If ever we should follow 1 Thessalonians 5, and examine everything carefully, it’s when somebody is crying unity, love, and acceptance.

JOHN ANKERBERG: Dr. Kennedy, not Chuck, and not J. I. Packer, and some of our Evangelical buddies that came out with the ECT document, but others have gone one step further, and have said, “You know, Evangelicals and Catholics should overlook doctrinal differences and distinctives and unite to survive today here in America. If we don’t stand together; if we don’t fight together; we are all going down. How does that come into your theology of the sovereignty of God? Should we give up doctrinal distinctives just to survive? What do you think about that?

JAMES KENNEDY: John, first of all, let me if I could just add one little thing to this discussion that went on here, and then I will get back to that. For those lay people here that are not familiar—the Council of Trent, eighteen years that they spent examining the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, and at the end of that time they came out with many Canons of the Council of Trent, and this is the particular one that R. C. was referring to, and I just like to have you hear the words. This has never been altered or denied by the Catholic Church, “If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the Divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ, or that it is trust alone by which we are justified” Which is what every Evangelical Christian would say. And they end with, “let him be anathema,” which means “let him be accursed.”

Every Evangelical Christian in the world stands under the official, never changed curse of the Roman Church, and we need to be aware of that fact. Now, the Bible says that we are to hold to the truth—in love. Now, that is difficult to do. Only Christ did that perfectly. We always tend either to slip into a rigidity or a legalism or to slide on the other side into some sort of “wishy-washy” compromise of the gospel.

But, getting to your question, and that was one of the reasons for ECT, that we live (as Chuck told me on the phone when he called me). We live in a time when the concept of truth is under attack. When the values and morals that Christians hold in common are under enormous assault, that we must stand together, or we are going to fall together. But, the problem with this document is that it gives the appearance of compromising the basic doctrine of the gospel of the Bible, which is the gospel, and this is the heart of all Christianity. This is why we had this meeting, right here in my office, to try to work these things out so there would not be a schism among Evangelicals, and happily got all of these gentlemen to sign a statement that they do affirm the basic Reformational truths. I still would have difficulty having my name on that document [ECT], which it is not, because I think of the ambiguity of it; the lack of clarity, and the way it opens a door for people to think that there is no difference of any significance, pertaining to the Gospel of Salvation between Protestants and Catholics.

JOHN ANKERBERG: It is very important right now, that we, for the people who are tuning in, because they want to know, “Where do we stand right now?” “What does this doctrinal statement mean in terms of where we are at?”

R. C. SPROUL: That’s what I was going to address, John, so that we have an understanding of this. The purpose of this meeting for the clarification, was as Chuck Colson had a compassionate concern to communicate. He said, can’t we come together and agree to disagree as brothers in Christ, because the controversy had escalated to such a point that the issue became now: not what is the relationship between Catholics and Evangelicals, but what will the relationship now be between evangelicals who endorse this position and those who didn’t. Are we facing a serious and permanent breach within Evangelical ranks? I mean, are we going to break fellowship over our disagreement over ECT, and that is what provoked this. At that meeting everybody expressed their concerns in a candid way, and Chuck, of course, said, “The whole thing was provoked in the first place because of their deep concern of what was happening in Latin America, and they didn’t want to see another Belfast erupt, and trying to come to a united front to an increasing hostile secularism.” And we all said, “Hey, we share that concern. We don’t want to see Latin America become a Belfast, and we recognize the hostility of secularism.”

Our concern was, as I stated it in that meeting, as clearly as I knew how, “that as far as I could see ECT, in my judgment, betrayed the gospel of Jesus Christ.” I also went on to say, and I have said this as loudly as I can every time that I discuss this, “I don’t for one minute think that Bill Bright, Jim Packer, Charles Colson, et all, ever in their wildest dreams, ever intended any such thing. But by the same token, neither did the signers of the Council of Trent.” This is not a personal thing with me. I was saying the document, in what it says and proclaims because it goes beyond this standing together as cobelligerents—it declares a unity of faith, John, where there is not a unity of faith. That’s what deeply, deeply, concerns me. So what the concern of the men was, at this meeting was to say, “Hey, look, let’s say to the world, `We do believe in `sola fide (L.)’ and Chuck Colson says, `I believe in Justification by faith alone’ and he wanted to put his print on paper his statement that this is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ, because he realized that people were interpreting the document the way that I was interpreting it, and he believed that that was a misinterpretation. Packer thinks that it is a misinterpretation. I think that it is the one that the document screams, but we still disagree on that, and Chuck is still committed to ECT—my fondest hope was that these men would remove their names from it—”A.” And if they couldn’t do that, if they couldn’t formally recant of it, “B” that they would at least revise the document itself, and if we couldn’t get them to do that—at least, please give a clarification that we can print separately of what you meant.

JOHN ANKERBERG: Next week we’re gonna continue our conversation. And we’re going to look at: Are there any people that are off limits in terms of evangelism? Sheep-stealing, prostelization between Catholics and Protestants. And we’re going to look at this very controversial area newt week. And I hope that you’ll join us. (source)

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] Walter Martin, Roman Catholicism, CD Rom, available at Walter Martin’s Religious InfoNet.

[2] http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html, accessed 5/24/12.

See also:

RICK WARREN AND TEACHINGS OF DEMONS

DID GOD GIVE BETH MOORE THIS VISION?

THE DECEIVERS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

Dear Friend,

The Church of Rome officially calls its Eucharist, “the source and summit of the Christian life.”

Its International Eucharistic Congress is therefore of utmost importance to theVatican.Romealso states that, “the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith.”

Therefore, an examination of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is essential to reveal the heart of theVatican.  This we have done in the article below.

We are conscious of the fact that adoration of the Eucharist is a most sensitive topic to Catholics.  Thus, our analysis is carefully done, and I ask that in using the article you will likewise exercise great care.  Please study the article, and forward it to those you know.

Yours in Christ Jesus and for His Gospel,

Richard Bennett, former Roman Catholic priest
Berean Beacon, republished with permission

The International Eucharistic Congress 2012

Is this a Christian event?

By Richard Bennett

     A major news item across the Catholic world for the summer of 2012 is that the International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) is to be held in Dublin, Irelandfrom June 10^th – 17^th.  The Congress is expected to attract 25,000 people a day, including “12,000 international pilgrims representing 99 different countries.”[1]  Just what is a Eucharistic Congress?  A Catholic source replies,

“It is a gathering of Catholics – priests, religious and laity who come together to express their devotion for the Holy Eucharist…The International Congresses are usually 3-5 years apart, which allows for preparation, as they are always held worldwide.  Catholics come from all over the world to participate in the ceremonies and to celebrate Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. …All believers – clergy, religious and laity line the streets following the Blessed Sacrament.”[2]

Thus it appears that many Catholics take it as fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is present in what they call the “Holy Eucharist.”  The Church of Rome teaches all its adherents this very basic Catholic dogma,

“The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique…In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.’”[3]

Thus has the Papacy proclaimed that its Eucharist under the form of bread contains the Lord’s identical body, soul and deity.  They claim all of the bread, except the appearances, is transformed into Christ in His Godhead, and in His manhood with all its component parts: soul, body, blood, bones, flesh, nerves, muscles, veins, and sinews.  What a horrific insult this notion is—for it both ridicules Jesus Christ the Lord and deceives people, defrauding them of the truth.  Our Lord spoke about such a blasphemy as this when He forewarned, “if any man shall say to you, lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not.”[4]  In contrast to the Catholic teaching, the truth is declared in the Scriptures, “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”[5]  There is a day appointed in which the Lord will physically return in like manner to His ascension.  One must not expect Him to return until that appointed day when “he will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.”[6]  Consequently, to propose that the glorious Lord Jesus Christ has come back to earth in the lifeless form of bread is an attempt to replace the preaching of the biblical Gospel with a mere physical connection to a Roman Catholic sacrament.

Rome endeavors to prove its Eucharistic Dogma by citing Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John

Persistently the Church of Rome asserts as fact its dogma that Christ is actually present in its sacrament.  For example, it states, “It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament.”[7]  This dogma is necessary to support another unbiblical premise, “Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet.”  The proof text they use is, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me(John 6:57).”[8]  According to Catholic teaching, “The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus.”  The proof text attached to their reasoning is, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”(John 6:56).

Moreover, the Vaticangoes so far as to state that the Lord Himself urges us to receive Him in the sacrament of the Eucharist.  They officially state,

“The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist:  ‘Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’” (John 6:53).[9]

The alleged change of bread and wine—into the actual body and blood of the Lord—the Vatican calls “transubstantiation.”  Thus, they state,

“By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about.”[10]

The change that is claimed to happen by transubstantiation is dumbfounding.  The Lord is said to exist on earth, not as man, but as bread and wine.  The Papacy claims to be in possession and control of elements in which He presumably is contained.  Its law goes so far as to say that their “Eucharistic Christ” is to be “locked in” the tabernacle.[11]

What is so mind-boggling is Aristotelian physics on which the concept of transubstantiation is based has long been disproven, yet the thirteenth century idolatrous dogma is still the centerpiece of the Catholic sacramental system.[12]  Thus, it is still taught and practiced in every Catholic Church and parish worldwide.

The Factual meaning of John 6 vis-à-vis Catholic dogma

“Life in Christ” does not “have its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet.”  Neither is “an intimate union with Christ Jesus” any part of the “Eucharist of Holy Communion.”  To buttress its argument, however,Romecites quotations from John 6 as proof texts.  The particular verses have been wrenched out of their biblical context, which will not support the Catholic interpretation, and carefully placed within the Catholic Tradition.  The effect is to give a superficial but deceptive credence to the humanist reasoning that is the real foundation of Catholic dogma.  Since there can be no synthesis between the authority of the Bible and the authority and Catholic Tradition, theVaticanmust ignore the true meaning of what the Lord clearly stated in Chapter 6.

Earlier in the chapter, the Lord taught that our spiritual desire as believers is not “for the meat which perisheth,” but rather “for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (John 6:27).  When the Jews asked the Lord, “what shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” (John 6:28), He answered, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (John 6:29).  This answer sets the stage for what was to come.  Believing on Him alone whom the Father has sent is central to what Christ Jesus proclaimed, for “There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”[13]  On the authority of the Bible alone, to believe on Christ Jesus alone, by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, is the foundation of life in Christ.

Christ Jesus also explained the standard by which His teaching was to be understood.  He said, “it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”[14]  His words are to be understood spiritually, and not after a physical and literal manner.  He is the true food of the soul by faith, not of the stomach by digestion, which is implicit in Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.  The Lord’s teaching is so clear that He equates spiritual thirst with believing on Him, “he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:53).  “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life” (John 6:40).

Then the Lord explains that, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6: 51).  His flesh He gave willingly in His sacrifice, declaring, “verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:53).  This speaks of the essential requirement of faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone.  The issue is so serious that if one does not trust in the Lord’s sacrifice alone on the cross, he does not have eternal life.  Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man is a metaphor that signifies spiritually trusting on the Lord in His sacrifice.  Christ Jesus accomplished all the benefits of redemption: pardon from sin, acceptance with God, the adoption as children of God, access to the throne of grace, and eternal life.  Receiving this by faith alone is aptly called eating His flesh and drinking His blood.  Eating His flesh and drinking His blood is being totally identified with Him by faith alone.  His sacrificial death must be appropriated by faith alone, if men are to be saved.  “Eating and drinking” is equivalent to “believing” and confirms the central theme of what He proclaimed which He summarized as, “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life ” (John 6:47).  Everlasting life is not a product of an institutional ritual but a work of God the Holy Spirit by His sovereign power.  Individual, personal faith is what the Lord requires.  It is this faith alone, given by God’s grace alone, which brings the forgiveness of sins when sinners believe on the Lord Jesus Christ alone for everlasting life.  The Apostle Paul clearly states the evidence of one having received Christ as Savior and Lord, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”[15]

The New Testament says nothing about looking to physical signs to have union with Christ.  Rather, believers are to look, “unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.”[16]  He is the Author and Finisher of their faith: its beginning and end.  Rome’s sacraments look to physical rituals for life.  Thus, the sacrament of the Eucharist cannot deliver the “intimate union with Christ Jesus,” which purportedly is its principal fruit.  Just as Buddhists look to their votive offerings before a statue Buddha for enlightenment, so also Catholics look to worship before a piece of bread for spiritual life.  But Jesus prayed to His Father in the garden for those who are His own through God’s grace alone and who believe on Him alone through faith alone, “Sanctify them through thy truth:  Thy word is truth.”[17]  There can be no compromise of the truth with the traditions and imaginations of men, as the Catholic Church has sought to do.

 Obligation to Worship the Eucharist

In spite of the clarity of the Lord’s teaching, Romedisregards Scripture, the evidence of the senses, and reason itself when they teach on the Eucharist.  The eternal, glorious Lord is now seated on high.  To propose a Christ that, in the words of the Vatican, is in “danger of decomposition,”[18] is to put forward a fallacious Christ.  As Mediator and Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ is endowed with the highest dignity, honor, and authority.  He also is “the same yesterday, today and forever.”[19]  A claimed presence of Christ in bread that could decompose is totally unrealistic and foolish; worse, it is blasphemous.  Despite that, the Church of Rome strongly commands that the bread is to receive the worship due to the true God.  Thus, she declares,

“There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind ‘that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacramentthe worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church.  Nor is it to be adoredany the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten.’”[20]

It is an irrational and impious doctrine that by necessity imposes worship of something that is eaten and carried into the stomach.  Not without the dreadful crime of idolatry can the worship due to God alone be transferred to the communion bread.  Nevertheless, on April 7, 2012, the Pope himself spoke about the Host being God as he said, “Today we are invited to fix our gaze on the consecrated Host: it is the same God!  The same Love!”[21]  In fact, the Pope and his Church have “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image … changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.”[22]

 “This Sham of a Congress”

The Catholic priest Kevin Doran, the Secretary General of IEC, describes what he has called, “this sham of a congress.”  The exact context and Kevin Doran’s words are the following,

A unique element of the 50^th International Eucharistic Congress, which will take place in Dublin from June 10^th – 17^th 2012, is the extensive involvement of Christians of other traditions in both the pastoral preparation and the official programme for the Congress week … Fr. Kevin Doran (Secretary General of IEC2012) commented that, ‘historically, there has been a tendency for Catholics to use the word ‘conversion’ as if it only applied to other people …The principal liturgy on this first full day of the Congress, will be a ‘Liturgy of Word and Water’ celebrated by Most Rev. Michael Jackson (Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin).  The homily will be preached by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of the Russian Orthodox Church.  Meanwhile Brother Alois Löser, prior of Taizé will give the Catechesis (or teaching) on the theme of Baptism.  Other significant ecumenical interventions during the week include: Rev Nicky Gumble, of Alpha International, who will address the theme of reconciliation, and a presentation by Rev Ruth Patterson, Director of Restoration Ministries, on being ‘Companions on the Journey’ of faith.  Prof William Reville will give an address entitled ‘Celebrating the Mystery of Life’.  Then tell me if I’m going too far when I say I do not believe that any of those involved in organising this alleged Eucharistic Congress believe in Transubstantiation, and they certainly do not believe that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.  Not for a second.  And something else.  As far as I know the Pope is unlikely to visit Ireland for this sham of a congress…the reader who alerted me to this latest scandal asked if I thought the Pope knows what he is “walking into”…I really don’t care what he knows or doesn’t know.  If I can work out that the Church is in dire straits and souls are being lost through all this ridiculous ecumenism, why can’t HE work it out?[23] 

 Indeed, while Kevin Doran vehemently disapproves of the Pope’s ecumenical agenda, vis-à-vis the Congress, it is clear that Doran believes very strongly in transubstantiation and that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  For Doran, it is too much that the Pope would defile something as solemn and treasured as the Eucharistic Congress by allowing these ecumenical intrusions.

In fact, the wily Pope has his own agenda.  He has purposely chosen ranking leaders of other churches and important groups for this very Roman Catholic occasion.  Pope Benedict understands how such an honor can help soften opposition and smooth over dogmatic differences.  The IEC is to be a highly visible public event.  How better to demonstrate to the world that other major churches and religious groups are joining withRome?  If it were otherwise, how could they be participating in the liturgy of this very Roman Catholic ritual?  This showy event provides yet another occasion that can be used to advance the present Catholic-driven narrative that Catholics are Christians.

It has ever been the objective of the Papacy to gather power unto itself.  If devout but lesser men like Kevin Doran are offended and confused when their own leaders trample their primary beliefs, it means nothing to the Pope.  Rather, the primary objective of the Papacy is to gather all Christendom to the Catholic Eucharist.[24]  Pope Benedict XVI is simply staying true to course.

 What Hope is there for Religiously Devout Idolaters?

Because God’s justice had to be satisfied, the Lord Jesus drank the dregs of the cup of God’s wrath.  He said, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”[25]  In the garden of Gethsemane He proclaimed the words, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch … And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.”[26]  The next day, on the cross of Calvary, the Lord Jesus drank all of the cup of God’s wrath.  At the height of His suffering, He appealed to His Father, “and at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying …  my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.”[27]  Thus, the Lord Jesus utterly drank of God’s wrath against sin and finally cried out, “it is finished.”[28]  Consequently, the tremendous wrath and curse due to believing sinners was paid in full by the Lord Jesus Christ.  As the substitute for His believing people, the Lord drank the cup of God’s wrath.  Now in the Gospel, the sinless Lord presents to sinners His finished sacrifice.  If you are anxious to be right with God, look at what the Scripture proclaims, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested.”[29]  This means that God has provided another way to be made righteous than through the law, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ alone.  The moral perfection of God is imputed to us sinners, but only as we believe in Jesus Christ alone whose own body was sacrificed on Calvary as substitution for us.  Indeed, we are all sinners deserving the wrath of God, but the glory and the magnificence of the Gospel is further proclaimed as “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”[30]  Believing sinners are justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.  The Lord God of heaven draws sinners to Jesus Christ’s righteousness.  This is the only hope for religiously devout idolaters.  As Scripture proclaims for sinners, “for He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”[31]  The consequence of Christ’s faithfulness in all that He did, culminating in His death on the cross, is that His righteousness is credited to the believing sinner.  It was God who legally constituted Christ to be “sin for us.”  He was “made sin” because before the All Holy God, full payment for sin had to be made.  Thus, the sins of all His people were transferred to Christ Jesus; and in like manner, His faithfulness is imputed to them.[32]  Since it is the nature of the Triune God to be gracious, we can expect Him to move as a result of our prayer and of our making known abroad the Gospel of grace before, during, and after the Eucharistic Congress of 2012, “to the praise of the glory of his grace.”[33]

Conclusion

The PapalChurchpurports to be worshipping Christ as it legislates the adoration of the Eucharistic bread.  This is not simply unchristian; it is gross idolatry.  Scripturally speaking, Jesus Christ is worthy to receive adoration.  He Himself declared, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”[34]  Thus, He is worthy of our worship.  Round the throne of God in heaven it is proclaimed, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.”[35]  Furthermore, the Scripture reveals how gracious Christ is.  It is He who “dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.”[36]  Grace comes only by Christ, “Grace and truth came by Christ Jesus,” “and of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.”[37]  Not only do we adore Him as totally gracious, but we draw deeply from His grace.  Christ Jesus came to give His life for the people whom He loves.  His life and death are not only for our salvation, they are also the source for our living fruitful Christian lives.  Moreover, as He says, His words are spirit and life.  His words are to be taken into the believing mind and heart even as physical food is taken into the physical body.  The Lord’s words, having been absorbed by the mind and believing heart, give life and strength, spiritual nourishment, to the believer so that he is able to do that for which the Lord calls him.[38]

The Lord declared, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”[39]  The commandment fits the whole characteristic of the grace of Christ.  We love one another by means of His love.  Christ Jesus’ death is not just held up as an example, but as the source of our love.  It is clearly the model of our love, but most importantly, it is the means for us to show our love for our brothers.  Thus, it is only as His love is perfected in us that we can love one another in the same manner as Christ loved the church.  “No one has seen God at any time.  If we love one another, God abides in us, and his love has been perfected in us.”[40]  His love accomplishes what it was designed and adapted to do, to be the power by which we love one another.  We love by means of His faithfulness and His love.  Consequently, we adore Christ Jesus while at the same time drawing grace from Him.  How utterly different this is from the blasphemous pagan worship of the Eucharist bread during the Eucharistic Congress.  Because Jesus Christ is worthy of all praise, adoration of Him must be apart from all deceitfulness.  As Scripture states, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”[41]

Richard Bennett’s  DVDs are easy to view and forward to others on:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/dvd.php

---

End notes:

[1]http://lite.rte.ie/news/2012/0314/pope.html

[2] www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/misc/excite.htm  3/20/2012

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994),Para. 1374

[4] Mark 13:21

[5] Acts 1:11

[6] I Thessalonians 4:16

[7] CatechismPara. 1375

[8] CatechismPara. 1391

[9] CatechismPara. 1384

[10] CatechismPara. 1413

[11] Code of Canon Law, Canon 938 Para 3.  “The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved habitually is to be immovable, made of solid and opaque material, and locked in such a way that the danger of profanation is avoided as much as possible.”

[12] Catechism Para. 1374

[13] I Timothy 2:5

[14] John 6:63

[15] Romans 10:9-10

[16] Hebrews 12:2

[17] John 17:17

[18] Redemptionis SacramentumPara. 48; “The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.”

[19] Hebrews 13:8

[20] No. 9, “Eucharisticum mysterium” in Vatican Council II Documents, Vol. I,Para 3.  Bolding not in the original.

[21] www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20080525_en.html 4/7/2012

[22] Romans 1:23-25

[23] www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2012/01/ireland-hosts-eucharistic-congress-2012-gives-a-whole-new-meaning-to-the-term-irish-joke/  5/15/2012

[24] Vatican Council II Document No. 32 Section II, “…ecumenical dialogue… aims at preparing the way for their unity of faith in the bosom of a Church one and visible:  thus ‘little by little’, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesial communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist…”

[25] John 18:11

[26] Mark 14:34, 36

[27] Mark 15:34

[28] John 19:30

[29] Romans 3:21

[30] Romans 3:24

[31] II Corinthians 5:21

[32] Romans 3:22

[33] Ephesians 1:6

[34] Revelation 1:8

[35] Revelation 1:8

[36] John 1:14

[37] John 1:17, John 16

[38] Ephesians 2:10,  “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

[39] John 15:12

[40] I John 4:12

“The doctrine by which the church stands or falls.” So said Martin Luther about justification by faith alone.

John Calvin agreed, calling justification by faith the “hinge” of the Reformation. But was that the historic Christian view?

One may say generally of the history of the doctrine of justification that solafideanism (justification-by-faith-alone-ism) was taught implicitly, but not explicitly, from the beginning of the church. That is, it was known in the early church that salvation was by faith alone, but not until the sixteenth century was the church called upon to define that teaching more precisely. Those in the church who had quietly apostasized opposed this essential truth (adherents of Tridentine Roman Catholicism), while the faithful (Protestants), affirmed it. The Reformers defined and refined the doctrine in the fires of controversy.

The historian of doctrine, Louis Berkhof, correctly observed that in the early church faith “was generally regarded as the outstanding instrument for the reception of the merits of Christ, and was often called the sole means of salvation.” Faith rather than works were “repeatedly expressed by the Apostolic Fathers, and re-occur in the Apologetes. . . .”

The most influential theologian of the early church was certainly Augustine (354-430). Before we consider his teaching about our crucial doctrine, we note in passing that the standard creed of the Reformation, the Augsburg Confession (1530), found solafideanism in Augustine’s mentor and predecessor, Ambrose, under whose preaching Augustine was converted. Article VI of the Confession speaks of solafideanism: “The same [justification by faith] is also taught by the Fathers: For Ambrose says, ‘It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved freely receiving.’”

In spite of this, many cannot find the doctrine in Augustine. Many historical theologians interpret him as confusing justification with sanctification, of which justification is merely a part. This is not accurate, however. Though Augustine finds justification and sanctification inseparable, they are not indistinguishable. Augustinian justification leads into sanctification, but is not confused with it.

According to Augustine, man’s faith in Christ justifies him. Confession of Christ is efficacious for the remission of sins. We are justified by the blood of Christ, and we have no merits which are not the gifts of God. Of course, faith is active through love (fides quae caritate operatur), but this does not imply that justification is on the basis of love.

Before we leave Augustine, a relatively recent Roman Catholic work requires attention. Bergauer shows clearly that Luther disagreed not only with the Epistle of James but with Augustine as well. Luther became convinced that James was opposed to Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone and thus dismissed the epistle as non-canonical. Bergauer also notes that in so doing, Luther was consciously departing from Augustine as well. We agree with Bergauer that Luther erred with respect to James and Augustine. Bergauer’s work confirms, however, what we will shortly note, that Luther was clearly a solafideian, although without recognizing that James and Augustine were also. The Reformer erred, apparently because he could not find explicit forensic language in either James or Augustine.

Ian Sellers sees that it is the post-Augustinian movement which “conflates the immediacy of the act of justification with the later process of sanctification.” Nevertheless, many post-Augustinians kept their concepts clear as we will see even in the Scholastic era, though many did not.

Some Roman Catholics like to cry “Forward to the Middle Ages,” thinking that they there find authority for their antisolafideian doctrine. But Adolf Harnack insisted that if the medieval church had followed its favorite teacher, Thomas Aquinas, on justification, the Reformation would not have been necessary. The great earlier Scholastic theologian, Anselm, was also solafideian. He wrote his belief in a tract for the consolation of the dying, quoted by A. H. Strong:

“Question. Dost thou believe that the Lord Jesus died for thee? Answer. I believe it.

Qu. Dost thou thank him for his passion and death? Ans. I do thank him. Qu. Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except by his death? Ans. I believe it.” And then Anselm addresses the dying man: “Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in his death alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to his death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord, between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if he shall say that thou art a sinner, say thou: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If he say that thou hast deserved condemnation, say: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and his merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If he say that he is wroth with thee, say: ‘Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thy wrath and me.’ And when thou hast completed this, say again: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and me.’” See Anselm, Opera (Migne), 1:686, 687. The above quotation gives us reason to believe that the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith was implicitly, if not explicitly, held by many pious souls through all the ages of papal darkness.

Thus medieval Scholastics still taught justification as an instantaneous act. It was not until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that justification was officially confirmed as a process based on human merit derived through divine grace. This was the article in Session VI, Canon 7 of the Council of Trent which led the Roman Catholic Church away from the orthodox teaching on justification.

For Luther, Rom. 1:17 and Mat. 4:7 taught that the righteousness of God was his mercy and pardon. Out went all human merit from indulgences to works of supererogation. As Article IV of Melanchthon’s Augsburg Confession, of which Luther approved, phrased it:

“Men can be justified freely on account of Christ through faith, when they believe that they are received into grace and that their sins are remitted on account of Christ who made satisfaction for sins on our behalf by his death. God imputes this faith for righteousness in his own sight.” Luther elsewhere affirms that Christ’s righteousness is ours and our sins are his. Thus, he who was innocent became guilty of depravity, while we who were depraved became innocent.

Calvin, in his Institutes, citing Augustine and Peter Lombard, taught the same doctrine. Though the Genevan saw union with Christ preceding faith (whereas for Luther it followed faith). Berkhof is justified in saying “however Calvin may have differed from Luther as to the order of salvation, he quite agreed with him on the nature and importance of the doctrine of justification by faith.” Yet Edward Boehl is correct that Calvin avoided basing justification on the mystical union which equaled intercourse with God. However, this does not justify Boehl in saying that later Reformed theologians did so identify and thus approached the Lutheran heretic, Osiander. Osiander held “essential righteousness” where the Reformed tradition never deviated from imputed righteousness.

Nevertheless, John Tillotson;, Samuel Clarke, and some other Anglicans did introduce Tridentine thinking into the Church of England by confusing the inseparability of faith and works with the meritoriousness of each.

This same tension toward meritorious righteousness in and by the justified threatened Puritanism from the beginning. That Anglican John Donne (1573-1631) and Congregationalist John Owen (1616-1683), champions of solafideanism, admitted infused righteousness while denying any merit in it shows their sensitivity to the problem. Allison in his The Rise of Moralism has traced this English development into Arminianism and beyond in a somewhat parallel way to Joseph Haroutunian’s American sketch in Piety Versus Moralism.

Puritanism could admit — in fact, insist upon — sanctification (infused righteousness) as strenuously as imputed righteousness. It was inseparably connected with it. The one thing sanctification did not do, for the Puritans, was supplant justification. As we saw, Owen did not even hesitate to speak of justitia inhaerens. Righteousness was wrought in a man because it was first imputed to him. The evidence that it was imputed to him was its being wrought in him.

There is a sense in which Puritans saw righteousness as being wrought-in before being imputed — to. This was the prior union with Christ as the psychological basis of justification. Thus the foundation of imputation became union.

The offense which some found in solafideanism was that it taught acceptance by faith only. If this is so, the Arminians argued, an unsanctified man could go to heaven, and that could never be. They were partly right, since an unsanctified man can never go to heaven — without holiness. But they were partly wrong, for one justified by faith alone is not justified by the faith that is alone. Faith is inseparably connected with works, or sanctification, or inherent righteousness.

Once again, the error was in a failure to understand the truth. A correct objection was based on an incorrect apprehension. How often had the Reformers proclaimed with James (and Paul) that faith without works was dead. Justification without sanctification did not exist. As we have seen, solafideans were not opposed to inherent righteousness except as a justifying righteousness, which was precisely what Rome claimed it to be. The orthodox were as opposed — more opposed — to Antinomianism than the unorthodox.

Not understanding that solafideanism gave works a proper role, Arminians found an improper role for them. Since works, they felt, had to justify — and sinners had none — they used faith to bring down works to a sinner’s level. That is, they saw the work of Christ as satisfying God with the imperfect works of men. “Christ has brought down the market,” according to Henry Hammond. Our inadequate righteousness was made acceptable through Christ. Allison says that this was the imputation of faith of Baxter, Goodwin, and Woodbridge versus the imputation of Christ’s righteousness of Owen, Eedes, Gataker, Walker, and also of the early Anglicans Hooker, Andrewes, Downame, Davenant, Donne, Ussher, and Hill. Commenting on Arminianism, A. H. Strong has agreed with other scholars that the “Wesleyan scheme is inclined to make faith a work. This is to make faith the cause and ground, or at least to add it to Christ’s work as a joint cause and ground, of justification. . . .”

This, however, is a rather infelicitous way of expressing the difference. It amounts to a pun on the word impute. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness construes imputation as a reckoning of, or accrediting to, of Christ’s righteousness. The imputation of faith in this contrast means regarding faith as acceptable which, by legal definition, it is not. Even the Arminians admitted, as we shall see, that it was not really acceptable to God (as Christ’s righteousness was); but on their view the Son twisted his Father’s arm to make him act as if it were. This soteriological perversion was called Neonomianism (new-law-ism) because it was not the perfect law of God which was maintained but a new, stepped-down, imperfect, “lawless” law of God. So it became a apse into justification by works which were not even works.

Dr. John Gerstner

See also:

SOUTHERN BAPTISTS ASSIST THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TO INFILTRATE EVANGELICALISM

HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?

THE DECEIVERS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.

But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
(1 John 2:18-19)

Something The Same Has Not Changed

One of the ways the Roman Catholic Church is gaining ground within the mainstream of the visible, pretending to be Protestant church, is through the latest fad of corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM).

Unfortunately, evangelicalism would make the fateful decision to embrace the neo-liberal cult operating within the Emerging Church aka the Emergent Church and used its pseudo-Christian mythology in its Young Adult and Youth ministries. This gave key mentors Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster and his spiritual twin Dallas Willard, the leading purveyors of this spurious CSM, a cover of respectability.

So, under the guise of so-called Spiritual Formation, this Foster-Willardism has been producing a sinful ecumenicism within the mainstream of the church visible where the apostate Roman Catholic Church is considered part of the Body of Christ by more and more evangelical Protholics. This really isn’t that surprising because the CSM of Foster-Willardism originally flowered in the anti-biblical monastic traditions of Rome.

A vivid example of how far CSM has penetrated the mainstream of the Christian community can be found e.g. in Rick Warren Now Openly Promoting Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism. There I showed that Rick Warren, arguably the most famous pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)—itself the largest Protestant denomination in the country—promoting Peter Scazzero, a leading proponent of CSM.

Warren would actually feature Scazzero at his original Radicalis conference in 2010 at his SBC Saddleback Church. In his promotional email Chat Live with Radicalis Speaker, Pete Scazzero, Wednesday, December 9 at 11 am pst Warren informs us:

Pete, along with his wife, Geri, are co-founders of Emotionally Healthy Spirituality, a groundbreaking ministry that integrates emotional health and contemplative spirituality to pastors, leaders and local churches. (On file at AM, emphasis mine)

Since I discussed the following in more depth within Rick Warren And Teachings Of Demons here I’ll simply document for you Rick Warren’s personal position on the Roman Catholic Church:

“Now I don’t agree with everything in everybody’s denomination, including my own. I don’t agree with everything that Catholics do or Pentecostals do, but what binds us together is so much stronger than what divides us,” he said. “I really do feel that these people are brothers and sisters in God’s family. I am looking to build bridges with the Orthodox Church, looking to build bridges with the Catholic Church,….” (Online source, emphasis mine)

“The Church, in all its expressions—Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Protestant and many others—has 2.3 billion followers.” (Online source, emphasis mine)

Let me quickly show you how ridiculous this issue of non-protesting “Protestants” in the SBC truly is. There’s Billy Graham, arguably its most famous evangelist, who involved Roman Catholic officials and their churches in his crusades as far back as 1957. The late SBC statesman Chuck Colson writes:

The greatest evangelist of this century—perhaps the greatest since Paul—is Billy Graham,… What accounts for his astonishing influence? Like Patrick and Finney and others, it is the anointing of the Holy Spirit…

Graham has been equally unswerving in his commitment to the church, both to the unity of the whole body (he’s taken plenty of criticism, but invariably includes all traditions on the platforms of his crucades) and to the local confessing congregations.[1]

It’s clear that Colson includes the Roman Catholic Church as one of those “traditions,” supposedly in the Body of Christ, when he says:

Personally, while I’ve developed strong doctrinal convictions, I’ve been enriched deeply by my fellowship with those who hold different, but equally strong doctrinal convictions—particularly my Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Lutheran brothers and sisters.[2]

Respected blogger Tim Challies also correctly pointed out that:

Colson was a leader, a co-founder, of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, one of the efforts that must stand as part of his defining legacy. At heart, ECT made the Reformation a mistake or an over-reaction and sought to draw Protestant and Catholic back together.

It made little of the gospel, suggesting that there was no unbridgeable difference between the gospel of the Reformation and the gospel of Roman Catholicism. This had potential to do terrible damage to the church and its gospel witness…

Then there was the more recent Manhattan Declaration, another effort to form a wide ecumenism. This Declaration addressed critical issues of our day… But it did so as Evangelicals and Catholics and Orthodox together under the banner of a common gospel. (Online source)

Then there’s this lunacy in the Lord’s Name from wildly popular Southern Baptist Bible teacher Beth Moore. In the video clip below it’s an incontrovertible fact that Moore is describing a literal vision she claims God gave her:

It’s very important that you keep in mind what she said above as you watch the next video clip, which is taken from a section after God Himself allegedly gave Beth Moore a literal vision that afforded her the ability in a “particular dimension” to see the Body of Christ “as Jesus sees it.” Now watch as Moore illustrates the vision concerning this “something different” she sees “God doing” in the Church, i.e. “the body of Christ.”

You’ll see that she does include the apostate Roman Catholic Church among her Christian denominations:

Someone Who Seeks Salvation Other Than The Way God Has Decreed Remains Lost

In closing this, for now, permit me to show you what is a stake. Well respected evangelical Christian apologist Dr. Ron Rhodes brings out a key point concerning this reversal of the Reformation when he says:

According to the current ecumenical spirit of the times, it might not be “politically correct” to say that many [Roman] Catholics are lost and are in need of evangelization. I am aware of the controversial “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” [ECT] document, signed by both evangelicals and Catholics. This document declares evangelical-Catholic unity, and its signers promise to refrain from evangelizing one another’s flocks, labeling this activity “sheep stealing”…

In this [ECT] document we read; “Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ”… Certainly I concede that Catholics and evangelicals can work together for the betterment of society, actively cuntering secularism, moral relativism, societal decay, and the like. But I also believe there must be a line drawn when it comes to biblical doctrine.[3]

Dr. David Wells brings out the other very important point when he reminds us:

At the time of the Reformation, this case [of the distinction between the church visible and the church invisible] was made against the Roman Catholics, who insisted that the only way one could belong to Christ was by belonging to the [Roman] Catholic Church, submitting to its teaching, and receiving the grace available through its sacraments. To be in the church was to be in Christ…

The Reformers countered that we come to be in Christ by faith. We are joined to Christ by faith alone, faith in his finished work on the cross whereby he took our sin, bore God’s judgment in our place, and now clothes [regenerated believers] in his righteousness. From first to last, God’s acceptance of us is by his grace, and so, too, is our capacity to believe in what Christ has done for us.[4]

And here’s the bottom line: The Roman Catholic Church has not, and indeed she cannot, change her teachings concerning the Gospel and justification since the Reformation and its Council of Trent. In his article History of the Doctrine of Justification Dr. John Gerstner (1914-1996) begins by reminding us that justification is:

“The doctrine by which the church stands or falls.” So said Martin Luther about justification by faith alone. John Calvin agreed, calling justification by faith the “hinge” of the Reformation.

Dr. Gerstner then correctly informs us:

It was not until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that justification was officially confirmed as a process based on human merit derived through divine grace. This was the article in Session VI, Canon 7 of the Council of Trent which led the Roman Catholic Church away from the orthodox teaching on justification. (Online source)

I happen to be a former Roman Catholic whom, through absolutely no effort of my own, God mercifully delivered from the religious bondage of the Church of Rome into the glorious liberty of the sons of God; by His grace alone, through faith alone, in the finished work of Christ alone on the Cross. And further, the majority of my pateral family—on both sides—still remain enslaved to the Roman Catholic Church.

So you see, when these cult of celebrity Southern Baptists like Rick Warren and Beth Moore decide to take it upon themselves to simply reverse the Reformation it then hits extremely close to home for me. As one Jesus mercifully converted from Romanism and then called as a pastor-teacher, I now come forward to tell you in the Lord that Dr. R.C. Sproul is dead-on-target in what follows from him below.

There can be no compromise; nor is there any middle ground when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of using studied ambiguity in order to win over opponents. Let me be unambiguous: Without a clear understanding of sola fide and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you do not have the gospel or gospel unity (1 Cor. 1:17;  2 Cor. 5:21).

The ECT initiative repeatedly avowed that the signatories had a unity of faith in the gospel. This included Roman Catholic signers who affirm the canons and decrees of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, which anathematizes sola fide…

However, true reformation and revival within the church and the winning of our culture to Christ will come only through the power of the Holy Spirit and our clear, bold proclamation of the biblical gospel, not through joint ecumenical statements that equivocate on the most precious truths given to us. There is no other gospel than that which has already been given (Gal 1:6–8)…

It is only in our united proclamation of the one, true gospel of Jesus Christ that any heart, any mind, or any nation will truly change, by God’s sovereign grace and for His glory alone.
(Online source, bold mine)

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] Charles Colson, Ellen Vaughn, The Body [Dallas: Word, 1992], 332, 333.

[2] Ibid., 106.

[3] Ron Rhodes,Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics [Eugene: Harvest House, 2000], 17, 18.

[4] David F. Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-Lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 219, emphasis his.

See also:

HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?

THE DECEIVERS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

THINK YOU’RE A ROMAN CATHOLIC IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE POPE; BETTER THINK AGAIN

By Christian Research Network contributor Justin Edwards of airō
This is a repost of an original article on airo:

http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/01/decoding-the-woman-of-the-apocalypse/

On Tuesday, April 10th, I posted an article titled40 Days for Life, Catholics, and Christians, which has created quite the stir in the local Charlotte, NC pro-life community.

The article came to be primarily as a result of the events that transpired on March 31, 2012 at A Preferred Women’s Health Center (known locally as the Latrobe Abortion Mill). On this day of pro-life outreach, perhaps two dozen Roman Catholics representing 40 Days for Life practiced their traditions and rituals with a life-sized portrait of “Our Lady of Guadalupe”.

If you missed it Tuesday, you can read more about it at the first link mentioned above.

Though the conversation is still ongoing about the relationship between Christians and Catholics in pro-life outreach, I wanted to take a moment to speak to the Roman Catholics in 40 Days for Life (and any Roman Catholic who may come across the blog). In the coming days, Lord willing, I will also be writing another article to my Christian brothers and sisters in 40 Days for Life in the spirit of the next few paragraphs.

Because the first article was primarily addressed to Christians involved with 40 Days for Life, I recognize the offense taken by Roman Catholics who have read the article. I understand you feel your religion and faith has been attacked, and no doubt you have taken it personally. I do not blame you.

To set aside our religious differences for a moment, I’d like to express my appreciation to you for the work you are doing. I understand there are some, perhaps many, Catholics involved with 40 Days for Life who may only participate in pro-life outreach 40 days per year, yet there are some, perhaps many, who volunteer your time and energy year-round in the defense of the unborn. In either case, and regardless of motive in temporary or continuous pro-life work, I commend you and appreciate you.

Your mere presence on the sidewalks can and does play a role in turning women from the abortion mill to keep their baby or give their baby up for adoption. I love that you value life and are making efforts to end abortion in America. Abortion is a heinous crime against humanity and more importantly against God, and all efforts to fight abortion should be recognized and welcomed. Though we differ eternally on our views of salvation, I trust God can and does work through your efforts to save the lives of those who cannot speak for themselves, and I am grateful for that. I hope you continue in the fight against abortion and I join you in your passion in the defense of the unborn.

With this said, I’d like to speak to you about spiritual matters. A couple of years ago I posted an article titled “Dear Catholic Friend”. It was based on a message I listened to by a brother named Mark Cahill. Though there is significant disagreement with this brother in the evangelism community currently, I found his message titled Roman Catholicism versus the Bible to be extremely helpful in my understanding the vast and eternal differences between our beliefs.

I hope you consider reading the below letter that compares the official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church with Scripture. Please know my heart in sharing this with you – I understand you may be angry with me and the article I wrote a few days ago, but I do care about you and ask for a few minutes of your time. The truth is, I care much for you.

Before continuing, I would like to challenge you to pray to God asking Him something along the lines of: “If what I’m about to read is true, will you reveal this to me by Your Spirit? I want to be conformed to the truth, and if I have believed a falsehood, please show me.” I don’t believe in repeating suggested prayers, I just ask you to seek God to reveal Himself to you according to His Word. I have in mind when the Apostle John wrote the following to believers in 1 John 2:27

But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

This is a bit long, so please take a break if you need to, and ask questions as necessary. I have updated the letter from its original content:

Dear Catholic Friend,

I am not your enemy. I am your friend.

I love you. I want to make that clear. I love you enough to share the Truth with you. This post is not about bashing the Catholic church or Catholics, and I pray it does not come across as such. I simply love you and I want you to join me in heaven one day. I ask that you continue reading and allow me to explain.

You have probably had conversations with protestant Christians before, and it’s likely been argued who was right or who was wrong. Issues about the Catholic church and its teachings were brought up, and you probably found no shortage of reasoning to support your religious beliefs.

Please allow me to be frank with you: it matters not what you believe to be the correct set of beliefs. The only thing that matters is the truth. Understanding and coming to a saving knowledge of the Truth is the most important thing you will ever do in this life. I compel you to take some time and consider what I present to you. Surely it is worth your time to determine if your beliefs are true, or whether you have been deceived. The Apostle Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 13:5,

 ⁵ Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

The Bible is clear that deception and lies abound, and if this is true, we must consider where those lies and deceptions are present.

There are numerous resources to explain the trappings and false teachings of the Catholic church. The most critical false teaching is the Catholic doctrine of salvation as it contradicts the biblical pathway of salvation. As is the case with many other Catholic doctrines, the gospel of the Catholic church is fundamentally opposed to the Word of God. I love you enough to tell you this. It gives me no joy to have this discussion, as it may very well divide us. But division is no excuse to compromise the truth, and if one is deceived into believing something contrary to the fundamentals of Christianity, it is my responsibility to share this with you so that you might come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. I love you enough to tell you. I want you to be with me in heaven. I urge you then with all of my heart to please continue reading.

The first resource I want to share with you is a message from Mark Cahill. Mark was born into a Catholic family but was saved by the blood of Jesus Christ more than 25 years ago.

Mark compares the official and current Catechism of the Catholic Church to Scripture. I plead with you to consider how the catechisms contradict the Word of God, and by doing so, you may be on the road to reading the Bible for yourself and coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. In no way is this an exhaustive study of Roman Catholicism versus the Bible, but it is certainly a beginning for future study and consideration.

For your convenience, I have listed below several of the catechisms Mark addresses and the Scriptures that refute them. Please prayerfully consider the implications of these teachings and how they cannot possibly lead to saving faith in Jesus Christ. I encourage you to obtain a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and compare to the Word of God for yourself. You can also open up the Catechism link in a new window to view online.

Paragraph 97

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God”…

 The Bible: 

Colossians 2:8-10 ⁸ Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. ⁹ For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; ¹⁰ and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

Here, the Catholic church teaches that tradition PLUS the Bible makes up the Word of God. The Bible, however, warns us to beware of traditions of men and that Christ, who is the Word, makes us complete.

Paragraph 181

181 “Believing” is an ecclesial act. the Church’s faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. the Church is the mother of all believers. “No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother” (bold emphasis mine)

The Bible: 

John 6:44 ⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

How can the Catholic church claim motherhood of all believers when the church was not even established before Jesus spoke these words in John 6:44?

Paragraph 868

868 The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation…

You will find nowhere in Scripture that the church possesses the fullness of the faith or the totality of the means of salvation. Jesus Christ is the fullness of the faith and the totality of salvation, and any tradition or doctrine beyond Him and His finished work on the cross is utterly unbiblical.

Paragraph 1493

1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. the confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. (bold emphasis mine)

Paragraph 1461

1461 Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation,⁶⁵ bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops’ collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (bold emphasis mine)

 The Bible 

Matthew 9:6 ⁶ But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

Mark 2:7  ⁷ “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Psalm 51:4  ⁴ Against You, You only, have I sinned,

Only God has the power to forgive sins, no one else. We may ask forgiveness from someone we have offended, and they have the responsibility to forgive us of our offense, but every sin we commit is against God. It is He, and He alone, who can forgive our trespasses.

Paragraph 1129

 1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.

The Bible 

Ephesians 2:8-9 ⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not of works, lest anyone should boast.

The Catholic Church has added works as a means of salvation. Further:

Paragraph 1257 

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (bold emphasis mine)

Paragraph 1263

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. (bold emphasis mine)

 The Bible

1 Corinthians 1:17 ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Salvation comes by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone as Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly teaches. Moreover, if baptism was required for salvation, Paul would have been sent to baptize, not preach the gospel. Adding baptism as a requirement to salvation strips away the doctrine of grace, and thereby strips away true salvation if one puts their trust in the baptism and not in Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins.

Paragraph 1031

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.⁶⁰⁴ The Churchformulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire

Did you catch that? The church “formulated” this “tradition” at the Councils of Florence and Trent, which took place in the 15th and 16th centuries, respectively.

The Bible

1 John 4:10 ¹⁰ In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Jesus Christ was the propitiation for our sins. He satisfied the debt of sin once and for all. Nothing else must (or can) be done to satisfy this penalty. The Catholic church, however, teaches that one must go through this purification process in order to gain entry into heaven. The Bible, contrarily, teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). Jesus said “It is finished”, and that means there is no more payment for sin to be made. As CARM indicates regarding purgatory:

1. It is not explicitly found in the Bible.
2. It implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin.
3. It implies that justification is not by faith alone.
4. It implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.

To learn more about purgatory, please visit these links:

• Purgatory
• Does Purgatory Deny the Sufficiency of Jesus’ Sacrifice?
• Purgatory and 1 Cor. 3:15

Paragraph 494

494 …without a single sin to restrain her…

 Paragraph 411

411…Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life. (bold emphasis mine)

The Bible

Luke 1:46-47 ⁴⁶And Mary said:

“ My soul magnifies the Lord,
⁴⁷ And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

If Mary was perfect, with no original sin, having “committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life”, why is it that she needed a Savior? And because all men are appointed to die once because of the consequence of sin (Hebrews 9:27), the Catholic church had to formulate yet another doctrine to appease this false teaching:

Paragraph 966

966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things… (bold emphasis mine)

The Catholic church teaches Mary did not die. So not only are they in error to teach Mary was sinless, they required another lie to account for the first deception.

Paragraph 2677

By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the “Mother of Mercy,” the All-Holy One.

This is blasphemy. There is only one All-Holy One and He is the Lord of lords and King of all kings. He is the Lord God Almighty, Who was, and is, and is to come!

Paragraph 969

969 …Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation …. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.” (bold emphasis mine)

The Bible

1 Timothy 2:5 ⁵ For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, theMan Christ Jesus,

1 John 2:1  ¹ My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Hebrews 9:15 ¹⁵ And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

John 16:7 ⁷ Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.

Psalm 54:4 ⁴ Behold, God is my helper; The Lord is with those who uphold my life.

Do you see what has happened here? The Catholic church has given Mary the same names as Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Mediatrix, Advocate, Helper). Though she is blessed among all women, the Catholic church has exalted her to a place she does not deserve. Many of the names given to her are reserved for Christ alone. To review a list of prayers to Mary, please see A Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

These teachings of the Catholic church are merely the tip of the iceberg. It has not been my intention to bash Catholics or the Catholic church, but rather to share the truth in love and compare the teachings of the Catholic church against the absolute truth of the Word of God.

I have family and friends who adhere to Catholicism. I have you all in my prayers that you will come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is true freedom to be had in Christ, and as He says Himself, the truth will set you free. Free from the bondage of a works-based system where you will never be able to attain salvation by any work of your own, and free from the weight of sin that would condemn us all to an eternal hell had it not been for the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, who offers us all the gift of grace through faith in Him, and Him alone.

This is a lot of information, admittedly. I pray you diligently seek God in these matters and ask God to show you whether you have been deceived, that you would repent from the idolatry of false religion, and put your faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone to receive eternal life.

Recommended Reading:

The Sacrifice of the Mass: Blessing or Bondage?

Exchanging Religion for an Eternal Relationship with God

Preparing for Eternity: Should We Trust God’s Word or Religious Traditions?

Biblical Christianity versus Roman Catholicism

See also:

HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?

THE DECEIVERS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

THINK YOU’RE A ROMAN CATHOLIC IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE POPE; BETTER THINK AGAIN

See also:

HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?

THE DECEIVERS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

THINK YOU’RE A ROMAN CATHOLIC IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE POPE; BETTER THINK AGAIN

By Christian Research Network editor Daniel Neades of Better Than Sacrifice
This is a repost of an original article on Better Than Sacrifice

In a recent blog post, C. Michael Patton of Credo House Ministries asked, ‘Are Roman Catholics Saved?’ He argued that the most important question was the one Jesus asked of His disciples, ‘Who do you say that I am?’, and that the Church of Rome answers this correctly.

Apologist James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries says that Patton has asked the wrong question. Speaking on his Dividing Line show, White dissects Patton’s post and states that what really matters is whether God’s grace to us in Christ is wholly sufficient to save – are we saved by grace alone?

Here, White asserts, Rome commits the same error as the Galatians, adding our works to the grace of God as a requirement for justification. Because the Apostle Paul said that the Galatians who had done likewise were ‘severed from Christ’, the very Gospel itself – and our salvation – hangs on the answer to that question.

White concludes, ‘The fundamental issue is the fact that the Roman Catholic Church does not possess – and, in fact, anathematizes – the Gospel of Jesus Christ’. ‘If a Roman Catholic is saved, they are saved in spite of the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it.’

Here is the video of James White responding to Patton’s article (MP3 is also availablefrom the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog):

The original appears complete with a comments section for you to join the discussion right here.

See also:

HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, ISLAM, AND GOD

JAMES ROBISON AND RICK WARREN WORKING TO REVERSE THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

What, then, are we looking at? We are looking at a system; and I would not hesitate to assert that this system, known as Roman Catholicism, is the devil’s greatest masterpiece!

It is such a departure from the Christian faith and the New Testament teaching, that I would not hesitate with the Reformers of the sixteenth century to describe it as “apostasy.

Now let us be clear about this. We define apostasy as a kind of total departure from the Christian truth. “Well,” says someone, “are you saying that about the Roman Catholic Church?”

We have to be most careful here. If we say that Roman Catholicism is apostasy we must be clear as to the sense in which that is true. Let me put it like this therefore.

Here it is not so much a matter of “denial” of the truth, but rather such an addition to the truth that eventually it becomes a departure from it…

Here is a great body, an institution, that has from time to time throughout the centuries—and still is doing this very thing—manifested the wiles of the devil in all its subtlety and deceitfulness, “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” as the Scripture puts it…

Take the first example of [robbing Christ of His glory], their teaching with regard to the question of justification— justification by faith. As Luther said this is, “the test of a standing or a falling Church”—the whole glory of Protestantism, the thing that brought it into being. Look at their teaching with regard to justification.

We know what ours is, or do we? I sometimes wonder whether we do, many of us Protestants. It is not surprising that Roman Catholicism is increasing when Protestants do not know what justification means.

It is not surprising that Roman Catholicism is increasing when Protestants do not know what justification means.…Justification is by faith!

Roman Catholicism is bound to succeed while Protestants think that merely to live a good life is enough. It is not surprising that Roman Catholicism is sweeping through the countries and the nations.

Justification is by faith!

Roman teaching is that good works, meritorious works are possible in man, in sinful man; that man can contribute something to his own justification…

Need we be concerned about all of this [after Vatican II]? Ought we to be rejoicing that there is a new approach to Roman Catholicism?

Should we not all be rejoicing in the fact that it is possible for us all to stand together as Christians over and against Communism?

That is the question you have to face. For myself I do not hesitate about the answer. This system is altogether more dangerous than is Communism itself, because this is a counterfeit, this does it in the “name” of Christ…

No, the Protestant Reformers were not just bigoted zealots, they were not just fools. These men had their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit.

That is what happened to Luther, that is what happened to Calvin, that is what happened to Knox, that is what happened to all of them.

These men had their eyes opened, they saw it, they saw this horrible monstrosity depicted in the Bible in the warnings against it, and at the risk of even losing their lives they stood up and they protested. They said that it was not true.

So they began to assert justification by faith, the supreme, final, adequate authority of the Scriptures, the universal priesthood of all believers and so on. They were ready to die for those truths, and many did die for them! (Online source)
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

See also:

HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?

THE DECEIVERS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

THINK YOU’RE A ROMAN CATHOLIC IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE POPE; BETTER THINK AGAIN

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

The Roman Catholic Church Preaches A Different Gospel, Which Is Really No Gospel At All

You may believe me; I am not trying to be an alarmist, and it’s my firm conviction in Christ that I have only saying what needs to be said. And truthfully, I am even often doing so reluctantly. As Apprising Ministries covers the slide into apostasy within mainstream evangelcialism we can observe Rick Warren, a most prominent “Protestant” Southern Baptist minister, embroiled in a controversy involving Islam.

I began my coverage in Rick Warren, Islam, And Jim Hinch after speaking with Hinch who was under the impression that Warren believed Christians and Muslims believe in the same God. However, yesterday Christian Research Network contributor Daniel Neades of Better Than Sacrifice would inform us that Rick Warren Categorically Denies OC Register Report. Yet there’s still Warren’s stance concerning Roman Catholicism.

I carefully documented in Rick Warren And Teachings Of Demons that the SBC’s Rick Warren clearly holds that the apostate Church of Rome, which anathematized the Gospel itself, is part of the Body of Christ and a legitimate expression of the Christian faith. More on that another time, suffice to say here that this is also the vision of charismatic Southern Baptist Bible teacher Beth Moore as well. In fact, it’s also the prevailing position of much of the younger sectors of greater Christendom.

Since I’m only mentioning this in passing here, I’ll tell you the reason for that has much to do with the evil influence of the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult operating within the Emerging Church aka the Emergent Church, which has long ago penetrated into mainstream of contemporary evangelicalism. The EC pioneered interspiritual dialogues within this community of the visible church that had before been contained in the mortally wounded mainline denominations.

That’s why a while back we started seeing books coming out of respected evangelical publishing houses like Thomas Nelson where Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren makes the following ridiculous statements and nary an eyebrow was raised:

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have more in common than many people realize because they all share a primal narrative, and they all flow from a common sacred fountainhead: a single figure, at once famous and mysterious, a Middle Eastern man named Abraham of Ur.

We can date Abraham’s birth to about 2000 BC, in modern-day Iraq, near present-day Nasarif. Like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad—and like us—Abraham was was raised in a pluralistic, polytheistic world. During his lifetime, he lived side by side with others who honored many different gods and praticed many different religions.

And during his lifetime, Abraham—like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad—had an encounter with God that distinguished him from his contemporaries and propelled him into a mission, introducing a new way of life that changed the world… How appropriate that the three Abrahamic religions begin with a journey into the unknown.[1]

By the way, this book published by Thomas Nelson is chock full of corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism masquerading as spurious Spiritual Formation ala Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster and his spiritual twin Dallas Willard, No doubt the bats are very much alive in the belfry. Now consider that well-known Southern Baptist leader Richard Land would actually appear to share McLaren’s mythology above. While commenting upon the Mormonism of Glenn Beck back in August of 2010 I showed you that SBC’s Richard Land Says Mormonism Fourth Abrahamic Faith.

You might find it interesting to note this also lands Lands in agreement with McLaren’s EC comrade Phyllis Tickle who has said Mormonism Fourth Great Abrahamic Faith. Muhammad may indeed have had a visit from the spirit world, but as we compare his god with the one true and living God of the Bible below, we know with certainty it was not a spirit from the LORD God Almighty; the only God there is. Unfortunately, syncretism and love of self (cf. 2 Timothy 3:2) rules our day. What really needs to recovered today is the proper approach to this critical subject, which as you’re about to see involves the Roman Catholic Church as well.

One of the ways to recapture proper theology concerning the genuine Gospel of Jesus Christ is to look more closely at the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the churches in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia. We know it of course as the Book of Galatians. In his very good introduction to this Epistle Dr. Robert Mounce tells us:

Galatians stands as an eloquent and vigorous apologetic for the NT essential truth that man is justified by faith in Jesus Christ – by nothing less and nothing more – and that he is sanctified not by legalistic works but by the obedience that comes from faith in God’s work for him, in him and through him by the grace and power of Christ and the Holy Spirit.[2]

Let’s stop right here for a minute. What Dr. Mounce has just elucidated is actually the heart of the matter before us in the purity of God’s Gospel. In other words, how is a human being powerless to pay saved from their debt of sin before a Holy and Righteous God? And clearly a debt requires a payment of some kind, does it not? God’s Word says — For the wages of sin — [which is what then incurs the debt] — is death (Romans 6:23). However, you may recall, the great news that Christ Jesus already paid this wage—this debt—with His own death.

That’s why Mounce can say — “Galatians stands as an eloquent and vigorous apologetic for the essential NT truth that man is justified by faith in Jesus Christ — by nothing less and nothing more.” It is truly such a shame, and a travesty of God’s justice, that this has been allowed to slowly erode over the nearly 500 years since an Augustinian Monk named Martin Luther nailed those 95 Theses Of Religion upon the door of Castle Church Chapel at Wittenberg. Theses, which essentially said — “We protest” — and would become the very document that would end up igniting the whole Protestant Reformation.

In this ecumenical time, where Satan is busy continuing to lay his foundation for the coming One World Global religion, it’s vital that we come to fully understand what’s at stake here. For we need to get this absolute Truth from our head down into our very hearts, and all the more as what professes to be Christianity is falling further away from the Lord in this growing apostasy. Dr. Mounce is firmly reminding us of this matter of grave importance, which we’re going to have to defend in increasing measure when he says:

 man is justified by faith in Jesus Christ — by nothing less and nothing more.

A Genuine Christian Will Proclaim As Well As Defend The True Gospel

Here we state the only Gospel which has any saving power more concisely as we declare that a man is solely justified by the grace of God alone, through faith alone in the finished work on the Cross of Christ alone. As you can see, one need not be a graduate of Oxford University with a degree in navel contemplating to understand the Gospel, nor does he need the a-logic double speak from the fools in the Emergent Church to figure this all out.

At least Pope Benedict Arnold, it’s not difficult to understand the true Gospel of God if you are meek and humble enough to take off your silly hat, divest yourself of your priestly robes, and truly follow the Christ you say that you are the Vicar of. After all, Jesus of Nazareth did say — Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29). And remember the Master also taught — Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5).

What I have been endeavoring to do here for a while now here at AM is to get us to look at whether or not anything has really changed regarding the importance of our proclaiming the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is one reason why I’ve used this passage in Galatians 1 beginning with verse 6 as our opening text; and it’ll be helpful to read through this one more time, as we see here how Paul reacted to those who added to, and thereby specifically changed—even slightly—the Gospel that he preached.

For example, let’s consider this “adding” to the Gospel from Nostra Aetate (NA). NA is “the Declaration on the Relation of the [Roman Catholic] Church to Non-Christian Religions, which was Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI – October 28, 1965”

3. The [Roman Catholic] Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the [Roman Catholic] Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the [Roman Catholic] Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8) (Online source).

Now we must ask, does this even remotely sound like the true Gospel? Or is it in reality a capitulation in order to be careful not to upset someone? Is this man-pleasing and timorous tripe issued from a so-called Vicar of Christ a bold stand like the Master’s? One willing to be found among those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake (Matthew 5:10); or is it actually trying to live in peace with another religon at the expense of the Truth? We need to help people see that words like these could never have been uttered by a true Vicar of Christ.

Here’s Your Chance To Meet The god Of Islam

Let me give you a little background concerning the world religion of Islam, which the Roman Catholic Church esteems; and further, claims that Muslims — adore the one God. The founder of the Islamic religion, Muhammad, was born around 570 AD in Mecca. Islam means “submission” to God, while Muslim, taken from the verbal root of the same Arabic word, designates “those who submit.” According to the Islamic version of his history, sometime after his 25th birthday while Muhammad was “praying and meditating” on Mt. Hira he heard a voice tell him to “proclaim.” Later the voice told him “Thou art the messenger of God, and I am Gabriel.”

Ira G. Zepp, Jr. tells us in his book Islam, “…over a period of twenty-three years, up until his death in 632, Allah [God], through the angel Gabriel, communicated the words of the Quran to Muhammad.” The Encyclopedia Britannica adds: “The will of Allah, to which man must submit, is made known through the sacred scriptures, the Qu’ran (Koran), which Allah revealed to his messenger, Muhammad. In Islam Muhammad is considered the last of a series of prophets (including Adam, Noah, Jesus and others), and his message simultaneously consummates and abrogates the ‘revelations’ attributed to earlier prophets.”

The Qur’an, is the highest source of authority for the Muslim and is considered to be the pure word of God, with no human thoughts or errors within it. On The True Religion, an Internet website devoted to Islam, Dr. Gary Miller—a former Christian missionary with a Masters Degree in Theology who converted to Islam—states the Muslim position on the Bible. In his article A Concise Reply To Christianity – A Muslim View, Miller writes:

…the Quran states that Christians have access to the truth in their scriptures. But it does not catalogue the sixty-six small books called the Bible and label them as accurate. In fact it condemns those who would claim divine inspiration for something composed by a man…part of the Bible…falls into this category…the Muslim considers that the Bible contains the words of God, and more words besides these.

While Islam does teach the existence of just one God (Quran 5:73; 112:1-4), Allah is so transcendent, incomprehensible and unapproachable, that it could not possibly be the true God of biblical revelation, Who shows Himself to befriend men (Exodus 33:11), to be merciful to them because He loves them (Romans 5:5-8), and, in the doctrine of the Trinity, He reveals Himself as God the Father, God the Son—Who is Jesus the Christ, and God the Holy Spirit (Deuteronomy 6:4; 2 Peter 1:17; John 1:1,14; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In fact, the Qur’an admits that Allah is not the God of the Bible in 5:73-75 where it emphatically states:

 They do blaspheme who say: God is one in three in a Trinity: for there is no god except one.

Finally, the Qur’an portrays a very different Jesus from the one we meet in the Bible. It says Jesus was not crucified (4:157), is not deity (5:17, 75), nor is He God the Son (9:30). The Qur’an does call Jesus a great prophet, but as Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry points out, Islam teaches that “Muhammad is Allah’s greatest and last prophet and his message supercedes all other past prophets including Jesus.” This stands in stark contrast to what Jesus of Nazareth taught, and to what the historical accounts of His life in the New Testament clearly tell us. (adapted from Keeping You Apprised of: Islam)

I must ask again, does this sound like a religion that adores “the one God?” While we should never be hostile to individual Muslims, the true katholikos Church of Christ must vigorously oppose the blasphemous religion of Islam which—in fact—denies the one God! Let me tell you clearly once again that the rubbish we read from Vatican II’s NA — “the Declaration on the Relation of the [Roman Catholic] Church to Non-Christian Religions – which was Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI” – could never have been uttered by an actual Vicar of Christ.

No One, Not Even A Pope, Can Add To The Gospel

And if one should need further proof you need only return to the Book of Galatians, chapter 1. Before we run through this passage of Scripture quickly one last time, let me share this from F. Roy Coad in the

Something of the teaching which was brought by the Judaizing teachers to Galatia can be learned from later references in the letter. It accepted the Messiahship of Jesus, but added another requirement to that of faith in Christ: acceptance of the Jewish obedience, particularly as symbolized in circumcision and the keeping of the ethical and ceremonial law (Ac. 15:1; Gal. 3:2, 10; 4:10, 21; 5:2; 6:12, 13).

Galatians 1:6 — I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel. And I have conclusively shown in numerous articles concerning its apostate Roman Catholicism that the Church of Rome does indeed teach a gospel of works/self-righteousness. Following is Can.  842 §1, §2 from the Code Of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church:

A person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments. The sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and the Most Holy Eucharist are interrelated in such a way that they are required for full Christian initiation.” (Online source, emphasis mine)

Now, here is what Martin Luther himself had to say about verse 6 of Galatians 1:

Note the resourcefulness of the devil. Heretics do not advertise their errors. Murderers, adulterers, thieves disguise themselves. So the devil masquerades all his devices and activities. He puts on white to make himself look like an angel of light. He is astoundingly clever to sell his patent poison for the Gospel of Christ. Knowing Satan’s guile, Paul sardonically calls the doctrine of the false apostles “another gospel,” as if he would say, “You Galatians have now another gospel, while my Gospel is no longer esteemed by you” (Online source).

And we know that what was being taught in Galatia by these Judaizers was not really another gospel in that it had any real power. Look at verse 7 again here in Galatians — not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.Verse 8 — But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we — [the Apostles] — preached to you, let him be accursed. In the original Greek this is the word anathema that the Council of Trent was so fond of tossing around; and essentially means “accursed from God.”

The great Church Reformer John Calvin points out here:

As [Paul] proceeds in defending the authority of his doctrine, his confidence swells. First of all, he declares that the doctrine which he had preached is the only gospel, and that the attempt to set it aside is highly criminal. But then he was aware, the false apostles might object: “We will not yield to you in our desire to maintain the gospel, or in those feelings of respect for it which we are accustomed to cherish.” Just as, at the present day, the Papists describe in the strongest terms the sacredness with which they regard the gospel, and kiss the very name with the deepest reverence, and yet, when brought to the trial, are found to persecute fiercely the pure and simple doctrine of the gospel. Accordingly, Paul does not rest satisfied with this general declaration, but proceeds to define what the gospel is, and what it contains, and declares boldly that his doctrine is the true gospel; so as to resist all further inquiry.

Of what avail was it to profess respect for the gospel, and not to know what it meant? With Papists, who hold themselves bound to render implicit faith, that might be perfectly sufficient; but with Christians, where there is no knowledge, there is no faith. That the Galatians, who were otherwise disposed to obey the gospel, might not wander hither and thither, and “find no rest for the sole of their foot,” (Genesis 8:9,) Paul enjoins them to stand steadfastly by his doctrine. He demands such unhesitating belief of his preaching, that he pronounces a curse on all who dared to contradict it. (Online source)

And then, in verse 9, Paul will repeat his anathema for anyone who has the temerity to alter the Gospel Christ Jesus gave to him. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Like I have already shared with you, the proclamation of the pure Gospel of our Lord is so important and so critical that the Apostle Paul felt constrained to repeat his stern rebuke. Let us never forget that God the Holy Spirit takes the Gospel of Jesus Christ so seriously that He saw to it that this warning was preserved in Holy Scripture.

However, somehow today all of this has been reduced to simply “significant differences.” And that’s what is so disconcerting; but this is what the Church of Jesus Christ, the visible Protestant community, must come to grips with. How couldwe reduce this Gospel that man is saved by God’s grace alone—through faith alone—in Christ alone—merely to significant differences? If the Apostle Paul was willing to eternally condemn anyone who preached something different, and if the Reformers were willing to die for their proclamation of this same Gospel, then what in the world has happened to us today?

Does The Christian Church Really Not Love Mankind Enough To Tell The Truth?

The truth is, we sum up it up in one word—compromise. Men have decided that God “understands” that they don’t want to offend anyone. After-all, if they upset someone, they might not believe the Gospel. That’s of course if they even get around to preaching it to them. In actuality though what’s really being said is: “I’m afraid to make someone angry with me,” which all of us understand; no one likes to have people angry with them. However, sometimes this is exactly what they need to stimulate their thought process. As in them thinking “that person made me so angry I’m going too prove them wrong!” And, I’ll have you know, not a few people have come into the Kingdom of God via that route.

Let me bring this all together. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is simply not negotiable! Our Lord did what He did; and said what He said, and He does not change—no matter what culture we find ourselves in. This is the absolute Truth; and we just do not have the luxury of “adapting” the Gospel message to any group of people we must speak to. And while we never want to be offensive in how we are presenting this one way in which men can be saved, the fact remains that we are admonished in Scripture — For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). The unregenerate in the Emergent Church would do well to have a “conversation” about this for a change.

In the end, our job is to tell people the truth, and then to leave the reaction to our presentation of the Gospel—and the results—to the Person of God the Holy Spirit. When you really think about it, this is really not such a bad thing; after all, it is God’s Gospel, Christ did the work and the Holy Spirit is to convict and empower. We need to remember — we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us (2 Corinthians 5:20). However, those that preach any other gospel than the one that was preached by Paul and the other Apostles—even if it might be remarkably similar—are not really preaching any gospel at all.

So by now you should be able to see, this dangerous ecumenical flirtation with the spiritual Harlot of Rome is a whole lot more than “significant differences.” For when all is said and done; it’s either justification–by God’s grace alone–through faith alone–in Christ alone, or it is no gospel at all. While “close” may count in horseshoes, it sure has no place in spiritual matters where the Gospel is all–or nothing at all. And this must never be compromised in any way, or for any one, no matter how noble and religious that person may appear.

For those of us who are Christ’s ambassadors to tell the world anything else is to hold out a false hope; an empty hope; which is really no hope at all. Let me close now with these words from the late Dr. Carl F.H. Henry:

God who stands and stoops and speaks is God who stays: He it is who preserves and governs and consummates his cosmic purpose. But the awesome wonder of the biblical revelation is not his creation and preservation of our vastly immense and complex universe. Its wonder, rather, is that he came as God-man to planet Earth in the form of the Babe of Bethlehem; he thus reminds us that no point in the universe is too remote for his presence and no speck too small for his care and love.

He came as God-man to announce to a rebellious race the offer of a costly mercy grounded in the death and resurrection of his only Son and to assure his people that he who stays will remain with them forever and they with him. He is come in Christ incarnate to exhibit ideal human nature and will return in Christ glorified to fully implement the Omega-realities of the dawning future.[4]

And if you think that God the Father is going to take lightly the Gospel of His only Son—Jesus Christ Who was brutally crucified as atonement for our sins, friend you had better rethink again. For God the Holy Spirit tells us in the Bible that He wrote:

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:5-9)

He who has an ear, let him hear…for the time grows ever near…

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] BrianMcLaren, Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008], 22, 23, emphasis mine.

[2] NIV Study Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985 ed.], 1779.

[3] F.F. Bruce, Gen. Ed., New International Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976], 1417,1418.

[4] Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1999], last paragraph.

See also:

WHY THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION CANNOT BE UNDONE

HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?

THE DECEIVERS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

“My dearly beloved, flee from idolatry!” 1 Corinthians 10:14

Romanism is a gigantic system of sacrament-worship, Mary-worship, saint-worship, image-worship, relic-worship, and priest-worship! In one word, Romanism is a huge organized idolatry!

I know how painful these things sound to many ears. To me it is no pleasure to dwell on the shortcomings of any who profess and call themselves Christians. I can say truly that I have said what I have said with pain and sorrow.

I believe that many a poor Catholic at this day is worshiping with an idolatrous worship, simply because he knows no better. He has no Bible to instruct him. He has no faithful minister to teach him. I remember all this; and I say that the Catholic eminently deserves our sympathy and compassion.

But all this must not prevent my saying that the Church of Rome is an idolatrous Church. I would not be faithful if I said less.

My own conscience would rebuke me if I did not warn men plainly that the Church of Rome is an idolatrous Church, and that if they will join her, they are “joining themselves to idols!”

That heart can hardly be right with God, which can think of the millions who are sunk in heathenism, or honor the false prophet Mahomet, or daily offer up prayers to the Virgin Mary — and not cry, “O my God, what shall the end of these things be? How long, O Lord, how long?”

Christ rightly known, Christ truly believed, and Christ heartily loved — is the true preservative against ritualism, Romanism and every form of idolatry! (Online source)

Rick Warren:

(Online source)

See also:

RICK WARREN AND TEACHINGS OF DEMONS

JAMES ROBISON AND RICK WARREN WORKING TO REVERSE THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

BETH MOORE AND HER VISION OF A ROMAN CATHOLIC DENOMINATION