A while ago, a Catholic friend whom I was witnessing to was
given a book to read about the Catholic faith to try to strengthen her faith in
the Catholic Church. It challenged me to take a closer look at their beliefs;
though I already knew a fair amount from talking with friends, this particular
booklet is well-loved among Catholics for its simple explanations of the
tenants of their faith.
So it was that I decided to order the booklet for myself. I
wasn’t impressed. I feel the authors come across as rather pompous and
illogical. Their arguments at times are petty and ill-informed. I knew I needed
to take down notes of this as I went along.
Here are these notes, outlined according to the sections of
the booklet. Pillar of Faith, Pillar of Truth is
available online, for free, so you can follow along if you so choose.
An Unbroken History
In page two, there is a large leap taken. The Catholic
Church is assumed to be the church spoken of in the Bible. There is an
assertion that it is the church that has followed an apostolic line (from the
first century), but no evidence to back it up.
There is no biblical evidence for a pope of any kind. When
Peter was worshipped by Cornelius in Acts 10, he made Cornelius stand up; Peter
reasoned that he, too, is a man and undeserving of worship. Peter is even
rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2) – an act unlikely to happen if Peter is the head.
There is no indication that Peter was in charge of the apostles at all. He
shows informal leadership, but at no point does Jesus put him in charge. Jesus
says that Jesus is the rock in Matthew 16, not that Peter is the rock. The
Greek word used for Peter (“Petrus”) means “stone”; the word used for the
“rock” (“petra”) on which the church will be built means “foundation”. Jesus
speaks of Himself in the third person (as He does in other passages: “Destroy
this temple;” “If any man eat of this bread;” “Whoso falleth on this stone”) to
say that He is the foundation on which HE will build HIS church. Peter is
simply made privy to this fact in light of his recognition of who Jesus is.
Since Jesus is the anointed Son of God, He is worthy to be the foundation of
God’s church. Peter is not.
So if it wasn’t then that the Catholic Church began, when
did it begin? It was likely when Roman Emperor Constantine declared himself to
be head of the “church” and made this new form of Christianity the standard. To
say the Catholic Church was the only church then would be a misunderstanding of
the term “church”. The church are all those redeemed by Christ, over which He
is the head. The new form of Christianity ushered in the “Dark Ages” in which
all other forms of Christianity were outlawed. Up to 75 million people were
killed and brutal forms of torture created over the centuries by Inquisitions,
ordered by popes, for holding other religious beliefs. If the Catholic Church
was the only church during this time, who were they persecuting?
Certainly I do not hold today’s Catholics guilty for the
grisly deeds done during the Dark Ages. This fact is important to note,
however, to show that there have always been those that have held to the Bible
as their only standard of religious doctrine. Jesus called out the Pharisees
for ignoring God’s Word to follow after tradition. The Bible holds itself as
the ultimate standard since it is the preserved Word of God. This is in
contrast to the what the Catechism holds to be the standard: the Bible, the
Magisterium, and church tradition – all equal.
There is much more that could be said about the history of
the Catholic Church to answer why it is so large and widespread, but it would
deviate from the main message that I declare: that salvation comes only through
the blood of Jesus, not through a church. My goal is not to cause insult to
Catholic friends and family by shoving history in their faces, but to prove the
Bible as the true Christian standard and Jesus as the one, true, only way to
have a relationship with God.
One other thing is worth mentioning. If indeed the Catholic
Church is being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, why was it allowed to
pick such corrupt leadership in the past, as the author claims? An infallible
church should not have picked leadership such as Pope Innocent III: “Anyone who
attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with Church dogma
must be burned without pity.” Or Clement of Alexandria: “Every woman should be
filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.” The author believes the
Catholic Church will be led by the Spirit to be inerrant, but simultaneously
claims that church leadership has been in error.
Four Marks of the
True Church
The Church is One
Again, the meaning of the church is missed. This does not
mean a church under one name; rather, it is a diverse collection of Christians
under one Savior.
Certainly the church should follow what the apostles teach.
Yet the Catholic Church misses the mark on some important things. The apostle
Paul said in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man
should boast.” But the Catechism lays out that it is baptism that takes away
original sin and works that keeps one in a state of grace. When did the
apostles teach this?
The claim that Catholicism has never changed its doctrine is
also bold. The Catholic laity used to receive the wine during communion, but
that was changed in 1416 ad. Baptism
was by immersion until 1311 ad when
it was changed to sprinkling. Just recently, Pope Francis said that the
Catholic Church would welcome divorced individuals to take communion when
before they were excommunicated. I have a friend that left Catholicism because
there was doctrine that changed, which led him to the conclusion that it
perhaps is not infallible.
The Church is Holy
I do not know of any Bible passage that names the church to
be holy. The church is made up of men and women who are by nature sinful. The
head of the church (Jesus), however, is holy.
The Church is Catholic
The church is indeed catholic (“universal”), but this only
supports that the church is the people redeemed by Christ, not a specific
structure with a specific name.
The Church is
Apostolic
As I mentioned before, a comparison between what the apostles
taught as recorded in the Bible and what the Catholic Church teaches today
yields discrepancies.
(This paragraph was addressed to my friend.) We
have already talked about the Eucharist and the evidence I find against
Christ’s physical presence being there – though I can certainly send you it
again if you have forgotten and can’t find it. Since the author is the one
making the claim that forgiveness of sin is through a priest (something you
were uncertain about) and the existence of purgatory, the burden of proof is on
him. He does not provide evidence, nor do I find any biblical evidence.
Pillar of Fire, Pillar
of Truth
Again the author asserts that the Catholic Church is the one
true church without evidence. Looking at the one passage used to make this
claim (in Matthew 16), the statement that “the gates of Hell will not prevail
against [the church]” does not seem to prove all that is needed to say that the
true church is the Catholic Church and that it is infallible as a result. I
certainly welcome the evidence against what I believe, I just haven’t yet found
any very compelling arguments.
The Structure of the
Church
The Pope and Bishops
I wish the author would have went into greater detail on
John 21:15-17, because I don’t see this as a special commission to Peter.
Rather, Jesus is reiterating it because of Peter’s denial. Similarly, in Luke
22, it does not follow that Jesus specifically telling Peter to strengthen his
brethren means that job was exclusive to Peter – nor that it elevated him above
the rest.
The Aramaic argument is one I have not heard before. The
issue I would take is that there are no Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels,
thus it, while not impossible, would be difficult to say that it was originally
written in Aramaic. Furthermore, why would there exist the wordplay in Greek if
Peter and the foundation meant the same? Why not say, “Upon this Petrus I will build my church”?
How God Speaks to Us
Sacred Tradition
It is important to view the claim of Sacred Tradition being
equal with the Bible in light of what the Bible says about itself:
“And that from a child thou hast
known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works.” –II Timothy 3:15-17
“Every word of God is pure: he is a
shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest
he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” –Proverbs 30:5-6
It is true that there is nothing inherently wrong with
tradition. When tradition contradicts God’s Word, however, that is when it is
wrong:
“You are making the word of God of
none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such
things do ye.” –Mark 7:13
Nowhere do we find that these traditions are inspired. The
Bible is (see above passage). Therefore, when the inspired Bible conflicts with
the traditions that the Catholic Church teach, who should we believe?
Scripture
Much of my argument here would be repetition of the one above.
The author makes the claim that the early church did not use scripture alone.
Of course they didn’t; the Bible wasn’t yet complete. The apostles’ doctrine
became solidified in the cannon of scripture. Hence, at the completion of God’s
written Word there was no longer a need for oral tradition.
The claim that splintering of denominations means that sola scriptura is false is a major non
sequitur. At best, the logical conclusion that should follow from his premises
is that the Bible must be properly interpreted, not that it cannot be the only
authority. The author complains of many sects of Christianity yet tries to
raise Catholicism – a sect of Christianity – above the rest. There is no
support given as to why the Catholic Church in particular has the correct
interpretation and no other church does. Again, none of this refutes the claim
that scripture is the only authority.
The Magisterium
Here is the problem that Peter wanted to avoid when he wrote
that “no scripture is of private interpretation” (I Peter 1:20). The Bible
tells us that the Holy Spirit is needed to guide us to the truth. But claiming
that the Catholic Church is the only one capable of this simply does not
follow. God did not say that only one group of people have access to the Holy
Spirit to interpret scripture. On the contrary, this would make it of “private
interpretation”. All who have been redeemed have the Holy Spirit, and all that
have the Holy Spirit can be illuminated to the correct interpretation of
scripture. Those who follow the Holy Spirit are not following private
interpretation, but rather the true interpretation that the Holy Spirit shows
us. The Catholic Church’s claim that it alone has the correct interpretation
makes the interpretation private.
How God Distributes
His Gifts
Baptism
Being born of water is a reference to natural birth, not
baptism. There is no context of baptism whatsoever; in fact, Jesus soon after
says, “That whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have
everlasting life.” Belief, not baptism, makes one “born again”. This is the
obvious progression since, in the previous verse, Nicodemus asks, “How can a
man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's
womb, and be born?” Jesus then tells him that a man must be born of water AND
of the Spirit. Born physically, then reborn through the Spirit.
Likewise, I Peter 3:21 is edited to ignore the crucial
detail in parentheses: “(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but
the answer of a good conscience toward God,)”. What Peter speaks of is not the
outward sign of baptism, but the baptism by the Spirit.
As a few examples, the true order of baptism can be seen in
Acts 8. As Phillip speaks to the Ethiopian eunuch, the eunuch asks Phillip what
hinders him from being baptized. Phillip says, “If thou believest with all
thine heart, thou mayest.” The same is seen with the prison guard in Acts 16.
The thief on the cross was never baptized, yet Jesus said he would be in
paradise. It is not baptism that washed away sin, but faith in Jesus’ death,
burial, and resurrection.
To be fair, I do believe baptism is a vital step in one’s
Christian faith, and it is a command of God. It, however, does not mean
anything as far as salvation goes.
Penance
The Bible never says that anyone other than God has the
ability to forgive sin. Why has this duty been handed to priests? What is the
biblical precedent for a man forgiving sin rather than God?
Eucarist
We covered the Eucharist somewhat in a prior conversation.
To answer directly what the author writes, Jesus says that His very words in
John 6 “are spirit”. He did not mean that people had to literally eat His flesh
and drink His blood. Otherwise, He would literally be a door since He said He
is in John 10:9. He also said that if our right eye offends us, we should pluck
it out. If Jesus was always literal when He spoke, I would either be maimed or
living in rebellion to this commandment.
I don’t think it logically follows to say that communion is
taking part in the “once-for-all” sacrifice of Christ if it is repeatedly
happening. Weekly or daily is not “once-for-all”.
Confirmation
Since we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, He would, in a
sense, be a confirmation. I am not opposed to a confirmation; however, I
obviously do not agree with the Catechism on how the Holy Spirit is received
and thus would have hesitations about the way in which it is done. My
understanding of this doctrine is not extensive, so I am not familiar with
every detail of it.
Matrimony
I have few if any disagreements with the Catholic Church on
the issue of marriage.
Holy Orders
Catholic priests have fairly different roles than most
Protestant ministers, including Baptists of which I am a member. What
similarity they do share is the belief that God calls them into service.
Anointing of the Sick
It seems to be a stretch that anointing cleanses the soul.
I, however, see no problem with the practice.
Talking with God and
His Saints
While I do not believe in purgatory, I do believe that the
saints (all Christians) in Heaven speak to God as they do here on Earth. They
may even pray for us on Earth. However, it does not follow that we ought to
pray to them. Nowhere in the Bible do I see this. On the contrary, it is a
diminishment of Christ’s role as mediator. If He is the only mediator, prayer
should be directed to Him, not to others in Heaven.
“Seeing then that we have a great
high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold
fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we
are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace,
that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” –Hebrews
4:14-16
There is a difference between me asking someone on Earth to
pray for me and someone who is dead to pray for me. There is only one instance
of a human on Earth speaking to a human that is dead, and this was done through
a witch (Saul talking to Samuel).
If we believe the Bible that “all have sinned” (Romans
3:23), then, as Mary is a human and not a god, this must include her as well.
Mary being “highly favored” (Luke 1:28) and her statement that “my spirit hath
rejoiced in God my Saviour” (Luke 1:47) is not really evidence to her having a
sinless state, as the author says it is. On the contrary, a need for a personal
Savior (“my Saviour”) implies that she was not sinless, and she knew it.
Therefore the same stipulations apply to her as to anyone else that is
physically dead.
What is the Purpose
of Life?
I agree with everything (excluding purgatory, of course)
about this statement. I just disagree with the vital doctrine of what makes us
a part of the body of Christ.
What You must do to
be Saved
The idea that we are not saved through faith alone seems to
run directly contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest
any man should boast.” Advocating that our works are rewarded with eternal life
IS claiming they are needed for salvation, regardless of what the stated claim
is.
So good works are needed for eternal life. What exactly is
the criteria? Is there a certain number of times we have to help the poor? Is
there a quota of good works we have to reach per day, or week, or year? Is
there a percentage of following God's will we have to hit? Does just missing it
once disqualify me? Simply saying works must be involved is very vague. I have
never, as of yet, heard a specific, measurable way to know if you are hitting
the mark.
Of course, that mark is God’s holiness. Which means that we
all “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “The wages of sin is
death…” Romans 6:23 tells us. This sounds scary because it is. This is why
salvation must be through faith alone. All of us fall short of the mark.
The author is right that our works tell us whether we know
God. That is the theme of I John. But that’s just it: works show us if we know
God. They don’t buy merit with Him.
The author really is grasping when he says that Paul would
not have spoken so much on sin if sin could not exclude us from Heaven. This is
a totally baseless claim. Consecrated living following God is important to Him
because Christians are His children. He expects us to act like it. He can
rightly place expectations on us while holding to His promise that Christians
will “never perish” (John 10:28).
Jesus often used messages about sin to point people to the
fact that they can’t keep the law. By pointing out the impossible standard He
paves the way for His own fulfillment of the law to be enough for anyone, in
any sinful state, to have a relationship with Him. Don’t lose sight of the fact
that salvation is through faith BECAUSE we cannot meet God’s standard.
Are You Guaranteed
Heaven?
The Bible assumes something about Christians. They are
changed. When they meet God, they are radically changed. Thus, they are set
apart to do good works. They are made more and more like Jesus. Good works
follow faith.
James, in what can be a confusing second chapter, was
speaking to a group of people who professed that they were Christians but whose
lives were not backing that up. Hence, he tells them that they have to justify
themselves through their works. (This definition of justify is to show themselves
to be justified. Just like how God is “justified” in the Bible. Not because He
isn’t already just; He is showing Himself to be just. If this is still confusing,
check
out my article on the chapter contrasted with Ephesians 2.) So it is
expected that Christians’ lives will reflect the fact that they are Christians.
If their works do not back up the faith they claim to have, then they probably
don’t have the faith at all.
To say we are not guaranteed Heaven after salvation is to
ignore God’s promise that true, born-again Christians will “never perish”.
I John 5 also tells us that we can know that we have eternal
life. Know. Not hope. Not so long as we die with no unconfessed mortal sin.
Know. To base our salvation off of a vague need for works or not dying with
unconfessed mortal sin is rather, well, uncertain. It doesn’t line up.
The Wave of the
Future
Never Popular, Always
Attractive
It is another non sequitur to say that because the Catholic
Church faces opposition it must be the true church. Islam and atheism face a
lot of opposition as well; that doesn’t make them correct.
Incomplete
Christianity is not Enough
Again, there is a claim to the Catholic Church being the one
true church but not really any evidence. It is important to see past rhetoric
and examine where the evidence actually lies.
Your Tasks as a
Catholic
Being informed is not a bad thing, because if you are
willing to make an honest examination, it will lead to the truth.
Unfortunately, I no longer keep in contact with this friend.
If she happens to be reading, though, I want her to know that I care about her
and am praying that she, personally, is led into truth.