For as many sentences that start with “I saw this thing on Pinterest…” There may be equal number of sentences that begin with, “Before the internet…” And here’s mine, “Before the internet, I read more books.” Reading less books since the internet, well, that hasn’t stopped me from buying more books though. Wham, there’s a double confession! So each week here on The Littlest Way, I’m going to share some of my favorite books I’ve read. The accountability of posting on my Book Club Time Page will make me read more, theoretically. Why the sudden enthusiasm, St Josemaria Escriva and his writings in The Way. As I read bits and pieces of it the other night, I thought of sharing our favorites in a Book Club Time: Spiritual Reading post.
And the quotation that follows…“By reading,” you wrote me, “I build up a store of fuel. It seems a lifeless pile, but I often find that my mind spontaneously draws from it material which fills my prayer with life and inflames my thanksgiving after communion.” The Way–St Josemaria Escriva
For me, it is so easy to read a snippet here or there on the internet and feel as if I’ve actually “read.” An inspiring article here that quotes from a saint, an encouraging blog post there with a beautiful pinnable scripture and once I’ve gathered enough of those pieces, I may feel I’ve had a full meal of good, true and beautiful reading…but I have not. There are no blog posts or interesting articles that should take the place of my actual spiritual reading–and that spiritual reading should always include a portion of the Bible.
So what should we read during our spiritual reading book club time?
First, the Scriptures. Find yourself a Bible and get into it. If you are a note taker, highlighter or doodler…but don’t want to mark up a nice Bible, go to the Goodwill and grab a Bible there for a few dollars. Then you won’t feel so bad highlighting or writing notes in the margins.
Find a Bible reading plan and start reading through it. Or choose one book of the Bible to spend some time with. This summer I spent four weeks reading Philippians. Paul’s Letter of Joy is always, always a good month long Bible reading plan because there are four chapters–spend one week reading each chapter. The book of Proverbs is also another good book of the Bible. There are 31 chapters in Proverbs so you could read one chapter a day. And of course I’m going to recommend reading spending some time in the book of Sirach; I just spent 31 days reading and blogging through it and I have a Bible Study and Journal for the Bok of Sirach.
Second, a good devotional book. There are many great devotionals out there. You could even change them up based on season, spiritual or physical. I will be re-releasing my Advent Devotional for Women ebook the end of this month to my email subscribers. (If you haven’t signed up yet to receive The Littlest Way in your email inbox, now would be a great time –>> Click Here to subscribe.) The devotional is to be read December first through thirty-first.
Elizabeth Foss and Danielle Bean’s Small Steps for Catholic Moms is a lovely devotional for all mom’s, not just Catholic ones. A couple of other good daily devotionals I have used are Divine Intimacy and Commentary for Benedictine Oblates: On the Rule of St. Benedict. Both of these are longer in length than Small Steps, so sometimes I’ll read from them at night before bed, when the house is asleep. And my daughters have read His Princess: Love Letters from Your King at different times and enjoyed it.
Third, an autobiography, biography or writings from the saints or other holy, virtuous people. These books will teach and inspire us to learn more of Christ and then share that love. One of my all time favorite authors is Jacques Philippe. There are the classics: The Imitation of Christ , Introduction to the Devout Life, and Story of a Soul: The Autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux. And there are newer “classics” like Diary: Divine Mercy in My Soul.
Here’s a follow-up post where I talk more about some of my favorite prayer books, My Favorite Catholic Prayer Books.
I would love to know what some of your favorite spiritual reading books are and why. And if you have a favorite daily devotional. Please share in the comments.
saul trate says
Sola Scriptura Versus Tradition
One of the most volatile issues that separates Protestants from Roman Catholics has to do with the issue of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”). Protestants believe that Scripture alone speaks with God’s voice and is authoritative in matters of faith and practice, whereas most Roman Catholics believe that both Scripture and tradition constitute the Word of God.
Roman Catholic traditionalists often make reference to the phrase, “sacred deposit of faith.” This refers to the body of beliefs and practices entrusted to the pope and bishops by the 12 apostles, who themselves received this body of belief and practices from Jesus Christ.
A body of truth was passed down to the pope and bishops in two ways: tradition and the written Word. Tradition refers to oral teachings, oral worship, and the oral prayers of the apostles. The written Word, by contrast, is what we find recorded in the pages of Scripture. Many Catholics believe that written Scripture and oral tradition together form the Word of God.
Protestants Respect Tradition, Not Exalt It
Those of us who hold to sola scriptura do not say there never was a time when God’s Word was spoken. Quite obviously there was such a time. Yet we also hold that the Scriptures are God’s final and full revelation to humankind. All God intends us to have is found within the Scriptures. Nothing outside the pages of Scriptures is needed.
That is not to say that Protestants view tradition as being worthless. Protestants respect “tradition” in the form of confessions and council pronouncements, but they do not accept traditions as being “apostolic,” or as being God’s revelation, or as something that has an authority equal to that of Scripture. Most Protestants have regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible.
The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture – A Clear Contrast with Tradition
The Greek word for inspiration in the Bible, theopnustos, literally means “God-breathed.” Because Scripture is breathed out by God, because it originates from Him, it is true and inerrant.
Biblical inspiration may be defined as God’s superintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities (and even their writing styles), they composed and recorded without error His revelation to humankind in the words of the original autographs. Benjamin B. Warfield, a prince of theologians, explains that
the original documents of the Bible were written by men, who,
though permitted to exercise their own personalities and literary
talents, yet wrote under the control and guidance of the Spirit of
God, the result being in every word of the original documents a
perfect and errorless recording of the exact message which God
desired to give to man. [B.B. Warfield. The Inspiration and Authority
of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948). P. 173]
The writers of Scripture were not mere writing machines. God did not use them like keys on a typewriter to mechanically reproduce His message. Nor did He dictate the words page by page.
Second Peter 1:21 provides a key insight regarding the human-divine interchange in the process of inspiration. This verse informs us that “prophecy [or Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The phrase “carried along” in this verse literally means “forcefully borne along.” Even though human beings were used in the process of writing down God’s Word, the human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message. God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record His message. Rather, as Dr. Norman Geisler (apologist and theologian) and William Nix put it, “God moved and the prophet mouthed these truths; God revealed and man recorded His word.” [Norman Geisler and Willam Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 28.]
The Holy Spirit of God is truly the divine author of Scripture. Though He used erring humans as penmen, He superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error and omission. The Scriptures, in the original autographs, possess the quality of freedom from error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth. In 1980, the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy affirmed that inspiration.
The Bible teaches that Scripture alone is the supreme and infallible authority for the church and the individual believer (1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:21). Again, this is not to say that creeds and tradition are unimportant, but the Bible alone is our final authority. Creeds and traditions are man-made.
Scripture had final authority because it is a direct revelation from God and carries the very authority of God Himself (Galatians 1:12). That the Bible says, God says. The Scriptures are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. This is what Protestants call sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”). All that we must believe as Christians is found within the pages of Scripture. We need no other source, the Bible alone is sufficient.
Jesus used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every matter under dispute. To the Sadducees He said, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). He told some Pharisees that they invalidated the Word of God by their tradition which has been handed down (Mark 7:13). Jesus informed them, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). To the devil, Jesus consistently responded, “It is written…” (Matthew 4:4-10). Following Jesus’ lead, Scripture alone must be our supreme and final authority.
In Colossians 2:8 the apostle Paul warns, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ”.
Any tradition that conflicts with the absolute Word of God as contained in Scripture is to be rejected. Scripture is supreme over tradition.
Question…
Would you please read aloud Mark 7:8 and 7:13, where Jesus is speaking to some Pharisees?
What is Jesus’ attitude toward tradition here?
Would you please read aloud Colossians 2:8?
According to this verse, is it possible for human traditions to lead people astray?
Jesus affirmed the Bible’s divine inspiration (Matthew 22;43), its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17,18), its infallibility (John 10:35), its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10), its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37), its scientific accuracy (Matthew 19:2-5), and its factual inerrancy John 17:17; Matthew 22:29).
The apostle Paul affirmed the full adequacy of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16,17. In this passage we read, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
Notice that verse 16 and 17 does not say that Scripture as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Magisterium (teaching office) is “profitable for teaching, for reproof.” And so forth. Nor does it say that Scripture and tradition are “profitable for teaching, for reproof,” and so forth. It is Scripture alone that does these things. And the reason Scripture can do these thing is that “all Scripture is inspired by God” (verse 16).
It is noteworthy that the word adequate (in the phrase “that the man of God may be adequate”) means “complete, capable, fully furnished, proficient in the sense of being able to meet all demands.” Scripture alone makes a person complete, capable, and proficient. Scripture furnishes all that a person must know to be saved and to grow in grace.
Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper has suggested four advantages of written revelation as opposed to oral tradition: 1) Written revelation is durable and not susceptible to errors of memory, and accidental corruptions are minimized; 2) it can be universally disseminated; 3) it has the attribute of fixedness and purity; and 4) it is given a finality and normativeness which other forms of communication cannot attain. (Cited in Geisler and MacKenzie, “What Think Ye of Rome?”)
Rome’s Claim that the Bible Cannot Be Interpreted Without Tradition Contains a Fatal Flaw
The Roman Catholic Church often claims that the Bible cannot be interpreted rightly without tradition. The big problem with this claim is that once Rome [Vatican City] gives a definitive explanation of a Bible passage via tradition, Rome’s explanation must then be interpreted, and in many Rome’s explanations must then be interpreted, and in many cases Rome’s explanations are more complicated that the Bible passage. (White, Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 71.)
What this means is that Rome has just pushed the problem back one generation. Now, instead of needing help interpreting the Bible, we need help interpreting the tradition that is supposed to make the Bible clearer.
Protestants, of course, believe that the Bible is sufficiently clear. This is a doctrine called perspicuity. This does not mean that every single verse in the Bible is equally clear or easy to understand. Rather, it means that the main teachings of the Bible are quite clear. As the old saying goes, the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.
Church history reveals that there are clear contradictions in the many traditions of Rome. Abelard (A.D. 1079-1142) recognized hundreds of such contradictions. For example, some church fathers accepted the immaculate conception of Mary, while others did not. (Geisler and MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, p. 196.) What this means is that tradition is not infallible, nor is it authoritative.
Questions…
Did you know there are many contradictions in the traditions of the Catholic Church? (For example, some Church fathers accepted the immaculate conception of Mary, while others did not.)
Since there are many contradictions in the traditions of Rome, doesn’t that mean they are not infallible?
Docan Putin says
The Doctrine of Purgatory
Purgatory may be defined as “a place or state in which are detained the souls of those who die in grace, in friendship with God, but with the blemish of venial sin or with temporal debt for sin unpaid. Here the soul is purged, cleansed, readied for eternal union with God in Heaven.” [Catholicism, George Brantl, ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 232].
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that “all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter joy of heaven.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Image Books, 1985), p. 93].
The Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory was pronounced as Church dogma in A.D. 1438. The best way to describe it is that it is a temporary hell with the sole purpose of working off the temporal punishment for a person’s sins.
The Doctrine of Indulgences
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Church is the steward of a vast reservoir of merit called the “treasury of the Church” or “treasury of merit.” This treasury was allegedly earned by the works and prayers of Jesus Christ, His mother Mary, and the saints of all ages. This treasury of merit is so vast that it can never be exhausted or depleted.
According to Roman Catholic theology, the Church has the power to dispense from this reservoir “indulgences,” which are said to cancel the debt of temporal punishment. [The modern Roman Catholic teaching on indulgences has been stated and clarified in three documents, dating from 1967 (Indulgentiarum doctrina, of Paul VI), 1968 (The new Enchiridion of Indulgences, issued by the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary), and 1983 (the new Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church).
Because Christ, Mary, and various Catholic saints have provided “super-abundant satisfactions” to God through their many merits, the Catholic Church believes it can offer these same merits to Catholic believers in exchange for remission of punishment.
Catholics speak of both a “partial indulgence” and a “plenary indulgence.” A partial indulgence is one that takes away just a portion of a person’s temporal punishment. A plenary indulgence cancels all the temporal punishment a person has accumulated. The more temporal punishment remitted through indulgences in this life, the less time someone will have to spend in purgatory. Understandably, the partial indulgence requires fewer acts of piety that a plenary indulgence.
Once a person has earned an indulgence, he or she can apply it either personally (thereby reducing his or her own temporal punishment for sins committed), or can by prayer apply it to the account of a dead loved one believed to be in purgatory. So indulgences can benefit both oneself and one’s dead loved ones. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 411.)
Answering Roman Catholics
The Doctrine of Purgatory
Consider what Roman Catholics are saying in regard to the doctrine of purgatory. Let’s say you are a good-hearted Catholic, and you do all the things required of your Church throughout life. You regularly attend Mass, you work hard to maintain sanctifying grace in your soul by being faithful, and you confess your sins to a priest when you do wrong. You are always careful to participate in the sacrament of penance after committing what you think may be a mortal sin. You do all this and more, keeping with what your Church tells you. When you die, you will likely still have to go to purgatory before being granted entrance into heaven. Throughout someone’s lifetime he or she could attend over a thousand Masses and still die not fully purified from sin. Protestants respond that this hardly seems like the “good news” of the gospel (Ephesians 2:8,9).
Questions:
Did you know that the word gospel means “good news”?
Does it sound like “good news” to you that you can attend over a thousand Masses throughout your life and still die not fully purified from sin?
By contrast, does the following statement by the apostle Paul sound like “good news”: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as result of works, that no one should boast: (Ephesians 2:8,9)?
Is believing in Christ sufficient for salvation? Or must we combine believing in Christ with doing good works?
Did you know that there are about 200 scriptural references in the New Testament that salvation is said to be by faith alone, with no works in sight? Here are few scriptures for you to review: Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16,17; Romans 3:20; John 3:15; John 5:24; John 11:25; Galatians 2:16.
The doctrine of purgatory is an outgrowth of the insufficient Roman Catholic view of justification. Since only perfectly righteous people get into heaven, and since in the Roman Catholic view of justification someone is not absolutely and once for all declared righteous by God, then somehow a person must become perfectly righteous before entrance into heaven is granted. This happens via purgatory (among other things). Contrary to the Catholic view, the biblical view of justification involves a singular and instantaneous event in which God declares the believing sinner to be righteous.
From a scriptural perspective, when Jesus died on the cross He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Jesus completed the work of redemption at the cross. No purgatory is needed for those who trust in Christ. In His high priestly prayer to the Father, Jesus said, “I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do” (John 17:4). First John 1:7 says, “The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin”. Romans 8:1 says, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.
We are cleansed not by some alleged fire of purgatory but by the blood of Jesus Christ (Hebrew 9:14). Jesus “Himself is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2). It is through Jesus’ work on the cross that we are made righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21). The apostle Paul spoke of his life as “not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Philippians 3:7-9). It is through this wonderful work of Christ on the cross that believers are “blameless,” and hence are in no need of some alleged purgatory (Jude 1:24; Ephesians 1:4).
In Hebrews 10:14: “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified”. In other words, no further purging is necessary because Christ has perfected “for all time” those who have believed in Him. That which is already perfect “for all time” needs no further purging. There is no need for purgatory for those who have truly trusted in Christ as Savior.
greg foren says
The Gospel for Roman Catholics
By Matt Slick
This paper is written in two parts. The first explains and documents the Roman Catholic Church’s position on justification. The second part presents the true gospel in contrast to the Catholic Church’s position. If you want to go straight to the gospel presentation for Catholics, simply scroll down the page.
Because of the great emphasis on Sacred Tradition within the Catholic Church and because so many Roman Catholics appeal to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Word of God is often placed after the Catholic Church itself in relation to authority. Because of this, many Catholics appeal to their works–in combination with the sacrifice of Christ as a means of being justified before God. The Council of Trent expresses this plainly:
“If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.” (Canon 14).
Justification is the legal declaration by God upon the sinner where God declares the sinner righteous in His sight. This justification is based completely and solely on the work of Christ on the cross. We cannot earn justification or merit justification in any way. If we could, then Christ died needlessly. “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Gal. 2:21). Because righteousness cannot come through the Law (through our efforts of merit), the Bible declares that we are justified before God by faith:
• “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Rom. 3:28).
• “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3).
• “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,” (Rom. 4:5).
• “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
• “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God;” (Eph. 2:8).
However, in Roman Catholicism, justification by faith is denied.
“If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified . . . let him be accursed,” (Canon 12, Council of Trent).
Which are we to believe? The Roman Catholic Church or God’s word? Furthermore, the RCC states that justification is received not by faith–but by baptism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph, 1992, that ” . . . justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith.” This means that faith is not the instrument of obtaining justification; instead, it is an ordinance performed by a priest in the Roman Catholic Church.
Furthermore, baptism is only the initial grace along the road of justification. The Roman Catholic is to then maintain his position before God by his efforts.
“No one can MERIT the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can MERIT for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), par. 2027).
The problem here is that the RCC is teaching us to “merit for ourselves and for others all the graces need to attain eternal life.” You cannot merit grace. Grace is unmerited favor. Merit is, according to the CCC, par. 2006, ” . . . the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment . . . ” CCC 2006. This means that merit is something owed. By contrast, grace is something not owed. Therefore, the RCC is teaching contrary to God’s word regarding grace and justification.
The sad result is that in Roman Catholicism, justification before God is a process that is maintained by the effort and works of the Roman Catholic. This is a very unfortunate teaching since it puts the unbearable burden of works’ righteousness upon the shoulders of the sinner. By contrast, the Bible teaches that justification/salvation is by faith.
• “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,” (Rom. 4:5).
• “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
• “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God;” (Eph. 2:8).
The Gospel for Roman Catholics
The Gospel for Roman Catholics is the same as for anyone else, and it is obtained by grace through faith in believing and trusting in Jesus alone, who is God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins. Salvation is not found in a true church. Salvation is not found in being good. Salvation is not found in good works. Salvation is not found in a sincere heart. Salvation is not found in making up for past sins by efforts of restoration or penance or indulgences. You can never do enough to please God.
Because God is so infinitely holy and righteous and because we are sinners, we are incapable of pleasing God by anything that we do. In fact, our righteous deeds are considered filthy rags before God (Isa. 64:6). You can do nothing to earn forgiveness or keep forgiveness. Salvation before God is not administered to us through an earthly priest in the Catholic church by the sprinkling of water or giving of penance or recitation of formula prayers. Salvation for the Christian is not kept through the effort of the person who hopes and tries and worries about being good enough to stay saved.
Such error can only lead to despair and hopelessness and a desperate and unwarranted dependence on the Roman Catholic Church as the only means by which salvation can be distributed and maintained. In this error, people far too often seek to work their way to heaven by being good, by doing what the Catholic church teaches them to do, by prayers to Mary, by indulgences, by the Rosary, and by a host of other man-made works. Remember, in the RCC, salvation is through the Church and its sacraments and not through Jesus alone–by faith alone. This is exactly how the cults of Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses work who both teach that true salvation is found only in their church membership and in following the revelation and authority of their church teachers and traditions.
Are you tired of the works’ requirement?
In great contrast to the position of the Roman Catholic Church, if you want to be forgiven of your sins, once and for all, then you need to come to Christ (Matt. 11:28). You need to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior (John 1:12; Rom. 10:13). You need to ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins (John 14:14) and trust in Him alone and in nothing that you can do. Remember, your good deeds have no merit before God (Isa. 64:6). Furthermore, if you have faith, it is because that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29). If you believe, it is because God has granted that you believe (Phil. 1:29). It is not because you were baptized or have been good or have been sincere. It is all of God. The Lord must receive all the glory for salvation because it completely and totally rests in Him. Salvation rests in Christ alone, and it is received by faith apart from works.
Please read the following scriptures carefully.
1. “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23).
2. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Rom. 6:23).
3. “and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” (1 Pet. 2:24).
4. “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor. 5:21).
5. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” (John 14:14).
6. “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29″Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls.” (Matt. 11:28-29).
7. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,” (John 1:12).
8. “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Gal. 2:21).
9. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” (Rom. 3:28).
10. “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3).
11. “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,” (Rom. 4:5).
12. “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13).
A suggested prayer
This suggested prayer is not a formula but a representation of biblical principles by which you might better understand the true gospel and receive Christ as your Lord and Savior. It is not a formula derived from Sacred Tradition or Stamped with the seal of the Roman Catholic Church’s approval. Its principles are derived from scripture: we are sinners; God is Holy; we cannot earn salvation; salvation is a free gift; prayer to Christ; Jesus is the only way; receiving Christ; faith; etc.
“Lord Jesus, I admit that I am a sinner, and that I have offended you by breaking your Holy Law. I confess my sins to you, Lord, and ask forgiveness from you and do not ask anyone else to be forgiven of my sins against you. I acknowledge who you are, God in flesh, creator, humble Lord, who bore my sins in Your body on the cross; and I come to you alone and trust you alone, by faith, that you will forgive me completely of my sins; so that I will have eternal life. I ask you, Lord, to come into my heart to be my Lord, to forgive me of my sins. Lord, I trust in you alone, in the work of the cross alone and not in any church, not in any saint, not in Mary, not in any priest but in you alone. Lord, Jesus, I receive you and come to you and ask you to forgive me and justify me by faith as I trust in you alone. Thank you.
If you are a Roman Catholic and have trusted in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins, then welcome to the body of Christ. Welcome to salvation and the free gift of forgiveness in Jesus.
Next, I strongly recommend that you read the Bible regularly, talk to Jesus daily in prayer, and seek to find a church that teaches and focuses on Jesus as Lord, Jesus as Savior, and sticks to the Bible alone.
fallis popus says
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE
Problem: Many of the distinctive Roman Catholic doctrines have come from the allegedly infallible teachings of the popes. Catholics believe that when the pope speaks ex cathedra (from the Latin, meaning “from the chair”) on issues pertaining to faith and morals, he is infallible. Indeed, we are told, the Spirit of truth (that is, the Holy Spirit) guarantees that when the pope declares that he is teaching infallibly as Christ’s representative and visible head of the Church on matters of faith and practice, he cannot lead the Church into error. [The Essential Catholic Handbook, p. 23.]
The bishops too are infallible when they speak “with one voice”, that is, when all the bishops agree on a doctrine. They are assured freedom from error “provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority.” [Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary, p.195.]
Roman Catholics believe that Apostle Peter was supreme over all the other disciples, and held a supreme position in New Testament times.
Solution: Scripture gives no indication that Peter was supreme over all the other disciples. In fact, the four Gospels indicate that no apostle held a supreme position in New Testament times. All the New Testament verses that speak of Peter are virtually silent regarding any alleged supremacy on his part. In Luke 22:24-30, just prior to the time of Christ’s arrest and crucifixion, some of the disciples got into an argument regarding who among them would be considered the greatest.
Questions:
If Peter was supreme, why did the disciples continue to debate among themselves who would be considered the greatest (Luke 22:24-30)?
If Peter had risen to a position of supremacy, why is the apostle Paul the prominent figure in Acts 13-28?
If God intended that there be a papacy, why didn’t He include it in the authority
structure of the church as outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:28, which includes apostles, prophets, and teachers?
If Peter was supreme, wouldn’t he be the one sending others instead of being sent by others to Samaria (Acts 8:14)?
If Peter was supreme, why does it seem that James was the dominant person at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13-35)?
Doesn’t the fact that the apostle Paul publicly corrected Peter on a matter of faith and practice demonstrates that Peter himself was not viewed as supreme (Galatians 2:11- 14)?
The very idea that Peter ended up going to Rome toward the end of his life is extremely problematic. We know from church history that Irenaeus’s list of the 12 bishops of Rome did not include Peter’s name. (Irenaeus lived A.D. 130-200, and he certainly would have been aware of all the bishops who lived in the first century.) That would have been an incredible omission if indeed Peter had been a bishop in Rome.
Further, scholars have noted that Peter ministered heavily among the Jews of his time (Galatians 2:7,8). In view of this, it would have been strange for Peter to move on to Rome, since that city was not a center of Judaism. The first 15 chapters of the Book of Acts show that Peter was in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Antioch. There is never any mention of Rome.
Questions:
If Peter ended up in Rome, why didn’t the apostle Paul mention a greeting to Peter in his letter to the Romans (see Romans 1:7;16:1-16)?
If Peter ended up in Rome, why didn’t he ever visit the apostle Paul while Paul was imprisoned in Rome? (There is no mention of a visit by Peter in any of the
Epistles Paul wrote from Rome.)
THE SCRIPTURE IS INFALLIBLE, NOT THE POPE
In claiming to be infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals, the pope claims for himself something that even the apostles did not. The apostle Paul is an example. In the Book of Galatians, Paul warned against the danger of a false gospel and said, “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The gospel that Paul preached is permanently recorded in written form in his Epistles. And if anything conflicts with that written Scripture, it is to be rejected. Scripture alone is infallible and hence authoritative (John 10:35).
When in Acts 17:11 the Bereans tested Paul’s truth claims against the Old Testament Scriptures, Paul did not chasten them but rather commended them. Paul’s attitude is encapsulated in this admonition: “Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
We should follow this advice in regard to the truth claims of the pope. His teachings should be measured against the teachings of Scripture. And in doing so it becomes clear, at least in many cases, that the pope’s teaching is patently unbiblical.
The truth is that the pope was a finite human being who was prone to mistakes as all other human beings are. Only God has infinite understanding and makes no mistakes. That is why His Word is infallible (John 10:35); it comes straight from Him (2 Timothy 3:16).
Scripture never promised that there would be successors to Peter who would be divinely protected from error when speaking ex cathedra. That is a man-made doctrine.
In fact, scholars tell us: “There have been about thirty-five anti-popes in the history of the church.” [Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), p.66.] When there are two popes at once, the Roman Catholic is left in a dilemma: Which pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth? Which one is the phony? Which one makes infallible statements on morals and faith when he speaks ex cathedra? [Geisler and MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, p. 217.] While many Roman Catholics ignore this issue, it is something that has never been satisfactorily answered, and which deals a hard blow to the claim of infallibility.
Questions:
How do you explain the fact that there have been 35 occasions in which there has been more than one pope at a time in the Roman Catholic Church?
Doesn’t this undermine the Roman Catholic view on infallibility?
A further problem for the Roman Catholic view of infallibility is the fact that some of the Church’s popes have taught heresy. One example would be Pope Honorius (A.D. 625-638), who was soundly condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching the monothelite heresy (the teaching that there was only one will in Christ). [Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, “What Think Ye of Rome? Part Four: The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Papal Infallibility,” Christian Research Journal, fall 1994]. How can an infallible pope teach fallible heresy? It does not make sense.
Question:
If the pope is infallible, how can it be that Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638) was condemned for teaching heresy by the Sixth General Council?
Contrary to the idea that we must submit our understanding of God’s Word to an organization, individual believers are exhorted and instructed by Scriptures to test things for themselves (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). They are to be like the Bereans, who examined what the apostle Paul said in light of the Word of God, to make sure that Paul’s teachings were in line with Scripture (Acts 17:11; see also Galatians 1:8). (Note that the Bereans were not priests; they were laypeople living in Berea. Scripture alone is our spiritual guide, and the Holy Spirit alone is our teacher (John 14:18,26).
MATTHEW 16:18 – Is Peter the rock on which the church is built?
Problem: Roman Catholics use this passage to support their belief in the primacy of Peter, that is, that he is the rock on which the church is built. But Paul said the church is built on Christ, not Peter (1 Corinthians 3:11). Is Peter the “rock” in this passage?
Solution: There are different ways to understand this passage, but none of them support the Roman Catholic view that the church is built on St. Peter, he became the first Pope. This is evident for many reasons.
First of all, Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), and Popes do not marry. If the first Pope could marry, why later pronounce that no priest (or Pope) can marry.
Second, Peter was not infallible in his views on the Christian life. Even Paul had to rebuke him for his hypocrisy, because he was not “straight forward about the truth of the Gospel” (Galatians 2:14).
Third, the Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that “no other foundation can anyone lay that that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11).
Fourth, the only sense in which Peter had a foundational role in the church, all the other apostles shared in the same way. Peter was not unique in this respect. For Paul declared that in this sense the church is “built on the the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the “chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). Indeed, the early church continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine [not just Peter’s]” (Acts 2:42). Even “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter (Matthew 1:19) were also given to all the apostles (cf. Matthew 18:18).
Fifth, there is no indication that Peter was the head of the early church. When the first council was held at Jerusalem, Peter played only an introductory role (Acts 15:6-11). James seems to have a more significant position, summing up the conference and making the final pronouncement (cf. Acts 15:13-21). Peter is never referred to as the “pillar” in the church. Rather, Paul speaks of “pillars” (plural), such as, “James, Cephas, and John” (Galatians 2:9). Peter (Cephs) is not even listed first among the pillars.
Sixth, there are a number of factors in the Greek text that argue against this interpretation. Whenever Peter is referred to in this passage (Matthew 16), it is in the second person (“you”), but “this rock” is in the third person (verse 18). Moreover, “Peter” (petros) is a masculine singular term, and “rock” (petra) is a feminine singular term. Hence, they do not have the same referent. Jesus did not say to Peter, “You are Petros and on this Petros I will build my church.” Jesus said, “You are Petros (Peter), and upon this petra, I will build my church.” It would seem that, in context, petra here refers to Peter’s confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ.
Question:
Since Peter in Matthew 16:18 is referred to in the second person (“you”), but “this rock” is in the third person, does it not seem clear that Peter is not the “rock” upon which the church would be built?
Ephesians 2:20 affirms that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” Peter himself referred to Christ as “the cornerstone” of the church (1 Peter 2:7), and the rest of believers as “living stones” (verse 5) in the superstructure of the church. Colossians 1:17,18 affirms that Christ alone is the head of the church. Christ is called a rock in Romans 9:33 and in 1 Corinthians 10:4. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, we read, “No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”.
Questions:
Since the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (plural), doesn’t this indicates that the church was not built on Peter alone (singular)?
Since Christ is referred to by Peter as “the cornerstone” of the church (1 Peter 2:7), doesn’t Christ alone occupy the place of prominence?
Do you know of a single verse in the Book of Acts where Peter is seen as exalted to a position of supremacy? (There is none.)
Did Paul Teach That Heaven Can Be Merited by Good Works?
Problem: In Romans 2:6,7 we read that God “will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.”
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott tells us that “St. Paul, who stresses grace so much, also emphasized on the other hand, the meritorious nature of good works performed with grace, by teaching that the reward is in proportion to the works: ‘He [God] will render to every man according to his own labor’ (Romans 2:6).” [Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 265.] We are told that “it is a universally accepted dogma of the Catholic Church that man, in union with the grace of the Holy Spirit, must merit heaven by his good works…. We can actually merit heaven as our reward.” [Matthias Premm, Dogmatic Theology for the Laity (Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1967), p. 262.]
Solution: Taken in its proper context, this passage does not teach that works, including “works performed with grace”, are a condition for receiving salvation. We first note that in this very Book of Romans, Paul emphatically states that salvation is entirely apart from works: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28).
In Paul’s theology, works are the result of salvation, not the condition of salvation. Ephesians 2:10 makes it clear that we are saved unto good works. We are saved by grace but for works. We do not work for grace but from grace (see Titus 2:11,12; 2 Corinthians 5:14). Good works do not bring salvation; they simply attest to the salvation that has already been received by faith (Romans 6:23; 10:9,10; 11:6). These works are portrayed as evidence that a person has saving faith.
Questions:
Would you please read aloud from Romans 3:28 and with Romans 4:5?
What do these verses say about the relationship of works to salvation?
Since Scripture does not contradict itself, does it make sense to you that however
Romans 2:6-8 is interpreted, it must be done so that it agrees with Romans 3:28 and 4:5?
Did you know that Paul talks about salvation by grace with no works involved in
Ephesians 2:8,9 and then in verse 10 speaks of works that follow this salvation?
Does it make sense to you that works are the result of salvation, not the condition of salvation?
Clare says
Like you Jenny, I am mad about the Bible – it is my lifetime companion!
And books about Jesus…
Jenny says
Hi Clare. I came from a place where I never thought I would say or feel that way…thanks be to God I do!
Clare says
Well, I haven’t always been as faithful to reading and praying with the Bible as I need to be…But life and experience has taught me I can’t do without it!