Examining the Cult of Mormonism

Link: about.me/gideonsword

A Summary and Evaluation of Mormonism

This article presents a brief overview of the Mormons; including the history and basic belief structure of the Mormon church.


Author: Rev. Shane Lems
Source: ReformedFellowship.net - The Outlook, January-February 2011, Volume 61, No.1 - Reformed Fellowship, Inc.

Introduction
The cult of Mormonism is on fire. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is burning up the religious landscape in the United States. In 1800 there were no Mormons; in 1950 there were around two million; estimates today are around thirteen million. Recently the Mormon church has been brought to the spotlight through Mitt Romney’s run for president, Glenn Beck on FOX, David Archuletta’s #2 spot on American Idol in 2008, and the recent trials over polygamy that we’ve read about in newspapers and blogs. Many know about Steve Young, Brigham Young University, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and those crisply dressed young male missionaries with the shiny black name tags. Many of us have seen one of the Mormon temples spread around the world, from Australia to Korea to the Philippines to China to South America and beyond. In a word, we can’t escape the Mormon religion: it is as ubiquitous as baseball and hotdogs.

In recent years, Mormons have been attempting to name themselves Christians. “We’re Christians too” is a theme song of the Mormon missionaries. What should we make of that claim? I’m guessing that some of us would quickly agree that Mormons are not Christians in the historic sense of the term, but exactly why can they try to use that label? Should we budge an inch and let them take the name in the broad sense of the term, and include them in our larger Christian church: Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, and Reformed? The answer is the strongest and loudest no you can yell next time you hear the question: Are Mormons Christians? This will become evident as we dig a bit deeper into what Mormons teach.

The following discussion has two basic parts. First, we take a historical and theological trek through Mormonism. In a point by point, straightforward manner, we will discuss the major teachings and beliefs of Latter Day Saints. After observing the “brute facts” of Mormonism, we engage in a critical evaluation, matching them up with the historic Christian faith. Also, in the second part, we learn that the inner workings of Mormonism—the nuts and bolts of their theology—are neither logical nor biblical. Much of the information I use about Mormon doctrines is found on their website, www.lds.org; what follows is but a very brief survey. I only quote official sources, and since footnoting every source would significantly lengthen the article, most of the following quotes are “googleable” (you can Google them to find the source). Please note that each quote from a significant Mormon authority can be documented and thus is part of Mormonism.


Joseph Smith
To understand Mormonism we start with Joseph Smith (b. 1805). One of the Mormon scriptures, The Doctrine and the Covenants (D&C) says, “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it” (135:3). The late President, Gordon Hinckley (d. 2008) said, “Our entire case, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, rests on the validity of this glorious first vision. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by, is of greater importance than this initial declaration.” In other words, Joseph Smith is one of the foundations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He is not their savior, but without him, according to Hinckley, the truths of Mormonism would not stand.

Smith’s “glorious first vision” came in 1820, when he was around 15 years old, as a resident of west New York State. He was praying and meditating when suddenly he saw a bright pillar of light over his head. “When the light rested upon me I saw two personages,” wrote Smith, “whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air.” One spoke to the young boy, pointed to the other personage, and said, “This is my beloved Son; hear him.” Smith later noted that these two “personages” were the Father and Jesus Christ: Smith saw both as distinct personages. From this revelation the Mormon church was born.

From this date on, Smith had many more visions, some of which became later Mormon scriptures, which are addressed briefly below. In 1827, after a few years of attempting to get golden plates that he heard about in another revelation, Smith was finally allowed by the angel Moroni (more info on Moroni below) to have the plates. Smith was led to a hill where he dug and found golden plates along with a mysterious translating device that allowed him to read the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic picture script that he found on these plates. Smith enlisted several people, including his wife, to help him translate the plates. While the helpers were not allowed to see the plates during translation, later these eleven witnesses signed a statement saying they did see the plates.

While it is beyond the scope of this discussion to highlight the details of subsequent Mormon history, the literal movement of the Mormon church is worth noting. The history of Mormon travels is significant for all Mormons; it is an interesting topic to study. They compare their journey to similar ones in the Old Testament. After Smith’s revelation, many followers moved from New York to Ohio to Missouri (where they say Zion was physically located) to Illinois to Salt Lake in 1847, where many still reside today. Along these lines is the Mormon enthusiasm for genealogies, though it would take us too far afield here. Again, this history is part and parcel to the Mormon faith.

The Book of Mormon
One of the foundational scriptures of Mormonism is The Book of Mormon (BoM). They call it “another testament of Jesus Christ.” They affirm and use the Bible (rightly translated); the BoM stands right next to the Bible as another word of God. Joseph Smith said about the BoM, “The Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than any other book.” Along with Smith and his revelation, the BoM is a pillar of Latter Day Saint theology and practice.

The BoM is the history of a people from around 2000 BC to AD 421. It is roughly the length of the Bible, sounds exactly like the KJV, and reads mostly as history, but some theology and doctrine is found in it as well. In the BoM, some Jews from the kingdom years in the OT fled persecution and made several trips to Central America (though the exact location is disputed within Mormon scholarship). When in Central America, the Nephites and Lamanites (the two main people groups—Jewish peoples) set up massive civilizations. The BoM says that their cities covered the lands and the people numbered as the sands on the seashore (Mormon 1:7). While in Central America, they built ships, synagogues, sanctuaries, and temples; they had shields, compasses, silk, armor, cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, and elephants, among other things (cf. Ether 9:17–19; 15:15).

In the BoM, destruction—earthquakes, storms, and darkness—came to Central America when Jesus died in Jerusalem (around AD 34; cf. 3 Nephi 11:1–12). This destruction killed many wicked people in Central America, and the resurrected Christ appeared to those who remained. The resurrected Jesus taught these Central American people the Sermon on the Mount, the institution of the Supper and baptism, and so forth. He then ascended into heaven.

Later on, in the 5th century AD—still in Central America—a Nephite named Mormon gathered all the plates of the history of his people (dating back over 2000 years) and summarized them into one set of plates, and his son Moroni buried them around AD 421. These plates are what Smith found, what the now-angel Moroni showed him, which is now called The Book of Mormon. Along with the BoM, the Mormon church recognizes the Doctrine and the Covenants (D&C), the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible rightly translated—all these are their scriptures. Smith recorded many of his prophecies in the BoM, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price before he was murdered in 1844 (note: these three books also contain the prophecies/revelations of other significant Mormon leaders and prophets).

Mormon World History
“Long ago you and I were born as spirit children of God, and naturally, a Goddess, actual beings of glorified human form and substance.” This is the way one Mormon author explains the eternal period of existence before creation. Before creation, Mormons teach, God the Father (Elohim) had some sort of physical sexual intercourse with a goddess who then gave birth to spirit children. The first born spirit-child was Jesus, whose brother was Lucifer. People are also spirit-children, the offspring of Elohim. In the words of another Mormon authority, “Before you began your life on earth, you lived with your Heavenly Father as one of his spirit children.”

Brigham Young (d. 1877) the second president of the Mormon church (Smith being the first) wrote, “We were first made spiritual, and afterwards temporal.” In other words, before people had physical bodies, they existed as spiritual entities. In fact, not only did spirit-children exist before creation, so did the “elements.” And these elements are eternal (D&C 93:33). There was “stuff” or material or matter or intelligence—something—that is eternal, that had no beginning. Of course, Elohim and other gods (male and female) are eternal as well. Brigham Young said, “How many Gods there are I do not know, but there never was a time when there were not Gods.” We discuss below the Mormon teaching of “gods.” For now, simply note that before creation, there was/were 1) God/gods, 2) spirit-children, and 3) unorganized matter or “elements.”

Concerning creation, Mormons teach that the gods created the world (including God/Elohim as the leader). Smith taught, “In the beginning the head of the gods called a council of the gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it.” Gods created the world out of preexistent matter in a manner similar to the way that construction workers make a house. Mormons strongly deny the ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing) teaching of historic Christianity. Additionally, J. F. Smith (d. 1918), the tenth president of the Mormon church, declared that Adam in his spirit existence helped form this earth—he said “perhaps Noah and Enoch” did as well, “and why not Joseph Smith?” Mormons also teach that God created the world out of love, so that his spirit-children would have a place to dwell, a place wherein to progress to salvation. Mormons teach that God loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives, a plan that we were involved in before creation itself.

Adam and Eve were historical people. They were, with us, spirit beings before creation, but they were the first humans on earth. They lived in the Garden of Eden, which Mormons teach is in Independence, Missouri. Eve sinned by eating the fruit; Adam committed a transgression when he ate. Note the terminology: Adam didn’t sin; he transgressed God’s law, and Adam’s transgression opened the door of salvation. He said, “Blessed be name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy” (Moses 5:10). Adam fell that man might be and progress in this life, on this earth (2 Nephi 2:25). In a mysterious way, the fall was a fall upward, and Adam did the right thing by eating the fruit. Also fundamental to Mormon doctrine is their absolute denial of original sin: it is written in their foundational document, Articles of Faith. That is, since Adam’s transgression was not a sin, there is no sin to pass down to his descendants.

Mormon Theology Proper
Mormon theologians and scriptures teach that God is loving, compassionate, caring, and powerful. In general terms, Mormons speak about God the same way Christians do. However, there are extreme differences. For example, many Mormon theologians teach that God progresses. Smith himself said, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. . . . we have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see . . . he was once a man like us. . . . here then is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves.” Lorenzo Snow, the fifth president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints said—now famously—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” In fact, “God . . . has flesh and bones,” Smith wrote elsewhere. In summary, Mormon theology holds that God was a man like you or me, who progressed to be the God that he is now. Orson Pratt even taught that God continues to progress in knowledge and power.

One other significant aspect of Mormon theology proper is that God is subject “to the laws which govern . . . even the most refined order of physical existence.” In other words, since God is at least in some real sense a physical being (remember he had some kind of physical sex with a goddess); he is subject to the laws that govern physical being. Since he has a body like people, he is confined to certain limits of physical existence—he has parts that take up some kind of space. Of course, he has to progress, since he is not outside of the laws of progression. This progression in Mormon theology even touches God’s fatherhood: Mormons teach the fatherhood of God ad infinitum. Smith: “If Jesus Christ was the son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father?”
Finally, concerning theology proper, Mormon theology is not Trinitarian: “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . I say that is a strange God anyhow . . . three in one, one in three! It is a curious organization. . . . All are to be crammed into one God according to sectarianism [read: Christian theology]. He would be a giant or monster,” Smith preached. Another Mormon publication says, “We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings.” In other words, there is not one God, but three Gods—three different and distinct beings who share the title “God” but not the substance or essence of a single being. To reword the historic Christian Athanasian Creed: the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Spirit is Lord: yet these are three Lords, not one Lord.

The Doctrine of Man (Anthropology)
We have already noted the creation and fall of man: it is a historical fact in Mormonism. Again, we learned that Adam’s fall was not a sin, but an upward sort of transgression, which resulted in the possibility of spirit-children to take on human bodies, Adam and Eve’s many descendants. There is not a huge gap between God and man in Mormon theology. Joseph Smith said, “We say that God himself is a self-existent being. . . . Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist on the same principles. . . . The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. . . . The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . The first principles of man are self-existent with God.” Even more boldly, Mormon theologian Bruce McConkie said, “Man and God are of the same race.” In other words, humans and God are on the same being-scale; God is only exalted and higher on the scale or ladder. There is no Creator/creature distinction in Mormon theology. There is a difference, but it is not an ontological or metaphysical essential distinction, just one of progress on the same scale of being.

Another thing to note about Mormon anthropology is again the teaching of progression. Man can by faith and obedience—as we note in a few moments—attain godhood, in a way similar to God’s progression to godhood. This has everything to do with the Mormon doctrine of salvation: how people attain godhood. We return to this topic after briefly examining the Christ of Mormon Christology. For now simply note that as God progressed to where he is now (and where he will go as he progresses still), man follows in the progression stage.

The Doctrine of Christ (Christology)
Jesus is Jehovah, the Son of God, the Savior; hence the name of the church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He is a loving and caring Savior, the firstborn of all spirit-children. He was a spirit-child of God and a goddess—before us, but with us—in the stillness of pre-creation time. Lucifer, or Satan, is a spirit-brother of Jesus (and in turn, humans). According to one Mormon writing, “Both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our heavenly Father, and, therefore, spirit brothers. . . . Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother.”

Jesus “was not begotten by the Holy Ghost,” according to Young. Joseph F. Smith said, “Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God” [emphasis mine]. God the Father had intercourse with Mary, and the result was Jesus’ conception. She was still a virgin because she didn’t have sex with an earthly man, but a progressed God. Jesus, after God’s prior progression, also progressed by obedience and faith. Jesus was saved by his faithfulness. According to McConkie, Christ “is a saved being.” Again, progression is key: God, man, and Jesus progress to salvation and godhood.

Mormons teach that Jesus is the only Savior, and apart from him there is no salvation. Many Mormon authorities sound similar to Christian teaching about Jesus as Savior. Through his suffering at Gethsemane and the cross, Jesus saves people. Actually, according to www.lds.org, “Through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death.” This general salvation that Jesus accomplished is a free gift from the Savior to all humans. Yet this universal resurrection as gift is by no means a resurrection to eternal blessedness in the highest degree—some are raised by Jesus as gift only to wind up in some semi-blessed state.

The Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology)
We’ve already touched on salvation in the sections on the doctrine of man and the doctrine of Christ; now we tie those themes together. According to the Mormon text Gospel Principles, exalted Mormons “will have everything that our heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have: all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge.” Men become [a] god according to Mormon soteriology: exalted people (saved people) will share some of God’s essential or divine attributes (characteristics). Notice yet again the theme of progression: men climb the ladder of being to the attainment of godhood, or exaltation.

How does a person attain this salvation in Mormonism? By faith in Jesus Christ: “the fundamental principle of our religion is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” as one Mormon president said. Of course this means repenting and trusting, but in Mormon theology, the definition of faith includes faithfulness. According to McConkie, “Faith . . . includes good works. . . . Works are part of the definition of faith, and without them there is no faith.” “Faith is a gift of God bestowed as a reward for personal righteousness.” To be saved means to trust and obey, for there’s no other way to attain godhood in Mormon theology (see D&C, 132:20–21). It is clear then that Mormon soteriology is completely at odds with the “faith alone” teaching that many orthodox Christians hold so dear. One Mormon teacher wrote, “The sectarian doctrine of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil since the early days of Christianity.”

According to www.lds.org, “Those who have been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority have been conditionally saved from sin. In this sense, salvation is conditional, depending on an individual’s continuing in faithfulness, or enduring to the end in keeping the commandments of God.” Faith is essential for salvation, but not enough; you must keep the commandments of God to climb the ladder to godhood. Though it is another topic, Mormonism teaches levels of glory: the celestial, the terrestrial, and the telestial kingdoms. “The glory we inherit will depend on the depth of our conversion, expressed by our obedience to the Lord’s commandments. It will depend on the manner in which we have received the testimony of Jesus.” In summary, the more faithfulness a person shows, the higher he or she will climb on the ladder: the top of the ladder is the celestial kingdom, where humans reign as gods over their own kingdoms, wives and all.

The Doctrine of the Church (Ecclesiology)
When Joseph Smith found the golden plates in 1827 (which resulted eventually in the BoM), it was the restoration of the gospel and church of Christ. God reestablished his church on earth through Smith and the plates. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a continuation of the Church of Christ in the New Testament, according to Mormon theology. Smith received his revelation because there were no true churches on earth. In fact, in his vision he was told that all churches of his day were apostate. Thus, the Mormon church is the only true church on earth (D&C 1:30) and there was no drop of gospel-truth from the early days of church history until the American Joseph Smith was used by God to rekindle the church. Many early Mormon authorities (Smith, Young, Taylor, etc.) often said that Christianity was a tool of the devil, a bag of stinking falsities. As an interesting side note, some Mormons will give the Reformers a nod for their attempt to take the church back, though Mormons will say they fell quite short.

For Mormonism, the doctrine of ongoing, or progressive, prophecy and revelation is central. As we saw earlier, some of the fundamental truths of the Mormon church are Smith’s revelations in the 1820’s, along with other revelations of later Mormon teachers and prophets. In fact, in 1829, Peter, James, and John appeared to Smith and a friend of his and gave him the keys of the kingdom and made them apostles. In this way, the Melchizedekian priesthood was officially restored. There are still apostles and prophets in the Mormon church—fifteen total, including the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. “Prophets . . . receive revelation for the church;” the Scriptures are not closed; the canon is open and dynamic, always progressing, always becoming. Revelation can change, as with the change in the stance on polygamy and with the change in the stance against black people holding the priesthood. In a word, Mormon theology holds that divine revelation and prophecy is still going on and fluctuating from the Old and New Testament times. This is why the Mormon church has several scriptures, not just the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Another aspect of Mormon teaching that goes hand in hand with the doctrine of the church and ongoing revelation is the internal voice of the Holy Ghost, which assures a person that the Book of Mormon is true and that Smith was a true prophet of God. In fact, if you look at nearly any copy of the BoM, you will see on the inside flap somewhere a phrase that suggests reading the book and earnest, intense, heart-felt prayer will result in the Holy Ghost testifying that these things are true. Joseph Smith said this internal call is unmediated—that is, without book or voice, but God directly communicating to a person without external means. I’ve had several discussions with Mormons where they always end on this note: “I know it is true because I prayed it and the Spirit told me” (or something similar). This is one of the highest validations for Mormons concerning the truth of their religion: they will look you in the eye and in some way explain that they have a warm feeling deep down inside that Mormon teaching is true. For Mormons, you cannot question this revelation, because it is internal and unmediated.



_______________


Rev. Shane Lems
(MDiv, Westminster Seminary California) is the pastor and
church planter at the United Reformed Church in Sunnyside, WA

Roman Catholic Heresies

Roman Catholicism vs. Christianity (Part Two)

The Truth About Roman Catholicism

Author: M.H. Reynolds
Source: In Plain Site
Link: about.me/gideonsword



THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is by far the largest and wealthiest of all the so-called "Christian Denominations." It has consistently claimed to be the only true Church--the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. In addition, especially in this generation, it has embellished its image and attracted and held members by the claim that it is the one Church which has never changed, All of these claims are false. However, in recent years, the Roman Catholic Church has done a complete about-face, actually boasting of the many changes it has instituted to meet the changing needs of Catholics and non-Catholics alike in this modern age.

Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true Church? Are its past and present teachings and practices Scriptural? How has the Roman Catholic Church changed through the centuries? How much has it changed in our lifetime? Have these changes been basic or superficial? Where is the Roman Catholic Church headed?

The purpose of this article is to turn the spotlight of truth upon Roman Catholicism both as to its past history and present teachings. Our sincere desire is to be of help to Catholics, many of whom are well aware that, in recent years, their church has been Instituting many changes, most of which have left them confused, uncertain, and deeply troubled. For the first time in their lives, many Catholics are raising serious questions about their Church, its leaders, its teachings and its practices. They now realize that their church is not united but divided over issues such as birth control, abortion, divorce, celibacy for priests, women clergy, gay clergy, Papal infallibility, prayer, worship, music, purgatory, confession and even the meaning of the Mass. The moral degeneracy and financial scandals which have rocked the Charismatic movement have also been exposed in the Roman Catholic Church, all the way from the Vatican to the local parish. Confusion reigns supreme and Catholics who take their religion seriously don't know which way to turn.

A source of further confusion for many is the fact that for centuries Roman Catholics were taught that all those outside its membership were heretics to be shunned, persecuted or even killed. It was not until the middle of this century that the Roman Catholic Church modified and softened its stand by first calling non-Catholics, "separated brethren." More recently, even that negative connotation has been eliminated so that today, Catholics are to consider "all Christians" to be "brothers and sisters in Christ."
[Also See The Two Faces of Catholicism]

However, these changed outward attitudes on the part of Roman Catholics toward non-Catholics, and their increasing usage of evangelical terminology, has unfortunately resulted in many evangelicals mistakenly believing that the basic false doctrines and heresies of Romanism have changed, something that simply is not true. Thus, both Catholics and non-Catholics alike should take a fresh look at Biblical, historical and current look at this largest supposedly Christian denomination in the world. If it is the one true Church as it claims to be, then every believer in Christ should become a part of it. But, if it is and always has been a false church, then all who truly believe the Bible and trust Jesus Christ as Saviour will separate from it, warn about it, and urge others to do likewise.

Through our extensive radio and literature ministries, it has been a great blessing to hear from many former Roman Catholics who have been delivered from the bondage of the false doctrines of Romanism; who have experienced the new birth by faith in Jesus Christ alone; and who are doing their best to reach their Catholic loved ones and friends with the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time, it has been a real heartache to realize that so many non Roman Catholics who profess to know Christ as Saviour, have been deceived by the new attitudes and vocabulary of Catholicism so that the Roman Catholic Church is now being accepted by many evangelicals as a sister church with only minor differences rather than the false church which it actually is.

The truth about the Roman Catholic Church is that it always has been and continues to be a false church. Those Biblical doctrines it professes to believe and teach are vitiated by Roman Catholic dogma based upon tradition which contradicts God's holy, infallible Word, the Bible. Error is never more deceptive than when it is presented with a veneer of truth. Throughout its entire history, Roman Catholic leaders fit the description of the false teachers who God warned in advance would come on the scene in the last days, deceiving many by their "feigned' (pretended or hypocritical) words... their "great swelling words of vanity, " as described in 1 Peter 2:1.-3, 18-19.

Before examining and refuting some of the well known false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, it is essential to understand that two basic false teachings of Roman Catholicism (even apart from its many other errors), clearly classify it as a religious cult rather than a true church. These two basic errors are:

First: Roman Catholicism, although teaching that the Bible is the Word of God, adds the spurious apocryphal books to the Scriptures, and also elevates church tradition and the edicts of popes and councils (the words of men), to the same or an even greater level of authority than the Word of God. This amounts to adding to the Word of God, thereby placing Roman Catholicism under God's curse. (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18, 19)

Second: Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for forgiveness of sin and eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God's curse. (Gal. 1:6-10)

Thus, by Scriptural standards, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which can only expect God's judgment, not a true church which can claim God's blessing. No amount of outward change should be permitted to obscure this fact.

As for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church that its history can be traced back to Jesus Christ, Peter, or the other apostles, such claims lack both historical and Scriptural support. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter's confession of Christ's deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: ".. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Peter was not the first pope nor is there any Scriptural justification whatever for such an office. Peter's own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He further identifies himself in 2 Peter 1:1 as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ....' History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.

Furthermore, the long-held claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only church which never changed is not supported by church history nor even Roman Catholic history. How sad to realize that this false claim influenced so many to join or to stay in this false church which actually is the product of centuries of changes. Most of these changes came as a result of yielding to heathen customs and practices which were subsequently incorporated into Roman Catholic teachings and worship. The following is a partial list of heathen, unscriptural practices which became a part of Roman Catholic dogma over a period of seventeen centuries. Some of the dates given are approximate. In many cases, these heresies were even debated for years before being given the status of required beliefs:

1. Prayers for the dead . ……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ……300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints ……375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship…… 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration…… 394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus….431 A.D.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory (Pope Gregory 1)……593 A.D.
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics……786 A.D.
11. Canonization of dead saints ……995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood ……1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation (Pope Innocent III) ……1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest ……1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)……1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …...1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed ……1439 A.D.
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent……1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ……1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……1854 A.D.
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……1965 A.D.

Although some of the preceding Roman Catholic heresies are now being questioned by many, both inside and outside the church, none have been officially repudiated and all continue to be practiced by millions of Catholics around the world. The urgent need today is for Roman Catholics; yes, and all who claim to be Christians, to examine their own beliefs and the teachings of their churches by the only sure standard--the Bible. Whatever contradicts, adds to or subtracts from the sixty-six books of the Old and the New Testaments, is error no matter how many may cling to it.

Roman Catholics who read the Bible will soon discover that many Catholic teachings and practices are specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ Himself. Note carefully the following warnings given by the Lord Jesus Christ to the religious leaders of His day concerning vain worship, vain tradition and vain repetitions. All of these are particularly applicable to Roman Catholicism today.

Vain Worship: In Matthew 15:8-9, Jesus said,

"These people draw nigh unto me with their mouth and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commands men of men." (Emphasis added)

All worship is indeed vain when it is based upon the commandments of men rather than the Word of God.

Vain Tradition: In Matthew 15:6b, Jesus said, "Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Emphasis added)

(Note: Valid tradition is based upon Scripture and confirms it. Vain tradition is based upon man's teachings and violates it. In Roman Catholicism, tradition is consistently elevated above the Scripture which results in vain worship (no matter how sincere) and makes the commandment of God of no effect-a very serious matter.)

Vain Repetitions: In Matthew 6:7, Jesus said, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." A basic part of Roman Catholic worship is the frequent repetition of the Rosary whose origin is clearly tied to heathen religions such as Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism. Roman Catholics should listen to the words of Christ forbidding vain repetitions, rather than using the vain repetitions of Catholicism.

During the past forty years, at least two important trends in the Roman Catholic church are clearly observable. These are:

(1) A greater emphasis upon the place of Mary.
(2) A major emphasis upon ecumenical activities with a view to seeking the full visible unity of all religions.

The place accorded Mary in the Roman Catholic Church is not Scriptural nor is it new, but it cannot be denied that, during the last one hundred years, veneration of Mary has dramatically increased, (Note in the historical chart given earlier in this article that the exaltation of Mary and the term, Mother of God, became official Catholic dogma in 431 A.D.,) with prayers to her proclaimed in 600 A.D. But, note also that the "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary" was not proclaimed until 1854; her "Assumption" not until 1950; and her title "Mother of the Church" not until as recently as 1965.

Some Roman Catholic observers believe it may not be much longer until Mary is officially proclaimed "Co-redemptrix with Christ." In fact, the premier issue of a new Roman Catholic publication, Catholic Heritage (Vol. 1, No. 1, Sept.-Oct. 1991) has the front page title: "Mary, Mother of the Church," and, in a Question and Answer column, the question is asked, "At the foot of the cross, Mary shared in the mystery of the passion. True or False? Answer: True. Mary united her sorrows to those of her Son. The sorrowful and immaculate heart of Mary bled with her Son for all of mankind. For this reason, we invoke her under the title of Co-redemptrix."

All of the popes during the past thirty years have done their part to increase the influence of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church based completely on tradition rather than upon the Bible. In the August 28, 1975 issue of the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, Pope Paul VI, speaking of the ceremony celebrated the day before in St. Peter's in honor of the Madonna at the Feast of the Assumption of Mary said,

"Her venerated image, known as Salus Populi Romani' was carried in procession from St. Mary Major's as part of the Holy Year ceremonies, so that the overflow crowd of pilgrims, coming from all parts of the world, could see it and thus increase their devotion to her. In this way we should all be reminded of the meaning and practice of the cult of Mary, inseparable from the unique and central cult of Christ…Let us pray to her with humble, trusting and childlike faith."

Did you know that the present pope, John Paul II, has dedicated himself completely to Mary? In 1985, during his visit to Vancouver, B.C., the special souvenir edition of B.C. Catholic carried a full front page color photo of the pope under the caption, Totus Tuus which, in Latin, means "all yours." The following explanation was given, "When Karol Wojtyla was consecrated bishop of Cracow by Pius XII in 1958 he took, 'Totus Tuus' (all yours) as his motto, thus presenting himself to Mary. In his first Urbi et Orbi message immediately after being elected pope he said, "At this difficult hour, full of fear, we must turn our thoughts with filial devotion to the Virgin Mary who always lives in the midst of Christ and exists as his mother. We must repeat the words, Totus Tuus which 20 years ago were inscribed into our heart and soul."'

Pope John Paul II has visited many of the major Shrines to Mary. He attributed his escape from death at the hands of a would-be assassin and the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe to the intervention of Mary. Millions of Catholics are making pilgrimages to the various Marian shrines, seeking and often claiming miracles of healing and answers to their prayers to Mary. New apparitions of Mary and special messages from her are being claimed in various parts of the world. Yet, there is absolutely no Scriptural foundation for any of these beliefs or practices. Mary was indeed a virgin when she conceived Jesus, so that she could fulfill the Old Testament prophecy that Christ would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). She was a godly woman, but not sinless. As with all true believers in Christ, when Mary died, her soul and spirit went to heaven, but her body awaits the resurrection; she did not bodily ascend to heaven as did Jesus Christ. Nothing in Scripture indicates that prayers were ever offered to Mary nor that she was worshipped by anyone. Most of Roman Catholic teaching concerning Mary is based entirely on human tradition and contradicts the Bible, the Word of God.

The present ecumenical emphasis and activities of the Roman Catholic Church are also of recent origin. When Vatican Council I was held in 1869-1870, the invitation of the pope to the Orthodox Churches to participate was refused; and, his public appeal to "Protestants and all non-Catholics" to "return to the only true fold" received resentful refusals. However, in the intervening years it became increasingly obvious to the Roman Catholic hierarchy that their church needed some serious updating, particularly with regard to relationships with other churches. In 1960, Pope John XXIII established the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity; and, in 1962, he convoked Vatican Council II which he called, "An ecumenical council for the universal church."
[Also See The Two Faces of Catholicism]

Less than a year later, Pope John XXIII died, but his successor, Pope Paul VI, who had attended four sessions of Vatican 11 before becoming pope, did everything possible to continue and expand the ecumenical emphasis. His expressed position was that the Roman Catholic Church could best demonstrate the validity of its teaching, not by condemnation or severity, but with the "medicine of mercy." His emphasis was upon "working for the full visible unity in truth among all Christians" and that this unity should extend also to non-Christians. This new approach of Vatican 11 was successful in gaining the co-operation of the major Orthodox Church bodies as well as 38 delegated observers from almost all the major Protestant denominations. Of course, Pope John Paul 11 has expanded the ecumenical emphasis in the Roman Catholic Church to unprecedented heights. While this has received high praise from religious leaders and denominations, the kind of unity sought by the Roman Catholic Church is contrary to the Bible. All unity purchased at the expense of doctrinal purity is satanic and deceptive. (2 Cor. 6:14-18, Eph. 5:11, 2 Tim. 3:1-17; 4:1-8) All who join hands in ecumenical fellowship with those who preach a false Gospel are under God's curse. (Gal. 1:6-10)

The Roman Catholic Church was infiltrated by the Charismatic Movement in the early 1960's. Its influence within Roman Catholicism is growing rapidly. As always, the devil has a very clever way of compounding error while giving the results a more respectable appearance. Once this movement became entrenched in the Roman Catholic Church, RCC leaders under the direction of their Jesuit masters were quick to see that it would be to their advantage to encourage these teachings rather than to oppose them. They discovered that they could use Charismatic practices to help build the Roman Catholic Church by considering it a logical and needed "renewal movement within the church." An added factor was that those who had supposedly experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit felt a greater love and respect than ever for the Roman Catholic Church, including the Mass, the other sacraments, the veneration of Mary and all the other false teachings of Roman Catholicism. Many people are attracted to the displays of hearings, miracles, and other demonstrations of Holy Spirit's presence and power, not realizing that if it was a true ministry of the Holy Spirit it would lead them to a recognition and repudiation of the false teachings of Roman Catholicism.

Adding to the religious confusion of our day is the inconsistent, compromising position taken by the world's two outstanding evangelical leaders, Billy Graham and Dr. Bill Bright. Both of these men now praise and work with ecumenical apostates and Roman Catholics which represents a complete reversal of their original, Biblical positions. Both are widely respected and have charming personalities, but their present willingness to work with anybody who "calls Jesus, Lord" completely ignores the warning Christ gave in Matthew 7:21-23.
[Related Article: When Did Billy Graham's Compromise Begin?]

Billy Graham now sends Catholics who make "decisions" in his crusades back to the Roman Catholic Church with no warning of the false Gospel it preaches. Bill Bright even has Roman Catholics on his Campus Crusade staff. Both men thus disobey the Bible.
[See Campus Crusade]

What about the Mass which lies at the very heart of Roman Catholic theology and worship? Is its observance based upon Scripture or Catholic tradition? What does Roman Catholicism teach as to its meaning and importance?

The Baltimore Catechism says: "It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holy day of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass without a sufficient reason."

The Creed of pope Pius IV, an official creed of the Roman Catholic Church says: "I profess that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice (that is, a sacrifice which satisfies the justice of God and so offsets the penalty for sin) for the living and for the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation."

The Council of Trent declared: "The sacrifice (in the Mass) is identical with the sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is a priest and victim both. The only difference lies in the manner of the offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless on our altars"; and, in Canon I stated: "Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his power, let him be accursed."

But what does the Bible say concerning the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross?

Hebrews 10:10-14: "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man [Jesus Christ], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God, From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."

What a difference there is between what the Bible teaches and what Roman Catholicism believes and teaches regarding the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross! The supposed continual offering up of Christ by the priests negates His finished work on the Cross. I Peter 3:18, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."

Roman Catholicism makes salvation a long, complicated process with no assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of all sin; to the necessary saving faith in Jesus Christ is added the fleshly works of Baptism, the Mass, Confession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, good works, and purgatory. By contrast the Bible teaches salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone, not by sacraments, prayers or works. (Eph.2:8, 9; Titus 2:13)
Biblical salvation is God's free gift to any sinner who believes with the heart that Christ died for his sins and rose again for his justification. (I Cor. 15:1-4; Rom.10:9-13)
Bible salvation gives immediate assurance of eternal life. (I John 5:10-13)
Carefully read and believe John 1:12; 3:1618; 3:36; 5:24; 14:1-6; 20:30, 31.
No church ever saved anyone, but Christ can and will save everyone who will come and trust Him as their Savior. (Acts 4:12; John 6:37; 10:27-30)

Trust in Jesus Christ today and be saved for all eternity!

By M.H. Reynolds,
reprinted from Foundation Magazine, Vol. XIII, Issue 1
Fundamental Evangelistic Association
PO Box 6278 - Los Osos - CA 93412 - USA
Please write for free packet of helpful literature

Additional Resources:

Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994).

Ralph Woodrow, Babylon Mystery Religion (Riverside, California: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, Inc, 1978).

The Theology of Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholicism vs. Christianity (Part One)

The Theology of Roman Catholicism

Source: Apologetics Index
This material is excerpted from two of the apendixes in Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree?, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1995. p. 245-246; 267-271).Link: about.me/gideonsword



Introduction / Definition:

The Church of Rome (Roman Catholicism) is a diverse worldwide religious tradition that officially looks to the Pope and his predecessors/successors as God’s human leader of world Christianity.

Because of its size and scope--both in membership (about a billion people worldwide) and geographically, the actual beliefs held by devout Catholics are widespread and eclectic. Catholicism has been influenced by liberation theology, especially in parts of South America. In Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere, attempts have been made to blend Catholicism with spiritism, creating a type of Catholicism with occult elements. In addition, since the 1960s there has been a small but significant element of charismatic Catholics who have been influenced by the larger charismatic movement. A small percentage of Catholics are doctrinally evangelical, and others (such as Matthew Fox) are part of the New Age movement. As a whole, however, the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are still seen most clearly in the issues of the Reformation.

The 16th century reformers distinguished themselves from Catholicism in two key ways. First, they saw the Bible as the sole foundation for authority (sola scriptura) rather than the Pope, church dogma or tradition. Second, the reformers taught salvation by “grace alone” (sola gracia). They also insisted that sola gracia could be faithfully maintained only by understanding the gospel to be the message of a free pardon and righteous standing with God through ''faith alone'' (sola fide) in the imputed righteousness of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church claimed (and still claims) to affirm sola gracia, but anathematized sola fide, teaching instead that grace is received and maintained by a combination of faith plus works (religious rites, sacraments, or human endeavor.)

In their book, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree?, John Ankerberg and John Weldon write:


Categories of Roman Catholicism:

The issues surrounding Catholic belief and authority are compounded by the fact there are some ten categories of Roman Catholicism around the world. The distinctions between them are often not clear because they may tend to overlap and merge or blur into one another. Nor would individual Catholics necessarily appreciate or agree with such labels. But they will serve as a convenient grouping for purposes of illustration:


Nominal or social Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism of the largely uncommitted--perhaps those born or married into the Church but who have little knowledge of Rome's theology. In practice, they are principally Catholics in name only, although still Catholics ''in Christ'' because of baptism.


Syncretistic/eclecti Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism that is, to varying degrees, combined with and/or absorbed by the pagan religion of the indigenous culture in which it exists (e.g., as in South America and Africa).


Traditional or orthodoxy Catholicism
The powerful conservative branch of Roman Catholicism that holds to papal authority and historical Church doctrines such as those reasserted at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Among this group may be classified the ultra-traditionalist Catholics who adamantly reject Vatican II and generally distrust modern changes (e.g., abandoning the Latin Mass -- something Trent pronounced an anathema upon).[1] Also included are traditionalist Catholics who, while adhering to the entirety of credal Catholicism and papal authority, more or less accept Vatican II reforms while yet staunchly rejecting liberalism.


''Moderate'' Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism of post-Vatican II which is neither entirely traditional nor entirely liberal.


Modernist, liberal Catholicism
The post-Vatican II ''progressive'' Roman Catholicism that to varying degrees rejects traditional doctrine.


Ethnic or cultural Catholicism
Often retained by immigrants to America who use, ''their religion to provide a sense of belonging. They feel that not to be Roman Catholic is not to belong and to lose [their] nationality and roots.'' [2]


Lapsed or apostate Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism which involves alienated, backslidden, or apostate Catholics who are largely indifferent to the Catholic Church and its God.


Charismatic Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism which seeks to accept the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts as signs of a deeper Catholic spirituality. (This illustrates the related, if largely distinct, category of mystical Catholicism, undergirded by the mystical Catholicism and not infrequently occult writings of the Catholics mystics).


"Evangelical'' Catholicism
Former Protestant Evangelicals who may retain some of their former beliefs but who now accept Roman Catholicism as the one true Church and its doctrines as authoritative.


Evangelical ''Catholicism''
The branch of former Roman Catholics who are truly Evangelical and who have largely rejected the unbiblical teachings of Rome, often deciding to remain in the Church as a means to evangelize other Catholics or help reform their Church.


The Theology of Roman Catholicism:

The major broad areas of theology include the following:

Bibiology - The doctrine of the Bible
Theology Proper - The doctrine of God (Theism, Trinitarianism)
Angeology - The doctrine of angels
Anthropology - The doctrine of man
Hamartheology - The doctrine of sin
Ecclesiology - The doctrine of the Church
Christology - The doctrine of Christ
Pneumatology - The doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Eschatology - The doctrine of last things
Soteriology - The doctrine of salvation


In all of the above categories, Roman Catholic teaching historically (to one degree or another) has distorted these key theological doctrines. To the observer having only a general familiarity with Catholic teaching and conservative Protestant theology, this may not at first seem evident. Yet, it would be possible to write an entire text on each one of the above doctrines revealing how Catholicism has distorted what the Bible teaches on these subjects -- either through tradition, its approach to biblical interpretation, or other means.

In other words, whatever truths Catholicism may teach in theology generally, serious errors are also encountered. We can see this, in theology proper (the Catholic Church as the continuing incarnation of Christ); in bibliology (Catholicism as the only true Church of Christ); in hamartheology (aspects of pelagianism; moral and venial categories); in Christology (Mariology; the Church as continuing incarnation; the Mass); and in soteriology (Catholic teaching on justification, sanctification, regenerarion, and the sacraments).


No single doctrine is more important to each of us personally than the doctrine of salvation. In examining the component parts of the biblical portrait of salvation, we find the following:

Depravity -- the spiritual condition of man before God.
Imputation -- to reckon sin or righteousness to another's acocunt
Grace -- the fact of God's nature making Him spontaneously favorable in His dealings with man.
Propitiation -- the satisfaction of God's justice and righteousness through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
Atonement -- the vicarious (substitutionary), efficacious (producing the desired effect) death of Jesus Christ for human sin.
Reconciliation -- to restore to fellowship with God by removing the barriers preventing this.
Calling (efficacious) -- the work of God drawing men to Himself.
Regeneration -- the miraculous work of God making the human spirit alive to Himself and the imparting of eternal life to the individual believer.
Union with Christ -- the spiritually living union of the believer and Jesus Christ.
Conversion -- the human side of regeneration; turning to Christ in faith and repentance (leading to a change in both attitude and behavior).
Repentance -- changing one's mind (mental) and turning from sin (behavioral) (i.e., a change of attitude and action).
Faith -- trust in God, leading to right belief about Him, dependence upon Him, and right behavior toward Him.
Justification -- the forensic or legal declaration of God concerning the believer's absolute righteousness before Him as a result of his faith in Jesus Christ.
Adoption -- to be brought into the personal family of God.
Sanctification -- to be set apart to God's purposes (i.e., growth in relationship to and holiness toward God).
Eternal security -- the absolute security of the true believer with respect to his salvation from the point of regeneration.
Perseverance -- the continuation of the saints in faith unto death.
Election/predestination -- to be chosen by God for salvation.
Redemption -- to remove one from slavery to sin and Satan by payment of a ransom (i.e., the atonement of Christ).
Death, resurrection, and the final state -- involving the physical/spiritual nature of death, the intermediate state, resurrection of the body, immortality, heaven and hell (the physical resurrection of the believer to eternal glory and the unbeliever to eternal ruin).
The church -- the collective body of true believers called out of the world by God for His glory who are joined together visibly in worship and invisibly in union with Christ and one another.

Again, if we were to examine each of the above doctrines in detail, examining what the Bible teaches about them on the one hand and what Catholic tradition/doctrine teaching about them on the other, we would discover that Roman Catholicism has denied, altered, or confused all but one or two.

It is in light of our study of such theology that we find it most difficult to reconcile the current movement on the part of many Catholics and Evangelicals to join themselves together as spiritual brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. For their part, Evangelicals characteristically maintain that they are not abandoning or glossing over important differences in doctrine between orthodox Catholicism and conservative Protestantism; they merely want to stress the unity of the true church, whether Catholic or Protestant. The problem, however, is that we are not going to gloss over important doctrinal differences, then it becomes impossible to maintain that Catholics and Protestants are genuine brothers and sisters in Christ.

Again, this is not to deny that many Catholics, individually speaking, are saved individuals because they have placed true faith in Jesus Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation -- not in their good works, the sacraments, or the Church. The problem arises when we say that all those committed to the traditional orthodox doctrines of the Catholic Church are saved individuals just as much as the simple believer in Jesus Christ. If so, it would seem that what an individual believes (i.e., whether it is either Catholic or Protestant teaching), has little or no bearing as to his individual salvation. But to say this is to abandon biblical authority and teaching entirely.

The bottom line is this: [Bit is virtually impossible to claim to maintain important doctrinal distinctions on the one hand, and to simultaneously unite Catholic and Protestant believers into a spiritual fellowship on the other.[/B]
We can illustrate this by examining the following five doctrines and considering briefly how each doctrine relates to Catholic teaching:

Propitiation/atonement
This doctrine demonstrates that the death of Christ fully propitiated or satisfied God's wrath and paid the full divine penalty for all the believer's sin past, present, and future, thereby proving that neither the sacraments, penance, purgatorial suffering, indulgences, the Mass, priests, nor any other aspect of the Catholic Church is involved in any way in the propitiation or remitting of sin.

Reconciliation
This doctrine involves one result of the death of Christ for sin wherein the state of enmity between God and man is replaced by one of peace and fellowship, proving that final reconciliation between God and man is something accomplished by God on behalf of man, not by the Church on behalf of man.

Regeneration
This doctrine involves the making alive of the human spirit toward God and the imparting of eternal life, proving that true spiritual life is eternal and a miracle of God, not something instituted by the Church through sacraments or good works.

Justification
This doctrine constitutes the legal declaration of the believer's absolute righteousness before God on the basis of his personal faith in Jesus Christ, proving that our perfect standing before God is not dependent upon Church teaching, sacraments, personal character, or good works, but solely upon our faith in Christ.

Sanctification
This doctrine involves being set apart to God for His glory. A correct understanding of its past, present, and future applications proves that sanctification does not lead to justification, nor should it be confused with regeneration, as Catholicism teaches.

A brief evaluation of the above doctrines illustrates our central concern: As a result of its tradition and/or interpretation of Scripture, the Catholic approach to biblical doctrine is characteristically colored in a non-biblical fashion.


About this article:

This material is excerpted from two of the apendixes in Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree?, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1995. p. 245-246; 267-271).


From the book's back cover:

The signing of a new agreement entitled ''Evangelicals and Catholics Together'... a remarkable achievement or a tragic compromise?

For centuries, Protestants and Catholics have battled over what is considered the most crucial issue on all of the gospel: how a sinful man is forgiven by a holy and righteous God.

Recently, however, a revolutionary new agreement between the two sides has utterly astounded many million of people worldwide: Some of evangelical Christianity's most respected leaders have linked hands with Catholics in an unprecendented accord.

- Have doctrinal differences been eliminated?
- What was decided about justification by faith -- the one issue upon which Martin Luther said the church stands or falls?
- Which side changed its views?

Current issues expert John Ankerberg and John Weldon provide urgently needed answers in response to what could be the most far-reaching change in all of Christendom since the Reformation.


Apologetics Index highly recommends this book. It can be purchased at Amazon.com


Footnotes:

1. H.J. Schroeder, translator, The Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford, Il: Tan Books, 1978) p. 150 (Canon 9 on the sacrifice of the Mass).

2. Lausanne Committee, Christian Witness to Nominal Christians Among Roman Catholics, p. 10.

The Watchtower Society

The Jehovah's Witnesses
(Watchtower Society)

Who are The Jehovah's Witnesses and what are their beliefs?

The sect known today as the Jehovah's Witnesses started out in Pennsylvania in 1870 as a Bible class led by Charles Taze Russell. Russell named his group the “Millennial Dawn Bible Study.” Charles T. Russell began writing a series of books he called “The Millennial Dawn,” which stretched to six volumes before his death and contained much of the theology the Jehovah’s Witnesses now hold. After Russell's death in 1916, Judge J. F. Rutherford, Russell's friend and successor, wrote the seventh and final volume of the “Millennial Dawn” series, “The Finished Mystery,” in 1917. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was founded in 1886 and quickly became the vehicle through which the “Millennial Dawn” movement began distributing their views to others. The group was known as the “Russellites” until 1931 when, due to a split in the organization, it was renamed the “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” The group from which it split became known as the “Bible students.”

Close scrutiny of their doctrinal position on such subjects as the deity of Christ, salvation, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the atonement shows beyond a doubt that they do not hold to orthodox Christian positions on these subjects. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is Michael the archangel, the highest created being. This contradicts many Scriptures which clearly declare Jesus to be God (John 1:1,14, 8:58, 10:30). Jehovah’s Witnesses believe salvation is obtained by a combination of faith, good works, and obedience. This contradicts countless scriptures which declare salvation to be received by grace through faith (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the Trinity, believing Jesus to be a created being and the Holy Spirit to essentially be the inanimate power of God. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the concept of Christ’s substitutionary atonement and instead hold to a ransom theory, that Jesus’ death was a ransom payment for Adam’s sin.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses justify these unbiblical doctrines? First, they claim that the church has corrupted the Bible over the centuries; thus, they have re-translated the Bible into what they call the New World Translation. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society altered the text of the Bible to make it fit their false doctrine, rather than basing their doctrine on what the Bible actually teaches. The New World Translation has gone through numerous editions, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses discover more and more Scriptures that contradict their doctrines.

The Watchtower bases its beliefs and doctrines on the original and expanded teachings of Charles Taze Russell, Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford, and their successors. The governing body of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the only body in the cult that claims authority to interpret Scripture. In other words, what the governing body says concerning any scriptural passage is viewed as the last word, and independent thinking is strongly discouraged. This is in direct opposition to Paul's admonition to Timothy (and to us as well) to study to be approved by God, so that we need not be ashamed as we correctly handle the Word of God. This admonition, found in 2 Timothy 2:15, is a clear instruction from God to each of His children to be like the Berean Christians, who searched the Scriptures daily to see if the things they were being taught lined up with the Word.

There is probably no religious group that is more faithful than the Jehovah’s Witnesses at getting their message out. Unfortunately, the message is full of distortions, deceptions, and false doctrine. May God open the eyes of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to the truth of the gospel and the true teaching of God’s Word.

Cremation or Burial?

Cremation or Burial?

The Christian Perspective

Author: Jim Elliff
Source: Christian Communicators Worldwide
Link: about.me/gideonsword



There is no sin in cremation, that is for sure. And there is no inability on God’s part to raise a cremated body from the dead. But is cremation, a practice most often seen in Eastern religions, the best for the believer in Christ?

It is clarifying to note that burial was God’s preferred method of disposing of the body of Moses. God had the power to cremate Moses’ body on the spot, but rather, this gentle and loving phrase is found: "[God] buried him in the valley in the land of Moab" (Deut. 34:6). This fact alone is enough for me. If God chose this method Himself, then it certainly should be my preference also.

We must add, for a second reason, that burial underground (or in tombs) was the ordained method for the patriarchs, for God’s chosen people, and for New Testament believers. There are numerous references to this, from Abraham’s burial in the cave of Machpelah to Lazarus’ entombment in a crypt. The bodies of these saints were kept, as much as possible, in their original state, awaiting the resurrection of the body.

For a third reason, consider the death of Christ Himself. He is our example in everything. Christ was in charge of His death. As He said, "No one has taken [my life] away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative" (John 10:18). Certainly His burial was no accident either. The dramatic events God ordained to take place included the tomb as an essential ingredient. It accentuated His resurrection.

A fourth part of the rationale has to do with the place the body plays in our theology. Christianity is the most materialistic of the religions in this respect. That is, it gives an importance to the body and to all things tangible that other religions do not. For Hindus, the body is evil. This is why you find some Hindus practicing religious ritual abuse of their bodies or meditating for long periods in an attempt to escape their bodies. I’ve seen the burning of Indian bodies on a funeral pyre. There is no glory to God in it. But Christianity sees the body as useful, rather than evil. It can do much good, if a believer is controlled by the Spirit. It is so valued by God that the very body we are living in will be raised up one day, made new for eternity. For this reason, we symbolize the importance of the body by burying it with love.

Fifth, the burial of Christians was designed by God as the basis for our understanding of baptism. Though baptism does not save, it does picture our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ (cf. Rom. 6:3-4). Such a powerful picture as baptism is dependent for its meaning on the burial of Christ and of believers.

Finally, we should bury because the grave is such a potent reminder of the future resurrection. I recently stood beside the graves of some famous authors in New Hampshire. Staring at their burial site reminded me again of the future bodily resurrection of both believers and non-believers, some to a resurrection of life and the others to a resurrection of judgment (cf. John 5:28-29).

As family and friends look at my grave one day, I am hopeful that it will keep on preaching the gospel. I want my family to spare no expense to put a clear message on that stone. But mostly I want that stone to remind people of a coming new day, which those in Christ should find most exhilarating. I’ve tried to say something in my life; I want to say something in death as well. And I hope that what is said will make clear what is ahead.

Not long ago I stood by the grave of my mother. It is hard to imagine a more selfless and sincere believer. On her stone were these simple words, taken from a hymn she would sing to herself day after day: "Jesus is all the world to me." It’s a powerful message that reminds me to put Christ first in everything. I rejoiced that she will be "raised imperishable," body, soul and spirit, at the resurrection of the righteous (1 Corinthians 15:52).

I realize that some will die at sea and others will be blown apart by bombs during war. But if at all possible, I recommend that you honor your dead loved ones by burial, keeping the body unchanged as much as you can. There will be change enough at the resurrection of the dead.


The minimizing of cost through cremation is often a consideration when loved ones die. Read about how believers can reduce the cost of funerals and still bury their loved ones with dignity below:

Reducing the Cost of Funerals

Author: Jim Elliff

It may seem strange that I chose this subject, but the issue is such a nagging problem with believers and ministers that I felt I should address it, however briefly.

I’ve often stood in the funeral home with believing church members while they selected a casket for their loved one. There is such a real pressure to spend too much money at that moment. The expense is one of the main reasons many choose to be cremated rather than buried. I can understand this dilemma.

But money can be saved if things are done differently. We do not need to let the funeral business determine our practice. As sincere as the funeral director may be, it is still his objective and the objective of those over him to make money during the time when people are the most vulnerable. I would not want to demean this honorable profession, but things have gotten way out of hand.

Let me make these practical suggestions:

First, consider having the graveside service for family and perhaps a few close friends before the memorial service. This will reduce the pressure to buy a casket that is too expensive. In fact, as far as I am concerned the cheapest possible casket is appropriate, if things are done this way. The family understands, especially if this is the stated wish of the one who has died. Also, the long ride out to the cemetery in limousines will not be needed for this intimate gathering. Just arrive in your cars and have the kind of service that is meaningful to you led by a pastor or friend. A funeral home person will need to be there to bring the casket, the flowers (if there are some), and to make the proper arrangements with the cemetery, but you have cut down considerably on costs. Also, you may bury your dead sooner this way. I suggest that seeing your loved one at the funeral home is a good thing for the family, but you do not have to rent the funeral room for extra days.

Second, in certain cases a graveside service may be enough. If the deceased does not have any (or very few) friends still living, or if the rest of the family lives far away, this may be the right thing to do.

Third, you may choose to have the memorial service at a church building or another facility that costs less than a funeral home. There is something rather morose about most funeral homes, frankly. The "coronation" of a believer should be a different affair, and brightness and joy should characterize the time together. Let me add that having the memorial in the evening and on a day when more people can come is also advisable. It is increasingly hard for people to get off work for a memorial service. Make it easy on them. You can wait for four or five days if you wish. The church leaders can provide the obituary and any other handouts, saving even more money.

By using the church facilities or another less-expensive meeting place, and by having already buried the deceased loved one, there will be no need for any funeral people to be involved in the memorial service at all. No limousine rides are necessary, or funeral home ushers, etc.

In some cemeteries it will be necessary to purchase an expensive vault to put the casket into when interred. Cemeteries often require this to keep the body dry and the ground from sinking as time goes on. The cemetery may require this, but our theology does not. The other reason for a vault is more emotional. If the family cannot be comfortable without a vault, of course, for emotional reasons, you will have to have one.

It will be a good idea to check with more than one funeral home about burial costs. The fees vary significantly. In fact, we recently found thousands of dollars difference in pricing for the same service between two funeral homes in our area. There will be someone in the family who will be free enough and business-like enough to handle this sort of thing. It is important. Your loved one would not want your hard-earned money to be thrown away just because you were unwilling to check on pricing.

In my view, it is good to spend extra money on a gravestone that communicates well the believer’s life message. If you cannot afford a large stone, that is reasonable, but do put some writing on the stone for future readers. In this way your loved one can "preach" for years to come. A gravestone may be purchased and placed on the grave later, in most cases.

If you are considering the costs for your own burial, it will be especially important to write out instructions for your family before you die, if at all possible. In this way you will guarantee that your family will not go overboard in their spending when they are most vulnerable. It will ease their minds.

And remember that God has saved you "in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." However humble your funeral, God has great things in store for you.

_________________

Copyright © 2013 Jim Elliff
Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc.
Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in unedited form
including author's name, title, complete content, copyright and weblink.
Other uses require written permission.
www.ccwtoday.org