A Christ Follower's Response to Roman Catholicism

It is necessary to write a page on Roman Catholicism because there are significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines. Protestants accuse the Catholics of being unscriptural, and the Catholics state that the Protestants do not have the true faith carried through the centuries by the Catholic Church. Which ever side you fall on, the real issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is representing true Christianity.

If you are a Roman Catholic, please understand that this is not meant to offend you in any way. This site is dedicated to examining the truth, all truth, and compare it to the Bible. No matter who it is or what group is proclaiming truth, we know that the Bible is the Word of God and that no truth from God will contradict it. I urge you to examine what is here on this site and see if what is being taught here is true. If you do, you will be doing exactly what the Bible commands: to examine all things (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11; Jude 3). Since the Catholic Church holds the Bible to be the word of God, I am putting Catholic doctrine to the biblical test.

It is apparent that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is vital.

The Protestant church cites the Bible alone as the source of doctrinal knowledge. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, cites the Bible and Tradition. Please consider the following.

". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 82.).

Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition. Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church. The issue is whether or not these teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are credible. Do they accurately represent Christianity? Can they be substantiated with the Bible? Do they contradict the Bible?

This letter attempts to examine the doctrines of Rome and compare them with the Bible to see if they are supported or contradicted by God's Word. We know that all truth in God's Christian Church comes from Him, through the Holy Spirit. It will not, therefore, be contradictory. Let us see what God's written word says and compare it to the Unwritten Word, which is the Roman Catholic Church's term for Tradition.

Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?

According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination, the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical, which Protestants reject: veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines, and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?"

The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that Scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below.

In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:



1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority.



Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of Scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to Scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?

The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to Scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the Scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.



2) It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true.



Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles that they themselves approve of when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.



3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition -- for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7).



You see, if the Bible said "do not trust Sacred Tradition," then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority, and by that position are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.

If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added, and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?



4) If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God.



If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in sacred tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.



5) Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does.



Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.

Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred Tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and I make no claim that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?

To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the Church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the Church Fathers are given the place of authority comparable to Scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.



6) One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false.



The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater; but this cannot be, since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.
Conclusion

Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.

Objections Answered

1. The Bible comes from Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.
A. The problem is twofold. First, tradition is generally anything the Christian church passed down and doesn't require inspiration of any sort. But Roman Catholicism claims such generic tradition under its umbrella of Sacred Tradition. This is the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the meaning of the word "tradition" is changed between the first and second reference. There is no proof that the RCC sacred tradition is inspired. But there is evidence that it is flawed, particularly when we compare what it has revealed (purgatory, Mary worship, penance, indulgences, etc.) with Scripture, and such doctrines are not only absent from Scripture, but contradict Scripture.
B. Second, it assumes that the Roman Catholic Church produced the Bible. The RCC did not produce the Bible. God produced the Bible and the Christian church recognized the word of God (John 10:27) and endorsed what God had already authored.
To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is to imply that the RCC has the right to tell you whatever it means. This is problematic because how then do we check what the RCC says?
2. Sacred Tradition is divine revelation and equal to Scripture.
A. At best, this is only a claim that cannot be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition with the word of God. As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.
B. The Bible clearly tells us that God's Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God's Word warns us against following it.
C. The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. See Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition.
The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth. We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say. "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other" (1 Cor. 4:6).
3. Heb. 7:7 is not about scripture, but about people, and cannot be used to subject Sacred Tradition to the Bible
A. It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture. But there is more in the text than just people. Heb. 7:4-10,

"Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."

The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts. He mentions tithing, descendents of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship. It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. We know that there is a principle of the greater in authority blessing the lesser. Can we not also apply this same principle of authority to the issue of the Roman Catholic Church's claim on sacred tradition as being authoritative as compared to the authority of Scripture? I do not see why not. After all, the Roman Catholic Church appeals to Scripture to support its sacred tradition. In so doing, is submitting itself to the authority of Scripture for validation of its principle.


The Apocrypha: is it scripture?

The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word "apocrypha" (απόκρυφα) means "Hidden." These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The Protestant Church rejects the Apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of Scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.

Is the Apocrypha Scripture?

Protestants deny its inspiration, but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it. In order to ascertain whether it is or isn't, we need to look within its pages.

Not quoted in the New Testament

First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. Does this mean that they aren't inspired either? But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, whereas the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says.

"then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:1-2. ).

Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were, and they never accepted the Apocrypha.

Jesus references the Old Testament: from Abel to Zechariah

Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation" (Luke 11:51).

"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."

This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement that Jesus was referring to when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.

Jesus references the Old Testament: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms

Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the Apocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44).

So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalid if their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings," it would not include the Apocrypha for the above mentioned reasons.


Church Fathers

Did the Church Fathers recognize the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history, but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420), who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the first century, never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha." So, we should not conclude that the Church Fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.

Errors in the Apocrypha

If the Apocrypha is Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as defining what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church?


Problems in the Apocrypha


When we look into the Apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic, where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.

Magic:
Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.

The Apocrypha also teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Salvation by works:
Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."

We know from Scripture that alms (money or food, given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us, not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Maccabees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."

Can anyone truly accept that money isn't an offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

Conclusion

Obviously the Apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatantly incorrect historical facts, it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition, rather than God's absolute truth.

Indulgences

An indulgence, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is a means of remission of the temporal punishment for sins which have already been forgiven, but are due to the Christian in this life and/or in purgatory. This punishment is most often in purgatory, but can also be suffered in this life. An indulgence removes time needed to be spent in purgatory. There are two kinds of indulgences: partial and plenary. A partial indulgence removes part of the punishment of sins. A plenary indulgence removes all of the punishment of sins. Granting an indulgence of a certain number of days or years means that is how many days or years is removed from the time of punishment a person must undergo in purgatory.

On the inside of the cover of the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism published in 1969, there is a prayer. After the prayer, it says the following: "An indulgence of five years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, provided this prayer has been recited daily for a month." This means that by saying the prayer properly, five years is removed from a person's time in purgatory!

On the same page of the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, it says: "The faithful who devote 20 minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian doctrine, may gain: an indulgence of three years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions twice a month, if the above practice is carried out at least twice a month."

So, we can see that according to this catechism, if you say the prayer properly you can have five years removed from your time in purgatory. Likewise, if the faithful devote 20 minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian doctrine, they can have three years removed from purgatory. Is this biblical? Not at all. It is ridiculous to think that reading doctrine and saying a prayer removes time of punishment in the Catholic-invented place called purgatory. It is nothing more than a means to control the Catholics and keep them dependent on "The Mother Church."

The Treasury of the Church

The Treasury of the Church is a storehouse of merit that has been earned by the sacrifice of Christ and the prayers and good works of the the Virgin Mary and all the saints. This reservoir of merit is drawn upon and applied to Roman Catholics via the Roman Catholic Church so that their future duration of punishment might be reduced. So, essentially what we have is a system where merit is dispensed through the Roman Catholic sacraments and priesthood.

* "We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury, which is "not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1476).

* "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body" (CCC 1477).

In short, this treasury of the church of Rome is a means by which it keeps its people dependent upon its sacramental, ecclesiastical system. Without participation in Roman Catholic Sacraments, future punishment will be far more extensive. The Roman Catholic Church keeps its people coming back to it, dependent upon it, needful for the dispensing of the treasury of merit that it has at its disposal. Instead of the Roman Catholic being completely sanctified and justified in Christ, by the work of Christ on the cross, the very propitiation offered by the Lord in his sacrifice is usurped by the Roman Catholic Church. The power and priesthood and mediatorship of Christ is replaced by that of the Roman Catholic Church, and it becomes the means by which the so-called people of God are relieved of their sin punishment. This is a blasphemous claim of Rome that detracts from the power and glory and sufficiency of the cross. All Roman Catholics should stop looking to the church as its means of salvation and/or as a means of deliverance from punishment. Instead, the Roman Catholic should look to Christ alone through faith alone for the forgiveness of his/her sins.

* "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).
* "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" (Rom. 5:9).
* "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

The problem with indulgences

The obvious problem with indulgences is that they negate the all-sufficiency of the cross. It was Jesus who took our punishment. He took our place so that we do not have to suffer any punishment for our sins so that we might be made right with God. We are not saying that sins have consequences and punishments. We are saying that being made right with God is not by our suffering, but by Christ's.

"Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" (Isaiah 53:4-6).

The Second Vatican Council, p. 63, mentions purgatory as a place of punishment for our sins: "The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments." Indulgences only have value in Catholicism due to the unbiblical teaching of purgatory, which the Roman Catholic Church teaches is a place of punishment where people expiate their own sins there (CCC 1475).

Expiation is "a term associated with the removal, cleansing, or forgiveness of sin."1 But how does a person expiate or cleanse himself of his own sins? He doesn't. If there were a means by which we could cleanse ourselves on our own sins, then God would have provided that.

"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21).

Nevertheless, out of the teaching of purgatory, and temporal punishment comes the teaching of indulgences -- a means by which punishment for sin is reduced through a person's own sufferings. How horrible is this teaching, since it reduces the power and glory of the cross and says we can expiate our own sins, instead of trusting in Christ alone for this. The Roman Catholic Church needs to recant its false teaching and urge its people to look to Christ alone and not to its mediatorship, its priesthood, its treasury of merit, its sacraments, or its rules and regulations for the salvation of souls.

Indulgences is not a biblical teaching.

Mary

Mary occupies a unique place in biblical history. She conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Then, she bore the Messiah. Among women, she is most blessed (Luke 1:42) and all who claim to be Christian acknowledge her as a chosen vessel of God. While Christians admit Mary's uniqueness, the Catholic Church has, in its own words, "clarified her position and nature through Sacred Tradition." Through the centuries, more and more doctrines concerning her have been revealed. For example:

1.Mary is called the Mother of God AD 431
2.Prayers offered to Mary AD 600
3.Immaculate Conception (that she was sinless) AD 1854
4.Assumption of Mary AD 1950
5.Mary Proclaimed Mother of the Church AD 1965

Mary is Most Blessed Among Women

Mary is undoubtedly blessed among women (Luke 1:42). But, is it appropriate to attribute to her such titles as "Our Queen, Our Mother, Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope?" I cannot see how it is. Was she sinless? It would seem not, since she said she needed a savior in Luke 1:47, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." Did she remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Again, it seems not since Matt. 1:25 says that Joseph ". . .kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Does she mediate and intercede for sinners? Again, the scriptures seem to contradict this when it states that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Is she exalted above all angels? There is no scripture stating so. Can she simultaneously hear the prayers of countless people all over the world in different languages? Again, there is nothing in God's word to lead us to believe this.

Please understand that I am not attacking Mary or her wonderful position in history. Rather, it seeks to examine her position according to biblical revelation and answer the questions just posed. Hopefully, faithfully, and according to God's word, we can look at Scripture to find the answers.