Evangeliku

Poll - June 2008

2008-06-27T09:20:00.004+02:00

Why do some people stumble on Christ and refuse to believe in him?

Disobedient 30 (49%)

Destined 3 (4%)

Both 28 (45%)

Total votes: 61. Poll closed.

Comments: The apostle Peter says: "Now to you who believe, this stone (Jesus) is precious. But to those who do not believe, ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,’ and, ‘A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.’ They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for" (1 Peter 2:4-8). Click here for a discussion on Predestination

New Questions and Answers

2008-06-20T14:21:00.003+02:00

The Rapture
Spirit Baptism and Speaking in Tongues
The Sabbath
Do Jews Go to Heaven?
Do Muslims Go to Heaven?
The Meaning of Justification
Immoral Popes
Predestination
Mixed Marriages
Penance and Repentance

Unworthy Apologetics Tactics

2008-06-15T16:04:00.003+02:00

(Or, How to stifle genuine religious communication)

Keep on asking questions
Inundate your opponent with questions of all kinds on many different subjects. It doesn’t matter if you repeat different versions of the same question over and over again. When he answers, launch a new set of questions – preferably similar to the previous ones. This approach guarantee that your opponent will ultimately become exasperated… when he gives up, claim victory – see, he lost the argument because he cannot answer! Even better, you can even predict the outcome.

Insist on chapter and verse
Pretend that an answer is truly biblical only if it is a direct quotation from the Bible complete with chapter and verse. Disregard the fact that Satan was not at all biblical when he quoted directly from Scripture to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. Ignore the fact that the foundational Christian doctrine of the Trinity is robustly biblical even though we can’t give a single chapter and verse that defines and proves the doctrine in its entirety.

Demand a Yes or No answer
Ignore the fact that a bare ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cannot adequately answer loaded and complex questions. Follow the Pharisees who insisted with Jesus to give them a yes or no answer as to whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar. Ask trick questions like, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” – a yes answer implies that he used to beat his wife; a no answer means that he is still beating her! You win either way!

Answers to Catholic Arguments on Authority

2008-06-10T00:09:00.009+02:00

The following six questions were asked by a Catholic apologist, John Martignoni.

1) Could the Holy Spirit, through the universal Church (which is the Body of Christ), have enabled believers – particularly the Bishops (the successors of the Apostles), in the first few hundred years of the Church, to faithfully and accurately pass along the traditions Paul taught by “word of mouth”? Yes, or no?

Yes. But they could have also mixed the apostolic teaching with much error, just as God's people of old did before to the teaching of the Prophets. "Could" implies possibility not certainty! Could God have created a 3-legged creature on Pluto? Yes. Did he? Perhaps he did, but I'm pretty sure he didn't.

2) Are you infallible in your interpretations of Scripture? Was Martin Luther infallible in his? Or John Calvin? Yes, or no? (Note: this question concerns not your personal infallibility, but the infallibility of your scriptural interpretations.

No, no, no, and so will any sensible Christian, and especially Christian teachers, say. We are not infallible. We can all make mistakes in our understanding and explanation of the Bible.

3) Is the canon of the Bible infallible? In other words, does the Bible contain exactly the number of books, and the correct books, that it should contain? Yes, or no?

If by “infallible” you mean “correct”, yes, I am convinced that the Bible contains the correct and exact number of inspired books.

4) If you answered, “Yes,” to #3, then by what authority do you believe this to be so? The Bible, or oral tradition?

By what authority? By God’s authority who’s character and purpose are revealed in the Holy Scriptures. In his wise providence, God has so directed his people (fallible and imperfect as they are) to recognize his Word. The Good Shepherd promised that his sheep would hear his voice, and that they will not be mislead by the voice of a stranger - and that is exactly what happened, and what continues to happen today. “My sheep hear my voice!”

Historically God gave the inspired Scriptures to Israel and the early church. God's people then passed on the sacred writings to future generations, and they were received as such by believers, to this very day. The canon is not a doctrine to be deduced from the Bible. The Christians in the early centuries simply collected the canonical books on the basis of the internal and external evidence that they are indeed Holy Scripture.

Did the church receive the canon on the presumed authority of some “infallible” declaration of an ecumenical council or pope? No, and neither did the Jews for centuries, nor did Catholics for 15 long centuries, nor do Christians to this very day.

How then could we be certain? We can be certain because we rely ultimately on God who alone is infallible, and who in his all-wise providence uses very fallible and weak instruments to fulfill his eternal purposes.

5) If I were to deny that the Letter of James was inspired Scripture, by what authority would you declare me to be wrong? Does the Bible say James is “God-breathed?” Yes, or no?

The church does not determine the canonicity of a particular book on an inspired contents page! If you doubt the inspiration of James, as some early Christians did in the first centuries, and even Luther in the 16th, I would seek to convince you on the basis of the internal and external evidence, just as the church did in the formation of the canon. Notwithstanding his doubts, Luther included the Epistle of James in his translation of the Bible and gave it to the German people in their native language; something the Roman Church failed to do until after the Reformation.

6) If Bible-only Christians can get it wrong when it comes to their interpretation of the Bible in regard to traditions, as you stated can be the case, then can they get it wrong when it comes to their interpretations regarding doctrines? Yes, or no?

Whatever the preamble means, we do not hesitate to admit that we can be wrong in biblical interpretation; we can be mistaken in some of our beliefs and doctrines. If it were not for the grace of God, we would not believe a single truth rightly.

But being fallible does not imply that one is necessarily mistaken. I am fallible when it comes to mathematics. My math teacher used to remind me of my fallibility each time she corrected my homework. But that does not mean that I got all my sums wrong! Long before the bishop of Rome asserted himself as the infallible head of the universal church, the saints of the Old and New Testaments believed and cherished Gods truth, albeit their many false beliefs and mistakes. Think of the Corinthian church. Where they Christians? Yes. Did they believe the true gospel? Yes. Did they also hold false teaching? Oh yes! Evangelical Christians are happy to continue in the tradition of our forefathers in the faith, and we invite Catholics to return to the roots of our most holy faith.

We may be wrong on many things, but we are most certainly right when we exalt Jesus as the only Name given in the world by which we must be saved. We preach Christ crucified. We preach Christ resurrected, glorified, Lord of heaven and earth. We trust our soul solely to his care. We have no other desire but to glorify our Beloved by living in obedience to his Word. May the Sovereign God open all our minds to understand the Scriptures, and grant us the grace to believe in his Son for our salvation.

They Must Be Carried

2008-06-09T15:55:00.001+02:00

Apparently this incident occurred in a Catholic church in Canada. I wouldn't be surprised that there were some fellow Maltese there!

When I first saw the video, I could not help but think of what the prophet Jeremiah (10:5) said:

Like a scarecrow in a melon patch,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good.

The prophet Isaiah (41:7) said something similar:

The craftsman encourages the goldsmith,
and he who smooths with the hammer
spurs on him who strikes the anvil.
He says of the welding, "It is good."
He nails down the idol so it will not topple.

The Psalmist (115:3-8) too pours scorn on idols:

Our God is in heaven;
he does whatever pleases him.
But their idols are silver and gold,
made by the hands of men.
They have mouths, but cannot speak,
eyes, but they cannot see;
they have ears, but cannot hear,
noses, but they cannot smell;
they have hands, but cannot feel,
feet, but they cannot walk;
nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them.

Of course the Bible is speaking on the pagan idols, not about Christian statues. But evidently the Christian statues are not much better. They too must be nailed down and carried along; they too have feet but cannot walk.

Christians would do well to turn away from human traditions to worship God in Spirit and truth, as our Lord instructed. It is high time that we take heed to God’s second commandment (Exodus 20:4, 5) which prohibits his people from bowing down before or serving man-made images.

Immoral Popes

2008-06-01T00:05:00.003+02:00

(Gospel e-Letter June 2008)

The authority of the Roman Catholic Church depends on the apostolic succession of the Pope. The Pope should be obeyed as the universal and infallible ruler because his authority has been transmitted over the centuries from the apostle Peter in an unbroken lineage of Popes.

Let us then briefly examine this claim from a historical and biblical perspective. It is not particularly edifying to go through all the filth and corruption of papal history. A few examples should suffice.

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Pope Christopher became pope by forcibly dethroning his predecessor, Leo V, and putting him into prison. He was then driven from the chair by his successor, Sergius III. Pope John XII was a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a house of prostitution, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium. Pope Benedict IX sold the papacy to Pope Gregory VI for a large sum of money. Pope Clement VI imposed taxes, sold beneficiaries and squandered the church riches on pompous banquets and receptions. Pope Alexander VI was known for murder, bribery, and selling positions of authority in the Catholic Church. Pope Gregory VII and his successors used forged documents to expand the power of the papacy.

The Bible warns God's people against false prophets. Our Lord Jesus told his disciples: "Beware of false prophets." He also told us how to identify them: "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15, 16). The apostle Peter mentions their covetousness: "In their greed these teachers will exploit" the church (2 Peter 2:3); Jude mentions their immoral character: "ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness...walk according to their own ungodly lusts...sensual persons" (Jude 1:4, 18, 19); while the apostle Paul describes the character of a genuine bishop: "blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money" (Titus 1:7).

We do not suggest that all popes were immoral like the ones mentioned above; in fact, most of them were not. Nor do we suggest that immorality only infects the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Pastors and teachers in evangelical churches, as well as Catholic popes, bishops and priests, have been exposed as hypocrites.

But there is a crucial difference. As evangelical Christians we identify and honour a pastor as a worthy minister of Christ if he faithfully preachers the apostolic message and if his life is consistent with his message. We do not hesitate to identify immoral and greedy ministers as false teachers no matter what they claim to be. They are false teachers!

But Catholics cannot follow the guidance of Scriptures to expose false teachers. They are not allowed by the magisterium. If a Pope had been lawfully elected, he must be considered a true Pope, the Vicar of Christ and head of the entire church, no matter how morally and spiritually decadent. One Catholic author wrote in all seriousness: "Even a bad and immoral Pope cannot be deposed. The faithful can only pray for his conversion of heart or that Saint Joseph bless him with a happy and speedy death if his behaviour becomes scandalous."

Benedict XVI is the 265th Pope according to the current list of Popes – and these include the apostates mentioned above and others like them. They cannot take them out of the list, of course, even though they admit that they were grossly immoral; otherwise the Vatican would have nothing to hang its claim to apostolic authority. The chain must be intact.

But what good is a chain if even one of its link is corroded, let alone if there are a score of rusty links? The chain still breaks down at the weak links and the claimed apostolic authority of the papacy falls to the ground and breaks in pieces.

Poll - May 2008

2008-05-31T18:30:00.006+02:00

Catholics who deny the ‘anathema’ statements of the ecumenical councils are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Always 41 (56%)

Sometimes 18 (24%)

Never 14 (19%)

Total votes: 73. Poll closed.

Comments: The ‘anathema sit’ statements of the ecumenical councils should be received as truths of the Catholic faith. According to the Code of Canon Law: (1) Those who obstinately deny or doubt these statements are guilty of heresy (751). (2) With some exceptions (1323), a heretic incurs automatic (a latae sententiae) excommunication (1364).

Anathema Sit!

2008-05-02T07:32:00.004+02:00

Veneration of Images
If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
- Second Council of Nicaea, 787.

The Scriptures

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.
- Council of Trent, Session 4.

Justification

If any one says, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. (Canon 12).

If any one says, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema. (Canon 24).

If any one says, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema. (Canon 30).

If any one says, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema. (Canon 32).
- Council of Trent, Session 6.

Sacraments

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
- Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 4.

Baptism

If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
- Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5.

Eucharist

If any one denies, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but says that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. (Canon 1).

If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. (Canon 2).

If any one says, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema. (Canon 6).

lf any one says, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema. (Canon 8)
- Council of Trent, Session 13.

Penance

If any one denies, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or says, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema. (Canon 6).

If any one says, that God always remits the whole punishment together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is no other than the faith whereby they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them; let him be anathema. (Canon 12).

If any one says, that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is nowise made to God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by the punishments inflicted by Him, and patiently borne, or by those enjoined by the priest, nor even by those voluntarily undertaken, as by fastings, prayers, almsdeeds, or by other works also of piety; and that, therefore, the best penance is merely a new life; let him be anathema. (Canon 13).

If any one says, that the satisfaction, by which enitents redeem their sins through Jesus Christ, are not a worship of God, but traditions of men, which obscure the doctrine of grace, and the true worship of God, and the benefit itself of the death of Christ; let him be anathema. (Canon 14).
- Council of Trent, Session 14.

The Mass

If any one says, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 3.

If any one says, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema. (Canon 1).

If any one says, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema. (Canon 6).
- Council of Trent, Session 23.

Indulgences

…the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.
- Council of Trent, Session 25, Decree Concerning Indulgences.

Celibacy

If any one says, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.
- Council of Trent, Session 24, Canon 10.

Papal Supremacy and Infallibility

Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
- First Vatican Council.

Immaculate Conception

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
- Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution, Pope Pius IX , 1854.

Assumption

The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
- Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950.

Quote: On James 2

2008-05-01T10:16:00.002+02:00

James does not here imply the possibility of true faith existing apart from deeds, but merely of the making of such a claim ... James is not opposing faith and works, but living faith and dead faith ... What was true in the case of Abraham is true universally. 'by works and not by faith alone': As is clear from the context, this does not mean that genuine faith is insufficient for justification, but that faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine.

Leahy T. W. 'The Epistle of James,' The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2000), 912-913.

St James: Not By Faith Alone

2008-05-01T10:12:00.002+02:00

There are two kinds of faith - living and dead. The former is genuine; the latter is a counterfeit, the mere assent to Christian doctrine. Living faith saves; dead faith is useless and powerless to save.

James (chapter 2:14-26) helps us distinguish between the two. James argues that obedience is the proof of living faith, whereas dead faith is exposed by the absence of good works. He puts forward this challenge: “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” True faith is verified by good works. Otherwise, if it is alone, it is exposed as a dead and useless imitation. Three times he repeats: “Faith without works is dead.”

While he does not dispute that salvation is by grace through faith, James is concerned about the man who professes to have faith when in fact he does not. He asks, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” When this man who calls himself a believer meets a brother in need, all he has to offer are a few hypocritical words of comfort but he does not lift a finger to help. This man may claim to have faith as much as he likes, but since his life is devoid of good works, his so-called faith is dead and will not save him.

Take Abraham as an example. He believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness (Genesis 15). He was not accepted as righteous because of his faith plus the merits of some works he had done or would do (Romans 4). Yet the reality of his faith was not manifested until some 30 years later when God put him to the test. Abraham offered his son Isaac, proving without a shadow of a doubt that he really believed God’s promise. His faith was genuine (Genesis 22; Hebrews 11:17-19). In this sense Abraham was justified by works, i.e. his faith was shown to be right because it was accompanied by obedience (James 2:21-24).

The same is true for each one of us. We may profess to believe in the Lord Jesus (Protestants express this by the slogan ‘faith alone’ by which we mean that our trust is in Jesus Christ alone, and in nobody and nothing else). Now what if our claim to faith is not substantiated by works? We would be fooling ourselves because faith alone (in the sense James uses this phrase, that is, a profession of faith without the evidence of good works) does not save. Words are cheap; we who claim to believe in Jesus can only be justified (demonstrated to be right) by our works.

James’ teaching is altogether different from the doctrine of the Roman Church on justification. The Council of Trent teaches that good works are not merely the fruit and signs of justification received by faith, as James teaches. The Roman church goes way beyond that: the Catholic is called to performs good works to maintain and increase personal righteousness by which he is ultimately accounted to have fully satisfied the Law of God and allowed into heaven (Trent, session 6, chapter 16 and canon 24). Instead of demonstrating faith, his religious works done with the intent to gain merit only goes to show that he does not really trust Jesus for salvation.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ for salvation? And do you have works to justify your claim? I pray that every one of us would answer both questions with a bold and sincere yes!

You Shall Not Bow Down

2008-05-01T08:44:00.002+02:00

(Gospel e-Letter - May 2008)

Catholics and Protestants divide the 10 commandments differently. Following the early catholic church and the Orthodox Church, Protestants consider the prohibition against other gods and the prohibition against images as separate commandments. The Jews however considered them as a single commandment, and from the time of Augustine, the Latin church has also followed that tradition.

That does not mean that the Catholic Church has removed the second commandment. The Church does not delete the prohibition against images from Catholic Bible versions or its major catechisms.

But the prohibition against image worship is left out, and effectively hidden, in the abbreviated lists of the 10 commandments commonly used to teach children. While it is perfectly acceptable to summarize the commandments to facilitate memorization, it is wrong to present the abridged form as if it is the whole commandment. Many Catholic children, including myself, grew up without ever having heard that such a prohibition is part of God’s law.

Unlike the Jews (who do not worship images), the Catholic tradition contradicts the plain meaning of the commandment by permitting and encouraging the faithful to make, bow down before, and serve images. The Second Council of Nicea goes as far as condemning with a curse (anathema) those of us who do not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints. [1]

Someone might object along these lines:

Catholics do not worship the Cross or images or relics. They use these physical objects to remind themselves of Christ and his special friends, the saints in heaven. The man who keeps a picture of his family in his wallet does not worship his wife and children, but honours them. (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius, 1988, pp 40, 41).

This kind of argument is popular and easily understood. Who would think that keeping a picture of your family is wrong? Surely Protestants too keep pictures of their loved ones. Why then should anyone object to pictures or statues to remind us of Christ?

I have often been told that an image of Christ is like a picture of my wife that I keep in my wallet to remind me of her. The analogy is misleading. The pictures of Christ are not really pictures of Christ; they are but the imagination of the artist. What is called “Christ” is not a likeness of Christ at all. My wife would not be particularly delighted if I keep a picture of another woman, kiss it, and call her my wife!

Besides, the popular argument for images is evasive and irrelevant; it does not do justice to the Catholic doctrine. It claims that “Catholics do not worship the Cross or images”, but St Thomas Aquinas states otherwise. “[The Cross] it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of latria.” And again, “we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ” (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 25). [2]

As a Catholic, you do not use images merely to “remind” yourself of Christ and the saints. There’s nothing wrong with having pictures and statues to remind us of King David or the apostle Paul. But that is beside the point. You are called to do more than just remember. You are called to kiss images and even to bow down before them.

…because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear (Council of Trent, Session 25, On the Invocation, Veneration, Relics of Saints, and Sacred Images.) [3]

Your intention is undoubtedly right and noble -- you want to worship Christ. But our good intentions are not good enough when our actions contradict the clear teaching of God’s Word. God commands us how to worship and we would better listen: “You shall not carve idols for yourselves ... you shall not bow down before them or worship them.”

When the people of Israel were gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai, and Moses was delayed on the mountain, they demanded a visible representation of God. When Aaron produced the golden calf, the people acclaimed the appearance of their God: “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 32 NAB) [4] They knew that the Lord God had delivered them from the slavery in Egypt, and accepted the newly-formed image as a representative of their powerful Redeemer. Evidently Aaron shared their belief because he went on to build an altar and proclaim a feast “to the LORD (Yahweh)”.

Immediately after those events, the Bible records God’s intense displeasure with his people because they worshipped “his” image. He had told them not to bow down before statues – how could they delude themselves in thinking that they would please God by contradicting his will?

We would be wise to learn from the mistakes of our forefather. If we bow down before the images of Christ and the saints, irrespective of our good intentions, we would be disobedient to the commandment of God: “You shall not bow down before them”! If we truly love our God, we should worship him only in the way he has revealed.

Poll - April 2008

2008-04-29T05:24:00.016+02:00

According to the Bible, whose faith is accounted for righteousness?

He who does not work but believes (33) 29%

He who works and believes (79) 71%

Total votes: 112. Poll closed.

Comments: The biblical answer is found in Romans 4:1-8, especially verse 5 (in bold).

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."

The Second Commandment

2008-04-01T07:16:00.011+02:00

(Gospel e-Letter - April 2008)

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments (Exodus 20:4-6).

How is the second commandment different from the first?

The first commandment ("You shall have no other gods before Me") forbids the worship of false gods, whereas the second forbids the false worship of God. The first tells us whom to worship; the second tells us how to worship him.

What is required in the second commandment?

The commandment forbids us to make and worship images of God. We are called to know God as he revealed himself, and to serve him according to his ordinances, not in any other way devised by human wisdom. "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:32).

Does the second commandment prohibit the making or use of all images?

The second commandment does not prohibit paintings and sculptures which are not intended to be used in the worship of God. This is clear from the words "you shall not bow down to them nor serve them". Moreover, shortly afterwards giving the Ten Commandments, God instructed Israel to make two cherubims of gold for the Ark of the Covenant, and later on, a bronze serpent (Exodus 25:28; Numbers 21:9). Solomon decorated the temple with twelve oxen, and its walls with carved images of cherubims (1 Kings 7:25; 6:29). In all these instances, the Israelites were not called to "bow down" or "serve" the images. When the Israelites began to burn incense to the bronze serpent, the godly king Hezekiah broke it to pieces.

Can we make an image of God?

We should not make any image of God. When God made a covenant with Israel, the Lord spoke to the people, and they heard the sound of his voice, but they did not see any form. God did so on purpose. "Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female…" (Deuteronomy 4:15, 16). Elsewhere the Scripture reproves us, "To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him?" (Isaiah 40:18).

Can we make an image of Christ since he was made flesh?

No, not least because we do not know how he looked like. The hundreds of different pictures of Jesus testify against each other that they are false images. What is called a picture or a statue of Christ is not his true likeness. Like the idols of old, the modern portrayal of the Lord is "a teacher of lies" (Habakkuk 2:18).

Moreover, Jesus is the true God, and therefore the only appropriate response to seeing his image is worship and adoration. Sadly, the "Jesus" imprinted on the mind by artistic creations is "another Jesus" – an idol. False images lead to false worship.

Did God give us an image of himself?

God has revealed himself in his Son; "He is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). Christ is the perfect icon of God.

But then, how can we know Christ in truth? The Lord himself answers, "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me" (John 5:39). We know Christ in Scripture, not in the imaginations of sculptors.

During our pilgrimage on earth, we are called to live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). The apostle Peter reminds us that we believe and rejoice in him even though "now you do not see him"(1 Peter 1:8). Yet we have a living hope. Eagerly we await that glorious day when "we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). Then our joy will be complete.

Why should we obey the second commandment?

God threatens severe punishments on those who disobey and promises great blessings on the obedient. If we love God, let us worship him as he has commanded. If however we attempt to worship him by graven images, contrary to his commandment, we are found to be haters of God and worthy of his wrath.

Poll - March 2008

2008-03-31T07:09:00.032+02:00

Is it biblical to worship images of Christ?

Yes (8) 9%

No (75) 90%

Total votes: 83. Poll closed.

Comments: While most respondents think that it is not biblical to worship images of Christ, a few (most probably Catholics who know their religion well) think that it is. They will do well to study the second commandment (April Gospel e-Letter) and reconsider the Catholic apologetic arguments for images (May Gospel e-Letter, DV).

Do Catholics Worship Images of Christ?

2008-03-01T09:17:00.036+01:00

(Gospel e-Letter - March 2008)

An article posted on a Catholic website begins with these striking words:

"Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. [1]

Some Protestants continue to allege that Catholics worship images despite their constant denial. I happen to be one of those Protestants. Without referring to the Bible, I invite you to look at official Catholic sources, to show that the Catholic Church does in fact promote the worship of images.

So, what does the Catholic Church teach about images? The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2132) is a good place to start:

The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honour rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honour paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends towardthat whose image it is.[2]

We should note several important points:

1. We understand that Catholics are not supposed to honour the image itself, as a mere physical object that would be crass idolatry. However, they are called to venerate the image not as a thing, but only as far as it is an image. Can this distinction be made in practice; this is another point for further discussion.

2. The Church teaches that the honour given to the image passes on to the person represented by the image; or perhaps we can say, Catholics honour the saints and angels through honour rendered to their images. The Council of Trent (session 25) explains:

... the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear. [3]

3. The church distinguishes between the worship and adoration of God (latria) and the lesser form of honour, or veneration (dulia), given to saints and angels. Thus a statue of St Paul should not be worshipped (latria) but simply honoured (dulia). On this account, it would be contrary to Catholic teaching to worship the image of a saint. The image of St Paul should be venerated, not worshipped. "The honour paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration,' not the adoration due to God alone."

At this point, a series of questions springs to mind:

What about images of Christ, who is God incarnate?

If the veneration given to the image of a saint passes on to the saint, what kind of honour should be given to the image of Christ?

Surely, Christ deserves more than mere veneration of the dulia type. Being God, Christ deserves to be honoured with the highest form of worship and adoration (latria). If Christ's image is merely venerated, isn't that honour far less than the adoration he is worthy to receive?

Shouldn't then the image of Christ – if Catholic theology is correct – be honoured with the highest form of worship (latria), given that this worship to the image passes on to the Person represented?

In other words, if saints can be honoured (dulia) by honouring (dulia) their statues, should God incarnate by worshipped (latria) by worshipping (latria) his image?

That seems to be the logical conclusion!

Someone may say, "That's only your fallible interpretation, you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching." Well then, look again at the sentence quoted above from the Catechism.

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.

This statement denies images are worshipped "in themselves" and "as mere things". That is quite obvious: Catholics do not intentionally worship wood and stone, but the same sentence continues to affirm that images are worshipped "under their distinctive aspect as images". Images of God incarnate are worshipped according to the Catechism.

The Catechism is actually quoting from St Thomas Aquinas. In the same paragraph, Aquinas concludes that "religious worship is paid to the images of Christ." [4]

In his discussion of the question, "Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of latria", Thomas Aquinas is even more explicit. Excerpts:

The honour given to an image reaches to the prototype, i.e. the exemplar. But the exemplar itself--namely, Christ--is to be adored with the adoration of latria; therefore also His image.

Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of latria, it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of latria.

Whereas we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ, Who is true God, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is.

Among these traditions is the worship of Christ's image. [5]

One would hope that Catholic apologists would be as clear and honest as Thomas Aquinas in saying publicly, "we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ." What they call "ridiculous" is in fact the teaching of their own Church! I appeal to Catholics and Evangelicals alike, not to be deceived by a watered-down version of Catholicism presented by modern apologists.

I have not tried to show from Scripture whether it is legitimate to worship images of Christ – that, Lord willing, we'll do another time.

Poll - Febuary 2008

2008-02-29T06:02:00.023+01:00

Do Catholics worship statues of Christ?

Yes (71) 31%

No (147) 66%

Don't know (4) 1%

Total votes: 222. Poll closed.

Comment: Two-thirds of the participants think that Catholics do not worship images of Christ. This result shows that there are many people out there who do not know what the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches on this subject. Please read March Gospel e-Letter. [Link]

New e-Book – Free Download

2008-02-10T18:36:00.013+01:00

CHRISTIAN THUMBNAILS
A Survey of the Core Beliefs of Christianity

The Christian faith is God's life-giving message to his people. Over the centuries Christians have cherished the precious heritage of God's Word recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The same gospel is as powerful today as it ever was before to give us freedom and eternal life.

The aim of the Christian faith is the experiential and intimate fellowship with God. 'Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him!' (Ps 34:8). Without God, life is death, plenty is poverty, and happiness is but an illusion. Only when we walk with God can we truly enjoy life, endure trials patiently and look forward in confident hope of everlasting blessedness in his presence.

While the Christian faith includes an intellectual understanding of certain truths about God and human redemption, it goes well beyond academics. It brings us to a personal love relationship with God through the mediation of Jesus Christ. 'This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent' (John 17:3).

The study of biblical doctrine, rightly undertaken, should humble us and implant a deep sense of adoration. When Moses caught sight of the burning bush, he thought in himself: 'I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.' God stopped him short in his tracks. 'Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground' (Ex 3:3, 5). God is not simply a curious vision. Wherever God's glory is manifested, it is holy ground.

Thus we cannot turn our thoughts towards God with a haughty attitude; he is not a phenomenon or a philosophical concept. Our approach must be guarded by reverence and awe. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. It would be a crippled theology if it doesn't drive us to our knees, confessing as John did, 'When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead' (Rev 1:17).

I pray that you will greatly benefit from this concise explanation of the main doctrines of the Christian faith - to strengthen your confidence in the Bible; to better know God and yourself; to experience God's salvation in Christ Jesus; and to glorify God and enjoy him more than you ever did before.

To download a free copy of the e-Book, click here:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/ebook.htm

Counterfeit Grace

2008-02-01T06:50:00.018+01:00

(Gospel e-Letter - February 2008)

The Catholic Church does not teach that we are saved by works alone; the Church insists that we cannot be justified by works done by our own ability. The Council of Trent makes that clear:

If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. (Trent, Session 6, Canon 1).

Furthermore, Catholicism teaches that we can only be justified by God's grace. Again and again, the same council speaks of the 'grace of justification'.

Well then, is the Catholic doctrine identical to the biblical teaching on grace? The terminology may be the same, but is the meaning different?

Biblical Grace

When the Bible says that we are justified by grace, it means that God accounts the believer as righteous for Christ's sake. This legal right-standing before God is granted as a free gift to people who do not deserve it. Justification is by 'grace' because it is a favour that cannot be merited by works. The Bible sets grace in contrast to works so that we will never mix them up.

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt (Romans 4:4).

And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6).

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

Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began (2 Timothy 1:9).

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us … having been justified by His grace (Titus 3:5-7).

When the Bible speaks of grace in relation to salvation, it excludes any admixture of good works. Add one tiny drop of merit to grace, and you don't have the genuine, saving, divine grace any longer. If it is grace, it is not of works!

Catholic Grace

Catholic theology gives a different definition of grace so that it could add the merit of human works, and yet claim that salvation is by grace.

The Catechism defines grace as a "favour, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life" (paragraph 1996).

The Catechism rightly states that grace is a free and undeserved favour. But when the Catechism says that grace is the "help" that God gives us, it cleverly opens the way for the addition of our cooperation, our works and our merits. To this end, the third part of the Catechism explains the way to reach beatitude through our right conduct with the help of God's law and grace (see paragraph 16).

Initial justification at baptism is absolutely undeserved, but then Catholics are called to be further justified by their good works performed by divine grace, that is, by the help of God. At the end, they will be considered to have satisfied the law of God on the basis of those works.

Take a second look at canon 1 quoted above: it is not contrasting works with grace, but 'natural' works with works done with God's help. It denies justification by works done by our natural powers, but it affirms the opposite, namely justification by human works done by God's grace.

That is called salvation by grace; that is in fact salvation by human works!

Salvation by Grace

When the Bible says we're saved by grace, it means we're really saved by God's favour apart from the merit of our works. When Catholicism says we're saved by grace, it means we're saved by the merit of our works that God helps us perform.

God's remedy for our spiritual malady is pure grace. Catholicism poisons the gospel by the addition of human works and merit. But Catholicism kept the same label 'Salvation by Grace' on the new 'gospel'. Do not be deceived by a counterfeit 'grace'!

Poll - January 2008

2008-01-31T06:08:00.019+01:00

Does the Catholic Church teach salvation by grace alone?

Yes (29) 23%
No (89) 72%
Don't know (5) 4%

Total votes: 123. Poll closed.

Comments: Roman Catholicism denies the Pelagian heresy, namely, that we can save ourselves by our own strength. Grace is necessary.

The Catholic Church sometimes even states that it teaches justification by 'grace alone', as in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification:

"Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works" [link]

But that is rather misleading. The statement is referring to the initial justification. From then on Catholics are called to preserve and increase this original 'justice' or 'righteousness' by their works. In fact the Catholic Church curses anyone who says that the justice received is not preserved and increased before God through good works. Salvation is ultimately dependent on the merit of personal good works.

"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema' (Trent 6, canon 32 - link).

For Catholics, grace is necessary, but it is NOT sufficient. It must be supplemented by good works!

Meriting Grace

2008-01-01T07:15:00.018+01:00

(Gospel e-Letter - January 2008)

Does the Catholic Church officially teach that the faithful can merit the graces needed to attain eternal life?

I wonder what your answer might be. Perhaps you resent the very suggestion that the Catholic Church teaches that we can merit grace or eternal life by our good works. You may also feel that evangelical pastors are being dishonest when they allege such things about Catholicism.

I asked the question in my blog during last December and I was not altogether surprised with the response. Of 883 respondents, 801 (90%) answered NO -- they do not believe that the Catholic Church teaches that we can merit the graces needed to attain eternal life. Also many Catholics who corresponded with me over the years have expressed the same conviction. Yet they are wrong.

The Catholic Church does in fact teach that we can merit the graces needed to attain eternal life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2027, states:

"No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."

It could not be any clearer than that: "we can merit … all the graces needed to attain eternal life." That does not mean that the Church teaches that we can merit the initial grace of justification. Even after conversion, the Church insists that we can only do good works by the power of the Spirit. Nonetheless it is also true that, according to the Catechism, we can merit further graces needed to attain eternal life.

I used to feel frustrated whenever Catholics denied this teaching of their church, and I tried to persuade them otherwise from the official writings, especially the Council of Trent. (The 6th Session gives a detailed explanation of the doctrine of Justification).

I am not bothered anymore; actually I am glad that many Catholics are unaware of some of these doctrines, and even reject them. I don't know the underlying reasons for this. Perhaps Catholic teachers and apologists are not presenting church doctrine clearly and faithfully as they should, or perhaps, it is due to the influence of evangelical Christianity. Whatever the reasons, I thank God that many Catholics believe that they cannot merit grace or eternal life.

What is absolutely sure is that the Bible teaches that eternal life is a gift. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). We have earned and merited God's wrath by our disobedience and sin. If God had to give us what we deserve, death and hell would have been our payment. "The wages of sin is death!"

But thanks to God, he deals graciously with his chosen people. He gives us freely what we have not worked for; he gives us the gift of infinite value purchased by the precious blood of Christ. "The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

We cannot merit grace because we cannot pay for a gift; we can only receive grace and eternal life with empty hands and an eternally grateful heart. That is my prayer for all the readers of this letter and your loved ones. May God richly bless you in Christ throughout 2008.

Poll - December 2007

2007-12-31T23:39:00.016+01:00

Does the Catholic Church officially teach that the faithful can merit the graces needed to attain eternal life?

Yes (79) 8%

No (801) 90%

Don't know (3) 1%

Total votes: 883. Poll closed.

Comments: Please read January Gospel e-Letter. [Link]

The Birth of Our Son

2007-12-16T23:14:00.003+01:00

Our son John was born today; his name means: "God is gracious"!

We are so thankful to God for his goodness and grace to us. What a marvel to see the birth of my son; I will forever remember the pain that my wife had to go through, but more, we will never forget the joy that both of us felt when we held our child for the first time.

I'm glad that I married a neonatal nurse: she's so efficient to clean the baby, put on the nappy and dress him up. As for myself, I'm on to a new course in paediatrics.

After his first feed, we read his favourite book by Noel Piper: MOST OF ALL JESUS LOVES YOU! That is our prayer to God for our son: that John grows up to experience the wonderful love of Christ, and to share that love with many.

God has been gracious to all of us. Our little child reminds of of God's ultimate love to humanity, "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given," or as the evangelist John tells us: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Sincere thank for your prayers.
Joe, Joanne … and baby John

Martin Luther's Definition of Faith

2007-12-03T09:02:00.001+01:00

Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they speak and hear much about faith. ``Faith is not enough,'' they say, ``You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.'' They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, ``I believe.'' That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this `faith,' either.

Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

[An excerpt from "An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans," Luther's German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546 Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith from DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN. Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63 (Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125] August 1994.]

The Futile Faith of Some Catholics

2007-12-01T05:01:00.008+01:00

(Gospel e-Letter - December 2007)

Do you fully rely by faith on the Lord Jesus for your salvation? I'm not asking you if you believe in Jesus in a vague and general way, but whether or not you trust him with all your heart to get you to heaven.

If you were brought up in the Catholic religion, you have been told at confession to make satisfaction for sins by doing penance, such as prayer and fasting. You were also taught to merit grace by doing good works.

You believe in Jesus, and yet, if you follow the official teaching of the Catholic Church, you don't fully trust him with the salvation of your soul. The focus of your heart is shifted from Christ and his cross to self and your deeds. You must make satisfaction; you must merit grace; you must add works to your faith in Christ for your final justification.

My friend, I am constrained to forewarn you that such faith cannot justify you before God. I say it again, on the authority of the divine Word: if you attempt to add works to faith for justification, Christ is of no value to you. Listen carefully to what the Bible says:

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Romans 4:5 NKJV).

And again, read the same scripture in a Catholic version:

"But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." (NAB).

Whose faith, according to the inspired Scripture, is credited as righteousness? Is it the faith of him that believes and works? Or of him who believes and does not work? Are you attempting to be justified by faith apart from works, or by faith and works combined?

The apostle is not excluding works as the fruit or purpose of salvation. Elsewhere he is adamant on the absolute necessity of works, godliness and love in the Christian life.

But in this context he is speaking on a different matter, on how God justifies the ungodly. He speaks of righteousness "accounted" or "credited" to the sinner that believes in Christ. Paul tells how the legal debt is crossed out and instead God writes "Righteous by Faith" on the believer's account.

Paul will not allow us to miss the point. The Protestant motto "faith alone" is definitely feeble in comparison to the powerful apostolic statement: "him who does not work but believes"! The Bible does not merely say "faith alone" but it positively excludes works altogether for justification. Indeed the Spirit defines justifying faith by contrasting it to works. He rightly believes in God who makes no attempt to present his personal works for justification.

What about the person who both works and believes in Christ? Can he be justified also? As much as I wish to give a positive answer, I would be deceitful if I do. No, sadly, the person who attempts to be right with God by faith and the merits of his works will most certainly fail. There aren't two ways to God; there aren't two contradictory gospels – one that excludes works and the other that includes them. There is but one gospel: the justification of whoever does not work but believes.

Add one grain of works to your faith, and it is no longer the faith that justifies but a futile and demonic counterfeit.

Dear friend, are you justified by faith; are you at peace with God? Are you convinced that a fatal heart attack will usher you straight to the glory of heaven? If you are doubtful and uncertain, it is because you are not grasping the cross of Christ. You cannot -- as long your hands are filled with "good works".

Throw them away! Discard your works-merit in the rubbish bin where they belong. Come empty-handed to Christ and hold fast to him as your only defense before the God's Law. If you do not work but believe on the Lord who justifies the ungodly, your faith will be accounted for righteousness. That's a divine promise!

Poll - November 2007

2007-11-30T04:57:00.023+01:00

"Faith Alone" implies that for justification, good works are (a) excluded; (b) optional; (c) necessary.

Excluded (418) 92%

Optional (6) 1%

Necessary (29) 6%

Total votes: 453. Poll closed.

Comments: I'm glad that the great majority (>90%) of the respondents to this poll said that "Faith Alone" excludes good works for justification.

The Apostle Paul stated the doctrine of justification by faith alone even more forcefully. He writes: "Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Romans 4:4, 5).

He contrasts the merits of our works to grace – if you work for something, it cannot be considered "grace". Furthermore, he positively excludes works from justifying faith – he "who does not work but believes" is justified by God.

I pray that you, the reader, can honestly say: "I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for my justification. I do not attempt to present my works or merits; Christ and his work – the cross – is my sole defense before the Judge of the Word."