Human Tradition & Divine Revelation: 6 Traditions in Romanism

Table of Contents

1 Recognizing Traditions in Christianity
2 Evaluating Traditions in Christianity
3 Traditions in Judaism
4 Traditions in the NT
5 Traditions of the Early Church Fathers
6 Traditions in Romanism
7 The Papacy in Romanism
8 Mariology in Romanism
Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 13.6

Tradition in Romanism

Table of Topics

A) The Nature of Tradition in Romanism

B) Problems with Tradition in Romanism

B.1) The general obscurity of tradition in Romanism

B.2) Many formerly popular traditions are no longer followed

B.3) Disagreement among Romanist scholars regarding the authority of their traditions

C) Briefly Refuting Several Traditions in Romanism

C.1) Romanism’s tradition as an enemy of the Bible

C.2) Romanism & salvation

C.3) Forgiveness & purgatory

C.4) Forgiveness & indulgences

C.5) Romanism & Celibacy

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points
  • Tradition, with a capital “T” is obviously an important source of authority for Romanism.
  • Vatican Councils have affirmed that unrecorded apostolic traditions are a source of divine revelation equal to Scripture.
  • Romanism’s dependence upon extra-biblical revelation has resulted in a myriad of unbiblical teaching.
  • While Romanism has made much of the authority of their extra-biblical tradition, no pope or council has ever defined what it contains.
  • Romanism’s greatest theologian (Aquinas) clearly stated, in agreement with the Church’s greatest theologian (Augustine), that no extra-biblical teachers or revelation are equal to Scripture.
  • Romanism for centuries was the foremost enemy of making God’s word available to God’s people.
  • one of Romanism’s most honored popes, Gregory the Great (c. 540–604), recommended that all laypersons read the Scriptures.
  • Romanism add several works to the requirements to obtain or preserve salvation. These include membership in Romanism, water baptism, communion, and penance.
  • Romanism requires several works for subsequent forgiveness including several different indulgences and purgatory.
  • The requirement for celibacy for the priesthood is unbiblical and has promoted a tremendous amount of evil.

A) The Nature of Tradition in Romanism

Tradition, with a capital “T” is obviously an important source of authority for Romanism which is our word for the Roman Catholic Church. Not only is this word shorter, it better reflects what is unique about this branch of Christianity (originated in Rome), and avoids the suggestion that it alone is the catholic (universal) Church.

As Protestant Evangelicals we have many very serious concerns about the doctrinal error in Romanism, much of which hinders people being saved in it (cf. Matt 23). However, remarkably, there are real Christians in Romanism, both presently and in its past, and we should therefore not universally condemn this institution.

Nonetheless, their commitment to extra-biblical tradition has made them vulnerable to may serious errors. Accordingly, in response to the Protestant Reformers insistence that divine authority is contained in “Scripture alone,” the Romanist Council of Trent (1545-1563) declared:

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it [Romanism] receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church [sic] in unbroken succession. [1]

Vatican Council I in 1870 reaffirmed that unrecorded apostolic traditions were a source of divine revelation equal to Scripture. With this in mind, the statement by Pope Pius IX who presided over the Council that, “I am tradition,” [2] takes on special significance.

Vatican Council II (1963-1965) reflected this same view [3] and stated:

[T]here exist a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. So both are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence. [4]

This sentiment has been repeated in the recently published Catechism of the Catholic Church which acknowledges that Romanism:

does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and [oral] Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” [5]

Likewise, a tract published by Catholic Answers states:

The Bible nowhere teaches that it is the sole authority in matters of belief. In fact, the Bible teaches that Tradition–the oral teachings given by Jesus to the apostles and their successors, the bishops–is a parallel source of authentic belief. [6]

Accordingly, Romanism is well known for its dependence on divine authorities apart from Scripture. Millard Erickson succinctly explains:

[Some] view divine authority as having been delegated to some person(s) or institution. A prime example here is the Roman Catholic Church. The church is seen as God’s representative on earth. When it speaks, it speaks with the same authority as if the Lord himself were speaking. According to this view, the right to control the means of grace and to define truth in doctrinal matters has been delegated to the apostles and their successors [i.e. popes]. [7]

Likewise, J. I. Packer states:

The so-called ‘Catholic’ (as opposed to ‘Reformed’) tradition, in all its forms, holds that Holy Scripture, interpreted in terms of itself, is not sufficient as a guide for those who would live under the authority of God. Church tradition is necessary (it is said) to lead us into the right understanding of the Scriptures, which is not accessible from a straightforward study of the text. . . . The Roman Council of Trent [1535] spoke of unwritten apostolic traditions, passed on orally in the Church down the ages, as being a second source of doctrine alongside the Scriptures . . . [8]

The Protestant scholar Bernard Ramm (1916-1992) is a little more blunt about the claims of Rome:

The Roman Catholic Church believes that it is graced with infallibility when it teaches and interprets revelation (in her case, oral and written). Her interpretations and teachings are therefore as authoritative as the revelation she interprets . . . .

The Catholic believer accepts the voice of the Church as the voice of Jesus Christ. His duty is to submit himself to the teaching of the Church without reservation. Once a man has pronounced his faith in Roman Catholicism and has become a member of its communion he must recognize the absolute authority and infallibility of the Church in all matters in which the Church teaches the true faith. To assert private judgment about these matters is to betray his faith . . .

By adding to the Scriptures an “authoritative and infallible” Tradition the Catholic Church has hopelessly destroyed the boundaries of divine revelation, and thereby made equivocal the authority of God. Never has the Roman Catholic Church given a complete and exhaustive list of the contents of oral tradition. It has not dared to do so because this oral tradition is such a nebulous entity. [9]

The only response to such a view by any authentic Christian was succinctly stated by Dr. Ramm when he wrote: “By adding to the Scriptures an ‘authoritative and infallible’ Tradition the Catholic Church has hopelessly destroyed the boundaries of divine revelation, and thereby made equivocal the authority of God.” [10]

The influential Romanist NT scholar Raymond Brown adds an additional twist to the concept of this extra-biblical authority when he writes:

Of all interpretation of God’s revelatory action the scriptural is the most important and essential; it should guide all subsequent interpretation, so that in ongoing thought there is an enduring responsibility to Scripture. Yet the scriptural interpretation is limited, for it reflects the understanding of God’s action only in a period that extends from approximately 1000 BC to AD 125.

In Christian faith God’s action climaxed in Jesus Christ who is once for all time (Heb 10:10) so that after the gift of the divine Son no further revelation is needed-whence the theological axiom that revelation closed with the death of the last apostle. Yet there is no reason to think that God ceased to guide a developing interpretation of that action.

Indeed, the subsequent role of the Spirit in human history, in the history of the church and its pronouncements, in the writings of the Fathers and theologians enters into a Tradition that embodies the postscriptural interpretation of the salvific action of God described in Scripture. The Bible has unique importance because it contains both the narrative of the foundational salvific action of God and the basic interpretation of that action, but there can be subsequent normative interpretation of that action which is not found in Scripture.

Thus, for example, the raising from death to glory of all the faithful disciples of Christ is an interpretation of salvation revealed in the NT; and although not found in Scripture, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary can be seen by Roman Catholics as a particular application of that interpretation–an interpretation developing from a late NT tendency visible in Luke and John to see Mary as a privileged disciple. [11]

In other words, there is an expectation that the Holy Spirit will grant new interpretations of the static text of Scripture, essentially resulting in new divine revelation. Especially if something like the Assumption of Mary is going to be categorized as merely “a particular application of that [new] interpretation” of Scripture.

Romanism’s dependence upon extra-biblical revelation has resulted in a myriad of unbiblical teaching. [12] It would seem, in fact, that this religion has simply become a human invention, fashioned after earthly whims, with very little remaining of its authentic Christian roots. In subsequent chapters we will demonstrate this in regards to their unbiblical traditions regarding the papacy and Mary the mother of Jesus. In section C below we will address other examples. The following is a partial list of extra-biblical, if not unbiblical doctrines implemented in Romanism:

  • Regeneration in baptism decreed 431.
  • The Mass as a reenactment of sacrifice, 500.
  • Mortal sin to not attend mass, 1000.
  • Celibacy of priesthood decreed by Pope Gregory VII in 1079.
  • Rosary, invented by Peter the Hermit, 1090.
  • The granting of indulgences to reduce time in purgatory, 1190
  • Confession of sins to priests, Innocent III
  • Purgatory as dogma by Council of Florence, 1438
  • Tradition proclaimed equal to Scripture, Council of Trent, 1545
  • The sinless (“immaculate”) conception of Mary decreed by Pope Pius IX, 1854.
  • Infallibility of the Pope, Vatican Council 1870.
  • Virgin Mary proclaimed co-redeemer with Christ by Benedict XV, 1922.
  • The ascension (“assumption”) of Mary without death, decreed by Pius XII, 1950.

B) Problems with Tradition in Romanism

There are several problems with giving any of the traditions in Romanism divine authority. In the previous chapter we pointed out the significant inconsistency in the beliefs of the early Church Fathers on which such traditions are founded on. In subsequent chapters we will demonstrate the unbiblical nature of many traditions in Romanism. Here we will briefly comment on several other reasons to reject the authority of Romanist traditions.

B.1) The general obscurity of tradition in Romanism

While Romanism has made much of the authority of their extra-biblical tradition, no pope or council has ever defined what it contains. Along these lines, Martin Luther (1483–1546) wrote:

Where does such a pope come from with his priesthood? Indeed, he is not the heir to the apostolic see, for he surely destroys the apostles’ office and teaching with his teaching. St. Paul stands firm here, saying, “We are servants or preachers of the Spirit and not of the letter.” But what does the pope say? “We are preachers neither of the Spirit nor of the letter, but only of our own dream which is written down nowhere.” [13]

Likewise, Dr. Ramm commented:

Never has the Roman Catholic Church given a complete and exhaustive list of the contents of oral tradition. It has not dared to do so because this oral tradition is such a nebulous entity. The question remains, what is it? If authority is the correlate of revelation, how can any Catholic know what God has bound upon His Church if the contents of that revelation are so bulky, frequently contradictory, and in so many instances too nebulous to know the clear line of demarcation of true tradition from worthless early Christian speculation? . . .

Judging from the glowing terms in which Roman Catholic scholars describe it, papal infallibility is a great blessing. It would appear that hundreds of theological questions can be settled, the interpretation of obscure passages resolved, the pressing moral questions of the times properly answered.

But infallibility is not a grace that is frequently used. The Church or papacy speak infallibly only when an issue becomes forced. For example, scarcely a dozen verses have been officially interpreted; and one scholar says that if unusually rigid rules are applied to the ex cathedra statements of the pope, only four infallible utterances have been made in nineteen hundred years of Church history.

The area in which infallible statement may be made is also carefully limited; for example, nothing may be said about critical or historical matters. Even when the issue is unusually agitated the papacy may call a halt to the discussion rather than settling it with an ex cathedra utterance. Much of the enthusiasm for infallibility must then be drawn off when it is learned how infrequently it may be exercised. [14]

In the same vein, Dr. Packer writes that Romanists: “disagree among themselves as to what ‘Church tradition’ is. [15] Such a nebulous definition of what the authoritative Tradition is, seems all too convenient, and potentially frustrating, especially when violating this same Tradition is said to be sin against God.

B.2) Many formerly popular traditions are no longer followed

The claim that the extra-biblical traditions in the early Church Fathers are merely human traditions is supported by the fact that even the more tradition bound Roman Catholic Church has rejected many of those traditions. We have described practices in the previous chapters that there described as apostolic tradition by early Church Fathers but are no longer practiced. Such abandoned traditions include turning to the East for prayer and separating genders in the Sunday service.

The general Roman Catholic response has been that only those traditions that were universally held by the Church Fathers are to be given authority. The problem is that we do not have sufficient records to know how universal these traditions were. The ones that Basil listed in the fourth century [16] and Romanism has since rejected, were surely as popular as those they have claimed are authoritative.

B.3) Disagreement among Romanist scholars regarding the authority of their traditions

There have obviously been many scholars, particularly in the Middle Ages, that supported the divine authority of the Roman Church and its traditions. For example, Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), founder of the Jesuits, wrote: “That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it black.” [17]

Likewise, almost 300 years earlier, the most respected and influential theologian that Romanists can claim as their own, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), wrote: “[Divine] revelation is the truth that God communicates through the prophets, Christ, the Apostles, and the [Roman Catholic] Church.” [18] This clearly implies that the traditions of the Church are an authoritative source of extra-biblical divine revelation.

However, Aquinas wrote elsewhere:

[H]oly teaching employs such authorities [i.e. human reason, philosophy] only in order to provide as it were extraneous arguments from probability. Its own proper authorities are those of canonical Scripture, and these it applied with convincing force.

It has other proper authorities, the doctors of the Church, and these it looks to as its own, but for arguments that carry no more than probability. For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote the canonical books, not on a revelation, if such there be, made to any other teacher.

Hence Augustine says (Epist. ad Hieron. xix. i): Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem anything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning. [19]

Inconsistency is the hallmark of a lie, and when Romanism’s greatest theologian (Aquinas) clearly stated, in agreement with the Church’s greatest theologian (Augustine), that no extra-biblical teachers or revelation are equal to Scripture, why would we take seriously any claims to the contrary?

C) Briefly Refuting Several Traditions in Romanism

C.1) Romanism’s tradition as an enemy of the Bible

Of course we believe that there are many extra-biblical and unbiblical traditions in Romanism. But before discussing them, it should be noted how Romanism has historically been one of the greatest enemies of Scripture itself. Not only has Romanism impugned the authority of Scripture by misinterpreting and adding to its teaching, but for centuries it was the foremost enemy of making God’s word available to God’s people.

While Scripture commended the common folk in Berea for the noble character they exercised when they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul [an Apostle!] said was true (Act 17:11), medieval Romanism murdered such men as John Wycliffe (1328-1384) William Tyndale (1494-1536) just for translating the Bible into something the people could read. Likewise, The Waldenses in the thirteenth century were mercilessly persecuted by Romanism simply because they endeavored to teach God’s word to the people and live by it. Has Romanism ever officially apologized for these atrocities? Not to our knowledge.

Yale Church History Professor Kenneth Latourette tells us that while under the leadership of the early Church Fathers, “Many individuals and families had copies of the Scriptures and the temper of the Church encouraged Bible reading by individuals and groups.” [20] In contrast, Pope Pius in 1559 said that if a person had a Bible of his own without written permission, he “cannot be absolved from His sins until he has turned in these Bibles.” [21]

While Jesus spoke freely to all the people and Paul wrote to all Christians, Romanism took it upon itself to “protect” these words from the people, a claim that would be comical if they had not shed so much blood and caused so much ignorance. For centuries this institution purposely kept God’s word in a language that God’s people did not know. Accordingly, “Protestant Bible Societies have been repeatedly condemned by the popes and, in the encyclical dated December 8, 1864, were placed on a par with socialistic and communistic societies.” [22] In that decree, Pope Leo XII claimed that Bible Societies, “violate the traditions of the Fathers and the Council of Trent, in circulating the Scriptures in the vernacular tongues of all nations.” [23]

Did Romanism forget, or simply ignore the precedent of Catholics greater then they who, like Chrysostom (c. 347–407), said:

The Prophets and the Apostles . . . established for all the things that are sure and clear, inasmuch as they are the common Teachers of the whole world so that each person by himself or herself might be able to understand what was said from the reading alone. [24]

Likewise, one of Romanism’s most honored popes, Gregory the Great (c. 540–604), recommended that all laypersons read the Scriptures. [25] The fact that over thirteen hundred years later the Vatican II council finally got back to Gregory’s view does nothing to erase the harm that Romanism has done to God’s word and God’s people. Any kind of official recognition of the great error and sin committed by them might allay some of their condemnation, but there has been none.

C.2) Romanism & salvation

Admittedly, Romanism supports many beliefs that are central to Protestant Reformed theology regarding salvation. [26] In fact, there are no direct statements in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church that suggest one can be saved by works. [27] Nevertheless, throughout the Catechism several works are added to the requirements to obtain or preserve salvation. For example, it is at least implied that a person who is not a member of Romanism possesses an “imperfect” salvation because they have an “imperfect” membership in the true Catholic Church. Paragraph 846 states:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the [Roman] Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. [28]

The important question then is who is in the Catholic Church? Paragraph 838 states:

The [Roman Catholic] Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the [Roman] Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church.” [29]

Thus our claim that an “imperfect communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church” implies an imperfect salvation, perhaps needing to be perfected in purgatory.

It is evident in the quotes above that water baptism is an essential requirement for salvation in Romanism. Accordingly, paragraph 1257 of the Catechism states:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” [30]

Accordingly, while the Catechism makes several biblical, Reformed, and even Evangelical statements regarding salvation, it perverts the Gospel by adding the necessity of baptism. For example, paragraph 1992 states:

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. [31]

Likewise, paragraph 1997 states:

Grace is a participation in the life of God.  It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. [32]

Also, according to Romanism, sins after baptism can cause one to lose their salvation unless the person engages in Penance. Paragraph 980 of the Catechism states:

It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church. Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers “a laborious kind of baptism.” This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn. [33]

Paragraph 1435 describes some of these saving acts:

Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance. [34]

Paragraph 1129 expands this requirement for salvation beyond baptism to evidently include all the sacraments of Romanism: “The Church [notice-not Scripture] affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” [35] The Catechism references the authority of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) for this requirement, not Scripture.

Included in the sacraments necessary for salvation is the eucharist. Paragraph 1405 states: “Every time this mystery is celebrated, “the work of our redemption is carried on” and we “break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ.” Likewise, paragraph 1414 states: “As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead . . .” This is founded on the fact that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not a once and for all act, but a continuing one, paragraph 1367 stating:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory. [36]

Here is a good example of how extra-biblical authority operates in Romanism. Obviously they cannot quote Scripture to support such a notion, and accordingly, the quotes above are from the early 2nd century Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) in his Epistle to the Ephesians. [37] Admittedly, a quote from a man so close to the Apostolic Age should be seriously considered, but not an interpretation of it that violates the central apostolic teaching that we are saved only by God’s grace and works, not any human works.

The Romanist doctrine of communion is also a good example of how they ignore Scripture. While they can quote the Council of Trent for support that Christ needs to be continually sacrificed for our sins, their own Apostle Peter said: “Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (1 Pet 3:18; cf. Heb 7:27-28; 9:27; 10:14).

It should be noted that with many of these additions to the requirements to be saved, exceptions are provided in the Catechism. If one cannot be baptized for some reason, their mere desire to be so is credited to them as a real baptism. Likewise, if the Roman Catholic Church, or even the Gospel is unknown to a person, they can still be saved. Accordingly, paragraph 1260 states:

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. [38]

And paragraph 848 states:

Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men. [39]

This is not the place to thoroughly discuss the issue of baptism and its relationship to salvation, which we do elsewhere. [40] Likewise, the pluralism expressed in Romanism’s claim that people can be saved apart from the Gospel is discussed elsewhere in Knowing Our God. [41]

C.3) Forgiveness & purgatory

Paragraph 1030 of the Catechism states:

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. [42]

Elsewhere, the Catechism states:

To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. [43]

This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. [44]

Justification for the doctrine of purgatory is explained as follows:

The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence [1439] and Trent [1563]. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” [2 Maccabees 12:46]. From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God [Council of Lyons 1242]. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

[Quoting Chrysostom] Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them. [45]

In summary, there are four general sources of support for the Romanist doctrine of purgatory: 1) councils, 2) the writings of a Church Father, 3) apocryphal literature, and 4) distorted Scripture references. Unfortunately, there are some professing “evangelicals” who are writing in support of purgatory as well. [46]

First, a biblical Christian will care little about the first one, as these councils have contradicted one another throughout their history.

Secondly, while Chrysostom (349-407) who is quoted above deserves respect as a biblical exegete, he was off his rocker to claim that prayers, alms, or service for the dead was effectual. Chrysostom based his belief on three things. First, he refers to the custom of saying prayers for the dead in the Sunday service as is practiced today in Romanism. [47] Again, one must make a decision as to whether they will grant divine authority to such traditions.

Secondly, as noted above, he refers to Job’s sacrifices for his sons, obviously ignoring that Job’s sons were still living, and Job lived even before the Mosaic Covenant was established, indicating we must be very hesitant to assume any saving value in Job’s practice for our own time. Thirdly, Chrysostom quotes 2 Corinthians 1:11 (“you help us by your prayers”), again ignoring the fact that the Apostle was speaking of living people, not dead ones.

Thirdly, again because we have chosen to find divine authority only in Scripture that has been historically authenticated to be the writing of a divine messenger, we do not give something recorded in 2 Maccabees divine authority. [48]

Finally, the Scripture references given in the Catechism to support the doctrine of purgatory are as follows:

[N]o one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire [on “the Day”], and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward [on “the Day”]. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor 3:12-15)

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7 These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. (1 Pet 1:6-7)

Here would seem to be good examples of how Romanism twists proof texts to gain biblical support for their heresies. Regarding the first passage, it is uncertain what the Apostle meant by “the fire [that] will test the quality of each man’s work” whether it is to be taken literally or metaphorically. The parallel statement that the evaluated worker be “as [ōs] one escaping through the flames” suggests the idea is to be understood metaphorically. Accordingly, Gordon Fee writes regarding 1 Corinthians 3:15:

This sentence is often seen as expressing a purifying element to the judgment, and has served as the NT support for the concept of purgatory. . . . This understanding of the text goes back as far as Origen. . . . But that is to miss Paul by a wide margin. This is metaphor pure and simple, probably reflecting something like Amos’ “firebrand plucked from the burning” (4:11; cf. Zech 3:2). [49]

Nonetheless, the “fire” that Paul speaks of here does not refer to an after death experience in a purgatory, but will occur on “the Day” which refers in Scripture to the End Time Consummation inaugurated by Christ’s physical return to Earth. As Ben Witherington notes:

This cannot be a reference to purgatory since Paul is referring to what happens on the judgment day . . . after the return of Christ. . . . He is not referring to what happens to a person after death and before the final judgment. [50]

As for the reference to 1 Peter 1:17, we only need to notice that specifically what the Apostle says is being “refined by fire” is literally “gold,” with a probable reference to the Christian’s present faith. There certainly is nothing here to suggest a purgatory.

Accordingly, while Romanism brings all of its extra-biblical and unbiblical sources of authority to bear on the doctrine of purgatory, it is to be rejected as a serious false teaching.

C.4) Forgiveness & indulgences

A related topic to purgatory is the false teaching concerning indulgences in the Romanism. This, of course, was the issue that seemed to particularly spark Martin Luther’s confrontation with Romanism in his day. Timothy Lull writes:

The selling of indulgences developed slowly throughout the Middle Ages. Originally its conception was limited to removing the temporal or earthly punishment that the church had the right to inflict as part of the sacrament of penance. But it was clear to Luther that many simple persons were not understanding indulgences in this way. Those who arranged for their sale had their own stake in keeping the precise theology of indulgences obscure. [51]

Accordingly, Luther wrote in his characteristically blunt way in his Ninety-Five Theses: “Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers. [52]

Nevertheless, Romanism has not abandoned its unbiblical doctrine of indulgences. The Catechism states:

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. . . .  The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead. [53]

The “treasury of the satisfactions of . . . the saints” which help pay for our sins through is further described:

In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things. In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin. . . . This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary [54]

Paragraph 1498 summarizes: “Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory.” [55]

What needs to be done in order for the Roman Church to grant such indulgences is not clear in the Catechism. In fact, this doctrine is a rather complex one being spelled out in a detailed document referred to as Enchiridion of Indulgences. This specifies that among other things, indulgences can be granted if a person: 1) Piously reads or listens to Scripture for at least half an hour, 2) worshipfully participates in the Lord’s Supper for at least half an hour, 3) goes through the “Stations of the Cross” exercise, or 4) recites the rosary in a church. [56]

Of course, no biblical support is offered for such a doctrine, and its history is rather obscure. A notable instance was  Pope Urban II’s declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who confessed their sins, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance. [57] Nevertheless, indulgences are just one more heretical infringement on the purity of the Gospel by Romanism.

C.5) Romanism & Celibacy

Of course the Apostle Paul extolled the virtues of the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35. Dr. Latourette briefly describes the subsequent history of this issue, particularly in Romanism:

[C]elibacy was early prized by the Church. The Shepherd of Hermas [2nd century] held that while it was not wrong for Christian widows or widowers to remarry, they would “gain greater honour and glory of the Lord” if they refrained from doing so. As we have seen, the Marcionites forbade marriage.

While the Catholic Church did not have that requirement for membership, in 305 a synod in Elvira, in Spain, demanded celibacy of the bishops and other clergy. Even earlier the custom had been established that a bishop, a priest, or a deacon should not marry if he had been unmarried before his ordination, and that if his wife died there was to be no remarriage. The official decrees of synods, councils, and Popes enjoining celibacy on the clergy seem to have arisen out of a growing custom and to have reinforced it rather than to have initiated it.

Gradually the tradition was developing which was later to become fixed, in the West for the celibacy of deacons, priests, and bishops, and in the East celibacy for the bishops, but marriage before ordination for deacons and priests. In 385 Pope Siricius enjoined chastity upon all priests, saying that their daily offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist made this necessary. In 390 a council at Carthage commanded chastity for bishops, priests, and deacons. Not far from the middle of the fifth century Pope Leo the Great extended to subdeacons the rule of clerical celibacy.

In the second half of the fourth century a council in the East condemned those who regarded as unlawful receiving the Eucharist from the hands of a married priest. Late in the seventh century, in 692, a council which was esteemed ecumenical by the Eastern but not by the Western section of the Catholic Church declared that any who wished might be married before ordination as subdeacon, deacon, or priest, but no one should do so after ordination, and a married man who was raised to the episcopate must separate from his wife and provide for her in a monastery. [58]

Even today, the Catechism states:

All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,” they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry. . . .

In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God’s kingdom and the service of men. [59]

Elsewhere the Catechism states:

The perfection of charity [love], to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God. [60]

Several responses are in order. First, we register the opinion that the Eastern Orthodox rule that a married man who gets appointed bishop must put away his wife, is an abomination. Such a practice is deserving of Christ’s condemnation when He told the Pharisees regarding disrespecting parents, let alone abandoning a wife: “You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!” (Matt 15:6).

Secondly, it would be comical if it were not such a serious matter when we remember that the Apostle Peter himself was married. Paul wrote that not only Peter, but, “the other Apostles and the Lord’s brothers” had a “believing wife” (1 Cor 9:5; cf. Matt 8:14). In other words, the adopted founding Father of Romanism would not be qualified to even be a priest among them. And we are reminded as well that the Apostle Paul said “the overseer [episkopon: “office of bishop” [61]] . . . must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect” (1 Tim 3:2; cf. Tit 1:6). Unless we are to understand the Apostle as assuming the bishop would be adopting children as a single man, it would seem the original and biblical expectation for bishops was to be married. Such an assumption is impossible regarding the biblical expectation of a local church leader, as Paul tells Titus: “An elder must be . . . the husband of one wife” (Tit 1:6). Accordingly, while there is a great deal of irony here, we don’t think the Apostle would be laughing about how Romanist leaders have usurped his authority to pervert the ministry.

Not surprisingly, whenever biblical commands are violated or otherwise distorted, it is God’s people, and God’s glory that suffers. Bernard Spilka, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Denver reports that celibacy “constitutes the major reason why [Romanist] priests leave their profession [and] . . . is probably a factor in the estimate that at any one time 20 percent of Catholic priests are involved in [an extra-marital] sexual relationship with a woman.” [62]

Of course, even worse is all the abominable homosexual activity among Romanist priests. Timothy Unsworth in his book, The Last Priests in America, claims that an NBC report on chastity and the clergy found that “anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent” of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation.” [63]

Barbara Walters of ABC’s 20/20 has stated that:

The [Catholic] church has made dramatic changes in the last decade in the way it addresses sexual issues in seminary. Instead of denying or repressing sexual desire, seminaries now use progressive psychology to help men deal openly with the once taboo topics of sexual attraction as well as homosexuality. Seminarians, for example, learn how to channel their sexual energy, and that it is alright to embrace their homosexual orientation. They are taught that intimate, nonsexual friendships may help keep them from breaking their vow of celibacy. [64]

That’s reassuring.

And of course, the worst of all is the growing exposure of child molestations by Romanists priests. Imagine, men committing the most destructive, selfish, and perverted sin being the ones who are leading a church. And there should be absolutely no doubt that the unbiblical rule of celibacy for Romanist clergy is a very significant factor in this moral catastrophe. And it is because of even more immorality on the part of Romanism that many priests have molested children unhindered, and therefore Thomas Fox can report in the National Catholic Reporter that he estimates the “average pedophile priest abuses 285 victims” in his career. [65]

Extras & Endnotes

Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven, we thank You for the true children of God who are in Romanism. Yet, we pray that if they live by any doctrines that displease You that You would reveal that to them and set them free. And help us to make sure that we are worshipping, serving, and believing You based only on a proper interpretation of Scripture.

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. What are the extra-biblical sources which Romanism gives divine authority?
  2. What do we claim has been the result of this position? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  3. What are some reasons shared here that make the authority or truth of extra-biblical doctrine in Romanism questionable?
  4. What was Romanism’s attitude toward people having access to Scripture particularly during the Middle Ages? How was this demonstrated?
  5. What human works does Romanism add to the requirements to obtain or preserve salvation?
  6. What are means of forgiveness subsequent to salvation provided in Romanism? What is the problem with believing in such things?

  1. Why do we claim the requirement for celibacy for the priesthood is unbiblical? How do we claim this has influenced Romanism’s leadership? Do you agree or disagree?

Publications & Particulars

  1. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, trans. H. J. Schroeder (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1978), 17. ↑

  2. Quoted by Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001), 180. ↑

  3. Some claim that Vatican II substantially changed Romanism’s approach to divine authority. For example, J. I. Packer writes:

    The Council of Trent [1545-63] was long thought to teach that unwritten traditions and the written Scriptures were two separate sources of divine truth, but now it has been shown that this is not necessarily so, and Vatican II spoke of tradition as simply the church’s deepening understanding of the Scriptures! More and more Roman Catholic theologians, with Karl Rahner till his death the dean of them, are recognizing an obligation to show that each particular tradition has an adequate biblical base. (Truth & Power [Harold Shaw, 1996], 64

    There is no doubt truth in Dr. Packer’s sentiments and they are probably written in the context of his well known attempt to find common ground between Protestants and Romanists. However, there is little doubt that Romanism continues to hold on to extra-biblical and even non-biblical doctrines in the name of some unspoken tradition preserved by the pope. ↑

  4. The Documents of Vatican II, ed. Walter M. Abbott, SJ. (Geoffrey Chapman, 1967), 117. ↑

  5. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2nd ed., para. 82; online at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm. While the Vatican website contains the Catechism, this version, apparently sponsored by a local church, is the most accessible we’ve found. ↑

  6. John MacArthur, “The Sufficiency of the Written Word” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 163. ↑

  7. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Baker, 1998), 271. He notes the following as a resource: S. E. Donlon, “Authority, Ecclesiastical,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia (McGraw-Hill, 1967), vol. 1, p. 1115. ↑

  8. J. I. Packer, God Speaks to Man: Revelation and the Bible (Westminster Press, 1965), 78. ↑

  9. Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority (Eerdmans, 1957), 56, 64. ↑

  10. Ibid., 56. ↑

  11. Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (Yale University Press, 1997), 34. ↑

  12. It should be mentioned that there may be several unjustified accusations of unbiblical doctrine in Romanism. Examples include perceived violations of Jesus’ commands, “Do not call anyone on Earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and He is in Heaven” (Matt 23:9), “[W]hen you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do” (Matt 6:7 NKJV, cf. NASB), and the worship of relics and images.

    In our opinion, Karl Keating and other contributing authors to the website “Catholic Answers” does a respectable job of defending many accusations against Romanism that are worth consideration. For example, see the article ““Call No Man ‘Father’”? at http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp; “The Scandal of the Decades: The Rosary and the Bible” at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603fea2.asp; “Relics” at http://www.catholic.com/library/Relics.asp; “Do Catholics Worship Statues?” at http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp. ↑

  13. Martin Luther, Concerning the Letter and the Spirit, in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Timothy F. Lull ed. (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 86. ↑

  14. Ramm, 56, 64, 68, 71 ↑

  15. Packer, God Speaks, 78. ↑

  16. For a list of early Church traditions see section 13.5.D. ↑

  17. “Ignatius Loyola, “Rules for Thinking With the Church,” Rule 13, cited from Documents of the Christian Church, ed., Henry Bettenson (Oxford, 1947), 364-65. ↑

  18. Bruce Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. (Zondervan, 1987, 1990, 1994), I:117. ↑

  19. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8; online at http://www.newadvent.org/summa ↑

  20. Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christianity (Hendricksen, 1975), 211, see 193-218 for more examples of how Romanism obstructed God’s people from having access to the Scriptures. ↑

  21. Erwin Lutzer, Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible (Moody, 1998), 181. ↑

  22. Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics (Baker, 2003), 476. ↑

  23. Arthur W. Pink, Practical Christianity (Baker, 1974), 176. ↑

  24. Bavink, 56. ↑

  25. Ibid. ↑

  26. Remarkably, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (2nd ed.; online at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm) states several things that reflect Reformed Theology as well as anything John Calvin ever said. These include the following:

    [para. 1992] Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men . . .

    [1996] Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, 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.

    [1998] This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.

    [1999] The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

    [2003] Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us.

    [2005] Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits”57 – reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

    [2008] The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

    [2010] Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.

    Unfortunately, critics of Romanism have quoted only the last part of paragraph 2027, giving a false impression of its contents. The full paragraph reads:

    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. ↑

  27. Nevertheless, John Armstrong notes regarding the Council of Trent:

    [Charismatic leader John] Wimber stated in a seminar on church planting that “the pope…. by the way, is very responsive to the charismatic movement and is himself a born-again evangelical. If you read any of his texts concerning salvation, you’d know he is preaching the gospel as clear as anybody is preaching it in the world today.”

    This assertion of the possibility that a Christian leader who is bound by his office and his creed to regard anyone who believes in justification by grace through faith alone as “eternally lost” (cf. The Canons of the Council of Trent) may be “preaching the gospel as clear[ly] as anybody is preaching it in the world today” surely says more about the confusion of Protestant preaching than the faithfulness of the pope to the gospel. And if John Wimber thinks the pope is preaching the gospel so clearly, ought one not to seriously question Wimber’s understanding of the gospel? (in Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church, Michael S. Horton ed. [Moody, 1992], 81). ↑

  28. CCC, in loc. The “Scripture” referenced to support this claim is Mark 16:16 (“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”) and John 3:5 (“I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit”. For a full discussion of these verses see chapter 15.1: Water Baptism. Below is an excerpt:

    Some churches believe, teach, and practice the conviction that water baptism is essential to someone’s eternal salvation. In other words, if someone is not baptized in water they will not go to Heaven, but rather, will be sent to Hell. This is, of course, contrary to the requirements of God’s New Covenant with humanity and the gospel of grace. The NT says plainly, “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:22, NIV), “… God credits righteousness apart from works” (Romans 4:6, NIV), and “ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NIV). God could not be clearer. Any act or “work” for which we could take credit for, can have absolutely nothing to do with our righteous standing before God. Any other teaching is “… a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all.” And even if “an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the…” gospel of pure grace apart from works, they are in danger of being “… eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:6-8, NIV).

    In general, we think that much confusion has arisen from the fact that water baptism was the accepted means by which someone professed saving faith. It was the “sinner’s prayer” of the early Church. Accordingly, some verses could give the impression that water baptism saves people, just like an Evangelical Christian may say that a “sinner’s prayer” saves people. In reality, we know that the physical act is an outward expression, not a substitute, for the spiritual reality of saving faith that really saves.

    How do we then handle the NT verses that tie salvation and water baptism so closely together (cf. Mark 16:15-18; Acts 2:28; 1 Peter 3:20-21; Acts 22:16, etc.)? We need to hold two NT truths together: 1) Salvation is purely by God’s grace and not our works, and 2) Water baptism is the NT way of expressing our saving faith.

    Accordingly, when Christ recognized the saving faith of the thief on the cross, he promised him salvation, even though he could not be baptized (cf. Luke 23:39-43). Likewise, Paul makes it clear that water baptism is not essential to salvation when he tells the Corinthians: “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius…. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:14, 17-18, NIV). Elsewhere he writes “… the gospel … (that) is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16), not water baptism. That is what Paul believed, and if we are to avoid serious and damaging doctrinal error, we must believe, proclaim, and practice the same.

    While understanding the NT purpose for water baptism in the process of salvation helps to clarify the meaning of verses used to claim it is essential to salvation, there is an additional passage that should be addressed. In the Gospel of John, chapter 3, we read: “Jesus declared (to Nicodemus), ‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’ {4} ‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!’ {5} Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. {6} Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. {7} You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’” (John 3:3-7, NIV, emphasis mine).

    Some contend that when Christ says “born of water,” He means Christian water baptism. And then they conclude that water baptism is essential to being “born again.” However, although water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit are at times mentioned together (Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; Romans 6:1-11), Christ makes it clear that he is speaking of a person’s physical birth as a baby, not water baptism. His statement that “Flesh gives birth to flesh” in verse 6 is synonymous with being “born of water” in verse 5, just as the “Spirit giv(ing) birth to the spirit” is synonymous with being “born of… the Spirit.” So the meaning of being “born of water” is defined by the meaning of the statement, “Flesh gives birth to flesh.”

    And the clearest understanding of that is that Christ is talking about a person’s physical birth. This interpretation is strengthened by Nicodemus’s statement that a person, “… cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” All Christ is saying is that only people who are physically created by God and then spiritually born again by the Spirit of God, will be saved. (excerpted from section 15.?) ↑

  29. CCC, in. loc. ↑

  30. Ibid. ↑

  31. Ibid. ↑

  32. Ibid. ↑

  33. Ibid. ↑

  34. Ibid. ↑

  35. Ibid. ↑

  36. Ibid. ↑

  37. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, 20.2; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  38. CCC, in loc. ↑

  39. Ibid. ↑

  40. See endnote above. ↑

  41. For further on pluralism and “implicit faith” in Romanism see section 6.10.C. ↑

  42. CCC, in loc. ↑

  43. Note as well that paragraph 1472 seems to clearly suggest that lesser (venial) sins do not bring eternal punishment. ↑

  44. CCC, para. 1472. ↑

  45. CCC, 1031-1032. ↑

  46. Michael Horton reports, “Clark Pinnock is so uncomfortable with an objective justification that he favors ‘the possibility of a doctrine of purgatory.’ He says, ‘Our Wesleyan and Arminian thinking may need to be extended in this direction.’ Horton Solas 124 ↑

  47. cf. Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 41.5; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  48. For further discussion of the canonicity of 2 Maccabees see forthcoming Book 15. ↑

  49. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1987), 144. ↑

  50. Quoted by Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans, 2000), 315. ↑

  51. Lull, 40 ↑

  52. Ibid. ↑

  53. CCC, 1471. ↑

  54. CCC, 1475, 1477 ↑

  55. CCC, in loc. ↑

  56. In typical Romanist fashion, the “official” document describing indulgences can be found on the Vatican website but it is in Latin. An “unofficial” English version can be found at http://www.dominicanidaho.org/indulg.html. ↑

  57. F. L. Cross, “Plenary Indulgence,” The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press, 2005). ↑

  58. Latourette, 224. ↑

  59. CCC, 1579-1580, 1599. ↑

  60. CCC, 915. ↑

  61. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BAGD), F. W. Danker, ed., 3rd ed. (University Of Chicago Press, 2001). ↑

  62. Bernard Spilka, , et al., The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach (Guilford, 2003), 183. ↑

  63. Timothy Unsworth, The Last Priests in America (Crossroad, 1991), 248. ↑

  64. Barbara Walters, “Priests with AIDS: Crisis within [sic] Catholic church,” 20/20, at:http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020. ↑

  65. Thomas C. Fox, “Sex and power issues expand clergy-lay rift,” National Catholic Reporter, 1992-NOV-13, pp. 17-19. ↑