Happy Reformation Day!

The Protestant Reformation was not a perfect movement, but it certainly did a lot of good. Specifically, God used it to wrench the biblical Gospel out into the open. The Roman Catholic Church was no longer allowed to shroud the Gospel of grace under its false, works-based teachings.

Martin Luther's nailing of his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg, Germany was a significant event. It occurred on October 31st, 1517 (as an aside, next year will hold lots of 500 year celebrations of Luther's act). However, it wasn't the most important thing to happen. Rather than one big thing, the Reformation was a conglomeration of many different, semi-related little things that happened over the span of a few hundred years. In the end, the true Gospel was freed from the clutches of those who hate it.

If not for the Reformation, I doubt that I would know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. That's why I cherish the Reformation.

Linking: Is the Reformation Over?

Does justification by faith alone matter anymore? Is the Reformation over?

R.C. Sproul provides excellent answers to these questions as he deals with the critical topic of justification. Sproul is correct in saying that justification by faith alone is a core attribute of the biblical gospel. He points out how the Roman Catholic Church has steadfastly rejected the notion that faith is enough for salvation. Please read the post. It is relatively short and worth your time.


(HT: Arthur)

Happy Reformation Day!

Reformed on Salvation. Anabaptist on the Church.

The longer I live the more thankful I am for the Reformers. As we near October 31st, the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door in 1517, I can't help but muse upon just how much we owe those who came before us. For hundreds of years prior to the Protestant Reformation the Gospel had been largely locked away behind the pomp and circumstance of the Roman Catholic Church. The average person on the street had no access to the truth of the Biblical Gospel. Most people couldn't read, and even if they could they would not have had any way to read the scriptures in their first language (since the Bible was stuck in the Latin Vulgate at that time).

Enter the Magisterial Reformers. Men such as John Wycliffe, Jan Huss, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, William Tyndale, John Calvin and many more literally risked their lives for Biblical truth. Some, like Huss, lost theirs at the stake. These men, who were able to read the Bible, saw that the Gospel is all of grace. They understood that Jesus Christ's work is complete. It is about Christ and Christ alone. God used the Reformers greatly to proclaim the wonderful news that Jesus accomplished all that was required.

Secondarily, I agree wholeheartedly with the Refomers' strong belief in the absolute sovereignty of God when it comes to salvation. I love both the 5 Solas and the Doctrines of Grace; I love them because I believe they are scriptural.

The Reformers stuck to the Bible when it came to the Gospel. For this I am indebted.

And yet...

When it comes to church life, the Reformers dropped the ball - at least where the Bible is concerned. Frankly, the Reformers did very little to alter the church from what it was (and still is) in Catholicism. The priests simply became pastors. The mass was replaced with a new sacrament: the sermon. The big buildings hardly changed at all. Because of this, I reject the Reformers' model of church life.

Enter the Anabaptists. While the Reformers deviated little from the Roman model of church, the Anabaptists embraced not only the Biblical Gospel but also the Biblical model of church life. They kept things simple. They emulated what they saw in the Bible. They rejected unbiblical concepts such as salaried clergy, special buildings, and worship services. They also saw the church as free, unencumbered by a cozy relationship with the state. It was this rejection of the church-state alliance that brought persecution and death to many of them. Almost all of their early leaders were slaughtered, either by Catholics or Protestants.

It is the Anabaptist model of church, which is basically just the Biblical model of church, that I embrace. This is not to suggest that either A) the Anabaptists had everything figured out perfectly, or B) that all Anabaptists were the same. However, they generally attempted to allow scripture to inform what they believed and how they acted as it pertains to living out church life.

For this, I'm deeply indebted to the Anabaptists.

In the end, this leaves me in the somewhat odd situation of being Reformed on salvation, but Anabaptist on the church. So be it.

Papal Ponderings

Pope Francis has come and gone. The church in the USA remains the same. After all the pomp and circumstance we are left with the vast variety of problems that we had prior to his visit.

I'm not surprised that many American Roman Catholics were thrilled to have Jorge Bergoglio (his real name) on U.S. soil. He has been lauded by many as a Pope who is willing to change things for the better. In some situations this is, in fact, true. For example, this particular pontiff shuns some of the ceremonial nonsense that normally goes along with his position.

In addition, Jorge truly does appear to care for the poor and downtrodden in society at large. Furthermore, he speaks out in favor of peace, for which I am grateful. Finally, the Pope not only accepts but also recognizes at least some of the Roman Catholic abuses of the past; he recently apologized for Rome's vicious persecution of the Waldensians in the years leading up to and during the Protestant Reformation.

In light of all this, should we be thrilled? Should we even consider, as many evangelicals now do, this Pope to be our brother in Christ?

Despite some of his outward uniqueness, Pope Francis has not been willing to change one thing about Roman Catholicism that never changes: Roman dogma. The Council of Trent showed us this hundreds of years ago. As a reaction to the Reformation, the Catholics gathered on and off over the course of eighteen years to basically say, "We still believe what we've always believed." Rome does not compromise or change any of its theological positions. It still has seven sacraments. It still celebrates the Mass. Most troubling, it continues to reject salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Put simply, this Pope continues to believe the Roman gospel, which is a different gospel from the one clearly taught in the Bible. Therefore, this Pope cannot be a true follower of Christ despite his outward actions.

On a related note, Pope Francis is not a big fan of definitions. This leaves things messy. While he speaks much about the social side of life, his statements on theological matters are unclear at best. We are left to assume that he believes what Rome always has.

Finally, Jorge remains at the epicenter of THE largest church institution on the planet. If there is one position on earth that exemplifies all that is wrong with the leadership, authority, and power that has warped the church into an institutional framework, it is the papacy. The Pope is the hub.

In the end, little has changed. Although this new Pope does some things differently, he still rejects the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the key issue.

To learn more of the excesses of the Pope and the Vatican, watch the two videos below:

Is the Return to Rome Worth It?

Disclaimer: in this post I'm strictly dealing with church issues and not with the gospel itself. Additionally, for the purposes of this piece I could also have selected Wittenberg, Geneva, Canterbury, or any other place largely associated with institutionalized religion.


If you are convinced that the biblical model of church life is correct but cannot find it, what would it require for you to return to the institution? I've been pondering this a bit lately, but have never truly considered it as an option. It is interesting to think about.

Numerous Christians that we know here in Savannah are content in their church lives. They are convinced that they are edified through good fellowship in their institutional settings. It's difficult to know how much of this is a case of "ignorance is bliss," but nevertheless these believers appear happy.

I long for that contentment and happiness. Could it be found within institutional walls? I believe it can, as long as someone is not fully convicted about the model presented in scripture being the model for church life today. If I actually started visiting institutional worship services and small groups I believe I would feel ill, even if I enjoyed it, because I'd be violating my convictions. It's just not worth it.

If Rome is not an option, then what is?

The option currently for my wife and me is to find fellowship where we can and when we can. It also means gathering in our home with just our family for the time being. It means interacting with all sorts of folks online through this blog (not an ideal situation I admit, but better than nothing).

Simple church life is, almost by definition, life on the fringes. If church history tells us three things, it is that the institution does not change, is not inviting to those who want change, and will reject those who hope for change unless they bow the knee to institutional practices. This being the case, there is no reason to try to significantly alter the organization from the inside. If you seek fellowship within the institution, what you will get is institutional fellowship.

I cannot think of a solid reason to return to Rome. I may be lonely at times, but convictions are strong things.

What about you? What would or could make you go back to institutional church? Why?

Why Is the Lord's Supper More Often Like a Funeral Than a Celebration?

Almost all of us have been through it before: the institutional Lord's Supper / Communion / Eucharist.

We know how it goes. Most of the folks sit somberly in pews. One person in the front leads a ceremony that feels like a funeral. Everybody is instructed to focus upon their sins and upon Christ's death. No one except the leader speaks. Everyone eats a small cracker or bite of bread. Everybody sips wine or juice. No fun is had.

The above, with small variations, occurs in almost all churches in the USA throughout the year. This would be fine if it was based in scripture. The problem is that it is not. Nothing like what I've described exists in the bible, especially not in the New Testament. If you search the New Covenant people to see what their Lord's Suppers looked like, you will find large family celebrations with full meals. Now that sounds like fun.

So how did we get to this point? Why would the church trade in a family celebration for a funeral-like ceremony?

(This post stems from an earlier piece entitled Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions.)

To answer these questions we must turn back the clock of church history.

As with much that is wrong with the church, the Constantinian change played a large role. When Emperor Constantine made Christianity the preferred religion of the Roman Empire (in the early 300's A.D.), many pagans flocked into the church institution. They brought their pagan sacrifices with them. In order to keep some semblance of these practices in place, the Mass was developed. Thus we have the "re-sacrificing of Christ" each time the Mass takes place.

In order for a sacrifice to happen, a priest has to be involved. Additionally, the people present must be somber in nature. After all, you cannot celebrate when someone is being sacrificed. The Roman church knew that the bread and wine had to be involved; therefore, they kept them as part of the sacrifice.

When the Reformers came along they did some things to change this. They got rid of the Mass and the priest. However, they put the sermon and the pastor in those spots. Additionally, they kept the funeral-like atmosphere. Ugh. They did not do what they should have: reverted back to the family celebrations we read about in the New Testament.

When we realize that church history and not scripture has led to the current situation, we see what we must do. Scripture must trump tradition. Family celebrations it is!

"The Reformers and Their Stepchildren"

When I was in seminary I was required to read The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Although the book interested me at the time, I didn't give it a great deal of thought because I was reading so many different books. It quickly faded into the background of my mind as I tried to ingest all sorts of other required reading.

I'm now far removed from seminary. My views on the church have changed dramatically since those years. I decided it was time to read this book again. I'm glad I did.

The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, written by Leonard Verduin in 1964, takes a fascinating look at the stark differences between the Reformers (such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin) and those who were called by various names such as "Anabaptist." Both of these groups had broken away from the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church. Both held a high view of scripture. Where the two groups differed was in their view of the church. While the Reformers largely took a Constantinian view of church, the Anabaptists believed the church should be free. This led to a massive rift.

The Anabaptists thought that each person in an area should be free to choose what he believed. This necessarily led to a composite society. The Reformers, seeking protection from the government, looked for a melding of church and state. Therefore, everyone in a given location was considered part of the church in that location. The Anabaptists wanted no part of this view. This led to severe persecution by the Reformers (and Catholics) toward the Anabaptists.

The Anabaptists were known by a wide variety of different names given to them by the Reformers and Catholics. Almost all of these were derogatory in nature (even the term "Anabaptist" was originally negative). Verduin entitled the various chapters in this book with these negative names; the chapters deal with different but related topics such as baptism, the Lord's Supper, and church-state relations. While the Reformers and the stepchildren held the same basic views of the gospel, it was their differences over the church that led to the problems.

This book is extremely well researched and detailed. At some points it bogs down a bit, but the large amount of information is needed because this book is a challenge to the Reformed view of both the Reformation and the Anabaptists. The author was forced, due to the resistance this book would face, to add a great amount of detail.

The interesting thing about this book is that, for most of us in the modern West, a free church is the norm. We cannot imagine anything other than a composite society. That was hardly the case 500 years ago. Back then the Anabaptists' hope for church life led to persecution, shunning, and death. They desired what we have.

This text is much more than a history book. It is living in the sense that the Anabaptists, or stepchildren, asked many of the questions about the church that we do today. The difference is that they often paid for it with their lives.

This book is worth your time.

Vatican City Explained

I found this helpful, if slightly confusing:

Let's Pray for a Christ-Following Pope

Like it or not, the Pope has a huge impact on millions of people. His thoughts, ideas, statements, decrees, etc. impact lives all around the globe. As Pope Benedict departs, the Vatican will have to decide who the next Papal resident of St. Peter's will be.

My gut reaction to all this is to just ignore it. Roman Catholicism is at the other end of the spectrum from simple church. The Pope has no impact whatsoever on what I believe; therefore, as an individual Christian it matters nil to me what the "Holy Father" has to say.

However, I keep dwelling on the millions of people the Pope impacts. What he says, whoever he is, really does matter. While some within Catholicism know Jesus as Lord, my guess is that the majority do not. Keeping in mind that there are over one billion Catholics worldwide, that is many souls who are still apart from Christ.

Instead of ignoring the latest Papal transition, I'm burdened to pray for a Christ-following Pope. Just imagine what a truly redeemed person could do in that position. The impact could be tremendous. A Pope who believes in the biblical gospel has the potential to share the good news with millions upon millions.

I have known a number of Roman Catholics in my life who I know love Jesus Christ. I'm not sure how they deal with Rome's faulty teachings, but they follow Christ nonetheless. Because of that, I assume (I hope correctly) that there are some in leadership positions within Catholicism who also love the Lord. My hope is that one of these will be selected as the next Pope.

Throughout history we've seen God select people for key roles who were unexpected. In the bible we read about, for example, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Amos, many of the original twelve apostles, and Paul. These are not men that we might have expected to be chosen. When we look at church history we see other unexpected people used greatly by God such as Athanasius, Augustine, Patrick, John Calvin, John Newton, William Carey, William Wilberforce, Fanny Crosby, C.S. Lewis, and many others.

In light of this, maybe God will, in His absolute sovereignty, select an unexpected Pope. Maybe God will appoint someone who actually follows God. Maybe God will choose a missionary Pope who will preach the gospel to the masses during the Mass. What a great and glorious day that would be!

Let's all pray fervently that God puts a Pope in place who loves Christ, obeys Christ, and proclaims Christ!

Why I Don't Observe Lent

I don't observe/celebrate/take part in Lent because it's not in the bible.  It's that simple.

Paganism Alert

For paganism, click here.

This by no means suggests that all Catholics are pagans. Far from it. However, practices such as this are nothing more than paganism revisited.

Are Roman Catholics Saved?

"Are Roman Catholics Saved?"

I raise this question because it has been floating around ever since the Reformation. Because we live in a country that has millions of both Protestants and Roman Catholics, it is worth asking.

However, there is a problem with the question itself. It assumes a simple yes-or-no answer for all Roman Catholics. The reality is that it isn't that simple.

My guess is that there are millions of Roman Catholics in this country who know Jesus Christ as Lord. There are also millions who do not.

I'm also guessing that there are millions of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. who love Jesus. I'm certain there are many who do not. Even within the non-denominational crowd both exist.

We do well to avoid lumping Christian groups together as a whole. We do much better to ask the question of one person at a time. A better question is, "Is that particular Roman Catholic saved?"

Of course, the only way to truly know the answer to the question is to get to know that Roman Catholic. When we spend time with people we can usually tell whether or not they know Jesus (God is the final arbiter in this, but we can usually make a pretty good guess).

A funny thing has happened to me along the way in life. My Protestant background suggests strongly that Roman Catholics do not know God because they are simply trying to work their way to heaven. However, when I have gotten to know a number of Roman Catholics, I've found that many have a deep love for Christ. They may use some different terminology than I do and have differing practices, but their commitment to Christ seems genuine.

It is easy for us to fall into the trap of holding onto a straw man argument when thinking of Roman Catholic theology. It is not a monolith. Beliefs vary. All do not agree with the Pope on everything.

Let's get to know people personally and talk about the things of God. When we do this, we gain a much better understanding of whether or not they know him. This gives us a real answer to the above question, one person at a time. This is much more accurate and valid than making judgment calls about entire groups of people.

Out in Left Field

With spring approaching, that means baseball will be starting soon. This reminds me of the phrase “out in left field.” These words refer to being outside the norm in some area of thought or action.

Well, when it comes to church practice, I’m out in left field. Way out in left field. In fact, I’m on the warning track near the fence.

Recently I was thinking about the general Roman Catholic expression of the church. I also pondered the general Protestant expression of church. Then there’s where our family is when it comes to the church. The startling thing is this: when it comes to practice, the Roman Catholic and Protestant expressions have much more in common with one another than either does with me. To keep the baseball analogy going, if Rome is at home plate, and Protestantism is at the pitcher’s mound, then I’m practically beyond left field in the bullpen on the other side of the wall (I apologize if you are not familiar with baseball terminology; I still struggle with cricket even though I’d like to understand it).

Our family frequently feels this “left fieldness” when talking with other believers. When we speak of Jesus, we are all on the same page. This is wonderful. However, when we begin to talk about Jesus’ church, things often get a little uncomfortable. I’m not referring to arguments, but rather a lack of understanding.

I suppose this is the price we pay to follow Christ as the church he designed. Not only are we far outside of Rome, but we are far outside Wittenberg and Geneva as well.

My encouragement to you is that left field, while lonesome at times, is a wonderful place to be. There are others there as well. You may have to look to find them, but they are present. At the same time, let us continue to fellowship with our brothers and sisters who remain in Wittenberg, Geneva, and even Rome.

One Thing I Don't Respect About Roman Catholicism

In my previous post I wrote about respecting Roman Catholicism for honesty about its sources of authority: both scripture and tradition.

In fairness, I think I should mention something that I don't respect about Roman Catholicism. That thing is the tendency to allow tradition to trump scripture in various church beliefs and practices. Frankly, it doesn't bother me when Catholics (or anyone else for that matter) do things according to tradition when these things do not violate scripture. The problem rises when the traditions transgress in some way what scripture teaches/shows us.

I've included a photo of the pope for a reason. The Roman Catholic tradition of having a pope flies in the face of all scriptural evidence. The bible nowhere at all in any way whatsoever suggests that one man is the head of the church (other than Jesus Christ of course). Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that the Bishop of Rome will be the leader of the church. There is no "Vicar of Christ." To suggest that the apostle Peter was the first pope strains biblical interpretation to an absurd degree.

I've met many Catholics in my life. Their thoughts about and attitudes toward the pope ran a wide spectrum. Regardless, they still admitted that he is the head of the church.

This is a tradition that plainly violates what we see in the bible. Scripture tells us that Christ is the head. We are all equals within his body. There is no hierarchy. Those who are elders are called upon to lead in living Christlike lives for all of us to emulate. To be great in the church is to be a servant.

Within Roman beliefs and practices, there are many that violate scripture. There is of course the pope. Other violations include the Mass/Eucharist, the Vatican, Cardinals, priests, nuns, monks, Lent, infant baptism, penance, confirmation, holy orders, extreme unction, confession to priests, veneration of the saints, praying to saints, and various beliefs about Mary such as her being the queen of heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. Not all Catholics believe and/or practice all these things. However, they are very common within the Catholic church.

All of the above stem directly from allowing tradition to trump the bible in belief and practice.

My purpose in this post is not to bash Roman Catholicism. Rather, it is to focus on the danger of allowing our traditions to reign supreme in decision making. We would all do well to examine ourselves to see where our own traditions, whatever they may be, violate what God has shown us in the bible.

One Thing I Respect About Roman Catholicism

In a word the one thing I respect about Roman Catholicism is honesty.

I'm referring specifically to honesty as it relates to sources of authority for both belief and practice. Roman Catholicism has, at least since the Council of Trent, made it clear that both scripture and non-written tradition are legitimate sources of authority in what to believe and how to live this out.

Roman Catholics are honest about this. They do some things according to the bible, and other things according to their traditions. I realize that I'm speaking in generalities, but overall what I've stated is true. It is up to Catholics to determine what aspects of tradition and what parts of scripture to follow. When the two come in conflict, I'm not sure how they determine what to do. The popes past and present have dealt with many of these types of issues. Regardless, in the end Roman Catholicism is consistent and honest: both tradition and scripture are authorities.

(As a brief aside, I'm not suggesting that I agree with Rome in this; I'm simply stating that that Rome practices what it preaches.)

Now we turn to the broad segment of Christianity known as Protestantism. That's a big tent to be sure. However, a few things bind Protestants together. One of these is the declaration, like the Reformers, that scripture will be the highest authority in belief and practice (Sola Scriptura!). Some today go so far as to say that the bible is the only authority, but that's not what the Reformers thought. The key is that scripture takes the highest spot.

This is where most Protestants simply aren't honest. I'm not suggesting that Protestants are purposely lying, but rather that they have largely deceived themselves into thinking that they actually treat the bible as their highest authority.

Part of the difficulty is that Protestants in general actually are biblical about beliefs related to salvation. The gospel of grace, as taught in scripture, is well beloved and embraced by the vast majority of Protestantism.

However, and this is a big however, most Protestants do not actually adhere to scripture as their authority when it comes to church life. A cursory glance around American evangelicalism makes this fairly obvious.

It's interesting to look at the church we see in scripture, the church we see in Reformation days, and the church we see today. If scripture was actually Protestants' highest authority, then today's churches would look more like the first century church than the church of Luther's and Calvin's time. However, that's not the case. Today's Protestant churches in this country look, with modernization, much like the church from 500 years ago. There is some resemblance, but only some, to the first century church.

Protestants would do well to do one of two things. Either they should embrace scripture as their highest authority for both salvation and the church, or they should be honest (like Rome is) and state that both bible and tradition determine why they do what they do. What we have today is a dishonest ignorance on the part of most Protestants.

Let's at least be honest. We all, even if we aren't part of the institutional church, still do many things because of man-created tradition. It's healthy to admit this. Then we have a decision to make. We can either change to conform to biblical teachings or we can stay as we are. Let's at least be honest and not delude ourselves.

Rome is honest about this issue. For this I respect them. What about the rest of us?

Buildings, Money, and Passing the Plate

Yesterday I was walking around the historic district of Savannah looking for somewhere cool and quiet to think, read my bible, and pray. Given my current situation, I find myself doing a lot of that lately. I eventually made my way into The Cathedral of St. John the Baptist. The structure is beautiful but has no religious significance for me; after all, it's just a building.

Curiosity got the best of me after a while, and I began strolling around the cathedral. It turns out that if you are going to have an elaborate building like you see above, you also have to frequently ask for money. Apparently anyone can donate for each candle they light if they so desire. I'll admit that I don't understand. In light of all the lit candles (pun intended), there must have been many donations yesterday.

In case a visitor misses the candles, these other two signs are reminders of the need for donations for such an ornate temple of sorts (see final photo).

Before we go any further in bashing Roman Catholicism, we should take a look at ourselves. We may not ask for many direct donations for existing buildings. However, I have seen my fair share of building campaigns that have been hyper-spiritualized when asking for thousands of dollars ("We need this new building to reach the lost" or "Nehemiah built the wall around Jerusalem; in the same way we need to build this new sanctuary").

When we pass the offering plate and use most of the money to pay off large mortgages on large buildings that sit empty for the vast majority of the week, what are we saying about our priorities?

I remember one time about seven years ago when a church we were a part of had fallen behind on its $27,000 per month mortgage (yes, that figure is correct). The pastoral staff made a really big deal about a special offering that would be collected in November in order to get back on schedule with the bank. The church family sacrificially gave just enough to cover the payment. The pastors made a huge deal about thanking God. So, what impact did this have? It completely torpedoed the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering that year. That church of 700 or so people gave less than $10,000 to the international missions offering. The reason is simple: they had already given a lot to their own sacred building. Our family wasn't at that church long after that debacle.

A few years later, when Alice and I were appointed as missionaries with the IMB, our appointment service took place at Exciting Idlewild Baptist Church in Orlando (I'm not joking about the name). They had just constructed a new building that cost $80 million (I'm not joking about the cost either).

If we are going to reach the nations, we must stop wasting all this money on church buildings. So what can we do? For churches that already have buildings, may I suggest trying to use what you have more effectively and not build any new edifices. If possible, try to sell some of what you have. Get into homes for meetings as much as possible. Be creative. Do all you can to use the bulk of your money to support missions from your neighborhood to the ends of the earth.

We must get past the idea that God cares about church buildings. In fact, I believe God detests it when a church decides to spend large amounts of money on new buildings. It simply cannot in any way be justified biblically.

What does please God? He is pleased when we honor Him by joyfully obeying Him. Let us give to the needy. Let us share the gospel. Let's use our money wisely in Great Commission fashion as the stewards we are supposed to be.

No more buildings please.

Are Roman Catholics Really Christians?

"Are Roman Catholics Really Christians?"

The above question is one that gets tossed around a bit too carelessly in Protestant circles. The answers that are often given - either "Yes" or "No" - are usually stated by people who know enough about Catholicism to be dangerous but not accurate.

Quite frankly, the question is a problematic one because it is too vague. It is not precise.

A better question would be, "If a person follows the stated teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, is he really a Christian?" It could be asked this way, "If a person follows the Vatican's stated doctrine, is he saved?"

The above questions are important, but I still don't find them to be very useful. The reason is this: they deal with large groups of people instead of individuals. We are saved at the individual level, so I'd like to propose a much more useful question.

That question is this: "Is the person who I'm talking to, who is Roman Catholic, really a Christian? Is he saved?"

This question is much more useful because it causes me to have to get to know the person and have an in-depth conversation. Instead of stereotyping what he believes, this makes me listen to what he says.

If we deal with the question on an individual basis, we will find that some Roman Catholics are really Christians and some are not. Some know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and some do not. Some have eternal life and some do not. The key is being in Christ.

Let's be honest: if we have this same type of conversation with Protestants, we will find that some are really Christians and some are not. Some know Jesus Christ and have received the gift of eternal life, while others have not.

Please let me be clear. In this post I am not saying that I believe that the stated doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are as biblical as the classic doctrines of Protestantism. For example, I believe in justification by faith alone by God's grace alone. I love the 5 solas. I also believe that the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is biblical.

The point I am making is that instead of saying that someone is or isn't really a Christian based on the group he is a part of, we should actually get to know the person and discover what he really believes. If he is a Christian, then you can rejoice with him that you are brothers in Christ. If he is not, then you may have the beginnings of a friendship that will (hopefully) lead to in-depth gospel proclamation.

To sum up - we need to actually get to know people. This is true inside the church and out.

When we do this, we will find out what they really think instead of assuming something based on what a particular group believes.

(This post obviously applies to those who may be a part of orthodox Christianity: Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. I'm not referring here to cults such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. We should certainly befriend those in cults such as this, but we need not think they might already know Jesus as Lord.)

Angry About Sola Scriptura

I don't post all of the comments that people leave on this blog. The reason for this is that some are very angry in tone. Interestingly, some of the angriest people are those who oppose the doctrine of sola scriptura (When I use the term "sola scriptura," I'm referring to the belief that scripture alone is authoritative for belief and practice).

I find the whole thing fascinating. I've written several posts dealing with sola scriptura, and almost every time a few folks leave comments that are clearly driven by anger. I suppose the reason for this is that sola scriptura opposes unbiblical traditions. We all know that people, regardless of denomination, do not like it at all when you call their favored traditions into question.

As far as I can remember, the angry commenters have almost all been Roman Catholics. This is no surprise in light of Rome's multitude of traditions that have no biblical basis. The interesting part is that these Catholics have all tried to use scripture to make the case that sola scriptura is not, in fact, biblical. This seems inconsistent to me. If they don't hold to sola scriptura, then why are they basing their arguments on scripture in the first place? It seems like they would refer instead to a statement from the Vatican about scripture and tradition both being authoritative.

The reality is that the bible can be an inconvenient book. It calls us to lives of self-sacrifice and suffering. In general, we don't like this. Instead, we create traditions around ourselves that make us feel comfortable. Roman Catholics are clearly guilty of this; this is why they despise the doctrine of sola scriptura. If Catholics suddenly adopted sola scriptura as true, they would have to immediately jettison many of their dearly held beliefs and practices.

Before we Protestants get too happy with ourselves, we had better be honest. Although we may say we believe in sola scriptura, we also have plenty of traditions that are based more on personal preference than on scripture. One example that I talk about quite a bit on this blog is church gatherings. What we see happen in most churches on Sundays bears little resemblance to what we see in scripture of the gathering of the church. Why the big difference? Traditions have developed over the years that we like. We don't challenge these.

I'll say this for Catholics: they are consistent. They say they don't believe in sola scriptura and act like they don't believe it.

We Protestants say we hold to sola scriptura, but we don't really act like we believe it. If we did, many of our traditions would quickly have to become extinct.

Instead of getting angry, let's be willing to really live according to sola scriptura. Let's compare all our beliefs and practices with what we see in the bible. Let's honestly keep what is biblical and get rid of the rest.

Let's be careful not to be like the Pharisees of Mark 7. In Mark 7:8, Jesus says, "You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

Let's reject traditions and instead truly hold to scripture alone.

What the Catholic Church Teaches about Mary

I've heard much debate over the years about what the Roman Catholic church teaches about Mary. This made me curious. I decided to go to the source of all sources - the Vatican itself.

While at the Vatican's official website, you can look at a catechism. Among many other things, this catechism addresses what the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches about Mary. Read it by clicking here.

There are several things that I find very troublesome. I'll quote a few of them below:

964 - "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation..."

966 - "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things..."

968 - "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."

969 - "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

971 - "The Church rightly honors the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs..."

If you believe that church tradition holds authority in life, then the above statements probably cause you no concern. However, if you hold to sola scriptura, then the above statements about Mary ought to cause you to cringe. The reason is simple: the statements cannot be supported scripturally in any way.

This is not a small issue. Rather, statements like what we see above are a frontal assault on the gospel itself. The gospel is all about the work of Christ. We are nowhere told to worship or venerate any other. God is a jealous God who alone deserves the glory. Christ alone is our Mediator. Christ alone was free from sin. Christ alone is our King. Christ alone ascended into heaven.

If we are to be biblical people, we must reject Roman Catholic teachings about Mary.