Posts Tagged ‘Roman Catholicism’

Reaffirming Sola Scriptura

by Tom Nettles

Sola Scriptura as Philip Schaff indicated, confessions and creeds hold no absolute authority for Protestants. Their authority is only an ad hoc, ecclesial, and localized standard for the sake of unity in fellowship and consistency of witness either in a denomination or a local assembly of believers. They can be amended or expanded in light of evidence from more mature biblical exegesis or in light of doctrinal and cultural challenges to biblical truth. For this reason, confessions arising from within Protestantism usually contain an article that affirms the sole authority, inspiration and infallible authority of Scripture. For example, the Second London Confession of the Baptists stated in its first sentence, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, Faith, and Obedience.” In paragraph 6 of the same article on Scripture, reflecting the words and concepts of both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration with one slight variation [italicized], the confession added: “The whole Councel of God concerning all things necessary for his own Glory, Man’s Salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” Thus, one of the most influential confessions in Protestantism begins with a ten paragraph article affirming the sole and certain authority of Scripture closing with these words: “The supreme judge by which all controversies of Religion are to be determined, and all Decrees of Councils, opinions of ancient Writers, Doctrines of men, and private Spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” [WCF]. Again, the Second London Confession varied the language slightly, insisting even more clearly on the sole authority of Scripture, closing with the phrase after the words “can be no other,” with these words, “but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.”

For Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, however, the view of the creedal tradition is quite different. The Orthodox churches consider the first seven ecumenical councils as guided by the Holy Spirit resulting…




Read the entire article here.

The Wednesday Word: Allah and The Christian God are the Same?

February 17, 2016 Leave a comment

There was a measure of shock recently when Pope Francis announced that Allah and Yahweh were one and the same. But there was no need for anyone to be surprised. This has been the official Roman Catholic position for quite some time…see here.

So, are Allah and Yahweh one and the same? Could this be the case? The Koran, for example, claims that Allah is forgiving because he is merciful, (The Cow: 2:199). In the Bible, we read that Yahweh is also a God of forgiveness (Ps 130:4). Then, in Exodus 20:6, we read that Yahweh shows mercy. Thus, we observe that both Allah and the Father are forgiving and merciful. Does this then mean they are one and the same God?

A good question!

If Yahweh and Allah are one and the same, we would expect them to have the same view of sin and forgiveness. So let’s ask, on what basis does Allah forgive sins?

According to the Koran, He forgives sins because of the repentance of the penitent (S: 9:104). In addition to this, he is merciful and kind (S 3:89). Allah is, therefore, to be likened to a Judge, who clears a vile, guilty criminal because the guilty party asks for forgiveness. The criminal repents and says he has changed his mind about having done the crime and won’t do it again. The judge is a kind and forgiving man so he releases the accused.


But, this verdict contains an alarming disregard for justice. Who will pay for the man’s crime? Who indeed will be punished for it? The man may have repented, but the crime still stands. It seems, therefore, that Allah holds justice and the seriousness of sin in an exceedingly low esteem.

Conversely, the Christian God, Yahweh, forgives, not only because He is merciful, but also because He is Just. He has dealt with us, not merely out of kindness but out of Justice. To ensure that our sins have been justly done away with, He has set forth Christ Jesus as our sin offering (Romans 3:25-26). Christ, as our representative and substitute, took the wrath of outraged majesty and justice.

The Father’s forgiveness is thus rooted in both love and justice: Allah’s is not. Thus, they are not one and the same.

In the gospel, our right standing and acceptance with God do not rest on our decision to repent. Nor does it lie in our personal moral renewal whereby we pledge to do better. Our right standing before God is discovered exclusively in the doing, dying and rising again of the Lord Jesus. Punishment for sins is demanded by God’s unchangeable nature of holy justice. He could not and would not set aside His lawful and righteous demand that the sinner is punished (Romans 6:23). So in love, Christ, God manifest in the flesh, came and was punished for the sins of His people. Our salvation is thus rooted in both the love and justice of God.

With respect, we note that Allah has not provided an atonement for his followers. No one has paid for their sins. Thus, we must conclude that Allah is not the God of Justice. He has provided no just way to righteously deal with sin.

When we put on our Gospel Glasses, we see that Yahweh and Allah are most definitely not the same God. They are diametrically opposed to each other. The god of the Koran forgives when he feels merciful but it’s a forgiveness divorced from Justice.

Yahweh, on the other hand, gave and presented Christ, the God/Man, the very righteousness of God. He was numbered with the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12). Justice dealt with Him, not because He was a wretch, but because He was the substitute for His people. He was treated like a filthy sinner, or let’s say it another way, He was treated as though he were us.

And that’s the Gospel Truth!

Miles Mckee 

Definitions of Doctrine-Volume 3-Chapter 5-Church History


What is known and taught as Church History is in reality history of Christianity rather than a history of the church Christ founded and promised perpetuity to. History reveals that the true Church as an institution was represented by local congregations as opposed by a developing and growing hierarchy until the bishop of Rome is made Pope or Supreme Bishop. This hierarchy is made up of the collective body of bishops with the pope as supreme bishop. This hierarchy is independent of the lay members in Roman Catholic churches who are nothing short of spiritual slaves being told what to believe and do. This false church claimed to be the only mediator of grace, and to cut oneself off from it was to lose all hope of salvation. The first general organizations were diocesan (district) .

Things became so rotten in Roman Catholicism until some of the members could stand it no longer and being excommunicated became founders of other denominations of Christians. This period began in the reformation under Martin Luther, when Protestantism was born. The Lutheran Church was organized in 1520; the Episcopal (Church of England) began with Henry VIII in 1534; the Presbyterian by John Calvin in 1535; Dutch Reformed separated from Roman Catholicism in 1540; Congregational founded by Robert Brown in 1580; Methodist by John Wesley in 1740; Free Will Baptist by Benjamin Randall in 1780; Disciples of Christ organized by Alexander Campbell in 1827; Mormons by Joseph Smith in 1830; Anti Mission Baptists by Daniel Parker in 1832; Nazarenes by S. F. Breece in 1835; Christian Science by Mary Baker Eddy in 1884.

Now the history of Baptists is altogether a different story. If there has been a New Testament church existing down through the ages it has to be the Baptist Church, since all other groups have a beginning sometime since 1520. Our contention is admitted by others. Alexander Campbell, in his debate with McCalla (Presbyterian) had this to say: “From the apostolic age to the present time the sentiments of Baptists and the practice of baptism has had a continued chain of advocates; and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced.”

John Clark Ridpath (Methodist) wrote to W. A. Jarrell (Baptist) as follows: “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist Church as far back as A. D. 100, though without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists.”

In preparing their history, the Dutch Reformed Church, devoted a chapter to the Dutch Baptists. And in this chapter is this statement: “The Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the apostles and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages.”


1. The New Testament is the only law of Christianity-the sufficient rule of faith and practice. We do not go to the Old Testament for what we believe and practice as a church. This in no wise means that the Old Testament is not true as the word of God. But we do not get our doctrine as a church from the Old Testament. The Church of Christ is a New Testament institution. The Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.

2. Individual responsibility. This covers a lot of ground. It does away with proxy religion in baptism, etc. This calls for freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Every person must give account of himself to God. Calls for obedience to God when there is conflict between God’s command and human authority. Calls for separation of Church and state. Calls for liberty not toleration. I do not want to be tolerated by the state in religious matters. I want to be left alone, to follow my own conscience. I do not want to have to get any license to preach from any human government. I got a license to marry people because marriage and the home are state institutions, not religious and spiritual.

3. The church is a body of baptized believers, equal in rank and privilege, administering its own affairs under the headship of Christ.

C. D. Cole-Definitions of Doctrine-Volume 3

Roman Catholic Apologists: an Hour Long Phone Call in Response to Rome’s Claims

By James White

Took a phone call from 18-year-old Luke who has been talking to some Roman Catholic apologists—spent the entire hour with Luke addressing issues like sola scriptura, apostolic succession, the gospel, grace, justification—we about covered it all! Should be helpful to many!

Download the audio here.



Source [Alpha Omega Ministries]

7 Problems With the Roman Catholic Mary

by Jordan Standridge

About 10 years ago I was walking around the Duomo of Milan and these ladies captured my attention as they were staring at this stained glass picture of Mary. Being spotted by one of the ladies she quickly came to me to hand me a rosary. As she tried to convince me to take it, I said that I only needed to pray to God and that I would not pray to Mary, her shock quickly turned to anger and she said “may Mary whip you with the seven whips of Satan!” As I booked it out of there I was wondering to myself first of all, why is Mary working with Satan? But second of all and more importantly, how in the world do you get to that point where one talks to Mary more than God? How do you get to the point where you pray 10 prayers to Mary for every prayer to God? Well in honor of the lady who cursed me that fateful day, here are 7 problems with the Roman Catholic Mary.




Read the entire article here.


Salvation is not by our own merit, but is of the Lord alone

October 26, 2015 2 comments

Spurgeon 3Effectively, it all comes of God; and I am sure we must add, meritoriously. We have experienced that salvation is wholly of him. What merits have I? If I were to scrape together all I ever had, and then come to you and beg all you have got, I should not collect the value of a farthing among you all. We have heard of some Catholic, who said that there was a balance struck in his favor between his good works and his bad ones, and therefore he went to heaven. But there is nothing of the sort here; I have seen many people, many kinds of Christians, and many odd Christians, but I never yet met with one who said he had any merits of his own when he came to close quarters. We have heard of perfect men, and we have heard of men perfectly foolish, and we have thought the characters perfectly alike. Have we any merits of our own? I am sure we have not, if we have been taught of God. Once we thought we had; but there came a man called Conviction into our house one night, and took away our gloryings. Ah! we are vile still. I don’t know whether Cowper said quite right, when he said, —

“Since the dear hour that brought me to thy foot
And cut up all my follies by the root
I never trusted in an arm but thine —
Nor hoped but in thy righteousness divine!”

I think he made a mistake, for most Christians get trusting in self at times, but we are forced to own that “salvation is of the Lord,” if we consider it meritoriously.

Charles H. Spurgeon- God Alone the Salvation of His People-A Sermon Delivered On Sabbath

Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 3

By Eric Ayala

For the past two weeks we have been examining “The Trail of Blood” by J.M. Carroll. You can view those posts here: Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 1 and Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 2

Last time we looked at the beliefs of the various groups that J.M. Carroll places in his “Trail of Blood.” Mostly, it was simply a collection of heretics. It would seem that Carroll’s only real criteria of if someone was Baptist or not is that the church in general did not accept them. I know that some who may be adherents of the book may claim that the heretical beliefs mentioned of these groups were mere slander against them from the Papists. The problem however, is that Carroll offers no defense of them or explanation; he never interacts with these groups or their beliefs. Carroll merely mentions their name and then moves on without even linking any of his own marks of Baptist practice or distinctives to them. Not only does Carroll not excuse these groups, he doesn’t even acknowledge there is a problem with them, slanderous or otherwise. They are mere names on a list. There are many other points that we could talk about, but in the end, his thesis is disproven.




Read the entire article here.