# Help! I need help fighting Romanism!



## MichaelNZ (May 28, 2014)

(Sorry in advance for the long post!)

Among other things, I am an ex-Roman Catholic. I was involved with the traditionalist movement and for a while attended Masses at a chapel run by priests from the Society of St. Pius X, who hold to a pre-Vatican II (1962-1965) view of the Romanist faith and morality. I have struggled for at least a year since coming to the Reformed faith with niggling doubts that maybe the Roman Catholic "church" is the true church, mainly because if it is, the consequences for not being in it are eternity in hell. It also leads to a terryfing life, as you never know that you are going to go to heaven and that if you commit one mortal sin you can go to hell. This seems to contrast with what the Bible says in Romans 5:1 about us having peace with God.

Last night I was reading articles about Pope Francis and how traditionalists react to him. There are groups of traditionalist Roman Catholics who believe Francis is not a valid pope because he is a heretic, and therefore there is no valid pope on the Throne of Peter (this position is known as _sedevacantism_). I went to one of the more extreme sedevacantist websites to see what they were saying about Francis, and stupidly clicked on a link called _Biblical Proof for Catholicism_.

I've listened to Matt Slick of CARM.org's radio show for over a year and I've heard his arguments against Roman Catholicism and for justification by faith alone and eternal security. However, the link I clicked on had an article written by "Brother" Peter Dimond, entitled _Justification by Faith Alone and Eternal Security Refuted by the Bible. _I was shocked! Many of the verses that Matt had quoted against the Roman Catholic "church" were dealt with in this article, and other verses were brought up to support the Romanist position. I felt like the wind had been taken completely out of my sails. I knew that Romanist apologetics sites existed, of course, but this startled me. So I'd like to run some of these verses by you and ask for your help.

Matthew 5:29-30 (the passage speaking about the plucking out of eyes) is quoted to show that people must "cut off" occasions of sin to avoid hell, not just believe. How do you respond to this?

Matthew 7:21-27 is quoted to show that one must do the will of God to enter heaven and not just believe. What say you?

Dimond brought up 1 Corinthians 9:27, which is commonly used by Romanists to prove that the Apostle Paul didn't have assurance of salvation. The verse reads "but I keep under my body, and bring _it_ into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway". I previously thought that the verse was not specifically referring to salvation as it could mean several things. However, Dimond raised up an interesting point. The Greek word translated as "castaway" in the KJV (the version used in the article) is _adokimos_ which is translated as "reprobate" in 2 Timothy 3:8 and Romans 1:28. The context in 2 Timothy 3 is referring to people who resist the truth and are not saved. _Adokimos_ is found in other places in Scripture (Titus 1:16, Hebrews 6:8) and describes people outside the state of justification. I could really do with help on this.

Romans 10:8-10 is quoted and linked to Deuteronomy 30:14. In Deuteronomy 30:15-18 it says that you have to keep the commandments of God and if you don't, you'll perish. How do you show that this doesn't refer to the Romanist view of losing your salvation through committing mortal sin?

The writer states that the "Law" referred to in the passages that Matt quotes is the Old Law "observing circumcision" etc. The Romanists would argue that this doesn't exclude works like baptism. How do you respond to this?

Matt quotes Romans 4:3 to prove that Abraham was justified by believing God. However, Dimond brings up Hebrews 11:8 which refers to Abraham being called to go to the Holy Land in Genesis 12 and claims that because Hebrews 11 is all about justifying faith, Abraham was justified in Genesis 12, not in Genesis 15 as Romans 4 quotes.

Thanks for any help you can give me. Even through writing this post I feel less apprehensive about Romanism being true and my having to return to its oppressive "church" in order to get to heaven. I'm hoping to go through this article with a Christian brother on Friday when we meet up, but any answers you could give me before now would be good.

I know that the Roman Catholic "church" has gone seriously astray in their ascribing divine powers to Mary (being able to hear prayers all over the world simultaneously in any language, spoken or unspoken), its teaching of transubstantiation which violates the Incarnation by having Christ's earthly body in multiple places at the same time) and many other errors. However, these issues I raised above do cause me concern.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## The Baptist (May 28, 2014)

For the Catholic church (I speak as someone raised in the Roman Catholic Church and who's family is still 99% Catholic) the scriptures are only a play thing. I'm not trying to sound harsh or unloving. I love my mother very much but have had repeated discussions with her where we have both left the table in tears, both of us because she's ensnared by an evil Catholic system that seemingly damns you for not following every dictate of a thousand different visionary contradicting leaders while at the same time teaching universalism. Utter confusion pervades that bizarre communion that is no church at all. The simplest of interpretations are twisted to fit with the hundreds of contradicting visions by monks and nuns held to be saints, mixed with fleshly monsters who have served as pontiffs. 

The virgin Mary for instance. The most simple reading of scripture shows clearly she was not a virgin after giving birth to Christ. How on earth can we trust a system that can't get a simple thing like this right to plum the depths of the mystery of salvation in Christ?

I'm no master of exegeting scripture like some here who will undoubtedly deal with every verse you've mentioned, I'll just show the first to be a false assertion by any Roman trying to use it as you mentioned.



> Matthew 5:29-30 (the passage speaking about the plucking out of eyes) is quoted to show that people must "cut off" occasions of sin to avoid hell, not just believe. How do you respond to this?



In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ outlines what life would have to look like, if one were to have to "live" by the law. Every detail down to the words in 5:48 "Therefore you shall be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect." are far more convicting than edifying unless one knows the true Gospel, which is that of salvation by faith alone. We know the scripture which speaks of the law saying, "You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgements, which if a man does, he shall live by them, I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:5) Christ is doubling down on the law in this section of scripture, he is saying, not only the letter of the law, but also the Spirit of the law must be fulfilled and then you will be perfect and earn life. But he knows full well that can not be attained by fallen humanity. He is calling people to salvation by faith alone in Him. The sermon on the mount is so complex as with all scripture that if it's not seen in the light of the Gospel it brings only confusion and there is nothing the Roman Catholic church prizes more than confusion. The lay Catholic neither reads the Bible nor is instructed to do so, but to simply follow blindly down a path leading to nowhere. 

To do the will of God, as Christ said in John 6:29, "This is the 'work' of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent". The Christian life consists in this, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6) All of these things Christ mentions in the sermon on the mount are for us expressions of our love for God because of the faith he has supplied in our hearts. They are not the measure of our faith except that they were fulfilled IN Christ and we live by Him and through them vicariously. We can do these things in our daily lives only because regeneration (the act of God) precedes faith and then we can live In Christ's good deeds. But we still fail and what misery we would be in if we had to fear that failure. How would we be said to have peace? To have Joy? to have any of the wonderful fruits of salvation. That's my two cents. Hope it helps you brother. Much love!


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 28, 2014)

Your confusion seem to be a false dichotomy between faith and works. We are saved by "grace" through faith (Eph 2:8). Regeneration is not necessarily the same as Justification. Faith is a result of regeneration which is the means by which we are justified. Your "works" are a results of your faith which is a result of your regeneration which is a work of God alone.

To clarify, we have to differentiate "works" and their "intent". Works can only be considered "true works" when they are done with proper intent which is to glorify God and not hope to attain favor through them. This intent will be determined based on the state of the heart. Only a regenerate heart will want to glorify God rather than himself. The problem is that until our glorification we are still in our sinful bodies therefore have a constant battle with the flesh and the spirit, meaning we are prone to reason carnally and seek our own glory when we walk according to the flesh. When scripture speaks of being careful with our walk it mean we have to be mindful of our "continued" dependence on God for our perseverance in the faith which can only be done by the Holy Spirit. But we can rest assured that " he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6)


----------



## Galatians220 (May 28, 2014)

I was a Catholic for over 40 years and have now been a Reformed Protestant since the early 1990s. I have a brother who's a traditionalist Catholic, as you describe. I've been picking off those "Catholic burrs" ever since being ever so graciously converted. I've had much wise and prayerful counsel from Richard Bennett (even in personal e-mails) and at his Berean Beacon website. I still have *huge* issues with the "it is finished" aspect of being received by election into God's family and imputed righteousness versus the "I must keep atoning for myself," infused righteousness, false teaching of Roman Catholicism, among other things. If you can contact Rev. Bennett and/or read through his voluminous website, you'll find a great deal of assistance with the issues you raise.

Maybe this won't help much, but I expect to be wrestling against my own Catholic inclinations and "Catholic thought patterns" for the rest of my life, however long or short that is... In fact, right now I'm struggling terribly with them. It's another affliction, but a painful one, and the Lord will receive the glory in the end as we fight against these powers of darkness. Bottom line: *we must stay in prayer!*


----------



## tyndale (May 28, 2014)

Michael: I definitely feel for you brother in your struggle right now.

I have a unique testimony in that the day I knew that I needed to leave the RCC was the DAY of my actual baptism AND confirmation as a Catholic (as an adult), which happened back in 1991, as I was exploring the Scriptures and meeting up with an RCC priest on what it means to be in that church. 

It was interesting, that I came from a pagan/agnostic background, and was reading the "Good News Bible" for about 6 months, and my school was Catholic, so this religion interested me and I wanted to be part of it, after observing it for about 3 years... Little did I know that the Lord was already working on my heart with Sola Scriptura and TOTA Scriptura as a young man.

The things I had learned from the priest (and he was a kind man) was that the RCC was very inclusive, and there were other ways to be saved (in other religions) and God would save them eventually if they were sincere or something to that nature. 

The day of my baptism, I was pretty confident that this life that I was supposed to live but as I was leaving the RCC church building, and watched other people burning candles to statues and paintings of "saints", I was really troubled, as it did not seem consistent with what I was reading, especially in the Old Testament, and I was struggling. How could something that God calls an abomination, now be "okay" with Him. Didn't seem consistent...this was the first moment I think that something was wrong, and I needed to think through this.

Now over 20 years later, I can look back and be thankful that I was saved from works oriented system, and can easily get into polemics about the RCC. What I will say is how angry I am that the peace of God that we see in Romans 8:28-39, the joy of salvation and eternal security from the God that justified us and LOVED us before the creation of the world...is stolen from so many people because the "system" says that the precious blood Jesus is NOT enough to save. Which is ironically what the Judaizers of the apostle's day were doing to the church.

Verses like Hebrews 7:25, "Therefore he is able to save *completely* those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them." That is not true for the RCC which is so sad to me, because the Magisterium says so. 

There are many more things like "why do I need an intercessor (Mary) to the Intercessor (Christ)", which totally contradicts 1 Tim 2:5, but will leave it for now...I encourage you to THINK, as this is the God of the Universe we are talking about here, Who is totally consistent, and totally omnipotent and sovereign. The RCC has tried to control Him, to even make Him like one of us, which is what ALL man made religions ultimately do.

The RCC apologists are pretty smart btw and have gotten better with how to confuse people, but they almost always take Scripture out of context in order to prove their theology. You should watch some of James White's debates on youtube against the RCC apologists and you will see what I am talking about, and how Dr. White does not let them off the hook, as they realize what they are doing, but it takes careful study of the Word to see that they are quite deceitful to make things fit the system.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 28, 2014)

A good resource:

Romanism | The Heidelblog


----------



## Galatians220 (May 28, 2014)

Patrick, that ad for contributions to the Heidelblog on the side of the website is absolutely wonderful! "When the coin in the coffer clinks, the cost of bandwidth shrinks..." Some people won't get it, but it's nothing short of brilliant to those of us old enough to remember, "When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."  I love it - and the site!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2014)

Michael,

No quick tricks or killer arguments. One has to understand the Scriptures and how to actually handle the Scriptures properly. Remember that Scripture is secondary to a Roman Catholic. They determine their doctrine first and then go to the Bible to pick and choose the verses (out of context) that support the tradition. All of the examples cited are examples not of sound exegesis but an approach to Scripture where the conclusion is first arrived at and then the Scripture is used as a book of aphorisms to support the tradition.

Incidentally, James White at Alpha and Omega Ministries | Toward a Defense of the Faith is a great resource.


----------



## ZackF (May 28, 2014)

I spent a decade in Roman Catholicism. Take your time. Take one thing at a time. Don't think you have to understand everything today or tomorrow. That kind of behavior triggers "I will just cast myself on the barque of St. Peter" reactionary behavior.


----------



## MichaelNZ (May 29, 2014)

Thanks for all the replies.

Martin, thanks for your info on the Sermon on the Mount.

It does seem like the Scriptures are almost secondary to the Romanists. James White has demonstrated that they effectively believe in _sola ecclesia _(the Church alone) since only the Church has the right to interpret Scripture and Tradition. They make doctrines with no regard for what the Scripture says, as Martin mentioned with the verse saying that Joseph didn't know Mary until she had given birth to Christ. The Romanists bring up verses like 2 Samuel 6:23 and Matthew 28:20 to show that the word "until" doesn't necessarily mean something happens afterwards, but this is just verbal gymnastics. 

I've listened to James White's podcasts and read some of his articles on his site. He does know a lot about Romanism. Maybe I should listen to some of his debates though.

Does anyone have an answer for 1 Corinthians 9:27 and the use of the Greek word _adokimos, _which is translated in other parts of the NT as _reprobate_?


----------



## The Baptist (May 29, 2014)

Michael,

Not only the "until" is convicting. But also that she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son. Not her ONLY son. Mary had multiple sons, not to mention daughters. Firstborn naturally implies multiples followed. 

Keep the faith brother.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 29, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> Does anyone have an answer for 1 Corinthians 9:27 and the use of the Greek word adokimos, which is translated in other parts of the NT as reprobate?


What is the ultimate proof--to myself as well as to angels and men--that I am one of God's elect, chosen in Christ before the world's foundation?

Perseverance, in Christ. Attaining to the resurrection. Not backwards-looking laurel-resting.

Paul is not wasting energy putting trust in his past or present (or future) works. Still, he does mean to live a life of witness to the truth that _apart from persistent efforts_ (i.e., if one carries a blase attitude) there's hardly any reason for a soul to hope in heaven. That's not the same notion as expecting one's works to validate one's profession of faith. There will be some who preached, who did not persevere.


----------

