MichaelNZ
Puritan Board Freshman
(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.
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.