Expert: Marilyn - 4/28/2007

Question
I read your 4/12/07 response to Junior about Catholicism.  I was taken aback by some of your commentary on the Catholic Church and wished to inform and ask you a few questions.

My first question is about Paul.  You said, "Paul created what became known as the "Church."  Was it not Jesus himself who spoke to "Peter" and the apostles saying to Peter specifically, "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."? However the protestants have defined the verse, it was spoken to Jesus apostles, not to Paul.  Paul in fact said he himself persecuted the church.  So indeed it was not Paul who created what came to be known as the church.  It was Peter and the apostles and specifically it was the Holy Spirit working through them.  

Second, this paragraph takes a very elementary view of Constantines role in the church:
 "After Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, he made Christianity the state religion.  He looked for a sect of believers who had a hierarchy in which one person became the leader of everyone else--that was the Catholic sect.  He became a Catholic because it gave him the most power."

Constantine became Catholic because that was the Christian Church's name and still is.  There were no other "sects" of Christianity in 313 A.D. when Constantine's Edict of Milan made Christianity legal in the empire.  Can you name for me any "chrisian sects" other then the Catholic Church during that time?  Before you put forth a name research them to see what the heretics believed during those times and you will see not much of what they believed would be believed by any protestant or evangelical today.  The Church was called catholic in writing first by Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Antioch, in 110 A.D.  Interesting that the church was first called "Catholic" in the very same place we were first called "Christians."  The name was used in many writings after Ignatius and by 155 A.D. the time of Justin Martyr's writings, Justin Martyr called the church by that name. He did not use the word to describe the church only but actually called the church by the name.  So, by 325 A.D. at the council of Nicea, Constantine met with the leaders of the Catholic i.e. universal Church at the Council of Nicea.  By Constantines time the Church was mostly "Gentile" and most all elements of Judaism were absorbed or done away with.  Jewish christians of Constantine's time were just like gentile christians.  Beliefs were quite universal.  It was the end of the first century when this weeding out of Jewish pr started not in Constantines time some 200 years later.  

Next you say this:
"Later, the Roman Catholic Church became very corrupt.  For example, Priests were selling "Indulgences," which were literally “tickets out of hell.”

I assume you are talking about the 16th century church and any cursory search of the history of indulgences and you would find that the church had a doctrine on indulgences that went back centuries before Luther's time.  Though I agree with you on the abuse of the use of indulgences during Luther's time, classifying them as "tickets out of hell" is ridiculous.  Marilyn, do you know what purgatory is?  Have you done any research on what the church actually says about it?  Purgatory is not hell.  So "tickets out of hell" is just another protestant exageration.  Also, the world was Latin speaking for many centuries.  The mass was developed in Latin because that is what the people understood when the mass took it modern form during the middle ages.  The reason the mass was in Latin during Luther's time in the 16th century is because that is the language the modern mass liturgies were performed.  Luther himself performed them mass in Latin.  The reason priest interpreted the bible for the laity is because yes they understood Latin but the were also literate.  Not everyone could read and write in fact most illiterate.  Also, I believe Tyndale or Wycliff came before Luther and translated the scriptures into English, which the church never authorized them to do.  Remember the Catholic Church was it during those times.  Only the Church has the authority to interpret and produce the scriptures.  This is how they were guarded against heresies for centuries.  It is also why we can believe them today because the Catholic church guarded them so closely.

You say: "So, no, Christianity isn't Catholicism.  Catholicism is one sect of the Christian believers."

The Catholic Church is not a "sect" of anything.  The Catholic Church traces her history back to the 1st century and is the only church along with the Orthodox that can do so.  The Orthodox or Eastern Catholic and the Roman Catholics of the West can lay claim to a universal beginning.  Every other group we know of today came out of the so called Reformation and can be called "sects" of Christianity.  It is those who do not hold to the doctrines of the church that have been believed before they were ever written down.  It is the Catholic and Orthodox who hold the tradition of the apostles.  Show me in any protestant sect traditions and beliefs that can be traced back to the apostles that are not believed by the Catholic and Orthodox Church?  You will not find any because all Christianity today owes their beliefs to the Catholic and Orthodox.  In fact Catholic and Orthodox believers make up around 1.5-1.8 billion of all christian believers.  Marilyn, that is most of them.  Those stats don't lie.  

Finally, about Jesus so called brothers.  The bible is "not" as clear as you think regarding them.  In fact, if you read the gospels crucifixion accounts you find some interesting tidbits that give some insight you may have not considered.  Consider that Jesus brothers are named in the gospel accounts as James and Joses and a sister Salome is mentioned too.  If we read the crucifixion accounts of the woman who followed Jesus and were standing nearby we find out that in two accounts a woman named Mary is watching.  She is called in one account Mary the wife of Clopas.  In another she is called the other Mary.  The Gospel of St. John records Mary the mother of Jesus as being by the cross.  Was Mary the wife of Clopas the mother of Jesus?  No Mary was the wife of Joseph so Mary the wife of Clopas or the other Mary was another woman named Mary.  We also read in scripture that Mary the wife of Clopas has children coincidentally named James, Joses, and Salome.  The same names of the family identidied as Jesus brothers and sisters.  There are other hints of Mary's virginty in scripture too.  Why did Jesus give his mother Mary to his disciple at the foot of the cross to take care of?  If Jesus had a brother or two surely one of them according to Jewish custom would take care of her.  There would be no need to give her to anyone.  Marilyn have you ever researched into these arguements?  Before putting forth your version of the Catholic Church, maybe you should research what we really believe and why.

M.M. Nall  

Answer
Hello M. M. Nall;

Thank you for your response.  

Regarding Matthew 16:13-20.  Jesus does a play on names that Peter totally understood, at least later on, as indicated by his discussion of the matter in I Peter 2:4-8.  Jesus asked, “Who do you say I am?”  Peter blurts out, “You are the Christ (The Anointed One, the Messiah), the Son of the Living God.”  Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father in Heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter, (petros, in Greek, “the little chip off the Huge Rock,”) and on this Rock (Petra, “the Huge Rock (God),”) I will build my church (ekklesia, “My Called Out Ones who Assemble for My Name and Purpose”).”  

Jesus says it is upon Himself that He will build His church and Peter is Petros, a little chip off the Big Rock.  Jesus didn’t say He would build His church on Peter.  In I Peter 2:4-8, Peter explains that the church is composed of living stones, “chips off the Big Rock.”  It’s that same metaphor of Christian being a “little Christ.”  See John 10:25-39.  Jesus clearly says that the Father (by the Holy Spirit) gave Peter the words he so impulsively blurted out.  See I Corinthians 3:11, “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”  

Peter makes this bold and awesome statement, but a few verses later he shows the enemy can also plant ideas in his head, Matthew 16:21-23.  Peter is simply spiritually receptive and impulsive enough to blurt out what pops into his mind, he’s not inherently better than any of the other Apostles or any other human being.  I refer you to my previous discussion with Junior in which I developed further the concept that it is the Holy Spirit and the revelation that Jesus is the Son of God upon which the church stands, and ultimately upon the same Rock that Old Testament believers stood, God Himself.  Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone, Ephesians 2:20, the rest of us are just part of the building.

Regarding the Apostle Paul.  Before his conversion, Paul was known as "Saul,” Acts 13:9.  After his conversion he was known as Paul.  He persecuted the church with a Pharisee's zeal.  He’s the one who held Stephen’s clothes while the others stoned him to death, Acts 7:54-8:1.  Saul was on his way to Damascus with warrants or orders to persecute Christians there when Jesus appeared and spoke to him.  Afterward, Paul was blind, see Acts 9.  From the moment Jesus effectively knocked Paul from his horse and challenged him, Paul was a believer in Jesus as Lord.  

In Acts 9:15 Jesus makes Paul the “point-man” to the Gentiles.  “But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go!  This man is my chosen instrument to carry My Name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.”  Paul was the Apostle charged and called out to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, not Peter!    

More than any other apostle, Paul brought Gentile believers into the church.  His teachings were what ultimately unmoored Christianity from its Jewish roots, not Peter’s, nor any of the other Apostles’ teachings.  It was Paul, more than any other Apostle, who taught that Gentile believers need not convert first to Judaism, observe all its rites, be circumcised etc. in order to become Christian.  It was Paul who had to plead the case before the Messianic Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to convince them what he was doing was God’s will, Acts 15.  Peter stood up and defended the concept, but it wasn’t Peter who had to present the case--it was Paul, because Paul was the one who’d made it an issue due to his effectiveness in fulfilling his calling.  

Paul wrote more of the New Testament than any other Apostle because he was called to bring Jesus to the Gentiles.  Unlike the Jews who had the Old Testament with the Ten Commandments as their foundation, Gentiles needed instruction in righteous living; they were pagans, they had no understanding of godly morality whatsoever.  But if anybody is the “Petros” of the church it’s Paul.   Paul’s writings more than anything else have become the foundation of the Gentile church throughout time, without them it is questionable whether a Gentile church could have even come into existence.   

I persist with my view that the Catholic Church was not the only group of believers.  So many persons were dispersed at various points, Acts 8:1 & 4, “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria...Those who had been scattered preached the Word wherever they went.”  Philip witnessed to the Ethiopian, Acts 8:26-40.  The Ethiopian accepted Jesus as Savior and was baptized.  He returned to his own land where a healthy Christian community thrived until Islam came to persecute and terrorize them.  The Assyrian Church, founded in the first century, still exists and was specifically recognized by Pope John Paul II as having had more members martyred for Christ then any other Christian denomination.  It was never a part of the “big C” Catholic Church.  The Messianic Jewish church was very large for quite some time.  Messianic congregations continued to exist until persecutions during Constantine's time made Christianity unattractive to Jews.  If I continued to dig, I could probably find other examples.

Regarding the paragraph dealing with Constantine.  My reference work for my assertion that Constantine chose a Christian denomination that would give him power is “Heritage:  Civilization and the Jews,” by Abba Eban. (A book I cannot at this moment locate, I think I lent it out.  :-(  Now whom did I lend it to...).  This book is also my reference for the persecution of the Jewish church under Constantine.  However, I did locate this quote from Wikipedia from a book by an Oxford historian (which I admit I haven’t read):

The following creed is one held by a church in Constantinople, a creed which came out of the Council of Nicea, that is was a fruit of their decision:  "I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with The Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils,” see “The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue,” by James Parks.  

The first Council of Nicea dealt with a heavy, unkind hand toward the Jews.  This quote above makes it very clear that a Messianic Jew cannot celebrate Christ and his Christianity, as he would feel honor bound, as a Jew, to celebrate it.  This is a harsh, devastating blow.  

Paul, a former Pharisee and Messianic Jew, as all the Apostles were, says, “...For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed,” I Corinthians 5:7.  Jesus IS the Passover Lamb.  
The story of Passover is not just the story of Jewish liberation from Egyptian slavery, but an illustration of the story of unredeemed humanity.  To begin with we are born into the slave pits of satan (Egypt).  We are spared from death (the death angel that slew all firstborn) because of the Lamb’s Blood on the door posts of our hearts (houses).   The redeemed are baptized (the Israelites in the Red Sea as they walked across on dry land surrounded by water and covered by the Holy Spirit) and enter into new life guided by God.  And this is only one festival, very shallowly illustrated here, which portrays the Lord Jesus and what He would do and has done; it’s a festival Jews have celebrated for centuries, but only the Messianic Jews comprehend in full.  

What a shame to renounce all things Jewish when such a vast reservoir of spiritual blessing can be found in them for the believer, and what a worse shame to cast out Messianic Jews along with them.  For the Messianic Jew to be forced to renounce all his Jewishness would be as if you or I were forced to renounce the sacrament of Communion simply because God had done a new thing built upon the thing we’d observed all our lives.

Catholic, lower case "c," is defined as "universal," that is consisting of all believers in Christ.  In Ephesians Paul emphasizes the need for unity among all believers.  I understand the early church to have protected their unity with diligence, in fact, Paul instructs believers to do just that in Ephesians.  Christians need more unity now.   I do believe in the catholic church, that is the universal church of believers, all persons who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior.  I believe this group exists as a distinct people throughout time from the first Apostles to the present.  I believe this people may group themselves under many different denominations, but these people all worship the Father, receive the Son as Lord and are sealed with the Holy Spirit.  The Catholic Church was one of other denominations until Constantine’s time when the Catholic Church was declared THE church and splits occurred and other groups were stamped out.

I find no reference to Purgatory in the Bible.  If Purgatory ever existed, in any form, it existed only until Jesus descended into hell, took the keys of death and Hades from the devil and liberated Old Testament believers from the holding place where they had been waiting for Him.  

The New Testament clearly says that Jesus saves completely; there is no "halfway" salvation in Christ.  To the Protestant mind, the concept of Purgatory implies that the Blood of Jesus is not truly effective for the redemption of sin.  If Jesus’ Blood is not effective to fully save and a person must still suffer after death for sin, then what is the point of Jesus’ death?  Why not continue sacrificing lambs if all that is achieved is some kind of partial redemption?  Why does the Lord Jesus have to die at all if persons must still suffer in hell-like conditions?  

Admittedly, "ticket out of hell" was a term I used to succinctly describe to Junior, who is also a Protestant, what an indulgence is.  Presently, I realize, to your mind, my statement was inaccurate.  But as a Protestant, I believe at my death I will be present with the Lord as Paul describes, Philippians 1:20-24.  If I’m not present with the Lord, then I’ll be in hell.  To the Protestant mind, any place, no matter how temporary, where a person finds himself separated from God IS hell--that’s what hell is, separation from the Presence!  

Like many Protestants, I believe there is nothing, I, personally, can do to pay for my sin; there is no amount of penance that will have any efficacy.  It is only by faith in Jesus as Lord and the firm conviction that He was raised from the dead in my heart that I may receive salvation.  

“For it is by grace you are 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.  

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.  There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His Grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.  God presented Him a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His Blood...” Romans 3:22-25.

The concept of Purgatory adds an element of works to the salvation picture, a view the Bible does not support.  If one will receive redemption by works, then he will fail because a man’s righteousness is as dirty rags in the eyes of the Lord, Isaiah 64:6.  The Jews, before Christ, were under the Law and had to operate by a system of works:  obedience to the Law and sacrificing animals to pay for breaking the Law.  In Romans 11 Paul addresses this issue, “And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace,” verse 6.  It is not possible to operate under both a system of grace and of works.  One must choose!  If you are under grace, then works are not relevant.  If you are under works, then you will fail.  Doing penance is a type of works and is useless in the objective of achieving salvation.

Tyndale and Luther were contemporaries.  Wycliffe was a Catholic reformer who preceded Luther.  Both Tyndale and Wycliffe translated the Bible into the common vernacular and were persecuted for it.  Both were well-educated church leaders of their day who knew the ancient Bible languages thoroughly.  These were not "fly-by-night" Bible translators out to corrupt Christianity, but devoted believers who felt that the Bible should be available in the common vernacular.  Tyndale's translation of the Hebrew text is still referred to today as a benchmark of accuracy and his work became the foundation of the King James Version of the Bible.  

I fail to comprehend how having the Bible in the common vernacular would be a threat except to power elites.  Is the Almighty Himself not capable of keeping His Word as He desires it to be kept?  I believe the Holy Spirit whose aim has always been to glorify the Risen Lord and make Him known to all humanity moved these men.  Isn’t the purpose of God’s Word to make Him known to humanity?  If only a certain few may know it, then humanity lives in darkness for another man’s light is for himself alone and cannot truly light the path of his neighbor.  Praise God; these men were obedient to Him.

Protestants of today evolved out of reforms advanced by Martin Luther and Wycliffe, as well as Jan Hus and others.  I am well aware that the Protestant churches in existence today cannot claim they began in the first century, except that the Christian church universal exists in the past, present and future and will never be extinguished.

The Catholic Church practices “baptism” of infants, as do some Protestant churches, but this practice is not biblical.  Some Protestant churches call infant “baptism,” “dedication,” which is a nice idea, but not biblical either.  John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance as part of his ministry to open the way for the Lord.  The word, “baptize” is Greek for “dunk.”  John the Baptist dunked participants in the river.  This is in keeping with the Jewish rite of purification.  

Outside the Jewish temple were large containers of water where persons might dunk themselves before entering the temple grounds.  Jesus’ Apostles dunked newly converted believers.  In the book of Acts, newly converted believers were also dunked.  There is no evidence of infant “baptism” anywhere in the Bible, only evidence of persons being baptized after making a decision for Christ.  

Regarding infants, only the rite of circumcision on the seventh day is mentioned, but Paul taught such a rite was not necessary for salvation or membership in the Body of the Lord.  In the biblical texts, all persons who were baptized were of an age to understand what it meant to be a sinner, that they needed a Savior and to consciously receive Jesus as Lord.

Today, Baptists teach baptism is meant to be a symbol of cleansing and symbolic passage from the previously dead state of the human spirit to the reborn state of the saved person.  Dunking is a picture:  buried with Christ and raised with Him to new life.  Dunking is practiced in many Protestant churches, but is no longer practiced in the Catholic Church, according to the online version of the “Catholic Encyclopedia.”   

Protestants also believe that until a child is of an age to understand sin, he will not be held accountable for sin.  If he were to die, he would immediately be in the Presence.  I do not think this concept is literally found in the Bible either.  Still the issue begs the question, how can an infant or a young child give an account for himself (Romans 14:12), particularly regarding something he never comprehended in the first place?  Is it the behavior of a just God to condemn such a person?  Yet, I admit, I have not found a place where the Bible clearly states any verdict on the fate of a miscarried baby or child who has not received Jesus as Lord and been baptized.  

Still, I hold to my view that true baptism can only occur after the person has made a conscious decision to receive Jesus as Lord and the person must be dunked if he is to receive a biblical baptism.  Romans 10:9 & 10 teach salvation is an act of faith beginning with the confession, “Jesus is Lord,” coupled with a person’s belief that Jesus has been raised from the dead.  Once this profession has been made, the person is saved.  Baptism is the rite that follows as an act of obedience to the Lord, a picture of the cleansing and of his rebirth.  Infants cannot make any such a declaration therefore infant baptism has no effect.   

Baptism in conjunction with salvation is a specific example of first century Church sacraments that have not been maintained by the Catholic Church but which are practiced by some Protestant denominations.

Regarding those present at the foot of the cross.  It is true, the Gospel accounts do not agree word for word with each other.  Rather than this being a slam against them, this fact actually proves their validity because eyewitnesses will remember things differently, some observers will remember certain facets of any given episode better than others and some events will be remember less well.  Here’s an alternative interpretation:  BOTH Marys stood at the foot of the cross.  Further, since Jesus' brothers did not receive Him as Lord until after His resurrection, it makes sense Jesus might ask John to care for His mother since John was a firm believer in Him and especially loved by Him.  

Mary was a virgin when she conceived the Lord Jesus by the Word of God.  She did not remain a virgin her entire life.  

The word, "adelophoi," brother, and "adelopi," sister, is used in the passages speaking of Jesus' “brothers” and “sisters.”  These words are later also used to describe "brothers and sisters" in Christ, again specifically defined by context, just as in English I have a brother and sister and I have brothers and sisters in Christ.

The context of the following passage is of Jesus preaching in His hometown.  The people were amazed, because to them Jesus was just another guy.  Matthew 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's Son?  Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon and Judas?"  Later, the Bible clearly says that Mary is the mother of James and Joses, Matthew 27:56.  In these cases the word "adelophoi" is used, not the word for "cousin" or some other word.  

Matthew 1:24 & 25, "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.  But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.  And he gave him the name Jesus."  

During those days, Jewish men might arrive at any time, day or night, to claim their betrothed, hence the parable of the virgins with their lamps.  The bride-to-be had to be ready to go at any moment.  After the angel assured Joseph he might take Mary as his wife, he went and fetched her, though it was probably the middle of the night.  "But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son..."  The Amplified Bible says, "...he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her first-born Son, and he called His name Jesus."  The King James says, "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called His name Jesus."  "Knew" here, meaning in the sense of making love.  

While the idea that Mary might be equivalent to God, that she was sinless, herself borne of a virgin and living a life of perpetual virginity, is appealing, I can find no Scriptural evidence to back this view.  In fact, the evidence proves to the contrary.

Junior, asked me, a Protestant to answer his question.  He didn't ask a Catholic.  Whether you agree with my Protestant views or not, I cannot help.  I have researched Catholic beliefs, I admit, not exhaustively, but neither have I researched Protestant beliefs exhaustively.  The primary sources for what I believe are my Bible and revelation by the Holy Spirit.  I listen and study other views, Catholic and Protestant, but do not add them to my beliefs unless I can discover testimony of their validity from Scripture and by revelation based on Scripture.  

I was raised Baptist.  I asked the Lord Jesus to be my Savior when I was about 10.  I looked up at the stars and I knew I wanted to go there and I knew the only way I’d ever go was through Jesus.  When I went away to college, a relative challenged the Baptist dogma I’d been taught.  For Southern Baptists, no drinking is allowed.  They teach their kids that Jesus didn’t drink alcohol either.  They told me Jesus drank “grape juice.”  When this belief was challenged and I had to admit Jesus did drink fermented grapes.  Instead of chucking my Baptist doctrine, I chucked God.  After that I spent nearly ten years wandering further and further from the Lord.  Like the Prodigal Son, when I woke up and found myself in a pigsty because another believer reached out to me in a particular, specific way by guidance of the Holy Spirit, I finally turned back to Him.  From that time on I have never adhered to ANY particular church’s doctrine.  For me, it’s Jesus my Lord and the Word with the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide and the Father with His Might and there is nothing else.  Jesus retrieved me from the pigsty where I lived married to a drug addicted, cheating, wife beater.  He retrieved my kids.  In miracle after miracle I saw the Lord working, answering my prayers.  And I’ll never look back.  My eyes will be on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of my faith.

We may discuss doctrines of various churches, we can argue interpretations of Scripture and perhaps each of us may learn something.  But Jesus must be Lord.  Jesus must be King.   Everything else falls away into insignificance in His Presence.

If Junior had asked a Catholic, perhaps the answer would have suited you better.  Please forgive him and me.  We may argue points of doctrine and interpretations of biblical texts, but I would hope that we might remember that all believers in Jesus are part of the universal church, that is His Body, and we are called to love one another.  I would be honored if I might call you brother or sister for it seems to me that you call Jesus Lord.  It is my prayer that we might look to the points upon which we agree and overlook those upon which we do not and strive to be in unity under the leadership of our Head, the Lord Jesus.    

Marilyn