Are You A Member Of The Universal Church? (Conservative vs. Liberal Churches)

            THE PROBLEM: As we continue to live our lives as Christians, the spiritual deterioration of the church is distressing. On the one hand, there is a church that is conservative in nature, which professes to the Lordship of Christ by worshipping HIM as the God who came to save the lost. This church, for instance, believes that:

            1. The Bible is God’s Word and it’s infallible/trustworthy.

            2. Christ was born of a virgin.

            3. Christ rose again from the grave in bodily form.

            4. Belief in Christ is essential for salvation.

            On the other hand, there is another church that is liberal in nature, which also professes to the Lordship of Christ. The liberal church considers the Lord Jesus as the one who came to help the poor and the oppressed. Salvation [of people] is not the mission of this church. This church believes that:

            1. The Bible is not “God-breathed” and it contains errors.

            2. Christ was not born of a virgin.

            3. Christ did not rise from the grave in bodily form.

            4. Belief in Christ is not essential for salvation - everyone will be saved, even a practicing Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or an Atheist, Agnostic or a Skeptic.

            Both these churches exist – the conservative and the liberal. Both these churches label themselves as Christian. They profess to the Lordship of Christ.

            But the Jesus whom they worship is not the same. (Either Christ was born of a virgin or HE did not. Either HE rose again from the grave in bodily form or HE did not.)

            Therefore, from a strictly spiritual sense, it is either one of these churches – the conservative or the liberal – that can be Christian. So from the perspective of truth and eternity, the bearer of the truth is either the conservative or the liberal church; not both the conservative and the liberal church.

            The Bible accentuates this problem. The presence of conservative and liberal churches emphasizes the existence of true and false believers in Christianity. The Bible speaks of this fact, which Norman Geisler highlights, “The Bible exhorts us to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) so that we can know “the spirit of truth” (v. 6). Paul warned against “deceitful spirits” (1 Tim. 4:1), and Jesus exhorted us to beware of “false prophets” (Mat. 24:11) who are really “wolves” that come “in sheep’s clothing” (Mat. 7:15).”¹

            THE VISIBLE & THE INVISIBLE CHURCH: While discussing the theme of the church, the terms “visible church” and “invisible church” vis-à-vis the terms “local church” and “universal church” should be understood.

            The Greek word “Ekklesia” is commonly translated as church. Etymologically, the word ekklesia means “to call out.” This is used to support the biblical doctrine of the church as a people called out, and separated from the world by God. The New Testament uses ekklesia in the sense of the ‘local church’ and the ‘universal church.’ It is certainly not used for a church building or a particular denomination.

            The Local Church is the local or the visible assembly of all those who profess faith and allegiance to Christ. It could refer to a specific church (1 Thessalonians 1:1) or churches or any nonspecified individual assembly (“every church,” 1 Corinthians 4:17) or a nonspecified number of churches or for all the churches together (“all churches.” 1 Corinthians 7:17).

            The Universal Church is the invisible and the universal fellowship of the believers who meet visibly in local churches. The Universal Church refers to the spiritual unity of all believers in Christ. Ekklesia, in this sense, is not the assembly, but rather those constituting it; they are the church whether assembled or not. Gotquestions.org states, “Sometimes the universal church is called the “invisible church”—invisible in the sense of having no street address, GPS coordinates, or physical building and in the sense that only God can see who is truly saved.”²

            Two important points are to be assimilated:

            (1) The local church consists of the true believers and the false/fake Christians, who think/say that they are Christians, but in reality, they are not.

            (2) The universal church consists of the true believers in Christ. The universal church cannot contain the false/fake Christians.

            A Christian could be a member of a local church, but if his Christianity is fake or untenable, then he/she would not be a part of the universal church. In other words, if you are a member of a liberal church, then you should genuinely be concerned about your eternal destiny.

            HOW TO IDENTIFY A LIBERAL CHURCH? Knowledge of the truth is essential to identify a lie, says Norman Geisler, “Unfortunately, the truth is that one cannot discern what is false unless he is trained in what is true. Government agents who deal in counterfeits spend much of their time in studying genuine currency. The reason is simple:  we cannot recognize a counterfeit unless we know the genuine. Since Barna surveys show that less than ten-percent of evangelical Christians even have a Christian world view, it is no surprise that even the masses of Christians can be fooled by a good counterfeit theology…”³

            The liberal churches preach and proliferate a counterfeit theology. Christian apologetics website, Carm.org has a very helpful note to identify the liberal churches:⁴

Following is a list of basic principles and examples that reveal some aspects of liberalism.  Of course, not all liberals hold to all the points; but as you read through them, you should see that it comes down to one thing--not believing the Bible for what it says.

1. Denial of inspiration, inerrancy, and/or authority of the Bible

     1. Saying that the Bible has errors, is "written by man," is only a guide, or is not absolutely true.

2. Denying historic accuracy of the Bible

1. Denying that Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus, etc., were real people.

2. Denying that the Exodus happened.

3. Denying that there was an actual Garden of Eden, etc.

3. Denial of particular parts of the Bible as being authentic

1. Denying that Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

2. Denying Paul's letter's as authentic.

3. Denying that the Gospels are accurate, etc.

4. Denial (sic) a basic Christian doctrine

1. Trinity, deity of Christ, resurrection, etc.

2. Salvation by grace.

3. Denying that Jesus is the only way to salvation, the doctrine of hell, etc.

5. Denial of historic understanding of Scripture and substituting new ones

1. Redefining salvation as self-deliverance from oppression.

2. Saying that Jesus' didn't literally rise from the dead and that it is a metaphor for success over trials.

3. "Husband of one wife" is not taken literally.  It is a phrase applied to wives, too.

4. Homosexuality is not a sin; it is an alternative lifestyle.

6. Affirming experience over Scripture

1. A person's feelings supersede biblical revelation.

2. "Feeling" that Jesus isn't the only way to God.

3. As long as you are sincere, God will let you go to heaven.

7. Using outside sources to interpret scripture

1. Use of psychology manuals, self-help books, science books, etc. and subjecting the Bible to their teaching.

8. Saying the Bible is outdated, patriarchal

1. This is an attempt to invalidate scripture by dismissing it as ancient and, therefore, not true.

2. It also negates the inspiration of Scripture because it implies the patriarchal structure is due to cultural influence and not scriptural revelation.

9. Imposing secular ideals upon Scripture

1. Women ordination.

2. Pro homosexuality.

3. Denying moral absolutes.

4. Upholding evolution as how mankind arrived on earth.

5. Defending "abortion rights" from scripture.

10. Gender Neutral wording in reference to God, people, mankind, etc.

1. Referring to God as Mother God or Father-Mother God.

2. Referring to various references of male leaders as people.

        3. Christians who are a part of liberal churches should reject that church. 

            So to conclude, every Christian should be duly concerned about his/her membership in the universal church while maintaining and growing in his/her membership in a local church that preaches conservative Christianity.

Endnotes:

¹http://normangeisler.com/category/postmodernism/ (The Shack: Helpful or Heretical? by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach)

²https://www.gotquestions.org/universal-local-church.html

³http://normangeisler.com/category/postmodernism/ (The Shack: Helpful or Heretical? by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach)

⁴https://carm.org/elements-liberalism

Websites last accessed on 9^th June 2018.

The Dirty Church

The church is to be a beautiful community that worships the only living God, nurtures the seeker with the truth, fellowships in the loving community of saints, and encourages the brokenhearted with Christ’s love. In other words, the church looks ‘upward’ in worship, ‘inward’ to edify, and ‘outward’ to serve those in need.

However, the church, from Christ’s time on earth, has been losing these components slowly yet steadily (cf. Mark 11: 15-17). A church can profess her allegiance to the Lord Jesus, yet be corrupt in her core values and expressions. In other words, the church, from the surface, could seem adherent to the biblical teachings, but avoid being truthful, loving and gracious, and thus corrupt.

When resolving a situation, the church could opt to enforce law or grace. Here is a rather dense situation to highlight the church’s corruption. A church rejects the marriage proposal of a couple because one partner has had multiple divorces. Not only is the church ungracious, but she could be successful in driving away the couple from her precincts. While rejecting the proposal, the church may have even cited a few scripture passages (e.g. Malachi 2: 16). But is this the only viable or the most biblical option for the church? If you say yes, please allow me to contradict you.

I submit that the church should have married this couple, of course, with bible-centered pre-marital counseling. If this couple were married, it is possible that this marriage would survive and the past sins of divorce, repented. By rejecting the marriage proposal, the church eliminated a magnificent opportunity for the person to repent and establish a family. More importantly, the church may have even driven these two away from Christianity. (You could argue that the multiple divorcée, as in the past, would reject/divorce this partner as well. This, however, is an ‘argument from ignorance’ i.e., one cannot predict if that marriage would result in divorce.)

Now then, why should the church not be radically gracious in solemnizing such a marriage? The church may have either rejected this proposal to avoid unnecessary criticism (for the leadership to have their job intact) or because she is profusely legalistic (so to abandon grace into oblivion). In both these instances, the church abandons the minority. This is in total contradiction to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. (If the church leadership claims ignorance on this matter, then they are inadequate for leadership.)

It is good to err on the side of grace, than on the side of law. But only strong and courageous leaders (Joshua 1: 9) would dare to err on the side of grace. The selfishly fearful, corrupt and theologically impotent leaders would cite the law to evade being gracious. They defy the Lord’s act of running after that one lost sheep, leaving the ninety-nine. Losing one sheep is insignificant to these leaders. They satisfy the majority, even at the cost of one sheep and the gospel! The Lord is the epitome of grace (John 1: 14-17); when the church adheres to the law and abandons grace, the church becomes corrupt.

The first entity to take responsibility for the church’s corruption is her leadership. Christ showed the way for mankind to follow. Similarly the church leadership ought to be role models for the flock to follow the Lord. If the leadership is legalistic, the essence of the church would be legalistic.

However, it could be healthier to have a legalistic leader than a weak leader. If the leadership is weak, then the church would travel the way of the powerful group in the church, and the powerful, if biblically correct, will remove the weak leader (so to resolve the problem). If the weak leadership remains, the church is bound to be sold to the devil in one form or another. If leaders are ruled by fear, they will inevitably succumb to the temptations of the evil one.

The elaborate description of Jesus cleansing the temple in Mark 11: 15-17 presents an instance of a ‘dirty church.’ The Lord’s house was transformed into a house of business instead of a house of prayer. The Lord cleansed the temple by driving out the offenders (15). Wait! Did HE really drive them out? I don’t think so! Verse 17 fascinates me, for the Lord taught ‘them’ the true intent of the church. ‘Them’ refers to those who abused the temple precincts and the spectators. Hence the Lord not only cleansed HIS house off its filth, but taught the abusers the truth. Isn’t this what today’s church leaders ought to do and isn’t this where they fail?

We take pride in proclaiming the church as a congregation of sinners, and truly so. Sin is inevitable in the congregation of sinners. When sin is encountered, the sinful act should be eliminated by the power of God, and the sinful actor cleansed by the Word of God. 

Today’s church seems more intent on driving out the sinners; not the sinners who sin against God, but those who disagree with the leadership. The formula of today’s church seems to be if-you-don’t-agree-to-my-agenda-you-will-be-fired. Thus, instead of church multiplication, church division seems to be the order of the day. Where is the fault? It’s obviously in the insecure arms of the weak leadership.

I am part of a ‘facebook prayer group’ of a certain church. One day, I realized I wasn’t a part of that prayer group. Upon digging for clarity, I discovered that the church leadership had me removed from that group, because my blogs seemed to implicate that church. Thus far, I have not received a response as to what unholy or unbiblical content from my blog merited such an ungracious decision. If I am a sinner, where is the teaching to correct me? If there is no teaching, does it imply I am correct? If I am correct, why should I be removed? Or am I a terrible sinner beyond correction? This is not a personal rant, but an illustration of what I see as a failure of the church.

The church seeks easy, or evil, solutions today. Quite a few AGM’s (Annual General Meeting) of the contemporary church present a sad yet hilarious scene. The powerful oppress the powerless and the seemingly-more-spiritual oppress their brothers and sisters. If you speak the truth, you are mandated to shut up. Is this the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Laugh-out-Loud! It is the case of weak and unbiblical leadership. Weak leadership manifests in several ways. You are fired if you disagree; you are disciplined if you speak the truth. Both situations were a reality in the life of Martin Luther and many others who stood firm for truth. Welcome to the dirty church.

George Barna and Frank Viola expressed this sentiment as they dedicated their book, “To our forgotten brothers and sisters throughout the ages who courageously stepped outside the safe bounds of institutional Christianity at the risk of life and limb. You faithfully carried the torch, endured persecution, forfeited reputation, lost family, suffered torture, and spilled your blood to preserve the primitive testimony that Jesus Christ is Head of His church. And that every believer is a priest .a minister ... and a functioning member of God's house. This book is dedicated to you.” ¹ Weakness hides behind law, discards grace and Christ out of the church. The church then is sold to the devil.

I think it was Malcolm Muggeridge who ridiculed the church to say, “they have taken that which belongs to the soul and institutionalized it.” Do you belong to a dirty church that destroys a soul, or do you belong to a grace-abounding, Christ-filled, Spirit-anointed church?

You can for all you want shout at the top of your voice that you are anointed. But if you discard grace from your life, you are discarding Christ. If you are abandoning Christ from your life, are you a true disciple of the Lord Jesus? You need to answer these questions as much as I need to. Amen.

References:

¹ George Barna and Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, 2007. 

Understanding Catholics and their Critics

I will dive a little deeper into the Catholic rationale behind their contentious practices and highlight a few of the prevalent contentious practices of the non-Catholics that negate their seemingly superior theological advantage.

Catholic theologians, I believe, didn’t innovate random practices contrary to the Bible, but have read the Bible and subsequently implemented and supported these practices according to their interpretations. The essence of many of these contentious practices is to draw closer to Christ. The ‘means’ may be faulty but not the ‘end.’ The same applies to the contentious practices of the non-Catholic churches.

For example, the Catholic and the non-Catholic understanding of ‘grace’ is quite different. A non-Catholic would define ‘grace’ as God’s goodness towards those who deserve punishment. In other words, grace is “unmerited favor” that is freely given, never obligated, and cannot be earned. The only human attitude that is appropriate to receiving such a grace is ‘faith.’ ¹

Now examine ‘grace’ within the Catholic comprehension. “The meaning of the word grace is primarily favor: but it is used especially of that act of favor by which God finally salvages his creation from man’s mismanagement and salvages it through men…” (emphasis mine).² The phrase ‘God finally salvages his creation from man’s mismanagement,’ emphasizes God’s act, but in the next few words it emphasizes man’s role while stating ‘and salvages it through men.’

Moreover, please read these words, “…there occurs a distinction between two so-called effects of grace: it works in us to justify or vindicate or redeem, and it works with us to reward our cooperation. For grace is a gift to our cooperation so to speak…” (emphasis mine).³ The emphasis that God’s grace works ‘in us’ implies God’s act, whereas ‘with us’ implies man’s role in appropriating God’s grace. So grace is not merely a gift from God, it is a gift to our cooperation. This emphasizes man’s role. Thus the Catholic hermeneutics of the Bible causes ‘salvation by works’ theology. However the Catholic theologians do emphasize grace as a free gift as well. Please read the footnote for relevant quotations.

Therefore, it is my belief that the Catholic theology should not be ridiculed at the applicational realm of its contentious practices; instead it should be debated at the exegetical realm of its Biblical hermeneutics.

On a different note, one could argue that the theology of the ‘Christian Universalists’ are a similar outcome of a faulty biblical interpretation. On the contrary, I believe that the christian universalists are a product of an eisegetical interpretation of the Bible. ‘Eisegesis’ or ‘to eisegete’ is to express the interpreter’s own ideas – thoughts that are not present in the text.⁴ Therefore, it would be even (un)fair to term the christian universalists as a cult, but the Catholics cannot be grouped as a cult. If you ask me whether christian universalists would go to heaven despite their false understanding, I would respond in the affirmative. (By the way, the Catholic leaders are guilty of universalistic teaching as well).

When non-Catholic christians slam their Catholic brothers and sisters, it is the case of “pot calling kettle black.” There are contentious practices within the non-Catholic church, and one should acknowledge that. Moreover, when we denounce or throw mud at another, we not only get our hands dirty but are losing ground from beneath our feet.⁵

Here is an introductory bird’s-eye view of a few similarities in the contentious practices existing in both the Catholic and the non-Catholic churches.

#	Contentious Catholic Practice / Teaching	Scriptural Violation	Equivalent Contentious Non-Catholic Practice / Teaching
1	Salvation – Baptismal and Sacramental	Ephesians 2: 8-10; Titus 3: 5	Baptismal salvation & Gift based (Tongues, Prophecy etc)
2	Baptism mandated	Romans 10: 13	Baptism mandated
3	Worshiping Mary & Saints	Exodus 20: 3; John 14: 6	Worshiping gifted people – divine healers, preachers, pastors etc. Praying through some “supposedly-righteous” people
4	Idol Worship	Exodus 20: 4-6	Idols worship: Building, Images of cross, Bible
5	Sacraments Priesthood – distinction	Ephesians 2: 8-10; John 1: 12; Romans 3: 20 John 13: 14; 1 Peter 2:9	Speaking in tongues, prophesying, school for “signs and wonders”  etc. Similar practice exists

If the Catholic church teaches only a baptized believer will be saved, then some non-Catholic denominations are guilty of the same practice. If baptism is mandatory for salvation, then let us not scream about being saved by grace alone. If we are only saved by grace through faith, then baptism isn’t a factor in our salvation.

If the Catholic church teaches that Mary and the saints ought to be worshipped, then the non-Catholics worship gifted people in Christendom. These gifted people may be divine healers, powerful preachers, pastors etc.

There is a distinction between respect and worship. To respect is to esteem or honor. To worship is to respect, honor and, more importantly, to submit - all our faculties to the object of worship. It is admirable to respect people, but we ought to be diligent while integrating everything that is poured into our domain. The thoughts, words and deeds of man should be examined in the light of God’s Word. We ought to submit to God and worship HIM alone. When we agree with man’s perspective, our conscious submission or worship is only to God, and not man, who is merely the channel of God. From this perspective, no human being is infallible, neither the Pastor nor the Pope!

If Catholics are guilty of idolatry, the non-Catholics are also equally guilty. Buildings, images of cross and bible verses, and even the Bible are idolized. The Bible by our side will not heal us (nor would the image of cross). These objects do not make one a disciple of the Lord. The Bible does no magic by its mere presence. The word of God when believed, read, integrated and spoken, keeps evil out and brings healing (cf. Matthew 4: 4, 7, 10).

If a Catholic is to practice his Sacraments (sacred signs), then there are innovative ‘Sacraments’ from the non-Catholic church. Some non-Catholic churches insist on speaking in tongues or the ability to prophecy or heal. There are schools that apparently impart these gifts. To the best of my knowledge, these are gifts of the Holy Spirit, given by God as HE pleases and chooses. I am unsure how man can supersede God in imparting these gifts. (A counter argument would be that God gifted that man the gift of gift-impartation, but anything taken to the realm of subjective will suffer the lack of objective verification, hence disputable.)

The reformation rebelled against the contentious practices of the Catholic church and empowered the ordinary christian to discern and apply the right and discard the wrong. Unfortunately, it is the “reformed church” (used generically, not denominationally) that is guilty of propagating the same contentious practice, even in a diluted form. I do see an application of this verse in the lives of the non-Catholic churches, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more” (Luke 12: 47-48, NASB).

If christians from the catholic church are going to hell based on their contentious practices, then the christians from the much-knowing non-Catholic churches should also go to hell for practicing similar contentious practices. In a nutshell, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith crumbles into dust.

It is not about which denomination is better or worse, it is all about sincerely loving Christ our Lord and obeying God’s Word. May the good Lord bless us with the much needed enlightenment of HIS Word to drive out the imperfection that plagues us, and lead us towards HIS perfect presence. Amen.

Notes and References:

¹ Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p 200-201.

² Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Law & Grace, p 278. (Quote from ‘Introductory Comment’ of the editor, Timothy McDermott).

³Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Law & Grace, p 279. (Quote from ‘Introductory Comment’ of the editor, Timothy McDermott).

⁴ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eisegesis

⁵ Ravi Zacharias’ statement

Quotes of Thomas Aquinas from Summa Theologiae:

Thomas Aquinas on Grace as a free & earned gift of God:

(ST: Summa Theologiae)

“Grace then is a disposition presupposed to instilled virtues as their origin and root. And since by grace we are reborn as sons of God, grace must modify our very nature in some way: it is presupposed to virtues, so affects what is presupposed to every ability of the soul, namely its nature.” ST, Law & Grace, 110.3

“Grace does five things: first it heals our soul, so that secondly we will to do good, thirdly actually do the good we will, fourthly persevere in doing good, and finally come to glory.” ST, Law & Grace, 111.3

“Only God can give grace, since it surpasses the abilities of any created nature, and shares in the nature of God.” ST, Law & Grace, 112.1.

“Grace is given to every man in the measure Christ gives it, for perfecting the saints and building up Christ’s body.” ST, Law & Grace, 111.4.

 “The end that grace moves towards is eternal life, and the movement develops by growth in charity and grace. So growth in grace can also be earned commensurately…So perseverance in glory (which is the end in question) can be earned. But perseverarance in grace throughout life cannot be earned, since it depends only on God’s movement, the source of all earning.” ST, Law & Grace, 114.8,9.

Thomas Aquinas on Sacraments with its focus in Christ:

“The Sacraments are signs of all three: commemorating Christ’s past sufferings, demonstrating the grace those sufferings are presently producing in us, and foretelling the future glory. Because a sacrament is a sign of the sanctifying cause as sanctifying, it must be a sign of the effect produced.” ST, Living in Christ, 60.3.

“The patriarchs were saved through faith in a Christ to come; we are saved through faith in a Christ who has already been born and suffered. Sacraments are signs expressing the faith by which we are saved, and it is right to have different signs for what is future, past or present.” ST, Living in Christ, 61.4

Thomas Aquinas on the need for Sacraments:

“You cant unite men in a religion unless they share visible symbols or sacraments keeping them together.” (Aquinas quoting St. Augustine, ST, Living in Christ, 61.1)

The fact that God after Christ’s coming instituted different Sacraments doesn’t show change in God; the earlier were suitable for prefiguring grace, the later showed grace present.” ST, Living in Christ, 61.4

Thomas Aquinas on Transubstantiation:

The conversion of bread into the body of Christ is similar in some ways both to creation and to natural change yet different in others. Common to all three is a certain order: after this, that. In creation after non-existence existence, in this sacrament after the substance of bread the body of Christ, in natural change after black white, or after air fire. (Aquinas’ Aristotelian basis for transubstantiation. ST, Living in Christ, 75:8)

“Whatever is true of natural change because of the shared subject must be denied of transubstantiation: we can say that what is white could be black but we cant say that what is non-existent could be existent or that what is bread could be the body of Christ. Nor can we properly say that existence is made out of non-existence of the body of Christ out of bread, nor that the bread will be the body or becomes the body, though because the properties do remain we use some of these ways of speaking in a sort of analogous way, not meaning by bread the substance of bread, but using it as a general term for what underlies the properties of bread , though that is at first bread could be the body of Christ because of the possibility of its conversion is not founded on some potentiality to become in the bread, but on a power to convert in the Creator.”  ST, Living in Christ, 75.8.

Would Catholics go to Heaven?

Some Protestant christians are quite vociferous about the Catholics heading to hell. Is this a legitimate thought? If so, why is it legitimate?

Before we venture into this examination, let us briefly remind ourselves of some pertinent theological terms and the church history.

“Salvation postulates the spiritual; the spiritual embodied in a soul; the soul sanctified through divine grace. Grace is the unmerited interior assistance which God confers upon man in order to render him capable of supernatural acts of the soul through which he may attain salvation. Salvation presupposes a condition of sin. As sin is the greatest evil, salvation is used mainly in the liberation of the human race or the individual from sin and its consequences.” ¹

The reformers were a breakaway group from the Catholic church (Catholic = Universal). Martin Luther^AA (1483-1546) was a leader of this religious reform. Luther never saw a Bible until he was 20 years old.² He was an Augustinian friar, ordained in 1507, taught at the University of Wittenberg, and was a doctor of theology. His ‘The Ninety-Five Theses’ was a seminal academic rebellion against the authority and the religiosity of Catholicism. Luther believed in salvation by grace through faith, e Heso confronted the teaching of salvation by works (sale of indulgences, purgatory, pilgrimages, compulsory confessions et al.). He said that all good works of man aimed to attract God’s favor are sins.³ He was excommunicated in January 1521 by Pope Leo, was under an imperial ban, and deemed a heretic by Emperor Charles V.⁴

The Catholic church, from what I have read and heard (I have not had the opportunity to worship in one), clearly promotes salvation by works, which is in total contradiction to the Bible. Other contentious practices in the Catholic church are: worship of Mary & saints, transubstantiation, sacraments, distinction between priests and an ordinary worshiper etc.⁵ (Please read the references if you desire a better knowledge of these terms)

Under the umbrella of “works” are the contentious practices. These contentious practices are a result of their faulty interpretation of the Bible (e.g. purgatory & 1 Corinthians 3:15). Thus, the catholic interpretation of the Bible entails salvation by works, which in turn causes contentious practices.

To complicate matters, the Catholic Bible has extra books called the Deuterocanonicals or Apocryphals or the Intertestamentals. Some of their contentious practices are an outcome of these books (e.g. purgatory and 2 Maccabees 12:43–45). We should consider two aspects when we discuss Catholicism: Catholic interpretation of the Bible and the Catholic inclusion of the Apocryphal books in their canon. These are the root of the contentious Catholic practices.

Quite similar to any believer, a grass root Catholic cannot undo his canon, but he can learn how to interpret the Bible without errors (cf. the Bible cannot contradict itself). The grass root Catholic is also flooded with teaching from his priests, which he needs to cross verify with his Bible to determine the legitimacy of the teaching. One cannot blindly follow. The buck stops with the Catholic, as it does with any believer. We read and understand many things under the sun, but one needs to rely totally upon the Spirit of God to determine the right from wrong. The ‘right’ should be integrated and practiced, and the wrong discarded.

Every contentious practice of the Catholic Church moves the believer away from Christ. Any act that moves a person away from Christ is a sin.

The error of the Catholic Church isn’t unique to them, the Protestant churches also contend with the same problem. One should accept that many Protestant denominations have practices that are contentious as well. Salvation by works is preached and imposed by many Protestant denominations.  If Catholics are guilty of venerating their priests, the Protestants too are. If Catholics are guilty of worshiping idols, Protestants too are, it is just that the idols are different (church building, people, image of the cross etc.). When we point one finger at the Catholics, we should understand that three fingers are pointing at us.

Thus, Protestant churches, by virtue of their imperfections, cannot claim superiority over the Catholic church. So the dialogue with Catholics should be built on love and respect – as one imperfection ministering to another.

With regards to practices that are an outcome of “salvation by works,” it is one’s responsibility to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28: 19-20). We are to make disciples of the Lord Jesus and not any other. When we express our convictions, the person listening may or may not accept our convictions immediately. Patience ought to be practiced when we dialogue with our Catholic brothers and sisters. Our dialogues should be soaked in prayer, so to discern the Lord’s time and will.

Thomas Aquinas and Thomas à Kempis are some of my most favorite and respected authors. These are Catholic theologians and godly thinkers. God has spoken through them and continues to speak through their writings. I cannot surely imagine them being eternally separated from God (yes, this is not a sound logic!). But from their writings, I believe that their faith in Christ was intact. All that matters for eternal security with God is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. I will only go as far as to say that those who believe in the Lord Jesus will be forgiven of all their sins, and will inherit heaven. This includes believers of Christ from Catholicism and Protestantism.

Sole faith in Christ is the only prerequisite to gain heaven. There is no other prerequisite. The final judgment is in the hands of the Lord Jesus, so if a Catholic believes in the Lord Jesus, he will indeed go to heaven.

But what about the Catholic who believes in Christ and consciously practices deeds contrary to the Bible? Will he go to heaven?

Let us be reminded of the inherent complexities in this question. First, the presence of extra books in the Catholic canon should be acknowledged. One should understand the veracity of the Protestant elimination or the Catholic inclusion of the Apocrypha from their respective canons. The knowledge of this research would empower the researcher to eliminate blindness from his thoughts and would equip him to treat the Apocryphal teaching accordingly.

Second, the understanding of the proper biblical interpretation is mandatory for both Protestants and Catholics, for even the Protestants are guilty of contentious practices contradictory to the Bible. One can always obtain information from knowledgeable people, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the reader / hearer to discern the right from the wrong. Discerning right from the wrong is a heavyweight endeavor, for one should spend hours wrestling with the biblical text, and praying and receiving the convictions from the Holy Spirit, to understand and assimilate the truth. A common shortcut practiced is to eliminate personal labor and depend on another, who is presumably more knowledgeable. If the presumably-knowledgeable is incorrect in his thoughts, then the reader / hearer would also be sucked into his error. One should be a Berean in his biblical learning (Acts 17: 11).

Now we need to contend if conscious practices contrary to Bible would eliminate one from heaven. We could define any practice contrary to the Bible that violates God and HIS commands as a sin. So would sin eliminate a believer of Christ from heaven? The answer to this, as far as my learning and understanding goes, is an emphatic NO. If we are saved by grace through faith, then we are only saved by grace through faith. We are not saved by positive or negative works of any form or sense.

It should always be our endeavor to move away from sin (contentious practices) that separates us from God. We can and will overcome sin (not to the extent of sinless perfection) by the grace and the power of our Lord.

It is always wiser to leave all judgments related to eternity to the Lord (cf. Matthew 7: 21-23). Explaining our position with careful research, prayer, love, grace and patience is well within our reach. Transformation of hearts is only in the Lord’s reach.

Let us continue to make disciples of all nations, but let us do so in love, gentleness and respect. The good Lord will continue to bless and keep us all. Amen.

References and Notes:

¹ Joseph Javorski, A Catholic's Conception of Salvation, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter, 1938), pp. 35-38

² http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

³ Brecht, 2:7–9; Marius, 161–62; Marty, 77–79. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#cite_note-68)

⁴ http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/luther_martin.shtml

⁵ http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html

^AA For those unfamiliar with church history, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King Jr. are different people.

Useful reads:

1. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther

2. http://www.gotquestions.org/catholicism.html