Roman Catholics and Evangelicals
Agreements and Differences
The information in this paper was formed from a book with the above title. It was written by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie. They researched their information from numerous articles, books and people, which included both Catholics and Protestants. The Bibliography is found in the back of the book for your further studies.
Before Vatican II, Roman Catholics and Protestants had little contact with each other. On the Protestant side, many thought that the Pope was the anti-Christ and that Catholics worshiped Mary. On the Catholic side, some regarded Protestants as little better than pagans and were perceived as ignoring the value of works along with disregarding church history prior to the Reformation. The perceptions between these two groups have been changing over the past few years, mostly due to the secularist agenda which includes anti-family values, abortion on demand, and gay rights. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine some of the common spiritual roots and understand any theological or moral bridges in which each side can travel upon. This article is broken down into two parts: Areas of Doctrinal Agreement and Areas of Doctrinal Differences.
The central thrust of this area of agreement is that both Catholics and Orthodox Protestants have a common creedal and Augustinian doctrinal background. Both groups accept the creeds and confessions and councils of the Christian church of the first five centuries. Both claim Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (A.D. 354 - 430) as a mentor. Augustine was baptized at Easter in A.D. 387 and was ordained a priest in A.D. 391. He was bishop four years later and succeeded to the See of Hippo in A.D. 396. No one has exercised a greater influence over the development of Western Christian thought than he. Anselm of Canterbury equated theological orthodoxy as he knew it with conformity to the writings of Augustine of Hippo, as did Thomas Aquinas after him.
Among the areas of agreement are virtually all the so-called Fundamentals, such as the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His substitutionary death, His bodily resurrection, and His second coming. In addition, both Catholics and evangelicals hold to an Augustinian concept of salvation by grace. In short, both sides hold the following in common:
1. One Bible Old and New Testaments
2. Three Creeds Apostles Creed (A.D. 150). Distinguished true believers from those who followed Gnosticism and Marcionism (salvation was the escape from the physical body achieved by special knowledge - gnosis, Christ did not have a body like ours; the Father of Jesus is not the same as Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.
Nicene Creed (A.D. 326). Condemned Arius, who was anti-trinitarian, denying the deity of Christ.
Athanasian Creed (A.D. 428). Taught the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation.
3. Four Councils First Nicea (A.D. 325). Taught that Jesus Christ is the Son of one substance with the Father.
First Constantinople (A.D. 381). Taught the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Ephesus (A.D. 431). Mary is theotokos: Abearer of God.
Chalcedon (A.D. 451). Affirmed that there are two natures in Christ: divine and human.
4. Five Centuries From the Apostolic era to the end of the fifth century.
Although Catholics and Protestants differ over whether the apocryphal books belong in the Old Testament, there is unanimous agreement on all the sixty-six books of the Bible. The Vatican Council held that the Roman Catholic Church, relying on the belief of the apostles, holds that the books of the Old and New Testament in their entirety, ... are sacred and canonical because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ... they have God as their author. The apostle Paul put it this way: All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Sam. 23:2; Luke 1:70; Acts 1:16).
In the Old Testament God laid the foundation for salvation. First, a covenant was established with Abraham, declaring, "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the Great River [the Euphrates]" (Gen. 15:18). In obedience to God, Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words of his" (Exod. 24:8). For both Catholics and Protestants it is in the New Testament that Gods plan of salvation enters its final phase. The writer of the Book of Hebrews describes the salvific transition as follows: In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe (Heb. 1:1-2). The Second Vatican Council states: The Christian dispensation, therefore, being the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:14; Titus 2:13)
Although the New Covenant was established through Christ, the church has always recognized that the gospel finds its roots in the Old Testament. Augustine caught this sense when he declared that The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed.
Catholics and evangelicals hold the same basic view of God. From the very earliest formulations of the faith Christians confessed the belief in the Father almighty; in Jesus Christ, our savior; and in the Holy Spirit. Other forms of this Apostolic Creed read, I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord. The Eastern form of this creed confessed "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, The creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God.” The Creed of the Council of Toledo (A.D. 400) added the Holy Spirit and, later, the Athanasian Creed added more attributes of God such as eternal, uncreated, immense, omnipotent, and undivided in substance.
The 11th Council of Toledo (A.D. 675) was a local council, yet it produced a confession of faith that reflected the thinking of the patristic theology of the West. Concerning the Trinity, it states: We confess and believe that the holy and ineffable Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is one God by nature, of one substance, of one nature as also of one majesty and power. Concerning the Father, we profess that the Father is not begotten, nor created, but unbegotten The Son was born, but not made, from the substance of the Father, without beginning, before all ages. As to the Holy Spirit, we also believe that the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, is God, one and equal with God the Father and the Son. God is three persons in one nature. God is not 1+1+1=3, but rather, 1x1x1=13. He is one God in essence who is eternally expressed in three different persons simultaneously.
Human Beings - Origin, Nature, and Fall
The Origin of Man. For both evangelicals and Catholics the view of human beings is rooted in Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. With respect to the origin of man, From the Old Testament we read that the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being (Gen. 2:7). The emergence of the first woman formed from the body of the first man is found when we read So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man (Gen. 2:21-22). The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament teaching of origin with general references to the creation of all things, including human beings (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11). Jesus referred specifically to the creation of Adam and Eve when he reminded them, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female?" (Matt. 19:4). Paul said, "Adam was first formed, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13) and man did not come from woman, but woman from man (1 Cor. 11:8).
Mans Nature. As to the spiritual nature of human beings, called soul or spirit, the New Testament is clear that there is conscious existence after death. The dying thief was told that his soul would be in paradise that very day (Luke 23:35-43). John speaks of the souls of those who had been slaughtered being in heaven in conscious bliss (Rev. 6:9-11). The word immortality, as used of human beings, is reserved in the New Testament for humans in their final resurrected state. The Scriptures are clear that there is a spiritual dimension to human beings that survives death and goes eventually either into the blessing of Gods presence or into the conscious suffering of the place called hell (cf. Matt. 25:41; Luke 16:22-31) to await the resurrection of their bodies when Jesus returns.
The Fall. Catholics and evangelicals also agree that human beings are fallen. The New Testament affirms that they fell and are in a state of original sin, as Paul declared: through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned (Rom. 5:12). Thus we are by nature children of wrath and must be born again, since what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit (John 3:6). The official Roman Catholic position on original sin is evangelical at the core. It asserts: If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offence of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of God, ... and that the entire Adam through that offence of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse, let him be anathema (excommunicated). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that our first parents in the Garden of Eden lost sanctity by their disobedience. The transgression of Adam and Eve resulted in the loss of sanctifying grace (i.e., the spiritual life of the soul). They became subject to death and the tyranny of the devil. Adams sin and its consequences are transmitted to his descendants by inheritance, not by example, as David lamented, Indeed, in guilt was I born, and in sin my mother conceived me (Ps. 51:7). In the New Testament is the passage which contains the classical proof (Rom. 5:12-21) in which the Apostle draws a parallel between the first Adam, from whom sin and death are transmitted to all humanity, and Christ, the second Adam, from who justice and life are transmitted to all men.
There is a common biblical and creedal source for both Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of Christ. This christological core is found in the Athanasian and Chalcedonian creeds. Both orthodox Protestants and Catholics share the insights of the great Christian theologians: Saints Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. The Christian tradition down through the centuries has proclaimed that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.
The Incarnation. The unique and altogether singular event of the incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. The biblical basis for this doctrine is found most clearly in the prologue of Johns Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1), and the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Fathers only Son, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
The Virgin Birth. The Roman Catholic Church, in keeping with the witness of Holy Writ and the testimony of all the church fathers, attests to the virgin birth of Christ. This dogma of the Church declares that Christ, the Son of God, was born by external generation of but one parent, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that she being a virgin did not lose her virginity, either physical or spiritual. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe in the doctrine of the virgin conception but the Catholics also believe that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ.
The Resurrection. Roman Catholics with all of Christendom hold the reality of Christ’s resurrection. On the third day after His death Christ rose gloriously from the dead. The Resurrection of Christ is a basic truth of Christianity, which is expressed in all the symbols of Faith and in all rules of Faith of the ancient Church. According to the understanding of the apostles Peter (Acts 2:22-24) and Paul (Acts 13:26-39), the Old Testament attests to the resurrection.
Catholics and evangelicals share a common core of beliefs about salvation. The roots of this common heritage are found in the early church fathers and flowered in Augustine. Theologians addressed the doctrine of what Christ accomplished, agreeing that salvation is based on Gods grace. Although there seems to be many differences between Catholics and evangelicals on this matter, there are some basic areas of agreement. First, both believe salvation is historical. The Old Testament view of salvation as effected through historic, divine intervention is affirmed in the New Testament. Man is not saved by mere religious practices, but by Gods action in history in the person of Jesus Christ (Rom. 4:24-5:11; 1 Tim. 1:11-15. Second, both believe salvation is moral and spiritual. It is related to a deliverance from sin and its consequences and hence from guilt, from the curse of the law, from death, from judgment, from fear, and finally from bondage. Third, the future perspective of salvation is crucial (1 Pet. 1:1-9). All that is now known about salvation is preliminary and a foretaste of the fullness which awaits the completing of the kingdom. And fourth, initial justification is unmerited. For both groups salvation is by grace and is not prompted by human works. It comes as a gift of God to undeserving humanity (Eph. 2:5-9). The more specific difference between Protestants and Catholics on grace and works is discussed later.
Despite some major differences between Catholics and evangelicals on the nature of church, there are also some significant similarities. Even the great Reformer Martin Luther said, the Roman Church is holy, because it has Gods holy name, the gospel, baptism, etc. And despite his strong criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, John Calvin, writing to a cardinal of his time, added that this does not mean that Roman Catholics are not also Christians. We indeed, Sadoleto, do not deny that those over which you preside are Churches of Christ.
Origin and Nature. Both Catholics and Protestants believe the church was built on Christ, the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:10-22). Both believe there is continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the New Testament. And both believe that there is an invisible dimension to the church wherein all the regenerate are united. In a broad sense, the community of believers on earth, which many Catholics and Protestants call the church, can be said to have had its beginning with the inception of humanity. The Christian church did not begin until after Christ said, I will build my church (Matt. 16:18)
Christ as Founder. Contrary to a popular misunderstanding among many Protestants, Roman Catholicism teaches that "The Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ." The Vatican Council declared in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ that the eternal Shepherd and Bishop of our souls (1 Peter 2:21-25) resolved, in order to give permanent duration to the saving work of the Redemption, to establish the Holy Church, in which all the faithful would be welded together as in the house of the Living God, by the bond of the one Faith and of the one Charity. Pope Pius X stated in 1910 that the Church was founded immediately and personally by the true and historical Christ during the time of His earthly life.
Creedal Unity. There is a basic doctrinal unity between Catholics and Protestants at the foundation of the church. Each of the major churches accepted the great ecumenical creeds, the Apostles, Nicene, and Chalcedonian symbols, and was persuaded that the doctrine they express is both true and necessary. Historically, four marks of the true church have been identified by scholars. The first is that the church is one because Christ is one. One body and one Spirit, ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:2-12) appears in both Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles. The second is that the church is holy. The third is that the church is catholic. Catholicity means identity plus universality. Evangelicals who recite the Apostles Creed understand catholicity as indicating the broad scope of the body of Christ, extending to the ends of the earth and encompassing every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Rev. 5:9). And the fourth is that the church is apostolic because and insofar as it obeys the apostolic message in the Scriptures.
All religions, from the most primitive to the most advanced, have beliefs about the end time. This section in theology is called eschatology. The term comes from the Greek eschatos which means last. The Apostles Creed declares: From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead and I believe in ... the life everlasting. The Council of Toledo XI (A.D. 675) states: There sitting at the right hand of the Father, He awaits the end of time to be the judge of all the living and the dead.
The Judgment. Roman Catholicism teaches that immediately after death the judgment takes place, in which, by a Divine Sentence of Judgment, the eternal fate of the deceased person is decided. Catholicism rejects the modern soul-sleep theory which holds that souls, after their separation from their bodies, are in an unconscious state until re-unified with their bodies. Among Scriptural passages that refute the notion of soul-sleep is the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). Also, as Jesus was about to die on the cross he told the penitent thief, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43). Lastly, the writer of Hebrews declared, it is appointed that human beings die once and after this the judgment (Heb. 9:27).
Heaven. The doctrine of heaven has great importance for the believing Christian. Heavens very name takes its meaning from the end to which it is directed, and grace is only the means required to reach what is unattainable by any created being without elevation to the family of God. Heaven occupied a prominent place in Jesus teaching. Heaven is depicted as a wedding feast (Luke 14:15-24). He also said, "In my Fathers house there are many dwelling places.... And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also me be” (John 14:2-3).
Hell. Our Lord spoke to the reality of hell more than most other theological truths (cf. Matt. 10:24-28; 13:31-43; 25:31-46). The official Roman Catholic position on hell is that "The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell." Hell is a place or state of eternal punishment inhabited by those rejected by God. Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual moral sin go down into hell immediately. Jesus describes hell as a place that is likened to a furnace of fire (Matt. 13:42, 50), where there is darkness (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30) and wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 13:42, 50; 24:51; Luke 13:28). The disagreement on Purgatory is explained later.
The Second Coming of Christ. All orthodox Christians believe, in the words of the Apostles Creed, that Christ will return bodily from heaven: From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. Roman Catholicism teaches that at the end of the world, Christ will come again in glory to pronounce judgment. The New Testament contains numerous references to Christ’s second coming. Jesus foretold his coming again in glory. Matthew records him declaring: For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Fathers glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct (Matt. 16:27). Luke notes him saying that they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory (Luke 22:27). Roman Catholics along with evangelicals recognize a number of events that can be understood as signs of the return of the Lord to earth. These include the evangelization of the world, the conversion of the Jews, the falling away from the faith, the appearance of the anti-christ, and the tribulation period.
The Resurrection of the Dead. At Christ’s coming there will be a resurrection of the dead. All orthodox Christians confess with the Apostles Creed to believe ... in the resurrection of the flesh. The fact of the bodily resurrection is not a matter of dispute between Catholics and evangelicals. According to Catholic dogma, "All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies." The Athanasian Creed stresses resurrection: On His coming all men with their bodies must arise. Both Old and New Testaments speak repeatedly about the bodily resurrection of both believers and unbelievers from their graves. Old Testament passages on the resurrection of the body include 1 Samuel 2:6, Job 19:25-26, Isaiah 26:11-19, Ezekiel 37:7-14, and Daniel 12:2 which declares that in the end time many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some shall live forever, others shall be an everlasting horror and disgrace. In the New Testament Jesus said explicitly that the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation (John 5:28-29). John noted that those who follow Jesus came to life and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years, but the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over (Rev. 20:4-5).
The End of the World. Following the teaching of Scripture, Catholics and evangelicals believe that there will be an end to this world. Jesus spoke of the end of the age (Matt. 24:3-41). He even promised his disciples that he would be with them until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20). Peter described the end of the world in graphic terms: the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10). The good news is that the present world will be restored on the Last Day. The prophet Isaiah speaks of Gods restoration: Lo, I am about to create new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17). Peter tells of a new Heaven and earth (2 Pet. 3:10-13) and John describes this restoration concerning the nature of this new creation (Rev. 21:1-8).
Areas of Doctrinal Differences
In spite of all the similarities in belief that have been briefly discussed in the first part of this article, there are some significant differences between Catholics and evangelicals on some important doctrines. Catholics affirm and evangelicals reject the immaculate conception of Mary, her bodily assumption, her role as corredemptrix, the veneration of Mary and other saints, prayers to Mary and the saints, the infallibility of the pope, the existence of purgatory, the inspiration and canonicity of the Apocrypha, the doctrine of transubstantiation, the worship of the transformed Host, the special powers of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and the necessity of works to obtain eternal life. Since all of these have been proclaimed as infallible dogma by the Roman Catholic Church, and since many are contrary to central teachings of evangelicalism, there appears to be no hope of unity. Here we must recognize our differences and agree to disagree agreeably, knowing that there are many doctrines we hold in common and many things we can do together morally, socially, and educationally.
Catholics and Protestants affirm the inspiration and divine authority of the sixty-six books in the Bible, thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New Testament. A crucial difference emerges over eleven pieces of literature, seven books and four parts of books, that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly pronounced part of the canon in A.D. 1546 at the Council of Trent and is known by Protestants as the Apocrypha and by Catholics as the deuterocanonical books. The Apocrypha supports prayers for the dead (which also entails a belief in purgatory). For instance, 2 Maccabees 12:46 reads: Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. The grounds on which the Apocrypha was accepted undermine the true test for canonicity - propheticity. In short, if the Apocrypha can be accepted in the canon lacking the characteristics that meet the true test of canonicity, then other noncanonical books could be accepted on the same grounds.
Catholic Arguments in Favor / Protestant Response.
1. Catholic - The New Testament reflects the thought of the Apocrypha, and even refers to events contained in it (cf. Heb. 11:35 with 2 Macc. 7,12).
Protestant - There may be New Testament allusions to the Apocrypha, but there are no clear New Testament quotations from it. Also, although the New Testament cites the Hebrew Old Testament, it never once quotes any of the apocryphal books as divinely authoritative of canonical. For example, they are never cited with introductory phrases like thus says the Lord or as it is written or the Scriptures say, such as are typically found when canonical books are quoted.
2. Catholic - Some of the early church fathers quoted and used the Apocrypha as Scripture in public worship.
Protestant - Citations of the church fathers are selective and misleading. While some Fathers accepted their inspiration, others used them only for devotional or preaching purposes but did not accept them as canonical.
3. Catholic - Some of the early church fathers - Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria - accepted all the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.
Protestant - Although some individuals in the early church had a high regard for the Apocrypha, there were many who opposed it. For example, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed the Apocrypha. Even the second century A.D. Syrian Bible (Peshitta) did not contain the Apocrypha.
4. Catholic - Early Christian catacomb scenes depict episodes from the Apocrypha, showing it was part of the early Christians religious life.
Protestant - As even many Catholic scholars will admit, scenes from the catacombs do not prove the canonicity of the books whose events they depict. They may show a respect for the books containing these events but do not make them recognizable as being inspired.
5. Catholic - The early Greek manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) interpose the Apocrypha among the Old Testament books. This reveals that they were part of the Jewish-Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Protestant - None of the great Greek manuscripts contain all of the apocryphal books. Also, no Greek manuscript has the same list of apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63).
6. Catholic - Several early church councils accepted the Apocrypha: the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).
Protestant - These were only local councils and were not binding on the whole church. Local councils have often been wrong in their decisions and have been overruled later by the universal church. These books were the province of the Jewish community that wrote them, not the Christian church, and had centuries before rejected them as part of the canon.
7. Catholic - The Eastern Orthodox church accepts the Apocrypha, revealing that it is not simply a Roman Catholic dogma.
Protestant - The Greek Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. At the synods of Constantinople (A.D. 1638), Jaffa (1642), and Jerusalem (1672) these books were declared canonical. But even as late as 1839 their Larger Catechism expressly omitted the Apocrypha on the ground that its books did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. This is still their position.
8. Catholic - The Roman Catholic Church proclaimed the Apocrypha canonical at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546).
Protestant - The proclamation came a millenium and a half after the books were written and the official infallible addition of books that support prayers for the dead is very suspicious coming only a few years after Luther protested against this very doctrine. It appears to be an attempt to provide ecclesiastical support for Roman Catholic doctrines that lack biblical support.
9. Catholic - The apocryphal books were included in the Protestant Bible as late as the nineteenth century. This indicates that even Protestants accepted the Apocrypha until very recently.
Protestant - Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent, but were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority. They were considered to be of value but were not considered to be inspired. Even Roman Catholic scholars throughout the Reformation period made the distinction between the Apocrypha and the canon. Cardinal Cajetan, who later opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (A.D. 1532) many years after the Reformation began which did not contain the Apocrypha. Luther spoke against the Apocrypha in 1543, placing its books at the back of his Bible.
10. Catholic - Some apocryphal books written in Hebrew have been found among other Old Testament canonical books in the Dead Sea community at Qumran. This shows that they were part of the Hebrew canon.
Protestant - The discovery at Qumran included not only the community’s Bible (the Old Testament) but also their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. The fact is that no commentaries were found on an apocryphal book and that only canonical books, not the Apocrypha, were found in the special parchment and script. This indicates that the Qumran community did not view the apocryphal books as canonical.
Sola Scriptura - The Bible Alone
Catholics and Protestants differ over the limits of infallible authority. The Protestant Reformation stressed two principles: a formal principle (sola Scriptura) and a material principle (sola fide): The Bible alone and faith alone. When properly defined, both of these are affirmed by Protestants and denied by Catholics. The Protestants believe that the Bible alone is sufficiently clear that no infallible teaching of the church is necessary to interpret it.
Roman Catholics - The Bible and
Tradition / Protestants – The Bible Alone
1. Catholic - Nowhere does the Bible teach sola Scriptura, that the Bible alone is sufficient for faith and morals.
Protestant - The Bible teaches sola Scriptura. Catholic scholars themselves recognize that it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible. For example, nowhere does the Bible formally and explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible does, however, clearly teach two truths from which the necessary logical deduction is the doctrine of the Trinity: (1) There is only one God, not many (Exod. 20:1-11, Deut. 6:1-4; Mark 12:29); (2) There are three distinct persons who are God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:18-20; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 13:14). Finally, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. They often did this by using the introductory phrase “It is written,” which is repeated some ninety times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in his dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:1-10).
2. Catholic - The Bible teaches that traditions should be followed. Paul exhorted the Thessalonian Christians to "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15).
Protestant - All apostolic traditions are in the Bible. The New Testament speaks of following the traditions (teachings) of the apostles whether oral or written because they were living authorities set up by Christ. However, when they died there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts. 1:21-26; 1 Cor. 9:1-2). The traditions or teachings of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove and cannot is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of twenty-seven books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in this book.
3. Catholic - The Bible states a preference for oral tradition. The apostle John stated his preference for oral tradition by saying, I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face (3 John 13).
Protestant - The Bible does not state a preference for oral tradition. The Catholic use of 3 John to prove the superiority of oral tradition is simply taking a text out of context, which makes it pretext. John is not comparing oral and written tradition about the past but a written communication in the present. Who would not prefer a face-to-face talk with a living apostle over a letter from him?
4. Catholic - The Bible cannot be properly understood without tradition. It is insufficient to have an infallible Bible unless we have an infallible interpretation of it. No chain is stronger than its weakest link.
Protestant - The Bible is clear without the aid of traditions to help us to understand it. This is known as the Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. This does not mean that everything in the Bible is clear but that the main message of salvation is clear. It is not difficult to understand Scripture without a teaching magisterium, at least not with regard to the essential salvific (salvation) teachings of Scripture. Normal people do it all the time in normal conversation.
5. Catholic - Rejecting tradition leads to denominationalism. According to the Roman Catholic Church, if you let five hundred people interpret the bible without Church authority then there will soon be five hundred denominations. So rejection of authoritative apostolic tradition leads to the unbiblical scandal of denominationalism.
Protestant - Rejection of tradition does not necessitate scandal. As long as the denomination does not deny the essential doctrines of the Christian church and true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity, it is not scandalous. With this in place, unbelievers will be able to see spiritual unity. Jesus declared: This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35), not if we belong to the same ecclesiastical organization. Besides, all though there are many orthodox Protestant denominations, they do not differ much more significantly than do the various orders (such as Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits) and factions of the Roman Catholic Church.
6. Catholic - Rejecting tradition is unhistorical. The first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the Church to teach them. This being the case, using the Bible alone without apostolic tradition was not possible.
Protestant - Rejecting tradition is not unhistorical. The early first-century Christians did have a Bible; it was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares. As for the further revelation through the apostles, early first-century believers did not need it in written form because they still had the apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, it became imperative that the written record of the infallible teaching be available. And so it was in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament.
According to Roman Catholic dogma the teaching magisterium is infallible when officially defining faith and morals for believers. One manifestation of this doctrine is popularly known as the infallibility of the Pope, pronounced a dogma in A.D. 1870 at Vatican I. Roman Catholic authorities define infallibility as immunity from error, i.e., protection against either passive or active deception. Persons or agencies are infallible to the extent that they can neither deceive nor be deceived. The pope is not infallible in everything he teaches but only when he speaks ex cathedra, as the official interpreter of faith and morals.
Peter - the First Pope. There are several texts used by Catholics to defend the infallibility of the pope. One text is Matthew 16:18-19 where Jesus makes a statement to Peter that upon this rock I will build my church to support papal infallibility. It is understood that this made Peter the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Protestants insist that Christ was not referring to Peter being the foundation of the church. Jesus replied to Peter because only Peter spoke and great authorities, some Catholic, agree with this interpretation, including John Chrysostom and Augustine. Augustine wrote: On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built.
Even if Peter is the rock referred to by Christ, he was not the only rock in the foundation of the church. Whatever this may mean, Jesus gave all the apostles the same power (keys) to bind and loose that he gave to Peter (Matt. 18:18-20). Scripture affirms that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief corner stone (Eph. 2:20). Peter himself referred to Christ as "the cornerstone of the church and the rest of the believers as living stones" (1 Pet. 2:4-8). He is just one stone along with the other eleven apostles.
The Catholic Church claims that Peter was given unique authority among the apostles. If this was true then Acts 8:4-13 would not state that both Peter and John were sent by the apostles on a mission to Samaria. If Peter was the superior apostle then he would have been doing the sending. Also, Paul claimed to be on the same level as Peter and even used his revelation to rebuke Peter (Gal. 2:1-16). If Peter was superior to Paul, then why would Acts give more attention to Paul’s ministry than to Peter's? Peter is the focus of chapters 1-12 and Paul is the dominant figure in 13-28. Most importantly, whatever apostolic powers Peter and the others possessed, it is clear that they were not passed on to anyone after their death. As we read previously in Acts chapter 1, the criterion for being an apostle was that one had to be a first-century eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. Therefore, there could be no true apostolic succession in the Pope or anyone else.
The Problem of Heretical Popes. Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638) was condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching the monothelite heresy (that there was only one will in Christ). Roman Catholic expert Ludwig Ott admits that “Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his blaspheme. Because of this we are left with the incredible situation of an infallible pope teaching a fallible and heretical doctrine. If the pope can be fallible on one doctrine, then why not others?
The Problem of the Anti-Popes. Another riddle of Roman Catholicism is the scandalous specter of having more than one infallible pope at the same time - a pope and an anti-pope. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says there have been about thirty-five anti-popes in the history of the Church. How can there be two infallible and opposing popes at the same time? Which is the true pope? Since there is no infallible list of popes or even an infallible way to determine who is the infallible pope, the system has a serious logical problem.
The Sacrament of the Eucharist (Communion)
Few issues better illustrate the difference between Catholics and Protestants than the doctrine of communion. The Catholics hold that during communion, the wine and bread are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. This is called transubstantiation. The Lutheran view of the Lords Supper, sometimes called consubstantiation, is that Christ’s body and blood are in, with, and under the elements. He rejected the Catholic view stating "It is not that the bread and wine have become Christ’s body and blood, but that we now have the body and blood in addition to the bread and wine." The Reformed view is that the bread and the wine contain the body and blood of Christ spiritually. Finally, we have the memorial view which states that communion is primarily a commemoration of Christ’s death on the cross, following Jesus words "Do this in remembrance of me." Adherents of this view included the Anabaptists and modern Baptist (and baptistic ) churches.
The Catholic defense of the doctrine of transubstantiation is based primarily on the words of Christ when he instituted this sacrament at the Last Supper: This is my body (Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). Other passages are sometimes used, especially John 6:47-65, where Jesus said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. The key to the Roman Catholic view is interpreting Jesus words literally rather than symbolically.
Evangelicals believe there are several good reasons for rejecting this interpretation. Jesus words need not be taken in the literal sense of ingesting his actual physical body and blood. Jesus often spoke in metaphors and figures of speech. He said, I am the gate (John 10:9) and I am the true vine (John 15:1). Jesus often spoke in graphic parables and figures as he himself said (Matt. 13:10-11). Even Peter tells young believers, like newborn infants, long for pure spiritual milk (1 Pet. 2:2). And the writer of Hebrews speaks of mature Christians eating solid food (5:14) and of others who tasted the heavenly gift (6:4).
It is logically impossible for an orthodox Christian to hold to a literal interpretation of Jesus words at the Last Supper. For, when Jesus said of the bread in his hand this is my body, no disciple present could possibly have understood him to mean that the bread was actually his physical body since he was still with them in his physical body, the hands of which were holding that very bread. Otherwise, we must believe that Christ was holding his own body in his own hands.
The Priestly Authority of the Church
Argument of Roman Catholicism. Catholics believe the church is an institution of salvation which dispenses grace a portion at a time by the seven sacraments from birth to death through the priesthood. The seven sacraments are baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy order, and matrimony. Thus, the function of the priesthood is the heart of the Roman Catholic system. Roman Catholicism is hierarchically structured. The pope, as successor to Peter, is the final and infallible authority. Under him are the bishops who receive their power directly from the pope. The bishops rule over all priests in their diocese and ordain new ones to the priesthood. The powers of the priests include not only the ability to administer all sacraments but also the power under God to transform the bread and wine into the actual physical body and blood of Christ and the power to forgive and retain sins.
John
20:22-23. Biblically, Catholicism
stands or falls on its interpretation of certain key texts like this one. Since it holds that The Church has received
from Christ the power of remitting sins committed after Baptism, this text
assumes great significance. Jesus said
to his apostles after his resurrection, "Receive the holy
Spirit." Whose sins you forgive
are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.
Matthew 16:19. After Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus said: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Response of Protestants. Evangelical Protestants do not accept the inferences Catholic scholars draw from the above verses. In each case Roman Catholic scholars take the text out of its proper context and extrapolations are made that are not justified by a careful examination of the entire passage. Here the disciples are given the power to forgive and retain sin. The Protestants do not agree with the Catholic view that this is a special power possessed only by those who are ordained under true apostolic authority, such as the Roman Catholic Church, and are true successors of the apostles. No such claim is made anywhere in the text. Also, all early believers, including laypersons, proclaimed the gospel by which sins are forgiven. This ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation was not limited to any special class known as priests or clergy. Philip, who was only a deacon (Acts 6:5) and not an elder or priest in the Roman Catholic sense, preached the gospel to the Samaritans. This resulted in the conversion of many of them (Acts 8:1-12), which involves the forgiveness of their sins. Finally, this passage parallels the Great Commission Jesus gave all his disciples: to take the gospel into all the world and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-49). In this mandate to evangelize Jesus promised that as they proclaimed the gospel the result would be the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47). So there is no greater power given here than that which all the disciples possessed as a result of the Great Commission, which even Vatican II acknowledged all Christians are obligated to help fulfill.
Catholics and Protestants hold many things in common on the doctrine of Mary. These include her being the most blessed among women, her virgin conception of Christ the God-man, and by virtue of that her being in this sense the Mother of God, a title used by both Luther and Calvin. The title was used to stress the deity of Christ, not the privileges of Mary. The major points of tension between Catholics and Protestants include Roman Catholic dogmas of the perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, bodily assumption, mediatorship, and the veneration of Mary and her images.
Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Catholics believe that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ. They believe that Jesus was born in a way that left Mary a virgin because she gave birth without opening of the womb or injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains. They also believe that after the birth of Jesus Mary remained a virgin. Some Catholic scholars note that the fact that the dying Jesus entrusted His Mother to the protection of the Disciple John (John 19, 26), woman behold thy Son, presupposes that Mary had no other children but Jesus. As to the references to Jesus brothers (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19), Catholics generally follow the argument that these refer to Jesus cousins, not blood brothers. Others have suggested that maybe these were Joseph’s sons by a previous marriage.
The Protestant response is that all the descriptions of Christ’s birth indicate a normal birth, such as born of a woman (Gal. 4:4); brought forth (Luke 2:7); delivered (Luke 2:6). Also, the Bible does not use any of the normal words for a miracle (sign, wonder, power) when speaking of Jesus birth, only of his conception (Isa. 7:14 and Matt. 1:18-25). Pertaining to handing Mary over to John, this need not imply that he had no brothers but only that they were not present. Even if they were present at the cross, Jesus brothers were not believers at this time (John 7:1-5), and it was important that Mary be left in good spiritual hands. Finally, there are clear references to Jesus brothers and sisters. Matthew 13:55 declares: "Is he not the carpenters son?" Are not his sisters all with us? (Matt. 12:46 and Gal. 1:19). The Greek term for brother (adelphos) is the normal word for blood brother. There is no single example where adelphos is used for cousin in the New Testament.
The Immaculate Conception. Roman Catholics believe that Mary was immaculately conceived. Luke 1:28 is one passage used to support this. Hail, favored one! or One full of grace. Catholic scholars argue that the expression full of grace in the angels salutation represents the proper name and must on this account express a characteristic quality of Mary. It extends over her whole life beginning with her entry into the world. Luke 1:42 is also used. Most blessed are you among women means that the blessing of God which rests upon Mary is made parallel to the blessing of God which rests upon Christ in His humanity. This parallelism suggests that Mary, just like Christ, was from the beginning of her existence, free from all sin.
The Protestant response to Luke 1:28 is that by no means is it necessary to take this expression as a proper name. Even contemporary Catholic versions of the Bible do not translate it as a proper name (e.g., NAB). It could refer simply to her state of being as a recipient of Gods favor. Even if the expression were a proper name and referred to her essential character it is not necessary to take it extensively all the way back to her birth. Further, even if it were taken extensively to Mary’s beginning it does not necessarily mean an immaculate conception. It could simply refer to Gods grace being upon her life from the point of conception. That was true of others, including Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1-10) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:8-15), who were not immaculately conceived. It is important to also note that the Greek term for full of grace is charito. Charito is used of believers in Ephesians 1:1-6 without implying sinless perfection. In response to Luke 1:41, Mary was not just like Christ, from the beginning of her existence, free from sin. The passage nowhere makes any such parallel between Mary and Christ. And even if the parallel could somehow be made, an immaculate conception would not necessarily follow from it. Jesus was conceived of a virgin. Mary was not so conceived; she had two natural parents.
The Bodily Assumption of Mary. According to official Catholic doctrine, Mary moved from being sinless to being immaculately conceived to being bodily assumed into heaven and even venerated as Mediatrix (a mediator of grace) and Queen of Heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:12-23. Catholic theologians argue the possibility of Mary’s bodily assumption on the basis of her being one of those who belong to Christ. The Protestants fail to see how Mary’s bodily assumption before other believers is compatible with this text.
Matthew 27:50-53. Catholics say that the graves opening after Jesus resurrection and many saints emerging shows the probability of the bodily assumption of Mary. The Protestants point out that the text speaks only of some being raised from their graves, not of ascending into heaven. Also, Mary is not mentioned in the group that was raised nor is there any mention anywhere in Scripture of her being raised at a later time.
Revelation 12:1-6. This passage speaks of a woman who gave birth to a male child, destined to rule all the nations (Christ) who was caught up to God and His throne. Catholics see this as the transfigured mother of Christ. The Protestants believe the woman to be the nation of Israel for whom there is a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days (v. 6) during the tribulation period before Christ returns to earth. Also, it was only Christ, not the woman who was caught up to God and His throne (v. 5).
The Mediatorship of Mary. According to Catholic theology, although Christ is the sole Mediator between God and man, since He alone, by His death on the Cross, fully reconciled mankind with God, this does not exclude a secondary mediatorship, subordinate to Christ. Mary was called mediatrix in the 1854 bull Ineffabilis of Pope Pius IX, the same document that proclaimed her immaculate conception. Catholic authorities take this to mean two things: 1. Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her co-operation in the Incarnation. And 2. Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven. Since her assumption into Heaven, Mary co-operates in the application of the grace of Redemption to man. She participates in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession. The best that Catholic theologians can produce from the Scripture to support this doctrine is in the words of Christ, John 19, 26: Woman behold thy son, son behold thy mother. It is the mystical interpretation which sees in John the representative of the whole human race. In him Mary was given as the spiritual mother of the whole of redeemed humanity that she, by her powerful intercession, should procure for her children in need of help all graces by which they can attain eternal salvation.
The Protestant response to the Mediatorship of Mary is quite simple. The clear meaning of many passages of sacred Scripture declare that there is only one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human (1 Tim. 2:5; John 10:1-11; 14:6). There is a clear dilemma in Catholic Mariology. On the one hand, Catholic theology admits that everything we need as believers we can get from Christ. On the other hand, many Catholic theologians have exalted the role of Mary as the dispenser of all grace. Either the role of Mary is rendered extreme or else the all-sufficiency of Christ’s mediation is diminished.
The Veneration of Mary. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, Mary may be venerated and honored on a level higher than another creature, angels, or saints. This is based on her role as Mother of God. It is obvious in one of the most popular of all Catholic prayers known as the Hail Mary, which ends: Holy Mary, Mother of God. Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. The Scriptural source of the special veneration due to the Mother of God is found in Luke 1,28: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, and in the praise of Elizabeth, Luke 1,42: Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Many Catholics think of Mary as the prototypical Christian, the one to whom God gave all the blessings of redemption. While all Christians will eventually receive complete sanctification after death, Mary received hers at conception. And while other Christians will attain bodily resurrection after Christ’s return, Mary received her bodily assumption before Christ’s coming again.
The response from Protestants is that there is absolutely nothing in the biblical text that supports venerating Mary above all creatures but below God. It says nothing about veneration or prayers to Mary; it simply calls Mary blessed of God and blessed among all women not above all women. Eve was the mother of all the living (Gen. 3:20), and yet she is not venerated. More importantly, Scripture forbids us to bow down in veneration before any creature, even angels (Rev. 22:8-9). The Bible makes it clear that we are not to make idols of any creature or even bow down to them in an act of religious devotion (Exod. 20:4-5). To call Mary Queen of Heaven, only invites the charge of Mariolatry. And Mariolatry is idolatry.
In response to Mary being a prototypical Christ, there is no indication in Scripture that any such comparison is made. There is also no evidence that Mary attained her sanctification earlier than the rest of us: she confessed being a sinner, she offered a sacrifice for her sinful condition (Luke 2:22), and she died like the rest of us.
Venerating Relics of Mary and Other Saints. According to Catholic dogma, "It is permissible and profitable to venerate the relics of saints." The Council of Trent declared: Also the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and of the others who dwell with Christ ... are to be honored by the faithful. The Catholics site different passages from Scripture to support this practice and the Protestants reply.
The fact that God performed a miracle through contact with Elijah’s mantle (2 Kings 2:7-14) does not justify venerating them any more than it would justify venerating other physical means that God has used to convey miracles, such as the rod of Moses, the clay Jesus used to heal the blind man, or the hands or handkerchiefs of the apostles used to cure diseases. Not only is there a total absence of veneration of any creature or physical object in Scripture; there is an explicit condemnation of it. It is a violation of the commandments against idolatry. For God clearly commanded his people not to make graven images or to bow down to them in an act of religious devotion (Exod. 20:4-5). Catholics believe that the prohibition against making images and bowing to them in religious devotion is not absolute for two reasons: First, God himself commanded the making of images such as the cherubim in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:18-22) and the flowered columns in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:15-22). Second, there are many occasions in the Bible where bowing down before a person is not considered idolatry (e.g., Gen. 19:1; 23:1-7; 33:1-3; 2 Sam. 15:1-6). The response to these two points are easily supported. First, the symbols used in the temple were divinely appointed symbols, not humanly contrived idols. Second, there was no chance that the people of Israel would fall down before the cherubim in the most holy place, since they were forbidden to enter the holy place at any time. And the flowered columns in Solomon’s temple were purely ornamental. They were not used for veneration so they were not in violation of the commandment in Exodus 20. Finally, when Catholics argue that religiously bowing down before an image is not wrong because there are many cases in the Bible where such bowing is approved, they confuse two very different contexts. First the people were not bowing before an image but a person, and they were bowing out of respect, not reverence. The Bible condemns even bowing before an angel to worship God (Rev. 22:8-9). More importantly, all the cases of approved bowing before another creature are not religious, but social.
Catholics believe that the souls of the just which in the moment of death are burdened with forgivable sins of temporary punishment enter purgatory. Since purgatory is a preparation for heaven, only believers go there. Unbelievers go directly to hell. Several Scriptures are cited in support of purgatory. In 2 Maccabees 12:42-46 from the Apocrypha, the Jews prayed for their fallen ... that their sins might be forgiven them. In Corinthians 3:15, Paul declares that if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. The Latin Fathers take the passage to mean a transient purification punishment in the other world. Matthew 5:21-26 has the parable of the judge that would not release his prisoner until he paid the last penny. The Catholics believe that through further interpretation of the parable, a time-limited condition of punishment in the other world began to be seen expressed in the time-limited punishment of the prison.
The Protestant responses to these Scripture passages are simple. First, 2 Maccabees is not part of the inspired canon of Scripture and therefore has no authority. Second, 1 Corinthians 3:15 has Paul speaking of believers who will one day be given a wage (v.14) for their service to Christ. They are not burned in the fire, only their works are burned. Finally, in Matthew 5:26, further interpretation goes well beyond the context. Jesus is not speaking about a spiritual prison after death but a physical prison before death.
The main reason that Protestants reject the doctrine of purgatory is because it in effect denies the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death. Scripture teaches that when Christ died on the cross, he proclaimed, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The writer of Hebrews declared emphatically that salvation by Christ’s suffering on the cross was a once-for-all accomplished fact. For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated (Heb. 10:14). To affirm that we must suffer for our own sins is the ultimate insult to Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Purgatory is also contrary to the immediacy of heaven after death. The Bible speaks of death as the final moment of life after which one goes immediately to heaven or to hell. For it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment (Heb. 9:27). Other references are Luke 16:19-26; Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 5:6-11.
Roman Catholics and Protestants have had strong disagreement over the doctrine of justification. The question is: are we justified by faith alone or are good works a necessary condition for salvation? Protestants believe salvation is by grace and faith alone (sola gratia and sola fide). The Roman Catholic Church responded with the Council of Trent declaring: “By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.” They also declared that “those who work well ‘unto the end’ [from Matt. 10:16-23], and who trust in God, life eternal is to be proposed, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, ‘and as a recompense’ which is … to be faithfully given to their good works and merit.” It adds, “If anyone shall say that the good works of the man justified are in such a way the gift of God that they are not also the good merits of him who is justified, or that the one justified by the good works … does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life (if he should die in grace), and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.” Roman Catholics site the following passages to support this: Rom. 2:1-11; 1 Cor. 3:8; Col. 3:24; Heb. 10:35; Heb. 11:6. These passages are supposed to show that the good works of the just establish a legal claim to reward on God.
Protestants respond by saying that when one is rewarded for works, the reward is not a matter of grace, since the payment is owed for work done. Paul explains this by saying, “But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Rom. 11:6). The Bible declares clearly that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Further the Bible guarantees that eternal life is a present possession of those who believe. John records Jesus proclaiming, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life” (John 3:36). Later Jesus said: “I say to you, whoever hears my words and believes in the one who sent me has [present tense] eternal life and will not come into condemnation, but is [currently] passed from death to life” (John 5:24). But according to the Roman Catholic view, one must await a final justification at death to know whether one has eternal life and will not see God’s condemnation.
In the Gospel of John only one condition is laid down for obtaining eternal life: belief. John states explicitly that the only “work” necessary for salvation is to believe. When asked, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent” (John 6:22-40). And the clearest passage of all is Ephesians 2:4-10. We do not work for salvation but rather from salvation. There simply is nothing else we may do in exchange for our salvation. Jesus did it all!