Evangelical Confusion About Roman Catholicism, Part 2

By Mike Stallard

[Seminary Dean, Professor of Systematic Theology, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania]

Several factors make a discussion of the differences between Roman Catholicism and evangelicalism a necessity at the present time. Confusion is caused when leading scholars such as Francis Beckwith, the President of the Evangelical Theological Society, decide to become Roman Catholic while at the same time claiming to remain evangelical.[1] In addition, the overwhelming notion of tolerance discriminates against the declaration of real differences in our postmodern religious climate. Popular level perceptions that there really is not much difference also reinforce the need to educate the churches about significant doctrinal details where these two traditions collide. A statement of where the two traditions agree would be insufficient if teaching the whole counsel of God is a desired goal, as Scripture suggests using the words of the Apostle Paul (Acts 20:27). Most of all, differences that affect eternity—such as how one receives eternal life from God and the inability to take communion within the Catholic Church without denying the biblical gospel—mean that the divergence cannot be sidestepped easily.

A previous article in this series dealt with the differences between the two camps over one’s view of history, ultimate authority, the Bible, and justification (including exploration of baptism and communion).[2] This current article will flesh out remaining differences in other areas, some of which reflect serious divergence that affects the ability of the two camps to cooperate honestly and fully in any meaningful way.[3]

Apostolic Succession

One of the most heated discussions, especially since the Reformation, is how the Church receives authority from God. Ultimate authority for Catholicism under God is vested in the Church. For evangelicalism, final authority under God is grounded in the Bible. Here we want to explore the related idea of apostolic succession as proclaimed in Catholic teaching.

One way of understanding the Catholic view of apostolic succession is to review the following statement from a modern catechism: “The whole liturgical ensemble … has the Catholic faith for its content, which the Church believes has been entrusted for preservation and interpretation to the successors of the apostles under the bishop of Rome.”[4] There are two major parts to this summary. First, a historical progression for the preservation of truth and worship is guaranteed by the provision of successors to the apostles. Second, the successors are under the authority of the bishop of Rome, the Pope. Notice that there is also the understanding that proper interpretation of Christianity (including the Bible) rests within the purview of apostolic succession.

Protestants must be careful to state the doctrine of apostolic succession correctly. It is not merely that the Pope is the successor of Peter. That is only part of the teaching. Pope John Paul II noted that “Bishops fulfill the pastoral mission entrusted to the apostles and have all the powers which this mission entails.”5 What is envisioned in apostolic succession is a federation of the bishops or church leaders as taught in the early church fathers.[6] The mission and powers of the apostles are passed down through the network of bishops who preside over the various churches. Thus, the Pope is not the only one involved in the succession of authority.

Nonetheless, the issue of Peter’s successor has received most of the attention in the debates over apostolic succession. Note one of the Vatican’s statements about the issue:

Jesus' intention to make Simon Peter the foundation "rock" of his Church (cf. Mt 16:18) has a value that outlasts the apostle's earthly life. Jesus actually conceived his Church and desired her presence and activity in all nations until the ultimate fulfillment of history (cf. Mt 26:14; 28:19; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:47; Acts 1:8). Therefore, as he wanted successors for the other apostles in order to continue the work of evangelization in the various parts of the world, so too he foresaw and desired successors for Peter. They would be charged with the same pastoral mission and equipped with the same power, beginning with the mission and power of being Rock--the visible principle of unity in faith, love and the ministry of evangelization, sanctification and leadership entrusted to the Church.[7]

What can be said of such an overview? First, one readily recognizes the explicit appeal to Matthew 16:18, the most controversial text in the debate over apostolic succession. A proper interpretation of this verse in context will be presented below. Second, the statement is filled with a few assumptions that have no clear warrant. For example, there is an assumed link between God’s desire to carry out the activity of the Church throughout all of history and the deliberate design of successors to the apostles in a hierarchical sense. This is assumed and not proven by the details of history or by explicit Scriptural teaching. Simply believing that the work of the Church is the same as apostolic example is enough to justify in this thinking a hierarchy to represent the carrying out of the work.

However, Pope John Paul II’s defense of the general Catholic position gives further arguments to bolster the claim of Peter’s supremacy in the hierarchy and how that relates to the Catholic holy city of Rome:

On the basis of this tradition, Vatican I also defined: "The Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy" (DS 3058). The definition binds the primacy of Peter and his successors to the See of Rome, which cannot be replaced by any other see. However, it can happen that, due to circumstances of the times or for particular reasons, the bishops of Rome take up residence temporarily in places other than the Eternal City. Certainly, a city's political condition can change extensively and profoundly over centuries. But it remains, as is the case with Rome, a determinate space to which an institution such as an episcopal see is always referred--in the case of Rome, the See of Peter.

In truth, Jesus did not specify the role of Rome in Peter's succession. Doubtless he wanted Peter to have successors, but the NT does not state his specific desire to choose Rome as the primatial [first in rank] See. He preferred to entrust that to historical events in which the divine plan for the Church, the determination of the concrete conditions of Peter's succession, would appear.

The decisive historical event is that the fisherman of Bethsaida came to Rome and suffered martyrdom in this city. This fact is rich in theological significance, because it shows the mystery of the divine plan which arranges the course of human events to serve the Church's beginnings and development.[8]

Notice the details of this papal approach. First, it invokes a council statement from Vatican I while asserting that the definition provided is based upon tradition. Second, this tradition-based definition is binding or authoritative. Third, there is the explicit admission that the NT says nothing about the primacy of Rome. Thus, the grounding of the view is extra-biblical, specifically in a certain understanding of history. Of particular interest is the traveling of Peter to Rome and his subsequent martyrdom there as recorded in church history. This historical fact is considered to have theological significance in its own right based upon an a priori faith in the content of that history. Furthermore, it is assumed to have theological significance for the development of one’s ecclesiology. Thus, the papal argument here is grounded in faith in history (tradition) and not faith in the text of Scripture as the ultimate binding authority in the matter of apostolic succession and the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

What should a true evangelical say to these things? While not denigrating history or tradition, the evangelical should assert strongly his belief that these things do not trump biblical authority. It is precisely the historical fact that the practices of the Roman Catholic Church were contrary to Scripture that prompted Luther, Calvin, and a host of others to form a protest movement. Luther’s gambit in the historical situation of the early 1500s was essentially true to God and his Word. It is Jesus who warned us about following the traditions of men (e.g., Matt 15:1-14). It is Christ who used the Bible authoritatively and told us that we would be led astray if we failed to understand it and the power of God (Matt 22:29). It is our Savior who originally built his church without any ties to Rome (see the book of Acts). Why is his original design not sufficient? Why does the tradition of Peter going to Rome have higher appeal than the historical tradition of Christ starting the church where he was killed and resurrected? Why can we not argue for the supremacy of Jerusalem and its bishop if history is the judge? These factors alone are enough to avoid the plague of apostolic succession and Roman supremacy. If we must speak of apostolic succession, let us speak of what we know for sure about apostolic authority. It resides in the words which the apostles left us, namely, the New Testament. Today we have their authority when we pay heed to their words. Developments within history cannot move us away from their words without diminishing the real authority of the apostles.

Before leaving this topic, we must address the number one proof text for Roman supremacy. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus tells Peter, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” The identification of rock is the key interpretive issue. The Roman Catholic understanding is that Jesus is telling Peter “upon you I will build my church.” Appeal is then made to the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to him in verse 19 and his leadership role overall with the apostles presumed by that fact. In this conjunction it must be noted that the meaning of Peter is some variation of “rock” or “stone.” Thus, on the face of things, the Roman Catholic understanding of the passage should be taken seriously as to the identification of rock even if Roman supremacy is not then deduced.

Evangelical responses to the Catholic interpretation have been varied. Many evangelicals have taught that the rock is Christ, Peter’s confession of Christ, or Christ’s words gleaned from the context. Some might suggest that this is simply an interpretive move designed to avoid the Catholic understanding. While this may be true for some evangelicals, there are exegetical reasons to consider such interpretive conclusions. First, the word for rock in Matthew 16:18 is a different Greek word than that for Peter. This opens up the possibility that Christ is voicing a word play of sorts. It is grammatically possible to argue for a nuance of different meanings for the two words, although the simple use of rock is a possibility. Commentaries abound with debates about the options. The word Peter in one scenario refers to a little stone or detached stone. The word for rock would refer to a large rock or bedrock.

The understanding would be that Jesus was indicating that although Peter was a kind of rock, he was not the rock upon which the church is built. Such a view could still allow for Peter’s leadership among the apostles and his role in helping to establish the early church. It would also have to appeal to other elements in the context (such as Peter’s confession of Christ) to give the referent for the word rock.[9]

Second, bolstering the understanding that Christ is the rock under consideration would be Matthew’s use of similar terminology elsewhere in his Gospel which may provide a conceptual link. In Matthew 21:42, Matthew records Jesus’ words following the parable of the landowner: “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief corner stone…?” Jesus is the stone or rock (referencing Ps 118:22) although the Greek word is different. However, the context is similar to the context of Matthew 16:18 in many respects. In both passages the identity of Christ (and how people were responding to him) is in view. In Matthew 21, his identity is established in the triumphal entry (vv. 1-11) and the cleansing of the temple (vv. 12-17). The issue of his authority which is tied to claims about his identity is raised the next day in the question about John’s authority (vv. 23-32) followed by the parable of the landowner which highlights the rejection of Christ by the Pharisees and Sadducees (vv. 33-40). In Matthew 15 the issue of the authority of tradition is raised prior to Peter’s identification of Christ. At the beginning of Matthew 16 the Pharisees seem to respond with a testing of Jesus which prompts Jesus’ continued negative assessment of them. What follows that section is our passage, including Matthew 16:18. There is enough similarity to at least consider the possibility of linkage between the stone of 21:42 and the rock of 16:18.

Many current evangelicals go a different direction. They accept the possibility that in Matthew 16:18, Peter is the rock.

Concerning the word play on the terminology, Turner argues the following:

The pun concerns Peter’s unique role as the model disciple in Matthew. Peter’s future role as preacher to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10) is also projected here. Jesus is not speaking of himself as the foundation of the church, since he describes himself as the builder. Neither is Peter’s apostolic confession the foundation of the church—he, as the confessing apostle, is that foundation. And it is not Peter alone but as first among equals, since the context makes it clear that Peter is speaking from the apostles as a whole in Matt. 16:16 ....

The real difficulty Protestants have with the Roman Catholic teaching concerning Peter is the notion of sole apostolic succession emanating from Peter as the first bishop of Rome…. This dogma is anachronistic for Matthew, who knows nothing about Peter being the first pope or of the primacy of Rome over other Christian churches. Matthew would not have endorsed the idea of Peter’s infallibility or sole authority in the church, since Peter speaks as a representative of the other apostles and often makes mistakes (15:15; 16:16; 17:4, 25; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-35; cf. Acts 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14).[10]

In this view there is no surrender to Catholic thinking. Peter’s use of the keys of the kingdom is clear for both evangelical interpretive solutions as he leads in the opening of new doors as Jews and Gentiles become citizens in God’s coming kingdom (Acts 2, 10). The Bible is clear that the prophets and the apostles together are a kind of foundation for the church (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14) understood to be built in turn upon Christ himself (1 Cor 3:11). There is no supremacy for the current Roman pontiff. Ultimately, the evangelical is standing on solid ground when he asserts that even if Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, that is insufficient grounds for then asserting that the bishop of Rome is his successor. The papal statement alluded to above noted that the Popes still held unique “Roman” authority even during times in history when the Pope was not in Rome. Why not allow this for the first alleged Pope? Why focus on the city where he died which was one place among his many ministry locations? Why not allow Peter to represent the Jerusalem church when he was not in Jerusalem in the same way allowed for later occupants of the Roman chair? In the end, the Catholic view is an a priori commitment to a particular historical tradition which contravenes the Bible. Thus, the evangelical must strongly reject apostolic succession. The authoritative Bible is sufficient to portray the design of the church and the nature and function of the church’s authority.[11]

Penance

Another area to discuss is the Catholic practice of penance, briefly alluded to in our previous article. Speaking of penance, Pope Benedict XVI recently and strongly affirmed that the “liberating power of this sacrament, in which our honest confession of sin is met by God’s merciful word of pardon and peace, needs to be rediscovered and reappropriated by every Catholic.”[12] Thus, penance remains an important part of Catholic sacramental life. The sacrament of penance seems to have three major parts. First, there is the confession of the sinner to a qualified priest in a sacerdotal sense. Second, there is the absolution or pardon granted by the priest to the individual. Third, in light of the conditional and provisional nature of the absolution, the individual sinner must perform some act to satisfy God’s demands in order to make the absolution active in his experience. In short, it is doing something good to make up for something bad in order to procure forgiveness. One Catholic authority described penance this way using historical examples:

Depending on the gravity of sin, the works of satisfaction would be prescribed accordingly. For the graver crimes—parricide, perjury, adultery, and abortion—they prescribed such penances as exile, going on a distant pilgrimage, or seclusion in a monastery for life or for then or seven or three years. For lesser sins the satisfaction might consist in fasting either for a long period or periodically, or again in certain prayers, scourging oneself with knotted cords, or almsgiving.[13]

Such an approach has been based largely upon an unfortunate translation strategy in the Latin Vulgate. The translation of poenitentiam agite (do or practice penance [penitence?]) takes the place of the biblical command to repent (Gr., metanoeite) in Matthew 3:2 and 4:17 (cp. Acts 2:8). The English version of this can be found in the Douay Version of the Bible: “Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2).[14] This translation changes the entire avenue of direction and leads to and supports the traditional Catholic practice of penance.

Such an approach shows a confusion of terms that is inappropriate. The word penance is as described above, a good deed to make up for a bad one. The idea of penitence refers to godly sorrow over sin. The concept of repentance refers to a change of mind or disposition.[15] It is possible that penitence leads to repentance (see 2 Cor 7:10). However, neither penance nor penitence captures the meaning of the Greek word metanoia (or its verb form). Muller cites the general approach of the Reformers which they had obtained by considering the Greek NT instead of the Latin Vulgate:

The sacrament of penance was overthrown by the Reformers as a denial of salvation by grace alone and justification by faith. In addition, the biblical command, metanoeite, was recognized by the Reformers as demanding repentance, not penance. The Vulgate translation, poenitentiam agite, could not stand, at least in the technical, sacramental sense given to the term poenitentia—rather, the command was translated resipiscite, … “repent.[16]

It is instructive that Martin Luther in his 95 Theses begins with statements about repentance and penance:

Thesis 1: Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agie, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

Thesis 2: This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

Thesis 3: Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.[17]

Luther’s starting point in his thinking as he wrestled with Catholic indulgences was the understanding that the passages on penance were not quite right. In the end, he would rightly conclude that penance was not a means to salvation nor of spirituality. Even though it is a good thing for believers to confess to each other in appropriate ways when there has been offense and even make restitution or restoration as necessary, no amount of good deeds will ever make up for sin. Only the cross of Christ can do that, and the means by which his death (and associated resurrection) is appropriated is faith alone (John 3:15-18; Eph 2:8-10). There are no braggers in heaven who by self-effort in undoing wrong have earned a station before God.

Marriage

The differences between Catholicism and evangelicalism on the issue of marriage are well known only in a general sense. Historically and traditionally, Catholics have been viewed as stricter about the dissolution of marriage vows than have been evangelicals. In some respects the Catholics must be respected concerning their strong view of the permanence of wedding vows. In addition, the Roman Church has broadened its understanding of marriage vows, especially as it relates to mixed marriages (Catholic and non-Catholic).

However, at odds with the evangelical view, the Catholic portrait of marriage adds sacrament to the two concepts of institution and contract to describe the nature of nuptial arrangements. Although there are varying practices within Catholicism and a perceived reduction of restrictions in recent days about how marriage is viewed, the fact that marriage remains one of the seven sacraments shows that it is, at least partly, a means of receiving or maintaining grace. According to the Catholic Hardon, “Catholicism believes that when it is between two baptized persons the very contract of marriage becomes a sacrament.”[18] The baptism in view here is only Catholic baptism and not baptisms from other religious institutions, even those professing Christianity. In general, the marriage ceremony must be performed under the purview of a Catholic bishop for the marriage to have sacramental value. The Catholic Church, in this scheme, appears to have a “divine right to guide the faithful in their marital plans and commitments.”[19] This attitude moves ecclesiology to the center of the outline of theology and practice. In this way, it fits the general tenor of all Catholic practice that places the Church at the center of everything.

On the other hand, evangelicals reject the move of ecclesiology to the center of all of Christian life. This does not mean that the local church is unimportant in assisting people in marital plans and in the implementation of successful families. It also does not mean a diminishing of the sacredness of marriage. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The evangelical believes that men and women who marry interact directly with God, without the mediation of the church. Even secular marriage ceremonies are recognized by God because marriage itself is sacred. This can be said without any hint of sacramentalism or sacerdotalism because God does not need the church to validate an institution which existed at least four thousand years before the start of the church.[20]

The evangelical will also point out once again that the Catholic view continues to be propagated partly due to another faulty translation. For example, the Douay Version translates Ephesians 5:32 as “This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.” The word sacrament is found instead of the term mystery when the context is giving the famous analogy of Christ and the church for the marriage of a man and a woman.[21] This is an anachronistic and ecclesiastical translation based upon a tradition and not the actual meaning of Jerome’s Latin word sacramentum (Gr., mysterion). In light of such realities the evangelical will kindly mention that there are no instances in the NT where a church authority performs a wedding ceremony. Marriage in the eyes of God is simply not a church-based sacrament.

Ordination

The meaning and method of ordination of church leaders is another area where evangelicals and Catholics differ. According to the Catholic perspective, “Ordination is not simply an installation of Church leaders or administrators of the sacraments.”[22] Notice the force of the following words:

When the bishop pronounces the words “receive the Holy Spirit,” there is a special conferral of divine gifts, in such a way that the sacrament character is imprinted by ordination. As a consequence, it is impossible that a man “who was once a priest can become a layman again.” The process of laicization, as it is called, whereby a priest is dispensed from certain priestly duties and, if he had been a celibate, may even be allowed to marry, does not mean that he is literally reduced to the lay state. This cannot happen because the Catholic Church believes that the priestly character is indelible and therefore unchangeable.[23]

In ordination there is an actual conveyance of grace in which a measure of the Holy Spirit comes permanently upon a man. Even if his function changes to that of a layman, in reality before God, his nature under Holy Orders does not change. The element of permanence reminds one of the strong attitude about Catholic marriage. Indeed, some Catholic interpreters even interpret the qualification “husband of one wife” for a bishop to mean permanent marriage to the Church (see 1 Tim 3:2). A statement available from the Vatican website discusses this idea in the following manner:

So what does it mean that the minister of the Church should be «the husband of one wife»? In the following pages we shall first try to show that the formula unius uxoris vir, up to the fourth century, was understood, as Stickler so well puts it, «in the sense of a biblical argument in favour of celibacy of apostolic inspiration: for the Pauline norm was interpreted in the sense of a guarantee assuring effective observance of continence by ministers who were already married before they were ordained.» In the second part, we shall take a step forward: we shall propose a deeper theological interpretation of the Pauline stipulation itself, to show that, already in New Testament times it actually does propose the model for the ministerial priesthood of a marital relationship between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride, on the basis of the mystical view of marriage which St Paul frequently mentions in his letters (cf 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-32). From this, it will become abundantly clear that, for married ministers, their ordination implied an invitation to live in continence thereafter.[24]

Thus, ordination services for Catholic priests become a marriage ceremony for a man who has taken the Church as his wife instead of a woman. Hence, the celibacy teaching comes into play lest a priest be unfaithful to his wife, the Church.

Generally, most evangelicals reject the use of 1 Timothy 3:2 and the mystery of Christ and the church from Ephesians 5 in the way described above for Catholics. The Catholic interpretation is a non-textual one. The focus on celibacy, while imitating the celibacy of Christ and later churchmen, does not do justice to the apostle Peter whom Catholics claim to be the first Pope. Peter’s wife and mother-in-law would probably be puzzled by such later interpretations (Matt 8:14). Notice that the early understanding of ministers’ having wives was acknowledged but that a second ecclesiastical or theological layer was added that unraveled the first teaching. This approach to the use of the Bible is like a hermeneutical rubberband that can be shot in any direction that later tradition wants to go. Evangelicals reject this as denigrating the actual words of the apostles and their authority. Beyond this, evangelicals would note that the biblical teaching about ordination is rather sparse. In that light, an elaborate system of sacramental marriage between a minister and the church has no place. Consequently, the evangelical approach to ordination as public recognition is superior to the Catholic marriage-to-the-Church view.

Related to this topic is the evangelical rejection of the notion of a clergy-laity distinction that makes the priests in the present time special mediators of divine grace. While it is true that Catholics can pray directly to God, they cannot do Mass for themselves. They are dependent upon the hierarchy for their continuing justification. On the other hand, evangelicals affirm a stronger view of the priesthood of every believer. The logical consequences of this have been worked out the most by Anabaptist and Baptist traditions. In this scheme, the community of faith, while important and possessing certain functions, does not play a role in the salvation of the individual other than proclaiming the gospel by which the person is saved through faith.

Sainthood

A recent blog posted the following definition of the word saints that is both humorous and insightful: “figures out of the Christian past whose lives have been insufficiently researched.”[25] However, here evangelicals must be careful not to misrepresent the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelicals usually define a saint as someone who is set apart to God and from sin. In a positional sense, this means every believer. Thus, the term saint is used to describe all true believers (Heb 13:24; Jude 1:3; Phlm 5, 7; Phil 4:21-22). However, Catholic theology also uses the word saint in the same way. Building upon the phrase “the communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed, a Vatican catechism states forthrightly that “the communion of saints is the Church.”[26]

Nonetheless, a real difference is created because Catholic teaching adds another use of the word saint to its church life. In this second use, the title of Saint is given by the authority of the Pope to a church member who deserves public devotion due to an extraordinary display of holiness, devotion to God, and acts of miracles. A brief survey of articles posted by the Vatican on the subject of the Beatification and Canonization of Saints shows how large a subject matter and concern this is for Catholics.[27] These terms are defined in an official way by the Catholic Church:

Canonization is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff .… Beatification, on the other hand, consists in the concession of a public cult in the form of an indult [specified privilege] and limited to a Servant of God whose virtues to a heroic degree, or Martyrdom, have been duly recognized .…[28]

Beatification comes only when there is confidence that the individual is in heaven. If the Church grants Beatification to a person, that person can be an intermediary in prayer for those currently alive on earth. Canonization goes somewhat further in declaring that the individual certainly enjoys the beatific vision of God in heaven, establishing a feast which can be observed in his or her name, and including his or her name for possible use in the liturgy of the Church.

What is an evangelical to make of this second level of so-called sainthood practiced by the Roman Church? The vast number of rules, the historical changes that have occurred to those rules (including in recent times), and the various ranks on the way to sainthood can all be dizzying to those not steeped in the process. However, what is most crucial to the evangelical response is the absence of such processes in the Bible. While we will sometimes use the word saint in a popular way to label a person as good (my mother was a saint), the fact must be faced squarely—the Bible uses the term only in the sense of a separated one or believer as cited earlier. In addition to this, the evangelical would disagree with the idea of praying to the saints. Not only is it absent from his Bible; it is contrary to his Bible. The Bible asserts that the only mediator between God and man is Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). Scripture gives us instruction on how we are to pray. Never are we told to pray to any saint. We are told by Jesus the pattern to pray which involves us praying directly to the Father (Matt 6:9-13). We are told to come to God’s throne boldly and not indirectly (Heb 4:16). We are also to pray in the name of Jesus, not in the name or power or interest of a third party (John 16:23-24). This is the pattern of the prayers of the apostles shown in the NT and the practice of the primitive church. Such an approach is viable and usable in the present time. There is no need to improve upon it.

Worship

While there is great variety in both camps across the entire world concerning how worship takes place, there are still some basic differences that merit attention. In the Catholic Church, there is more formality than in Protestantism on the whole (although formality exists in some denominations and traditions). Especially the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions on the evangelical side practice great informality in their worship. Why is this so? It may be that Catholicism draws too heavily on an OT model of liturgy which has more formality. The OT model contains a formal priesthood, sacrifices, feast days, Sabbaths, ceremonial cleansings, and other features in Israel’s temple practice that are mirrored by many of the Catholic practices of later years.[29] However, after the church begins on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), the assemblies of Christian believers as shown in the Bible seem to be functioning quite apart from those kinds of elements. In short, evangelicalism (especially in its least formal expressions) honors the dispensational distinction between Israel and the church taught in the Bible. The NT becomes the model by which worship is designed for church age believers.

However, the greatest problem with Catholic worship from the evangelical point of view is that it is part of the sacramental system. For example, the taking of communion, discussed in the previous article, involves the belief in and practice of transubstantiation and perpetual sacrifice. These truths violate the gospel of Christ by devaluing his work on the cross. Moreover, as part of the sacramental system, such Catholic worship features are part of a works-righteousness package. Catholics are taking communion as part of the justifying process which is counter to evangelicalism’s born-again Christianity based upon salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Consequently, the difference in worship cannot be dismissed as a minor divergence.

Assurance Of Salvation

One of the most significant differences between Catholicism and born-again Christianity or evangelicalism involves the issues of assurance of salvation. To be sure, there are many evangelical groups, especially those most inclined to strong Arminianism, which struggle on this score as do the Catholics. Of particular interest is the Catholic doctrine of the presumption of sin. A standard definition would be the following:

Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God's mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them.[30]

The statement is clearly anti-evangelical in its outlook. An evangelical trusts in Christ for salvation based upon no merit of his own but based upon the work of Christ alone. This trust, according to the definition of presumption, would be a sin because it is diametrically opposed to doing any good deeds to earn a pardon from God. The Catholic view is clearly a works salvation contrary to the Bible (Rom 4:1-5; Eph 2:8-9).

Notice what is at stake. The Catholic insists that an individual will never know if he is pardoned by God until he meets God after death to hear the verdict. That is, there is no such thing in this life as assurance of future salvation. Such a belief affects life in this world. A person who really believes that he cannot know if he has been forgiven would spend most of his time doing good deeds with a selfish motive, constantly concerned about his own status. An evangelical can say that God is not so cruel to let us wait until we wake up on the other side to know our status. He loves us more than that and wants us to live in great confidence now so that we can focus on ministering to the lives of others and not our own plight. The Apostle John continues to teach us that it is God’s delight that we know for sure that we possess eternal life now (1 John 5:13). If presumption of this sort is a sin, the apostle is guilty of influencing us in that direction.

Purgatory

The doctrine of purgatory is one of the most enigmatic Catholic teachings from the evangelical perspective. Purgatory is sometimes referred to as the final purification even though some especially holy individuals may go directly to heaven without it. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines purgatory this way: “A place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.”[31] Recent papal statements confirm this teaching of the Roman Church.[32] Of special interest to the evangelical is that there is the acknowledgement by the Catholic doctrine that a person must be entirely cleansed from sin to stand before God favorably. In this, an evangelical can agree. However, there is also the Catholic admission that the doctrine is not formally taught in Scripture.[33] Nonetheless, Catholic tradition does appeal to certain passages for deducing the idea of purgatory.[34]

The first passage is an apocryphal one and would not be considered authoritative by genuine evangelicals. In 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 we see the following verses of explanation after Judas (2nd century B.C.) had sent money to Jerusalem as a sin offering: “For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have arisen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.”[35] The issue of money, praying for the dead, and reconciliation for the dead, who may be in temporary judgment (i.e., purgatory) comes together here in a way that reminds one of the later battles Luther had over indulgences. Luther commented on purgatory in Theses 10 and 11:

Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.[36]

Calvin, after dismissing 2 Maccabees due to its non-canonical status (even citing Jerome in the matter), interestingly uses a dispensational argument. Even if 2 Maccabees were Scripture, it was for a different time and working (the sacrifices) which was changed after Christ came.[37] Thus, the apocryphal appeal fails.

A second passage used by Catholics is the unpardonable sin statement in Matthew 12:32: “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come.” Catholic exegesis largely ignores the context of the passage and the potential uniqueness of this event and time. Rather its interpretation extrapolates based upon the wording about the lack of forgiveness in the world to come. Hardon comments, “By this it is to be understood that certain faults are pardoned in this life, and certain others in the life to come.”[38] Then the deduction is made that there must be a purification that takes place among the dead so that some of them still make it to heaven based upon their ongoing self-purification after the grave. How should the evangelical respond to this argument? Luther’s response is still the best answer:

Purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope.[39]

This is where purgatory contradicts the Bible. Evangelicals should rightly understand justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Purgatory is simply another added layer of Catholic thought which puts self-effort at the forefront of satisfying God in place of trusting the satisfaction that Christ has already performed.

One last passage to be discussed is 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 where the imagery of fire is invoked relative to purgatory: “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” Calvin states the Catholic dependence upon this text precisely: “But in Paul they claim to have an invincible phalanx, that cannot be so easily overwhelmed .… What fire, they ask, can this be but that of purgatory, by which the filth of sins is cleansed away that we may enter into the Kingdom of God as pure men?”[40] Calvin’s retort has many parts, some which need to be revamped. However, his strongest case is made when he notes that exegetically the passage is talking about the experience of all Christians and their works, not just those who would seem to need post-death purification. This is seen by the apostle’s statement about the gold, silver, and precious stones which represents believers who have built well upon the foundation of Christ, including himself. Yet the test of fire will include them. Thus, the issue of the text speaks more to reward and its loss than it does to the purification of sins in a purgatorial manner.

Conclusion

Adding to the overview of a previous article, this essay has attempted to show that real differences between Roman Catholic teaching and evangelical doctrine exist in the areas of apostolic succession, penance, marriage, ordination, sainthood, worship, assurance of salvation, and purgatory. Other serious distinctions in belief could be added.[41] However, enough has been shown to heighten awareness of deep-seated convictions on both sides that involve the most important issue of all, how one comes to Christ—the works salvation of Catholicism or justification by faith alone in evangelicalism. It is appropriate perhaps to finish with Luther’s commentary on Romans 4:5: “He who works properly receives a reward; but he receives the reward of debt and not of grace. On the other hand, to him who does not rely on his works nor regards them as (necessary for salvation), righteousness is given freely by faith, which relies on God.”[42] AMEN.

Notes

1. For a review of Beckwith’s conversion and his thoughts about it, see Mike Stallard, “Evangelical Confusion about Roman Catholicism,” The Journal of Ministry and Theology 12.2 (Fall 2008): 5-6.
2. Ibid.
3. An envisioned third article will deal with the movement in the Roman Catholic Church to declare Mary as co-redeemer with Christ and the overall debate about Jesus’ human mother in theology and its practice. A fourth article is planned that will provide an analytical overview of the ecumenical impulse of the New Perspective on Paul that provides grounds for blurring traditional distinctions between Protestants and Catholics.
4. John A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 451.
5. Pope John Paul II, “Bishops are Successors of the Apostles,” 8 July, 1992 <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19920708en.html>(accessed 4 November 2008).
6. For example, see Cyprian’s Unity, 5 and Epistle 54.14.
7. Pope John Paul II, “The Bishop of Rome is Peter’s Successor,” 27 January, 1993, <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html; (accessed 4 November 2008).
8. Ibid.
9. One self-professing evangelical who argues for this view with force is Robert Gundry (Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 333-34).
10. David L. Turner, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 406-407. This writer accepts the view that the rock is not Peter. However, we must strongly note that to believe that the rock is Peter is not necessarily a compromise with, nor a leaning toward, the Roman Church’s ultimate position.
11. One could also add the following two thoughts to show the error of the Catholic view: (1) the church at Rome was started before Peter ever got there (notice the absence of his name from Romans 16, a great oversight on the part of the Apostle Paul if Peter was the pope/bishop there at the time); (2) the authority of the apostles was unique since the definition of the position entailed going back to John the Baptist and seeing the resurrected Christ, something no later bishops of Rome could do (see Acts 1).
12. Pope Benedict XVI, Homily, Washington Nationals Stadium, 17 April 2008, <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080417_washington-stadium_en.html> (accessed 7 November 2008).
13. Hardon, Catholic Catechism, 483.
14. The Douay Version of the Bible is an English translation from the Latin Vulgate. The NT was published in 1582, the OT in 1609-10. The translation could be considered part of the Counter Reformation. It is interesting that modern English translations by Catholics have trended toward repentance instead of penance in these verses (see Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible).
15. The various nuances of interpretation of repentance among evangelicals (such as its relation to faith or its fruit) is beyond the scope of this article. However, it is sufficient here to note that repentance is not the same as penance.
16. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 230.
17. Martin Luther, Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences: October 31, 1517, electronic ed. (Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 95 Theses #1-3.
18. Hardon, Catholic Catechism, 532.
19. Ibid., 534.
20. Loraine Boettner notes that the “Church of Rome admits her uncertainty about the time of its [marriage’s] appointment as a sacrament” (Roman Catholicism [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964], 192).
21. To be fair, it must be noted once again that more modern Catholic translations like the New American Bible use the correct word mystery instead of sacrament.
22. Hardon, Catholic Catechism, 522.
23. Ibid.
24. Ignace de la Potterie, “The Biblical Foundation of Priestly Celibacy,”<http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html> (accessed 7 November 2008).
25. Ben Witherington, “Definition of a Saint,” 8 August 2007, <http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/08/definition-of-saint.html>(accessed 7 November 2008).
26. “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Article 9.5.946, <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm> (accessed 7 November 2008).
27. For example, see “New Procedures in the Rite of Beatification,”<http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20050929_saraiva-martins-beatif_en.html> (accessed 7 November 2008). This particular article outlines changes instituted by Pope Benedict XVI.
28. Ibid; definition supplied.
29. This is not to say that there were no pagan influences in the development of the Roman Church. A full-blown analysis of the various streams creating the total picture is beyond the scope of this summary.
30. “Presumption,” Catholic Encyclopedia, <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12403a.htm> (accessed 7 November 2008). The original edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1911.
31. “Purgatory,” Catholic Encyclopedia, < http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm> (accessed 8 November 2008).
32. One such statement among many is Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 4 August, 1999, < http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_04081999_en.html> ( accessed 8 November 2008).
33. Ibid. Pope John Paul II noted, “In Sacred Scripture, we can grasp certain elements that help us to understand the meaning of this doctrine, even if it is not formally described.”
34. Hardon’s Catholic Catechism, which has been used through-out this paper, appeals to 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, Matthew 12:32, and 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 as the main Scriptural support for the Catholic view of purgatory even though the concept is deduced and never stated (275-77). In the source cited above by Pope John Paul, the 1 Corinthians 3 passage is prominent.
35. I am using here the KJV version of the Apocrypha.
36. Martin Luther, Disputation, 95 Theses #10-11.
37. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.5.8.
38. Hardon, Catholic Catechism, 276.
39. See Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, vol. 8 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1966). Luther is commenting on Genesis 25:5.
40. John Calvin, Institutes, 3.5.9.
41. Three doctrines that could be added would be the use of material symbols in Catholic life, the amillennial eschatology of Catholicism, and the teaching of extreme unction or last rites. As to the use of material symbols such as rosaries, crucifixes, icons, statues, candles, incense pots, and the like, the evangelical would relate this to the overly formalistic approach discussed earlier. Beyond that, the evangelical would wonder about the superstitious nature of the use of such material symbols and the worship afforded to what some of them represent (e.g., statues of Mary). As to amillennial eschatology it must be pointed out that many evangelicals agree with the Roman position. However, the majority view at the present time in evangelicalism is premillennialism (with which this present writer agrees). The Roman version of amillennialism is one of the strongest presentations of replacement theology in which the Church is the kingdom taught in the use of 1000 years in Revelation 20. The refutation generally focuses on an exegetical and theological array of contradictions caused by the appeal to the Augustinian recapitulation of the book cited in The City of God. As to last rites, evangelicals would debate various interpretive options among themselves relative to the anointing with oil in James 5. However, in the end, the sacrament of last rites is rejected because it is a means of receiving saving grace within the sacramental system so that an individual receives forgiveness based upon his own obedience or the obedience of others for him. This is a violation of the sola fide of the NT.
42. Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. by J. Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 66.