Throwback Thursday: Rising tensions within Catholic hierarchy over “Amoris Laetitia” could lead to crisis

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on November 18, 2016 and has been revised.

We’re currently witnessing a struggle of historic proportions within the Roman Catholic hierarchy, although most Catholics and evangelicals aren’t even paying attention.

At the center of the controversy is the mass, the centerpiece of the Catholic religion. Catholics are obligated to attend mass every Sunday where priests allegedly change bread wafers into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Supplicants consume the Jesus wafer believing they receive graces, which supposedly help them avoid mortal sin, so that they are hopefully able to merit Heaven at the moment of death.

For century after century, the popes and Catholic hierarchy taught that Catholics who had divorced and remarried without an annulment of the first marriage were living in a state of open adultery and were forbidden from receiving communion and the other sacraments. That wasn’t a problem when divorce among Catholics was relatively rare, but in current times, with Catholic divorce rates at 38%, the restrictive communion policy was alienating a large portion of the membership and many were dropping away.

In an effort to stanch the exodus, pope Francis the pragmatist issued the Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) apostolic exhortation last April, which, among other things, ambiguously left it up to parish priests to decide whether a remarried Catholic could receive communion or not, thus countermanding a doctrine that had been taught by other equally “infallible” popes for over a millennia. Francis guilefully rolled out the controversial new teaching in footnotes #s 329 and 351 of Amoris rather than presenting the change in the main text.

Opposition to the pope’s new teaching has been swelling within the ranks of conservative cardinals, bishops, priests, and laity for the past eight months. Recently, four cardinals, including American cardinal, Raymond Burke (photo above), formally requested that Francis “clarify” his remarks in Amoris Laetitia in light of previous infallible church teaching. The pope has declined to respond to the cardinals’ appeal. Burke is now suggesting the cardinals could possibly issue a “formal act of correction,” a declaration that Francis is teaching heresy (see articles below).

As I stated previously, most Catholics are oblivious to the dramatic tug-of-war taking place between Francis and his allies and church conservatives over Amoris Laetitia and other reforms. What’s at stake is Catholicism’s claim to the infallibility of popes on teachings involving faith and morals. The great irony here – don’t miss this – is conservatives are willing to concede the current pope is fallible and in error in order to preserve the teaching of previous infallible popes! Francis winks at “infallible” doctrines in an effort to keep people in the pews.

• Regarding cardinals’ request for clarification of ‘Amoris Laetitia,’ the Pope’s silence speaks volumes
• Cardinal Burke: we will make ‘formal act of correction’ if Pope doesn’t issue Amoris clarification

All men are fallible. Even casual students of Catholic church history are aware of the tragic failings of popes and other high church officials down through the ages. The only Rock we have is Jesus Christ. Accept Christ as your Savior by faith alone and then ask the Lord to lead you to an evangelical church in your area that teaches God’s Word without compromise.

Is papal infallibility biblical?

Note from 2022: The controversy over Amoris Laetitia was perhaps the RCC’s biggest internal crisis since French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, broke from the church in 1970 over the reforms of Vatican II and founded the Society of Saint Pius X. Francis wore down his opponents by not responding to their angry objections. A deepening of the crisis was averted because conservative Catholic clergy were in a Catch-22. Absolute fealty to the papacy is one of their most cherished tenets. Opposing Francis’ new heretical teaching meant that they were themselves heretics. Moderate and progressive bishops and priests had been distributing Jesus wafers to remarried divorcees prior to Amoris Laetitia and were pleased to see the practice formalized. The RCC is a hierarchical institution and open opposition to Francis’ Amoris Laetitia reform has largely been stifled. However, some conservative prelates and priests continue to resist Francis’ doctrinal change on the QT.

Throwback Thursday: Sin: “Mortal” or “Venial”?

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on September 12, 2016 and has been revised.

How do we define “sin”? That’s pretty easy. Sin is rebellion against God. A Gospel Christian would rightly say that any thought, action, or act of omission that defies God’s will as revealed in His Word is a sin.

But Roman Catholicism draws a distinction between major or “mortal” sins and lesser or “venial” (Latin: venialis – pardonable) sins. If a Catholic dies with any unconfessed mortal sin on their soul, they are told they will be sent to Hell. If they die with only venial sins, they are taught they will be sent to Purgatory to be cleansed before proceeding to Heaven.

So what’s the difference between mortal and venial sins? Catholicism teaches that for a sin to be mortal it must meet the following three criteria:

• Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter. The Ten Commandments define grave matter.
• It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.
• It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

Examples of mortal sins include premeditated murder, purposely missing obligatory mass on Sunday, adultery, and stealing a large sum of money.

Examples of venial sins would be telling a “white” lie, nagging a spouse, smoking cigarettes, and stealing an inexpensive item.

Of course, the distinctions between mortal and venial sins get very hazy, very quickly. At what dollar amount does an inexpensive item become an expensive one? At what point does nagging become psychological abuse? When watching an R-rated movie with nudity, when does slightly-more-than-indifferent interest drift into unmitigated lust? Whether a sin is mortal or venial often depends on which priest you talk to.

So why does Catholicism distinguish between major and minor sins? Church father, Tertullian,* introduced the distinction between mortal and venial sins in the latter half of the second century. As the early church became increasingly institutionalized, simple, saving faith in Jesus Christ as Savior devolved into ritual and religious legalism controlled by the increasingly powerful clergy and corresponding changes in doctrine were introduced. If ALL sin was deadly to the soul, as the Bible teaches, then no one could possibly earn their salvation. By grading sin, it was postulated that people could successfully merit their way into Heaven with the help of the clerics. Over time, sin became even less deadly. The Jesuits are infamous for introducing the concept of “casuistry.” Using this intellectual sophistry, a person could commit even a blatantly mortal sin without any guilt if they had made a reservation in their mind that the sinful action would result in a moral good. Needless to say, Catholics flocked to Jesuit confessors because much of their mortal sin could be rationalized away.

In contrast to Rome’s teaching, the Bible teaches ALL sin is deadly. We aren’t sinners because we sin, we sin because we’re sinners. Yes, all of us are sinners and we all deserve eternal punishment. But God loves us so much He sent Jesus Christ, God the Son, to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. But He rose from the grave, defeating sin and death, and offers eternal life and fellowship with God to all who accept Him as Savior by faith alone.

But aren’t there some Bible verses that talk about the “sin unto death”? Yup, but they’re not talking about the “mortal” sin of Catholicism. See here. But doesn’t the Bible talk about some sins being worse than others and meriting greater punishment? Yup, but sin is still sin. See here.

Catholics are walking a religious tightrope and are hoping by their efforts they can merit Heaven. The Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sin gives Catholics the false hope that they can earn their way into Heaven. Because of this system, many Catholics seek to justify themselves, declaring something along the lines of, “I might not be perfect but at least I’ve never killed anyone or sold street drugs.” But God’s Word declares all of us are sinners to the core and none of us can possibly merit Heaven. Even the good things that we do are often motivated by sinful intentions.

“As it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.’” – Romans 3:10-12

Like the thief on the cross without a single plea of his own, accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith alone. Once you have repented of your rebellion against God and accepted Christ, then you can follow Him as Lord of your life.

“Whoever believes (Greek: pisteuo – to believe, put one’s faith in, trust, with an implication that actions based on that trust may follow) in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:18

* Webster, William. The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003), p. 104.

Does 2 Timothy 1:16-18 teach Purgatory?

Catholicism differs in many respects from Biblical Christianity, including its belief in Purgatory. The Catholic church defines Purgatory as “a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating (i.e., atoning for) their sins before going to Heaven.” Catholicism teaches that even one unconfessed mortal (i.e., major) sin on the soul dooms a person to Hell, while venial (i.e., small) sins or any residual temporal punishment remaining after confession must be expiated in Purgatory. However, references to Purgatory can neither be found explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. Catholic apologists, of course, argue that the doctrine is based on Scripture.

The other day I was listening to my daily dose of Catholic talk radio via the “Called to Communion” radio show with host David Anders and a listener called in asking where Purgatory could be found in the Bible. Anders responded by saying the doctrine of Purgatory and praying for the dead can be found in 2 Maccabees 12:38-46. See here.

While the Roman Catholic church accepts 2 Maccabees and the other books of the Apocrypha (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther) as Scripture, the Jews of ancient Israel never embraced those materials as Scripture and, likewise, Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from them. Besides, the dead soldiers cited in the passage had been participating in gross idolatry, a “mortal” sin according to Catholic dogma, so they would have been disqualified from Purgatory anyway.

But wait! Anders also claimed the apostle, Paul, refers to Purgatory in 2 Timothy 1:16-18. Let’s take a look at that passage:

“16) May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains, 17) but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me earnestly and found me— 18) may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!—and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.”

But is this passage referring to Purgatory? Let’s look at John MacArthur’s exegesis of this passage from “The MacArthur Bible Commentary,” 2005, p. 1805:

1:16 Onesiphorus. One of Paul’s loyal coworkers who had not deserted Paul, but befriended him in prison and was not ashamed or afraid to visit the apostle there regularly and minister to his needs. Since Paul asks Timothy to greet those in his house (4:19), the family obviously lived in or near Ephesus.

1:17 when he arrived in Rome. Onesiphorus was perhaps on a business trip, and the text implies that his search involved time, effort, and possibly even danger.

1:18 that day. This is also called the “Day of Christ,” when believers will stand before the judgement seat and be rewarded (Phil. 1:6, Phil. 1:10, 1 Cor. 3:13, 2 Cor. 5:10, 1 Pet. 1:5).

Catholicism errs greatly by confusing the judgement seat of Christ (the Bema Seat), where the works of saved believers will be judged, with the Great White Throne Judgement where the unsaved will be judged in their sins and condemned to Hell.

Claiming from 2 Timothy 1:16-18 that Onesiphorus is dead and in Purgatory and that Paul is praying for him is forcing-a-square-peg-through-a-round-hole eisegesis. Onesiphorus was alive at the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy and the apostle was praying that Onesiphorus be rewarded at the Bema Seat for his service and was also praying for his family back in Ephesus for their sacrifice in his absence.

Over the centuries, Rome, with its works gospel of sacramental grace and merit, created an elaborate system with regards to Purgatory involving indulgences, the church’s treasury of merit, and prayers for the dead. But believers know that God’s Word mentions only two afterlife destinations for the dead; Heaven and Hell.

“So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” – 2 Cor. 5:6-8

There is no “middle place” for the punishment of small sins. “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” – James 2:10. Purgatory is a man-made creation meant as a “safety net” for credulous works religionists. There is only Heaven and Hell. We are all sinners and none of us can merit Heaven. Repent of your sin and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith alone.

What does the Bible say about Purgatory?
https://www.gotquestions.org/purgatory.html

Sacred Tradition: Roman Catholicism’s convenient “wild card”

Several months ago, I wrote a post about one of my memories of growing up within Catholicism. When I was in grammar school, the nuns would periodically go to the blackboard and draw a three-legged stool as a symbol of the Catholic church. The idea was that the church was extremely well-supported by its three pillars of guidance and authority: Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the magisterium (the pope and the bishops as teachers). All three legs were taught to be equal in authority. It was pointed out by the sisters that, in contrast, the poor Protestants had only one leg, Holy Scripture, supporting their stool, which of course made for a laughable and completely untrustworthy seating device.

In that previous post, I commented on how pope Francis’ controversial lifting of the ban on communion for remarried divorcees has exposed the baselessness of the claims regarding the divinely-led teaching authority of the papacy. See here.

In this post, I would like to focus briefly on the other non-Biblical leg of Catholic authority; Sacred Tradition. Catholicism defines “sacred tradition” as “the oral teachings of Jesus Christ given to His apostles, not recorded in Scripture, that were faithfully handed down within the church from one generation to the next.” One would think that BY NOW, Catholicism would have published a book that collects all of these alleged oral teachings, but that is NOT the case. If you go to a nearby Catholic bookstore, you won’t find a book titled, “The Compendium of Sacred Tradition.” Why not? It turns out that  Sacred Tradition is Catholicism’s convenient “wild card.”

Wild card definition: A playing card whose value can vary as determined by its holder.

As the early Christian church became increasingly institutionalized, it began absorbing and adapting many pagan beliefs and practices. These doctrines could not be traced to any explicit teachings in Scripture. In many cases, there wasn’t even an implicit basis. In all such cases, Rome invoked its wild card, Sacred Tradition. A doctrine may not have had any explicit or even implicit basis in Scripture, but the church was able to claim the teaching had its origin in the unrecorded oral teachings of Christ and His apostles and was therefore beyond criticism and examination. One example, among literally hundreds if not thousands, would be the teaching of the efficacy of praying to Mary and the “saints.” Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments are there examples of believers praying to anyone other than God. There is no explicit or implicit basis in Scripture for such a practice. In contrast, Scripture expressly forbids communicating with the dead and teaches that God alone is to be prayed to and worshiped and that Jesus Christ alone is the Mediator between God and men. But Catholicism absorbed and adapted the pagan belief in multiple patron deities (see here) into the intercession of Mary and the “saints” and was able to invoke its mysterious and unverifiable “sacred tradition” as the basis of such doctrines.

As I said, you will not find a book detailing all of Catholicism’s sacred traditions, but the category is conveniently used as a wild card to justify any Catholic teaching that is not found in the Bible.

“Sacred tradition: A body of oral tradition, supposed to have been handed down from generation to generation in unbroken succession, either from the Lord Himself or from the apostles enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Rome has been challenged to disclose what that body of tradition is, and what are its contents beyond what has already been announced by the papacy, but she has never made it known. It can only be concluded that she prefers to have its substance secret; that she may draw further upon its hidden store as later circumstances require. It reminds one of the hat out of which the conjuror produces his rabbits one after another.” – from “Roman Catholicism In the Light of Scripture” by F.C.H. Dreyer and E. Weller, Kindle position 494.

Untethered to Scriptural Truth, Rome has granted itself the ability to create a multitude of doctrines that are either un-Biblical or anti-Biblical, all under the murky, untestable guise of “Sacred Tradition.”

“This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” – Matthew 15:8-9

Catholicism revels in its “superior” three-legged teaching authority, but by supplanting God’s Word, it has led its followers into spiritual darkness and death.

Is repentance a work?

Repent.

 

It’s become a ridiculed word in society and, surprisingly, even among some Christians.

When I encourage readers to accept Jesus Christ in my posts, I’ll often write something like, “Repent of your sin and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith alone.”

Some may ask, what exactly is meant by “repent”?

The Greek words for repent (verb) and repentance (noun) are metanoéō and metanoia and they appear a total of 55 times in the New Testament. The “Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance” defines metanoia as:

“Change of mind, repentance, the state of changing any or all of the elements composing one’s life: attitude, thoughts, and behaviors concerning the demands of God for right living: note that this state can refer to the foundational salvation event in Christ, or to on-going repentance in the Christian life” (my italics and boldface).

When a person is saved, they change their mind (repent) about their rebellion against God, agreeing with God that they are an absolute helpless sinner in need of the Savior, and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Repentance is part of the conversion to Christ. A person can’t accept Christ as Savior until they have understood through the ministry of the Holy Spirit their desperate need of the Savior and repented (changed their mind) about their rebellion against God. Every person who has accepted (some prefer to say “trusted in”) Christ as Savior has repented of their sinful rebellion. Many preachers of the Gospel even use “repentance” as shorthand for conversion to Christ.

Repentance, turning from sinful rebellion against God to trusting in Christ as Savior by faith alone, is Scriptural and is well understood as basic, elementary theology by most Christians.

Apostle Peter declared to unbelievers, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.” Acts 3:19

Apostle Paul later declared to unbelievers, “How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. – Acts 20:20-21

Once a person is saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone, they will follow Christ imperfectly and must repent of (turn from) subsequent sins of disobedience, however that is not a matter of salvation, but of sanctification.

Pretty basic stuff, huh? Shouldn’t even be an issue, right? So why am I making a fuss about all of this?

A fellow WordPress blogger has repeatedly accused me of adding works to the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone by mentioning repentance as part of conversion. He claims that repentance is a work and cannot be added to simply accepting Christ as Savior.

I’ve been wrongly accused of a lot of things, but I don’t like being accused of distorting the Gospel. I’ve explained several times to this individual that repentance is turning from rebellion against God to agreeing with God about the need for Christ, so it is a vital component of accepting Christ. You can’t accept Christ until you have understood (changed your mind regarding) your need for Christ. But this blogger is having none of it and believes he is defending the pure Gospel against an imaginary work. While I applaud this person’s defense of the Gospel of grace, his misunderstanding of repentance causes him to tilt at windmills. It’s very clear that he understands “repentance” only in some type of Catholic penitential, self-reformational sense.

However, this blogger is not alone in this viewpoint as I have seen some others rankled over the same issue. So why do I continue to include admonitions to repent in my invitations to receive Christ if some are troubled by it? As I explained, repentance is a very necessary part of accepting Christ. At many churches, there are often ambiguous invitations to “follow Jesus” or “receive Jesus into your heart.” Church visitors often “respond” to invitations without truly understanding their depraved, sinful state and their need of Christ as Savior. They make a “decision” and then go home and live their lives like they always have. Their was no genuine conversion. Sinners MUST repent (change their minds) about their sinful rebellion against God and turn to Christ. You cannot genuinely trust in Christ UNLESS you have repented! Repentance is absolutely mandatory in Biblical salvation! Attempting to concoct some type of salvation in Christ without repentance would be like an imaginary scenario in which someone just showed up at a doctor’s office out of the blue with no symptoms. “I’m here, Doc, but I don’t know why I’m here!” Does not compute. Only people who admit they are sick seek a doctor’s help. That’s repentance.

I’ll admit I’m a little frustrated at having to repeatedly defend myself against accusations of adding works to the Gospel, but I hold no ill will against this blogger who has a limited understanding of theology and is sincerely attempting to defend the Gospel of grace. I have suggested to the person that he do a word study of repent/metanoéō and repentance/metanoia in the New Testament, but that would precipitate an uncomfortable paradigm shift.

“Repentance means that you realize that you’re a guilty, vile sinner in the presence of God. That you deserve the wrath and punishment of God, that you are hell bound. It means that you begin to realize that this thing called sin is in you, that you long to get rid of it and that you turn your back on it in every shape and form. You renounce the world, whatever the cost. The world in its mind and outlook as well as its practice and you deny yourself and take up the cross and go after Christ. Your nearest and dearest and the whole world may call you a fool, or say you have religious mania, you may have to suffer financially, it makes no difference, that is repentance. It’s always been understood the same way. It is a complete change, life-changing and it begins at salvation and that just starts a permanent lifelong process of ongoing confession of sin.” – Martyn Lloyd-Jones from “Studies in the Sermon on the Mount”

The idolatry of “Thomism” among some evangelical intellectuals

I like to tell people I’m a Theology 101 kind of guy. Praise the Lord that His Good News! is so simple even a child can understand it. But I appreciate the work that godly theologians have done over the years and I have picked up a few things here and there.

One thing that bothers me, though, is how some evangelical theologians are enamored with Roman Catholic medieval theologian, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Those who specialize in studying Aquinas proudly dub themselves as “Thomists.” Three very influential evangelical theologians who embraced Thomism are Norman Geisler, and the late John Gerstner and R.C. Sproul.

R.C. Sproul passed into Heaven only a couple of months. I really appreciated R.C.’s ministry and his fidelity to the Gospel of grace. Every once in a while, I’ll listen to the daily broadcast from R.C.’s Ligonier Ministry, “Renewing Your Mind,” and this morning the topic was “Why Didn’t Jesus Know?” (see link below) in which R.C. explained why Jesus didn’t know the time of the Second Coming as it’s written in Matthew 24:36. R.C. explained that Thomas Aquinas had a wrong understanding of the verse, but emphatically qualified that statement with the following:

“I respect Saint Thomas Aquinas as much or more than any other theologian that’s ever lived. I think Saint Thomas was astonishing in his brilliance and in his consistent understanding of the things of God.”

[Pausing wearily]

As I said, I’m certainly not a theologian, but I do know several things about Thomas Aquinas. The Catholic church considers him their preeminent theologian. He promoted and defended the teachings of baptismal regeneration and sacramental grace, auricular confession of sins to a priest, purgatory and indulgences, the invocation and intercession of the saints in Heaven, and papal primacy. Borrowing heavily from Aristotelian philosophy, Aquinas defined, among other things, the spiritually deadly false dogma of eucharistic transubstantiation.

Thomas Aquinas was certainly no friend of the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace though faith in Jesus Christ alone. Many of the other doctrines he promoted, defended, and defined were un-Biblical and even anti-Biblical. What is it exactly that attracts these evangelical theologians to Aquinas?

I love R.C. Sproul and I’m grateful for his ministry in my life. I am not trying to besmirch the reputation of a departed brother who was faithful to the Gospel in many other ways, but I am very disappointed by R.C.’s unqualified great praise of Thomas Aquinas in today’s taped radio message and elsewhere. R.C. wasn’t perfect. This infatuation with Thomas Aquinas and Thomism among some evangelicals is a spiritual blind spot that I believe is rooted in intellectual pride.

In all things, we must always follow the Lord, Jesus Christ and His Word, rather than men. If Christian teachers, even otherwise solid Christian teachers, depart from the truth, we must follow the Lord.

“It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.” – Psalm 118:8

---

“Why Didn’t Jesus Know?”
http://renewingyourmind.org/2018/02/27/why-didnt-jesus-know

Many claim to be “evangelical,” but what is an evangelical?

Lately, I’ve been commenting on how the labels “Protestant” and “evangelical” have become pretty much meaningless these days. A recent Pew Research poll (see here) showed that 52% of those who identified as “Protestant” and 33% of those who identified as “evangelical” believe salvation is attained through a mixture of “faith” and works, just as Catholicism teaches. Those are disturbing statistics but not surprising given the rampant ecumenism and minimization of doctrine in the church today.

The other night, I was scanning through the news and came across this timely article from Will Graham at Evangelical Focus that summarizes basic evangelical belief into thirteen points, based upon a 1971 address by pastor, Martyn Lloyd-Jones. There are many so-called “evangelical” pastors and para-church leaders out there today who are blurring the Gospel of grace. Let’s pray that the Lord raises up Christian leaders who will continue to defend the Good News! of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone and genuine Biblical Christianity despite the compromise and betrayal of so many.

---

Martyn Lloyd-Jones: What is an Evangelical?
By Will Graham, Evangelical Focus
September 2, 2017

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (MLJ) is perhaps best-known as Britain’s leading biblical expositor throughout the twentieth century. Today we are going to hone in upon the second of his three addresses at the 1971 International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES) Conference in which he outlined thirteen key characteristics of evangelicals.

1.- An evangelical is Bible-centered

Evangelicals are committed to the supreme authority of Scripture in all questions of doctrine and conduct. They too, like John Wesley, are men “of one book.” As MLJ put it, “He is a man of one book; he starts with it; he submits himself to it; that is his authority. He does not start from any extra-biblical authority. He confines himself and submits himself completely to the teaching of the Bible.”

To continue reading the article, click on the link below:
http://evangelicalfocus.com/magazine/2833/LloydJones_What_is_an_Evangelical

Amoris Laetitia: A potentially catastrophic crack in the dam or a glorious step towards “Christian unity”?

My mother-in-law died a slow, excruciating death from emphysema way back in the early 1980s. I had accepted Christ about one year prior to her death and was able to witness to her several times before she accepted Jesus as her Savior. But the funeral services had already been arranged by members of the family including a Catholic mass. When it came time during the mass to receive communion, the priest invited everyone in attendance, Catholics AND Protestants, to participate. That was radical stuff back in 1984! The bishop of Rochester at the time, Matthew Clark, was a very liberal fellow who often turned a blind eye to deviations from Catholic orthodoxy (and perhaps encouraged them).

Roman Catholicism teaches its priests change bread wafers into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ at the mass. The priest then offers up the Jesus wafers to God the Father as a sacrifice for the sins of the congregants. People then line up to consume the Jesus wafer, believing it will impart grace so that the recipient will be better able to avoid sin and thereby merit Heaven. Rome teaches that only Catholics and members of Eastern Orthodox churches may receive its communion.

The church also theoretically only allows communion to those in a “state of grace” (without any mortal sin on their soul). Catholics who have divorced and remarried without an annulment of the first marriage were considered to be living in an ongoing adulterous relationship, a mortal sin, and were prohibited from receiving communion. That was the infallible teaching of the church for a millennia. But with divorce rates soaring among Catholics, and many divorced-and-remarried Catholics feeling alienated and falling away from the church, Pope Francis issued his Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) encyclical last April, which seems to pragmatically allow priests the ability to decide if remarried Catholics can receive communion on a case-by-case basis.

Traditionalists rightly see Amoris Laetitia as an assault on the infallible teaching  of all previous popes and hence the current standoff between conservative cardinals and Francis. But Amoris Laetitia is only the first crack in the dam. Liberal Catholic prelates such as German cardinal, Walter Kasper, mentioned in the articles below, anticipate the day when Catholics will share communion with Protestants as official practice. Kasper and others are like sharks who smell blood in the water with the publication of Amoris Laetitia and will be relentless in their demand for open communion, which will be a major step in recovering the “separated brethren” under the wings of Rome.

But what about Rome’s claim that its infallible teachings can’t be abrogated? Pope Francis winks at that dogma. He “bent” the rule for divorced remarrieds by using ambiguous language in this encyclical. How will he (or his successor) specifically get around no-communion for Protestants? I don’t know but rest assured it’s coming.

---

Could Non-Catholics Share Communion With Catholic Spouses At Last? This Cardinal Thinks So

Cardinal Kasper: Pope’s ‘next declaration’ should allow ‘shared Eucharistic communion’ with Protestants

5 Reasons I’m Not Catholic

I appreciate the good article below that was published on The Christian Post web site a few days ago.

---

5 Reasons I’m Not Catholic
By Shane Idleman
The Christian Post
12/15/2016

I recently had the privilege of meeting a priest of a large parish in Southern California. The purpose of our conversation was to discuss the role of tradition in light of Scripture. Granted, some tradition is beneficial if it lines up with Scripture.

I have Catholic friends who are devoted to God — they are pillars in our community. I attended a Catholic High School and loved the faculty. I desire peace with all men, but the Bible also encourages me to boldly and confidently present a scriptural basis for truth.

To continue reading the article, click on the link below…

http://www.christianpost.com/news/5-reasons-im-not-catholic-172119/

Sin: “Mortal” or “Venial”?

How do we define “sin”? That’s pretty easy. Sin is rebellion against God. A Bible Christian would rightly say that any thought, action, or act of omission that defies God’s will as revealed in His Word is a sin.

But Roman Catholicism draws a distinction between major or “mortal” sins and lesser or “venial” (Latin: venialis – pardonable) sins. If a Catholic dies with any unconfessed mortal sin on their soul, they are told they will be sent to Hell. If they die with only venial sins, they will be sent to Purgatory to be cleansed before proceeding to Heaven.

So what’s the difference between mortal and venial sins? Catholicism teaches that for a sin to be mortal it must meet the following three conditions:

• Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter. The Ten Commandments define grave matter.
• It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.
• It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

Examples of mortal sins include premeditated murder, purposely missing obligatory mass on Sunday, adultery, and stealing a large sum of money.

Examples of venial sins would be saying the Lord’s name in a fit of anger, nagging a spouse, smoking cigarettes, and stealing an inexpensive item.

Of course, the distinctions between mortal and venial sins get very hazy, very quickly. At what dollar amount does an inexpensive item become an expensive one? At what point does nagging become psychological abuse? When watching an R-rated movie with nudity, when does more-than-casual interest drift into unmitigated lust?

So, why does Catholicism distinguish between major and minor sins? Church father, Tertullian*, introduced the distinction between mortal and venial sins in the latter half of the second century. As the early church became increasingly institutionalized, simple, saving faith in Jesus Christ as Savior devolved into ritual and religious legalism controlled by the increasingly powerful clergy and corresponding changes in doctrine were required. If ALL sin was deadly to the soul, as the Bible teaches, then no one could possibly earn their salvation. By grading sin, it was postulated that people could successfully merit their way into Heaven with the help of the clerics. Over time, sin became even less deadly. The Jesuits are infamous for introducing the concept of “casuistry.” Using this intellectual sophistry, a person could commit even a mortal sin without any guilt if they had made a reservation in their mind that the sinful action would result in a moral good. Needless to say, Catholics flocked to Jesuit confessors because much of their mortal sin could be rationalized away.

In contrast to Rome’s teaching, the Bible teaches ALL sin is deadly. We aren’t sinners because we sin, we sin because we’re sinners. Yes, all of us are sinners and we all deserve eternal punishment. But God loves us so much He sent Jesus Christ, God the Son, to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. But He rose from the grave, defeating sin and death, and offers eternal life and fellowship with God to all who accept Him as Savior by faith.

But aren’t there some Bible verses that talk about the “sin unto death”? Yup, but they’re not talking about the “mortal” sin of Catholicism. See here. But doesn’t the Bible talk about some sins being worse than others and meriting greater punishment? Yup, but sin is still sin. See here.

Catholics are walking a religious tightrope and are hoping by their efforts they can merit Heaven. The Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sin gives Catholics the false hope that they can earn their way into Heaven. Because of this system, many Catholics seek to justify themselves, declaring something along the lines of, “I might not be perfect but at least I’ve never killed anyone or sold drugs to children.” But God’s Word declares all of us are sinners to the core and none of us can possibly earn Heaven. Even the good things that we do are often motivated by sinful intentions.

“As it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.’” – Romans 3:10-12

Like the thief on the cross without a single plea, accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith. Once you have repented of your sins and accepted Christ, then you can follow Him as Lord of your life.

“Whoever believes (Greek: pisteuo – to believe, put one’s faith in, trust, with an implication that actions based on that trust may follow) in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:18

* Webster, William. The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003), p. 104.