ROMAN CATHOLICISM REFUTED
BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN AGAIN CATHOLIC
BY DAVID M CURRIE
The thesis of the book: Roman Catholicism is the religion of the Bible which is
the word of God. It is the religion the Bible teaches.
The truth: The book distorts the Bible to make it seem so. The Bible contradicts
and therefore God condemns nearly every major doctrine of the Roman Catholic
faith.
CURRIE SAYS, Fundamentalist Evangelicals believe that Catholics are going to
Hell because they try to earn their salvation (page 16).
THE TRUTH: All Evangelicals believe that there are Catholics who have trusted in
Jesus alone and not good works for salvation but hold that this happened in
spite of their faith and not because of it.
CURRIE SAYS, The doctrine of separation which forbids Evangelicals to work with
liberal ministers, and even conservative evangelicals who work with liberals
(second degree separation) is not biblically justifiable (page 21).
THE TRUTH: Because the Bible says that loving God alone is the chief commandment
it is clear that believing in God is more important even than loving your
neighbour as yourself. So when belief comes first anybody associating with
liberals and working with them is advertising the lack of faith and increased
scepticism which characterises liberalism so the Bible does forbid it. The Bible
demands that heretics be thrown out. A book that wants homosexuals dead and
barred from the kingdom for once-off harmless sexual act couldn't have it any
other way.
CURRIE SAYS, The Catholic Church regards evangelicals as 100% brothers in Christ
(page 33).
THE TRUTH: The Catholic Church regards them as branches partly broken off the
vine for only those who know and accept the full Catholic faith and who are free
from serious sin are proper members of the Church. They are more like defective
Catholics than full brothers.
Evangelicals believe there is always sin in us and they believe that all sin is
mortal and deserves Hell and rejects God totally. So how could Evangelicals be
brothers in Christ with this belief for it means they claim to be mortal sinners
all the time which means they are guaranteed Hell as long as they do that
according to Roman theology? The Roman Church refuses to call evil baptised
people Christians. The deliberate hypocrisy of the Roman Church is plain.
CURRIE SAYS, The Law of Moses has so much missing in it that God through Moses
must have wanted the people to get the rest of his word through oral tradition
(page 52). Jesus defended the oral tradition of the Pharisees and the scribes in
Matthew 23:2,3 when he commanded his hearers to do all they tell them but not to
do what they do. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says people must obey the apostles
teaching in word of mouth or in letter.
Incidentally, this would mean Jesus agreed that homosexuals should be put to
death for that was part of what the Pharisees and scribes would have instructed
the people what to do.
THE TRUTH: When the Law claims that nothing must be added to it and it needs
adding to it only means that the Law is wrong not that the Law expects to be
supplemented by oral tradition. Oral tradition is always dangerous for nothing
is as easy to fabricate as a false oral tradition. Catholicism knows this which
is why it claims it has the charism of infallibility to protect itself from
false tradition but Judaism was never infallible or claimed to be.
As an ex-evangelical the writer of this evil book knows fine well that
Evangelicals hold that 2 Thessalonians refers to what people heard the apostles
say and what they wrote not traditions. He's lying. He also knows that Jesus
condemned Jewish tradition (Mark 7). Jewish tradition condemned him as a false
Messiah so if he was the true Messiah then this shows how dangerous it is.
Jewish tradition expected a warlike Messiah empowered by God who would lead his
people successfully into triumph over the enemies of the Jews. Jesus didn’t fit
the bill at all.
CURRIE SAYS, Evangelicals are shocked at how the Catholic Church wont throw out
wicked Christians. But Jesus said we must let them stay in the Church and leave
it to him to throw them out on the last day (Matthew 13).
THE TRUTH: The real reason the Church behaves so generously is because it is the
key to much of its power and money. A corrupt Church that invites bad morals is
sure to be popular.
Jesus said that he did not want the weeds pulled out for some of the wheat would
be pulled up too. All he is saying is that there are times we must give the
sinner the benefit of the doubt for he or she might be trying to be loyal to
Jesus and holy. He is not saying that we must let evil people do what they want
in the name of the Church. He would want us to throw them out.
CURRIE SAYS, Protestants recognise the book of Ezekiel as scripture but not the
portions from the Apocrypha added to the book of Daniel. The Catholic Church
accepts the portions as scripture. The prophet Daniel was only a boy when
Ezekiel wrote so when Ezekiel 14 mentions Daniel it can only be the other Daniel
from before Ezekiel's time who was mentioned in the Apocryphal part of the book
of Daniel (chapters 13-14) which shows that the Apocrypha is the word of God
(page 104).
THE TRUTH: The Catholic New American Bible footnote says that this Daniel is the
one mentioned in Canaanite literature. It only says it is possible that he is
the one in Daniel 13-14 which is the apocryphal part of Daniel. Maybe he is but
if he is that does not make the two chapters to be scripture especially when
Daniel chapter 14 has a dragon in it!
CURRIE SAYS, When Peter the apostle gave messianic prophecies that Jesus was
the Messiah he would have used the Apocrypha which contains many such prophecies
(page 105).
THE TRUTH: the Apocrypha does not present the material taken as messianic
prophecy as prophecy. Don't assume predictions when you don't need to. And even
if it did, the prophecies could have been plagiarised from the prophecies in the
real Bible. And there is no evidence that Peter considered the Apocrypha as
scripture or quoted it as such. Even if he had quoted it as the word of God that
would not mean it was infallible scripture for all false scriptures contain some
value and may have pieces in them that originated with real prophets.
CURRIE SAYS, Only people who did not want to see the truth would agree with
Christians who do not believe in the Apocrypha as the word of God (page 106).
The Septuagint which contained the Apocryphal books was without a doubt the
Bible used by the apostolic Christians (page 106)
THE TRUTH: The evidence in the book for the Apocrypha is sub-standard so how
dare its author attack those who disbelieve in the inspiration of these books.
Currie has a nerve trying to get us to believe in the Apocrypha for the reason
he gives for he knows fine well that Rome rejected the Prayer of Manasseh and
other books in the Apocrypha as scriptural. The attraction about the Septuagint
was that it was in Greek which suited a Gentile audience and its careless and
loose translations of the Hebrew original fitted Christian propaganda better.
The altered prophecies allegedly about the Messiah were easier to fit into the
Jesus story than what the Hebrew original had. Does the Church of England
favouring Bibles with the Apocrypha in it mean that that Church accepts the
whole lot as scripture?
CURRIE SAYS, James 2 teaches that justification is by faith and good works and
not faith alone (page 114). Evangelicals ignore the James passage because it
contradicts their theology (114).
The parables of Jesus eg of the good Samaritan and the talents teach salvation
by faith and works (page 115). Jesus said that those who cry Lord but who do not
do the will of God will not be saved which rejects salvation by faith only.
"Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" rejects
salvation by faith only for only those who forgive will be forgiven. Paul would
not have called us to work out our salvation by fear and trembling if faith
alone saves for then there would be nothing to fear.
THE TRUTH: James teaches salvation by faith that is expressed by good works and
says that faith without works is not a gift from God and cannot save. The mark
of faith that is a gift of God is that it produces good works. When he says we
are not saved by faith alone he means the kind of faith the Devil has, a faith
which does not change the heart.
The assertion of the book that evangelicals ignore James is simply a slur. It
shows how Currie's agenda is to smear his former faith to make the Catholic
Church look good. I have read many evangelical studies of James and it is not
ignored in their Bible commentaries. They say that Paul is speaking of a person
who is made righteous by repentance and having their sins wiped away - they are
saved without any requirement for good works. They James is discussing a person
who has already been justified this way. This person is not genuinely saved if
they don't do good works for good works are the fruit of faith that saves
without good works.
Believers in justification by faith alone hold that though they are guaranteed
heaven they still need to repent the sins they commit after they are justified
not because God rejects them as sinners but because they are not getting the
best out of God. Sins are forgiven before you repent them if you are saved in
this theology but in the fellowship sense forgiveness is still required. In
other words, God does not hold your sins against but you still have repent and
be forgiven in the sense of restoring your fellowship in the practical sense
with him.
The good Samaritan parable (Luke 10) never mentions salvation and all it says is
that everybody who needs help is your neighbour. Currie must see that. That
doesn’t stop him trying to use it against the Protestant theology of
justification by faith alone.
The two sons parable (Mt 21) does not defend salvation by faith and works.
Currie says it does. There Jesus says that one son said he would do what his
father asked and didn’t. The other refused but then had a change of heart and
did it and got a reward while the other didn’t. Then he said that tax collectors
and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before the respectable Jews.
Currie seems to think that because the son who repented pleased his father that
the parable is saying that the works pleased the father. But Jesus doesn’t use
this as a strict analogy of what will happen with God for God is not a man. Not
too much can be read into it. But undeniably, the parable is compatible with
Protestant theology which would say that the son repented and accepted his
fathers will by faith and acted out that faith and the resulting works pleased
his father not that the works earned a Heaven or salvation though they might
have earned a reward.
The parable of the Sheep and Goats (Mt 25) which is another attempt by Currie to
prove salvation by faith and works fails to do what he wants. In it Jesus says
he will reject those who have done no good works. But Catholicism and
Christianity have always taught that deathbed repentance without good works will
save.
The Catholic and evangelical faiths teach that without faith you cannot do good
works that please God. They say that works done without the grace of God are
unacceptable to him and he doesn’t reward them. Therefore Jesus could be taken
by them to mean that those who are barred from Heaven for not doing good works
were barred because they failed to do the good works that result from proper
faith. Perhaps they did do good works but were not purified so that the Lord
could accept their works.
The Bible never gives any hint that there is such a thing as sin that isn't bad
enough to make God disown you. In other words, there is no hint of the doctrine
of venial sin in the Bible. The Bible would say if there was such a thing as
venial sin for it makes such a difference to understand what the Bible says
about salvation. If venial sin exists then it is possible that the doctrine that
Jesus imputes his goodness to the account of the unrighteous is false for then
you can commit these sins and still go to Heaven. But if venial sin does not
exist then all sin rejects God totally and nobody will be saved meaning that the
only hope is a substitute earning salvation for sinners in their place. This is
the doctrine that lies behind salvation by faith alone and not good works. The
silence of the Bible on venial sin proves that justification and pardon by faith
alone and not by good works as taught by Protestantism is Bible doctrine and
that Roman Catholicism is apostate and dangerous Christianity for denying this.
The letter to the Romans which was intended to convince Roman Christians that
good works had nothing to do with salvation because all were sinners would have
mentioned venial sin had it existed for it does not block salvation.
Roman Catholicism teaches that good works can atone for venial sin but the Bible
is clear that the blood of Jesus is the only thing that can atone for sin.
Hebrews 10 even says that the sacrifices of animals the Jewish priests offered
to God for atonement did not work and stresses that there is no need for
anything added on to the blood of Jesus to atone for sins. Rome certainly agrees
that the blood of Jesus is more than enough to atone for all the sins ever
committed. But to say that sins are cancelled and paid for by doing good works
is to say that God wants more atonement than he needs which makes him a
vindictive and unfair God. You can't pay a penalty for sins for which the price
has been fully paid.
Hebrews 10 says that Jesus offered one sacrifice that perfects the forgiving of
sin by forgiving all sin and that when all sins have been pardoned there is no
need for any more sacrifices. The purpose of the letter is to stop us thinking
we can be pardoned by Jesus and need to make more offerings to God for sin. We
would not be thinking that unless we had sinned since we accepted Jesus and his
mercy. But these sins have been forgiven anyway meaning the substitution theory
that Jesus has done it all for us is true according to the Bible.
CURRIE SAYS, Saying believe on Jesus and be saved in the Bible was a shorthand
way of saying believe and be baptised (page 139).
THE TRUTH: Speculation. The Bible never says that Baptism has anything to do
with salvation. It says baptism pictures God cleaning you from your sins. But it
never hints that baptism was so important and as important as faith that one
can't be had without the other. It would need to make them inseparable if belief
could mean belief and baptism.
CURRIE SAYS, The doctrine that each person is a member of the body of Jesus
shows that the idea of an invisible true Church is unscriptural (page 152).
THE TRUTH: the body parts are physically separate from the head so only the head
knows which person is really a body part. The concept supports an invisible
Church. A fake Christian cannot be a member of the body of Christ though he or
she seems to be but to all practical intents and purposes he or she can be a
member of a visible Church.
CURRIE SAYS, The doctrine of Evangelicals that man can do nothing good does not
fit what we see of people (page 170).
THE TRUTH: Evangelicals teach that even if we seem to be good we are not being
good. We want good on our terms not on God's so the good is really evil.
CURRIE SAYS, the woman in Revelation wears a crown of twelve stars so she must
be queen of Heaven - so Mary is Queen of Heaven.
THE TRUTH: You can wear a crown without being Queen or King. Many royals have
their own crowns though it is the king or queen who has the authority. The lady
could be queen of Israel which is represented by the twelve stars but Mary was
never that and the Church holds that her queenship over the world and Heaven is
what counts and should be emphasised. If the Church's interpretation were right
that would be emphasised in the chapter.
Rome calls Mary the mother of all Christians. It alleges that Jesus gave us his
mother to be our mother too. The pagan origin of this notion is obvious from the
following observation. Mary is not just our mother in name but in fact according
to the Church. We are adopted by her as her sons and daughters. She looks after
us then. She can do this only by interceding with God for us for she supposedly
has no power of her own. But if that is how she looks after us then it follows
that St Martin de Porres is our father for he is doing what makes her a mother!
There is a major contradiction then in Roman theology. Calling Mary mother in
Roman theology despite their denials must be an attempt to make her a goddess
for she cannot be mother just by interceding. She must have magic power of her
own and perhaps the power to force God to do things against his will. Satan must
be working behind the apparitions of Mary in which she calls for her flock to
acknowledge her as mother.
CONCLUSION
The Roman Catholic Church is one of the most remarkable religions of all time.
Not only are nearly all its major doctrines not in the Bible but they do not
stand up to the scrutiny of history or commonsense. The doctrines have sinister
implications and religions that teach such should be abandoned.
No matter what book you read on Catholic Apologetics the same thing is true,
they all depend on lies and errors to look like a defence of that faith. What
does that say about the Roman Church? What needs to be defended by lies is
false. Roman Catholicism admits that most of its doctrines cannot be found in
the Bible. It supplements the Bible with tradition that is said to be the word
of God too. But the Bible claims to be the word of God in the strongest possible
way. It says it is god-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). That means it is as much the
word of God as would a word breathed out by God in speech would be. Tradition
never claims to be god-breathed or that God literally inspired every word it
says so it stands to reason that the Bible is the supreme authority and anything
that it is not in it should not be binding for belief. Currie of course refuses
to mention all this (page 55) as Catholic apologists do when they come up
against what unsettles them.
* BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN-AGAIN CATHOLIC, by David M Currie, Ignatius Press,
San Francisco, 1996