Why Catholicism is WRONG

yes there's a difference between the Roman Catholic Church and Catholics Catholics are individuals they have individual beliefs they may or may not agree with the church on different areas and they may or may not be saved depending on their personal trust in Jesus and and so we approach them as individuals but the Roman Catholic Church is a little bit of a different thing it has doctrines that are specific that are detailed and my contention is that disagree with the Bible now the foundation of this doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches is actually well it's one particular thing the Roman Catholic Church is based on one pillar the whole church is built on one solid pillar that if this pillar fails then the rest of the doctrine comes tumbling down and that pillar is the Roman Catholic Church's claim to have authority it's the claim of the church to be able to say we and we alone can tell you what the truth is about God that's the claim because if that claim falls apart all of a sudden now I'm holding up the Bible and going let me make sure that what you say is what's in here but if their claims accurate then I can't interpret the Bible only they can so it becomes a very important issue they are based on Authority the Bible is extra it is not essential Roman Catholic Church statements are what's essential this is really important when the Catholic theologian uses the Bible to try to prove Catholic doctrine it's just an exercise it's not that they think they have to they don't believe they have to use the Bible they're just doing that to try to convince you to try to convince others but the official teachings of the Catholic Church well the Bible is important the Bible is valuable but only they can interpret it so in other words they're the ultimate source that's the that's the pillar and in this case I think the emperor has no clothes and the authority claims of the Catholic Church are really vapid they're they end up being very empty we're going to talk about that some more tonight and I'll try to push through the the issues get complicated and I here I mean as my studies in preparation for doing this series I hear so much radically complicate I could literally spend I don't know fifty two weeks talking about Catholic theology and where it differs from Protestant theology and all this sort of thing and you could walk away at the end of the fifty two weeks and you'd be like wow I learned a lot but I'm still totally confused so my goal is going to be to sort of summarize these things and sort of bring them into sort of bite-sized pieces as much as possible to simplify them and I'm going to lose some details along the way but I shouldn't lose any truth along the way I'm going to just kind of jump to the point you know so the Roman Catholic Church bases their case according to Vatican one which we referenced one of the church councils which we referenced last week on to passages of Scripture their case for their authority that single pillar that holds up all the doctrine of the church we declare it therefore it's true well that pillar is based on two passages one is Matthew 16 we looked at that last week and showed that whatever it does teach it certainly does not teach that Peter was the first pope and that the keys of the kingdom equal Catholic Authority that's certainly not the case we looked at that last week you could look at the video from last week if you would like to to get into that in more detail we also showed that the church has not always believed this like the Catholic Church says they did Vatican 1 says Matthew 16 has always been understood by the church to being gift to giving a Thor 'ti and premise II to Peter above all the Apostles and that's where the papacy came from the church does not always understood understood this in fact 80% of the time 80% of the time the Church Fathers disagree with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 so obviously that's not a consistent belief now today we're going to look at John 21 because it's this it's the other passage so John 21 verse 15 now keep in mind they say two things this passage is where Jesus is giving Peter premise II over all the other apostles I'm the one in charge of the church and the church has always believed this to be the case so it's not a new teaching from them it's always been the case and everyone has always known it except for a few you know perverted people who've twisted doctrine so John 20:1 says this in verse 15 so when they had eaten breakfast jesus said to Simon Peter Simon son of Jonah do you love me more than these he said to him yes Lord you know I love you he said to him feed my lambs he said to him again a second time Simon son of Jonah do you love me he said to him yes Lord you know that I love you he said to him tend my sheep he said to him the third time Simon son of Jonah do you love me Peter was grieved because he said to them him the third time do you love me and he said to him Lord you know all things you know that I love you jesus said to him feed my sheep now the Catholic teaching which I read last week - I won't read those long quotes again is that in these words feed my lambs you note in my sheep feed my sheep that in these words Jesus gave Peter primacy over the other apostles and Colet basically the papacy it exists now Jesus Institute's it and it's in this passage now the first thing you notice in this post resurrection passage Jesus sees Peter after his three times denying and then he's sort of reinstituting Peter as a follower and as a shepherd and a minister of the Sheep but what you notice is this whatever Jesus is doing here this says nothing about a papacy I mean you would never read this if you didn't know about the papacy you'd never read the Bible and come up with that doctrine it just would never happen it would never occur to you it's completely artificially you know foisted upon the scriptures pushed onto the Bible we need clear teachings not vague implications especially when someone's claiming to have authority over the entire world this passage doesn't do that for them Jesus here is putting Peter in a shepherding position yes absolutely a shepherding position but does that make feeding the Sheep intending the lambs that's a shepherding role but does that make him like the ultimate apostle who's in charge of all the other apostles no in fact acts 20:28 it talks about all of the elders in Ephesus and all of them are told that they're to Shepherd the Church of God all of them every elder is told a shepherd in fact I'm a pastor and that means Shepherd that that's what that's what my goal is that's what my job is I'm to tend the sheep and feed the Lambs and mr. the body of Christ so this role is a really generic role the shepherding thing so is this a papal this call is he now the chief of all the Apostles actually Peter never even thought of himself this way and first Peter 5 verses 1 through 4 I'll read to you here's Peter writing to other church leaders and notice he doesn't introduce himself as his imminence or his holiness or anything like that he just simply says the elders who are among you I exhort who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed and here's here's his exhortation to them Shepherd the flock of God which is among you so they're Shepherds to serving as overseers not by compulsion but willingly not for dishonest gain but eagerly not as being lords I'm a be a pastor in a shepherd but I am NOT your boss and hopefully that makes you happy we don't we don't have the kind of industry where I tell you who you're going to marry and what car you can buy and how much money you have to tithe that is creepy and it is not I am NOT a lord over the people of God as as our Shepherd and neither did Peter see himself as that but being examples to the flock and when the chief Shepherd appears you'll receive the crown of glory that does not fade away so there is a chief Shepherd there is this one who's in charge of all the shepherds and he they're all accountable to him and they'll receive their crown from this chief shepherd who's who's Peter talking about Jesus and he is not referring to himself he's not the chief shepherd of whose place I'm in he doesn't say anything like that he puts himself alongside that fellow elder fellow Shepherd and here's the chief shepherd Jesus so Peters just like right in line with all the other leaders that's that's how he sees himself the one unique difference is he was a witness sir or a witness of the sufferings of Christ he actually was walking with Jesus and saw him and they later were not but that of course can't be applied to the Pope either because he has not been that in that situation either if I now do you know this that they say that the church has always interpreted this passage in John 21 as referring to Peter as the Pope but no early church riding nun interprets this as some sort of papal proclamation to Peter not even one the earliest interpretation where someone says that this is papal in John 21 is from 680 ad over 600 years later then someone finally has the idea that this is papal and who is it Pope Agatha a very self-serving claim for his own power to increase by tying it to this scripture by the time of the Council of Trent in the 1500s by the time then of Vatican 1 in the 1800s any was 1870 all of a sudden now it's like actual Catholic infallible teaching that this has always meant that and everyone's understood it but this is demonstrably false really what's happening is like 3 times Peter denied Jesus and three times Jesus reinstates Peter and there's more details there there's a lot more in the passage but that's the context Peter did not claim to be the Pope he's not treated as the Pope he didn't wield the power of the papacy if Peter wasn't the Pope how can his successor be the Pope if Peters not the Pope nobody is there is no Pope it's important for that the Catholic Church ties their authority to 2 Peter I mean appetites to something and so they tie it to Peter it's important to make that connection but even in the book of Acts chapter 15 we get this council the first council of the church they gather together to deal with the issue about should the Gentiles observe Old Testament laws about dietary restrictions and should they be circumcised all that kind of stuff the council decides against this and they say no no this is not the gospel that's been revealed to us in yada-yada and they sent a letter out but what's really interesting is to notice this this council is in Jerusalem which is where Peter is he's in Jerusalem Peter speaks at the council and he proclaims hey guys remember when I went and I went to the Centurions I went to the Gentiles and the Holy Spirit fell upon them and this and that obviously he doesn't need them to get circumcised to be saved he filled him with his spirit before they were ever circumcised and so he speaks up but then the one who makes a decision is James Peter's there but James is the one in acts 15 who makes a decision and says I judge thus and then he says will write a letter will do this such-and-such and then that's what happened that's what's done so Peter while he has a certainly a very important role and he certainly was a mouthpiece in a lot of cases that he seemed to be able to public speaker partially because he was just impetuous and would talk a lot I still see in Scripture he just kind of a bigmouth Peter some people call him that I would not use such a slur against Peter I think he's an awesome guy I think is an amazing man I'd love to just sit and just listen to the guy talk and teach and just be around him I think he's amazing amazing just to be able to be like that if I could be around all the Apostles I don't think I'd say anything I just sit there and be like you guys talk I'm just gonna listen you know just I would love it I mean an amazing guy amazing guy but he's not seen as the leader of the Church Universal in the book of Acts even years later so so yeah when all else fails when the Bible doesn't teach the papacy when the Bible doesn't teach certain peculiar Roman Catholic doctrines although there's many good Roman Catholic doctrines I mean the Trinity and the respect towards the Word of God and the the belief in so many different things so much of the teaching about salvation is accurate and right so much is good but where they deviate what's uniquely Roman Catholic that stuff when you can't find it in the Bible when when you can't find in the scripture and you can't teach it with the Bible you run to the early church fathers and that's what you do you go to other people find another source so I can support my doctrine when all those fails they will fall on the early church fathers and they'll say it was always known to be this way and you need to know why they do this Catholic theologians run to the early church fathers plainly because the bible does not support their teachings that's why I have to find another source for the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin because the Bible doesn't support that says Jesus had brothers they'd go oh well brothers there means such-and-such but it just means brothers I have to find another source to say that priests can't be married the only time the Bible in the New Testament mentions an idea of people not being married it taught it calls it a doctrine of demons forbidding people to get married and then they'll go on and have doctrines that the priest cannot get married and it has not born very good fruit in those lives it's a wonderful choice if someone makes to be single for the Lord if they make that choice but I probably won't be before you right now as a pastor if someone told me that I had to you know I was forbidden to be married if I wanted to serve the Lord in this capacity well the Bible does not support those uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines and I'm going to give you in case you're talking to a Catholic person or maybe you're coming across Catholic theology and then they run to the early church fathers and they begin quoting things that you're like what are you talking about I can't even pronounce that guy's name let alone know what you're talking about when you quote him I want to give you four reasons why running to the church fathers does not help the Vatican's cause four reasons okay one church fathers are not the fathers of the church it's a fancy name to be called a church father but when you show up hundreds of years after Jesus you are not a father of the church like when that when the when the thing you fathered existed before you you're not its father does that make sense this is this is this should be easy to understand church fathers can be anytime as late as the 8th century AD so it'll say the church fathers so-and-so and the guy may be writing in 750 ad 620 ad this is way way way long after the book of Acts records the early church not the church fathers I don't like using the term church fathers but because it's used so much I feel like I don't have much of a choice if I'm going to talk about these guys I'll just use the accepted vernacular but they're not the fathers of the church that that immediately strips away so much of this like of the power behind what they say when you realize they didn't start the church they didn't plant the church they came and inherited you know ministries and then made statements and we need to look back further we need to go to the scriptures and if you want to see the early church the actual early church it's not in 300 AD it's in 50 80 it's in 40 AD it's in the book of Acts chapter 5 in chapter 10 and chapter 15 in chapter 2 chapter 30 just kidding there's no chapter 30 just testing you the reason they look to the Father is because they cannot find their teachings in the Bible but someone who speaks 300 or 700 years after Jesus isn't I have no reason to think they're an authority I just have no reason so I don't really want a battle church father with church father with church father I want to go to the scriptures and say show me here and that's what the Reformation did when they said Sola scriptura like only the Bible you show it to me in the Bible and I'll believe it and that is certainly my position today but the vague passages that were brought to from Catholic theologians that to teach things like the papacy and stuff like that and are certainly not sufficient the second reason why you can't trust the church fathers or I should say specifically not that you can't trust them that please don't quote me on that some of them have great things to say that's for sure but the second reason why you cannot trust the Vatican's rendition of the Church Fathers is because of something I heard I've heard one theologian call Peter ISM which I thought was a was a fun term the Peter ISM which is this idea that a Catholic apologist will often quote church fathers to support the idea that Peter was the first pope right but what they'll do is they'll take the quote out of context and basically if this if this guy said anything nice about Peter then Peter's the first pope so they'll be like Peter who was who is of note among the Apostles like that phrase right there boom that's the papacy that proves it they said he was if note so that it's a sort of like a vague reference to Peter or anything nice about Peter or that Peter carried the gospel to the Gentiles and was the first one to preach to the Gentiles and they receive the spirit and you're like therefore he's the Pope and I'm like hold on a second here like one thing does not lead to the other and this is this is what happens is this Peter ISM now the problem with Peter ISM is that you're editing the father's you're sort of selectively pulling some things they said and then the same father might have said something totally against the papacy and they'll just ignore that part so it's just a very selectively edited version of the church fathers who also are not the father to the church the third issue is this there's contradictions and inconsistencies among the people they're quoting to support Catholic doctrine the Church Fathers do not like hold arms and stand together saying together you know purgatory marry ology these things are not there the rosary like these things they're they're not standing together preaching Roman Catholicism it's just not accurate but because there's so many church fathers and the volumes and volumes you have to read it's just so intimidating that nobody's going to go double-check it so they just go okay that's you're like you're just talking over my head at this point just an example last week I already did this with you so I'll spare you the time but last week Matthew 16 the Catholic Church says hey everyone's always agreed that this passage is about Peter getting the keys to the king to kingdom and Peter is the rock in the passage but yet 80% of the time 80 the Church Fathers disagree so they don't stand together saying Roman Catholic theology not only that they actually say things a lot of the time that come directly against Roman Catholicism Clement one of them he wrote a letter to the Corinthians and he wrote that there were a multiplicity of elders there was a bunch of elders in Rome and it was individual sort of groups of believers with their own eldership independently running there was no Bishop of Rome the whole place there was no Pope at the time that's how Clement puts it Tertullian he's the first person to ever use the phrase bishop of bishops or pun effects Maximus and these are titles of the Pope he's the first person to use them this was in the early third century right but here's the interesting thing Tertullian was using them to insult the Bishop of Rome and he said Bishop of Bishops Pontifex Maximus as an insult like tongue-in-cheek I'm insulting you because he was upset that this person was seeming to claim to have more authority than they deserved and so he uses the frame bishop of the phrase bishop of bishops he also says like I said Pontifex Maximus that was a Roman pagan high priest named and he's trying to say see you're doing what that guy does that's totally pagan that's not Christian you Pontifex Maximus that'd be like I was saying oh you're like president monson or something like that like I named you you know after some sort of cult ish leader and that's what he did now later these became titles of the Pope but certainly this church father doesn't agree Cyprien he presided over the seventh Council of Carthage and he said this another one of the Church Fathers for neither does any of us set himself up as Bishop of Bishops nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague other bishops the necessity of obedience since every bishop according to the allowance of his liberty and power has his own proper right of judgment and can no more be judged by any man than he himself can judge another so the point is that Cyprian is saying hey each of the bishops or the leaders of the different churches is accountable to God and you can't tell that you can't go over here say I'm going to tell this church what they need to do and need to not do in this and that of the gods raise up that leader that leaders accountable to God there is no central one guy that's in charge of everybody and this is uh this is important to Roman Catholic theology because Cyprian the guy who says there's no one bishop above the rest he is the same guy who is one of the few who thinks that Peter was the rock in Matthew 16 but how could he think Peters the rock and not think that that means Peters the Pope because he thought every one of them was the rock he thought every leader carried that was now the rock on which the church was built and now do you see how it this doesn't sound like Roman Catholic theology and it's not it's not historically accurate this is not some obscure thing this is totally essential these early father's do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church there isn't like this unanimous voice saying Roman Catholic theology this is why Catholicism and Catholic theologians have to edit and cut and paste the things that the Church Fathers say to create a you know an appearance that it's teaching and so what the church does is that they say yeah the church fathers have authoritative tradition but we select which things they said are authoritative and then they piece it together to you know to endorse their current theology the fourth issue is this that's three here's the fourth it completely and utterly ignores the Bible quoting early church fathers is a problem because it ignores the Bible now doesn't the Bible say anything about how the church is to be run yeah it talks about the Offices of the church in first Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in 1st Corinthians 12 and the continuing offices of the church are elders and deacons and a Pope is never mentioned not once not even once doesn't it seem irresponsible of God to leave us with the Scriptures and not mention that he has one person who's ruling over the whole church and he's just silent about that guy there's no Pope there's no Magisterium there are teachers but they're not considered infallible they're not considered infallible it's up to the individual Christians to test them by the word that's how the New Testament puts it but that's not Roman Catholic theology and the church is not an organization the church is the people I love the phrase the church is an organism not an organization when you get saved even if you're alone on a boat out in the middle in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle you give your life to Jesus Christ you're part of the church even though you have not joined any affiliation of any particular local group of believers you are part of the church but in Catholicism you can put faith in Jesus and not be part of the church because you have not joined the church the Catholic Church and so this is this is the organization of the church in the scripture is pretty clear and it disagrees with with with Roman Catholic theology now Galatians one we talked about last week and Galatians one has this beautiful passage where Paul threatens himself and anyone else who is to preach a false gospel or even actually he just says a different gospel he just a different gospel equals a false gospel right so he just says if anyone me whether it's me whether it's anyone else an angel from heaven even even with supernatural powers comes and preaches to you a gospel other than what you've already received let it be anathema so that means that the other hearer the Galatian person who read this and me and you to whom God wrote it as well we're supposed to hear what we hear what comes from other people leaders and teachers and say let me compare that to what I've already received that's not that's not accurate then I reject you so we're individually responsible for accepting and rejecting teaching based upon how it lines up with the word and this is this is beautiful paul had delivered the gospel and even Paul the Apostle with all his authority says not even I am allowed to change what you've already received so how could the Catholic Church then develop doctrine and then say they're the only ones who can interpret it it's it's not biblical this is an issue because there are times when spiritual leaders get wrong in the Old Testament there were bad spiritual leaders Aaron who helped them build a golden calf and then told Moses when he came back down the mountain and then this thing has popped out of the fire like is like it wasn't a very good liar that guy Aaron's sons were burned up got fired him because they uh they were offering strange fire before the Lord in Gideon Gideon who's I love getting an awesome guy beautiful truths in the story of Gideon in the book of Judges but Gideon in his later life did stuff that just makes us not even want to talk about that part you know what I mean not because we're ashamed of what the Bible says because the Bible condemns what he did it's it's just sad to see how a great leader could go south several of the rightful kings of Israel right let me point this out rightful authorities in Israel taught bad wrong things and God calls the people to go to his word rather than to trust them in the New Testament this is consistent Jesus encounters the Pharisees in fact the the Pharisees are so much like Catholic leadership and I'm not saying the Catholic leaders are Pharisees I'm saying there are some parallels here the Pharisees claimed authority from Moses the Catholic Church claims authority from Jesus the Pharisee said we're in Moses is seat we have Moses his position to tell you what his word means and what God's Word means all this and we're the leaders and you do what we say the Catholic Church says we sit in Jesus's spot the chair of Peter and we declare to you up with all authority the Pharisees claimed to have traditions that were authoritative and that everyone must observe or they would be rejecting God the Roman Catholic Church claims to have traditions that are authoritative and everyone must observe or the rejecting God the Pharisees had some biblical teachings and they had some unbiblical teachings the Roman Catholic Church has some biblical teachings and some unbiblical teachings the consistencies are consistent between the two of them Jesus so how did Jesus treat the Pharisees um well if you read the New Testament which I think everybody here has you know how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees not to say he hated them Nicodemus is a Pharisee Jesus dealt harshly with him but to open his eyes to pop those eyes open a nick Adiemus came to the Lord beautifully wonderfully right but in Matthew 16 he tells the people Matthew 16 he tells the people beware the leaven of the Pharisees and then it goes on to interpret this for us I love when they get the Bible interprets it for us to say this meant the teaching or the doctrine of the Pharisees beware the doctrine of the Pharisees so yeah he said to us you know let them have some authority because they're in the spot or whatever but beware their doctrine don't follow the things that are not accurate go to the word go to the word go to the word Jesus matically dismantled the bad doctrines of the Pharisees he targeted them he like but specifically pointed out the bad doctrines in the Sermon on the Mount right he talks about marriage and he restores a biblical view of marriage he talks about rituals and about how there were vain rituals and prayers vain prayers don't use vain repetition when you pray he says and he talked about on the fact that they put too much emphasis on appearance and a bond upon their their phylacteries they make him big and broad and uh and it's it's the emphasis is in the wrong place but he actually targeted the places where they got it wrong and when he spoke to the Pharisees he would often say to them things like this and notice these guys these guys were like pros in the word right they just study the word and traditions and everything he says haven't you read which seems to me to be insulting like if you came to me and we're like Mike haven't you even read in Exodus where it says that I'd be like we're guys like but you're really saying I'm clueless when you say that and Jesus was saying that John in the first introduction of the Pharisees to the entire Bible scene in Matthew 3 John as they're coming up here come the Pharisees and John opens his mouth and he calls them a brood of vipers so what am I saying the Bible makes it clear that we need to go to the Bible not to the leaders very clear example after example after example in fact we know for sure that there were false teachers in the day when the scriptures were written whole books of the New Testament written specifically to combat false teachers we know that in acts 20 verses 29 and 30 let me read it to you for I know this Paul speaking after my departure I like how he calls his death depart his departure savage wolves will come in among you not sparing the flock also from these are two different groups savage wolves come into the flock but from among yourselves men will rise up speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples and notice to what end after themselves so there's going to be people who come into the church or come from in the church and they stand up and they start making it about them instead of about the Lord they start making it about their kingdom and they're getting people to come and follow me follow me follow me instead of follow Jesus or like Paul says follow me as I follow Christ but don't just follow me so there was a warning that there would become a time where people made it about them instead of about following Jesus that they tried to build their Kingdom and they're sort of like cluster of follow me people and that's entirely what the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church has done well there's more reasons but the point here is the only way to sort out biblical belief from unbiblical belief is to actually go to the Bible not to the early church fathers not to the later church fathers not to any of these guys because I knew they were false teachers in the time of the Apostles so how could I just go to old writings I know that afterwards people would come from within the church with false teachings I'm warned and acts about it so how can I go to the writings of some of those people knowing that there would be false teaching coming from amongst them so have to patiently faithfully go to the scriptures 1st Thessalonians 5:21 says test all things hold fast to that which is good how can I test all things if the Roman Church is claimed to have all authority is true I can't I don't get a test anything they test it all and I just hold fast whatever they say that's scary to me acts 17:11 acts 17:11 says this and this applies to us when the Apostles went to Berea and they preached the gospel there here's how the Bereans responded now I want you to to think based on Catholic Authority how would a good Roman Catholic view what the Bereans did these were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica and that they received the word with all readiness and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were true now Roman Catholic doctrine would imply this is a bad exercise you we are the ones that can interpret the Bible you can't now many Roman Catholics would be like this is a good idea I mean they would the individuals would be like you search the scriptures find out but the implication here is that you have enough discernment to go to the Bible yourself and read it for yourself and figure out whether these doctrines are accurate or not but the Roman Catholic claim is you don't this is why the church over the centuries held back the Bible from getting to people now the current Pope did tell people read your Bibles and good for him good that's good why did it take so long why is it I mean that the Catholic Church over the years and even in the time of the Reformation was persecuting people for translating the Bible into the native language of the people around them they only wanted it in Latin they didn't want the Bible to be read by the people individually not in a language they understood they bought Bibles that were printed they burned them destroyed them so people couldn't get them and and even still in many places that the services happen in languages people can understand there is not an emphasis on educating the people of God with the word of God and letting them get the Bible into their own laps and test all things so this is that's not a biblical view that's all I'm saying now there is a change going on in the Roman Catholic Church encouraging people to read that read the word that's a good change I would encourage that yeah read the Bible read the Bible test what I say to don't just take my word for it so the Bible in effect here's my conclusion the Bible teaches the opposite of tradition it teaches the opposite there are occasional traditions you'll see Jesus observe he he goes to the two Hanukkah that festival that was not in the Old Testament but they do it so we have a case for Jesus celebrating a holiday that was not specifically outlined in the Old Testament I'm like great because I happen to like Christmas but that doesn't mean that that Hanukkah event was somehow authoritative and that everyone you know it just it just doesn't go to the next stage however many many many times we have tradition being being told being spoken against the traditions of man being taught or khals of God yadda yadda so the Bible teaches in a sense the opposite of the Roman Catholic view on tradition so what is the real history I want to do now move away from that that that one pillar of the church I think we've taken a big chunk out of it and the rest of its going to fall I think right now as we overview what what's the real story how did the Roman Catholic Church develop so the Roman Catholic version that they've always basically believed the same things they do today that the Roman Catholic Church is basically a slightly different version of what it was in Peters day is completely untrue historically the book of Acts records for us the birth of the new testament church and some of the history of the first thirty years of Christianity in spite of great persecution by the end of the first century AD churches have been established in lots of different cities throughout the Roman Empire including Rome primarily because of its location at the capital of Rome the Church in Rome very slowly over time began to get more more authority more prominence in from other churches but it happened it gradually over time it did not have it initially in fact the chief church in the very early church was located where anybody want to guess in Jerusalem that's why the council in acts 15 happened in Jerusalem not Rome not just because it was convenient but because that's where the apostles were and that's where sort of the center of Christianity wasn't persecution increased it seemed to move over to Antioch as far as is there a church that others are looking to you know and and then over time it eventually started to started to be Rome but there were other competitors as well in 313 the Year 313 now we're way after Jesus already at this point and we're generations and generations away the Roman Emperor Constantine he brought them from persecution to legalization he legalized the Christian faith he ended the persecution of Christians with what's called the EDA to go Edict of Milan in 313 and the church began gaining greater prominence because now they could practice their Christianity more publicly now that could just be more open about it so they started to get more and more prominence most scholars outside the Catholic Church they reject the popular teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the church at Rome was established by Christ himself through Peter and then I'm going to give you five reasons why number one there is no record none that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome as the Catholic Church claims none there's just no record of it not only does the Bible not teach Peter was the Pope he wasn't even a leader in Rome but that's central to the Catholic claim they have to say Rome the city of Rome is where the authorities carried because over the centuries other people would claim it as well so they go no only Rome only Rome why um cuz Peter because Peter came here and so then it's like Peter came here and therefore it stuck the authority stuck here irony Asst is the earliest source saying that Peter was that was the founder of the church in Rome and he's from 200 AD the earliest source 200 AD he said that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome the irony here is we know Paul did not found the church in Rome so we know half of what irony is says is wrong because read the Bible Romans the book shows us that the church was well established and Paul had not been there yet and he's like oh I want to come and visit you and I'd like to come see you and I went to impart some spiritual gift to you you know and he wants to get over there but he had not yet visited them and so our Aeneas I'm gonna say hey I know Paul didn't so why should I think Peter did you're you're half wrong for sure and you're two hundred years later so you know Eusebius now this guy used to be us I'm gonna give you these are the four these are the five reasons number two is this Eusebius who's called the father of church history he's a historian he lived between 260 and 341 he never mentions Peter as the Bishop of Rome now check this out he's a believer who writes about the history of the church and he never mentions Peter as the Bishop of Rome imagine a Catholic today writing a survey of Catholic history and never mentioning Peter the first pope you can't you know it's like not mentioning George Washington and writing a survey of American history why doesn't he do it because the later claims about Peter hadn't happened yet so it wasn't important to them to do that and he wasn't part of the what is now the Roman Catholic Church that's not what Eusebius was really part of how could he ignore the first pope he does say this here's the wold he says at about the end of his days Peter went to Rome and was crucified there that's it somebody else started the church there at missionaries I don't know individuals some lady that heard the gospel in Jerusalem went back to Rome to start telling people about it we don't know it just happened organically because the church is an organism freaky how do we grow I don't know it's just like the same way a baby in the womb grows just like it just really in cool ways it does number three the third reason why we should reject the Roman Catholic view of history here the Apostle Paul in his letter to the church at Rome greets more than two dozen people by name at the end of his letter see Romans chapter 16 you're like why is this in here all these names are just people being greeted two dozen people but who does he leave out Peter he greets all kinds of businessmen he greets different random people fellow workers not Peter that would be a strange omission if Peter was living in Rome especially if he was the bishop and the first pope of the church to ignore the leader of the church supposedly Peter was the Pope why doesn't Paul mention him the fourth reason is that Peter in 1st and 2nd Peter never calls himself I've already read to you in 1st Peter chapter 5 the passage he never calls himself by any title that puts him above any other church leader he never calls himself by any title that puts him above any other leader he's just an apostle in 1st Peter 1 and in 2nd Peter 1 and the introduction to both those letters he just says Peter an apostle not like the chief or the leader none of that kind of stuff which you might be like well he was just being humble and I'm like well there's not really very much humble about calling yourself an apostle I mean you're I'm an apostle like you're not exactly humble here you're just stating facts but he just puts himself on even even playing field with all the other apostles and lastly much is said about the structure of the church and it doesn't involve a pope or anything similar to Catholic government so what we're saying here is this the papacy is not old I mean it's older than me and you but it is not original there's nothing og original gospel enough about the papacy so let's talk more about the history Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire and as the Church in Rome allied itself with the Roman government and we can imagine how this happens you just begin working more and more closely they start to consult they go hey will you pray for us and we're going to this thing and you start to get more and more Authority it continues to grow in its authority and influence originally there were multiple bishops in leaders in Rome as early as the third century the leaders of the church in Rome were claiming for themselves a supremacy over other churches throughout the Empire when it came to matters of doctrine so by the third century 300 years later somebody's saying hey I have the authority to tell you what what the right doctrine is you should come here and ask me however nobody else acknowledges this authority it's only the guy in Rome claiming it which sounds kind of empty you notice that due to Mexico even right now claiming he's Jesus that doesn't really do much for you though unless I mean it's more impressive if everybody else agrees or if perhaps the Bible doesn't go against people claiming their Jesus Jesus like hey when I come you'll know now by the sixth century the church in Rome is exercising jurisdiction over other churches and thus the Roman Catholic Church was born now we begin to see something like you would call it that's the Roman Catholic Church right around that time the sixth century eventually the Roman Catholic Church started to claim that only if you're directly in submission to the Pope can you be saved that was a new thing it was not original it was very new most scholars say the beginning of the Catholic Church was about 590 AD and it's not like this clear-cut thing it was a slow evolution over time but if you're going to have to put a date on it 590 ad is is as good a date as any and when the leader of the church in Rome Gregory the first expanded the authority of the church to include check this out military and civil power and you set the church on a new course so Gregory's like hey yeah I I get to control the government too and that's the claim of the Catholic Church and there's been times in history where the Catholic Church was in control of the government and other times where the government was in control of the Catholic Church taking a Pope out of office putting a new pope in kind of a puppet and it went kind of went back and forth depending on who had more power at the time Rome's claim to supremacy and legal jurisdiction it was vigorously resisted by other churches in fact it was never able to be enforced in the eastern part of the whole empire a whole chunk of the Roman Empire where the church is there has said we don't we don't we do not acknowledge your claim to have authority over us eventually it led to the first major split called the first schism or the first sysm depending on where you're from and this was in 1054 or schism I guess if you really want to I liked schism a nice nice ring to it in 1054 the first schism or what in Roman Catholic history they call it the Great Schism and this was when the whole Eastern Church just like broke away from the Catholic Church in Rome the Church in the East went on to become known as the Eastern Orthodox Church also known as the Greek Orthodox Church and they were like you guys are you guys are just getting more and more power hungry and we're out of here we do not we do not agree with your claims to have this power and they broke off and they've never come back now the church is working really hard in this century and in the latter part of the 1900s to create a makeup bigger umbrella the Roman Catholic Church to try to say hey you don't have to agree with us but we can still sort of fellowship with each other and there they're just trying to increase their influence in a whole different style than they used to before it was like come under our Authority now it's like sort of agree with us and about certain things and just let bygones be bygones kind of thing it's a different strategy the Roman Church is evolving continuing today to evolve the next major split in the church happened in Wittenberg Germany on our 12th it started on tober 31st which we might know is Halloween in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses his statements about issues he thought were in the Catholic Church now he was not trying to start a Reformation or revolution he was just trying to say and this was an acceptable way of doing it hey let's talk about these issues he thought the Catholic Church should be adjusted back to biblical standards and that indulgences and purgatory and the power of the Pope and most importantly the gospel message these things have been lost or distorted or added for no reason by the Catholic Church and so he wrote the 95 thesis and I encourage you to read it sometime but we do not as Christians today trace our roots to Martin Luther I just want to say this I am NOT a follower of Martin Luther the whole point of the Reformation is go to the Bible that's the point we didn't trade the Pope for Pope Luther that's not what we did and so I'm not going to be here quoting a bunch of Lutheran calvin and other and other Reformation leaders as though I want to compare like their councils with Catholic councils and combat them and I just think that's radically confusing and I just want to go to the scriptures and I think that you will be relieved to know that we're not going to do that now we would a I think we can say and conclude this the Roman Church considers themselves as a continuation of an essentially unchanged organization that's been going on since the time of Jesus and Peter and that is utterly false the papacy was a gradual development that went through many different stages slowly claiming more and more authority for themselves slowly gaining the ability to enforce that authority and then causing great schism when they did and not having a biblical grounding for it today's Roman Catholicism is radically different than the church in Rome in even 800 AD 580 380 or closer to the time of the Apostles it's just very very different they would not recognize that the Apostles would not recognize this so with the time I have left I want to get into what I think is the heart of the issue I think that that that clearly cuts the pillar out right you are not historically Christian you are not biblically Christian where is your authority you can't get it from the father's and you can't get it from the Bible where do you get it from your claims for Authority and therefore you don't have it Jesus himself did not say oh I'm just gonna come and show up with authority he was like no I got witnesses and I got this affirmations I got this proof he offered his miracles as proof he offered John the Baptist testimony as proof and he offered the Old Testament prophecy as proof he was like even me I'm gonna be grounded in evidence from the Scriptures you've already received and I do not see that evidence in the Bible and so there you go and that pillar goes away which means now I can say Catholic Church what are your teachings I can test them with this now because I don't believe you have the authority to just tell me what to believe well the gospel is the number one issue they're the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is that a claim to authority but the gospel the gospel is the most important issue all together I want to cover this in general because the gosh the gospel in ruin in Rome the Roman Catholic Church is radically complicated and I doubt you could get a Catholic theologian to even summarize the gospel for you but like yeah we've all sinned repent put your faith in Jesus Christ he died and rose for your sins you're saved like just believe you know and it's really simple and you can kind of just summarize the gospel of Jesus Christ in lots of different ways in really short sentences but not the gospel of Catholicism but let's start with the gospel of the Bible so turn with me to Romans chapter 1 because we agree with Catholics that everybody has sinned and that hell is the destiny for sinners and that we need forgiveness and righteousness in order to get to heaven the disagreement is on how that happens but what does the Bible say let's go through some scriptures Romans 1:16 says I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it the gospel is it is here's the gospel the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes for the Jew first and also for the Greek for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith the gospel is that you can be saved and given righteousness by believing in Jesus and man that is peaceful that is comforting that is so wonderful I am at peace because of what he has done and not because of what I have done Philippians 3:9 says this Paul speaking of this and he says I'm being found in him not having my own righteousness which is from the law but that the righteousness which is through faith in Christ the righteousness which is from God by faith that we get righteous by faith there's a big piece of the gospel right there we just get righteous by faith as I said in Romans 1 and then in Romans 5 and you can turn back turn to Romans we'll be there for a few verses here Romans 5 verses 1 and 2 he says therefore having been justified justified how how do I get just about by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we also have access by faith into this grace in which we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God and then it goes on to say that this hope does not disappoint just in case it was like thinking I hope I'm saved no it's I'm confident is the hope does not disappoint we're justified we have peace now peace in my heart with the Lord because I know all my sins were paid for on Calvary every sin I've ever done or will do was dealt with by that one moment on the cross through Jesus Christ and Wow I have peace Romans chapter 3 verses 21 and 22 says this but now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed being witnessed by the law and the prophets even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe to want to all and on all who believe in Romans 3:28 skip down a few verses he says therefore we conclude here's the point he's getting out in Romans 3 that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law now notice this that the deeds of the law would include things like loving your neighbor which is written in the law it would include not only circumcision and all that but would include just the kind of be a nice guy type stuff you know and do things for God and serve the Lord in your life like this type of thing would be included in the deeds of the law and I'm justified apart from those things apart from me being a wonderful person or a good guy Romans chapter 4 verses 1 through 8 let's just read this together what then shall we say that Abraham our Father has found according to the flesh now it was important when Paul wrote Romans he was like saying I've got to not only tell you what Jesus said what the Apostles teach but I've got to tell you how it's consistent with the Old Testament that even Abraham was saved by faith apart from works so for if Abraham was justified by works he has something to boast about but not before God for what does the scripture say abraham believed god abraham believed god now he's quoting the Old Testament and it was accounted to him for righteousness the Old Testament says Abraham just believed and God gave him righteousness what now to him who works the wages are not counted as grace but as debt if you work then you are owed what you get paid but him who does not work but believes on him who justifies the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousness just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works could it be more clear blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven and whose sins are covered blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin so I do not get imputed my sin but instead I get imputed righteousness he just gives me righteousness and in this passage which when I read to a friend of mine who might be watching this video at some point so hi Tony if you're watching the video ever if he remembers this conversation or not but it went like this we talked for hours about the gospel and he's Catholic great guy he's a Catholic friend of mine we're discussing the differences you know and I quoted him Ephesians 2 but I didn't tell him I was quoting the Bible I said but Tony the Bible says for by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves is the gift of God not of works lest anyone should boast and his response was now Mike that would be scary if that was in the Bible and then I proceeded to pull it out and read it to him and I'll read it to you again Ephesians 2 verses 8 and 9 for by grace you've been saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God not of works lest anyone should boast and Tony responded Mike I don't think it means what you think it means I go Tony I never told you what I thought it meant you just said it'd be scary if it was in the Bible but anyway it was a kind of a fun moment but the idea here is that were saved by grace apart from works and works come later works are a result of my salvation they don't get me saved I like the equation like this right faith faith save right faith save so if we were to put it sort of in a math format the gospel would be like faith in Christ equals salvation plus works they come naturally as a result of your salvation but the Roman Catholic gospel is very different than this it's going to say faith plus works equals salvation and it's on the other side of the equation that I need to I need to earn my salvation but that goes in the face of so much scripture and even examples of people being saved the Catholic doctrine of justification is radically complicated and I'm not going to get into all the details so I'm gonna try to summarize it for you and I hope I can do this and catch the heart of it and be very accurate in the way I do this but if I can say this salvation is not by grace alone through faith alone according to the Catholic Church being justified or declared righteous is a process that begins at the moment of baptism and then progresses and is maintained by a person's participation in what are called the seven sacraments or basically through works through works they don't deny grace they simply add works with grace so the Catholic Church will say yes you're saved by grace yes we need to be saved by grace and works the Council of Trent is relevant here because it's of course this is current Catholic doctrine and it's one of the problem one of the best-known councils of the church and they were very clear on these things so let me read to you just two quotes from this council that talk about their understanding of how people are saved from Trent Canon 32 over here it says if anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merits of Jesus Christ whose living member he is does not truly merit an increase of grace eternal life and in case he dies in grace in case he dies in grace that attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory let him be anathema so in other words if you don't say that works add to your salvation and help you maintain it and assure it then your urine atham then it says if anyone sayeth that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works but that he that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained but not a cause of the increase there of let him be anathema which is basically I'm Anathem ecause what I just read to you guys earlier and said that it's it's it is a sign it's it's evidence of my salvation but it's not what causes my salvation Trent also said this if anyone says that the justice received oh it should me um are you aware that that's we want I'm trying to avoid reading too much of the content from the from the counsels only because it is difficult to follow I'm just I'm not saying trust me go look it up on your own go ahead but the basic statement is this justification is a process that starts with baptism but you're not totally saved yet there's all these sacraments you have to do you have to do a lot of good works in order to be saved that's the point and because of this justifications a process as opposed to the biblical belief like man you're saved you're saved right that's the idea I'm saving I'm forgiving but in Catholic teaching it's a process and it has to I have to continue working at it and working at it I never really know for sure what whether I've got it or not that's the second problem justification in the Catholic Church salvation is uncertain you are not sure you're saved it's possible in Roman Catholic theology to have faith in Jesus but not be good enough to be saved that's a legitimate people are in that spot you believe in Jesus but you have sinned too much and so you're not saved you need more good works it is also temporary salvation according to Roman Catholic theology is a temporary issue it can be lost in a moment when you commit something called a mortal sin you're not saved you lost all of the grace that Jesus has given you when you committed that mortal sin it's gone just like that mortal sins now there's no list of mortal sins out there there's no official Catholic list they call the seven deadly sins that's not an official Catholic list of mortal sins but it's something that they hope gets people closer to the heart of what the issue is what's a mortal sin like maybe if I look with less maybe that's a mortal sin or maybe it's if I do it this way or that way and it's they're not entirely sure which sins our mortal sins to be honest some are clearly mortal sins if I murder somebody I've obviously committed a mortal sin most of the lists I found where people tried to provide a list it wasn't official but it was them trying included like abortion as one of those things but they actually have this sin of presumption which is presuming that you'll still be saved ten years from now or even five minutes from now that that's a sin and so assurance of salvation to a Catholic is considered arrogant why well if you're basing your salvation on your good works along with faith then it would be arrogant to just assume that you're going be good the rest of your life but if you're basing it on the finished work of Jesus on the cross then it's not arrogant it's just faith I'm just trusting you what he's done now let me read to you what the Council of Trent came up with they said this about salvation it is given as a reward promised by God himself to be faithfully given to their good works and merits by those very good works by those very works which have been done in God fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited or earned eternal life and you might say to a Catholic hey but we're saved by grace and the Catholic says yes that's right we are and you can wait a minute but you think I'm saved by you're saved by works and they go no we don't so so we're saved by grace yes we are so grace alone saves oh no not alone you need works too they believe in faith plus grace plus works it's all of the above and the thing is its weakest link in the chain and so the works is the thing that becomes the target this is actually really Grievous because if you're Catholic you have no confidence of your salvation in Christ and this is what I want to go out and I wonder I want to reach out to my Catholic friends and family and my neighbors and be like hey jesus paid it all you could be forgiven by his grace it's not about going to the priest and talking and do all that you just need Jesus every sin covered by the blood of Jesus Christ and they say no but it's both grace and works well the Bible rejects the concept that you can have grace and works combined and I want to give you I've already given you one scripture let me give you let me give you this again Romans chapter four verses four and five and then we'll look at Romans 11:6 right after that God rejects the idea that you can add grace and works and have some combination of the two in order to be saved and here it is now to him who works Romans 4 for Tim who works the wages are not counted as grace but as debt but to him who does not work but believes on him who justifies the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousness that you can't have the two is one or the other works in fact Romans 11:6 couldn't be more clear even though sometimes you read this and if you don't read it slowly it is a little unclear because because he's dealing with you're a definitional thing he's defining grace and defining works so that we cannot come to the conclusion that it's grace plus works Romans 11:6 and if by grace then it is no longer of works but what if I combine grace and works well otherwise grace is no longer grace if it's grace plus works it's not great hey here you can have my Bible for free all right 20 bucks well hold on either it's free or I pay for it but it's not both you can't mix the two that's that's you're just redefining terms in order to have your new theology and it goes on but if it is of works it is no longer grace otherwise work is no longer work if you're laboring for salvation it is not grace and if it's grace it's not labor and that is the beautiful freedom we have in Jesus Christ that we're saved by grace just by grace and you could say well by grace alone and I was like well if grace is with works it's not grace so of course it's grace alone cuz that's the only kind of grace there is free is when you don't pay grace is when you don't work that's what it means so such a beautiful beautiful thing now they can selectively quote the fathers but that's not what the Bible teaches faith saves faith saves James to talks about how Abraham was justified it says by works but is speaking of justification in the eyes of man in other words how do you prove to me that you're saved how do you prove to me your faith you show me what works so it works with again the evidence of faith 3 James 2 in context he's not talking about how you get saved you talk about how you show you're saved I will show you my faith by my works that's what he says not it will exist because it works but it's still faith that saves and it is dead faith or fake you might call it fake faith it doesn't save because real faith will end up producing works but the works don't save that's just a natural result another verse that they'll quote sometimes Philippians chapter 2 verse 12 says this and we're almost done here but I wanted to get a couple of the verses you'll hear quoted to combat all of the scriptures I quoted and there's so much more that talk about free salvation through belief therefore my beloved as you've always obeyed not as in my presence only but now much more in my absence and here's the here's the part work out your own salvation with fear and trembling and this scripture was given to me once and I was just like oh I never read Philippians I don't never notice that I was much younger and I was like kind of like wow work out your own salvation with fear and trembling and I thought well it says work out it doesn't say work for and so uh there's something different there but and there is and of course work out means like a math problem like you know figure out whether you're saved or not but verse 13 was ignored and verse 13 in Philippians 2 the next verse it says for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure so again I find it's God working in me to let me see the evidence of the salvation in my life so work it out are you really say we'll look at your life do you see yourself following Jesus or are you living after the flesh in which case not work harder to be saved but get saved so that you can see the works they're a result they're a result so the conclusion so far is we kind of in for today there is no validation for the Roman Catholic claims to Authority there's none none nothing that really validates it Authority would be the only reason to embrace the extra biblical teachings of the Catholic Church if they have the authority to say that stuff so we need to reject the papacy we've got to get back to the Word of God like Jesus wants us to for every reason that we've gone through so far we shouldn't we should be looking at the Roman Catholic Church and testing it with the scripture and chewing up the wheat and taking it in oh that's good that's good but spitting out the chaff I actually got wheat wheat we were picketing that the you know being a pro-life picket thing just this last Saturday so cool all these people coming out there to stand for the life for these little babies and just so beautiful so awesome and we partner with Roman Catholics and we totally held up signs and we had a great time with them it was one right there are people the Lord loves absolutely they're not villains here but they're missing the gospel if they're believing everything the Catholic churches said they're missing the gospel Catholics can be saved many of them are not because of the necessary teachings of the church but because they've read the word or they encounter someone who shared the truth with them and they believed in their saved but our goal here our goal here is to just be believers who really follow Jesus and to realize that this this is kind of weird if the Catholic Church was this really small little group who lived down the street from you and the Pope was just as one guy you know who had like 10 followers and two of them were considered priests and everybody was told that they couldn't be saved except if they committed to this guy down the street from you like three houses down calls himself the Pope whatever that is I mean you would just dismiss it out of hand the thing about the Catholic Church is that it's so big it's just so big that it becomes more like oh well maybe they take it more seriously because of the numbers but not because of what the scripture teaches and and I would say the Catholic Church is in disarray most Catholics don't know Catholic theology let alone believe it so our goal is of course not to go up to them and combat them with Catholic theology but to ask them questions find out what they believe in preach them the pure gospel of Jesus Christ that's it that's it and whether I get them to leave the Catholic Church or not is totally a secondary concern I just want them to know Jesus I want them know the peace that comes through faith in Christ that by grace we stand in him cleansed holy blameless before him in love yeah that's what I want for them now let's pray father God we thank you so much for your truth you've given us a pure gospel you've given us freedom and forgiveness you've delivered us from our sins Lord Jesus and we're so grateful we pray that we would just hold on and we cling to hold fast to the gospel that we have received to the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints and then we be enabled Lord to converse and talk and help others to know to know you because that's what it's ultimately about we love you Lord we thank you for your grace and we believe in Jesus name Amen [Music] that Jesus you will try and you [Music]

Channel: Mike Winger

Views: 330,717

Keywords: Catholic, Catholicism, pope, papacy, Peter, papal succession, power, authority, church, Roman Catholic, Bible, biblical, protestant, was Peter the first pope?, gospel, salvation, catholic gospel, merit, grace and works, false gospel, works, faih alone, grace alone, saved, Mike Winger, BibleThinker, Bible Thinker, history, church history, church fathers, how can I be saved?, is Jesus enough, forgiveness

Id: TPG3vMeexks

Length: 70min 42sec (4242 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 24 2015