Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


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 didnít 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 SAYS23, 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 doesnít 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 didnít. The other refused but then had a change of heart and did it and got a reward while the other didnít. 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 doesnít 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 doesnít 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.
 
CURRIE SAYS, Natural Family Planning leaves sex open to creating a new life if God so wills (201). It does not try to stop God creating life like contraception does. The main purpose for having children is so that they will be able to praise God forever in Heaven for that is what God wants (page 202). The main reason should be nothing else not even love for the children. Artificial birth control is selfish (page 206) and Onan was put to death for committing that sin by God. To want the pleasure of procreating and not the responsibility that comes with it is selfish (page 207).

THE TRUTH: It is selfish to decide there is a God and to put the children you can see and touch second to him. That is putting something you like believing in before what you can sense is real. After all there might be no God at all. If God wants to be praised let him make his praisers himself.
 
If it is wrong to try and stop God creating life then it must be wrong to try and make it harder for him as well. If condoms are sinful for they stop God creating life then it follows that using Natural Family Planning makes it harder for him to create life. If stopping God creating life is bad then making it harder for him though less bad is bad too.
 
An all-powerful God can make sure a woman gets pregnant even if condoms are used. Yet the Church forbids condoms even if the users believe they are open to letting God create life. If the condoms are immoral then so is any attempt to make it harder for God to make babies. You are not allowed to use a condom when you put a pin prick in it so that God may still be able to create life though pregnancy is unlikely.
 
If you use Natural Family Planning it is certainly true that you want the pleasure of sex but don't want the responsibility of a child. You are taking the risk that life will occur but you are minimising that risk. You still don't want a child. Yet people who use birth-control are criticised for this. Damn the hypocrisy of Currie and his Church!   They say that even if you use Natural Family Planning what you are doing is wanting the responsibility of a child only if God wills. That contradicts their view that Natural Family Planning may be used if the wife cannot have another child for it will kill her and is an act of love wishing to keep her alive. The man who wants the responsibility of a child under any circumstances when he has sex with his wife under such circumstances doesnít think much of her. He should go and live with the pope for the pope comes first anyway. And if the wife has any sense she will help him pack.
 
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