Web Design Tools
Papal Presumption
Question: The Pope recently [7-10-07] essentially put down evangelical churches as not deserving to be called churches (Orthodox churches defective, other Christian denominations not true churches). What do you think ?
In all honesty it is quite the opposite.
To qualify as a church, which in the Bible is a called-out-assembly of true believers (Acts 5:11-13; 11:26), one must believe the Biblical, apostolic “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24), for it is only when one does that he/she become part of Christ's body the church (Jn. 3:3-7; Acts 2:38; 10:34-47; 15:7-9; 1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:13).
"The word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13)
While the religions of this world teach various forms of salvation by personal merit and or trust in false gods and institutions, the Biblical gospel is principally distinctive in that the God of the Bible is the sole object of faith for salvation, and which is not based upon one's own merit or that of a church. Rather, coming before God as guilty sinners, destitute of any means whereby he may escape Hell and gain Heaven (Gn. 15:6; Rm. 3:9-5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3: Eph. 2:8,9; 2Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5), when the repentant soul effectually casts His faith upon Christ and His blood to save him (which faith is from God), then he is washed from all his sins, sanctified by God's life-giving Spirit (which then indwells him), and is justified by the perfect, imputed righteousness of Christ (1Cor. 6:11; Rm. 3:25; 4:1-8; 2Cor. 5:21). And which decision is shown by baptism by immersion (Acts 8:38 – and which requires things an infant cannot exercise: Acts 2:38; 8:12, 37). That soul is then proven or "justified" as regarding him having complete saving faith by works of grace done in response to his being justified (Gn. 22; Ja. 2) Abraham''s faith was “counted for righteousness" before he offered up Issac (Gn. 15:6; 22; Rm. 4:3-6). One can even be saved/born again in the desert without even being introduced to a church (Acts 8:26-40), yet if such faith is real they will find a Bible believing/preaching church quickly and continue in the Word (Acts 2:41-47; 9:26-28).
The Confession of Faith by A.A. Hodge states,
"The principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."
Westminster Shorter Larger Catechism, Question 72 teaches,
What is justification?
Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
The Baptist Faith and Message, 1925, states,
"Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of righteousness of all sinners who believe in Christ. The blessing is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but through the redemption that is in and through Jesus Christ. It brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other needed blessing."
The Gospel of Rome
But this saving gospel is not the gospel Rome officially teaches and effectual promotes, rather the Roman Catholic Council of Trent "infallibly" defines that one is,
"justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ", and that his justification is increased by personal works. (Council of Trent, Canons 24, 32). The more recently Roman Catholic catechism states,
"Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010)
Rome erroneously sprinkles infants, supposing this takes way "original sin" and gives them the Holy Spirit, (making Hitler born again!) usually by proxy faith, as she officially teaches that a soul is justified "by reason of a perfect act of charity" elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance", and which can be appropriated by proxy, in recognition of the faith of a qualified sponsor.
In contrast to the Biblical teaching of imputed righteousness, (Rm. 4:1-11; 20,21), the justification of Rome is held to be effected by an actual change in the recipient's heart, regardless of their age, that of the "infused" love of God, so that the justified are "really made just [righteous], and not merely declared or reputed so." (New Advent; Salvation, Baptism).
An additional teaching is that this justification can be increased by doing works which are enabled by the grace of God dispensed through Catholic sacraments, and which grace includes that of the merits of saints. (Indulgetiarum Doctrina 4) Such works of faith are held to help merit eternal life. Regarding those who cooperated with grace, Trent concludes that,
"nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, 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 eternal life." (Trent, 1547, The Sixth Session Decree on justification, chapter XVI)
Canon 32 similarly states,
"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 merit 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, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32. Also see The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed., Decree on Justification, Chapters V, VI, VII, X, XIV, XV, XVI) (emphasis mine)
For those who do not cooperate with grace enough to gain Heaven directly upon death (as canonized saints are held as having done), Rome provides a place called ''Purgatory'', where they are said to suffer to various degrees for an indeterminate time, before being granted entrance into the abode of God.
This begats another unBiblical practice, that of “indulgences,” prayers, sufferings, or offering$ which promise to make one's stay in purgatory shorter, but which can be transferred to another person now in purgatory. An indulgence is held to offer the penitent sinner the means of clearing the debt he must pay during his life on earth, for sins which he/she has been forgiven of. The Roman church teaches that these indulgences are obtained "through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints”. (Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, Normae de indulgentiis, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1999, p. 21; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1471) Abuse of the Catholic teaching on indulgences, including selling them (although the Pope sanctioned it, and the pope's palace was largely built by extorting monetary indulgences), was a seminal objection by Luther in beginning the Protestant Reformation. Catholicism also teaches that departed believers in Purgatory may be helped by prayers for the dead. (New Advent; Purgatory, Indulgences)
This fruit of this gospel has been past generations and a present populace of souls those whom Rome counts as members, that are largely (very sadly) spiritually dead, showing very little fruit of having been born again, and are often antagonistic to those who compassionately seek their conversion through the Biblical gospel, and are typically politically liberal (and thus support its immoral agenda). Thus, rather than being a true church that withstood the gates of Hell, it has tragically become the great gates of Hell for millions, whom Rome had led to trust in their and her merit as a basis for eternal life, rather than abasing themselves as utterly unworthy sinners, and with a deeply contrite and repentant heart calling upon Christ to be their Lord and Savior, and thus experiencing the new birth and manifesting its distinctive fruit.
The Holy Spirit warned of such a false Jesus and gospel 2,000 years ago: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him" (2 Cor 11:3-4).
The perpetuated Petrine papacy
Many other false doctrines flow from Rome, but as this page was only meant to be a brief reply, and as her principal error of fostering faith in one's merit and in the power of Rome for salvation flows from her perpetuated Petrine papacy, I will deal more with that foundation.
Rome asserts that Peter was made the supreme head of the church, and whose power and position is to be perpetuated through a progression of ecclesiastical papal progeny. We shall see that Biblically this is a presumptuous sin, yet it should be stated that even if a Romish Petrine papacy did exist, the authenticity of the one (or a) true church is not based upon physical ecclesiastical linkage, any more than the authenticity of a true Jew rests upon physical lineage back to Abraham. Rather, in both cases (Rm. 2:28, 29), it rests upon Abrahamic type faith in the apostolic gospel of the grace of God, by which one enters the church, but which again Rome most manifestly does not preach!
The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that is what the “this rock” refers to, a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. The term “this stone” is only used of Christ. (Mt. 21:44) For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) affirms this interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). And so it is that by the essential faith which Peter expressed that the church overcomes. "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5; cf (1Jn. 2:13,14,25) And which Peter himself confirms: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." (1 Pet 5:8-9) Examination of the phrase “by faith” further shows this to be the rock by which the church exists and endures. That God uses man to share the faith and strengthen others in it is clear, but it was not through an infallible office that the faith of Israel was preserved, as an infallible office did not exist, but God sovereignly raised up prophets to reprove them. And men like Luther, with their faults, were such men (forth-telling if not fore-telling) in the modern sense. And by such servants of God essential salvific faith was preserved, and so the church, which is most essentially a spiritual entity. This will be expanded upon further below.
That Peter was the initial chief apostle should be without dispute, though the Biblical evidence is that his leadership was that of a leader among equals, and not the demi-god over all the church (and even the secular world for hundreds of years), which the Roman pontiff grew to be exalted as. Rather, while Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral car of the churches, he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, nor venerated as a type of demi-god, which Rome has essentially and historically made his supposed successors. And in contrast to the Roman papacy, humble and pious Peter was evidently poor (Acts 3:6), and was married (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:4), and would not even let a man bow down to him (Acts 10:25, 26). And rather than providing any example of the church looking to Peter as its supreme infallible head, as holy as he was, his declension as regards treating the Gentiles as one with the Jews, and his need to be publicly rebuked by the apostle Paul (Gal. 2:6-13) is clearly noted. And whose words in vs. 5-9 serve to warn against exalting men as Caesar-popes.
Proper exegesis requires that we interpret the Old Testament as well as the gospels by the revelation promised by Christ (Jn. 16:12-15) in the rest of the New Testament, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared. Searching therein we do not find even one command ever given to the New Testament church or churches to submit to Peter as its singular supreme pope, nor one example of a universal submission to Peter as one (in Acts 15, it is James who gives the definitive sentence), nor does Peter ever refer to himself as such, but as "an" elder and "an apostle”, and "a servant" (1Pt. 5:1; 2Pt. 1:1).
In addition and most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament, with only elder/bishops (same office: Titus 1:5-7, the division between the two was a later development) and deacons being ordained. Apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, (Eph. 2:20) and were sovereignly called and ordained by God, their election not being based upon genealogical lineage. In regards to apostles, in addition to being men who saw the LORD, their worthiness of that title was manifest by powerful supernatural attestation, in addition to their purity and Scriptural probity. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10; 12:12) Also absent in the New Testament is Rome's separate, clerical, type of sacerdotal class of priests as well.
Some Roman Catholic apologists seek to invoke Is. 22:21-25 (or vs. 22-24) in support of a perpetuated Petrine papacy. The Targum, Jerome, Hitzig, and others assume that Eliakim is the peg, which, however glorious its beginning may have been, comes at last to the shameful end described in Isa_22:25, and which position Keil and Delitzsch contend is the case. However, whether v. 25 refers to Eliakim or Shebna, it is evident is that being fastened in a sure place does not necessarily establish perpetuation. Nothing is provided by way of literal fulfillment of this prophecy in the Old Testament which states such, and when perpetuation of any office is the case then the Scriptures makes that clear. Thus it is Christ to whom it is promised that His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ), And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth,” (Rev. 3:7) which is what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah.
While the lack of the manifest establishment for a successor to Peter or the apostles may not disallow a leader among brethren, in a supreme magisterial office such as evidenced in Acts 15, a leader nor the office would not be qualified by ecclesiastical lineage to one formal church body, or by defining oneself as infallible, and then relying on such to give authority to “infallible” teachings, but by Biblically substantiated faith, while its persons would need to manifest the supernatural apostolic power that was provided by the first one. This is partly necessary as a central group of overseers over all churches could not be enforced, except by spiritual means. Unlike Rome, the New Testament never used physical punishment in disciplining it members, such as was sanctioned by Rome in the Inquisitions, nor did it establish theocracies where the church ruled over those with it, which was what was behind the Crusades, or use carnal force to defend or expand its rule. (1Cor. 5:12,13; 1Pt. 2:14; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-01; 10:4) And without which Rome, with its doctrines, would not be the presence it is today, which testifies to its nature.
Rather than Rome's perpetuated Petrine papacy being established or expected, what we do see is the ordination of men like Timothy, (1Tim. 4:14) and the LORD building his church using such “stones”, who like Peter, effectually confess who Christ is, and faith in Him according to the apostolic gospel of the grace of God. While on a practical level, formal ecclesiastical means by qualified leaders are used to ordain others, and most Protestant denominations began this way, yet the church being essentially a spiritual entity, its authenticity is not based upon formal ecclesiastical linkage to one organic body, for as stated before, the authenticity of a true church, like that of a true Jew, (Rm. 2:28,29) is based upon apostolic faith in the gospel, for it is by such that the church exists and one becomes part of the body of Christ. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) Therefore, unlike the theocratic earthly kingdom of Israel, the body of Christ is not restricted to one organic union, and if one of the latter becomes corrupt, or institutionalized, the church that holds to essential salvific doctrine and effectual salvific faith, which the apostles and prophet laid, overcomes by faith in its chief cornerstone and head.
Although divisions based upon secondary issues are undesirable (even though such cell division may overall have resulted in an expansion of the Body), separation due to error is necessary, (1Cor 11:19) and unity based upon essential truth - and the essential unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) which only born again believers enjoy - is of a higher quality than unity in basic error (Rome), no matter how great its quantity.
[In respect to unity*, Roman Catholicism manifests a greater degree of variance as regards essential doctrines (and far less evidence of regeneration) than its evangelical counterparts. While it must be confessed that the latter today (we and I) comes much short of the prima New Testament church in purity, power and passion, yet due to Rome's false gospel, officially and effectually preached, it cannot even qualify as consideration as a true church with false doctrine, but is a false church with some true doctrines.]
Overall, as concerns Rome pretensions to supremacy, considering how major a doctrine Rome's papacy is - and it is indeed major - and how faithful the Lord is to give us much evident substantiation for major doctrines (such as Jesus Deity, etc.), then to postulate the Roman papacy out of Mt. 16 when the Bible does not truly substantiate it, blasphemously implies neglect by the Holy Spirit! In reality, Rome's papacy comes more from the Roman Empire and it's Caesar (a Caesario-Papacy, even as Boniface VIII claimed), which led to Catholicism becoming a vast, autocratic institution, which used the carnal means of the Roman empire to physically harm her enemies, including those who separated due to commitment to the Bible over men. “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now” (Gal. 4:29) In foisting her papacy and related things upon Christendom and persecuting those who disagreed with her, Rome did (and is doing) what the Lord Jesus reproved the presumptuous and Christ-killing Pharisees for doing: "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7:7, 13). They likewise supposed their magisterial office, which in this case was affirmed to be valid, (Mt. 23:2) sanction them to promulgate doctrines such as the Corban rule (Mk. 7:11) as if they were from God.
Traditions of men
When Scripture critically fails to support her, Rome must and does rely upon "tradition," that of uncodified, boundless stories and fables outside of Scripture, and which often contradict it, but which they make of equal authority with Scripture, which class of revelation is assured to be wholly inspired (1Tim. 3:16). And which the instruments of both its writing and preservation must themselves be subject to, and be able to withstand Scriptural examination. (Acts 17:11) The Roman exaltation church tradition thereby negates one of the effectiveness of a closed canon in separating the "wheat" from the "chaff". In making the two of equal authority Rome is essentially adding to the very canon they love to take credit for closing. While the apostles could indeed add to what then consisted of Scripture, due to it yet being open and their manifest authority, once that body is closed all other “revelation” must be subservient to it.
In contrast, for hundreds of years Rome effected (by commission and omission) fostered public Biblically illiteracy, and erroneously taught that only her magisterium can be trusted to correctly interpret Scripture. (Rome even erroneously invokes 2 Pt. 2:20 in support, but which pertains to the basis of inspiration, not interpretation). And by such claim she infallibly defined that she herself is infallible, as well as what constitutes infallible teaching, though no infallible list of all such is provided. But out of this authority numerous doctrines have been promulgated which lack Scriptural warrant, and are contrary to it, from her works-merit salvation (confidence which Catholics attest to, and in the Roman Catholic Institution for salvation), to her perpetuated Petrine papacy, to infant baptismal regeneration (no infants are seen baptized, by sprinkling no less, and such cannot fulfill the stated requirements for this: Acts 3:38; Acts 8:37), to a sacerdotal priesthood (all believers are priests in the New Testament, as saith 1 Peter 2:9, while again, only pastors, termed bishops and elders, are ordained, denoting the same office: Titus 1:5-7), to annulments (all marriages in the Bible were such, even when done under conditions that would qualify as grounds for Roman Catholic annulments), to prayers to souls in Heaven (in the Bible the only prayers toward Heaven are to God, and only pagans prayed to those who died).
The primary manifestation of the practice of there latter is that of prayers to Mary. While the Bible commands us not to think of people “above that which is written”, (1Cor. 4:6), the progressive exaltation of Mary by Roman Catholicism beyond what Scripture affords is an illustration of what can happen when one will not be bound by Holy Writ. The famous church historian Philip Shaff comments,
“After the middle of the fourth century it [Roman Catholicism] overstepped the wholesome Biblical limit, and transformed the mother of the Lord into a mother of God, the humble handmaid of the Lord into a queen of heaven, the highly favored into a dispenser of favors, the blessed among women into an intercessor above all women, nay, we may almost say, the redeemed daughter of fallen Adam, who is nowhere in Holy Scriptures excepted from the universal sinfulness, into a sinlessly holy co-redeemer. . . . Thus the veneration of Mary gradually degenerated into the worship of Mary; and this took so deep hold upon the popular religious life in the Middle Age, that, in spite of all scholastic distinctions between latria, and dulia, and hyperdulia, Mariolatry practically prevailed over the worship of Christ. . . .
The Romish devotions scarcely utter a Pater Noster without an Ave Maria, and turn even more frequently and naturally to the compassionate, tenderhearted mother for her intercessions, than to the eternal Son of God, thinking that in this indirect way the desired gift is more sure to be obtained. To this day the worship of Mary is one of the principal points of separation between Graeco-Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism. It is one of the strongest expressions of the fundamental Romish error of unduly exalting the human factors or instruments of redemption, and obstructing, or rendering needless, the immediate access of believers to Christ, by thrusting in subordinate mediators. Nor can we but agree with nearly all unbiased historians in regarding the worship of Mary as an echo of ancient heathenism. It brings plainly to mind the worship of Ceres, of Isaiah, and of other ancient mothers of the gods; as the worship of saints and angels recalls the hero-worship of Greece and Rome.” (Philip Shaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume III, pages 410-411.)
To Mary are ascribed multiple attributes and titles beyond what the Bible describes, some of which only belong to God, and Mary may often be seen receiving more popular devotion than Jesus Christ. (Eric D. Svendsen, “Is Mary Co-Redemptress of the World?”; Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, “What Is the Unique Role of Mary in Roman Catholicism, and Is It Biblical?”—Part 3; John MacArthur, “Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: Catholic Dogma, Pt. 1”; Eric D. Svendsen, ''Is Mary Co-Redemptress of the World?'') In addition to teaching that she was sinless, Rome holds that she remained a virgin all her life, contrary to Scripture. (Ps. 69:8; Mt. 1:25; 12:46; 13:56; Mk. 6:3 Jn. 2:12; 7:3,5,10; Acts 1:14; 1Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19; also Mt. 19:4,5;1; Cor. 7:2-5) (CARM ''Mary's virginity and Matt. 1:25''; Moisés Pinedo, ''Was Mary a Virgin Her Whole Life?'') A psychological factor in such devotion can be that of seeing Mary as a mother more compassionate intercessor than the male Jesus Christ. However, not only is God the only Heavenly object of prayer in the Bible, but the Holy Spirit explicitly declares Christ as the only one who “was all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin”, and therefore sets Him forth as our all-sufficient and compassionate high priest, who “is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (heb. 4:14,15; 7:25). To God be the glory.
Apostolic manifestation and means
Rather than "infallibly" defining that the Bible declares them infallible, as Rome does, when speaking in accordance with their infallibly defined criteria, and relying on this premise to give authority to “infallible” defined teachings, the apostles means of veracity, as noted before, relied upon the manifest supernatural power of God, purity of life, and sacrificial love, and Scriptural probity (2Cor. 6:1-10). In addition to miracles, in seeking to saved lost souls and defined doctrine, the Lord and His apostles quoted or alluded to the Scriptures abundantly. Jesus exhorted the Jews, "search the Scriptures" (Jn. 5:39; cf. Mt. 4:4; Lk. 24: 27, 32), and regarding His disciples He “opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” (Lk. 24:45) In obeying the LORD, "Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures," "persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening" (Acts 17:2; 28:23). In addition, the Holy Spirit commended as "noble" the common Bereans, "in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11).*
Such seeking, done with an honest and contrite heart, will bring one to find and receive Christ as their Lord and Savior, by trusting in His sinless shed blood and righteousness to save them and not the presumed power of their church and or personal merit.
However, you must search your own heart. How many of God's laws have you broken? Do you suppose your good deeds and or your church will allow you to escape your just punishment in Hell and gain Heaven? Be assured neither of them will! Instead humble yourself as a guilty sinner under the mighty hand of God, confess to Him your sinfulness and decide you want a new life with the Lord Jesus Christ (rather than your sins), and ask Him to save you by His precious blood that was shed for you! He will do so if you mean it with all your heart, and you will know His forgiveness and the life-giving power of His Holy Spirit (Rm. 3:25-5:1; Acts 10:34-47). You show this by being baptized under water (Acts 8:36-39) and following Him (despite persecutions) who alone can promise, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5). Praise ye the LORD.
Further reading:
http://www.christiantruth.com /
http://www.aomin.org/Roman.html
http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/08/before_you_convert_to_roman_ca.php
http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm
http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com
(These recommended sites have much sound teaching to offer, though any such referrals do not assure that i necessarily agree with every single position that may be presented therein).
*Rome contends this methodology is the cause of divisions within Protestantism, which she contrasts with her “unity.” However, defining Protestants in accordance with the "sola fide" (which eliminates multitude others Rome classifies as Protestants), born again, Evangelical Christians manifest a doctrinal unity on essential salvific truths, such as the Nicene creed articulates, and which are arguably equal to the essentials the Sacred Magisterium defines, and which require "full assent of faith" (though Rome has not infallibly defined much of the Bible), while the things in which evangelicals allow a limited amount of disagreement on roughly correspond to things which fall under the Ordinary Magisterium, and which may contain errors, but not damnable ones, and require submission of will and intellect, but allow for a limited amount of dissent. And finally, there are those areas which fall under the General Magisterium, which includes the possibility of significant error, and so .call for assent to a sincere search for truth. While neither Rome or Protestantism offers a full definitive list of which, they are generally discernible by official statements, or lack thereof. Moreover, the majority of Catholics indicate disagreement with Rome and each other on one or more major issues, which Evangelicals typically show more unity on.
In addition, while Romanists must defend a church, as that is their authority, and much their trust for salvation, classical Protestant faith can only defend a doctrine insomuch as it can be Scripturally warranted. Without negating the need for pastors and teachers and obedience to the former, the New Testament Biblical model does not promote a type of implicit faith in men or an ultimately infallible authority (outside God), such as Rome does indeed promote herself as, rather it presents the word of God as the authority, and in such a way that truthfulness and honestly of the Biblical gospel is so manifest that it convinces true seekers who are encouraged to determine it's veracity by their own examination.
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ" (2 Cor 2:17).
"But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor 4:2)
The unity that results is of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3), and is of a far greater quality than the unity of nominal Christianity that is the fruit of passive acceptance of the authority of men. There are basically 2 kinds of relevant unity that can be considered here:
A unity that is the fruit of implicit acceptance of a proclaimed earthly power, which may be one of either a resigned ambivalence or active blind zeal, such as seen in Germany under Hitler, and which usually appeals to man's idea that he can justify himself before God.
A unity that, although it can be less that unanimous, is the result of love for truth and free and objective inquiry, and which exalts God in His infinite holiness and abases man.
It is the latter form of unity that Scripture promotes under the New Covenant. We see the LORD Jesus engaging men to use Scripture and their reasoning powers, in all honesty, to determine truth, quoting or alluding to the Old Testament Scriptures over 100 times. And reproving His disciples for their lack of faith when He had provided evidence for such warranted trust. It was also the apostolic manner to reason with men “out of the scriptures” (Acts 17:3; 18:28; 28:23). In addition, we see the commendation of the Holy Spirit for the “noble” Bereans, "in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11) ― even though it was the very apostles whom they checked out.
However, it is more difficult to create this unconstrained and discerning superior unity, as it is far easier to foster faith in men and their visible organizations. Such organizations allow man to suppose they can in some way merit acceptance with almighty God, rather than requiring man to humble himself before God as a sinner helpless to save Himself. And in faith and surrender to Christ, personally receive Jesus as their LORD and Savior. The latter method is counterproductive to earthly men who seek implicit trust in themselves and their system, as they cannot enjoy such acceptance by souls for whom the Scriptures are the ultimate authority. "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes" (Psa 118:9). And as Rome's own doctrine makes the Bible a second class authority ― after it's own teaching magisterium and equal to the “chaff” of human (church) tradition ― therefore her history is one of suppressing Biblical literacy among it's people, as well as (recently) suppressing it's authority as a basically literal document. And thus, having debased the Bible she fosters implicit trust or resigned faith in her presumed powers and errors, perpetuating a false gospel and sterile church, all the whole attacking the evangelical church which, even in it's present condition, is manifestly superior to institutionalized churches (Rome and mainline denominations like it) in every quantifiable fruit of Biblical regeneration.