You have not answered yet whether you understand justification.

Rome does not believe in biblical justification or else they wouldn't need the Mass, purgatory, etc to atone for sins. One cannot be saved unless and until one understands and believes that Jesus died for them personally and paid the full price for their sins. You can deceive yourself that Rome will get you into heaven, but unless you believe the biblical gospel that Jesus died for you and reject the false gospel of Rome, you will get a shock on judgement day.

Justification does not to mean to make one holy. It is not a process, as Rome may teach, but it is an instantaneous act of God, applied without delay to the unsanctified sinner as soon as he believes. He is regarded by God as if he were perfectly righteous.

Justification is not a term meaning to make one holy. It is a legal description. When a judge in a court pronounces someone as innocent, he is not making him innocent. They already are. When God justifies the sinner who believes in what Christ did for him, he declares him righteous based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. (Info from Williamson's book on WCF)See Romans

Joseph wrote:
...And you are quite mistaken, the Catholic religion does indeed teach that God justifies the ungodly. I don't know where you got that other idea.

The book "Instructions in the Catholic Faith" by Parish Priests says on P.7 "

F. What is the Mass? The Mass today is the same as the Last Supper. The priest at Mass brings down upon the altar, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, offers Him to God for our sins, and gives Him to the people in Holy Communion."

Paul's Epistle to the Romans and Galatians teach that justification is by faith alone in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice. If you are believing in the Romish system of atonement with Masses, purgatory, etc as atonement for sin, isn't that a denial of what Christ accomplished on the cross?

Joseph wrote:
I disagree with your interpretations of those verses, Wayne. I believe they are saying that Christ was sacrificed only once, not that salvation is a once-for-all event. They are two very different things.

Are you aware that we cannot atone for our own sins by any means? There is nothing any person can do to make atonement or satisfaction for his/her own sins because only the shedding of blood (Christ's blood) atones for sin.

"According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrew 9:22

That is why purgatory is pure fiction. The word purgatory is not mentioned or taught in the Bible.

The verse just quoted (Heb. 9:22) shows the impossibility of purgatory because only Christ's blood atones for sins. No amount of suffering of a sinner will atone for his/her sins. There is a hymn which says "nothing but the blood" meaning Christ's blood.

"Any who did accept him he empowered to become children of God. These are they who believe in his name--who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it, but by God." John 3:12-13 RC Bible

"To him all the prophets testify, saying that everyone who believes in him has forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:43

"But now he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sins once for all by his sacrifice. Just as it is appointed that men die once, and after death be judged, so Christ was offered up once to take away the sins of many; he will appear a second time not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him." Hebrew 9 vs.26b to 28

"Every other priest stands ministering day by day, and offering again and again those same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are placed beneath his feet. By one offering he has forever perfected those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10 vs.11 to 14.

"he also says, Their sins and their transgressions I will remember no more." Hebrews 10:17

Joseph wrote:
So when two anti-Catholics agree it becomes reliable?

He also says transubstantiation was defined as a doctrine in A.D. 1215.

He also says auricular confession was instituted by pope Innocent II in 1215.

You have been badly misled Joseph. Water baptism does not save a person. The water is only symbolic of the washing away of our sins and the new birth in Christ by faith in Christ alone and His sacrifice.

Water does not save anybody. You need to read more in the Gospel of John chapter 3.

Jesus said: "Flesh begets flesh, Spirit begets spirit. Do not be surprised that I tell you you must all be begotten from above. The wind blows where it will. You hear the sound it makes but you do not know where it comes from, or where it goes. So it is with everyone begotten of the Spirit." John 3:6-8 RC Bible

"Yes, God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him may not die but may have eternal life." John 3:16 RC Bible

See also John 3:36

You need to listen to the testimony of former priest Brewer at:

Joseph wrote:
Plus, the dates that he assigns to many doctrines are simply wrong. Anyone with decent knowledge of the writings of the Church Fathers will see that, as I showed you with transubstantiation and confession.

The on-line Wikipedia, under transubstantiation says:

"The short document known as the Didache, which may be the earliest Church document outside of the New Testament to speak of the Eucharist, neither confirms nor denies the Real Presence and transubstantiation.[16] It speaks of the Eucharist as a "sacrifice":

"In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council used the word transubstantiated in its profession of faith, when speaking of the change that takes place in the Eucharist."

Loraine Boettner's book "Roman Catholicism" very carefully examines the main teachings of Romanism and compares them with what the Bible teaches and Protestants believe. If you disagree with him because he disagrees with Romanism, I can understand that. But if you say he is technically incorrect, then you need to give the details to back up that claim.

I am sure we can easily show you his exposure of Romanist doctrines is biblical. If your disagreement with him is because of his exposure of RC teachings, then you are not offering valid criticism of him. Prove he is wrong.

For example, Boettner's chapter on Tradition explains how tradition nullifies or destroys the word of God.

Joseph wrote:
Thank you for your answer, guys
To everyone on here who thinks they know what the RCC is about, please answer a question for me. How have you gone about finding your information about its beliefs and practices?

A more recent book I have is larger and called "Instructions in the Catholic Faith" by Parish Priests. This one is copyright 1976 Revised 1980. It too has the Nihil Obstat by Rev Eugene J JcClory Imprimatur by Most Rev. Cletus F. O'Donnell, J.C.D.

This detailed book is a complete course in the Catholic Faith. It fulfuls the guidelines set out by the Committee for Fundamentals of Religious Education national conference of Catholic Bishops - Nov.11, 1971.

This appears to be as authoritative as you can get on the RC religion and far more detailed that the Baltimore Catechism. It is mean for adult classes. It gives the classic teachings concerning the powers of the Pope and the Cahtolic Church.

Joseph wrote:
But please answer this question: how do we know which of the following translations are correct? They all have different meanings in verse 7. It says "him" in the first translation, "us" in the second, and "them" in the third. (I really don't think it's talking about preserving Scripture at all, but rather about protecting the oppressed from the oppressors.)
Psalm 12:6-7

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7 KJV (1611)

The NASB you quoted seemed to change a word in verse 7 to read "preserve him". This does not make sense and does not fit in with verse 6.

The NIV you quoted, v.7 does not even relate to verse 6. I believe this version is based on different manuscripts than the KJV.

Joseph wrote:
I wouldn't say that the present day versions are inerrant, God never guaranteed that would happen. There are so many minor discrepancies between manuscripts, so how do we know which is the right one? But since they are minor, no doctrinal points of the Bible have been changed.

This expression "every word" translates the Greek "Panti remati", and specificially refers to each and every word. Where are these words by which man is to live? Christ implied the preservation of His very words when he said "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" John 12:48. The expression "the word" translates the Greek "ho logos" and it refers to the totality of Christ's words (cf v.47). Based on these verse, the Christian has a biblical warrant to expect to have all the words of christ. These passages teach we can have faith in the Lord's divine providential preservation of His inspired autographa.

In their western democratic nations, the Catholic rejoices in the openess, complete freedom of worship, democracy. He can express his opinion publicly, vote for whom he wishes, and have access to the press.

In the church, he must put up with total secrecy and lack of accountability. An example is the annulment crisis. Thousands of annulments are granted every year by the RC church, but the local diocese tribunals who hear and grant annulments keep everything secret. Nobody can find out the details and grounds on which a particular annulment is granted.

The average Catholic takes it for granted that Popes have never contradicted one another on essentials or deviated from gospel truth. This book shows these assumptions are false.

"They have repeatedly contradicted one another and the Gospel. Far from championing the dignity of man, they have times without number withheld from Catholics and non-Catholics the most elemenary rights. History explodes the myth of a papacy lily-white in the matter of truth."

Joseph wrote:
No I didn't read it, but I know that he says things in it that aren't true.

"As regards priestly innovations that have been made by the RC, Dr. R. Laird Harris, Professor of Old Testament in Covenant Theological Seminary, in St. Louis, writes:

A few are:

The Mass, as a daily celebration -- 394 AD

Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, the term "Mother of God" first applied to her by the Council of Ephesus -- 431 AD

Priests began to dress differently from layman -- 500

The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I -- 593

Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I -- 600

Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels, about 600

Title of pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas -- 607

Kissing of pope's foot, began with pope Constantine -- 709

Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks -- 750

Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest -- 850

The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in eleventh century.

Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand)-- 1079

The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit -- 1090

Transubstantiation, proclaimed by pope Innocent III -- 1215

The meaning of Matt.16:18 can be seen by examining other verses such as Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 3:10-11; 10:4; Eph 2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:4-8. The apostles never spoke about anyone except Christ as the cornerstone upon which the church would be built. The Old Testament believers also looked to the Lord as the rock. See Deut. 32:4,31; 2 Kings 22:2; Psalm 77:35

This is quite different from unity which can be found between Bible believing christians, who although they may come from many different Protestant denominations, find they are united by Biblical truth and are in Christ by grace through faith.

"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3

As this verse says, our fellowship with fellow believers is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. It is not an earthly, organizational unity but a true unity of believers in Christ. Further, even though we may disagree with each other on some peripheral doctrines, if we are born again by the Holy Spirit, we have a true unity in Christ.

Joseph wrote:
But that's circular logic. You can't say "The Bible is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true." Is the Catholic Church the true Church because it claims to be the true Church?

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:27

This anointing is referring to the Holy Spirit. One must approach God's Word, prayerfully, with a contrite heart, a spirit willing to learn, and an open mind willing to receive from God.

Joseph wrote:
I don't believe it's blind faith but that's beside the point. Don't you have the same blind faith in the New Testament? What can be used to support the New Testament if you profess sola scriptura? There are lots of other first century Christian writings. Which ones are inspired, and which are not? How can you tell? The Bible itself is basically a tradition that has been handed down to us.

One clear reason is that the Scriptures themselves teach that they are God's inspired revelation to man.
Check out Deuteronomy 6:6; 11:20-21; 31:12; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:30; Neh.8:2; Isaiah 8:20; Matt 22:29; Luke 16:31; 24:25-27; John 20:31; Acts 18:24-28; Rom 15:4; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 tim 3:15; Rev. 1:3

Jesus warned that His true mother and brothers are those who listen to and practice the Word of God.

Joseph wrote:
Wayne,
There is a difference between mere man made tradition and divine tradition. We believe that God has inspired tradition in the same way that He has inspired Scripture.

Joseph wrote:
Wayne,
There is a difference between mere man made tradition and divine tradition. We believe that God has inspired tradition in the same way that He has inspired Scripture. Therefore Christ's condemnation of tradition does not apply here. Tradition is not inherently evil. Protestants probably have plenty of traditions.

The Papal or "Transmontaine Theory" claims that the Pope is the organ through which the infallible judgment of the Church is pronounced. "He is not required to consult other bishops before he gives his decision. This infallibility is not personal, but official. As a man the Pope may be immoral, heretical, or infidel; as Pope, when speaking 'ex cathedra', he is the organ of the Holy Ghost. In a few words, that is the doctrine of Romanists concerning the Rule of Faith."

"Protestants admit that there is a kind of tradition within the limits of the sacred Scriptures themselves....We are governed by this tradition of truth running through the whole sacred volume." This would be the sense of "traditions" 2 Thess. 2:15

The Lone Ranger wrote:
And what do you do then with 2 Thess 2:14 "Hold to the traditions you have been taught by word or epistle."

The apostles simply conveyed the written Word of God to man through preaching. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:23

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." 1 Timothy 4:2