In this video, we are going to look at some Catholic objections to biblical Christianity. So as we begin, I'd like to begin by defining a few terms. I think the terms Orthodox and Catholic, would be familiar to most people. These are two big branches of Christendom. Most people who might call themselves Christian would identify as either Orthodox or Catholic. And then we have a term called Protestant, which originates in the Protestant Reformation, which took place around 500 years ago. There are many, there are many areas or there are many points on which I would agree with the Protestant teaching. At the same time, I hesitate to identify myself as a Protestant because that the word is associated with a specific movement in history. The more appropriate term that would describe our position here in this video would be that a biblical Christian, that means a Christian who gives the Bible supreme authority.

So people all over the world who give the Bible, the exclusive and ultimate authority in their lives, as a matter of principle, can be called biblical Christians. And there is a lot of overlap between the beliefs and practices that a biblical Christian might have, and Protestant theology and practice. Okay, so those are some terms to keep in mind as we look at some Catholic objections. So these are different. Different types, you could say, of Christians, and the Catholic Church or Catholic apologists would differ from biblical Christians on various points. And in this video, we are going to look at some of the objections that the Catholic position has towards Biblical Christianity, and what is our response as biblical Christians towards these objections.


Objection: No importance to Tradition
So the first objection that Catholics have to opposition is that we do not give enough weightage to the patristic tradition, that means the tradition of the church fathers. Christianity, as we know it today has a 2000 year history. Many people lived in ancient times, they had various beliefs and practices. And we don't pay much attention to that. That's the objection here. The Catholic position can be summarized by this statement from the Second Vatican Council document, which says that the Church does not draw a certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence. So this is the Catholic position that we should give equal importance to Scripture and tradition. Now, why do we refuse this kind of dual authority? The reason we refuse it is that such a position, violates or contradicts what the Bible says about itself. For example, here in Second Timothy, chapter three, verses 16, and 17, the Bible speaks about itself. It says All scripture is God exhaled. And the purpose of Scripture is that the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly furnished onto all good works. So so many things can be mentioned in this context.

But here, I want to highlight this aspect, the Bible claims to be sufficient. In other words, this is enough, you don't need to look anywhere else. In the book of Jude, the theology or the body of Christian truth that Christians are supposed to believe is referred to as the faith that was delivered once and for all, which means that the revelation that God gave in the first century during the time of the apostles is complete, there's no need to add anything to it. There are many verses in the Bible, which warn us that we should not add or subtract from the Bible, which means the Bible is an integral whole. And then the Bible also claims ultimate authority. If you read the whole Bible, you will find so many verses with this kind of tone. This is one example is taken from Isaiah the prophet, which says, As regards the law and the testimony if they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. And that's what the Bible says about itself. Either you agree with this, or you're completely wrong. That's the kind of authority that the Bible claims for itself. So we biblical Christians, we give the Bible the position that it demands. Now, if you believe that the Bible is not true, then you need to reject it completely. That's the atheist position, or maybe the position of a secular person. And that is logically coherent because a person is just saying something which is logically valid. He's saying that, Well, the Bible says all this about itself, but I disagree with it. And so I will not give any regard for it.

But we would like to point out that the Catholic position is, in a way, self-contradictory. On the one hand, you say that you believe the Bible, you honour the Bible. On the other hand, you do not give it the honour that it demands, you claim to be honouring something, and then you don't give it the honour that it demands, the Bible claims to be sufficient, complete, it claims to be an integral whole, and it demands the ultimate authority, so you take it or you leave it. But it's also good for us to look at the example of the Lord Jesus Christ. If you read the gospels in the New Testament, you see that you realize that the Pharisees and the Jewish leaders, came to Jesus on many occasions with various controversies. And they, they wanted to see what he had to say regarding those controversies, and time and time again. The response of the Lord Jesus Christ is this way. He does not say, you know, have you? Are you familiar with this tradition that the rabbi's had? No, that's not what he says. He says, Have you not read in the book of Moses, have you not read in the law, it's like this. So Jesus always upheld the authority of the Bible. When he came, he came to this world, many centuries after the Jews had developed their scripture, as well as their tradition. And he never said, I've come to fulfil your tradition. But he said I've come to fulfil the scripture. So as a follower of Jesus Christ, it's appropriate for us to give the Bible the same authority that Jesus did.


Objection: Interpreting the Bible incorrectly
Another objection that Catholics have to biblical Christians is that they accuse us that we are reading the Bible on our own, and then interpreting the Bible on our own. So it looks like a free for all right, I read the Bible, I come to my own opinions. You read the Bible, you come to your own opinions, and we are all proud thinking that, you know, I'm right, and the other person is wrong. That's the accusation. What's the Catholic position? According to Catholicism, it says, to the Catholic Church belongs the final word in the understanding and meaning of the Holy Spirit. In the words of the Bible, no explanation of the scriptures, which contradicts the truth constantly taught by the infallible Church can be true. So here, the Catholic position is that only our leaders, only the Catholic Church has the right to interpret the Bible or to say, This is what the Bible means, which means even if you read the Bible, and you see it says something, and the Catholic Church says the opposite. What they say is that you need to submit to what the Catholic Church says, in this context, perhaps, Catholic apologists would also like to quote this verse to us. There's a verse in the Bible, which says, no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. So the Catholic argument is that you shouldn't be interpreting the Scripture privately. I mean, if you're so curious, you can read it, but you shouldn't be interpreting it for interpretation. You should just ask us what the meaning is, and go with that. That's the Catholic position.

Now, why do we reject this position? To answer that question, first of all, this verse needs to be clarified. In this case, in the case of this verse, The King James translation is not very good. If you notice here, the word 'is' is used that's present tense, but the tense in the Greek is a perfect tense. And it speaks about the Scripture having come so a more literal translation is as follows. No prophecy of Scripture has come by any individual's unlocking the word that is translated as interpretation in the King James is a Greek word that refers to something being unveiled, something being opened out, something being stretched out for everybody to see. And then the next verse in verse 21, Peter says, For prophecy did not come by the desire of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. So here in this passage, Peter is not talking about Christians, interpreting the Bible he is talking about how the Bible was produced. How has Scripture come to us? Okay, what he says is that scripture has not come to us, because Paul or Peter figured out something on their own, but rather, they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. So this verse is not talking about individual Christians reading the Bible at all. It's talking about how the Bible was produced. How did the writers of the Bible write the Bible? Did they write their thoughts? No, they wrote what the Holy Spirit guided them to write. Okay, so why do we refuse after refusing magisterial interpretation, there are various principles, or there are very various passages in the Bible, which indicates that God wants individual Christians to read and understand the Bible for themselves.

So for example, here, it says the people of Berea, were nobler than those of Thessalonica in that they received Paul's message readily, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So when Paul came to their town, and Paul was preaching to them, you know, they didn't ask, okay, let us consult the magisterium and find out whether this is the right interpretation. But they looked at the Old Testament themselves, they try to cross-check what is written in the Old Testament with what Paul was preaching to them. And God commends these people for being noble, which means that God wants us to understand and obey the Bible, by ourselves. Look at the example of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is shortly after his resurrection, he met two disciples who were walking on the road to Emmaus. And when he started talking to them, he understood that there were many things from the Old Testament, which they did not know. So what did he tell them? He said, Oh fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself. Now, these two people had not consulted any Magisterium, their problem was not that, you know, the priest had already told them what to believe. But they were not believing it, that was not the problem. The problem was that they were confused when they witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ because they did not expect the Messiah to be crucified. So in other words, they hadn't figured out the prophecies in the Old Testament. And Jesus is telling them that you should have learned and you should have understood and you should have believed all these things.

And if you haven't figured out all these things, so far, then let me explain it to you, I will explain it to you. And Jesus never said that you know, I'm the official representative of the church. So I'm authorized to tell you what the interpretation of the Bible is. He just said I'm your fellow traveller. At that point in time, his identity was not revealed. So speaking just as a fellow traveller, he said, Look, this is what the Old Testament says, look at the Old Testament and understand for yourself, this is what should happen to the Messiah, he should die, and then he should be raised again from the dead. So the Lord Jesus Christ Himself expects believers to read and understand the Bible for themselves. Now, this does not mean that all of us go on our tangents. The Holy Spirit, the Bible says Holy Spirit indwells in believers and helps them to understand the truth of God. Then, secondly, God believes in isolation, that God has put believers disciples of his in local churches, and in the churches, we discuss the Bible, we study the Bible, we share our thoughts, and then if one person has something wrong, everyone else will be reviewing it and critique it so errors will easily be noticed. So, when we read and try to understand the Bible for ourselves, we're just following biblical instructions. The Lord Jesus is instructions. And we are cross-checking things with one another. And the Holy Spirit guides us. So this is why we refuse magisterial interpretation.


Objection: Divided in Denominations
Another objection that Catholics have, when they look at people like us is that you people have so many denominations, we are united. We are one church, and that's the way Christ wanted it. But you people are disunited, look at the number of denominations that are there. Look at the number of different churches and the different names of churches, the different networks of churches, you people are so disunited, but we are united, so we must be right. To answer this objection, first, it's worth looking at just how united the Catholic Church is. On the one hand, the Catholic Church is indeed one big organization. But when you look at the beliefs and the practices inside the Catholic Church, you find a good amount of difference of opinion. For example, this is the Latin Mass, and there are many Conservative Catholics who believe that the right way to conduct a mass is the Latin Mass. But not everyone agrees with that. So this is a news report, saying Pope Francis disappoints fans of Latin Mass perhaps he conducted a mass in English or some other language, or he made some statements to the effect that the Latin mass is not necessary. So here you have a difference of opinion within Catholicism.

Many Catholic priests believe that it is necessary to Indianize Christianity by incorporating Hindu rituals, the Hindu customs in the ways of doing things, and needless to say, they are conservative counterparts will strongly disagree. In some European countries, it's happened like this, that Indians are living there, and when there are Indian Hindus who celebrate their Hindu festival, some of the Catholic churches have accommodated them, and other Catholics are very upset by this. So there are differences of opinion, major differences of opinion within the Catholic Church. Here is another example in which a conservative Catholic journalist complains that the Fatima journal equates traditional Catholics with the Taliban. So you have the liberal section of Catholics who are not happy with the conservatives, and vice versa. So there is a section of Catholics that believe that interfaith initiatives are good, and there are others that consider them to be an outreach. There are so many, so many areas on which Catholics disagree. There is a movement within Catholicism in South America called liberation theology. And the details of it are not relevant for us. But then, what we need to understand is that there has been opposition in the Catholic Church against liberation theology, at the same time, there has been friendliness also. So you have different points of view, there are some Pope's who would not tolerate Liberation Theology at all. There are other Pope's who are more accommodating of liberation theology. There are some Conservative Catholics, which goes so far as to accuse the pope of spreading heresy. So, there is a lot of disunities within the Catholic Church itself. So you know, when you point out something in others, there is a need to look at oneself also, in fact, just consider the first page of the Bible.

The first page of the Bible says that God created the universe in six days. And he created different animals individually, He created man also individually, and there are some Conservative Catholics who will agree with that. And there are some Catholics who will say that you know, this is just a myth that has to be taken figuratively or it's just a parable for us to understand some lessons. We all know that a monkey is evolved into a man. So Catholics don't have a unanimity regarding the first page of the Bible, and as you progress in the Bible, there are many other things on which Catholics disagree on, on birth control on sexuality, on evolution, on the end-time events, and so forth. Now, the next area that we would like to focus on in answering this objection is how important is unity? So here's a quote by a Christian apologist and professor at Oxford, CS Lewis, he says, Seek unity, and you will find neither unity nor truth, seek the light of truth. And you will find both unity and truth. So Unity is not more important than truth. And so the truth is what we need to give a premium for. It's not just CS Lewis that says it. Even the Bible says it. If you want to boast about unity, then maybe you need to look at the Lord Jesus Christ. It says very clearly in the Bible that there was a division among the people because of Jesus. Now, why would Jesus bring division among people? Well, it has to do with the truth. Some people will believe the truth regarding Jesus and others will not. And therefore, there is disunity. And the same thing applies today, God has given us a revelation and not everybody agrees with this. And that's why there is some amount of disagreement or this unity. The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian church says that divisions must be there among you, so that those who are approved may be seen clearly, not everyone is living an equally good Christian life, not everyone is walking equally close to God, and therefore that it is inevitable that there will be some divisions or disagreements, it's helpful to consider the example of of a class if you consider a course that students are taking. All of them have attended the same lectures, all of them follow the same textbook. Now, is there unity in their answer sheets? No. Every answer sheet does not agree perfectly with the other. Perhaps there is some agreement but not a perfect agreement. Why? No, there are some questions asked in the exam and different students give different answers to them. Why is that? Because the student's understanding of the subject is not perfect. So in the same way, my understanding, or my fellow Christians understanding of God's revelation is not perfect. So it is understandable that there might be some disagreements between him and me. This is just a consequence of the reality of what truth is and the finiteness of the human mind. It doesn't mean that we are on the wrong footing. Now, thinking of disagreements, I want to make a point about biblical Christians and how we view one another. All these are well known, illustrious, devoted Christians that come from our network of churches, which is called the brethren assemblies.

So at the top left is Anthony groves, who was a missionary. George Muller is famous for his orphanage, which operated on the principle of faith. Emmi Cherian is a well-known preacher from South India. Charles Macintosh is a well-known author and preacher from the United Kingdom. Walbridge Nadal was a German missionary in South India. Fred Nick Arnott was a Scottish missionary into Africa, and the MacGregors were missionaries from New Zealand who came to India. Now all these people come from the brethren assemblies, and so do I. Now, in my eyes, are these the only people of God? I mean, am I disunited with other Christians? To the extent that I don't consider them as Christians? Certainly not. These people are from the same church background that I am from, but that does not mean that I don't accept other people, as people of God. Now look at these people here, Bakht Singh was an Indian missionary, Watchman Nee is a church planter, Bible Teacher and missionary from China. Ch Spurgeon was a Baptist, a Baptist, preacher and pastor in the United Kingdom. Now Bakht Singh and Watchman Nee founded their network of churches, which was somewhat similar to the brethren assemblies. Spurgeon was a Baptist Amy Carmichael was Presbyterian. John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist movement. Robert Estienne, who lived nearly 400 years ago was also a Presbyterian like Amy Carmichael, Richard Wurmbrand was a Lutheran, and John Newton was an Anglican. Now, these are all people from different churches, they have got different labels that are attached to them. But I consider all these people as my brothers and sisters in Christ, although I do not identify with their label.

Now what's the reason we follow the same Jesus Christ, we believe the same gospel. They believed the same gospel about Jesus Christ, the gospel of Jesus Christ, which speaks about Jesus coming to this earth, to die and to rise again for sinners, and to offer salvation as a free gift to sinners. Now, because these people accept the biblical gospel, that's why they are my brothers and sisters in Christ, they may be other people with the same labels. If they don't accept the gospel, then they are not my brothers in Christ. So the different labels that biblical Christians might have might give the impression of disunity. But we are far more united, and perhaps outsiders would recognize. Now, look at these names. These are names of Christians who lived in the past. Now, many of these names were given to them, by Catholic agents, who persecuted them who conducted an inquisition, and who had many of them put on trial, and killed because of disagreement over theological issues. So these people have different names, but all of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Why not because of their name, but because they believe the same gospel and gave the authority to the same Bible that we do. So we are all united, we are brothers and sisters in Christ, despite our different names. And just like the students answer sheets, we may not agree on everything. But we agree on a foundation. A foundation is that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and He has come to offer salvation freely to all salvation is found only in Jesus Christ, and we all uphold the authority of the Bible. So we are not as disunited as you think and the level of disagreement that is there has to do with the nature of truth.


Objection: Old Is Gold
Another objection is that Catholics would say that our church dates from the time of the apostles, your church is something new. Well, the church that I go to, in the city of Thane in India, was established in 1997. So that means it was nearly 2000 years after the time of Christ, whereas the Catholic Church is supposedly the oldest church, the original church, that Christ and the apostles founded. This is the Catholic claim. Now, I'm going to respond to this in two parts. The first is to compare this or to juxtapose this with other similar claims. Well, we have the Orthodox Church also, they also claim the same thing, and yet they differ from the Catholic Church, their beliefs and practical practices are similar, and yet they are different. So this priest here represents the South Church in South India, the Orthodox Church in Kerala and they believe that they were established by the Apostle Thomas, and they did not know anything about the Pope or the Vatican, or any such Catholic icon until European colonizers appeared on the scene. And if you look at these two groups of people, well, what will the Jews say to them, you know, we are older than you, you know, we are the original people of God. So, what I want to point out is that this Catholic claim of antiquity is not a unique claim. Other people are making these claims. And if I should become a Catholic, just because the Catholic Church is the oldest, well then why shouldn't I become a Jacobite? Why shouldn't I become an Orthodox Christian? Or why shouldn't I convert to Judaism? That's the obvious question.

Now, we will examine this Catholic claim of antiquity. Part of this claim is this list of Pope's so Catholics believe that the apostle Peter one disciple of Christ was the first pope, and he was succeeded by other Pope's and this is a long line of Pope's right until today. So this is the claim of the Catholic Church and we are going to scrutinize this claim. This list or the first part of this list is, is taken from a book called against heresies written by a person called Irenaeus. And this book is dated 180 AD, which means it's dated about 150 years after the time of Christ, or after the writing of the New Testament. This is Via Appia, the Appian Way, near Rome, on the outskirts of Rome. And this is considered to be the site of the death of Paul and Peter. So, there are second-century writers that say that Paul and Peter died in Rome, I think Tertullian is one of those writers. But now let's pay some attention to Peter. Notice that in this list, Peter is set to be the first pope from AD 32 onwards now AD 32 is the time that Jesus died and rose again from the dead. If you ever opened your Bible to the book of Acts and the apostles, you would see that the scene is not in Rome, it's in Jerusalem. Peter was in Jerusalem for a few years after the death and resurrection of Christ. So this is a factual era. Peter was not in Rome, in the year AD 32. Okay, so the question is, for how long was Peter in Jerusalem? And where did he go after that? Now, the Bible does not have the complete history of Peters life, but it has some things that we ought to notice. When Paul wrote an epistle to the Christians in Rome, he greets many people individually there, in Romans chapter 16. And Peter is conspicuous by his absence. Now Paul is writing in around AD 50, between AD 50 and 60. And if Peter was in Rome, it is quite understandable that Paul would send some greeting to him, but there is no such greeting. Moreover, when you read the epistle to the Romans when you look at the greetings there, you notice that there are multiple churches in Rome, there is no single church in Rome. In Peters episode, first episode, in chapter five, Peter says that I'm writing from Babylon, I'm sending greetings to you from Babylon. Babylon is not at all anywhere near Rome, Babylon is an old name for Iraq. Now, some people say that Babylon is a code word for Rome. And so when Peter says Babylon, he must be referring to Rome. But that's not factually correct. mean, today, Babylon may be a code word for Rome, because many Protestants believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfilment of the Babylon that is mentioned in Revelation chapter 17.

So today, in the context of prophecy, you may have Protestants referring to the Roman Catholic Church as Babylon. But that was not the case in Peters time. So when Peter says Babylon, the natural interpretation is that Peter is referring to Iraq. Then the second episode of Peter was written near his death. And Peter writes, In this episode, I'm about to die now. So, so what? So you should remember the things that I've been preaching to you from the start, and he mentioned certain things in his epistle, there is no hint of the papacy. Peters doesn't say anything like you know what, I'm the first pope, and I'm just about to die. So we need to have a new pope, you guys are going to have a new pope soon. He doesn't mention anything of that sort. So when we look at this Catholic claim to antiquity, and we compare it with the New Testament, we find that it does not hold water. Peter might have visited Rome near the end of his life, but he was certainly not a pope sitting in Rome, and he was certainly not there immediately after the time of Christ. The last book of the Bible, one of the last books of the Bible to be written, was the book of Revelation, and it was written around AD 95 when Emperor Diocletian had imprisoned the apostle John and Patmos, the island of Patmos and their god gave John a vision and that is the content of the book of Revelation. So the book begins with letters to seven different churches, all of which are located in Asia Minor, which is western Turkey. And if you read these letters, you will find that in every case, the Lord Jesus puts full responsibility on that particular local church for all the good, the bad, and the corrective action that needs to be taken. In other words, there's no hint of Roman Catholic hierarchy. In these letters. In the book of Revelation, every church is autonomous. Every church is local, every church takes its own decision. There is no hint that a pope is sitting in Rome, and everyone is supposed to listen to what the Pope says, when you read Revelation two and three know why does Jesus say that? You know what, I'm not very happy with your church, because you are not listening to the Pope. And I'm very happy with your church because y'all are listening to the Pope. There's nothing of that sort. Each church is fully independent and fully autonomous. So the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic position, or claim to antiquity does not hold water. When we look into the New Testament.

Now, this is Araneus, who had given us that list of Pope's, he says, like this, that Rome is the most ancient Church known to all. So in the first line, you have a historical mistake, the oldest church is not the church of Rome, it's the church of Jerusalem. And we know that by reading the book of Acts in the Bible. So he says that Rome is the most ancient church founded and organized in Rome, by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has a tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced, and by the apostles, for with this church, because of course, superior origin, all churches must agree this is a view which is being expressed close to the end of the second century. But you can make out that when Irenaeus puts forth this view he is making mistake upon mistake, the church at Rome was not founded by Paul is not founded by Peter, when, when we read Paul's epistle to the Romans. Paul says that you know, I'm happy to know of your existence, I want to come and visit you. I want to preach Jesus Christ to you people. Also, I want to preach the gospel and Rome. So I've been trying to visit you so far, I have not been able, but one day, I hope to visit you this is what Paul says to the Romans. So it's obvious that he had not found this church. And yet Iraneus says that he did. As we saw, Peter was no idea near Rome, during his middle ages, or during his early life, his early ministry and therefore he did not find here not found this church. So the whole logic behind this Roman Catholic hierarchy that is set up in Rome is flawed. If you look further, at the trends that were taking place, we understand that there was a movement in which Rome gradually became superior. Now, this second quote is from Polycrates, who lived in Ephesus, which is far away from Rome. And he says we that is we Asian Christians, we observed the exact day, neither adding nor taking away and so on. For an Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming all these observe the 14 days of the Passover, according to the gospel. So Polycrates is saying that you know what, we are also great guys. We also have a claim on what Christianity is, because great people have lived among us, also, apostles have lived among us. So you, all of us, all Christians should follow our custom, you know, we celebrate Easter on the same day as Passover. So you should also follow what we are doing because we are also great. After all, great people live in our midst. But on the other hand, you have the Romans saying that no, we are the great guys. We are the superior church. Easter should not be held on Passover, Easter should be calculated with a separate formula. And eventually, the Romans won this contest and Rome became superior. So you see that the Catholic Church, which is headquartered in Rome, is not a hierarchy. It's not a hierarchy that Jesus and the apostles founded. It's something that gradually evolved, this is the second century and in the third century, you find further evolution.

Look at Tertullian from Carthage, which is also somewhat far away from Rome. He says like this, I would admit your argument if the writing of the shepherd had deserved to be included in the divine instrument. And if it were not charged by every council of the churches, even of your churches among the apocryphal and false, so Tertullian subject is not our subject. He's talking about a certain book called The Shepherd of Hermas. And he is arguing whether this book is valid or not valid as part of the Bible. But in this argument, he makes refers to your own churches when he is writing to the Bishop of Rome, whom we would today call a pope, but when Tertullian addressed him, he does not consider him to be the head of the church. But he considers himself he considers this so-called Pope to be the head of a certain section, a certain number of churches. So here you see the evolution of the Roman Catholic hierarchy taking place in the third century. Now, this belief became stronger and stronger Cyprian of Carthage says, He cannot have God for his father, who does not have the church for his mother. Now, Paul, or Peter never said anything like this. But Cyprien is saying this, around 200 years after the time of the apostles. So you see that within two or three centuries, this belief evolved, that there has to be a big institution. And salvation is to be found in this institution. That's the kind of view that Cyprian is, is expressing here. And that became standard Catholic theology. There was an emperor, a Roman Emperor Constantine. And he lived in the fourth century. And he was a pagan, but one day he saw a vision in the sky. That's what he says he saw a vision in the sky, and it was a cross. And because of that, he claimed that he is becoming a Christian. And he brought about a lot of changes. The edict of Milan promised that churches wouldn't be harassed. If there was any church property that was confiscated, as part of earlier persecution, then that property would be returned. Then Constantine called the Council of Nicea. He said, You know, there was some controversy raging in the Christian church because there were some people, some bishops who did not believe in the deity of Christ, and others believed in the deity of Christ. And Constantine, Constantine said, you know, I don't know whether Jesus is God or not, and I don't care also, but I care for the unity of my empire, and religion. I want all of you bishops, you sit together, and you decide once and for all, whether Jesus is God or not, I'm not going to tolerate any dissenting opinions after that. So Constantine convened this Council of Nicea, and later on, an emperor who came after the, after Constantine, he gave the edict he issued the addict of the Thessalonica, which made Christianity the state religion.

So here you see the further evolution of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. So when Catholics say that our church is the original church that Christ and the apostles founded, that's not true. Your church is something that gradually evolved over three or 400 years. This Bishop of Rome, who lived the, near the end of the fourth century, was the first to call himself the Pope. So it's very convenient to make a list and say that Peter was the first pope, and so on. We find that, that is not supported by history that's not supported by the New Testament. The writings of the church fathers in the second, third and fourth centuries show us that the Catholic belief of you know, one church, headquartered at Rome is not something that Christ instituted, but it's something that evolved over three or four centuries. Could salvation be there in an old institution? Like the papacy, or the church that is headed by the Pope's, there is another old institution, and that is the kings of Judah. Now, unlike the papacy, the King at Jerusalem, or this kingship, or this royal line was anointed or appointed by God Himself. God made the Prophet Samuel anoint David to be the king. And all these people whose names are on the screen here, at least on the right on the left side, are all sons of David. So they are descendants of David's successors of David. I mean, the Catholics might speak about paper succession, but he or his royal succession, a succession which was instituted by God. Okay, so what did God do with these kings, he destroyed them, and he sent them to exile. And that was because they disobeyed Him, they went away from the truth, which was written in their own Bible. So what we understand from that is that what matters is not an institution in itself. But whether that institution is sticking to the Bible. Salvation is found in the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation is found in the words that are written in the Bible. It's not found in an institution.


Objection: Evil works of Protestants
And then we have an objection, haven't Protestants done evil things? This is a sort of counter objection to the objection that we give. We point out that the Catholic Church has done evil. And so the Catholic Church counterargues that well, Protestants have also done evil things. It's an unfair comparison because there is a huge difference in scale. But anyway, here's an example. This person's name is John Calvin, one of the leaders of the Reformation in Geneva. And he had one point on which he agreed with the Catholics, and that is he killed a person because that person did not believe in the Trinity. So Michael Servetus was put to death by the Protestant leader John Calvin, because of theological disagreements, you know, what an evil deed. So Protestants have also done evil things. Now here, we need to remember our discussion on authority that we had earlier in this presentation. The Catholic belief that his church is infallible is that the pope is infallible. So if the Pope has done something wrong, or if the Catholic Church has killed people in the name of religion, well that invalidates Catholic faith, because, you know, a supposedly infallible institution has done very wrong things. Our authority is not John Calvin, our authority does not rest on any particular leader, our authority rests on the Bible. So if John Calvin does something wrong, that proves that John Calvin was a bad person, it does not invalidate my faith, because my faith is based on the Bible, in contrast with a faith of a Catholic, which is based on the Catholic hierarchy and the magisterium.


Objection: Literally or Figuratively?
One Final objection, sometimes Catholics say that you people are just taking the Bible literally, when it should be taken figuratively. Okay. So when we point to the Bible and say, you know, the Bible says this, the Bible says that this is how we're supposed to go about our Christian life. This is how the church is supposed to be conducted, and so on. Catholics will object that you're just taking the Bible literally. And that's not the way the Bible was meant to be taken. But is this true? Look at these two groups of people? At the top is the Catholic mass in which the Catholics, the Catholic Church teaches that the host, that is the bread gets converted to the body of Jesus, and the blood gets the wine gets converted to the blood of Jesus. I mean, this is an actual transformation that takes place. And if you ask them why they believe this, you know, they may give me reasons, or one of the reasons given is certain statements in the Bible. Jesus said, This is my body. Jesus said, He spoke to the Jews about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, Jesus did make such statements. And here we see the Catholics are taking it literally. Whereas below, you have a group of biblical Christians, and they are celebrating the Lord's Supper. And the same bread and wine are there on the table at the centre, but they don't believe that it actually gets converted to the body and blood of Jesus Christ. They have their Bibles open, and they're probably reading the words of the Lord Jesus. He said, This is my body, but they are taking it symbolically. They believe that when Jesus said, This is my body, he just meant that the bread is a symbol of the body and we are remembering the Lord Jesus Christ when we celebrate this Lord's Supper. So who's taking the Bible literally here? We, as biblical Christians, don't blindly indiscriminately take the Bible literally all the time. Yes, normal speech, normally written material is to be taken literally language would not have meaning otherwise. But there are some times where the literal meaning obviously, does not make sense or is not true. Or there is something in the text, which indicates that the symbolic meaning is to be taken. And that is when we take the Bible symbolically. So while we interpret the Bible literally, in many passages, we are not doing it indiscriminately, we're doing it because there's no reason to take it figuratively. So it has to be taken. Literally, we do interpret the Bible, figuratively in some places. Now, this is a statement that the Lord Jesus Christ made in the Bible. Are you going to take it literally? Are you going to take it figuratively, I mean, there is every indication in the context that this has to be taken literally in the sense that not that Jesus is a road made of concrete or something like that. But he is the way that means salvation has to be found only in Jesus Christ, No man comes to God except through him. Well, what is the Catholic Church says Pope Pius the ninth, he made this statement that He is the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE. He is there because of Jesus. Salvation has to be found him. Salvation has to be found in the Catholic. If you're out of the church, you have no if you're with me, you have salvation. This is what the Pope said.

Now, this is another bit from the Bible. It says that there was an upper room. This is the first church not in Rome, but at Jerusalem, where Peter, James and John the disciples of Jesus was there. And Mary, the mother of Jesus also was there. And this is the last mention of Mary in the Bible. She was one of the believers, one of the christian, one of the disciples of the Christ in the Jerusalem church. That's who Mary was. But what is the Catholic church say about Mary. It says she's the immaculate Mother of God, ever-virgin having completed the course of the life, she was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. There are many more things that the Catholic Church says about Mary. None of those things are written in the Bible. So it's not a case of literal versus figurative. The issue here is not about whether you want to interpret the Bible, literally or figuratively. The issue is, are you going to be true to the text? Or are you going to directly contradict the text or say something which is completely foreign to the text? So that's the issue here. So the objection is invalid. We are not taking the Bible literally indiscriminately. We take the Bible literally where it is meant to be taken literally, whether it's where it does not indicate having to be taken figuratively, and we try to be true to the text. So that's our position as biblical christians. So in this video, we looked at different objections that the Catholic Church has to the biblical Christian position. And we looked at some of the responses that we have, we hope that you learn something here and we hope that you will consider these issues seriously. And may God guide you and bless you. Thank you very much.