Skip to main content

Refuting the Doctrine That Priests Save Souls

The Roman Catholic teaching is that, "Priests save souls." Here's what's being taught by Catholic priests. How are these priests said to save souls? To understand the heresy that "priests save souls" is to understand the connection between the sacraments and the priesthood. Only the priest can administer the sacraments which Roman Catholics are taught would be necessary for salvation. This is different than the born again Christian view that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper are there for the sanctification of the believer. Salvation precedes sanctification not the other way around (Ephesians 2:10, 1 Corinthians 9:11, Titus 2:11-14).

Here's what "Salvation and the Sacraments" from Berean Beacon has to say which I quote in part. I encourage you to read the whole article for further understanding:
Quite a number of people have become Roman Catholics because of the appeal of the Catholic Sacraments. It is necessary therefore to see just what is attractive in these seven signs of Catholicism and to analyze the same in the light of Biblical truth. 
The most important difference between Biblical faith and Roman Catholicism is the issue of what is necessary for an individual's salvation before God. Right through the Scriptures justification is seen to be necessary for salvation and in the New Testament it is the major theme of the Apostles. The Church of Rome proclaims her seven sacraments as necessary for salvation and that justification before God is given through the sacrament of Baptism.

The idea that priests save souls adds works to the finished work of Jesus Christ

The sacraments are administered by the priests. While Roman Catholics believe they do need Jesus for their salvation but the deception kicks in when they believe that it's Jesus plus other stuff. It's Jesus plus priests, Jesus plus sacraments, Jesus plus good works which obviously violates this verse in the Bible which I'll be quoting from the Good News Translation (GNT) for this whole entry:
Romans 11:6  
His choice is based on His grace, not on what they have done. For if God's choice were based on what people do, then his grace would not be real grace. 
Ephesians 2:8-10

For it is by God's grace that you have been saved through faith. It is not the result of your own efforts, but God's gift, so that no one can boast about it. God has made us what we are, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good deeds, which he has already prepared for us to do. 

They may quote how the GNT says Philippians 2:12-13 to justify adding works to salvation but here's the context:
Philippians 2:12-13 
So then, dear friends, as you always obeyed me when I was with you, it is even more important that you obey me now while I am away from you. Keep on working with fear and trembling to complete your salvation, because God is always at work in you to make you willing and able to obey His own purpose

What they're ignoring is that to complete your salvation is not about losing it. Rather, have they read this verse?
Philippians 1:6 
And so I am sure that God, who began this good work in you, will carry it on until it is finished on the Day of Christ Jesus.

Working out with fear and trembling is because it's God that works in the believer. True salvation results to sanctification. You got saved from the penalty of sin, you're still being saved from sin and one day you'll be completely saved from sin. That's what it means to work with fear and trembling to complete one's salvation.

What does binding and loosing mean?

There's the system of "You better do as we say or you're going to lose your souls." This is the idea that the priest can withhold salvation from anyone who disobeys them. While it's understandable the people who have backslid aren't allowed to enter the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:27-32) but the Roman Catholic doctrine has made sanctification as a mandate to keep one's self saved rather than as inevitable proof one is truly saved. By adding sanctification to salvation means one has the right to brag that he or she has kept their salvation by their efforts.

To try and justify this one they misquote Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18-19 which they may have purposely failed to mention verses 15-17 of the same passage. What does the whole loosing or binding or as they call it prohibiting? Did Jesus give Peter some God-like authority? That's not the case. To understand what loosing and binding mean? Here's a good answer from Got Questions:
The concept of "binding and loosing" is taught in the Bible in Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the apostle Peter and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus' words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed. 
Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God's will to men, and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a definite reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline. The apostles do not usurp Christ's lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members. 
Christ in heaven ratifies what is done in His name and in obedience to His Word on earth. In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear. What you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven. What you loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven. In other words, Jesus in heaven looses the authority of His Word as it goes forth on earth for the fulfillment of its purpose.

In short, it was the commission to preach the Gospel. Peter was given authority to preach. He's there to merely warn others and he has no authority whatosever to save the soul of the person. The message of salvation is something that is preached and people either believe it or they don't.

Challenging infant baptism for salvation

The Roman Catholic institution teaches that babies must be baptized in order to enter the glory of Heaven. This is really not in the Bible. Babies go to Heaven when they die because they have not yet committed their first sin. However, the Roman Catholic institution says that babies must be baptized in order to be saved and enter Heaven.

This is the very first act that Roman Catholics say that priests save souls. The priest alone performs the baptism. This is very different from some Protestant Christian denominations that have a very different idea of infant baptism. Prebysterian Christians practice infant baptism but they don't teach it as a sacrament for salvation. This is more or less like an infant dedication ceremony done by Christian denominations that don't practice infant baptism. They don't teach that the infant needed to be baptized for salvation.

They quote Acts 2:38 out of context without realizing Acts 2:41. This is all about first you believe then you are baptized. Acts 2:38 seems to add baptism to salvation but it doesn't. Instead, it means that first you must "turn away from your sins" which is an inward turn which results to an outward turn. To turn from sin means to turn to God for forgiveness and salvation from sin. They have to believe first before they were baptized. Infant baptism is neither commanded nor condemned in the Scriptures. But the standard has always been believer's baptism.

The Lord's supper is in for sanctification not for salvation 

Roman Catholics have misquoted John 6:51-57 without understanding what it really means. Did Jesus mean we must literally eat His flesh and blood? Understanding Jewish idiomatic expressions is necessary in any Bible study. What Jesus meant was to accept Him for who He was. The whole Lord's supper was done in remembrance of what He did. It was celebrated before His crucifixion and today it's done to remember what He did on the cross. It's not instrumental for salvation but for the believer's sanctification.

There's a lot of inconsistencies in the Roman Catholic celebration of the Lord's supper. Not only have they inserted the deadly doctrine of transubstantiation but they have also perverted the way the Lord's supper should be. The Bible commands that it must be celebrated with breaking of bread and drinking non-fermented wine. Also, it must be celebrated during the evening. But the Roman Catholic mass ends up turning it into the Lord's breakfast whenever it's a Sunday morning service.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 
For I received from the Lord the teaching that I passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took a piece of bread, gave thanks to God, broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you. Do this in memory of Me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup and said, "This cup is God's new covenant, sealed with My blood. Whenever you drink it, do so in memory of Me." This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

The average Roman Catholic has only "ate the flesh" but has not even "drank the blood" except in special ceremonies such as marriage.  This is already questionable in itself why is it only the priest who drinks the wine but the laity doesn't even drink it? Didn't the Bible command to eat this bread and drink from this cup? Since sharing one cup would be unsanitary there's the practice of using small plastic cups containing the grape juice where all church members participate. If the doctrine of transubstantiation were real then Roman Catholic laity don't have eternal life because they have not obeyed the command to drink the "blood" which is represented by the non-alcoholic wine.

Confess your sins to God not to the priest

Again, this is pretty much Matthew 18:18-19 misquoted out of its context. It's always been about church discipline. God has not given any authority to the priest to forgive sins. One could talk about the Old Testament (and the problem of appealing to it whenever it's convenient) practice of the priesthood where they mediated for people. Do they even remember that the veil has been torn and that the priesthood here was symbolic? It was a constant, daily remember that sin leads to death. Sin must be paid in death. The priests stood in the Old Testament. Every sin was imputed upon a clean animal without any blemish.

The confessional is that it's nowhere to be found in the New Testament. Whether or not this was a pagan practice is not so much of an issue. It's said that confessionals popped up in some places where pagan priests of certain countries got confessions from their followers. Roman Catholics are quick to say that born again Christians can't tell them were Jesus told them to be born again Christians but they can't even find any passage where the Christians are first called Catholics. Also, Acts 9:31 is not a call to be called Catholics. Instead, the word catholic in Acts 9:31 means universal. It's another synonym for universal. To have a catholic doctrine means universal doctrine.

1 John 1:9 also commands people to confess their sins to God. Nowhere in the Bible are sins ever confessed to a priest seeking forgiveness for sins. When Peter backslid, he didn't go to any apostle to ask for forgiveness. Instead, Peter confessed his sins to God. There's the confidence that you can approach Him.
Hebrews 4:16 
Let us have confidence, then, and approach God's throne, where there is grace. There we will receive mercy and find grace to help us just when we need it.

God doesn't forgive sins through anyone. Christians are commanded to forgive but this kind of forgiveness is between two people. I can forgive everyone who does evil to me but it won't save their souls. This forgiveness is more than just an issue between two people. This is an issue between God and sinful man.
James 5:16 
So then, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you will be healed. The prayer of a good person has a powerful effect.

Confessing your sins to one another is not exactly that you go to a priest to do so. Instead, it's all about admitting how you've sinned against another. It's all about apologizing for our wrongdoings and apologizing to each other. When we pray for one another don't we pray to God directly for each other? That's what direct to God means. You have a need? Pray to God directly. You need to pray for someone? Pray to God directly. You need someone to join you in prayer? You and that someone should pray to God directly.

If priests can't save souls then why are there pastors?

That would be a good question. Pastors can't save souls and neither do they claim that right. Instead, the purpose of the pastor is already written down:
Ephesians 4:11-12 
It was He who "gave gifts to people"; He appointed some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists, others to be pastors and teachers. He did this to prepare all God's people for the work of Christian service, in order to build up the body of Christ.

The pastor's purpose is to prepare for the great work of sanctification. Why God wouldn't directly interact with everyone is because the Christian is not yet perfected. God told a saved man like Moses that He can't see God and live. Saved people can still perish at the sight of a holy and righteous God. The job of the pastor is to help prepare God's people for all the work in the Christian service. This is all about sanctification.

Pastors don't save souls but they're tasked to preach the soul-saving message of salvation through Jesus Christ. It's their task to equip Christians in the task of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They play no role in salvation except in preaching its message. They don't do the saving. They only tell people how to be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. They're God's instruments in spreading the Gospel and helping in the job of leading and sanctifying Christians.

See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Ken Ham's Illustrations on Spiritual Warfare Against Humanism

Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis made these beautiful illustrations to show what's wrong with the church today. Let's take a look at the two illustrations on how Christians engage their spiritual warfare. 
The first illustration reveals the following:
One member is asleep when he should be doing something.Another person is firing at the balloons because the person who's supposed to fire it is asleep on the job.Somebody is focused on deflecting cannon balls than hitting the source of the cannon balls.Somebody is treating the whole situation like a game.  
By doing so, humanism is victorious whenever the local church is asleep. This is the problem to why Christians tend to fall down in battle at times:
Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
In short, if you're not going to stand in the gap on behalf of the land then who will? It's the…

The Ridiculous Roman Catholic View That Marriage Must Be Done Inside Their Church or It's Invalid

I remembered reading through the seven sacraments or ordinances of the Roman Catholic institution in a catechism. One of the teachings is that marriage must be treated as a sacrament. What it also implies is that if your marriage is done in a civil court that even if it was duly registered, that both couples were in a sexually pure union then it's not a marriage. So does that mean that a person can marry in a civil court, get divorced and marry his next spouse in the Roman Catholic institution?

Let's address the issue of civil marriage that is pure and holy. In short there was no incest, no adultery and it was between two people who are eligible for marriage. So why should the Roman Catholic institution even think that two people who got married with the sexually pure prerequisites in the eyes of God should be rejected. Is it because unless it's a priest who performs the marriage then the marriage can't be validated? It's a problem with how Roman Catholics have thei…

Don't Forget That the Roman Catholic Institution Has a Very Long History of Inciting Sedition

The Roman Catholic institution has its long fraudulent history of claiming to be the "One True Church that was founded n 33 A.D. - Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". The word catholic is a synonym for universal but the disciples were never first called Catholics in Antioch but Christians (Acts 11:26). Catholic was used as an old world for universal which some people today are allergic to that word because Catholic has been used to describe people who are members of the Roman Catholic institution. What can be talked about now is the fact that the Roman Catholic institution has had a long history of inciting sedition in governments. While they claim it to be doing the "work of God" or as the Jesuits say "Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam" or "For the greater glory of God." but is it really?

Doing some study of the history of the Vatican has it shown that the Inquisition and later the Jesuit Order have a lot of bloody rags to answer for. Did you know that many ki…

Understanding Ignatius of Antioch's Statement on the Eucharist

It's already expected that Roman Catholicism takes Scriptures out of context and/or purposely misreads it. If they can't even handle the Word of God with reverence then I don't expect them to handle anything else with reverence except it be the writing of the past Popes and the Roman Catholic priests. One such man is the Christian bishop or overseer. In case Roman Catholics want to argue that the term "bishop" would prove he's one of their kind then they are mistaken. To be a bishop according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is to be a church leader. Besides, the same passage says that bishops must be family men of moral dignity which is impossible for a Roman Catholic priest who's bound to celibacy. Please note 1 Corinthians 7:35-37 is not a command for priests to stay single all their lives!
Now here's a popular misquote from the very passage of Ignatius of Antioch to justify the doctrine of transubstantiation: They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, bec…

Testimony of Former Jesuit Priest Victor J. Affonso

To Follow Jesus Without Compromise by Victor J. Affonso
Why I joined the Society of Jesus
At the age of 23, I was a successful commercial artist on the verge of going abroad where a job was awaiting me. I was happy at the prospect of leaving India and thereby also escaping the terrible anguish caused of seeing the misery of the poor in the streets of Bombay.
Political saviors like Gandhi and Nehru had failed in giving true freedom and justice to India’s poor majority. Murder and divisions assailed “independent” India, and so it still is today. All the social works were but a few drops of water in a desert. Yet there was still one solution left: The words of Jesus kept coming to me during prayer, “…For with God ALL things are possible” (Mark 10:27). “Don’t run away!” On another day I heard the words, “Follow My Son — Jesus!” This word finally led me to leave the world and join the Society of Jesus, a missionary order that promised by its very title, its “Spiritual Exercises” and its C…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

God's Curse Upon Gambling!

One of the greatest hypocrisies that people are facing right now is the sin of legalized gambling. Why do I dare say it is hypocritical? It's because for one legalized gambling promotes all type of filth. We have laws against adultery but not against pornography, we have laws against stealing but not against gambling which is really a sin. Today, Christians must voice out not only against legalized prostitution and legalized pornography, they must also voice against legalized gambling. 1 Timothy 6:10 is true that in these days, the love for money is the root of all evil in the secular world plus gambling is mainly rooted upon the love for money. We ought to think that in every way, money is not evil but the love for it is really evil. Gambling in itself is fed because of the love of money. Pastor Mike Stahl a Baptist preacher had also revealed the ill effects of gambling, in truth it is a very lucrative business that sadly destroys lives. To be honest, gambling has been one of th…