Vatican II

I have another one of those things for refuting:

Especially the question about why we do things when Jesus already saved us.

Jesus redeemed us. We arn’t saved until we die and get into heaven. The idea of being saved by a one time act of faith would have been an absurdity to the earliest earliest Christians. Reference

Your best bet is in picking up a copy of “Catholicism vs. Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating who founded this website. This book explains the origin of all these arguments and in my opinion, it is the first book any Catholic apologist should read.


I think you mean where he says: Can indulgences be Scriptural, since there is no need for anything but Jesus’ blood to remove all punishment and guilt due to sin? The question assumes that indulgences operate under a power other than Christ’s. So the premise is false. According to that website’s logic, there would be no need for sanctification after one makes the initial assent of faith. But Scripture is constantly speaking of the need to mature in faith, to be chastised for the sake of holiness, etc… That website’s author is also ignorant that Christ takes away the eternal consequences of sin. If He took away all consequences, then why is the world still fallen and marred and Christians still suffer and even still sin themselves?—this is all a result of the Fall, i.e. a consequence of sin.

Jesus did not save us. He redeemed us and gave us the opportunity for salvation if we choose.

Excellent response. It’s always interesting to hear a concise explanation of some point of faith.