Roman Catholics Aren’t Christians. Is This An Example Of “No True Scotsman” Fallacy?

Social media isn’t a very constructive use of time.  However, I don’t believe it has no usefulness.  Two topics that I don’t write a ton of blog posts about, are Israel and Catholicism.  They are still near and dear to me as a Bible Believer.  Therefore, I do make some comments about these two topics in places with a high profile on social media.

When you make comments about these two topics, you usually find the devils on social media will respond with stock comments.  These stock comments are usually not well thought out and can be compared to the “Four legs good.  Two legs bad.” comments by the sheep in Animal Farm by George Orwell.

On the topic of Israel, Muslim propagandists will retort with shouts of “Khazars”, “Protocols”, “International Bankers”, “Rothschilds”, “occupation”, and “apartheid”.  Comments that contain these buzzwords can be dismissed without hesitation.  Here are quick reasons why: No Jew in Israel has any more “Khazar” blood in him than the average Hungarian.  The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a known forgery.  “International Bankers” aren’t all Jewish.  “Rothschilds” are bankers for the Vatican and therefore only middlemen.  You can’t “occupy” a land that was vacant before you got there.  And finally, Israel is one of the most multicultural societies in world history and bears no resemblance to any “apartheid”.

However, this article isn’t about those topics…

On the topic of Roman Catholicism, the most common objection to Biblical truth is that Roman Catholics will claim that their church gave the world the Bible.  This is easily dismissed because the FACT is that their bible has the wrong number of books in it.  Although the Apocrypha has some good historical information in it, it is most certainly NOT Scripture and has no place within the pages of the Old Testament where the RCC places them.  At the end of the day, the argument isn’t worth having because our Bible has 66 books in it and theirs has 72.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the Catholic Church didn’t give us our Bible.

I read a lot.  You should too.  If you do, you will see that the vast majority of people think that Roman Catholics are Christians.  We can be sure that no one who says this is a regular reader of the Bible.  Any reader of the Bible will see that the faith and practice of  Roman Catholicism cannot be found within the pages of the Bible (be it 66 or 72 books; although there are a few strange practices found in the Apocrypha).

So the quick comment that I find myself posting a couple times a week on FaceBook and Twitter is “Roman Catholics aren’t Christian according to the Bible.

People need to see this.  They need this truth in front of their eyes.  It should be literally plastered all over the internet.

When I post this, out come the sheep screaming “Four legs good.  Two legs bad.”  In this case, you will often hear some poor, deluded soul write back some mumbling response about the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

The “No True Scotsman” fallacy doesn’t apply here.  The claim here is that we are changing the definition of Christian to exclude Catholics.  We are doing nothing of the sort.

The name of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy comes from a funny story.  Let me copy it here:

“Imagine some Scottish chauvinist settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, ‘Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again’. Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: ‘No Scot would do such a thing!’ Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favourite source a report of the even more scandalous on-goings of Mr Angus McSporran in Aberdeen. This clearly constitutes a counter example, which definitively falsifies the universal proposition originally put forward. (‘Falsifies’ here is, of course, simply the opposite of ‘verifies’; and it therefore means ‘shows to be false’.) Allowing that this is indeed such a counter example, he ought to withdraw; retreating perhaps to a rather weaker claim about most or some. But even an imaginary Scot is, like the rest of us, human; and none of us always does what we ought to do. So what he is in fact saying is: ‘No true Scotsman would do such a thing!'”

We would define a “Scotsman” as someone who lives or is from Scotland.  No one defines a “Scotsman” as someone who lives or is from Scotland AND DOESN’T DO SUCH AND SUCH A CRIME.  Unless the guy was being illogical to prove a point.

It is no stretch to define a “Christian” as someone who at least tries to live like Christ or his followers.  The actions and doctrines of Christ and his followers are found in the Bible.

What you will not find in the actions of Christ and his followers are Crusades, Inquisitions, Rosaries, prayers to dead saints, Popes, Cardinals, and veneration of statues.  You might find versions of Holy Wars and “inquisitions” in the Old Testament. You might also find versions of the other practices before Christ, but it will be in the actions of Baal worshipers and other pagans.  They fly in the face of the religion of the Bible.

What does this prove?  It proves that Roman Catholicism is a strange blending of bits and pieces of the Bible mixed with millennia old practices of God hating pagans.  That mixture doesn’t produce Christianity any more than lipstick on a pig makes a woman.

The Bible proves that Roman Catholicism isn’t Christianity.  History proves the same.

However low you make the minimum standard for Christianity.  The Albigensian Crusade and the torture chambers of the Inquisition prove that Rome cannot meet the basic requirements.  (For a more modern example, look at the actions of the Catholic Ustashe in Serbia during WWII – LESS THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.)

Folks, Jesus said “By their fruits ye shall know them.”  By that standard, we can be absolutely sure that Rome has closer links with Nimrod and Nebuchadnezzar than Christ and Paul.  We are not claiming that the only true church is a church without sin.  We are merely claiming that a church with the bloody track record of the Roman Pontiffs cannot be Christian.

This is not an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.  This is a basic way to test Rome’s claim to be a Christian church. How do we determine if a man is a Scotsman?  We find out if he is from or lives in Scotland.  The test is simple.  The test to find whether an organization is Christian or not is equally simple: “By their fruits ye shall know them.

No honest person can look at the poor Galileans of the book of Acts and see any resemblance to the bloody, wine drinking, bloody, worldly, bloody, Bible hating, bloody, billionaires in Rome.

Did I mention that they are bloody?

Rev 18:24 (AV) And in her was found the BLOOD of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t Christian.  It is Babylonian.  Read more about it in Revelation chapters 17 and 18 in the Bible.


7 thoughts on “Roman Catholics Aren’t Christians. Is This An Example Of “No True Scotsman” Fallacy?

  1. What is your theory about Christianity prior to the Reformation? Were any of these people Christians? I would accept that many practices that entered Roman Catholicism were evil, especially during the Renaissance (I considered at least several popes to be antichrist false popes, such as Leo X, Alexander VI, and Clement VII). I’m not sure if you’re aware, but there are people who identify as Catholic, but reject a lot of the same things you reject in Catholicism. I reject the pagan ideas that crept into the church from Greek philosophy. I reject the absolute papal authority over the world. I reject the probabilism and legalism that’s been in the church for at least 500 years. However, I don’t reject the sacraments in general and I don’t reject an ordained priesthood, with bishops laying hands on their successor. Protestants have no apostolic succession. You won’t find Christians in the first 1000 years that didn’t have apostolic succession (the laying on of hands of bishops). The word “sacraments” isn’t in scripture, but neither is the Nicene Creed. Much of our thinking and wording comes from heretics such as Tertullian & Origen. To reject the Nicene Creed puts you outside of the church, since no Christian rejects the Nicene Creed, and this is a sure sign of the true faith given by Jesus Christ.

    I cannot accept any theory that says something like, “Granted, they went to Mass under a bishop, but their true thoughts aligned with Protestantism, they just didn’t know it.” This is like the New Age people who try to say that the Gnostics have been around since the time of Christ, or the Muslims who say that everyone in the Old Testament was really a Muslim. Unless you have some proof that people actually held the idea of Protestantism, it’s pure speculation to say that there were any Christians that held to your view. Christ promised to be with his church until he comes again, so there must be proof that your belief system as it exists today has existed since Christ. It’s not a belief system that could have disappeared or not been visible until Luther. At least some of the lay people must have held these beliefs. I would argue that since the time of Christ, there have always been bishops and laymen who’ve held to the true faith, even if the vast bulk fell into Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and paganism.


    1. As I wrote in response to your other comment, there have always been groups of people who believed the Bible and rejected the doctrines of the unHoly Church in Rome. These groups were persecuted mercilessly by the bloody followers of the Hellish father. Are we to believe that these killers then went and wrote honest reports about what these “heretics” believed? No honest person would.

      As far as Apostolic succession, one just needs to read the New Testament to see that even if there is a succession of laying on of hands from Peter to Pope Franny, they have no connection with any substance. There are almost no similiarities between Franny and the married (Matt 8:14) fisherman who ministered to the Jews (Gal 2), was rebuked by Paul (Gal 2), preached salvation by grace thru faith (Acts 15), warned against tradition (1 Pet 1:18), had no money (Acts 3:1-6), thinks Christ was the rock and not himself (I Pet 2:5-8), and refused worship (Acts 10:25-26). If you really want proof of things, then start with the proof that Catholicism is of the Devil. If you can’t figure that out, then you don’t want proof.

      The Nicene Creed is wishy washing and amounts to very little. It teaches a form of baptismal regeneration heresy and has nothing about the restoration of Israel, eternal security, the Rapture, or (most importantly) the final authority of the Bible. Many a man has given intellectual assent to the Nicene Creed and then split hell wide open because he never trusted Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour without works and believed the Gospel.

      What about you, friend? Are you saved? Are you trusting Christ alone or are you mixing trusting Christ with your Sacraments, church membership and other works?

      What saith the Scripture?
      Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom 3:28
      But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Joh 1:12
      For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Rom 10:13

      Repent of your self-righteousness and catholic leanings and receive Jesus Christ as you Saviour today before it’s too late.


      1. “there have always been groups of people who believed the Bible and rejected the doctrines of the unHoly Church in Rome”

        You have to provide evidence for this claim. In the early church, you had a wide range of heretical groups, but you can’t show continuity in any of them. Most groups were various forms of gnosticism, neopaganism, or Greek philosophy. Even the reformers believed in the laying on of hands, excommunications, and the Nicene Creed. The follows of “Bible alone” don’t even follow the bible, such as the 1 Cor call for women to cover their heads and for permanent celibacy as a better option rather than marriage (no protestants can control their sexual appetites and remain celibate, they’re all married).

        Show me the group of Christians that always rejected the sacraments, believed in the five solas, and rejected the Nicene Creed, and laying on of hands for apostolic succession. This was hardly simply Rome, but was the same faith present in Egypt, Syria, Jerusalem, and Antioch. You have writings and records attesting to the same practices across the world. Your claim is that there was always this underground church getting crushed by the Church of Rome. Proof is required to make a claim, otherwise what you say means nothing. I’ll listen to you if you show evidence.

        Christ promised to be with his church until the end of time. Without proof that your church of the five solas existed continuously, you’re either calling Christ a liar, or you’re creating a church you wish existed.


      2. Thank you for asking me to respond to your questions and then not reading what I wrote. You have now been selected to be made a public example of a LYING CATHOLIC WHO CAN’T READ. Look for the replies to your ridiculous comments in upcoming blog post.

        Stay tuned! Don’t touch that dial!


  2. “What about you, friend? Are you saved? Are you trusting Christ alone or are you mixing trusting Christ with your Sacraments, church membership and other works?”

    It’s a sin to presume salvation. This is absolute novelty and is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Even the most radical reformers weren’t so bold as to be assured of their salvation like this. With your logic, working out your salvation with fear and trembling means nothing. Receiving grace through the sacraments, amending your life, and mortifying the flesh (to tame the threefold concupiscence) is the path. This is the path of life that all Christians have followed, but heretics have endless variations of beliefs about salvation. Some deny marriage totally (e.g. stoics) and others teach that sin cannot change anything in regards to salvation. Nobody is assured of their salvation and nobody knows when you’ll die, so you must always follow all of the commandments, mortify your flesh, constantly do the will of God, judge nobody else, and pray endlessly. No amount of rosaries, novenas, or pilgrimages will do anything for you if you don’t love God with your whole heart and do all that Christ commanded.

    No church membership will save you. From my readings and experience, I believe about 2% of those who claim to be Christians will be saved, and the rest go to hell. This is their own choosing because they have free will, and they hate God and prefer the devil.

    I believe all Protestants go to hell, because their doctrines lead directly to Satan, and they refuse to strive for unity. On the day of their death, Christ will simply ask, “do you love me?” and Protestants will have to answer “no” because they did not follow all that Christ taught, especially in regards to self-denial, chastity, and humility. The ones who will make it to heaven are those who are humble, chaste, obedient to all the commandments of Christ, and who truly love God and want to do his Holy Will. Today, Protestants boldly allow for multiple marriage, contraception, and divorce for any reasons. Christians have always said marriage is permanent, sex is only for children, and that remarriage is discouraged in all cases, even widowhood.

    Hell will be full of bishops, monks, nuns, popes, and laymen of all kinds (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox). Church membership is only the first step, but the striving takes a lifetime.


    1. Thank you for asking me to respond to your questions and then not reading what I wrote. You have now been selected to be made a public example of a LYING CATHOLIC WHO CAN’T READ. Look for the replies to your ridiculous comments in upcoming blog post.

      Stay tuned! Don’t touch that dial!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s