Follow
[This is the third installment of a three part series.]
When former Protestant, Taylor Marshall, wrote Eternal City, he sought to explain why Christianity is necessarily Roman. “The Church,” he wrote, “receives the Roman empire” from its previous custodians. But in concluding this, Marshall has mistakenly transposed two kingdoms—both of which Daniel addressed, and both of which Daniel set against the background of the rise and fall of four world empires. One kingdom is of earth and the other of heaven, and Marshall has unfortunately confused the two.
In Daniel 2, there is a vision in which there are four succeeding empires: the “head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay” (2:32-22). These represented the current and coming empires of the world—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. As Daniel explains, the fourth kingdom starts with the strength of iron, but its feet and toes are part iron and part clay, which is to signify that the once strong kingdom “shall be partly strong, and partly broken” (2:41-43). In this vision, a stone “smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay” (2:34), which is to signify that “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (2:44). We note that the stone does not strike the statue in the toes (at the division of the Roman empire), but in the feet, while it was weakened, but not yet divided. The stone is Christ and His kingdom is of heaven, heavenly.
In Daniel 7, on the other hand, the same four empires are in view, signified by a Lion, a Bear, a Leopard and “a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible” (7:4-7). Again, these are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and again, the fourth kingdom ends up being divided 10 ways. Just as the legs of iron in Daniel 2 “shall be divided” into ten toes (2:41), this fourth beast “had ten horns.” In the midst of those ten arose “another little horn, … and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things” (7:8). This little horn, the Eleventh among the ten, is the Beast of Revelation 13, for that Beast is also given “a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies” (Revelation 13:5). Notably, this Eleventh Horn does not come up prior to the division, but with it. The Eleventh Horn is Antichrist, and his kingdom is of earth, earthly.
Because Roman Catholicism “received” the Roman empire, along with its hierarchy and its nomenclature, Taylor Marshall has assumed that Roman Catholicism represents the Stone of Daniel 2, “which smote the image upon his feet [and] became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (2:34-35). Roman Catholicism, so Marshall believes, is the establishment of Christ’s kingdom on earth. As we noted earlier in What the Fathers Feared Most, the Church Fathers were afraid of precisely what happened to Marshall. They were afraid that when Antichrist came, he would look so much like the church that many would be caught off guard and “be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against” (Against Heresies, Book XXX.1). Where the Fathers feared to tread, Marshall rushed in.
Part of Marshall’s error lies in his chronology. He has the Babylonian empire dominating from 587-539 B.C., the Medo-Persian empire from 539-331 B.C., the Greek empire from 331-168 B.C., and the Roman empire from 63 B.C. to 70 A.D. (Eternal City, Kindle version). We could quibble with him on some of those dates, but most egregious is his representation that the Roman Empire ended in 70 A.D., as if Jerusalem had been its capital. The Roman Empire continued long past 70 A.D., the year Jerusalem was toppled. But it was not the end of the Roman empire. And it certainly was not the beginning of Roman Catholicism, either. Roman Catholicism, as we shall see, did not even exist at the time Jerusalem fell, and would not manifest for another three hundred years.
The reader’s attention is invited to various evidences—by no means exhaustive—that show that many Fathers, Saints, and yes even Popes, were unaware of “Roman Catholic” teachings in the first few centuries after the last apostle died:
- Gregory Nazianzen believed that Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, a “chief cornerstone,” had been raised up to protect the church, and was practically invested with infallibility in order to keep the church from error (i.e., “the Spirit takes possession of one who will breathe on His behalf”), and that he had received “the charge of the whole world.” (Oration 21.7). Gregory was unaware that the Bishop of Rome held that prerogative.
- Origen believed that Mary had sinned in unbelief (Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7)—convinced that he had this on the authority of the apostles themselves (De Principiis, prol, ii.)—and was unaware that Mary was to be held as sinless.
- Pope Gregory I believed that 1 Maccabees was apocryphal, and was unaware that Rome had preserved its canonical status. (Commentary on Job, Volume II, Book 19, chapter 34)
- Jerome believed that Peter was “chief of the apostles” on account of his age, and that all the apostles held the keys to the kingdom of heaven, ruling as a plurality of elders. He was not aware that Peter alone held the keys. (Against Jovinianus, Book I.26)
- Pope Gelasius believed that there yet remained bread and wine after the words of consecration in the Lord’s supper, and was unaware that the elements ceased to be bread and wine. (De duabus naturis in Christo, adversus Eutychen et Nestorium).
- Augustine denied that Jesus’ words in John 6 were to be taken literally, and was unaware that Christians were to eat Christ’s flesh and drink the blood that poured from His side. (An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)
- Hippolytus held that Jesus was signified by the Ark of the Covenant, and was unaware that the Ark was intended to signify Mary. (Oration on “The Lord is my Shepherd.”)
- Epiphanius rejected the use of images in worship—”being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures” (Jerome, Letter 51.9)—and was unaware of the “ancient apostolic practice” of venerating images.
- Tertullian believed that the seats at the right and left hand of Christ—once refused to the Sons of Zebedee (Matthew 20:20-23)—were reserved for the Martyrs (Scorpiace, 12). He was unaware that “apostolic tradition” had reserved that honor for Mary, the Queen Mother.
The list could go on, but these citations are sufficient for our purposes. Where were the ancient doctrines that Rome “has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster“? One explanation is the concept of Doctrinal Development—a concept made necessary by the colossal gap that exists between what the early church believed and what Roman Catholicism now teaches. This does not create a problem for the Roman Catholic because Doctrinal Development allows him to find what he must—no matter how scanty or contradictory the evidence may be. Said Rev. Morris, an Anglican minister received into Roman Catholic communion in the mid-1800s, when expounding on Doctrinal Development:
“…if there are early traces of identity of belief, they may be invisible, except to the eye of a Catholic, but perfectly clear to him. For an immense number of minute expressions, observations, and practices prove to him, that the genius of his faith is what it always was.” (Jesus, the Son of Mary, vol 1., Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A., 1851) p. 28).
Another explanation, however, for the vast difference between Roman Catholicism and the beliefs and practices of the early church—the explanation we hold—is that Roman Catholicism as a religion had not yet arisen in the apostolic era, and when it did arise at the end of the Fourth Century, it was a new thing, something never before seen on earth. And of its rise we were duly admonished, for that of which the prophets warned by figure, the apostles warned by doctrine.
Paul warned about “seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils,” and those “speaking lies in hypocrisy,” forbidding marriage and requiring abstention from food God created for us to enjoy (1 Timothy 4:1-4). John’s last words in his first epistle, after warning of Antichrist, were that the children of God must “keep his commandments” (5:2), and therefore, “keep yourselves from idols” (5:21).
Until the Fourth Century, bishops and ministers were allowed, and encouraged, to marry. Even Jerome in his epistle Against Jovinianus acknowledged that this was the case (Book I.34). Additionally, images of Christ and of the saints were not used in worship, as Epiphanius so clearly protested, for such use was “contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures” (Jerome, Letter 51.9). Jovinianus argued valiantly against the new derogation of marriage, but Jerome was unmoved:
“If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray. … If we abstain from intercourse, we give honour to our wives; if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the opposite of honour. … Christ loves virgins more than others… ” (Against Jovinianus, Book I.7, 12)
Jerome’s hatred of marriage was so extreme that when Jovinianus objected on the grounds that the human race would come to naught, he ridiculed him—for if all Christians were continent, Jerome said, the constant labor of prostitutes and adulterers alone would suffice to fill the earth with children (Against Jovinianus, Book I.36). Citing Job 41:34, Jerome had Lucifer himself as “king … of propagation of children, and of the fertilization of the marriage bed” (Book II.4). Those are the words of a madman. His instructions on fasting were as extreme. Lest anyone think Jerome was merely suggesting that we ought to abstain from meat and wine—which are alleged to inflame our lusts—he took 1 Timothy 5:23 to mean that Timothy was to fast from water. For his troubles, Jovinianus and many others were excommunicated from Rome for being “promoters of the new heresy and blasphemy” (Letter of Pope Siricius to the Church of Milan, 389 A.D.)
Vigilantius argued similarly against the veneration of relics and intercession of the saints, a new and foreign practice foisted upon the empire when the bones of Samuel, Andrew, Luke and Timothy were transported from Palestine. Again, Jerome was unmoved by Vigilantius’ arguments:
“Are the people of all the Churches fools, because they went to meet the sacred relics, and welcomed them with as much joy as if they held a living prophet in the midst of them, so that there was one great swarm of people from Palestine to Chalcedon …?” (Against Vigilantius, ch. 5).
If the Apostles and martyrs could intercede for the saints “while still in the body,” Jerome argued, “how much more must they do so when once they have won their crowns?” (Against Vigilantius, ch. 6). And thus did the veneration of the bones of Saints and Martyrs come upon the empire of Rome in the name of Christ.
For their defense of truth, Jovinianus was anathematized by the Church of Rome (Against Vigilaltius, ch. 1), and Vigilantius broke fellowship with Jerome and his depravities in Bethlehem, leaving without even saying goodbye (Jerome, To Paulinus, Letter LVIII.11), only to receive thunderous condemnation from Jerome by epistle. Thus did Rome suppress the voice of reason as superstitions began to multiply in the name of Christ in the Roman Empire. Indeed, this superstitious condemnation of marriage, the withholding of food and water, and the veneration of relics—these were the idols and doctrines of demons of which the Apostles had warned the sheep in advance.
And this truly signaled the rise of the Papacy, aided in no small way by the multiplicity of visions and miracles that accompanied these new teachings. As Gibbon so plainly put it in his famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
“In the long period of twelve hundred years, which elapsed between the reign of Constantine and the reformation of Luther, the worship of saints and relics corrupted the pure and perfect simplicity of the Christian model … But the progress of superstition would have been much less rapid and victorious, if the faith of the people had not been assisted by the seasonable aid of visions and miracles…” (vol. 2, pp. 157-158).
This was a new thing indeed, a new kingdom on earth, “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). But it was not the Stone that smote the statue of Nebuchadnezzar in the feet while the Roman Empire was still unified. No, this was a new religion that arose from the ruins of a Roman empire that was falling apart. Jesus’ Kingdom of Heaven was established at His first advent, and His Spirit was given as the means by which the unity and purity of His Bride is sustained, and His Word is her nourishment. But the Pope’s kingdom was established three centuries later, in bondage to teachings that men like Jovinianus, Vigiliantius and many others (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, ch. 2) knew very well to be contrary to the Word of God.
To that end we say that Taylor Marshall was given a choice between two kingdoms which Daniel foresaw—the first of heaven, heavenly, and the second of earth, earthly, and he chose the latter, mistaking it for the former. But Marshall’s kingdom was one kingdom too late to be the Kingdom of Heaven, and he has chosen Antichrist. What Marshall has exemplified for us is the shortcoming of a system that holds that one must first see the kingdom of Rome, and then enter it in order to be born again. But Scripture tells us of another Kingdom, a Kingdom which one must first be born again in order to see, for “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
In closing this third section, and to close the series as well, we will simply invite the reader at this point to consider the name under which the Papacy “received the Roman empire,” in Taylor Marshall’s words. It was by the Donation of Constantine that the Roman Catholic Church received it, and in that Donation, the pope is called the “Vicar of the Son of God,” or in Latin, VICARIVS FILII DEI. We will leave it to the reader to verify our math, but the name of the man, when the Roman Numerals are summed up, is 666.
Rome makes two objections to this title, and we will counter them briefly here. First, they claim that the pope has never gone by the title “Vicar of the Son of God,” but by the title “Vicar of Christ.” We can only shake our heads here, for these are the same people who marvel that Protestants accept that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, but not that she is the Mother or God. They claim, by this, that we are Nestorians as if we were denying the divinity of Christ; and then they suddenly fly into the arms of Nestorius and claim with him that their Pope is Vicar of Christ, but not Vicar of the Son of God—as if Christ were not the Son of God! We will also note, if wryly, that the Donation of Constantine was not ultimately rejected because it donated the Roman Empire to the wrong man, under the wrong name. It was rejected because it was a Roman Catholic forgery.
The second objection is that the Roman Numerals of VICARIVS FILII DEI only add up to 664, because IV in the first word equal four, and are not to be added individually as I plus V. But this is a fallacy, for arches 29 and 54 of the Roman Colosseum are enumerated as “XXVIIII” and “LIIII.” As this helpful historian notes, “The numbers [on the arches] do not use the contraction IV [for 4] or IX [for 9].” We will also note that the Christians in the Catacombs used this same system, as evidenced by this touching epitaph:
“Aurelia, our sweetest daughter, who departed from the world, Severus and Quintinus being consuls. She lived fifteen years and four months.” (Maitland, The Church in the Catacombs, ©1857, p. 58)
In the Latin inscription, Aurelia’s age was listed as “ANN – XV – M – IIII”.
That said, we arrive at a final observation for our Roman Catholic readers:
You follow a man in Rome, the number of whose name is 666, who is the head of a religion and a kingdom that exists solely for the worship of an image, a religion that was formed centuries after Jesus came and left, and arose at the collapse and division of the Roman empire, and who has as his assistant a False Prophet who affirms his kingdom by signs and wonders, even to make the fire of heaven come down to earth in the sight of men, who erects an image for worship, and even has the power to bring the image to life and give it the power to speak, so that it may cause those who do not worship it to be put to death, and which image is the means by which its worshipers receive a mark on their hand and forehead.
That is quite an alignment of prophecies to be fulfilled in one religion that is supposed by the world not to be Antichrist! That is not to say, however, that we believe Roman Catholics can be saved simply by leaving Rome. Not at all. One is not saved by rejecting Antichrist, but rather by believing in the One Whom antichrist purports to represent on earth. There is much more to be said on this, but we suppose an earnest Roman Catholic could do worse than Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome:
“Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were he to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be.” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians, ch. 10).
“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians, Ch. 32).
“Come out of her, my people… ” (Revelation 18:4)
Wow! Another great article Tim. Take it to the world.
WOW is right Tim! Kevin said it all.
I like this part best, “. Indeed, this superstitious condemnation of marriage, the withholding of food and water, and the veneration of relics—”.
However, I have never had food and water withheld from me. But I do like what you said. It sounds so, so, um,….scary. Yeah, scary.
As for the condemnation of marriage, it reminds me of Calvin saying, “Marriage is no more of a sacrament” than shoe making or shaving”.
As for relics, again, wow. I bet you think we should burn the Shroud of Turin, huh?
Thanks, Jim. You wrote,
Then at least you understand the error of Jerome here.
Calvin was right. But saying “Marriage is no more a sacrament than shaving” is not the same as saying “Marriage is no different than shaving.” It was a criticism of Rome’s teaching on sacraments, not a criticism of the institution of Marriage. Sacraments are for the church, Jim. Baptism is exercised within the church. The table of the Lord’s supper is fenced. But marriage is for all humanity for all time, and is no more a sacrament than childbirth or tying one’s shoes. Jerome’s criticism of Marriage, by way of contrast, was a criticism of marriage:
In what way, Jim, does this “speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:32)?
What you do with the shroud is your business, but I do stand with the early church on the Word of God and say again with Epiphanius, “that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church [is] contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures.” I do not believe it is Jesus’ burial shroud.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, Do you think the shroud is the work of the devil?
Tim, you said:
“What you do with the shroud is your business, but I do stand with the early church on the Word of God and say again with Epiphanius, “that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church [is] contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures.” I do not believe it is Jesus’ burial shroud.”
I was just thinking. How many would believe in the RCC if that shroud of Turin came alive and started to speak, and bleed?
I see pictures of Jesus bleeding, crying, etc. that hang on people’s walls who are Roman Catholic, but could you just imagine how many would flock into Rome overnight, and leave the “protestant”, angelican, presbyterian, pentecostal, evangelical churches if the media could show the shroud crying, weeping, bleeding and even talking. It would be incredible overnight.
Interesting…so many are deceived by all these miracles, and yet attribute them all to God and Christ as the source.
They look at any criticism or question of these events, and as Jim makes clear we are all demon possessed. Anyone who questions or condemns Rome or documents the Eucharist coming alive and speaking is demon possessed when they consider it the image of the beast, but don’t see anything inside Rome as being demon possessed.
It is incredible the lock Rome has on their minds…as Jim likes to say, Wow!
Thanks, Walt. You are right that “They look at any criticism or question of these events, [as if] we are all demon possessed.” That is due to their axiom, which is that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded upon Peter and his successors. Anything that contradicts that axiom is obviously a misunderstanding or a symptom of some psychological malady. To see the Axiom at work, consider Fr. Livius in his discussion on Doctrinal Development:
The Axiom leads to the statement that Because Rome is the True Church, every doctrine it teaches is therefore true. What cannot be contemplated is either the inverse (“If Rome is not Christ’s church, then she can teach error”), or the contrapositive (“If she has taught error, then the Roman church is not the True Church”).
Thus, someone like me “needs to find peace” or “must have been hurt at some point,” or “is deeply wounded.” It is not possible that I could be right. There must be sickness to be diagnosed.
Well, I certainly have my flaws, but I’m profoundly at peace, and do not believe the Roman Catholic church “hurt me” or “wounded me” in any way, except that the Gospel was withheld from me by her Magisterium.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you wrote:
“Roman Catholicism, so Marshall believes, is the establishment of Christ’s kingdom on earth. As we noted earlier in What the Fathers Feared Most, the Church Fathers were afraid of precisely what happened to Marshall. They were afraid that when Antichrist came, he would look so much like the church that many would be caught off guard and “be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against” (Against Heresies, Book XXX.1). Where the Fathers feared to tread, Marshall rushed in.”
It is an interesting perspective. The reformers saw the fulfillment of Antichrist in Rome, but soon the Jesuits totally countered that with Futurism and Preterism. Have you studied the Jesuit authors of these two theories to remove any tie of Rome to Antichrist? It is a fascinating study.
I was a futurist under Van Impe very early who only saw Rome as being a false prophet, but later had become closer to Rome. Then I became a “partial” preterist under Rushdoony and the large dominion movement. It was only later that I learned about historicism (historical post millennialism) when Van Impe once said on TV it was one of the major deceptions. Anytime some says something is a major deception on the church, I figured it was time to look into why he believed this, and then I traced all of my belief systems back as a Roman Catholic, and learned the origins/authors of all these views.
Question? Do you know of any other author that believes what you do on eschatology? Now that it is a matter of public record, and your position is being developed on line, I wonder if there is any other writings who held your views. If not, you could be the source of one new interpretation of historicism that men will look back upon in the future as the source of this teaching.
I know you will not, as I believe you are very bright, but don’t take it lightly if you see any potential errors in your theory going forward. Recant anything or remove it as not to lead others astray with any eschatological theories that you later learn to be a potential error. None of us like to be wrong, but by God’s grace He will continue to lead you through diligent study as the Bereans if these things are so in Scripture.
I say this out of love for you Tim, and love for the Lord that each of us will endeavor to new obedience when we see our error or sin. The Lord loves you so much, and so dearly, that He wants what is best for you and His faithful church in well-being.
Eschatology is open to study and interpretation, for sure. Westminster divines did not reach any agreement on the extent of it outside the Papacy “system” is Antichrist. Filling in the future blanks by faithful Church courts and ministers we can only hope and pray will come in our lifetimes, but I fear the slaying of the testimony (slaying of the witnesses) will proceed these millennial faithful institutions. Your writings will impact our and future generations. Do what you can to be faithful and humble as best as is possible as a servant of the Lord…
Walt,
I appreciate this very much. Yes, very much, indeed. I click “publish” for each post with fear and trembling, knowing very well that Mother Teresa, John Paul II and Ignatius of Loyola all did what they did with fear and trembling, too. What I mean is that the churning of my conscience cannot be revelatory, and as you have noted, the Scripture alone must be our source. My fear and trembling proves nothing, and that is why I never commend my fear and trembling to my readers. It is the Word in which they must place their trust.
To your questions,
Fair question. I do not know of any other author that believes this particular view on eschatology. I am, nevertheless, in the historicist camp. What I publish here is consistent with a book I wrote, Graven Bread, in the 1990s. It was intended as a sequel to Quite Contrary, which I wrote in the early 1990s. You continued,
Also a fair observation. When I wrote Graven Bread, I took one of the sacks of Rome to be the mortal head wound of Revelation 13:3,12,14. I do not hold that position any more, and do not plan to include it in the electronic edition of Graven Bread if an when I publish it.
Finally,
I take this in no other way, Walt. I appreciate it very much.
To your question, “Have you studied the Jesuit authors of these two theories to remove any tie of Rome to Antichrist?”
Yes, I have studied this. I’ll answer briefly here, and perhaps in more detail later, but what it comes down to is this: in Daniel 7, 8, 9 and 11, there appears to be a gap in the chronology as given by Daniel. The most significant “eschatological gap” occurs in Daniel 11 in which there are assumed essentially Three Frames of Reference. An Alexandrian Frame at 11:4, in which Asia Minor is North, and Egypt is South, Syria is East and Macedonia is West. Then at 11:5, there is a switch to a Judeæn Frame, in which Syria is North and Egypt is South. (The Patristics and Reformers who addressed Daniel 11 were essentially unanimous on this). Then there is a final switch to an Eschatological Frame, somewhere between Daniel 11:21 and 36. In this Frame, North is North of wherever Antichrist is located, and South is South of him, even though he retains a vestigial title, King of the North, from a previous Frame, and tidings from the North and East (Daniel 11:44), comes from North and east of His location. There is no agreement on this at all, and Antichrist is located anywhere from Rome to Constantinople, to Egypt, to Syria, to Jerusalem, depending on the author. It’s a mess at this point, and that Third Frame is, in my opinion, the source of much of the difficulty in the positions of our Preterist and Futurist friends.
The problem is that there does not appear to be a clear solution to the prophesies of Daniel 11:39-45. Some append it to the Maccabean era, and have it fulfilled leading up to the birth of Christ, and others to His death. Others detach it altogether and move it into the distant future. But among the published data, there are no “clean solutions” in my opinion.
The resulting gaps allow for the Preterist and Futurist positions, and to read their material, these gaps practically make their positions necessary. These gaps occur in Daniel 7, 8 and 9, as well, but Daniel 11 is a good example.
But instead of inquiring after the gaps, perhaps we should be asking if the Three Frame assumption in Daniel 11 is correct in the first place. There is little agreement on the placement of that Third Frame, but there is a practical unanimity among the Fathers and Reformers—from Hippolytus to Mayer—that there are Three Frames in play in Daniel 11.
I suggest that the Three Frame assumption is incorrect and has precluded the emergence of a consistent understanding of Daniel. Reading Daniel 11 as if there as a Single Frame—in which North, South and East each refer the same respective location from start to finish—changes the chronology considerably, and eliminates all gaps (in my opinion).
Once those gaps are removed—again in my opinion—the Beast emerges with remarkable clarity.
I understand that that is my opinion, and I appreciate your admonition. I do not take it lightly.
Warm regards,
Tim
Hi Tim,
You wrote:
“electronic edition of Graven Bread if an when I publish it.”
Are Graven Bread or Quite Contrary coming as electronic editions?
Thx
Walt, thats a great point, tall the miracle emotion sign seekers would flock to Rome and we could weed out the false believer.
Tim, this article is on the right track again with my overall point that Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. People will be sucked in thinking it is Christ’s church when in reality it is the very thing you point out the Fathers were worried about, that they would be looking at the false church in a mirror. Confusing the two kingdoms. Sorta of like Aquinas philosophers who confused heaven and earth.
Kevin,
” Confusing the two kingdoms. Sorta of like Aquinas philosophers who confused heaven and earth”.
Oh my Gosh! Do you presume to correct Aquinas? Kevin, you are more to be pitied than censured.
Actually, that’s not true. I have no pity for you but would love to see a sock stuffed in you mouth to shut you up.
Tim, you wrote:
“Thus, someone like me “needs to find peace” or “must have been hurt at some point,” or “is deeply wounded.” It is not possible that I could be right. There must be sickness to be diagnosed.
Well, I certainly have my flaws, but I’m profoundly at peace, and do not believe the Roman Catholic church “hurt me” or “wounded me” in any way, except that the Gospel was withheld from me by her Magisterium.”
I could not agree more. When I told my father that I was leaving the RCC he was neither happy, nor supportive. He thought I literally lost my mind and even mentioned it that he believed I was loosing my mind. I was reading and listening to so many tapes on counter views, and listening to the bible on tape in my car everywhere, listening to it riding the lawnmower and anyone who listens that much to the Bible is obviously totally deceived in the eyes of Rome…especially if you challenge any of their teachings.
I became so skilled in arguing Scripture that clearly taught against my Roman Catholic catechisms and upbringing that I desperately wanted to debate the local Priest at the church where my father went. He originally said he would arrange it so I could get my tail handed to me, but it was soon clear he was not going to get any takers. Most priests know little of Scripture, and that is one place I learned quickly they did not want to discuss.
Like Jim focuses on your/my being demon possessed, or totally mind warped, that is where they focus as the root cause of the problem. Today, I seldom discuss anything with Roman Catholics as they are so far gone from the reality of Scripture, it is just a topic I never discuss.
This blog is interesting as you get few RCC adherents except for Jim, and he mostly just puts people down or makes fun of their testimony so it is not too bad. I’m sure most readers dismiss him, and are looking for more of the meat that you are publishing than anything.
I don’t let it get personal…as I have been where you and Jim have been, it is just with an outcome like you have vs. the outcome that Jim continues to have in remaining in the belly of the beast so to speak.
Tim,
I’m not sure why you tagged this post with Justification tags if Justification by Faith Alone was kept tangential. It still seems that you’re failing to see that this all comes down to justification, so all these other posts are beating around the bush. Most of the claims and objections you make fall immediately once the justification issue is addressed on the exegetical level.
Until then, you are reading Church History, Church Fathers, etc, with the wrong glasses on.
I assure you that your life will be turned upside-down once you’re willing to hear me out and read my articles, especially my work on Romans 4. Until then, I’m sorry to say, you’re parading around blissfully unaware of the Sola-Fide house of cards you take so much refuge in.
Hi, Nick,
Thanks for dropping in. I added a justification tag because the new doctrines introduced by Rome in the 4th century largely had to do with the merit of fasting and continence, as well as the merits of the saints as they plead on our behalf before St. Joseph, who pleads for them before St. Mary, who pleads for him before Christ, Who pleads for her before God. The Church of Jesus Christ rejected that nonsense and was anathematized by Rome.
Jovinianus’ argument that “virgins, widows, and married women, who have been once passed through the laver of Christ, if they are on a par in other respects, are of equal merit” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 3), was an argument for a righteousness of Christ that is apart from fasting and virginity, which is to say, an alien righteousness that is by faith apart from works. This matters because what Rome introduced in the 4th Century was foreign to the Church and the Church rejected it, and so Rome rejected the Church. It was about justification, and that is why I tagged this post as such.
May I ask how you are coming on your list of infallible papal statements? Or perhaps you have by now at least developed an infallible list of criteria by which we may develop an infallible list of papal statements? Or perhaps you have developed an infallible list of criteria by which we may determine which criteria may be used infallibly to determine which papal statements are infallibly true? Or how about an infallible interpretation of Romans 4? Has your church provided you with these, or are you asking me to bow to this bleeding, speaking image of yours based on the authority of your private interpretation alone?
Just to be clear, I want to make sure I understand the hermeneutic you are using on Romans 4. When Mark 16:9 says that Jesus “appeared first to Mary Magdalene,” we are to understand, from the grammatical construction of the verse, that this means He appeared to His mother first. Do I have that right? And when Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:2, that a bishop is to be “the husband of one wife,” we are to understand, from the grammatical construction of the verse, that this means the bishop is not to be the husband of any wives. Do I have that right? And when Paul says in the same letter that the qualification for a bishop is that he “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Timothy 3:4), we are to understand, from the grammatical construction of the verse, that this means that having his own children in subjection with all gravity, is actually a disqualifier for the office of bishop. Do I have that right?
My point is that when you say that I am “reading Church History, Church Fathers, etc, with the wrong glasses on,” I want to be sure we are clear that the glasses you want me to put on are the glasses that turn Mark 16:9 into a verse that says Jesus did not appear to Mary Magdalene first, and turn 1 Timothy 3:2 into a verse that says a Bishop is not to be a husband of one wife, and turn 1 Timothy 3:4 into a verse that says a Bishop is not to have his children in subjection with all gravity. That is your hermeneutic, Nick, no matter how many different ways you explain that you just want to look at Romans 4 grammatically. You read the Scriptures through the lens of Rome, and every verse you see proves that Rome is right. And you are asking me to put those glasses on so I can read the verse objectively—as if your personal interpretation was the standard of objectivity before which every knee must bow.
As regards your insistence that all of Christian history rises and falls with your personal analysis of Romans 4, I simply have this to say: “It still seems that you’re failing to see that this all comes down to your axiom, so all these other comments about Romans 4 are beating around the bush. Most of the claims and objections you make fall immediately once your drop your axiom.” Why wont you drop you axiom, Nick, your first article of faith, which says that Rome is the True Church and every verse of scripture and every Church Father, and all of history is to be interpreted accordingly?
Until you are willing to drop your axiom, then, to use your words, “I’m sorry to say, you’re parading around blissfully unaware that the religion in which you take refuge” is the Antichrist, and the idol you want me to worship with you is the Image of the Beast. I won’t kneel with you Nick.
Warm regards,
Tim
Tim,
I’m not sure if your subscription system is working properly, because for some reason I’m not getting updates when new comments are posted. I supposed the problem could be on my end as well, with the spam filter, but I checked and don’t see anything there.
As far as your request that I provide a list of infallible statements, there is no list I’m aware of. If you have a question on a given teaching, it can typically be looked up.
I’m not sure why you’re so hesitant to take on my articles on Romans 4, but I assure you that you wont be espousing Faith Alone (at least in good conscience) after you read them. It seems that you’re more interested on deflecting the issue to all kinds of other stuff and demands on me, which I don’t get.
Surely if you have the time to respond, and respond at length, I would ask that you at least use that time to really hit at the heart of the dispute and not tangential stuff like Mary Magdalene and 1 Timothy 3.
As I’ve said before, the beauty of my Romans 4 arguments are that a non-Catholic could make them and they’d be just as valid. I guarantee you that all the stuff you bring up about the plain reading on Mary Magdalene and 1 Timothy 3 will be ignored by you once you approach Romans 4. Guaranteed. Show me the plain English how Romans 4 teaches Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness when the words don’t even appear there. The double standard has got to stop.
Nick,
I am looking into the subscription issue. Thank you for the heads up. You wrote,
Thank you. That there is no list, you are quite right. If you want to know if a pope’s teaching is infallible, you have to go check it against the other teachings of the church, and then make up your mind whether or not what the pope taught is consistent with what the Church has taught. Thus, the formal position from Pastor Aeternus (ch. IV)—that infallible teachings of the pope are infallible of themselves “and not by the consent of the Church”—is invalid on its face. Since the Church has not formally revealed what teachings of the pope are infallible and which are not, you have no choice but to sit in judgment of them and determine if they are to be believed—the very thing you are not supposed to have to do. The “fact” that the pope is “infallible” therefore does you no good. As other Roman Catholics have ultimately conceded (and which you must concede as well), your position (epistemologically) is no different than that of the Protestant. This is because your decision on what you choose to believe ultimately rests on your personal judgment, as aided by your personal discernment, which is ostensibly aided by the Holy Spirit—the very thing Roman Catholics criticize Protestants for doing.
The reason this is important is that the Roman Catholic is in the same position as the Protestant, and the only difference between us is what data we sift through. The Roman Catholic must sift through the teachings of the church, and using his intellect as it is enlightened by the Spirit, determine what his church has taught him. The Protestant sifts through the Scriptures and, using his intellect as it is enlightened by the Spirit, determine what God has taught him. To do this, both the Protestant and the Catholic each make a very important assumption:
• The Protestant assumes that whatever God will teach, He will teach via the Scriptures.
• The Catholic assumes that whatever God will teach, He will teach via the Church.
Aside from that, there is no difference between how we decide what it is that we believe to be true.
Do you see that, epistemologically, our situations are the same—the only differences being our axiom and the object of our faith? The Protestant’s axiom is that the Scripture is the Word of God, and the Word of God is the object of his faith—the Word is what he believes. The Roman Catholic’s axiom is that that Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, and the Church is the object of his faith—the Church is what he believes. Epistemologically, the two positions are equivalent, but the Axioms are worlds apart and therefore lead to different conclusions.
The only remaining issue is whether the object of your faith is reliable. Just as Protestants cannot objectively prove that the Scripture is the Word of God (it is simply assumed to be), the Roman Catholic cannot objectively prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church (it is simply assumed to be).
I say all this because when you protest, “The double standard has got to stop,” it is a protest based on a fallacy. The Roman Catholic alleges, as Jason Stellman has, that Rome offers a superior epistemology that is not left to the judgment of the individual. And yet, as I have shown above, it is very much left to the judgment of the individual. Confounded by this, the Roman Catholic objects that it is a double standard for me to measure the Roman Catholic by the same standard that he uses to measure the Protestant—as if it were a double standard to insist that both be measured by the same standard!
Nick, your arguments on Romans 4 may or may not be ingenious and infallible—I don’t know, as I have not read them. But what I have attempted to do here is remove the epistemological curtain behind which you are currently hiding. You say I should focus on Romans 4 rather than the tangential matter of your hermeneutic—but your hermeneutic is precisely what you are asking me to trust! And it is by that hermeneutic that you are constrained to affirm that 1 Timothy 3:2 means a bishop must not be a husband, and 1 Timothy 3:5 means a bishop must not have children, and that Mark 16:9 means that Jesus did not appear first to Mary Magdalene. You say that this is tangential, and if I would just focus on the grammatical construction of Romans 4, your grammatical problems in 1 Timothy 3 and Mark 16 would go away. But what that boils down to is that if I would just constrain myself to the grammatical construction of Romans 4, I will suddenly realize that my interpretation never needed to be constrained by the grammar in the first place. Do you see why I believe your approach is suspect? Surely you are not saying you are Sola Scriptura on Romans 4, but that you are Sola Ecclesia on 1 Timothy 3, are you? The fact is that you are Sola Ecclesia on all of it. If it doesn’t matter what 1 Timothy 3 actually says, then it simply will not matter to you what Romans 4 actually says either.
Will it? If you won’t leave Rome over their incorrect interpretation on Mary Magdalene and the office of Bishop, why does it matter what Romans 4 says?
Tim
Tim,
I don’t get you. You just wrote a page and a half of text and yet you don’t have the time or energy to read a simple exegetical argument I’m making on Romans 4? How do you have all this time and energy to beat around the bush but no time to give an honest look at my very brief articles (I try to limit most of my articles to under 2 pages).
Would it help if I came back to this blog and Commented under a different name, maybe “Non-Denominational Nick”? Would that make my exegetical claims suddenly have merit?
I’ll respond to your texts of Mark 16:9 and 1 Timothy 3:2, but I don’t understand why you’re piling on with all these demands. You realize it just wastes your time and mine asking me endless beat-around-the-bush questions.
1 Timothy 3 does speak of a Bishop being married. I see nothing in it suggesting a Bishop MUST be married, nor does Church history (even in Apostolic times) show all Bishops being married. When it says the Bishop “must” be the husband of one wife, the meaning is the Bishop must not be remarried. It does not mean the bishop must have a wife. Similarly, the text is not saying a Bishop MUST have children, only that if he does, he must have obedient children. Again, history shows us even during the Apostolic times that not all Bishops had children. There’s no evidence that I’m aware of that Bishop Timothy was either married or had children. You’re making a pretty blatant logical fallacy with your ‘must’ objection. Now whether the Church can restrict the Bishopric to only celibate men, that’s neither confirmed nor excluded here.
If you want a real stunner, consider verse 6 which says: “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” Here Paul is saying a Christian can fall into the same condemnation as the devil, i.e. be damned, a claim which contradicts Reformed theology. The only escape is to say this recent convert ‘wasn’t really saved’, but that’s begging the question and goes right against the meaning of the text.
Now onto your Mark 16:9 text. I’m not aware of any official Church teaching that says Jesus appeared to His Mother first. If Jesus did appear to His Mother first, then I’d be curious as to who made the claim.
Now what’s more problematic that is the fact Protestants cannot agree on whether Mark 16:9 is even inspired Scripture. Some (conservative Protestants) say it’s not. That’s pretty amusing considering Protestants believe the Holy Spirit illuminates the true believer on what really is Scripture an what isn’t. It’s frankly hilarious that so many conservative Protestants turn to scholars to know whether Mk 16:9 is inspired when they somehow “know” with absolute ease that the other 99.9% is inspired. I think your objection is known as straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.
Tim,
This was shared with me by someone I have great respect in studying eschatology. It was a very brief (20 minute) outline of some key points that you might find interesting when you are singing or reading the Psalms. One day I hope will come a book on the information, but for now it is an interesting framework.
Psalm 1-24– takes you through the times of the ministry of Christ through to his resurrection.
Psalm 25- 44 –takes you through the period of the early church –through the first 5 seals of Revelation– Psalm 44 particularly shows you the working out of the 5th seal.
Psalm 45-48– shows the working of the 6th seal and takes us through the reformation and establishment of the church–the city of God–as it is established in the Roman Empire through the time of Constantine up to Theodosius
Psalm 50 –54 describes the time when the faithful Church of Rome began to be overrun by the unfaithful Church of Rome which leads up to the apostacy described in Psalm 54–this also covers the period of the first 4 trumpets.
Psalm 55-64 is descriptive of the flight of the witnesses into the wilderness as Antichrist pursues them and as Islam is sent via the Saracens and Turks to plague Antichrist (5th and 6th trumpets).
Psalm 65-68 is descriptive of the first and second reformation period– the faithful witnesses are given what is termed “a time of refreshing in the wildernes”. Psalm 68 is particularly interesting as it is descriptive of the “war in heaven” described in Revelation 12.
Psalm 69– describes the waterflood cast our of the dragons mouth (Rev 12) which follows the war in heaven, and the time which again brings the faithful witnesses back into a sackcloth condition subsequent to the second reformation.
Psalm 70 -79– Describes the time between the reformation up to and including our times and even future– to the time of the killing of the witnesses. Psalm 71 is especially interesting as it describes a faithful moral person who is now old and yet pleads with God to allow them to show the truth to the next generation before they die–this is precisely the duty of the 2 witnesses prior to their being killed –see Rev 11. See also Psalm 75 where Gods warns the horn of the wicked that the cup of wrath–the vials– are in his hand and ready to be poured out–and Psalm 79 compared with the description of the killing of the Witnesss in Revelation 11–i.e. killed and lying unburied out in the street.
Psalm 80-89 –describe the two witnesses as a restored Jewish remnant resurrected but small and in a very dangerous and difficult time. Psalm 83 shows how the surround nations wish to crush this testimony before it gets too developed.
Psalm 90 –110 describes the period of the first 5 vials –which include times of great conversion for the remnant of Isreal and times of great destruction for the people of Antichrist.
What follows is the same as I sent to you in an email some time ago:
I would read Psalm 110-118 -(which of course includes the great Hallel –see also the Alleluia’s of the first 6 verses of Rev. 19)–as the description of the events just leading up to and right near the end of the 1290 year period. Psalm 118 is descriptive of the time when all nations surround Jerusalem and the Lord fights for his people with the seventh vial and Israel is greatly converted to Christ–see especially Zech 14 throughout the whole chapter–especially at the beginning of the chapter–read also from Zech 8 forward for a more full description of that time–as well as Joel chapter 1, 2, and 3–also Isaiah chapters 24 through 35) which walks you through the time of the judgments of the seven vials and then up to the millenial time.
Psalm 119 is the acknowledgement of the Jews subsequent to the great victory at Jerusalem (1290) –(now being married (covenanted) to Christ and in the process of being restored) to Christ’s word/moral law.
Psalm 120-134–called the Song of Degrees–describes the ongoing restoration of the Jews –by degrees– as they return “from” the four corners of the earth–as they return “to” their promised land–or in some cases (Psalm 126) “long” to return from the four corners of the earth to their promised land– as covenanted Christians.
Psalm 135 and 136 focus upon their completed future national establishment in the promised land.
Psalm 137 onward describes the various trials and battles which they as the Church of Christ now established in the promised land –will face– as various surrounding nations resist and are either overcome or converted by the grace of God.
Tim, I assume you have seen this basic outline?
APOCALYPTIC INTERPRETATION
Since the time of the great Reformation, there have been no less than SIX PROMINENT THEORIES of interpretation, each claiming for itself the palm of merit, and all demanding the unanimous suffrage of the Christian Church. They are subjoined in the following order:-
I. THE ANTI-PROTESTANT FUTURIST THEORY. The originator of this theory was a Spanish Jesuit priest, Ribera by name, who, A.D. 1585, published a Commentary on the Revelation, in which he laboured to turn aside the Protestant application of the Apocalyptic prophecies and symbols from the Church of Rome. The opinion had matured into settled conviction, in the minds of many, that the Great Apostasy, spoken of in the Scriptures, was Papal; and that the “Little Horn” of Daniel, the “Antichrist” of John, the “Man of Sin” mentioned by Paul, and the Apocalyptic “Beast,” were all identical. Against this view Ribera originated the Futurist theory. It is so called, because it passes by the Papacy, overleaps almost the whole immense interval of time between the date of the Apocalypse and the distant future, and holds that the events symbolised in the Apocalypse refer to the immediate antecedents or accompaniments of Christ’s second coming. It argues a parallelism between the events of the Seven Seals and the successive signs of Christ’s coming, as specified in his prophecy on Mount Olivet. Antichrist is not regarded as the Papacy, but avowed infidelity.
II. THE ANTI-PROTESTANT PRATERITE (PRETERIST-ed.)THEORY. This was originated by a Spanish Jesuit also, Alcasar of Seville, who, A.D. 1615, published a work having in view the same end as Ribera, viz., to set aside the Protestant application of the Apocalyptic prophecies and symbols. Ribera endeavored to throw everything forward into the future. Alcasar endeavoured to throw every thing backward into the past. He stops short in the course of history, and makes all the Apocalyptic symbols to have been fulfilled within the first five six centuries. The Germanic Neronic Form; so called because it dates the Apocalypse (an essential point for interpreters) about the end of Nero’s reign, A.D. 67 and because it is thus regarded by the critical, rationalistic school of German expositors, and by Professor Stuart in America. According to this view, the Apocalypse can only refer to the overthrow of Judaism and Heathenism, and the triumph of Christianity, but not to the Papacy. The early date, viz., A.D. 67, makes room for supposing a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70; and the six centuries, for the overthrow of Heathenism, and the prevalence of Christianity, but not for the demolition of the Roman Catholic Church! The Papal Domitianic Form; so called because it fixes the date of the Apocalypse about the end of Domitian’s reign, A.D. 96; and in this form prevails with the Papacy. Of course, this form of the theory excludes application of the symbols of the Apocalypse to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred twenty-five years previous to this date, inasmuch as the events recorded were to come into being after the time John wrote.-(Rev. 4:1). The fall of Judaism and the doom of the Roman Catholic Church are not referred to at all, but only the overthrow of Heathenism and the triumph of Christianity. Such is the loose and wholesale mode of generalising in these two forms of Praeterism (the latter of which has yet some truth), that any upstart has a precedent before him for applying the Apocalyptic symbols to the destruction of any enemy he please.
III. THE MODIFIED FUTURIST THEORY. This theory resulted from a conviction in the minds of the Futurists themselves that great violence had been done to the Apocalypse, by completely closing its lips upon the subject of the Papacy, and by causing it to pass over in silence the stirring events of more than a thousand years. Such a scheme was too dashing and bold to escape merciless criticism and ridicule. It failed to secure the respect and confidence of its own supporters. Certain Futurists have endeavoured to modify it; in other words, to Protestantise Futurism, and conciliate the friendship of the historical interpreters. The chief points of supposed improvement are two: 1. With reference to the violent plunge into the distant future; and 2. With reference to the anti-Protestantism. Thus, the white horse and rider of the first seal represent the triumphant progress of Christ and his gospel until now: (!) we are near (!) the time of the end, when the Papacy will become (!) the Apocalyptic Beast, and Rome the Apocalyptic Babylon, but not Antichrist; (!) and soon Antichrist will appear, when the remaining seals will receive their fulfillment, and then the grand consummation will take place.
IV. THE TYPICO-SPIRITUAL THEORY. We coin this name for want of a better designation, or rather because the advocates of it have not given a satisfactory one themselves. It holds that prophecy is not an anticipation of history, but deals alone with the idea of good and evil. A particular man, city, or nation, may be taken as the representative or type of such idea, to be fulfilled, as intimated, in a lofty, spiritual, but not low, historical sense. The details of literal history are not ample enough to satisfy the fore announced demands of prophecy. Thus, Rome Papal answers only partly to the Apocalyptic Babylon; and hence, as ancient Babylon was only partly the subject of anti-Babylonic prophecies, so Rome Papal is only partly the subject of anti-Papal prophecies in the Revelation. There can only be an imperfect historical fulfillment in any case; and we must wait for a realization, not literally, but spiritually, of the grand idea, viz., the downfall of the true Babylon, which is the world (!) as opposed to the church. The influence of German philosophy, in the fabrication of this theory, is evident.
V. THE PARALLEL SEPTENARY THEORY. This is one of the two principle Protestant theories which have divided the opinions of orthodox interpreters. It argues against considering the Apocalypse as a progressive whole evolving its events in continuous succession. Instead of regarding the seven trumpets as the development of the seventh seal, just as the seven vials appear to be of the seventh trumpet, it considers them as parallel chronologically, and supplementary to each other, each septenary running from John’s time to the consummation. It is eminently a church scheme, the church itself being the subject of the prophetic figurations, in its sevenfold phase, from the beginning to the end. This theory was brought into repute by Pareus and Vitringa shortly after the Reformation.
VI. THE CONTINUOUS HISTORICAL (HISTORICIST-ed.) PROTESTANT THEORY. This was the principle theory which attracted the attention of the most orthodox and enlightened expositors until the earliest part of this century. It looks upon prophecy as an actual anticipation of veritable history. It regards each seal as successor to the preceding, in chronological order; each trumpet and each vial in the same way; and, objecting to the previous theory, maintains that the septenary of trumpets are subsequent to the septenary of seals, and the septenary of vials subsequent to the septenary of trumpets. The exclusive church scheme is discarded, and the Apocalypse is viewed as setting forth, in regular progression and detail, the chief secular and ecclesiastical events of the existing dispensation. An anti-Papal solution is given to the symbols and predictions respecting the “Beast.” It was the theory of the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites; and the great body of the Reformers in the 16th century-German, Swiss, French, English, generally received it. It has been the view of the vast majority of Scottish presbyterians. It was also the view of many prominent American divines, from Edwards to the 19th century Princeton theologians-the Alexanders, the Hodges, Miller, etc. It is preeminently the theory of the Reformation, and therefore has been violently opposed by Roman Catholics, prelatists, rationalising expositors and other foes of reformational principles.-L’Avenir
Yes, thanks Walt. I have seen this. I definitely fall into the last category. My only comment for now is that any consistent eschatology derived from Revelation must first be based on a solid Danielic foundation. The Reformers were largely correct, in that most of them identified a Papal antichrist. That said, my primary criticism of Historicist school (again—I’m in this category) is the superimposition of three different frames of reference on the Daniel 11 narrative. I held to the Three Frame position until 2012, but I no longer believe there are three frames of reference in Daniel 11. That has some impact on how John’s Apocalypse is understood. It’s not that the Three Frame systems leads to a wrong view of Antichrist (it clearly does not, in my opinion, since the Reformers got the identity correct)—it’s just that the Three Frame system they adopted allows latitude for the Futurist and Preterist positions, and interferes with the chronology. I believe Daniel 11 should be understood through a Single Frame of Reference, in which N, S, E and W mean the same geographic location throughout the narrative. Daniel certainly wrote the chapter as if the “four winds of heaven” (Daniel 11:4, c.f., Daniel 8:8) referred to the cardinal directions, and does not provide any textual indication that the Frame of Reference was to change throughout the chapter.
Perhaps we can discuss further over time.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, your book Quite Contrary is a great read and IMHO a must read for all Roman Catholics. Especially the ones who are binded into the Marian ego of the church. Thanks to Eric W who suggested I read it.
Thanks, Kevin, I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Tim
Tim wrote:
“That is your hermeneutic, Nick, no matter how many different ways you explain that you just want to look at Romans 4 grammatically. You read the Scriptures through the lens of Rome, and every verse you see proves that Rome is right. And you are asking me to put those glasses on so I can read the verse objectively—as if your personal interpretation was the standard of objectivity before which every knee must bow. ”
This is vitally important for anyone to understand.
Epistemology is critical for anyone to learn anything rather than to simply remain in ignorance on any subject matter.
The problem with Roman Catholic teaching is that they almost create a fear in people to learn anything outside sacred tradition and certainly do not encourage anyone to read Scripture themselves. The entire reformation started because the Priests were the only teachers in Latin which few understood, and it is primarily why they banned the translation of the bible into the English language.
Rome has been dragged kicking and screaming by Protestants to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar language of each culture, and now we can all read (not simply be taught) what the Scriptures teach for ourselves, and then compare the best teachers with Rome to see what is the correct interpretations.
For example, 100 points of quality go to Westminster Assembly and the Subordinate Standards they produced vs. 1 point for what the Trent produced of poor quality.
Walt,
I can’t even believe your comments. Catholics afraid to read the Scriptures? I’m the one begging Tim to read my 100% Scriptural exegetical arguments that don’t have a single mention of any extra-biblical document.
I’m the one that has to beg Protestants to just look at the Bible with me. I swear it’s as if Protestants like you are so caught up with the myth that Catholics are scared of the Bible, that when a Catholic comes along and opens the Bible folks like you panic and start coming up with all kinds of excuses why we cannot examine the Bible at the moment.
Nick, you wrote:
“I can’t even believe your comments. Catholics afraid to read the Scriptures?”
I wrote:
“The problem with Roman Catholic teaching is that they almost create a fear in people to learn anything outside sacred tradition and certainly do not encourage anyone to read Scripture themselves. The entire reformation started because the Priests were the only teachers in Latin which few understood, and it is primarily why they banned the translation of the bible into the English language.”
I did not say that Catholics like you are afraid to read the Scriptures. What I said is very different. I said “Roman Catholic teaching is that they ALMOST create a fear in people to learn anything outside of sacred tradition.”
I am not familiar with any of your writings, nor your exegesis so I applaud you if you are a Bible focused Catholic. That is deserving of credit as Kevin has given you.
Nick, through my studies the problem with Rome is the poor exegesis. You are very thorough and I have given you credit for such. But certain things are unavoidable in scripture and they constrain Rome. Number 1. The scripture is clear there is one sacrifice, it perfected, and there is no more sacrifice for sins. This is an immovable fact. Number 2. There is one mediator between man and God, Christ. This is clear and immovable in scripture. And number 3: Salvation is by grace and” not of yourselves” and not of works”. It is a work of God and this is unmovable. So when Trent says real sacrifice, it can’t be. When Rome says Mary and believer mediate, cant be. And when Rome says works are involved in justification, can’t be. The only verse then that must be exegeted correctly is James 2. And since scripture is clear that salvation is not of ourselves, justified has to mean demonstration here. And when James refers to an the scripture was fulfilled ” Abraham believed Dod and it was…… it must mean demonstration. Otherwise he quoted the wrong verse for his premise. Thanks, hope your well.
Pssssssssst, Kevin! Nick is not around.
And you misspelled God, “Abraham believed Dod and it was…… “.
Well, maybe you misspelled God,maybe you didn’t. Maybe you meant to spell it Dod. My mistake? Are you talking about somebody named Dod?
Nothing you do surprises me anymore.
Kevin, my mistake. I bet you intended to say, ” Abraham believed a dude…”. Sorry.
Tim , I found your post to Nick as instructive on this whole debate as anything I have read. I don’t know where the scripture is that Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. But as we consider the the glasses we are asked to put on by RC they are trick lenses. They come to opposite conclusions as what scripture teaches. And I think the observation on the same hermeneutic that says Jesus appeared to Mary when he appeared to Mary Magdalene is the same reverse hermeneutic that make justification “not fro ourselves” and ” not from works” into including works. Which is why i continue to say that we should look at Roman doctrine and believe the opposite and we will have probably arrived at biblical truth. I mean you have proven this one thing after another. Mary, the jealousy thing in Romans 2, justification, changing a sacrament from being a gift of god to a work of man, worshiping Jesus in spirit and truth into worshiping the bread and on and on.
Thanks, Kevin. I’m glad it helped. There are many more examples: a simple reading of Matthew 18 indicates that the preferred outcome of an offense between two brethren is that the sin be resolved without elevating it to the church (i.e., “tell him his fault between thee and him alone” (Matthew 18:15). Rome takes this along with James 5:16 and concludes that the first thing we need to do is bring sins before the church for absolution. But the Scripture teaches that I can confess my sin directly to the offended party, and receive forgiveness without ever mentioning the sin to the church.
Or, as we have many times considered before: “there is … one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5), is interpreted to mean that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ; and there is one mediator between Jesus and men, the woman Mary; and there is one mediator between Mary and men, the man Joseph, etc.., etc…, etc… And when a crisis of conscience emerges, and the questioning Roman Catholic wonders whether his church might be turning the meaning of Scripture on its head, the church is at the ready with a response:
Well might the conscientious Roman Catholic hear this and ask, “If that is how my church handles the Scripture, is there anything that the Scripture says that cannot be interpreted to mean its exact opposite?”
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, thats exactly right. If Paul says in Ephesians 2:8 that salvation does not come from ourselves and it does not come from works, how in the world can Rome conclude that our works can merit increases of salvation. Obeying the Law is always the outcome of saving faith, but our righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is his righteousness. Yet Rome can’t resist the urge to smuggle their character into God’s work of grace.
Nick, I have given you credit for being biblical in your arguments. But you haven’t addressed my questions to you, so why you jumping on Walt. Here I am, come tell me why Paul’s teaching that justification is to the “one who does not work”” not that of yourselves” not a result of works” “if it is by works it is no longer by grace” involves your grace enabled works. When Paul says in Philippians 3:9 Paul says not having a righteousness of my own really allows you to smuggle your character into God’s work of grace. I’m all ears. I think Tim’s point to you about the glasses you ask us to put on is pertinent. Its the same exegesis that makes one mediator into many, Mary into Mary Magdalene. one sacrifice never to be repeated into continual. Come tell us why 2 corinthians 5:21 when it says we become the righteousness of God it really means we become inherently righteous. Here I am brother. answer my questions.
Kevin,
You’re asking me to cover many topics and I don’t want to go addressing a bunch of passages at this point. If you and Tim believe I’m incapable of making an exegetical argument from the Bible, then I’m wasting my breath. And yet you’ve seen me in action and seen the Biblical arguments I present, without any mention of tradition or “Rome said X”, just a good old exegetical argument.
Nick,
It is not just a good old exegetical argument. If it were, you would be arguing against an unmarried, celibate priesthood, and that John Paul II was wrong to interpret Mark 16:9 the way he did. But you are not. Thus, it is clear that the argument is not one of simple exegesis, but of Sola Ecclesia.
Your argument is simple enough to answer, but I want you and anyone else observing this conversation to know that it is quite clear that you did not swim the Tiber because of Sola Scriptura. You swam because of Sola Ecclesia. Make no mistake about it. Your “good ole exegetical argument” had nothing to do with it.
Thanks,
Tim
Kevin, Nick is a “brother”?
Smuggle? Keep this bone headed nonsense on this blog where it belongs.
Tim thats it. The Catholic believes in a surrogate Jesus, the church. And we believe in the Word.
“The Catholic believes in a surrogate Jesus, the church. ” Ridiculous caricature designed to frustrate and anger. Keep this manure on this blog and not on the other one.
Nick, you wrote,
What gave you the idea that I don’t have the time or energy to read your articles? I never said I don’t have the time or energy. I just said I haven’t read them yet. You may impute to me whatever constraints you wish, but I never said I don’t have the time or energy to read them. I just haven’t read them.
“Beat around the bush?” I’m questioning your axiom and your hermeneutic. If none of that matters, then there is no reason for a conversation. My point is not to avoid your arguments but to get you to acknowledge your axiom. Your axiom demands that you exegete Romans 4 and 1 Timothy 3 in accordance with Rome. If you can do that grammatically in Romans 4 and then ignore grammar in 1 Timothy 3, your Axiom is preserved, but it rather undermines your argument on Romans 4. You do not believe your interpretation of Romans 4 based on the text. You believe it because it is consistent with Rome. My interactions with you are intended to demonstrate that. That is not beating around the bush. To use the legal term, this is “discovery.” You continued…
I take this to mean that you agree that a Bishop may be married, then? Will you now start a blog about the silver bullet that destroys Rome’s celibate priesthood? Of course not. Because grammar was never the basis for your argument. Sola Ecclesia was.
Really, Nick? When Paul twice (in 1 Timothy and Titus) lists married men as the ideal for the office, you say that in no way does this exclude the Church requiring celibacy as a qualification? Your axiom is showing. The way the verses are written, a man may be the husband of one wife and have children, and be a bishop. The qualification for a bishop is that he rule his house well, and that can only be demonstrated by how he rules his own household, and that includes one wife and children. A celibate priesthood with neither wives nor children cannot demonstrate that he can rule his house well, as Dominic De Domenico O.P. has recently demonstrated for us. Titus 1:6 says, “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” On what grounds does Rome determine that this verse does not allow married bishops with children? Am I allowed to do with Romans 4 what you are doing to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1? You continued…
The word used there is “neophyte,” and it appears just once in the New Testament. This is a matter for further discussion, and I am happy to do it. However, I did manage to find some of your writings. You once wrote of ellogeo, that it “appears only here and in Romans 5:13. This is quite an astonishing revelation, for why would Protestants be looking to an obscure Biblical term when the term Paul used throughout Romans 4 appears numerous times throughout Scripture?”
May I ask why Protestants may not look to an obscure Biblical term, but Catholic Nick may do so at will? Why is it astonishing that Protestants would use an obscure Biblical term, but when Nick does so, it is “good ole exegesis”? Is this the “double standard” that you think must stop? Or is it that the issue is not “obscurity” but rather, Sola Ecclesia?
You continued…
John Paul II claimed as much his general audience of 28 May 1997,
Do you agree with Mark 16:9, or are you going to side with John Paul II? I have no doubt you’ll side with John Paul II on this. But why? Was his teaching infallible? If not, how do you know it was not? If it was infallible, how do you know that it was? You seemed genuinely surprised that anyone had made the claim that Jesus appeared to his Mother first, but it turns out it was a “saint” who made this claim. That suggests (to me) that there is something within you that cannot believe someone would actually contradict the Scripture so blatantly. Now that you know it was “saint” John Paul II, are you now open to the possibility that Jesus appeared first to His mother, and not to Mary Magdalene, in direct contradiction of Mark 16:9? I suspect you are. Because it is not really about the grammatical implications of the text. It is about the church. It is about Sola Ecclesia.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim,
You asked: “What gave you the idea that I don’t have the time or energy to read your articles? I never said I don’t have the time or energy. I just said I haven’t read them yet.”
In my experience, it’s not uncommon for when I, as a Catholic, bring up a Biblically-based argument that I’m suddenly flooded with all sorts of endless reasons why my Biblically-based argument cannot be analyzed on it’s own merits. The typical form this takes is that the Protestant usually has multiple long-winded responses that have me dancing around and answering endless questions, with no intention whatsoever to actually engage in the real core-issues. From a simply logical perspective, just because Catholicism is false doesn’t automatically make Protestantism true.
Now if you’re honestly planning on taking on my arguments, especially on Romans 4:6-8, then good. But I’ve encountered enough Protestants who are more interested in running me around the bush in a desperate effort to avoid having to face real substantive 100% Biblical opposition to their core doctrines.
My axiom should be consistent, as should yours also be. That includes the reality that anytime I’m faced with an issue that apparently conflicts with my Church’s official position, I should seek out some reasonable answer. A Reformed should do the same. That doesn’t equate to blind obedience. If my position or your own can offer a reasonable response, then in fairness each of us needs to grant that to the other side.
Now I understand what you’re getting at, that I as a Catholic must be deluded in some sense, because in the end I’ll have to side with Rome over the Truth. But the same standard applies to you, and I know that because Reformed apologetics is my passion. I know how exactly how to get Reformed right in the very position you’re speaking of, where their conscience knows the truth but they cannot afford to admit they’re wrong. So let’s at least make sure we’re on the same page here.
As for 1 Timothy 3, you’ve said nothing approaching a fair and substantive argument. You’re trying to squeeze something out of the text that it simply doesn’t say. My apologetics approach is more robust than that, because I never demand that the Reformed adhere to something I know the text doesn’t really say.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong or theologically problematic with a Bishop being married. I have never said there was a theological problem this and neither has the Catholic Church. Some Church Fathers might have had a low view of marriage, but that’s no the same as official Church teaching. Official Church teaching is simply that celibacy is a greater good than the goodness of marriage. The fact some priests in the CC are married should give you room to pause, especially considering most Protestants believe “Bishop” only applies to the level of Pastor, which is the level of Priest in Catholicism.
For you to say “grammar was never the basis for your argument” is simply astonishing. Nothing in the grammar speaks of “must” be married, and nothing in the grammar says anything about what qualifications the Church can impose (be they age restrictions, learning restrictions, or other stuff). You’re being completely unreasonable if you’re going to force the grammar to say something it doesn’t.
The text said nothing of married men being ‘ideal’ for the office, especially considering the Apostles weren’t married (at least there’s no indication of them running around with wives and children), and there’s no indication that Timothy and Titus were married. Plus, there are express statements in Scripture that say a man who can devote all their energy to God rather than have his time divided between God and family is ideal.
And ultimately, you’re hanging yourself with your own rope, because the Early Church plainly moved in the direction of celibate Bishops (as even Nicaea Canon 3 implies, mentioning that the only woman a clergyman can have living at his house is his mother, aunt, or sister). Now as a Catholic, honesty matters, so I would look at the Early Church on this matter and say if celibate bishops is a mark of apostasy, then the Early Church was apostate. If the Early Church was apostate, then I should be honest enough to say that. That’s type of reasoning is called clear thinking. Now if celibate Bishops as a norm isn’t a mark of apostasy, then really what’s the big deal?
So looking at the text both grammatically, and historically, I can certainly turn your charge against me right around: Your axiom is showing!
And now onto my table-turning text, 1 Timothy 3:6, which speaks of the possibility of losing salvation. And you responded by pointing to the word “neophyte,” which is completely baffling to me. How is that relevant? The only escape is if the text is saying this “neophyte” was never really saved to begin with, which goes completely against the thrust of the text. I highly, highly doubt you could even demonstrate that “neophyte” refers to someone who probably wasn’t saved to begin with. The issue is age, i.e. maturity level, not about orthodoxy or being a true believer. Canon 2 of Nicaea explicitly speaks on this very text, showing that it’s a maturity issue, not a matter of being truly saved.
As for your reference to ellogeo…hmm, I don’t see the logic in your appeal. The term ellogeo is not really disputed, the only point I made is that Paul was well aware of the term and chose to use logizomai three times as often, including in Romans 4. The issue I was opposing is those Protestants who say ellogeo is some key term, and yet this key term doesn’t appear in the key contexts! Protestants are free to look at ellogeo. I have nothing wrong with it. I do have a problem with Protestants implying Paul didn’t know theology well enough to know when to use it.
Lastly, the Mark 16:9 text. The proof you cite is a mere homily by JP2, one in which he is clearly just speaking of a high opinion, nothing approaching dogma. If that’s the best you have, then that’s pretty desperate and unfair. JP2 was making theological speculation based on the discrepancies among the Gospel accounts as well as Paul’s in 1 Cor 15. It’s plain by his words like “perhaps” and “seems reasonable” that this isn’t dogmatic pronouncement. Big deal. That’s not dogma. Just from looking at the Biblical evidence, I have no problem saying as a Catholic that Magadalen was appeared to first. But it’s also not outside the range of possibility, given the discrepancies in the accounts, that Mary or anyone else was appeared to first. Pushing this simply comes off as desperation, which isn’t something either of us should be using as our main arguments.
And unless I missed something, you completey dodged the real elephant double-standard on this one when I brought up the fact you cannot tell me how you discerned Mk 16:9 is even inspired Scripture, especially considering other conservative Protestants say it isn’t.
Thank you, Nick,
I appreciate your response. I do plan to answer your allegations on Romans 4. But I also don’t mind exposing the fundamental flaw of your own epistemology in the process. Let’s consider 1 Timothy 3:6, which you said would be a stunner to me because it overturns my theology. Here is what you said:
You are basing your statements on what your church has taught you, Nick. But it is not what the text says. Here is what the text says:
First, novice here is “neophyte” which literally means “new plant.” We could spend some time on the parable of the soils (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8), in which a new plant is not necessarily a saved plant, for lacking any other use of “neophyte” in the New Testament, we take “new plant” as Paul must have learned it from Christ (Galatians 1:12). There is only one soil, those whose faith has been tested and have born fruit, who are truly saved—they who have truly believed the word of God. Second, condemnation (“krima”) is used many times in the New Testament, but not always to refer to eternal damnation. It can be used for crime, law, damnation, judgment, vengeance, etc… For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:7, fellow Christians go to krima with one another. Do they all go to eternal damnation with one another? No, they do not. In 1 Peter 4:16-17, saints are encouraged to suffer as Christians, for krima must begin in the house of God. Does eternal damnation begin in the church? No it does not. The apostle on occasion hands Christians over to Satan as a disciplinary measure—not for eternal punishment but for instruction, harsh though it may be. In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul hands two over to Satan “that they may learn not to blaspheme.” In 1 Corinthians 5:2-5, Paul says someone who is “puffed up” should be delivered “unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” We do not know whether Hymenaeus and Alexander learned their lesson (although it appears that Alexander did not (2 Timothy 4:14)), and it appears that the man in 1 Corinthians 5 did, for in 2 Corinthians 2:1-6 the one who was previously delivered over to Satan for disciplinary purposes because he was “puffed up” is now received back, having learned his lesson. In both of these cases, being handed over to Satan was intended for their good, not for eternal punishment. In the first case, the context was someone wanting to be a teacher, but not ready for the task (1 Timothy 1:7) and in the second case it was someone “puffed up.” Now here in 1 Timothy 3, it is someone who is both puffed up and is not really ready teach, and he too may need to be handed over to Satan for disciplinary purposes. Therefore, it is not true that 1 Timothy 3:6 means that Christians, having believed the gospel, can still go to hell. Jesus denies this as well, saying, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29).
Now, Nick, since you have interpreted “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2), and “blameless, the husband of one wife” (Titus 1:6), in such a way that it does not preclude the church from requiring that bishops refrain from being the husband of one wife, what is to keep the church from ordaining a neophyte? Do you read 1 Timothy 3:6 as meaning that it is acceptable to ordain a new convert? Based on your analysis of 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, “[a bishop must] not [be] a neophyte” does not preclude the church from making a rule that a bishop must be a neophyte. Do you see why I don’t trust your exegesis on Romans 4? Rome can make any verse mean anything it wants to mean, even if the interpretation is the exact opposite of the text. Or if you say that a bishop must not be a neophyte, on what grounds to you say so, considering that is in the context of a bishop “must be must be blameless, the husband of one wife,” and the church is not prevented from requiring celibacy. It is not the grammar that convinces you, Nick. It is your church. You continually relegate this to a tangential issue, but it is in fact the very heart of the dispute.
In any case, Nick, I can assure you, just as you thought 1 Timothy 3:6 was a “stunner,” you also believe that your analysis on Romans 4 is a “stunner” and that I am “in for a surprise” and that my understanding of the Gospel will collapse once I “approach Romans 4. Guaranteed.” I’ve been reviewing your material, and I am not convinced, Nick. Your work on Romans 4 is as much a “stunner” to me as your cursory analysis on 1 Timothy 3:6. You continued…
Peter was married, Nick: “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.” (See also Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38). Also, Paul wrote, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5). Rome’s typical argument (perhaps it is yours as well) is that Paul was here referring to virgin sisters in the faith, but his statement came after he had given a discourse on sex and marriage (1 Corinthians 7) and eating and drinking (1 Corinthians 8). Then he concludes and summarizes, “Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” In 1 Corinthians 7, there are four kinds of women discussed: virgins (“parthenos”), widows (“chera”), sisters (“adelphe”), and wives (“gune”). Among them, widows and virgins do not have sexual intercourse, but sisters (7:15) and wives (7:3) do. And when Paul says he has the power to lead about a female, he does not use “parthenos” and “chera,” he uses “adelphe, “gune”—the only two types of females in 1 Corinthians 7 who are presumed to be legitimately sexually active. He then shows that he is talking about a wife and not a cohabiting virgin by using Peter as the example: “as well as the other apostles … and Cephas.” This is a sure indication that there was more than one married apostle. On what basis, then, do you say that the Apostles were not married? Could it be that it is because you trust your Church more than you trust the Word of God? Or perhaps you are saying with Jerome that John, a virgin, would have been a better pope than Peter who was married? (Against Jovinianus, I.26) Do you not see why your exegesis on Romans 4 is suspect if you do not even understand that the Scripture says Peter and other apostles had wives, and that Paul, too, was claiming that he had the right to be married? You continued,
I find this rather ironic, Nick, since that Canon also explicitly states that “if with the passage of time some sin of sensuality is discovered with regard to the person and he is convicted by two or three witnesses, such a one will be suspended from the clergy.” When has “some sin of sensuality” ever resulted in a Roman Catholic priest being suspended from the clergy? That, too, is an explicit statement, Nick, and yet priests and bishops who are found guilty of “some sin of sensuality” are simply moved around the church, and continue administering the sacraments. Are you being selective about your use of Church Councils? Isn’t this the same charge you lay at the feet of Protestants? Do you see why I don’t trust your exegesis on Romans 4? You cite Canon 2 of Nicea, as if Rome actually practiced Canon 2 of Nicea. You continued,
But to say this, you are making a personal judgment about the pope’s statement. On what grounds did you determine that this was not an infallible statement? According to Fr. William Most, no special form is necessary except for that the pope intends to speak definitively: “If a Pope intends to make anything definitive, that is infallible. No special form of words is needed. … We conclude that all that is required is the intent to make an item definitive, plus writing in such a way as to make that intent clear.” What is to keep me from concluding that John Paul II intended to speak definitively? Here is what John Paul said:
In order for you to know that this is not an infallible proclamation, you would have to know how to determine whether a papal statement is infallible. But you do not know how to determine whether a papal statement is infallible, and therefore you are in no position to declare that this was not an infallible statement. “It was fitting” is the same language Pius IX used in Ineffabilis Deus, and that Paul VI used in Munificentissimus Deus. Perhaps fittingness is all that is needed, Nick. But you don’t know, do you? And you have no basis at all to declare that my reading of John Paul II is inferior to yours. Yet you make this claim—”he is clearly just speaking of a high opinion”—as if you knew with certainty that John Paul II was not making an infallible proclamation. That is why I didn’t bother responding to your objection about Mark 16:9. You wrote:
But that’s precisely my point, Nick. You, with your superior church and infallible magisterium and pope, can’t tell me whether a papal statement is infallible or not, and yet you demand that I prove to you that Mark 16:9 is Scripture. I have asserted clearly that we are in the same epistemological position—our positions are epistemologically equivalent. I have to make an assumption about what is and what is not Scripture. You have to make an assumption about what is and what is not church teaching. My point has never been to “prove” that Sola Scriptura is epistemologically superior to Sola Ecclesia, but rather to show that once you acknowledge that our two positions are epistemologically equivalent, all that remains is to determine the respective objects of our faith. The object of my faith is the Word of God. The object of your faith is the Church. Faith in the Church cannot save you.
Since only one of us is making the claim that his position is superior, you ought to be able to tell me with confidence which papal statements are infallible. But you cannot. Lacking that certainty, you simply decide that you agree with the Church, and whatever it says about anything must be true. Thus, when the Scripture twice says a bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, you respond that “the Early Church plainly moved in the direction of celibate Bishops.” That is Sola Ecclesia, Nick, and the object of your faith is the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, I do not accept your arguments that your position on Romans 4 is purely a matter of “good ole exegesis” of the Scripture. It is not. It is simply a recapitulation of what you think the church is teaching you. You continued,
Thank you. That is what I have said here—but with one exception. It is not the Early Church that was apostate. It is Roman Catholicism that is apostate. The church cannot fall into apostasy. Rome fell into apostasy, and therefore Rome is not the True Church:
You are quite right. This type of reasoning is called clear thinking.
Forced celibacy is not the only issue here. It is Eucharistic Adoration, veneration of saints, veneration of relics, veneration of images, forbidding of foods God created to enjoy. These are all things we were warned would accompany the rise of Antichrist. Scripture cannot be broken, and it was not broken. Antichrist came right on schedule, and that is who you follow, and whose image you worship, and whose mark you have received.
Thanks again for writing,
Tim
Tim,
You went right where I said you’d go, which is that you’d be forced to assume, just to salvage your theology, that ‘neophyte’ refers to someone ‘never saved in the first place’. If it refers to someone who is saved, then your theology is contradicted.
Saying “a new plant is not necessarily a saved plant” isn’t even sufficient, because for you there cannot even be a doubt that the ‘neophyte’ is unsaved in 1 Tim 3:6. If it’s referring to a plant that *is* possibly saved, then that possibly saved individual is said to be damned. So you don’t even have that kind of leeway in defining ‘neophyte’ here. It’s all or nothing, saved or not saved; no grey area.
But just the logic of Paul’s statement is lost when you mess with the straightforward notion of neophyte, i.e. recent (genuine) convert. If Paul is telling Timothy don’t ordain an unsaved person, where’s the logic? The point is very clear: a recent convert has a lot of maturing to do, and promoting him too early can make him think too highly of himself, instilling pride, and causing this pride to ruin him spiritually. Paul’s mention of him becoming ‘puffed up with pride’ is nonsense if Paul is talking of an unregenerate person who never was humble.
Second, you said that “condemnation” doesn’t necessarily refer to damnation. Sure, but context can usually reveal what sense it’s being used. In this case it’s the same condemnation as the devil! Clearly soteric in reference, and clearly the worst kind of condemnation: damnation.
When Paul says a Christian is to be handed over to Satan, Paul is referring to excommunication. Your theology would be forced to say being handed over to Satan not a big deal at all, because salvation cannot be lost, so whatever is lost isn’t that bad. Imagine a Christian saying “Yep, I’m handed over to Satan, but I’m still happily justified and adopted and all that good stuff.” Absurd.
I’m glad you mentioned 1 Timothy 1:20 as well. Going on your same theme, you want to say being handed over to Satan and having a “shipwreck of their faith” means these people are still just as saved as before. If I exegeted like that, you’d probably accuse me of having my Axiom showing. So no matter the text, no matter how dismal and ruinous the individual is said to be in, you’re forced to read it as the person is still saved. And recall that the Reformed teach that the regenerate person is given a new heart and will automatically produce good fruit and if he turns to sin he wasn’t the plant in good soil and thus not saved to begin with….and yet we have Christians being handed over to Satan for blasphemy.
I know the Reformed weak points, I know what strings to pull to have the whole thing come unraveled.
For you to say “We do not know whether Hymenaeus and Alexander learned their lesson (although it appears that Alexander did not (2 Timothy 4:14)” is quite an admission given that your theology teaches Perseverance. They would have had to learned their lesson if they were saved, but as you can see the plain reading of the Scriptures suggests Christians do fall away from the faith and to think they remained saved is outrageous given the descriptions.
In Catholic theology, being handed over to Satan is a horrific thing. That person has lost their salvation unless and until they repent. For Reformed theology, being handed over to Satan is little more than a slap on the wrist soterically speaking. The very idea a person can be handed over to Satan in Reformed theology makes no sense at all. The very idea there can be a saved excommunicate is outrageous. You would have us believe a person is handed over to Satan while simultaneously being safe in Jesus’ hand. You’ve got to be kidding me.
You asked me: “what is to keep the church from ordaining a neophyte? Do you read 1 Timothy 3:6 as meaning that it is acceptable to ordain a new convert?”
A neophyte who is ordained would be truly ordained. The issue is one of prudence: It’s a judgement call as to just how long you wait. Generally speaking, a new convert is more susceptible to err or fall into sin. The point is not don’t ordain a new convert because he might not really be saved. The logic doesn’t flow. How you can turn this around to say you don’t trust my reading of Romans 4 is still unsubstantiated. As I’ve shown above, you’re the one with the difficulty, since you teach a person can simultaneously be in Satan’s hand and in Jesus’ hand. That is the epitome of making a verse mean whatever you want.
And I think it’s humorous that you say it’s ‘my Church’ that forces my reading, when (a) look what your church is forcing you to read, and (b) it is a plain fact that Reformed theology teaches that Sola Scriptura does not discount tradition and in fact gives tradition first dibs (even if tradition isn’t infallible), and tradition (e.g. Nicaea Canon 3) shows celibate clergy. So how I’m being unfair in this is not established at all.
You brought up the issue of Peter being married. The truth is, the Bible mentions his mother in law only, suggesting that Peter was a widow. Given the silence of the text, especially in Acts, the general consensus is that the Apostles weren’t running around with children and wives. Quoting 1 Corinthians 9:5 helps my claim more than hurts it, for it makes it clear not all of the Church ministers were married. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but it’s not a theological absolute for clerical office. (As far as equating Cephas with Peter, that’s not a sure thing; I hold they were two different people based on Gal 2:7-9 where both men are mentioned by name.)
You asked: On what basis, then, do you say that the Apostles were not married?
The silence of the text, the celibacy of Paul, etc. I’m not saying none of the early clergy weren’t married. I’m not making that argument. I’m saying there’s good reason to conclude many were not, and if that’s the case, then not being married doesn’t exclude one from being a bishop.
Moving onto Canon 3 of Nicaea, you didn’t seem to deny my point, you merely shifted the question to clerical sexual misconduct. The news out in the last year or so is that Benedict XVI sacked 400 priests convinced of abuse. Needless to say, the clerical abuse issue is a distraction from the points at hand (there’s abuse going on in Protestantism as well). Plus, you’re making another logically fallacy by equating Canonical statements automatically with dogmatic pronouncements, when Canons can simply be disciplinary pronouncements, hence why I said the Church had moved in the direction of celibate clergy, which is a disciplinary measure (as some clergy have been married).
Now onto Mark 16:9. You said I was making a personal judgment about the Pope’s statement. Yes, I was; such is required whenever you read anything anywhere. The language used was not that of solemnly defining any dogma nor of appealing to some consensus in tradition. JP2 expressly used terms like “perhaps,” which is not dogmatic language. A dogma teaches facts, not pious opinions. There was no indication the Pope intended to make this definitive since non-definitive language was used. This is pure desperation on your part if this is the best you have. (Pius IX and XII used much stronger language and dedicated an whole encyclical to defining the teaching, making it clear that to deny it amounted to apostasy.)
You said: “My point has never been to “prove” that Sola Scriptura is epistemologically superior to Sola Ecclesia”
You have got to be kidding me. If it’s not superior, you have no reason to embrace one over the other. Sola Scriptura includes within it the ‘co-dogmas’ of (a) knowing what books are inspired, and (b) having all necessary doctrines be Perspicuous. To say SS is no better than Sola Ecclesia is astonishing.
You’re making a complete caricature about the Catholic position by saying anything the Church says must be true. The Church has never taught such a thing. That’s as absurd as saying every statement of Scripture is equally important or even that each statement of Scripture is teaching dogma.
You said: “when the Scripture twice says a bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, you respond that “the Early Church plainly moved in the direction of celibate Bishops.” That is Sola Ecclesia, Nick”
Tim, that’s a complete logical fallacy and caricature. I’m astonished you can just mash together my words like that. The mention of “one wife” means “not more than one wife,” it doesn’t mean must be married now or in the past. Even many Protestant commentaries acknowledge that this isn’t saying a Bishop MUST be married. Plus, as is common with such Protestant objections, you’d rather torpedo the words of Christ that some men take up celibacy for the sake of the kingdom that even grant a fair interpretation to the Catholic. And I said the text speaks nothing one way or the other about what rules the Church can lay down, so the Church moving in the direction of celibacy isn’t contradicting what isn’t addressed. You might as well read the text to mean a bishop must not only be married, but also not be impotent, which is clearly not what Paul’s point is. And isn’t Paul speaking of “children” in the plural? So that excludes Christian men who only have only one child, maybe even only two. See how far off Paul’s intention things can get when you’re forcing an agenda onto the text?
You said: “Thank you. That is what I have said here—but with one exception. It is not the Early Church that was apostate. It is Roman Catholicism that is apostate.”
Ha! You gotta go one step further than that. I quoted Nicaea here. So don’t just say thank you and say that the RCC is apostate while the Early Church was not. I’m quoting Nicaea, and it is the Nicene Canon 3 which you say is a mark of apostasy. So I hope you’re not trying to pull a fast one here. Please go ahead and admit Nicaea was teaching heresy. And then please go ahead and drive a wedge between Nicaea and “the Early Church” so that you make it clear you believe they’re two distinct entities. If you cannot be upfront and say Nicaea was apostate (or at least teaching heresy), then that’s a blatant blind spot on your end.
Thank you for your response. Your response was very interesting and eye-opening. You wrote,
You will find, if you will refer back to my comment to you, that I assumed so such thing. I said “neophyte” literally means “new plant,” and since it is unused anywhere else in the New Testament, and since Paul learned his Gospel directly from Christ, then we should look at the parable of the Sower. Since the parable of the Sower includes two who either initially receive the Word with gladness but immediately fall away “when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake” (Mark 4:16-17), or who are drawn away by “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches” (4:19). And yet all fully grown plants must start at some point. How do you tell which ones are believers, and which ones will simply wither away? Only time can tell. These two “new plants” originally showed outward signs of faith, but did not really believe the Word. This is why we don’t ordain “neophytes” or “new plants” because they might not be saved, despite the fact that they initially “receive the word with gladness.” This reasoning is not the same as your characterization of my words as if I had said that “‘neophyte’ refers to someone ‘never saved in the first place’.” Rather, I was suggesting that “neophyte” refers to someone who may not be saved, and there is a difference between those two. Perhaps you can see the difference between saying someone is “not saved” and someone “may not be saved”? Over time, the evidence will be more clear, and therefore a policy of not ordaining a neophyte reduces the risk of ordaining an unbeliever. Your response indicates that you do not understand that. For example,
But Nick, this assumes that the only possible meaning of “neophyte” is “justified believer.” Your response is quite telling because you have dismissed my thinking on the grounds that “neophyte” clearly refers to a believer—the very thing that is in dispute. Lacking any other use in the New Testament, we ought to look into what it means rather than simply impute our own meaning to it. Paul talked about having his doubts that some of those whom he previously thought born again (Galatians 4:19-20), and to the Corinthians he warned that there were so many divisions among them that he wondered if they were spiritual or carnal, and determined that some of them probably needed to be evangelized. In this context, Paul says he planted (“phuteuo”) and Apollos watered (1 Corinthians 3:1-8), and that alone is sufficient warning why “new plants” should not be elevated to the office of Bishop. They may yet be carnal, something Jerome acknowledged was happening in his day, and his explicit concern was that “neophytes” were being made bishops before they were even known to be believers:
Interesting, is it not, that Jerome used 1 Timothy 3:6 to criticize the practice of ordaining people who were not even believers. Why use that verse, if it so clearly did not apply to someone who was possibly an unbeliever?
But to get to the more provocative issue, you asked me to “admit Nicaea was teaching heresy.” Interesting. Your words were,
Pulling a fast one, Nick? Let’s go back to your original words. You wrote,
“As even Canon 3 implies” is worlds apart from “as even Canon 3 explicitly teaches.” Let’s look at Canon 3:
If you will look into the meaning of “subintroductae,” you will find that your interpretation of Canon 3 is wanting. There was a practice in those days in which women who professed to be virgins “have afterwards been found to have remained in the same bed side by side with men; of whom you say that one is a deacon; and yet that the same virgins who have confessed that they have slept with men declare that they are chaste.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXI, To Pomponius, Concerning Some Virgins, 1 (c. 250 AD)). That this was widespread is evidenced by Cyprian’s astonishment: “Moreover, what number of serious mischiefs we see to have arisen hence; and what a multitude of virgins we behold corrupted by unlawful and dangerous conjunctions of this kind” (2). Cyprian recommends that if the two are willing to persevere in their virginity they may not “dwell together … in one house or under one roof” (4). However, “if they are unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better that they should marry, than that by their crimes the should fall into the fire” (2). This is the context of Canon 3 of the Council of Nicea, in which even Bishops were known to be engaging in this practice. Jerome wrote,
Of these citations, it is clear: unmarried clergy, claiming that they only wanted spiritual companionship would sleep together while claiming to be chaste. Thus, Canon 3 of Nicea needs to be read in that context. It does not mean “the Early [Nicean and ante-Nicean] Church plainly moved in the direction of celibate Bishops,” as you suggest. It means the Nicean church moved in the direction away from a ridiculous practice that allowed men and women, including clergy, to enjoy the pleasures of marriage without the responsibilities thereof. It was denigrating to the institution of marriage. Interesting that instead of solving it by forbidding marriage, Cyprian offers marriage itself as the solution to the problem. As Cyprian said of such, it is better that they either get out from under the same roof, or get married and remain under the same roof. But maintaining the outward appearance of virginal piety while secretly enjoying far more than the “spiritual companionship” of one’s bedmate, is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, not married clergy, is what was forbidden by Canon 3 at Nicea.
More than this, that Nicea did not forbid married clergy is evidenced by the fact that the post-Nicean church did not forbid married clergy. Jerome, for example, not only acknowledged the practice of married clergy, but insisted that it was necessary (albeit for the wrong reasons):
That marriage was not forbidden to bishops in particular by Canon 3 of Nicea is evidenced by Jerome’s letter to Oceanus. It seems a Spaniard named Carterius, whose first wife had died, had taken a second wife and then was ordained as a bishop. Oceanus wrote to Jerome asking him to intervene. To this Jerome responded:
For information, 450 bishops attended the synod of Ariminum. That’s a lot of married bishops—and Jerome is only talking about those who are on their second marriage. It does not include married priests, in which category Jerome implies in his letter against Jovinianus were also great in number. But it is not as though Jerome was unaware of Nicea. In fact he cites Nicea in his letter to Oceanus, merely noting that
Note well that Oceanus had written to Jerome asking him to intervene in the case of a married Bishop, perhaps to prevent it, and the only time Jerome invokes Nicea is to explain that he was more worried about bishops moving from bishopric to bishopric under the auspices of ministry, but in reality to leave a poor see in order to find a rich one, than he was about a bishop being married a second time. Nary a word about Canon 3 in a letter in which your reading of Canon 3 would have made it an open and shut case. Instead of citing Canon 3 of Nicea, Jerome cites an abundance of statements indicating that the post-Nicean church did not interpret Canon 3 as you do. So yes, the council of Nicea was against hypocrisy and fornication. I agree. It was well after Nicea that Jerome went off the reservation and started condemning marriage and recommending his ascetic views so violently, and saying things like the Devil is king of the marriage bed and of procreation of children, and Christ loves virgins more than nonvirgins. Some in Rome saw the danger in his new found contempt for marriage, and tried to halt the publication of his opinions, but he only renewed his efforts. That discussion is for another day. But the text of Canon 3 of Nicea forbids marriage of clergy only if you impute Rome’s current beliefs back onto the council. That, Nick, is Sola Ecclesia.
On that note, I wrote to you that Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura are epistemologically equivalent, and that it had never been my point to ‘prove’ that Sola Scriptura is epistemologically superior to Sola Ecclesia. To this you responded,
Nick, Epistemology is “the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.” My efforts here and on other blogs have demonstrated that when it comes down to a theory of knowledge, the Roman Catholic has to trust that the Church has told him the truth—even if he can’t determine what that truth is or when the Church is teaching it to him. One Roman Catholic on another blog said that determining which papal statements are infallible ultimately requires that the Roman Catholic use his intellect and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. (This is the very thing Roman Catholics say is wrong with Protestants). Another Roman Catholic said it didn’t matter whether we could know when the pope has spoken infallibly or not, because if there was a controversy over what the pope said, we could just call a council. (This indicates that he didn’t know what Papal Infallibility means, because ex cathedra statements are not subject to the consent of the church—which means you simply have to know which ones are, and which ones aren’t, ex cathedra. You don’t call a council to find that out). But that’s the issue, isn’t it? How do you know? And how do you know that you know? When it all comes down to it, the Roman Catholic must ultimately admit that doesn’t know everything that the Church teaches, but whatever it is, he believes it! That is where Sola Ecclesia will ultimately lead you, and in fact those were the precise words of a Roman Catholic here. Thus, the Roman Catholic epistemology fails precisely where it was supposed to be superior—as a theory of knowledge!
At this point, the Roman Catholic will accuse me of the logical fallacy of tu quoque, as if I my starting position had been that Sola Scriptura is superior to Sola Ecclesia. But it was not. The Roman Catholic is the one saying his epistemology (which is Sola Ecclesia) is superior to Sola Scriptura. To prove him wrong, all I have to do is prove that Sola Ecclesia is epistemologically equivalent to Sola Scriptura, because each has a first unprovable assumption, an axiom, and each relies on the ability of the believer to determine the boundary of revelation. “How many books in the Protestant Canon?” is the same issue as “How many times has the pope spoken infallibly?” “How do you know a book is canonical?” is the same issue as “How do you know if a papal statement is infallible?” Sola Ecclesia has its own two “co-dogmas” and if the Roman Catholic is required to believe what is in the deposit of faith, I can easily prove that in order to do so, you must appeal to a canon of infallible papal statements, and that canon exists outside of the deposit of faith. Thus it is proven that Sola Ecclesia is epistemologically equivalent to Sola Scriptura, and equivalent includes within its meaning “not superior.” QED.
To give you an illustration of epistemological equivalence, consider the two sources of revelation in 1 Kings 13. The king invites the man of God into his home to eat bread and drink water, and the man of God refuses, saying “For so was it charged me by the word of the LORD, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest” (1 Kings 13:9). A false prophet then chased the man of God and said, “Come home with me, and eat bread” (1 Kings 13:15). Again, the man of God refused, saying “For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest” (1 Kings 13:17). But the false prophet assured him, saying “I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.” But this was a lie (1 Kings 13:18).
So the man of God had two sources of Revelation, each epistemologically equivalent. One said “Do not eat and drink,” and one said “Do eat and drink,” both claiming to speak with the same authority. But one was the Word of God and one was the word of man. The man of God rejected the word of God and followed the False Prophet, and was killed, “Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD” (1 Kings 13:21).
There was no canon of revelation from an infallible church council, no infallible magisterium to which he could appeal, no pope to explain how to tell the difference between the Word of God and those who falsely claim to be speaking it. The sole difference between the two positions was the source of the Revelation. One came from God, and one came from a man claiming to speak for God. We either trust in God’s word, or we trust in a man claiming to speak for God. We either trust in the Scripture, or we trust in the Roman church and its pope in Rome.
In the case of the former, the Scripture reveals that there will arise shortly after the apostolic era a system of religion that is diabolical and worldwide, and requires that we worship an image that comes to life and has the power to speak. This revelation leads us to conclude that Roman Catholicism is that Beast of which we were warned, that Antichrist to come.
In the case of the latter, the Roman Church reveals that it is the True Church of Christ and because the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church, then Roman Catholicism cannot be the antichrist (otherwise the gates of hell have prevailed), and therefore the sheep may sleep comfortably at night knowing that despite all the evidence that Roman Catholicism is diabolical at its core, it’s really all just a coincidence and there is nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep.
So Nick, even though Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia are epistemologically equivalent, it is not the same as saying that “you have no reason to embrace one over the other.” You do. One is from God and the other is from the devil. Don’t guess wrong.
Tim
Nick, I love it! ( Kevin, what do you think? Not bad eh? And you thought Tim knew his stuff. Ha! Nick really settles the issue, Huh, Kevin? I agree with you, everyone on Jason’s blog should come over here and follow this dialogue between these two guys.)
Nick, keep up the good work.
Jim R
Tim, This site has been one of the greatest blessings of my life, and I believe you have a gift. I read in your book Quite Contrary, at that time you weren’t a seminary grad. Are you now. You should be teaching.
Thanks, Kevin. I am glad it is of some help to you. No, I have not attended seminary.
Thanks so much,
Tim
I spent four months in a monastery in Oregon. Does that count? The Brigittines in Amity area. They made the fudge you see in all the trendy stores.
It’s not a seminary but we did wear funny clothes and say the Divine Office. You know, monkish stuff. Oh, yeah, and I learned a lot about bee keeping while there. Did you know that smoke puts bees to sleep so you can get at the honey.
I should be teaching too, huh Kev?
Tim,
The exchange on axioms was very, very helpful. I have been reading Dr Robbins and Dr Clark for a couple of years now, but this interaction with Nick crystallised “the Bible alone is the Word of God”, especially when contrasted with sola ecclesia. I get so confused when I read material like what Nick posts. Thx so much for taking the time to clarify the errors. It really helps.
John,
If you’d like to understand the deeply and fatally flawed method of Roman Catholic epistemology, it helps to understand that they approach the Scriptures first as an uninspired work:
Then, having read the Bible as a historical work, they conclude that Jesus really founded a Church. That Church tells them that the Bible is inspired, and so then they go back and read the Bible as inspired Scripture.
This approach is summarized by a Roman Catholic apologist here:
https://forums.catholic.com/t/the-spiral-argument/342728
They call it the “spiral” argument as if that somehow avoided circularity. In the end all it does is prove their belief in Sola Ecclesia.
Enjoy,
Tim
Thx Tim, very good.
The link reminds me of Dr Robbins where he said of those trying to prove the Bible as God’s Word: “if their argument was true, it would actually disprove the Bible”.
It is again, very helpful to know the background of the arguments and to contrast it with “the Bible alone is the Word of God”. Seeing real examples like this helps cement the axiom for me. Yours in Christ Jesus
Nick,
” A celibate priesthood with neither wives nor children cannot demonstrate that he can rule his house well, as Dominic De Domenico O.P. has recently demonstrated for us. ”
Tim and Kevin are jerking your chain. Tim is quoting Fr. D for a reason you are not privy to but I am. I may or may not email you about it. Suffice it to say, they are having fun with you, playing games.
Tim, just so you know I just received an email from Jason that he kicked me off his site again because of complaints. He said he was kicking me off because of rebutting and responding negatively to Roman views of Mary and their theology. I was kicked off for rebutting and responding to Roman dogma. I was reveled and reveled not in return. I only made arguments against Rome. Jim called me over there a puke, an ignorant donkey, and other names I don’t dare to mention with impunity. He ranted until Jason buckled and kicked me out. I told Jason, he was running so well, who detracted him from the truth, his first love. I also told him if I ever had a blog he was welcome with whatever views he had. I really appreciate your fairness on this site Tim. K
Kevin, I had no idea Jason had done the right thing. Praise God! You can still lurk and see the wonderful things I am teaching Eric about Our lady though.
I hope I never see your name again on a Catholic site. You ought to be ashamed of how you speak to other human beings. I will keep you in pray though, have a good life.
Tim said, ” it sing the early church that was apostate, it is the Roman church that fell into Apostasy” This is what we need to convince Roman Catholics of so that they may be saved. The theology that developed which allowed them to not resist the urge to smuggle their character into God’s work of grace ail not permit men to be saved. Roman Catholicism is a false gospel and those who believe it will not be saved.
Kevin, we Catholics don’t “smuggle” into God’s grace. We “snuggle” into it as a child to its father’s arms.
Nick, how do you explain the man who had his fathers wife in 1 Corinthians, who Paul handed over to Satan that his should would be saved in the day of Christ?
Tim, my wife made the most interesting comment to me tonight in the car on the way to dinner. She said Mathew 7 says narrow is the gate( turnstile) into heaven, few go by it, wide is the way to destruction, many go there. 1 billion Catholics.
Tim, my wife an interesting comment to me in the car as I was dumping her off at the airport. She called me an idiot and told me not to burn the house down while she is in the States.
Kevin, What a wise woman. She called you and idiot. She forgot windbag. Thanks for getting me thrown off Jason’s site because you hounded me and stomp your feet like a little baby every day. Poor Jim didn’t like rebuttal. Go back to your mutual admiration society over there. Go back and worship Mary your Lordess and savior.
I love rebuttal. Honest rebuttal. I detest caricatures, straw men and lies.
By the way, should you attempt a comeback, I will copy and paste what you just said about us worshiping Mary as Lordess and savior to Jason.
This is EXACTLY why I opposed you, ( and will wherever I find you posting ), not for rebuttal.
Nick, since you blow me off most of the time. I have one challenge for you in the quest to hear your earth stopping exegesis of Romans 4. You told Tim that neophyte has a specific meaning with Paul, recent (true ) convert. Good I want you to look at this specific “to the one who does not work” ” not that of yourselves” “not a result of works” So when you come in here and bring your RC Protestant killing exegesis on Romans 4, in the spirit of the exactness of neophyte you will have to explain to us how the exclusion of ALL works of ANYTHING coming from ourselves can involve cooperation or the smuggling of one’s character into the work of God’s grace is allowed. You are constrained by this. Don’t bring your face enabled works or any synergistic argument because I will take you back to these statements of PAUL in the spirit of being exact. What Tim is saying to you is we will play by your neophyte game when you play by ours. Deal?
Nick, that should be grace enabled works.
Jim, you worship Mary. You can call it any dullia you want. Roll the dice baby. Maybe your works and you Queen will get you in, me I’m going wit his righteousness alone.
Thanks Kevin baby but for the second time, learn to spell Dulia before lecturing me on it.
As for worshiping Mary, that is THE MAJOR gripe I kept presenting to Jason to get you dumped for your incessant caricaturing of dulia.
I thought I did it all myself but I guess other people had had enough of this silly lie of yours too.
Jim, Read Robert’s post on Mary to you this morning. It is excellent and destroys your position.
Read my post on Mary this evening to Robert. It is excellent and destroys his position.
Nick Incidentally, Calvin said Romans 10: 9-10 destroys Trents position. ” that if you confess with your moth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him form the dead, you will be saved. This is definitive Nick. Believing and confessing guarantee salvation. No works to be found. Consistent with Paul’s other statements “not of yourselves” not result of works’ ” For with the heart a person believes RESULTING in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” Hemmed in Nick wit no where to go. Bring on your earth changing definitions of Logizomai and hashav. Because I’m taken you back to this woodshed. Romans 10:9-10 and Ephesians 2:8, Romans 4;16 which says that if a catholic wants to be saved by grace it will have to be by faith alone. Bring on your grace enabled works argument. Tell us how Dikaiou really means the set of affairs inside of a believer. I’m ready, maybe Tim is too.
To “Confess” is a verb, an action word, something one does, therefore it is a deed.
Confess and believe, repent and believe, believe and be Baptized.
If Nick is busy, I am ready too boys.
Kevin,
I’m not sure what else you’ve asked me because I cannot follow every post going on. What I will say is that one problem I’ve encountered when discussing Scripture with you is that the Reformed Axiom, Sola Fide (not even Sola Scriptura), states that any text that denies Sola Fide must be re-interpreted so that Sola Fide remains true, regardlesss of how many texts say otherwise. Sola Fide is a more radical Axiom than Sola Ecclesia.
To give an example of the Reformed Axiom, consider the Romans 10:9-10 text you just mentioned. In the text Paul plainly says that believing AND confessing are what save, and since two things are required, then Paul is plainly not speaking of believing ‘alone’. But since Sola Fide is true a-priori (i.e. assumed true prior to even examining the Scriptures), the Reformed position must explain away the ‘confessing’ aspect Paul mentioned.
Interestingly, the only other time ‘believing’ and ‘confessing’ are mentioned in the same verse (that I’m aware of) is in John 12: “42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue”
Here we see it is possible to believe but to not confess, which would mean only half the requirement was met for salvation. The Reformed Axiom cannot accept this, since SF must be true prior to reading what the Scriptures say, so the Reformed would say when the text says “many believed in Jesus,” it really means their faith was a fake faith and that they didn’t really believe in Jesus.
Guys,
Remember Andrew Buckinham? He used to post here. He basically said the same thing, that Calvinists don’t care about anything but those passages that talk about justification. Everything else pales.
Jim, Thats what Tim is talking about. Making confess into a good work that merits more grace. Making Mary into 2 mediators. Making one sacrifice at the consummation of the ages more than one. And making a finished incarnation into an ongoing ontological virtue climb to salvation. Can you say false church!
Kevin, You have smuggled the religion of Christ into being your own personal hammer to pound people.
As for Christ, from the cross, when He was saving the world, He established Mary as Mother of all men for whom He was dying.
You spurn His agonized gasps to get out the words, “Woman, behold they son, son behold thy mother”. You don’t want His plan of salvation so you erect your own monstrosity and then prance around like holy saints. You profess to be a man of God yet your bear false witness about Catholics. You want people to see you as righteous yet you seek to ridicule others’ beliefs as if God has authorized you to do so.
You love this hideous and demonic blog that mocks Jesus’ Church, Mother, Body and Blood. You ran around telling people on Jason’s blog how they should come here to read Tim’s unbelievable stuff as if it was Gospel. How you loathed us!
Kevin, why do you want to post on Jason’s blog? You need a theatre to perform your show, right? Without these blogs, what would you do?
And you are a base coward. You talk tough through cyber space. You wouldn’t dare stand in front of me and say the stuff you say safely tucked away in Arizona’s computer land.
Inviting me to to a showdown in Italy was corny. And stupid as you don’t even know me. I could be just wacky enough to show up and call your bluff.
You actually thought I wronged you by telling Jason not to let you defecate on us anymore. As if you have a right to go on a Catholic blog and ridicule Catholics. Can people go to your house and ridicule you? Are you retarded?
Nick, thanks for your response. I will read it and respond. But I’m still waiting for your response on Ephesians 2:8 ” not that of yourselves” ” not a result of works” If he excludes all effort from ourselves, is it not definitive. Also the last time we discussed 2 Corinthians 5:21, which I enjoyed, I meant to draw your attention to verse 18 ” now all these things are from God” who reconciled us to himself thru Christ” So the is begs the question Nick, its not from ourselves and all these things are from God.” The Scholastic gospel would seem the antithesis of this. I’ll wait for your response. Hope you are well and God bless your family Nick. There is always room for you on the mercy train to zion. K
Kevin, “Hope you are well…God bless your family Nick…”.
No problem with you liking Nick. It’s none of my business other than to wonder if you realize Nick just might be an idolater (just like me ), a bread worshiper ( just like me )m a Mary worshiper ( just like me ) and a death wafer eater ( just like me ) to have replaced the Trinity with the Papacy ( just like me ) and has Jesus on the cross and altar suffering ( just like me ) and all the other bone-headed slurs you inflict on Catholics.
You insult him, and Jason, every time you insult me. Why can’t you understand that? Perhaps you don’t think Nick actually subscribes to the whole Catholic picture? There is one way to find out but you don’t want to go there. Yet.
Then maybe you will quit your embarrassing boot licking.
You know Kevin, the east block immigrants have an expression that describes you to a T; ” Always kiss the hand you cannot bite.” You wish you could bite Nick’s hand and in time you will when you think it safe. Until then, shine some more shoes and have great day.
Jim, since when is rebutting your idolatrous positions dedicating on you. I have never made it personal. OYOH you have called me an ignorant monkey, maniac and oaf, puke among other things. Maybe you should spend some more time in the bread observation room because your behavior is out of control. Now Jim, if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. I will be as loving as I can. But i’m not going along with elevation of Mary and I’m going to tell you.
Nobody ever said you had to go along with elevating Mary. All I ever asked of you is not to disrespect those of us that do.
Tim,
The “Reply” option cuts off apparently after a few replies, so to respond to your May 10, 2014 at 5:17 pm post I must make my new post down here.
(1) Regarding neophyte and 1 Timothy 3:6, I still do not see you addressing the ‘logic’ of Paul’s warning: “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” This wording suggests nothing about testing to see if the neophyte is a true believer. (An unbeliever cannot even be validly ordained in the first place.) The ‘logic’ of the wording is saying that you shouldn’t put the neophyte in a position where pride can easily spring up in him by causing him to think too highly of himself. The point isn’t that he might not be saved. If he isn’t saved, he isn’t going to become puffed up with pride and fall into the condemnation of the devil because he was never humble nor out of the devil’s grip to begin with. Even Canon 2 of Nicaea is indicating what I’m saying when speaking of those elevated to clergy shortly after their baptism (with no indication the baptism was not valid). It’s the same logic for why there’s a waiting period after a person gets their driver’s permit before the get their license, because giving them a license too early is putting too much confidence and responsibility on a new driver, who is more prone to get into an accident.
(2) Your Axiom tells you that the parable of the sower in the Gospels is saying there’s only one saved group out of the 4. And to do this you have to assume that when it says “believes for a time” that refers to not having true faith in the first place. But that’s not exegesis. Similarly, the reference to ‘new plant’ is plainly referring to a new Christian. How does ‘new plant’ in any way suggest a plant that might not be real or genuine? To me, it’s a very simple argument Paul is making, as even Protestant commentaries agree, that you’ve been forced to put a spin on.
(3) Your quote from St Jerome is completely ripped out of context. When Jerome says “before they are disciples” you say that means “before they were believers,” but that’s not what Jerome is saying. You would have Jerome saying that some people were ordained before they were believers? That’s an outrageous claim that nobody would ever make. The context of Jerome’s statement is clear that these novices have not felt the struggles of daily Christian life yet such as fasting and tears and alms and growing in virtues. That’s what Jerome means by ‘disciple’, one who has been maturing in the faith, and thus is not ready to be a teacher of the faith.
(4) You seem to have skipped over my comments on the problematic claims you made when you said a genuine Christian can have their faith shipwrecked and handed over to Satan (and remain saved the whole time).
(5) Your focus in Canon 3 of Nicaea on consecrated virgins misses my point. My point is that of all the women whom the Council says can live with clergy, the mention of ‘wife’ is strikingly absent! It says a mother, sister, aunt, may live with him. You even concluded that it was talking of “unmarried clergy” (your words) which would force you to admit the Council saw nothing wrong with a bishop not being married. A celibate clergy was not anathema, that’s my only point, and goes directly against your twisted reading of 1 Timothy 3:6 that a bishop must be married. I *never* intended to say married clergy were forbidden and in fact I’ve tried to indicate the opposite. My *sole* point is that clergy can be celibate, which you have asserted is a violation of 1 Timothy 3:6. So your long comments demonstrating married clergy are irrelevant.
(6) Your comments on Sola Ecclesia are a complete distortion of what infallibility means in the Catholic life. Infallibility pertains to the realm of *defining dogmas*, it does not pertain to the realm of using one’s reading comprehension skills. You have conflated the two issues, as have many other Protestants. An example which shows the distinction is as follows: The Church has infallibly said that infants are to be baptized. That statement ‘infants are to be baptized’ is plain English. My reading comprehension skills read a coherent sentence. Protestants, likewise, can read that statement or anything else and understand what’s being said. The difference is that in Protestantism, there is no body that officially teaches what is or is not dogma. In Protestantism, there’s no way to *formally* say whether infant baptism is orthodox or heterodox. Instead, it’s logically forced into the ‘non-essential’ doctrine realm, just like most every other teaching of Scripture, so a Protestant is free to believe as they please on any of these teaching. There are no parameters of orthodoxy in Protestantism, just a bunch of opinions. That’s why Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia are not the same at all. Both Scripture and the Church can issue intelligible statements, sometimes ones ambiguous that we need clarification on, but Scripture cannot distinguish for you which of it’s teachings are dogma and which are ‘non-essentials’; only the Church can do that.
The problem with Protestants is they have no mechanism for defining dogma. Saying “we can turn to Scripture” isn’t an answer, because reading a statement of Scripture doesn’t mean it’s an essential doctrine to be considered Christian and doesn’t define its parameters.
Another superb example of the Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia problem is the Westminster Confession of Faith. On one hand, it’s supposed to be a true summary of essential Christian teachings, on the other hand, it’s not binding on anyone and might contain errors. That’s the Protestant mind summed up perfectly: they are sure when they’re right but they’re also sure nobody can be sure. The Westminster Confession says that Councils are not to be trusted because they have erred, and yet this statement doesn’t apparently include the Westminster itself. So you have Protestants at Westminster pretending to act as Magisterium while all the while denying such an authoritative body exists. It’s precisely why men with Dr R Scott Clark can beat down other Protestants for not adhering to “Reformed Standards” and yet has no explanation for how these Reformed standards hold true binding authority over the faithful.
ANYTIME a Protestant body makes a Statement of Faith, they’re rank hypocrites for opposing Sola Ecclesia. Because if the Statement of Faith has true binding authority, they’ve just assumed the role of Magisterium. But if the Statement of Faith doesn’t have true binding authority, it’s a mere opinion which a Protestant is free to believe, edit, or outright reject.
Hi, Nick,
Thanks for writing. As regards item (1),
I’m not sure there is more to be said here, beyond what has been said. Walt has followed up with some excellent comments on the topic, but if you are asking me to stipulate that the verse is about losing one’s salvation as a condition of discussing the verse with you further, you are essentially asking me to dispense with Scripture itself, for we are promised by Christ that no one may pluck the believer out of the Father’s or Son’s hands (John 10:27-29). The Lord promises that His elect can never be lost because He has put the fear of Him into their hearts “that they shall not depart from me” (Jeremiah 32:40). I am therefore prohibited by the mouth of the Lord Himself from interpreting His own word in such a way as to make Him a liar. I will not do it. You continued…
In the parable, it says explicitly that those represented by the second soil “when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves” (Mark 4:16-17a). This may appear to be a sign for good, but “when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended” (Mark 4:17b). In other words, they may “believe for a time” as Luke’s version of the parable has it (Luke 8:13), but it is clear that they did not believe the word, for it is the word itself that causes the offense. Since salvation is by faith, and faith comes by hearing, and what is heard is the word of God (Romans 10:17), it is clear that the object of saving faith is God’s propositions as contained in His Word. Whatever the second soil “believed” it was not “God’s Word” for it turns out that it is God’s word that scandalized (“skandalizo”) him. That there is only one saved soil in the parable is evidenced by the fact that fourth soil receives the Word “in an honest and good heart” (Luke 8:15), and because the unregenerate heart of man is inherently stoney, I take the fourth soil to be the only regenerated soil, for the Lord promised to those whom He would be pleased to save, that “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). You continued…
“Ripped out of context” is a pretty serious charge, Nick. I’ll let the readers decide. Here is the context:
That Jerome considered “faith” to be that which distinguishes a disciple from a non-disciple is evidenced from his letter to Marcella: “Then it was that, when certain persons of those who as yet believed not declared that the disciples were drunk with new wine, Peter standing in the midst of the apostles, and of all the concourse said: ‘Ye men of Judæa…'”(Jerome, To Marcella, 1). You continued…
Yes, it would seem so. You continued…
My point was simply to demonstrate that being put into the hands of the Devil is not formal evidence of reprobation. As Roman Catholics never cease to remind us, Satan requested to sift Peter like wheat, and the request was apparently granted, for the Lord did not deny Satan’s desire, but rather prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail when tried (Luke 22:31-32). As Kevin has pointed out, Job was allowed to fall into the hands of Satan. What is more, the Lord invited Satan’s attention to Job, and having done so, then allowed Satan to have his way with him (Job 2:3). The man in Corinth who had his father’s wife was delivered over to Satan “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:5). We may compare this situation in Corinth with one in Thessalonica in which the congregation there is warned “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:15). Kicking someone out of fellowship because he did not obey the words of the epistle is not evidence of a loss of salvation, for Paul reminds them that the outcast is not to be considered an unbeliever, but a brother. We are also reminded that we must not despise the chastening of the Lord (Job 5:17), and who better than Job to remind us that Satan on occasion may be the instrument by which the believer is chastened by God.
I will gladly acknowledge that my statement “We do not know whether Hymenaeus and Alexander learned their lesson” must be corrected, for we are informed that Alexander and Hymenaeus were delivered over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:20), and then we are informed in Paul’s second epistle to him that both Hymenaeus (2 Timothy 2:17) and Alexander (2 Timothy 4:14) were lost, for Paul says of the former that he was like gangrene, and of the latter that he was against the Word of God (2 Timothy 4:15). Because there are tares sown by the enemy among the wheat (Matthew 13:25-30), we must not conclude that every person so disciplined to the point of excommunication is necessarily a believer. However, we do conclude that every believer will in some way be chastened by the Lord Who loves him (Hebrews 12:6). You continued…
As does your focus on it miss mine. I said that Rome began to forbid marriage to clergy late in the 4th century, and this became a manifestly dogmatic issue when Pope Siricius excommunicated Jovinianus and many others who were holding that clergy could and should be married. You then invited me to say that the Church of the Nicean and ante-Nicean era must have also been apostate because it forbade marriage. I have proven that Canon 3 did not forbid marriage. It forbade hypocrisy and licentiousness among the clergy, some of whom were neither married nor celibate. As I noted in my original blog entry, “that of which the prophets warned by figure, the apostles warned by doctrine” and what the apostles warned of by doctrine was, at least in this context, “forbidding marriage and requiring abstention …” (1 Timothy 4:1-4). Thus, your allegation was not that Canon 3 of Nicea allowed unmarried clergy. Your actual word were that Canon 3 forbade marriage (in two separate posts, here conjoined):
What is crystal clear is that you were quoting Canon 3 of Nicea because you believed that the early [ante-Nicean] church was moving in the direction of celibate clergy, and that Canon 3 was the evidence of it. Just study the history of the subintroductæ, and Cyprian’s description of the practice, and you’ll see that these were “consecrated virgins” in name only, claiming to be virgins while at the same time confessing that they had been sexually intimate with their housemates. You continued…
And that, Nick, is your axiom showing. If a “subintroductae” is a “consecrated virgin,” then a bishop’s wife would not be listed among the subintroducta who are allowed to live with a Bishop. Your original citation of Canon 3 confused “woman” with “consecrated virgin,” for you said, “as even Nicaea Canon 3 implies, … the only woman a clergyman can have living at his house is his mother, aunt, or sister.” That’s not true. Canon 3 says the only subintroductæ a clergyman can have living at his house is his mother, aunt, or sister. To read it as you do your must first to impose your current view of priestly celibacy back onto the Council, and then interpret it as if it is consistent with what Rome currently practices. But reading it in its natural context, a married bishop at the council of Nicea could have gone home, evicted the unrelated subintroducta and then had sex with his wife and been in perfect conformity with the intent of the Council. The fact that Jerome did not cite Canon 3 as the reason for Carterius to be denied a Bishopric provides rather convincing evidence that married bishops, and yes, even twice married bishops (at least 450 of them) were still prevalent 75 years after the Council of Nicea. Nevertheless, the excommunication of Jovinianus because of his beliefs on married clergy is evidence that the post Nicean church was indeed moving toward a celibate clergy, as I originally alleged. You continued….
Nick, I stated that you cannot provide a list of infallible papal statements. When I said Sola Ecclesia has it’s own two co-dogmas, I limited those dogmas to a) an infallible list of infallible papal statements, and b) an infallible list of infallible criteria by which a Catholic may discern between infallible statements and non-infallible statements. To provide me the teaching of a council as evidence that Sola Ecclesia does not have two co-dogmas of its own is itself the conflation you criticize. You continued…
Yes, and one way the Roman Church can issue dogma is by ex cathedra papal statements. So which ones are they, Nick? Don’t respond with a list of canonical statements from Councils. Provide the list of ex cathedra papal statements. You cannot do it, and yet you claim Sola Ecclesia to be epistemologically superior to Sola Scriptura because it does not leave its people guessing what is and what is not dogma. You continued…
And the problem with Catholics is that they “do.” Or so they think. If Sola Ecclesia is superior to Sola Scriptura, Nick, please provide the list of ex cathedra papal statements. Just a cursory study of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is evidence that your “mechanism for defining dogma” is but a mirage. Nobody knows if it is infallible or not. You went on…
And any time a Roman Catholic claims to know which papal statements are infallible, they’re rank hypocrites for supporting Sola Ecclesia, and they’ve just assumed the role of Magisterium, because the list of infallible papal statements does not exist within the deposit of faith, and therefore Sola Ecclesia is not epistemologically superior to Sola Scriptura.
Thanks for writing,
Tim
Tim,
(1) I agree that I’m not sure what more to say about 1 Timothy 3:6. But your mention of John 10:27-29 is quite telling in that it shows you’re operating from your own set of assumptions when reading the Bible. You’re assuming what the truth is and forcing the rest of Scripture to comply. In this case, you’ve taken one verse, put your own spin on it, and are forcing the rest of Scripture to “agree”. But the text says nothing about personal sin, it only speaks of the fact ‘others’ cannot take you out of Christ’s hand. In other words, Jesus isn’t saying sin cannot separate, but rather enemies like Satan cannot. And this drives us right back to the problem I highlighted earlier, which is that you as a Calvinist are forced to say a Christian can be in Christ’s hands and Satan’s hands at the same time. True exegesis would take all of Scripture into consideration, rather than selecting a few (or even single) text and forcing the rest of Scripture to comply.
(2) I believe you’re equivocating with the term “word” in the Parable of the Sower. Plainly stated, the Parable is saying there are 4 groups of people: those who hear the Gospel but don’t believe it at all; those who hear the Gospel and accept it but fall away in time of persecution; those who hear the Gospel and accept it but get caught up in the cares of life and give up (i.e. also fall away); those who hear the Gospel and accept it, and persevere in it to the end. The point isn’t that the two middle groups ‘never really believed’. The Reformed Axiom makes nonsense of the two middle groups, because they’re really a subset of the first group. The idea of falling away because of persecution or getting caught up with the cares of life, even though they were never really saved, is just nonsense. Persecution does cause Christians to fall away, with Peter being a prime example of denying Christ (which he had to repent for). Your axiom has redefined ‘fall away’ to mean the opposite of what it means, namely falling when the person was never standing up in the first place. And now they “received the word with joy” means they didn’t really receive the word. That’s absurd. When it says persecution arises regarding the word, this simply means persecution arises for espousing the Gospel, which is a common occurrence. And many would rather fall away than endure the persecution.
You said: “it is clear that they did not believe the word, for it is the word itself that causes the offense.” That’s a fallacious argument. They believed the Gospel (word) but the Gospel brings about persecution. Your argument doesn’t even make sense. It’s the persecution that the Gospel naturally brings about which causes the falling away, not the Gospel itself causing the fall. My interpretation does no violence to the text, but yours does. My interpretation can take “they believed for a time” at face value, because they did believe for a time. Your interpretation is forced to say “believe” means “didn’t really believe.” To suggest that ‘they didn’t really believe for a time’ makes nonsense of the situation. I’m much more free to do exegesis than you think you are, for as it is clear with many examples your presumptions prior to approaching the text clearly cause many of these texts to have to be twisted. You even introduce loaded terms like “regenerated,” which is a Calvinists presumption on how Salvation works…again signifying that it’s all about assuming Sola Fide is true and forcing the Bible to comply. (You did mention Ezekiel 36:26, but if you want to go there, it will only expose more of the exegetical bind the Reformed find themselves in, because this Ezekiel context destroys the Protestant super-dogma of Imputed Righteousness.)
(3) I still maintain that you ripped Jerome’s comment out of context. To restate, you interpreted ordination ‘before they are disciples’ to mean ordaining unbelievers. I interpreted it, using the context, to mean ‘before they are mature in the faith’. I agree to let the readers decide. The context is plain that this novice has not experienced the ruggedness of daily Christian life. Jerome says nothing of the novice possibly not really being a believer. Jerome is not questioning whether they were really saved in the first place. The fact you had to dig up another quote, talking about a different context, shows you’re grasping at straws. The term “disciple” can mean different things, depending *on context*. In one case it can mean the Twelve Apostles, in another it can mean a Christian who has been following Christ for a while. Why would Jerome say this novice has not fasted, has not wept, has not taken himself to task, and has not given to charity? These things are NOT a litmus test to see if a person was really saved. Jerome is clear earlier in the letter that baptism forgives all sins and makes a person new. And Jerome asks “Whom did the apostle select for the episcopate, baptized persons or catechumens?” This question is very telling. It is baptized persons who are eligible for the episcopate. And Jerome continues: “If those whom the apostle admits into the ranks of the clergy are not catechumens but the faithful, and if he who is ordained bishop is always one of the faithful, being one of the faithful he cannot have the faults of a catechumen imputed to him.” So Jerome is clearly speaking of only the faithful eligible for the clergy. Thus, Jerome sees Paul’s statement is speaking of a faithful (genuine Christian) novice. Jerome continues: “No one at any rate can doubt that the apostle is speaking [in 1 Tim 3:1-7] only of those who have been baptized.” Jerome then goes on a long rant about how Baptism makes a person new and wipes out their sins. There isn’t the slightest hint anywhere in this Epistle that some received baptism in a non-efficacious or fake manner.
And to further show the error of your reading, Jerome begins to speak about how a candidate for bishop must not be living a sinful life (quoting 1 Tim 3:1-7). But if the point of not ordaining a novice is, as you say, to wait and see if they are truly Christian, then it would be a redundancy on the plain qualifications that the candidate must not be living sinfully.
(4) Regarding those Christians handed over to Satan, you said: “My point was simply to demonstrate that being put into the hands of the Devil is not formal evidence of reprobation.”
My point is that the problem is that your Sola Fide lens forces you to say a believer can be in Satan’s hands, excommunicated, which is outrageous. Neither Peter nor Job were handed over to Satan in the sense expressed by Paul (i.e. excommunication). In denying Christ, Peter did temporarily lose his justification, until he repented. In Job’s case, God allowed Satan to tempt and harm him only as a means of bringing out Job’s dedication to God, not that Job was in Satan’s hands in any sense of punishment due to sin.
To claim that “Kicking someone out of fellowship because he did not obey the words of the epistle is not evidence of a loss of salvation” amounts to saying someone can be cut off from the body of Christ and still be saved. Your theology doesn’t afford you the categories to coherently explain such a situation. In the Biblical/Catholic view, yes the excommunicate is a brother in Christ, but he’s (currently) a severed branch from the tree, dead in sin. Your only two categories are excommunicate saved Christian and excommunicate non-Christian, and neither category makes any sense.
(5) It appears you are correct about Nicaea Canon 3 and the consecrated virgins, and thus I incorrectly interpreted it and was wrong to appeal to Canon 3 as implicit support for unmarried clergy.
Note that this was not an example of ‘my Axiom showing’, either before or after I admitted my error here, because it was a genuine mistaken reading, which I have no problem being corrected on and admitting I was wrong. Whenever I recognize I’ve made a bad argument, I try to retract.
(6) You have made up the requirement that I need to provide a list of infallible statements. No such requirement exists nor is it logically demanded. If a doctrinal question comes up, one is able to see what the Church has said. I see nothing unfair about this. You’re setting up a strawman on the Catholic view of infallibility. Spinning this into some fictitious demand to provide a list of infallible dogmas is a fallacious red-herring.
I originally said: “The problem with Protestants is they have no mechanism for defining dogma.”
To which you replied: “And the problem with Catholics is that they do.”
How is this an acceptable answer? How does the inability for Protestants to define dogma become a bonus or mark of truth for you? A religion without dogmas is hardly a religion. This is astonishing to me that in your attempt to tear down Rome you would bring yourself down in the process.
I originally said: “ANYTIME a Protestant body makes a Statement of Faith, they’re rank hypocrites for opposing Sola Ecclesia. Because if the Statement of Faith has true binding authority, they’ve just assumed the role of Magisterium. But if the Statement of Faith doesn’t have true binding authority, it’s a mere opinion which a Protestant is free to believe, edit, or outright reject.”
To which you replied: “And any time a Roman Catholic claims to know which papal statements are infallible, they’re rank hypocrites for supporting Sola Ecclesia…”
Again, how is this a response? I’m more concerned about having a coherent position myself rather than a purely ad hoc, plainly incoherent system. If all you can say to the question about dogma is that Rome ‘also’ has no way of defining dogmas, then the real problem isn’t Catholic versus Protestant, but rather your own conscience subscribing to a religion without dogmas. What you are saying reduces down to saying each Christian is free to believe whatever doctrines they choose. As a truth seeker myself, if that’s the case, then neither Catholicism nor Protestantism work.
Fortunately, I don’t believe you’ve shown the Catholic approach to dogma to not work, and one of the many proofs of this is the fact you think doctrinal relativism is an acceptable position to hold to.
Hi, Nick,
Thanks for your response. One last thought, and I’ll let you have the last word on this thread. You mentioned in closing that you believe I hold to doctrinal relativism:
I don’t believe I have ever said that doctrinal relativism is acceptable. What I said was Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura are epistemologically equivalent. I would invite your attention to the illustration from 1 Kings 13, which illustration I have pointed to a couple times in this discussion. The Man of God had direct instruction from the Lord, which he describes as the “word of the LORD” (1 Kings 13:9). The basis of his epistemology is that the voice he heard was the voice of God. Let’s call the Axiom of his epistemology “the voice of God alone,” or sola vox Dei. An Axiom is the 1st unprovable assumption, upon which all subsequent propositions are based. Based on his Axiom, he believed that God had told him the truth—that he must not eat, or drink, or turn back the way he came (1 Kings 13:9).
Along comes a prophet saying “an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD” (1 Kings 13:18), informing him that it will be acceptable to eat, drink and turn back the way he came. The basis of this new epistemology is that what the prophet heard was the voice of an angel. Let’s call the Axiom of this epistemology “the voice of an angel alone,” or solam vox angelum.
When I say Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia are epistemologically equivalent, I mean epistemological equivalency the way it manifests in 1 Kings 13: the Axiom solam vox angelum is epistemologically equivalent to the Axiom Sola vox Dei. The man has to choose one or the other, and both claim to lead him to the truth. But the doctrines that are developed from the two Axioms are diametrically opposed. From the former derives the doctrine that the Man of God may eat, drink and turn back the way he came. From the latter derives the exact opposite: the doctrine that “he may not eat, or drink, or turn back the way he came.” The only difference between the two is the object of the man’s faith. Either he trusts in God, or he trusts in the prophet who claims to hear the voice of an angel. The challenge of God’s people, as in 1 Kings 13, has always been to trust the Word of the Lord, in spite of the many temptations to place our trust elsewhere. By way of example, the Lord instructs us to trust in his voice, even if someone comes along and makes a convincing case that we should not:
When Jesus sought to establish two witnesses to His authority (John 5:31-32), He identified himself as one witness and His Father as the other:
Since Jesus ruled out the witness of His Father’s audible voice and visible shape, His baptism and His transfiguration are not the witnesses He has in mind here. What is clear is that His Father testifies of Him through the Scriptures, for so He says: “The Father Himself … hath borne witness of me … search the Scriptures…they are they which testify of me.””
Roman Catholics believe, on the other hand, that God testifies of His Son through the Church. I am therefore faced with the same choice the Man of God had in 1 Kings 13: do I trust in God’s Word, or do I trust in a church that claims to speak for God. Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia. The foundation of my faith rests entirely upon the unprovable assumption that the Scriptures alone are God’s testimony of His Son. The foundation of your faith rests entirely upon the unprovable assumption that the Roman Catholic Church is God’s testimony of His Son. Because both of our epistemologies rest upon the validity of a single, unprovable assumption, they are epistemologically equivalent, just as Solam Vox Angelum and Sola Vox Dei in 1 Kings 13 are epistemologically equivalent, each based as they are on a single unprovable assumption. Neither can claim that it is superior to the other, because both require a leap of faith, and that faith has an object.
But the doctrines that are developed from these Axioms are diametrically opposed to each other. One is the path the life and the other the path to destruction. Which path you are on depends on the object of your faith. Your faith is in the church. My faith is in God. Faith in the church cannot save you.
Thus, epistemological equivalency is very, very, very far different from the doctrinal relativism that you have imputed to me.
Thanks as always,
Tim
Yes, and we see in the case of Dathan and Kore what happens to those who usurp that role.
Nick, SS says that Scripture is the only infallible source and only it has the authority to bind man’s conscience. Our submission to the WCF and its essentials is always subject to the word of God. Semper Reformanda as you know does not mean always reforming but always being reformed ( to the word of God and the inner witness of the spirit.) It is in this way that the Reformers wanted to best assure to never repeat the errors of an self claimed infallible oral tradition argued from silence. The RC’ elevation of tradition and claim to infallibility subjugated the Scripture and the result was theological errors. The Reformers took steps to wall this off from happening. 90 % of what we have articles of faith or defined dogmas are absolutes for us, but they are always subject to Scripture and as Horton says we are also always open to listen to other Protestant churches and their confessions. The only thing that will bring unity in the church is the correct understanding of Scriptures. We must continue to go back to the word of God constantly to refine and understand it. Incidentally, 1 John 1:27 is a very interesting verse. It says we have no need of a teacher, his anointing teaches us all things. now this does not mean that we are not to listen to the church, but what it means in the end it is god the Holy Spirit that teaches us God’s word, not the men wit the words. I disagree with you, this is the most exacting mechanism for defining dogma’s. You will have to prove to us how a claim to History of infallibility is a mechanism better for defining dogma. Saying ” we can turn to scripture” is the answer because for us it is the infallible mechanism that we look to. Jesus said “Search the scriptures” for in them….. Scripture would disagree with your assertion that reading statements of scripture does’t mean that it is an essential doctrine to be considered……and define parameters. All Scripture is God breathed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, for training in righteousness,” Scripture and the witness of the spirit are the the most exacting mechanism for determining essentials.” Anytime the Magisterium makes a statement of faith they are rank hypocrites for opposing Sola Scriptura. Because if the statement of faith has true binding authority, they have just assumed the position of SS.
Boys,
Nick used the example of the newly ordained bishop to show the error of the Calvinist ploy of always saying, “well that guy was never really a believer in the first place ” whenever their system is threatened.
My favorite it also from Timothy. Those who fail to provide for widowed mother in laws ( yuck! ) are worse than unbelievers. Looks like a salvation issue, wouldn’t you say? So, by Reformed reckoning, the guy was never a believer to start with. Clever.
When I was young, I was intimidated by the seemless garment of Calvinist reasoning. No loose threads to get a grip on to unravel. That is, until one day, I heard a debate on my car radio between a Baptist and a Church of Christ guy. Since then I have enjoyed listening debates between those denominations and the C of C always takes the prize. A funny one to listen to is Matt Slick’s. He tries schooling some poor CofC guy and when the guy can’t follow the Calvinist double talk, Slick loses his cool and starts insulting the man. The man goes on to slam dunk the debate. All Slick can do is call the fellow names and say he doesn’t understand how to read a Bible. Hilarious fun!
Not to say the C oC has it right. Unlike the True Church of Christ ( us ), who say Baptism is necessary by precept and means, the Protestant usurpers of the title stress only the necessity of precept. But they do it with such clarity and tenacity that the Baptist concept of Faith Alone is left in a shambles. Every time. No exceptions.
Like Nick says, the Baptist can only keep running to those passages that mention Faith and insist the other 99 passages can’t be right because the 1 they like will be undermined.
Kevin, I did indeed check out Robert’s rebuttal to my Marian stuff. He proves Nick right. He has no interest in the Bible other than a few lines he thinks Paul says in Romans.
So, Robert, Andrew Buckingham and you all concur with Nick.
I do remember Andrew Buckingham. His golf game has taken a toll, as of late, but his cyber persona survives all the same. Hope you all are well, out here. I’m not following all the happenings out here, but can answer questions, as you like. Take care.
Tim.
On this big week end I thought i would share with you.
By the way, who painted the picture of the dragon that you are using with your article ( some Catholic? )?
Jim, this video is really so sad. It is truly mind blowing how many have bought into this idolatry. I cannot believe my eyes…but as I reflect back upon my own Roman Catholic upbringing, there really is no other option but pure ignorance. I am glad that the National Covenant of Scotland changed all that for millions to see the enormous errors of antichrist.
Scotland? National Covenant of Scotland Walt?
Who are these men who sit in the Chair of Moses without authority? Who are this men who commit the crime of Kore? How dare laymen burn incense and offer sacrifice before the Lord?
Okay Walt, I’ll bite. Why do you keep harping on a bunch of Calvinists laymen from Scotland. Show me Scotland in the Bible!
Nick,
You said, “This wording suggests nothing about testing to see if the neophyte is a true believer. (An unbeliever cannot even be validly ordained in the first place.)”
Here is what Geneva notes say in the context of 1Tim.3:
1 Timothy 3:1 A Bishopric or the ministry of the word is not an idle dignity, but a work and that an excellent work: and therefore a Bishop must be furnished with many virtues both at home and abroad. Wherefore it be requisite before he be chosen, to examine well his learning, his gifts, and ableness, and his life.
1 Timothy 3:1 He speaketh not here of ambitious seeking, than the which there cannot be a worse fault in the Church, but general of the mind, and disposition of man, framed and disposed to help and edify the Church of God, when and wheresoever it shall please the Lord.
1 Timothy 3:2 Therefore he that shutteth out married men from the office of Bishops, only because they are married, is Antichrist.
1 Timothy 3:3 A common tippler, and one that will sit by it.
1 Timothy 3:6 Lest by reason that he is advanced to that degree, he take occasion to be proud, which will undo him, and so he fall into the same condemnation that the devil himself is fallen into.
Tim wrote:
“This is why we don’t ordain “neophytes” or “new plants” because they might not be saved, despite the fact that they initially “receive the word with gladness.” This reasoning is not the same as your characterization of my words as if I had said that “‘neophyte’ refers to someone ‘never saved in the first place’.” Rather, I was suggesting that “neophyte” refers to someone who may not be saved, and there is a difference between those two. Perhaps you can see the difference between saying someone is “not saved” and someone “may not be saved”? Over time, the evidence will be more clear, and therefore a policy of not ordaining a neophyte reduces the risk of ordaining an unbeliever. Your response indicates that you do not understand that.”
What I think you are missing is that contrary to your views that unbelievers cannot be ordained, in reality, many unbelievers are ordained. This is a MAJOR problem in both the RCC and in the Protestant churches. In fact, women are ordained, and homosexual adherents are ordained in violation of Scripture.
Your presupposition to the text is what is causing you the problem of understanding Tim’s argument, and being focused on only that one sentence (1Tim.3:6) to mean what you want it to mean. While you believe that men cannot be ordained who are unbelievers, Tim is saying that Paul knows that not only are some ordained who are unbelievers, but even some are ordained who are antichrist. For the record, even the devils believe and tremble (James2:9). In fact, Satan himself believes in Christ and has indwelled both Priests, Bishops, Ministers, the Papacy (from both RCC and Protestant churches) and is opposed to Christ. He knows Christ and opposes him in the form of false prophets, false ministers and antichrist.
Perhaps you don’t believe this, and see that all who are ordained are indeed saved, but some weak with pride, but in the entire context of 1Tim.3 (not just verse 6 on youthful pride) it is clear to beware of those Bishops who do NOT have a strong, moral history within the church and as Geneva notes testify, “Wherefore it be requisite before he be chosen, to examine well his learning, his gifts, and ableness, and his life.”
Walt,
You know Catholics reject this,
“Perhaps you don’t believe this, and see that all who are ordained are indeed saved, but some weak with pride, but in the entire context of 1Tim.3 (not just verse 6 on youthful pride)”
“Saved” Walt? Quit pretending you have forgotten your boyhood religion. Saved for us is when you saunter through the Pearly Gates.
As for being in a state of grace, that should go along with the Sacramental Character, but not necessarily.
Walt, where in the Bible do you see rebellion from authority condoned? There were sinful Levites and priests. Hophni for one. Why didn’t anybody separate and start a new Church in the O.T.
Why did David not kill Saul when he had a chance? Saul was bad and David the good guy.
How was Kaiphas able to prophecy in John’s Gospel. He was a villain.
What right did your bonny scotty lads have in separating from God’s anointed one?
Please, don’t rant about wicked Medici Popes or scandal or sinners. Nobody is contesting that.
Luther broke from God’s Anointed ( the Pope ) for doctrinal reasons. He did not remain in the Church and reform morals. He broke away. Show me a Biblical precedent for this act of insubordinate rebellion.
Jim, you said:
““Saved” Walt? Quit pretending you have forgotten your boyhood religion. Saved for us is when you saunter through the Pearly Gates.
As for being in a state of grace, that should go along with the Sacramental Character, but not necessarily.”
Ok, there was my mistake. I assumed (which was confusing to me) that Nick believed that all new plants were saved, and therefore could be ordained.
This was my mistake that he only means they believe in Jesus, not that they are saved, to be ordained. You are right, I should have been more careful as certainly everyone who gets ordained is a believer, but only the elect are saved.
From the point of Rome, yes, I know it is a moral transformation by infused righteousness over many years, including purgatory, before one is saved. That is why it was confusing me as I was thinking Nick meant saved, not just believe, as a requirement for ordination.
Thanks for the clarification.
We don’t want to get into justification vs. sanctification between Rome and Westminster. Westminster, Church of Scotland and Synod of Dort win that argument every time.
Jim, you wrote:
“Luther broke from God’s Anointed ( the Pope ) for doctrinal reasons. He did not remain in the Church and reform morals. He broke away. Show me a Biblical precedent for this act of insubordinate rebellion.”
Sure, here are a few…contained within the argument.
O Lord, thou knowest; remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in thy long-suffering; know that for thy sake I have suffered rebuke. Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts. I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation. Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? Wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail?
Therefore saith the Lord, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them. And I will make thee unto this people a fenced brazen wall: and they shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail against thee: for I am with thee to save thee and to deliver thee, saith the Lord. And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible. (Jer.15:15-21)
Object. 3. Do you the Dissenters think you are in the Right, and all the great and learned Ministers in this present Church in the Wrong? Sure we have both the greatest Men, and the greatest Number on our Side; you have only a few, and these of the weakest Sort, and your People are ignorant, &c.
Answ. 1. Though I would hope few should lay any Weight on this Objection; and it were enough to desire such who do lay Weight thereon to consider, John 7:47,48,49. with Mr Hutcheson’s Notes on that Chap. Yet I shall only say, That an impartial Observer will find that for most Part, in all Periods, God hath made Use of Nothings, not only to break the Ice to others, but to bear Testimony for Him: He hides from the Wise and Prudent, and reveals unto Babes: He makes the foolish Things of this World to confound the Wise, &c. Holy is our Sovereign, who doth what he will.
2. I own this Church hath the greatest Men, and the greatest Number on her Side; and so had the Jews in the Apostles Time; and so had the Papists at the Reformation, Revel. 13:3. The whole World wondered after the Beast and so have the Prelatists at this Day in Britain and Ireland. I wonder not to hear the old Cry, Have any of the Rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him? What if they do not? Will it follow, that Dissenters must not believe? Little did the Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, with the body of the Jewish Nation, think, that a few Men, Dissenters from the National Worship, were in the Right, and all they in the Wrong: They were so far from that Thought, that they counted them Ignorant, Deluded and Cursed; This People that know not the Law are cursed. If Christ’s Disciples were to go in the Way that the most or the greatest go, they might have no Cross to take up, which his Followers are sure to meet with.
3. When the Spirit of God would shew us how few they are that bear Witness to the Truths of Christ, he calls them two Witnesses, Rev. 11:3. to teach us not to choose our Religion by Multitudes, or reject Doctrines and precious Truths, because few believe and practice them; for that may be the right Way which few find, Matth. 7:14. and fewer care to walk in, when they know it.
4. I think they have little Reason to boast of their Multitudes, but rather to blush for their vain Conversation, and promiscuous Admission to Sealing Ordinances; for Multitudes of graceless Professors do but disgrace any Profession, and keep ferious Christians out of their Communion. (Andrew Clarkson, Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church of Scotland. Also, Their Principles Concerning Civil Government, and the Difference Betwixt the Reformation and Revolution Principles, 1731, page 185, emphasis added)
First, whatsoever reverence or dignity is by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures given to particular men in office, all of it is given, not properly to men themselves, but to the office of the ministry which those men occupy. Those particular men who are called of Christ to serve in an official capacity are “clothed” with the ministry. In essence, the official requirements of the ministry, and the associated spiritual power to fulfil their attendant duties are “committed” unto them (Exod.3:4 and 14:31; Duet.17:9,10; Mal.2:4,6; Ezek.3:17; Jer.23:28 and 1:6; Matt.28:19; Acts 15:10). Accordingly, these men, as official ministers called and sent of Christ, have been given a limited ministerial power to make subordinate rules and decrees. These rules and decrees do not bind except where and when they wholly conform to that first infallible and unerring rule prescribed by Christ Himself (Luke 22:25-27; 1Pe5:2,3; 2Tim.3:15,16,17; 1Thess.5:12; Eph.6:1). In essence, the authority of all ministerial rules and decrees are founded solely upon and wholly deprived from the Word of God. Not only is the authority associated with ministerial declarations of doctrinal abstractions, such as Confessions of Faith, solely dependent upon the authority of the written Word of God, but also the administration and exercise of the same-the practical out-working of these doctrinal positions in time and history-must also conform to this alone infallible rule, or else such rules, decrees, or practical examples of mere men have no binding authority (Isa.8:19,20; Mal.2:6,7; Matt.28:19). In so far as any ministerial declaration or practical application does actually err and decline from that which is taught in God’s Word, these officers do act without power and authority from Jesus Christ. Because they are commissioned by Christ, and clothed with the ministry, ministers may do nothing against the Truth, but only for the Truth (2Cor.13:8), with power that He has given unto edification and not unto destruction (2Cor.13:10). It is, therefore, both the duty and privilege of every church member to use his own judgment and discretion in order to examine every thing that a church judicatory decrees or declares. If after a diligent and impartial examination, any ministerial decree or practice is found to be “certainly” contrary to God’s Word, then these members are not to bring their conscience in bondage to the mere dictates of men (Isa.9:15,16; Jer.8:8,9; Mal.2:8,9; Isa.40:6-8; Rom.3:4; 1Cor.13:9-12). (The Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, (1) What authority does that historical testimony which is manifested in our subordinate standards actually possess? (2) What are the criteria by which we judge which subordinate documents are included among the historical testimony contemplated within our six terms of communion?, 1999, pg. 1-2, emphasis added)
We have searched after the mind of Christ, and have traced the footsteps of the prophets and apostles, in the Old and New Testament: and no where can we find in the scriptures of truth, either precept or precedent allowed of God for toleration of any error, much less did it ever come into his mind, or did he speak to any of his servants concerning a toleration of all error. As that infinitely glorious divine Essence is one in himself most holy, most righteous, most true, so hath he given unto the children of men, one eternal, unchangeable law, according to the rule whereof they are to square their profession, and order their conversation:… All those who have their senses in any measure exercised in the word of God will acknowledge that it is repugnant thereto, that any who are clothed with power œconomic, ecclesiastic or politic, should connive at any error in any of these that are subject to their jurisdiction, or allow it liberty by a law. Abraham did command his children and his household to keep the way of the Lord, and to do justice and judgment, Gen. 18.19. Jacob took order for purging of his household and all that were with him, from all the idols and strange gods that were amongst them, Gen. 35.2. David will have none of those who tell lies, but such as walk in a perfect way, to be in his house, Psalm 101. And the apostle Paul will have all pastors and deacons to rule their houses well, and to keep them in subjection, 1 Tim. 3. Neither is there less required of those who bear charge in the house of God. It was a special part of the office of Aaron and his sons to separate betwixt the precious and the vile: Jehoiada set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter therein, 2 Chron. 23.19. The apostle Paul would not give place unto those by subjection who came in privily to spy out the kirk’s liberty for the space of an hour, Gal. 2.5. and he will have an heretic after the first and second admonition to be rejected, Titus 3.10. And are not some of the churches of Asia commended for their diligence, and others of them reproved for their negligence herein, Rev. 2.2,6,14,15,20. (Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, A Solemn Testimony Against Toleration, and the present proceedings of the Sectaries and their Abettors, in England, in reference to Religion and Government, With the Answer, of Parliament, to the said Testimony, 1649, emphasis added)
Nick, you wrote:
“How does ‘new plant’ in any way suggest a plant that might not be real or genuine?”
Because the Scripture is very clear on this point. Tim explained it in detail with even examples. The problem again is your presupposition to the text. Once you get the presupposition wrong, it is generally all over for anyone interpreting Scripture.
Tim wrote:
“But Nick, this assumes that the only possible meaning of “neophyte” is “justified believer.” Your response is quite telling because you have dismissed my thinking on the grounds that “neophyte” clearly refers to a believer—the very thing that is in dispute.”
Did you not understand Tim was saying that your sole position to the text is that a neophyte can only be one who is saved, and a new plant who is saved, but could be filled with pride so he should not be ordained?
The passages before 1Tim.3:6 seem to be very clear that more evidence is needed for the Bishop to be ordained, and specific tests need to be completed…thus, likely eliminating the new plant who may or may not be saved, but clearly does testify that Jesus Christ is the son of God and places himself in the visible church. In fact, ministers come before Christ claiming to be preachers of the word of God, and performing many miracles, and Christ says, “I never knew you”.
The distinction perhaps you don’t see.
“The Visible Vs. The Invisible Church
What do we mean when we make the distinction between the visible and invisible church? And what is the reason for this distinction? Starting around the 4th century – the expression “Visible Church” was refered to by theologians, not to a building, but to the members on the rolls of a local church. In other words, all persons who are members of a local church are considered to be a part of the visible church.
On the other hand, the invisible church refers to those persons who have actually been regenerated or quickened by the Holy Sprit, God’s elect or true believers. Augustine referred to the church as a mixed body, a visible people, but this people has both tares and wheat, as described by Jesus. In other words, there is no such thing as a perfect church, and there will always people in the church there with bad motives or are there for the wrong reason.
There will always be people who claim to love Christ but whose heart is far from Him. Many, Jesus says, will say on that day, did we not do this and that in your name? Jesus wil then say, “I never knew you”. These are descriptions of some people now sitting in your local church and Jesus says of them that he “never knew them!!!” Some persons are in church for show, to be seen by men as pious, others perhaps for a social club or to show of their ability to wax eloquent when discussing theology. These persons hearts are completely invisible to us, but of course, they are not invisible to God and only He can know who is truly regenerate, so we must be generous in our judgements.”
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/05/the_visible_vs_the_invisible_c.php
Nick,
I’m a little bit disappointed in Kevin who has been very supportive of your biblical exegesis, but when you say this comment I’m not sure what bible you are reading:
“You would have Jerome saying that some people were ordained before they were believers? That’s an outrageous claim that nobody would ever make.”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone make such an anti-biblical statement so clear and to he point with such confidence.
Read your statement please. Do you really believe what you just wrote? I don’t even think Rome teaches what you teach, do they? Can you give me the Catechism reference that states all who are ordained are true believers without exception? If that is the case, which it may be now that I think about it, then the consequences are that every Priest, even those who are the vilest of pedophiles, are true believers when ordained.
Perhaps this is getting into whether justification is imputed righteousness by a Judicial act of Christ as taught by Westminster, or whether it is a moral transformation by infused righteousness as taught by Rome. With your exegetical view, I am not sure what line you are taking if you believe everyone ordained is justified…without exception.
Nick,
Wow, I have no earthly idea where you came up with your views on Protestantism. Your views are about as warped as those of most Protestants who are totally ignorant of reformed teaching. I’m sorry if you are offended with my word warped, but it means it is not in any way an accurate teaching of reformed theology. What you claim to see out there as Protestant teaching is not Protestant, but it is both destructive and damnable heresy.
You said:
“ANYTIME a Protestant body makes a Statement of Faith, they’re rank hypocrites for opposing Sola Ecclesia. Because if the Statement of Faith has true binding authority, they’ve just assumed the role of Magisterium. But if the Statement of Faith doesn’t have true binding authority, it’s a mere opinion which a Protestant is free to believe, edit, or outright reject.”
Then you say:
“The Westminster Confession says that Councils are not to be trusted because they have erred, and yet this statement doesn’t apparently include the Westminster itself. So you have Protestants at Westminster pretending to act as Magisterium while all the while denying such an authoritative body exists.”
Actually, the Church of Scotland and the Westminster Divines taught the WCF was INERRANT (without error), but that other counsels have ERROR…mostly Roman Catholic counsels.
Are you even familiar with Presbyterian form of church government which is totally opposite of the Independent or congregational form of church government? You seem to imply that Presbyterian form of government as fully demonstrated during the first and second reformations was somehow an independent form of government as taught by the Anabaptists, Baptists, non-denominational, evangelical, pentecostal churches. You obviously don’t know your church history, except for that with blinders on teaching only RCC dogma.
I’ve been where you are, and unlike where you are, I went through the painful exercise to reverse my thinking on what the “Protestants” teach, and had to look FAR FAR deeper in history to KNOW what true Protestants teach.
Walt,
Let me try to fill Nick’s shoes for a minute. ( he can improve on my statement when/if he logs on ).
Yes, indeed every Bishop pr priest that is ordained is a believer.
Remember Ambrose who, while still just a catechumen, was elected Bishop. He had to receive Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist, the sacraments of Initiation, before ordination. Same applies today. Only Baptized male believers are eligible for Holy Orders.
Can a priest fall into sin? Of course. Any believer can.
Your doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved, your definition of “believer’ has no meaning for us.
Nick, I think your argument also falls as I have mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5 where Paul delivers the mortal sinner over to Satan that his soul would be saved. God delivered Job over to Satan, and he was a believer. So the argument that being delivered over means you can’t be saved isn’t supported biblically.
Kevin,
You said “mortal sinner”. A mortal sinner is lost and will be lost eternally if he doesn’t repent before death. If the incestuous guy had died before repenting, he would have gone to hell.
We distinguish between a Church in a Reformed and settled state and confirmed with the constitutions of General Assemblies and the civil sanctions of Parliament; and a church in a broken and disturbed state. In the former, abuses and disorders can be orderly redressed and removed by church judicatories, but not so in the latter. Wherefore the most lawful, expedient and conduceable mean, for maintaining the attained unto Reformation, is to be followed in the time of such confusions and disturbances, and that is, (as we think) abstraction and withdrawing from such disorders in ministers which we cannot get otherways rectified (James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, p. 61, my emphasis)
We distinguish between a Reformed Church enjoying her privileges and judicatories and a Reformed church denuded of her privileges and deprived of her judicatories. In the former, people are to address themselves unto Church judicatories and not to withdraw from their ministers (especially for ordinary scandals); But in the latter, when ministers are really scandalous (though not juridically declared so) and duly censurable according to the Word of God, and their own church’s constitutions and censures cannot be inflicted through the want of church judicatories, and yet they still persist in their offensive courses, people may do what is competent to them and testify their sense of the justness of the censure to be inflicted, by withdrawing from such ministers even without the Presbyterial sentence (James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, pp. 61, 62, my emphasis).
In a constitute and settled case of the church, enjoying her privileges and judicatories, corruptions may be forborne, and the offended are not to withdraw, before recourse to the judicatories for an orderly redress; but in a broken and disturbed state, when there is no access to these courts of Christ; then people, though they must not usurp a power of judicial censuring these corruptions, yet they may claim and exercise a discretive power over their own practice; and by their withdrawing from such ministers as are guilty of them, signify their sense of the moral equity of these censures that have been legally enacted against these and the equivalent corruptions, and when they should be legally inflicted. As we do upon this ground withdraw from the prelatic curates, and likewise from some of our covenanted brethren, upon the account of their being chargeable with such corruptions and defections from our reformation, as we cannot but show our dislike of (Alexander Shields, A Hind Let Loose, 1797 edition, p. 266).
Neverthelesse, we are also very sensible of the great and imminent dangers into which this common cause of religion is now brought by the growing and spreading of most dangerous errours in England, to the obstructing and hindering of the begun reformation, as namely, (beside many others,) Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, Brownisme, Erastianisme, Independency, and that which is called (by abuse of the word) Liberty of Conscience, being indeed liberty of errour, scandall, schisme, heresie, dishnouring God, opposing the truth, hindering reformation, and seducing others; whereunto we adde those Nullifidians, or men of no religion, commonly called Seekers: Yea, we cannot but look upon the dangers of the true Reformed religion in this island as greater now then before, not onely for that those very principles and fundamentals of faith which, under Prelacy, yea, under Popery itself, were generally received as uncontroverted, are now, by the scepticisme of many sectaries of this time, either oppugned or called in question; but also, because in stead of carrying on the reformation towards perfection, that which hath been already built is in part cast down, and in danger to be wholly overthrown through the endeavours of sectaries to comply with many of the Prelaticall and Malignant, and even the Popish party; and their joyning hand in hand, and casting in their lots, and interweaving their interests together in way of combination against the Covenant and Presbyteriall government; yea, the unclean spirit which was cast out, is about to enter againe, with seven other spirits worse then himselfe, and so the latter end like to be worse then the beginning. (Sess. 15, August 20, 1647, ante meridiem.—A Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their Brethren of England, emphasis mine.)
Walt, why are you disappointed in me. I’m not supportive of Nick’s exegesis. I just said that he was prepared for an argument unlike other Catholics i’ve argued with. I disagree with Nick’s exegesis. Clear
Kevin, Nick just might have to much sense to get embroiled in a food fight with you. Nobody can best you. Not because you are such an apologist, but because nobody can make a dent in your stubborn refusal to learn. ( We don’t worship bread, Jesus isn’t bleeding on our altars, Mary isn’t a Goddess*, we aren’t Pelagians,, etc. )
Nick! If you take Kevin on, my money is on him!Nobody has ever beaten Kevin yet. He will even tell you that you don’t know Catholicism as well as he does because he can say ex opere operato. You haven’t got a chance against World Champion Kevin).
*By the way Champ, the feminine form of Lord is not ‘Lordess”. It is “Lady”.
Walt,
Since I am asking you about disobedience, insubordination and rebellion against God’s plan, let me ask you why you brazenly defy God and not obey His mandate that you take Mary as your mother?
From the cross, as He was saving the world, with His dying breath, He charged Mary with mothering His disciples. Do you refuse to be a disciple? By what impudence do you decide to go to Jesus outside of His system, His chain of command. Were you ever in the service Walt? If yes, were you authorized to step up and address your commanding officer without going through channels? Christ set up Mary as Mother of all who follow Him.
You were a Catholic and turned your back on God’s plan of salvation to follow a bunch of guys wearing kilts.
Know Mary, Know Jesus. No Mary, No Jesus. Now get back in the Catholic Church and obey God.
Jim,
You are making fun of the wrong guy. I’ve never been one to submit to bullies or to those who make fun of my decisions. I’ve read your posts on here for a few weeks, and to be frank the more I see you post defending RCC the more I know why I left the church. Not to be mean toward you, but your arguments are very immature on Scripture and even more on being persuasive toward returning to Rome.
After I started reading the reformers, and compared them with the likes of men such as yourself in your “biblical” or “historical” arguments it was like comparing night and day. I could not put their books down, and when I really started comparing Scripture with Scripture, I could see the deceptions that Rome has laid before you coming from all different directions.
You have bought hook, line and sinker into a global cult and antichrist. I wish you could see even some of her errors that she is preaching and practicing, but I fear you see nothing wrong with anything Rome teaches. You are sincerely convinced that what she says is the truth, but just read your posts as it is so far from being what the great reformers taught, and cannot compare with with true ministers and faithful church courts I’ve quoted above teach.
Your welcome to belittle me if you want as you do Kevin. It does not effect me at all.
Walt,
Please. Don’t play what Tim so eloquently calls “victim politics”. You have said some rather unflattering things about my decisions too. I haven’t noticed any reticence on your part to refrain from the wacky caricaturing of the Church along with your two buds. You seem to relish it.
One elephant standing in the living room in your post above though, you said you started reading the Deformers and comparing them to scripture. I get the impression you ain’t no whipper snapper, my age at least, pre-Vatican II kid, right?
Then you must have been warned about reading bad books. You were already a rebel with one foot out of the Church before you ever started reading forbidden literature. So, please, don’t pretend you studied your way into Protestantism. You disobeyed your way there. You didn’t have an intellectual epiphany if you were sneaking around reading evil lies and confusion behind your parents’ backs.
You were looking for a door out and found it in heresy. You just as well could have become an atheist, Buddhist, or Mormon.You fit the pattern Walt.
After so many years, you may still get back on your death bed if you start now saying one ejaculation daily. Say, “My Jesus mercy”. Or, ” O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine, all praise and all thanksgiving, be every moment Thine”. Or. ” O Mary Conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee”. Just something little at first Walt. I will pray for you.
Jim, you wrote:
“Please. Don’t play what Tim so eloquently calls “victim politics”.”
I think the difference is that you seem to relish in personal attacks against those who disagree with you, while most of us protestants tend to attack the Romish system and antichrist heresies that you promote here. You might call this “victim politics” but we are fully aware of the history of Rome and its persecution and torture of those who do not agree with your system. It is an enormously evil and wicked system that seeks the blood of the saints, as is fully documented in history.
You wrote:
“I get the impression you ain’t no whipper snapper, my age at least, pre-Vatican II kid, right?”
No, I was born after Vatican II.
You wrote:
“Then you must have been warned about reading bad books. You were already a rebel with one foot out of the Church before you ever started reading forbidden literature. So, please, don’t pretend you studied your way into Protestantism. You disobeyed your way there. You didn’t have an intellectual epiphany if you were sneaking around reading evil lies and confusion behind your parents’ backs.”
This very fascinating position. This comment is the fundamental position taken by those in Rome who used it to literally martyr thousands of protestants. The argument was that anyone who was caught reading Scripture or studying history outside of what Rome taught was put to death if they did not recant their position, and seek forgiveness from Rome.
Your implied threats (by claiming I have done what is forbidden by Rome and its adherents as a child) is taken very serious in one sense. The killing of the witnesses spoken of in Rev. 11 is yet to come, but there are many that will face exactly the charges you have leveled against those of us as former Catholics.
While you make jokes about the entire Nation of Scotland, and what she did to put a massive dent in the global growth of Roman Catholicism, I admit that those teachings of the greatest reformers and the most faithful protestants have been largely silenced in our generation. The “killing times” in Scotland largely backed by Rome, and certainly backed by Roman theology to execute any who did not conform to their theology and recant, is a part history forbidden by Catholics to read and research.
I certainly will never recant my testimony against Rome, and know that it is likely possible my head is targeted as a Covenanter as the voice across the world grows louder. Right now the voice is near silent, and only a very small movement is trying to protest against Rome, but she is massive and growing immensely larger with agreements to partner with multiple protestant evangelical sects. I have friends that are Catholic that would never think of raising their hands against any for their disagreement, but there are those like yourself who are so brain washed, and much of a Jesuit like defender of the Papacy that blood is just a matter of getting the laws passed to use the power of the sword and the church as one unified executor…as we know from history.
I can see this in your demeanor, and by your testimony, and for that I take it serious as we watch more power come out of Rome with your current Papacy who is getting the world to follow him with blind faith.
Jim, the bible says you can’t serve two masters, for you will hate the one and love the other, and you will worship the one and despise the other. You and Debbie and CK and all your Mary worshiping Catholics friends hate Christ by worshiping Mary. Thats the plain truth. So do me a favor and quote that verse over there and tell them what I said. So take your dulia and your works to the eschaton Jim, and see how that wrks out for you. 2 Timothy 1:9 ” who has saved and called us with a holy calling, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS, but according to his purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ FROMM ALL ETERNITY. Before any infused medicine Jim. So you and Nick can bring all your cooperation and synergism you want, you can’t change it.
Kevin, Just out of curiosity, your bros over on the Jason’s blog don’t think you are being persecuted, do they? Eric did try to tone you down but you weren’t going for it. I see Roberts name still popping up there. The new is still there fighting with Mateo.
Only you,out of all the Prots, think you got shafted, huh?
Kevin, Indeed I do worship Mary. With Hyperdulia. I render her the worship ( worthiness ) God requires of me to go to heaven ( No faith alone for me sir! )
I have told you til I am blue in the face that I worship God with Latria, though.
I love the Bible. The Word is sharper than a two edged sword. That sword cuts through the devil’s lies and says to join with all generations of beloved disciples and call Mary blessed.
The Word also says to call God “Abba’ and Mary “Mother”. And Queen. Queen of Heaven. ( We Baptized the title from the pagans).
The Bible is profitable for teaching and equipping the man of God ( child of Mary ) for every good synergistic, grace empowered work so I can merit an increase of sanctifying grace and get into heaven. Just like St. Paul says we must do in Romans 1.
You really ought to study the Bible, Kevin. Don’t just read the letters. Read it with love and not as a sword drill for insulting Mary’s other children ( she has millions of children, not just a handful.)
You really should learn your prayers Kevin. Your parents are going to want a son,( Monica had Augustine,) to pray for them after they leave this vale of tears. You are going to wish you could help them and make up for being such a disappointment to them after they are gone. You are going to wish you were a Catholic.
Kevin,
You said:
“You and Debbie and CK and all your Mary worshiping Catholics friends hate Christ by worshiping Mary. Thats the plain truth. So do me a favor and quote that verse over there and tell them what I said.”
I don’t think I would say they hate Christ. It is a bit strong as they visibly testify to love Christ and to love being a Catholic Christian. It is best not to use those types of words unless you can prove from their own testimony that they hate Christ. I don’t think you can.
What has happened is that they are violating Scripture by following so many false doctrines that have been codified and canonized by Rome over the centuries…and by implied faith and blind faith they follow these from birth to death.
For example, the National Covenant of Scotland gives an excellent point by point summary of the doctrines they follow from Sacred tradition in contradiction to Holy Scripture. Here is a quote for your reference:
“But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ, and his blessed evangel; his corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God’s law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law; the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments without the word of God; his cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ’s body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage forbidden in the word; his cruelty against the innocent divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his profane sacrifice for sins of the dead and the quick; his canonization of men; calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relicks, and crosses; dedicating of kirks, altars, days; vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead; praying or speaking in a strange language, with his processions, and blasphemous litany, and multitude of advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their sins; his justification by works, opus operatum, works of supererogation, merits, pardons, peregrinations, and stations; his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, sayning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God’s good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith; his worldly monarchy, and wicked hierarchy; his three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers or approvers of that cruel and bloody band, conjured against the kirk of God.
And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions brought in the kirk, without or against the word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed kirk; to the which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same in Christ our head: promising and swearing, by the great name of the LORD our GOD, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this kirk
[The Confession which was subscribed at Halyrud-house the 25th of February 1587-8, by the King, Lennox Huntly, the Chancellor, and about 95 other persons, hath here added, “Agreeing to the word.” Sir John Maxwell of Pollock hath the original parchment.], and shall defend the same, according to our vocation and power, all the days of our lives; under the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God’s fearful judgment.”
This was the heart of the reformed true Protestant reformation and made a major impact on the European continent….and most certainly colonial America. Rome did not have the foothold here that she had in some parts of Europe, and even the Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox would testify against Rome until lately they have been finding common ground…as are the Protestants.
Where are the true reformed Protestants in our generation?
Walt,
“I don’t think I would say they hate Christ. It is a bit strong as they visibly testify to love Christ and to love being a Catholic Christian. It is best not to use those types of words unless you can prove from their own testimony that they hate Christ. I don’t think you can.”
Thanks for the blast of sanity!
Walt, Did I read you correctly, the WCF is inerrant? But Catholic councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon not?
Yes, the WCF is an inerrant document. It contains no errors as to its testimony in being founded upon the true meaning of Scripture. However, it is not infallible, nor claims in fallibility by its authors. The WCF is not perfect. There are biblical proof texts that are not as clear as others could be, and some of the wording is confusing to simple readers who were not involved in producing the same.
When it was approved by the common people in Scotland, then was finally approved by the Church of Scotland general assembly, then approved by the English parliament, it because a subordinate standard to Scripture and incredible testimony against Rome heresy.
There is a huge difference between what Rome teaches to be sacred tradition as defined by her, and what is infallible as defined by the Papacy, and what is totally inerrant tradition of the system of the Cardinals and Bishops, vs. what is a subordinate standard to Scripture that was approved by the highest courts in Scotland and Parliament as inerrant, due to it being founded upon Scripture alone and in agreement with Scripture alone.
The typical error of the Protestant in our generation is that something is not true unless it is quoting the bible alone. In one extreme Rome teaches her counsels and Papacy are inerrant using sacred tradition, extra biblical miracles, signs in the heavens and wonders upon the earth as superior to Scripture, while the evangelical and independent Protestants claim there is no such things as making a statement of truth that can be without error unless you quote exactly the King James version of the Bible word for word.
Both sides are in gross error and heretical in their teaching.
Walt, It’s inerrant but not infallible? Not perfect. Walt, how do you know? You really have delved into the history and particulars of this stuff.
I could weep. You know zero about what the real Church teaches as you reveal by your unbelievable ignorance on purgatory.
I find you so … wicked?…gullible?…pathetic…infuriating?…I can’t find the right word. Yes, I know about the Reformation in Scotland, Mary being badgered by Knox until she was murdered by her own cousin so she could steal the monarchy, Bonnie Prince Charlie, James1/6 and how he didn’t save his own mother, etc. etc. I have read a book or two also Walt.
You are the MOST simple and gullible Protestant I have ever met. You must be of Scottish descent and worship bloodline over God. That’s all I can figure.
Blood on the hands of Rome in Scotland throughout the Killing Times…one of the most brutal and evil periods in history of Rome.
“In 1685 Charles II was succeeded by his Roman Catholic brother, James II and VII. James was not naturally sympathetic to Covenanters. He understandably saw them as troublemakers and initially tried to end their influence in Scotland. The new king also tried to impose religious tolerance of Roman Catholics and to a lesser extent Protestant Dissenters, but antagonized many of the Anglican establishment by this action as they were suspicious of Catholic power.
James’ half-hearted attempts to woo the Presbyterians seemingly did not win him much popularity among that section of society either. They remembered his earlier suppression of them and did not believe him to be sincere in his recognition of Presbyterianism. Although these actions were widely unpopular, at first the majority of his subjects tolerated these acts because James was in his 50s and both of his daughters were committed Protestants. It seemed that James’ reign would be short and the throne would soon return to Protestant hands.
In 1688 however James’s young second wife Mary of Modena gave birth to a boy, Prince James who was promptly baptized a Roman Catholic. Due to English and Scottish succession laws, Prince James immediately supplanted his older half sisters as heir to the throne. Now the prospect of a Catholic dynasty on the English, Scottish and Irish thrones seemed all but certain.
The “Immortal Seven” invited James’s daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange to depose James and jointly rule in his place. On 4 November 1688 William arrived at Torbay, England. After he landed, James fled London, returned and finally left for France on 23 December. In February 1689 the Glorious Revolution formally changed England’s monarch, but many Catholics, Episcopalians and Tory royalists still supported James as the constitutionally legitimate monarch.”
Nick or any Catholic out there! What do you think of Walt’s fixation on Scotland? He knows zip about Catholicism but waxes on about how bad it was a kid. He believes some guys in Scotland to be the anointed of God.
He presents this stuff from history as if I am supposed to drop to my knees and see the light.
I gotta say that I question the mental capacity of all 3 amigos on this site. Wild eyed fanatics.
For those who want to do their own research. Even with Jim telling all you Roman Catholics you are forbidden to read this information, and forbidden to do your own due diligence on the blood stained hands of Rome, I would encourage you to ignore Jim and Rome’s threats toward any Catholic who does this research by claiming you will commit sin against Jesus Christ, Mary and her Romish church. Research it for yourself.
“The “Killing Times”
The period from 1680 until 1685 was one of the fiercest in terms of persecution and a few months between 1684-5 became forever known as the “Killing Times”. Charles’ brother James II had come to the throne, he was a believer in the Devine Right of Kings and a supporter of the Roman Catholic faith. It became his sworn intent to totally eradicate the Presbyterians.
Parish Lists were drawn up in accordance with instructions to the Episcopalian Curates to furnish Nominal Rolls of all persons, male and female, over the age of 12 within their Parishes. The Ministers were ordered to give “..a full and complete Roll of all within the Parish” and “that to their Knowledge they give Account of all Disorders and Rebellions, and who are guilty of them, Heritors or others..”
Their instructions concluded, “..No remarks need be made upon these Demands made upon every Curate in every Parish; they are plain enough, as also their Design..”
The ‘design’ of this census was obviously to assist in the control and persecution of the Covenanters. The list drawn up for Wigtownshire in 1684, featured a total of 9,276 individuals in the 19 Parishes and was probably ordered by John Grahame of Claverhouse who had been appointed the Sheriff of Wigtownshire.
Amongst the list were – Marion Sorbie from Auchleand, Burgh of Wigtown; Catherine Sorbie from Lochans, Parish of Inch; John and James Sorbie from Minnigaff and Patrick Sorbie from Claughan of Penninghame.
These were the most horrific and atrocious times ever inflicted on the people of Scotland. The Covenanters were now flushed out and hunted down as never before and the common soldier was empowered to take life at will of any suspect without trial of law. Usually it was done without any evidence and often as the result of the suspicions of an over-zealous town official or Minister.
***Brutality in these days defied the imagination and the persecution had no mercy on man, woman or child, irrespective of circumstances. Any class of Covenanter once caught by the King’s troops was shot or murdered on the spot. The following are some examples of these crimes:***
http://www.sorbie.net/covenanters.htm
Nick or any Catholic out there! What do you think of Walt’s fixation on Scotland? He knows zip about Catholicism but waxes on about how bad it was a kid. He believes some guys in Scotland to be the anointed of God.
He presents this stuff from history as if I am supposed to drop to my knees and see the light.
I gotta say that I question the mental capacity of all 3 amigos on this site. Wild eyed fanatics.
Kevin, Why didn’t you present this to Eric on Jason’s site. He is the Anglican/Episcopalian. We Catholics did not persecute Presbyterians.
That is the mark of a bigot. To hate without investigating. You blame Catholics for what Prots did to Prots.
Jim, Robert argues like a Protestant, and Eric is a chameleon. Eric W is not affected. My wife has a word to describe people with allot of money ( we know many , and we have been blessed too) “affected” Many Protestants on Jason’s site are “affected” by the roman enchantment. Few see it for what it is, antichrist.
Oh. I thought you accused Robert of treating you like a red headed step child. You seem to run out of bros Kevin. None of them are up to you speed. You are ” more Protestant than thou” with all of them.
Tim,
Nick said the following:
“This wording suggests nothing about testing to see if the neophyte is a true believer. (An unbeliever cannot even be validly ordained in the first place.)”
I wrongly assumed that when Nick means believer or unbeliever, he is not referring to someone who is born again or justified by faith alone. Rather, he means just that the Priest or Minister “believes” in Jesus. Thus, he is right in the sense that nobody who does not “believe” in Jesus would ever be ordained a priest or minister.
I forget about his presupposition as a Roman Catholic, and while we were both trying to explain to him that someone could be ordained and not be justified, he was saying all that are ordained do believe…not that they are justified, but just believe.
Jim brought this to my attention as in the RCC they do not believe a person is totally saved until they get to the pearly gates so to speak. They could end up in purgatory with family and friends praying for them to get to the pearly gates, and then they will be finally saved in heaven. I was obviously taught this view, but since I’ve been away from it so long it did not strike me as possible until Jim reminded me of what Nick meant by believing vs. being saved or justified.
It really is fascinating to think about the extent of the teaching of Rome on justification by works through purgatory and up to the pearly gates before the Judgement begins. I used to burn so many candles…now it all comes back to me why.
Walter!
“They could end up in purgatory with family and friends praying for them to get to the pearly gates, and then they will be finally saved in heaven. ”
The people in Purgatory are saved!
Shame on you for your rash judgment. You don’t know what we believe but you do know you want to attack it. Hmmmmmm/
Jim, you wrote:
“Kevin,
You said “mortal sinner”. A mortal sinner is lost and will be lost eternally if he doesn’t repent before death. If the incestuous guy had died before repenting, he would have gone to hell.”
Question: Does this apply to Roman Catholics who have been baptized if he did not repent? Would he go to purgatory to receive prayers to enter heaven, or as baptized would he go straight to hell as a mortal sinner?
Straight to hell. Purgatory is for people on their way up.
Walt, I am dumbfounded that you don’t know the answer to the question you just asked. And yet you attack the Catholic Church?
You know Walt, you either never leaned what the Church teaches as a boy or the devil has wiped it out of your memory.
In either case, why are you attacking us if you don’t even know what we believe? Why not spend a little time in study? You spent quite a bit of time and energy reading the Reformers. Doesn’t justice demand that you at least take the time to know what I believe BEFORE denouncing it?
That question is one every Catholic child can answer in a second.
Thanks, Jim. Your comment here is pretty important because, as you noted, someone who is baptized but has not repented of his sins, is as lost as he was before he was baptized. On that note, perhaps it will be good to recall that Jerome was offended that people were being ordained as bishops who had only the day before been performing in the arena, the circus and the theater, and apparently had not repented of their sins:
We note that these three activities are the activities of unbelievers, at least in Jerome’s view:
Therefore, I will reiterate my previous assertion that when Jerome was scandalized because people were being ordained as bishops “actually before they are disciples” (Jerome, To Oceanus, 9), he was explicitly concerned that unbelievers were being ordained. The fact that they were baptized, as you noted, did not mean they were repentant or even Christian.
Thanks for your comment,
Tim
Tim, Wow! Where did you find this quote? I love it as I really like Jerome (and his spunky manner of calling a spade a spade.)
I would agree that some guys get ordained that shouldn’t be. But I don’t say they aren’t truly ordained. Remember that 3 of the sacraments give a Character or tattoo/brand/dying/pickling that cannot be taken away or repeated. Of course, sanctifying grace should accompany this mark or seal, but it doesn’t have to.
I still can’t imagine a gladiator becoming a Bishop! Interesting, huh?
Walt, I didn’t say they hate Christ, the bible did. ” you cannot serve two masters, for your will love the one and hate the other” Isaiah 48 says He shares his Glory with no other. It is a serious thing to give worship to Mary. If Mary worship is idol worship, then those that do it are enemies of God. The bible clearly teaches that unbelievers are enemies of God, and Romans 1 says that his wrath is being poured out against all ungodliness now, men who suppress the truth. IMHO Walt to soft pedal the Mary thing to Catholics is not wise. Tim has pointed out that basically Mary has replaced Christ as mediator in the RC. This might seem to strong to you. But I don’t think so.
Thanks Kev, I am storing all this up for copy and pasting should you ever try crashing a Catholic blog again, I think what you said about Lordress is more than enuff but every little bit of evidence helps. So, sing more little birdie.
Kevin,
You wrote:
““You and Debbie and CK and all your Mary worshiping Catholics friends hate Christ by worshiping Mary. Thats the plain truth.”
and you said:
“Walt, I didn’t say they hate Christ, the bible did.”
and you said:
“IMHO Walt to soft pedal the Mary thing to Catholics is not wise. Tim has pointed out that basically Mary has replaced Christ as mediator in the RC. This might seem to strong to you. But I don’t think so.”
The Scripture says, “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matt.7:4-5)
So if you claim the RCC hates Christ because of idol worship, and false worship, and that you did not say that they hate Christ but the Bible says they hate Christ, it is odd when I read what you wrote as you specifically said they hate Christ in your own words. The reference to serving two masters can be used as a proof text for idol worship, but let’s go a bit further into your own worship principles and practices. For now, I will give you the fact that Roman Catholics are involved in false worship (e.g., will worship) and by extension hate Christ.
Please explain to me how you worship Christ? What is your daily, weekly and annual events that you worship Christ? Would you mind listing or me what you do for these worship services, and how you worship the Lord yourself?
This will be helpful for me to understand you as a reformed Protestant, and highly skilled and firm vocalist against these
Roman Catholics. I’m eager to understand your own convictions, principles and practices on the subject. I had to go through the same observations myself so I’m not asking you to do something I myself have not done.
Walt, And while you are at it, ask Kevin if he strives for sanctity without which he won’t see God. Any good works to increase in holiness? Or just angry blogging?
Kevin,
Another quick question. If there are elect within the RCC who are worshiping Mary, what is your view about these elect? Would you say their sins are forgiven as they worship Mary and are the elect, or would you say they are not the elect until they leave the worship of Mary?
Glad to see you, like the serpent, know where the dividing line is. Mary!
Walt, I worship God thru faith alone in Christ alone daily, weekly and yearly. I worship Him in Spirit and in truth, the way the scripture commands me. I am Reformed. I attend a Bible church weekly that preaches the word of God and has a strong emphasis on the Lord’s supper. I am a 5 point Calvinist. I am a strong supporter of the the great confessions of faith. WCF, Belgic, etc. I was saved in John MacArthur’s church in 1980 out of a sinful life as a professional musician in Los Angeles during his sermon on Mathew 7. I am married for 28 years. My wife is a believer and we live in Scottsdale AZ. And we have been in the same bible study for 25 years. You should maybe look at that scripture you quoted me about the log in one’s eye. Because it was you who rebuked me. When I said i didn’t say it , I meant that the reason I made that statement was not because of my personal judgment, but because of the verse about the two masters which I believe teaches by serving two masters ( Mary and Jesus) you hate the one and love the other. Jim has told me that he worships Mary, Debbie was a close personal friend of ours for 28 years and I know her position on Mary, and CK has staunchly defended the same on Jason’s blog. I can tell you that I have boulders in my eye that I deal with every day. I will consider your words and if I am convicted the rebuke applies I’ll apply it, and if it is a value judgment on your part then I’ll dismiss it. How about you Walt, how do you worship?
Kevin, Now you are alienating Walt like you did to your bros on Jason’s.
I think you have mental issues.
By the way, to serve Jesus and Mary is to serve One Master.
Walt. i will grant that their are elect in the RC. I am not God and do not pronounce judgment on anyone. Is it possible to be elect and worship Mary. Possibly. The man in 1 Corinthians had his father’s wife and Paul said he was more sinful than all the gentiles and he was saved. I however think it is a serious thing to worship Mary, and also participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass. I would say that anyone who is trusting in their works in any way for final justification isn’t a believer according to my understanding of Paul, and i would say anyone worshiping Mary isn’t elect. But thats my informed fallible opinion. I’m not infallible.
Thanks for not pronouncing judgment on me for obeying God’s command to worship Mary with Hyperdulia, You are so generous to permit people to do what the Bible tells them to do, O great One.
( Are you sure you are not God? You kinda’ talk like you are. )
Jim, Tim is one of the few ex Catholics that don’t tread lightly with Rome, and I thank God for the guy.. He says things like a warrior. IMHO most of the Reformed, many ex Catholics, still tread lightly. Mathew 11:12 Jesus says” from the days of John the baptist until now the kingdom of God suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” We are playing for keeps here. Taking a beachhead in WW2 wasn’t blowing kisses. I got no problem telling you your worship of Mary is idolatry, and following justification by faith plus works is a false gospel. Read the small cald articles. Those men lost their lives for putting it in the face of Rome. We should always do it in love, but what you think of my posts makes no difference to me. Tim said he doesn’t consider Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ, and neither do I.
Kevin, Taking a beech head aint blowin’ no kisses, eh? Macho talk.
Really? You were sure blowing kisses and batting your eyelashes on Jason’s blog when you weren’t man enough to speak up when I asked you to respond to this:
“Tim said he doesn’t consider Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ, and neither do I.”
You went silent as you were afraid he would tell you to leave his blog. You were sure playing it safe then. No beech head taking.
Oh, and does this mean, tough guy, that Nick isn’t your brother after all?
Jim, yes I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling, and I try to obey God’s law. But I live my life by faith alone in Christ alone, and am trusting Christ and his righteousness for my salvation. My righteousness isn’t derived form his righteousness, it is his righteousness. I believe the Romans 7 man, as Augustine did late in his life, was the one of the most mature believers in Scripture. Obviously Paul’s life. The closer we get to God, the more we see our sinfulness, the more we understand the “free gift of righteousness” Thats why Paul says in Romans 8:1 ” there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ” Therefore in Scripture usually means in light of everything I just said in chapter 7.
Jim, I’m not alienating Walt, he is my brother in Christ.
Me too.
Jim, I couldn’t speak up remember because you act like an idiot constantly stomping your feet at everything I said, calling me an ignorant monkey, a puke, to get me thrown off. So my hands were tied. And Jason bought your act, because Jason is no where to be found on his site, or he would not have known that i behaved just a as he asked me to. He just bought what you said and did. Jason doesn’t want any real push back, he just wants all his Roman butt kissers, and the so called reformed on that site who got more colors coming of their back than a chameleon. Jason loves to hear them disagree, because they do it so agreeable. Eric W is solid and Robert makes good arguments. Other than that its a Roman fashion show with a little complaining. I pushed back hard and got booted. I even behaved and got booted. And Jason said the second time it was because I rebutted and responded negatively to Roman doctrine. I felt like saying no S——-t. But I kept from sinning. Go back to your Code, cult, and false creed club.
You pushed back hard and got booted? How about you made a fool of yourself and got booted.
Nick , by denying Christ Peter lost his justification until he repented. Really? Peter said he had an inheritance, imperishable reserved in heaven for him that could not fade away.
Kevin,
Yes. The alternative to what I proposed is to say (as Calvinists would say) that Peter remained just as justified as ever before, even in the midst of denying Jesus. Frankly, I cannot think of a more absurd claim, that someone is saved right in the midst of denying Jesus. When Jesus said “Whoever denies me before men, I will deny before the Father” is thus reduced to an empty threat, a lie even. In the Catholic view, God Providentially allowed Peter to fall into mortal sin and Providentially pulled Peter out of mortal sin. The Catholic view here gives glory to God, while the Reformed conclusion mocks God.
Nick, I missed this post. So Peter went into mortal sin when he denied Christ lost his salvation and the regained his salvation? You said” frankly I cannot think of a more absurd claim, that someone is saved in the midst of denying Jesus.” I can. That a believer can lose his salvation for denying Christ 3 times when the scripture says there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. When Jesus talks about ” if you deny me, I will deny you, He is talking about rejecting Christ for salvation. Peter was faithless but Christ remains faithful.
Tim,
I am having trouble tracking down your last comment addressed to me, so I cannot reply directly under it. You had posted your response to me in a comment today (May 13) at 11:34am, my timezone. You began talking about how I can have the last word and you spent your post addressing my charge of doctrinal relativism. This is my response.
You have said Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura are epistemologically equivalent. But you keep insisting that as a Catholic I cannot really know which of Rome’s words are defining dogma and which are not. If so, then that makes Catholicism a religion without (discernible) dogmas. If that’s an equivalent boat to be in as Sola Scriptura, then no (discernible) dogmas can make up Protestantism either. Thus, doctrinal relativism is the ultimate result for both of us (by your logic). And that makes neither of our positions worthy of acceptance by either of us.
I believe I have shown many times that there is no mechanism for defining no dogmas in Protestantism, which I’ve not seen you really object to.
Your example from 1 Kings 13, as I understand it, is missing the point completely. What you appear to be saying from the 1 Kings 13 example is that we are given two sources of information, one of which is inspired and one of which is not-inspired. And from there, what you are saying is that in deciding which source to follow, we take either as a complete package and derive our doctrines according to the source chosen. But this isn’t the issue at all, and in fact is a red-herring.
Obviously, neither of us should be following uninspired sources. So the assumption when testing each theory should be that we are both following inspired sources (at least within our own paradigms), and at least we can agree upon that the Scriptures are inspired.
So given that the Scriptures are inspired, that they are the Word of God, how the Scriptures are interpreted is the issue at hand. This is what you fail to see or at least fail to address.
When we come upon any given passage of Scripture, we know it’s inspired, so that’s not the problem.
When we come upon a given passage of Scripture, it’s in “plain English” most of the time, so that’s not the problem.
What the problem *is*, which you’re not seeing, is that given an inspired passage of Scripture that’s in “plain English,” how do we determine if it’s a dogmatic teaching and what it’s parameters are? That’s the issue: distinguishing inspired essentials from inspired non-essentials.
As an example, we know the Bible mentions Baptism many times. Those passages are plain to read. But what aspects of Baptism, if any of them, are actually to be believed as dogma? Is Baptism by full immersion? Is Infant Baptism to be done? Is Baptism in the name of Jesus alone valid? Must a person be Baptized to be saved, especially if Baptism is seen as symbolic?
If these questions CANNOT be answered by some *mechanism* (e.g. a magisterium), then that’s equivalent to saying each aspect is a non-essential and thus Christian is free to believe whatever they want. That’s doctrinal relativism, and you cannot have a religion without dogmas.
The moment you answer those questions from the perspective as *pastor*, telling your flock they *must* believe certain things about Baptism, you’ve assumed the role of magisterium, whether you realize it or not. But Protestantism formally denies any pastor has the power/authority to teach ‘you must believe X’ about any given inspired text, so you as a Protestant by your very position lack this *mechanism* for establishing the dogmatic parameters of your religion.
So the issue isn’t whether the source is inspired, because it is inspired. The issue isn’t about whether the text is intelligible as “plain English,” because often times it is intelligible as “plain English.” The issue *is* whether any given statement falls into the category known as ‘essentials’.
In Conclusion, the question of WHICH sources are inspired is *different* from the equally important question of *WHAT* statements of the inspired source are dogma.
Lastly, you said: “The foundation of my faith rests entirely upon the unprovable assumption that the Scriptures alone are God’s testimony of His Son.”
I’m not sure if this is poor wording, but the very way this is worded reeks of Pelagianism and Fideism. You should never be “unprobably assuming” anything concerning theological matters. A Catholic absolutely does not do this, and neither should you. You ONLY trust a source claiming to be inspired by (a) using your mind to see if the source has marks of credibility, and (b) trusting that God is leading you in the process. If you lack #a, then that’s Fideism, and if you lack #b, that’s Pelagianism.
What you’re *effectively* saying is that the Man of God in 1 Kings 13 had a 50/50 chance of choosing correctly when it came to God’s Word versus Prophet’s Word, and that either choice was an “unprovable assumption.” That’s ridiculous. At best, you’re not being careful with terminology, and at worst you’re reducing Christianity to a blind leap.
Given your last few paragraphs, your approach to philosophy-theology is extremely dubious and of a worse position to be in than Mormonism.
You should NEVER speak of accepting the Bible on a blind leap of faith. Catholics and Protestants accept the Bible because (1) it gives us credible motives to do so on the level of our use of Reason, and (2) the Holy Spirit leads us to recognize it as God’s Word. There is NO assumptions and no lack-of-proof here. Now we COULD BE mistaken in areas #1 or #2, which is possible, but we’ve done our best in coming to a *conclusion* and not saying accepting the Bible is just as reasonable as accepting the Book of Mormon.
Nick, said ” Frankly I can’t think of a more absurd claim than someone can remain saved in the middle of denying Jesus”. Are you familiar with the scripture that says when we are faithless he remains faithful. The first part of that verse says if we deny him then he will deny us. But that is obviously talking about unbelievers. Nick, Romans 8 says nothing can separate us from the love of God. No, the Catholic view makes your salvation depend on you. You are going to have to eventually deal with 2 Timothy 1:9. It says he saved us not according to our works, but according to His purpose which He granted to us in Christ from eternity past. Answer me one question Nick, if He saved us not according to works, then why do you try to smuggle your character into the work of God’s grace? Hope your well. K
Kevin,
You said: “Are you familiar with the scripture that says when we are faithless he remains faithful. The first part of that verse says if we deny him then he will deny us. But that is obviously talking about unbelievers.”
The verse you’re quoting says:
This is a perfect example of how Calvinist’s belief in Sola Fide comes before belief in the Bible. Your claim that “if we deny him” refers to unbelievers while the rest of the “we” comments surrounding it applies to believers shows the rank desperation of Calvinism.
Please see the absurdity and desperation in your exegesis. One reason people get frustrated with interacting with you is precisely because you don’t care about logical argument for the sake of *consistency* but rather all you care about is “winning”. As a Catholic, I care more about truth than I do about winning an argument. In situations like this, you “escape” by changing the rules as you go, making the Bible say whatever you want.
You then said: “Nick, Romans 8 says nothing can separate us from the love of God.”
Read the context. The things Paul mentioned are persecutions and hardships, but nothing he mentioned involved us sinning. What you’re espousing a textbook fallacy and just bad exegesis.
You also said: “You are going to have to eventually deal with 2 Timothy 1:9. It says he saved us not according to our works, … if He saved us not according to works, then why do you try to smuggle your character into the work of God’s grace?”
The term “saved” here refers to having our sins forgiven and reconciled to God. It doesn’t include anything more than that. So you’re biased by Sola Fide to read “saved” into something the Bible doesn’t actually teach. Hence why St Paul can espouse complete Romanism a few chapters later when Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, tells Timothy:
“7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day”
How dare Paul say “I fought” and “I finished” and “I kept” when we all know “I” has no place in salvation? How dare Paul say AFTER finishing the race, without any mention of faith, that Jesus will AWARD him with a “crown of righteousness” when we all know Christ’s Righteousness Imputed by Faith Alone is where it’s at. OR could it be that Calvinism is simply wrong and has no coherent straightforward answer to such texts?
Nick said “please see the absurdity and desperation in your exegesis.” Nick he says when we are faithless, He remains faithful. Believers have times of weak faith and according to this verse faithlessness and yet He remains faithful. Its obvious from our exegesis that the denial here is rejection of Christ, and therefore refers to someone who isn’t saved. We is a general term. If “someone” IOW. As far as your value judgments about my arguments and what other people think of me, its immaterial. I have always dealt with you in logical argument. And don’t act like your above trying to prove appoint in an argument. You said” the term saved here means having our sins forgiven and reconciled to God. It doesn’t include anymore than that.” You mean like the rest of salvation, sanctification and glorification. We think God actually save us, not made salvation possible if “we work well to the end and believe in God, then salvation is to be offered.” We believed He accomplished it He actually redeemed a peole for himself. God’s wrath and our sins nailed to the cross. Have you read “Pierced for our transgressions Nick” I mean Aquinas was a psub guy. Paul simply says he fought the good fight, kept the faith, finished the race. Jesus says he loses none that are His. I has palace in salvation Nick, its just not a meritorious one. ” Otherwise its no longer grace” You know Romans 11:6. Incidentally, the real absurdity is someone as intelligent as you believing your works play into your final evaluation in the face of “not of yourselves” not of works” ” not by righteous deeds” ‘to the one who does not work. ” Protestants get it when we are told it doesn’t have anything to do with you. We” believe” what we are told. Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner on this.
Tim, I just re read this after all this time with a greater understanding. You should see if the CCC guys would be willing to print this article as the main retort to Nick’s ( Marshall’s position ) which would further their discussion much further. Maybe Jim can use his influence, since he is wanting this showdown over there. I can’t overstate just how good this article is. K