384 thoughts on “Novel Antiquity”

1. The Word of God is built upon “biblical principles” and it is these principles we should learn. One principle is called the regulative principle of worship. The regulative principle is biblical and contrary to the evangelical and Romish normative principle of worship.

   While these comments made by Tim are in question form to get the reader to think for themselves and answer for themselves, the biblical answers to these questions are based upon the regulative principle of worship in our obligations to a sovereign and holy Triune God. Tim wrote:

   “God has abolished the offering of bread and incense and replaced them with spiritual sacrifices? He has replaced incense with “a human oblation” from the heart of man, in which the sacrifices are invisible, a broken spirit and praise offered to the Lord? To be saved we look not to a man in Rome who we can see, but rather to the invisible God Who dells in men by faith, Whom we cannot see? What was Barnabas thinking?”

   To be very clear to those who are struggling with the concept of faithful and true biblical worship, let me quote the most hated man in history by Rome and Evangelicals to make it crystal clear:

   “As Calvin once said: “I am not unaware how difficult it is to persuade the world that God rejects and even abominates everything relating to His worship that is devised by human reason.”(8) But the fact is that “there is nothing more perilous to our salvation than a preposterous and perverse worship of God.”(9)”

   and:

   “No one ever expounded the regulative principle with greater force and clarity than Jesus did, in his meeting with the Samaritan woman (John 4:22-26). Here, as Calvin points out, our Lord “divides the subject into two parts. First, he condemns the forms of worshipping God which the Samaritans used as superstitious and false, and declares that the acceptable and lawful form was with the Jews. And he puts the reason for the difference that the Jews received assurance from the Word of God about his worship, whereas the Samaritans had no certainty from God’s lips. Secondly, he declares that the ceremonies observed by the Jews hitherto would soon be ended.”

   http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/the-scriptural-regulative-principle-of-worship.php

   The POINT TO UNDERSTAND is that the Jewish ceremonial ordinances WOULD BE ENDED.

   When I grew up in the Romish church, as an alter boy, I would do everything to bring those ordinances BACK ALIVE not knowing that my ignorance would lead others to be deceived by what Rome was teaching me, and causing may own congregation and my family to stumble their way to everlasting torment in hell.

   I was sick when I read and learned about the regulative principle of worship, and compared it with what I was taught by Romish priests growing up. I could not believe the Bible taught something TOTALLY OPPOSITE of Romish dogma.

   Unfortunately, Chris Armstrong of Christianity Today has been deceived in even thinking that the early church promoted the normative principle of worship…they DID NOT. The Apostolic and early church promoted, like the reformers, the regulative principle…and so should we who fear Rome murdering millions of souls worldwide daily.

   Reply

   1. The POINT TO UNDERSTAND is that the Jewish ceremonial ordinances WOULD BE ENDED.

      Amen! Thanks, Walt.

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim, you wrote:

         “In reality, Shea’s vacuous accusation that Evangelicals have a latent “fear of the incarnation,” is merely a smokescreen to hide what he knows, but cannot mention, what he understands deep in the bowels of his conscience, but dare not say out loud: that Roman Catholicism is a fabricated religion, constructed in the idol-factory of the unregenerate hearts of men. It is a religion that did not exist until the the latter part of the 4th century, and it was only then that Shea’s abominable idolatry masquerading as “appreciation of the incarnation” began to sweep through the Roman empire. It was only then that candles, incense, veneration of images, icons, relics and other ostensibly “incarnational” worship began to be introduced.”

         and:

         “The Scriptures call us to rend our hearts instead of our garments (Joel 2:13). Rome insists, allegedly because of the incarnation, that we must rend our garments in order to rend our hearts—otherwise we are not worshiping “incarnationally.” But such thinking came three hundred years too late to be apostolic. The use of candles, incense, icons and other “incarnational” trappings of Roman Catholicism all originate in the late 4th century, when Roman Catholicism was born as one more pagan religion on the religious landscape of the decaying Roman Empire.”

         Don’t stop pounding away at this 4th century falling away date(s). You need to keep pushing it and pushing it and pushing it so it sinks in to people the importance of what happened from a historical post millennial perspective.

         This is a CRITICAL date in biblical testimony to counter the foolishness of the modern Evangelical bla bla bla that Antichrist is yet to be determined in premillennialism, and equally crazy views that Antichrist was Nero in the reconstruction / Rushdoony movement of full and partial preterism. This falling away period in the 4th century is the key to opening up the true Romish antichrist, and few have ever disclosed where this period began in the falling away.

         It is clear the Jesuits and Romish Apologists will do everything in their global financial empire to discredit you day after day (e.g., Jim, Bob and a few others who drop by to give those two support), week after week with an endless barrage of questions to disrupt and cause confusion. Have you ever witnessed any two with such hardened hearts to facts, evidence and biblical truth? Simple incredible as I read Bob over and over spilling the same questions, and ignoring the evidence. If he is truly Methodist (which I deny) he is really suffering inside that church with mass confusion of the mind and heart.

         Anyhow, keep pushing that date in your current articles specifically in the 4th century. It is critical to teaching others who desire a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone.

         The Scripture is so clear a hardened heart to the true needs to be changed to a humble heart of hearing and obedience.

         “And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.” (1Sam.10:9)

         “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” Ps.51:10

         “Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.” (Dan.4:6)

         “And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.” (Jer.24:7)

         “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh” (Ezek.11:19)

         “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.” (Ezek.36:26)

         “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Rom.2:9)

         “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Rom.12:2)

         “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2Cor.5:17)

         “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2Cor.7:10)

         Reply

      2. “The POINT TO UNDERSTAND is that the Jewish ceremonial ordinances WOULD BE ENDED.”

         Interesting comment coming from Presbyterians. I found this in the opening paragraph of a document on pcusa.org:

         OUR ORDER OF WORSHIP
         by Teresa Lockhart Stricklen
         Associate for Worship
         Presbyterian Church (USA)
         The order of worship that centuries of Christians have adapted from the pattern of Jewish worship is an ancient order that is intended to move us more deeply into intimate communion with God in Christ.
         There is a reason why we do what we do when we do it. Understanding this structure may help you move more fully aware into the divine presence as you worship.

         Reply

   2. Great post Walt!

      Reply

      1. Yes, I thought the word “Romish” was a particularly nice touch.

         Reply

2. The true and faithful Covenanter Testimony supporting the regulative principle of worship and the Christian Sabbath:

   “Reformed Presbyterian Synod of Ireland on the duty of a Christian nation to uphold the Sabbath

   At the Reformed Presbyterian Synod of Ireland in 1834 a number of resolutions relative to the observance of the Lord’s Day were passed. Some of them relate specifically to the duty of the state to stop Sabbath-profanation:

   […] 3. That nations favoured with the Word of God are under solemn and indispensable obligation to honour this sacred appointment of heaven; and it is the duty of their rulers to enact laws, for protecting the Sabbath from open desecration, and to carry them into vigorous execution.

   4. That the testimony of profane history concurs with Divine Revelation in declaring, that manifold blessings have been bestowed upon communities in connexion with the due observance of the Lord’s Day; while, on the other hand, its profanation has never failed to produce an increase of irreligion immorality and crime, and to draw down upon a people national judgments.

   5. That it is a matter of much lamentation, that the lands of our nativity are chargeable with the violation of God’s holy day to a tremendous extent; – inasmuch as, throughout the country, it is profaned by idleness, assemblies of the young, &c., while in our villages, cities, and large towns, the keeping open of public houses and newsrooms, travelling of coaches, unnecessary selling of vessels, publishing and vending newspapers, selling goods, working in distilleries, breweries, and baking establishments, driving cattle, &c., tend manifestly to set aside this Divine institution; that many of the poor profane it by habitual neglect of religious ordinances, and by recreations, and irregular indulgences, while the rich encourage them in the sin by attending to business on finding their pleasure on God’s holy day; and the public functionaries of the nation, instead of taking adequate measures to have Sabbath-profanation restrained, permit the laws respecting it to lie a dead letter, and in many instances, by luxurious living, Cabinet councils, Ministerial dinners, and Sabbath-travelling set a demoralizing example to the community, of disregard to the authority of the Lord of the Sabbath.

   6. That while we deeply deplore the existence and increase of these evils, under a solemn sense of our responsibility, as watchmen upon the walls of Zion, we are constrained to warn the rulers of the land of their fearful criminality, in permitting them to spread unrestrained, and to declare our entire persuasion that no Legislative enactment is calculated effectually to prevent the abuses of the Sabbath day to keep it holy, and avert threatened judgments, which does not require equally the higher and lower classes to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, and which will not bring the rulers themselves to abstain from its desecration; and, in like manner, we declare to the community at large, that unless they speedily repent of this glaring wickedness, seek forgiveness through the blood of the Divine Redeemer, and walk in the paths of new obedience, the peace, order, morality, and temporal welfare of the nation will soon be destroyed, and fearful judicial inflictions from the hand of the Almighty will overtake it. […]

   Guardian and Constitutional Advocate, 22 July 1834.

   Reply

3. Tim,

   If you ever are able to trace the Scripture trail before or after the falling away, and get into Scotland (as now I see Rome is taking credit for Scotland’s first bible college with Columba; And because of his great and noble work even non-Catholics hold his memory in veneration. For the purposes of controversy it has been maintained some that St. Columba ignored papal supremacy, because he entered upon his mission without the pope’s authorization…Columba was a son of the Irish Church, which taught from the days of St. Patrick that matters of greater moment should be referred to the Holy See for settlement. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04136a.htm), and you want to see the “second” falling away (in my opinion), here is the date set certain.

   As a Presbyterian, I hope and trust you will find this history as equally important as Rome’s claim to owning the history of the first 350 years of the early church.

   http://www.truecovenanter.com/reformedpresbyterian/dow_john_remarks_on_letter_by_brown.html

   There are two interesting points I reference below:

   “If the synod had proved said deed to be morally evil in itself, or that the sins acknowledged therein do not now exist, they might have laid it aside without either dereliction or principle, or acting unfaithfully; but this they have not done. Therefore their conduct in expunging said deed from the terms, makes them justly to be suspected of both. Is not their conduct in this matter a receding from a clear and particular testimony to a general and evasive one?

   The Auchinsaugh deed is a particular and faithful testimony to the covenants and work of reformation, and expressly pointed against all the steps of defection, from the decline of that work in the year 1650 to the year 1712; and it has been a term of communion among the old dissenters from the year 1712, until the year 1822, that it was cut off from their terms by the synod. Thus the profession of dissenters relative to the covenants is rendered vague and objectionable, as it contains now only a general adherence to them, without their application to existing circumstances, since the revolution and union settlements. Is not this general adherence a paving the way to let in diversity of sentiment relative to both the sin and duty, and the way and manner of renewing the covenants?

   Though the covenants be plain and easy to be understood, yet some have considered the national covenant to be consistent with episcopacy; and others have contended that the solemn league and covenant does not strike against toleration principles. May not the advocates for new light principles take up similar ground with such, and plead that a number of things that were flatly condemned before, are lawful now, and shelter themselves under this general adherence to {48} the covenants? This new term, I am of opinion, has a native tendency to generalize the principles of dissenters, and make them similar to those that the court wished to impose upon our reformers in the year 1638.”

   “The expunging said deed from the terms, appears also to be irregular, and contrary to the act of the general assembly 1639. Said act ordains, that no innovation, which may disturb the peace of the church, be suddenly propounded and enacted; but that the motion thereof be first communicated to the several synods, presbyteries, and kirks, that they may be approved by all at home, and commissioners may come well prepared to conclude a solid deliberation upon these points in the assembly.

   The reports of the different sessions to the synod in November 1818, were very far from being favourable to a change according to the principles of the foresaid act of assembly. And the petitions and memorials laid before the synod from time to time since, clearly evidenced that a considerable part of the community {50} wished to retain said deed in the terms; and the church in Ireland were unanimous for retaining it. Yet, notwithstanding of all the opposition the synod met with, at the motion of two junior members, they took courage, and cut off said deed.

   Such rash conduct clearly evidenced that they neither paid respect to the principles of the reformed church of Scotland, relative to alterations, nor to the people who had petitioned them to retain said deed in the terms of communion.

   Would it not have been much more honest in the synod to have expunged said deed from the terms without substituting any thing in its place at all, than to endeavour to deceive the people, and make them believe that the new term comprehended or included the whole of the Auchinsaugh deed?

   It is evident to every person that attentively considers the matter, that said deed is given up altogether. What better is the 4th article with a few words added to it relative to the duty of a minority adhering to the covenants? This has always been included and taken for granted by such as owned them; and therefore the new term seems only intended to be a trap similar to the burghers preamble in the year 1797, to catch such as wished to retain the said deed, and to draw them off from part of their profession. What confidence can such as wish to retain the deed in question, place in the synod, when they have acted in this way, and allowed one of their members, in the open synod, to call the covenants superfluous things, laid as a bar at the door of the sanctuary, in order to obstruct the entrance of the children of God, without calling him to account, and causing him make as open an acknowledgment of his fault, as he made of his departure from these peculiar parts of his profession?

   Nothing, in my opinion, can be a clearer evidence that the Auchinsaugh deed was not intended to be included in the new term, by the words following their worthy ancestors, &c. by the new light party, than their opposing the following sentence, “as exemplified by our forefathers at Auchinsaugh in 1712,” which the senior members wished to be added to the new terms; but it was carried against them by a majority.

   This, and other things, which some of them have maintained in opposition to the doctrine of their ancestors, make a clear discovery that the new term is merely nominal.”

   Reply

4. Tim wrote:

   “As one reads the vast amount of literature on the development of Catholic doctrine, a very clear pattern emerges. Evidence of Roman Catholic doctrines is scarce until after 358 A.D., at which time evidence for the doctrines explodes, as they came upon the world like a flood.”

   and:

   “The “Development of Doctrine” Doctrine

   In view of the insurmountable doctrinal gap that exists between the late fourth century religion of Roman Catholicism and the early first century religion of Jesus Christ, it was inevitable that Rome would need to explain the more than three century gap. To do so, Roman Catholicism created what is called the “Development of Doctrine.” At its core, it is a material acknowledgment of the fact that it cannot trace its origins to the apostles, for it stipulates that early traces of Roman Catholicism may indeed be, and typically are, invisible:

   “Apply this to the Catholic religion : 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. … What is intended is, not to assert that the present devotion to Mary existed in the early ages; that may be so or not: but that the principle on which it is based naturally led to it, and may be assumed to have been intended by God to lead to it.” (Jesus, the Son of Mary, by the Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A., 1851, pp. 25-33.)

   Invisible indeed. Clearly when Emperor Theodosius I issued De Fide Catholica in 380 A.D., he was not proclaiming Christianity to be the official religion of the empire. He was proclaiming that the new state religion was the recently created religion of Roman Catholicism which is not Christianity at all.”

   http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/29/the-rise-of-roman-catholicism/

   Those that are new to this blog…please read it.

   Reply

5. Tim wrote:

   “That “the worship of images” is “the tradition of the [Roman Catholic] Church,” we do not deny. That it is a tradition wholly foreign to the early church, Shea cannot deny.”

   In support of this statement, the reformers joined as well, in rejecting pictures and images.

   “[3] Pictures and visual symbols.

   We should certainly mention the use of religious statues, pictures and symbols. These were also rejected firmly by Reformers such as Knox, Zwingli and Calvin. The Heidelberg Catechism says: “God neither can nor may be visibly represented,” and that “we must not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb images, but by the living preaching of His Word.” (Question and Answer 97 and 98) Even so recently as a hundred years ago, Reformed people still understood the regulative principle enough to remain negative toward these representations. However, in an address entitled “The Antithesis between Symbolism and Revelation,” presented to the Presbyterian Historical Society, Abraham Kuyper warned of a subtle trend already at work then, which was weakening this sense of awareness. Kuyper spoke of “the symbolical tide . . . undermining in the most dangerous way the very foundation of all Calvinistic Churches.” Kuyper put it like this: “the principle of Symbolism and that of Calvinism are just the reverse of one another.” We would add only this comment: the regulative principle taught in the Word of God is the only safeguard against it.”

   http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/the-scriptural-regulative-principle-of-worship.php

   Reply

6. Tim said ” is there a word in the english language that fully envelops Roman Catholicism hatred for what Jesus did for us by coming in the flesh” the word is unbelief. Just like Nicodemus who understood Jesus literally by thinking he must go back into his mothers womb, or the woman at the well before she was saved saying where c an I find this water, or those who walked away from Jesus in John 6 because of fleshly understandind, or those who needed a physical altar, Priesthood, or Roman Catholics, its unbelief. The natural man know not the things of God. How clear can this be, Jesus ” the words I tell you are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing. The Mass is as knox said the invention of the human brain, the utter need for the flesh, and the denial of faith in Spirit and truth. Awesome article Tim. K

   Reply

7. Tim,

   WOW! Is you on a roll! You is all fire up like a bunch o’ possums in a kettle.

   “is merely a smokescreen to hide what he knows, but cannot mention, what he understands deep in the bowels of his conscience, but dare not say out loud: that Roman Catholicism is a fabricated religion, constructed in the idol-factory of the unregenerate hearts of men. ”

   Gosh, I love that kind of talk, especially the part about what is deep in the bowels of unregenerate varmints,

   “It is a religion that did not exist until the the latter part of the 4th century,…”.

   You mean to tell me we didn’t have a pope, a successor to Peter and that Rome was not the chief bishopric before then?

   I guess all of then Church Fathers was wrong, eh Tim?

   Reply

   1. Jim,

      You mean to tell me we didn’t have a pope, a successor to Peter and that Rome was not the chief bishopric before then?

      Yes, that is exactly what I am telling you.

      I guess all of then Church Fathers was wrong, eh Tim?

      And which church fathers would those be?

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim, How about the Pope who was in Rome at the time that Bishopric weighed in, either on her own authority or because she had been asked to, on a dispute in the Corinthian church? How about the Pope, Bishop , Chief Presbyter in the city of Rome at the time that Ignatius wrote to that city?
         How about the Pope Victor who weighed in on the dating of Easter in the eastern churches? How about the Pope that had to correct St. Cyprian in Carthage for his erroneous views on re-Baptism? How about the Pope that sent his legate to Hosius to the Council of Nicea?

         Reply

         1. Jim, All your question presume the existence of a Roman Papacy in order to prove its existence. Taking your questions one by one,

            Tim, How about the Pope who was in Rome at the time that Bishopric weighed in, either on her own authority or because she had been asked to, on a dispute in the Corinthian church?

            How about a “pope” who was in Jerusalem at the time, when a bishop in Rome, Damasus, asked him to weigh in on the meaning of Scripture. If Clement was “pope” because the people in Corinth asked him for help, then doesn’t that make Jerome “pope” since the bishop of Rome asked him to weigh in on a matter of faith and morals? If you check out Jerome’s Letter 19 and Letter 35 from Damasus to Jerome, you’ll find that the Pope in Rome was asking Jerome to help him understanding some verses of Scripture that are quite simple:

            1. What is the meaning of the words “Whosoever slays Cain vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold”? Genesis 4:5

            2. If God has made all things good, how comes it that He gives charge to Noah concerning unclean animals, and says to Peter, “What God has cleansed that call not thou common”? Acts 10:15

            3. How is Gen. xv. 16, “in the fourth generation they shall come hither again,” to be reconciled with Ex. xiii. 18, LXX, “in the fifth generation the children of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt”?

            4. Why did Abraham receive circumcision as a seal of his faith? Romans 4:11

            5. Why was Isaac, a righteous man and dear to God, allowed by God to become the dupe of Jacob? Genesis 27

            If the “pope”—who allegedly has received Peter’s teaching ministry as the infallible guide of the church—doesn’t understand the Scriptures, and has to ask Jerome to explain them to him, doesn’t that make Jerome the “pope,” by your reasoning? If not, why not? For some reason, if the Corinthians are in a dispute and ask the Bishop of Rome for help, you assume the bishop of Rome is therefore “pope” over all churches. But if the “pope” himself asks someone else to weigh in on what he is already supposed to know and understand, it has no significance to you. Why do you suppose that is? You continued,

            How about the Pope, Bishop , Chief Presbyter in the city of Rome at the time that Ignatius wrote to that city?

            In Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, he lamented the fact that by dying as a martyr, he was leaving his church without a shepherd, and that Jesus Christ alone would be her shepherd:

            “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].” (Ignatius, to the Romans, chapter 9).

            That’s not a very nice, or respectful, thing to say to the “chief shepherd” in Rome, is it?

            I can’t determine your source data when you say, “the Pope, Bishop , Chief Presbyter in the city of Rome” at the time of Ignatius (who, by the way, makes no mention of any bishops in Rome in his letter to the Romans), but perhaps you refer to Eusebius, who identifies Clement as bishop of Rome in Church History, Book III, Chapter 34:

            “1. In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above, Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.”

            The title of that chapter is Evarastus, the Fourth Bishop of Rome. Clement was third. Anencletus was Second. Who do you suppose was first?

            “After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. … In the second year of his {Emperor Titus’] reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus. … At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus.” (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapters 2, 13, 21)

            You continued,

            How about the Pope Victor who weighed in on the dating of Easter in the eastern churches?

            Weighed in? Is that any kind of standard for the shepherd of the whole church? Here is the story of how Victor I “weighed in” on the dating of Easter:

            “Synods were held on the subject in various parts—in Palestine under Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem, in Pontus under Palmas, in Gaul under Irenaeus, in Corinth under its bishop, Bachillus, at Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, and elsewhere—all of which disapproved of this practice [of determining the date of Easter] … Despite this disapproval, the general feeling was that this divergent tradition Asians was not sufficient grounds for excommunication. Victor alone was intolerant of this difference, and severed ties with these ancient churches, whose bishops included such luminaries as Polycrates of Ephesus; in response he was rebuked by Irenaeus and others, according to Eusebius.” (Wikipedia, Victor I)

            Sure, Victor “weighed in” on Easter. Then Irenaeus “weighed in” on Victor. Doesn’t that make Irenaeus “pope”?

            How about the Pope that had to correct St. Cyprian in Carthage for his erroneous views on re-Baptism?

            How about the bishop of Carthage that had to correct the “pope” for his erroneous views on apostolic succession?”

            “[T]hey who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles … And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches;” (Letter to Cyprian of Carthage from Fermilian, Epistle 74, chapters 6 and 17)

            You continued,

            How about the Pope that sent his legate to Hosius to the Council of Nicea?

            When the eastern bishops had assembled at Constantinople for a council in 381 A.D., the bishop of Rome called a council in Rome for the following year. The bishops of the East could not continually go from council to council and leave their sheep unattended back home, so they declined his invitation and sent two representatives, insisting that “we reign along with you”.

            “Rather, according to the word of the apostle, we should reign along with you‘. So it was our intention that if it were possible we should all leave our churches together and indulge our desires rather than attend to their needs. But who will give us wings as of a dove, so we shall fly and come to rest with you? This course would leave the churches entirely exposed, just as they are beginning their renewal; and it is completely out of the question for the majority. As a consequence of last year’s letter sent by your reverence after the synod of Aquileia to our most God-beloved emperor Theodosius, we came together in Constantinople. We were equipped only for this stay in Constantinople and the bishops who remained in the provinces gave their agreement to this synod alone. We foresaw no need for a longer absence, nor did we hear of it in advance at all, before we gathered in Constantinople. On top of this the tightness of the schedule proposed allowed no opportunity to prepare for a longer absence, nor to brief all the bishops in the provinces who are in communion with us and to get their agreement. Since these considerations, and many more besides, prevented most of us from coming, we have done the next best thing both to set matters straight and to make your love for us appreciated: we have managed to convince our most venerable and reverend brethren and fellow-ministers, Bishops Cyriacus, Eusebius and Priscian to be willing to undertake the wearisome journey to you.” (Synodal Letter from the Council of Constantinople)

            Since Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople, sent delegates to the council of Rome, and insisted that “we should reign along with you,” doesn’t that make Gregory of Nazianzus “pope” by your reasoning?

            Thanks,

            Tim

            Reply

            1. Tim, great post. You have really forced me to read the early fathers, and when one does objectively, one sees the early church clearly differs from Roman Catholicism in almost every way. No Papacy, No transubstantiation, no external objects for worship, No infant baptism ex opere operato, no sacrifice of the Mass, no wafer adoration, a different understanding of justification, a right view of marriage among bishops. Etc. We see the Roman religion is pagan.

            2. Thankyou for detailed replies like this Tim, and your current series on The Diving Board at ThornCrown Network. They are a tremendous buttress to the faith of believers and a true protesting against the errors of Rome.

   2. Jim, you wrote:

      “Gosh, I love that kind of talk, especially the part about what is deep in the bowels of unregenerate varmints,

      “It is a religion that did not exist until the the latter part of the 4th century,…”.

      You mean to tell me we didn’t have a pope, a successor to Peter and that Rome was not the chief bishopric before then?”

      I’m not sure if you are not really reading what has been posted on this site, or if you are dense, or even perhaps not capable to hear or listen due to the hardness of your heart.

      Tim has answered your question in The Rise of Roman Catholicsim. Perhaps you would be good to read the article again, but in the even you are not capable or serious to learn and hear everything written, I will post the section on the Pope.

      ———————
      Peter as the First Bishop of Rome

      The earliest explicit affirmation of Peter as the first Bishop of Rome did not come until 370 A.D. This from Optatus of Milevis (Adversus Parmenianum, Book II, Chapter II): “You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra.” Before this, the early church understood that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus (d. 202 A.D.) and Eusebius (260 – 340 A.D.) both testify of this:

      “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. … To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric..” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, ch. III.3)

      “After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. … In the second year of his {Emperor Titus’] reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus. … At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus.” (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapters 2, 13, 21)

      Where Eusebius says Clement was “the third that held the episcopate after Paul and Peter,” he obviously means, “after the apostles,” who clearly went from place to place to “ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). Otherwise, this would be evidence of both Paul and Peter being bishops of Rome, which would make Linus third, Anencletus fourth, and Clement fifth. Irenaeus and Eusebius clearly understood Linus to be the first bishop of Rome, and the first claim of Peter as the first bishop of Rome only came late in the fourth century.

      Bishop of Rome Called “Pontifex”

      The office of Pontifex Maximus dates to pagan Rome and was occupied by “the high priest of the College of Pontiffs. … This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion.” As the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia states, the title as it is assigned to the pope, bears with it a “further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome.” Indeed, in 380 A.D., Emperor Theodosius I issued De Fide Catholica, claiming that Pope Damasus I was the new Pontifex of the state religion. Two years later, Emperor Gratian formally renounced the title Pontifex Maximus.

      This is not to say that the title had not earlier been attached to the pope. It had been, in the most derogatory fashion. When Pope Callistus claimed that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended to him particularly, Tertullian mocked him by calling him “pontifex maximus” in his epistle On Modesty in 220 A.D.:

      “The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the bishop of bishops — issues an edict: … O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” … Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation!” (Tertullian, On Modesty, Ch. 1)

      Of course, the irrepressible Roman Catholic religion must spin this in the most positive fashion. After Tertullian stands aghast at the very claim of Callistus’ ability to forgive sins and mockingly calls him Pontifex Maximus, Rome responds that this is evidence that both the title, and succession from Peter, had been commonly accepted at that time!

      “Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for [Callistus’] contention. … Though [Tertullian’s] words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied [Pontifex Maximus] to the pope.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope)

      The fact is that Pontifex was used negatively before Damasus I to mock a bishop of Rome who attempted to assert more power than he really had. It was not applied to the bishop of Rome positively until 380 A.D., and then promptly abandoned by pagan Rome.
      ————–

      Here is the link for your reference:

      http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/29/the-rise-of-roman-catholicism/

      If you can refute it with specific early church fathers who called and referenced Peter as the pope in the first 350 years and a successor to Christ as the head of the visible church, that would be interesting to read your research.

      I suspect you don’t intend to refute anything, but like your counterpart in crime Bob just try to confuse everyone as much as possible to show how Rome is the great grand daddy of all religions and the most glorious by proof in the sheer numbers of her followers. As my Dad used to tell me, “Walt, how can more than 1 billion Catholics be wrong and your group of a few thousand Covenanters be right?”

      Reply

      1. Walt said ” As my dad used to say “Walt” how can more than 1 billion Catholics be wrong your group ofva few thousand covenaters be right?” Mathew 7 ” Enter thru the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter by it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, few are there who find it. ” This verse suggest to us that the those 1 billion on are on the wrong road. The word for gate is turnstile. Those entering to get in are agonizing to go through. The gate is Christ alone and those agonizing are those who see their spiritual bankrupcy and sin. Rome has a wrong view of sin, a wrong view of faith, and a wrong view of the trinity, andvthereforeca wrong view of the atonement.

         Reply

         1. Is that the same Dad who never told his sons anything about Christ?

            Reply

            1. OOPS! No, now we are talking about Walt’s dad, not kevin’s.

8. Kevin said:

   “This verse suggest to us that the those 1 billion on are on the wrong road.”

   Indeed.

   The humble man says on his knees pleading:

   ““Create in me a CLEAR HEART, O God; and renew a RIGHT SPIRIT within me.” Ps.51:10

   If only the Catholics would see the verses below are VERY CLEAR IT IS GOD ALONE WHO CHANGES THE HEART.

   “And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, GOD GAVE HIM ANOTHER HEART: and all those signs came to pass that day.” (1Sam.10:9)

   “And I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW ME, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.” (Jer.24:7)

   “And I WILL GIVE THEM ONE HEART, and I WILL PUT A NEW SPIRIT WITHIN YOU; and I WILL TAKE THE STONEY HEART OUT of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh” (Ezek.11:19)

   “A new heart also WILL I GIVE YOU, and a new spirit WILL IP PUT WITHIN YOU: and I WILL TAKE AWAY the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” (Ezek.36:26)

   Instead they come on the blog just begging to disrupt, ignore and steer people away from the true gospel of salvation, and are desperate to get men to follow them as they follow every wind of false Romish doctrine.

   Incredibly sad that so few Catholics see anything that is true…even the basic historical testimony Tim posts week after week. They are so self consumed with this rock star Pope they cannot see anything but this one man parading around the world. I switch on EWTN and it is incredible EVERYONE is just falling all over themselves about this mere man who is filled himself with Jesuit trained ignorance and foolishness.

   Now he is on a major global push to bring all the religions together as one common religion of peace. Where in the world is this taught in Scripture?

   If he was being faithful like the Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter or James or Timothy or Steven he would be speaking against these false religions, and thereby himself being hated by men…as they were.

   Instead, he promotes all false religion and is loved by all the world as being so tolerant, pluralistic and a one world religion adherent. EWTN has really opened my eyes…wow.

   Reply

   1. Walt, great post brother. When Tim mentioned in one of his post that those who receive the stigmatas had an insatiablevneed for the Roman Eucharist and adoring it, it became clear to me that this is the path to hell. Why? Roman Catholics are like the woman at the well before she believed, asking where I find this physical water, they have to eat the physical presence of Christ in the wafer to survive, they think. And Satan misleads them because whats crucial is not the real presence in the bread, but the real presence in the heart thru the Spirit by faith. Christ isnt in the bread, but the one taking the bread by faith. The bread is a holy thing that nourishes our faith thru the spirit. Its a means of grace and spiritual nourishment for our faith as we remember the blood that was already shed for our sins. As Tim has pointed out we worship the incarnate Christ in Spirit and truth, by faith. The Need for the physical altar, sacrifice, and altar is unbelief. As you so rightly quoted He gave us a new heart, taking out the heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh. He wrote his laws on our heart. God alone changes a heart and brings forth true repentance and faith. And faith receives our righteouness, it doesnt accumulate our righteouness by ” doing the work of the people” the Mass. Saving faith produces a heart that obeys God, but unbelief tries to attain the righteouness necessary for justification thru one’s works.

      Reply

   2. Walt said ” he promotes all false religion and is lov ed d by all the world as being so tolerant” ya Walt, thats th ed whole goal, universalism. Stay where you are do the best you can. Fetching everybody back to Rome in one big totus christus. Even trinity hating muslims are golden. Its sickening. The Pope the Jesus wafer and the people all fused into the Trinity, right here right now, an overrealized ecclesiology and eschatology.

      Reply

9. Walt,
   Tim said the Catholic Church did not exist before the latter part of the 4th century. That means shortly before the year 400 A.D.

   Reply

   1. Jim, my actual words were,

      “I’ve consistently said Roman Catholicism as a religion originated in the latter half of the 4th century.”

      What do you suppose “latter half” means?

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim,
         The references I have provided were in the first half of the 4th century. ( Or much earlier even ).

         What do you suppose 1st half means?

         Even before latter half of the 3rd century we have Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen speaking of Peter and the Pope.

         Eusebius, St. Anthony of Egypt, Canon 39 of the Council of Nicea, etc. etc. were in the first half of the 4th century.

         The Roman Bishop is a big part of the Roman religion, yes?

         Reply

         1. Jim, you wrote,

            The references I have provided were in the first half of the 4th century. ( Or much earlier even ).

            Yes, they were.

            What do you suppose 1st half means?

            300-350.

            Even before latter half of the 3rd century we have Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen speaking of Peter and the Pope.

            Ok, can you please provide these? You did not cite Tertullian, Cyprian or Origen in the comment above.

            Eusebius, St. Anthony of Egypt, Canon 39 of the Council of Nicea, etc. etc. were in the first half of the 4th century.

            Eusebius denies that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, as I noted above. Please provide the citation for Anthony of Egypt. I am not aware of any canons of Nicea beyond canon 20. Can you provide the 39th canon, please?

            The Roman Bishop is a big part of the Roman religion, yes?

            From the latter half of the 4th century, yes. I will be interested in evidence that predates that.

            Thanks,

            Tim

            Reply

            1. Tim,
               Start reading on page 215 of Scott Butler’s book for my citations. You should have it or email Webster for help. And don’t forget the quote from St. James of Nisbis as he was under the 350 A.D. wire too.

   2. Jim, I watched the Jerry Walls video you provided criticising Pipers book and quotes. Walls the Arminian was awful and unconvincing, but Piper’ quotes were great. Thanks k

      Reply

      1. Glad to see you are lurking.

         Reply

10. Tim,
    The Pope asking for Jerome’s opinion in no way means Jerome was Pope.
    No more than asking for the advice or feed back from Garrigou -Langrange or the periti at Vatican II.
    Paul vi had a panel of advice him on birth control before he dismissed them and wrote Humanae Vitae.
    Catherine of Siena wasn’t Pope either in case you were wondering.

    Check out what Acts 15 says about the Jerusalem Council, Tim.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you wrote,

       The Pope asking for Jerome’s opinion in no way means Jerome was Pope.

       Precisely. And Corinth asking Clement’s opinion in no way means Clement was Pope.

       Check out what Acts 15 says about the Jerusalem Council, Tim.

       Yes, I am aware that there were church councils.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Are you aware that Paul and Barnabas acted as periti there?

          Reply

11. Jim said ” the Roman bishop is a big part of thd Roman Religion, yes? You have an uncanny ability to state the obvious, he usurped the titles that belong to God.

    Reply

    1. Actually Bozo, Tertullian and others gave those titles to him.

       Reply

       1. Jim,

          Here is Tertullian giving a title to the pope at Rome:

          “In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the bishop of bishops — issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is a virgin! Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation! She, the true, the modest, the saintly, shall be free from stain even of her ears. She has none to whom to make such a promise; and if she have had, she does not make it; since even the earthly temple of God can sooner have been called by the Lord a “den of robbers,” than of adulterers and fornicators.” (Tertullian, on Modesty, Chapter 1)

          We agree that Pontifex Maximus, and his “infallible decrees” are “Far, far from Christ’s betrothed.” Even the Catholic Encyclopedia knows that Tertullian was speaking tongue in cheek:

          “Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope).

          Probably indicate? Is that your proof?

          Thanks,

          Tim

          Reply

12. Tim,
    You do realize that a council later changed the date of Easter for the entire Church in conformity with Victor.

    Reply

    1. Jim,

       “You do realize that a council later changed the date of Easter for the entire Church in conformity with Victor.”

       Why was that necessary if “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”? Which council “changed the date in conformity with Victor”?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Because Victor opted not to exercise the iron hand he could have Tim.

          By the way, your assertion that Jerome might as well have been Pope is laughable when one considers what Jerome said about Peter and the Papacy. But it does expose your bamboozling style to obfuscate and confuse.

          Reply

          1. Jim,

             You wrote,

             By the way, your assertion that Jerome might as well have been Pope is laughable when one considers what Jerome said about Peter and the Papacy.

             Here is what Jerome said about Peter and the Papacy:

             “But you say, [Matthew 16:18] the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age;” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 26)

             The church was founded upon all of them? They all held the keys? The strength of the church depends on them all alike? But Peter was chosen because he was older?

             That’s not a very strong statement of Petrine primacy.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Tim,

                “, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.”

                So, you do admit that one was chosen out of the 12, yes? For whatever reason.

             2. Jim,

                “…although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike …”

                So you do admit that they all received the keys, the church was founded upon all of them alike, and the strength of the church depended on them all alike?

                Thanks,

                Tim

13. Kelvin, You are missing a great debate between me on one side and James Swan, Minister Ken, John Bugay and King of Snottiness, Steve Hays, on this very issue over on Beggars All.

    Reply

    1. Jim said ” Kelvin you are missing a great debate on this very subject on Beggars All.” I hope you are doing better over there than you are here. Because your arguments hear could be sued for lack of support. lol K

       Reply

       1. There is some mysterious reason a troll like you isn’t heckling and posting on Swan’s. I bet it has to do with Steve Hays. I think I know what put a wedge between you two Calvinists but I won’t say. He is embarrassed of you and you resent him, huh?

          Reply

14. As a matter of fact, I think I will click on there right now and throw down a pearl or two for them to choke on.

    Reply

15. I am back. I just told some guy named Zipper not to post links for other people’s articles.
    Swan is insisting I stay on the topic of Matthew 16 and nothing else. He shot himself in the foot by doing that as none of the Protestants dare come near it. You better stay away too as you never stay on any topic.

    Reply

    1. Jim, I’m sorry did you say something, i was studying Clement of Rome’s famous statement on justification. Seems like one of your first bishops was very Protestant. Buon Natale vecchio l’uomo, Tu sei matto, ma Ti Voglio bene. K Merry Christmas James.

       Reply

       1. KVN.
          Like I said, stay off of Swan’s blog as you cannot stay on topic. You just tried changing the subject from what Tim and I are discussing, namely, that there was no papacy before 350.

          Reply

          1. Jim, its really not a discussion per se. Tim has already established in his articles that the Papacy is a 4th century invention. Its more like you trying to pick holes in his work. You are sorta like Bob, he is over on trumpets talking about what the meaning of is, is. You really have nothing Jim, but i am enjoying your conversation with Tim. Its my contention that many Roman apologists avoid this site because they haven’t done the hard work thats been done here. David came over on baptism and held his own. But Tim’s arguments have been strong. You coming to the states for Christmas? K

             Reply

       2. And a Feliz Natal to you too. ( see, I can talk funny talk too ).

          Reply

16. Tim,
    We know that Peter was not necessarily chosen just because he was oldest as there is no proof of such. Although he certainly could have been. It is not important as to why God chose Peter out of the others. What is important is that He did.
    Look at the 4 lists of the 12 Apostles. They are not in order of age or John would be last and not Judas.

    Every time Peter is first, and is even called the greatest in Matthews list. With the exception of Judas, the sequence of names is different in all four lists, including both of Luke’s.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you wrote,

       “We know that Peter was not necessarily chosen just because he was oldest as there is no proof of such.”

       Jerome wrote,

       “Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 26)

       How can you “know” something because the Church Fathers taught it, and then “know” that the Church Fathers were wrong because they taught things that you “know” aren’t true?

       This is a fine example of the circularity of Roman epistemology—”we get our understanding of the Church from the Fathers, and the Fathers are corrected by our understanding of the Church.”

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,
          No father, theologian or saint is above being corrected.

          Reply

17. Jim, said ” so you do admit that one was chosen for whatever reason” to be head among a collegiality or board of elders, not to be king of the world, God, possessing the power of both swords. I mean cmon Jim, even you can see the difference between Peter calling himself a fellow elder, and a Pope in a big diamond hat calling himself God in the 11th century. Maybe just a little bit, huh?

    Reply

    1. Kevin,
       Like I told the boys on Swan’s, the early Popes didn’t drive a popemobile either.

       Reply

       1. Jim, there weren’t any early Popes, there was a bishop of Rome. The question very simply is how does the bishop of rome become a Pope. Sin. Spurgeon ” Of all the dreams that has ever deluded men, none has been more blasphemous in all manner of mischief than the bishop of Rome could be the head of the church. These Popes die, and how can the church live if its head were dead. Christ is the head of his church, and the church forever lives in Him. Christ did not come to earth and pour out his life for his people to have the Pope come in and steal the glory. He didn’t come form heaven to earth. He didn’t die on a cross.” You should heed the words Jim of maybe the greatest preacher since the Apostles. K

          Reply

          1. Kelvin,
             “Jim, there weren’t any early Popes, there was a bishop of Rome. ”

             Oh?
             Do you mean the title or the office?
             Did Rome have primacy? Did Rome have a Bishop? Voila!

             Reply

             1. Jim, ” did Rome have primacy?” NO , Did Rome have a bishop? Does carter have little pills. A bishop isn’t a Pope, I mean a child can understand that, right? Bishop doesn’t mean Pontifus Maximus. That name came from outside. Bishop means leader amongst a collegiality of other bishops. Pope means antichrist. Two different terms and two different functions. A bishop is a biblical leader in the church. A Pope is a usurper of God’s position. Paul was an apostle and never called himself Pope, head of the church, Vicar, Holy Father. You see where i’m going Jim. In Italian we would say the Pope non e’ mai existito nella bibia. It never existed in the bible.

18. Your buddy Mikel is having a field day with snot mouthed Eric over on CCC right now.

    Reply

19. Jim, I think you mean your buddy Mikel, you know him like a brother, if you know what I mean. K Have a great day Mikel, I mean Jim. K Hope you and your wife have a blessed safe Christmas. Incidentally Jim, what did you think of Tim’s latest article? Have you had a chance to read it? Would love to get your take? K

    Reply

    1. Kevin,
       Merry Xmas to you and yours too. Now, can we get back on topic?
       Tim asserts the Papacy did not exist before 350. That is the topic we are discussing.

       Reply

       1. Jim said ” Tim asserts that the Papacy did not exist before 350. No, Tim doesn’t assert, he offers proof of this. Therefore your left in the unenviable position of providing proof otherwise. And from what I’ve seen from you, CK, and Bob, there is none. In fact i would say there isn’t any on any of his articles. Bob gave an effort on the position of transubstantiation and bread sacrifice in the church. But it was soundly refuted and proven that the only sacrifices acceptable to God are a broken and contrite heart, and prayer and thanksgiving. No second offering for sins. The first one was sufficient to put all sins away. Now please provide evidence where Clement considered himself a Pope. He was the bishop of Rome who believed in jbfa. So I’m going with scripture and one of your first bishops Clement who taught jbfa and your other bishop Gelasius who taught the bread and wine remained after communion. K

          Reply

          1. Kelvin,
             I see you are trying to change topics in order to rescue Tim.

             “Now please provide evidence where Clement considered himself a Pope. ”

             Tertullian and I believe Eusebius ( pre-350 ) say Peter ordained Clement and selected him as successor. However, as Linus was Peter’s auxiliary, he didn’t take office right away.

             Reply

             1. Jim, again i’ll ask you where did Clement call himself a Pope. Remember its your church that says Popiage goes back to Peter. So before we go to Peter, please show me where Clement called himself anything other than the bishop of Rome. Bishop and pope are two different words that don’t mean the same thing. I’m still waiting Jim? God bless K

20. Tim,

    Can we consider Ireneus to be pre-350? He says it would be too much hassle to trace the lineage of all the bishoprics so he just focuses on Romes starting with it being the noble city of Peter and Paul and progresses up to the present Bishop of that see.

    Reply

    1. Jim,

       Since you believe Irenaeus affirmed the Papacy, would you kindly identify for us who Ireneaus believed to be the first bishop of Rome? He did not take the time to list the succession of Bishops except for the bishops in the capital city, so your work is already done for you, isn’t it? Who did Irenaeus identify as the first bishop of Rome?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,
          Linus. And your point is…?

          Reply

          1. Thanks. You are correct. Irenæus identified Linus as the first bishop of Rome.

             What is interesting in Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraphs 1-4, is that Irenæus neither identifies Peter as the first Bishop of Rome, nor imputes anything special to the bishopric except that it was located in the chief city of the empire. The intent of this chapter was to show that “it is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.” (paragraph 1).

             Since it was “within the power of all … in every Church,” to find the truth, then to which Church should someone go in order to find the truth? Well, every Church. Anyone who wanted to get the truth could go to any Church at all—there was no need to go to Rome. Irenæus gave several examples:

             “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.”

             “It is true,” said Irenaeus, “that there is the ancient letter from Clement to the Corinthians,” and “From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches” (paragraph 3). Of course, Polycarp’s letter was “very powerful” and would serve the purpose, too:

             “There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth.” (paragraph 4)

             Either epistle will do, apparently. The great thing about these Epistles, though, is that Clement and Polycarp insist that the recipients turn to the Scriptures:

             “Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached?” (Clement, to the Corinthians, chapter 47).

             “For I trust that you are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you” (Polycarp, to the Philippians, chapter 12)

             Of course, if you can’t get to Rome, or get your hands on Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, or if you can’t get to Smyrna, or get your hands on Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, “Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” (Paragraph 4). Yes, Ephesus would do nicely, too.

             It seems that Irenæus’ point was not that there was a consistent, or even a unique, testimony in Rome, but that there was a consistent testimony throughout the known world, in every Church, and it frankly didn’t matter to which one you went to find the truth. Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, or “all the Asiatic Churches.” The testimony was the same. The great thing about this is that you could go to any of these Churches and find that there were no “secret teachings” floating around out there, waiting to be discovered in the 4th or the 11th centuries—like incense, kneeling on Sunday, candles, Eucharistic adoration, transubstantiation, Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary’s sinlessness, Papal primacy, etc… Anything you needed to know you could learn at any Church in the world, and anything you needed to know had already been delivered:

             “For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.” (paragraph 1).

             Irenæaus was apparently unaware of the development of the “Development of Doctrine” doctrine.

             I said earlier that there was no need to go to Rome. That’s not exactly true. Apparently Polycarp needed to go to Rome:

             “He [Polycarp] it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.” (Paragraph 4).

             Good thing Rome had “Pope” Anicetus who had it covered, so they didn’t have to import an Asian bishop to set things straight in Rome. 🙂 Didn’t Polycarp know that Anicetus was infallible, and had it all under control?

             Jim, I know none of this will matter to you. But you should know that your citation of Irenæus to prove the existence of the Papacy prior to 350 A.D. actually does the opposite of what you think it does.

             Tim

             Reply

21. Jim, here is my take. Jesus addresses many churches in revelations and their sins. Paul tells us their will be a false church with a false leader and it was already at work in the church. We Reformed easily recognize that false church as being Rome. The very church that Paul wrote so eloquently to about justification by faith alone in Christ alone, is the very church that became apostate, believing a false gospel of earning salvation by faith plus works thru doing a life of doing sacraments, and steeped in idolatry. We know that God’s universal church of the elect of all peoples and nations survived pristine. We know that the true church has always set itself apart from that system even thru the dark ages. The true church is recognized by its head Jesus Christ. And the false church is recognized by its head, a man, the Pope. The former is a kingdom not of this world. The latter is an early kingdom. The former is known for its suffering for the sake of the gospel. The latter is know as the one that caused the suffering. The former worships God thru Christ in Spirit and in truth through faith. The latter worships a piece of bread they call Christ by carrying it around in the streets and attending adoring chapels. The former is a spiritual kingdom. The latter is a fleshly kingdom. The former worships incarnate Christ who is in heaven, the latter worships false Christ that makes himself into a wafer. The former’s members are righteousness who live by faith, and the latter are still unrighteous accumulating their salvation through cooperating with God. The former are simultaneously justified and glorified. The latter just hope if they are good enough God will let them in. Thats how I see it Jim.

    Reply

    1. Kevin,
       Please get out of the conversation if your only want to deflect. Tim made an allegation and I am trying to address it. Go troll somewhere else.

       Reply

22. Tim,
    Just as an aside, you tried pulling a fast one with your Jerome stuff, huh? I just looked up the quote and see Jerome was actually talking about why John wasn’t chosen and not so much as to why Peter was picked.

    No, Jerome would not be Pope as he didn’t consider himself such.
    . Here is what he said to Damasus, “I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock upon which the Church is built…”.

    Elsewhere he wrote, ” He who is joined to the Chair of Peter is accepted by me”.

    I know you aren’t a fan of Jerome’s and that he is post your cut off date. However, this issue is your honesty. You tried bamboozling me with that stuff about Peter’s age,Tim.
    You must have learned that stunt from Webster.

    Reply

23. Kevin,
    Pope means father. The title was not applied to just the Bishop of Rome. Abbots ( Abba ) are fathers too. Patriarchs of the major sees had that title. The Cardinal of Lisbon is called Patriarch ” ( father ) in honor of Portugal evangelizing the world.
    Go bark up another tree as the issue is the office and not the title.

    Clement certainly felt authorized to write to Corinth in an imperious tone.

    Reply

24. Tim, I just got the book by Allison Roman Catholic Theology and Practice and am almost through it. You have tovget it Tim. Its serious. K

    Reply

25. Jim said ” Pope means father” Actually Jim, the early church fatgers believed Pontifex Maximus meant ” King of Heathendom” I would say they were accurate. Its clear Turtullian didnt buy in.

    Reply

    1. Kelvin
       Just like the Queen of heaven, right?

       Do you know where the title for Jesus, ‘”King of Kings” was first used? Not by Christians, that’s for sure. It was a pagan title. Look it up.

       Reply

26. I guess that does it for tonight, eh Tim.
    Since you have stopped posting, and I don’t intend to play footsie with Kevin, I guess we are done on this subject.
    It sure looks like there was a papacy before 351-400 to me.

    Reply

27. Kevin,
    The first Bishop of Rome to be called “Pope” was Marcellinus in 294. That is well before Tim’s “latter half of the 4th century.

    Reply

    1. Jim said ” the first Bishop of Rome to be called Pope was Marcellenius in 290″ So much for the unbroken line of the Papacy back to Peter. That was easy man. Thanks

       Reply

28. Okay Tim.
    Your theory went up in smoke.

    The Papacy predates 350.

    Now, shall we address Mary being called New Eve before your late 4th century date?

    Justiin Martyr in the east. Ireneus in Europ and Tertullian in N. Africa all taught the New Eve concept. If a doctrine is held by the entire Church for a period, it is de fide.
    these guys wrote 150 years before your date.
    Pius XII, in defining the Assumption had recourse to Mary not suffering bodily corruption in the grave by “right of conquest”. These Fathers taught that Mary had a role in undoing the work of the Serpent.
    Whatever else these men may have said, remember, it was before any papal definitions.
    Everything we hold on Mary is in seed form in the “New Eve” doctrine.

    Jerome quotes St. Ignatius as saying nobody is saved without the help of the Virgin. Origin in 200 or so called Mary the ‘Mother of God”. he also said nobody can understand the Gospel of John unless they imitate that Evangelist and, “take Mary as mother”.

    The Gospel of James written in the latter part of the 1st century teaches Mary’s perpetual Virginity.
    And you Tim, taught me the Sub Tuum prayer is from the early 3rd century.

    No pagan Goddess stuff here Tim. This was all while Christians were being fed to lions for not mixing their beliefs with paganism.

    Oh, as for that “death wafer; you bozos like to talk about, Justin Martyr said the pagan followers of Mithra copied us. You say Catholics copied them.

    Okay Timmer, it sure appears Catholicism was up and running before the latter half of the 4th century.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you wrote,

       Now, shall we address Mary being called New Eve before your late 4th century date?

       Justin Martyr in the east…

       Would you please provide the Justin Martyr reference of Mary being the New Eve?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. I’m guessing the Jim is referring to Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Tryphoand although both Mary and Eve are mentioned, Mary is not called “The New Eve”, in fact, the most that can be said is that JM contrasts Eve and Mary. The entire work is an apologetic to convince “Trypho” who apparently was Jewish, that Jesus fullfilled the OT prophecies which foretold of the Messiah.

          Reply

          1. EA,

             Justin brings out the different dispositions in the two woman.
             And he did it before 350.

             Reply

          2. Yes, Justin contrasts Eve with Mary, the same way Paul contrasts Adam with Christ. Through Adam came death; through Christ came eternal life, says Paul. Eve conceived the word of the serpent; Mary conceived the word of God, says Justin. Christ is the New Adam; Mary is the New Eve. The fact that Justin uses a “contrast,” as you say, does not create any trouble at all. On the contrary, it’s the very point.

             Reply

          3. If Mary weren’t to be contrasted with Eve, then she would hardly be the New Eve. She would be the Old Eve.

             Reply

    2. Jim,

       In addition to Origen, Cyril and Basil, all of whom affirmed Mary’s sinfulness, Tertullian and Chrysostom also taught that Mary was a self-seeking, vainglorious, unbelieving, domineering woman who at the wedding at Cana still had not learned to worship Christ, and who was still in need of salvation, and was still sinfully trying to claim credit for Christ’s miracles. Jesus had to rebuke her because He cared more for her salvation than to honor her as His mother. Her behavior when Jesus was preaching—that is as she was “standing without”—made her a figure of the Synagogue, which rejected Him (for she attempted to interrupt Him while He was preaching God’s Word), whereas the believing people who “stood within” were a figure for the Church. For this reason, He denied her in indignation to censure her faults, and heal her disease of vainglory and self-seeking.

       This is your “New Eve” who saved mankind with her fiat. We will come back to Irenæus later, but the early church was unaware of Mary’s alleged sinlessness that you so wish to find, but cannot, in the early church. Of course, to the mind of the Catholic, the absence of devotion to Mary’s “Immaculate Heart” in the early church is just evidence of the latent devotion that would one day develop for her “Immaculate Heart,” isn’t it? Such is the fabled apostolicity of Rome’s doctrines.

       I know you believe that Origen, Cyril, Basil, Chrysostom and Tertullian were all misogynists and, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, they were entitled to their own “private opinions,”

       “But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception

       Stray?

       Of course (to Catholics) these “stray private opinions” cannot possibly be apostolic, because well, because everyone knows the apostles did not believe Mary was sinful, and we know what the Apostles taught because of the Church Fathers have told us, and we know the Church Fathers have told us so because the Church has told us that the Fathers have told us so, and the Church gets its apostolic teaching from the church fathers, who, unequivocally held to Mary’s sinlessness (not counting “stray private opinions). Etc…, etc…., etc…, so with the circularity of Roman epistemology. Even though Origen, Cyril, Basil, Chrysostom and Tertullian nowhere claim that their views on Mary are “private,” or “stray,” they must be relegated as such in order to preserve the imaginary continuity of Rome’s claimed apostolicity.

       I have already provided the evidence from Origen, Cyril and Basil elsewhere. Here are the citations from Tertullian and Chrysostom:

       Tertullian:

       “He knew that those whom they were announcing to be “standing without,” were in fact absent by the stress either of sickness, or of business, or a journey which He was at the time aware of. … “The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him.” [John 7:5] So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time; while there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, while strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, “What are mother and brothers to me?” And did not Christ, while preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour— even because they listened to the word (of God)— He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours— for God’s work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, while the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship.” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7)

       “It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained. He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him “stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” [Matthew 10:37] Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offense, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 19)

       John Chrysostom:

       “Having then said these words, “He came out of the house.” Do you see, how He both rebuked them, and did what they desired? Which He did also at the marriage. [John 2:1-11] For there too He at once reproved her asking unseasonably, and nevertheless did not gainsay her; by the former correcting her weakness, by the latter showing His kindly feeling toward His mother. So likewise on this occasion too, He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother, even though her request was unseasonable.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3

       “Before this time He lived as one of the many, and therefore His mother had not confidence to say any such thing to Him; but when she heard that John had come on His account, and that he had borne such witness to Him as he did, and that He had disciples, after that she took confidence, and called Him, and said, when they wanted wine, “They have no wine.” For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, “Show yourself to the world” [John 17:4], desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come.” …And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” [Matthew 12:48], because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshipped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.2)

       “It was then from this motive that He said in this place, “Woman, what have I to do with you?” and also for another reason not less pressing. What was that? It was, that His miracles might not be suspected. The request ought to have come from those who needed, not from His mother. And why so? Because what is done at the request of one’s friends, great though it be, often causes offense to the spectators; but when they make the request who have the need, the miracle is free from suspicion, the praise unmixed, the benefit great. So if some excellent physician should enter a house where there were many sick, and be spoken to by none of the patients or their relations, but be directed only by his own mother, he would be suspected and disliked by the sufferers, nor would any of the patients or their attendants deem him able to exhibit anything great or remarkable. And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with you?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.” ((John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.3)

       I know this will be difficult for you to accept or believe, as it plainly demonstrates that the early church gave to Mary the honor that is due to every believer, to every sinner who has ever been saved by Jesus blood shed for her sins to save her from the depravity of her sinful origins, recognizing that she was of earth, earthy, and as a mother given to the sins that every mother faces.

       Nevertheless, I count this sinful but healed Mary, as my sister, rescued as we both were from our sins, faults, offenses, vainglory and doubt. It is a shame that you cannot receive her as yours.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim, said ” Tertullian and Chrysostom also taught that Marry was a self seeking, vainglorious, unbelieving, domineering woman who at the wedding of Cana still had not learned to worship Christ, and who was still in need of salvation.” you mean like scripture says ” for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But since the RC model has grace elevating nature and not necessarily redeeming it, the woman who was” full of grace” is now the new incarnate connection to all grace. We believe grace redeems nature, they believe it elevates it outside of itself.

          Reply

       2. Tim, I had never read the full passage by Tertullian. It is very instructive.

          Reply

       3. John Chrysostom? Was he pre-350? No? Then why are you bringing him into the discussion? Are you moving the goalpost? Can I bring in Fathers post 350 too?

          Over on CCC we talked about this business of Mary being scandalized or having vainglory, did we not? ( Actually, you laid this egg and then left, leaving me to have to explain. You never came back, not even to argue your Daniel nonsense to Nick. ).

          Tim, you assert that prior to 350+, there was no (Roman ) Catholic Church and that none of her doctrines existed.

          The New Eve parallel reveals that in the recapitulation/atonement theory, Mary did indeed participate in a manner parallel to Eve in the Fall.
          Now, as Cardinal Newman explains, upon refection, this doctrine contains all of Mariology in seed form.

          IN SEED FORM. That is why, centuries later, Pius XII could say, “by right of conquest”.

          By the way, could you comment on the Sub Tuum Prasidium? It appears Chritians were appealing to Mary before 350.

          Reply

          1. Jim,

             Over on CCC we talked about this business of Mary being scandalized or having vainglory, did we not?

             Perhaps. I do not consider CCC the final arbiter in all things related to truth. Do you believe that if CCC has discussed it, the case is closed?

             (Actually, you laid this egg and then left, leaving me to have to explain. …”

             Did I? I don’t recall doing so.

             … You never came back, not even to argue your Daniel nonsense to Nick.).

             I am sorry if my internet behavior does not conform to your expectations.

             “Tim, you assert that prior to 350+, there was no (Roman ) Catholic Church…”

             That is true.

             ” … and that none of her doctrines existed.”

             Can you remind me of where I said that? I have no recollection of ever saying that before 350 AD none of Rome’s doctrines existed. I have pointed out key doctrines that define Roman Catholicism and have continually shown that there is no evidence of them prior to 350 A.D. But Rome also says it is a sin to murder. Have I ever said that doctrine never existed prior to 350? One of your problems, Jim, is that you have an irrepressible urge to misrepresent other people’s arguments and then argue against a straw man which was nowhere alleged.

             You continued,

             The New Eve parallel reveals that in the recapitulation/atonement theory, Mary did indeed participate in a manner parallel to Eve in the Fall. Now, as Cardinal Newman explains, upon refection, this doctrine contains all of Mariology in seed form. IN SEED FORM. That is why, centuries later, Pius XII could say, “by right of conquest”.

             Jim, as I have proven elsewhere, Rome is quite selective about which “seeds” it chooses to adopt, and which full-grown trees it chooses to uproot, in order to prove its apostolicity. Mary’s sinfulness existed IN TREE FORM at the same time you are claiming that her sinlessness existed IN SEED FORM. A collegiality of bishops on equal footing throughout the known world existed IN TREE FORM in the first three centuries of the church, at the same time that you claim that a chief bishopric in Rome existed IN SEED FORM. The symbolism of the bread and wine existed IN TREE FORM at the time that you claim that transubstantiation existed IN SEED FORM. The fact that the bishop of Rome is not infallible existed IN TREE FORM at the time that you claim that his infallibility existed IN SEED FORM. That’s the point.

             All the non-Roman data and all the Roman inconsistencies that can be found in the first three centuries are relegated to “stray private opinions” of maverick bishops and councils whose decisions weren’t binding anyway. But let one man say something favorable of Mary and Rome declares that his writing is part of the deposit of faith and is therefore apostolic and incontrovertible.

             Justin Martyr speaks of Mary receiving Gabriel’s announcement with joy:

             “But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to your word.’ [Luke 1:38] And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 100)

             According to Newman’s theory, the “fact” that Mary is more powerful than God is found here IN SEED FORM:

             “O powerful Fiat!” exclaims St. Thomas of Villanova; “O efficacious Fiat! O Fiat to be venerated above every other Fiat! For with a fiat God created light, heaven, earth; but with Mary’s fiat,” says the saint, “God became man, like us.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)

             Yet, if you read chapter 100, Justin Martyr’s point was not that Eve and Mary are parallels, but that Eve and Mary are both daughters of Adam, for it was necessary to prove that a descendant of Adam, Jesus, had come to conquer the serpent:

             “He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear. … and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin.”(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 100)

             Does this really contain IN SEED FORM Mary’s sovereign will to which God Himself must submit?

             That’s one “magic” seed, Jim.

             Tim

             Reply

       4. Hi Tim,
          Does the Roman Church-State deny the doctrine of original sin in their doctrines of Mary, particularly her supposed sinless conception by her mother?
          I may have seen this on this site somewhere, but I remember someone asking, “How many sins does it take for a man to commit, before he can be justly condemned to Hell?” Most people think the answer is ONE. One sin is enough to condemn. But the true answer from Scripture is zero, “in sin did my mother conceive me.” God imputes the sin of Adam to everyone descended from Adam. So, I’m gathering, logically, that the RCS do not believe in the doctrine of original sin, total depravity, nor imputation of sin. Is that correct? Thx.

          Reply

          1. John,

             To answer your question, “Does the Roman Church-State deny the doctrine of original sin in their doctrines of Mary, particularly her supposed sinless conception by her mother?”

             No, the Roman Church-State does not deny the doctrine of original sin in their doctrines of Mary. Regarding the immaculate conception, they say of Mary that “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin”. In other words, at the moment of conception she was preserved from the stain of original sin in view of the merits of Christ. In their eyes, this is an affirmation of the reality of original sin, and the necessity that Mary must have been preserved from it.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Thx very much Tim.

29. Tim, since the Papacy was clearly a move to excercise ecclesiastical supremacy and autonomy, to eventually posess the power of both swords and world rule, when you get time can you give me a brief view of your position between church and government. Specifically when we are told to submit to government unless it goes againt God. MacArthur is a big proponent that in history when societies were theocratic run ( which have been almost all except for US) it was destructive. He maintains that Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world and the NT brought a composite view, of which he says America is the first real composite society. Thanks Tim.

    Reply

30. Tim,
    “For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, an bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings…”

    You obviously know it Tim. I don’t need to type it all out, do I? Looks like a parallel between Mary and Eve to me.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you asked,

       ” I don’t need to type it all out, do I?”

       Yes, I prefer that you did. Especially the “New Eve” part.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

31. “Now, shall we address Mary being called New Eve before your late 4th century date?

    Justin Martyr in the east…”

    “Looks like a parallel between Mary and Eve to me.”

    Jim,

    Is Mary literally called the “New Eve” prior to the late 4th century or do some Early Church Fathers note a parallel between Mary and Eve? It looks to me to be the latter rather than the former.

    Reply

    1. And your point is…?

       Reply

       1. My point is…that you claimed that the Early Church Fathers started referring to Mary as the “New Eve” before the late 4th century. One of those ECF that you cited was Justin Martyr. But Justin Martyr does not refer to Mary by that title.

          Is there another ECF (or multiple ECF) that refer to Mary as being the “New Eve” that you can cite. It doesn’t look like Justin Martyr does.

          Reply

          1. Doesn’t matter. The Bible doesn’t refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “Trinity,” either. Does that mean the Trinity was an invention of a later century?

             Reply

32. Catholics, if we are commanded to love God with ALL of our heart, soul, and mind, this can leave NO room for Mary or any other person or thing. None!

    Reply

    1. That is the single dumbest thing I have read in my 45 years. I’m not permitted to love my parents? My spouse? My children? My neighbor? Cafe mocha? Sycophantic fools who spout off in comboxes? Loving God with all your heart does not mean loving only God.

       Reply

       1. Scott,
          Save your breath. Kevin is unreachable. Better men have tried, better men have died trying to get through to him.
          He is an internet troll who craves attention. Within a day of explaining something to him, he will bring it up again just to have you repeat yourself. He doesn’t really give a ding dong about what you say. He is having sport with Catholics who think he is sane or serious. I think he might be demon possessed.

          He will have you in a straight jacket or on the bottle if you let him get to you.

          Reply

          1. 🙂 I’m not suffering fools well today. LOL.

             Reply

    2. What is the Greatest Commandment?

       LOVE GOD….And my neighbor as myself.

       Reply

33. Scott Eric Alt, ” loving God with all of our heart soul and mind does not mean loving only God” Hey Scott did you ever consider that loving our family and neighbor is loving God since He has called us to love our neighbor. If you are however using that to justify the looking to the Queen of heaven the mediatrix of all graces and praying to her, you are gravely mistaken. In Isaiah 48 the Lord says, my glory I share with noone. Jesus simply rebuked his bondslave for her sin, it didnt mean he didnt love his mother.

    Reply

    1. “Loving our family and neighbor is loving God.”

       Oh, good. Then you’ve made my point for me. There’s no competition between loving one’s parents and loving God. God is not jealous of our love for our parents. I’m glad you see this. There’s hope for you.

       If only you would apply the same logic to Mary, then you would be consistent.

       Reply

       1. Scott said ” now if you apply this to Mary you would be consistent.” Well we know your being inconsistent by saying Catholics just love Mary. They worship her under the appearance of her accidents, loving her as sister. I love Mry as my sister, but I dont prayto her. Nice try.

          Reply

          1. Sorry. We do not worship Mary. In fact, we specifically condemn the worship of Mary. So tell us again why you know more than we do about what we mean by what we say. That’s s a little obstinate.

             Reply

             1. Scott, what you say about what you do is in material, all that matters is what scripture says about it. For c instance Ephesians 2 :8 says salvation is by grace thru faith, not that of yourself, not of works. Iow nothing meritorious in who we are or what we do. Its based on Christ’s righteouness only and comes thru faith. Yet tgat doesnt stop Catholics from smuggling their character into God’ work of grace. Qoutes from Trent, to the one who works well to the end, as a reward to their merits and good works, who truly merit eternal life, converted to their own justification. The Catechism defenition of merit is recompensed owed. And they use your argument, you cant tell us what we mean. Yes we can.

             2. No, you can’t tell us what we mean, as though you know better than we do. Things like that are why the dictionary contains words like “arrogance.” If you ask me to explain Catholic teachings, if you ask me to explain what I’m up to when I give honor to Mary, I’ll be glad to tell you. But if you insist on continuing to assume what you came into the discussion assuming, then all you’re doing is proving that you’re not willing to listen, your assumptions are all one-sided, and you’re not open to being taught. That’s the very definition of obstinacy, and if that’s the attitude you have, then further discussion is meaningless.

    2. Catholics, by the way, don’t give Mary the glory that they give to God. That’s a falsehood.

       Reply

       1. Scott,

          You wrote,

          Catholics, by the way, don’t give Mary the glory that they give to God. That’s a falsehood.

          Actually, there is a rather compelling case that it is true.

          See, We don’t worship* Mary, and We don’t worship Mary*, for starters.

          Tim

          Reply

          1. Thanks, I will look at your arguments.

             Reply

             1. Oh, and Scott, Tim is a former Catholic. He is not a rank and file Protestant who could be acting in good faith.

                As with all ex-Catholics, he has an axe to grind. His problem is not intellectual but emotional and spiritual.

                And as for Walt, I still cannot figure him out. It has something to do with a Scottish lassie or some such weirdness.

                So, stick around and enjoy the shenanigans on this blog. But don’t be fooled into thinking you are dealing with sane men. ( Only CK, Bob and I are sane on this site ).

             2. Thanks, Jim. I did know that about Tim—same is true of John Bugay and Mike Gendron and a lesser-known guy named Richard Bennett. One of these guys is just like the others.

       2. Scott, you wrote:
          If you ask me to explain Catholic teachings, if you ask me to explain what I’m up to when I give honor to Mary, I’ll be glad to tell you.

          Please explain “I give honor to Mary”. Compare and contrast that with Jesus gave (or gives) honor to Mary.

          Reply

          1. Oh I could hardly give Mary the honor that Christ already did. Let’s put it this way. We are commanded to honor our father and mother. I honor mine, for no other or more complicated reason than that they are my father and mother. You could say that my father and mother provided all the care and love for me I needed as a child; you could also say that ultimately that care and love came from God; and you would be saying the same thing both ways.

             What I am up to when I honor Mary is the same thing I am up to when I honor my earthly mother. The difference is, how much more shall I honor Mary, because she is the mother of my Lord.

             Reply

             1. Scott,
                Thanks for the reply. Do you honor your Grandmother more than your Mother ?
                Consider this: The difference is, how much more shall I honor my GMother, because she is the Mother of my authoritative Mother.

             2. Eric,
                I don’t think the analogy you’re trying to draw quite fits. I’m making a comparison by degrees of greatness (my mother vs. the mother of Christ). Your comparison is by degrees of separation (my mother vs. my mother’s mother).

                Here’s how I would put it. We know that in the Bible, to say that “John begat Joseph” does not necessarily mean that John was Joseph’s father. John could have been Joseph’s great-grandfather; technically, he still could have begat Joseph. The genealogies in the Bible skip generations all over the place. So it would be quite accurate for me to say “Henry begat Scott” (Henry being my grandfather’s name).

                In much the same way, it is not inaccurate to think of Mary as “mother of all graces,” if you consider the meaning: all graces come through Christ, and Mary is the mother of Christ.

             3. Scott said ” oh I could hardly give honor that Christ did to his mother.” Do you own a bible Scott, I volenteer to buy you one. When one does a study of all Jesus encounters with his mother, he goes out of his way to deflect all glory from her, once rebuking her saying woman what has this to do with me. I really belive the marian ego gone out of controll in the Roman religion is the male domineering heiarchy of the church feeding the female ego in he church. You know He’s the king, she’s the queen, He is mediator,
                she is mediatrix, He is perfect, she is perfect, He ascended, she is assumed, I mean Rome has Marry responsible for everything. She is the towering figure

             4. LOL, Kevin, I’ve read the entire Bible more times than I have any other book, and I must own about 7 copies of it. I know what verses you mean, and as is typical with anti-Mary Protestants, you read far too much into it. The way you read that verse, one would think that Christ was guilty of dishonoring his mother, which would make Him a sinner.

             5. Scott, you wrote:
                I don’t think the analogy you’re trying to draw quite fits. I’m making a comparison by degrees of greatness (my mother vs. the mother of Christ). Your comparison is by degrees of separation (my mother vs. my mother’s mother).

                Response:
                Two things: (a) I take greatness to mean those spiritual and temporal blessings given by God. In this respect, Mary was greater because she got things other Mothers didn’t get. But I don’t think that is the real basis of your comparison. Introducing “Lord”, or to highlight authority, is the REASON for “my mother vs. the mother of Christ comparison”. (b) If my understanding of the reason is correct, then my comparison shouldn’t be described as separation. Lord Jesus and authoritative Mother are authoritative agents. This is why I can begin a just comparison without separation.

                Allow me to push my comparison. Should a Mother (and Wife) honor her Mother-in-Law more than her own Mother ? Her husband is lord to her (1Pet. 3:6), so how much more she should honor her MLaw, because she is the mother of her husband-lord. Look at the degrees of greatness too. Her husband-lord is the fruit of MLaw’s womb. How is it that the Mother of her husband-lord should come unto her ?
                ————————-
                You wrote:
                In much the same way, it is not inaccurate to think of Mary as “mother of all graces,” if you consider the meaning: all graces come through Christ, and Mary is the mother of Christ.

                Response:
                I will not doubt the temporal priority of Mary. She did give birth, and not the reverse. She gave birth to Jesus who was full of grace and truth (John 1:16,17), and from His fullness we all received.

             6. Eric, Christ is greater not merely on the basis of greater authority, but on the basis of ontology. His authority flows from that, but it’s a by-product of being greater in essence.

34. Scott, Catholics pray to Mary, consider her the Queen of heaven mediatrix of all graces, and their spiritual heads commit the whole church into her hands, one of them JP2 having her name sewn into his papal garments. If it looks like a duck……… k

    Reply

    1. You keep using this word “pray.” I don’t think it means what you think it means. If I am wrong, please explain if to me, I pray you.

       Reply

       1. You keep using this word “pray.” I don’t think it means what you think it means.

          The Princess Bride. Good memories.

          Reply

    2. Could be a platypus or worse. It could be you, Kevin.

       Reply

    3. Scott, you wrote:
       Christ is greater not merely on the basis of greater authority, but on the basis of ontology….

       Response:
       Since Christ’s greater authority is the foundation for any participation in authority, then my comparisons stand.

       Mary / authoritative Jesus
       G.Mother / authoritative Mother
       Mother-in-Law/ authoritative husband-lord
       ———————–

       I will offer a simple challenge. If Mary, as a mother, is honored more than your own Mother, then you nullify God’s command with your tradition. More blessing is gained by honoring your Mother, over and against Mary. In this case, blessings are used to measure how much honor is given to each. One blessing will tip the scales in favor of your own Mother:

       A promise of living long on the earth (land) is annexed to the command to honor your Mother. This promise is lacking with regard to YOU honoring Mary.

       Reply

       1. Ontology was the basis for my comparison, and since the discussion involves my own comparison, that’s the only thing that’s germane. Otherwise, your shifting the ground of the discussion and obstinately defending your right to shift. That makes rational conversation impossible—like a discussion about math between someone who’s using base 10 and someone who’s using hexadecimal. I’m in base 10. If you insist on remaining in hexadecimal, good luck to you in your world.

          Reply

          1. Scott, you wrote:
             Ontology was the basis for my comparison…

             Response: Me too !
             —————–
             You wrote:
             Otherwise, your shifting the ground of the discussion and obstinately defending your right to shift. That makes rational conversation impossible

             Response:
             Everything I wrote remains untouched. Honoring Mary more than your mother, because she is the mother of your Lord, is the tradition. It’s a tradition without a doubt, but it remains without proof for why you should (related to the moral law) do it. Do you realize that I affirmed your position and showed similar relations that can’t be set aside arbitrarily ? Me thinks you are now guilty of some kind of unwarranted separation.
             —————–
             You have some motive for leaving my challenge in silence. I know that even a fool is wise when he is silent. Stay silent and look wise. Any attempt to answer will lead to foolishness.
             —————–
             Before I leave you in monk-like silence, for we know your silence reflects your idol ( Psalm 115: 5, 8), please know that I must defend myself against your character assassination. (I learned from RCs how to whimper vengefully when someone didn’t “understand” me)

             (a) “Shifting the ground of the discussion” means I’m shifty.
             (b) “Obstinately defending your right to shift” means I lack charity.

             Compare with some of my words:
             (a) Please explain
             (b) Thanks for the reply
             (c) Allow me

             Reply

             1. First, you say that you insisted on reading a comparison of authority where I meant a comparison of ontology because — well, just because …

                Then, you say that by “authority” you really meant “ontology” all along …

                Then, you suspect that this linguistic shell game will have stupefied me into monk-like and idolatrous silence.

                You’re really not all that clever.

35. Tim, I would like to recomend to all your readers the best book I ever read on the comparison between Evangelical theology and Catholic theology. All Catholics and Protestants should read it. Its a scholarly work that is an easy read for all. Im going to say its best comparison and even treatment written. Its called Roman Catholic theology and practice by Reformed Baptist professor Gregg R Allison. He has extensive work in the Catholic world. It is an extensive fair assesment of Catholicism from the Evangelical perspective. Its balanced in the similarities and its loving and candid about the great divides. Readers will leave with a clearer understanding. Hope all will invest in this book. Its the best I have read. K

    Reply

    1. After MAD MAGAZINE, dontcha’ mean, Kevin?

       Reply

       1. Kevin,
          But you told Tim that GRAVEN BREAD was the greatest book ever written. And you especially liked the picture to color.
          Now you are changing your mind?

          Reply

          1. You mean “The Roman Catholic Controversy” is not the greatest story ever told? Dr.* White will be hurt.

             Reply

          2. Jim, do you laugh at your lame humor? Stick to yourvday job. Lol

             Reply

    2. Kevin, maybe the best book on this subject is Robert Zzzzzzzins’ book “Romanism” — you know, the one with the scintillating subtitle “The Relentless Roman Catholic Assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!” (The hyperbolic exclaimation point belonged to Zzzzzzzzzzzzzins!!!!!!!!!!)

       Reply

       1. Scott, you acusing me of being obstinate and then you leave a post like that. Have you read that book. Catholics will give it high marks with his treatment of the RC system and lts polite drawing of similarities and distinctions.

          Reply

          1. I’ve read every last tiresome word. I’d love to have a conversation with any Catholic who actually does give it “high marks.” Zzzzzzzins’s prose is an overinflated rhetorical throwback to the 19th century.

             Reply

36. Tim,

    I can’t hold by breath much longer. Are you going to make your point about Ireneus and Linus soon? I am turning blue waiting.

    Reply

37. Scott im all ears. Teach me. How do you honor Mary? Can you be specific on the things you do. For instance is she a mediator for you? Do you pray to her? Do you recieve grace though her. Do you consided her queen of heaven ? Do you hold to the sinlessness and asumption your church taches? Im listening God bless.

    Reply

    1. How do you honor your earthly mother?

       Did you receive food from her (even though ultimately that food really did come from God, you know)?

       Did you pray to your mother when you were in need (“pray” being used to mean “ask,” which after all, is what the word “pray,” you know, actually means)? But if you were hungry, why didn’t you just go directly to God? Doesn’t the food really come from him?

       In all the ways I honor my mother on earth, I honor the mother of my Lord—and that much more, because she is the mother of my Lord.

       Reply

       1. Scott, thanks for your response on Mary. There is acfew problems with your thinking. Mary hasnt heard a prayer since she died. She isnt God, so she isnt omniscient. Second thing its a serious think to pray ( ask ) Mary for anything. Why? The bible tells us Christians have ALL things pertaining to life and Godliness. We lack nothing. You adressing Mary is undermining the sufficiency of our Savior who the scripture says is able to comfort us in everything because he experienced everything we do. Mary is not your mother or father. To address Mary in any way is to spit in the face of the Savior. She called herself a sinner and a slave of God, and would be ashamed if she knew, but she doesnt. Christ is the only mediator between man and God and to pray to Mary is idolatry.

          Reply

          1. Mary doesn’t have to be omniscient to hear prayer. Under certain circumstances, I have the power to hear the prayers of other people; that doesn’t mean I’m omniscient. Being omniscient is quite a vast range of knowledge. To have one kind of knowledge does not imply that you have all knowledge. You’re simply operating under a non sequitur here.

             The saints in heaven don’t turn their backs on us; I find that an odd idea. Even as a Protestant, I naturally assumed that loved ones who had died knew what was going on in my life and that I could speak with them. It was just a natural development to include Mary in that for me. I had less trouble with that than other aspects of Marian teaching.

             It also doesn’t follow that addressing Mary in any way “spits in the face” of Christ. How could it spit in the face of Christ to talk to His Mother? If Christ meant what he said when he said, “Whatever you do for one of the least of these you do for me,” then he is identifying himself with everyone who God created. How much more so the very woman God chose to be Christ’s mother! Christ doesn’t choose Mary as the means by which the Incarnation is to take place and then say, “That’s all, woman; I’ve nothing more to do with you. Know your place.” No.

             To honor Mary **is** to honor Christ. The only thing we are not to do is worship Mary, because worship belongs to God alone.

             Reply

38. Jim, I followed your interactions with Steve Hays over on Triablogue recently. You are very much out of your league over there and I truly believe they are only interacting with you to demonstrate how bad your arguments and logic are to everyone lurking. They’ve already dealt with your arguments ad nauseam for about a decade, so for them to even spend a short period of time on your comments should tell you something. Steve’s post on Flashcard apologetics was spot on.

    Reply

    1. “Mary doesn’t have to be omniscient to hear prayer. Under certain circumstances, I have the power to hear the prayers of other people; that doesn’t mean I’m omniscient. “

       It may be true that you hear other’s audible prayers if you are within earshot of them. But, you are not privy to unspoken prayers. You do not have the capacity to hear thousands of spoken and unspoken prayers offered in numerous languages simultaneously with the additional ability to keep all of those prayers straight and to correctly understand incomplete references (i.e. a prayer for someone named Jim when the person praying knows multiple “Jim’s”). Now, that may not be omniscience, having “all knowledge of all things”, but it infers capabilities that are nowhere attributed to any personage in Scripture, other than God.

       “The saints in heaven don’t turn their backs on us; I find that an odd idea. Even as a Protestant, I naturally assumed that loved ones who had died knew what was going on in my life and that I could speak with them. It was just a natural development to include Mary in that for me. I had less trouble with that than other aspects of Marian teaching.”

       The question I have is what was your “natural assumption” based upon?

       “To honor Mary **is** to honor Christ. “

       Sorry, I don’t see the connection between crowning statues, processing with them, and bowing to them and honoring Christ. Can you point me to a Scriptural passage or principle by which I can see that connection?

       Reply

       1. How about, “Honor thy Father and MOTHER”.

          Reply

       2. EA, The Bible says the angels carry our prayers to heaven.

          By the way, since you have not died and gone to heaven* yet, how do you know what the glorified body can do?

          * Now that you are a Protestant, do you have an assurance of salvation like Kevin and Tim delude themselves into thinking they have?

          Reply

       3. On the first point, you’re making both an argument from absence as well as an assumption that if souls in heaven have any one knowledge or ability more than humans on earth, they therefore must have all knowledge and all ability. That does not follow.

          On the second point, it’s based on Christ’s parable about the rich man and Lazarus. Christ was perfectly able to tell a parable about making a petition to Abraham and Abraham having the ability to intercede and also the knowledge of things that were going on here on Earth. (“You had all the good things in life,” he tells the rich man. How does Abraham know this? Is Abraham omniscient, like God?) No one made anything like the objections to Christ about Abraham that Protestants make to Catholics about Mary.

          On the last point, I need to turn your presuppositions around on you. First, Catholics do not bow “to” statutes. They bow to prayer in God in the presence of statues, which may represent certain holy men and women who were particular exemplars of God’s grace working in humanity. We are praising God for the abundant grace he worked in their lives, asking that he do the same for us, and asking for that particular saint’s intercession on our behalf.

          Unless you can point me to a passage in Scripture that tells us that the particular practices Catholics use as part of their devotion to saints are forbidden, or that they are worship, then the absence of any passage specifically permitting, for example, crowning, is a non issue. (And don’t use the “graven images” commandment, because that’s not what it means. That’s in the context of worshipping false gods, not in the context of any image of anything at all.)

          Reply

    2. Roy,
       How did you like Mr. Steve’s masterful denial of Peter being singled out in the passage that says Magdalene was told to” go tell the disciples and Peter”?

       Steve says that because the other disciples are mentioned, Peter is therefore not singled out? IOW, the Gospel writer might as well as have said, “Go tell the disciples and Jude”, or Simon the Zealot, or Nathaniel. Were you really impressed by this, Roy?

       Or how about his theory that actually having in one’s possession or access to a real Bible is not necessary for SS to work?
       I asserted that before Gutenberg’s printing press, SS was a physical impossibility as people neither had Bibles nor could they read especially in Latin..
       Steve said that maybe there were groups of 66 people who would each choose a particular book to memorize and then they formed a “Fahrenheit 451” sort of Bible community.

       Are you really impressed by Steve’s absurd theories?
       And you say there are idiots who have been impressed by him for a decade or so?

       Reply

       1. Unfortunately, you are the man with absurd theories, as aptly demonstrated by various Triabloggers and Tim Kauffman. You seem to think you make outstanding points but you don’t hold a candle to the rational points Steve or Tim makes. You provide surface level RC apologetics with your RC edition flashcards and continuously regurgitate poor arguments while patting yourself on the back with self congratulatory actions. Triablogue 1, RC internet apologist stalker 0.

          Reply

39. Scott said ” the saints in heaven don’t turn their back on us” One mediator. Seems pretty simple, huh. If Christ is sufficient to meet our every need, why you barking up the tree of saints. If Christ sacrifice was once at the consummation of the ages, and Hebrews says it perfected us, and put sin away, and says there are no more sacrifices for sin, why do you do the sacrifice of the Mass. Here is the answer Scott. Christ isn’t sufficient. Its like being married and your looking around for another, because she just doesn’t cut it. What Catholics call “full communion” ( meaning praying to all the Saints and going back for the imperfect Jesus wafer again and again), he just ain’t sufficient. Keeping Jesus on the cross and praying to his mother won’t go well for you, neither can save you. He is risen and is the only mediator for his people. There will come a time Scott when you can’t just blow off Protestant doctrine as crazy James White. God bless

    Reply

40. Scott, Colossians 2:10 ” and in Him you have been made complete.” I have always felt like that whole i went to Rome thing because of the full communion was always a front for unbelief and discontentment. I read scripture and it tells me in Christ I have everything and have been made complete. I never think of praying to a sinner. I got the perfect God queued up every day. If catholics only realized how they wound Christ by undermining his complete sufficiency. The bible tell us that God is a jealous God and Isaiah 48 is clear he shares his glory with none. Mary doesn’t want honor, she is to busy honoring her savior. I could only swing this humble woman telling you stop the foolishness, you have everything you need in the wonderful counselor, almighty God. Have a great day.

    Reply

    1. This is the common technique of Protestants when they find themselves on the losing side: conveniently drop the subject you were actually talking about and rattle off ten thousand other cliches and erroneous suppositions. That’s not having a give-and-take discussion; that’s throwing paint against the wall. Well did Jim prophesy of you saying, “He is an internet troll who craves attention and doesn’t care a ding dong what you say.”

       At this point I am going to take the advice of Christ. Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn again and rend you.

       Troll on, dude.

       Reply

41. I only say this because from this beautiful experience of talking to you tonight, I have concluded that you don’t care what Catholics have to say. All you care about is clinging to your own false caricatures as if they were possessions or a blue blanket. If that’s what makes you feel better, then I won’t interfere.

    Reply

    1. Scott, I just sited you Colossians 2:10 saying we are complete in Christ. We have received forgiveness of sins and ALL things pertaining to life and godliness. I have one question for you, if you are a believer and scripture tells you you are complete in Christ, are you complete in Christ? Simple yes or no will do. God bless

       Reply

       1. Yes. But honoring Mary as Catholics do does not imply that we are not complete in Christ; it does not imply that Mary is *needed* in order to be complete—that somehow she completes what is lacking in Christ. You are reaching that conclusion, but it’s a non sequitur. It’s part of your original error that I responded to in the first place, which was that loving God with all your heart implied that there was no room for loving anyone or anything else. (That is what you said.) To honor Mary as Catholics do neither adds to nor subtracts from Christ. You’re using a mathematical paradigm that does not apply here. 2+2 is 4 but infinity+2 is impossible, because infinity already incorporates everything within it. Christ is infinite; thus honoring Mary is not honoring something additional to Christ but honoring something that’s part of Christ.

          Reply

          1. Scott, said” yes” Then quit praying to Mary. Everything we need we have “in Christ” John said ” for from HIS fulness we have all received grace upon grace.” Did you get that. Its past tense. We already have received more grace then we will ever need from His fulness. John just said to as many as receive Him, he has given the right to be called children of God. If we are complete, and have received all the grace we need from a full pot, what are you doing in that synagog that says you acquire increases of grace by your merits and good works. Run far away fast Scott, that ain’t Christ’s church. It looks nothing like it. God bless. Here is the hymn I sang on Sunday ” the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, His mercies never come to an end, they are new every morning, new every morning, great is thy faithfulness oh Lord, great is thy faithfulness” My righteousness is in heaven and came to me solely by faith alone, and now I’m busy loving my neighbor. I don’t need Mary, or no Pope, I got Jesus.

             Reply

             1. You don’t read well, do you?

    2. Scott, looks like you know our Kevin quite well. And after only a few days on this blog.

       Let me tell you, Kevin only gets worse.

       Reply

       1. LOL, I’ve actually been reading his rhetorical flailings for some time now.

          Reply

    3. Scott said ” all you care about is clinging to your false caricatures” How is it a false caricature to cite you Colossians 2:10 that we are complete in Christ, He is pour only mediator, and shares His glory with no other Isaiah 48. You can keep calling me a troll, and dismissing all of Tim’s articles and Protestant arguments from scripture. At some point you have to look to see whats inside. God didn’t call us to honor Mary, He called us to worship His son who is our righteousness. Scott, Mary can’t do anything for you, the sacrifice of the Mass can do nothing for you. Only coming and believing the Word, that is to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Only a risen savior can save you, not one that is sacrificed a million times on an altar. I hope you find the assurance and peace that Reformed Protestants have bay faith alone in Christ alone, not Christ plus church. Merry Christmas.

       Reply

42. Whose church is 2000 years old, and whose is introducing novel interpretations of Scripture? Evangelical churches are based on whatever each of their leaders wants them to be based on. If that’s not introducing novelties, what is? If you begin with false principles, it doesn’t matter how elegant or convoluted your arguments are, they will be logically consistent but wrong. A prime example is the convoluted argument presented in this post.

    Reply

    1. Gail,

       Thanks for dropping by. You asked,

       “Whose church is 2000 years old, …”

       Well, that is the $64,000 question, isn’t it?

       “… and whose is introducing novel interpretations of Scripture?”

       Was Epiphanius introducing a novel interpretation of Scripture when he said that an image of Christ is “contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures”? I have provided you with evidence from the Early Church Fathers showing that Mark Shea is the one introducing novelties. Have I taken these church fathers out of context in some way?

       Thanks for your comment,

       Tim

       Reply

    2. Gail, our church is 2000 years old and Roman Catholicism looks nothing like the the early church. Read ” The rise of Roman Catholicism” by Tim Kauffman on this site. The Protestants on this site don’t buy into the lie that the first 1500 years of the church was Roman catholic. It was anything but. As Calvin said if you were to way up all the teachings of the early fathers, the evidence would fall heavily on our side. Can I suggest a new book to you that draws the distinctions better than any I have read. “Roman Catholic theology and practice” by Allison. Gail, your church ceased being a part of the church when its doctrines were introduced apart from the once and for all tradition handed down from scriptural infallibility. Written scripture and Apostolic oral tradition were the same, just read Iraneus statements on scripture and tradition. It is the church’s responsibility to call out error which has always raised its ugly head in the church. We are to test the Spirits. And Rome doesn’t pass the test. Roman inventions, 1. claim that its church has added oral tradition thats infallible, 2.Papacy, salvation by one’s own works,3. the church separating Christ and the Spirit by becoming the mediator of grace thru doing sacraments,4. sinlessness of the second savior Mary,5. assumption of their second savior, auricular confession, baptismal regeneration,6. justification by faith plus works, 7.forbidding marriage for its leaders forcing them to live in unnatural restraint, 8. failure to discipline its heretics, selling the merits of Christ, 9. the sacrifice of the bread of the Mass, 10. veneration of angels and saints. I could go on. No, Gail you can keep telling yourself that the Roman church is Christ’s church, but as the Reformers showed us they rescued the Apostles and the early church from Rome. K

       Reply

       1. Gail,

          Tim has a theory that says before 350 A.D. the Church was Protestant. He thinks they believed in the Calvinist TULIP and Sola Scriptura although the printing press, so necessary for SS to be operative, would not be invented until around 1450.

          Reply

43. Esteemd freudian pschoanalyst, internet troll and man about town, Dr. Kevin ” Baloney” Falloni has given his professional opinion.

    ” I really belive the marian ego gone out of controll in the Roman religion is the male domineering heiarchy of the church feeding the female ego in he church.”

    Thank you Doctor Kevin for that prognosis.

    Reply

44. Tim,

    What with all the horseplay and confusion on your blog, I cannot find your post about Irenaeus saying Linus was 1st Bishop of Rome.

    By the way, since you went beyond 350 A.D. and quoted Chrysostom on Mary, I get to too. He wrote of the Eve/Mary parallel too.

    Anyway, Kevin says since Clement did not call himself “Pope”, he could not have been the Bishop of Rome.

    You say Linus was the 1st and not Peter.

    EA says the name ” New Eve” came after the 4th century.

    So, it that it? Is that the proof you three guys have that there Romish religion did not exist until after 350?

    Reply

    1. Jim , I didn’t say since Clement did not call himself a pope he could not be the bishop of Rome. I said he was the Bishop of Rome and didn’t consider himself a Pope. If the concept of Pope didn’t come along for well after in the early church, then simple logic says its an invention of men. You and I both know there were Bishops, Presbuteros, Deacons. No Popes. And incidentally Jimbo the word for Priest hierus is used 400 times in the OT, it never appears in the NT. As i told you the early fathers thought Pontifex Maximus was heathendom. With the rise of Romanism came pagan idol worship and a false Magisterium, Papal Curia, and a false power granted to it by this Magisterium. There is no infallible ruling body called the Roman Magisterium. In fact we can say the only thing they have been infallible at is being fallible. Just look at the forged, revised list of Popes and antipopes. It reads like a bad movie. Rome is a false church built of forged documents and false doctrine.

       Reply

45. “EA says the name ” New Eve” came after the 4th century.”

    Uh, no, that is not what I wrote.

    This is: “Is there another ECF (or multiple ECF) that refer to Mary as being the “New Eve” that you can cite. It doesn’t look like Justin Martyr does.”

    If you would care to provide a citation of an ECF that uses the title the “New Eve”, I would be happy to take a look at it.

    Reply

    1. No one uses the word “Trinity” until Tertullian in the 3rd century. What’s your point?

       Reply

46. “No one uses the word “Trinity” until Tertullian in the 3rd century. What’s your point?”

    How is my question oblique in the slightest?

    Again, the question to Jim, in response to his assertion that the title of the “New Eve” was applied to Mary and in use before the end of the 4th century, was this:

    “Is there another ECF (or multiple ECF) that refer to Mary as being the “New Eve” that you can cite? It doesn’t look like Justin Martyr does.”

    Please let me know if you require further clarification of this simple request.

    Reply

    1. I wasn’ t saying your question was oblique. I was saying it was without relevance.

       Reply

       1. I find it revealing that you consider it irrelevant to request someone to provide evidence for assertions that they make.

          Reply

          1. Scottd doesn’t have any.

             Reply

          2. The assertion is that the early Church Fathers taught that Mary was the New Eve. They don’t need to have used the expression “New Eve” in order to have taught that any more than the biblical writers needed to use the word “Trinity” in order to teach the Trinity. Apparently you have difficulty with reading comprehension. I’ll leave you it to you to get that resolved.

             Reply

             1. This is what started the ball rolling on this subject:

                Jim: “Now, shall we address Mary being called New Eve before your late 4th century date?”

                Now, why phrase the question in such a way as to suggest that people were calling Mary New Eve if what is meant by that is that the doctrine was being taught, albeit in seed form?

                Words have meanings. The phrase “being called New Eve” conveys the meaning of bestowing that name or title on Mary. If no writer prior to the end of the 4th century uses that literal title or no one refers to Mary by the name “New Eve”, fine. But to start that way and then to question why that is even an issue looks disingenuous.

             2. EA, that makes better sense. I still contend it does not matter whether Mary was literally called “New Eve” or the concept was taught even without the expression. But it is important that we be truthful on these points.

47. EA, tread lightly brother, you are hitting at their sacred cows. The marian ego has gone wild in that church. They are steeped in it. They got Mary responsible for everything. She is the queen, the Arc, Eve, gateway to heaven, mediatrix of all graces, etc. , and then Scott will turn around and say Protestants don’t understand its just honoring your mother. Right. God won’t take it lightly. I listen to the blond lady on EWTN and just laugh. She is consumed with Mary. Remember Jesus is barely a welcomed member of the congregation. Mary and the Pope are the church heads. Sick religion. K

    Reply

    1. “Marian ego”: More chin-rubbing psychobabble from Dr. Sigmund FAILoni.

       Reply

    2. “Jesus is a barely welcomed member of the Congregation.” This is the kind of statement that proves you have no earthly clue what you’re talking about. Fail on, Failoni.

       Reply

       1. Scott, we have a famous hymn in the Protestant church called Jesus is all I need. He told the woman who gabbed his garment in a crowd, ” go your faith has made you well” he didnt say go and do penance and we’ll see at the end how you did. No, her faith healed her. We have been made complete, those of us who are in Christ. We come to Christ like a child, in simple faith, having achieved nothing of virtue or value. God doesnt need our works, they are for our neighbor. Scott, in the end when the rich young ruler walked away from Jesus, Jesus told him its either all me, or you aint gettin in. Let Mary go, follow the prince of peace, almighty God, wonderful counselor, the lamb who took away the sin of the world who is blessed forever Amen! K

          Reply

          1. Who said God “needs” our works? He doesn’t even need our existence. Once again, you’re misstating Catholic teaching.

             Reply

             1. Scott said ” who said God needs our works” Trent! ” tothe one who works well to the end” as a reward to their merits and good works” ” who truly meirt etrnal life” ” converted to their own justification” Catholic Catechism defenition of merit 2001 ” recompense owed” Did you really say God doesnt need your works in the Catholic church. If you believe that we are jbfa get out of there. Your works are meritorious in your salvation. Romans 11:6 if its by grace its no longer on the basis works, or grace is no longer grace. This means all works, even grace enabled works we are notto look to for salvation, only to Christ thru faith alone.

             2. The trouble with talking with FAIL-oni is that he keeps adding superfluous words that don’t exist and then insists on their ghostly existence. Trent does not say God “needs” our works, just like Romans does not say that we are justified by faith “alone.” The only time the expression “by faith alone” appears in the Bible, it’s preceded by the word “not.” So the Protestant sees words that don’t exist and fails to see words that do exist. Perhaps a visit to the opthamologist is in order.

          2. And Christ did not say to the rich young ruler “it’s all me,” as though to say screw everyone else. He said “follow me and give up your riches,” because his riches were keeping him from Christ. This passage is about the idolatry of wealth. Not only can’t you get Catholic teaching right, you can’t get Scripture right.

             Reply

             1. In answer to the Disciples question, well then who can enter ( be saved ) Christ says ” with man it is IMPOSSIBLE, with God all things are possible.” I’ll stick with my exegesis. Scott your going to have to give up all the things Rome has piled on the cross including idols of Mary and the Eucharist, meritorious works, and come in repentance and faith alone in Christ alone and you will inherit eternal life. The rich young ruler had kept all the law, but he knew he lacked something because he sought Jesus out and fell at his feet. But like you, when he was told what he had to give up to follow Christ, he wasn’t willing. Christ knew his heart. Your going to have to let go of that church and all its idols, then you will be truly free. Tim, Walt, Eric W, and many on this site made big decisions. It was all a work of God i their heart. When I look at these men who were steeped in the idolatries and the doctrines of Rome and all broke free, I can only say he is faithful. one of my favorite lines by Tim when describing why former RC’s don’t look well on their former church, he said after you receive the freedom of eternal life, you don’t look back across the river at the cemetery of dead men’s bones and be thankful for it. Tim, Eric, Walt and others were dead in sins and now they are alive in the Spirit having ALL their sins forgiven. Hope you find this Scott. K

             2. Luke 18: 27 ” then who can be saved? The things that are impossible with men are only pssible with God. Here is a man who Jesuscsaid why do you call me good? Iow no man is good. This man thought Christ was going to give him the one thing he lackedcfor salvation. But Christ woulnt let him bring one ounce of his righteouness with him. He told him if you want to enter you have to trust in my righteouness alone. Jesus pointed oout his sin, and he wasnt willingbto give it up. He thought his character would get him in. And Christ set the standard for righteouness thru the law, perfection. No one will be justified by their obedience in any way. Incidentally your infalible Magisterium only has an official position on few scriptures. This isnt one of them. Luther was the first to exegete justification in the church.

             3. Jesus said to the rich young ruler, “If you will be perfect, go and sell all that you have and give to the poor.” He’s telling him to do a good work.

                Stop now, Kevin, before you hurt yourself.

          3. “Jesus is all I need” — is that sort of like Oneness Pentecostalism? 😉

             Reply

             1. No, faith alone in Christ alone, not Christ plus the church. The RC separates the Word from the Spirit inserting itself as mediator of grace. The spirit administers salvation and all of Christ’s spoils, not the church. RC, says it is the sacrament thru which all graces are mediated thru its sacraments. Scripture says that grace comes through faith in Christ and the spirit regenerates us and brings us those graces, not the church. Sacraments take their rightful place as signs and seals of free grace. The RC made sacraments merit for the strong, instead of signs of grace for the weak.

48. Robert just said this to Mikel on ccc, to pray to Mary or believe shebmediates salvation is idolatry. Scott, you dont like we go at your sacred cows, your idols, Marry, the Jesus Wafer, the church and its sacraments, but you have no excuse. You are in a church whose ritescand ceremonies cant save you, and we must point you to faith alone in Christ alone for your righteouness, away from the accumulated righteouness thru works and idolatry. Sorry Scott, we tell you again and again because we love you.

    Reply

    1. If what you believed about the Catholic Church was true, you would be right about this. But what you believe about the Catholic Church is not true, and you’re unwilling to be corrected. You put your fingers in your ears and cry “blah blah blah can’t hear you blah blah blah.” That is not the kind of person you can have a discussion with. If you want to show me how Catholic doctrine is untrue, I’m all ears, but you first have to get Catholic doctrine right. You don’t have it right, and you seem to be content with having it wrong.

       Reply

       1. Scott you said ” if you can want to show me how Catholic doctrine is untrue” I have many times. But here is what Ill do. Go read Council of Trent canon 9,12, 14, 23, 24, 30, 33, 4, and then read Romans 4:5, 3:26, 4:16, 5:1, 8:1, Ephesians 2:8, Philippians 3:9, Romans 10:4, 10:9-10, 11:6. I have Catholic doctrine right. And if you don’t trust me, Tim, Walt, Eric W, are former Catholics and pretty smart guys. And if you don’t want to do any of that, when you have an afternoon read Luther’s ” On Christian freedom” K

          Reply

          1. Kevin, I guarantee you I’ve read the entire Council of Trent, and the entire Bible, and the entire Catechism, and Ong, and Denzinger, and quite a great deal of Luther, since I used to be Lutheran. I guarantee you there’s nothing more tiresome than a man who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. I really am signing off this thread now.

             Reply

          2. Kevin, I guarantee you I’ve read all of Trent, and all of the Bible, and all ofthe Catechism, and all of Ott, and all of Denzinger, and quite a good deal of Luther and Melanchthon, including the text you mention, because I used to be Lutheran. (Incidentally, I’ve also read the Large and Small Catechisms of Luther, the Smallcald Articles, the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and The Bondage of the Will.) Nothing is more tiresome than a man who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. I really am signing off the thread now.

             Reply

             1. Sorry, I thought I lost my original comment and so I retyped it. That’s how the duplicate happened.

49. Bowing out of the discussion on this thread, folks. Have fun. May show up in other threads.

    Reply

50. Scott, The rich young ruler said what must i DO to inherit eternal life. He called Jesus good and Jesus said, why do you call me good. IOW no one is good but God. Then he said you know the commandments, iow you think your good, then Jesus lists all the commandments because He knew his heart. The man said all these things I have kept since my youth. He fought he qualified on his obedience. But Jesus knew his sin and gave him one more thing to do, he loved his money and he wasn’t willing to give it up. When the disciples asked Him who can be saved, Jesus said it is IMPOSSIBLE with men, but with God all things are possible. If you think you can be justified in some way by your works as you point out with your misinterpretation of James 2 which is talking about ” someone who SAYS they have faith” , why does Jesus say with man it is IMPOSSIBLE? Does that sound allot like Ephesians 2:8 ” For by grace you have been saved by FAITH, it is NOT THAT OF YOURSELF, it is a GIFT, NOT A RESULT OF WORKS. And you may tell me that I misunderstand the catholic teaching, and that Trent doesn’t teach works are meritorious in salvation, but there was a Reformation over this doctrine, so i think I’m in pretty good company. Again Scott you are in a state of denial, and its just not a river in Egypt. God’s speed to you and yours for a Merry Christmas. K

    Reply

    1. In Ephesians, Paul is talking about the initial grace by which we are raised from deadness in sin to life in Christ. It comes by grace, through faith, and is unmerited. That is the Catholic position. It has always been the Catholic position.

       However, justification does not end there. It is a process that requires our cooperation with that initial grace throughout our lives. That is why Paul goes on to say in Ephesians 2:10 that we are to “walk” in works. It is why in Matt. 19 that Jesus says if we want “to enter life” we must “keep the commandments.” It is why Paul tells us in Philippians to “work out” our salvation It is why Paul tells us also in Romans 2 that God will reward us “according to our works.” It is why James tells us “You are saved by works and ***not*** by faith alone.”

       When Paul says that we are not saved by works, the context makes clear that he has in mind, specifically, the works of the law (such as circumcision). He did not mean to exclude keeping commandments and the good works of charity. He never said it and he never meant it. In fact, the whole point of James 2 is to prevent a misinterpretation of Paul, though that hasn’t stopped some people.

       You can’t cherry pick the Bible. You have to read the whole thing.

       Reply

       1. Scott, where is Ehpesians 2:8 talking about initial grace as if justification or salvation were on the instalment plan. The word saved is in the aorist past. The ndxt thing you are going tobtell me is that Romans 4:5 means baptism, right? Romans 4:16 specifically if a Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone, all of salvation.

          Reply

          1. Who says that Romans 4:5 has anything to do with baptism? You’re making this up as you go along, aren’t you?

             Reply

             1. Scott, God justifies the ungodly, not the inherntly righteous. Romans 4:5. Now you acused me of so many things, just like Catholics do when they are confronted with their errors. 4:5 isnt good for the semi pelagian gospel you support. God justifies the ungodly, by faith, apart from works by crediting the righteouness of Christ to our account. Negatively by not counting our sins against us, and positively by imputing the active and passive obedience of Christ to us. Romans 5:19 is clear He obeyed, we are righteous, imputation. The medidval church missed this and fell into grave error thinking the righteousness needed for salvation could be acumulated thru sacraments and good works. But they missed it. God does not help us to achieve His favor with His help, but Christ lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness. You se we are bad, real bad, and He was good, and its hard to keep a good man down. Hecfreed us from our sins and was raised for our justification. 1 Corinthians 15 says if He wasnt raised the we are still in our sins and our faith is useless. But He was raised and we are no longer in our sins. Jesus didnt come to makecsalvation possible, He redeemed a people for himself. And one word you cant fit in a square peg in a wrong hole, its a greek word tetelestai, it is finished. Bless you

       2. Scott nice eisegesis. Paul says we are SAVED unto good works. You have us being justified after being sanctified, the bible teaches the exact opposite. Rome has the tail wagging the dog.

          Reply

       3. No, Paul excludes all works. The antthesis in Galatians isnt between works and grace enabled works, its between works and hearing by faith. To conflate gospel and law is to corrupt faith at its core. Paul says in Galatians 3:10 cursed is anyone who doesnt abide in ALL things of the law. This quote is the moral law in Deut. And includes love, any doing. What part of not that of yourself and not of works are you having problem with?

          Reply

51. Like all Protestants, Kevin, you start with a misunderstanding of Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8-9 (conveniently leaving out verse 10). Then, when you encounter verses that plainly show your interpretation to be incorrect, rather than admit that your interpretation was incorrect, you labor and strain and squint to fit a square peg into a round hole.

    Reply

    1. Scott, on the contrary Scott, I addressed verse 10, maybe you didnt see it. Nothing is morevtiring than a man who doesnt know what hecdoesnt know. Im sure we have been through all the scriptures and come to different conclusions. I understand Catholics must justify their theology taking the new perspective on Paul, unfortunately that hasnt been the position in the history of the church, and I urge you to find out what Paul means by works of law. Sometimes he uses works, sometimes law, sometimes works of law. He told those who werectaking circimcision they were guilty of the WHOLE law. We are not to look to our obedience in any way to be justified. And a faulty understanding of James 2, and Romans 2 is fatal. I would encourage you to read Tim’s articles on both chapters, they are excellent. Tim is a former Catholic and imho no one understands both sides of the argument than him. I hope you will take advantage of his material here. Thanks for th ed conversation.

       Reply

       1. Well, you could say the same about me as Tim since I am a former Protestant. Catholics don’t really justify their position on justification based on the New Perspective, since the Catholic defense on this point predates NPP by about 500 years. Ever hear of Cajetan and Bellarmine?

          Appreciate the conversation. I’m sure we’ll clash again. 🙂

          Reply

          1. Scott, thanks, ya we’ll talk again Merry Christmas.

             Reply

    2. Scott, as Paul summarizes this common point, ” for we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” 3:28. This example of Abraham highlights that this scriptural denunciation of works is not reserved for those in association with the law of moses. That old covenant law was not even in existence when the Patriarch belueved God for righteouness. Scripture stands against works of any kind being done to achieve righteouness.

       Reply

       1. James 2:24. Also uses the example of Abraham. And hardly sounds like a denunciation of works, unless James is denouncing justification.

          Reply

       2. Now, as far as Romans goes, you must remember that Romans 2:8 says that God “will render to every man according to his deeds.” Hardly a “denunciation of works” either.

          When you get to Romans 4, the passage about Abraham, here is what Paul says:

          Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. (Romans :9-10)

          So what Paul is talking about here, in the context of “works,” is specifically circumcision. He is addressing himself specifically to the Judaizers who taught that one needed to be circumcised to enter the New Covenant.

          This is not a denunciation of works in any wide sense—the context is circumcision. And although that was a part of Mosaic law, it was a particular part of it that was *also* a part of the Abrahamic covenant. So this distinction you’re trying to make just does not apply here.

          Reply

          1. Paul emphaises that Abraham was justified before circumcision, and apart from the law which came 430 years later. He simply believed the promise and was reckoned righteouss. Justification is always past tense in scripturec5:1. And 4: 16 specifically if a Roman Catholic wants to be justified by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. Paul’s antithesis in Galatians isnt between works of law and grace enabled works, but between hearing by faith and works. James is talking about a bogus faith. ” if someone says they have faith, can that faith save them” He is talking about how faith is justied by its works. Both examples he uses were how faith was demonstrated by good works. Here is what Augustine said ” How was Abraham justified, what does the Apostle say, Abraham was justified by faith, Paul and James dont contradict each other, good works follow justification” Scott, Paul makes distinctions, listen to 1 Cor. 6: 11 ” such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified. As you can see these are aorist past. The mistake of the medieval church is they missed that Christ had lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness. Christ doesnt help us achieve His favor wit hischelp through acumulated righteouness. Abraham was declared righteous apart from works.

             Reply

             1. There’s a lot here; can we focus on your misreading of James 2:14? In the passage you are translating “can that faith save him?” (as if there’s a distinction merely between true faith and false faith), there’s a mistranslation of the Greek word “he.” The Greek words that Protestants editions translate “that faith” are “he pistis.” The Greek word “he” is an indefinite article, as in “the apple.” It is not a qualifying pronoun. In fact, if you look at the interlinear here and Strong’s Greek Concordance here, you will find that in not one single instance elsewhere in the Bible is the Greek word “he” translated as anything other than an indefinite article. So why is it being translated as a limiting pronoun in James 2:14?

             2. In Matthew 1:18, for example, we find the Greek “he genesis” to refer to “the birth” of Jesus Christ. It would be ridiculous to translate this “that birth,” as though there’s some other birth of Jesus Christ. There’s only one.

                In Matthew 1:23, we find the same Greek word: “he parthenos” to refer to “the virgin.” Matthew is not contrasting Mary with some other virgin.

                In Matthew 4:17, again we read “he basileia,” “the kingdom.” There is not some different kingdom of God; there is only one.

                In Luke 11:27 we read “he koilea,” blessed is “the womb” that bore Jesus Christ. The meaning is not “blessed is that womb that bore Jesus Christ,” as though he was borne by two wombs, one that ended up blessed and one that ended up damned. No. Only one womb.

                And so it goes. No different in James 2:14: “he pistis.” No true faith vs. false faith. Only one—and it, by itself, is not sufficient to save. It requires good works too.

             3. Check out the part of speech in the Greek interlinear, Kevin. “He” is an article. The correct translation is not “that” but “the.” Articles are always redundant. When you translate from one language to another, sometimes the article will be retained and sometimes the article will disappear, just based on the different conventions of the languages in question. For example, when you translate “he parthenos”into English, you properly say “the virgin.” But when you translate “he pistis” into English, is silly to say “Can the faith save him?” So you drop the article: “Can faith save him?” In Greek, the article is appropriate in this case; in English, it is not.

                But the one thing you cannot do is mistranslate “he pistis” as “that faith.” “That” is a pronoun, and “he” is not a pronoun—it is an article. The Greek lexicon tells us so.

             4. Scott, I didnt misread James 2, you did. Augustine agrees with me. Did you even read thd quote I provided. I think your arguement on that faith is weak. He said if someone SAYS they have faith. He is talking not about howcwe are justified before God, but how faith is justified. You are just reading thru Catholic glasses. But Augustine disagrees with you and agrees with me. You said that Ephesians 2:8 isvtaliking about initial justification, but the burden is on you to show this. The scripture never speaks of instalments of justification. And saved in that verse is a past tense. On top of that it says all of salvation is ” not that of yourselves” ” not of works” This is simple, take off your glasses and stop trying to smuggle YOUR character into God’s work of grace. We arecsaved by grace thru faith, justified as a gift Romans 3 says, and nothing coming from ourselves or our works. Our works are simply the result of saving faith, our resonable service of worship, for our neighbor.

             5. If James had meant to say “that faith,” he would not have said “he pistis,” he would have said “ekeinos pistis.” This is not reading according to “Catholic glasses.” This is reading according to Strong’s Greek lexicon and Vine’s expository dictionary. If you happen to have private information that Strong’s and Vine’s are incorrect, can you please direct me to it?

             6. Also, can you direct me to what passage of Augustine exegetes James 2 the way you do. Just the citation is fine.

52. Scott,

    Kevin said to you,
    “Christ lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness. ”

    Are you familiar with NICK’S CATHOLIC BLOG? He specializes in debunking the theories of imputation and penal substitution.
    Tim and Kevin fear him and avoid him.

    Reply

    1. I haven’t read much of it, to tell you the truth, but I know of it. Nick introduced me to his very useful coinage “sorta scriptura.”

       Reply

    2. Jim, said Nick specializes in debunking imputation and penal substitution” Jim, is this what you call bootlicking, tying his shoes. Nick’ s lapdog. How do you say it Jim. Lol hope you and your wife are well.

       Reply

53. Tim,

    Please, I don’t see your follow up on Linus.
    IOW, your theory that the Papacy began after 350 a.d. Fails.

    IOW, your life’s work is up in smoke.

    Reply

    1. You’re a big boy, Jim. I’m sure you can find it.

       Reply

54. FAIL-oni:

    You said that Catholics “worship Mary under the appearance of her accidents.”

    Can you please tell me, in your deep and thorough knowledge of Catholic teaching, what “appearance” and “accidents” are, and how they relate to Mary?

    Much obliged.

    Reply

    1. Scott, it was tongue and cheek humor. You Catholics do mental gymnastics to defend your idols. I mean lets be serious, we dont see anyone in the bible marching around a crust of bread in the street, but you guys think thats normal. You want proof against the real presence, just look at it. Same with Mary worship. But hey when your view of God’s word is like you say ” sorta scriptura” then anything is possible you guys might someday believe if you wear a brow scapular its time off in Sarlac. Anything is possible. I always wonder how anyone can attend a church that sells christs merits and had the crusades and inquisition. But hey Scott whatever blows up your skirt as my dad would say. Have a good day.

       Reply

55. I notice that FAILoni couldn’t answer a question exclusively about appearance and accidents without wandering off into a dissociative fugue and spending more time on compiling a random laundry list: sola scriptura, Purgatory (which, plagiarizing the idiotic performance artist Jonathan Fisk, he mistakenly describes “Sarlac,” the exact opposite kind of a place as Purgatory is), indulgences, the Crusades, and skirts. This is what anti-Catholics do in an attempt to confuse —they don’t address issues, they just throw a bunch of laundry up in the air, including the skirts.

    Reply

56. Scott, you got anything more than personal criticism because your arguments are weak. Evangelical theology looks at transubstantiation ( God tricking the senses) and the Mass as the collapse of the Roman system. Jesus being substantially in the wafer under the accidents of bread sparked a word in Europe that became a famous saying in English which speaks for itself, Hocus Pocus. On top of this as Tim points out in his article, for the early church the trappings of Rome’s alleged incarnationalism as fleshly trappings from true spiritual worship. So as you and your family dive deeper into the bosom of the Romish church and its idolatry I remind you of the words of Jesus, ” The words I speak to you are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing. Christians worship the incarnate Savior thru the Spirit by faith alone. No relics, no Mary, no statues, or any other created thing including the bread of the supper. We worship the flesh of the risen Christ who is in heaven by faith thru the Spirit. Since He left and said He wouldn’t return to eat with us unil He comes again, and left us the Spirit. We were incorporated into his body thru the Spirit. The church isn’t the same as Christ in the world. He is the head and WE are the body. And the church certainly can’t put itself between Christ and the Holy Spirit. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit the scripture clearly teaches this. God doesn’t dwell in buildings, but in the hearts of His people. We are united to Christ thru the gospel where and how the Spirit chooses, not the church. We don’t believe i the flawed axiom of Rome, namely that human nature must make itself worthy of grace. And we don’t believe that the church is the continuation of the incarnation or the atonement. We are covered by the already shed blood of Christ, righteous in Him, and fully worthy to participate in the Supper, which isn’t another sacrifice for our sins, as if the first one didn’t work, but its a commemoration and remembrance thru faith of the blood that has been shed and the body that has been broken. Roman 8:1 ” there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ. Its a judgment, not a statement about ontology. And because your Mass is a repudiation of the one time sacrifice that HAS justified us, and because your Mass is pay as you go, and because your Mass rejects the one time sacrifice that has put sin away, and because your Mass is the height of unbelief and a denial of the peace that is offered to true believers thru faith alone, and because your Mass is idolatry, and because your Mass has sent more men to hell than any other thing. We reject Rome as Apostate. Other than that I hope you are having a great day. And I am so glad you found Tim’s site, because his sole life purpose is to warn Catholics of the peril to their soul. Maybe someday you will listen Scott. God bless you.

    Reply

57. To which FAILoni responds, not by addressing the question of what appearance and accidents are, but by throwing more laundry in the air. Get this man some Ritalin.

    Reply

58. Scott, the doctrine of transubstantiation is impossible on two fronts. Number 1, modern science has debunked Aristotles theory. Number 2 God doesnt trick our senses by appearences of bread ( accidents) and the substance (inner essence) being the substatial body, blood, divinity, and soul of Christ. Incidentally, do you guys genuflect to each other after you take the Jesus wafer? Lol God bless

    Reply

    1. Modern science has also proven that virgins don’t conceive and that water doesn’t become wine. What’s your point?

       But let’s back up. I asked what “accidents” and “appearance” mean.

       We’ll get later to your presupposition that God is limited by “modern science.”

       Reply

59. God does not act contrary to His word. Christ has a body like ours and scripture clearly tells us that his body is seated at the right hand of God. Chalcedon said that each nature can can communicate to the person but they cant be mixed, nor can one nature transfer somethind to the other. Your hero Augustine said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until He comes back. Rome collapses the head into the body and wrongly sees itself as the natural body of Christ. You should study the wrong axioms of Rome 1. The nature grace interconnection, and the church as an continuing incarnation. Allison handles this beautifully in his new book. As far as knowing substance from accidents, appearences I think I explained that. K

    Reply

60. Fail,
    Not worried yet about your lovely thoughts on why transubstantiation can’t be true. I asked, since you are so sure you are an expert on what the Church teaches, what “appearance” and “accident” mean, with respect to how the Church defines the dogma. If you can’t do that and keep wandering off 17 steps ahead of where the discussion is (you’re now going off on God’s supposed inability to bilocate and Augustine’s supposed denial of the Real Presence), I will be left to assume you are doing a bad job of bluffing.

    Reply

61. God’ s ability to bilocate? If your taliking about his body Hecwas made like us in evrything. Its a human body and last time I checked the scripture says He is at the right hand of God. Scotty, cosmic Jesus everywhere is Jesus of Nazareth nowhere. As far as the Augustine quote, read up bro. He said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until he comes again. And good luck proving Augustine was a transubstatiationist, since the word wasnt invented until the 12th century. The early church didnt believe in transubstantiation. But hey man you got the scripture saying saints can flybaround the sky and hear prayers in different language. Its just one big cosmic flyaround. But you probably support that with the passage with God all things are possible. Even Trinty hating Muslims are saved according to JP2. Anything goes. K

    Reply

    1. Fail,
       Very well then. You have no capacity to tell me what “appearance” and “accidents” are. That is because you do not know. You have no capacity to stick to the point, and instead flail around all over place, as if you’re going to cover for yourself by tempting me to chase you down 40 rabbit trails. I’m not going down them. Either define “appearance” and “accidents” for me or give it up and put on your dunce cap.

       Reply

62. I encourage everyone, RC or non-RC, to notice every “silence” a RC apologist practices. Their silence is correlative with every open denial or affirmation. They are masters of using “what is not there” to prevent any counter-defense against beloved, commandment breaking tradition. I would love to hear some comments from anyone who followed my exchange with Scott. If you didn’t follow it, then I can’t blame you. I was bored too…more boring RC apologetics in a can. This new dialogical approach is making RC apologists, and note that I wrote “apologists”, weak and pathetic to behold.

    Reply

    1. Christ told us to shake the dust from our feet when we would not be heard—in this case, when the other person is not interested in engaging a discussion, but only in fuzzing up the meaning so that the conversation goes down an endless tangent of repetitive clarification. Not the same thing as silence. But then, you’re the master of confusing A with Not-A.

       Reply

       1. Scott, get a job as a teacher or pricipal since all your interested in doing is grading posts. Nobody cares what you think about the quality of our posts, just discussion. Remember when you take the Im smarter than him aporoach, and you point the finger at someone else, there are 3 pointing back at you. K

          Reply

       2. Scott wrote:
          …but only in fuzzing up the meaning so that the conversation goes down an endless tangent of repetitive clarification. Not the same thing as silence.

          Response:
          Notice the “what is not there”. We are told what is NOT the same as silence, yet my simple challenge is left in silence. BTW, my simple challenge has nothing to do with what you call “endless tangent of repetitive clarification”. Those are separate issues.

          Reply

          1. Remind me again what your “simple challenge” is. Is it the notion that to compare the honor I owe my mother and the honor I owe the mother of Christ is the same thing as to compare the honor I owe my mother and the honor I owe my grandmother?

             Because my whole point was that that’s not the same kind of thing at all. Christ is greater here not in the sense that he has more authority, or a greater remove of lineage; he’s greater in the sense of who he is: God himself, as opposed to just a human being.

             So your rebuttal just simply did not address the nature of the comparison I made.

             Reply

             1. Scott, you requested:
                Remind me again what your “simple challenge” is.

                Thank you for not leaving it in silence. The good news is that is related, but really different from our original topic(s). Here it is:

                I will offer a simple challenge. If Mary, as a mother, is honored more than your own Mother, then you nullify God’s command with your tradition. More blessing is gained by honoring your Mother, over and against Mary. In this case, blessings are used to measure how much honor is given to each. One blessing will tip the scales in favor of your own Mother:

                A promise of living long on the earth (land) is annexed to the command to honor your Mother. This promise is lacking with regard to YOU honoring Mary.

             2. Ok, I understand better now. I left that part unanswered because I was addressing a different point.

                But in regard to this objection, I think you are relying on a false supposition, namely, that if I honor Mary, that somehow detracts from my honoring my own mother. That makes no more sense than to say that if I love my children, I am somehow taking away from my love for my wife, or my love for God.

                When I said “how much more shall I honor the mother of my Lord,” the meaning was not “how much more” in the sense of degree. I don’t mean that I give Mary greater honor than I give my earthly mother. I meant something along the lines of, “If I am commanded to love my earthly mother, how much more true is it that I should honor the mother of Christ Himself.”

                In that sense, then, I might accept your comparison: If I am commanded to love my earthly mother, how much more true is it that I should honor my grandmother, or my mother-in-law, or all mothers because of the honor that God bestows on motherhood itself. And God chose Mary, of all women who ever lived, to be the mother of Christ. That’s quite an honor to have bestowed on her. So why I should I withhold honor from her, when God so clearly has given it to her in such abundance?

             3. At any rate, that’s the sense in which Catholics honor Mary, rather than the sense of worship that rightly belongs only to God.

             4. Scott, you wrote:
                When I said “how much more shall I honor the mother of my Lord,” the meaning was not “how much more” in the sense of degree. I don’t mean that I give Mary greater honor than I give my earthly mother. I meant something along the lines of, “If I am commanded to love my earthly mother, how much more true is it that I should honor the mother of Christ Himself.”

                Response:
                This is a more mitigated sense that draws us closer together. Clearly, she is a unique example of Motherhood.

                Is there ever a sense in which Mary receives from you greater honor than your earthly mother ? I’m asking with a narrow focus on each of them being a mother to you. Is there any context when this is true: I give Mary greater honor than I give my earthly mother.

             5. I doubt that it reveals much to inquire into whether I give Mary more or equal honor than I do my earthly mother. There is a difference in kind, of course; whether there are differences of degree, I think, is quibbling and fussing over whether I am taking something away from someone else. Whatever I give to Mary, it does not detract from what I give or owe to my earthly mother. It’s like arguing over who got the bigger slice of cake.

                The real point is that God has given Mary greater honor than either I can or He will give to my earthly mother. Catholic teaching about, and devotion to, Mary merely follows upon what God has already done. What God hasn’t done, however, is to make Mary divine.

    2. Eric W , ” I would love to hear some comments from somebody who folllowed mybexchangge with Scott” I did. You said they are masters inusing what is not there. Ya he also uses constant personal attack. Count the times he says you didnt, you cant, you dont. His method is project and dismiss. But we must understand Catholics diefault to these methods because they are always having to answer for doctrine that has no biblical support. There are only a fewthings they can do, attack sola scriptura, use whats not there, focus blame on the iinterlocutor in some way. There is no answer for why a person who thecscripture says posesses everything in Christ and is complete, prays to Mary. My favotite answer of Scotts when defending statues in his church was, we can fully worship God and still honor saints. You see Eric, where would a Catholic be without these fleshly distractions, they would be in unbelief. Oh ya thats where they are.

       Reply

       1. Kevin,
          The RC apologist participates in the authority of their gods. They speak, you listen. It’s in their breast.

          Reply

          1. Eric W , bingo!

             Reply

       2. Scott, you wrote:
          I doubt that it reveals much to inquire into whether I give Mary more or equal honor than I do my earthly mother. There is a difference in kind, of course…

          Response:
          The difference in kind is what needs to be substantiated. It seems made up without a just cause. I observe two orders when only one exists. You appear to be falling prey to the proverbial wanting the cake and eating it too.

          Keeping the Cake:
          I understand “difference in kind” to include a classic nature-grace or natural-supernatural distinction. The different objects honored would specify the virtue or acts, i.e., to venerate or to honor. Mary would belong to grace or supernatural order.

          Eating the Cake:
          What I called the mitigated sense seems to preclude a REAL differentiation reaching the level of “difference in kind”:

          In that sense, then, I might accept your comparison: If I am commanded to love my earthly mother, how much more true is it that I should honor my grandmother, or my mother-in-law, or all mothers because of the honor that God bestows on motherhood itself.

          Reply

          1. So my distinction amounts to “keeping the cake” and my failure to accept your distinction amounts to “eating the cake.” So I can only avoid having the cake and eating it too if I simultaneously accept my own view and your view? That makes no sense.

             Reply

          2. What I really think you’re doing is overcomplicating a rather simple assertion I made about why it is just to honor Mary, and why it is not to be confused with the worship of the divine.

             Reply

             1. Scott, you wrote:
                …why it is just to honor Mary, and why it is not to be confused with the worship of the divine.

                Response:
                My problem is not with a just or unjust reason to honor Mary. You honor her. Fine. You show how she is part of a larger thing called Motherhood. Fine. You even came close to accepting my comparison. Fine. You avoid degrees. Fine.

                My problem is in when you differentiate the honoring under the aspect of mother.

                (a) Mary is an object of my honor.
                (b) Mom is an object of my honor.

                Here, if honoring them as mother is different in kind, then something about the objects cause it. What’s the difference ? The answer can’t be, at least in mind, a mere catalog of what is different about each woman.

                You made it clear that worship of the Divine is not confused with honoring Mary. I will honor that and we will keep them apart. But the admission actually hurts your position of “difference in kind”.

                Here’s a relevant example. Natural and Supernatural faith are different in kind. What makes them different ? The short answer, but not complete answer, is the object. That’s why faith is considered a Theological virture higher than the natural order of other Religious objects.

             2. Maybe this will help you. On the Cross, Jesus gives Mary to all of his followers as mother (“Behold your mother”). So the commandment to “honor your father and mother” includes Mary, just as much as it includes God. (the father of all, not just my particular earthly father.) The only difference is that God gets both honor and worship (latria and dulia) whereas Mary gets only honor (dulia–in her case, hyperdulia, since she is the mother of all believers in the New Covenant, just as Eve was the mother of all mankind.

             3. Scott,

                You wrote,

                “…since she is the mother of all believers in the New Covenant”

                How do you get “mother of all believers in the New Covenant” out of “Behold thy mother” (John 19:27)?

                Thanks,

                Tim

             4. Scott,
                What you wrote helped. Based on the distinctions presented, I think this hyperdulia to Mary belongs to that supernatural order where worship, in a LOWER DEGREE compared to God, is rendered for God’s sake. I stress worship that belongs to an order under Latria, not Dulia in the Latria/Dulia distinction. This hyperdulia is Divine much in the same way as the Faith described at Vatican I. VI calls the Faith Divine and Catholic.

                You may be quick to remind me of your own words:

                The only difference is that God gets both honor and worship (latria and dulia) whereas Mary gets only honor (dulia–in her case, hyperdulia…

                This use of “God”, even though you may not have intended it, signifies that supreme being and end called the “Author of Nature”. It doesn’t include God as the “Author of Grace”. You introduce the order of grace when you wrote, ” believers in the New Covenant”. Using the Latria was also a hint indirectly.

                Without saying too much, the end of all this in the false distinction between Latria and Dulia. That false distinction gets imported and exported between the natural and supernatural orders. I can unpack this, but I think there is plenty to chew on before doing it.

             5. Tim, I’m surprised you are unaware this is the standard Roman Catholic understanding of that verse, going back to the early Fathers, particularly Ambrose. Jesus is speaking to John, and through John, to all subsequent believers. Rahner traces the lineage of “Mater Ecclesia” in his book of that title; and that understanding of the passage is articulated as well in Vatican II as well as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. You don’t know this?

             6. Scott,

                You wrote,

                “I’m surprised you are unaware this is the standard Roman Catholic understanding of that verse, going back to the early Fathers, particularly Ambrose.”

                Yes, I am aware that Roman Catholicism “rediscovered” only this century that Mary has been considered “Mother of the Church” since the end of the 4th century, a point I made in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, highlighting Rahner’s “rediscovery” in particular.

                I understand that as a Roman Catholic, you are constrained to agree with the Magisterium in its claim that Mary has always been considered Mother of the Church, and that at the Cross, John stood in the place of the Church in receiving Mary as his mother. What is lacking is any evidence of any such title or role for Mary before the end of the 4th century, which is when Roman Catholicism began as a religion. But the Early Church Fathers do not testify of this interpretation of John 19:26-27.

                Chrysostom thought it meant that Jesus was teaching us the importance of taking care of our parents.

                Jerome thought Jesus was singling out John because he was the only virgin Apostle.

                Others thought Jesus was highlighting the fact that His miracles were due to Jesus’ divine origin (i.e., when performing a miracle, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John 2:4)), but when dying, “Woman, behold thy son!” (John 19:26), as if to say, “The power to perform miracles I have from My father, but my ability to die I get from you.”

                What is missing in your claim, as is typical in Roman Catholicism, is anything that can span that galactic void between the Apostles and the latter part of the 4th century. The Early Church was unaware of such a title or role for Mary.

                Thanks,

                Tim

             7. Scott,
                Your position comes down to God is God; therefore, I worship God as God. Also, God is the God who will have us to participate in His Divine Nature.

                How can you avoid the conclusion that says we should worship the natures participating in the Divine Nature ? It’s arbitrary to say that God and other natures get Dulia-honor that’s different in kind, but Latria is only for God. We ask why ? You guys say because God is God. The same should be said of Dulia.

                I was taught that God commanded a certain kind of Dulia for other natures. not Latria. Let me grant it for argument’s sake. What about that command ? It’s a word from God. Is this word worthy of worship because it’s God’s word ? Maybe a different kind or even a lesser degree ? Mary said, ” Do whatever he tells you.” Do you worship her command ? Jesus lived by every word of God.

             8. You’ve utterly lost me, but it sounds like you’re reading far too much into this.

             9. Scott,
                Hyperdulia is worship. You worship Mary. We just don’t know if it’s a different kind of Latria or a different degree of Latria.

             10. Oh good, I was worried—the way you asked the question, it sounded to me as if you had never heard this reading of John 19:27 before. So the real issue, as I understand it, is that your view is that the interpretation is 1600 years old, rather than 2000 years old, and therefore false. I guessed that was where this was going.

                 More to come.

63. Still waiting for

    (1) Fail to tell me what “accidents” and “appearance” mean.

    (2) W. to open up a dictionary and discover the meaning of “ontology.”

    Apart from that, all else is baiting and obfuscation, and I leave you both to your self-validating padded cell, i.e., this blog.

    Reply

    1. Scott, do you think because you use big words your point is more convincing. Incidentally your padded cell comment has no weight. I got kicked off of every Catholic site. Protestants who turn Catholic are a needy bunch, chameleons, unsettled, you know the I found full communion crowd, meaning I have to focus on me. The whole Mary thing and all the peagentry and ceremony is just a deep need to feel important. Ive known many of them. You see the alternative is a simple life of trust in Christ. Paul mentioned it. ” The righteous shall live by faith” Do you see any extras there. Without the Marian ego, and the utter guilt and complucation of the Roman system, Catholics would be gone. Its like going to a circus, if the juglers and the trapeze stops, and your left with only the ringmaster and his word, Catholics would be long gone from the stands. They need the fleshly stuff, and the word says its unbelief. God bless

       Reply

    2. Eric W, you have to pick up the book by the Reformed theologian Gregg Atkins ” Roman Catholic Theology and Practice” It is full orbed most comprehendible comparison side by side of RC theology and Evangelical theology. I can’t put it down. He goes through the RC Catechism and compares it with Scripture/ Evangelical theology. The guy on one of the Reformed blogs said it was the best book written in the last 50 years. His explanation of the 2 RC axioms/ underpinnings and Law/Gospel. is so good and it can be understood by the theologian and the lay person. K

       Reply

    3. Scott, you and Eric are in a discussion of degrees of honor, likecdegrees of the doneness of pancakes! But that isnt the issue. You continue to attend a church that has officialy accepted Delaguardies book calling Mary GOD. This isnt an issue of degrees of honor. This is an issue of elevating Mary above Christ and God. 1

       Reply

       1. This is the usual Roman Catholic argument to downplay the official doctrines that you have signed your soul onto. And we are here to remind you that you are steeped in idolatry, salvation by one’s own works, and utter unbelief. Catholics would do well to read Romans 9:32 -10:9,10 every night before they go to bed we will pray God will open your heart to understand it. You are taught these things like honoring Mary, obeying the new law, penance, good works are necessary to be justified before God, but Paul is clear that any works seeking justification are unacceptable works before God. There isnt a virtue attached to faith that merits acceptance before God. Sad, Catholics will find the same fate as Paul’dear brethren in the flesh he prays for in 10:1. God bless

          Reply

       2. I think you mean Liguori, and I would ask you to point me to which passage in that text says that Mary is God. Give me the exact citation.

          Reply

          1. Your missing the point. You are presenting an argument that is inconsistent with the position of your church. What you do speaks so loud we dontvhear what you say. Scott you undercut your arguments because you must believe the church position on Mary to be saved. And the church, says she is the Queen of heaven, mediatrix of all graces, gateway to heaven, and your church has officially adopted Liguoris book that is pure idolatry. Have you read it? Its 800 pages, and makes Mary the fourth member of the Trinity. You are being disingenuous when you aregue here about honor having signed yourself up for worship of Mary. K

             Reply

             1. I have read it, and you have no clue what you’re talking about. If you know the book as well as you pretend to, you will be able to cite the passage that says Mary is God, and the passage that says Mary is the fourth person of the Trinity. Direct me to it. It’s called a citation, if you know what one is.

64. Scott I told you what accidents are. What appears to the senses. Like a big white dog, big and white are the accidents.But you cant have a big white without the dog. So take the Roman Jesus wafer to a lab and report back what you find, ok.

    Reply

    1. “You can’t have big and white without the dog”

       Question 2: Maybe I can’t. But is anything too hard for God?

       Reply

65. But what you dont see Scott is that you have to defend real presence with that kind of statement. Why? Because without the WORK of the Mass for your sins, and without physically eating Jesus you cant be saved your church tells you. Its a lie! Which Satan uses to keep Catholics out of the kingdom. Here is what Jesus said in John 6:47 ” He who believes in me HAS eternal life. I am the bread of life.” Did you get that? Eating Him who is the bread is believing. If the one who believes HAS eternal life, then what do we call the people in the Catholic church who have to eat the manna in the wilderness ( physical bread)? Jesus calls them dead. They died in the wilderness because they needed the physical bread and missed the spiritual bread which is simply to believe. Scott, let me warn you, to do the Mass is to deny faith. Having to go back to the trough to propitiate your sins is a denial of the one sacrifice that PAID for all our sins, guilt, wrath, punishment. Cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree. He became a curse for us, paid it all, and we become the righteouness of God in Him 2 Corinthians 5:21. Sweet deal, good news, that the sins of the many are hid in Him, and the righteouness of the one abounds to the many. Oh sweet Exchange! Oh unsearchable light. And all do is receive this gift by faith, which is a gift of God. K

    Reply

    1. The question is: Does God have the ability to achieve transubstantiation? Yes or no. Forget whether he does or not. Can he?

       Reply

66. God cannot work against his Word. To take those passages in Scripture literally is unbelief. Again you need it to be transubstantiation because it is the source and summit of your salvation. IOW your salvation is dependent on many things in the Roman false religion, but most of all it depends on you eating Jesus in the wafer. You have to DO this to be saved your church says. Transubstantiation is way more critical to you that me. My salvation depends on Christ gift of righteousness that is appropriated to me by simple faith. ” for if your confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you WILL be saved.” I’ve done both of these things and scripture gives me the assurance that I’m His. Its all a gift of God. Scott it will take faith to walk away from the Death wafer and embrace Christ by believing on Him. But you will inherit eternal life. God bless.

    Reply

67. Fail:
    Can God do it? Is it possible for God?

    Reply

    1. Scott, anyone that keeps acting likecathird grader with someone’s name I really dont want to continue. Incidentally if you knew Italian, which you dont, my name is prnounced Filoni in English. Jim does that to, it makes him feel better about himself. But im thankful to God that you do it, it reminds me of what a complete failure I am, how Christ saved me from my sins. There is something freeing about that. Everytime a Catholic, who supposedly working their way to heaven, does something like that, it shows me what scripture clearly teaches that the heart of a man is desperately wicked incapable to do anything to save themselves. And it reveals the absolute lie of Catholicism that anyone can be good and devout. Thanks for thecdiscussion.

       Reply

       1. Ok then, Kevin. Meant as a harmless tweak in the spirit of joshing, didn’t mean to offend.

          Reply

          1. Scott, you meant to offend, but I forgive you. Original sin hasn’t been washed away, no matter what your church tells you. The flesh remains. Thats why inherent righteousness can never save. ” Being found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from law ( doing, being, loving), but a righteousness that comes from God by faith” Philippians 3:9.

             Reply

             1. 1 Cor. 4:5.

    2. Yes, it is impossible for Christ’s body to be in two places, thats why Augustine says we have been deprived of the body of Christ until He returns. And Chrust tells us the same thing, He will not eat with us again until He returns. The heavy philosophical influence on mnay fathers cant be understated. They got heaven and earth confused. Theycollapsed the Icarn, ascension, parousia. We look for the return of our savior and now He left us with the Spirit. The RC substituting Iself for the historical body of Christ is an overrealized ecleecclesiology and eschatology.

       Reply

       1. “It’s impossble for Christ’s body to be in two places.”

          Then am I correct to assume that, in your view, Paul was wrong in 1 Cor. 15:6 and that, therefore, the Bible does contain error?

          Reply

          1. Are you serious, you use that verse to support transubstantiation. Maybe someone hasnt told you yet transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass are non existent in the early church and are 2 of the many false doctrines that arose in Roman Catholicism. Along with a misunderstang of the distinction between law and gospel whic produced a doctrine of salvation of faith plus works, has and will send many to hell.

             Reply

             1. Kevin, does Christ appear in more than one place at one time in 1 Cor 15:6? Or does he not? I am not using the verse as an example of transubstantiation; I’m using the verse as an example of Christ being present in more than one place at one time, which you, limiting the power of God, deny He can do. The real question boils down to whether or not you deny that God is omnipotent and believes that somehow He can not do all things. So do you deny that? Is God less than God, Kevin?

             2. FYI the verb should have been written “believe” (2nd person) and not “believes” (3rd person). It should be read “whether you believe,” not “whether God believes.”

68. Eric W , in response to your question to Scott, do you give more honor to your mama, or Mary, Scott’ response was ‘ there is a difference in kind of course” ya Scott’s mama isnt the mediaror of all graces, queen of heaven, gateway to the church, and basic idol. No, she is queen of the household, cook, and chief bottle washer. Certainly Eric you must understand who is to get more honor. Thay got Mary responsible for everything, while little Jesus is lonely in the wafer, trapped in his little tabernacle. My word EW. We should respect Mary like any other believer, honor our parents per God’s comandment, but I dont buy for one minute hoe Catholics try to downplat the written and practised idolatry of Mary. K

    Reply

69. KEVIN–
    You said: “And Chrust tells us the same thing, He will not eat with us again until He returns. ”

    That’s not entirely accurate.
    Before the Cross:
    Mat 26:29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
    After the Cross:
    Luk 24:41ff
    And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

    Reply

    1. YAfter the ascension, The bible says Christ is at the right hand of God and Augustine said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ untilnhe returns, for you to purport otherwise is unbelief.

       Reply

       1. For you to misuse Scripture is deception.

          Reply

          1. Kevin has difficulty backing up his claims and staying focused.

             Reply

             1. I think Kevin is brilliant. Sorry my wife got a hold of my pad. K lol

70. Pingback: “A significant turning point…” | Out of His Mouth

71. Kevin wrote:

    “I think Kevin is brilliant. Sorry my wife got a hold of my pad. K lol”

    I woke early this morning and WOW realized that from the 20 or so comments that were posted when I was here last Lord’s Day, it had jumped to 280 comments. I scanned the first 20 and started to read from the beginning. Interesting I thought.

    Here comes a new guy named Scott. As I read further it was clear Scott is a walking debater. He likes to debate, and is going to dazzle the audience with logic. So I read him with my presuppositions on what I think about debaters. Let me explain for those who are not familiar with these types.

    Debaters like to think themselves as masters of logic, and enjoy to follow a back and forth point by point dialogue. They are in it to win it. There is nothing in a debate designed to get to the truth of any issue, but rather in a debate it is to see who is more persuasive…truth is not important.

    The debater can spin you around in circular reasoning using points of logical arguments to get you to stay on one point they are trying to make. The moderator turns to the other side, and says, ok what do you say about that trying to keep the other side focused on the point raised, not the truth. A debate always involves one side who is extremely committed to one side, and the other side who is equally committed to the opposite position. No side will ever compromise on agreeing to the truth. For example, it is extremely rare to have both sides of a debate convince one side or the other on unity of their minds, and walk away saying…I’ve changed my position, I agree with the other side now after this debate. No, the issue is “I won or lost” that debate.

    Isa.58:4 says, ” Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.”

    Rom.1:29 says, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,…”

    2Cor.12:20 says, “For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:…”

    For those who cannot interpret scripture with scripture, and use the literal sense (e.g., intended meaning of the author Himself) method to understand what is being stated above, let me make it clear. Debating is sinful and those who promote the style of debate like Scott are desiring to cause their opponent to sin. Be clear about this fact.

    Secondly, like a boxer in a ring, Scott did everything in the beginning of this 250 comment debate, to push Kevin back into the corner of his discussion alone. Telling Scott to forget and ignore all the points Scott was raising about the true foolishness and ignorance, gross idolatry, false worship and heresy being promoted by the Romish church…but Scott did not want to discuss any of those FACTS, but he wanted to focus on doing everything he could to put Kevin in the corner.

    Kevin stayed the course using basic reason and Scripture principles to rebut the presupposition of Scott, and while not perfectly worded in many cases did a brilliant job of not falling for the debating tactics of Scott.

    In frustration, Scott used the greatest tactic next of professional debaters. Attack the character and make as many tiresome personal attacks to Kevin’s name hoping to throw him off course, and get the audience who usually cannot follow the circular reasoning used by debaters to just see “Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail” in hopes to win the debate.

    Then came the section where I could not stop laughing about half way through. I read one tit for tat and found great humor.

    As I neared the end it was clear Kevin had stuck to his guns and poor Scott was going to leave many times, but stayed to get tared and feathered some more with reason and Scripture.

    In the end, nobody got to the truth, because the truth was not the objective. Scott did what he could to discredit his opponent, and Kevin got his time on the playing field to keep pressing the core issues of the incredible idolatry and false worship that is epidemic in the Roman Catholic Church.

    One key point of doctrine: If anyone believes that God is going to promote transubstantiation because He is omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent (as is being implied), they no nothing of God’s perfect nature. It is impossible for God to sin and cause others to sin. Therefore, it is impossible for God to become part of the wafer in the form of real presence, and cause any mere man or woman to worship and adore it. That is against the entire nature of God to cause men to worship and adore any object made by man’s hands.

    Do be confused with the logical arguments to follow that comment coming from anyone to justify there is no worship or adorning the real presence of the wafer….again, do not be confused. Learn the Scriptures and understand what it means to faithful worship in Spirit and IN TRUTH. Avoid debate.

    Read and understand, using the literal sense method of interpretation, what is meant by what is written below about those Catholics who promote such idolatry. It is FORBIDDEN.

    Jer.7:8 says, “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women kneed the dough to make cakes to the Queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me unto anger. ”

    Jer.44:16-25 says, “The word that thou hast spoken unto us in the Name of the Lord, we will [a]not hear it of thee,

    17 But we will do whatsoever thing goeth out of our own mouth, as to burn incense unto [b]the Queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then [c]had we [d]plenty of vittles and were well and [e]felt none evil.

    18 But since we left off to burn incense to the Queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have had [f]scarceness of all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

    19 And when we burnt incense unto the Queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes [b]to make her glad, and pour out drink offerings unto her without [c]our husbands?

    20 Then said Jeremiah unto all the people, to the men, and to the women, and to all the people which had given him that answer, saying,

    21 Did not the Lord remember the incense, that ye burnt in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, both you and your fathers, your kings, and your Princes, and the people of the land, and [r]hath he not considered it?

    22 So that the Lord could no longer forbear, because of the wickedness of your inventions, and because of the abominations, which ye have committed: therefore is your land desolate, and an astonishment, and a curse, and without inhabitant, as appeareth this day.

    23 Because you have burnt incense, and because ye have sinned against the Lord, and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies, therefore this plague is come upon you, as appeareth this day.

    24 Moreover Jeremiah said unto all the people and to all the women, Hear the word of the Lord, all Judah, that are in the land of Egypt.

    25 Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your [s]hand, saying, We will perform our vows that we have vowed to burn incense to the Queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings to her: ye will perform your vows, and do the things that ye have vowed.”

    Geneva Footnotes:

    Jeremiah 44:16 This declareth how dangerous a thing it is to decline once from God, and to follow our own fantasies: for Satan ever soliciteth such, and doth not leave them till he have brought them to extreme impudency and madness, even to justify their wickedness against God and his Prophets.

    Jeremiah 44:17 Read Jer. 7:18, it seemeth that the Papists gathered of this place Salve Regina, and Regina caeli latare, calling the virgin Mary Queen of heaven, and so of the blessed virgin and mother of our Savior Christ, made an idol: for here the Prophet condemneth their idolatry.

    Jeremiah 44:17 Hebrew, we were satiated with bread.

    Jeremiah 44:17 This is still the argument of idolaters, which esteem religion by the belly, and instead of acknowledging God’s works, who sendeth both plenty and dearth, health and sickness, they attribute it to their idols, and so dishonor God.

    Jeremiah 44:17 Or, saw.
    Jeremiah 44:18 Or, want.
    Jeremiah 44:18 Or, want.
    Jeremiah 44:19 Or, to appease her.

    Jeremiah 44:19 This teacheth us how great danger it is for the husbands to permit their wives anything whereof they be not assured by God’s word: for thereby they take an occasion to justify their doings, and their husbands shall give an account thereof before God, read Isa. 3:25.

    Jeremiah 44:21 Hebrew, is it not come up into his heart?

    Jeremiah 44:25 You have committed double evil in making wicked vows, and in performing the same.

    Reply

72. Debate is sinful? … Well, this will sure be news to James White. His entire “ministry,” I guess, is one big enormous exercise in sin.

    But the real reason Walt shows up is as a warning to Kevin, “Hey, don’t get into debates with that pesky Scott guy. It’s not working out all that well for you. Better to not get distracted by demands to back up your claims with facts, evidence, citations. Instead, keep throwing a bunch of laundry up in the air.” The real reason Walt is saying, “Don’t get involved in debates like this” is because he understands that people like him and Kevin just don’t come off looking all that well.

    The ironic thing is that, for all his hand-wringing about my “tactics,” Walt never once addressed a single one of my arguments.

    Reply

    1. Scott, no Walt is correct. And I have had to learn the lesson he cites from scripture thechard way. God has used Walt, Tim, and Eric W in my life to understand things like these and consistently apply them to my character. Iron sharpening iron. Not that ive attained it yet, but I presson. Scott, its not about winning a debate, its about biblical truth. Thats all.

       Reply

       1. Then why can’t you substantiate one single claim you make, when pressed? You said Liguori calls Mary God and the fourth person of the Trinity. I asked you where. Silence.

          I asked you how your claim that Jesus can’t appear in 2 places at the same time squares with Paul’s assertion that Christ appeared to 500 believers at the same time. Silence.

          I asked you how you can translate James 2:14 “that faith” when “he” in “he pistis” is a redundant article (meaning “the,” according to Strong’s and Vine’s) and is not translated as a demonstrative pronoun in one single other verse. Silence.

          You’re right that it’s not about “winning a debate.” It is about truth. But if you can’t substantiate your claims when pressed, how can you be so sure it is truth?

          Reply

          1. Scott, Time magazine some years back had a cover titled Mary 4th member of the Trinity. It discussed the elevation of Mary in the Roman church. I remember reading it. Liguoris book is so over the top, it is a schock that any church would formally adopt it. Imho 800 pages of pure idolatry. Scott you are in a church of idol worship. You can call it any dullia you want, those distinctions dont exist in scripture, nor are they taught. We are taught to worship Christ in Spirit and in truth period. I dont call my mother mediatrix of all graces, gateway to heaven, and tell her she will be assumed into heaven. I simply honor and respect her. As I said the marian ego is unstopable in your church, your church is marching the bread God in all the nations of the world around on the street. Next, Augustine, who you guys claim as your hero said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until hecreturns. His body is like ours and scripture says itscat the rightvhand ofvGod. You misinterpret the verse about Jesus appearance. I can walk into a stadium and appear to 500 people too. And if I were Paul citing this I latter, I could say some who are not with us. And again your point on James 2 is inmaterial, he is talking about someone who says they havecfaith. A bogusvfaith. Augustine again disagrees with your assesment, I provided you his quote harmonizing Paul and James. Before you use James 2, Romans 2, and a faulty view of law and gospel to justify smuggling your character into God’s work of grace. I really hope you will read Tim’ s articles on Romans 2, James 2 on this site. They’ re great. And at the end of the day you disagree so b be it. I will now take Walts advice and disengage. Thx for discussion.

             Reply

             1. Wait. You’re relying on Time magazine for accuracy about the Catholic Church? Would you rely on Time for accuracy about yours?

             2. And you said that Liguori called Mary 4th person of the Trinity, not that Time magazine did. Nuts to Time.

    2. Scott, when you have tell everybody how good you are and howvbad everyone else is reveals allot. My contention is you guys love your idols, the death wafer, and the Queen of Heaven, your church. The only one who gets the back seat is the Lord, you got Hin trapped in a little wafer in a little prison, an eternal victim. For us He is risen! Lord and Savior, declaredcSon of God with power, ruling his kingdom, at the rightbhand of God. Trust me Scott, until Rome lets Him off the altar and cross, He cant save you. God bless.

       Reply

       1. Still no answers from Kevin. No facts, no evidence, no citations. Nothing. Just rhetoric. To paraphrase James White, “It’s a sad thing to watch. But that’s what enslavement to Geneva will do to you.”

          Reply

73. “6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

    7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

    9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their’s also was.

    10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

    11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

    12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

    13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

    14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

    15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2Tim.3:6:17)

    Reply

74. Walt said ” here comes Scott and he is going to dazzle wit his logic” Thanks for the warning brother. Its good advice and I will take it. K

    Reply

75. Kevin,

    The Scriptures speak for itself on debaters. Don’t let Scott confuse you into drawing you into his tactics. You did a great job last week about ignoring his methods, and it got him so upset he wanted to leave at least 3 times I read. This is how debaters work…if you do not agree to their methods to destroy your reputation and your own biblical principles.

    As you can see from Scott, beyond Rome, his authority is James White who is one of the leading debater’s in the world, but one who is also one who has no interest in the truth. He is a (un)reformed Baptist, and is filled with typical heretical Baptist presuppositions and a large proponent of destructive heresy. Nevertheless, he is great debater (maybe the world’s best) but has no interest in the truth, and is most interested in defending their presupposition by debate at all cost.

    James White is filled with doctrinal error, and as he claims that Calvin would not have allowed him to live in Geneva…which is true. James White would not have been allowed with his destructive heresy to the unity of the church. Listen to some of his debates…White is a bully often with his opponent, and is a professional at winning…not in getting to the truth.

    It says a lot when any “reformed Baptist” says that Calvin would never allow them to spread their views in Geneva!

    Reply

    1. Walt, I actually never knew White said that. Why would he say that. I actually think Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterian s are coming closer and should, we are brothers in Christ. Calvin is my favorite theologian. Sometimes those of us who lean more Reformed baptist feel like the Reformers didnt quitecshake off enough of the Roman dust, but trust me my heros are Knox, Calvin, the Scottish Reformers, although I hold to a different position on chufch govt. I feel we are coiming more together on the Baptism things. But we should be shoulder to shoulder against the synagog of Rome. I have never been a big White fan. Thanks for the encouragement and info. K

       Reply

    2. Walt, a conversation thru email with Tim God used to change me. Your advise is wise. I will stick to the facts of scripture.

       Reply

76. Scott, page 201 and 202 in Liguoris book has God subservient to Mary and 202 elevates Mary over God. Just an example.

    Reply

    1. You’re going to have to give me the exact quotation, Kevin, and which chapter it’s in, because my edition might not be the same as yours.

       Reply

       1. Hey Scott,

          I see you are 3rd degree Knights of Columbus…which I guess is better than a 33rd degree Mason.

          “Catholic convert, 3-deg KC, sacristan, Benedictine oblate. I blog @ apologetics, Catholicism, & lit. Swift & Dickens my models; words my sword. Active on FB.”

          https://twitter.com/scottericalt

          Question for you: I saw Tim gave you two links and you said you were going to review those links. I notice you have a real focus on Kevin. You also said in last week’s blogging that you have been lurking here for a while.

          Why don’t you take Tim up on his suggestion, and go read those posts he made, and start a tangle with him on his errors that you obviously see him making in his research?

          One thing I learned in all your blogging last week is you did not source quote (as I read) one significant document or primary source. You are a master and laser focusing on what you want to discuss with no serious source material, outside a bible dictionary and concordance as I recall…it was a lot of reading so perhaps you had something else.

          I think it is time for you to really show us some of your extensive Catholic apologetic power, and leave Kevin alone and tangle with Tim for a while. As a debater just crawling the web looking to pick a fight to fine tune your debating skills, and improve your 3rd degree KC position with your lurking brethren, it is time to step up with some source documents and some facts/evidence you claim nobody else is using but you.

          Reply

77. Kevin,

    Baptists cannot be really reformed by pure definition. I know you are a MacArthur Baptist supporter so issues like Christmas, Easter, normative principle of worship, independent form of church government, occasional hearing, believer only baptism, etc. are acceptable, but the first and second reformation reformers rejected these views.

    The reformed fathers hold to the biblical view that church government and doctrine is to be built upon the Scriptures being the primary standard and creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc. are subordinate standards.

    The Anabaptist extreme view has a mantra “no creed but the bible” which is hypocritical as that statement is a creed. The Romish extreme is sacred tradition is equal and exceeds Scripture.

    If you really think the Baptists are reformed, I suggest you read this document to get the history of your own denomination and how much they could not stand the reformed and spoke out against them often. The typical Baptist response is that reformed did not reform enough like their Anabaptist forefathers, but in reality, today much of the doctrine espoused by the Baptists and reformed Baptist is very much Romish by degrees closer than the reformed ever was in history.

    http://www.semperreformanda.com/men-of-god/francis-nigel-lee/francis-nigel-lee-index/the-anabaptists-and-their-stepchildren-f-n-lee/

    Reply

78. In case you don’t have time to read it, here is one important point that is made in the forward to debunk the typical baptist view that the reformed only reformed from Rome a little bit.

    As Dr. Lee shows, that is not the facts. Similar to how Tim debunks the standard Romish teaching, Lee will Debunk the standard Baptist teaching on their history.

    “The reader may be surprised to discover that the early Anabaptists did not submerse candidates for baptism, but either sprinkled or poured. What is even more surprising, is to learn that the Mediaeval Roman Church did submerse, and that the Romanist Council of Nemours allowed the Scripture mode of sprinkling only in the case of “emergencies.”

    Modern Baptists are fond of claiming that the Reformers simply adopted their doctrines concerning the Sacraments (especially Baptism) from the mediaeval Roman Church. Anyone who has studied the history of the Reformation knows better, but Dr. Lee has brought together a multitude of documents written by the Reformers themselves. In these various documents, the Reformers from Wycliffe to the Westminster Assembly consistently argue against the false doctrine of anti-paedobaptism from Scripture as well as the whole history of the Church.”

    Reply

    1. Walt, thanks I will read it. You said ” they all denied the biblical and early church practice of infant Baptism.” Actually this isnt accurate Walt. The predominant practice was adult baptism in th early church. And there is not one example of infant baptism in scrpture, even Roman apologist admit this. The household situations arent clear. I personally belueve in bel I evers baptism, however it isnt completly settled with me. But Walt we all have some error in our theology. The Reformers did. WCF says reformed and always being reformed. If say the Scttish Reformers thought their confessions were infalible, they would be repeating the verybthing they stood against, saying that councils error. Thats why I dont call brothers that differ on baptism or some other things heretics. I have some error in my theology. There are non negotiables. The hinge, etc. K

       Reply

       1. Walt, having said that, I share many of your concerns. Im heavily against the Pentacostal thing, and any bad residue from the semi pelagian lean in some Protestantism. I attend a bible church that disciplines its people, preaches the word, and administers the sacraments rightly. We take communion weekly, My wife have attended Calvin Reformed Presbt in thd last year and loved it. I actually hope Tim does a thing on church govenment. It would be great. Eric W and I tend to be more unified in church government views. I listened to all thecstuff you sent me, maybe we could do an email thing. I would lovevto get your perspective. K

          Reply

          1. Kevin, you said:

             “I actually hope Tim does a thing on church govenment. It would be great. Eric W and I tend to be more unified in church government views.”

             I suggest you try to buy the new book being reprinted by Chris Coldwell entitled, “The Westminster Assembly of Divines, The Grand Debate.”

             I recommend you buy the book as it is the first time in more than 360 years. I worked on retyping it over 2 years, but never finished it as it was a lot of material, but I know its critical importance to the Christian church in our generation. When I read it, I could not put it down.

             “The Westminster Assembly of Divines, The Grand Debate. Forthcoming December 2014. 424 pp. Sewn hardbound, dust jacket, Introduction & Analysis by Rowland S. Ward. 44pp. Edited by Chris Coldwell. Indices, Annotated Bibliography, Appendix on the theological resources of the Westminster Assembly.

             This work contains a lesser known set of documents produced by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, arguing for and against the Presbyterian form of church government. Discontented with the majority’s Presbyterian views, the Congregationalist members produced dissenting papers to which the Assembly replied, giving a more detailed view of the matters debated than the snatches of information recorded in the Assembly’s Minutes.

             Presented in five sections The Grand Debate includes the following exchanges between the Congregationalist ‘dissenting brethren’ and the Presbyterian majority of the Assembly: I. Reasons against the proposition that many churches may be under one Presbyterial government from the example of the church at Jerusalem, and the Assembly’s reply; II. Reasons against … from the example of the Church at Ephesus, with the Assembly’s reply; III. Reasons against the subordination of church synods, with the Assembly’s reply; IV. Reasons against the Assembly’s limitation on the power of individual congregations to ordain, with the Assembly’s reply; V. Four papers by the Congregationalists presented in the committee formed to come to an accommodation, with answers by the representatives of the Assembly.”

             http://www.naphtali.com/2014/10/17/prepub-offer-the-westminster-assemblys-grand-debate-19-95-sh/

             You will get to here your spiritual forefathers, the Independents like Nye and Goodwin make their arguments on the floor of the Assembly. Here is Nye:

             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Nye

             Watch Scott pick up the word “debate” and rattle his saber for foul play, but if you study the distinctions between how they debated on the floor of the assembly vs. how James White and others engage in modern debate of name calling, destruction of people’s character, forcing one to use all sorts of “sacred” tradition claiming superiority to Scripture, etc. that is not what you see in reading this debate.

             This Grand Debate as it was referred, is a misnomer. The original title is:

             “The reasons presented by the Dissenting Brethren against certain propositions concerning presbyteriall government : and the proofs of them voted by the Assembly of Divines, sitting by authority of Parliament, at Westminster : together with the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to those reasons of dissent.”

             The “Grand Debate” is a more modern slang term to sell the books, and help people understand as they like debates.

             Reply

             1. Walt, is the book available still at the special price. Where can I get it. Thx

             2. Walt,

                Thanks for this:

                I suggest you try to buy the new book being reprinted by Chris Coldwell entitled, “The Westminster Assembly of Divines, The Grand Debate.”

                I ordered it, and was wondering where it was. Comes out this month.

                Thanks!

                Tim

       2. Kevin, you wrote:

          “You said ” they all denied the biblical and early church practice of infant Baptism.” Actually this isnt accurate Walt. The predominant practice was adult baptism in th early church. And there is not one example of infant baptism in scrpture, even Roman apologist admit this.”

          First, I don’t take anything Romish apologists say about baptism in the early church as truthful. The overwhelming evidence is the Early Church and the Apostolic Church performed infant baptism, as well as all the faithful Christian church. You will have to refute not only Tim’s past comments on this issue regarding infant baptism, but also the source materials on Dr. Lee’s book to convince me otherwise. I am not interested in opinion, theory or your denominational presuppositions on infant baptism.

          Second, please point out the specific errors in the Westminster Standards. Tim has pointed out one of the proof texts that convince him (and many in his current Presbyterian denomination) that the original standards approved by the Church of Scotland, and the English Parliament have errors. Many of our modern Presbyterian denominations do not believe that the Church of Scotland during the peak of the second reformation was a faithful church court, and therefore, the standards are not inerrant.

          You said:

          “But Walt we all have some error in our theology. The Reformers did. WCF says reformed and always being reformed. If say the Scttish Reformers thought their confessions were infalible, they would be repeating the verybthing they stood against, saying that councils error.”

          Yes, the WCF says that, but it is certain they did not believe that the Church of Scotland was in error when the final standards were reviewed, modified, published and later voted upon and approved by the General Assembly as faithful to the Word of God, and founded upon the Word of God. Those modern Presbyterians who reject those original standards, and have changed them…even removing the statement that the “Pope is Antichrist” obviously believe the Church of Scotland was in error.

          Be certain Kevin, those in the Church of Scotland who finally voted and accepted the Westminster Standards did NOT believe they were in error, but they believed they were inerrant. NOT INFALLIBLE, but inerrant.

          One pastor years ago gave me the challenge to go through the Standards (by the way when I was a BAPTIST like you) and prove where there was an error. I took almost a year in my basement without working to pour over that challenge, and while some of the proof texts were not the best (as was later admitted by some reformers), I could not turn over the truth of those subordinate standards. I was forced to leave the Baptist church and now 16 years later have still not found the errors my Presbyterian brethren continue to find in those subordinate standards.

          In fact, I firmly believe they have rejected these faithful church courts and like independents chosen to accept what they like in our modern culture, and ignore the standards they would rather not adopt. Regulative principle is just one example that is found in the Directory for Public Worship, and the Form of Church Government, as well as rejecting our Terms of Ministerial Communion originally adopted by faithful courts. It is largely a pick and choose, rather than providentially seeing the hand of God reveal to the faithful visible church what and how indeed faithful church courts will operate during the millennium, as well as a possible third reformation before the hammer falls.

          Reply

          1. Walt, thanks for explaining your position. I respect it, and like many believers have put many years in study to your conclussions. The predominant practice in the early church was adult baptism, but as you asked I will submit proof. Ibthink my source is Schaff, but I will confirm. As far as biblically you are aquainted with the fact tha there are no examples of infant baptism in scripture. There is the promise to you and your children, and the household examples. My understanding is infant baptism and pedo communion were 4th century arrivals with Constantine and monolithically baptising infants for the state. But Walt would love the discussion. I will listen to the material you provide. Would you be willing to listen to a debate between two goodcfriends on this subjest, Sproul and MacArthur on infant baptism and give me your take. And lastly Sproul says we all have error in our theology, do you have error in your theology? Thanks Walt for sharing all the info. God bless you. Look forward to future discussions.

             Reply

             1. Kevin wrote:

                “Would you be willing to listen to a debate between two goodcfriends on this subjest, Sproul and MacArthur on infant baptism and give me your take. And lastly Sproul says we all have error in our theology, do you have error in your theology?”

                I’ve already heard that debate. I firmly believe Sproul won it hands down…but that is only because I understand the argument made in Scripture on Covenant Theology when MacArthur rejects.

                Second, of course I have error. That is one main reason I decided not to join any ministry back when I was being honed to become a Priest and possible Jesuit in Catholic School, and later when I converted to Presbyterianism (after a 3 year journey search every denomination and church history I could).

                I would not be a good minister as my patience is too lacking to be effective. My personality is more like Knox and Zwingli than Calvin and Beza, for example.

                I’m the type Rome is not going to care for much in the future, and best that they silence me as once I get vocal enough and attract their attention I suspect it will be off with the head, or jail time to silence my big flappers! : Like Zwingli I don’t hold to the Real Presence:

                “While Zwingli carried on the political work of the Swiss Reformation, he developed his theological views with his colleagues. The famous disagreement between Luther and Zwingli on the interpretation of the eucharist originated when Andreas Karlstadt, Luther’s former colleague from Wittenberg, published three pamphlets on the Lord’s Supper in which Karlstadt rejected the idea of a real presence in the elements.

                These pamphlets, published in Basel in 1524, received the approval of Oecolampadius and Zwingli. Luther rejected Karlstadt’s arguments and considered Zwingli primarily to be a partisan of Karlstadt. Zwingli began to express his thoughts on the eucharist in several publications including de Eucharistia (On the Eucharist).

                He attacked the idea of the real presence and argued that the word is in the words of the institution—”This is my body, this is my blood”—means signifies.[66] Hence, the words are understood as a metaphor and Zwingli claimed that there was no real presence during the eucharist. In effect, the meal was symbolic of the Last Supper.[67]

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli

79. “Harvard’s Dr. Williams has not hesitated to describe himself4 as “a professor who, and in a university which, has spiritual connections with Calvin’s principal foe, Michael Servetus.” Extolling the neo-Anabaptist Karl Barth as “the greatest modern theologian,” Williams has saluted the Anabaptists as architects of the modern post-Christian pluriform society. Indeed, he has expressed the wish to “salute them from afar — as the honored citizens of that larger community which is the commonwealth of all mankind.”5

    The Anabaptists, then, were sixteenth-century antipaidobaptists. As to their doctrine of God, they were variously Unitarian, Binitarian, Tritheistic — or, occasionally, even quasi-Trinitarian. As to creation and providence, many were either anarchistic or neo-Manichaean. Indeed, some were very lascivious — and either adulterers or polygamists.

    Nearly all maintained a heretical neo-Gnostic christology. Several claimed to be prophetic visionaries and/or glossolalists, and more than a few were thoroughly communistic. Most were millenarian, fanatically predicting the imminent return of Christ. Nearly all of them taught both soul-sleep and the final annihilation of the wicked (thus denying the eternal punishment). Absolutely all of them were either antinomian or legalistic. What was good in them, was not original. What was original in them, was not good.

    They all agreed in hating the Biblical and patristic practice of infant baptism. They all resurrected and rehashed various heresies already decisively rejected many centuries earlier and only after a thorough evaluation by the Early Church.

    Very demonstrably, their modern stepchildren comprise various contemporary ecclesiastic revolutionaries. Such include the Christadelphians, the Mormons, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Jehovah witnesses, the Pentecostalists, and the left- wing liberationists.”

    Reply

80. Last post in case you don’t get to read it entirely…it is a bit long,

    “The antipaidobaptism of the Anabaptists strongly characterizes their Baptist stepchildren today. Also the other views of the Anabaptists are still encountered — among many of their other different stepchildren. The latter include: sacramentalists like the Campbellites; unitarian Christadelphians; ‘charismatic’ Pentecostalists; premillenial Dispensationalists; polygamous proto-Mormons; state-hating “Jehovah’s witnesses”; soul-sleeping Seventh-day Adventists; and various assorted deniers of everlasting punishment.

    At this point, we merely mention the various heresies of Anabaptism which spawned this seed. There was the anti- trinitarianism of Jan Denck, David Joris, Jan Campanus, and Miguel Servetus (against Genesis 1:1-3 and Matthew 28:19 and Revelation 4:5-8f). There was the denial of Christ’s incarnation by Melchior Hofmann and Menno Simons (against Luke 1:31f and Romans 1:3f and Hebrews 2:9-17 & 5:1-8).

    There was the repeated adultery of Louis Haetzer — and the polygamy of the demagogue Jan Beukels of Leyden and of the murderer Jan Matthys of Haarlem (against Malachi 2:14-16 and Matthew 19:4-9 and First Thessalonians 4:3-8). Indeed, there was also the revolutionism of Thomas Muenzer, Bernard Knipperdolling and even David Joris (against Romans 13:1-7 and First Peter 2:13-17 and Titus 3:1f).

    Then there was their communism (alias community of goods and community of wives) — squarely condemned by Exodus 20:15-17 and Acts 5:4 and Ephesians 4:24-28. There were the pseudo-pentecostal babblings of Thomas Muenzer, and the false prophecies of Menno Simons — against Matthew 6:7 and First Corinthians 14:7-21 and First John 4:1-6. There was an anarchical opposition to oathing — against Deuteronomy 10:20 and Jeremiah 4:2 and Second Corinthians 1:23. There was also a heretical doctrine of soul-sleep — against Luke 23:43 and Second Corinthians 5:1-9 and Philippians 1:21-23. Indeed, in some cases, there was even a denial of everlasting punishment –against Isaiah 34:8- 10 and Mark 9:42-48 and Revelation 14:11 & 20:10.”

    Reply

81. Tim, here is that date arising again…it seems to have effected everything evil Rome has brought to the visible Church.

    “From the 250 A.D. time of Cyprian onward, however, the Church Universal degenerated — by syncretizing with paganism. More and more water now got used at baptisms. This was because of the false and new theory that the greater the quantity of water at baptisms (and the more naked the candidate), the greater the quantity and quality of sins were thereby washed away. Enter baptismal regenerationism.16 So, too, from 350, baptism was often deferred till death.

    Fortunately, however, there was no attack against infant baptism as such. For even the romanizing Church Universal rightly regarded babies too as sinners — all stained with Adam’s original sin. Thus, paidobaptism was clearly enunciated by: Lactantius; Asterius; Basil; Gregory of Nazianze; Gregory of Nyssa; Hilary; Ambrose; Chrysostom; Jerome; and Augustine. Yet Biblical sprinkling decreased, and magical submersion increased.

    In the Middle Ages, the neo-paganistic doctrines of the inherent goodness of babies and the denial of their original sin (in certain circles) — sometimes expressed itself in a rejection of infant baptism. This was found in various heretical sects outside the Church Universal.”

    Reply

82. “Walt, is the book available still at the special price. Where can I get it. Thx”

    I think it ended Dec. 11 for the special price.

    Yes, to Tim, I think orders start shipping this week.

    Reply

83. Walt, thanks for sharing all that. I think Eric W holds to the Zwinglian position. I am leaning that way.

    Reply

84. Scott said to Tim ” Jesus is speking toJohn and subsequently to all believers. Rome is master at springboard theology. Jesus said it to John and that really shoul be extended to all believers and trintynhating muslims etc. Thats like saying Ephesians 2 really means initial justification, because Mary is the mother of Jesus, Joseph was born without sin, their parents, etc. This Catholic De Maria once told me that 1 John 2:27 was the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. Just make it up. K

    Reply

85. Walt, I read the article you provided. It was very good. I am going to further research this. Especially he says submersions are biblically heretical. Wasn’t Jesus submersed in baptism as an adult. And I believe the word baptizo means to submerse. I hope Tim weighs in. Tim if you read this. Can you address your views on infant baptism and adult baptism. Thanks K

    Reply

    1. Walt, Im sorry, I was inaccurate in my lasr post to you. Baptizo means immerse. Even though Calvin sprinkled babies, he said that baptizo isnt a pssive verb but active. Jesus came up out of the water from the Jordan the scripture says, they didnt take water out of the Jordan and put it on him. John was immersing in the river. The Ethiopian eunuch was taken down and immersed. Again the early church immersed adults. Now having said all that I understand Sprouls argument and I understand the covenental implications of the argument. Anyway as I study this further, I appreciate all the materials you put forth. Maybe Tim can weigh in, he was in a bible church I believe before Reformed. Incidentally, MacArthur’s church isnt Baptist, it called grace bible church. And the anabaptist arent my forefathers. I have never attended a Baptist church, although I do lean that way with church govt and baptism. But I am a 5 point Calvinist who attends a bible church. Anyway, thanks for the discussion Walt K

       Reply

86. Tim, can Mary be the mother of the church since thevchurch is the bride of Christ. I dont think so.

    Reply

    1. Is it your assertion that Mary is the church’s mother in law?

       Reply

87. So you do see the absurdity of Mary mother of the church. Cant happen. The church is thevbride of Christ. Very good your learning.

    Reply

    1. Then am I correct to assume (1) that you do, in fact, believe that Mary is the Church’s mother in law; (2) that you do, in fact, treat independent figures of speech as though they needed to be quite so genetically consistent with each other?

       Reply

       1. Scott, you are flailing, you should quit. The church is the bride of Christ says scripture which make it impossible for Mary to be the mother of the church. Keep going you will get it figured out. You do have a choice, you don’t have to believe everything the Roman Synagog teaches you with implicit faith. You don’t have to turn your mind over to the Sarlac, you actually can turn to scripture yourself. 1 John 2:27 says we have no need of a teacher, His anointing teaches us all things and its true and not a lie. We have a Spirit of power and wisdom. You can have this too, but you are going to have to not pledge allegiance to Roman catholicism, you will have to go to the true head, Christ by faith alone. God bless

          Reply

          1. Well, I don’t think I’m “flailing,” I just think you have no earthly idea what a figure of speech is. But that won’t be cause for you to lose your salvation, or anything like that, otherwise there’d only be funny English major types and good readers in Heaven, so it’s all good. God bless.

             Reply

    2. Let me put it another way. God is our father. Christ is God’s son. That makes Christ our brother.

       Mary is Christ’s mother. We are Christ’s brothers. That makes Mary our mother.

       Correct?

       Reply

       1. Scott, whats amusing to me is you argue vociferously that you only honor Mary but then whats this fixation. If you would argue as hard for the sufficiency of Christ’s one time sacrifice as hard as you do for sister Mary you might start to understanding. Mary is my sister in Christ. My earthly mother and I’m told to honor her. Since the church is the bride of Christ, Mary can’t be the mother of the church. Again Mary is a Christian who is my sister. And when I get to heaven I’m going to say hi to my sister Mary. I left a article title on the new thread by Piper on Mary. The last time Mary is seen is in Acts 1:14 where it simply says Mary mother of Jesus with her two other sons James and Joseph. I hope you will read that article, it will help you get a more sober look at Mary. She doesn’t play any big part in the NT church. In fact the only other time she is mentioned outside of Acts 1 is when Paul says born of a woman. He doesn’t even call her by name. Again Scott a Christian is complete in Christ and the scripture says lacking in nothing. So the question is why so much fiction on Mary? And the obvious answer is Jesus isn’t sufficient for Catholics. Its unbelief. Jesus said unless you are willing to DENY mother brother …… you are not willing to be my disciple. Are you willing to deny Mather Mary to follow the lamb of God who took away the sins of the World. It will cost you your Marian ego. Thx

          Reply

          1. I’m just curious how, if I give so much honor to Mary, that somehow qualifies as “ego.” Do you know what the word “ego” means? Or is the phrase “Marian ego” a strange rhetorical tic of yours?

             Reply

             1. Dont you know what ego means. Swelled. Im a simple man. We are told to worship God with all of our heart, sole and mind. JP2 has sewn into his papal garments totus …… I am totally yours Mary. He commits the whole church into the hands of Mary. He called her gateway to heaven, and mediatrix of all graces. They got her responsible for everything. The bible very simply calls her the mother of Jesus. She said God my savior, and called herself the bondslave of the Lord. Catholics pray to her, call on her, worship her. Cant you see this.

             2. “I am totally yours,” regardless of whether the object of that expression is valid or not, is the exact opposite of ego. Ego means “I.” It means to be narcissistic and self-involved. To have an attitude of “totally yours” completely shuts out ego. So if you want to try to assert that “totus tuus” is an example of ego, then you’re violating the law of non-contradiction.

             3. Kevin wrote:
                I am totally yours Mary. He commits the whole church into the hands of Mary. He called her gateway to heaven, and mediatrix of all graces. They got her responsible for everything.

                Response:
                For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men….looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, – Titus 2:11, 13

                I guess Christ’s return is mediated by Mary too. They call her their life, sweetness, and HOPE.

       2. Scott,

          God is our Father. Christ is His Son. Christ is our Brother. Mary is Jesus’ mother. Mary is God’s daughter. Mary is our sister.

          If the Holy Spirit is Jesus’ mother, and Mary is married to the Holy Spirit, but is also Christ’s sister, and Mary is God’s mother, and the Holy Spirit is God, doesn’t this mean that Jesus has two mothers, or at least that Mary is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, and that Mary is her own grandmother, and her own step-mother, and that the Holy Spirit is God’s step-Father, and that God is Jesus’ brother?

          Correct?

          Thanks,

          Tim

          Reply

          1. I wasn’t using that argument myself. I was trying to show that I could use the same method of argumentation Kevin was using in order to get to the conclusion he was resisting. The word “mother” in this context is a figure of speech. You can’t submit it to this kind of analysis. We were never meant to think of it quite so literally.

             Reply

             1. I see. Would you agree then that Mary is the mother of all of creation then? Or maybe just the mother of angels? Or maybe just mother of all humanity? There are so many ways to approach this. I am curious to know which way you chose, and why you chose it.

                Thanks,

                Tim

             2. Well, Mother of the New Creation, sure—follows upon her being the New Eve and the mother of Christ, in whom we are a new creation.

                Mother of angels? Not so much. You must be thinking Queen of Angels.

             3. Well that’s where this gets confusing. You say she’s not mother of angels, but John Hardon, S.J., taught that she was mother of all rationale creatures, of which angels are a subset. (See his class notes here: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Class_Charts/Class_Charts_005.pdf )

                Other Mariologists have her as Mother of Humans (citing Ambrose) and Mother of Angels (citing a 13th century source):

                “Moreover, since her motherhood was indispensable to God’s redemptive activity, Mary is essential to the final, spiritual perfection of every creature. Accordingly, although she was not involved in their original physical creation, Mary is, in this ultimate sense, the Mother of God’s Creatures. This includes being Mother of Humans, a title found in Ambrose but popularized around 1100, and Mother of Angels, a term first found in the thirteenth century.” (Mariology,

                Pope Leo XIII said that at the cross, Mary became the mother of all humans, not just mother of all believers:

                “The mystery of Christ’s immense love for us is revealed with dazzling brilliance in the fact that the dying Saviour bequeathed His Mother to His disciple John in the memorable testament: “Behold thy son.” Now in John, as the Church has constantly taught, Christ designated the whole human race, and in the first rank are they who are joined with Him by faith.” (Adiutricem, 6)

                John Paul II confirmed this:

                “Jesus, dying on the cross, said to John, ‘There is your mother.’ From that moment, and from when ‘the disciple took her into his care,’ the mystery of Mary’s spiritual motherhood has had its accomplishment in history with boundless amplitude. Motherhood means concern for the life of the child. Now, if Mary is the mother of all mankind, then her concern for the life of man has universal extension. A mother’s concern embraces the whole man. Mary’s maternity has its beginning in her maternal care for Christ. In Christ, she accepted John beneath the cross, and, in him, she accepted every human and all humanity.” Pope John Paul II, Prayers and Devotions: 365 Daily Meditations, Bishop Peter Canisius Lohannes Van Lierde, editor (New York: K. S. Giniger Company, Inc., ©1984) pg. 203

                As did Benedict XVI:

                “Mary, therefore, after having given flesh to the Only-Begotten Son of God, became the mother of believers and of all humanity. And it is precisely in the name of Mary, Mother of God and of humanity, that we have been celebrating for 40 years on the first day of the year the World Day of Peace.” (Benedict XVI, Angelus, January 1, 2008)

                Paul VI, however, says that Mary’s maternity for believers started at the annunciation…

                “Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect.” (Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, 61-62)

                … and that her motherhood over the rest of humanity began at the cross:

                “[T]he blessed Virgin Mary, after participating in the redeeming sacrifice of the Son, and in such an intimate way as to deserve to be proclaimed by Him the Mother not only of His disciple John but – may we be allowed to affirm it – of mankind which he in some way represents, now continues to fulfill from heaven her maternal function as the cooperator in the birth and development of divine life in the individual souls of redeemed men.” (Pope Paul VI, Signum Magnum, May 13, 1967)

                Anyway, one of my points here is that Mary is held by so many Catholics to be so many things, including Mother of all peoples, and Mother of creation, Mother of angels, Mother of the church, etc… —some of which titles you appear to deny—that it is difficult to identify the “true” nature of her motherhood merely by citing John 19:26-27.

                Thanks,

                Tim

          2. Well, Tim, what I would say about this is that theologians and Mariologists can say any number of things; it’s not to be confused with official Church teaching unless the Church gives its approval to it. Take the title “co-redemptrix.” Some people are great advocates of it, others aren’t. Then there are nuanced positions such as Fr. Mitch Pacwa takes. He is against the Church declaring Mary “co-redemptrix,” but as I understand him, he’s not against it because he thinks it’s not so, but because it might be an obstacle to ecumenism with Eastern Orthodox. So there can be varying positions about such things from one Catholic to the next, which Catholics are free to have unless and until the Church says something officially.

             I would read the statements of Leo XIII onward to say that Mary is the mother of all humans *after* the redemption, in the same way God is father of all, even those who reject him or don’t believe in him. God is not our father only if we believe in him. I would agree it is the same with Mary with respect to her motherhood. I have no difficulty with that. But the way I understood you initially as “mother of all creation from the beginning of the world,” which I would have difficulty with since it would seem to include, say, Abraham and Moses.

             I suppose, as I think about it, that Mary could be said to be mother of angels by a kind of adoption. But I’d have to think through that. I do agree that Mariology is complex. But so is the Trinity, or justification.

             Reply

             1. In other words, the complexity of it doesn’t make it false, it just makes it complex.

             2. ” like God is the Father of all me even unbelievers” umm, no. Unbelievers are enemies of God scripture teaches, with hiscwrath being poured out even now against them. You do have Romans 1 dont you. Scripture says, ” it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hans of the living God. Why do think care so much for Roman Catholics. 1 billion of them.

             3. Scott, thanks for your response. You wrote,

                “But the way I understood you initially as “mother of all creation from the beginning of the world,” which I would have difficulty with since it would seem to include, say, Abraham and Moses.”

                But that is precisely how her “elastic” maternity is understood. These folks say it stretches back in time to Adam and Eve—

                “Theologically, Mary is even the spiritual mother of Eve and the spiritual mother of the Old Testament prophets! Yes, even Adam and Eve call her mother. Mary’s spiritual maternity is elastic, stretching all the way back to the beginning of time, because God made her the spiritual mother of all in light of the fact that she is the original intention of motherhood in the divine plan.” (excerpt from the new Marian Press title, Under the Mantle: Marian Thoughts from a 21st Century Priest, by Fr. Donald Calloway:)

                “Mary is called a Mother. And when is Mary not a Mother? The gathering together of the waters He called Seas (Maria). Was it not she who conceived in her single womb the people going out from Egypt, that it might come forth a heavenly progeny re-born to a new creation, according to the words of the Apostle: Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And all in Moses were baptised, in the cloud, and in the sea.” [Genesis 1:10]” (St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 146)

                So she is Adam’s mother, Eve’s mother, Moses’ mother, mother of the mixed multitude, etc…

                To your comment, “In other words, the complexity of it doesn’t make it false, it just makes it complex,” I would add this: “Complexity does not make it noncontradictory.”

                Thanks,

                Tim

             4. Thanks, Tim, for those references. I may have to stand corrected. Fr. Calloway is an authortative source, and certainly Chrysologus is. I’ll take a deeper look at those texts. (“Contradiction” is a bit strong, though.)

88. Scott, Remember my original comment was ” Marian ego” meaning the swelling of the importance of Mary and how Catholics identify with her. JP2 is in my mind is a main contributor to this idol of Catholicism in that he identifies himself by putting his soul and the whole church in the hands of Mary. Really I think nothing captures this like Tim’s book Graven Bread. Scott, I appeal to you these are grave errors at the cost of souls in Catholicism. Somebody asked me do I think if the Pope is in heaven. I said is the Pope Catholic. JP2 26 years in that position, the guardian of RC theology, never coming to the truth. One cardinal said at his funeral, we prayed for him, now we are going to pray to him. There he lay with a twisted crucifix in his hand having committed his soul into the hands of Mary. Sad. Thats why we need to bring the attention to gospel with Catholics, and how the gospel covers the full scope of christian life. We need to ask the crucial question. Have you ceased all effort to earn the love and forgiveness of God? And then point them to Christ alone for their salvation. IOW faith_______? If its faith plus anything, baptism, sacraments, works, Mary, indulgences etc. it will not lead to eternal life. Paul said simply ” the righteous shall live by faith.” We must call on Catholics to trust in Christ and his righteousness alone for salvation. Remember God made the all the promises to Abraham when he believed, long before he put Isaac up to the knife. And yes God rewards good works as he did with Abraham, but not in the sense of cooperating to merit salvation, since he already gave that promises to Abraham when he believed. Paul, who was blameless before the law, says he does not want to be found in his own righteousness that comes from the law ( doing, being, loving) but in the righteousness ( Christ’s) that comes from God by faith. Fallen human nature does not have the capacity for grace. Grace and righteousness come from heave n thru Jesus Christ and is appropriated by faith. The Spirit calls and regenerates us thru his word to faith and repentance. Its all a work of God. Even our sanctification. Our works our for our neighbor and aren’t in any way the meritorious cause of our salvation. John 1 : 17 ” For the Law was given thru Moses, grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ” Law can’t save us, it can only show us our sin and lead us to Christ. Paul said he died to the law, and he said ” Law is not faith” Jesus in the sermon on the mount gave the requirements of the Law, He even amped it up. ” If you even lust in your mind after a woman you have committed adultery” The Law requires perfection, and since no man can be justified by observing the Law Romans 3, there came a righteousness apart from all law, the righteousness of Faith. Rome’ s admixture of Law and grace is their downfall. Jesus lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. Faith comes thru hearing, and hearing the word of God. K

    Reply

    1. Don’t think I’m not picking up on everything that you’ve pilched from John MacArthur’s sermons from 10 or so years ago.

       Reply

       1. Your familiar with Johnny Mac? Didnt think someone so deep in the bosom of the Roman church would know about him. Pilched is a little strong. Lol

          Reply

          1. Well, you must know your enemy. 😉

             Reply

             1. Ya, thats why he and I know our enemy to, Antichrist. Rome.

             2. Woe unto those who call evil good, and good evil.

89. Tim, shes not my mother, she is my sister, and my sister cant be my mother. Incidentally, the NT doesnt talk about the church as mother. Its called the bride of Christ and church is a metaphor for the body of Christ. It isnt mother in the sense of it takes the place of the relationship between God and man that is mediated by the Spirit. K

    Reply

90. Scott said ” woe to those who call good evil and evil good” Your Papacy is the greatest killing machine in history, inquisition, crusades, Hugenots, Waldensians. And the Roman church getting rich on the back of the people of Europe requiring them to pay for forgiveness. So what were you saing about making evil look good. You turn your back on history and love this church and give your implicit faith to it. Until you reject that system and have ceased from all effort to earn God’s love and forgiveness and trust in Christ alone, the scripture is clear you cant find salvation. Ephesians 2:8 ” For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one could boast” it cant be any clearer.

    Reply

    1. Your head is so full of myth a truth couldn’t break through if it had a demolition hammer.

       Reply

91. Myth? Denial isnt just a river in Egypt. Buy a book called Bloody Mary’s martyrs. Shortly after Mary wax queen, she reinstituted the Catholic church in England. Immediately all bibles were removedfrom churches, 300 Protestant ministers killed, 800 ministers fleed to Geneva, Ladimer and Cramner burned at the stake for rejecting the real presence and the Mass. And William Tyndale, hunted down and killed for the crime of translating the bible into English, all at the hands and for the sake of the Pope and his religion. But if you dont turn your head you wont have to look. On the long war on the truth, the most deceptive and relentless enemy has been Roman Catholicism.

    Reply

    1. Johnny Mac, I knew you’d be coming back.

       Reply

    2. Incidentally, you left out the part where Johnny Mac referred to Tyndale as “blessed Tyndale,” which made me think that he had beatified him.

       Reply

92. Scott, I have one question for you. Have you ever said to yourself I have commited my life to a church who killed a ma for translating the bible into English and sold the the merits of Christ in the form of indulgences?

    Reply

    1. No, because both are false.

       Reply

93. Right, keep telling yourself that.

    Reply

    1. Kevin, the Church did not kill Tyndale, the state did, and the situation was much more complex than merely translating the Bible. (There were already translations of the Bible outside of Latin in existence at the time anyway.) Tyndale had also vocally objected to the divorce of Mary’s father, Henry VIII, so that certainly played a role in all of this.

       In terms of selling indulgences, such a practice never took place. What did happen was that indulgences were granted on the basis of the charitable act of giving alms to the poor. Because it was soon determined that such a practice only led to unintended abuses, and that those who had a great deal of money could as a matter of course imagine that they were “buying their way into heaven” (although the Church never taught that or intended it), Pope Pius V canceled all such indulgences in 1567.

       Your ignorance and unwillingness to even desire to engage in a discussion of ignorance, reason, and facts is painful to watch and, frankly, exhausting.

       I wish you well, but goodbye.

       Reply

94. ” Your ignorance and unwillingness to even engage in a discussion…..” Well lets see who’s denial is real ignorance. NY Times 2009 JP2 brings back plenary indulgences. Buying amnesty from punishment. “The church reminding the faithful who has the to mitigate the wages of sin” Quote. I stand by what I say. It was a major reason for the Reformation. Its pathetic to continue to watch you throw objections to all Reformed here in the form of accusations of twisting, lying, misunderstanding, denial. The bottom line after you go DO penance on the pay as you go system of salvation, you are still left with temporal punishment that you must burn off, or buy off. So much for Christ sacrifice being sufficient to cover all our sins and offered thru simple faith. You continue to misread the Sermon on the Mount, the gospels, and Paul to think you are justified by your love and your merits. But Titus 3:5 is crystal clear that He saved us, not on the basis of deeds wrought in holiness, but by the mercy of God. There will be no final justification for those who think their love or works are meritorious in salvation as your church teaches, there will be final damnation like there was for the Jews is Romans 9:32-10-4. When you are willing to cease from your effort to earn the love and forgiveness of God and trust in Christ alone ( ” the righteous shall live by faith”) then you won’t be able to stay in that synagog. You’ll know because it won’t be about your Marian ego, or your love, it will be about God’s glory. We don’t love our children or forgive them because they do something, they are already forgiven and fully accepted because they are our children. Abraham believed God and received all the promises. Thats the grace of God getting what we don’t deserve, and mercy is not getting what we do deserve. God graciously gives us the gift of salvation thru believing His Word, we don’t deserve it and we can’t earn it. Paul received his gospel from Jesus himself, and Paul said this ” if its by grace its not of works, or grace is no longer grace. The Catholic Catechism section 2001 says merit is “recompense owed” Your cooperation is what you owe to the love of God. Its no longer grace and its corrupts faith Romans 4:16. Salvation is a free gift, all we do is receive it. Romans 6:23 ” of the wages of sin is death, but the ” free gift” of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Simple huh. I pray you truth goodbye.

    Reply

    1. The New York Times? Really? That is the place to go for a balanced view of anything Christian and/or conservative…they always get it right…NOT.

       Reply

       1. CK, very nice to see you appear. In the past when I brought up indulgences you ran for the hills. Would you mind giving your assesment of the Times reports above. While your their I would love your opinion of selling Christ’ s merits, selling forgivleness in general? Have you personally bought off any temporal punishment? How does that jive with salvation being a free gift? Is the grace of God foor sale? How about thevstatement ” the church reminding the faithful who has the clout to mitigate the wages of sin” ? Maybe you can adress those questions instead of attacking the messenger. Pretty much thats how you get saved in ” the church that Jesus built” , pay money to the church, right? Ill wait for your response God bless

          Reply

95. One last point, because this is a perfect example of what I mean. You misquote and miscite the Catechism. First off, it’s not section 2001 you’re quoting from but section 2006. Second, the usage of “recompense owed” is to define merit with respect to **what a purely human community** owes to one of its members in the sense of the social contract. But with respect to God, the Catechism goes on to say in section 2007, “there is no strict right to merit on the part of man.” God owes us nothing. So where does our merit come from? Section 2008 explains: “God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace.” It is, that is to say, a gift: beginning first with the action of God, and continuing by our cooperation.” Our merit, in other words, is not what God owes to us: It is what we owe to God. Now, that is what the Catechism actually says. You are free to your own opinions, but not to your own facts, and the fact is, you have the Catechism wrong.

    Reply

    1. You said ” our merit is not what God owes us, but what we owe God” exactly ” recompense owed” ths what I said. I dont owe God anything, He paid the bill. Remember the third party, the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. Its a GIFT. You dont pay, or owe for a gift. And who cares that God gets you started, since you got to get youself to the end, and if you dont get there, you dont, get there. Abraham was justified, like us, was justified by believing the promise before he had done anything. There is no final justification based on recompense owed in scripture, nowhere. Christ didnt return me to the garden, He reconciled me, redeemed me, justified me, Romans 5:1,,9, 8:1, Ephesians 2:8. And dont tell me the verse in Ephesians is initial justification. The word saved is aorist past partciple. Read it it says ” not that of yourselves” ” not of works” How does recompense owed fit into that verse. It doesnt. Romans 5:19 says thru anothers obedience I am righteouss, imputation. You can go read what happened to Paul’ brethren in Romans 9:32 -10:4 when they tried the recompense owed model. Its clear. Which prompted him to write 10:9,10. Find the recompense owed in that verse. Indeed. The Reformers got it right.

       Reply

       1. You mistake the object of the verb “owe,” however. I don’t owe God what he has already paid. An analogy may help. Suppose I’m 8 years old; my parents buy me a bicycle for Christmas. They don’t owe me that bicycle for anything I’ve done. There’s no way I can pay for the bicycle myself; only my parents can do that. However, because I have parents who so generous to me, I owe them some sign of thankfulness. I owe it to them not to be destructive toward the bike; I must take care of it. I must do my chores. I must be respectful toward them. I must not beat up on my sister, however much I think she has it coming to her. If I do any of these things, my parents can take away the bike from me. But if I do all of these “good works,” it is not as though they are in payment for the bicycle. The bicycle is always, and always remains, an unmerited gift.

          Reply

          1. The Catechism goes on to explain, however, in sec. 2008—and I did leave this part out—that man’s ability to do good works at all comes from “the assistance of the Holy Spirit,” not from our own power. But we can refuse that assistance; the Holy Spirit does not hold us at gunpoint, forcing us to do good things.

             Reply

             1. It doesn’t matter if God gave you the Holy Spirit to do good works, you owe Him you said ” merit is what we owe God” you said. And you are correct thats what the catechism says. In fact it says ” you are converted to your own justification” Well, isn’t that nice” You described merit perfectly in the Roman religion. One problem, its the antithesis of the gospel. We don’t owe God anything, He paid it all. The terms in the greek say He bought us ought of slavery. But Rome has you believing you owe Him to keep from going back into slavery. But scripture says we have been chosen even before we ever received the Holy Spirit Ephesians 1, not because of what I did. He knows I was going to be an idiot, but because of His glory. Listen to Romans 4:16 ” For this reason it is by faith, in order that it might be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be GUARANTEED to all of his descendants, not only to those of theLaw, but those who are of the FAITH of Abraham.” God guaranteed the promise to His elect so He would get immediate glory. And this verse is clear, if someone in the Roman religion wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. No recompense owed allowed. You can’t get there by your works or love, it must come only by a life of trusting Christ. Paul is clear is so many verses, don’t look to your obedience or love to save you, look only to Christ by a life of faith, trust in Christ. Those who sought it in Romans 10:1-4 by works in any way didn’t find it. For Christ is the end of all law for righteousness to all who BELIEVE.

          2. Your scuffling again. You sound like Bill Clinton. “Is” doesn’t mean” is”. Its time for you to own your doctrine. Catholics are good at smuggling their character into God’s work of grace. Bottom line is you rightly described the Catechism and what I told you it said. Here is your quote again ” Merit is what we owe God ” IOW you do and God gives you grace. That ain’t the gospel. The analogy of the bike is lame with all due respect. WE owe god nothing. And until you cease from all effort to earn the love and forgiveness of God, scripture is clear, you will not see heaven. 11:6, for if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, or grace isn’t grace. No works allowed with God in justification, not even grace enabled works. No admixture. The Jews is 10:1 believed in grace but they pursued it i some way by works. I’m done K

             Reply

96. One more thing on the recompense owed false doctrine in 2006 of the Catholic catechism. Romans 4:5 ” But to the one who does NOT work, but believes in HIM who justifies the UNGODLY, his faith is credited as righteousness.’ Did you get that? God justifies the ungodly! Not the righteous. How? What does the Apostle say? by BELIEVING in Him. To whom? To the one who DOES NOT WORK. HOW? by CREDITING him with righteousness. Whose righteousness might that be Scott? Ours? No. Why? He just called us ungodly. We aren’t righteous. So whose righteousness are we left with? Behind door number 2, Christ’s righteousness Romans 5:19 ” for by the obedience of another man the many are constituted righteous. 2 Corinthians 5:21 ” For God made Him who knew no sin to be sin ( imputation) that we might become the righteousness of God ( imputation) “in Him” When we are in Christ ( by faith ) we are “the righteousness of God” the verse says. I stand righteous before God. I owe Him nothing. He has forgiven me all my sins, past,present, and future. How do we know this? Romans 8:1 tells me there is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ. He decided not to count my signs against me. Paul says does this mean that we just live it up. No, we dedicate our life and obedience to Him, not because we owe Him, but because He first loved us. If you think you owe God something for what He did, then you are in some way earning your salvation. And the Jews who tried to attain it by works did not find it 9:32 says. And the gentiles who weren’t even looking for it, found it, why?, because they came by faith. Rome’s gospel is apostate. But for some reason the Reformed community isn’t willing to give the hearty defense of imputation. God didn’t say I paid the bill, now you got to repay me ( recompense owed) Its a gift, you can’t pay for it, its free. God bless I have said enough. K

    Reply

    1. Ok, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Take care, God bless.

       Reply
97. Pingback: Their Praise was Their Sacrifice (part 1) | Out of His Mouth
98. Pingback: Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 6) | Out of His Mouth
99. Pingback: A case of Tim K’s heebie jeebies: Part 1-On Barnabas – Debunking Deceit
100. Pingback: A Case of Tim K’s heebie jeebies Part 2: On Minucius Felix – Debunking Deceit
101. Pingback: A case of Tim K’s heebie jeebies Part 3: Concerning Origen – Debunking Deceit
102. Pingback: A case of Tim K’s heebie jeebies: Part 4-Lactantius – Debunking Deceit
103. Pingback: A case of Tim K’s heebie jeebies Part 5: The Persian Sage – Debunking Deceit