Follow
Steve Brown is a radio show host, author, seminary professor, PCA pastor and occasional “shock jock.” He has no lack of paper credentials to preach and to lead his ministry, which he calls Key Life Network. He is not lacking in personality or wit, either, and his messages are sprinkled generously with personal anecdotes and well-timed one-liners. His preaching schedule frequently takes him to other churches, and he serves on the teaching staff of Perimeter Presbyterian Church in Johns Creek, GA but his home church is in Winter Springs, Florida, USA.
Steve Brown’s 15-minute radio show is carried on 300 radio stations in the US and on the internet as well. He has also authored many books, including
• Born Free
• What Was I Thinking?
• A Scandalous Freedom
• If God is in Charge
• When Your Rope Breaks
• When Being Good is Not Good Enough
• No More Mr. Nice Guy
• How to Talk so People Will Listen, and
• Three Free Sins
Brown represents himself as a Reformed Calvinist, and frequently seasons his message with what are now lamentably predictable catch phrases like,
“I can repeat the Westminster Confession of Faith backwards!”
“I’m so conservative, I think Rush Limbaugh is a communist!”
“I’m to the right of Genghis Khan!”
The effect, if not the purpose, of such statements is to cover his right flank so that he can head left into heterodoxy without resistance. He is, after all, “conservative” and “confessional,” and therefore is ostensibly trustworthy. But he is not trustworthy at all, and we implore our readers, if they must, to listen to him with reservation and caution. He simply is not what he professes to be.
Although Steve Brown represents himself as a teacher who only wishes to encourage and instruct his listeners, he has the unsettling practice of telling his listeners that he does not know if he is right or wrong, and that he does not know if he even believes what he is preaching. For example in his popular “Church R Us” message which he delivered at Perimeter Presbyterian Church in 2007, he started his message with,
“This stuff has been eating me alive, and I don’t know if I even agree with it. But you’re God’s people, and the Holy Spirit is in you. If what I’m going to teach you this morning is from God, God will apply it. It could change your life and bring revival to Atlanta and America. Then it might not be.”(00:53 – 1:20)
But at the end of the message, he reversed himself,
“Love His people, because ‘Church R Us.’ … And when we do that, revival will start here, and it’ll sweep in Atlanta and it’ll change the world. And I believe that with all my heart.” (31:28 – 31:48)
Does he, or does he not believe what he is preaching? He does not know and it does not appear to matter.
Likewise, in his book, A Scandalous Freedom, he writes, “Will God still love you if you shilly-shally or compromise the grace and freedom he has taught you? Of course he will—but you be careful out there.” And then, on the next page, he reverses this caution:
“Oh, and one more thing. You know all of the ‘be careful out there’ things I just said? Delete them. Only bound people are careful. You don’t have to be.”
Should we, or should we not, be careful? He does not know, and it does not appear to matter.
Likewise, in A Scandalous Freedom, he explains that being free in Christ means being truly free:
“Many of us say, ‘As Christians, of course we’re free—but that doesn’t mean we’re free to do whatever we want.’ But if we aren’t free to do what we want, then we aren’t really free. … You are free. You can do it right or wrong. You can obey or disobey. You can run from Christ or run to Christ. You can choose to become a faithful Christian or an unfaithful Christian.” (Brown, A Scandalous Freedom, 7-12).
But in a recent blog entry, he asks, “You ever think that the reason the world doesn’t believe is because the Church isn’t behaving?” If we are free to disobey and be unfaithful, why insist that the Church behave? Should we, or should we not, behave? He does not know and it does not appear to matter.
Brown is a man who glories in his lack of clarity, preaches a message of uncertainty, wallows in contradiction, and blows an uncertain trumpet as he informs his audience that he may (or may not) believe what he is saying, and that they should (or should not) listen to him because his message may (or may not) be true, and the Church is (or is not) obligated to behave. It is better for such a man to remain silent than to continue informing his listeners that he does not know if his teaching is true and does not know if he believes it. Such preaching is warmly received by his many listeners, and his vacillation between opposites is prodigious.
Yet such preaching cannot be in accordance with truth, because truth itself must be non-contradictory, and where there is contradiction, truth does not reside:
“But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.” (2 Corinthians 1:18-19)
Jesus is not simultaneously yea and nay. God’s Word is not simultaneously yea and nay. But Steve Brown is. That should tell us something.
Our readers may recall our recent article, And the Diviners Have Seen a Lie, in which Steve Brown was prominently featured for his commendation of Roman Catholic counter-reformational Spanish mystics who received revelation from demons, worshiped the Eucharist and went to their graves rejecting and fighting to suppress the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet Brown insists that Roman Catholics—and those Spanish mystics—are our brethren in Christ, and that he has this information on the authority of Jesus Christ Himself:
“And let me tell you something else. I love Roman Catholics. … They bear the name of Christ. I think they sleep in those collars. I wish they would stop. I don’t agree with it, but they’re us. Church R Us. And I didn’t say it, Jesus said it.” (Church R Us, 27:49 – 28:05)
The Westminster Confession of Faith on the other hand, to which every PCA minister must subscribe, and which Steve Brown “can repeat … backwards,” states explicitly that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian religion:
“…the popish sacrifice of the Mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect” (Westminster Confession, 29.2).
“Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.” (Westminster Confession, 24.3).
Does he believe the Westminster Confession or does he believe his own teaching? How does Brown reconcile the Confession, which he can recite backwards, with his own teaching which affirms the opposite of the Confession? Simple. He has an “orthodoxy of truth” that allows him to say things that are true (covering his right flank) and an “orthodoxy of love” that allows him to affirm things that are false (covering his left):
“I’m a five point Calvinist, ok!? I can repeat the Westminster Confession of Faith backwards! I believe all of this. That’s an orthodoxy of truth! And if you don’t have that, you’re missing something vital in the church. But my late friend Fran Schaeffer talked about an orthodoxy of love. And if we don’t have that, we’re in trouble.” (23:45-24:11)
Because Brown does not love the truth, it is necessary for us to point out his gratuitous decontextualization of Schaeffer here. Schaeffer indeed spoke of an “orthodoxy of love,” but his point was that the “orthodoxy of love” is expressed within a community of believers who actually agree on what the truth is. He taught that one of the key practices for growing in faith is,
“…regular attendance at a Bible-believing church. As we saw under ‘The Brotherhood of Believers,’ this does not mean just any church or group, but one which is true to the Word of God — that has an orthodoxy of doctrine and an orthodoxy of love and community. … We should not join ourselves to just any group that calls itself Christian, but one where the teaching is truly biblical, where discipline is maintained concerning life and doctrine, and where there is true community.” (The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 2, A Christian View of the Bible As Truth, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, ©1985, 364, 357-8).
In what would be a remarkable misuse for most, but is habitual for Brown, he uses Schaeffer’s insistence that an “orthodoxy of love” cannot be divorced from agreement on the Gospel, to argue for an “orthodoxy of love” where there is no agreement on the Gospel. Brown uses Schaeffer’s insistence that we “not join ourselves to just any group that calls itself Christian,” to insists that we join ourselves to Roman Catholics because they name the name of Christ. For those who love truth, this would be a difficult case to make. But not for Brown.
Because truth is relative to Brown, his message in “Church R Us” becomes a call to ignore Jesus’ command to evangelize Roman Catholics with the Gospel. Instead he insists that we should just love them as our brethren, because, as he says, they are the church, and “Church R Us.” How, therefore, will the world become Christian? Not through evangelism, but through love:
“How come Atlanta’s not Christian? …It’s because we don’t love each other. It’s not the evangelism programs, or the discipleship programs. … It’s the love, dummy! It’s the love!” (30:55 – 31:25).
On this point Brown is deeply confused between how men can recognize Jesus’ disciples (“if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35)) and how men can know Him (“by the foolishness of preaching” (1 Corinthians 1:21)). Because he is confused, he believes we can set aside the preaching and focus on the love. But to do so, one must first set aside the truth of the Gospel itself. That is of no consequence to Brown, so much does he love his contradictions. But to love contradictions is to hate the truth, for Jesus was not simultaneously yea and nay, and salvation is not simultaneously by faith alone and by faith plus works.
Brown’s problem with truth continues to manifest throughout his message in “Church R Us.” He reminds his listeners that he is very informed on such matters as church history, and this information is the basis for his conclusions:
“I used to love the part [of the Church] that was us, the part that was pure, the part that was faithful, and that’s before I read Stephen Tomkin’s little book, A Short History of [Christianity]. I have in my library all the volumes of Schaff’s History of the Christian Church. Multi-volumes … and I’ve read them. I have Kenneth Scott Latourette’s book, The History of [Christianity], all 1500 pages and I’ve read that. In my library I have Williston Walker’s book, [A History of the Christian Church]. 800 pages of Church history and I’ve read that. But somebody gave me Tomkins book, A Short History of [Christianity], and the manure was all in one place. And I tell you man, I thought ‘My, that’s our heritage! That’s us!'” (11:07 – 12:05)
In the process of this self-revelation, Brown instead reveals how woefully uninformed he actually is about Church history. His first example is of Augustine’s encounter with his mistress in the streets of Milan. Brown tells his listeners that if they have not read Augustine’s Confessions as he has, “you’ve missed one of the great books of western civilization.” (12:05). Then he continues with the story:
“And there’s a wonderful story about the time that his mistress saw him down town and he saw her and turned and started running. And she said, ‘Augustine, Augustine, it is I.’ And Augustine looked back over his shoulder and said ‘Yes, but it is not I!'” (12:30 – 12:50)
This sort of creative historical revisionism makes for great sermon illustrations, especially when the preacher does not, as Brown does not, care about truth. What Brown relates as a key point in Augustine’s life was, as Ambrose clearly stated, a fable that had nothing to do with Augustine at all:
“Let the man deny himself and be wholly changed, as in the fable they relate of a certain youth, who left his home because of his love for a harlot, and, having subdued his love, returned; then one day meeting his old favourite and not speaking to her, she, being surprised and supposing that he had not recognized her, said, when they met again, ‘
It is I.’‘But,’was his answer, ‘I am not the former I.’” (Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book II, Ch 10.96)
This story has no relation to Augustine at all and certainly is not to be found anywhere in Augustine’s Confessions. It was, as Ambrose said, a “fable.” But Brown goes on with “the rest of the story”:
“I’ve told that story for years. Let me tell you the rest of the story. She wasn’t looking for sex, she was looking for food. They had a son together and she wanted him to acknowledge their son and give them something to eat. What’s with that? When he did his Confessions, he confessed to stealing apples when he wasn’t hungry, but he {Brown pauses here, getting choked up} … he never mentioned his son. I love Augustine. Augustine R Us.” (12:50 – 13:30)
Yet “the rest of the story” is as much a fabrication as the beginning. We believe Brown has probably read Augustine’s Confessions, but the passage of time seems to have dimmed his memory, for in his Confessions Augustine explicitly acknowledges his illegitimate son by name. He not only confesses his great sin, but also thanks God for giving the son to him, and acknowledges that he even took custody of the boy:
“Meanwhile my sins were being multiplied. My mistress was torn from my side as an impediment to my marriage, and my heart which clung to her was torn and wounded till it bled. And she went back to Africa, vowing to thee never to know any other man and leaving with me my natural son by her.” (Augustine, Confessions, Book 6, Chapter 15.25)
“When the time arrived for me to give in my name, we left the country and returned to Milan. … We took with us the boy Adeodatus, my son after the flesh, the offspring of my sin. Thou hadst made of him a noble lad.” (Augustine, Confessions, Book 9, Chapter 6.14)
Clearly Augustine acknowledges his son in his Confessions, but Brown’s point is moot because the fabled encounter with Augustine’s former mistress never occurred in the first place. Whence, therefore, the fabrication? Surely Brown has a source for this story.
We need not look far for the cause of Brown’s confusion. In his haste to add one more book on Church history to his library, Brown misunderstood what Tomkins was writing about in A Short History of Christianity. What Tomkins wrote was that Augustine confessed abandoning the mother of his son, but rather than marry her, he took yet another woman:
“Augustine, who tortured himself with memories of the most trivial sins of childhood, never repented of abandoning the mother of his son: ‘it crushed my heart to bleeding,’ he confessed, but both were rescued from a relationship of sexual passion, and this was good. She was the more successfully rescued however: while waiting for his fiancée to reach marriageable age, Augustine got himself another woman.” (Tomkins, A Short History of Christianity, pp. 58-59).
These events during which Augustine was between mistresses, were all during his transition from Manicheanism to Neoplatonism, that is, before Augustine was converted to Christianity. In his uncareful perusal of Tomkins’ book, Brown had misunderstood him to say that Augustine had never acknowledged his son, and never repented of his sin even after conversion. All Tomkins alleged was that Augustine had not married the child’s mother. That is all. But some stories are just too good to validate, so Brown incorporated both the original fabrication and “the rest of the story” into “Church R Us,” without bothering to double-check Tomkins—or the Confessions—to see if he had understood the story. In the process, Brown has Augustine denying his own flesh and blood even after conversion to Christ.
The irony here is rich. Brown relates a gross historical fabrication in the same breath that he admonishes those who are less historically literate than he. Such men, dangerous to themselves and dangerous to the flock, are welcomed as teachers, so low is the standard of preaching at RTS, in the PCA, and Perimeter Presbyterian Church.
The reason Brown is so susceptible to gross historical error is that his ecclesiology demands that the Church be unashamedly and morally corrupt. In his introduction to “Church R Us,” Brown cites Ronald Rolheiser’s The Holy Longing, in which Rolheiser teaches that the church is comprised both of believers and unbelievers:
“To be connected with the church is to be associated with scoundrels, warmongers, fakes, child molesters, murderers, adulterers, and hypocrites of every description. It also at the same time identifies you with saints and the finest persons of heroic soul within every time and country and race and gender. To be a member of the church is to carry the mantle of both the worst sin and the finest heroism of soul … because the church always looks exactly as it looked at the original crucifixion, God hung among thieves.” (p 128-129)
Rolheiser’s characterization of Golgatha as “the Church” is grossly fallacious. On one side of Christ there was the unbelieving, unrepentant thief, and on the other, the believing repentant thief (Luke 23:39-43). Such is the visible difference between those who are members of Christ’s Church. To say that the unbelieving, unrepentant thief who mocked Christ and rejected Him was a member of “the Church” along with the repentant believer makes for great sermon illustrations if “an orthodoxy of love” trumps “an orthodoxy of truth.” But it is simply not true.
This hapless and inaccurate analogy of Rolheiser is swallowed whole by Brown, and is the constant backdrop of his “Church R Us” message everywhere it is preached. In his July 8, 2014 blog entry, Rolheiser’s quote is highlighted under the title “Church R Us” and a link to the video with this exhortation:
“Join Steve Brown for a message that, if we really get it, could bring revival. After you watch, please share this video with everyone you know.”
For those who do not know, Ronald Rolheiser is a Roman Catholic priest of the order of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, and is president of the Oblate School of Theology. He is so liberal in his theology that even some Roman Catholics will not receive him. Yet Rolheiser has a message that Brown is willing to swallow whole and pass on to Christ’s church as if he had received it from Christ Himself.
But Jesus does not agree with Brown’s ecclesiology, or his characterization of Rome. Jesus warned in His Revelation to John that His precious flock must avoid the Roman antichrist religion at all costs. The whole world “wondered after the beast” (Revelation 13:3) but His lovely Church could not. The Roman Catholic church would “worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk” and engage in “murders, … sorceries, … fornication, [and] thefts” (Revelation 9:20:21), but Jesus’ Church is quite the opposite:
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. … Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. “(Revelation 12:17, 14:12).
Jesus describes His Church as faithful to the Gospel and obedient to His commands; Steve Brown has Jesus’ Church adulterously united with Rome’s false gospel, and is “free to cuss and spit” (Brown, A Scandalous Freedom, 32) and free to “obey or disobey.”
We offer Steve Brown as an illustration of what dangers lie in wait for those who would follow Christ and “worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). We are faced on all sides with men, even allegedly Reformed men, who insist that the Protestant reformation is an aberration in the history of the Church and that it is time to protest Protestantism. Peter Leithart, in The End of Protestantism, identifies himself as a post-Protestant Reformational Catholic, and shares Steve Brown’s belief that it is time for a new revival in which Protestants repent of their protest. We must simply accept that Roman Catholics are our brethren, he says, so we can get on with the task of evangelizing the world:
“Some Protestants don’t view Roman Catholics as Christians, and won’t acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a true church. A Reformational Catholic regards Catholics as brothers, and regrets the need to modify that brotherhood as ‘separated.’ To a Reformational Catholic, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s a billion-member Church of Jesus Christ centered in Rome. Because it regards the Roman Catholic Church as barely Christian, Protestantism leaves Roman Catholicism to its own devices. ‘They’ had a pedophilia scandal, and ‘they’ have a controversial pope. A Reformational Catholic recognizes that turmoil in the Roman Catholic Church is turmoil in his own family.”
But if we accept Rome, we lose the evangel by which the world may be evangelized, which is to say that to accept Rome is to reject the truth. We cannot speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) to the world if we do not first love the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10). May the Lord strengthen His Church (Zechariah 10:12).
Great post Tim. I especially liked this you wrote:
“But Jesus does not agree with Brown’s ecclesiology, or his characterization of Rome. Jesus warned in His Revelation to John that His precious flock ***must avoid the Roman antichrist religion at all costs.*** The whole world “wondered after the beast” (Revelation 13:3) but His lovely Church could not. The Roman Catholic church would “worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk” and engage in “murders, … sorceries, … fornication, [and] thefts” (Revelation 9:20:21), but Jesus’ Church is quite the opposite:
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. … Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. “(Revelation 12:17, 14:12).
——-
That is really hard for many Protestants because so much of today’s protestant pastors and ministers have incorporated in the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the RCC. Certainly, the Angelican and Russian/Romanian/Greek Orthodox have integrated much of Romish tradition into their doctrine, discipline, worship and government, but today’s Presbyterian and Reformed churches are equally sinking in the same mud pit as the others. The “whole world”, as quoted, seems to be very close to the literal truth.
I’m not sure if you have ever read this document, but you might find it helpful to see where us Presbyterians went astray in our own denominational backsliding. I would very much welcome your public or private comments on this book. It is very short and takes only a couple hours (or less) to read.
http://reformedpresbytery.org/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm
There are also another document, not published, that looks at what happened to removing certain sentences from the WCF version of 1647.
As a Presbyterian yourself, I would encourage you to look into these historical events within our own camp…it seems you have started a little with today’s blog post. I am convinced that once Presbyterians repent of their backsliding, and get back to true biblical reformational principles, we will see some excellent testimonies supporting what you are saying above.
Jim,
Can you listen to this video, and let me know what you think?
Tim,
You must really be desperate to pick on this harmless guy. I used to listen to him just because I liked his voice late at night. He put me to sleep.
After posting your 24 year magnum opus, and it flopped, where do you go from here? Even your groupie has abandoned you.
Steve Brown? C’com!
Thank for writing, Jim.
I sat through two years of the poorly named “Grace Movement” at my former church, when they invited Steve Brown to come to teach a weekend conference. His whole message was pretty much the “Church R Us” message in the video link—same catch phrases and references. I also wrote about his troubling hermeneutic in A Scandalous Freedom in my article, Sanctification Half Full: The Myopic Hermeneutic of the Grace Movement, which is available at the Trinity Foundation web page.
He is a close personal friend with the pastor at my former church, and was aware of my criticism of him and of the Grace Movement. When he spoke at that Church, he cited Rolheiser, and said that we should burn his book, The Holy Longing, but that’s the only time he has ever said that. As you can see from the video and the link at Key Life (provided above), he typically makes no such qualifying remarks.
I have no personal animus toward Steve Brown. I very strongly disagree with his ecclesiology and his epistemology.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim,
If I were to gauge my progress on what you call my Magnum Opus, I’d say I’m about 10% of the way through it. I hope you keep reading.
Best regards,
Tim
Call them all out Tim and dont stop one week.. Long overdue that someone isnt willing to hold hands and sing kumbaya with false gospel. I got kicked off Jason’s blog again because I said Romanist take from Him what rightfully is His, namely His incarnation and Atonement. Man worship and church worship, and idol worship. Thhey want to usurp the incarnation and atonement. They belong to Christ. Great article on Brown. Im in the foxhole with you. Jim is the great example of someone who sold his sole to Mary, the Roman Eucharist and his man of perdtion. They call us fools over there Tim, but God uses the foolish things to shame the wise. Glory be to God alone.
I just saw on EWTN the interview with Pastor Rick Warren on The World Over. Man, he definitely is in love with the new current Pope Francis. It is a long interview. I did not know that he was so 100% behind the RCC and building this global ecumenical partnership. He has 35,000 books in his personal library, 140,000 people on his church rolls (22,000 in LA), 400 staff and a major global office network. He references that as operating a small city demonstrating how impressive he is in his mind.
He definitely has the gift to twist the Scripture to grow a massive global church. For 38 years now he has been growing his tithing to the point now he is up to giving 91% of his salary back to the church as he has proven that the more he gives the more the Lord gives to him. He is allegedly trying to out give God, but so far he claims he is losing. God always gives him more than he can give away.
It is amazing how little doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of church government matters to these guys. Their focus is now to win the world … it is really sad.
Walt, I saw it too. Guys like Warren need to be taken to task. I attend Bethany Bible church in Phoenix and I know there are hundreds of people I believe following Tim’s site. All of mt reformed friends have told many about the is site. We have to tell everybody. I believe this is the time when the line must be drawn in Protestantism about how we are to treat Romanism , and we are to put the ECT thing to bed. There can only be unification if Rome repents of Trent and follows the gospel.
Kevin,
Does Brad Pellish share your hatred for the Catholic Church?
On BBBC ‘s statement of faith, I don’t see Calvinism. How you considered to be a wacko there?
Tim,
I listened to the Church R Us message. I think this message prevents Christians from distinguishing themselves in holiness and sancitification. The third use of the Law seems to be nowhere.
At every turn, we will be condemned as self-righteous when we apply the standards of God’s Law. Where is the war against the flesh ? Hate what is evil…even the garments…I hear only lip service from him.
He will not let us boast in our knowledge (orthodoxy of truth) of Him who is truth. This knowledge may be vital, but it can’t be an occasion for boasting in the Lord.
Eric W, i agree.
Kevin,
I’m glad Tim is drawing attention to this because there is a “Love” problem among modern day Calvinists. Love rejoices in the truth. Good old catechesis from faithful and dutiful people is needed:
Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.
If they can make that connection between enjoy and love, then all of this self-loathing can be mortified in Jesus.
I have to agree with this Eric W. I aply this to myself. The third use of the law is neglected and catechesis from dutifull men lacks. Faithfull men arechard to find let alone who teach others and who teach others.
Tim, Jim said today on Jason’s site he called my church in Phoenix and spoke to the Pastor and told Him I was denograting the Catholic church. He said my Pastor who does not know me personally aoplogized for my behavior. Do you have any advice. I want to do the right thing.
Actually, I didn’t say I spoke to your pastor. I said I spoke with a very nice member of the staff. Just as I didn’t mention you by name, I won’t divulge which of your ministry staff I spoke with.
I did this by email. Maybe I should phone someone? I am really pleased to know you are a lone wolf. You church may not agree with Catholics ( he said some didn’t ), the majority are not “anti- Catholic”. Maybe you need to join another church or branch of the Klan?
Should I opt to phone, would you like me to say your name?
Kevin,
Since Jim doesn’t know if he spoke with the pastor or an elder or a deacon or a church secretary or intern, I don’t think there is much to be done. I wouldn’t worry about it.
Tim
Kevin and Tim,
Feel free to phone Fr. David at St. Mary’s Irish Dominicans in Estoril, Portugal or try the Dominican priory at Holy Rosary Parish in Portland where i am this month and speak to any of the priests. None of them know me by name as they are all new.But feel free to lay your case before them.
I have absolutely nothing to hide. Do you?
Jim, you have been warned. As Jude instructs us we tried to pull you out of the fire. You will meet your just end sacrificing the cakes to the queen of heaven. Sacrificing the cakes to Jezabelle a recapitualation. Keep genuflecting to the bread Jim, keep worshiping thecqueen of heaven Jim, and kiss his ring. Everytime you do ” the work of the people ” at your abominable Mass you spit on the cross of Christ. Go to your false Priests who mimic the Aaronic priesthood. Go to the Priests whose sacrifices cant save you Jim, go to the Priests who have no power and die. Go to your Priests Jim. We here will go to the high Priest forever, perfect, from the order of Melchizedek, whose sacrifice is perfect and saved us. Who guarantees us salvation Romans 4:16, who gives us peace, who applies his perfect sacrifice for our sins continually. Go Jim strike the rock twice, a thousand times. You have earned your wage and just recompense.
WOW Kevin, Alexander Hislop couldn’t have said it any better.
In your posting of earlier today, you told Tim that you had the folks at BBC all reading this blog. Does your pastor or his staff know that you are competing with them?
I kind of doubt that you have much of an impact at your church, especially if the pastor doesn’t even know your name.
Kevin, You ask Tim about your ministers. Shouldn’t you be asking them about Tim?
Why not schedule a meeting with them, bring your laptop and show them Tim’s blog and your comments. Be sure to show them Jason’s too. Point out your comments to them. Ask them what they think.
I guarantee, they will know your name from then on.
Jim, ill show them your comments and that will be the end of story. Oh they might call the psychiatric ward to come get you lol
I bet the decent men that make up your ministry staff would distance themselves from any “Death Wafer” rhetoric.
By the way, the guy I corresponded with never said he agreed with Catholicism. Not at all. Just the opposite. ( Although I did attempt to show him he may not understand us ).
You should actually get to know those guys. You could learn something about how to get your point across without making enemies.
Jim, im going to worship God in Spirit and truth as He asks. Hebrews says burnt offerings and sacrifices He did not desire. The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart. Hebrews says let us draw near with full insurance of faith. Love is important, but as Luther said, Rome robs from faith and gives to love whar God only intended for faith. According to the writer of Hebrews Jim the need for a physical altar, a physical sacrifice, and a physical priesthood he warned was a lack of faith. Everytime you bow to the bread Jim you show you dont have saving faith. Everytime you adore Mary Jim you show you dont have faith, and everytime your trying to send Tim’s mother a plastic rosary Jim you have no faith. And Hebrews says my friend that without faith it is impossible to please God. Blessed are those who dont see, yet believe. The need for the physical in Rome shows no faith.
whew! That was quite a mouthful, Kelvin. Glad I don’t send anybody plastic rosaries. Glad Catholic priests don’t burn anything at the altar.
I know a secret you don’t know. I can’t let you in on it as you would go berserk.
Jim, nothing will make me go berserk.
kevin,
I did not get permission from your preacher to quote him on a blog.
As much as I would love to copy and paste his comments on Jason’s, I won’t.
Berserk is putting it lightly.
WOW! No wonder people at your church like the Pope. I just saw on FOX the Vatican is calling on Western nations for airstrikes against the terrorists in Iraq in order to save the Christians.
The Pope has an uncanny ability to state the obvious.
Tim, is this attitude of Steve Brown a carry over from the Ryrie and Dallas seminary dispensational separation of savior and Lord, or is this a movement specifically in Reformed churches. I know MacArthur addressed hard the idea of saving faith not exhibiting a regenerative change in one’s life. As if Christ offers himself as anything but Lord. Your thoughts? We believe gospel and obey Law. And someone who has no desire to obey God probably isn’t saved.
kevin,
” We believe gospel and obey Law. And someone who has no desire to obey God probably isn’t saved.”
So works are necessary to be saved. Thank you. ( Please, save the doubletalk about works are not needed to be saved but are needed to prove you are saved. It’s all playing games with words. )
As for Mac, savior only folks say he is a Romanist. Ha!
Jim, we believe the gospel and are justified and then we obey the Law as our resonable service of worship. Jim listen very closely, God declares righteous those who are unrighteouss. God justfies the ungodly. He credits righteouness apart from works. Paul could never have meant by dikaiou = the process of ding better. The whole antithesis with Paul is not circumcision and grace enabled works, but working and believing. This is not a foreign idea to the Jew in the OT the transfer of something from someone to someone else. Its not a legal fiction because there is a 3rd person in the room. His active and passive obedience is truly tranfered to our account that we are righteous before God. Thats why He can call the rag b tag Corinthians sanctified past tense. Justification undergirds all of salvation including sanctification and glorification. This does notvremove the final judgment but allows the believer to pass through wearing the breastplate of righteouness, the righteounes of Christ.
That should read Paul could have never meant by dikaiou= the processof doing better. God prnounces one just and they are just, because Christ became to us righteousness and in Him we become the righteouness of God. Of course this has eucharistic ramifications. Being justifiedvpast tense by His blood and by faith, all our sins are forgiven past, present, and future, therefore as Christ applies this the Supper is a sign an seal of the grace we receive by faith not a troft of eating more justice by the work.
Jim, a great book to read is covenant and Salvation by Michael Horton. He makes a case that God works thru speech acts in scripture. Let there be light…. justification Let the earth bring forth…..sanctification. He called Abraham out of a moon worshiping family by His word. He called Lazarus out of the grave by His word. We can eliminate IMHO infused habits and the pagan philosophical categories. . God’s righteousness is not a substance, it is a person that is offered ( Christ ). Not some residual thing from that person. The righteousness of God apart from the Law that comes thru faith to those who believe is Christ. It is not faith as a work that is credited, but righteousness of God apprehended by faith. Thats why love can’t justify. It reaches out to our neighbor but cannot receive the gift. Faith receives the gift, and brings Christ to the heart. Love follows in natural order but it is faith that saves because it receives Christ who is our righteousness. In Philippians 3: 9 Paul counts all his own righteousness dung and wants to be found in Christ with the righteousness from God. He puts all his stinking righteousness in one column and God’s in the other. In Rome you have a works righteousness that is accrued to the person by merits and demerits. But Paul says not of works, not that of yourselves. IOW the whole work of penance and satisfaction, and the work of the Mass, and indulgences, and meriting one’s salvation they one’s works, wearing scapulars, invoking Mary’s help, pilgrimages, and sacramental efficacy being put up in the place of the atonement, a piece of bread in the place of our savior, and a few drops of water in the place of the Spirit etc. All these things piled on the cross that covers the cross of Christ which alone perfected for all time believers. Hebrews is clear after He obtained eternal redemption He sat down. But you got Him getting up coming down to an altar and re doing it because it isn’t perfect. Jim Christ did not come to make salvation possible, He saved us and now applies it in our life with His perfect intercession that will never lose one. The other day Debbie said on Jason’s site that we can forfeit salvation by our acts. But Hebrews says He is the author and perfecter of our faith who WILL perfect us until the day of Christ. Jim the reason Christians always persevere is because God always perseveres, and He is 100% never losing any. If you think you can do something to forfeit your salvation then you aren’t trusting Christ but yourself. And people are 0 for 10000000000000000000000000000 trusting themselves. Jim I’m calling on you one more time to quit worshiping and praying to the mother of Jesus, quit worshiping the cakes offered to the Queen of heaven, quit putting your implicit trust in a church, quit doing the work of the imperfect Mass and all these things which can never save you. But repent and trust the Word who never fails. Hallelujah!
John Owen asked:
Question: How is the practical love of truth the best preservative against Popery?
Tim, thanks for bringing the Reformers back to the Semper Reformanda.
Tim, I second what Eric W said. Thanks for cutting up the word which has laid open the festering ongoing perversion of the gospel that is Roman catholicism.
Hi Tim,
I came across an essay recently by the Vice-Principal of a local Presbyterian seminary, where he writes “the Roman Catholic church, while not holding to most of the great truths of the reformation has changed greatly since Vatican II”.
I’ve heard that the RCC has changed their teaching on limbo but it seems that the statement quoted above is misleading. Major errors like transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, Veneration of Mary, Papal primacy, Justification by faith plus works etc seem not to have changed at all.
How would you answer the above quote? The link to the essay is below.
Appreciate your help.
http://thinkingofgod.org/2016/12/protestant-21st-century/
Thanks, John. An interesting read, and sadly typical of the ostensible heirs of the Reformation. The key errors in his thinking are found in Theses 11, 12 and 15 which I will address here.
He sounds as if the main point of dispute was the church’s civil power, and now that that is not an issue any more, “there is a sense in which the Reformation is over.” But as you note, there has not been a lot of doctrinal change over the last 500 years. There has only been a change in the degree to which Roman Catholicism exercises civil power. But the Reformation was not about civil power. It was about the gospel, and Rome’s gospel is the same today as it was in the 16th century. I grant that Roman Catholicism does not exercise civil power over the nations as it did in the 1,260 years from 395 A.D. to 1655 A.D.. It’s civil power is now, and has since then been, limited to the papal estates in Italy. The fact that the Church of Rome no longer exercises the civil power of the sword does not mean that its doctrines have changed, and yet, John McClean suggests that very thing.
And here is the real source of his error. If Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics were Christians, there would be ground for “engagement.” But they are not. There is no “mere Christianity” lowest common denominator quite simply because there is no “mere Christianity” in Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church. The fact that John McClean even thinks we should be engaging them as brethren is the problem. To engage them as Christians is to lose the gospel before you even start a dialogue.
And to that end, John McClean’s ignorant overtures are exactly why the Reformation is not, and cannot be, over. And just as important, the current errors of Rome are the same as they were at Trent in the 1500s, which were the same as the novelties which erupted at the latter part of the 4th century when Roman Catholicism first came into existence as the great apostasy. That great apostasy at exactly the time the Bishop of Rome came up—uprooting three of the 13 dioceses of Rome, and then taking authority over the remaining ten—is the flood of Revelation 12, and by that flood of error the Devil still attempts to ensnare the Woman and her offspring, “that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood” (Revelation 12:15). It is men like McClean who give credibility to the great apostasy by affirming that the Roman and Orthodox religions are Christian. That conviction opens the floodgates of error.
Thanks,
Tim
Thx Tim, for making the points so clear. I recognise this is a great summary of things you’ve written before, but getting it in a condensed version like this is really helpful.
Here is another Proof (external since Tim uses only external references to set dates on the 1260 year period) that his ending date is wrong. Even Wikipedia disagrees with his dates when the Papal States ended. See *** below.
“As the first local Church of Italy, the bishop of Rome is the Primate of Italy and is empowered to appoint the president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference.
The Church of Rome is also the principal church of the Province of Rome, so the bishop of Rome is Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province.
As a bishop, the pope is referred to as a Vicar of Christ. This title was common to all bishops from the fourth through twelfth centuries, reserved to the bishop of Rome from the twelfth through early twentieth centuries, and restored to all bishops at the Second Vatican Council.[32]
***The pope resides in Vatican City, an independent state within the city of Rome, set up by the 1929 Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy. As popes were sovereigns of the papal states (754–1870), so do they exercise absolute civil authority in the microstate of Vatican City since 1929.***
Interestingly, ambassadors are accredited not to Vatican City State but to the Holy See, which was a subject of international law even before the state was instituted. The body of officials that assist the Pope in governance of the Church as a whole is known as the Roman curia. The term “Holy See” (i.e. of Rome) is generally used only of Pope and curia, because the Code of Canon Law, which concerns governance of the Latin Church as a whole and not internal affairs of the see (diocese) of Rome itself, necessarily uses the term in this technical sense.
Finally, the title “Servant of the servants of God” was an addition of Pope Gregory the Great, a reminder that in Christianity, leadership is always about service/ministry (diakonia).
The style of address for the bishop of Rome is “His Holiness”.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_the_Catholic_Church
Opps, that really conflicts with the papacy losing all civil authority in 1655.
Walt, I would encourage you to spend a little more time considering what people say instead of what appears to be your typical knee-jerk response that ignores what was said. Prior to 395 A.D., the bishop of Rome was responsible for the Roman metropolis and its suburbs within 100 miles of the city. From that position of limited geographical jurisdiction, the Bishop grew up to govern Europe, North Africa and parts of Asia. By 1655 A.D., his jurisdiction had returned to a little bit of real estate in Italy. I did not say Papal States. I said papal estates, and estate simply means the property over which he exercises dominion. In that context, I was referring to civil dominion.
So put down your propaganda and study a little history. The pope’s civil influence waxed large and expansive, over the course of 1,260 years, starting with his limited jurisdiction in the Roman Urbis, growing to encompass the broad areas mentioned above, and then by 1655 A.D., back down to his current estates.
I don’t know how you can take my words that the bishop of Rome’s “civil power is now, and has since then been, limited to the papal estates in Italy,” and think to disprove it by providing a citation from Wiki that the bishop of Rome’s civil power is pretty much limited to a tiny section of Italy, which is pretty much what I said.
If you would take the time to read what I wrote, you’d see that I did not deny that the pope exercises civil power. I have never denied that fact.
And that is why I hardly ever let you comment.
Now if your next comment is about your friend’s attempt to refute me, or explaining your contradictory and hypocritical position on the 2,300 days, I’ll let it through. But if it is more nutty cultish Church of Scotland propaganda, I won’t allow it through.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Since you refused to allow my other 2 posts today through, and your above misrepresentation of what I said above, then let’s close this out. I’ll not be restricted listening to your false allegations.
Secondly, you also base 100% of your theory on the hope that the book of Revelations was written prior to 70 AD just like the preterist and if your claim is incorrect, and Rev. was written after 70AD then your entire theory collapses just like the Romish preterist.
Fortunately, for us true reformed historicst, we don’t need external hope that Rev. was written prior to 70AD to interpret scripture with scripture. You need so much external evidence outside the bible (just like you just now demonstrated above using history – which was my hope to see you use history to try to argue your position) rather than using scripture with scripture like the rest of the best reformers.
Your case crumbles, and I will not share with your audience another harsh fact that proves your errors (like I did above) because I’ll not be blocked as you did again today. You twisted my comments above, and will always do this for your audience.
If anyone knows another blog that Tim posts on, or a site that he promotes, please send me the link so that I may prepare and publish the comments over the past year that he has forbidden to be posted. What you find with Tim is a very conflicted person with what he believes and teaches. He has mislead many claiming that he is the only person in history to be the most accurate prophet on setting dates and times due to he being the only person who has discovered external documents that allow him to interpret scripture.
For anyone who relies 100% on external documents, visions, dreams and other sources of inspiration to interpret prophecy, please be careful. Ellen G. White did this with her interpretations, and Tim has done this with his, and he blames me and the Church of Scotland for rebuking his errors.
The key is to get these posts republished so people are not restricted from learning themselves.
Walt, I post at biblethumpingwingnut.com on occasion and at ThornCrownMinistries.com.
As you well know, I have never claimed that I am “the only person in history to be the most accurate prophet on setting dates and times due to he being the only person who has discovered external documents that allow him to interpret scripture.” It is remarkable to me that you are willing to write such false statements, when I have never claimed any such thing. Is this what the Church of Scotland has taught you to do?
Tim