Follow
We are now in our fifth week of analyzing Called to Communion‘s efforts to find Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Fathers. Thus far, we have covered Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas of Alexandria, the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen. We have found in many cases that the Church Father saw the Word, the Holy Spirit, Christ, His Passion or the preaching ministry of the Church as the “laver” of washing, illumination, regeneration, repentance and knowledge, but Called to Communion simply interpreted “the laver” to be the Roman baptismal font, and concluded that the Church Father supported Baptismal Regeneration. We have also seen in several cases that a Church Father was writing or speaking metaphorically about baptism, or in some cases he was talking about something entirely different from baptism, and Called to Communion simply separated the father from his context and placed him in the Baptismal Regeneration column.
We continue this week with Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Pamphilus of Caesarea, and we shall find that Called to Communion has either cited a father very selectively, or has relied on what are called spurious, or doubtful, writings of that father. As we did last week, we provide Called to Communion‘s argument, followed by our analysis. Hyperlinks are provided so the Church Father may be read in context.
Cyprian of Carthage (3rd Century)
Because Called to Communion‘s citations of Cyprian are so voluminous, we will provide only a few of them. We encourage our readers to read them all at the Called to Communion site.
Called to Communion: Next consider St. Cyprian (c. 200 – 258), bishop of Carthage, in his First Epistle (To Donatus), he writes:
… that a man quickened to a new life in the laver of saving water should be able to put off what he had previously been; and, although retaining all his bodily structure, should be himself changed in heart and soul. (section 3)
…But after that, by the help of the water of new birth, the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled heart, after that, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from heaven, a second birth had restored me to a new man; … and was animated by the Spirit of holiness. (section 4)
In his Fifty-first Epistle, he writes:
… it is written, “Alms do deliver from death,” Tobit 4:10 and not, assuredly, from that death which once the blood of Christ extinguished, and from which the saving grace of baptism and of our Redeemer has delivered us, but from that which subsequently creeps in through sins. (Epistle 51.22)
In his eighth Treatise, St. Cyprian writes:
The Holy Spirit speaks in the sacred Scriptures, and says, “By almsgiving and faith sins are purged.” Not assuredly those sins which had been previously contracted, for those are purged by the blood and sanctification of Christ. Moreover, He says again, “As water extinguishes fire, so almsgiving quenches sin.” (Sirach 3:30) Here also it is shown and proved, that as in the laver of saving water the fire of Gehenna is extinguished, so by almsgiving and works of righteousness the flame of sins is subdued. And because in baptism remission of sins is granted once for all, constant and ceaseless labour, following the likeness of baptism, once again bestows the mercy of God. The Lord teaches this also in the Gospel. For when the disciples were pointed out, as eating and not first washing their hands, He replied and said, “He that made that which is within, made also that which is without. But give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you; ” (Luke 11:41) teaching hereby and showing, that not the hands are to be washed, but the heart, and that the foulness from inside is to be done away rather than that from outside; but that he who shall have cleansed what is within has cleansed also that which is without; and that if the mind is cleansed, a man has begun to be clean also in skin and body. Further, admonishing, and showing whence we may be clean and purged, He added that alms must be given. He who is pitiful teaches and warns us that pity must be shown; and because He seeks to save those whom at a great cost He has redeemed, He teaches that those who, after the grace of baptism, have become foul, may once more be cleansed. (Treatise 8)
White Horse Blog: We limit our analysis to these citations because we wish to show that baptism and almsgiving were inextricably linked in Cyprian’s mind. Based on his study of Tobit, Sirach and the Gospels, he was confident that baptism cleanses from sin because he was confident that almsgiving cleanses from sin. This connection between almsgiving and baptism is significant in Cyprian because it helps us understand his thinking on both. When it came to almsgiving, Cyprian acknowledged—even in the midst of his teaching that almsgiving remits sins—that almsgiving is in fact a fruit of a heart that has already been cleansed. We cite him again, as Called to Communion did above, to make the point. After saying that baptism remits sins because almsgiving remits sins, he continues with his explanation:
“For when the disciples were pointed out, as eating and not first washing their hands, He replied and said, “He that made that which is within, made also that which is without. But give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you; ” (Luke 11:41) teaching hereby and showing, that not the hands are to be washed, but the heart, and that the foulness from inside is to be done away rather than that from outside; but that he who shall have cleansed what is within has cleansed also that which is without; and that if the mind is cleansed, a man has begun to be clean also in skin and body. Further, admonishing, and showing whence we may be clean and purged, He added that alms must be given.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 8, chapter 2).
We invite the reader to note that Cyprian was showing that almsgiving proceeds from a heart and mind that have already been washed. In fact, his citation from Sirach 3:30 is preceded by an appeal to a change in the heart and the mind:
“A stubborn heart will fare badly in the end … A stubborn heart will have many a hurt … The mind of the wise appreciates proverbs” (Sirach 3:26-29).
This is significant because when Cyprian was questioned on whether baptism ought to be by sprinkling or by dipping, he responded in the same way—it did not matter whether one is sprinkled or dipped because even though the sacraments are necessary, the heart and mind of the believer are not washed in a literal laver anyway, for “Otherwise is the breast of the believer washed; otherwise is the mind of man purified by the merit of faith”:
“You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought of those who obtain God’s grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. In this point, my diffidence and modesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any from feeling what he thinks right, and from doing what he feels to be right. As far as my poor understanding conceives it, I think that the divine benefits can in no respect be mutilated and weakened; nor can anything less occur in that case, where, with full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver, is accepted what is drawn from the divine gifts. For in the sacrament of salvation the contagion of sins is not in such wise washed away, as the filth of the skin and of the body is washed away in the carnal and ordinary washing, as that there should be need of saltpetre and other appliances also, and a bath and a basin wherewith this vile body must be washed and purified. Otherwise is the breast of the believer washed; otherwise is the mind of man purified by the merit of faith. In the sacraments of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer the whole benefit on believers; nor ought it to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord’s grace, … Whence it appears that the sprinkling also of water prevails equally with the washing of salvation; and that when this is done in the Church, where the faith both of receiver and giver is sound, all things hold and may be consummated and perfected by the majesty of the Lord and by the truth of faith.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 75, chapter 12)
The mode of administration did not matter to Cyprian because the bath or the basin were not the means of washing anyway, for “otherwise is the breast of the believer washed; otherwise is the mind … purified … by faith.” Thus, Cyprian was free to say that almsgiving remits sins in the sense that almsgiving is a fruit of having been washed in the heart and mind already, and that baptism remits sins in the sense that the heart and mind are washed by other means than by the water of baptism.
These citations are not determinative, of course, for Cyprian was notoriously equivocal and he insisted here and elsewhere that baptism remits sins and that almsgiving was meritorious in obtaining the mercy of God. We therefore do not deny that Called to Communion has found in Cyprian what appears to be an advocate for baptismal regeneration. But the Roman apologist finds in Cyprian much more than he bargained for, precisely because of his propensity for equivocation. This can be seen in his impassioned insistence that the Christian receives the Holy Spirit in baptism:
“For by baptism the Holy Spirit is received; and thus by those who are baptized” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, chapter 8)
This is consistent with Roman Catholicism which teaches that in baptism, “the Church asks God that through his Son the power of the Holy Spirit may be sent upon the water” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 1238). But Cyprian was equally passionate in his insistence that the Holy Spirit is not received in baptism, but rather by the laying on of hands after baptism:
“But further, one is not born by the imposition of hands when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism, that so, being already born [in baptism], he may receive the Holy Spirit [by the imposition of hands]” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, chapter 5)
Likewise on almsgiving, Cyprian assures us that giving of alms remits sins committed after baptism, but not from eternal death:
“it is written, “Alms do deliver from death,” [Tobit 4:10] and not, assuredly, from that death which once the blood of Christ extinguished, and from which the saving grace of baptism and of our Redeemer has delivered us, but from that which subsequently creeps in through sins. (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51, chapter 22)
“The Holy Spirit speaks in the sacred Scriptures, and says, “By almsgiving and faith sins are purged.” Not assuredly those sins which had been previously contracted, for those are purged by the blood and sanctification of Christ. Moreover, He says again, “As water extinguishes fire, so almsgiving quenches sin.” [Sirach 3:30] Here also it is shown and proved, that as in the layer of saving water the fire of Gehenna is extinguished, so by almsgiving and works of righteousness the flame of sins is subdued.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 8, chapter 2)
These citations give the impression that Cyprian held to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the indulgence, which “removes … the temporal punishment due to sin,” but not the eternal punishment (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 1471). But in another place, Cyprian confirmed that almsgiving not only delivers from the first death, but also from the second death:
“The angel reveals, and manifests, and certifies that our petitions become efficacious by almsgiving, that life is redeemed from dangers by almsgiving, that souls are delivered from death by almsgiving. Neither, beloved brethren, are we so bringing forward these things, as that we should not prove what Raphael the angel said, by the testimony of the truth. In the Acts of the Apostles the faith of the fact is established; and that souls are delivered by almsgiving not only from the second, but from the first death, is discovered by the evidence of a matter accomplished and completed.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 8, Chapters 5 & 6)
Cyprian’s equivocation goes well beyond these examples, and this is one of the reasons why Rome handles him so delicately. We note, for example, that Rome appeals to Cyprian for support on baptismal regeneration, but keeps Cyprian at arm’s length on the matter of repentant heretics rejoining the Church. Cyprian believed that readmission was itself sacramental, something Rome does not teach. Notice the equivocation in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“On baptismal regeneration … his faith is clearly and repeatedly expressed… . On penance he is clear, like all the ancients, that for those who have been separated from the Church by sin there is no return except by a humble confession …. He does not add, as we should at the present day, that in this case there is no sacrament; such theological distinctions were not in his line. There was not even a beginning of canon law in the Western Church of the third century.” (Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, Cyprian of Carthage)
Thus, with a Church Father who equivocates as prodigiously as Cyprian of Carthage, Rome has no choice but to equivocate in its appeal to him. Where Cyprian appears to agree with Rome, he “is clear” and “his faith is clearly expressed,” but where he does not agree with Rome, “such theological distinctions were not in his line,” and “there was not even a beginning of canon law” anyway. As we dig deeper into Cyprian, we see why Rome must handle him with such surgical precision.
As noted above, Cyprian at times separated baptism from reception of the Holy Spirit, and taught that baptism was for the remission of sins (i.e., “born of water”), and the laying on of hands was for the reception of the Holy Spirit (i.e., “born of the Spirit”) in two separate sacraments. He taught that we are not “born of water and of the Spirit” until we undergo both:
“it is a small matter to
lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament;” (Epistle 71, chapter 1)“And therefore it behooves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written,
Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Epistle 72, chapter 21)
In this, Cyprian’s teaching is consistent with the 7th Council of Carthage, over which he himself presided as the reigning metropolitan bishop. The Council had been convened by Cyprian to condemn the judgment of Pope Stephen I on the validity of heretical baptisms. By way of example, at this council Nemesianus of Thubunae explicitly acknowledged rebirth by two sacraments, not one only, indicating that this was the central theme of the council:
“Nemesianus of Thubunae said: That the baptism which heretics and schismatics bestow is not the true one, is everywhere declared in the Holy Scriptures … This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit. Certain people therefore interpret for themselves ill, when they say that by imposition of the hand they receive the Holy Ghost, and are thus received, when it is manifest that they ought to be born again in the Catholic Church by both sacraments.” (Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, 258 A.D.)
We will say, because Rome cannot, that if it takes two sacraments to be born of water and of the Spirit and to be “finally [and] fully sanctified, and be the sons of God,” then one is not born again and adopted by one sacrament. It is in light of this Council that the Catholic Encyclopedia must again equivocate on Cyprian, acknowledging that he was in a position of authority, but also that he had no actual jurisdiction, and besides, the Council over which he presided was not even binding anyway:
“[Cyprian] had a great position as honorary chief of all the bishops in the provinces of Proconsular Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania, who were about a hundred in number; but he had no actual jurisdiction over them. They seem to have met in some numbers at Carthage every spring, but their conciliar decisions had no real binding force.” (Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, Cyprian of Carthage)
In view of this, we can see why Called to Communion must also equivocate on Cyprian, saying that he was wrong on baptism in the places that he disagreed with Rome on baptism, but that he was right on baptism in the places that he agreed with Rome on baptism:
Called to Communion: “In his seventy-third Epistle, St. Cyprian argued that baptism among the heretics was no baptism at all, and therefore that when such heretics were later received into the Catholic Church, they should be baptized. St. Cyprian was wrong about the invalidity of baptism among the heretics, but his reasoning shows what the Church believed about the nature of baptism.”
The fundamental problem with Cyprian is that he was driven and tossed in his doctrinal and sacramental formulations. The cause of this can be traced to the fact that he and the bishops who elected him ignored Paul’s plain warning against elevating a neophyte to a position of authority. Listen as his biographer, Pontius the Deacon, overturns the Apostle Paul with a stroke of the pen:
“Then—what is even greater—when he had learned from the reading of Scripture certain things not according to the condition of his novitiate, but in proportion to the earliness of his faith, he immediately laid hold of what he had discovered, for his own advantage in deserving well of God. … The apostle’s epistle says that novices should be passed over, lest by the stupor of heathenism that yet clings to their unconfirmed minds, their untaught inexperience should in any respect sin against God [1 Timothy 3:6]. He [Cyprian] first, and I think he alone, furnished an illustration that greater progress is made by faith than by time. … In short, in respect of God’s grace, there was no delay, no postponement—I have said but little—he immediately received the presbyterate and the priesthood. For who is there that would not entrust every grade of honour to one who believed with such a disposition?” (Pontius the Deacon, The Life and Passion of St. Cyprian, Chapters 2 & 3)
Cyprian was ostensibly so passionate about the truth that he could not be compelled to abide by it. Well did the author of Hebrews say of him, “For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe” (Hebrews 5:13). In Cyprian, a child was elevated to the position of Metropolitan over Carthage (!) very shortly after his conversion from heathenism. Thus does Rome appeal to a man who rejected apostolic teaching, in order to prove that he held firmly to “apostolic teaching.”
There is much more to be said about Cyprian—so complex and equivocal is his thought—but we will grant to Called to Communion that they have finally found a Church Father who can take the stand for them to advance their cause, for Cyprian was highly influential in Rome’s development of the doctrine.
We can therefore say that Rome’s best hope for proving the apostolicity of the doctrine within the first three centuries after the apostles hangs on the testimony of a mere child, who also taught that the believer is “otherwise washed … by the merit of faith” rather than in the waters of baptism, who convened a Council for the express purpose of rebuking the Pope for teaching what Rome currently teaches on baptism (i.e., the validity of heretical baptism), who taught that almsgiving delivers from the eternal consequences of sin, who taught that regeneration is not by one sacrament alone, and who thought the Apostle Paul’s proscription against the election of neophytes applied to everyone else but him.
We cannot know whether Cyprian, had he come to sufficient maturity actually to qualify for the office, would have arrived at a correct understanding of baptism. We can say, however, that Rome’s own selective appeal to Cyprian to prove their doctrine is so surgically selective that it loses all credibility in light of the historical record. Rome finds itself in the unenviable position of asserting that Cyprian—who rejected significant portions of Rome’s current teachings on baptism—was an early advocate for Rome’s current teachings on baptism.
Gregory Thaumaturgus (late 3rd Century)
Called to Communion: St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (213 – ca. 270) writes:
[S]ee John the Baptist as he baptizes One [i.e. Christ] who needs no baptism, and yet submits to the rite in order that He may bestow freely upon us the grace of baptism. Come, let us view the image of our regeneration, as it is emblematically presented in these waters. (On Christ’s Baptism)
In another work he writes:
He was baptized in Jordan, not as receiving any sanctification for Himself, but as gifting a participation in sanctification to others. (Twelve Topics on Faith, 12)
White Horse Blog: The first citation is from Homily IV, On the Holy Theophany, and the second is from Twelve Topics on the Faith. Both are spurious and doubtful works. Even Thomas Livius, citing the homilies in his exhaustive work, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, cites him with reservation: “These Homilies are of doubtful genuineness” (Livius, p. 48n). Homily IV, On the Holy Theophany appears to appropriate the language of Hippolytus’ Discourse on the Holy Theophany (which we covered last week), in an attempt to backfill it with Marian dogma. We provide the following example by way of comparison:
Hippolytus: “By my birth I loosed the barrenness of my mother; I did not make virginity barren. I was brought up from beneath; I did not come down from above. I bound the tongue of my father; I did not unfold divine grace.” (Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 3)
Doubtful work by Gregory Thaumaturgus: “I was born, and thereby removed the barrenness of the mother that bore me; and while still a babe I became the healer of my father’s speechlessness, having received of You from my childhood the gift of the miraculous. But You, being born of the Virgin Mary, as You willed, and as You alone know, did not do away with her virginity; but You kept it, and simply gifted her with the name of mother: and neither did her virginity preclude Your birth, nor did Your birth injure her virginity.” (On the Holy Theophany)
Twelve Topics on the Faith is equally spurious, and is properly attributed to pseudo-Thaumaturgus. Thus, we reject Called to Communion‘s appeal to Thaumaturgus here.
Pamphilus of Caesarea (early 4th Century)
Called to Communion: St. Pamphilus of Caesarea (d. 309), in his “Exposition on the Acts of the Apostles,” in which he summarizes the Acts of the Apostles, writes:
Of the divine descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost which lighted on them who believed. In this we have also the instruction delivered by Peter, and passages from the prophets on the subject, and on the passion and resurrection and assumption of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost; also of the faith of those present, and their salvation by baptism; and, further, of the unity of spirit pervading the believers and promoting the common good, and of the addition made to their number.
White Horse Blog: We reject Called to Communion‘s reading of Pamphilus for several reasons, the first of which is that Called to Communion is unnecessarily selective in their citation of him. Pamphilus, just a few paragraphs later, refers to “the healing and the baptism of Paul by the hand of Ananias” (Pamphilus of Caesarea, An Exposition of the Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, M). Those with knowledge of the book of Acts will recognize that Paul was healed by the laying on of hands and filled with the Holy Spirit first, and then baptized later:
“And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.” (Acts 9:17-18)
Thus Pamphilus has Paul saved and filled with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Pamphilus acknowledges this again of Cornelius and his whole household, when “the gift of the Holy Ghost upon those who heard him … and … those who believed … were baptized” (Pamphilus of Caesarea, An Exposition of the Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, O). In both cases, salvation and filling of the Holy Spirit preceded baptism, something that Pamphilus acknowledges explicitly. There is no justification, therefore, for Called to Communion to take “salvation by baptism” in Pamphilus (paragraph C) to mean “baptismal regeneration.”
Additionally, the alleged “salvation by baptism” that Called to Communion sees in Acts 2, was preceded by evidence of regeneration, for those who ostensibly received “salvation by baptism” in Acts 2:41, were first “pricked in their heart” (Acts 2:37), and were not baptized until they had “gladly received his word” (Acts 2:41). In Acts, this is consistent with regeneration preceding baptism, in the same way that Lydia “whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul,” was regenerated before her baptism. She was baptized after she was born again (Acts 16:14-15). There is no reason to assume that Pamphilus, whose only known work is this one on Acts, was ignorant of the fact that Lydia’s heart was opened (regeneration) and believed the word of God, before she was baptized. Clearly, the saints in Acts 2 who were “pricked in their heart” and “gladly received his word,” were regenerated in the same way, and then baptized.
We highlight this to show that Called to Communion‘s reliance on Pamphilus is fleeting. The only work we have from Pamphilus is his very brief Exposition of the Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, and because Pamphilus has Paul (paragraph M), Cornelius’ household (paragraph O), and Lydia (paragraph X) all saved before baptism, Pamphilus “support” for baptismal regeneration is a commodity imported by Called to Communion, and is not to be found in an objective reading of Pamphilus.
We will continue this series next week.
Jim,
Did you write this on the other blog about Tim’s work here?
———–
Blogger guy fawkes said…
David,
You said,
“Mr. Kauffman sure seems to be either ignorant of the fact that Catholic dogma does not limit the means of salvation to sacramental baptism only, or he is purposefully being deceptive here. ”
I say Tim is guilty of the latter. He was raised Catholic after all.
September 14, 2014 at 4:24 AM
—————
What did you mean that bring raised Catholic leads to being purposefully deceptive?
Walt,
Okay, it’s a fair question so I will answer you.
I have written on this blog and elsewhere that Tim’s story doesn’t ring true to me. I don’t see him as a rank and file Protestant. I see him as an angry Catholic.
I can’t read minds or souls. What motivates him, only God knows.
I realize you too are an ex-Catholic. However, from what you have posted on this blog, I get the impression that you knew almost zero about Catholicism. Again, I am only going on your testimony.
Okay? All is clear?
Jim,
You wrote:
“I realize you too are an ex-Catholic. However, from what you have posted on this blog, I get the impression that you knew almost zero about Catholicism. Again, I am only going on your testimony.”
I left the RCC in college. Certainly, I would say that 99% of the RCC adherents know absolutely nothing about what the RCC church teaches and believes. What I was taught in Catholic School and by going to mass everyday, and being one of the best students in my class on the subject, was we were suppose to believe everything we were taught on more or less blind faith.
Your instruction to people on this website is clearly in line with what we were taught….you believe what Rome teaches is absolute truth and not to be questioned. Anyone who questions anything to do with Rome’s doctrines are either a hater of Catholics or an ignorant Catholic.
From this presupposition I was taught growing up, I wanted to read the bible for myself and after reading it (in combination of what the RCC did to my mother) I could only find biblical doctrines in the Protestant churches.
Blind faith is no longer how I run my own life as you seem to run yours by your own testimony.
Walt,
David is criticizing me for not taking Tertullian, in 16th Chapter of On Baptism, to be referring to a martyr’s death. Here is chapter 16 in its entirety:
When Tertullian says, “called by water, chosen by blood. … in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water” there simply is no justification for interpreting this to be a reference to a martyr’s death. The baptism of blood is clearly “belief in his blood,” and this stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received.
So David concludes that it is “deliberately deceptive” to read Tertullian through non-Roman eyes. If that is what he means by “deliberately deceptive,” I am guilty as charged, although that is not the standard, or commonly accepted, definition of “deliberate deception.”
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
You said:
“The baptism of blood is clearly “belief in his blood,” and this stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received.”
Scripture teaches to believe in his blood sacrifice, but as the thief on the cross who died without baptism, and admits he was deserving of his death, Christ promised the thief to be in heaven. Anyone who claims one must be baptized before they can go to heaven is obviously a Roman Catholic, and teaching clear damnable heresy.
It appears David does not know he is teaching heresy, and truly this is very sad. Again, I don’t think 99% of the Roman Catholic adherents know anything about why they believe what they believe, and their epistemology is so grounded in blind faith in Romish doctrine.
Tim Walt, if Im not mistaken Dave, who I take to be Dave Anders came from an evangelical background and his dad was a Pastor. He gives his testimony on CtC about coming to Rome. It could fill a volume. He makes a unending defense for Rome’s sacramental salvation. I lchallenged him as never having faith to leave a church tha teaches the gospel, and I told him he had less faith according to the writer of Hebrews to go back to a replay of an OT sacrifici system. For the writer of Hebrews calls the need for a physical sacrifice and Priest and altar shrinking back in on’s faith. Jesus altar, sacrifice and priesthoo is permanent in heaven. It takes faith
Blessed are those who dont see and yet believe.
Waltz has responded to this latest assertion here -http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2014/09/tertuallian-and-baptism-of-blood.html
Waltz is also a former not current RC so to characterize his view as due to Roman eyes is off.
Thank you, James,
I should clarify what I mean by reading the Fathers through “Roman Eyes”. What I mean is “accepting the Roman position that the Fathers were speaking of baptism the way Rome speaks of it.” Many Protestants approach the Fathers this way. One of Rome’s greatest achievements is to get the world to believe that the Church was Roman Catholic from the beginning. I believe that both Waltz and Ferguson stumble at that point something that I will demonstrate once the series is complete next week.
There are several (many) points at which Ferguson swallowed the Roman position whole, without examining the context of the Church Father. I will catalogue those in a future post. But I have no problem saying (and proving) that Ferguson was wrong, and further David is wrong to accept Ferguson without examining the evidence. When they read the Fathers with those assumptions in place, they are playing into Rome’s hands.
Thank you for your comment. I hope to address your observation more fully in the near future.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim, who is Waltz and Ferguson? Incidentally, I think you and this blogger Turrentinfan have made these distinctions against Catholic Apologists better than most. Instead of arguing on Rome’s turf, go straight to scripture and the Fathers and pull out the meaning in context. Magrath says that jbfa is a theological novum in the church. This could make one shiver to hear this from a respected theologian. But what we must consider with Luther’s reformed tenets are 1 He proposed a radically different hermenutic Law and Gospel in place of law/new law, 2 He proposed a radically different doctrine of justification sola grazia et sola fede in place of grace and cooperation of grace. 3 He proposed a radically different defenition of grace, unearned divine favor in place of infused medicine. 4 He proposed aradically different authority, sola scriptura in
Kevin,
“Waltz” is David Waltz (http://articulifidei.blogspot.pt/ ), who believes he has refuted portions of my analysis simply by quoting Dr. Everett Ferguson’s Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries
Ferguson is an expert in the Early Church Fathers. He and I come to different conclusions—due in no small part to the way in which he defers to Rome’s assumptions when expounding the Fathers. I will demonstrate this in another post, but I’ve read Ferguson, and I disagree with him on several significant points, not the least of which is his failure to contextualize the Fathers within their own frame of reference, and sometimes within the very document he is citing.
Waltz is willing to trust Dr. Ferguson without inspecting the evidence. I am not.
Thanks,
Tim
In place of scripture as normed by tradition. 5 He proposed a radically different defenition of faith: receiving and resting on Christ and his finished work in place of trusting and obeying. I have over 30 quotes from the Fathers that I believe tell uswe are justified by faith alone. One man’s novum is another man’s gospel. Calvin said if we weighed up the evidence on the Fathers, it would fall on our side. I belive that withall my heart. The words that ring out to me are Paul’s ” not of yourselves” ” not of works” can Rome’S gospel ever overcome those words. No
An interesting “beginning” in the “communion catechism” that debunks the Romish rite.
“Communion Catechism (1592) by John Craig “John Craig (1512-1600) was a Scottish reformer. Previously a Dominican Friar, Craig was converted to the Protestant Faith. The Roman Inquisition condemned Craig to death, yet he escaped and returned to Scotland. In 1560, Craig became co-pastor with John Knox in Edinburgh. Later, Craig became a chaplain to James VI. At the direction of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Craig composed this catechism, which was subsequently approved by the Assembly in 1592” (Kevin Reed).
VII. Of Baptism
Q. 60. What signifieth baptism unto us?
A. That we are filthy by nature, and are purged by the blood of Christ, Titus 3:5.
Q. 61. What meaneth this our union with the water?
A. Our spiritual union with Jesus Christ, Rom. 6:3, 8; Gal. 3:27.
Q. 62. What followeth upon this our union with him?
A. Remission of sins and regeneration, Rom. 6:4, 18, 22.
Q. 63. From whence cometh our regeneration?
A. From the communion with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, Rom. 6:4, 5, 8.
Q. 64. How long, and by what way doth baptism work in us?
A. All the days of our life, through faith and repentance, 1 Cor. 6:19, 20.
Q. 65. How then are infants baptized?
A. Upon the promise made to the faithful and their seed, Gen. 17:7, 10.
Q. 66. How doth baptism differ from the supper?
A. In the elements, action, rites, signification and use.
Q. 67. Wherefore is baptism but once ministred?
A. It is enough to be received once in the house of God, Rom. 8:16.
Q. 68. Declare the cause of that.
A. For they are never casten out, who are once truly received in his society, John 6:37.
Q. 69. Why is the supper so oft ministred?
A. We have need to be fed continually, John 6:55.
Q. 70. Why is not the supper to be ministred to infants?
A. Because they cannot examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11:28.
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/communca.htm
The Church of the Covenanters has a precious inheritance. The achievements of the past, the privileges of the present, and the victories of the future – all, all are hers, if she be faithful. The Old Blue Banner leads to the world-wide triumph of the principles it represents. This is no presumption; it is a foregone conclusion, the very language of logic. The certainty is based on God’s revealed purpose, and glows in the richest hues of prophecy. Humility forbids boasting; we have not said that the Covenanted Church shall have this honor. But the Banner of the Covenant, by whomsoever borne, will surely be glorified with victory, as Jesus Christ, the great Captain, leads His conquerors to universal conquest.” – J.C. McFeeters, Sketches of the Covenanters, p. 411.
The Covenanters were the best theologians in history since the days of the Apostles. They gave us the most famous and most accurate statement of Christian theology and practice, outside of the Bible itself, in the Westminster Standards (the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the Westminster Larger Catechism, etc.).
“All that learning the most profound and extensive, intellect the most acute and searching, and piety the most sincere and earnest, could accomplish, was thus concentrated in the Westminster Assembly’s Confession of Faith, which may be safely termed the most perfect statement of Systematic Theology ever framed by the Christian Church.” – William Hetherington, The History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, p. 345, SWRB Reprint.
The Covenanters also lived what they believed and taught, many showing their great love for the Lord Jesus Christ through tremendous suffering and privation. Many suffered severe persecution, some were tortured and a large number resisted sin unto blood (Hebrews 12:4, Hebrews 11:36-38) – dying as faithful Reformation martyrs, singing the praises of the Lord as they went to their ordained reward of eternal bliss and blessedness in heaven.”
Walt,
Would you be willing to actually give an argument for this assertion?
“The Covenanters were the best theologians in history since the days of the Apostles. They gave us the most famous and most accurate statement of Christian theology and practice, outside of the Bible itself,”.
Jim,
You wrote:
Walt,
Would you be willing to actually give an argument for this assertion?
“The Covenanters were the best theologians in history since the days of the Apostles. They gave us the most famous and most accurate statement of Christian theology and practice, outside of the Bible itself,”.
————–
If you go to the link I posted you will see it is a quote.
However, certainly I could defend the position for you, but obviously if you don’t read or hear anything we write on this blog that would be a HUGE waste of time.
Walt, I don’t think I can argue with you. What I have read of the Covenanters, they were sent by God to expound scripture.
We can only hold dear the Sottish covenanters who re illumined so much truth to us. Thx Walt.
Walt, how about the quote by J.C. McFeeters. Made me shiver it was so good.
Tim, is it any wonder that God shames the wise by foolish things and that He shames the strong with weak things. I always think of the absolute fixation with Aquinas by the Roman church. A man who attached a christian faith ethic to a pagan philosophy. The men at CtC are and on Jasons site tottaly dismiss your work in what you printed Dave said. But God told us what He thought of human wisdom because Paul said that men could not come to the knowledge of the gospel thru it. Spurgeon said when reffering to the Roman school men, the Sophists, the hair splitting accademics who perverted the gospel, this, in those days there were meny lofty titles, learned scribe, Pious doctor, Doctor of the church, they had as many Doctors of divinity as we have now. And they went around calling each other by those titles until they belive they meant something. Dear sirs its hard receive honor and expect it. Foras the inscense burns in the church and blinds, so are these men blinded by that very smoke, which covers the cross behind the. Spurgeon .was right. All this to say that after 1400 years of Roman doctors and men like CtC we have from Rome a wrong view on baptism, a n antichrist in the pope, a false gospel, a fixation on phil I sophy and reason, and a denial off the perfection and sufficiency of our Lord’ s sacrifice, a preocupation with the mother of Jesus, a confidence in one’s own works, and pride which blinds. Is it any wonder that mans knowledge is foolishness to God. Tim, another great job on bringing us the truth of God’s word. I think this is an incredibly powerful series which brings much trouble to Rome’s position.
Tim,
The business about Cornelius and Lydia being regenerated prior to getting wet poses no problem for Catholicism.
Only God knows how many candidates for Baptism are already in a state of grace before the Easter Vigil.
They still need Baptism. Until they are incorporated into Christ, given the Character and brought into full membership with the Church, they can’t receive the other Sacraments. Plus, should they opt to bypass water Baptism, they won’t remain in that state of grace.
Jim,
You may have noticed that the focus of this series is baptismal regeneration, and Called to Communion cited Pamphilus of Caesarea’s commentary on Acts as “evidence” of Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Fathers. Thus, while “the business about Cornelius and Lydia being regenerated prior to getting wet poses no problem for Catholicism,” it does rather pose problems for Called to Communion’s use of Pamphilus, for his sole surviving work is one in which all of his examples on baptism are preceded by regeneration. That is a rather inconvenient reality that Called to Communion does not effectively address.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
So? I just gave you some examples of why it isn’t a problem, for C2C/ the Catholic point of view.
By the way, David brings out that several Protestants groups agree with us including the guy who invented JBFA.
Yes, I, too, understand that a Church Father’s failure to support baptismal regeneration does not necessarily conflict (in Rome’s opinion) with Rome’s use of him to support baptismal regeneration. And I also understand that Protestants have often been willing to stipulate that the Early Church Fathers were Roman Catholic. None of that overturns the fact that Pamphilus provides no support for baptismal regeneration, and none of that overturns Tertullian’s statement, “That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already.” (Tertullian, On Repentance, Chapter 6). It does not matter to me if 1,000,000 Protestants line up to concede that Tertullian taught baptismal regeneration. What matters is what Tertullian said.
By way of example, Justellus in 1671 and Hefele in 1855, both interpreted Canon 6 of Nicæa (325 A.D.) to give the bishop of Alexandria authority over “the whole Diocese of Egypt.” And yet, the historical data shows that “the Diocese of Egypt” did not even exist until at least 380 A.D.. 1,000,000 Protestants or Catholics lining up to claim the opposite does not change the fact that the Diocese of Egypt did not exist for another 55 years after Nicæa. And yet Fr. James F. Loughlin’s argument (1880) for Papal Primacy at Nicæa rested entirely upon the “fact” that the bishop of Alexandria held sway over “the whole Diocese of Egypt.”
Shall we close the books on Nicæa because popular opinion has established the facts for us? Or shall we examine the evidence and arrive at the truth?
I think you know which option I have chosen.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote:
“Shall we close the books on Nicæa because popular opinion has established the facts for us? Or shall we examine the evidence and arrive at the truth?”
Amen! This is the bottom line with everything. The truth and evidence is what is most important, and the foundational truth and evidence is the Scriptures. Every opinion outside this foundation is secondary, it is not equal with Scripture, nor is it superior to Scripture as taught by Rome.
The Church Fathers were mere men, and subject to like passions like all men. They certainly gave us an interesting and document helpful SECONDARY foundation of the Christian church outside of Scripture itself, but certainly anything they taught that is an error needs to be called an error.
This goes for all generations in the earth.
Tim, I really do hope at some point in the future you can weave through where the Canon of Scripture went and if there is any further evidence to be uncovered. This is really the only thing that matters in many ways as the way the Catholics slice and dice the Scriptures apart, and toss them around like a rag doll is just incredible to me. I think if the true and faithful biblical testimony was removed from Rome and Jerome’s Latin error filled text, it would be interesting to map out where it went and who took it to be preserved.
It would be interesting to see if that person (or group of people) saw Rome as the Antichrist and took the Scriptures to protect them from Jerome and the Antichrist they saw…to whatever degree.
Yes. Amen and amen!
Tim, all we have to do is read Clements statement on justification as a baromiter of how Roman Catholicism falsfied the gospel. As Piper points out Paul was constantly battling error in the church. Rome would have us believe all has been infallibly calm on the wesren front for2000 years. Impossible! For instance, Romans 6:7 and Acts 13:37,38 say not that we have been liberated from sin in an ethical sense, sanctification, as Gundry and Nick the Catholic would have us believe. But dikaiow is justification in these verses, freed in a sense of aquital. Big difference. This aquital has everything to do with our fight in sanctification against sin.
Tim, My point is Im in agreement with you that the only thing that matters is what scripture teaches. And as always you have brought that again to your exegesis. Ji can only bellyache, he cant argue with scrpture.
Tim, can I ask you a question off subject? Have you read Piper’s Counted righteous in Christ?
No, I have not. I read his Justification of God some time ago, and I recall that it was quite good.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim said ” they still need baptism. Until they are incorporated into Christ” Thd point is that when the Spirit chooses to regenerate they ARE incorporated into Christ. Rengeneration by the Spirit is first in order, just sa faith is before love in natural order. So baptizing babies and ” confirming” them believers is wrestling the soverienty from God. God regenerates thru the Spirit and the Word, and the water is the sign , seal and confirmation of that grace. Jesus said the tax collector went home righteouss before he would have been baptized. We just have so many instances of people
being saved in the gospel who were never baptized. The apostles were never baptized. Cyprian is the culprite in sacramental salvation. Even though we see here he vasolates at times. Paul didnt say I came to preach and baptize, hecsaid he didnt come to baptize but preach the gospel, which we can deduce exclusively saves men, God’s ” pricking of the heart. ” I say we follow the predominant practice of the early church and baptize people who have beenbregenerated first by the Spirit. I know my Reformed brethren baptize infants with covenant entry and grace promised. Thats fine. But to say baptism is necessary to be saved is wrong. If there is one thing that has come out of Tim’s presentation of the Fathers here its that they believed the washing of baptism was accompanying those who HAD been regenerated by the Spirit.
“So baptizing babies and ” confirming” them believers is wrestling the soverienty from God. ”
Yeah, kinda’ like preaching wrestles sovereignty from God too. I mean, it interferes with the Spirit blowing where He will.
Do you ever think before you post?
Kinda’ flies in the face of mark 16:16 wouldn’t you say Kev?
I mean, if you ever actually open your Bible, you will see Jesus Christ was pretty clear on the necessity of Baptism to be saved.
Tim, I think this single work by Piper is so good and important. In a small book he gives the most compelling defense of imputation since Murray. If you email me your church address Tim I will be happy to buy you a copy as my gift. I believe at some point you probably will give a most potent presentation on justification. It has been the one dedication of my 35 years study. And I can say the greatest threat to Christianity todayis making sanctification prior to justification. God bless
Do you have a T.V.?
You don’t think the killers squatting across the border waiting for a chance to come over and behead you, your wife, your friends, your dog and the rest of us is a pretty significant threat to Christians and Christianity?
Probably not. I read a couple of days ago on the Feast of the Name of Mary that the Lutherans sided with the Turks in besieging Catholic Vienna.
Jim, the problem is that the RC position is a problem because it puts the distribution of grace into the hands of men. Do you get this sir. It substitures sacramental efficacy for a life of faith and the efficacy acrued by Christ in the atonement is delved out by another Christus. God is in control of salvation and the concscience of man, not the church. The church is the recepient of God’s free grace thru faith, the church is not the provider of this grace. God is.
“Jim, the problem is that the RC position is a problem because it puts the distribution of grace into the hands of men.’
After the Protestants broke with the Church and the Sacraments as established by Christ, they had to concoct another theory of how the grace of Calvary is distributed. They came up with the
“just me and my friend Jesus ” theory. That is why you and your “brothers” can’t agree on Baptism or anything else.
It is why you really don’t have a logical reason for denying the title of “Christian brother” to Mormons. Witnesses, Unitarians, etc. etc.
Jim, doesnt follow. When I preach pthe gospel Im not saying that Im regenerating men. When your wicked Priest baptizes he is saing that act I s regenerating. Magic waters of baptism. Kinda flies in the face of faith comes thr hearing the word of God Rom. 5:17, huh Jimbob.
You are such an ass! I love it! “Wicked priest”, “magic waters of Baptism” etc. You are such as ass. You are so ridiculous. If nothing else, you are good for a laugh. Your impotent attempts at getting my ire up are so transparent. The lurkers must be loving it!
Kevin, your stupid slurring style has probably got you dumped from Greenbaggins ( I have seen you post lately ).
You are like the wacko who can’t resist screaming, ” Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Even though he knows he will be arrested, he can’t help himself. Although you know it will get you booted from a blog, you can’t control yourself and give in to the temptation to slur. You are either sick or possessed (or both?)
Only Mr. Tim lets you spew your icky pus. Other reputable blogs, Protestant and Catholic, have pretty much sent you packing.
This is soon to be the last rat hole you have to crawl into huh?
Jim, Protestants didnt break with the church and sacraments. We hold both dear. We broke with the fase church and the corruption of the sacraments. Sacramental efficacy replaced the atonement. The Reformers simply dismantled the eclessiastical machinery that was mostly human in content and orgin.
Jim, you deny your Priestnhave been wicked and the waters of batism work magic in Rome. Read history. Ratzinger just resigned because the epedemic of homsexuality is so rampant in the Priesthood. What world do youml I ve in.
Kevin, you wrote:
“Ratzinger just resigned because the epedemic of homsexuality is so rampant in the Priesthood.”
I wonder if Pope Francis will start to allow the massive homosexual priesthood to marry their current lovers. I’ve heard that the homosexual priests in Rome itself outnumber the straight priests, and this new pope might even allow gay marriage to show his love and toleration for all couples to marry. I saw that he just married 20 couples at the Vatican.
———–
It was the first papal marriage ceremony of its kind in 14 years.
The pope has expressed greater tolerance than his predecessor on many issues, including family values.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29198491
———–
I can see the slippery slope waxing worse and worse with Rome as it becomes more and more liberal and tolerant of all sorts of sins. They are using lots of surveys in the article it says to determine how to best govern the church. Imagine taking surveys to determine how best to define Scripture.
Crazy.
Kevin, investigative reports are trying to blow the lid off the crisis of this underground movement in Rome, but since the numbers are contested (but growing) I think they will explode under Pope Francis. It seems he supports all sorts of sins.
Here is an article going into some of the research.
—————————————-
The Vatican’s Secret Life
Despite headlines about a powerful “gay lobby” within the Vatican, and a new Pope promising reform, the Catholic Church’s gay cardinals, monks, and other clergy inhabit a hidden netherworld. In Rome, the author learns how they navigate the dangerous paradox of their lives.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/12/gay-clergy-catholic-church-vatican
Jim, actually we agree with our Protestant brothers that baptism doesnt save. Its only an intramural discussion on infant baptism. For instance Eric W and I arent infant baptism people and Walt and I believe Tim are. That does notvseparate us as brothers in Christ. Go listen to MacA rthur and Sproul have a great and friendly debate on baptism. Those guys are brothers and best friends. Protestants, are unified on the gospel, with thecexception of Armenianist who are synergists, although they believe they can lose their salvation, but they do not believe theyvarevjustified by their character in anyway. Iow Jim there is unity around the gospel. But what you dont understand is the claim Rome has to unity will mean nothing without the right gospel. Can I suggest to you tyat you read the Scottish Reformers tenets that Walt provided. Now thats pure and undefiled religion.
Walt, thanks brother, I think you are right. You have great insight. I really have enjoyed Knox and the Scotch Reformers and all the material you provide. I think yourcdead right about Francis. The scripture says yourcsin will find you out. I pray that the lid is lifted on Rome and we can see the entire underbelly. Im greatful for thecfaithfulness of our Lord to bring you and Tim, and Eric W, John, Bob out ofcRome into the kingdom .of God.
If Francis knows about the Gay Lobby in Rome, and has kept the lid on it over the last 4 years, I suspect they have new cover in the new Pope. The numbers are staggering as quoted in the article.
————–
Months later, another leak of confidential information brought the subject of a gay lobby back into the news. Someone took notes during what was meant to be a private meeting between Latin-American Church leaders and the new Pope, the former cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, now known as Francis. In June, those notes were published on a progressive Catholic Web site. Francis was quoted as saying, “The ‘gay lobby’ is mentioned, and it is true, it is there … We need to see what we can do.”
Though the number of gay priests in general, and specifically among the Curia in Rome, is unknown, the proportion is much higher than in the general population. Between 20 and 60 percent of all Catholic priests are gay, according to one estimate cited by Donald B. Cozzens in his well-regarded The Changing Face of the Priesthood. For gay clerics at the Vatican, one fundamental condition of their power, and of their priesthood, is silence, at least in public, about who they really are.
Walt, I just read article. Amazing. Spurgeon said if a man comes to you in some funny garb and says he is a Priest, the poorest child of God should say stand off sir I am a priest. I do not knowcwhat youl are. Surely the only mention of vestments in the bible is with the men of Baal. Yes call yourself a Priest sir, I dare say a man would take the title. For when one consider all the crimes and villianies done under a special Priesthood, I would rather a man see me in th street and call me the devil than call me a Priest. But God calls his children a royal priesthood, God’s Cleras. Therein lies the God’s priests.
Walt, I think you are on to something. I have wondered myself of the pressures Francis feels to aquiesce. It is a human institution becoming moe human everyday. MacArthur in his message you provided nailed it. We should pray for those men. Lost. The greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the world. I told my ex friend Debbie, just the fact that your church sells Christ’s merits should make you walk right now,
There is no doubt even in a worldly sense the RCC is one really messed up organization. You really cannot call it a church when 20-60% of the priests and cardinals in the Vatican are homosexual. That is a staggering number for any organization. I don’t even think Washington or Italy governments themselves boast those type numbers for employed homosexuals.
Then, to call yourself a Church with those numbers, and to claim your organizations is the sole global authority to represent Jesus Christ on earth…it is any wonder that Pope Francis has learned to keep this very very quiet, and to change church dogma on homosexuals. What are you going to do if 20-60% of your employees are homosexual and claim to be Catholic priests?
It makes the Church of England look pale in comparison to her boasting of ordaining and supporting gay priests, and perhaps even promoting gay marriage. I cannot imagine that 20-60% of the Anglican priests are homosexual, but if they are, and they boast higher numbers than Rome, it would be shocking.
The whole world is upside down, and Catholics sit back and love their church and the homosexuals running the mother ship in the Vatican. That article just blew me away if even half of it was true. If 100% was true, the RCC is in serious trouble, and Pope Francis seems to be ready to open up the flood gates even more to promote/allow homosexual priests.
Yeah, I agree it was an alarming article. But look at Rome’s history Walt. It reads like a bad novel. But yes I agree Catholics sit back and love their church. But what do they love Walt. The Robes and peagentry and the golden altar and drama of the Mass. Admittedly its impressive. Its like the King in his new robes. Its not on the outside which defileth a man, but the inside. People are so gullible Walt.
Walt, what really is amazing to me is you and Tim and EricW and the Catholics who got saved all have something in common. You searched the scriptures looking for the truth.. Yes we have the inner witness of the Spirit 1 John 2:27, but we have to long for the meat of the word.
Jim, can you stop calling me an SOB, an as_, troll, etc, etc. Your on a Christian website. This isnt your local Catholic church bazzare in the church basement where your throwing a few back with a Priest. I ncidentally Jim, did you read the article Walt provided that said 60 % of your Priest are queers. Thats quite an indulgence for a man ofvthe cloth huh? In Rome consecrating the Jesus wafer in the morning, homosexual bar at night. Honing their craft. Infestation Jim. My wife commented to me tonight that the reason this goes on in the Roman Priesthood is because they arent regenerated. I said honey, now thats a novel idea. My wife comes up with profound things at times.
Kevin,
Only a “queer” is preoccupied with queers.
Besides, the proper phrase is “persons with a homosexual condition”.
Only God knows how many holy men and women with this condition are leading chaste lives and will be in heaven while you may not be. You are like the smug pharisee in the parable.
You say this is a Christian site. No Christian site would tolerate you.
Tim,
Show us how much of a Christian site this is. Address your stooge Kevin’s judgemental hate for his fellow sinners.
“Queer” is not a word I would I would expect to find on the lips of Jesus. He died for “queers”, remember.
Tim!
Golly! That Kevin can sure preach the Gospel, can’t he. Wow! I ain’t seen nothing like it since St. Paul. Queers, wicked priests, magic water, he has got it all, huh? He is sure fired up by the Holy Ghost.
Say, I got an idea. Why not show this fantastic, Spurgeon-like preaching to your mom? I bet the scales would fall from her eyes and she would join up with you and Kevin. She would really be proud of how her boy has turned out, huh? She would really approve of the friends you have made, I am sure.
Hey, better still Tim, show a sampling of Kevin’s preaching to your wife and ask her just how cool it is. I bet your wife would be interested in knowing what her husband is blogging about after she goes to bed at night, huh?
Tell your wife you plan on bringing those little blond kids on board with this stuff as soon as they are old enough to come to Christ. I bet she would really get behind you and Kevin. This is exactly the kind of stuff she wants her kids to be exposed to, isn’t it Tim? Good Christian reading.
Tim, this sicko is having a melt down. He used to do some semblance of apologetics but has degenerated to screaming nothing but venom lately. I told you long ago you will have to answer for how you have egged this weak minded simpleton on. Shame on you. You have used him.
Kevin,
Kevin and a “queer” went up to the temple to pray.
Kevin said, “Lord I fast twice a week. I tithe. Thank you for not making me like this queer.”
The queer stood in the corner and beat his breast saying,” Have mercy on me Lord, a sinner”.
One of these men went home justified. It wasn’t Kevin.
Kevin,
By the way, over on Jason’s blog I remember you defending unnatural vice. You support contraception. You say pleasure is what sex is all about and it is okay to render the marital act fruitless. You support the sin God struck a man dead for in gen 38:10. You believe man can disregard God law for marriage and sex. You have no right looking down your self righteous nose at the folks you deem to be “queers”. Take the plank out of your own eye, pal.
Luther said contraception was a form of sodomy. Calvin condemned it too. You defend it.
Jim, nfp renders the marital act fruitless in your opinion. Because from your perspective its non intent for children. I have been married for 29 years and have yet to have a fruitless marital act. I would say every marital act is fruitful. And yes the incredible pleasure that God gives in marriage is a blessing. Iow God intended us to enjoy sex, I am free in Christ.
NFP doesn’t render. Period.
The”incredible pleasure” you speak of is the same as sodomy.
( Luther said it. Not me. )
Jim, you miss my point. Catholic Priest are in an awful un natural position. Homosexuality rampant in the Priesthood is at least greatly affected by the inability to marry. It must concern you ? I guess one way to look at it is that it will increase the sale of indulgences and masses. The church is running low on money? Jim, we need to pray that these men getvsaved from that system. Thats a serious thing.
Tim,
I double-dog-dare you to show Kevin’s postings to your wife and your mother.
I copy his stuff from your site and pasted it to his own minister in Phoenix.
It disgusted him.
Jim, I want to be very seious with you. Lets put our differences aside. I am not judging these men. My heart breaks for them. The Catholic church hid their sin. Listen Jim your church is made Magisterium and Priesthood is made up of sinners like you and me. They arent infallible in their lives or their pronouncements. They are mere sinful men like us. Until they are willin g to repent things will get worse. But they are infallible, so theycant repent of their false doctrines and sins. Luther said God had saved him from a church of saints. There is consequence for sin Jim in all of our lives. God will not put up with Rome forever. Have a good day.
Kevin,
” I am not judging these men. My heart breaks for them.”
I remember how you accused Mikel from Nigeria of being from a 3rd world country too.
You are one sweet, loving racist and hater of “queers” aren’t you Kevin.
Lurkers,
Do any of you see anything of Christ in Kevin Falloni’s postings?
Why does a husband and father of four entertain this psychotic babbler on his site?
Because Tim enjoys the esteem and respect of being a scholar and gentleman. He needs to Kevin to do his dirty work.
Even on Greenbaggins ( hardly a Catholic blog! ) they have taken to deleting his sick statements upon being asked. Only Tim encourages Mr. Falloni’s ravings. Ask yourselves why.
Jim,
I have been blogging for six months now. In that time I have not only seen occasional improvement in Kevin’s tactics, but also a desire to do better and occasional repentance when he falls back into hyperbolic rhetoric. That he relapses into hurtful invective, I do not deny—nor do I impute purity to your motives in continuing to offer to buy rosaries for my lost mother. I have a high degree of tolerance either way, as you might imagine.
I once spoke at a conference on the errors of Rome and gave a talk entitled, “Is the Roman Catholic Church in league with the devil”? The answer to that question is yes. World Magazine originally ran an advertisement for the conference and the next month published an apology for running the ad, because so many Catholics complained. I was once scheduled to speak about the apparitions of Mary on an allegedly Protestant radio station in Phoenix. The morning of the scheduled show, I received a call to cancel the show because the Archdiocese was breathing down their necks. I was once scheduled to do the same thing on a radio station in Birmingham, but under the same pressure, that radio station withdrew the invitation unless I agreed to appear in the studio with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, which I did.
My point is that the Gospel is offensive to Roman Catholics, and even some Protestants work against the Gospel in order to receive the approval of Roman Catholics. I am not such a Protestant. All of the offense—pretended or otherwise—taken from White Horse Blog, is not really about shutting down socially offensive behavior. It is about shutting down the Gospel. If Kevin had never existed, my very politely and respectfully written comment this morning that the homosexual priesthood is an effect of Eucharistic adoration would still be considered so vile, so beyond the pale, so reprehensively offensive and scandalizing to Roman Catholics that even modern-day Protestants might insist that I take it down.
I will not.
Let me leave you with a parable that you will find quite delicious:
I will continue to provide the manure necessary for Kevin’s growth. If you think I will be grieved or chagrined when you respond that my blog is manure indeed, you do not know me very well. The manure to which Christ refers is His own Word. Do with that what you will.
Kevin, you are as welcome to remain here as Jim is. Walt’s advice is quite good. I took decades to receive it—learn from my mistake.
Best regards to all.
Tim
Tim,
About 5 days ago on Green Baggins Reformed blog, Kevin make a remark totally unrelated to the subject being discussed. He interjected, “Catholic increase in grace at the trough of the mass”.
Due to the large number of remarks submitted, this slur flew under their radar and the posted it for all to see.
When I saw it I emailed the blog owner and he immediately jerked it.
Tim, is your practicing Catholic mother a sow? Does she grunt, snort and root in a pig’s trough?
Kevin implies she does.
I think I understand your hatred for the Virgin Mary. You hate your own mother. If you didn’t, you would have zero tolerance for what Kevin posts on your blog.
Peace
Tim, I re read this post tonight and it brought me to tears. I really appreciate your patience with me. I appreciate your faith in me. I have had little of that in my life. I’m actually not used to it. I come form a really bad background, and even though I have been a Christian for a long time, old habits die hard. Please accept my apology for harsh rhetoric I again resort to at times. There is no doubt the power of someone’s words is in their witness. And i have failed badly at times at this. I know I’m a clinging symbol. I extend my apology to anyone I have offended. Thanks.
Kevin, you are always welcome here. I trust that any offended parties who have read your apology here will take Christ’s words to heart: “And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.” (Luke 17:4).
Tim
Jim, uou are Mikel. Is Jason’s blog still going. Nick spent a volume on how Reformed theology is wrong about us being justified by Christ’ s obedience. He used Rmans 5:19 whuch says that we are justified by Christ’s obedience. Phi, beta, kappa just like your other philosopher friends at CtC and Jonathan who tried to tell Tim the death sentence that came from Adam was asresult of natural moral, when it was judicial. Go hang out with your buddies Jim who have heaven and earth mixed up and justification and sanctification. Phi beta kappas all of them.
Jim, just so you know, you got me kicked off every Catholic blog, and now you are are doing using your methods going on Greenbaggins and here. If you succeed and Tim wants me to go, I want you to know I will do whstever Tim asks me to do here. I support this site and Tim because I feel he is doing God’s work to expose the error of Roman Catholicism and share Christ’s gospel. I share the desire to see Catholics saved. I tell all Protestants and Catholics to come here because I believe God is doing a great work thru this ministry. And I believe you are here Jim because you see ex Catholics who studied the truth of God’s word and the Spirit of God lifted the veil that they saw the gospel which is the only thing that can save a man’s soul.
Kevin,
” I want you to know I will do whstever Tim asks me to do here”
Yeah, just like you went peacefully from Jason’s blog when he asked you to please go. Exactly how many phony names did you use to sneak back on?
If Tim were to ask you to go, you would accuse him of betraying the Deformation, off reverting back to Romanism , off not being a comrade or some such just as you did to Eric and Robert when they didn’t get behind your extremism.
Lurkers,
in order to get rid of Kevin Falloni, Jason had to shut down his blog. This pushy ranter is like the drunk who is asked to please leave the party. He keeps trying to sneak back in through the windows.
Tim isn’t going to ask Kevin to go. He needs him to do his grunt work. Tim would never tip his hand by saying “priests are queers” although he would like to. That’s where Falloni comes in. What did Stalin call people like Kevin? Useful __________.
Jim,
It is not my opinion that all priests are queers. However, when members of a group exhibit certain behavior and attributes such that the occurrence of those traits within the group deviates measurably from the occurrence of those traits in the general population, the whole group is often described by the behavior of the members who exhibit that trait. Thus, basketball players are “tall,” even though not all basketball players are tall, and jockeys are “short,” even though not all jockeys are short. This is called stereotyping, but stereotyping is not sinful. It is a helpful tool used broadly in society to aggregate billions of complex social interactions into fewer more manageable macro relationships and interactions.
A short man may be offended at the tendency for people to ask him if he is a jockey, but the question is not a sinful question—in fact it is a very reasonable one. A tall man may grow irritated because so many people ask him if he played basketball, but the question is not a sinful question—in fact it is a very reasonable one. The problem for the short man (in the first example) and the tall man (in the second example) is that his irritation is based on his own internal perception that the same person keeps asking him the same question that he has already answered over and over. That response is sinful.
If you walk into a Home Depot store in which all the employees are wearing orange shirts, it is hardly sinful for you to walk up to a man wearing an orange shirt and ask him which on aisle the nails are to be found. You may discover that he is not a Home Depot employee, but it was no sin to ask the question. But if he is offended that people keep asking him that, he probably needs to stop wearing orange shirts when he goes shopping at Home Depot.
What compounds the problem of homosexuality among priests is not simply that it occurs with a higher statistical likelihood among priests than among the population at large, but also that according to the priest’s professed beliefs, it ought to occur at a dramatically lower rate among them than among the population at large. Thus, the issue here is not like a tall person who is wrongly assumed to be a basketball player, or a short person who is wrongly assumed to be a jockey. Rather it is the issue of finding a short person who actually is a basketball player, and a tall person who actually is a jockey. The issue of homosexual priests is like finding a basketball league in which most of the men are short, or a jockey union in which most of the men are tall.
Therefore, if a priest is asked if he is homosexual, instead of getting angry or offended, he ought rather to look into the Scriptures to find that homosexuality is a “vile affection” with which God inflicts people because they refuse to worship Him and they “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image” (Romans 1:23-27). If God might open the priest’s eyes, perhaps the priest might reason accordingly:
But such reasoning requires that the priest be regenerated first.
As I have said before, many Roman Catholics believe that if they just worship the Eucharist more, the scourge of the homosexual priesthood will disappear. But the Scripture indicates that the scourge will simply increase. The real cure to the homosexual priesthood is to repent of the idolatry of the Eucharist.
For those interested in learning more about Rome’s league of short basketball players, this PBS episode of FRONTLINE will be very eye-opening: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secrets-of-the-vatican/
Tim
Tim,
Do you know the ratio of ( married ) Protestant ministers to priests that sexually offend?
I do.
Tim,
“It is not my opinion that all priests are queers. ”
Are you a queer Tim? Are you hiding behind your marriage? Queers go incognito, you know?
Tim, nobody is a “queer”. There are men and women who suffer from a same-sex attraction or a homosexual orientation.
I have no doubt many of these folk lead chaste lives in conformity with the Church’s teaching. You and Kevin should put a bar of soap in your mouths.
Kevin,
My comment does not detract from the excellent analogy (ie., Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.) used by Tim in explaining the issues effecting the Roman priesthood.
Your zeal is becoming a bit much in the use of your words which “appear” to have the intention to inflict pain, criticism and contempt for Jim and Roman Catholics in general. I believe that we have a biblical right to focus the harshest criticism at the leaders of Rome. Although we are not Ministers called of God to preach against this Antichrist, we do have warrant to warn others about the Romish leadership as an example in Scripture with Jeremiah:
And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever. ***Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the Lord.*** Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. ” (Jer.3:11-15)
My suggestion is to spend more time thinking about how you intend to inflict pain on your adversary, and remember:
“***Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.*** And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. ***(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.***” (Rom.11:5-8)
Antichrist will not last through the forthcoming 30 years of vial judgements, and will be dramatically reduced in influence even with her growing global political influence. Stay tuned.
Thank you, Walt.
Indeed, and amen. As surely as the Antichrist must go to perdition, the Lord will yet call His elect out of her. Jim may be one of them.
Because the effectual call of His people is in the hands of the Lord, and “The wind bloweth where it listeth” (John 3:8), we are called to persuade men and preach the Gospel, but whether they be persuaded to believe is not left to our devices or to our stammering tongues. That is why I am satisfied to provide facts and preach the Word. The Spirit may be pleased to regenerate one soul and harden another, each according to His good pleasure and His own decrees from eternity past.
Your shepherding remarks to Kevin are quite appropriate. Many many years ago, men advised me in the same way, and I ignored them for a very long time. I wish I had not delayed so long in taking their advice.
Thanks,
Tim
Scotland might succeed from the Union, Walt.
Walt, thanks I accept your words and do better. My zeal is a challenge for me at times. Walt, I just cant seem to get over a relgion that brings our Lord down. One that takes away from the sufficiecy of what He accomplished. And one that exalts men over God. Ill do better.
Tim, that was a great post and analogy. They worship theccreature rather than the creator who is blssed forever amen. They worship God in an unacceptale way. Horton said man’s problem has always been idolatry.
Tim, and Walt, you can trust I heed your words. God is teaching me these things. Without love I am a clanging symbol. I come from a really tough background and what seems like just reasonable communication my wife tells me is harsh at times. Forgive me. Im sorry. Its hard sometimes because Jim and some others have called me an sob, ass, told me to go hang myself, troll, oaf, etc.
Kevin, you wrote:
“Forgive me. Im sorry. Its hard sometimes because Jim and some others have called me an sob, ass, told me to go hang myself, troll, oaf, etc.”
The temptation and trial we face is always real to each of us. It is the Lord sanctifying us. Think about this:
“And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Lk.22:44)
How would you knew within the next 72 hours you had to literally and physically take the punishment upon yourself for the sins of all the elect? Do you have any sin Kevin in your life, past, present or future, that you want to have dumped on yourself in judgment? Do you mind if I give the weight of all my sins to you as well? Tim has some sins to give to you? Jim has some sins too? Your wife has some sins to place upon you?
Think of the agony the Lord felt because he was about to place upon Himself all the sins of the elect. He knew that His death and resurrection would legally defeat all our enemies (inward and outward) and that He would legally purchase for us every grace needed to overcome those enemies.
We are now more than conquerors through Christ who loved us (Rom.8:37). We can now begin to walk victoriously in Christ’s victory over temptation, sin, and enemies (even in our state of present imperfection).
According to Rom. 6:1-2, 6-7, because we have died to sin with Christ (we legally died to sin with Him when He dies on the cross), therefore, we are commanded in Rom. 6:11 to account ourselves as dead unto sin and alive to Christ every day in al of the temptations we face, in order that sin might not reign in our mortal bodies (Rom.6:12). Rather we are to yield and present ourselves (our minds, our hearts, our eyes, our ears, our hands, our feet, our entire bodies) to Christ in prayer as those who are no longer legally under the power of sin, but who are legally under the power of righteousness (Rom.6:13).
This is not possible in our own mere determination, for we see that it is God who works within us both ***to will*** and to do His good pleasure (Phil.2:13). But our earnest desire and willingness to overcome these temptations, sins, and enemies is the very work of God within us.
Jim, and his Roman Catholic brethren do not believe in this justification by faith alone, through Christ’s works alone. They don’t see the agony Christ faced to legally defeat all your, mine and their enemies once and for all. They must help Christ accomplish His perfect obedience, and look to themselves for justification and sanctification.
See this difference between Rome and Westminster. It is a quote from a document I have explaining the distinctions.
a. According to Rome justification is a change in the moral nature of a sinner. According to Rome justification is not a judicial act of God whereby He objectively imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner and declares him to be righteous on the ground of Christ’s perfect righteousness, but rather a moral transformation by God whereby He subjectively cleanses the heart of sin and corruption and renews man within by giving to man the righteousness of God. This confusion blurs the biblical distinction between justification (an objective judicial act) and sanctification (a subjective moral transformation), thus removing the judicial nature of justification. Just as our sin was imputed to Christ, so His righteousness is imputed (not infused) to the believing sinner.
Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (CCC, p. 536, #1989).
With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us (CCC, p. 536, #1991).
It [i.e. justification–GLP] conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy (CCC, p. 536, #1992).
Justification entails the sanctification of his whole being (CCC, p. 537, #1995).
Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man (CCC, p. 544, #2019).
b. According to Westminster justification is not a subjective moral transformation, but rather an objective judicial act whereby God imputes to the believing sinner the perfect righteousness of Christ and declares him to be righteous. Westminster correctly distinguishes justification and sanctification.
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF 11:1).
Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners (WCF 11:3).
I suggest you focus on your own sanctification rather than the justification of others….the later will come easier when the former is your focus.
Tim said ” and even some Protestants work against the gospel in order to gain approval of Roman Catholics.” I want the people on this site to know this is so true. It would be very easy and comfortable carry on in our relationships with our Roman Catholic friends and never say anything. Is this what God wants? I think not. How many of us will he ask someday that we broke bread, shared life, had fun with all our Catholic friends but why didn’t you share my gospel with them? Over the last 2 years my wife and I have lost manny of our Catholic friends because we made a decision to lift the lid on those relationships and approach them with the errors of their church and the gospel. I decided to write a 10 page paper titled ” A biblical repudiation of the doctrine of Justification in the Roman Catholic church.” Debbie, who used to come here, and my wife’s best friend from childhood, her maid of honor, and here husband were the first 2 friends I asked to read my paper. We have traveled our whole married life with them and were very close. They live in Indiana and whenever m 91 year old mother had an occasion they would drive down to my home tow in Illinois to be with us. Since we live in Scottsdale we would take every chance to see each other. Debbie and her husband were the most loving people and our best friends. He is the President of Catholic schools in their towns and are entrenched in the Catholic community in their town. So after my mom’s 90th birthday party I asked them if I could talk to them and give them my paper. The first thing he said to me was I can’t discuss this I don’t know the scripture. He got upset with me. When we got back to Scottsdale I sent them my paper. It was like dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Debbie told me I was defiling their worship and they couldn’t read my paper. Then they finally read it and all hell broke loose. It started 1 year of emails of which she prayed 5 2000 year old exorcism prayers over me. Here was this “devout” loving Catholic woman erupting at a paper sharing the gospel. It was here that my wife and I realized what spiritual warfare in deciding to live where all Christians should live, on the front lines of the truth. Unfortunately ECT and most Protestants are to busy with there material lives to care. Every time I drive by the Catholic church next to my house I can only think about the people who are being deceived right into hell. Yes there are believers there, but they aren’t the ones following the doctrine of the church. I shared the gospel in a Sports bar i frequent here 6 months ago with a member of this Catholic church. He came back a week later said he had believed for the first time in his life by faith alone that week. He had decided to leave the Catholic church. He said he had never heard the gospel. He is now ministering to his whole family. When we went thru this with my wife’s best friend Debbie, i told her I will never get in the way of your relationship with her. I left her decision to her. Needless to say she has decided to let go of her friend for the sake of the gospel. Unless we are willing to leave Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Friend, are we worthy of the Kingdom. A small price to pay to see that friend in glory, where the real banquet is. The fact that the catholic church does not teach the “free gift of eternal life” should make us dedicate our lives to change it. God has chosen his elect, but we should sure be unlocking the jail cells as we are told in hopes that he will have mercy on ours. “For what profits a man to gain the whole world and yet forfeit his soul” K
Tim, I read an interesting thing today on Turrentinfan. Aquinas took Aristotle where Aristotle would have never gone. You can’t separate substance and accidents. IOW you can’t have a large and white. It must be a large and white something. So much more for Hocus Pocus. Have you read Gary Willis book Why Priests?
Jim, I didnt know thatcJason shut down his blog. But I hardly think I was the reason. It was the inmates running the assylum over there. He left the blog ( not that he was there much) and allowed to many people to run it. He has more important things Jim like being a the former Reformed Pastor turned Catholic rock star. We would say he went out from us because he was never of us. I look at all these men like him and Scott Hahn as not surprising, because they never had faith. The writer of Hebrews characterizes the nee for the physical as no faith. When Jesus told Nicodemus to be born again, he said how can I go back into my mothers womb. He didnt have faith, hence the need for the physical. My rule Jim is read Roman doctrine believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. We dont get tobheavenbeating anything, we get there by faith. Without it, it is impossible to please God. Roman Catholics who go back to the trough to eat increases of their salvation actually confirm their lack of faith. Eating His body and drinking His blood is faith. To miss this in John is to be the jews looking for thecphysical. When asked what was the work of God we must do, Jesus said this is the work of God that you believe. Ex opere operato the work that worked. Jim, dont follow guys like Jason, Scott Hahn, Bryan Cross, they are chamelions who have no faith. They are seeking the physical and the limelight. God wont honor that. Trust me, I played all over with many famous bands, made allot of money. It means nothing. Only the gospel means anything, faith alone in Christ alone. God bless you.
Tim and Kevin, ( and Walt too I guess),
The gay marriage and political movement is just a spin off from the two protestant innovations of the 1960s, no fault divorce and contraception.
Try to deny it. Trash “queers” all you want if it makes you feel superior.
Jim wrote:
“The gay marriage and political movement is just a spin off from the two protestant innovations of the 1960s, no fault divorce and contraception.”
There is a lot of truth in that statement for certain. However, my father was a dedicated Notre Dame graduate and Catholic, and he had no problem with no fault divorce and contraception…prior to the 1960s.
I know many modern day Catholics who have no problem with no fault divorce, contraception and gay marriage. I also know that a vast majority of protestants support contraception, and many have no idea what is no fault divorce except they are no longer married because they fell out of love and touch with their spouse.
I’m a single, never married man. I endeavor to speak with single Christian women who have been divorced (more than once) and it is not easy to explain to them that no fault divorce means something to the state and their lawyer, but it means nothing to the Scripture. Not an easy subject to win any invites to the local Christian protestant single dance. You gentle question their divorce, and it is a serious offense to their sensibilities. You question contraception, and they think you are from mars.
I’ll agree with you Jim on these points…in many respects.
Walt,
I bet if you google around you can find a talk given by now Catholic/former Protestant minster Steve Woods on the blight of divorce and remarriage among Protestant ministers. This blight explains the failure to preach against this salvation-costing sin from the pulpit.
Divorce,contraception, sodomy, fornication, adultery, masturbation, prostitution are all equally condemned in the Bible.
Only sex , open to life, within marriage, is not met with death in the Bible.
Kevin’s attempt to condemn persons of homosexual orientation is like the guys in prison who murder sex offenders yet beat up and sodomize weaker inmates.
Its a case of the pot calling the Kevin kettle black.
Jim wrote:
“Divorce,contraception, sodomy, fornication, adultery, masturbation, prostitution are all equally condemned in the Bible.
Only sex , open to life, within marriage, is not met with death in the Bible.”
This is correct. Some sins are worse than others by degree of punishment and the public nature.
Fortunately, for those of use who are justified in Christ, all those sins are forever, legally defeated. We no longer have to be held bondage to these sins.
I think the point is that if one is a Priest, and is justified in Christ alone, they would find even the through of homosexuality a wicked sin and not participate in any underground, nor public display of such behavior. The the Priesthood was truly an ordained calling in the Scripture, and all those men were effectually called and regenerated, the numbers would be less than 1% in homosexual lifestyle. It would certainly not be 20-60% by some accounts.
Don’t get me started on the Protestant churches, and their ministers. We are in a period of enormous backsliding over the last 300 years, and half these “ministers” (or more than half) have never even heard or read about the reformation.
Jim, right, homsexuality wasnt a problem until Protestants made it so in the sixties. Except Paulndidnt get the message because he addressed in Romans 1. And God punished it at Sodom and Gommorah. Nice try! And Jim I enjoy total sexual freedom in my marriage in all enjoyment before the Lord. Only you would condemn marital bl iss and support the homo that is chaste in the rest of his life. Remember my rule Jim. Listen to what Catholics say and believe the opposite and arrive at bibkical truth.
Kevin wrote:
“Only you would condemn marital bliss and support the homo that is chaste in the rest of his life.”
This is not what he said Kevin. He believes it is more a medical condition that someone can maintain being chaste. Jim does not make a distinction between the homosexual desire of the mind and heart as being a fruit of sinful lust, but rather something one can live with and be just fine and free if kept to themselves.
The problem with this liberal view is that it does not work this way and reality, and we have witnessed thousands of priests worldwide go after young boys due to their inability to control their lusts for men. What we see is that in Rome, of all places, it is even more open and accepted with bath houses, and underground networks of Priests who have liberty to “don’t ask and don’t tell”. This is not acceptable for men of God by any definition except for within the confines of the Vatican.
Kevin and a homo went up to the temple to pray.
Kevin said, ” I fast twice a week, I tithe. Thank you Lord for not making me a homo like this man”.
The homo stood in the corner and beat his breast saying, “Lord have mercy on me a sinner”.
The homo went home justified. Kevin, well Kevin, already has his reward here on Tim’s blog.
Walt, in an earlier post Jim told me that having sex in marriage for enjoyment was sinful. Then he said that in another post that basically homosexuality with a Priest was acceptable if the rest of his life was chaste. All sex in marriage is pure before God, and homosexuality wheter in deed or mind is sin, last time I checked. Frankly, its not something new under the sun. Sodom and Gomorah were parading their sins in thecstreet, much like today. In Italian we have a saying, la storia si repeta sempre. It means history repeats itself. Sin has no respector of generation. Walt what you may know or not know about Jim is he holds to sinful sex I marriage and the make a statement that sounded like to me justification for homosexuality in the Priesthood. Just my take. Thank you for your posts today.
Ha! Kevin! Ha!
“Walt, in an earlier post Jim told me that having sex in marriage for enjoyment was sinful.”
If you can find that quote and copy and paste it here, I will send you $100.00. I will send Tim a check and he can forward it on to you.
If you can’t do so, show us what an honest man you are and admit you misquoted me.
No, I will send you $500.00.
Walt, not to get to personal but you said you were single. We know allot of great single christian gals here in Scottsdale, and they are beautiful. Let me know if I can help you out bro. K
Walt,
Run! Kelvin wants to introduce you to his sister!
Now the Independents will admit of none but such as can give a particular account of their conversion. But this can never be, for the devil will have his tares amongst Christ’s wheat, until the harvest of the Lord.
Richard Cameron, ‘Lecture on Matthew 18:1-17’ in Sermons in times of persecution in Scotland, by sufferers for the royal prerogatives of Jesus Christ, ed. James Kerr (Edinburgh, 1880), p. 390.
Jim, im not condemning anyone. You are not going to turn this back on me. But Im not going to letyoubget away with saing that when Im not supposed to have sex unless my goal is to have kids everytime, ridiculous. And then turn around and defend hom I sexuality. You said divorce is salvation costing. Nothinv separates a believer from the love of God. My point is you want to hammer at married people who use contraceptives but defend gay Priests. Im not letting you get away with it. I agree with Walt that Protestant churches have their own problems. Many liberal ones arent even God’s church. But Rome gives the Eucharist to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Rome cant discipline her own people. Most Jesuit Priests are Budhists. So church that wont discipline her heritics shouldnt be lecturing.
Kelvin,
“. But Rome gives the Eucharist to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. ”
So? If the Eucharist is merely what you and Tim allege it is, so what?
Kevin!
Home boy! Amigo! Bro!
Over on green baggins they are trying to throw me off the blog!
I need you to come over and put a good word in for me so I can stay.
Please. You know I would do it for you!
Jim, I just put in a good word for you over there. lol
Kevin,
Et tu Brute?
Kevin,
I just figured it all out! The guy named Hugh over on GB got me thinking.
You say you were not ever exposed to Catholicism growing up, that you aren’t an ex-Catholic.
I also remember you saying you had two church going Catholic aunts.
Have you ever seen Dinesh D’Souza’s video on how Obama is working out his father’s hatred for the West?
So, the father you idolize was at one time a Catholic. Yet, unlike the whorehouse madam who sends her daughter away to be educated by nuns in a convent school, he never taught his sons to believe .
Have I hit a nerve? Am I on to something here Kev?
All is clear now.
Lurkers,
Don’t bother scrambling and scrolling around on this blog looking for the statement Kevin alleges I made on the pleasure of sex in marriage being sinful. Kevin knows I never said it. He is lying. His belief system says it is a good and meritorious act to undermine the whore of Babylon by any means including bearing false witness. Anyone who has followed this blog for any period of time knows Kevin is not a serious Christian but merely a hate filled individual masquerading as a serious Protestant.
Also, supposing I did utter such nonsense, and you were to find it posted on this blog, what makes you think Kevin will share the bucks with you? And what makes you think I won’t welch on the deal?
Tim,
Why don’t you either try to help Kevin win the 5 c-notes or step up and do the right thing by publicly telling Kevin to get real and quit using your blog for his personal bull$*%@?
How long are you going to put up with him? He discredits your blog. No other blog, Catholic or Protestant lets him off the leash as you do.
Jim,
My blog is sufficiently self-discrediting for the simple reason that I am willing in some cases to re-intertpret nearly 2,000 years of eschatology, move Rome’s apostasy back to the late 300s, and identify Seals, Trumpets and Bowls as almost completely past events (I grant that there is One Seal left, and Two Bowls) and occasionaly correct “experts” in their interpretations of history. If I were to seek the accreditation of Roman Catholics, I would have to do more than silence Kevin. I would have to capitulate to Rome, and stipulate that she has been right all along.
On another blog when Kevin was offending the Catholic participants, there were calls for him to be removed, and some participants even insisted that he go kill himself, and do so quickly. One even offered to provide the rope, with the encouragement to “Just go and hang yourself. Do it quickly.” The demand that Kevin go hang himself was met with silence from the blog administrators.
Yet when one of the participants here felt personally threatened by Kevin, I immediately intervened to determine if the threat was real or merely “perceived.” It was the latter.
That is only to say that there are as many different ways for a blog to discredit itself, as there are ways to be selective in one’s indignation. I will let the readers judge for themselves who has loved Kevin—the one who insisted that he hang himself, or the one who gently shepherded and corrected him as Walt did.
Thanks. You are always welcome here.
Tim
Tim,
” If I were to seek the accreditation of Roman Catholics, I ”
Tim, I am not offering you the accreditation of Roman Catholics. I hold no hierarchical authority in the Church above altar boy. Months ago, I when I first met your blog, I asked you to not allow the Hocus Pocus slur. You laughed at me and said I was playing ‘victim politics” or some such phrase. I had merely asked for the respect a Jew, a Hindoo or Muslim would be given and you refused it to me. At that point, I lost all respect for you too.
When Green Baggins deleted the slur about Catholics at a trough, they were not kissing the” pope o’ Rome’s dago arse”. They were just not stooping to the level of your blog. ( Please, don’t tell me you are more Reformed than them).
There is what is known as coomon decency. There is giving people, all people ( queers included ), what is theirs by right of being made in God’s image. You obviously think that because Catholics are Catholics they forfeit their God given dignity.
(I suppose I am talking to a wall. Judging by the loathsome way you have talk you kids to disrespect your own mother, why should I expect any better? )
As for the abuse Kevin took on Jason’s remember, he was asked over and over to get off the blog and wouldn’t go.
Yesterday I was asked to leave a discussion on Green Baggins by some guys who are stick in the ” Irish need not apply. No Popery here” mindset of yesteryear. I was within my rights to stay as I had not violated posting rules ( according to the moderator ). I could also have continued to crash the blog using my secret pen name ( Guy Fawkes ). Because one can crash a blog does not mean one should crash a blog. I didn’t have to but opted to respect the people ( Protestants are people too Tim ) and fade out. There are lots of blogs out there. I was happy to say sayonara with no hard feelings and move onto another thread.
Kevin would not leave Jason’s but kept interjecting his pedophilia crap, his ranting and exhortations for us to repent and leave the Whore of Babylon, his straw man attacks ( Get Jesus off the cross! ), his “magic waters” slurs, his calling us “smugglers” and said we we “whoring” for grace. etc.etc. While I didn’t like the suggestion that Kevin go hang himself( and should have said so ), Kevin did bring it on himself by practically calling the fellow the “N word” previously. And remember, HE WOULD NOT GO PEACEFULLY!
When I ask you to muzzle Kevin’s vitriol I am merely asking for you to respect your own mother. You know, the woman who carried you for nine months.
I have told you that I copy and pasted stuff from this blog to Kevin’s Reformed minister. He apologized for it.
Have a great day Tim
Kevin,
The bet is off. What is in it for me? Will you promise to leave this blog and never com back if you lose? Is your promise worth anything after your refusal to leave Jason’s blog?
How much money are you going to put up?
Should I be satisfied with just putting egg on your face? I have smeared so much egg on your face, refuting everyone of your errors from the Bible over the last year or so, that if I shoved your ugly mug into a pie shell we could call it a quiche.
This past week you have been telling us what a two fisted dynamo and stud you are by your use of the non-biblical terms “queer” and “homo”. You have accused me of being soft on the sin of sodomy because I don’t get behind your hysteria.
Kevin, you have yet to give a PRINCIPLED argument against the sin of sodomy or the errors of legalizing so called same sex marriage.
Just telling us you find it icky, unsanitary, or kinky doesn’t do it. You have to be able to convince unbelievers in the market-place. You need reasoned arguments, not slurs.
You argue against same-sex marriage like you argue against Catholicism. You slur. You slur like you did on Jason’s when you couldn’t refute a man from Nigeria so you just fell back on an ad hominem and called him a “Third Worlder”.
I think we all have your red-neck number.
Not only does Protestantism in general nor you in particular not have a reasoned argument against gay marriage/sodomy is because you endorse contraception within marriage. You can’t even put up an argument from the authority of scripture because you in particular and Protestantism in general dismiss Gen 38:10 as binding on Christians today.
So, until you can actually put an intelligent sentence together on the subject, quit showing us how you don’t really think or apply the Bible in forming your judgments on homosexuality or any other issue.
This Protestant link may help you or any lurkers who have been scared off this blog by your non-Christian opinions on “queers”.
http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/
Folks,
Here is an article that says what Kevin should say. Notice, there are no “queers” or “homos” mentioned.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/homosexual-acts-cannot-be-approved-or-celebrated-by-the-church-heres-why
Jim, did youbhave bad wine last night. Why the diatribe on me today. You make me out to be someone im not Jim. But Jim, this isnt CtC ( Russia) a catholic blog that kicks people off and deletes opposing statements. Tim operates a true welcoming blog. And Jim im glad your hear. Because this man is exposing the errors of Roman Catholicism to the gullible world. Jimdid you know that Turrentin said the latin word for vicar is like the greek word for anti, as in anti Christ. The woman clothed in purple and scarlet, a religious man who puts himself up as God in the temple. Paul telling the Thessalonians the aposrasy already started, in the church, the one now restraing it was the Roman Empire, but when it fell, the rise of Roman Catholism. Anyone who does not see the Papacy as antichrist, babylon on 7 hills, is under a strong delusion.
Jim, the Protestant argument against men doing unnatural things with other men, namely fornication homosexuality, is Romans 1 says its worst than perversion, its inversion. It is the most base sin going against all God created sex to be, freely enjoyed ond open in marriage, my wifes body belongs to me and mine belongs to her according to scripture. We arent to deny each other except for a time of prayer. So its full on with full bliss , God created it to be enjoyed. Just that statement of not denying leach other tells us sex isnt just for procreation in marriage, but a means of total physical and spiritual, and emotional fulfillment.
Kelvin,
Go read Romans 1 again. It says women have forsaken the natural use of their bodies. ( Could he mean contraception? ) Think about it.
Jim, just to expand what I believe scripture teaches. Certainly the primary purpose of sex in marriage is to be fruitful and multiply. But God creared it to be freely enjoyed in marriage. So instead of nfp, we practicsed aoap. My wife is so hot Jim. The greatest gift God ever gave me. She calls me her philanthropy project. Also, Jim, Tim and Walt have been the most loving brothers. They have been patient with me. When I was under Pastor John MacArthur for 5 years I learned so much. But when I became more Reformed I realized how well knowledged the Reformed are. I am used to bible churches, but since we have attended a Reformed Presbt. Church, Im not sure there is better. I believe many Catholics lurk here, including the apologists, buf they rarely engage because Tim’s arguements are so strong. He’ s no an infallible interpreter, but he is willing to apply proper hermenutics and exegesis. Its prepared before he puts it out. I never forget what MacArthur said about studyinv scripture for 50 years. God opens up new insights to his truth everyday if one is willing to do the work. Jim, this could be the day that you throw the rosaries, scapulars, relics, masses, penances, satisfactions away, and embrace Christ in complete faith. Just like Jesus told the woman at the well, Gos is seeking those who worship in Spirit and truth. The flesh profits nothing. God came to incorporate us into His body by the Spirit, not by the flesh. Blessed are those who dont see yet believe. Come to the fountain of eternal life Jim and drink of the free gift of life. It will cost you your sin, you church, your idolatry, but you will gain everlasting life. “To as many as receive Him, He has given the right to be called children of God. Come to the fountain Jim and drink.
Jim, you said to Tim ” its about common decency” No Jim, its about the eternal destination of souls. I think Greenbaggins made a mistake taking my post down, Understand what the Mass is, the work of the people to merit their salvation. It is like a cow going to the salt trough for ,physical food. It is called the summit lof your salvation. You km now why? LBecause you have to do it often to bbesaved. It is
The greatest abomination to the gospel of Christ. That aperson can do this work and obtain more grace and justice for him and his dead relatives, and to make an atoning sacrifice for one’s sin. It perverts the supper which is done in unity to remember His sacrifice, where He strengthens us spiritually, our faith, and were we examine ourselves and confess our sins. It is a confirmation of grace we have thru faith alone, not an efficacious work on the part of the believer continually, where one merits increases of salvation. Catholics to merit increases of their salvation. 11:6″ if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is no longer grace.
Jim, do you understand hocus pocus are the exact latin words used by the Priest. We didnt make that up. By Rome telling their people that the mass is the summit, it is telling them abandon faith and go to the trough and eat increases of your physical salvation. You must do this work to be saved, thats what your church says. So those that work hard at eating Christ have a chance to atone for their own sins, and those who dont, dont. Of course if John 6 isnt about the Lord’s supper, and its about faith, and eating his body and blood is comming and believing, then Rome’s mass is abominable. Paul doesnt say we have been justifed by eating anything, but we have been justified by faith and his blood.
Not exactly, Kevin. The actual words are “hoc est corpus,” not hocus pocus.
I understand that Roman Catholics find the term hocus-pocus to be quite offensive. Rather they ought to be offended by being asked to bow down and worship what is just a crust of bread.
It is a wafer of death, Jim. I make no apologies for saying so.
Tim
Tim, yes your right, the English words are derived from that exact saying, and take their meaning from it, if Im not mistaken. Its not only that they are worshiping a crust of bread, if thats no idolatry, but Tim the Reformers were incensed with the fact that they took a sacrament which is God’s confirmation of free grace, and made it “the work of the people to merit increase of grace and justice. A means of propitiating their own temporal punishment. This is a complete violation of faith as justifying with anything coming from ourselves, as well as the undercutting the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement which is finished. It violates the gospel in so many ways, and its leads to a wrong interpretation of John 6, which isn’t about the Last supper. Wrong place, wrong time. K
You are are pathetic Tim. A man who hates his own mother is no man.
Jim, and a man who rejects God’s gospel is a condemned man.
Jim, “unless you are willing to hate mother, brother, sister etc. you are not worthy of me.”
Jim, and finally for all the lurkers out there we must look at Hebrews 11 where it says that without faith it is impossible to please Him. The writer of Hebrews says the need for a physical altar, continued sacrifices, physical Priesthood, is a denial of faith. Everytime you see Catholics do all these gyratiions like scapulars, beads, rosaries, prayers to Mary, mass, satifactions, pilgrimages, and other works “to earn lGod’s favor” is a repudiation of faith alone in Christ alone. He never says without love it is impossible to please Him, but without faith it is impossible to please. It says if we have not love we are a claging symbol, something you and I should take heed of when we fail in love, which we do often. Blessed are those who dont see yet believe!
Llearn to spell.
( my double L was a keyboard glitch. what’s your excuse Kevin? )
Scapulars gyrate? Oh my! Do you even know what you are writing about? Ha!
You belong on this blog! What with Tim’s 24 year block-buster work-up on Revelation and your ignorance of Catholicism, you are guys are a riot!
Hello Tim,
I am currently on vacation, but was able to get on the internet this morning and saw the following that you wrote on the 17th:
>>“Waltz” is David Waltz (http://articulifidei.blogspot.pt/ ), who believes he has refuted portions of my analysis simply by quoting Dr. Everett Ferguson’s Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries
Ferguson is an expert in the Early Church Fathers. He and I come to different conclusions—due in no small part to the way in which he defers to Rome’s assumptions when expounding the Fathers. I will demonstrate this in another post, but I’ve read Ferguson, and I disagree with him on several significant points, not the least of which is his failure to contextualize the Fathers within their own frame of reference, and sometimes within the very document he is citing.
Waltz is willing to trust Dr. Ferguson without inspecting the evidence. I am not.>>
For the record, I have been reading the early CFs for over 30 years now and believe that I able to, “contextualize the Fathers within their own frame of reference”, far better than most I encounter on the internet.
Now, with that said, I have been quoting Dr. Ferguson for two reasons: first, his conclusions are virtually identical to my own (which I arrived at years before reading his exhaustive work); and two, he is one of the (if not THE) foremost authorities on the NT and early CF teachings conerning baptism. I suspect/ed that you would never consider my thoughts on the CFs of any value, but I thought perhaps you would not so easily dismiss Dr. Ferguson.
Since I do not “have a dog in this fight”, I did not want to devote too much of my time addressing your novel interpretations. However, it now seems that the Holy Spirit is urging me to be more diligent, and I hope to do so upon my return (Saturday, the Lord willing).
Grace and peace,
David
Thank you, David. Your opinion is welcome here. Enjoy your vacation.
Tim
Tim, a friend of mine who has read Ferguson’s book said it was truncated in that he deals with none of the numerous verses tha says salvation comes thru faith and the regeneration of the Spirit thru the Word. Is that a fair assesment in your opinion? Thx
David Waltz wrote:
“Since I do not “have a dog in this fight”, I did not want to devote too much of my time addressing your novel interpretations. However, it now seems that the Holy Spirit is urging me to be more diligent, and I hope to do so upon my return (Saturday, the Lord willing).”
I’m certainly interested in how you respond to Tim’s quote’s in clarifying what these fathers have written. The evidence seems pretty overwhelming, and for you to say that you the “Holy Spirit is urging me to be more diligent” is very respectful and certainly worth of my reading.
I’m leaving next Tuesday for business in London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Berlin and Houston. My schedule is really going to be very tight but I intend to take time to read your comments. I’m very interested.
David,
( Guy Fawkes is my secret pen name used on your great blog. Don’t let Kevin find it out though )
I love what you mentioned about Tim’s mentor and fellow lapsed Catholic, Wm. Webster. I loved it so much I checked it out for myself. I gotta share this quote from his ” Romanism at the Bar of History” screed with all the lurkers.
“The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers….From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.” (Webster, page 95-96)
Jim, Romans 5: 17 says faith comes from hearing the word of God. James 1:18, 1 Peter 1: 23 supports this. Tim clearly shows thru the Fathers that regeneration by the Spirit thru the Word was the “laver” of washing. Thats why men like Waltz are coming here. They think the Roman font was settled law. Its not. Remember my rule, whatever Roman Apologist tell you believe the opposite and arrive ar biblical truth. Calvin said if we weighed out the evidence with the Fathers it wouulf fall on our side. Basically Mr Waltz is saying because of his experience and expertise, and the expertise of Mr Ferguson we are to accept the Roman position on Baptism. Much more learned me then them have disagreed. Me Waltz will see Tim’s read on the Fathers is solid.
WHAT?!?!
“Remember my rule” Your rule? Kevin, I don’t give a ding-dong about your rule! Ha! Oh Kevin, you slay me!
By the way, how many ways do you spell Falloni, Failoni , Falogna ( as in Balogna )and now Filoni? Is this your long lost cousin? ( Since we have established you do have Catholicism in your background after all. )
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/08/22/popes-personal-envoy-briefs-francis-after-visit-to-iraq/
Jim, accordind to JPII everybody is a RC. Even the Muslim who lives a good life is golden. Stay where you a are and do your best. Rome is more Pelagian today than ever before, and that is saying something. Fetchi b g all the do gooders back to Rome in one Totus Christus. It is a false religion, the fulfilment of the apostasy, a religious leader within the church that puts himself up as God in the Temple. Mystery of sin. No sain man ought to give it a second thought. Antichrist.
Jim, at the council of Trent Rome officially became a former church, although it was before that. Therefore Roman Baptisms of a former church is not valid imho.
Jim, What you say is true. On his blog, David mentioned that William Webster mentioned that in his book.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, this what John 1:12 says ” But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” Now Ji if we become children of God by merly receiving Him by faith, why would you wear a scapular? Why would you do satisfactions? Why would you Masses? Why would you prat to Mary? Why would you pray to saints? Why would you mov ed beads thru your hands? Why would you believe in a church that says to the one who works well to the end salvation is to be offered as a reward to their merits and good works? Jim, Jesus said unless we receive the kingdom like a child, having not achieved anything of value or virtue, we could not enter. He told the apostles after the c rich young ruler walked away, with man its impossible, with God all things are possible. Is it any wonder that Paul who was blameless before the Law like the rich young ruler, wanted to not be found in his righteouness derivedcfrom works, but in Christ’s derived from faith. Only the one who comes empty handed and leaves their righteouness at the door will enter Jim. Roman Catholics arent willing to do this. So every Sunday when you see those dear people going to mass because they have been taught that doing it gains them a merit which entitles them to more”free grace” our hearts should break for them.
David Waltz, I have one simple question for you sir, what does your assessment of your ability to assess the Early church Fathers ” better than most on the internet” have to do with anything. Tim has already told you that he is in disagreement with Dr. Ferguson on many things. You said his conclusions are identical to your own. Thats what Mr Kauffman said in his post, that you have adopted his positions. Sir you continue on about the years of exhaustive work you have done, and how overqualified Mr Ferguson is to be taken as right on the subject. But there are men here who have studied many years these issues and come to different conclusions. And I suspect that you would never consider Mr Kauffman’s position as of any value. So why are you so easily dismissing his position, since that is what you said Mr Kauffman did with Mr Ferguson? My knowledge of tim is that he considered Mr. Ferguson’s position with the kind of detail he normally does with all his writings. And my guess is you have not completely considered Mr Kauffman’s position for very long, if at all. And Mr Waltz you have a dog in this fight or you wouldn’t be here. You told us you adopted Mr Ferguson’s position which is opposite of Tim’s. Peace Mr Waltz
Tim, where did you ever get the novel idea that God regenerates men by his Spirit thru the Word and not thru baptism? Did you not know that the Spirit blows how andcwhere Rome decides ex opere operato? Paul said he was not sent to baptize but preach the gospel. I wonder how many people heard the gospel off the lips of Paul and were regenerated by the spirit who were never baptized? Hundreds, thousands? What did Paul ever do without the Roman font. And what did the Spirit do without being subservient to a Priest? Possibly blow where and how He wills and regenerate believers. This series is so good Tim, it awoke the dead.
awoke the dead? It put me to sleep.
” I wonder how many people heard the gospel off the lips of Paul and were regenerated by the spirit who were never baptized? ”
None.
Kevin,
Go check out GB. I just set you straight on this issue.
Tim,
I also understand Webster started his own church. Typical unraveling of Protestantism.
I also heard this Summer Fr. Richard Bennett died.
If Dave Hunt is still alive, he can’t be for long.
That just leaves you.
kevin,
Over on Green Baggins I left you a couple of posts on Romans 4. I think, since Tim gives you deferential treatment to slur my religion, I won’t be addressing you on this issue on this blog. I am at an unfair advantage here. You can fight dirty and I just have be your punching bag, Tim plays favorites.
Over on Jason’s you were treated nicely until the end when you started thinking it was okay to slur us like you do here.
Since day one you have disrespected my position and have hidden behind Tim’s skirts.
If you care to duel, come over to another blog, any blog. I am done with you here.
As an ex-traditionalist Catholic, I can say that Jim or his other fellows who are his tutors, like Stellman and company, would close his mouth and be silent at least, if he would be honest enough to come in touch with the facts. Because being a traditionalist, even a sedevacantist before, I can say you can’t be a true Catholic, faithful to the Magistery, withoiut being a traditionalist, but as it happened with me, when you become a sedevacantist, if you search for truth you realize that the gross contradictions of councils go beyond Vatican II, and you see contradictions between popes, and popes falling into heresy. Is hard to sum up, but the idea is there are many dogmatic documents in the latest council which grossly contradict previous infallible documents. There are those who maintain the continuity between old teachings and new ones, by way of development but that is refuted by infallible old teaching and so is silly. Also the idea of the Vat II teachings being no dogmatic but only pastoral is easily refuted because there is no such thing in the Roman Catholic Church as “only a pastoral council” which can teach heresy or a false moral teaching. Every true General Ecumenical Council of the Church involves doctrine, morals, and a pastoral approach to explain the Church’s theology to the faithful, and to the world. “Pastoral” refers to how the true and infallible teachings of a General Ecumenical Council are taught and explained to the faithful and the world. to be continued
Sorry to be out of topic but I want to go to the deeper basic issue to give a lesson to these charlatans, who not only are false teachers but individuals who respond and react arrogantly like Jim.
Purporting to be a true Pope, Paul VI used the most forceful language possible at the close of the 2nd Vatican Council on December 8, 1965 to bind all Catholics to everything “synodally decreed” in Vatican Council II. This included everything in all the Vatican II council documents. The idea that Paul VI purported to make anything in the Vatican II documents optional for Catholics is disproved by simply reading his concluding address to the Council. Here is the relevant paragraph in that closing document of Vatican II: “We decided moreover that all that has been synodally decreed is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.”
So to come out of the mess of contradictions, like those in the Syllabus of Errors or other infallible magisterium documents, one is forced to embrace sedevacantism to escape absurdity. But without going further into history, he also sees that there are contradictions to be a traditionalist of this form, because there should be always a pope.
Because of limitations, I cannot put many examples but stick to the religious liberty.
Vatican II contradicts the already infallibly defined teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject of religious liberty for individuals and groups in the external forum (public forum). The Roman Church’s clearly defined teaching on religious liberty in the external forum is that no individual or group has the RIGHT to spread false doctrines or false moral teachings in public, according to the Magisterium’s teaching. Vatican II’s document on Religious Liberty states the opposite: that every individual and group has the right to spread false doctrines and false moral teachings in public, and that the state must protect this alleged right. This is a false moral teaching in Vatican Council II, and one that involves heresy according to Pope Pius VII, Pope Gregory XVI, and St. Augustine
The problem, as we shall see, is that Paul VI attempted to bind Catholics to a false moral teaching which directly contradicts the already infallibly defined teaching of Pope Pius IX (among other Catholic authorities) on the issue of religious liberty in the external (public) forum. Since the Church is both infallible and indefectible in her teaching, then the only possible explanation is that Paul VI was not a true pope at the time he signed the Vatican II documents — for no true pope could sign and promulgate a document of an Ecumenical Council which contained a false teaching on Faith or Morals.
Jim, I havent hid behind anyone or anything. Im frank. Paul says salvation is not of ourselves and not of works. That puts Rome in a false religion category. It doesnt take a degree from Columbia to understand this.. Ravi Zacharius says read Romans 10: 9, 10, those that deviate should let you know. Faith has always been the entry way into salvation, not baprism.
If you want to discuss ‘baprism” go over to Green Baggins and read my posts earlier today on Imputation in Romans 4.
The Church’s teaching on religious liberty in the external (public) forum was infallibly defined in the document, Quata Cura, issued by Pope Pius IX in on December 8, 1864. Vatican II was concluded on December 8, 1965 (exactly 101 years later), and all the documents of Vatican II were ratified by Paul VI, who employed all the language which a true Pope would employ to exercise his full Apostolic authority. However, the teaching of Vatican II and Paul VI on religious liberty in the external forum contradicted the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX promulgated 101 years earlier.
Since the Church is claimed to be indefectible, a later true Pope cannot contradict an earlier Pope on an infallible teaching.
Vatican II uses the same verb as the Council of Florence to teach just the
opposite
The Council of Florence dogmatically defined that any individual who has a view contrary to the
Catholic Church’s teaching on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Trinity, or any one of the truths about Our Lord or the Trinity, is rejected by God.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy
Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes
and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy
Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds
opposing or contrary views.”
Vatican II vs. The Dogmatic Council of Florence
Nostra Aetate #4 of Vatican II: “…the Jews
should not be presented as rejected or cursed
by God…”
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate #4, Original Latin:
“…Iudaei tamen neque ut a Deo reprobati
neque ut maledicti exhibeantur…”4
Dogmatic Council of Florence: “Therefore it
[the Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes
and declares to be outside the Body of Christ,
which is the Church, whoever holds opposing
or contrary views.”
The Latin of the Council of Florence:
“Quoscunque ergo adversa et contraria
sentientes damnat, reprobat et anathematizat
et a Christi corpore, quod est ecclesia, alienos
esse denuntiat.”5
In making the infallible dogmatic declaration that all who have a view contrary to faith in Our
Lord or the Trinity are rejected, the original Latin of the Council of Florence uses the word
“reprobat,” which means “rejects.” It is from the Latin verb reprobo, which means “I reject” or
“condemn.”
But here’s the bombshell: In Nostra Aetate #4 (Vatican II’s Decree on Non-Christian Religions) to
declare exactly the opposite, Vatican II uses the same verb! Vatican II uses “reprobati,” which is
the past participle passive of reprobo – the very same verb that the Council of Florence used!
This means that Vatican II and the Council of Florence are talking about the exact same thing –
they use the exact same verb – and they teach exactly the opposite! The Catholic Church
defines that all individuals (Jews, etc.) who have a view contrary to Faith in Christ or the Trinity
the Church “reprobat” (rejects). Vatican II tells us that the Jews should not be considered as
“reprobati” (as having been rejected). Vatican II could hardly contradict Catholic dogma any
more precisely!
There can be absolutely no doubt that Vatican II denies the dogmatic teaching of the Council of
Florence. Although there are many blatant heresies in Vatican II, as we will see, this is the most
specific one. Anyone who would deny that Vatican II teaches heresy, in light of these facts, is
simply a liar.
Thank you, Leonard,
You are quite right. It is very difficult for Rome to put forth a systematically integrated, continuous, unbroken line of truth since the apostolic era. It is quite difficult to reconcile all the different councils and popes.
Tim
I dont know at this point if I could continue with ecumenism and other areas or I should stop here for the moment but there is so much to say on the same lines. At least with me and other cases I know, when I posted such similar lines in a Novus Ordo page, while I was a traditionalist, there was no response. When I tried later to write them in a thread in Dave Armstrong’s FB page, he deleted the comment and removed me from his account.
Leonard, John 1:12 ” But to as many as receive Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” Thats the only right that matters bro. 1 John 2:27 says we havve an anointing from God and have NO need for anyone to teach us, and what He teaches us is true and isnt a lie. In the end bro its the Spirit of Truth who teaches us. Dont worry about the inntramural fights of a false church. In the end the church can lead us to faith, but it is the Spirit who blows where and how He wills and brings Christ to the heart. A church cant save you, only faith alone in the Word. God bless.
Leonard,
Why in the world would you bring your concerns here?
In your wildest dreams, do you think Kauffman of Falloni can help you? Where do you think they stand on Eugenio 1v? Paul v1? Any council?
Why are you crying on the shoulder of a non-Catholic?
Imagine that the R.C. Church is false; how does that make Protestantism true?
You think you see contradictions between dogmatic decrees of the Bible? Dude, welcome to wonderful world of Protestantism!.
Contact a Catholic source for crying out loud and get the hell out of here before you get even more screwed up.
Leonard,
That should read, “dogmatic decrees of popes.
Are you for real? Are you pretending?
This is a joke right?
Leonard, Dave Armstrong, Jason Stellmam, Jim, Bryan Cross, Catholic Nick, are all false teachers in a church that has historically silenced dissenting voices. I have been called an sob, troll, told to go hang myself, and thats just Jim. Here is the quesrion, why do you submit to a false church, with a false gospel, a false Magisterium, who deletes your comments? Read Tim’ s articles here, he is a former RC and exposes Rome’s many errors. If you are willing to look deeper than Vatican 2cLeonard, you will find on the long war on the truth, the most deceptive, and relentless enemy has been Roman Catholicism. Its apostate. If you will give Tim a fair read, you will see. God has controll of the heart and conscience of man, not the church. You are looking to fallible men to solve differences in Rome. Its a delusion. God bless you.
I am not bringing my concerns since I am no more Catholic, but want to bring these contradictions to light so that you and everyone would see clearly the false faith of the RCC
so where are you now in your faith search? Do you still believe in God? Do you pray?
Leonard,
Amen ! Sedevacantists (Society of St.Pius V) helped me leave all things RC. Keep the light burning.
Leonard,
Click on to called to Communion and follow the discussion on Tradition underway. There is a Protestant guy named Robert that has been using your arguments to stay out of the Church for years. Maybe that blog can help you. This one sure can’t.
It only has Tim trying to muddle history and blaspheme the Blessed sacrament and Kevin slurring.
Jim, Leonard will find the same thing on CCC that all Reformed find, deleted comments. They purport so many ” degrees” over there, yet they kicked Tim off the site and he has never posted there. Why ? Because they can’t argue his charge that CCC got the fathers backwards on ” the laver of washing” have said it was the Roman Font, when Tim clearly shows it is the washing of the Word by the work of the Spirit. The Spirit regenerates thru the Word, and baptism is a sign and seal. CCC got it wrong.
Leonard,
The Robert guy know he should enter the Catholic Church. He is frantically trying not to. He practices contraception and knows he and his wife will need to stop it and repent. Maybe his wife runs the show and has him by the short hairs. Who knows.
I hope you are not feigning confusion too.
Jim, dont worry about whetercRobert uses prophylactics, you out to be worried about the abominable death wafer you are taking.
Jim, God’s true church has always been where the true gospel is preached and the sacraments administered rightly. Paul said the apostasy had already started in the church, that it was a religious man putting himself up in the church as God, usurping the titles of god. Hummm! wonder who that could be? Scarlet and Purple. 7 hills, Babylon. Hmmm! Rome.
Kevin said,
“Jim, God’s true church has always been where the true gospel is preached and the sacraments administered rightly.”
God’s true church is the faithful elect, and I can assure you in both Scripture and history they have not been where the true gospel is preached at all times, nor have them been where the sacraments are administered rightly.
The elect have been isolated and practically invisible to the visible church in history. That is why I would love for Tim to see if he can trace the Scriptures out of the early Church and identify who may have had access to faithful testimony while the rest of the “foolish and blind” chased after Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Walt, I agree that God’ church are his invisible elect. I was just answering Michael’ question with Calvin’ s defenition of the visible church. No doubt his church ischis elect, those chosen to faith in Christ.
Leonard,
Ask Our Lady to guide you.
Jim said:
“Leonard,
Ask Our Lady to guide you.”
The unfortunate thing with that request is that she is dead.
LEONARD says–
” Nostra Aetate #4 of Vatican II: “…the Jews
should not be presented as rejected or cursed
by God…”
Dogmatic Council of Florence: “Therefore it
[the Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes
and declares to be outside the Body of Christ,
which is the Church, whoever holds opposing
or contrary views.”
There is no contradiction in the two Councils. The Jews are still anathema and outside the Body of Christ because of their unbelief. Vatican II holds that even though they are outside the body of Christ, they are not considered rejected or cursed by God, they just don’t belong to the Church. At some time in the future, the Jews will eventually come to Christ.
Leonard,
Boniface viii, Eugene iv and Innocent iii all said things that are latched on to by Feenyites to justify their views.
James Likoudis is an expert in schismatic groups. Contact him. ( Not Tim Kauffman! )
Kevin Failoni says–
” Paul said the apostasy had already started in the church, that it was a religious man putting himself up in the church as God, usurping the titles of god.”
Can you give me the book, chapter, and verses where Paul said that? I would like to read them so that I may see that what you said is true. Thanks.
Bob, 2 Thesalonians 2:3
thru 17. Verse 7 says it was already at work ” within the church”All Reformed confessions use this scripture, among others that leave no doubt the “man of perdition is the Papacy.” Please look up Francis Turrentin’s exegesis of this being the Roman Papacy. Also read Tim’ stuff here. God bless.
Kevin wrote:
“Please look up Francis Turrentin’s exegesis of this being the Roman Papacy. Also read Tim’ stuff here.”
Oh my…now you have uncovered gold here. Turretin is among the first sets I read, and it is just absolutely incredible. I was young and hungering for knowledge, and he just blew me away.
His Institutes of Elenctic Theology is the among the most important works anyone can ever read.
Tim’s works in research is gaining good ground. I would encourage him to shy away from too much what Rome has to say, and focus on where the paths go to faithful testimony. However, Romish controversy is always fun.
Walt, said ” Tim’s research is gaining ground” Yes indeed Walt. Ive been praying that God will continue to expand his ministry. There is somethingvgoing on here and its a good thing. It would be interesting tofind out his support system and what his plans are.
I perceive that it has been a misunderstanding of my words and references, or what was my point. So I have to clarify the whole thing, who I am and what was my point, to all, but especially to Kevin and Jim who have misunderstood me.
To Kevin I say that I am not submitting to a false church, because I did not share any concern as Jim thought, and the opposite is true. I just raised this issue thinking that having been myself a traditionalist Catholic I knew enough to challenge these pop-apologists that influence Jim, or Bob here, because the conclusion of these contradictions refute the claim of Rome for being infallible. I said that I first discovered that to be truly a Catholic one should be a traditionalist sedevacantist, believing that the latest popes are not true popes and that Vatican II is a false council, but later I discovered that even beyond Vatican II, there are gross contradictions between councils and popes. I am now a reformed believer in a PCA church, after a deep research on the claims of RCC and reading several books which convinced me that Rome is not what it claims to be as the one true church but is a false and heretical church.
And I can see the mindset of these indoctrinated Catholics who believe that if you forsake the true divine faith you just end up in atheism, by reading Jim’s words about where I am in my search and if I pray or believe in God.
But I am sorry that I did not made this clear and so you were confused, whereas Jim was anxious to fish me immediately thinking that I am swimming in the waters of search and confusion, whereas my search has happily ended with the glorious reformed faith which I realized I had not understood and appreciated when I “converted” to Rome, and my only search now is to grow more and more in the faith.
Leonard, Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Leonard,
If you think the RC Church is wrong, how does that make the PCA right? They came 15 centuries after Christ.I can see becoming an atheist before becoming a Protestant.
The PCA is Bible Only. Where did they get that Bible? From the Catholic Church you say is untrustworthy.
Your position is self refuting.
Listen to this link http://trinitytalkradio.com/2012/06/stellman-sola-scriptura/, an interview with a reformed pastor who speaks on what I experienced to be true, about not being having a solid and robust reformed faith before.
Can someone tell me what ergo means? thanks
It’s Latin for “therefore.”
Tim
Thanks Tim.
KEVIN–
Here’s your cite of Paul:
2Th 2: Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with [fn]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word.
If what you claim is true, then he is pointing his finger at St. Peter being the first pope. Or if you believe the papacy did not exist, then who? If the son of destruction was working in the church at that time, wouldn’t he be dead now? Frankly, I don’t see how anyone could exegete what you claim from what Paul said here.
Maybe Paul said more somewhere else? If you can find it I would like to read it. Thanks.
Bob, are you the Bob from Jason’s site? Your argument isnt with me but with theological history. Reformed confessions basically say you would have t be delusional if you dont see the Papacy fulfills this prophecy, in fact in can be no other. Please take time to read Tim’s articles that deal with all of this. And maybe Tim can tell you exactly which ones because he has written many and I cant direct you. Consider this. The church Fathers, and Tim has documented all of them were frightened that the Apostasy would come within the church and they wouldnt know it. They warned as such. Paul says to the Thessalonians the Apostast had already started. We know its a relgious man in the church who puts himself up as God in the church. Hmm? Wonder who that could be? What man do we know that claims the offices of Christ, being called Holy Father, Vicar, head of the church. The Papacy has usurped these titles from God. Then it says ” now being restrained” The Roman Empire restrained him untill it fell in 4th century. What a coincidence thats when the monarchial episocopate showed up, the Papacy. Please read Tim’s article on this site. The rise of Roman Catholicism. The Reformers saw in this prophecy the very antichrist in the Papacy, and Reformed confessionals as well as Lutheran book of Concord have maintained this position. Not that one specific Pope is the fulfilment, but all of them. Please read Tim’s articles, he goes thru Daniel, Revelations, and other prophecies. Spurgeon said that anyone who cannot see this has a great delusuion on them. The list of Popes and Papal succession reads like a bad movie. Noone has dealt biblically and church historically like Tim Kauffman. Take advantage of this site Bob. God bless.
Bob,
Kevin said, “Please read Tim’s article on this site. The rise of Roman Catholicism. ”
Tim’s spin is crazier than the Mormon’s on the Apostasy. And just as lacking in authority. The poor man wasted 24 years of his life with this nonsense. Only Kevin will ever read it.
Kevin wrote:
“Jim, Leonard will find the same thing on CCC that all Reformed find, deleted comments.”
Yes, I speak from experience. YOU WILL NOT get a balanced discussion over at CCC. That is the most one side side I have ever experienced on the internet. Every comment deleted that challenges even basic commentary in their articles.
I would not spend any time on CCC…those guys are really weird.
Walt, I have been kicked off 3 Catholic blogs, one of them 3 times. They are mutual admiration societys. They want no descent. The exist solely to connvert Reformed, Protestants in general. What a surprise. When bloody Mary re instituted the Catholic church in England, they removed all bibles from the churches. 800 Pastors fleed to Geneva. 300 were killed. All for the sake of the Pope and his religion. Nothing has changed under the sun. In the long war on the truth, the most relentless and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism. The true church has always known this, even thru thecdark ages.
Walt,
and we get a balanced discussion on this blog? Surely you jest.
Jim wrote:
“Walt,
and we get a balanced discussion on this blog? Surely you jest.”
You certainly do get a balanced discussion here. The opposing view to Tim’s commentary is allowed. Over at CCC all my posts were removed before published except for the first one. They allowed the first one, but the other two were removed before being published.
Tim also has the feature on his blog to restrict any comment, and he said that he has not restricted anyone from posting. That give a balanced discussion.
CCC does not allow contrary views to its published opinions except by those who they vet as being semi supportive to their view.
KEVIN–
You said:
“We KNOW its a relgious man in the church who puts himself up as God in the church. Hmm? Wonder who that could be? What man do we know that claims the offices of Christ, being called Holy Father, Vicar, head of the church. The Papacy has usurped these titles from God. Then it says ” now being restrained” The Roman Empire restrained him untill it fell in 4th century. What a coincidence thats when the monarchial episocopate showed up, the Papacy. ”
You said this and nobody else on this blog so I will address you, ok? How is it that you KNOW these things to be true? Give me scripture verses to prove it. I would like to read them for myself. If it is in the Bible, then I can have something concrete to work with. Any thing else is just conjecture–no matter if it comes from you, or Tim Kauffman, or Francis Turrentin, or R.J. Rushdooney, or Jack Van Impe. If it is not in the Word of God, then it is anybody’s best guess. I used to love reading, as well as watching, Prophecy in the News with J. R Church and Gary Stearman. Cool stuff, man. But when I sat down and really thought about it, it was really all conjecture. There was no proof at all.
By the way, do you know what a Vicar is? Jesus certainly does.
Bob, could you identify antichrist ?
I can. He is living now somewhere in Arizona. His mark is KF.
Bob, while were at it, show me a sacramental system where one merits increases of grace and justice to be saved? Scripture verses please!?
Show me a document put out by the Catholic Church that says we merit by the Sacraments.
Bob said ” by the way do you know what a Vicar is” Its not the Pope. Popes die and how could the church live if its head were dead? Think about it man.
Bob said ” If its in the bible then I have something to work with, otherwise its conjecture” Why do you suppose Paul wrote that in 2 Thess. 2. Would it be to warn us. Did you want him to give the name of the Pope. You still wouldn’t believe it. Because you have your Roman glasses on, and they aint coming off. We know specifically that the apostasy was already at work IN the church. We know this was of great concern to the ECF’s. We know its a religious man who EXALTS himself above EVERY so called god or object of worship, and puts himself up in the church as God. All the Reformed thru the ages and the Lutherans saw it and its in all the confessions. What a surprise that a Roman Catholic wouldn’t recognize it. Thats what the rest of 2 Thess 2 said, God has sent a strong delusion over you to believe what is false. Catholics love the Roman Catholic church, in fact they worship it. And man you defend it blindly.
Bob,
Get Ready!
Any moment now Kevin is going to launch into a bunch of offensive and blasphemous invectives against the Blessed Sacrament or Mary . (Then he will preen before Tim and Tim will give him a lollipop. )
Actually, Kevin is overdue on screeching, ” Pedophilia!”
When Kevin gets stymied and can’t think of an intelligent remark he falls back on slurs. It’s all he’s got. That is the reason and only reason he can’t stay on a blog for long. And by his post above to Walt, he is proud of it. He thinks it proves that he is another St. Paul or John the Baptist, a firebrand for the Gospel.
Because I don’t want to incite him to blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament or mock the Blessed Mother, I have learned to avoid these topics. It is why I no longer even try to do apologetic on this blog. I just scoff, scorn, sneer and snark. This blog is a good place to vent but there is no serious apologetics here. Just a food fight.
So, enjoy Kevin but don’t think you are going to get through to him. He is a troll who likes a spit fight and nothing more.
Remember Bob, we Catholics can’t win a fight on this blog. Not because we don’t have the stronger arguments. We can’t win because we can’t slur Protestantism. They have nothing holy to insult or ridicule. We, however, are easy targets and so at a disadvantage. We can be insulted, our Faith derided and what we love the most spat upon. What can we do to them? Nothing. Even if we could, it is not our style.
Jim wrote to Bob:
They have nothing holy to insult or ridicule.
Response:
This is a veiled attack on Vatican II. Jim hates the impositions of this council and wants a return to prelate-sanctioned insulting.
Decree on Ecumenism….Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord’s Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.
The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism and by hearing the word of God. This shows itself in their private prayer, their meditation on the Bible, in their Christian family life, and in the worship of a community gathered together to praise God. Moreover, their form of worship sometimes displays notable features of the liturgy which they shared with us of old.
Their faith in Christ bears fruit in praise and thanksgiving for the blessings received from the hands of God. Among them, too, is a strong sense of justice and a true charity toward their neighbor. This active faith has been responsible for many organizations for the relief of spiritual and material distress, the furtherance of the education of youth, the improvement of the social conditions of life, and the promotion of peace throughout the world.
Bob,
Kevin doesn’t accept my word so you have to tell him we INCREASE in grace by receiving the Sacraments. We don’t MERIT! ( The Bible says so ).
He should read the Council of Trent and the Bible.
Before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, merit is impossible.
I am soooooooo tired of telling him.
It is your turn.
And ask him for some scripture verses that say the contrary.
Better still, ask for a scripture verse that says we have to show a scripture verse for everything we believe.
Jim said Kevin doesnt accept we dont merit.” Catholic Catechism section 2001 merit” recompense owed” Trent ” to the one who works well to the end and believes in God, salvation is to be offered, not only as a gift, but as a REWARD to theit MERITS and good works. You were saing Jimbo? Learn your doctrine. When you do a sacrament you earn a merit,, Grace is the means of exchange on the Roman church’merit system. So you do your level best, God gives you grace. Thats law. If God gave grace for an action or ability it wouldnt be a “gift” but a reward.
Kevin,
Go read what post #305 on GB. You still don’t understand the difference between MERIT and INCREASE.
Jim, incidentally, Bob had no problem accepting doctrines found NOWHERE in scripture such as, Queen Mary, Mediatrix of all graces Mary, Intercessory Mary, praying to Saints, scapulars, pilgrimages, the sacrifice of the Mass, a sacerdotal system of meriting continuance in grace, penance ( Jerome’s misunderstanding of another word “repentance”) Holy Water, Genuflection. OT Priesthood which Hebrews says has become obsolete etc, yet he has a hard time understanding how Reformed confessions look at 2 Thessalonians 2 and come up with a man who exalts himself above every so called God and act of worship, and puts himself up in the church as God could be the Pope who calls himself all the titles of God. Then he demands more proof. Can you say hypocrisy! We should forgive him, he was once a Pentecostal. Ending up there shows some error in judgment.
What’s your problem with genuflection? The Bible says every knee shall bend before Jesus. Unless you can prove from Revelation ( no, Tim’s writings are not divine revelation Kevin ) that the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is wrong, you are just spouting an opinion.
What about scapulars? What is your problem with them? Jesus wore a sacramental. The hem of his garment wad blue or purple tassels. Remember the woman who just wanted to touch the hem of His garment?
The scapular of Carmel incorporates us into the prayers of the Carmelite Order. Do Protestants pray for one another? Yes?
Then, in principle, you have no leg to stand on.
Holy water? Since you deny Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, of course you have a problem with it.
You don’t believe Mary is a queen? You must not believe her Son is a King.
Intecession of saints? Read Revelation. The 24 elders offer our prayers.
Pilgrimages? Jesus and His family did one every year.
The Mass isn’t a sacrifice? What was the Last Supper? A farewell dinner?
Yadda-Yadda-Yadda
Hello again Tim,
Back from my vacation…
Want to sincerely thank you for you warm welcome; it is greatly appreciated, and sets the tone for what I hope will be a charitable and fruitful dialogue on the topic of baptism and the early Church Fathers.
Now, with that said, I think it would be very valuable if you and I could come to some sort of agreement on a working definition of ‘baptismal regeneration’. For me, ‘baptismal regeneration’ is the belief that the ordinary means by which God grants the forgiveness sins, bestows the new birth and adopts one into His Church, is through the sacrament of Christian baptism (i.e. baptism by water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). If the subject is an adult, faith/belief in the bare essentials of the Christian faith (i.e. what many of the CFs termed the regula fidei ) is necessary for such baptism to be efficacious. One necessary clarification is that belief in baptismal regeneration does not exclude the possibility that God sometimes uses other means than sacramental baptism for the above salvific outcome (e.g. baptism of blood, baptism of desire/repentance).
Looking forward to your response…
Grace and peace,
David
Thank you, David. I am glad you enjoyed your vacation. Before we get to a definition of “baptismal regeneration,” I would like to address an earlier comment. You noted that
It is not a necessary clarification, because we are both aware of it. I do not deny, nor am I ignorant of, Tertullian’s affirmation of a martyr’s baptism by blood. Nor am I ignorant of Rome’s teaching on “baptism of desire” and “anonymous Catholics,” etc. In my interpretation of On Baptism, Chapter 16, I attempted to understand Tertullian by reading Tertullian. In chapter 16, he makes no reference to martyrdom, but does refer to two baptisms, and he refers to people receiving both, in either order:
In one case, believing the blood is one baptism, and being bathed with water is the second. In the other case, being bathed in water is one baptism, and drinking the blood is the second. No mention of martyrdom. If he is speaking of martyrdom here—and he does not mention martyrdom in his entire treatise On Baptism—it makes little sense to speak of a “baptism of water” occurring after a “baptism of blood.”
He does, however, mention of drinking blood as a means of baptism, and there is also mention of “belief in the blood.” This is consistent with his Answer to the Jews, in which he identifies a baptism of belief which occurs by drinking by faith the baptismal water that flowed from Jesus’ side:
That Tertullian allowed baptism by faith in the blood before baptism by water is evidenced by his discussion on the baptism of the “learner” prior to the administration of the water:
Because the “learner” has the same “hope or reward” and the same “dread of judgment” as the person who has been baptized with water, clearly Tertullian understood that “belief in His blood” stood in lieu of the fontal bathing, because he knew the “learner” had already believed unto salvation. It was in this very context that he wrote,
Thus, the “learner’s” salvation had already been accomplished by belief in Christ’s Passion, before water baptism, sealed as it were by a “baptism of fear,” by which his heart had already been bathed.
Now you may disagree with my attempt to understand Tertullian, but I did exactly what you and Ferguson did: I went to other works by Tertullian in an attempt to understand his mind. The strength of your position is that in On Baptism, Chapter 16, Tertullian appears to use the same verse (Luke 12:50) as he does in On Modesty, Chapter 22. The weakness of your position is that in On Baptism, Chapter 16, he does not mention martyrdom, he has Christians going through both baptisms in either order (which is not possible if the baptism of blood is martyrdom), and he appears to cite Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen” as a proof text: “to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood” (On Baptism, Chapter 16). If he has martyrdom in mind by the baptism of blood here, then he has made martyrdom mandatory for salvation, for that is the context of Jesus’ statement: “many are called, but few are chosen.” Many are called, but only the chosen receive eternal life. Those who are called, but not chosen, are bound hand and foot and cast “into outer darkness” where “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” If your reading of Tertullian is correct and we are called by water but chosen by martyr’s death, then his meaning must be that you can be called by water baptism, but if you are not chosen by martyrdom, then you will be bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness. But because Tertullian saw water baptism as a sealing of a salvation that had been accomplished already by faith, but also understood that not all who are baptized in water have faith, his statement “to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood” makes a little more sense.
That is merely to say that Tertullian’s reference to martyrdom in On Baptism chapter 16 is not the open-and-shut case that Ferguson makes it out to be.
I’ll return to your statement on defining baptismal regeneration later today.
Thank you,
Tim
Thanks, David,
I agree that in Roman Catholicism, baptism is the “ordinary means by which God” grants many things, but I would hesitate to define baptismal regeneration as “the ordinary means by which God grants x, y, z and bestows the new birth.” I would prefer to say simply that ‘baptismal regeneration’ means that God imparts to the water the power to regenerate to spiritual life. It may do many other things like adopt, remit sins, justify, etc…, but those are “baptismal adoption,” “baptismal remission,” “baptismal justification,” etc…, respectively. Since we are only talking about “baptismal regeneration” it is best not to include in the definition things that are not regeneration. Additionally, saying that “baptismal regeneration is the ordinary means by which God bestows the new birth” is defining an active verb (i.e., “regenerates”) as if it meant merely the application of a status (i.e., “bestows the new birth”). When my mother gave birth to me, she gave birth to me. She did not “bestow birth,” as if I simply had a new status and she had “conferred birth upon me,” or had presented me with “birth.”
Just so, “baptismal regeneration” is not “bestowal of new birth by water”; it is “new birth by water.”
So for now, why not just say that ‘baptismal regeneration’ means that God imparts to the water the power to regenerate to spiritual life?
Thanks,
Tim
Hello Kevin (Falloni),
In your 09-18-14 post directed at me, you wrote:
>>David Waltz, I have one simple question for you sir, what does your assessment of your ability to assess the Early church Fathers ” better than most on the internet” have to do with anything.>>
Me: It is a correction of Tim’s earlier assertion that, “Waltz is willing to trust Dr. Ferguson without inspecting the evidence”; I have done a considerable amount of inspection of the evidence, and my so-called “trust” in Dr. Ferguson (right or wrong) is primarily (though not exclusively) based on this inspection of the evidence.
>>Tim has already told you that he is in disagreement with Dr. Ferguson on many things. You said his conclusions are identical to your own.>>
Me: I said that, “his conclusions are virtually identical to my own”; you left out “virtually”.
>>Thats what Mr Kauffman said in his post, that you have adopted his positions.>>
Me: Most, but not all.
>>Sir you continue on about the years of exhaustive work you have done,>>
Me: I mentioned my 30 plus years of reading the CFs only once, so I do not understand the, “Sir you continue on about the years of exhaustive work you have done” comment. Further, I suspect few would construe 30 plus years of reading the CFs with, “years of exhaustive work”; at the very least, I certainly do not do so.
>>and how overqualified Mr Ferguson is to be taken as right on the subject.>>
Me: I do not think that anyone is “overqualified” when it comes to CFs.
>>But there are men here who have studied many years these issues and come to different conclusions.>>
Me: I am sincerely looking forward to some charitable and thoughtful dialogue/s with all those men who have done so.
>>And I suspect that you would never consider Mr Kauffman’s position as of any value.>>
Me: I admit up front that I have grave concerns with any person who proposes novel interpretations concerning certain doctrinal reflections. I was raised in a communion whose very existence is based on a number of novel interpretations, but came to realize that a massive burden of proof rests upon those who think that their novel interpretations are the correct ones. But, to say I, “would never consider Mr Kauffman’s position as of any value”, is inaccurate.
>>So why are you so easily dismissing his position, since that is what you said Mr Kauffman did with Mr Ferguson?>>
Me: So far, I have only dismissed three of his assessments: his belief that neither Justin Martyr nor Tertullian taught some form of baptismal regeneration, and that Tertullian’s remarks concerning “baptism of blood” does not have any reference to martyrs. Perhaps he can convince me, by further interactions and reflections, that I have been mistakenly done so.
>>My knowledge of tim is that he considered Mr. Ferguson’s position with the kind of detail he normally does with all his writings.>>
Me: It seems to me that you are suggesting that Tim has read Dr. Ferguson’s, Baptism In The Early Church cover-to-cover at least once; if he has, that is good news, though it does make me wonder why Tim thinks Dr. Ferguson (or any other patristic scholar) has been so mistaken about the early Church Fathers teaching on baptism.
>>And my guess is you have not completely considered Mr Kauffman’s position for very long, if at all.>>
Me: No need to “guess” on this matter; in my first post at Articuli Fidei on this topic, I stated when I began to consider Tim’s position. I have read all five of his posts on baptismal regeneration that have been published here, as well as the threads he linked to in those posts; and though I am not aware of any other works on this topic he may have published, I would certainly be willing to read all of them.
>>And Mr Waltz you have a dog in this fight or you wouldn’t be here.>>
Me: The “fight” I am referencing is between a Reformed apologist and a Catholic apologist, with each bringing a set of presuppositions that reflect their respective paradigms. I am not an adherent of either of the two paradigms, as such, the “fight” they are engaged in is not mine.
Grace and peace,
David
“What about scapulars? What is your problem with them? Jesus wore a sacramental. The hem of his garment wad blue or purple tassels. Remember the woman who just wanted to touch the hem of His garment?
The scapular of Carmel incorporates us into the prayers of the Carmelite Order. Do Protestants pray for one another? Yes?
Then, in principle, you have no leg to stand on.
Holy water? Since you deny Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, of course you have a problem with it.
You don’t believe Mary is a queen? You must not believe her Son is a King”.
If even “infallible” documents like this are of this level, then is no wonder at all to see pop apologists like Jim (who is following Scott Hahn and other charismatic amauters of CA) reaching such silly conclusions, as if they are sure and true!
Here is an excerpt from Unam Sanctam: We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
Or Pope Nicholas I who saw infallibility in Acts 10:13, Rise Peter, and eat.
Leonard,
You refute the scapular with Unum Sanctum? WOW!
You are really scrambling for nonsensical arguments to stay out of the Church, aren’t you?
Have it your way.
Jim: “You refute the scapular with Unum Sanctum? WOW!
You are really scrambling for nonsensical arguments to stay out of the Church, aren’t you?”
No, have you read it well? I referenced the excerpt from US to illustrate the silliness of your axioms, including the scapular, trying to prove the points, alla Hahn. My point was to say that when one sees the silliness of the Roman hermeneutics in even a considered infallible bull is clear what do you get in pop-apologetics such as yours
David Waltz, thank you for your kind response. You said to Tim” does not exclude the possibility that God sometimes uses other means than sacramental baptism for salvific outcome.” The point of Tim’s articles in the church fathers he cited was the exposing of how CtC interprets the Fathers in reverse. The font of Roman Baptism is not the “laver” of washing of regeneration. That laver is the Word thru the Spirit which produces faith and repentance. The Spirit blows where and how HE wills, therefore salvation and the forgiveness of sins cannot be ascribed to a secondary cause, namely a Priest. This would be the usurping of the Spirit’s prerogative to deliver salvation to God’s elect. God is sovereign over the conscience and the soul, not the church. The church is the recipient of grace, not the provider. Thats the job of the Spirit. Water baptism is the sign and seal, not the laver. We have so many examples of salvation where there is no baptism. Paul specifically points out that he did not come to baptize, but preach the gospel. And he tells us in Romans 5:17 that faith comes thru hearing the word of God. Baptism is promised to the saved, salvation isn’t promised to the baptized. The tax collector was regenerated and went home righteous before he was ever baptized. Again Tim’s point in his article, although they are closely together regeneration and baptism, the first ( laver of washing) must be ascribed to the Spirit thru the Word and water baptism following in natural order. I hope you enjoyed your vacation. I will let Tim explain his own words, but I wanted to give you a response. God bless David
David,
Can you please define for me a bit further this statement?
“One necessary clarification is that belief in baptismal regeneration does not exclude the possibility that God sometimes uses other means than sacramental baptism for the above salvific outcome (e.g. baptism of blood, baptism of desire/repentance).”
As I recall from one of your previous posts you tied (please correct if wrong) that baptism of blood was linked to martyr’s?
I assume that you would consider the thief on the cross was baptized by blood or by desire/repentance?
How do you define baptism by desire/repentance in an ordinary sense, or do you consider this as only an extraordinary event?
Would you say that there are ordinary and extraordinary events of baptism in your sacramental system?
Finally, do you believe babies in the womb have original sin and can be saved without any of your three forms of baptism if they die in the womb?
I’m here till Tuesday.
Walt, whats interesting is Rome sets the standards for salvation. Baptism of desire, Baptism ex opere operato, etc. They remove the sovereignty of God to save His elect. As Tim has said before, none can usurp the sovereign winds of the Spirit to deliver salvation. Faith has always been entrance into this holistic salvation. I’m fine with the Reformed view as you have aptly explained. But to think that the early church fathers intended to wrest the position of the spirit in salvation is wrong. And Tim has shone that. The Spirit does not work at the behest of the church. God is sovereign over the mind and heart and soul, not the church. It is the Spirit that delivers all of Christ’s victory spoils. Romans 5:17, 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18 are clear, men are brought to life by the Word thru the working of the Spirit. The Father is the Author, the Son is plot, and the Spirit is the deliverer. The laver of washing in regeneration is the Word by the working of the Spirit. If we ascribe the font of baptism to regeneration, forgiveness, and faith, what do we do with those who have been baptized and have never known faith. Roman Apologists readily admit there are no instances of infant baptism in scripture, at the most they have households, but this does not guarantee faith. Paul is very clear, he did not come to baptize. Baptism is so important, that in Peters long olivet discourse in Acts on salvation, he never mentions it. Baptism must take its proper place. And i think the Reformed have it right.
Kevin,
I’m not sure what you mean. You wrote:
“As Tim has said before, none can usurp the sovereign winds of the Spirit to deliver salvation. Faith has always been entrance into this holistic salvation. ”
Are you saying that Tim says that Faith is the entrance into salvation, or that you are saying that is reformed doctrine?
Can you look at this website and tell me where you or Tim falls into the camp of ordo salutis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis
KEVIN–
You are so verbose when you don’t have to be. You said:
“Bob said ” by the way do you know what a Vicar is” Its not the Pope. Popes die and how could the church live if its head were dead? Think about it man.”
I asked you a simple question, “Do you know what a Vicar is?”
Well, do you? Another term for the same is viceroy. Do you know what that is? I am asking you if you know what the term means. Please be honest.
You also said:
“Bob said ” If its in the bible then I have something to work with, otherwise its conjecture” Why do you suppose Paul wrote that in 2 Thess. 2. Would it be to warn us. Did you want him to give the name of the Pope. You still wouldn’t believe it. ”
From that same citation in 2Thess2, Paul also says this:
“Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way….So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. ”
I gather from these words of Paul, that the Thessalonians were taught something that is not explicit here about the son of destruction and the one who restrains him–something taught to them before–which was not written in this letter to them. So it must be referred to in the traditions they were taught orally that they should hold firm. My best guess to what that is would still only be conjecture on my part, or anyone else’s part if truth be told and they would admit to it.
You also said:
“Bob, while were at it, show me a sacramental system where one merits increases of grace and justice to be saved? Scripture verses please!?”
Now that is interesting, because the very last verses in Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians chapter 2 says this:
“Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and STRENGTHEN your hearts in every GOOD WORK and word.”
That says to me that OUR good works strengthen us–gives us increase–in love, hope, and grace given to us by Jesus and the Father.
But then that is only my interpretation. What else should you expect from a METHODIST like me, right?
You also asked me:
“Bob, could you identify antichrist ?”
Revelation says this
13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man ; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six .
My guess is that this is the antichrist. That is my interpretation. Do I know who is the anticrist? That would be conjecture on my part. Could I identify him if I saw him? I really don’t know. Apparently from what you say about the Early Church Fathers, they were scared they would not recognize him either. Would you?
Bob, you know the thing that bothers me about you? You have a man here in Tim, who is a former Roman Catholic, a man more knowledgeable than the guys on CCC put together, a man who has a grasp of the roman catholic church, ECF’s, and the Reformed faith better than any I’ve seen, and you haven’t even taken the time to read his stuff. You come here demanding verses and proof for Reformed confessional history on 2 Thessalonians 2, but your accept goo gaga Roman Doctrine that has no biblical support. Look at your interpretation of the verse you cited in 2 Thess. to support the Roman Sacramental system. You can call yourself a METHODIST or a New York Yankee, but dude you bleed Romanism. The word vicar was given to the HOLY SPIRIT by Teurtullian. Someone who works on behalf of , or representative of. The Pope, a mere sinner like ourselves, has usurped that title from the Holy Spirit, the title of Holy Father from the Father ( the bible says let no man be called Father, let alone Holy Father. They are all called Father), and the title of head of the church from Christ. Arrogant. Christ didn’t come to earth to pour out His life for his people to have the Pope steal the glory. He didn’t shed his blood for sins. 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. What are you doing here Bob? So sad, you would come here and not take the time to read all of Tim’s articles. You know your problem Bob, the same one the rich young ruler had. You want to bring your good works with you to justify yourself. He came to Jesus and Jesus asked him a series of questions. Have you obeyed your mother and father? He had perfectly. etc. He thought he needed to do one more thing to attain eternal life. But Jesus told him to sell everything and give it to the poor and follow him. He wouldn’t let him bring any of his works. The apostles then asked Jesus, who then can enter? And He gave an interesting answer. With man it is IMPOSSIBLE. But with God all things are possible. John MacArthur sites Mark 7 when Jesus says unless you come as a child, having attained nothing of value or virtue, you cannot enter. Bob here is what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved thru faith, ” not of yourselves” not of works” And 2 verses later he says we have been save UNTO good works. If you are not trusting in Christ alone for your salvation, you will find the same end that the men who Paul prays for in Romans 10:1. For Christ is the END of the Law “for righteousness” to all who BELIEVE. The best thing you could ever do is take the time to read Tim’s article on justification, Romans 2, The rise of Roman Catholicism, and everyone of them. His interpretation of James 2 is really good imho. God bless you.
Kevin,
Do you also offer bulls, rams or goats to Tim in sacrifice? Or do you just offer your god a sacrifice of praise?
Sheeeeeeesssssssssssssssssh! Tim really likes your cloying worship or he would put and end to it as paul and barnabas did.
Jim I can assure you I worship God thru Christ alone. God’s Spirit bears witness with my Spirit I am a child of God. I do think Tim is accurate in his exegesis. He’s fallible just like all of us. But the Word isn’t. And he teaches the word. To the Law and to the Testimony. And one thing is clear thru his teaching the word, Rome is a false church with a false gospel. And you worship it. Sad! never coming to the knowledge of the truth. I pray you take your scapular off, put the plastic rosary down, quit praying to the mother of Jesus, get the beads out of your hands, quit staring at the box, and look up to heaven where your righteousness is. Faith, by it John says in 1 John 4 we overcome the world. Jesus said in answer to the Jews asking Him what work they should do to gain eternal life, and He said this is the work of God, that you believe. Ex opere operato the work that worked.
Walt, I believe that the Spirit regenerates us thru the Word, effectual calling, unto faith and repentance. I believe this is Tim’s position, regeneration before faith. But Paul says faith comes thru hearing the word of God. We have been chosen before the foundation of the world. Regeneration comes before faith. Faith and repentance are gifts of God. But Paul says in Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved thru faith. The Spirit regenerates us we believe. Faith receives the Righteousness of Christ and thats why i say for Paul it is the entry way into salvation. 1 Peter 1:23 ” for you have been born again not of seed which is imperishable but imperishable., that is the thru the living and enduring word of God.” Reformed doctrine is regeneration before faith. Is that your understanding. I meant to say Tim said the sovereign winds of God blows where and how He pleases. I only meant that baptism doesn’t save us, faith saves us.
Walt, I just looked at the link. I’m in the Reformed ordo and I ‘m sure Tim is also.
The Walt, Im sorry, I should say Im a Calvanist and hold to that ordo, which is Reformed. I believe that is Tim’ position. Hes Reformed. Is that your position?
Kevin, just to be clear. You said:
“I only meant that baptism doesn’t save us, faith saves us.”
Do you believe that Baptism and Faith are both instruments or means of grace?
Neither baptism nor faith saves as the “nature” or “ground” of Justification. Faith is the “means” of justification.
Remember to make distinctions between the “nature”, “ground” and “means” of justification.
The “nature of justification” between the Westminster and Rome is whether one is “imputed” with righteousness (Westminster) or “infused” with righteousness (Rome).
According to Rome justification is not a judicial act of God whereby He objectively imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner and declares him to be righteous on the ground of Christ’s perfect righteousness, but rather a moral transformation by God whereby He subjectively cleanses the heart of sin and corruption and renews man within by giving to man the righteousness of God. This confusion blurs the biblical distinction between justification (an objective judicial act) and sanctification (a subjective moral transformation), thus removing the judicial nature of justification. Just as our sin was imputed to Christ, so His righteousness is imputed (not infused) to the believing sinner.
According to Westminster justification is not a subjective moral transformation, but rather an objective judicial act whereby God imputes to the believing sinner the perfect righteousness of Christ and declares him to be righteous. Westminster correctly distinguishes justification and sanctification.
The “ground” of justification makes a distinction.
According to Rome, in justification “the righteousness of God” in a generic sense is bestowed, rather than “the righteousness of Christ” in a specific sense imputed. This hides the truth that Christ acted as our Mediator in fulfilling all righteousness for us, and that it is specifically His righteousness as our divine-human surety that is the ground of our justification.
According to Westminster, the only ground of our justification is the righteousness of Christ (i.e. His active obedience in fulfilling the law of God and His passive obedience in satisfying the infinite justice of God upon the cross).
The “means” of our justification is faith, without baptism.
According to Rome, faith plus Baptism (and other works associated with sanctification since justification involves sanctification as well).
According to Westminster, there is only one instrumental means of justification: faith alone. That is not to say that one who is justified will not exercise good works. It is only to say that faith in Christ alone justifies before God, but saving faith will always be evidenced by the natural fruit of obedience to God’s will.
Hopefully these distinctions help, as some people claim that faith is the ground of our justification and salvation rather than the means or instrument.
Walt,
I think if you look in your Bible you will see BAPTISM SAVES YOU NOW.
Walt, I agree with everything you just said. Yes I believe that faith and baptism are a means of grace. Yes I agree faith is the means of justification. Christ active and passive obedience imputed to us is the grounds of our justification. Im sorry for not being clear on that. I know Rome sees regeneration as a process of human cooperation. We as Calvinists are monergists believing from all of salvation from Predestination to glorification is all a work of God. I know and have read all WCF’s quotes that you provide, and they are so well written. It helps to read them again. Horton says the Reformers saw effectual calling and regeneration together. You really have to wonder what exactly Christ did for Catholics. Even through many of their theologians held to a view of penal substitution, it isn’t in the present day winds of the church. IOW God doesn’t help us achieve His favor with His help, but Christ lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. Roman Catholics don’t understand that the Law requires perfection. So they see the gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is compensation for their lack, not realizing the Law requires perfection. To confuse Law and Gospel is to corrupt faith at its core. And that has always been the seed of corruption in Christianity. So In Rome Jesus is a gentler kinder Moses with a softer Law, as if loving God with all your heart weren’t a monumental task. We make a distinction between Law and gospel. The Law is written by nature on our hearts, the gospel is the good news that is not in us by nature, but revealed from heaven Mat 16:17, John 1:13. The Law leads us to Christ. The gospel is supernatural.
Kevin,
You said baptism is a means of grace. Be up front. Calvin said Baptism is a means of grace FOR THE ELECT.
Election, a divine decree, determines all for you robots.
Jim, i rather be a robot than a Pharisee.
you are both.
Jim, you said:
“Calvin said Baptism is a means of grace FOR THE ELECT.”
I’ve never heard this before. Can you provide the quote from his writings?
Baptism is an ordinance for the visible church, but all in the visible church are not the elect. Even reading the Bible one time cover-to-cover will show that all those within the professing visible church are not the elect. To claim that all who were circumcised in the OT church of Israel, or all who were baptized into the NT church of Christ will be saved is contrary to the revealed testimony of Christ in Scripture.
Calvin did not teach such a thing so if you can provide a reference it would be interesting to see how you might be reading into the quote something he was not teaching.
Walt,
No I can’t. Not off the top of my mind. I would have to google it and I don’t care enough to do that. I am going by what the Calvinists said on Creed Code Cult.
Also, Dave Anders so. Check outlast Fridays (?) archived show on EWTN. He explains how the Baptists came to disbelieve in infant Baptism due to Calvin running hot and cold on it. Since only the elect got grace from Baptism, they decided to put it off until later in life.
Jim wrote:
“Also, Dave Anders so. Check outlast Fridays (?) archived show on EWTN. He explains how the Baptists came to disbelieve in infant Baptism due to Calvin running hot and cold on it. Since only the elect got grace from Baptism, they decided to put it off until later in life.”
This is interesting, thanks.
However, don’t get me started on the Baptists. They slammed me all the time when I became a Baptist for about a year due to my Roman Catholic infant baptism. They wanted to re-baptize me based upon my profession.
I could not understand why, but at the time I thought the Baptists were among the smartest “bible only” groups as they too claim their total lineage directly to the Apostles. They hold to the same views at the Roman Catholics on trying to map out their history to the Church Fathers, and blow right past, around and love to ignore the reformation.
Once I really started reading the reformers on infant Baptism, and understood what they were saying, I started to argue against Baptist ministers. Then I learned their views on Independent government, and read the Grand Debate out of Westminster where the Presbyterians just slaughtered the independents (in my view), and then learned the history of the anabaptists (Servetus), and Calvin.
Needless to say I take very little stock in what Baptists teach, including MacArthur, on certain doctrines. I agree with his no nonsense style of preaching, but when one is ignorant on the doctrines of baptism, church government and form of worship…they can be Charles Spurgeon or the Pope and still be wrong…yet sincere and have lots of followers. I’ve never been one to follow those who are most popular in any movement, nor who the masses follow.
Walt, John MacArthur is not a Baptist. You seem to make enemies out of people who disagree withyour positions on church government and baptism. Does this have to do with your experience in a Baptist church after leaving RC. I dont agree with MacArthur on everything, but he ie a faithful preacher of the word of God. Christians can disagree on things as long as we believe in the Gospel. I have become totally Reformed and yet MacArthur is a friend of mine and has a special place in my life. Not because of his fame but because he was preaching on mathew 7 the day God called me down at grace church. Sometimes you are hard on people Walt.
Kevin, you wrote:
“Christians can disagree on things as long as we believe in the Gospel. I have become totally Reformed and yet MacArthur is a friend of mine and has a special place in my life.”
I’m not sure where you learned this in reformed doctrines. So you believe the unity of the church is defined by your teaching that we all agree to disagree?
The idea you are totally reformed Kevin is interesting. Where did you get this definition of reformed? Some of the things I see you post here are so far from reformed teaching that I would need to know how you define what the reformed faith means to you.
I’ve always considered MacArthur a baptist, and Wikipedia says he is a Baptist pastor. It is interesting that you don’t think his teaching is fundamental to the Baptist sect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._MacArthur
You think I’m hard on people…wow. Have you heard heard MacArthur preach about people?
Walt,
I remember submitting a link I found online about a particular Presbyterian minister who doesn’t say the words of institution of his Lord’s Supper. Why bother? Only the elect derive any benefit ( grace ) from the Sacrament/ordinance and God already knows who they are.
If the Lord’s Supper does not work EX OPERE OPERATO ( Kevin ) but is contingent upon either divine election, the disposition of the minister or recipient, why bother with it?
So, the same logic for the Eucharist would apply to Baptism wouldn’t it? The words don’t DO anything in either case.
If you think about it Walt, you Calvinists really make faith and repentance superfluous. Actually, you makes the cross unnecessary. The elect never were lost.
Jim wrote to Walt:
If you think about it Walt, you Calvinists really make faith and repentance superfluous. Actually, you makes the cross unnecessary. The elect never were lost.
Response:
Jim should ask us to push it to the outer limits. Calvinists make creation irrelevant because we existed for God’s election before time. Silly Calvinists.
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Eph.1:4)
Walt,
Augustine ( whom you claim as yours ) said election is a mystery as if you take two men and baptize them, only the elect one will be saved although both had been regenerated in Baptism.
Jim,
The doctrine of election is NOT an easy subject to understand. It really takes a lot of reading of Scripture over and over to see it come jumping out of the passages.
Let me give you some passages to consider. Here is a small list of them. There are more that could be used when comparing Scripture with Scripture, but I think you will get the idea that God is sovereign in election and predestination.
If you really spend some time in mediating on these Jim, and with a sincere loving heart to learn what the Scripture means by what it says, I think you will see the argument made by “Calvinists” or the reformed on this doctrine. You may also be blinded to the texts, and not see election or the sovereign nature of god in salvation, but do NOT EVER GIVE UP. You need to set aside your RCC views for a little bit, and really beg the Lord Jesus Christ directly to open your mind and heart to this understanding. Don’t listen to me or anyone…take your cause to the Lord directly and fall to your knees begging and pleading with Him to show you what is true. In time, I have hope, the Lord will open your eyes and you will see what I had to see but reversing a lot of what I was taught was not easy.
Now I see both sides much clearer, and I hope you will too in time. If not, I find it helpful to read your views here as they give me a better understanding of the RCC views.
“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,” (Eph.1:4).
“He hath called us according to his own purpose and grace, before the world began,” (2Tim.1:9).
“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” (Acts15:18).
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isa.46:10).
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth” (Rom.9:11).
“The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,” (2Tim.2:19).
“The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations,” (Ps.33:11).
“My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isa.46:10).
“I am the LORD, I change not,” (Mal.3:6).
“With the Father of lights is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,” (Jam.1:17; Exod.3:13,14; Ps.102:27; 2Tim.2:13; 1Sam.15:29; Isa.14:27; Job23:13; Ps.115:3).
“Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do,” (Heb.4:13).
“He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps.94:9). “When a man goeth into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, that he die,” (Deut.19:5). “God delivers him into his hand,” (Exod.21:13).
“Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things,” (Matt.6:31,32).
“In him we live, and move, and have our being,” (Act.17:28).
“He upholdeth all things by the word of his power,” (Heb.1:3)
“The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD,” (Prov.16:1). “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, like the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will,” (Prov.21:1).
“Thou hast wrought all our works in us,” (Isa.26:12). “My Father worketh hitherto,” (Jn.5:17).
“Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness,” (Ps.119:36). “Unite my heart to fear thy name,” (Ps.86:11). “The God in whose hand try breath is, and whose are all try ways, thou hast not glorified,” (Dan.5:23).
See (Matt.27:1), compared with (Act.2:23), and (4:27,28); (Lk. 24:27); (Jn.19:31-36). For the necessity of other events, see (Exod.21:17); (Job14:5); (Matt.19:7), etc.
“Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” (Ps.115:3).
“I will do all my pleasure.” Isaiah 46:10. “None can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan.4:35).
“I have purposed, I will also do it,” (Isa.46:11).
“As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” (Isa.14:24).
“Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” So that “nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom.8:29,30,39).
“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy,” (Eph.1:4).
“Not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” (2Tim.1:9).
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,” etc., (Rom9:11). “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me,” (Jn.6:37)
“Many are called, but few are chosen,” (Matt.22:14). “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom,” (Lk.12:82).
“What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” (1Cor.4:7). “Are we better than they? No, in no wise,” (Rom.3:9). But we are “predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will,” (Eph.1:5; Jn.6:37-39, 10:3, 13:18, 17:6; Act.13:48; Tit.1:1; 2Tim.2:19; Jam.1:17, 18, etc.)
“By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” (Rom.5:18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,” (Rom.5:19).
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Ps.51:5).
“Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy,” (1Cor.7:14). “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one,” (Job14:4). “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” (Jn.3:3). “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” (Jn. 3:6).
“By nature the children of wrath, even as others,” (Eph.2:3). “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” to wit, in him, (Rom.5:12). “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing,” (Rom.7:18).
“In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” (Gen.2:17). “For as in Adam all die, even so,” etc., (1Cor.15:22). “By nature the children of wrath,” (Eph.2:3). “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,” (Rev.21:27).
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them,” (Gen.1:27). “Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him,” (Col.3:10). “—which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,” (Eph.4:24).
“Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but he hath sought out many inventions,” (Eccl.7:29). “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” (Rom.5:12).
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God tempteth no man: but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust,” (Jam.1:13,14).
“He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2Cor.5:21). “He loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might present it unto himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,” (Eph.5:25,27).
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” (2Corinthians5:19).
“When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand,” (Isa.53:10).
“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities,” (Isa.53:11).
“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” (Heb.9:28). “By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us,” (9:12). “He hath reconciled you in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable,” (Col.1:21,22).
“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins,” etc.: “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” (Rom.3:25,26).
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we were healed,” (1Peter2:24).
“Circumcise the of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked,” (Deut.10:16). “And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed,” (30:6).—“Make you a new heart and a new spirit, for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek.18:31). “A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you,” (Ezek.36:26).
“If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, then shall ye continue following the LORD your God,” (1Sam.12:14). “I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me,” (Jer.32:40).
“Thou hast wrought all our works in us,” (Isa.26:12). “God worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” (Phil.2:13).
“He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ,” (Eph.1:3).
“Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ to believe on him,” (Phil.1:29). “The blood of Christ purgeth our consciences from dead works to serve the living God,” (Heb.9:14).
“O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things?” (Lk.24:25, 26).
“Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad,” (Jn.8:56). “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities,” (Isa.53:11).
“At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world,” (Eph.2:12).
“There is none other name under heaven given unto men, whereby we must be saved,” but only by Christ, (Act.4:12).
“The blessing of Abraham cometh on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ,” (Gal.3:14). “He that believeth not is condemned,” (Mk.16:16). “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” (Heb.11:6). “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1Cor.3:11).
“Of ourselves we can do nothing,” (Jn.15:5). “We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves,” (2Cor.3:5). “We are by nature the children of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins,” (Eph.2:1-3).
“Faith is not of ourselves: it is the gift of God,” (Eph.2:8).
“Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received?” 1Cor.4:7).
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, who are taught to do evil,” (Jer.13:23).
“Believing on him that justifieth the ungodly,” (Rom.4:5). “Being justified freely by his grace,” (Rom.3:24).
“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight,” (Matt.11:25, 26).
KEVIN–
You said:
Bob, you know the thing that bothers me about you? …You come here demanding verses and proof for Reformed confessional history…Look at your interpretation of the verse you cited in 2 Thess. to support the Roman Sacramental system. You can call yourself a METHODIST or a New York Yankee, but dude you bleed Romanism. ”
Man, you talk a lot. All these words just to answer the question:
“The word vicar was given to the HOLY SPIRIT by Teurtullian. Someone who works on behalf of , or representative of. ”
That’s right. Some one who has been given the authority to represent or work in behalf of that person’s authority. When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom and all the apostles His power of binding and loosing, Peter and the apostles became Vicars of Christ. They became His viceroys. Jesus told them that whoever listened to them listened to Him. He told them that they would be working in His stead and that the work they would do would be greater than His. This is all in the Gospel of Matthew.
You also said:
“The Pope, a mere sinner like ourselves, has usurped that title from the Holy Spirit, the title of Holy Father from the Father ( the bible says let no man be called Father, let alone Holy Father. They are all called Father), and the title of head of the church from Christ. Arrogant. ”
That may very well be arrogant in your interpretation–by the way you have drawn your conclusion. My opinion is that the Vatican looks at it that the Pope, in communion with the Bishops, have been given the authority to be viceroys of Christ, to act in behalf of Him. Do you not feel that when you evangelize others that Jesus is saying to you “Well done, my good and faithful servant”?
You also said:
“What are you doing here Bob?”
I came here because you have been banned from CreedCodeCult. And the discussion has gotten kinda lame over there. You seemed to really spice things up with your antics. I quite enjoy the Jim and Kevin Show in the morning.
You also said:
“The best thing you could ever do is take the time to read Tim’s article on justification, Romans 2, The rise of Roman Catholicism, and everyone of them. His interpretation of James 2 is really good imho. God bless you.”
And I don’t have a problem with Tim’s interpretations or His articles because he presents them in a reasonable fashion. I agree with some of his stuff and some I don’t. But that is the beauty of Sola Scriptura. Tim and you and I have the right to give our opinions and debate the issues with no authority to tell either one of us we are wrong. And I accept it that way.
It’s just that your style of writing invites me to debate you more. It’s fun to provoke you because you are so….well….provokable.
Hi Walt,
You posted:
>>Can you please define for me a bit further this statement?
“One necessary clarification is that belief in baptismal regeneration does not exclude the possibility that God sometimes uses other means than sacramental baptism for the above salvific outcome (e.g. baptism of blood, baptism of desire/repentance).”
As I recall from one of your previous posts you tied (please correct if wrong) that baptism of blood was linked to martyr’s?>>
Me: Yes, a number of CFs link baptism of blood with martyrdom.
>>I assume that you would consider the thief on the cross was baptized by blood or by desire/repentance?>>
Me: I have yet to make up my mind when it comes to soteriology, so at this time, all I can do is relate to you what the various systems and CFs believe.
>>How do you define baptism by desire/repentance in an ordinary sense, or do you consider this as only an extraordinary event?>>
Me: Thomas Aquinas probably has given one of the best definitions of baptism of repentance I have read in his Summa Theologica (Part III, Q. 66 Art. 11):
“In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood : forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins : wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.”
He then quotes Augustine (approvingly) who used the thief on the cross as an example of baptism of repentance.
Bellermine penned the following:
“Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).
>>Would you say that there are ordinary and extraordinary events of baptism in your sacramental system?>>
Me: I have yet to adopt any soteriological system.
>>Finally, do you believe babies in the womb have original sin and can be saved without any of your three forms of baptism if they die in the womb?>>
Me: I have not come to any conclusions on this.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
Great explanation above. That helps me a lot understand the distinctions I was not clear on previously, and I appreciate your honest candor that you have not yet concluded firm certain doctrine from your readings.
I look forward to your continued explanations with Tim as I travel and try to read along the way.
Bob said ” My opinion is that the Vatican looks at the Pope and the bishops have been given the authority to be viceroys of Christ to act on behalf of Him” Unfortunately, thats not completely true. He and his Magisterium claim infallibility, and the Pope has claimed for himself not only head of the church, but the power of both swords religious and civil. Its stated in church doctrine and must be believed by a Roman Catholic at the expense of salvation. So basically he is king of the world, and usurped the offices and the titles RESERVED only for God. And those here who kiss his ring confirm him in that. Bob, think about this, that a man, a mere sinner like ourselves claims to be the head of the church. Colossians 1 is clear Christ is the head of his church and the Pope in no way can be head thereof. Sounding any more like 2 Thessalonians 2 ? Hmmm
Walt, message received. Baptists are a sect. You don’t consider MacArthur, me, Eric W, Spurgeon, Billy Graham brothers in Christ. Got it. I’ll have to ask Tim if he feels the same way? I know Sproul and Horton consider MacArthur a brother and a good friend. For your information I’m a Calvinist, who has the same view of the Lord’s supper as Calvin. I have traditionally not been a pedobaptist, but I have accepted the Reformed view. How long have you been out of the RC Walt? K
Kevin, you wrote:
“Walt, message received. Baptists are a sect. You don’t consider MacArthur, me, Eric W, Spurgeon, Billy Graham brothers in Christ. Got it.”
You are mixing some messages here. Let me clarify.
Yes, I believe the Baptists (as I was one) is a destructive heretical sect to the true unity of the body of Christ. You cannot teach against the true doctrines of Scripture, and still claim your are a faithful minister. You can be saved by grace, but still go out teaching false doctrine and cause damage to the unity of Christ. That is why, dear Kevin, the Presbyterian form of church government has courts to discipline false teaching by its members…especially those who are preaching the gospel.
The Baptist sect does not teach biblical or presbyterian church government or discipline. It allows and encourages every sect and congregation to teach what it wants and agrees to disagree with each other. That is why one baptist church in our town teaches things very different in doctrine than another baptist church down the road from them. They only unit often in doing local charity events, but their TERMS OF COMMUNION are totally different and therefore they do not unit as one. They openly profess and preach against presbyterian government, infant baptism and the regulative form of worship.
I would be surprised that Tim supports the Baptist teachings, and I’ve yet to see him not take an honest firm stand against what he believes the Scripture teaches vs. what man might be teaching in error of Scripture.
In regard to speaking out to correct our brethren, especially ministers, again this is called discipline and rebuke. I try to do it lightly, but nevertheless, will do it when I feel it is necessary.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe Billy Graham is really saved, or if he is then he did not demonstrate it in standing for the truth. He compromised a lot to get where he is today, and I’m not entirely sure by his fruits that he is saved. I don’t know for sure, but I can only judge what he has taught in what I have heard and read come from his lips.
Is he a great preacher? Certainly…one of the greatest in history. Does he teach the true doctrines of Scripture in his ministry and message? Not even close with what the reformers taught, and certainly not even remotely close to what the Covenanters taught in Scotland and England.
Walt, you dont believe Billy Graham is a Christian. Got it. Everything you described about the differences between the Baptists churches in your town can becsaid about the Prebyterians. No disagreements there Walt? MacArhtur and all the Baptists are a sect giong to hell, and heaven will be filled with Covenanters. I would like to know if Tim considers Eric W who is a Baptist and me who is calvinist that attends a bible church brothers in Christ. Maybe he can weigh in. Thanks for your honesty Walt.
Kevin,
You wrote: “MacArhtur and all the Baptists are a sect giong to hell, and heaven will be filled with Covenanters.”
Interesting. Your problem Kevin is that you love to take people out of context on this site, and likely explains why you get banned from most sites on the internet. You argue it is because you are out preaching the truth, and your opponents cannot handle it so they boot you. Perhaps you take people out of context.
Let me be clear. You can be saved and going to heaven, and still be a pastor who causes division, error, schism and disunity in the body of Christ. Again, that is the purpose of church discipline.
You wrote:
“Everything you described about the differences between the Baptists churches in your town can becsaid about the Prebyterians.”
In fact, the Presbyterians are even worse, as they have no excuse. They are held by their oaths they take to uphold subordinate standards as ministers to much higher standards than the Baptists are, and they have backslidden miserably. If you think that I am here giving a green light pass to the modern Presbyterian churches you are sadly mistaken. Not only are they backsliding from the attainments the Church of Scotland once held dear, and the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, but they actually openly speak out against those attainments. This is grievous in my opinion.
There is a distinction to be made between accommodation of weakness in our brethren and toleration of sin and evil. This was a central doctrine in the second reformation, and can be read about by Gillespie and Rutherford both who wrote about these distinctions.
Kevin,
Walt said he wasn’t sure Billy Graham was a Christian. Read his words: “I don’t believe … or if he is …I’m not entirely sure … I don’t know for sure.” That’s a pretty reasonable statement to make.
In his excellent work, Biblical Predestination, Gordon Clark related his a story about a Billy Graham crusade—a most disturbing story indeed. Billy Graham had invited people to come forward to give their lives to God, and in the process admonished the Christians in the audience not to pray for those coming forward. They must do this on their own—that is, without the help of God, for at the point of conversion, the omnipotent God of the Universe is helpless:
It was the triumph of free-will over the sovereignty of God, as God was presumed to sit down helplessly, hoping that people would “elect” Him. That, apparently, was Billy Graham’s view of “election.” Clark wrote in considerable detail about how Billy Graham railed against predestination, how false it is, how erroneous it is, and how deadly and devastating it is. Realizing, of course, that the Bible actually used the term, Billy had to pause, and then say, “Of course, I believe what the Bible says about predestination.” But Billy never explained what the Bible says about it. That is the inspiration for the title of Clark’s excellent work on the topic.
Billy Graham used to find Roman Catholicism as objectionable as the doctrine of predestination. By the end of his life, he still hated predestination, but loved Roman Catholicism. He called John Paul II “the world’s greatest evangelist,” said that any differences in their theology “are not important as far as personal salvation is concerned,” brought gifts to him, and his later crusades included Roman Catholic counselors who could direct Roman Catholics to a local Roman Catholic church upon their “decision” for Christ. You can read more about Billy Graham’s “Catholic Connection” here:
http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/billy_graham_catholic_connection.htm
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/billy.htm
There is so much information available on his lifelong slide into compromise and apostasy that it is quite difficult to document it all in a comment to a blog, but the above links are a good start. A man who thought that Roman Catholicism was just another Christian denomination, who ended up advancing Rome’s agenda, who rejected the doctrine’s of grace and thought that our theological differences with Rome were not soteriological in nature, either did not understand the gospel, or did not understand Rome, or both. I have heard of people converting to Christ at Billy Graham crusades. Well and good. None of that “atones” for the damage Billy Graham did in the process. Billy Graham’s work for Rome is no different than that of current preachers who import Teresa of Avila, Brother Lawrence, Francis de Sales, Francois Fenelon, Ignatius of Loyola, the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy, and other Roman Catholic mysticism into Christ’s Church. Roman Catholicism is Antichrist. Billy Graham aided Antichrist in its continual assault of the Gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ.
Walt’s characterization of him was charitable.
Thanks,
Tim
And to think, that skunk Billy Graham probably thought he had an assurance of salvation! Just goes to show you how easy it is for a feller to fool hisself, huh, Tim? I mean, the inner witness of the Spirit can just be the desperately wicked and deceitful heart up to its old tricks, aint that right Brother Tim?
Jim, read 1 John 2:27 and leave the Catholic church immediately. What the Catholic church can’t get around is this verse says we have no need of a teacher, but we have the anointing, and it is true and isn’t a lie. We are temples of the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean we don’t listen to our teachers and submit to our church, but in the end its not the teacher and his words but the Spirit of Christ that teaches us all things.
Tim, yes I knew towards the end of his life his support for universalism and Roman Cathoicism and I wholeheartily disagree with it and have renounced it. I did not know his position on predestination and renounce if that was his position. I heard hi twice in my life and he preached salavtion by grace thru faith. But the issue Tim is not Billy Graham . The issue is Walt’ s attitude towards the elect who arent Scottish Covenanters, calling them heretics, causing schism, error, and disunity. Associating them with sin and evil. Saing this about a man like John MacArthur is wrong Tim. And its aorogant. Would you say this about a man like John MacArthur? That man has been a faithful preacher of the Gospel for 50 years, 5 generations of Pastors. In fact dispensationalist accuse him being Reformed. Walt just doesnt have muchbrespect for people who dont hold to the same view of church government. He is just a Protestant soul in a Catholic body. Thats ok. He can believe what he wants. I quoted Calvin saying that the church was where the word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered, and he jumped on me and disagreed. We must remember Tim God’s church is in many countries around the world with many governments, some of whom are at war with each other. Where do you stand on church government Tim? Do you consider Reformed guys like me and Eric W who attend a bible church and baptist church scismatics, sect, sinful and evil, causing disunity? God bless. Those cpoies of Piper’s book will be in this week and I will send it out right away. K
Thank you, Kevin,
Walt and I are not exactly on the same page, but I believe the Scots-Irish, Ulster Scots, Scottish Presbyterians and Scottish Covenanters to be among the best of Adam’s offspring, and because of their relation to Abraham by faith, the world is better because of them, for they have blessed the nations wherever they went. When I found out that the Roman Church is Antichrist decades ago, I was blessed to find that they had concluded the same long before I had. Their weakness is my strength. But I don’t believe they exhaustively plumbed the depths of all revealed knowledge, and there is more yet to learn from the Word. Some of what we find may correct our honorable forebears, but some of what we propose may have already been corrected by their own study of the Word. It’s worth finding out.
I do not agree with Walt on church government, but I am a Presbyterian and largely concur with the Westminster Confession in that it is among the best of the confessions epistemologically—it does not start with God and end up with the Scriptures and the Gospel. It starts with the Scriptures and ends up with God and His Gospel. Walt and I have yet to explore the depths of our disagreements, not because they are large or insurmountable, but because we have found a common interest in discussing matters of some theological significance. We have not dwelt on our differences.
I don’t believe that you, Eric, baptists and bible-church people are heretics (the way you are using the term), but I don’t believe you have acknowledged Walt’s nuanced distinction between damnable and dangerous heresies, either.
In any case, I agree that it’s not about Billy Graham. It is, at least partly, about your willingness to hear Walt when he says, “I’m not sure .. I don’t know” when he speaks of Graham’s spiritual estate.
Thanks, and you’re always welcome here.
Tim
Walt and Kevin,
Walt wrote:
Yes, I believe the Baptists (as I was one) is a destructive heretical sect to the true unity of the body of Christ. You cannot teach against the true doctrines of Scripture, and still claim your are a faithful minister. You can be saved by grace, but still go out teaching false doctrine and cause damage to the unity of Christ.
Response:
Walt is very consistent with his views on government and the Catholic Visible Church doctrines. A sect is related to and narrowly defined by these doctrines. Congregational government will never be able to match these views, unless each congregation adopted standards for all teachers (not just pastors). The main issue, in my opinion, is the reality and existence of the entity called “Catholic Visible Church.”
Kevin, I would recommend Baptist readings on the non-existence of this entity. This way you can have a better understanding of why Walt calls Baptists sects. Sorting through these issues is not easy, but it is rewarding.
Eric W, thanks for your suggestions. If I nor mistaken it is an issue of the church in its relationship with government. Im working thru tgat myself. Walt has sent me things on the Covenanters and I have done some reading on the 2nd Reformation in Scottland. MacArthur purports that Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world” and thru history ( which has been always) ecept for US which is composite) when state and church were mixed it was disaster for the people. Also the scripture tells us to submit to government. Jesus subjecter himself to a corrupt government. Unfortunately after thecfall sinful men run these governments. Thats not how God set it up, but the sinful reality. But Eric that isnt my issue with Walt. He talks about the one visible church of the elect and then trashes some of its members by either questioning their salvation or their work for the Lord. Thats his business. Where do you stand on these issues Eric?
Kevin,
I think this is a good place to start. The essence of a NT Church is signified by these words:
Where two or three are gathered together…Matt.18:20
————-
Since Christ instituted and endowed this gathering (which is open to increase) with certain gifts (Eph.4:1-16), then we must discover and align ourselves with them.
My position is stated here :
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc26.html
—————
I don’t recognize any catholic visible church; therefore, I find no government of this church to give submission. I submit to the pastor and elders of my particular church.
I am free to judge, embrace or distance myself from any Christian claim. God is Lord of the conscience and freed me from the doctrines of man. This is when I say, “Let the debates begin and keep the 2nd amendment.”
Eric W, when you coming to Phoenix? My wife and I will lay out the red carpet for your family. You won’t pay for anything. Thanks so much for the love of a brother. There are friends that stick closer than a brother. Thats you EW.
Eric W, that has always been my position also. Thanks for the read. I tend to agree with Calvin, the church is where the word is preached rightly and the sacraments are administered rightly. I don’t agree with everything that comes out of Billy Graham’s mouth. I discharge much of it to old age. But to say He isn’t a believer and has produced no fruit in his life, wow?
Walt, no Walt, I’m not going to let you equivocate and make this about me and my taking people out of context. You called Baptist a SECT. Your a brilliant man so you must know what that means. It means heretical. You called MacArthur a Baptist because that what the dictionary told you. And I can tell you I sat under his teaching for 5 years and know him personally and he holds to most Reformed tenets. Your just narrow minded! To say Billy Graham isn’t a Christian and has produced no fruit in his life is arrogant. Its my opinion your not totally sold on Tim either. To say that Christians who don’t hold to your view of church government or baptism preach false doctrine and and harm unity is your prerogative, but its harsh. You said ” you can be saved and still going to heaven and still preach error, schism, and disunity in the church. Sad, thats how you see MacArthur and Billy Graham. You must think R.C. Sproul is a schismatic too. You have to be more accepting brothers in Christ, but then I really believe you only give lip service to that ” You can be saved and going to heaven” These men have given their lives for the gospel, and thats all you can say. WCF says Reformed and always being Reformed. You should never forget that Walt. Having a different opinion on infant baptism or church government is not ” toleration of sin and evil”
Kevin,
Give Walt his come-uppance. Who does this fellow who holds heretical doctrines think he is calling another heresy believing guy a heretic?
Actually, Kevin, does it matter? After all, don’t all of you fellows,Walt, You, Billy Graham Cracker, Tim, John MacArthur, Benny Hinn, Joseph Smith, Joel Olsteen, Martin Luther and Ellen G. White really all hold to the essential of the Christian faith? That essential being, YOU AINT CATHOLICS!
Jim, dont talk. Bergoglio calls the top Charimatic leader, calls him brother, he is fetching everybody back to the Totus Christus. Fetching everybody back to Rome to be one big Wafer. Jim did you know that many Catholics think Christ is coming back as the Eucharist. Are you one of these?
KEVIN says:
Bob said ” My opinion is that the Vatican looks at the Pope and the bishops have been given the authority to be viceroys of Christ to act on behalf of Him” Unfortunately, thats not completely true. He and his Magisterium claim infallibility, and the Pope has claimed for himself not only head of the church, but the power of both swords religious and civil. ”
For the life of me I have never heard the Pope claim this. I have heard him claim that he is “the servant of the servants of God”. I have heard of the infallibility claim when it comes to faith and morals. From their standpoint, I would think it fitting that they would claim inerrancy, since they claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them in the promulgation of the Faith. Me personally, I would hope that when someone is teaching me about the salvation of my eternal soul, that they are without error when they do. It sounds logical to me.
You also said:
“Sounding any more like 2 Thessalonians 2 ? Hmmm”
From what you have said, of course it does. But it is only conjecture on your part. Hitler or Stalin or the Khmer Rouge fit the bill as well. And people at the time seemed to think so, too. The Emperor Nero or Diocletian were probably the best fit. But what do I know? I learned after Y2K that a lot of people who claimed to be lead by the Holy Spirit were dead wrong about Y2K. I have seen recently that those who have predicted the coming of Christ on certain dates have been dead wrong, and they claim the Holy Spirit guided them into their conclusions. So pardon me if I take your conjecture with a grain of salt. I am a little jaded.
By the way, Kevin, you didn’t answer my question back to you: Would YOU be able to identify the antichrist?
Bob, you say you are a Methodist? Do your leaders claim infallibity in b teaching faith and morals? Since you require that Im guessing you have swum the Tiber? Your point about Hitler, Stalin etc is a non starter because 2Thess 2 says the man of perdition is a religious man who puts himself up as God IN the church. Bob you are asking me if I can identiify the antichrist. I just used 3 posts to tell you how every Reform confessional says it cant be anyone other than the Papacy.
Jim, if you notice I can’t get a punctuation or spelling write, but I used the past tense of swim perfectly, “have swum” aloof of people think swum isn’t proper, but it is. lol
Psssst! The past tense of swim is swam. Swum is a past participle.
e.g. Tim K. has swum the Tiber. However, he swam in the wrong direction.
Jim, thanks, I always forget past participle. Jim won’t swum the Tiber. Something like that. lol
Bob, there are 3 reasons why the Roman church is a false church. 1. It has a false gospel and a false doctrine of justification. 2. It has distorted the sacraments so bad they are unregognizable. And it sees itself as an extension of the incarnation. Its man worship, will worship, and church worship. It takes frome Christ and gives to the church what rightfully belongs to Him. I hope you will consider this,
David,
I saw this over on your blog. Nice job. You hit the nail on the head…too bad Protestants are so often ignorant of Scripture.
http://articulifidei.blogspot.pt/search/label/Calvin
———
DAVID WALTZ SAID:“The Bible teaches us that schism is SIN; Calvin teaches that schim is SIN; and yet, Protestantism as a whole has now for hundreds of years functionally ignored this SIN.”
ADDENDUM – Just moments ago, I came across the following in an online book:
“An especially pernicious tendency in contemporary America is the growth of independency. A multitude of churches exist which militantly proclaim their autonomy. They arrogantly boast of no connection or common government with any other ecclesiastical assembly; it is as though they believe that schism is a virtue. An outgrowth of independency is the development of an entire industry of para-church agencies and self-appointed ministers.
Membership in the church is viewed as a matter of small significance: a person may attend regularly without ever joining a church anywhere or incurring any particular obligations. Members are free to adopt virtually any belief or lifestyle, according to their own individual preferences. Even open scandals and doctrinal aberration are allowed to continue without any corrective action from the church. In the last analysis, the situation in these so-called churches is nothing short of ecclesiastical anarchy. A proper resort to church courts and scriptural confessionalism could cure churches from these maladies of independency.” (Kevin Reed, Biblical Church Government – bold emphasis mine.)
Walt, How many times has your church split? It is of the very nature of Protestant error to squabble and split. That is why He left us a visible Church.
David Waltz mentioned that Tim’s role model and fearless leader Bill Webster has walked out of his denomination and started his own church. You can too. Why not? You have a Bible don’t you? You are Spirit filled, right? Well lad, get to it. You can call it “Walt’s Bible Church” or something equally as clever.
A set of twins got a box for Christmas. When they opened it there was a pile of manure in it. Immediately one twin started crying and complaining. The other was jumpimg for joy and so happy frantically digging knowing there was a bike somewhere down in there. A multitude of faithful churches exist in Protestantism, baptist churches, bible churches, Reformed churches, EV free churches, etc. And many of the faithful of God’s elect in those churches are slaves to Christ, serving the needs of people in their body and community. God’s always working thru the invisible collection of His elect in mighty ways.
I wasn’t aware Jesus founded churches. ( The 7 churches John wrote to were not different denominations but diocese of the one same Church ). How many of these churches you speak of are His brides?
KEVIN says–
“Bob, you say you are a Methodist? Do your leaders claim infallibity in b teaching faith and morals?”
No. They don’t. So they admit that they could be wrong in their teaching although they act like they are not wrong. I guess that’s just about as good as I can get under the circumstances. But the good thing is, we don’t have to wait too long for the Bishop to replace our pastor with a new one. About every eight to ten years or so. And then a new perspective comes in.
You also said:
“Since you require that Im guessing you have swum the Tiber?”
You are just guessing is right. And you guessed wrong .
You also said:
“Your point about Hitler, Stalin etc is a non starter because 2Thess 2 says the man of perdition is a religious man who puts himself up as God IN the church.”
The entire text of 2Thess2 is above in one of my earlier posts (scroll up and you can read it again) and nowhere does it say that the son of perdition is a religious man who puts himself up as God in the Church. You are tying to make it say something that it doesn’t. What it does say is “the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” Paul is talking about the Temple of God in Jerusalem. The son of destruction opposes all other “gods” and objects of worship which are idols. In the place of those things, He exalts himself as being God, so that all will have to worship him. There are a number of Roman Caesars who actually did that–Nero and Diacletian are two of them. Vespasian is another. Caligula took things a step further and had those in Rome, including Senators, worship him as a physical living god.
You also said:
“Bob you are asking me if I can identiify the antichrist. I just used 3 posts to tell you how every Reform confessional says it cant be anyone other than the Papacy.”
And I’ll bet you, a Reformed, swallow that hook line and sinker just because it’s a Reform confessional that says it. How is that any different than Catholics believing the Magisterium, hmmmm?
Bob, it isnt different in that each of us has an informed fallible opinion, wecsay informed by the Spirit. But a Catholic puts his fallible trust in the Magisterium, we put it in the infallible Word. But a church can save you, only the Word. Incidentally the greatest theological minds in the world have exegeted 2Thess and conclude it is a Religious man because He is in the church and claims to be God. If you cant seethat in the Papacy, your eithercstubborn or blind. But hey your free to believe what you want.
Bob,
Ever read Roger Olson? Ever listen to Steve Gregg? Jerry Walls? Even Norm Geisler?
They bury Calvinism.
Kevin,What happened on GB? Won’t they let you post? Can’t you slur there so you lost interest? DeMaria and I pretty much said the final word. Are we done there?
Bob, that should read a church cantcsave you only the Word.
Jim, ya allot of the greenbaggins stuff is intrmural topics. DeMaria is an infomercial. Just wind him up and he says the same thing. Every verse in the bible is taliking about RC sacraments.
Bob,
Kevin says a Church can’t save you. Doesn’t he know you can’t be saved outside of the Church?
The other day Kevin gave you his supreme insult when he accused you of preaching Romanism. Ha! Although you don’t believe in the cruel god of Calvinism ( ever read “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”? ) you no more qualify as a Catholic than Arminian and ex-Catholic Dan Corner. He foams at the mouth against Calvinists and Catholics both. Same with Dave Hunt.
True , Arminius took a giant step back towards Rome when he rejected the TULIP but he didn’t come back far enough.
Calvinists aren’t the furthest form of Protestant from Catholicism as Kevin likes to think. They are the ugliest form of Protestantism but I would have to say Quakers are the farthest from Catholicism. They go even further towards gnosticism than Calvinism.
Maybe Unitarianism, which started out Calvinist and moved toward Quakerism is the weirdest.
It was probably when Protestant America turned toward Congregationalism that it all unwound. The denominations with creeds and presbyterian or episcopalian forms of government had been able to keep some uniformity of doctrine for a while but when the congregation became pope and started voting in their ministers and doctrines, it was all over.
Still, government isn’t enough to ensure sound doctrine. Look at the Anglicans with all their smells and bells. So what if they look Catholic? I guess Desmond Tutu, has now come out in favor of euthanasia. Add that to gay marriage and abortion.
Lutherans worship Jesus in Kevin’s “death wafer” but they started the whole mess.
Church of Christ is really wrong on Baptism although they know it is necessary.
Bob, you and Walt have no business on this blog. You both are far from Kevin. You should either bend your knee to Jesus and join His Church or start your own.
Jim, you believe Calvin is ugly. Its terrible to give all the glory to God and give believers the assurance God wants us to have., huh. Its more loving to tell them you got to get there on your own, and if you don’t get there, you don’t get there. Because under door number 3 we have Purgatory for you as a reward for your merits and good works. What were you saying about Calvin’s God? Romans 4:16 ” so that the promise would be GUARANTEED to all the descendants” Tim says it best, Romanism is a cemetery of dead men’s bones. Any religion that won’t give assurance to its people insnt one of the God of the bible, who is able to save to the uttermost those who he has saved.
KEVIN says:
“Bob, it isnt different in that each of us has an informed fallible opinion, we say informed by the Spirit. But a Catholic puts his fallible trust in the Magisterium, we put it in the infallible Word.”
If you mean the “Word” as in Jesus, I wholeheartedly agree. If you mean the “Word” as in Holy Scripture, then I only conditionally agree. Contrary to popular belief, Holy Scripture only bears witness to the Truth, it is not Truth itself.
Holy Scripture is infallible only in the sense that the canon is closed and it doesn’t change. The problem with Scripture is that everybody who studies it intently seems to think he becomes an expert. And each “expert” claims that their interpretation was confirmed in the Holy Spirit. Thus they become “great theologians”(or bad theologians, depending on whether you agree with them or not).
You also said:
“Incidentally the greatest theological minds in the world have exegeted 2Thess and conclude it is a Religious man because He is in the church and claims to be God. If you cant seethat in the Papacy, your eithercstubborn or blind. But hey your free to believe what you want.”
Yeah, some other greatest theological minds in the world have exegeted that 2 Thess indicates the Roman emperors I mentioned earlier. Go figger. The book of Revelation says the anti-Christ is a man not an office. In other words a particular Pope and not the Papacy, if you will. Which Pope? Who knows? Probably the one whose number adds up to 666, whatever that means. Which Roman emperor’s number added up to 666? Who knows? Even the greatest theological minds in the world are just guessing.
You also said:
“Any religion that won’t give assurance to its people insnt one of the God of the bible, who is able to save to the uttermost those who he has saved.”
I had a Primative Baptist pastor buddy of mine that said the same thing–Jesus came to “save the saved”. He has passed on now. He was a very good man. Save the saved. Makes absolutely no sense to me why the already saved need saving.
The healthy don’t need a doctor, the sick do. Seems like I read that somewhere in the Bible.
Bob, can I suggest a small book for you to buy. The Reformed consider it one of the great books written on salvation and justification written in the last 50 years. Its by Murray and its called ” Redemption accomplished and applied. I think you really would like it, if it is possible for you to like anything. Your Pastor was right Christ came to save the elect. The Scripture says ” Salvation is from the Lord” He didn’t come to make salvation possible, but to redeem for himself a people. And if you don’t have the assurance of HAVING BEEN justified by faith given in Romans 5:1 and 5:9 having been justified by His blood, then you are trusting your works in some way to get you there. Bob, Romans 5:8 says He demonstrated His love for us that while we were yet sinners He died for us. And 5:10 says we WERE reconciled to God while we were yet enemies. It doesn’t have anything to do with your works Bob. It is the imputed righteousness of Christ given to us by faith. Yes we are changed inherently and strive to live a Holy Life, but even that is a work of God. Our justification is based on His righteousness, thats why Paul who was blameless before the Law in Philippians 3:9 didn’t want to be found in his own righteousness, but wanted to be found “in Him” with a righteousness that comes form faith. Not a righteousness that comes form works. Romans 4:11 ” so that righteousness might be credited to them, those who believe. Rome does not believe this. They are justified by a process of cooperation. A works righteousness that is born out of love in merits and demerits. But Paul clearly says in Ephesians 2:8 we are saved by grace thru faith and it is “not of ourselves” and “not of our works” K
KEVIN–
I was wondering when you were finally going to get around to your infamous automated electronic response. That is so cool! How do you do that?
I have read so many books up to now I have a book shelf completely full of them, and even more that I have passed on to others. Redemption Accomplished and Applied by Murray. Got it.
I have just started reading a series of volumes called Summa Theologica by a guy named Aquinas. So far it’s quite tedious reading but it is very interesting. It doesn’t flow as well as Atlas Shrugged but it is quite a bit longer. I’ll try to squeeze Murray in behind Roger Olson, Steve Gregg, Jerry Walls, and Norm Geisler. I’ve also heard good things about “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis but I haven’t even read “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe” yet. Alas, so many pages and so little time. I may have to replace my bathroom reading of True West magazine with some of these to get it done.
By the way, he wasn’t my pastor, just a friend who was a pastor. The Methodist Church doesn’t allow Primative Baptist preachers to preach in Methodist congregations. They have some rules. Well, you know about those rules. I’ll bet your church has some of their own.
Bob, l would put Aquinas down and go with the primative Baptist minister. ” but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” 1 Cor. 1 ” for consider your calling brethren, that therecwere not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble.” Dont be so hard on you ” primative Pastor” sounds like he told you truth.
KEVIN–
Do you even know who the Primitive Baptists are?
Bob, they are appalachian baptist that were predomi b ately black and didnt believe in infant baptim. Staunch 5 point Calvinists. They do allot of foot wahings in their churches. Thats what I know about them. They dont have a pelagian gospel likecAquinas. Nor did they miss the verses about the pleasure of sexin marriage that God intended. They c didnt say sex was just for chidbirth. They didnt develop gradations of sin based on a disdain for marriage. Other than that Im sure they are nice people.I
Just about as nice as it gets. Church of Christ folk are just as nice.
and they are black, eh Kevin?
We have searched after the mind of Christ, and have traced the footsteps of the prophets and apostles, in the Old and New Testament: and no where can we find in the scriptures of truth, either precept or precedent allowed of God for toleration of any error, much less did it ever come into his mind, or did he speak to any of his servants concerning a toleration of all error. As that infinitely glorious divine Essence is one in himself most holy, most righteous, most true, so hath he given unto the children of men, one eternal, unchangeable law, according to the rule whereof they are to square their profession, and order their conversation:… All those who have their senses in any measure exercised in the word of God will acknowledge that it is repugnant thereto, that any who are clothed with power œconomic, ecclesiastic or politic, should connive at any error in any of these that are subject to their jurisdiction, or allow it liberty by a law. Abraham did command his children and his household to keep the way of the Lord, and to do justice and judgment, Gen. 18.19. Jacob took order for purging of his household and all that were with him, from all the idols and strange gods that were amongst them, Gen. 35.2. David will have none of those who tell lies, but such as walk in a perfect way, to be in his house, Psalm 101. And the apostle Paul will have all pastors and deacons to rule their houses well, and to keep them in subjection, 1 Tim. 3. Neither is there less required of those who bear charge in the house of God. It was a special part of the office of Aaron and his sons to separate betwixt the precious and the vile: Jehoiada set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter therein, 2 Chron. 23.19. The apostle Paul would not give place unto those by subjection who came in privily to spy out the kirk’s liberty for the space of an hour, Gal. 2.5. and he will have an heretic after the first and second admonition to be rejected, Titus 3.10. And are not some of the churches of Asia commended for their diligence, and others of them reproved for their negligence herein, Rev. 2.2,6,14,15,20. (Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, A Solemn Testimony Against Toleration, and the present proceedings of the Sectaries and their Abettors, in England, in reference to Religion and Government, With the Answer, of Parliament, to the said Testimony, 1649, emphasis added)
Act for censuring Ministers for their silence, and not speaking to the corruption of the time. August 3, 1648. Ante Meridiem. Session 26. The General Assembly, taking to their serious consideration, the great scandals which have lately increased, partly through some Ministers their reserving and not declaring of themselves against the prevalent sins of the times, partly through the spite, Malignity, and insolency of others against such Ministers as have faithfully and freely reproved the Sins of the times without respect of persons, Do therefore for preventing and removing such scandals hereafter, Appoint and Ordain, that every Minister do by the word of Wisdom apply his Doctrine faithfully against the publick Sins and Corruptions of these times, and particularly against the Sins and Scandals in the Congregation wherein he lives, according to the Act of the General Assembly 1596, revived by the Assembly at Glasgow 1638. Appointing that such as shall be found not applying their Doctrine to corruptions, which is the Pastoral gift, cold, and wanting of Spiritual zeal, flatterers and dissembling of publick sins, and especially of great Personages in their Congregations, that all such persons be censured according to the degree of their faults and continuing therein be deprived; And according to the Act of General Assembly 1646, Sess. 10, That beside all other scandals, silence, or ambiguous speaking in the public cause, much more detracting and disaffected speeches be seasonably censured (The Records of the Church of Scotland, p. 509, my emphasis).
… for if the saying of God speed to a false teacher, make us partakers of his evil deed, 2 John 10, how much more doth the admitting of such or the like scandalous sinners to the Lord’s Table, make (I say not all who communicate then and there, but) all who consent to their admission, to be partakers of their evil deeds (George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, 1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1985, p. 53).
Now upon this very comprehensive ground, we withdraw not only from gross heretics, and sectarians, and malignant prelatists…. But in this broken and declining state, even from many Presbyterian Ministers who have overturned a great part of our testimony… which has been signally sealed by the blood of many Martyrs who laying down their lives for this Testimony have been singularly countenanced of the Lord: yet we say, by many of our ministers this in a great measure has been deserted and perverted, by their condemning the Martyrs that died for it, as well as us who have desired to witness for it…(James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, p. 75–76, my emphasis).
We are expressly commanded to note such Schismatics and mark such causes of divisions and offences which they effectuate both by their practice and by their words, crying up their own party, and informing against the more pure and faithful remnant (James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, p. 85, my emphasis).
We judge Schismatic and Pragmatic dividers of the church, and wideners of the breaches thereof, already broken and divided, and those who sow discord among brethren and promote their contentions by individious reproaches or other ways, are to be withdrawn from (James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, p. 85).
Because the Churches take not care, that Ministers be savoury and gracious; from Steermen all Apostasie and rottenness begin. O if the Lord would arise and purge his House in Scotland! As for Church-members, they ought to be holy; and though all baptized be actu primo members, yet such as remain habitually ignorant after admonition, are to be cast out, and though they be not cast out certainly, as paralytick or rottened members cannot discharge the functions of life: So those that are scandalous, ignorant, malignant, unsound in faith, lose their rights of Suffrages in election of Officers, and are to be debarred from the Seals. Nor can we defend our sinful practise in this: it were our wisdom to repent of our taking in the Malignant party, who shed the blood of the people of God, and obstructed the work of God, into places of Trust in the Church State, and the Army, contrary to our Covenants, they continuing still Enemies (Samuel Rutherford, Survey of the Survey…, p. 373, my emphasis).
For although no one denies that we ought to hold in great esteem the pastors and faithful ministers of God who watch for our souls and that we ought to obey them according to the direction of Paul (Heb.13:17); still it is certain that that obedience and dependency is not absolute and unlimited (which belongs to God and Christ alone), but circumscribed within certain limits (i.e., as far as it promotes the glory of God and our safety and as far as it can consist with the fidelity and obedience due to Christ) (Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:244).
Christ alone has a right over the conscience, as the supreme and anypeuthynos (“beyond human accountability”) ruler. Pastors are ministers and interpreters of his will; therefore, the dependence and submission due to them rests wholly upon the dependence due to Christ by them (which is the rule and cause of that). Therefore, as long as pastors show themselves to be true ministers of God, believers ought to depend upon them on account of Christ; but if it happens that they act like lords, not as ministers, and lead away from Christ and do not lead them to him; if, in order to depend upon them, the dependence and obedience due to Christ has to be violated, who will deny that we ought most justly (nay, indispensably) to secede from them in order that our union with Christ may remain safe and unimpaired (Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:245).
But in affairs of conscience which have reference to faith, piety and the worship of God, no one can usurp dominion over the conscience; nor are we bound to obey anyone, because otherwise we would be bound to error and impiety and thus we would incur eternal punishment and our consciences would be stained with vices without criminality because we would be bound to obey superiors absolutely (Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:287).
The obedience which he [i.e. Christ-GLP] wishes to be rendered to teachers must always be understood with the condition–in as far as the teachers do not prescribe to us another thing than what Christ gave to us in his commands (which they do not do, who arrogate to themselves the right of making new laws) (Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:288).
From Heb.13:17 nothing else can be garthered than that obedience is due to teachers, as long as they hear Christ themselves and speak the words of God. Otherwise if they lead us away from Christ, they ought to be anathema to us (Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:289).
The subordinate judgment, which I call private, is the judgment of discretion whereby every Christian, for the certain information of his own mind, and the satisfaction of his own conscience, may and ought to try and examine, as well the decrees of councils as the doctrine of particular pastors, and in so far to receive and believe the same, as he understands them to agree with the Scriptures. (Gillespie, A Dispute Against The English
Popish Ceremonies, pp.364-365)
Howbeit, even in such cases, when the consent of the church cannot be had to the execution of this discipline [i.e. excommunication-GLP], faithful pastors and professors [i.e. professing Christians-GLP] must, every one for his own part, take heed that he have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but even reprove them. Yea, they ought, in sensu negativo[in a negative sense], excommunicate those who should be (but are not) excommunicated postively, which negative excommunication is not an ecclesiastical censure, but either a bare punishment, or a cautel [caution] and animadversion [warning]. And so says the Archbishop of Spalato, not only one brother may refuse to communicate with another, but a people, also, may refuse to communicate with their pastor, which he confirms by certain examples. But the public censure of positive excommunication should not be inflicted without the church’s consent, for the reasons foresaid (George Gillespie, A Dispute Against The English Popish Ceremonies, p.382).
Tim, I appreciate your response. You will get no argument from me that next to scipture, the WCF is the greatest Christian document ever penned. I also have the greatest respect for the scottish covenanters and listeened to much of what Walt sent me. I dont want to make an issue of it, but either you only saw part of Walt’s post to me where he calls MacArthur a baptist and went on to say they are a sect, shismatic, error causing disunity, involved in sin and evil. You shoul say something tohim about this. I actually had much problem with Billy Graham myself. But RC Sproul would not say that about John MacArthur. They have preached together and have much respect for each other. But Im not not going to make an issue of this. K
The subordinate judgment, which I call private, is the judgment of discretion whereby every Christian, for the certain information of his own mind, and the satisfaction of his own conscience, may and ought to try and examine, as well the decrees of councils as the doctrine of particular pastors, and in so far to receive and believe the same, as he understands them to agree with the Scriptures. (Gillespie, A Dispute Against The English Popish Ceremonies, pp.364-365, my emphasis)
Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. (Phil.3:15-16)
The doctrine of modern forbearance among persons of opposite belief, inducing them to form a compromise in which they mutually agree to differ, and never more to mention discording tenets, leads, in its native tendency, to the suppression of the truth, and the lasting concealment of so many articles of faith, as the jarring sentiments may happen to hinge upon. And what is the amount of this, but to banish forever from the faith of the Church, a great number of precious truths contained in the Word of God, and designed by him for the spiritual comfort and edification of the people? And all this to obtain a Catholic union amongst professing Christians, at the expense of losing sacred truth. An agreement to divide, in matter of faith and practice, sounds ill with the injunction, “be perfectly joined together in the same mind” (The Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion, p. 152).
AMEN and AMEN…
Neverthelesse, we are also very sensible of the great and imminent dangers into which this common cause of religion is now brought by the growing and spreading of most dangerous errours in England, to the obstructing and hindering of the begun reformation, as namely, (beside many others,) Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, Brownisme, Erastianisme, Independency, and that which is called (by abuse of the word) Liberty of Conscience, being indeed liberty of errour, scandall, schisme, heresie, dishnouring God, opposing the truth, hindering reformation, and seducing others; whereunto we adde those Nullifidians, or men of no religion, commonly called Seekers: Yea, we cannot but look upon the dangers of the true Reformed religion in this island as greater now then before, not onely for that those very principles and fundamentals of faith which, under Prelacy, yea, under Popery itself, were generally received as uncontroverted, are now, by the scepticisme of many sectaries of this time, either oppugned or called in question; but also, because in stead of carrying on the reformation towards perfection, that which hath been already built is in part cast down, and in danger to be wholly overthrown through the endeavours of sectaries to comply with many of the Prelaticall and Malignant, and even the Popish party; and their joyning hand in hand, and casting in their lots, and interweaving their interests together in way of combination against the Covenant and Presbyteriall government; yea, the unclean spirit which was cast out, is about to enter againe, with seven other spirits worse then himselfe, and so the latter end like to be worse then the beginning. (Sess. 15, August 20, 1647, ante meridiem.—A Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their Brethren of England, emphasis mine.)
III. That they carefully avoid the dangerous rocks and snares of this time, whereby so many are taken and broken.
Upon the one hand, the sowre leaven of Malignancy, where ever it enters, spoileth and corrupteth the whole lump, postponing religion and the cause of God to humane interest, what ever be pretended to the contrary, and obstructing the work of reformation and propagation of religion, out of false respects and creature interest. As this hath formerly abounded in the land, to the prejudice of the cause and work of God, so of late it is revived, spreading with specious pretences of vindicating wrongs done to his Majesty. We desire not to be mistaken, as if respect and love to his Majesty were branded with the infamous mark of Malignancy; but hereby we warn all who would not come under this foul stain, not only in their speech and profession, but really and in their whole carriage, not to prefer their own and the interest of any creature whatsoever before the interest of Christ and religion. The characters of these have been fully given in former declarations, specially in the declaration of the Commissioners of the Generall Assembly in March last, which we hold as here repeated; only adding this, that they ordinarly traduce kirk judicatures, as medling with civill affairs, which as it is no new calumny, but such as hath been cast upon the servants of God in former times, so the whole course of proceedings doth manifestly confute the same.
Upon the other hand, sectarisme hath no lesse hindered the blessed and glorious work of reformation in our neighbour kingdom, against the venome whereof, lest it approach and infect this Kirk, we have need to watch diligently, to avoid all the beginnings and dangerous appearances thereof. The many faithfull testimonies from godly ministers in severall parts of England, against the vile errours and abominable blasphemies abounding there, as they are to us matter of rejoycing before the Lord; so they ought to be looked on as warnings to all sorts of people, especially that regard religion, to beware of Satan’s snares, craftily set to catch their souls. And because such gangreens creep insensibly, all that love the honour of God and welfare of religion, would seriously consider the following points, both by way of marks to discern, and meanes to escape the danger of this infection—
1. Whosoever are misprisers of the blessed work of reformation established within this land, and do not show themselves grieved for the impediments and obstructions it hath met with in our neighbour kingdom, these are even on the brink of this precipice, ready to tumble down in this gulf whensoever occasion is offered; all, therefore, that love the Lord Jesus would stir up their hearts, in the light and strength of the Lord, highly to prize and thankfully to acknowledge what the right hand of the Most High hath done among us, as also to thirst fervently after the advancing and perfecting of the Lord’s work among our neighbours.
2. Disrespect to the publick ministery and ordinances is a symptome of a dangerous inclination to that disease; and, therefore, as all Christ’s ministers ought to stir up themselves to walk as becometh their high and holy calling, lest they be stumbling-blocks to the people of God; so also all the people of God ought most carefully to stir up themselves unto a precious estimation of the ordinances of God, and highly to esteem the stewards thereof for their work’s sake—a duty at all times needfull, but now especially, when Sathan by all means endeavours the contrary.
3. Indifferency in points of religion, and pleading for toleration to themselves or others, how far soever different among themselves, is not to be forgotten among the characters of sectaries, and, therefore, ought the more carefully to be avoided and opposed by all who desire to hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering.
4. They who are glorying in and sceking after new lights, or, under the pretext of them, are self-conceited in singular opinions, or who affect new and strange expressions, are entring into the snare, “ready to be carried about with every winde of doctrine.” And, therefore, albeit we ought always, as disciples of the Lord, to set our selves as in his sight, to be taught by his Spirit according to his Word, yet in this time, so fertile of errours, it becometh all the lovers of truth to hold fast what they have received, that no man take their crown.
5. Whosoever, brings in any opinion or practise in this Kirk contrary to the Confession of Faith, Directory of Worship, or Presbyterian Government, may be justly esteemed to be opening the door to schisme and sects: And, therefore, all depravers or miscrontructers of the proceedings of kirk judicatories, especially the Gnerall Assembly, would take heed least, by making a breach upon the walls of Jerusalem, they make a patent way for sectaries to enter.
6. They who separate the Spirit from the Word, and pretend the Spirit, when they have no ground or warrant from the Word, are already taken in an evil snare: And, therefore,’tis necessary to try the spirits, whether they are of God, for many false prophets are gone out into the world; “if they speak not according to the word, it is because there is not light in them.”
Besides the former, these are also marks of a sectary: If any commend and recommend to others, or spread and divulge the errneous books of sectaries, if any allow, avow, or use conventicles or private meetings forbidden by the Acts of the Generall Assembly, 1641 and 1647, last past—if any be unwilling, and decline to reckon sectaries among the enemies of the Covenant, from whom danger is to be apprehended—and (though we disallow the abusing and idolizing of learning to the patronicie of errour, or prejudice of piety) if any contemn literature as needlesse at best, if not also hurtfull to a minister.
When we thus expresse our selves for preventing the dangers of sects and schimes, it is far from our intention to discourage any from the duties of piety and mutuall edification, according to the directions of the last Assembly, published in print, and seriously recommended by them, or to give any advantage to Malignants and prophane persons, with whom it is frequent to cast upon all those who adhere to former principles, and cannot approve the present Engagement, the odious nicknames of Sectaries and Independents. For the better discovery of such prophane mockers, we give these marks and characters: 1. They do prophanely and tauntingly abuse the name of the Spirit, under that name deriding the work of grace and sanctification. 2. They esteem and speak of exercises of conscience as fancies or fits of melancholy. 3. They mock at family worship, and the means of mutuall edification so much recommended by the last Assembly, in their directions. 4. They do usually calumniate godly ministers, and professors who follow holinesse, with the names of Sectaries, or the like odious names, without any just cause. As we account all such to be enemies to the practise and power of godlinesse, so we do exhort all the lovers of truth to hold on in the way of holinesse, through good report and ill report, being stedfast, immovable, alwayes abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as they know their labour is not in vain in the Lord. (Sess. 21, Ult. July 1648, post meridiem.—A Declaration of the Generall Assembly, concerning the present Dangers of Religion, and especially the unlawfull Engagement in War against the Kingdom of England, together with many necessary Exhortations and Directions to all the Members of the Kirk of Scotland, emphasis mine.)
FINALLY, Kevin, here is where you (and perhaps Tim) is missing the distinctions…read and learn if you do desire.
We distinguish between a Church in a Reformed and settled state and confirmed with the constitutions of General Assemblies and the civil sanctions of Parliament; and a church in a broken and disturbed state. In the former, abuses and disorders can be orderly redressed and removed by church judicatories, but not so in the latter. Wherefore the most lawful, expedient and conduceable mean, for maintaining the attained unto Reformation, is to be followed in the time of such confusions and disturbances, and that is, (as we think) abstraction and withdrawing from such disorders in ministers which we cannot get otherways rectified (James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, p. 61, my emphasis)
We distinguish between a Reformed Church enjoying her privileges and judicatories and a Reformed church denuded of her privileges and deprived of her judicatories. In the former, people are to address themselves unto Church judicatories and not to withdraw from their ministers (especially for ordinary scandals); But in the latter, when ministers are really scandalous (though not juridically declared so) and duly censurable according to the Word of God, and their own church’s constitutions and censures cannot be inflicted through the want of church judicatories, and yet they still persist in their offensive courses, people may do what is competent to them and testify their sense of the justness of the censure to be inflicted, by withdrawing from such ministers even without the Presbyterial sentence (James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, pp. 61, 62, my emphasis).
Alexander Shields did formerly agree with James Renwick in his book entitled Hind Let Loose.
In a constitute and settled case of the church, enjoying her privileges and judicatories, corruptions may be forborne, and the offended are not to withdraw, before recourse to the judicatories for an orderly redress; but in a broken and disturbed state, when there is no access to these courts of Christ; then people, though they must not usurp a power of judicial censuring these corruptions, yet they may claim and exercise a discretive power over their own practice; and by their withdrawing from such ministers as are guilty of them, signify their sense of the moral equity of these censures that have been legally enacted against these and the equivalent corruptions, and when they should be legally inflicted. As we do upon this ground withdraw from the prelatic curates, and likewise from some of our covenanted brethren, upon the account of their being chargeable with such corruptions and defections from our reformation, as we cannot but show our dislike of (Alexander Shields, A Hind Let Loose, 1797 edition, p. 266).
Walt, I understand the difference between church government and baptism you have with John MacArthur. The point is in this distinction you are free to accuse a BROTHER in Christ of the awful things you said about him, namely sin and evil, causing disunity, error, sect, dangerous heresy. I’m confronting you as a brother as instructed in Mathew 18, bearing false witness of a brother in Christ. Your arrogant and you slandered a brother.
Did you read anything I posted last night without your total blind dedication to MacArthur? You complain about the Catholics being blind, but you should recognize it goes both ways. I read what you right, and wonder. Is this guy really that blind or just totally fallen in love with MacArthur? I’ll let you and Jim answer that question.
Walt, my blind dedication to MaCarthur. You definately can recognize blind dedication, because you could be accused of putting the covenanters on the level of the Papacy. You are arogant and unrepentant. It has nothing to do with me and my relationship with John MacArthur. You would have said it about Spurgeon. I disagree with MacArthur on things but I would not say what you said about a brother and faithful minister of the gospel. Stuborn and arogant. You have allot of nerve blaming Jim and I for your words. I have that against you. I wont address you anymore.
Tim wrote:
“I do not agree with Walt on church government, but I am a Presbyterian and largely concur with the Westminster Confession…”
That is unfortunate as I don’t think I could attend a Presbyterian church if I did not believe it was a biblical form of church government. After what I have read in the history of the church, and in Scripture, it would bother me sitting in front of a minister who I did not believe was being faithful to the truth of such a critical doctrine and government of the church.
“Walt and I have yet to explore the depths of our disagreements, not because they are large or insurmountable, but because we have found a common interest in discussing matters of some theological significance. We have not dwelt on our differences.”
Agreed. Now that I understand your more tolerant views on various types of church government as possibly being all equal in Scripture, and do not believe in the subordinate standards and attainments reached during the first and second reformations on Presbyterian form of government, this will be a significant difference between us as reformed Protestants.
“I don’t believe that you, Eric, baptists and bible-church people are heretics (the way you are using the term), but I don’t believe you have acknowledged Walt’s nuanced distinction between damnable and dangerous heresies, either.”
Thank you. I don’t like anyone to be called a heretic as it is really uncharitable, but I’ve learned recently reading more closely the comments between Jim and Kevin who often they take each other out of context. Kevin has become very good at doing the same thing with my statements, as I don’t have time to correct his errors about what he claims I said that I did not say. One just one point. By definition, a destructive heresy to the unity of the church is any preaching, teaching or propagation of a doctrine, discipline, form of worship or form of government that is not biblical. Christ is not double minded and there is no conflict or disunity in the whole of Scripture to where it creates division and schism. Man creates schism by its error and heretical views taught against Scripture.
I would not call MacArthur or most reformed Baptists heretics, as that is very strong language. I would say that the teaching of independent form of church government, and refusal to allow infants to be baptized is a destructive heresy to the true unity of the church. It is not a damnable heresy, but is a destructive heresy and error.
The problem is that the word heresy is abused by some groups, and ignored out of political correctness by others. I am not trying to offend needlessly. If someone said I was involved in promoting heretical teachings and disrupting the unity of the Christian church, I would certainly take note and look into the specific doctrine. I would not turn about complaining over and over someone called me a heretic.
Thank you, Walt. I should clarify something about form of Church Government vs. inerrancy of Church Government. I agree with the form of Church Government in the Westminster Confession, so I have no problem attending a Presbyterian church, as it holds to a biblical form of church government. What I disagree with you on is the inerrancy of Church Government, and more precisely, the alleged inerrancy of the Church Courts. I disagree, for example, with the Westminster Divines in that they appear to have the law of God written on the hearts of all mankind, per Romans 2:14-15, or at least that is the way Romans 2:14-15 is used in the footnotes (see WCF, I.1). I believe, rather, that the law being written on the heart is a covenantal promise only for the elect (Jeremiah 31:33), and that it is not granted generally to all mankind. This is something of which I wrote in Romans 2:13 and the Jealously Narrative.
By saying that I disagree with you on Church Government, I was not saying that I disagree with the form of Church Government in the Westminster Confession. On that I think we agree.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt,
Bless your heart but you have absolutely no standard with which to determine heresy from legitimate development of doctrine.
What means did Christ establish to convey and protect His teachings to all generations of men down through the ages? A book? A presbyterian form of government? A congregational democracy? An inner witness/burning in the bosom? A lot of different, squabbling denominations all led by the same Holy Spirit? A charismatic, fast talking guy on T.V.? A mystic?
Check out Matt 16.
Tim, that is an interesting point. Because Inlike youbhave alwayschad a problem with the contention that the law was written on all men’s hearts. Also can you explain your position on many saw the Reformation as not complete in that they brought many things from the Roman curch with them, one of which was the OT form of government was carried on. The gospel went out to the world, in many countries, many of whom are at war with each other. Jesus says my kingdom is not of this world. Certainly God has set government as a restriner, but governments are run by sinful men. The gospel was never about christianizing institutions, but the salvation of man. Paul said this is a trustworthy statement that Chist came into the world to save sinners. This is an interesting discussion. I glad you said that about the law. Horton says the law was written on man’s heart by nature. Can you expound your view. Thanks K Just want you to know Tim I love you as my brother in Christ and dont consider you a heretic because we attend different churches. I have actually thought about and have attended a Reformed Presbytyrian church. If I disagee with the style of church government should I not attend? Im really thinking thru this. Thans Tim.
Check out Matt 16.
Specially the guy Jesus calls Satan.
Not to mention the universal dissent of the early church fathers as to which of generally three views were to be held of the chapter.
Bob,
So, the one hyperbolic “satan” remark wipes out the 193 times Peter is mentioned in the New testament?
Jesus must have really been mixed up to later tell “Satan” to feed His lambs and sheep, huh?
And if you check out the Acts of the Apostles, this same Satan was chief among the Apostles and was given the revelation from heaven of the great net and told to bring gentiles into the Church.
You have been drinking in Tim’s poison for too long if you think the early Church dissented from Peter being Pope. ( Even the Fathers who said it was Peter’s Faith in Matt 16 and not Peter believed Peter to be Chief Apostle. No dissent here Bob. )
Jim, you blame Bob S for drinking Tim’s poison but what about the poison you been drinking, thinking that Roman Catholicism is anything like the catholic church of the NT.
He never called him pope, Jim.
Capiche?
And Paul corrected Peter on the gospel, much more gave us the admonition of Gal. 1:8,9.
But Rome doesn’t have ears for anything like that regarding little papa.
Further, contra the Roman lie on the universal/unanimous consent of the early church fathers, more than a few of them, Augustine included, said the rock was Christ, not Peter.
cheers
Bob,
No, Jesus never referred to Peter as Papa. Peter was not Jesus’ Father.
He called Simon a much stronger term. He called him Kephas.
John wrote in Greek but used this one Aramaic term. Later, he speaks of Kaiphas prophecy by the power of the Spirit due to being high priest that year. Kaiphas was not a name. It was a title. It means rock.
Capiche?
Finally, despite what Augustine said about Matthew 16 and the rock, he also said, ” Where Peter is, there is the Church”.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Dunno know, Jim. Satan is a pretty strong term.
Why would Jesus call the pope that?
Could it be he is antichrist?
Augustine?
That’s just it pal. The ECF are all over the page and sometimes an individual ECF is all over the page.
But not according to you know who.
You know, the folks who swear by the “universal consent of the fathers”.
Good luck with that.
cheers
Tim, I’m leaving for the airport shortly. You said:
“What I disagree with you on is the inerrancy of Church Government, and more precisely, the alleged inerrancy of the Church Courts. I disagree, for example, with the Westminster Divines in that they appear to have the law of God written on the hearts of all mankind, per Romans 2:14-15, or at least that is the way Romans 2:14-15 is used in the footnotes (see WCF, I.1).”
Please clarify. Are you saying that it is your belief that the Westminster Divines taught the following:
1) That Presbyterian courts are inerrant (e.g., without error)?
2) That all men have the law written on their heart, where you believe only the elect have the law written on their heart?
I’m glad that we believe that Presbyterian form of church government is by divine right as stated in our (my not yours so don’t be offended) Terms of Communion. Do you disagree with these Terms of Communion, for example:
Terms of Communion
In order both to define our boundaries of fellowship and to make clear the conditions upon which we will unite with others, we desire to be explicit and forthright about our beliefs. These beliefs, otherwise known as our “terms of communion”, are as follows:
1. An acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice.
2. That the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are agreeable unto, and founded upon the Scriptures.
3. That Presbyterial Church Government and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation.
4. That public, social covenanting is an ordinance of God, obligatory on churches and nations under the New Testament; that the National Covenant and the Solemn League are an exemplification of this divine institution; and that these Deeds are of continued obligation upon the moral person; and in consistency with this, that the Renovation of these Covenants at Auchensaugh, Scotland, 1712 was agreeable to the word of God.
5. An approbation of the faithful contending of the martyrs of Jesus, especially in Scotland, against Paganism, Popery, Prelacy, Malignancy and Sectarianism; immoral civil governments; Erastian tolerations and persecutions which flow from them; and of the Judicial Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761 with supplements from the Reformed Presbyterian Church; as containing a noble example to be followed, in contending for all divine truth, and in testifying against all corruptions embodied in the constitutions of either churches or states.
6. Practically adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour by walking in all His commandments and ordinances blamelessly.
Thanks, Walt. I hope you had a safe trip. To answer your questions:
1) I do not believe that the Westminster Divines taught that Presbyterian courts are inerrant (e.g., without error).
2) I believe the Westminster Divines thought that Romans 2:14-15 applied to all mankind, including unbelievers, who “shew the work of the law written in their hearts.” In the first footnote of the first paragraph of the first chapter of the Confession, when affirming correctly that “the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable,” the proof text is Romans 2:14-15, for they believed that God had put His law in the heart of every man.
In paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 Adam and Eve are described as having the law written on their hearts, and Romans 2:14-15 is the proof text.
In Question 17 of the Larger Catechism, “Q. 17. How did God create man?,” the answer includes the statement that Adam and Eve were created with the law written on their hearts, and again uses Romans 2:14-15 to prove it.
From these citations, taken together, it is clear that the Westminster Divines believed that “the law of God written on the hearts of men” survived the Fall and remains written on the heart of all of Adam’s progeny, regenerate or not. I understand that by this the Divines probably meant “the conscience,” but that is not what that verse means. It is referring to God writing His Law on the hearts of believing Gentiles, not promiscuously writing His Law on the hearts of all mankind.
Because the writing of the Law on the heart is a covenantal promise, and only occurs as a fruit of regeneration, I do not believe Romans 2:14-15 is speaking of unbelievers, but rather of believing Gentiles. You mentioned some time ago, “Yes, the WCF is an inerrant document. … The WCF is not perfect. There are biblical proof texts that are not as clear as others could be….”. I understand that you are making a distinction between inerrant, perfect and infallible.
I agree that the WCF is not perfect. But I also believe that their use of Romans 2:14-15 to prove that “the works of creation … leave[s] men unexcusable” is an error in its own right. It’s not just what they say that is important—it also matters to me that they use the Word correctly when they do so. Therefore I cannot subscribe to the belief that the WCF is inerrant.
Although it is indeed very good—the best of all the confessions.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, thank you for that post. It has always been my understanding that the Westminster Divines specifically said “Reformed and always being Reformed” to avoid the errors of Rome’s claims to infallibility. We are free to disagree with the Confession if we think it goes against scripture am I correct? The Divines said it wasn’t a perfect document.
Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
The reformed church is always being reforming by/according to the Word of God
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/semper-reformanda/
But where did this phrase come from? Its first appearance was in a 1674 devotional by Jodocus van Lodenstein, who was an important figure in Dutch Reformed pietism — a movement known as the Dutch Second Reformation. According to these writers, the Reformation reformed the doctrine of the church, but the lives and practices of God’s people always need further reformation. . . .
Bob S, the greatest thing about the WCF is the humility that came along with that document. Think about the statement the Reformed church is always being reformed by the word of God. There is so much hope in that. They were committed to not repeat the errors of Rome. 1 John 2:27 imho is one of the most incredible verses in scripture, reminding us we have an anointing in us that is true.
Tim, am I right by saying you are making a distinction between the Law being written on the heart of an unbeliever ( conscience) in the natural understanding of God and his law, and the verse 2: 14-15 is not a support for that but rather is a reference to Jeremiah where the one who receives the gospel has the Law written in their heart by God, thus these are believing gentile. You made a comment that it is in the usage here that determines that. Can you expound on this. I remember this was your interpretation on your piece on Romans 2:13. Also are there other places where you thing WCF got something wrong. I think the most awesome thing about those divines is there rejection that as good as that confession is, it isn’t without error. Thanks
Walt, are you ever wrong? You keep saying I took you out of context. You used tgese words to define Reformed Baptist, schism, error, causing disunity, sin and evil. Those words must have been missed by Tim. Now you are in sin if you acuseca brother of these things. You can believe that someone who does not hold to the form of government or infant baptism that you hold to as dangerous heresy, thats your business. But you accused a man of God, a staunch defender of the Reformation tenets, and a faithful Pastor for 50 years of things that are not true. Dont tell me that I miss uneerstand you. It is easy to pick on me, I cant even spell right, but you falsely acuse a brother. K
Jim, I get an email from CtC and CCC today. Its a link to their site were Jason is pouring out his soul on how since he left his church for the glamour of Rome it hasn’t been so glamorous. He is broke with no job, driving a beater and lamenting on how none of his Reformed friends will talk to him. He tried to get in his old church, but they won’t let him in the doors. He says it was not worth it, he should have just lived the lie and stayed where he is. The guy is crying for help. There are 2 billion of you, can’t you get the guy a job or help him out. Send him a few grand Jim and buy those books sitting in his closet. I thought the gut was on his second book living high on the Roman Hog enjoying stardom and come to find out the guy is destitute. All you Catholics on his site and no one to help him out. Sad! I have been praying for him. Unfortunately once they leave the free grace of God for “fuller worship” ( get my works involved in my justification) they never come back to the simple devotion to Christ by faith 2 Cor. 11:3. Maybe people are reluctant to help him because one lady was complaining he used her pledge to buy a statue of the Pope of his office. Seriously Jim he needs help. Pray for him. K
Hi Tim,
Earlier ttoday, I discovered that you responded to the comment I published on 09-20-14 (1:40 PM – link). I have learned that the combox of your blog operates differently than that of my blog; that new comments do not always appear in chronological order. So, prior to this knowledge, I was looking for responses to my comments chronologically only.
Anyway, now that I have become aware that you did respond to my request, I would like to address the following that you wrote on 09-22-14 (5:58 PM – link):
>>So for now, why not just say that ‘baptismal regeneration’ means that God imparts to the water the power to regenerate to spiritual life?>>
I hesitate to limit the meaning of ‘baptismal regeneration’ to “God imparts to the water the power to regenerate to spiritual life”, and this due to the fact that regeneration has such a broad range of meanings. Charles Hodge wrote:
>>Different meanings are attached to the words baptismal regeneration. It has been already stated, in a preceding chapter, that by regeneration is sometimes meant an external change, —translation from the world, as the kingdom of darkness, into the Church, as the kingdom of light. In this sense it implies no subjective change. Sometimes it means the life-long process by which a soul is more and more transformed into the image of God. Sometimes it means the whole process which takes place in the consciousness when a sinner turns from sin through Christ unto God. It is then synonymous with conversion. In our day, in ordinary theological language, it means that supernatural change effected by the Spirit of God by which a soul is made spiritually alive. “You hath He quickened ἐζωοποίησε),” (see Eph. ii. 1, 5), says the Apostle to the Ephesians. In their former state they were dead in trespasses and sins. Their regeneration consisted in their being made spiritually alive; or, in their having the principle of a new spiritual life imparted to them. Such being the diversity of meaning attached to the word in question, the phrase baptismal regeneration may be understood in very different senses. The sense in which it is to be here taken is that in which, as is believed, it is generally understood. According to the faith of the Church universal, Greek, Latin, and Protestant, all men since the fall are born in a state of sin and condemnation — spiritually dead. It is a wide-spread belief that when baptism is administered to new-born infants, they are regenerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit; they are so born again as to become the children of God and heirs of his kingdom. The word, however, includes more than simply the renewing of the soul. Prior to baptism, according to the Catechism of the Church of England, infants are in a state of sin and the children of wrath; by baptism they are said to be made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. In other words, in baptism the blessings signified in that ordinance are conveyed to the soul of the infant. Those blessings are the cleansing from guilt by the blood of Christ, and purification from pollution by the renewing of the Holy Ghost. (Systematic Theology, 3.591)>>
J. I. Packer wrote:
>>The fathers did not formulate the concept of regeneration precisely. The equated it, broadly speaking, with baptismal grace, which meant to them (to Pelagius, exclusively) remission of sins. (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 1984, p. 925.)>>
And:
>>baptismal regeneration The belief that salvation is conferred through baptism (see John 3:5 Titus 3:5). This view has been prominent in Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. (Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, 1996, p. 26.)>>
It seems to me that a number of non-Reformed folk (including the early Church Fathers) maintain that regeneration includes more than just, “the power to regenerate to spiritual life”.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
I see you bring up the fact that Lutherans believe in Baptismal regeneration. I find it interesting Tim and his Sancho Panza ( Kevin ) give Lutherans a free pass and reserve the invectives for Catholics only when the issue of Baptism comes up. I actually take this as a recognition of our Church being the true one so I am not really bothered by it.
The other day James Swan of Beggars All Reformation Blog posted an article debunking the Catholic claim that Luther had Catholic-like devotion to Mary. As Tim and Kevin all but strip off their clothes and beg to enter into a herd of swine in order to hurl themselves over a cliff and into the sea at the sound of the holy name of Mary, I thought they would enjoy commiserating with a fellow devotee’ of the Deformation, especially on their favorite issue of Romish Mariolatry. I sent them the link but as of yet they have demurred to click on the site.
I would really enjoy it if Tim and Kevin used some of the slurs they like to use against the Blessed sacrament on this site over on Mr. Swan’s site. Death wafer, Graven Bread, idolatry, bread worship, etc. just might get the hackles up of a man dedicated to Luther. As Lutherans believe in the Real Presence along with the substance of the bread, they are much closer to bread worship than we Catholics are, yes? ( Not that I was accuse them of such ). On utube one can even see Lutherans placing the host in a monstrance just as Catholics do and rendering what appears to be latria.
Where is the outcry from Tim? Why isn’t Kevin foaming at the mouth? The silence from Tim and Kevin is deafening.
The attitude towards Lutheranism on this blog exposes Tim and Kevin as the hypocrites they are. They have a double standard. This blog is dedicated to anti-Catholicism. The Church is the Whore of Babylon for them as for Luther yet Tim and Kevin never visit Swan’s blog to make nice as they know they will eventually come to blows with him over the Real Presence and maybe even Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. ( And Swan would win the fight, I am sure ).
I guess Mary and the Eucharist are non-essentials that brothers can agree to disagree on with Lutherans . However, when Catholics espouse such beliefs, out come the slurs and the rending of garments by our Deformed friends, Kevin and Tim.
This cowardly double standard tells me where they are really coming from.
David, I really admire you ability to engage Tim like a gentleman. Personally, I can’t keep a civil tongue with a man who allows Kevin Falloni’s slurs on his blog.
Thank you, David,
I hope you also saw my response (above) to your comments on Tertullian and baptism by blood. More on the definition of baptismal regeneration later tonight.
Tim
Dear David,
Thank you for writing. First I would like to caution you in the way you define terms. When you say that many people “maintain that regeneration includes more than just, ‘the power to regenerate to spiritual life’,” you have in the definition expanded the meaning of the term to include more than the term being defined. You have essentially said that many people believe that regeneration is more than regeneration.
Based on the law of identity of logic, a thing is itself and is not something else. Therefore, regeneration is regeneration. It is not more than itself. Additionally, even if you had not said regeneration “includes more” than regeneration, your statement, as a definition, is not practical for our purposes. Without the extra words importing more into regeneration than it is, your statement would be “regeneration is ‘the power to regenerate,’ ” which is the same as saying “regeneration is regeneration.” Of course it is.
I think what you meant was that many non-reformed folk “including the early church fathers” maintain that baptism includes more than just the power to regenerate to spiritual life.”
In any case, Rome alleges that what she currently teaches is what the the church has always taught. In fact, that is precisely what Called to Communion said: “The Catholic Church has always believed and taught that the grace by which we are born again comes to us through the sacrament of baptism.” The evidence for this is alleged to be found in the Early Church Fathers. My six week series challenges this.
Therefore, we need to start with Rome’s current definition of baptismal regeneration and see if the church of Jesus Christ has always taught this.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent defines Baptism as “The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word. By nature we are born from Adam children of wrath, but by Baptism we are regenerated in Christ, children of mercy.” By this Rome means that God has imparted to the water of baptism the power to regenerate to spiritual life:
Did the early church fathers teach that God imparted to the water the power to regenerate to spiritual life? That is what we are discussing.
You may believe, or Rome may believe, that baptism is also attended by justification, remission of sins, ingrafting into Christ, moral transformation, et cetera, but none of those things are “regeneration”. They are other things that are not regeneration.
I have been at this long enough to know that in order to trace its errors all the way back to the first century, Rome must define things with such imprecision that they lose all meaning. Thus, frescoes depicting loaves in the catacombs are “early evidence” for eucharistic adoration; a woman depicted in a drawing the catacombs with her hands held up is “early evidence” for Mary’s mediation; Tertullian’s mockery of Pope Callistus by calling him “Pontifex Maximus” is “early evidence” that the pope had gone by that name in the 3rd century. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd Century) says “the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,” and Justin Martyr (late 2nd Century) says “our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished” by the Eucharist, and these are provided as “early evidence” of Transubstantiation. But if Augustine denies that the bread of the Lord’s supper is literally Christ’s flesh, and pope Gelasius says in 496 that the bread of the Eucharist does not cease to be bread after the words of institution, it is because the doctrine of Transubstantation had not been fully worked out yet.
Allowing such a loose definition for “regeneration” as you have provided allows Rome the license to find in every mention of water, the laver, the bath and the baptismal font “early evidence” for baptismal regeneration. But that is cherry picking, and it is Rome’s modus operandi. For example, when the Council of Carthage defines regeneration as a two-step sacramental process by which a man must be born of water in baptism and then of the spirit by another sacrament of laying on of hands before he is truly born again, Rome holds the council at arm’s length and says it was a regional, not an ecumenical council, and therefore is not binding. But when another regional non-binding council defines the canon of Scriptures, Rome runs to that council and plants its flag saying, look how early the church defined the canon!
The question before us is this, and only this: “Did the early church fathers teach that God imparted to the water the power to regenerate to spiritual life?”, for that is what Rome alleges that the Early Church Fathers taught.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, the issue for me in your series is the broader question that Rome can substitue itself for Christ. It positions itself as an extension of the incarnation, finishing his atonement thru the acts of the church.. It removes the soverienty of God, who alone has soverienty over the soul, from salvation by having the thing signified contained in the sign. The church can lead someone to faith butIt cannot usurp the soveienty of God to regenerate and save His elect. Rome collapses the head Ito the body and substitutes itself for the Christ and the Spirit and puts salvation in the church’s sacramental system. They are finishing His atonement in their obedience. And if they lose baptism ex opere operato they lose their control on being sovereign in salvation.
” It positions itself as an extension of the incarnation, ”
WOW! What a wild idea, eh Kevin? You would think the Church is Body of Christ or something. You don’t suppose, that when Jesus said the Vine and the branches live by the same life, He meant it do you?
“Saul, why do you persecute me?” is probably a biblical misprint, right? It should go the way of the Epistle of James and be thrown out of the Bible, right?
Jim, you know what I mean by extension. Christ’s atoning work is finished and not being finished in the acts of the church, your obedience. Our obedience is not a means to attain our justification as we cooperate with grace, it is the resosonable service of worship as a result of a justification we already have thru faith. We are incorporated into Christ’ body by the Spirit a nd not by the flesh.
Tim,
You speak of how Rome uses the ambiguity of certain sayings, frescoes, whatever.
Yesterday you dismissed my reference to Cyril of Jerusalem as he lived long after your supposed great Apostasy.
So, in the first to centuries for sure, the Church was persecuted for not melding her doctrines with paganism by merely burning a pinch of incense to an idol in order to shop in the market place.
I’ve asked you before, where was the outcry from the early Christians when the half Christian/half pagan Whore introduced Baptism, Mary, the Real Presence, etc. If they were willing to face lions rather than syncretize, why were they such passive sheep asto buy into goddess worship, magic and idolatry?
Jim, Rome did not “introduce baptism.”
In any case, you have asked me before, and I thought I answered. Read Jerome’s responses to Vigilantius and Jovinianus for evidence that Rome’s novelties were rejected by many. Read the Letter of Pope Siricius to the Church of Milan (389 A.D.) in which he condemns “Jovinian, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Prontinus, Martianus, Januarius, and Ingeniosus, who were discovered to be the promoters of the new heresy.” This “new heresy” was the fact that priests could marry and virginity does not place one in a better standing with God than marriage. When you read Jerome’s invectives against Jovinianus and Vigilantius, they were rejecting the novelties recently introduced—prayers to martyrs, invocation of saints, celibate priesthood, etc… — practices that even Rome acknowledges that she cannot trace earlier than the late 4th century.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I read it before. I just don’t find it a satisfying answer to my ( and the lurkers ) question.
David Waltz, you just make an infomercial for infant baptism ex opere operato. The first part of your retort to Tim is that their are many different understandings on what regeneration is, then you write a diatribe on how it is widely accepted that everything including making pancakes take place at infant baptism. Here is a news flash: Paul said he did not come to baptize but preach the gospel. Hint, faith comes thru hearing the word of God , Romans10:17, 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18. Luther said that there would be allot less baptized people if instead of being brought to baptism people came on their own. Lets be frank David, your 0 for 2 here. The predominant practice in the early church was adult baptism. And as Tim has shown here the laver of washing ( regeneration) is the Word of God thru the Spirit and not baptism. The sovereign winds of God cannot be be monolithically transferred to a secondary cause. And thats brings me to the real reason infant baptism is “so widely accepted” Constantine and the monolithic Christianization of babies for the State. So Roman Catholics are taught growing up they are Christians because they have been baptized. Simple question, where is God’s sovereignty to save his elect taken out of the Spirit’s hand and put in the hand of a secondary cause. Please follow with me ” Peter said to them ” Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all far off, as many as the Lord our God calls to himself.” Notice the call to the one’s who repent and are baptized are those that God calls to himself. Not the other way around, that God must bestow faith, forgiveness of sins, etc. on those who are chosen for baptism. God calls men to himself thru his word by the work of the Spirit who regenerates us and baptism follows. And David this verse should send you packing on 2 fronts. 1 Peter 1: 23 ” for you have been born again not of an imperishable seed but imperishable, that is, the living and enduring word of God.” 1. The word is direct cause of a man being born again, not baptism. 2. its imperishable which eliminates justification being the Roman process of doing better. God bless you Dave.
Jim, I actually don’t give anyone a pass. I was just discussing this with Eric W, and he said something interesting. The claw that Romanism has into the Reformed Presbyterian church and Lutheranism etc is infant baptism. Thats why it is so important. Without infant baptism ex opere operato and inherent grace and merit the Roman system collapses. God is either sovereign over the hearts and minds of His elect and calls men to faith and repentance thru the Spirit and His word, or He obeys the decision of a Priest who has the sovereign power to bestow salvation. And this is why one’s view of ecclesiology affects one’s view. Either salvation is in the hands of God or the church. Either the church is the recipient of God’s grace or the provider. Either the Spirit regenerates a man freely by His choosing or He operates at the hand of a secondary cause. Either the Spirit brings fiducia to the heart, brings Christ to the heart or the church does. God is sovereign over the heart and mind of men, not the church. In no way imho can the church usurp the work of the Word and the Spirit.
Jim, the church can lead us to faith, but it is the Spirit who works regeneration and all the other gifts thru the Word. K
Hello again Tim,
Thanks much for your thoughtful response. I am sincerely trying to understand the emphasis you are placing on your narrow definition of ‘regeneration’, but to be honest, it seems to me that you are ignoring a good deal of historical development concerning it’s meaning. In fact, even today within the confines of the Reformed tradition, there is division over what the term means. You wrote:
>>When you say that many people “maintain that regeneration includes more than just, ‘the power to regenerate to spiritual life’,” you have in the definition expanded the meaning of the term to include more than the term being defined. You have essentially said that many people believe that regeneration is more than regeneration.>>
I am merely repeating what Reformed theologians are saying about the term. Once again, I shall let Charles Hodge speak on this issue:
>>THE subjective change wrought in the soul by the grace of God, is variously designated in Scripture. It is called a new birth, a resurrection, a new life, a new creature, a renewing of the mind, a dying to sin and living to righteousness, a translation from darkness to light, etc. In theological language, it is called regeneration, renovation, conversion. These terms are often used interchangeably. They are also used sometimes for the whole process of spiritual renovation or restoration of the image of God, and sometimes for a particular stage of that process. Thus Calvin gives the term its widest scope: “Uno verbo poenitentiam interpretor regenerationem, cujus non alius est scopus nisi ut imago Dei, quæ per Adæ transgressionem foedata et tantum non obliterata fuerat, in nobis reformetur. . . . Atque hæc quidem instauratio non uno momento, vel die, vel anno impletur, sed per continuos, imo etiam lentos interdum profectus abolet Deus in electis suis carnis corruptelas.”
With the theologians of the seventeenth century conversion and regeneration were synonymous terms. (Systematic Theology, 3.3)>>
And just a bit later he writes:
>>Even by the Lutherans, in the “Apology for the Augsburg Confession,” regeneration is made to include justification. That is, it is made to include the whole process by which the sinner is transferred from a state of sin and condemnation into a state of salvation. (Systematic Theology, 3.4)>>
I cannot in good conscience jettison the complex history concerning the development and understanding of the term regeneration. You said:
“Therefore, regeneration is regeneration. It is not more than itself.”
But, theologians of your tradition (including John Calvin himself) say that regeneration is more than just regeneration. I think you are making a crucial error if you continue to ignore what the theologians of your own tradition are saying.
It has been my experience that many theological terms have more than one meaning, and have a rich history of development behind them. I submit to you that regeneration is one of those terms.
However, with all that said, I do not want to lose sight of following that you wrote:
>>Did the early church fathers teach that God imparted to the water the power to regenerate to spiritual life? That is what we are discussing.>>
If by “regenerate to spiritual life” you mean the same thing as the new birth (i.e. born again), then yes, the early Church Fathers taught that baptism by water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the ordinary means that God uses to bring it about.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Over the last few days I have been rereading all treatises of Tertullian which touch on the subject of baptism, using more than one English translation when available, referring to the Latin when translations disagree. I was going to type up a new post this weekend to share some of my reflections, but, I have guests coming in Friday, so I will not be able to start that post until Monday (the Lord willing).
Thank you, David. You wrote:
No, I am not ignoring it. If I were ignoring it, it would not matter to me what definition we use. It is precisely because of the broad and inconsistent historical use of the term that we must establish what we are talking about before we go to the fathers. If we don’t do that up front, any statement by any father about anything remotely related to water is taken ipso facto by Rome as a reference to baptismal regeneration. Some fathers said baptism confers incorruptibility to our bodies. And yet they knew full well that our baptized bodies decay—even those infants who die immediately after baptism. Some fathers said baptism conveys truth, and yet they knew full well that truth is not received by water, for truth is propositional. Some fathers said that baptism conveys immortality, and yet they knew full well that baptized people die. In each case they were using truth, incorruptibility, immortality, etc… in a way that context must help us determine—all without using the word regeneration. So it’s not just about agreeing that regeneration has been used so flexibly historically that it has no actual meaning at all. It’s about asking whether what Rome currently teaches about baptism imparting life, is what the church fathers taught. They may or may not have used the term “regeneration.” Sometimes when they say “regeneration” they do not mean “new life.” Sometimes when they mean “new life,” they do not use the term regeneration. What matters is, “Did they say that the water imparts life?”
Let me give you an example. 30 years ago, if I approached a cash register with an item from a store shelf, the last thing in the world that the cashier would ask me is “Do you want to just swipe it?” Today, when I get to the cashier, that is exactly what the cashier asks. The difference is that 30 years ago “swipe” only meant “steal” or “shoplifting,” and the cashier was thinking about the item from the shelf. Today, “swipe” means to swipe your credit card, and the cashier is thinking about a form of payment for the item. Such does language change over decades.
My point is that Rome reads the Church Fathers through the lens of her current teaching—as if “swipe” meant the same thing today as it did 30 years ago. That is my point in constantly coming back to what the Fathers meant by “laver.” In their article, Called to Communion said, “When the Fathers speak of the “laver” or the “laver of “repentance” or the “laver of regeneration,” they are speaking of baptism.” That is easily falsifiable, which is why we can’t just agree that “laver” has a broad meaning throughout history. What matters to me is not how broadly the term “laver” is used, but what each father meant by “laver” when he used it.
Thus, I am glad to see you write,
To this I respond that Irenaeus said that the wicked “have at once believed and been changed” by faith:
And Origen had rebirth from above, taking place apart from the waters that are from below:
He also said that “what is called the laver of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit” not by the application of water, but by the laying on of hands, and the Spirit “does not come to all after the water” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, chapter 17). Also recall that Tertullian said the unbaptized novice is just as “saved” as the baptized person, for in his heart he has been “bathed already” (Tertullian, On Repentance, Chapter 6). Is that not a reference to regeneration apart from water baptism? Of course it is. I can’t imagine that the rebirth of the novice in the course of instruction was an “extraordinary” occurence—not the way Tertullian is describing it here. “Is there one Christ for the baptized, another for the learners? Have they some different hope or reward? … For the first baptism of a learner is this, a perfect fear” (Tertullian, On Repentance, Chapter 6). That’s not a description of an extraordinary regeneration apart from water. In fact, it seems quite ordinary, to Tertullian, that regeneration takes place prior to, and apart from, water.
The fathers referred to baptismal regeneration apart from water so frequently that I have to wonder if perhaps we should first work on a definition of “ordinary,” for you appear to be using “ordinary” in a way that empties it of all meaning.
Thanks,
Tim
Guys,
Just this morning while waiting for my train, I read this from Cyril of Jerusalem, “…look at the water’s saving power by the operation of the Holy Spirit, for you cannot be initiated save by the means of both the Spirit and the water…the water washes the body and the Spirit seals the soul…”.
Kevin like to say Titus 3:15 doesn’t mean H2O.
Jim,
Feel free to check the date on that. Late 4th century–when Rome’s errors took the world by storm. That was my point in The Rise of Roman Catholicism. I agree that by then, Rome was teaching baptismal regeneration.
Tim
Tim,
Ellen G White says the Apostasy took place because of Sunday worship.
Joseph Smith said,… Ruthererford…Garner Ted Armstrong…Tim Kauffman…
Tim, Jesus said the Church wouldn’t fall away.
Jim,
Roman Catholicism fell away at the end of the 4th century.
Ergo, Roman Catholicism is not the church.
Tim
So, Jesus got it wrong, eh Tim?
Jim, Paul eliminates any righteousness deeds in Titus 3:5, again the washing of regeneration can be directly attributed to the Spirit thru the word, not magic water. Incidentally, Romans 10:17, 1 Peter 1:23, and James 1:18 say that faith comes thru hearing the word of God. So please tell me Jim, if faith “comes thru hearing the word” how can Rome ascribe faith to infant baptism, and to the faith of a Parent or relative? It can’t.
Yeah, Paul says not by good works or faith ( done before grace ) but by the washing of water and Spirit. Just like the Council of Trent says.
Why do you keep thinking Baptism is a work? Titus 3:5 specifically says baptism is not a work. ” Not by works but by the laver of Baptism”.
Jim, what of who are you trusting to be saved? How you gettin in? Seriously.
Magic water? Boy, I am sure feelin’ the love Kevin. ( Remember how you told me how much you love me? ) You just hate that mean old Catholic Church right? But you sure love me. I am soooooo touched.
You say I receive communion at a trough like a pig. You mock me and my religion. But you love me to pieces! MMMMMMM!
And you love Tim’s mom too, dontcha’ Kev? Oh, she is at that trough too ( Don’t worry Kevin, gonadless Tim isn’t going to stick up for his mom ) but you love her. And you love David Waltz who receives Communion at the mass trough too, huh? You love Catholics so much.
You are one Christlike dude Kevin.
Jim, ya I make no appologies for my view of the Roman Eucharist. Men who take it are eating the road to hell. It c represents everything that is antichrist and anti gospel. Rome has historically called it “the workf of the people.” Now consider that for a moment. You must go to the Roman Eucharist and eat the bread god to earn and increase in grace and merit. It is the trough full of spiritual stictnine. Even though the scripture is clear that no one can attain their salvation by their works, or anything coming from themselves, the Roman idol is is where they go to propitiate their temporal punishment , the summit, where you earn your increase in justice. The bible says we are justified by faith and that the bread is to be taken in faith, the Spirit and the Word, spiritually as we are nourished freely by His grace. It is a Gift, and not a work. Yes Jim you go and adore and worship the very thing that will send you to hell. God seeks worshipers that worship Him in Spirit and truth. A savior who is still tied to an altar cant save you. Only one who is risen. Paul says if He has not risen, our faith is useless and we arecstill in our sins. Jim, those that go to the trough of the Roman Eucharist, their faith is useless and they are still in theit sins. He is risen Jim, and the bread that we take is a confirmation of the grace we have already received thru faith. Grace upon grace. Your drinking poison water Jim, and eating poison bread.
Dave, so you have just restated what we already knew and Tim stipulated in his article, that you and Mr Ferguson believe in a “novel” understanding of the Fathers in regard to baptism. Tim has unequivocally shown the Fathers to say “the opposite of your position” , that it isn’t baptism that regenerates, but the washing of the Word by the Spirit. Dave don’t put to much stock into development of doctrine or you might end up with at the Roman baptismal font we are assumed into heaven sinless. Was Paul ever prophetic when he said that a person couldn’t get to the truth of the gospel thru human wisdom. Men with advanced degrees from ivy league institutions cannot see what Tim has made so clear in his treatment of the fathers that the sign does not contain the thing signified. That is the work of the Spirit. It can at most be a covenantal promise ( if we relate that baptism is what circumcision is to the OT) and a sign and seal of the grace bestowed by God. I repeat Luther’s own words that there would be allot less baptized people if instead of being brought to baptism, the had to come. Salvation is ALL a work of God, and He regenerates men by his Spirit thru his word. In fact its all forensic for Paul. Sanctification is a work of God. We live out the miracle, plain and simple. Infant baptism ex opere operato is the soul of synergism. And as attempts are made to bring Reformed together with Romanism thru the baptismal front, men like Tim are drawing the line.
Keven, I am sure of you taking advantage of every opportunity to preach the Gospel in your long winded, monotonous manner that has got people running whenever they see you coming. You are a broken record. It got you thrown off C2C. People can’t take it.
Kevin, If you love Luther so much, get your butt over to “Beggars All”. It’s a Lutheran owned site. Let’s chat over there, you and me.
Hi Jim,
Earlier today you wrote:
>>Kevin, If you love Luther so much, get your butt over to “Beggars All”. It’s a Lutheran owned site. Let’s chat over there, you and me.>>
For the record, the owner of BA, James Swan, is a Presbyterian.
Grace and peace,
David
Jim, I just briefly went over to Beggars All. The Luther quote is quite interesting. The most interesting part he says , they think of Christ as the accuser, condemner, judge who must be placated by their works. This is the heart. Tim has mentioned this before. they turn Christ the savior who propitiated the wrath of God in our place into the judge who needs to be propitiated. And Mary takes the heroic place of mediatrix of all graces. Twisted. The very person who took away the sins of the world and fulfilled all righteousness, who reconciled us by his blood, is accuser, condemner and always angry with us. He must be placated with our seeds. Luther says they crucify Him over and over in themselves and in there mass. Is Roman doctrine the exact antithesis of scripture. it truly is amazing to those who have eyes to see.
Kevin,
Just clicking on the site means nothing. You have to comment and engage me in dispute. That way, without even my taunting or goading, within a day or two you will say something so outrageous that even the Protestant blog owner has to dump you. That way I can prove my point that even other anti-Catholics are grossed out by you.
Hello Kevin (Falloni),
This afternoon, you posted:
>> Dave, so you have just restated what we already knew and Tim stipulated in his article, that you and Mr Ferguson believe in a “novel” understanding of the Fathers in regard to baptism. Tim has unequivocally shown the Fathers to say “the opposite of your position” , that it isn’t baptism that regenerates, but the washing of the Word by the Spirit.>>
Those who believe in baptismal regeneration do not exclude the Word and Spirit; but rather, they believe that the Word and Spirit regenerate through the sacrament of baptism.
As for the “novel” charge, can you provide one published patristic scholar who believes that Justin and Tertullian did NOT teach the that sacrament of baptism regenerates ? Every patristic scholar I have read who comments on this issue believes they did (e.g. Bingham, Evans, Ferguson, Hagenbach, Pelikan, Seeburg, Souter, et. al.).
And there is, of course, Justin and Tertullian themselves; Justin wrote:
“Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again in the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Apology 61)
Tertuallian wrote:
“Now there is a standing rule that without baptism no man can obtain salvation. It derives in particular from that pronouncement of our Lord, who says, Except a man be born of water he cannot have life.” (On Baptism, 12.1)
Grace and peace,
David
Hi, David,
Thanks for your note. As regards your question:
I know you directed this at Kevin, but it’s probably something I need to answer. Yes, I can. I do not defer to other scholars, but as I mentioned in my brief analysis of Ferguson, I consider them helpful resources, even if they occasionally err. Consider this statement from the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature:
This is consistent with my position that the early church fathers did not teach what Rome currently teaches about baptismal regeneration, and further that Rome’s current doctrine is a novelty from the latter part of the 4th century.
Regarding your citation of Justin Martyr, I will merely restate what I said in part 1 of my series, and that is that Justin must be taken in context. Yes, he says “Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again in the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were born again…”.
But as you know, Justin introduced this chapter by describing “the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ,” and then he describes their public baptism. Here baptism is a public dedication for those who already “had been made new.” That appears to be a statement that they approach the water after what we today would call regeneration.
Martyr also says that “this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. … he who is illuminated is washed” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61). As you know the illumination in their understandings happened first, as Justin plainly says: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, … are brought by us where there is water…” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61). The illumination happened first, then the washing.
In these two examples, Justin says they were publicly dedicated because they had been made new (regenerated), and calls this washing “illumination” because “he who is illuminated is washed”. He does not say it is called “illumination” because “he who is washed is illuminated,” as Rome tries to make him say.
That said, in the immediate context of your citation, Justin has two things associated with regeneration occurring before the baptism—being made new, and being illuminated. (For evidence that Justin saw illumination by the light of truth as “renewal” and “circumcision of the heart” (regeneration), see my other citations of him from Part 1). What he calls “regeneration” is referring to the public dedication, even though his writings are full of evidences that rebirth occurs by the teaching that leads up to the baptism. I.e.,
Given that Justin Martyr saw illumination, renewal and circumcision of the heart taking place by the preaching of the word prior to baptism, and appears to refer to “regeneration” as a public dedication of those who are already alive, I can say that Justin did not believe that the water imparts life, and therefore did not hold to Baptismal regeneration.
Now to Tertullian. You cite him as saying,
Yes, but as you read Tertullian, you will find that he does not believe this at all—at least not the way Rome reads it. Read his words in On Repentance, Chapter 6 in which he objects strenuously to the notion that the learner, who has not been baptized yet, is not saved. Rather, Tertullian insists that he is, even without water baptism. The “learner” truly is a catechumen who is still learning the faith but has not been immersed, and yet Tertullian strenuously insists that the “learner” is saved, having been baptized already in the heart—and this was the ordinary practice of the day to provide thorough instruction prior to baptism—Tertullian knew full well that the learner is saved by faith in Christ’s blood and is then baptized.
As you read Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus—among others—they saw baptism as being preceded by rigorous instruction in the Word of God, and they all place regeneration there and not in the water.
Now to your question: “can you provide one published patristic scholar who believes that Justin and Tertullian did NOT teach the that sacrament of baptism regenerates?” Let’s ask the same question of Copernicus: “Can you provide one published astronomer from the last 1,400 years who believed that the earth orbits the sun?”
What do you suppose Copernicus would say in response? If Ferguson misread Hippolytus and Origen so badly, and he is “the foremost expert” on the topic, as you say, why must I conform my interpretation of the Fathers to Ferguson? Ptolemaeus was an “expert,” too, and yet here we are, orbiting the sun.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, great post. Rome has an uncanny ability to get everything backwards. The bible says Christ is risen, they still have Him on the cross an eternal victim. Scripture says we have been reconciled ro God, Rome is finishing His atonement in the acts of church. Scripture says God gives us grace and we do our best. Rome says do your best and God will give you grace. The bible calls it “thecfree gift of righteouness. Rome is a righteouness born out of love in merits and demerits. There is no doubt that Roman Catholicism is a different religion.
David Waltz said ” they believe that the word and Spirit regenerate thru the sacrament of baptism.” James 1:18 ” In the excersise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth” Romans 10:17″ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing the word of Christ.” There is no doubt in the mind of James and Paul men are regenerated and brought to faith thru the word of God, and that is the work of the Spirit. In fact Paul says hearing, not seeing, not touching but hearing. Baptismal regeneration ex opere operato is the biggest hoax next to the sacrifice of the Mass and the Roman doctrine ever perpetuated on man. God bless.
Kevin,
You are a liar. You hide behind the Gospel and religion in order to hate.
You don’t tell Catholics of the danger of their errors in order to save them.. You do it because you take a fiendish delight in offending them by calling them bread worshipers and idolaters.
Kevin, I may or may not think someone is in hell. Either way, I wouldn’t be so cruel as to go to a funeral and tell their grieving family that I thought their dead loved one was roasting for eternity.
You are one mean son of a %$#&^. There is nothing of Christ in you or your message. I am sure you have driven people away from any form of Christianity by your “tough love”.
You manipulate and use religion. Only kauffman welcomes your style as he is motivated by hate too.
Jim, the reason your accusations can becdismissed so easily is because of an example I will give you. You said Tim is motivated by hate. Now many things can be said about Tim, but saing that Tim is a hater isnt one them. If there is one man who has shown you consistent love even when you attack his family, its Tim. You know Jim there is another option. Tim is motivated for the lost in the idolatry of the Roman church out of the love of Christ. Im like Tim in one way, I dont care a rip about what people say my motives are, because noone can know another man’s motive. So many Reformed are enamored with Catholicism. Many of them see themselves as the schismatic rejected brother of Rome. Not me, there is nothing charming about Rome. It is a church being run by pirates and bugiardi. The gospel is so skewed and the sacraments so mangled that it is a false church. The only Christians in my mind are bad Catholics. Because you cant follow that gospel and be saved. Finally, you dont like me calling you a bread worshiper, and idolater because thats what you are. In Christ’ love Kevin.
Kevin, I don’t care what you call me. As a matter of fact, I am glad that since you were booted off of CCC you have “let it all hang out” here on Kauffman’s blog. I used to try to sound the tocsin against you. I don’t have to anymore. Your rabid dog ranting on this blog sealed your fate. Bloggers and blog owners who lurk here and on other sites have your number. And you have left me lots to copy and paste to prove you are hysterical.
I clicked on Kenneth’s blog this morning. What happened there? Did you burn him out too? You are pretty much contained here as only Kauffman tolerates your embarrassing nonsense. I can hardly wait for the fun when you two turn on each other.
Jim, I have pulled back from blogging on other sites because God reminded me that He saves His elect. Sometime this is a hard lesson to learn. I’m a 5 point Calvinist Jim and I believe it is God who will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He has created the wicked for the day of destruction. I was reading Roman Catholics one after another pining over Jason on his site about how once you have the indelible mark of Catholicism and see it is the true church you can’t go back. All of the he’s who jumped to Romanism are in hot water with friends and family who are Protestant. I look at most of these who go to Romanism as just emotionally needy, without faith, and a need to belong to the institution who tells them you have to belong to this institution to be safe. They can only trust themselves and this church to make it. They need that message. Because to trust Christ alone and His righteousness take faith and an admission there is nothing in me that can get me there. They believe a lie. For shrugging off the righteousness of God they seek to establish their own. But you see Jim, the bible is very clear that without faith it is impossible to please Him. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. To have a need to see the physical, participate in the physical, is not an assurance of things hoped for and a conviction of things not seen. These people like Jason never had faith, if they did they would have never left a gospel that trusts s perfect God alone to save us. I realized Jim I can’t give them faith, only God can. But a veil remains on there eyes so they don’t see the gospel. The great thing about Reformed doctrine is you are able to see your utter sinfulness, and then your not deceived, you know you can’t save yourself. You must trust Him fully to transfer you from the domain of darkness to the kingdom of light. My heart brakes for these Reformed and other Protestants who go to roman Catholicism, because as they think they are going to Christ’s true church, they are really revealing they have no faith. Once they receive the mark they are in the hands of Satan. We can only hope that God pulls some out. I pray you are one of them Jim. God is faithful. He can take a man like Tim, entrenched in Roman Catholicism, brilliant, and bring him to his knees. If I remember right, God did that with another religious man in the middle of a road. And he became the very Apostle that taught us about the free gift of eternal life. You are always in my prayers Jim.
Tim, as David said, it is hard to navigate on your blog as nothing is in chronological order.
Anyway, Jerome was after the Apostasy. The rule you apply to me applies to you.
Kevin,
You quoted Luther,
“The very person who took away the sins of the world and fulfilled all righteousness, who reconciled us by his blood, is accuser, condemner and always angry with us”.
Well, actually, Jesus is going to be our JUDGE too. ( His mother isn’t . )
Jim, Jesus isnt going tobjudge us. He is out c elder brother. He recociled us to God. He was raised for our justification. Why would He judge us? God will judge those who have rejected His son. Hebrews 9:28 says the next time He comes in regard to his own wont be in regard to sin but to gatger His people. Your statement Jim proves Tim’s point that Catholics think Jesus is angry, wrathful and you need to go to Mary to soften Him up. Thats what angers God is you take his lamb and make Him a lion.
Jesus isn’t going to judge? Ever read Matthew 25:36? ( He isn’t going to be happy about what you have been saying about His mother ).
Tim wrote:
“Because the writing of the Law on the heart is a covenantal promise, and only occurs as a fruit of regeneration, I do not believe Romans 2:14-15 is speaking of unbelievers, but rather of believing Gentiles. You mentioned some time ago, “Yes, the WCF is an inerrant document. … The WCF is not perfect. There are biblical proof texts that are not as clear as others could be….”. I understand that you are making a distinction between inerrant, perfect and infallible.
I agree that the WCF is not perfect. But I also believe that their use of Romans 2:14-15 to prove that “the works of creation … leave[s] men unexcusable” is an error in its own right. It’s not just what they say that is important—it also matters to me that they use the Word correctly when they do so. Therefore I cannot subscribe to the belief that the WCF is inerrant.”
Yes, I see now where you disagree with the confession. You are certainly not the first to disagree with it as it has a long history of various sections being removed by those who disagree with it as well.