Follow
We continue our series this week on the Woman of Revelation 12, turning our attention now to the Flight of the Woman, the Flood of Error from the Serpent and in particular the Woman’s resistance to the Flood by the Word of God. As we noted in part 2, the Flight, and therefore the Flood, must occur in the period of the Toes of Daniel 2—after the 5th Seal of Revelation 6 is opened but before the Little Horn of Daniel 7 accedes to civil dominion. As we described in Do Not Weep for Nicomedia, the 5th Seal occurred in 311 A.D., and as we described in The Fifth Empire, part 3, Roman Catholicism took up the mantle of civil power in 395 A.D.. The Flight and the Flood occur between those two events. This week, we begin to examine the fledgling resistance movement—the first signs of protest against the emerging Roman leviathan. What we find is a group of godly Christian men who, against all odds, stood on the Scriptures to withstand the Flood of error that proceeded from the mouth of the Serpent. The whole world was swept up in the novelties being introduced at the time, but the Church was not.
Perhaps as good a place to start as any—since we are discussing the Woman of Revelation 12—is the sudden shift that occurred late in the 4th century toward the popular identification of “the bride of Christ” as the celibate Christian female. Whereas the Scriptures plainly identify the Church as His bride (John 3:29; Revelation 21:2, 9; 22:17), the virginal female body enjoyed sudden and extraordinary prominence in writers such as Ambrose and Jerome who made them individually brides of Christ. David G. Hunter (previously Monsignor James Supple Chair of Catholic Studies at Iowa State University, currently Cottrill-Rolfes Chair of Catholic Studies at the University of Kentucky), elucidated the paradigm shift in his 2000 article, The Virgin, the Bride, and the Church:
“In the later years of the fourth century the ascetic and monastic movements led male Christian writers to devote an extraordinary degree of attention to the bodies of women, especially celibate women. In the hands of ascetic authors the traditional biblical image of the virgin bride acquired new life. The ‘bride of Christ’ became the celibate Christian woman. … In the ascetic controversies of the late fourth century, the identity of the virgin bride—and specifically the question of the relationship between the individual Christian as virgin and the church as virgin—was clearly a point of contention.” (David G. Hunter, The American Society of Church History, June 2000 (283-84))
Hunter acknowledged that “[t]he increasing prominence of ascetic women in late-fourth-century Christianity created a crisis,” but only explored the ecclesiastical response. He did not uncover the underlying source of the crisis itself. The late fourth century novelty was just one part of the vast Flood described in Revelation 12, the effort of the Serpent to overcome the Woman with error. Something significant had happened late in the fourth century, a shift in focus that changed the way people viewed themselves in relation to the church, and the church in relation to Christ. At stake was the eternal security of the Christian, and suddenly the best way to attain it was by virginity.
Virgins would be greeted personally by Mary and throngs of “applauding angels” at the gates of heaven, and attended by “choirs of virgins” (Ambrose, Concerning Virginity, Book II, chapter 2, paragraphs 16, 17). So meritorious was the office of the consecrated virgin that just by keeping her vow—itself a daily sacrifice—she could redeem the faults of others. The wages of sin were death, but the wages of chastity were everlasting life, and those wages were transferable to others:
“You have heard, O parents, in what virtues and pursuits you ought to train your daughters, that you may possess those by whose merits your faults may be redeemed. The virgin is an offering for her mother, by whose daily sacrifice the divine power is appeased.” (Ambrose, Concerning Virginity, Book I, chapter 7, paragraph 32).
“And if they ought to benefit not themselves only, who lived not for themselves alone, one virgin may redeem her parents, another her brothers” (Ambrose, Concerning Virginity, Book II, chapter 2, paragraph 16)
“You have served the good service of chastity, the wages of which are everlasting life” (Ambrose, Concerning Virginity, Book II, chapter 4, paragraph 29, retelling a legendary story of a virgin martyr)
“Marriage is good, for thereby the means of continuing the human race has been devised, but virginity is better, for thereby the heritage of the heavenly kingdom is regained, and the mode of attaining to heavenly rewards discovered.” (Ambrose, Letter 42, paragraph 3)
Such was the elevation and magnification of the new order of consecrated virgins. The whole world became caught up in the pomp and novelty of it all.
When Liberius of Rome administered the consecration of the virgin Marcellina, the twittering crowd had come as to a wedding feast to witness her “good espousal” to Christ (Ambrose, Concerning Virgins, Book III, chapter 1). Jerome repeatedly called the consecrated virgin, “God’s bride” (Jerome, Epistle 22, chapter16) and “Christ’s spouse” (Jerome, Epistle 22, chapters 8, 24), and called the virgin’s mother “the mother-in-law of God” (Jerome, Epistle 22, paragraph 20).
This new marital rite of “consecration of virgins had become a formal practice in the Western church only at the end of the fourth century” (Hunter, p. 288). When Roman Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong attempted to find the same practice in the east, he could do no better than cite late 4th century sources (Dave Armstrong, The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in their Theology (2013) 38-40). Falling from such consecration was as bad as, or worse than, any other sexual crime imaginable. As Hunter notes, Pope Siricius had gone so far as to excommunicate the consecrated virgin who stumbled into marriage—an offense as grave as incest and adultery—a sin for which she could not effectually repent until her husband died (Hunter, p. 288, (Pope Siricius, Ad Gallos Episcopus, Patrologia Latina (P.L.), vol 13, col 1182). The same rule applied to the consecrated virgin as to she who had committed to celibacy but had “not yet taken the veil” (similiter et quæ nondum velata est) (Pope Siricius, Ad Gallos Episcopus, P.L. 13, col 1181). Jerome advised Eustochium that by avoiding marriage she was “fleeing from Sodom” (Jerome, Epistle 22, to Eustochium, paragraph 2). He reminds the virgin that “Jesus is jealous” of her face (Jerome, Epistle 22, to Eustochium, paragraph 25), and would be angry if she removed her veil, revealing her face to others. If she turned from her vow and caught “the eyes of the young men,” He would reject her, turning her out “to feed the goats, which shall be set on the left hand” (Jerome, Epistle 22, paragraphs 8, 16, 24, 25). John Chrysostom, writing to Theodore of Mopsuestia, rebuked him for considering marriage to the lovely Hermione after having taken, then on her account regretting, a vow of celibacy (Chrysostom, to Theodore, Letter 1, paragraph 14). To marry Hermione would be adultery, “even if you call it marriage ten thousand times over”—nay! “worse than adultery in proportion as God is greater than man.” He continued:
“He has not forbidden to marry, but He has forbidden to commit adultery, may you be preserved from ever engaging yourself in marriage! And why do you marvel if marriage is judged as if it were adultery, when God is disregarded?” (Chrysostom, to Theodore, Letter 2, paragraph 3)
We do not know what to call a sexual offense that is as many times worse than adultery as God is greater than man, but it must be a terribly obscene offense against nature, and nature’s Creator. Such grievous sexual offenses were to be avoided, so great was the punishment for them.
Arising from this novelty came a triple hierarchy of chastity—with varying degrees of eternal reward in which virgins enjoyed the primacy. Behind virgins were widows, and behind widows, married women. Within that last group, those who did not engage in conjugal relations with their husbands were elevated above those who did, for celibate wives were better off than the “incontinent,” and the incontinent wife was “a kind of adulterer” (Ambrose, Concerning Widows, chapter 4, paragraph 23; Epistle 63, paragraphs 32, 40). Any widow or celibate wife who stumbled back into the marriage bed was like a dog returning to its own vomit (Jerome, Epistle 54, paragraph 4), and was engaging in prostitution (Jerome, Epistle 48, paragraph 18). Better to have remained a virgin, but if not a virgin then a widow, and if married, better celibate than not:
“I do not deny the blessedness of widows who remain such after their baptism; nor do I disparage those wives who maintain their chastity in wedlock; but as they attain a greater reward with God than married women who pay the marriage due, let widows themselves be content to give the preference to virginity.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 33)
Thus had the novel rite of consecrated virginity been introduced, and with it the sordid new hierarchy of chastity. The legitimate institution of marriage was forbidden not in explicit terms but by recasting it as adultery, fornication, prostitution, incest, sodomy and an offense so obscene Chrysostom could not name it except by hyperbolic superlatives.
As challenging as these new constraints were, the faithful were not to grow faint in the perpetual struggle to avoid the pollution of the marriage bed, each striving as best he could to achieve the next higher level: “for different degrees of virtue a different reward is set forth” (Ambrose, Concerning Widows, Chapter 11, paragraph 71). For those trapped in the lower tiers by choice or by circumstance there remained the possibility of being redeemed by those in the upper. But it was best to avoid the lower tiers altogether than to try later to recover from them.
Lest their virgin daughters stumble into marriage, or worse, into motherhood, parents were duly warned not to interfere in this novel consecration. “But some one perhaps wishes to have grandchildren, and to be called grandfather,” Ambrose proposed (Ambrose, Concerning Virginity, Book I, chapter 7, paragraph 33). The virgin must then resist the worldly counsel of her parents:
“You are being exercised, O virgin, while you are being urged. And the anxious entreaties of your parents are your first battles. Conquer your affection first, O maiden. If you conquer your home, you conquer the world.” (Ambrose, Concerning Virginity, Book I, chapter 12, paragraph 63)
Calling to mind a recent example of a family member who had objected to a girl’s intent to take the veil, Ambrose took as revelatory the fact that the objector soon died—a poignant reminder to parents who would think to advise against the novel consecration:
“So the others, each of them, fearing the same for himself, began to assist and not to hinder her as before … . You see, maidens, the reward of devotion, and do you, parents, be warned by the example of transgression.” (Ambrose, Concerning Virginity, Book I, chapter 12, paragraph 63).
This controversy was fueled by obscene and incendiary rhetoric from the advocates of the triple-tiered hierarchy of merit. Jerome had staked out a position similar to Ambrose’s but in such vitriolic terms that his own friends, as a favor to him, attempted to keep his treatise on virginity from going public (Jerome, Epistle 49, to Pammachius, paragraph 2). Alas, the efforts failed and Jerome’s position eventually became normative, receiving in his mind the imprimatur of a pope (Jerome, Epistle 48, to Pammachius, paragraph 18). Encouraged by this papal affirmation, Jerome doubled down, reiterating and expanding on his position in his various letters and vilifying any who dared to oppose him. To speak against Jerome was to speak against the church:
“[I]f a virgin and a wife are to be looked on as the same, how comes it that Rome has refused to listen to this impious doctrine? … There can be no middle course.” (Jerome, Epistle 48, to Pammachius, paragraph 2).
To understand the nature of the opposition to Jerome, it is important first to see how deranged he had become in his dogmatism on celibacy and his derogation of marriage. His defense was abusive, his reasoning absurd and his interpretations of Scripture were farcical, nonsensical and gratuitous. It is no wonder his friends sought to protect him by silencing him.
It started with Jerome’s most widely known treatise on virginity, his letter to Eustochium, wherein he began to lay down the hierarchy of merits—for virgins, widows and married women—and the differing eternal rewards for each. “Learn in this respect a holy pride,” he wrote to Eustochium. “Know that you are better than they” (Epistle 22, to Eustochium, paragraph 16), for the virgin alone is truly married to Christ:
“When God says to Eve, ‘In pain and in sorrow you shall bring forth children,’ say to yourself, ‘That is a law for a married woman, not for me.’ And when He continues, ‘Your desire shall be to your husband,’ [Genesis 3:16] say again: ‘Let her desire be to her husband who has not Christ for her spouse.’ And when, last of all, He says, ‘You shall surely die,’ [Genesis 2:17] once more, say, ‘Marriage indeed must end in death; but the life on which I have resolved is independent of sex. Let those who are wives keep the place and the time that properly belong to them. For me, virginity is consecrated in the persons of Mary and of Christ.’ ” (Jerome, Epistle 22, to Eustochium, paragraph 18)
Adam and Eve, Jerome explained, were expelled “from the paradise of virginity” (Jerome, Epistle 22, paragraph 18). The “command to increase and multiply” was fulfilled only after the fall, showing that “virginity is natural while wedlock only follows guilt” (Jerome, Epistle 22, paragraph 19). “Marriage replenishes the earth, virginity fills Paradise” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 16).
To Jerome, the oppressive duties of marriage were satanic and evil. Was it not clear enough from Job that the Devil’s “strength is in the loins, and his force is in the navel”? This, Jerome thought, was obvious evidence that the reproductive organs employed in marriage are tools of the devil himself:
“The terms [loins and navel] are chosen for decency’s sake, but the reproductive organs of the two sexes are meant. … In his assaults on men, therefore, the devil’s strength is in the loins; in his attacks on women his force is in the navel.” (Epistle 22, to Eustochium, paragraph 11)
Indeed, the union of two was inherently unholy, unclean and “not good.” After all, the days of creation were all “good” except the second, proving that marriage was “not good.” And the marriage compact is exceedingly “not good” because “it destroys unity”:
“This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, ‘God saw that it was good,’ on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 16)
Besides even that, the clean animals were led into the ark by sevens, but “the unclean animals are led into Noah’s ark in pairs” showing the uncleanliness of conjugal union. This was confirmed for him “when Moses and Joshua were bidden to remove their shoes.” See? Shoes come in pairs. What else comes in pairs? Married people! Unholy things always come in pairs and must be removed. Thus, “the command had a mystical meaning” (Epistle 22, to Eustochium, paragraph 11). Such was Jerome’s pathetic attempt to condemn the blessed union of two that God had instituted in the garden of paradise.
In another treatise, Jerome continued his defense of consecrated virginity, as well as his condemnation of those who wander from it. Jesus, he claimed, loves virgins more, and condemns as incestuous adulterers those who forsake their virginity:
“Christ loves virgins more than others, because they willingly give what was not commanded them” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 12).
“[V]irgins who marry after consecration are rather incestuous than adulterous” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 13).
In that same treatise Jerome reinforced his position on the triple hierarchy by which marriage is subordinated to widowhood and virginity.
“If virgins are first-fruits, it follows that widows and the continent in marriage, come after the first-fruits, that is, are in the second and third rank: nor can a lost people be saved unless it offer such sacrifices of chastity to God, and with pure victims reconcile the spotless Lamb. … as mere virginity without other works does not save, so all works without virginity, purity, continence, chastity, are imperfect.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 40)
Here he also appealed to the enumeration of fruits in the parable of the soils and the way the numerals sixty and thirty are signified using the left hand, but one hundred is signified using the right:
“The thirty-fold has reference to marriage. The very way the fingers are combined— see how they seem to embrace, tenderly kiss, and pledge their troth either to other— is a picture of husband and wife. The sixty-fold applies to widows, because they are placed in a position of difficulty and distress. Hence the upper finger signifies their depression, and the greater the difficulty in resisting the allurements of pleasure once experienced, the greater the reward. Moreover (give good heed, my reader), to denote a hundred, the right hand is used instead of the left: a circle is made with the same fingers which on the left hand represented widowhood, and thus the crown of virginity is expressed.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 3)
Could it possibly get any more obvious than that? Ignoring Jesus’ observation that marriage establishes unity rather than destroying it (i.e., “they are no more twain, but one flesh”), and that marriage was instituted in the garden before sin entered the world, and that Adam and Eve were “one flesh” even when “they were both naked … and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:23-24; Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:7-8), Jerome insisted that virginity was created in paradise, but that marriage was a product of the fall:
“And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of Paradise, they were immediately married.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 16)
Besides, marriage was under the law, and we are no longer under the law, but under grace. Thus, rejecting the law, virginity should be embraced instead:
“Let us who served marriage under the law, serve virginity under the Gospel.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 29)
Further, “the carnal mind is enmity against God” (Romans 8:7) and “they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8). Thus clearly, Jerome thought, those who partake of conjugal union are “in the flesh” and cannot please God. To engage in marital union was to sow, and therefore reap, corruption:
“If the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, and they who are in the flesh cannot please God, I think that they who perform the functions of marriage love the wisdom of the flesh, and therefore are in the flesh.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 37)
“I think that he who has a wife, so long as he reverts to the practice in question [conjugal union], that Satan may not tempt him, is sowing to the flesh and not to the Spirit. And he who sows to the flesh (the words are not mine, but the Apostle’s) reaps corruption.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 38)
All these proofs, and many more besides, were sufficient to show that Satan was the Lord of the marriage bed and the knitting of children in the womb. Obviously there was simply nothing more satanic than to procreate in marriage:
“And yet though Lucifer be fallen (the old serpent after his fall) … [h]e is king over all things that are in the waters— that is to say in the seat of pleasure and luxury, of propagation of children, and of the fertilisation of the marriage bed.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book II, chapter 4)
In his mind, marriage keeps us continually in disobedience. To become “one flesh” with one’s wife was to “insult her,” but to abstain from union was to honor her so that both could obey Paul’s command:
“The … Apostle … commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray. … Husbands and wives are to dwell together according to knowledge, so that they may know what God wishes and desires, and give honour to the weak vessel, woman. If we abstain from intercourse, we give honour to our wives: if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the opposite of honour.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 7)
By such subtlety and sophistry, marriage was practically forbidden, even as they who subordinated and derogated the holy institution claimed loudly that they were not against it.
No, Ambrose, Jerome, Liberius, Siricius, and Chrysostom were not against marriage, per se. It was just that they who join physically in matrimony are in the flesh, in which it is impossible please God.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that those who enter into conjugal union participate with Satan in the generation of children.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that the intimate members by which marriage is consummated owe their function to Lucifer.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that those who become one flesh after entering into a consecrated virginity were incestuous adulterers and fornicating sodomites.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that “a wife is classed with the greatest evils” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, paragraph 28).
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that he who engages in sexual union with his wife insults and dishonors her.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that she who returns to the marriage bed is like a dog returning to its vomit, and no better than a prostitute.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that from the Scripture “it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock.”
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that marital union is not good, unholy, unclean and unnatural.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that virgins would be greeted by Mary at the heavenly gate, applauded by angels and choired by virgins. For the wages of virginity are everlasting life, and all works without virginity, purity, continence, chastity, are imperfect.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that Jesus loves virgins more.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that marriage is under the law and virginity is under grace.
Not that they were against marriage, per se. Just that marriage is the institution of fallen creation.
Thus had Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Siricius, Liberius and many others, by elevating consecrated virginity, created the hierarchy of chastity, and militated with much vitriol and consternation against the uncleanness and unholiness and unnaturalness and perils and troubles and pains and curse and incest and adultery and prostitution and sodomy and fornication and wickedness and error and evil of marriage and the conjugal union.
But they weren’t against marriage… per se.
On the defensive, Jerome attempted to prove the ecclesiastical continuity of his teachings. In his attempt he largely ignored the late 2nd- and early 3rd-century writings of Clement of Alexandria who had rejected emphatically the very position Jerome was now espousing:
“There are those who say openly that marriage is fornication. They lay it down as a dogma that it was instituted by the devil. They are arrogant and claim to be emulating the Lord who did not marry and had no worldly possessions. It is their boast to have a profounder understanding of the gospel than anyone else.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book III, paragraph 49)
“We too agree that weakness of will and sexual immorality are passions inspired by the devil, but the harmony of responsible marriage occupies a middle position. When there is self-control it leads to prayer; when there is reverent bridal union, to childbearing. At any rate, there is a proper time for the breeding of children, … . You see who is the target of the slanders of those who show their disgust at responsible marriage and attribute the processes of birth to the devil? … the almighty ruler of the universe.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book III, paragraph 81)
“How can marriage in the past be a mere invention of the Law, and marriage as ordained by our Lord be different, when it is the same God whom we worship?” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book III, paragraph 83)
Setting aside Clement, Jerome insisted that he was saying no more than what Origen and Tertullian had before him. But Origen had understood the totality of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:7 to place marriage on the same level as celibacy, each one a “proper gift” of the Lord:
“And, since God has joined them together, on this account in the case of those who are joined together by God, there is a ‘gift’; and Paul knowing this, that marriage according to the Word of God was a ‘gift,’ like as holy celibacy was a gift, says, ‘But I would that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man has his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.’ [1 Corinthians 7:7] And those who are joined together by God both mind and keep the precept, ‘Husbands love your wives, as Christ also the church.’ [Ephesians 5:25]” (Tertullian, Commentary on Matthew, Book XIV, chapter 16)
By way of a dramatic contrast, note that Origen did not accuse celibate young men and bereaved husbands of being in perpetual disobedience to Paul’s command to “love your wives,” and that it therefore follows from Scripture that we must always be in the bondage of wedlock, lest we disobey him. Such a conclusion would have been nonsensical, but it is by just such histrionics that Jerome justified his contrary position.
Turtullian, by way of another contrast, established three species of virginity—the celibate “virgin”, the married “virgin,” and the widowed “virgin”—but classified them all as sanctifying “virginity” in one way or another, each with its particular discipline: of happiness, of virtue, and of moderation (Tertullian, On Exhortation to Chastity, chapter 1). When encouraging his wife to persevere in widowhood upon his death, the contrast is even more remarkable, for Tertullian, far from Jerome, allows that it is understandable and allowable if she chooses a second marriage (Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:7 being advisory), so long as she marry “in the Lord” (Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:39 being mandatory):
“For the nobler is the continence of the flesh which ministers to widowhood, the more pardonable a thing it seems if it be not persevered in. For it is then when things are difficult that their pardon is easy.” (Tertullian, To His Wife, Book II, chapter 1)
Where Jerome finds his best support in Tertullian, it is where Tertullian plumbs the depths of the Montanist heresy in which “second marriages were disapproved” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Montanists; see Jerome, Epistle 123, paragraph 9), an error that was rebuked at Nicæa (Council of Nicæa, Canon 8).
In contrast with Origen and Tertullian, Jerome placed excessive emphasis on Paul’s imperative, “For I would that all men were even as I myself” (1 Corinthians 7:7) (Jerome, Epistle 22, paragraph 20), while playing down Paul’s other similar sentiments, particularly on the marriage of young girls and young widows:
“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” (1 Timothy 5:14)
Jerome had taken these great blessings of marriage, child rearing and household management positively prescribed by Paul and turned them on their heads. He could only imagine that the command to marry was directed at consecrated virgins “who have outraged Christ their Spouse by committing fornication against Him” (Jerome, Epistle 123, paragraph 3). Paul’s command to “bear children” can only mean that these fornicating, incestuous, adulterers were already pregnant by their whoring, and apart from marriage, would be tempted “to kill children whom they have conceived in adultery” (Jerome, Epistle 123, paragraph 4). The command to “guide the house” was taken to mean that the young woman’s only other possible desire would be for prostitution were it not for the distractions of housework (Jerome, Epistle 123, paragraph 4). The blessings Paul had ascribed to the married estate, Jerome instead cast as “the drawbacks of marriage” which ought rather to be avoided:
“the drawbacks of marriage, such as pregnancy, the crying of infants, the torture caused by a rival, the cares of household management, and all those fancied blessings which death at last cuts short.” (Jerome, Epistle 22, paragraph 2)
Ambrose had even gone so far as to condemn as heretics those who presumed to teach, as Paul had, “that virgins ought to marry [and] bear children” (Ambrose, Epistle 63, paragraph 22).
We will leave the Christian this week with the comfort that Ambrose, Jerome, Liberius, Siricius and Chrysostom were dead wrong, and against their ridiculous late 4th century novelties there arose a noble resistance. Those who stood against the error recognized exactly what was happening. Jerome complained loudly of them and their interference in his attempt to universalize his novelties:
“Certain persons find fault with me because in the books which I have written against Jovinian I have been excessive (so they say) in praise of virginity and in depreciation of marriage; and they affirm that to preach up chastity till no comparison is left between a wife and a virgin is equivalent to a condemnation of matrimony. If I remember aright the point of the dispute, the question at issue between myself and Jovinian is that he puts marriage on a level with virginity, while I make it inferior; he declares that there is little or no difference between the two states, I assert that there is a great deal. Finally— a result due under God to your agency— he has been condemned because he has dared to set matrimony on an equality with perpetual chastity. … There can be no middle course. Either my view of the matter must be embraced, or else that of Jovinian.” (Jerome, Epistle 48, to Pammachius, paragraph 2).
What Ambrose also knew too well was that his whole house of merit would collapse upon itself if the resistance was allowed to go on:
“What virgin can hear that there is no reward for her chastity and not groan? … What widow, when she learned that there was no profit in her widowhood, would choose to preserve her marriage faith and live in sorrow, rather than give herself up to a happier condition? Who, bound by the marriage-bond, if she hear that there is no honour in chastity, might not be tempted by careless levity of body or mind?” (Ambrose, Epistle 63, paragraph 10)
We come here to a rare point of agreement with Jerome and Ambrose. There could be no middle course. The resistance would cause the whole hierarchy of merit to collapse, and such an eventuality would be intolerable. The church hierarchy sided with Jerome, Ambrose and Chrysostom. Their diabolical derogation of marriage and their unbiblical institution of consecrated virginity carried the day.
Pope Siricius for his part convened a council to deal with “the new heresy and blasphemy,” and reported the outcome to Milan:
“Having therefore held an assembly of my clergy it became clear that their sentiments were contrary to our doctrine, … [Therefore] Jovinian, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Prontinus, Martianus, Januarius, and Ingeniosus, who were discovered to be the promoters of the new heresy and blasphemy, should be condemned by the Divine sentence and our judgment, and remain in perpetual exclusion from the Church.” (Pope Siricius, Letter to the Church at Milan)
Milan responded by affirming the excommunication (Ambrose, Epistle 42 to Pope Siricius).
And what was the “new heresy and blasphemy” for which they were condemned? We find their “errors” preserved for us in the several documents that reported and condemned the “heresy”. Their “error,” was that they “place[d] everything on a level,” and did not accept the “different degrees of merit” for virginity, widowhood and marriage:
Jovinian as quoted by Jerome: “I do you no wrong, Virgin: you have chosen a life of chastity on account of the present distress: you determined on the course in order to be holy in body and spirit: be not proud: you and your married sisters are members of the same Church.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 5)
The Church at Milan to Pope Siricius: “[I]t is a savage barking to shew no reverence to virginity, observe no rule of chastity, to seek to place every thing on a level, to abolish the different degrees of merit, and to introduce a certain meagreness in heavenly rewards, as if Christ had only one palm to bestow, and there was no copious diversity in His rewards.” (Ambrose, Epistle 42)
Ambrose, regarding Sarmatio and Barbatianus: “I hear that Sarmatio and Barbatianus have come to you, foolish talkers, who say that there is no merit in abstinence, no grace in a frugal life, none in virginity, that all are valued at one price” (Ambrose, Epistle 63, paragraph 7)
Jerome regarding Helvidius: “You compelled me, Helvidius; for, brightly as the Gospel shines at the present day, you will have it that equal glory attaches to virginity and to the marriage state.” (Jerome, Against Helvidius, chapter 24)
Jerome regarding Jovinianus: “He says that ‘virgins, widows, and married women, who have been once passed through the laver of Christ, if they are on a par in other respects, are of equal merit.’ ” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 3)
Jerome regarding Vigilantius: “According to the trick which he knows of old, he is trying to blend his perfidious poison with the Catholic faith; he assails virginity and hates chastity; … And, to follow out your argument, virginity would not deserve our approbation. For if all were virgins, we should have no marriages; the race would perish.” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, chapters 1 & 17)
These men against whom Siricius, Ambrose, Chrysostom and Jerome had raised their polemical swords were all validly ordained men of good standing. Further, they were successfully carrying the day in their own dioceses, preaching the truth and gaining adherents.
Pope Siricius observed with indignation that they had “by their alluring and false arguments already begun to ruin some Christians, and to make them associates of their madness” (Pope Siricius, Letter to the Church at Milan, paragraph 4). Jerome complained that Jovinius had now “belched out his spirit” into Vigilantius (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, paragraph 1), and then he execrated Vigilantius because of his influence in “all those provinces where numbers plead freely and openly for your sect” (Jerome, Epistle 61, to Vigilantius, paragraph 1). Jerome was simply beside himself that in the diocese of Gaul, Vigilantius’ “errors” were not only being tolerated but encouraged. He expressed both surprise “that the reverend bishop in whose diocese he is said to be a presbyter acquiesces in this his mad preaching” (Jerome, Epistle 109, paragraph 2), and dismay that Vigilantius successfully “makes his raids upon the churches of Gaul” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, paragraph 4). Inexplicably to Jerome, “Gaul supports a native foe, and sees seated in the Church a man who has lost his head” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, paragraph 4).
These complaints suffice to show that these were neither men of mean intellect nor mere simpletons who were raising objections to the new hierarchy of merit and the attendant derogation of marriage. They were rather educated, ordained men of perfectly orthodox credentials and well equipped for their ministry of preaching. They were not only resisting the novelty, but were doing so successfully, preaching the truth, “raiding the churches,” infecting the provinces, “ruining Christians” and “making associates” of them in their “madness.” In other words, they were carrying the gospel to the lost. And they were winning converts.
To put it another way, with the rise of Roman Catholicism in the late 4th century came Rome’s perennial archnemesis: the Protestant. From the times of the apostles, the church had served as a barrier to postpone the rise of Roman Catholicism with all its errors. But Roman Catholicism would inevitably rise, as the Prophets and Apostles had warned, and when it did the Church adopted a stance of protest. Jovinianus, Vigilantius, Sarmatio and Barbatianus are only a small sampling of them, and their objection to the hierarchy of merit is only one example of the many late 4th century novelties they opposed. There were very many more.
Our Roman Catholic readers will undoubtedly cast an incredulous eye upon our “reformers” of late antiquity, but before they do, they may wish to consider some rather sobering thoughts from one of their own. Roman Catholic scholar David Hunter, whose work, The Virgin, the Bride, and the Church we cited above, wrote extensively on the “Jovinianist Controversy,” and arrived at a rather surprising—and undeniably remarkable—conclusion: Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than his detractors did, removing from Ambrose and Jerome the presumption of apostolic origins for their novelties. Ambrose and Jerome had drawn more from the 2nd century encratite heresy than from the apostles, and were thus marginalized by Jovinian’s orthodoxy:
“If there is a single conclusion to be derived from my study, it is that Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized; certainly he was closer to early Christian ‘orthodoxy’ than his condemnation for ‘heresy’ would suggest. … But to succeed in placing Jovinian closer to the ‘centre’ of Christian discourse is simultaneously to ‘de-centre’ some major figures in the Christian tradition, and my study has raised some questions about the ascetical theology of Ambrose and Jerome and their relation to prior tradition. Jerome’s deep dependence on the Montanist writings of Tertullian, as well as the extensive influence of Origen, led him to adopt a posture towards marriage that many, if not most, of his contemporaries found scandalous. Similarly, Ambrose’s attraction to the ideal of virginal integrity, also influenced by a heavy dose of Origen’s theology, caused him to adopt a Marian doctrine (virginitas in partu) that had only a fragile basis in earlier Christian tradition. In different ways, both Jerome and Ambrose represented the survival of the ancient encratite tradition at least in its moderate form. Both strongly associated sex with original sin and linked salvation to sexual purity.” (Hunter, David G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity (Oxford University Press (2007) 285).
We will continue this series in our next installment, and highlight even more of the novelties these early reformers opposed.
Robert M. Zins is a former Roman Catholic, a graduate of Alma College (B.A.), Springfield College (M.Ed.) and Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M), and is currently the Director of A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism, an apologetics ministry to the Roman Catholic community.
Aside from writing, Mr. Zins travels extensively, giving seminars in evangelical churches and debating with Romanist apologists. He is also Teaching Elder at the Reformed Bible Church in Rutland, Vermont, USA. He and wife Nancy have sons Zechariah and Luke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LbsE5bXjMQ
Studying the Bible Proves Roman Catholicism Wrong – From Ritualistic Religion to Real Christianity
See our playlist “Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary” at http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=… with 116 videos. Studying what the Bible actually says contrasted to what Roman Catholicism really teaches has been a surprise & shock to many Catholics who have left Romanism as a result. Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin. Texas/ Christian Debater is joined in studio by former Roman Catholic Rob Zins, Th.M, Dallas Theological Seminary. Rob Zins has authored the books, On the Edge of Apostasy, Romanism & others.
This broadcast features special guest Dale Rudiger a former Roman Catholic for 35 years. Dale (education, Reformed Theological Seminary) is the author of the book, We Got It All Backwards – 10 Mistakes That Can Lead Us To Hell & the editor of The Ex-Catholic Journal. Dale is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) & lives in Charlotte, North Carolina. Rob Zins interviews Dale concerning his life as a Romanist & how the Lord led him out of the false religion of Romanism into the light of the true & living Jesus Christ of Holy Scripture. A very interesting testimony of how the power of God’s Word empowered by the Spirit of God can break through the ritualism of vain religion.
Roman Catholic Errors:
Root Error #1 – There is ongoing revelation
1.Tradition (Apostolic succession, Interior Locution, Ever Virgin)
2.Abstaining from meat (Indult, Lent, Mardi Gras)
3.Celibate Priesthood (Pedophile priests, Homosexual priests)
4.Holy Days of Obligation (Five Precepts, Jubilee, All Saints Day)
Root Error #2 — Sacrifice of the Mass is the ongoing sacrifice of Jesus
1.Infusion of righteousness (Mass, Latin Mass, Infusion, Sacrifice)
2.No Assurance (Assurance is Anathema, Trent)
3.Bilocating (Real presence)
Root Error #3 — Purgatory is a place of purification after death
1.Purgatory (Praying for the dead , All Souls Day)
2.Indulgences (Mass Cards, Pilgrimages)
Root Error #1 — Rome is the One True Church
1.Inerrancy (Magisterium, Apocrypha, Church Fathers, Subsidiarity)
2.Vatican (Holy See, Nuncio, Concordat, Donation of Constantine, Ratlines)
3.Ecumenism (ARCIC, ECT, ECT II, JDDJ, Convergence, Manhattan, Oxford)
4.Inquisition (Auto de fé, Beziers, Bloody Mary, Goa, Spanish, St. Bart, Hus)
5.Coercion (Index, Antisemitism, Lib Theo, Anathema, Galileo, Ex-Cath)
Root Error #2 — The Pope is the head of the Church
1.Papal infallibility (Ex Cathedra, Bad Popes, Pius IX, Vatican I)
2.Keys (Succession, Antipope, Election, Decretals, Pornocracy, Avignon)
3.Pomp (Papal Attire, Triregnum)
4.Supremacy (Pope, Primacy, Vicar, Interdict, Pacificism)
Root Error #3 — A Wafer is the body of Christ
1.Transubstantiation (Real presence, monstrance)
2.Consecration of the Host (Idolatry)
Root Error #1 — Sacraments are the means to heaven
1.Baptism (Infant Baptism, ex opere operato, Donatists, Limbo)
2.Eucharist (Mass, First Communion, First Fridays, Passion of Christ)
3.Confirmation
4.Confession (Absolution, Satisfaction, Act of Contrition, Mortal, Venial)
5.Extreme Unction
6.Marriage (Annulment, Remarriage, Rhythm Method)
Root Error #2 — Mary is Co-mediatrix
1.Immaculate Conception (Ever Virgin)
2.Co-redemptrix (Hail Mary, Rosary, Novena)
3.Assumption (Queen of Heaven, Hail Holy Queen, Hyperdulia, Loreto)
4.Apparitions (Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, Medjugorje, LaSalette, Zeitoun)
Root Error #3 — Pope is the Distributor of Grace
1.Pontiff (Holy Door, Indult, Peter’s Pence)
2.Treasury of Merit (Supererogation, Prayers for the dead)
Root Error #4 — Dead Saints are Interceders
1.Intercession (Altar Stone, All Saints Day, Upside down statue)
2.Patron Saints (St. Jude, Canonization, Beatification)
3.Veneration of Saints (Dulia, Relics)
Root Error #5 — Priest is the Intermediary
1.Priest (Confession, Absolution, Act of Contrition)
2.Consecration of the Host
Root Error #6 — Salvation is through the Church
1.Canon Law (Precepts of the Church)
2.Catechized (RCIA, Mystagogy, CCC)
3.Cultic (Opus Dei, Jesuits, SSPX, Knights of Malta, Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur)
4.Assimilation (Charismatic, Cursillo, New Evangelical, Wordsmith, Passion)
Root Error #1 — We Earn Our Salvation
1.Merit (Ascetic, Blood Baptism, Cloister, Vows, Daily Mass, Monastic, Nun)
2.Penance (Ash Wednesday, Confession, Satisfaction, Stigmata)
3.Observances (Pilgrimage, Sabbatine, Sacramentals, Scapular, Stations)
Root Error #2 — We Cooperate in Our Justification
1.Concupiscence
2.Confession (Absolution, Mortal Sin, Venial Sin)
3.Legalism (Precepts of the Church, Trent, Supererogation)
Zins and his buddy Larry Wessels make a great pair. Neither of them are particulary gifted apologists. They repeat the same old lies time and time again. I guess hate sells.
I answered their “tough questions for Catholic” on Youtube and they blocked me. I was a light shining on their lies and falsehoods about the Catholic Church. Talk about hard hearts!
I wondered if you were a paid hawk for the Catholic church trolling all the sites repeating the same foolishness. I am surprised Tim K has not blocked you after repeating the same stuff over and over.
It is clear you ability to reason and discern is totally gone which is the #1 main reason to get rid of trolls. They make it hard for anyone to carry on any meaningful discussion on these blogs.
Everyone, please watch this video as it is a discussion between a Roman Catholic Priest and a Reformed Protestant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I3u0zABTeo&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715&index=2
You can see just what we are facing here on this blog trying to speak to these Roman Catholics. This is a perfect example when you see this discussion.
This Priest has lost all ability to discern and reason.
Wow. Hard to believe people falling for new teaching such as that, but I suppose “there but for the grace of God go I”.
Thanks Tim for another informative article. Keep up the good work.
We see the consecrated life in the New Testament. 1 Tim 5:11-12, “But refuse to put younger widows on the list; for when their sensual desires alienate them from Christ, they want to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge.”
Paul is concerned that the younger widows would bring condemnation upon themselves for their vows of celibacy and dedication to the consecrated life. The consecrated life is a wonderful thing and, according to Jesus in Matthew 19, celibacy is better state than marriage. Paul made this same argument in 1 Cor. 7.
One shouldn’t disparage the consecrated life or chastity. Even married people are called to chastity. What’s really sad is that in Protestantism, being unmarried is tantamount to a curse. Why aren’t there MORE unmarried men in the ministry? Why aren’t there MORE consecrated women devoted to the Lord in Protestantism?
Mark Rome says:
“There was NO apostasy of the 4th century. Tim K. tries to prove this by convoluting the ECFs with each other who primarily were dealing with heresies and not to write out everything the Church believes about every topic. That’s not the point of the Church or the ECFs, contrary to what you guys want to read.”
Timothy K writes:
“To put it another way, with the rise of Roman Catholicism in the late 4th century came Rome’s perennial archnemesis: the Protestant. From the times of the apostles, the church had served as a barrier to postpone the rise of Roman Catholicism with all its errors. But Roman Catholicism would inevitably rise, as the Prophets and Apostles had warned, and when it did the Church adopted a stance of protest. Jovininanus, Vigilantius, Sarmatio and Barbatianus are only a small sampling of them, and their objection to the hierarchy of merit is only one example of the many late 4th century novelties they opposed. There were very many more.”
Now we are getting somewhere on the true link between the faithful Apostolic church and the early visible elect who carried the gospel torch to the world.
I also love the fact that we are now witnessing the Protestants and Protestors of the 3rd and 4th centuries. The original reformers may have started to witness Antichrist arise in the 4th century that generations later the reformers saw come into reality. It is so obvious to anyone with the ability to reason and think soundly that the RCC is Antichrist of Scripture in our generation as the evidence is overwhelming, but for those early reformers and protestants to see it in the 3rd and 4th century will be very interesting indeed.
If any of them had ever preached the Pope in the 4th century was that man of sin would be very interesting.
Yes, I can see the ECF that are so dearly loved by RCC followers are not looking so good right about now with this article above. Yeeks, even a Roman Catholic Scholar says:
“If there is a single conclusion to be derived from my study, it is that Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized; certainly he was closer to early Christian ‘orthodoxy’ than his condemnation for ‘heresy’ would suggest. …In different ways, both Jerome and Ambrose represented the survival of the ancient encratite tradition at least in its moderate form. Both strongly associated sex with original sin and linked salvation to sexual purity.” (Hunter, David G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity (Oxford University Press (2007) 285).
Amen!!! Finally, a Roman Catholic who can reason after his diligent research is completed and the evidence is clear!!!
Here is something very interesting:
“The Encratites (“self-controlled”) were an ascetic 2nd century sect of Christians who forbade marriage and counselled abstinence from meat. Eusebius says that Tatian was the author of this heresy.[1] It has been supposed that it was these Gnostic encratites who were chastised in the epistle of 1 Timothy (4:1-4).[2][3]”
1 Timothy 4:1-4: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.
“Hippolytus of Rome refers to them as “acknowledging what concerns God and Christ in like manner with the Church; in respect, however, of their mode of life, passing their days inflated with pride”; ***”abstaining from animal food, being water-drinkers and forbidding to marry”;*** “estimated Cynics rather than Christians”. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encratites#cite_ref-3
And, of course, who today in the world also forbids to eat meat on Friday and forbid men to marry? The Roman Catholics!!!
Is it any wonder why many of us believe that the Roman Catholic Church is filled with heresies and was birthed in heresy and is the world’s largest promoter of heresies?
The early evidence does not look good for Rome right now. Be prepared for the attacks to grow from the Romish apologists to increase on this site moving forward. Mark Rome and Rocky are just the start once more clear evidence is brought forward. Hang on for a very rough ride.
You can see what the established ECF did to the true elect, and we know what they did to the reformers in the 13-17th centuries. Get ready!
Tim, did you see this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_denominations_established_in_the_2nd_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_denominations_established_in_the_3rd_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_denominations_established_in_the_4th_century
I assume much of these heresies can now be found within the RCC church as she integrated them into her fold.
Tim,
I found this article interesting as one of the early controversies.
http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/SSR/article/viewFile/277/256
Further, I see Rome is not too happy with Clement.
“Clement is regarded as a Church Father, like Origen. He is venerated as a saint in Coptic Christianity, Ethiopian Christianity and Anglicanism. He was previously revered in the Roman Catholic Church, but his name was removed from the Roman Martyrology in 1586 by Pope Sixtus V on the advice of Baronius.”
Baronius is best known for his Annales Ecclesiastici undertaken at the request of Philip Neri as an answer to the anti-Catholic history, the Magdeburg Centuries. He began writing this account of the Church after almost three decades of lecturing at Santa Maria in Vallicella.
In the Annales he treats history in strict chronological order and keeps theology in the background. Lord Acton called it “the greatest history of the Church ever written”.[3] It was in the Annales that Baronius coined the term “Dark Age” in the Latin form saeculum obscurum,[4] to refer to the period between the end of the Carolingian Empire in 888 and the first inklings of the Gregorian Reform under Pope Clement II in 1046.
Notwithstanding its errors, especially in Greek history in which he had to depend upon secondhand information, the work of Baronius stands as an honest attempt to write history. Sarpi, in urging Casaubon to write a refutation of the Annales, warned him never to accuse or suspect Baronius of bad faith.
He also undertook a new edition of the Roman martyrology (1586), in which he removed some entries implausible for historical reasons. He is also known for saying, in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”[5] This remark, which Baronius probably made in conversation with Galileo, was cited by the latter in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Baronius
Walt, did you know that the Albigensians also forbade marriage? They also denied the Incarnation and thought suicide is the better way. No wonder they didn’t last too long. No man in the Catholic Church is forbidden to marry.
I didn’t realize that the marks of the true Church are represented by their protesting. No, the marks of the true church are that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. As Augustine told the Donatists, it is easy to see why they aren’t the true church, because they aren’t catholic (universal). Your “true churchers” do not possess the marks of the true Church.
Sorry, Jovininanus, Vigilantius, Sarmatio and Barbatianus are not members of the “true church”.
Mark Rome says:
“Your “true churchers” do not possess the marks of the true Church. Sorry, Jovininanus, Vigilantius, Sarmatio and Barbatianus are not members of the “true church”.
I’m not sure what article and evidence you just read, but it is pretty clear to anyone with the ability to reason and think for themselves. The more I read your comments Mark, the more it firmly establishes support for my believe that you are totally brain washed. The evidence is so overwhelming each time you post here on this site in reply to Tim’s articles. The RCC has really, as you are a great example, taken over the minds of its followers to the point they cannot even think for themselves. It is like talking to a robot so many times when you show someone the evidence, and immediately they cover their eyes, plug their ears and scream “I don’t hear or see you! Go away!”
I saw this with my dad and to a lesser extent my mom, but when you are totally brainwashed growing up from childhood, and know nothing else by what you are taught, it is near impossible to unwind that damage. Cults like the RCC have been rooted in a strong delusion according to Scripture, and your postings help all those outside Rome to see what happens when you buy into their theology and doctrines. You become so delusional and incapable to think or reason any more…no matter how much evidence is given to you.
Tim just identified the first split between the true and faithful remnant elect and the forthcoming Antichrist of Scripture. 1Tim.4:1-4 nailed it perfectly in teaching against the 2nd century encratite heresy. That heresy forbidding marriage and eating of meats was adopted to degrees, but as Tim went on to say correctly:
“We will leave the Christian this week with the comfort that Ambrose, Jerome, Liberius, Siricius and Chrysostom were dead wrong, and against their ridiculous late 4th century novelties there arose a noble resistance.”
My heart jumped in joy when I saw this statement. Finally, we now have the division I’ve been waiting a couple years to see on this blog. I was wondering where the Elect separated from Antichrist in history. Now we have specific evidence.
Yes, I know you cannot see this unfaithful schism caused by Rome and Pope Siricius, etal away from the true Apostolic teaching and Scriptures. You don’t even know what it means to see a schism caused by Rome and her ECF followers.
There is never a schism caused by the elect and the gospel truth. There is only a schism away from this visible and invisible true church of Jesus Christ. As your Roman Catholic Apologist admits (which you cannot admit being brainwashed to a larger degree than many in your church) the remnant were more in line with Scripture than Papal Rome and her followers. That is just enough for me to see he sees it too.
You also said, “Walt, did you know that the Albigensians also forbade marriage?”
Well, if that is true, and I don’t know if it is as I only have your word which cares zero authority with me, then clearly they got the doctrine from the 2nd and 4th century heresies and then got them from Rome who codified them. They did not get that doctrine from Scripture….this we know for certain according to 1Tim.4:1-4.
I suggest you reject the doctrine whether it is taught by the Albigensians or by Jerome or by Rome. Flee it quickly. Put your faith in God’s word, not in men’s error.
I wrote to Tim:
“I think I made a mistake when I started his date at 358 rather than 382. For some reason 358 stuck in my mind, but I think I made a mistake. I’ll let Tim clarify if his starting date is 382 ending in the year 1642.”
Tim wrote:
“As we described in Do Not Weep for Nicomedia, the 5th Seal occurred in 311 A.D., and as we described in The Fifth Empire, part 3, Roman Catholicism took up the mantle of civil power in 395 A.D..”
So I am still unsure the start of the 1260 year period. We have now 3 dates. If we start with 395AD than it takes us to 1655.
Closer to the Killing Time but not included.
“The Killing Time was a period of conflict in Scottish history between the Presbyterian Covenanter movement, based largely in the south west of the country, and the government forces of Kings Charles II and James VII. The period, roughly from 1680 to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, was subsequently called The Killing Time by Robert Wodrow in his The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, published in 1721–22. It is an important episode in the martyrology of the Church of Scotland.”
Walt, why do you condemn virginity and chastity?
Mark. you are off topic due to your inability to read Tim’s article with any degree of neutrality or reason. Your presupposition is so firmly grounded in the Romish cult doctrine that you cannot see that nowhere in Tim’s article, or in my writings, do we deny the biblical principle of chastity and virginity. Tim even went so far to detail point by point the topic of marriage was allowed, per se, except in multiple points of further clarification.
Obviously, the doctrine of virginity is taught in Scripture for those so gifted, but marriage and the marriage bed is not defiled in any way. Chasity in worship is more critical than anything in Scripture, but so many chase Romish error and foolishness around this time of year with unwarranted and unbiblical holy days and idolatry. Chasity in marriage is also biblical.
Unfortunately, you just have to look at the tens of thousands of Priests who are molesting children in our generation to know your preaching chastity and virginity does not hold true in the RCC. Further, to look at the increasing number of homosexual priests in Rome and worldwide testifies against your claim to promote chastity and virginity. Your snares to these men with vows of celibacy are killing these men.
Read Tim’s article again please. It is pretty straight forward for those who are not suffering from brainwashing on this basic doctrine.
Walt, are you saying that Jesus and Paul were more likely to be homosexuals and pedophiles because they were celibate? That seems to be what you are implying.
You also said “tens of thousands of priests who are molesting children.” Please provide me with your source for this statistic.
Mark,
You have not only lost your ability to reason, you have lost all ability to discern.
You don’t want me to disclose the tens of thousands of Priests molesting children worldwide. First, you will summarily deny it even if we presented all the expert witness testimony, and Second, you don’t really care. What you care about is attacking Protestants at all cost no matter the evidence as this is standard in Romish apologetical Jesuit teaching.
Don’t have time for your games Mark Rome. What we now know today is that Protestant and Reformed Christians are directly linked to the Apostolic church, and Rome broke into Schism forbidding marriage and forbidding meats in the 4th century following exactly the 2nd century encratite heresy.
You have no hope any longer in your “perfect line” of “catholic” universal church from the Apostles. That was destroyed by your own Romish Apologist and by Timothy Kauffman.
Go away now and repent.
Tim K’s article above is filled with WILD speculation and personal bias. His big source, David Hunter, never made the leaps that Tim K made. In fact, Tim K. admits this when he said, “He did not uncover the underlying source of the crisis itself. The late fourth century novelty was just one part of the vast Flood described in Revelation 12, the effort of the Serpent to overcome the Woman with error.”
Tim’s post is an attempt to take an academic article called “The Virgin, the Bride, and the Church: Reading Psalm 45 in Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine” which Tim K. didn’t cite in full, and bridge it with his own conspiracy theories. Looks like he won you over!
Yes, please cite your source for tens of thousands of priests. You either need to produce it or repent of bearing false witness.
Mark said:
“Yes, please cite your source for tens of thousands of priests. You either need to produce it or repent of bearing false witness.”
Out of the 800,000 priests it is estimated 50% or more are involved in some form of molestation.
“Statement of Pope Francis
In July 2014, Pope Francis was quoted as having said in an interview that about 8,000 Catholic clergy (2% of the total), including bishops and cardinals, were pedophiles.[266] The Vatican indicated the interview had not been recorded nor notes taken during it and that quotes may have been misattributed in a deliberate attempt to manipulate readers. They stated that Pope Francis had not indicated that any cardinal abusers remained in their position.[267][268]
Gay priests and homosexuality
Further information: Debate on the causes of clerical child abuse § Gay priests and homosexuality
According to the John-Jay-Report, 80.9% of the abuse victims in the United States were male;[109] and a study by Dr. Thomas Plante found the number may be as high as 90%.[269] A number of books, such as “The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church”, have argued that homosexual priests view sex with minors as a “rite of passage” for altar boys and other pre-adult males.[270] William Donohue of the Catholic League argued that the Church’s pædophile problem was really a “homosexual crisis”,[271] which some have dismissed as unwarranted by arguing that there’s a lack of correlation between a man identifying as homosexual and any particular likelihood he will abuse children.[189] In the United States Father Cozzens quoted figures from 23 percent to 58 percent of homosexual priests, with a higher percentage among younger priests.[272] On the other hand, research on pædophilia in general shows a majority of abusers identify themselves as heterosexual,[273][274] and the Causes and Context Study of the John Jay Institute found no statistical support for linking homosexual identity and sexual abuse of minors.[265] Additionally The New York Times reported “the abuse decreased as more gay priests began serving the church.”[275]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Francis said 8,000 minimum, but clearly this is shy by about 500,000 or more who are closet pedophiles.
“Francis said 8,000 minimum, but clearly this is shy by about 500,000 or more who are closet pedophiles.”
You know that whenever someone says “clearly” my BS antennas go up? Clearly, scripture says this, clearly the CF meant that. Clearly you don’t understand that Catholic Clergy only number around 400,000, so “clearly” you can’t have 500,000 closet pedophiles.
“Clearly” you need to check your “facts”. Why do I bother with people like you…I’ll wait for Hans to come back.
With the information from Tim’s article, I now will see this 4th century as the “original great schism” from the Apostles by Roman Catholicism.
Clearly, as is admitted by the Roman Catholic apologist and historian, David G. Hunter, the Apostles never taught anti-marriage doctrines, and Jovininanus, Vigilantius, Sarmatio and Barbatianus were more aligned with the Apostle teaching than Jerome and the Pope.
This could be the most significant event in the history of the Christian Church during the Early Church. Let’s see what Tim discovers next, but this period of original great schism by Rome and the Papacy is the primary source evidence we need to prove that the Protestants and Reformers are the original and only true Christian church in history since Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
This true line from the Apostles, to the Protestants in the 4th century, is the most significant event to be discovered.
All Christians need to learn their history, and learn the original great schism caused by Jerome and the Pope in Rome in the 4th century, and celebrate that the Protestant and Reformed church is FAR MORE RELIABLE AND OLDER than Antichrist Rome. Be joyful dear brothers…we have found the schism.
Walt, apparently I am on moderation again but I did post under the mingled cup hoping we could continue our debate on the real presence. For a moment I was off moderation so I am not sure what I did this time to be put back on moderation.
Mark,
Ok. You win. Out of the 400,000 priests we have catholic scholars that believe 58% are homosexual and perverted. Who in their right mind would send their male children into this situation in the RCC?
“In the United States Father Cozzens quoted figures from 23 percent to 58 percent of homosexual priests, with a higher percentage among younger priests.”
Take this statistic as hard evidence by your own priest, mirror it through the world and especially within the Vatican who have highest percentage of gay priests, and you are look at 200,000+ priests seeking out young boys in their parish.
All denied by you and brushed under the carpet giving these priests full authority to act however they wish because the are Roman catholic and have a free license to do what they do as long as the keep their vow of celibacy and stay away from marriage and woman.
Thanks to Tim research we know know exactly where this wicked doctrine originated in history and how the pope himself broke away from the apostles doctrine on marriage to promote celibacy and the ultimate fruits of homosexual priesthood that is rampant throughout the clergy.
Finally the link and evidence has now been disclosed for all to see. We need a new article entitled, “How A Roman Catholic Pope and Saint Jerome Caused The First Schism In The History Of The Christian Church In 4th Century And Planted The Seeds To Create More Than 100% Of Today’s Priests Rejecting Marriage With A Woman And Instead Forcing 58% Into Homosexual Relations With Male Children and Other Priests. All Evidence Uncovered In the 2nd To The 4th Century As Never Before Seen! This Will Cause Millions To Flee With Their Children From The Roman Catholic Religion As It Goes Viral On Internet.”
Something like that needs to be said to wake up the sleeping Catholics who send their male children to these catholic schools and universities and parishes.
What Tim just uncovered is the smoking gun and we can only wait to see if it ever reaches the light of day. Rome just lost its “perfect line” of oral tradition linked to the apostles. It is finished.
The next headline, “Compelling Evidence Now Documents That Reformed Protestants Are The Only Direct Heirs To Apostles In History After 4th Century Schism Caused By Roman Catholic Pope And St Jerome Break From Apostles Tradition Uncovered”
Give it some time for it to sink in Mark. Your foolish apology for homosexual priests are numbered.
Walt, you still haven’t given me the source for “tens of thousands of Priests who are molesting children.”
I am waiting for your source. Either present the source or repent of bearing false witness.
WALT SAID: “Ok. You win. Out of the 400,000 priests we have catholic scholars that believe 58% are homosexual and perverted. Who in their right mind would send their male children into this situation in the RCC? . . . Take this statistic as hard evidence by your own priest.”
ROCKY: I know YOU would take it as hard evidence and so would the liberal press but it is hardly that.
Did you look to see if there were any methodologically superior studies and possibly even MORE independent and unbiased. No you would not do that would you Walt.
In his 2000 book Cozzens estimated a possible value as low as 23 % and up to 58% of priests and seminarians were homosexuals. BUT of course you assume its 58% right Walt? But again these are only estimates as you know.
Others have estimated 1 or 2 per cent are homosexuals. No one has ever estimated such a high value as Cozzens. In statistic the outlier is usually turfed.
The well known Fr Benedict J. Groeschel reported that seminarians reacted to Cozzens book with fury and scorn. A number of seminarians thought that the book was simply another addition to the liberal agenda under the guise of objectivity. This has been a problem in the Catholic Church for years (the liberal agenda) but you would not understand this. Cozzens has also well-documented agenda to move the Catholic Church to married priest along with the acceptance of homosexual priest. Is that liberal enough for you. This all actually helps his cause.
The fact remains, Cozzens assessment suffers from a liberal (and apparently Freudian) bias and, it seems, severely faulty methodological problems that skewed the numbers upward.
HOWEVER
An interesting study was done in 2011 that while not address the number of homosexual priests but rather the actual number reported sexual abuse by them.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf
An independent study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the USCCB, from May 2011, found that sexual abuse from priests occurs at a much lower rate than in the rest of society, and that most abuse takes place in families. The rate among priests was determined to be 5 per every 100,000 young people, whereas the larger societal rate was 134, or almost a 27 times greater likelihood.
Even if we examine fellow Christians (non-Catholics), the known statistics are very sobering and revealing. For example, the “flagship” evangelical Protestant magazine Christianity Today noted that there were “70 child abuse allegations reported against American Protestant churches each week during the last ten years,” a quarter of which were against pastors. (“Go Figure” 21 May 2002). If we do the math, that adds up to 36,400 cases in ten years.
: : : : : : : : : : :
One would think that if there were such large numbers of homosexual priests in the U.S., as Cozzens suggests, you would have a much, much higher incidence of sexual abuse BUT IN FACT it is much, much lower than in society in general. Go figure that Walt.
: : : : : : : : : : :
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf
Here is one of the last remaining hero’s in the Roman catholic church as a lone wolf trying to bring the world to understand the current priesthood. Let his voice be heard and silent those like mark Rome who are here to defend and support this wicked doctrine Rome has on marriage and the homosexuals who flock to become priests as father cozzens states.
http://votf.org/page/fr-donald-cozzens-receives-priest-integrity-award/8138
A review of Marriage, celibacy, and heresy in ancient Christianity. The Jovinianist controversy.
” the most fascinating aspect of the book is the account in the final two chapters of the various responses to Jovinian’s views, by which Siricius, Ambrose and Jerome – powerful enemies but unlikely allies – came to be united in their condemnation of the scriptura horrifica which denied any special place to ascetic discipline; and which led Augustine to attempt to steer between the two extremes in assigning a value both to celibacy and to ‘good’ Christian marriage. All these responses are handled with a welcome sensitivity: so that where it might seem at first sight that the Church had simply closed ranks against ‘ Jovinianism’, Hunter instead brings out the different interests of Siricius (in church discipline) and Ambrose (in defending his own doctrine of Mary’s ‘virginibus in partu’), and notes that the violence of Jerome’s reply and the exaggerated care of Augustine’s later comments reflect the extent to which Jovinian had identified a real weakness in the Christianity of his time.”
CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, Cambridge
MICHAEL STUART WILLIAMS
Tim K., can you show me where Jovinian rejected the Sacraments and held to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? I am not seeing how Jovinian is to be held up as part of some “true church” within the True Church.
Mark,
As Hunter himself noted, Jovinian was closer to the center of orthodoxy than his accusers (including the pope), and further, by placing Jovinian closer to the center than Ambrose and Jerome, Hunter (a Roman Catholic) was necessarily “de-centering” Jovinian’s accusers from the center of orthodoxy, and his accusers included the pope himself. A stunning concession—that the pope was further from the center of orthodoxy than the man he accused. In any case, the fact that Augustine tried to triangulate just means that Augustine’s compromise still places him farther from the center of orthodoxy than Jovinian. Half way between truth and error is still error, and Augustine’s milque toast response to Ambrose’s and Jerome’s embrace of error just shows what danger lies in store for those who look to the church for truth instead of looking to the truth (the scriptures) for the Church.
In any case, I have never “held up” Jovinian “as part of some ‘true church’ within the True Church,” so I won’t respond to your request that I support the claim.
Best,
Tim
Tim K.,
You said, “In any case, I have never “held up” Jovinian “as part of some ‘true church’ within the True Church,” so I won’t respond to your request that I support the claim.
Yet in a response to me on your post The Other Woman dated SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 AT 8:16 AM you said, “I said “Jovinianus and Vigilantius” were part of the True Church, but I did not use the term “4th century protestants” here.
So which is it. Is Jovinianus part of the “True Church” or isn’t he?
Mark,
If you’ll pay attention to what is being said, you’ll notice that the two statements,
and
are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K., my simple question is whether you believe Jovinianus is part of the True Church (as you define it) or not?
Mark,
Of course I believe Jovinianus is part of the True Church. I have said as much in these comments.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
How do you define “True Church”? Is it those who oppose Catholic teachings? Arius also did that. So did Pelagius.
Thanks.
Mark, In the case of Ambrose and Jerome and Siricius and Liberius, they were the ones “opposing Catholic teachings,” so no, I do not define the True Church as “those opposing Catholic teachings.” Siricius’, Ambrose’s, Jerome’s and Liberius’ teachings were novel constructs introduced at the latter part of the 4th century in opposition to the catholicity and apostolicity of the religion Christ founded. That’s why I classify them as apostates. They opposed catholic teachings.
Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion, the “True Church” is the eschatological manifestation of the people of God, and your religion, which manifested at the end of the 4th century, no sooner, does not qualify for that title (though it must, like Tantalus, ever and always grasp at it).
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K,
Remember that the ascetic lifestyle wasn’t imposed by the Church on people. It was an outgrowth of a movement by lay people who wanted to live radically for God. Prior to the 4th century, martyrdom was the ultimate end for Christians. Most wanted martyrdom. This can be seen in the writings of the ECFs including Ignatius of Antioch. It was the highest “prize” of a Christian.
After the persecutions ended, Christians still wanted to have that radical life and many (men and women) went to the deserts to live lives of purity, chastity and devotion. These were the precursors to religious orders we have today. Ambrose and Jerome looked at the ascetic life from different perspectives and how it can be incorporated into the Catholic faith. Celibacy has always been cherished and Jesus even said it is the better way than marriage, but only for those who can accept it. In fact, the priesthood from the very beginning were expected to be celibate even if they were married. Paul himself is an example of celibacy and wished that all would be as he is.
The bottom line is that the precursors to religious life, asceticism, is somehow the beginnings of an apostasy is by all counts absurd. If you think these are novel doctrines, then you must also reject all of the novel doctrines, such as Christmas and Easter celebrations, Sunday worship, the Trinity, and everything else that aren’t explicit in the Bible nor held by the Apostles. The Apostles were still observing the Old Testament Holy Days. This is why the Judaizers of the second century thought that the Church became apostate then.
Look at the Council of Laodicea wrote in 359: “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”
Why are the Judaizers wrong and YOU right? To this day the Seventh Day Adventists believe that the Catholic Church changed the 4th commandment and this is the mark of the Beast and ANYONE who keeps Sunday is part of the Beast.
Thanks.
Mark, Tim said:
“Ambrose’s and Jerome’s embrace of error just shows what danger lies in store for those who look to the church for truth instead of looking to the truth (the scriptures) for the Church.
In any case, I have never “held up” Jovinian “as part of some ‘true church’ within the True Church,” so I won’t respond to your request that I support the claim.”
Remember that many on this site are considered independent in the reformed protestant circles as their view is that everyone has an equal right to interpret scripture as a minister or church court. They do not believe any church court such as a presbytery has any authority over a non minister infant who might have just read the bible and has all sort of new innovative interpretations. This is why independents reject regulative principle in favor of the romish normative principle.
While reformed do not believe in that any court is infallible, but we do believe the court can be inerrant. Independents reject any authority by courts and assign all authority to the individual interpretation of scripture no matter how much in error it is according to the inerrant interpretation.
Mark, Walt, Rocky–
Accurate sexual abuse statistics are notoriously difficult to obtain. What constitutes abuse? What substantiates abuse? How can we correct for underreporting? How should allegations that come forward decades after the abuse be handled?
The John Jay report found the rate of child abuse among diocesan priests in the U.S. as around 4%. There are what? 250-300,000 diocesan priests worldwide? (Religious priests are somewhere around 1/3 of the total and have a lower rate.)
That would give us approximately 13-14,000 worldwide if the U.S. rate held up. But many regions have lower rates (and some have higher). And underreporting is not factored in. So it could be lower than that…or much, much higher. On the whole, speaking of “tens of thousands” is probably not far off track.
But so what? As far as I can tell, Protestants are not appreciably better and may be worse, perhaps even far worse. We shouldn’t be indicting the Catholic Church with any particularity. Celibacy is probably not to blame. Plus, we shouldn’t even be pointing at clerical homosexuality. Homosexuals are statistically less likely to engage in pedophilia (though that’s not as true for hebdophilia). The fact that an LA Times poll found Catholic priests self-reported as 15% either homosexual or tending toward homosexuality…may mean that priests are LESS likely than their straight-by-a-higher-percentage Protestant counterparts to abuse children.
The current secularized culture probably has more to do with the problem, and we should be attacking this travesty together…rather than pointing fingers.
Hans, how can any reasonable person say about men who are forced to live in unnatural restraint, wouldn’t commit the deeds like Homosexuality or pedophilia. I’m not sure anyone can ever know the extent to which they are connected or how much was committed. All I know is Spurgeon said that when one considers all the crimes and villanies committed under a special priesthood , he would rather a man looked at him in the streets and call him the devil than call him a priest. For all the devil has committed, he would be hard pressed to match what was committed under Rome’s priesthood.
Kevin–
Men in prison are under “unnatural restraints.” Men can leave the priesthood whenever they please.
Are you saying that no priest has ever been spiritually gifted with celibacy?
Because, as you are well aware, St. Paul states:
“Now as a concession, not a command, I say this: I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
Just because you personally “cannot exercise self-control” doesn’t mean that all men lack such control. (Unless you are setting yourself in opposition to Paul.)
I oppose mandatory celibacy for the clergy because it goes directly against the dictates of Scripture, not to mention common sense. (Not only that, but it isn’t even mandatory for Eastern Rite Catholics and for Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism.)
But if someone remains single by choice (and single-mindedly devoted to the Lord in the process), why would you oppose it? Is singleness in and of itself “unnatural” to you? I got married later in life. I might have to take it personally if you take such a position! 😀
Hans, I didn’t say there weren’t celibate men. I said Rome forces men to live in unnatural restraint. Thanks for the personal shot about self control as you drop a judgmental ad hominem on me. 😊 I think a direct problem with Homosexuality and pedophilia in the Catholic Church is directly related to forced celibacy. It attracts those men to their priesthood. The numbers are staggering. From what I have read and been told it also has cultivated an acceptable environment within the seminaries. Sorry I don’t know allot of heterosexually married me who are Homosexual or pedophiles.
Kevin–
In this day and age, science has become heavily politicized, especially when it comes to hot-button issues: climate change, sexual orientation, evolution, etc. But it’s politicized by both sides. We can’t just throw data out because we don’t like the conclusions they point to. According to a number of studies, pedophilia is its own orientation, and the gender of the victim often doesn’t matter to the perpetrator. Men, by far, are the principal perpetrators, and they most often target boys only because they have much easier access: clergy (Catholic OR Protestant), athletic coaches, scout leaders, and the like. So yes, pedophiles seek out these professions.
Child abusers are motivated by sex if they are pure pedophiles, but others crave power or get off on the pain and humiliation of others. Evidently, they have found that these latter degenerates are usually heterosexual or bisexual. Homosexual males seldom if ever target children…though they may target boys in their upper teens for sexual reasons (ephebophilia). The targeting of early adolescent boys (hebephilia, I spelled it wrong before) falls more in line with the victimization of children.
Remember, even Evangelical denominations tend to allow men with same-sex orientations to be ordained if they demonstrate faithful vows of chastity.
Kevin–
Just to be clear, I don’t think the problem to be “unnatural restraint” except in terms of fewer heterosexuals choosing the ministry and more heterosexual priests opting out to get married. A good number of studies show the seminary population to be at or near 50% homosexual.
But again, the problem of pedophilia is a direct result of ACCESS, not restraint. Religious priests, who tend to be even more isolated, have an incidence of pedophilia HALF the rate of diocesan priests. Why? Most likely because they generally have far less access to children.
Hans, I’m not sure you or I understand the situation in which these men are forced to live. Many live lonely lives, hearing confessions of people’s worst problems, unable to talk about it. Taking and oath of celibacy is like taking and oath to have a photographic memory. You either are celibate of your not, and if your not, but you sign on to be, that’s a problem. Since sin many times is meeting a legitimate need in an illigitimate way, and there is so much of this happening among priests, then it really doesn’t matter how much they Homosexuality and pedophilia are related, they are symptoms of the situation these men are in coupled with their flesh. Incidentally, because prisoners are put in unatural restraint, many of these perversions happen. To think their living situation doesn’t contribute I think would be naive, but hey we can agree to disagree. K
“Hans, I’m not sure you or I understand the situation in which these men are forced to live. ”
Yes, I agree Kevin. You don’t understand anything about this. You are a bumper sticker anti-Catholic. Shall I post here all the articles about the Reformed camp pedophile ministers and cover-ups like I did on the other blog? You were speechless.
” You are a bumper sticker anti Roman Catholic” Is there any other kind. I mean, we are talking about people lost in a false system with no hope. I hope to hear that from the Lord someday, Kevin you stood against Antichrist and cared enough about the souls of his people. The most unloving thing one can do is let someone perish in a false system. I make no apologies for being a ” bumper sticker anti Roman Catholic” Count me in with Tim, Walt, and all my other soldier brothers who speak out against Roman Catholicism and it’s blatant lies.
Kevin–
Well, YOU might not understand their situation, but I kind of do. I didn’t “sign up” for celibacy, and I certainly wasn’t “gifted” for celibacy, but I received it nonetheless. As a Christian single, I was “forced” into the bondage of “unnatural restraints” for several decades. Miraculously, I became neither a homsexual nor a pedophile. (Whew! That was close!)
Secularists tell us that we cannot expect our children, during their teenage years or during their undergraduate days, to remain celibate. It’s too difficult. Is this what you think?
By the way, prisoners have an almost zero rate of active pedophilia. You see, there simply aren’t any children in jail!
I make it a habit never to agree to disagree. That’s a call to surrender. If we are to be iron sharpening iron, then we don’t quit while one blade or the other (or both) are still dull.
What say we agree to agree that you haven’t thought deeply enough on all this? Is it a deal? 😊
Hans, the difference is scripture says its better to marry than to burn. Young people have the option to marry and should be encouraged to do so, so they won’t sin. Sex before marriage or outside of it is sin. Priests don’t have that option. And, no you don’t know what its like to be a priest with all due respect. The lifestyle is unnatural if you think about forced celibacy and the confessional. What a time bomb. Would you look at porn all day and say you wouldn’t be tempted. That’s how I look at the awful practice of auricular confession. These priests live lonely lives, and yes I believe it is a breeding ground for sin, and the evidence proves it. And you are right we shouldn’t agree to disagree. You are in denial, and its more than a river in Egypt☺ All the best. Hope the triplets aren’t keeping you to busy. Your friend K
Kevin,
Watch this new documentary on the RCC and its constant scandals. I suggest you ignore Hans, Mark and Rocky as these guys are so disconnected from the true meaning of Scripture, and to defend antichrist day after day just proves how lost they are in this world. To defend these crimes and to compare them to the reformers and other faithful protestant ministers is laughable. Those who are committing these crimes in the Christian church are mostly all involved in Romish practices as ministers whether it be their worship, doctrines, discipline (sweeping it under the rug and forcing others into silence by threats, intimidation, lawsuits, etc), and apologetics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztisTKy2KTE&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs
This documentary is a little bit long being over 1 hour, and so you can not going to find any Roman Catholic apologists to watch it as it is really incredibly damning against the Pope and the institution. It is filled with source references to thousands of other witness testimony, and only the truly hardened soul run by Satan defends these actions and scrambles to point the finger at others while seeking to silence the victim.
This is an excellent documentary on the incredible wickedness of the RCC and how deep it runs all the way back to the middle ages with documented evidence lodged in the Vatican.
Tim and I totally disagree that the RCC antichrist has reached its peak of wickedness during the 1260 year and ending in the 1630’s no longer to be a threat to the true and faithful Christian elect. This institution, as some even admit in the video, has never gotten so bad and evil at operating like a cesspool of evil. Many of my Catholic friends in Rome left years ago because they witnessed so much of this open filth of priests running the Vatican and could not stand to watch it.
The hardened will defend her actions and attack not just the reformers who witnessed the murder and death, and the selling of indulgences, but today the even more wickedness of preying upon innocent children and silencing anyone who even thinks to come forward.
My own Catholic school was filled with priests and nuns who did unimaginable things to the boarder children growing up that only years later all got exposed in public, and everyone was silenced and the priests and nuns were moved. They got millions to tear down the old school, and build a multi-million dollar congregation, church and brought in more children.
Ignore these 3 guys. Stay focused on the faithful.
Tim said to Mark:
“Mark, In the case of Ambrose and Jerome and Siricius and Liberius, they were the ones “opposing Catholic teachings,” so no, I do not define the True Church as “those opposing Catholic teachings.” Siricius’, Ambrose’s, Jerome’s and Liberius’ teachings were novel constructs introduced at the latter part of the 4th century in opposition to the catholicity and apostolicity of the religion Christ founded. That’s why I classify them as apostates. They opposed catholic teachings.”
This is exactly correct. The true church will always be catholic and universal in following the doctrines of Christ, the Scriptures and the Apostles teachings. Unfortunately, the Elect are not so visible to the blind and hardened. They see only their own religion, no matter how evil or wicked, as the true church because it is visible, vocal and wealthy.
None of those criteria have never been shown in Scripture to be marks of a true church. In fact, they are marks of antichrist and the root of evil comes from their institution. The man of sin sits in the church of God proclaiming to be God. There is none other on the earth except the Papacy making these claims in history. Loyalty is to due Pope (watch the video above) and has nothing to do with Christ….as the Pope claims to be the sole authority of Christ on earth. Beware and think!
Walt, I am going to leave the discussion of pedophilia to you, Kevin, Hans, Rocky and Mark Rome but I do appreciate Hans comments. I could add my own but I thought you had excepted my challenge to discuss the biblical evidence for or against the real presence in the Eucharist and am still waiting on your response to my post. So far I have address John 6:63 and I checked again and you have not responded to any of the verses I cited or given me a list of biblical verses that you believe show the Eucharist is just a symbol. Now I’ll ask again, for the Jews what was the metaphorical meaning to the phrase to eat the flesh of someone, and can you back up that meaning in the Bible. Kevin, maybe you could help Walt.
” you will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters” Leviticus 26:29. Here is what Mathew Henry says ” After God has set the blessing before them which wouldbmake them happy people if they were obedient , here he sets the curse before them, the evils that would make them miserable if they were disobedient.” ” SPIRITUAL judgments are threatened for those who won’t be parted for their sins. ” Notice the thought of physically eating the flesh of their sons and daughters is the CURSE set before them. Henry says it is spiritual judgments threatened. Here eating flesh of sons and daughters is a judgment. Take note Timothy P. Now to John 6:63. Why would Jesus say the flesh profits NOTHING if he were saying eat his flesh? If it were a passage about physically eating Him, why say it is the Spirit who gives life? The truth is God calls people to a spiritual relationship with Him by coming and believing. The book of John isn’t a metaphysical essay, it can be understood in context, as can Leviticus 26.
Walt, just watched that video. Its like the emperor in his new clothes. Just stunning the degree of filth. Maybe Hans, Mark, and Rocky will watch it. Thanks Kevin
Kevin/Walt,
Did the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches in America cover up child abuse?
https://thouarttheman.org/2016/12/26/chantry-jailed-arbca-appears-covered-abuse/
There’s a stunning degree of filth in the Reformed Churches and it has a lot to do with the complementarian / patriarcical views of people like John Piper.
Mark wrote:
“Did the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches in America cover up child abuse?”
I read the link you posted and all the comments. Apparently there is someone in the comments that assures the reader there was a coverup before he became a Pastor. See here:
“As stated in your article, the legal system holds that Tom Chantry is innocent until proven guilty. The charges against him are allegations. However, a guilty verdict in a criminal court is not required for the church to determine if a man is “above reproach” as the Apostle Paul instructed as a requirement for the pastoral ministry.
I have spoken to people who do in fact know the facts about the Chantry coverup. Yes, there was certainly a coverup by ARBCA although most of us had no idea the situation even existed. Those who served on the investigative committee that looked into the allegations at Miller Valley against Chantry VERY MUCH need to come right out in the public view and tell the world that in fact there was a recommendation for the charges against Chantry to be announced to the entire association. If myself and others are wrong about that, then I ask the members of the investigative committee to say so publicly. But I believe you will find that this recommendation was squashed by some of the very same bullying individuals who are still hold power in the association.
And so what happened? No one came forward. Chantry went off to another church in Washington state, then off to teach in a Christian school. How is it even possible that a school would hire him if they knew about the charges that had been laid against him back in Arizona? I seriously doubt they even knew. If there were more abuse at that school, everyone who has remained silent shares the guilt in it. Again, if I am wrong and the school really did know about the allegations made against him in Arizona, let them say so publicly and admit their fault.
Then, off Chantry goes to become a pastor. How is that even possible? And not only was he a pastor, he became a big shot among reformed baptists!!!
AND THEN the sorry state of affairs continued as, in I believe 2015, Chantry and his church were admitted into ARBCA as members!!! And I also believe you will find that the Miller Valley church in Arizona protested that action to no avail and resigned from ARBCA themselves. If that is wrong, then please tell us. If it is the truth, then shout it out.
It’s housecleaning time brothers and sisters!! Tell your stories. Let’s find out who is responsible for covering this whole thing up, and let’s hold them accountable for it. The division in ARBCA was NOT the result of “an honest disagreement over doctrine” between brothers in Christ. No. Stop thinking that or saying it. The division happened because there is sin in the camp and the Lord has set up to expose it.”
Mark said” if you think these are novel doctrines …….” Mark, I notice this is a method you use to defend RC doctrines not supported in scripture or the early church. You seem to lump in with the apostate doctrines of Rome that Tim points out in his articles the things like the Trinty and other Orthodox doctrines. The whole point of Sola Sciptura for the Protestant is to measure claims by a church to the word of God. We even measure our great confessions against the word because in the end the word is the only infallible source of revelation. Reformed and always being reformed. Remember, the point of this article and many others here IMHO is to show the stepwise introduction of the visible apostasy in the church. So, for instance Tim shows in this article not only Jerome’ unorthodox position on celibacy and marriage, but maybe more importantly how it was linked to heiarchy of merit, which underpins the false gospel of worthinnes of merit that is the gospel of the Roman religion. By isolating these novel false doctrines as not being in scripture or the early church, Tim is putting a manyfying glass on the false RC presupposition of continuity with the Apostolic faith. It is clear, after the late 4th century we have to look for the church where these false doctrines were protested. It is a very important fact brought out in the article that even a RC apologist thought jovanius was Orthodox and Jerome and the pope weren’t. But why would this surprise anyone who knows scripture, for we should look for the apostasy from within the church. That’s where we are told to find it. Turns out it ain’t hard to see if believers will look.
“We even measure our great confessions against the word because in the end the word is the only infallible source of revelation.”
Except you can’t even agree among yourselves what the word contains or means. The hallmark of Protestantism is disunity. You can’t even agree on the “True doctrines” yet you are somehow going to look back 1700 years and say what they are? Please! That’s absurd. No, what you are doing is saying, “the Catholic Church is apostate so now lets build the case that it is.”
I haven’t yet heard any compelling evidence that the Church went apostate in the 4th century. The teachings may not be spelled out the way you would like, but that’s not the criteria for the True Church. The True Church is the one that Jesus founded on St. Peter and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That Church was and is the Catholic Church. You may disagree with the teachings, but only the Catholic Church can be traced back to St. Peter.
The difference between you and me is that I don’t start with the premise that the Church went apostate. I start with the promise of Jesus that it won’t. You see, I have faith in Jesus. You don’t.
” I havent heard any clear evidence that the church went apostate in the 4th century” I agree. Tim isnt presenting evindence that the church went apostate. He presented evidence that Roman Catholicism was the visible apostasy that was prophesied would come from within the church. Pretty important dont you think? Dont you want to know if your in the right church?
“Tim isnt presenting evindence that the church went apostate. He presented evidence that Roman Catholicism was the visible apostasy that was prophesied would come from within the church. ”
That’s a distinction without a difference. The Catholic Church was the Church at the time. There weren’t other groups other than heretics.
You can argue all you want that the Catholic Church has errant doctrines, what you can’t deny is that the modern-day Catholic Church has the pedigree all the way back to Peter. It’s a fool’s errand to try to believe otherwise.
Actually, it is you that needs to determine if you are in the right church. What makes you so sure that your group, one of 40,000+ denominations, is the “True Church”? I think the True Church is Joel Osteen or maybe even the 7th Day Adventists. They keep the Sabbath Day even though the Catholic Church changed it to Sunday.
” for many will come in my name saying ” I am the Christ and lead MANY astray. ” Jesus didn’t think it was a ” a distinction without a difference” notice he doesn’t say they will come in my name and say I am the true church, but I am the Christ. This is exactly what Roman Catholicism claims. It claims to be Jesus historical and natural body on earth. It replaces Jesus Christ’s uniquely finished work, atonement , as the agency of salvation through the acts of the church. And it has led MANY astray. Take note Mark, Mathew 24:23 says ” at that time if someone says to YOU , ” Look here is the Christ” here he is, don’t believe it.” Scripture tells me to reject any claim to be Christ other than Jesus. So when your pope and church and Eucharist claim to be Christ, I am to reject it. My church never claims to be Jesus Christ. It passes on His message, it obeys Him, it carries out his mission, but my pastor doesn’t call himself Holy Father, Vicar of the Son of God, nor head of the church. Jesus said Mark, you are to reject your church claim?
“So when your pope and church and Eucharist claim to be Christ, I am to reject it.”
Except that it wasn’t the “pope and church” but Jesus Christ himself who made these claims. Take it up with him. We’re only the messenger. I would agree with you though that your communion bread is just bread and that your group isn’t the body of Christ. That I agree with you on.
Mark–
So, let me get this straight. All that matters to you is pedigree? And the Assyrian Church of the East, which (probably legitimately) claims to go back to St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew, is just A-OK with you, despite their Nestorianism?
Why should we even pay any attention to hierarchical continuity unless you have doctrinal continuity? I for one couldn’t possibly care less about your pedigree, even if it could be shown to be absolutely true.
Do you have doctrinal continuity? I think not. (And you haven’t even attempted to give evidence thereto.)
You are correct Hans, it is not just either hierarchical continuity or doctrinal continuity but both hierarchical continuity and doctrinal continuity. And that is what you find in the Catholic church. And that is why I have been trying to engage Walt in the discussion on the Biblical evidence for the real presence and not just the symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Walt initially seemed anxious to debate the issue but I seem to have trouble having him respond to my comments and when you look at the text I provided and the one’s Walt provided I think you can easily see why. If the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is correct Hans, would you become Catholic?
Timothy P,
I think over on mingled cup Hans stated he does believe in full or in part in the real presence as I recall reading. I cannot recall the comment he made to mark Rome but mark seemed pretty excited. You’ll have to ask them.
Roman Catholic Errors:
Root Error #1 – There is ongoing revelation
Root Error #2 — Sacrifice of the Mass is the ongoing sacrifice of Jesus
Root Error #3 — Purgatory is a place of purification after death
Root Error #1 — Rome is the One True Church
Root Error #2 — The Pope is the head of the Church
Root Error #3 — A Wafer is the body of Christ
Root Error #1 — Sacraments are the means to heaven
Root Error #2 — Mary is Co-mediatrix
Root Error #3 — Pope is the Distributor of Grace
Root Error #4 — Dead Saints are Interceders
Root Error #5 — Priest is the Intermediary
Root Error #6 — Salvation is through the Church
Root Error #1 — We Earn Our Salvation
Root Error #2 — We Cooperate in Our Justification
Does anyone know who this guy is? I think I have seen him before on YouTube but is claims to document all of the real flesh and blood sightings of the Eucharist. His video is really very good as he is compelling and convincing to the weak and poor. He claims that he because a real believer in the Roman Catholic religion because of these miracles.
Mark Rome believes in the Roman Catholic religion because he has absolute faith that Jesus appointed Peter as the first Pope and his religion can be tied directly to Peter the Pope.
Here is this video on all the miracles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSMaQ3BfLCk#t=3434.346562
The Real Presence Of Jesus In the Holy Eucharist Is Reality, A True Miracle
Published on Jun 1, 2014
http://signsfromGodmovie.com Tim Francis has a mission to share the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. The miracles he shares of the Communion Host transforming into the heart muscle and blood of Jesus is truly astounding.
He believes that once people learn about these amazing miracles of the host transforming into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and a statue of Jesus bleeding real blood and weeping human tears, there will be a revival in the world.
New people will have their faith renewed and strengthened. Catholics will again have the reverence God deserves when they receive the real Body and Blood of Jesus. They will understand the importance of the Sacrament of Reconciliation before they receive Holy Communion.
Soon 100% of Catholics will believe in transubstantiation, where the Communion Host transforms into the Body and Blood of Jesus. They will realize it is critical to obey the 10 commandments and go to confession to confess their mortal sins to receive forgiveness.
They will learn that taking the Body and Blood of Jesus unworthily is sacrilege, a horrible sin that causes Jesus and the Blessed Mother the greatest spiritual pain.
God desires that all souls will be saved. Through the power of the Holy Spirit manifested through the Holy Sacraments, we can all experience Heaven on earth and witness a spiritual revival that transforms the world.
Timothy P wrote:
“I could add my own but I thought you had excepted my challenge to discuss the biblical evidence for or against the real presence in the Eucharist and am still waiting on your response to my post. So far I have address John 6:63 and I checked again and you have not responded to any of the verses I cited or given me a list of biblical verses that you believe show the Eucharist is just a symbol. Now I’ll ask again, for the Jews what was the metaphorical meaning to the phrase to eat the flesh of someone, and can you back up that meaning in the Bible.”
I did respond Timothy. I told you I was thinking about how to respond. I am trying to research the best way to approach a totally hardened heart on that subject. I started watching the Real Presence video this morning so I can get a broader understanding of what is this fascination with the Eucharist and Roman Catholics. I’m starting to get a better glimpse.
Pasting Scriptures does not help without expounding what they teach. That is why both Catholics and Presbyterians have confessions, catechisms, and other court decisions explaining what the Scriptures teach. After reading all of your pasted passages that you say absolutely prove the real presence of the Eucharist, I read all them and thought:
“Yes, that is what I was taught in Catholic School was the only interpretation, but after I started reading the bible over and over it seems different and then I learned what the reformers taught who all were former Catholics like me, and the interpretations were much different. Timothy P cannot see anything in those verses except what he has been taught. Like Mark Rome, it does not matter what evidence, proof or facts you provide him, he does not see anything except Peter is the first Pope and case closed…Rome is the only true church no matter what you prove otherwise.”
You could put a Priest and a child in the same room, and the child walks out crying complaining he was just attacked, and Mark Rome will complain about the reformers did it.
I’m trying to learn how cults get people’s mind, and how they infuse it with demonic teachings so that no matter what is the proof or evidence, they don’t or cannot see it.
The real presence has the same effect I think.
Walt, let me respond to your comment
“Pasting Scriptures does not help without expounding what they teach. That is why both Catholics and Presbyterians have confessions, catechisms, and other court decisions explaining what the Scriptures teach. After reading all of your pasted passages that you say absolutely prove the real presence of the Eucharist, I read all them and thought:”
Obviously Walt you have to start somewhere and I cannot think of a better place to start then to give the Biblical verses that support one’s position. Now obviously you would not be complaining about that starting place if you had the amount of biblical verses supporting your position as the Catholic apologist does. Don’t blame me, blame the inspired writers of the New Testament.
Also Walt, let’s try not to misrepresent what the other person has stated. You commented
“After reading all of your pasted passages that you say absolutely prove the real presence of the Eucharist, I read all them and thought:”
Walt, please show me where I said the passages “absolutely prove” the real presence. If you go back and look I believe I actually said that once the comments have been posted we can debate rather they are taken out of context or can be shown to be not true in some other way.
You wrote after quoting me:
““After reading all of your pasted passages that you say absolutely prove the real presence of the Eucharist, I read all them and thought:”
Walt, please show me where I said the passages “absolutely prove” the real presence. If you go back and look I believe I actually said that once the comments have been posted we can debate rather they are taken out of context or can be shown to be not true in some other way.”
Sorry about that. I assumed you were absolutely certain in your doctrine by posting your scripture proof texts. My assumption was incorrect.
On the contrary, I am absolutely certain about my views that the Westminster Confession is inerrant on their interpretation of Scripture, as summarized below. The only issue remains is how to provide a more compelling testimony your proof texts supporting Rome is in error, and the Westminster standards and proof texts are the proper literal sense interpretation of the Triune God speaking through the Scripture.
II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.[4]
III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]
IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people,[8] worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.[9]
[2] HEB 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
[3] 1CO 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. MAT 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.
[4] HEB 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
[5] MAT 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. MAR 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. LUK 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 1CO 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
[6] ACT 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 1CO 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
[7] 1CO 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
[8] MAR 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 1CO 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
[9] MAT 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Walt, although I do not see the word symbol in any of your postings I am assuming your point is since Jesus and Paul refer to the consecrated bread as bread it must just be a symbol. But you then seem to undermine your position by including the following verse from Paul
“27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
Guilty of the what? The symbol of the body and blood of the Lord? No, “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
“Not discerning the symbol of the Lord’s body”. No, not discerning the Lord’s body”.
Paul obviously is calling the consecrated elements bread and in the same verse tells us that bread is the body and blood of the Lord. And of course Catholics today continue to refer to the consecrated host as bread. Remember the Hymn “One Bread, One body” Does that mean we deny the real presence? Of course not. And by the way, damnation is a pretty harsh penalty. How do you warrant damnation for not discerning a symbol?
Now are you ready to explain to me what the Jews understood at the time of Christ was the metaphorical meaning of the phrase “to eat the flesh of someone”?
” guilty of what” to take the bread in an unworthy manner is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. It is to dishonor his sacrifice on the cross for our sins. How do we dishonor him. Holding something against a brother, considering his finished work on the cross as a continual sacrifice for sins in the supper, making it a ritual. Not taking it seriously, etc.
Kevin,
Thanks for the reference to Lev.26:29 comparing it with Jn.6:63.
I spent years on Sermon Audio debating Arminian and Pelagian baptists and independent Pastors, and what I learned was that only a tiny fraction could understand the distinction. I’ve compiled 3 pages of scripture references proving that the Romish doctrines of Arminianism and Pelagianism (full & semi) are totally against Scripture. I used to post them and show how they compared with these Romish heretical teachings.
What I learned is that no matter what you quote in Scripture, using Scripture to interpret using the literal sense, those who are the most ignorant cannot see it. They are blinded by their own presuppositions. Only a couple years later did some of the Pastors write me privately saying that all my hard work paid off and they finally understood. It was like one day they awoke (just like I did) and said yes, it makes sense now.
Thus, you can see Timothy P is super excited in his posts as he is 100% convinced his Scripture proof texts to support the real presence is clear. He knows in his heart and mind that I just don’t see it, and don’t understand these texts and the mystery that Rome subscribes to this doctrine.
Timothy K wrote a blog post (perhaps several) that dug a little into the root of the real presence external “proof”. It seems that witnesses see and testify to the Stigmata and also that they live alone eating nothing but the flesh and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. I just watched this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf0_lxR6TSE#t=1315.085411
After watching the Tim Francis video on his crazy misuse of Scripture and all the references he made about how he proves using the Bible the real presence, I needed to see again (I watched it some time ago) this “proof” of Catalina Rivas who he claims was the “game changer” (so to speak) for him to bring him back into the True Church of Rome.
Like I learned with the Arminian and Pelagian Pastors I debated over years on Sermon Audio, I cannot make any difference just pasting Scripture attempting to show Tim P how to interpret Scripture like Matthew Henry did, and all the other reformers. These guys don’t care.
They are totally brain washed in the world’s largest cult, and it is Antichrist. They are filled with delusion according to Scripture, and few will come out of her. I have to come to a much better understanding what has taken their mind from them coming out of Rome. Anyone with any ability to reason and think knows the elect and true church is not filled with homosexual Priests, Bishops and Cardinals. This can only be Antichrist claiming to be the true church of Christ.
I need more time to think about how to answer Tim P as the more I see his posting of Scripture, and essentially, “don’t you see it clearly” it reminds me of my previous debates which really went nowhere with these baptist Arminians. These Romish guys are far worse than the baptists.
Just read Mark Rome. He cannot see anything. He is totally gone and lost of an ability to reason.
Walt, you are welcome. You said Timothy P is so excited because he is 100 % convinced his scripture proof texts to support the real presence is clear. Ya, the irony is the first scripture he provides you is John 6:63 that the flesh profits nothing and that it is the Spirit that gives life. I wouldn’t be using that as my first scripture to prove transubstantiation! But see Walt, when you really on self-centered sacramental forgiveness ex opere operato, well then your soul depends on that mass and worthiness of merit and real presence . The irony is the gospel is told and believed, not done. Mark 1:15. Yet, historically the mass in Rome is called ” the work of the people” , and frankly Walt their soul depends on getting that Jesus wafer. Iow, there lives have to be dominated by the real presence, its their only hope. But John says ” by this we have overcome the world, our faith.”
“Just read Mark Rome. He cannot see anything. He is totally gone and lost of an ability to reason.”
Funny, that’s exactly how I see you!
“What I learned is that no matter what you quote in Scripture, using Scripture to interpret using the literal sense, those who are the most ignorant cannot see it. ”
Why should anyone believe your interpretation? Your interpretation is just as valid as the next guy. Without an infallible authority to interpret scripture you are the blind leading the blind.
Mark said:
“Why should anyone believe your interpretation? Your interpretation is just as valid as the next guy. Without an infallible authority to interpret scripture you are the blind leading the blind.”
This question and comment is what makes my case to the reader that you have lost all ability to reason and to discern.
The Scripture interpreting Scripture is the only infallible teacher, and is the authority of all infallible truth. This is absolutely clear in Scripture. All unity of the truth is based upon the Scripture and we are to withdraw from unfaithful churches.
Jer.15:17-19, Hos.4:15-17, Mt. 15:9, Rom. 16:17, 2Thes.3:6, 2Tim.3:5-8, 1Tim.6:3-5, Prov.19:2, Phil.3:2, Acts.15
We need to think and teach the same doctrine that is founded and based in Scripture.
Deut.6:1-9, Neh.8:5-8, Rom.15:5-6, 1Tim.6:3-5, 2Tim.1:13, 2Tim.2:2
We need to defend the Scriptures against false teachers, heresies, etc. such as those in Rome.
Deut.13:1-5, Jn.4:1, Tit.1:11, Tit.3:10, Rev.2:2, Rev. 2:10
We are to promote peace, unity and purity of the church.
Amos3:3, 1Cor.1:10, Eph.4:4-6, Phil.3:16, Matt.12:25, Tit.2:1
We need to understand the Scriptures.
Neh.8:8, 12-13, Acts.8:30-31, Acts.17:11, Isa.34:16, Acts.18:26, Matt.11:1, Jn.5:39, 2Chron.17:9
And please be clear. Presbyterians have the strongest and most well established form of church government, and the authority of the Church with Christ as it’s sole head, and the use of Scripture as the primary source document, and all counsels, opinions of men, private interpretations, as the secondary source documents.
What you don’t understand is that as the elect, we hold the Scriptures as the revealed word of God, and all interpretation comes from this primary source. Your opinion that all authority comes from the Pope and RCC is heretical. Nothing in Scriptures tells us to bow to the Pope on all authority, nor does it tell us submit to Antichrist.
Again, my point is that you have lost all ability to reason and to discern the Scriptures and even faithful, factual church history that identifies the Roman papacy is Antichrist since you have been brainwashed, and are the unfortunate example of what happens in cults. They cannot see anything outside of their own leaders who tell them what to say for all responses like a robot. You have mastered it.
Walt, please show me from Scripture where it lists the 27 books of the New Testament.
Walt, we agreed to have a scriptural debate over the doctrine of the real presence and so far you seem to have some problem focusing on the point of discussion. Now if we are opening up the debate to comments on Baptist Arminians, Tim Francis videos, cults and Homosexual priest I hope I can post comments from the early Church Fathers that I think are far more pertinent to the discussion at hand. It is the Fathers that reinforce the belief in the real presence taught in the scriptures. I am excited about this debate because I have had it many times over the last 20 years and invariably the Protestant apologist wants to go off on all sorts of other issues as you seem to be doing. I would like Rocky and Mark Rome to help me if you don’t mind since Kevin apparently would also like to be engaged in the discussion. By the way Kevin, did you ever share those quotes from Irenaeus with anyone for an unbiased opinion as to what Irenaeus believed? I would be interested in their response. You did share them didn’t you?
Mark wrote:
“Walt, please show me from Scripture where it lists the 27 books of the New Testament.”
Again, this question makes my point exactly. You have no ability to reason or discern. You are a robot. You have been trained by Rome to respond to all Protestants with the same foolish questions in hopes to prove the Roman religion is not Antichrist.
We believe our Presbyterian Confession of Faith (approved by the General Assembly in the Church of Scotland) of all books to be contained in the Bible. Here is the link in case you never heard of the inerrant Westminster Confession of Faith.
http://creeds.net/Westminster/c01.htm
To order a copy that includes ALL of the subordinate standards produced by Westminster, see here:
http://www.puritanpublications.com/store/products/1647-westminster-confession-of-faith-3rd-edition-kjv-bible/
“This is the 1647 Westminster Standards proved by the KJV of the Bible. It includes a list of the Members of the Westminster Assembly, The Solemn League & Covenant, The Shorter Catechism, The Larger Catechism, Directory for Publick Worship, Directory for Family Worship, Form of Presbyterian Church Government, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, and Warrants to Believe. The Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms are proved by the KJV…its the best version of the 1647 Standards available.”
So now you are looking at traditions that are outside of the Bible. So much for Sola Scriptura.
Is your creed an infallible creed? How do you infallible know those books make up the Bible?
Mark said:
“So now you are looking at traditions that are outside of the Bible. So much for Sola Scriptura.
Is your creed an infallible creed? How do you infallible know those books make up the Bible?”
Oh boy! It is so painful talking to you. It is like talking to a concrete wall that understands nothing except that as a wall it hears nothing.
Walt, are you really serious?
“We believe our Presbyterian Confession of Faith (approved by the General Assembly in the Church of Scotland) of all books to be contained in the Bible. Here is the link in case you never heard of the inerrant Westminster Confession of Faith.”
Well I am sure we all agree that the General Assembly in the Church of Scotland has the final word when it comes to the canon of the New Testament. I just don’t know what to say.
Tim, you said:
“Walt, we agreed to have a scriptural debate over the doctrine of the real presence and so far you seem to have some problem focusing on the point of discussion. Now if we are opening up the debate to comments on Baptist Arminians, Tim Francis videos, cults and Homosexual priest I hope I can post comments from the early Church Fathers that I think are far more pertinent to the discussion at hand.”
Apparently in your excitement to get on with the debate, you have ignored what I said when I was traveling overseas to you, as well as what I have made clear since I returned.
I have seen your posted passages that in your view, over now I see many years debating protestants, are the key passages to your proof of the real presence.
I not only have seen them, but I have made it clear to you I need to deal with your cult real presence behavior before responding. My experience tells me reading your comments with Tim K that nothing he wrote to you never was understood. It is the same thing we find writing to Mark Rome is that you guys don’t see anything but the standard line responses like a Robot would respond.
After reading so many of the responses between you and Tim K knowing you don’t see anything except your standard responses, no matter what the evidence shows, I have no interest to go into the same “debate” with that type of responses.
I need to think how to deal with those effected mentally by the Romish cult, and who are brainwashed into responding to all arguments with the same responses over and over like a Robot. Once I figure out how to do this, I will reply.
Your welcome to kick and scream all you want until that point I respond, but for now I am trying to understand the cult mind and how brainwashing works with RCC adherents.
” It is the fathers that reinforce the belief in the real presence taught in scriptures” Timothy P, you asked if I would join in with Walt, but I’m not sure what Walt could say to convince you otherwise. Your presupposition in that sentence begs the question in the fathers and the scriptures in regard to the real presence. Tim presented you with some strong arguments, you weren’t budging. So, Timothy P exactly what could Walt or I say to move you from the fact that you transubstantiation is reinforced by the father’s and scripture? Now, I have watched your posts in the past and you have a position that the bread is symbolic and real presence Jesus. But if its real presence Jesus , in what way is it symbolic? I don’t introduce my wife to someone and say this is real presence wife and symbolic of her. The bread didn’t die on the cross for my sins, Jesus real presence did. The bread is a symbol and a remembrance of that real presence sacrifice at the cross, but it isn’t that finished sacrifice. Tim does a great job showing that in his series where he shows how the fathers maintained their categories meticulously. Bread was never offered to God, just to men. Only praise and thanksgiving was offered to God. The real presence doctrine and the sacrifice of the mass is the reversing of their categories. Incidentally, have you ever been to a commemoration of something that hasn’t happened yet or is still happening. I was commemorated once for an album I played on. They didn’t commemorate our group while we were making the album. Can you explain how we can remember and commemorate a continuous sacrifice? Puzzling, don’t you think. Thanks
Kevin, you asked
“Now, I have watched your posts in the past and you have a position that the bread is symbolic and real presence Jesus. But if its real presence Jesus , in what way is it symbolic? I don’t introduce my wife to someone and say ”
Kevin, I think that is an excellent question and as shown by Walt’s difficulty proving that the Eucharist is only a symbol using the Scriptures I would have to turn to the Church to justify calling the Eucharist a symbol.
From the council of Trent
CHAPTER II
THE REASON FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THIS MOST HOLY SACRAMENT
Therefore, our Savior, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this sacrament, in which He poured forth, as it were, the riches of His divine love towards men, making a remembrance of his wonderful works,[8] and commanded us in the participation of it to reverence His memory and to show forth his death until he comes[9] to judge the world. But He wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls,[10] whereby they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of Him who said: He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me,[11] and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins.
He wished it furthermore to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body of which He is the head[12] and to which He wished us to be united as members by the closest bond of faith, hope and charity, that we might all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us.[13]
So the Church’s position is that the Eucharist is a symbol (Remember the hymn One Bread, One Body) but again not sure how you prove that point scripturally.
Kevin you wrote
The bread is a symbol and a remembrance of that real presence sacrifice at the cross.
Kevin, Christ said “This is my body”, he did not say “This is a symbol of my Body”. He did not say “This represents my body”. So Kevin what could Jesus Christ have said to move you and Walt from your denial “that transubstantiation is reinforced by the father’s and scripture?” Please explain to me why you do not accept what our Lord said. Do you not realize that we wouldn’t even be having this debate if Christ said “This represents my Body” or “This is a symbol of my Body”. Do you really believe our Lord misspoke?
And I am still interested if you shared those quote from Irenaeus with any of your fellow Christians.
” do you believe the Lord mispoke” no, as I don’t think he mispoke when he said it was meat to do his will, or he was the door, or the shepperd, or the vine, or the BREAD come down from heaven.” The Spirit of God speaking in the scriptures teaches me that he spoke this way often. So even when He told me directly that He spoke spiritual words, I guarantee you I never believe he ever mispoke. Nor do I think Paul thought he mispoke when he understood Him to say ” for as often as you eat this bread. We all know we are eating bread that reminds us of his death on the cross for our sins. Not one time do I think He mispoke.
Timothy P, you wrote:
“Now we all agree, Christ was not talking about cannibalism in John 6, but you don’t seem to appreciate that there is another literal sense by which Christ’s words can be understood. I look forward to your response.”
Yes, I was not implying cannibalism per se. I understand you believe there is a mystical transformation. I do want to understand, however, those who believe in a much newer version of Roman Catholicism that Tim Francis is promoting and that the Stigmata followers and intensive Mary worshipers are implying with those who eat and live on the actual real flesh and blood of Christ in the Eucharist without ever eating any other food to survive. Francis discusses it, and I know Tim K did some blog on those who believe they are consuming the real flesh and blood of Christ physically. The wafer is actually bleeding, like the stigmata miracles, and it is physical not just mystical.
I’m moving our discussion to this blog as I cannot use that other blog if I’m using my phone to reply. It is a nightmare.
No problem Walt moving over to this site. Let me just move these quotes from Irenaeus over as well which kind of go hand and hand with the Biblical quotes from John 6. I find it interesting that in John 6 Christ tells his followers 6 times they must eat His flesh and drink His Blood and Irenaeus in these 6 quotes seems to express His belief in the Real Presence. I feel like I am entering this debate with one arm tied behind my back not including the Church Fathers in this debate but if you and I can just stick to the Scriptures I won’t post any further comments from the Fathers. Agree?
Irenaeus
1, But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made.
2) And as we are His members. we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
4. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,
5. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
6)Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Tim P, I moved over your proof texts to this blog page. I’ll work on this but I need to think about how to convey the reply that will effect your presupposition.
——————-
I asked for a list of scriptural quotes from the bible that prove your belief that the Eucharist is symbolic and I hope you can see a pattern. It’s similar to the situation with the Church Fathers, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Catholic position. I have addressed John 6:63, I hope you will address the following.
From the Gospel of John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Matthew 26
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14
22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the[c] covenant, which is poured out for many,”
Luke 22
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
1 Corinthians 10:14-22
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 11:17-34
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
The Counter Reformation is generally considered to have three aspects: the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and the Council of Trent. In view of the significance of the Protestant apocalyptic interpretation of history which prophetically pinpointed step by step the events covering the whole Christian era from the beginning to the end (i.e. Historicism – ed.), it seems justifiable to suggest a fourth aspect, namely the preteristic (Preterism – ed.) and futuristic (Futurism – ed.) interpretations launched by Catholic expositors as a counterattack. – Kevin Reed, from his book review titled “The Ecclesiology of John Foxe: A book review by Kevin Reed of John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church by V. Norskov Olsen, 1973, citing Olsen on p. 47.
Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial? (1882, 1990) by David Brown
One of the most devastating books ever written against Premillennialism. 482 pages, indexed.
“It is generally recognized that Preterism was first systematized by the Roman Catholic Jesuit, Luis de Alcasar, in his commentary on Revelation (1614 a.d.). Alcasar applied the principles of Preterism to the Book of Revelation in identifying the Beast, the False Prophet and Mystery Babylon with past historical events in order to shield the papacy from the Protestant interpretive system (called “Historicism”) which identified the man of sin, the antichrist, the False Prophet and Mystery Babylon with the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. Even Professor Moses Stuart, one of the chief and earliest proponents of Preterism in the United States, noted in his commentary on Revelation (1845 a.d.) the following in regard to the Jesuit, Alcasar (Vol. 1, pp. 463,464):
It might of course be expected, that the Romish church would not be idle, while the Protestant interpreters were so busy in applying the beast and the false prophet of the Apocalypse to the papacy. . .
Jim Dodson Reformed Presbyterian Scholar But no one had ever developed this idea [of Preterism-GLP] fully, and endeavored to illustrate and enforce it, in such a way as Alcassar. . .
It might be expected, that a commentary which thus freed the Romish church from the assaults of Protestants, would be popular among the advocates of the papacy. Alcassar met, of course, with general approbation and reception among the Romish community.”
– God’s Gracious Covenant With Israel #17 (Partial & Full Preterism Refuted #1) by Greg Price (Free MP3 & PDF)
Biblical Prophecy (Historicism) by Pastor Jim Dodson (44 Free MP3s)
One the best free audio series about classic Reformation eschatology, which is called Historicism!
“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”
– Charles Spurgeon
“Christmas was not celebrated by the apostolic church. It was not celebrated during the first few centuries of the church. As late as A.D. 245, Origen (Hom. 8 on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ, “as if he were a king Pharaoh.” By the middle of the 4th century, many churches in the Latin west were celebrating Christmas. During the 5th century, Christmas became an official Roman Catholic holy day. In A.D. 534, Christmas was recognized as an official holy day by the Roman state. The reason that Christmas became a church holy day has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible does not give the date of Christ’s birth. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate Christmas. Christmas (as well as many other pagan practices) was adopted by the Roman church as a missionary strategy.” – The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian Schwertley
“Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton… Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Charles Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” – Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 205, 1991.
For example, William Tyndale, in “The Practice of Prelates” and in the Preface to the 1534 edition of the New Testament identified the Papacy as Antichrist. For this, and other reasons, he was condemned by the Papal Antichrist, strangled, and burned at the stake.
“This page linked above contains some useful research and information related to the Jesuit origins of Preterism and Futurism, though the authors are in the Seventh Day Adventist [SDA] cult. Therefore this information, and related information throughout that complete Web site, should be used with the utmost in spiritual discernment as their SDA heresies do come to the surface periodically. Historicism is the Biblical (and Reformation) eschatology.”
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm
WALT and his allegations of root errors (oddly numbered) of the Catholic Church.
Root Error #1 – There is ongoing revelation
Catholics hold that public (general) revelation ended at the death of the last apostle, but private revelations can be given still—and have been
Private revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.
Root Error #2 — Sacrifice of the Mass is the ongoing sacrifice of Jesus
“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7). Kelly was a faithful protestant by the way Walt
Root Error #3 — Purgatory is a place of purification after death
Why did the Jews at the time of Jesus offer prayers for the dead as they still do? Why did Jesus and the apostles not denounce the affront?
There is other evidence of course.
Root Error #1 — Rome is the One True Church
It has to be in the sense of its magisterium which Jesus gave it. See mat 16:16-19 and perhaps John 21
*John 21:15-17*
“Simon… do you love me more than these?”…“Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said…“Feed my lambs.” A second time…“Simon… do you love me?”…
“Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said…“Tend my sheep.”A third time, “Simon…do you love me?”… “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
BTW the way there are many scriptural passages on the establishment of bishops, priests and deacons by the laying on of hands and the conciliar method of setting doctrinal statements and practice. See Acts 15.
Root Error #2 — The Pope is the head of the Church
See previous respones
Root Error #3 — A Wafer is the body of Christ
See John 6 and the entire voice of the early Church the living sacred oral tradition which corroborates the Catholic beliefs. Oh and not ugly mocking fake wafer of the ignorant bible-protestant but rather the live Bread of his Body that HE gave us. The bible protestant partakes of the wafer. The Catholic and Orthodox partakes of Christ.
Root Error #1 — Sacraments are the means to heaven
Sacraments are a significant medium of grace and an aid to arriving at heaven. Those who do not have the life of Christ in them are not justified. BTW these were given by our Lord.
Root Error #2 — Mary is Co-mediatrix
The prefix ‘co’ in English suggest equality, so it is a naturally misleading term in English but the Catholic Church defines its doctrine in Latin and not English. Latin for the English prefix is “cum” which means “with” and Mediatrix is the feminine noun for mediator. A better English translation is “a woman who cooperated with the Mediator” But I suspect that Walt new this already and it just convenient to continue the dishonest disparagment.
Root Error #3 — Pope is the Distributor of Grace
Sorry, in what way is this to be understood. Lol?
Root Error #4 — Dead Saints are Interceders
Living saints are interceders. Living in Christ.
Root Error #5 — Priest is the Intermediary
Yes and so are you Walt when (or if) you pray for others. We all mediate the good news to others as well right? Spreading the gospel. But Walt no one in their right mind would say that anyone but jesus is THAT one mediator who was able to accomplish the redemption of humanity.
“ The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.”
Root Error #6 — Salvation is through the Church
Yes true. But. . .
“This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark, xvi, 16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the kingdom of God (Matt., xviii, 17). St. Paul is equally explicit. “A man that is a heretic”, he writes to Titus, “after the first and second admonition avoid: knowing that he that is such a one is…condemned by his own judgment” (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven.
Walt you may need to finish the entire article. Here it is.
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/church-the#VI._THE_NECESSARY_MEANS_OF_SALVATION
Root Error #1 — We Earn Our Salvation
No that never been taught. I would have thought one of your intellect would have figured that one out by now. I suggest looking at just about any Catholic source for the answer. I am nonplussed by your ignorance and have lost my words.
Root Error #2 — We Cooperate in Our Justification
All sins (past, present and future) were paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary. But this does not mean that all future sins are forgiven or ignored automatically. You have to deny a lot of scripture to get to that point.
The Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification and does not teach a doctrine of “works righteousness. This would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418
The Church teaches that it’s God’s grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. Paul says, “God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.” [Philippians 2:13]
The following article shows why non-antinomian protestants might agree with the Catholic. Or rather how Catholics might accept Sola Fide.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm
Walt posted about Rome as error ” we earn our salvation ” to which Rocky replied ” no that has never been taught” worthiness of merit is indeed taught, and earning increase of grace . Then Walt said of Rome ” We cooperate in our justification ” Rocky said ” all sins were paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary” then ” but this doesn’t mean all future sins are forgiven . So Christ paid for sins not forgiven. Paul says one is justified freely by His grace, Rome says one is justified cooperating with His grace” In my few years of apologetics against Catholics, what has amazed me is the time they spend denying their own doctrine.
“In my few years of apologetics against Catholics, what has amazed me is the time they spend denying their own doctrine.”
It actually is that you don’t understand Catholic doctrine. People like you shouldn’t be attempting apologetics because you can’t accurately describe Catholic doctrine. You just keep repeating the same old bumper sticker, anti-Catholic, talking points.
At least I can explain your position. When you can explain Catholic doctrine, let me know.
Rocky,
Returning to one of the matters to be addressed in this series, your characterization of the Sacrifice of the Mass as an ancient apostolic rite is precisely one of those doctrinal discontinuities that separates the True Church from the errors of Rome. Objecting to Walt’s “Root Error #2 — Sacrifice of the Mass is the ongoing sacrifice of Jesus,” you responded, citing JND Kelly:
What is lacking in Kelly, and indeed what is lacking in all of Roman apologetics, is any evidence that the “Eucharistic sacrifice” of the Early Church was the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Mass Sacrifice. It is simply assumed, but by no means proven. You cite Kelly who, while he acknowledges that “the eucharistized bread and wine” was on several occasions the new covenant offering in the Early Church Fathers, takes no account of those same Early Church Fathers who explained or interpreted that offering of “eucharistized” bread in the context of the provision of food for the needs of the saints—per Philippians 4:18 and 2 Corinthians 9:10-12—a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, well pleasing to God. 2 Corinthians 9:10-12 speaks of bread of “eucharistia” that “supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings (eucharistia) unto God” (v. 12), and Philippians 4:18 speaks of supplying for the needs of the saints as “an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.” That is how the early church saw “the bread and cup of thanksgiving,” and the evidence for it is abundant and explicit. Kelly doesn’t address it at all
To support your Mass Sacrifice, you would need not merely evidence that the early church considered the collection for the poor as a sacrifice of praise (in accordance with Philippians 4:18) which no one would deny, but also evidence that the consecrated bread was offered to God as the sacrifice of the new covenant, and the latter is precisely what you are missing until the latter part of the 4th century. You cannot find it in the early church fathers until Gregory of Nyssa. Cite Kelly all you want, but all he can do is perpetuate the myth of the mass sacrifice precisely by that invalid equation of “eucharistized” with “consecrated”. He says of Justin that “he holds that ‘prayers and thanksgivings’ are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, [but] we must remember that he uses the term ‘thanksgiving’ as technically equivalent to ‘the eucharistized bread and wine'” and then overlooks the fact that ‘the eucharistized bread and wine’ of the early church was considered a sacrifice of thanksgiving for the needs of the poor, and is not equated with “consecrated” bread and wine which was then administered to the poor and the rich alike. It is a grievous error and oversight on his part, and yet that error is the foundation of your argument for apostolicity here.
Justin Martyr refers to offering “eucharistized bread” (“the bread of thanksgiving”) as a sacrifice (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 41), but when he actually speaks of consecrated bread, there is nothing in Justin to suggest any offering to God at all. Instead, once the bread is “consecrated” (“the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word”) (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 66), it is given to men, not offered to God. Rome’s (and Kelly’s) error is to overlook completely Justin’s statement that “the eucharist” is a celebration which the Lord prescribed in memory of His death “in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 41). This theme of using the occasion of the Lord’s Supper to celebrate the abundance of the Lord’s provision and giving the excess to the poor is found repeatedly in Justin in his explanation of the Eucharist:
Remarkably, Kelly does not take this plain teaching and practice of the early church into account, and thus he erroneously equates “eucharistized” bread with “consecrated” bread, which are far from the same thing. It is worth noting that the earliest reference to the “eucharistized” bread and cup of thanksgiving in the writings of the early church is from the Didache (c. 100 A.D.), and to the painful disappointment of the Roman apologist, there is simply no reference at all to any formal consecration of bread and wine, but only to giving thanks for the Lord’s abundant provision for the needs of His Church (Didache, chapters 9 & 10). In that context, and in the context of Justin’s own insistence that the eucharistic celebration Christ instituted is so that we may also provide for the needs of the poor, the bread and cup of thanksgiving in Justin do not refer by necessity or even by any explicit reference in Justin to consecrated bread.
Even in Clement, where the Roman apologist would love to find (and thus gratuitously translates) priests “offering” “sacrifices,” all that can be found is presbyters “bringing forward” the “gifts” (Clement, to the Corinthians, chapter 44), “gifts” being the same word Christ uses to describe the widow’s mite (Luke 21:1) when she contributed to the care of the poor, an implicit reference to Philippians 4:18. So when Kelly says of Justin, “The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial of the passion’,” Kelly has extracted from Justin (nay, imagined!) the one thing Justin never says, for in that passage (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 41) Justin does not actually say that the bread is “offered as a memorial of his passion,” but rather that Jesus prescribed the Eucharist as a memorial of his passion “in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man.” What is missing in any of Justin’s writings is Jesus prescribing that bread be offered as a memorial of His passion, but what is definitely present in Justin is taking care of the poor in accordance with Philippians 4:18 and 2 Corinthians 9:10-12. What is also manifestly present in Justin is that when the bread is finally consecrated it is for us, not for God. In other words, Kelly imposes the same gloss on Justin as Roman Catholicism does, and what he thinks he has found simply is not there.
By the time we get to Irenæus, he insists that “The oblation of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world,” is caring for the poor, and invokes Philippians 4:18 as proof, and by inference, the bread of thanksgiving identified in 2 Corinthians 9:10-12:
Thus, in Irenæus, the oblation of the new covenant, that is “an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing,” is still simply “giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment.” In his description of the “oblation” of the new covenant, Irenæus also relies on Revelation 8:3 “prayers of the saints,” Romans 12:1 “your bodies a living sacrifice” and Hebrews 13:15 “the fruit of our lips giving thanks,” but says not a thing about the Lord’s Supper. Only after the oblation of the new covenant is already finished ((τελέσαντες, telesantes) does the invocation of the Holy Spirit occur, by which (in your religion) the transubstantiation allegedly takes place, and when the Holy Spirit is finally invoked, Irenæus is no longer offering a the oblation of the new covenant but rather “exhibiting” under the “symbols” of bread and wine the sacrifice of Christ. But alas, it is too late for the “exhibited” elements to be offered to God as the new covenant sacrifice, for the oblation of the new covenant was already over before the Holy Spirit was invoked (Irenæus, Fragment 37).
That leaves you with Cyprian, who said “we make mention of His passion in all sacrifices (for the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer)” (Cyprian, Epistle 62, paragraph 17), but to get the Mass sacrifice out of that, Rome and her apologists have to ignore completely the fact that in Cyprian, sacrifice, offering, commemoration, memorial and oblation all mean the same thing to him (commemoration), and to “make mention of” and “to offer” the Lord’s passion is simply to memorialize and commemorate it, which is precisely how he speaks of the sacrifices for the martyrs (another gross omission on Kelly’s part, for he takes no account of Cyprian’s univocality). More tellingly is that Cyprian denies that Jesus could have had His own blood in the cup at the Last Supper, because he said we could not drink Christ’s blood until “Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 7), something that did not occur until the next day. And, what must surely be startling to the Roman apologist, Cyprian deals with Malachi 1:11 and the sacrifice of the new covenant by mentioning everything the rest of the church had mentioned to that point—prayer, thanksgiving and praise—but omits any reference to the Lord’s Supper! (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise XII, Testimonies Against the Jews, Book I, chapter 16)
Thus, when we get to Nicæa, the only time “offer” has a direct object in the canons, the direct object is prayer, and the only time consecrated elements are the direct object of a verb is when they are given to men to eat. By 340 A.D., Eusebius is still saying that the sacrifice the Lord instituted at the Last Supper “is not a sacrifice of blood (!) but of good works” (Eusebius of Cæsarea, Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 6), a reference to Romans 12:1. By 345 A.D., Aphrahat of Persia is still saying in view of Malachi 1:11 “that sacrifices and offerings have been rejected, and that prayer has been chosen instead” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 4, On Prayer, chapters 1 & 19), and further that “our great day is Friday,” not Thursday! (Aphrahat, Demonstration 12, on the Passover, paragraph 12), in contradistinction to Rome’s later claim that Jesus’ great work on our behalf took place on Thursday night.
You’ve got nothing on the Mass Sacrifice until Gregory of Nyssa (382 A.D.), “He offered himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, … When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples” (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Space of Three Days, Oration I). That’s it. A late 4th century novelty. Any alleged claims to a mass sacrifice before then simply impose on the Early Church’s scriptural sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving the abomination of a Roman mass sacrifice of which they were completely ignorant for the simple reason that neither Jesus, nor His apostles after Him, instituted such a sacrifice.
Anyway, you could do much better than to cite Kelly on this. He adds little value to the conversation because of his gross oversights which we have highlighted here and elsewhere. He’s not the brilliant Protestant early church historian Roman Catholics make him out to be.
Best,
Tim
Justin Martyr says the bread isn’t common bread but the body and blood of Jesus. I think the abomination is from Protestants claiming that it is just common bread.
But, this is what happens when you buy into the lie that the Church became apostate and to be a part of it means that you are part of Satan’s antichrist. I am amazed at the amount of time spent on rewriting Church history to tear down the Church. Truly, all will have to give account for every idle word spoken (or written).
Mark said, ” I am amazed at the amount of time spent on rewriting church history to tear down the church” yes, I agree, and that’s exactly what Antichrist Roman Catholicism did, rewrote church history to destroy the church, starting in the late 4th century. I could not have said it better than you did Mark. And nowhere has that been shown clearer to all who read than at ” Out of His Mouth”
The Seventh Day Adventists (and the 7th Day Baptists) say that YOU are apostate and followed the antichrist because you followed the Catholic Church into Sunday worship when in the 4th century at the Council of Laodicea the Catholic Church proclaimed:
“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”
Explain to me how the Catholic Church was RIGHT about this but wrong about just about everything else. How do you choose which Catholic traditions you observe and which you reject?
“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”
– Charles Spurgeon
ROCKY: Spurgeon? Was he one of the apostles Walt? I don’t recall Jesus calling him to authority. Nor do I recall him being vested in an office you can trace back to Jesus. He holds little to no meaning for any Catholic.
Rocky said:
“ROCKY: Spurgeon? Was he one of the apostles Walt? I don’t recall Jesus calling him to authority. Nor do I recall him being vested in an office you can trace back to Jesus. He holds little to no meaning for any Catholic.”
You need to learn Scripture and not tradition.
First, whatsoever reverence or dignity is by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures given to particular men in office, all of it is given, not properly to men themselves, but to the office of the ministry which those men occupy. Those particular men who are called of Christ to serve in an official capacity are “clothed” with the ministry. In essence, the official requirements of the ministry, and the associated spiritual power to fulfil their attendant duties are “committed” unto them (Exod.3:4 and 14:31; Duet.17:9,10; Mal.2:4,6; Ezek.3:17; Jer.23:28 and 1:6; Matt.28:19; Acts 15:10).
Accordingly, these men, as official ministers called and sent of Christ, have been given a limited ministerial power to make subordinate rules and decrees. These rules and decrees do not bind except where and when they wholly conform to that first infallible and unerring rule prescribed by Christ Himself (Luke 22:25-27; 1Pe5:2,3; 2Tim.3:15,16,17; 1Thess.5:12; Eph.6:1).
In essence, the authority of all ministerial rules and decrees are founded solely upon and wholly deprived from the Word of God. Not only is the authority associated with ministerial declarations of doctrinal abstractions, such as Confessions of Faith, solely dependent upon the authority of the written Word of God, but also the administration and exercise of the same-the practical out-working of these doctrinal positions in time and history-must also conform to this alone infallible rule, or else such rules, decrees, or practical examples of mere men have no binding authority (Isa.8:19,20; Mal.2:6,7; Matt.28:19).
In so far as any ministerial declaration or practical application does actually err and decline from that which is taught in God’s Word, these officers do act without power and authority from Jesus Christ. Because they are commissioned by Christ, and clothed with the ministry, ministers may do nothing against the Truth, but only for the Truth (2Cor.13:8), with power that He has given unto edification and not unto destruction (2Cor.13:10).
It is, therefore, both the duty and privilege of every church member to use his own judgment and discretion in order to examine every thing that a church judicatory decrees or declares.
If after a diligent and impartial examination, any ministerial decree or practice is found to be “certainly” contrary to God’s Word, then these members are not to bring their conscience in bondage to the mere dictates of men (Isa.9:15,16; Jer.8:8,9; Mal.2:8,9; Isa.40:6-8; Rom.3:4; 1Cor.13:9-12). (The Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, (1) What authority does that historical testimony which is manifested in our subordinate standards actually possess? (2) What are the criteria by which we judge which subordinate documents are included among the historical testimony contemplated within our six terms of communion?, 1999, pg. 1-2, emphasis added)
Timothy P.–
The Reformation came about because of the undeniability of doctrinal discontinuity. As Luther famously observed:
“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason–I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, FOR THEY HAVE CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER–my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”
As for the Real Presence, it is not a Roman Catholic distinctive, being found in Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and some forms of Calvinism (such as the teachings of John Calvin himself). So you need not endeavor to show it. The point is moot.
Hans, you need to expand your list of Christians that believe in the Real Presence but not in the way you define the real presence. No mention of the apostolic churches that can trace their lineage back to the time of the apostles. The Coptic Church, the Orthodox Christians and there are others. I am not sure why you are telling me I don’t need to endeavor to show it and the point is moot. Shouldn’t you be addressing your comments to Kevin and Walt who deny the real presence. I am sure you are driving Walt nuts
Mark–
Every form of Christianity I am aware of, including all 40 billion Protestant denominations, have a 27-book New Testament. Turns out it wasn’t rocket science to figure out which writings were sacred. The Catholic Church simply wasn’t all that necessary in determining the NT canon.
Hans wrote
“Every form of Christianity I am aware of, including all 40 billion Protestant denominations, have a 27-book New Testament. Turns out it wasn’t rocket science to figure out which writings were sacred. The Catholic Church simply wasn’t all that necessary in determining the NT canon”
Hans, I am not sure if you are joking or are really being serious. “Turns out it wasn’t rocket science to figure out which writings were sacred”. Have you read anything on the selection process that eventually led to the 27 books we accept as the New Testament canon? The Catholic Church simply wasn’t necessary? Well I guess that’s true if you believe as Walt does that we just needed to wait around for the Church of Scotland to be formed and have the canon approved by it’s General Assembly. As Walt said,
“We believe our Presbyterian Confession of Faith (approved by the General Assembly in the Church of Scotland) of all books to be contained in the Bible”
Well that settles the issue right? And what year was that?
Mark–
Kevin lamented:
“In my few years of apologetics against Catholics, what has amazed me is the time they spend denying their own doctrine.”
I think what he is talking about is the irrationality of Catholic soteriology. You all end up talking out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to justification. You do indeed say that eternal life is merited by the individual. Now to be fair, it is congruous merit and thus somewhat indirect. But merit nonetheless, something no Protestant would subscribe to.
I have yet to have a Catholic give me a definitive answer on whether the cooperation of the will (with cooperative grace) is itself gracious. Do you espouse the grace of the Spirit as merely assisting you toward justification or as accomplishing that justification from start to finish? Is grace “sine qua non” (an absolutely essential component) or is it the ONLY component (the definition of Sola Gratia). I usually get a bunch of hems and haws.
You also told Kevin:
“At least I can explain your position. When you can explain Catholic doctrine, let me know.”
This I gotta see. Explain a Reformed position. Any position. I haven’t laughed nearly enough this year. 😁
Hans, please read the CCC starting in 1987 to the end of the chapter. That might help you with your research.
Timothy P.–
Well aware of the process. The Catholic canon wasn’t set in stone until the Council of Trent authoritatively listed the approved books in 1546. Kind of late to the party, don’t you think?
Of the 27 books which made it into the NT, there were only 7 which were (slightly) contested. Seven others received some slight consideration, but never came close to inclusion. Go ahead and read all 14. You’ll have very little trouble picking the right ones. There is a decided difference. The only one which even comes close in my mind is 1 Clement. Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians is also stellar though it was never considered. But the only reason either one stands out is the incredible amount of canonical NT works they quote.
How about we all just agree to go by Athanasius’ 39th Easter letter from 367 CE? Cool with you? His whole canon, OT and NT?
Hans, you earlier wrote
“The Catholic Church simply wasn’t all that necessary in determining the NT canon”
But then you write,
“How about we all just agree to go by Athanasius’ 39th Easter letter from 367 CE? ”
Hans. Athanasius was a Catholic Bishop and yet after stating the Catholic Church wasn’t that necessary you then want to defer to a Catholic bishop for your canon list. Does that make any sense at all? Why not except Marcion’s canon list? Why not accept the Gnostic Gospels? Why are you deferring to the Church that claimed apostolic succession instead of putting your faith in those who claimed a secret revelation from the apostles?
The date for the first correct list of New Testament books should make you think. At the same time you guys are claiming the Church was drifting off into apostasy praise the Lord they got the canon list right. 367 !!!!!!!. If the apostles believed in the principle of Sola Scriptura don’t you think they would have made sure that first generation had the correct canon list??
Timothy P.–
Concerning the Real Presence. My main point is that the early church DID NOT DEFINE the Real Presence. The East hasn’t really done so up to the present day. Anglicans don’t really do so.
You have taken it upon yourselves to constrict the definition. On whose authority? Not that of the early church fathers!
Hans, you bring up a good point
“My main point is that the early church DID NOT DEFINE the Real Presence”.
Correct Hans, the early Father’s never bothered to define “the real presence” because it was never questioned. Now let’s try to use some common sense. I hope we can both agree that the apostles would have taught their followers rather the bread and wine were a symbol of Christ’s body and blood, or rather by some incredible mystery they really were the body and blood of Christ. There is a world of difference between these views and you can argue fine nuances of the different views but I find it hard to believe that that next generation just didn’t know. Now imagine they had taught that the Eucharist was simply a symbol. How hard would it be to convince these people later in the real presence without even the hint of a debate? We know about the doctrine of the Trinity because Christ’s divinity was challenged. We know about the debate over the timing of Easter because there was a dispute. But no one is arguing as we are today over the real presence because it was never questioned. Universally believed, universally understood. The beauty of the Catholic Faith. This is not rocket science as you mentioned before. And by the way, Hans you said that I was trying to constrict the definition but then I’m still not sure if you really meant what you had said before concerning your belief in the real presence. You wrote
“Yes, the elements change when consecrated: they become consecrated for sacramental use. Do they change physically? Yes, in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving.”
I have never heard such an explanation and am interested in rather you misspoke. How do the elements change physically in our heart by faith and thanksgiving? I know Walt does not agree with you and I would like Kevin to let me know if he agrees.
Tim, thank you so much for that post to Rocky on the novelty of the sacrifice of the mass. What was especially helpful is the systematic summation of the fathers up to Gregory of Nyssa, and the complete and utter rejection of scripture and the early fathers to the re sacrifice of Jesus in the supper. Also to note, the evidence of bread not being consecrated in the Didache. It really gives a clear picture of what the Lord’s supper was and still is, pure sacrifices from the heart of praise and thanksgiving for a redemption we already have Ephesians 1:7. That summation magnifies a work for salvation that absolutely cannot save in the sacrifice of the mass being a novelty started by Greg of Nyssa. It isn’t a far reach to say through that novelty alone came a gospel that could have conceivably sent millions of souls to hell since it resulted in works righteouness and idolatry. Serious stuff.
Thanks, Kevin. Much more information even than that, but I thought I’d hit the high points. Omitting the words of consecration (Didache), insisting that the only acceptable sacrifice is prayer and thanksgiving (Justin), placing the words of invocation after the oblation and calling the consecrated elements symbolic (Irenæus), claiming that Jesus did not have blood in His cup (Cyprian and Eusebius) all speak loudly against the novelty of the mass sacrifice, a sacrifice that is both abominable and leads to gross idolatry.
Tim
KEVIN said, So Christ paid for sins not forgiven. Paul says one is justified freely by His grace, Rome says one is justified cooperating with His grace” In my few years of apologetics against Catholics, what has amazed me is the time they spend denying their own doctrine.
Paul is talking about the initial grace of salvation or justification by which we Christians were raised from death into life. The initial grace of salvation is entirely and absolutely unmerited.
Salvation is the application of redemption to individuals. What Jesus did on the cross has brought salvation to any one who accepts, and believes in Him, and chooses to carry their cross and follow Him.
If we cooperate with God’s grace, he transforms us into the very image of the Son of God. We truly become righteous which is not Luther’s dung-covered fallacy (“legal fiction”). This is infusion of grace.
Are we saved by faith alone?
Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus says himself to the rich man who had asked him how he should attain eternal life:
“… If you would enter life, keep the commandments… You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ”
Or
in Matthew 12:36-37 Jesus says:
” I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Rocky ” Paul is talking about the initial grace of justification ” good luck proving that one from scripture. Justification is always 3 things, full, free, and past tense. There is no justification on the installment plan. Sorry, nowhere do we find self centered sacramental forgiveness ex opere operato. Have you read Tim’s post to you. Installment merit or grace by wothiness through sacraments in the sacrifice of the mas and other sacraments is anti gospel. ” What Jesus did on the cross has brought salvation to anyone who accepts, and believes in Him, and chooses to pick up their cross and follow Him. Are there any other conditions you would like to add to the ” free gift of eternal life” I agree with Fesko, Rome is more pelagian today than any other time in history, and you and Mark are the poster children. Salvation is a free gift Romans 6:23. Now if you want to say that true faith produces a life of holiness, I would agree, but salvation and redemption is simply because of the goodness of God and is received by repenting and believing Marl 1:15. ” if we cooperate with God’s grace , he transforms us into the image of the Son of God” except scripture says we are justified FREELY by His grace , so nothing we do has anything to do with being righteous before God. Rome’s fatal error is it confuses regeneration and sanctification with justification which is a declaration of righteousness about an ungodly man apart from anything we have done based on Jesus life and death. He lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness and offers it to us as a gift. ” This is infusion” sorry Rocky, dikaiaousinae doesn’t mean infusion. Logizomai and hashav don’t mean infusion. Justification isn’t infusion. The Jews weren’t infused at passover, God passed over them. They deserved what the Egyptians got, but God passed over them. Justification is forensic.
” how do you decide what Catholic traditions you accept and which ones you reject” the Spirit speaking in scripture. The scripture is the ONLY infallible Authority. Luther said, unless I’m convinced by scripture or sound reason ……. I’m like Luther, councils have erred and do error. The most comforting thing Mark is salvation is found in no other name than Jesus. And 1 John 2:27, Mathew 24:5, Luke 21:8 tells me clearly that I can judge and church claim, confessional claim, pastoral claim by the Spirit through the word. Jesus warns in the last days counterfeit Christs would arise And masquerade as the messiah and claim to be savior of the world. ” take heed that no one deceives you, For many come in my name , saying, ” I am the Christ” and will deceive many.” Jesus said if anyone says to YOU ” Look here is the Christ” or there, don’t believe it.” In fact he said they would perform great miracles and signs and wonders to deceive. He says that even God’s chosen ones could be deceived, if that were possible. And the only reason it’s not possible is because we keep our focus on the real Jesus thru studying his word and through prayer. Paul said ” I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent, your minds may be led astray by from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” The gospel associated with this false Christ is a different gospel. Satan masquerades as an Angel of light. In light of all I just said Mark, do you not think a mere sinner like ourselves claiming to be Holy Father? Head of the church? Vicar of the Son of God? Would be a red flag. Or maybe a church saying the free gift of eternal life is really go out and do your part gospel? How about the magic of a priest making a piece of bread into God, and it bleeding and talking. Could this be the image which deceived millions. ” narrow is the gate, few enter by, wide is the way to destruction” sure seems to me like any big institution might be the wide way?
Kevin, once again you refuse to answer a question and just move into a sermon.
The Sabbath is scriptural. It is the 4th commandment. Even God rested on the 7th day. Why do you accept the Catholic Church’s teaching?
BTW, the 7th Day Adventists would say that you have accepted a false gospel.
Mark, I have found my rest in Jesus. I dont observe sabbath days as Paul says let no one hold you to a sabbath day in Colossians. Since he mentions festival days, I believe this is the weekly sabbath. Walt or Tim could give you a better answer from the Reformed perspective. The sabbath was given to the Jews and found in the middle of the ten commandments. All 9 other commandments are instructed in the NT. No sabbath. But ask Walt, he can expound his position. Incidentally, if Walt or anyone else can convince me by scripture, then I will change my position. Walt and Tim are more learned than me in many areas. Its immaterial to me what a 7th day adventist thinks of me. Thanks K
OK, so you admit that you don’t know why you keep Sunday. Now what about Christmas and Easter. Those are not mentioned in the scriptures either. Nowhere do we find the Apostles keeping either of these days. In fact, Christmas was forbidden to be kept by the Puritans precisely because it was pagan in origin.
The date of Easter was officially set by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea. Again, Easter is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. The early church celebrated Passover, not Easter. Many Christians wanted to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nisan when the Jews did, but Constantine didn’t like that. This is why it was on the agenda for the Council of Nicaea.
Seems to me you have bought into a lot of Roman Paganism and Constantine’s doctrine from the Catholic Church but won’t admit it.
Maybe you and Tim K. need to look earlier than the 4th century and see how the Catholic Church stamped out Judaizers and replaced the laws from the OT with pagan counterfeits.
Rocky–
Did verses 20-22 slip your mind or something?
Matthew 19:20-22.
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
He lacked total commitment. Thoroughgoing trust. Saving faith.
He had intellectual assent AND good works. And yet he still lacked a living faith. Justification is ALL of faith, lest any man should boast…like this man.
Hans, I read nowhere in these scripture “intellectual assent”, “good works”, “living faith” or “saving faith”. “Justification is ALL of faith” isn’t here either.
Seems you are reading your theology into these verses.
HANS Said, regarding all of Matthew 19:20-22.
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
He lacked total commitment. Thoroughgoing trust. Saving faith.
He had intellectual assent AND good works. And yet he still lacked a living faith. Justification is ALL of faith, lest any man should boast…like this man.
ROCKY: Sure Hans he had other gods he was worshipping and his faith was “partial”, if we can use that word, but it is clear that Jesus was NOT saying that we do NOT have to be obedient to the commandments. Just the opposite, right?
No real Catholic teaching would ever say that we don’t have to go ALL-IN no matter what that commitment of faith leads us to. Complete abandonment to God.
Tim, I wondered if I could ask you about Colossians 2:16 ” Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new noon or a sabbath day” Paul seems to suggest not the movement of the sabbath to Sunday,but not to judge in regard to observing it at all. Is this a reasonable reading in your opinion? Since this is off the subject, I can understand if you don’t want to address it. And I certainly don’t want to start a long discussion on the Sabbath. I’m trying to work through this. MacArthurs position is the Sabbath was given specifically to the Jews in the OT, and is abrogated in the NT. He says it was put in the middle of the ten commandments. He says all 9 of the other commandments are addressed in the NT, but the Apostles never address it or command it . He says we have entered Jesus rest. Also he says Colossians 2 Paul is talking about the weekly sabbath because he mentions festival days for all others. He goes on to say, ” how does Jesus treat the Sabbath, anyway he wanted. If you don’t mind sharing your view it would be appreciated. But again it isn’t on subject so I understand either way. Thanks
Mark–
Were my expectations of you too high? You and I WERE discussing these very terms but 4 days ago on the “Mingled Cup 5” thread.
Rocky may not have read the exchange, but you did. So you have no excuse.
Why so nasty anyway? Just offer an argument as to why I have misinterpreted the verses. My systematics informs my exegesis, and your systematics informs yours. Have you never heard of the “hermeneutic circle”? One’s interpretation of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts, and one’s understanding of each individual part is established by reference to the whole.
Quit being childish. Are you here to converse or just to see your name in print?
Hans, I don’t know why you keep making things personal. You yourself said to Rocky, “did this slip your mind or something?” Maybe that was a nasty statement too. Flippant, condescending. But I am not going there even though I already did.
Jesus never said we SHOULDN’T keep the commandments, did he? Also, Jesus never said, “to be perfect place your faith fully in me.” He said, go sell everything you have and follow me. These are two MORE works: 1) sell everything you have and 2) follow me. And, “follow me” isn’t just about faith either. Jesus said in another passage that we must take up our cross and follow him daily.
Thanks.
Hans, I’m sure you know that Catholics like Mark are committed to Trent’s confusion that justification is infusion and sanctification. They would have to deny their doctrine to agree with the Reformed view. Personally I agree with Fesko that Rome is more pelafian today than any other time. Pope JP 2 said trinity hating Muslims can just stay where they are, do their best, and they are golden.
I agree with Trent which reaffirmed the Augustinian view that we are not saved by works of the law.
“If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”
Mark–
The “did this slip your mind or something?” was intended to be more gentle than “you intentionally took these verses out of context.” Perhaps I failed.
Look, I don’t much care if you guys “get personal” or nasty or whatever. It’s a bad look. It doesn’t enhance the cause of Catholicism. But it doesn’t get under my skin. (And I apologize for anything I say which–for whatever reason–hurts feelings.)
What gets under my skin is the seemingly constant habit of Catholics I have encountered online to address only those arguments they feel disposed to respond to. I don’t know if it’s because these are the only questions they can answer or if these are the salient points which lend themselves to snarky replies.
The other problem is that your counter-arguments often appear cookie-cutter, without any genuine engagement, like you’re taking them out of some catechetical FAQ brochure. You guys never reach or explore. You’re set in your “infallible” ways. It’s incredibly obnoxious. (And yes, there are Reformed folk, like Walt, who seem much the same way. They have all the answers, thank you very much.)
If Jesus is handing out two MORE commandments which are required, then why does virtually no Christian follow the first one? Have you sold all of YOUR possessions? Or is Jesus partaking in hyperbole to make a point? (Kind of like cutting off our hands or gouging out our eyes rather than sin.)
Clearly, we are to commit, to trust, to rely fully upon our Redeemer. To FOLLOW him with all of our being.
I actually think that the scriptures in Matthew completely reject Tim K.’s point in this blog post. How so? Because Jesus tells the rich man that he must sell all of his possessions, give them to the poor and follow Christ. It is a RADICAL thing to do. The end of the chapter even shows how Peter and the other disciples asking about themselves because they actually did give up everything, their livelihoods, to follow Jesus.
Why does Jesus tell the rich young man to do this? To be perfect. Jesus expects nothing but total commitment. Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:48 to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. We must be perfect.
The amount of the beatific vision (knowledge of God) is directly related to how much charity we have in our hearts if we die in a state of grace (without mortal sin). The ascetics sought to live radically for Christ, giving up all worldly possessions and even marriage to radically follow Christ in the desert. So, the Church had every right, according to scriptures like these and others, so show that these actions are meritorious.
As you mentioned, not all are called to live this life. You cannot serve two masters, God and mammon. But those of us who are married with children have a moral obligation to provide for the family. If we don’t, then we sin. This giving (as we do it for the Lord) is meritorious as well.
So, thank you for going deep into this chapter of Matthew. Matthew 19, IMHO, destroys the point of this blog post and reinforces that jovinianus was indeed the heretic that he was.
Mark, regarding Jovinianus, you wrote, “Matthew 19, IMHO, destroys the point of this blog post and reinforces that jovinianus was indeed the heretic that he was.” What was Jovinianus’ heresy?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you wrote this entire blog post defending Jovinianus and you don’t know?
Mark, I don’t believe I have ever written an “entire blog post” defending Jovinianus. If you know of one that I have written, please let me know that I may read it.
In any case, you wrote, “Matthew 19, IMHO … reinforces that jovinianus was indeed the heretic that he was.”
Of what heresy is Jovinianus convicted by the testimony of Matthew 19?
Thanks,
Tim
OK, my mistake. I will qualify my statement to say “In my opinion, you wrote this entire blog post defending Jovinianus.” That way it is my opinion and not a statement of fact, although that is what I believe this post is doing.
So, Jovinianus wrongly claimed that the Church held up virginity and condemned marriage. That is why he was a heretic, among other things, but this specifically refers to Matthew 19 in that Jesus himself says that celibacy is the better way. He’s not condemning marriage either, just that celibacy is better in that a person can be fully devoted to God. That’s also why he tells the rich young man to sell all his possessions. Possessions aren’t wrong, even the Apostles had items and even money. Neither is marriage. However, Matthew 19 reinforces that the ascetic life is or can be a way to be more holy because one can devote themselves fully to God.
You see, the Church never condemns marriage. Never forbids it. But if you understand how holiness relates to justification, it makes sense. Your view is that one is a sinner covered over by Jesus’ blood. That person is still a sinner even though they are redeemed by Jesus. That God uses forensic justification to declare the person righteous, but the person remains a sinner.
The Catholic view is that we are made fully righteous, without sin, at baptism. We aren’t just covered over, but transformed, made a new creation, from the inside. When God declares us righteous at baptism, it is because we are objectively righteous. We are cleaned from the inside, not just the outside.
We are called to be perfect, as Jesus said. We are called to be holy. This is only accomplished through the sacraments and good works. We receive cleansing through confession and receive the grace to live holy lives through the Eucharist. Good works assist us because as we cooperate with God, good works replace sin in our lives.
Remember, nothing unclean can enter the Kingdom. You must be purged from sin, not just from a legal fiction view, but truly and literally. You will become holy either in this life or in purgatory. That is why selling your possessions, following God radically, even forgoing marriage in favor of celibacy is meritorious. However, the Church teaches that marriage is also good, from God, and Paul talked a lot about that.
Thanks.
Mark, you wrote, “Jesus himself says that celibacy is the better way” in Matthew 19. Can you provide the verse Matthew 19? I can’t find it.
Tim
Sure. Matthew 19:10-12, “The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry. Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Jesus affirmed what the disciples said. He then went on to develop the idea further and said, “The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Thanks.
Thanks, Mark. I did read that the Disciples said, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” (v. 10). I also saw that Jesus said some people are enuchs by birth, some “were made eunuchs of men” and some “have made themselves eunuchs”, and Jesus’ statement that “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (v. 12).
What I can’t find in the chapter is Jesus saying “celibacy is the better way than marriage” or the disciples saying “celibacy is the better way than marriage” and Jesus affirming that. Can you help me?
Thanks,
Tim
Sure Tim. I don’t want to appear condescending with this question but since you seem to miss the point Jesus was making I have to ask it. Do you know what celibacy is? This will help me explain these verses to you. Can you differentiate between celibacy and chastity. Also, you didn’t quote “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”. Was that an intentional oversight or did you just forget?
I’ll be happy to help you understand these verses.
Thanks,
Mark
Oh, yes, Mark. “The point Jesus was making.” What was it? That’s what I’d like to know. Can you tell me?
Tim
Tim, you asked, ” “The point Jesus was making.” What was it? That’s what I’d like to know. Can you tell me?”
I will start again by quoting myself, “celibacy is the better way. He’s not condemning marriage either, just that celibacy is better in that a person can be fully devoted to God. ”
Let me know if this helps.
Blessings.
Oh, thank you, Mark. You know as well as I do that you are not a part of the magisterium, so you needn’t quote yourself. You said that Jesus HIMSELF said “Jesus himself says that celibacy is the better way”. Where did Jesus say that?
Thanks!
Tim
Tim, I knew this was your angle from the beginning.
I only quote myself because I don’t want to type it. I believe you can understand what I said.
Yet, since Jesus agreed with the disciples, I believe God. Do you believe God? I think God trumps anything the disciples say. Not sure what your opinion is on that though.
Remember that Jesus also didn’t say that he HIMSELF was the bread of life, but I believe that he is the bread of life.
I hope that helps.
Thanks.
What angle, Mark? You said Jesus himself said in Matthew 19 that “celibacy is the better way.” But I can’t find that anywhere in Matthew 19. And yet that was your basis for concluding that Jovinianus was a heretic. I’m trying to figure out, from your reading of Matthew 19, what Jovinianus said that earned him the title of heretic in your eyes. So I read Matthew 19, and I see that Jesus said that God had instituted marriage in the garden (v. 4-6), and then Jesus said something that elicited the following response from His disciples: “it is not good to marry.”
So, God instituted marriage in the garden before the fall, when by His own testimony, everything was “very good.” Thus, according to God, marriage is “very good.” But the disciples concluded, based on Jesus’ words, that marriage “is not good.” And you think Jesus affirmed His disciples’ judgment that marriage is not good, even though God said it was very good.
Do I understand you correctly? That Jesus was explaining that the garden could have been even better than “very good” if God had instituted “celibacy” instead of marriage before the fall?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
Where did I say that marriage wasn’t “very good”? Where did I say that the disciples thought marriage wasn’t “very good”? You sound like Jovinianus. You both perpetuate fake news.
Mark, what fake news did Jovinianus perpetuate?
Mark, I don’t know if you think marriage is not “very good” or not. That’s why I’m trying to figure out from your cryptic interpretation of Matthew 19 where Jovinianus’ heresy apparently dwells. That’s why I asked “Do I understand you correctly?” As far as I can tell so far, you think Jovinianus was a heretic because Jesus Himself said in Matthew 19 that “celibacy is the better way” than marriage. I can’t find in Matthew 19 where Jesus said “celibacy is the better way” in comparison to marriage, but it is clear to me that you think that He said that. Where He said that, I do not know. You have yet to tell me.
Assuming that we are both talking about the same chapter in Matthew, I think we can agree that Jesus’ response to the Pharisees was that God had instituted marriage in the garden of Eden (Matthew 19:4-6) when Adam and Eve were still existing in the glory of sinless perfection. At that time, everything was “very good” (Genesis 1:31) and creation had not yet fallen under a curse. I don’t know how you get better than “very good,” and “very good” is how God describes the newlyweds, who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. But you, apparently, feel that Jesus thought that celibacy is even better than “very good” sinless perfection. I don’t know how you get better than the glory of sinless perfection without in some way knocking marriage down a peg or two from “very good.”
Jerome had trouble describing marriage in the absolutely good terms that Jesus did, and in fact, doubted the “goodness” or “absolute goodness” of marriage at all (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 9). He did not think marriage was “very good.” In fact, he even had a hard time saying it was even “good.” In fact, marriage came after the fall, not before. According to Jerome, marriage was not a part of what was “very good” about creation:
Since you are siding with Jerome against Jovinianus, and (persumably) you think Jerome was not a heretic, and it is safe to say that Jerome did not think marriage was “very good”, and you appear to take his side against Jovinianus, and disagreeing with Jerome’s position on Matthew 19 is what made Jovinianus a heretic in your eyes and in Jerome’s, I’m just asking you how Matthew 19 made that so clear to you.
I just don’t understand what you’re saying when you find the heresy of Jovinianus condemned in Matthew 19. What was his heresy? And how does Matthew 19 condemn it?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
Please reread my posts about his heresy. I’ve already explained it earlier. I don’t want to be accused by you of quoting myself again.
Specifically my post on JANUARY 11, 2017 AT 1:10 PM.
Mark, I am re-reading your comments, and it always leads me back to the same questions:
You wrote:
Where did he do this? If you read Jerome’s synopses of Jovinianus’ “error,” his “error” was that he claimed that Jerome held up virginity and condemned marriage (which was true). I don’t think Jovinianus ever claimed that the Church held up virginity and condemned marriage. Can you show me where he did?
You continued:
So is it heresy, in your eyes, to disagree with Jerome? Do I understand you correctly? You continued,
Great. Now we’re getting somewhere. Where in Matthew 19 did “Jesus himself say that celibacy is the better way”?
That’s the crux of our discussion, because you have also written that your reading of Matthew 19 confirms, in your mind, the heresy of Jovinianus. What in Matthew 19 confirms it for you? That’s what I’m trying to figure out, and the best you can do is to reassert your belief that Jesus, in Matthew 19, himself says that celibacy is a better way than marriage. Where does Jesus himself say that in Matthew 19.
Thanks for your help.
Tim
Tim, you can read here why Jovinianus was condemned a heretic at Milan and Rome synods. http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6501
As for Matthew 19, I have already answered it. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus on the topic of divorce. Jesus restores marriage to the way it was in the beginning by saying that only death can separate a married couple. The disciples said, if this is the case, then it is better not to marry. Then Jesus went on to explain why it is better not to marry. Do you know what he means when he says, “there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?” Then he concludes, “The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Marriage is good. Celibacy is a better way. Not everyone is called to be celibate, but Jesus said those who can accept it should accept it. This is the same teaching of Paul, who was also celibate.
Yes, Mark. I know that the synods of Rome and Milan condemned Jovinianus. I am also familiar with Matthew 19. Your analysis of the chapter is so abbreviated as to be misleading. Your summary leaves out a pretty significant part of the conversation immediately before the disciples’ comment.
You said:
That is correct (Matthew 19:3)
You said:
Sure. (Matthew 19:4-6)
Then you said:
Not exactly, Mark. You have skipped half the conversation Jesus was having with the Pharisees, and then reconstructed the passage to make it appear that the disciples said this after Jesus described the “very good” institution of marriage. That is not what the passage says. “If this is the case” refers not to the Edenic beauty of marriage but to the Pharisaical propensity for engaging practical adultery. You would have seen that if you had not truncated the passage.
After Jesus invokes the “very good” institution of marriage, the Pharisees asked yet another question:
Jesus then answers that question as follows:
The disciples did not say “if this is the case, then it is better not to marry” in response to Jesus’ description of the institution of marriage in the Garden. They said it in response to Jesus’ explanation that because of the hardness of their hearts, the practice of illicit divorce was resulting in a functional polygamy which is actually adultery, and that behavior was sinful.
Only then did the disciples respond, and they said:
That word, “αἰτία” was used above by the Pharisees, and means “fault, charge or accusation” in this context, as in, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every αἰτία?”
In context, it is the problem (αἰτία, fault) with the man (his hardness of heart and disparagement of his wife) that makes celibacy better than getting into a cycle of adultery. But by truncating the story and having the disciples say this of Biblical marriage as instituted in the garden, you have changed the object of the disciples’ observation from the adulterous man’s hardness of heart, to Edenic conjugal union, and thus making celibacy better than the “very good” institution of marriage. But that is not what the disciples concluded, and it is not what Jesus affirmed.
You have then cited Matthew 19:11, as if Jesus had said in response to the disciples, “All men cannot receive this [gift of celibacy], save they to whom [the gift of celibacy] is given,” but Jesus only said “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it [this saying] is given.” Well “this saying” is given to us all, and we are all to receive it as Christ’s teaching. This is how Jesus frequently revealed the truth to His followers using a similar construct when He did so, i.e.,
Paul too received this instruction from Christ, and so instructed us: if a man divorces his wife, he must remain single or be reconciled to His wife. That is what Jesus was teaching, and all of His followers are to receive that teaching:
Straight from Matthew 19. If a believing woman divorces her believing husband, let her remain unmarried. Same for the husband. They are to remain “eunuchs” for the sake of the kingdom instead of perpetuating the cycle of adultery by adopting the Pharisaical model.
As is typical in Rome, you have taken a simple statement of truth from Jesus’s correction of the Pharisaical error and made it into an unbiblical institution of consecrated celibacy for priests and nuns. In reality, all Jesus had said was that marriage was instituted in holiness and, by contrast, the man who would prefer in the hardness of his heart to swap wives is actually engaging in adultery, which is not what God’s design for marriage is. His disciples responded that if that is the case with the man, celibacy is better than to find oneself in perpetual adultery, and Jesus agreed. So did Paul. The Pharisees could not accept that saying, but Jesus’ followers do. This makes celibacy better than adultery. It does not make celibacy better than marriage.
In Matthew 19, we do not find the proof of Jovinianus’ error, but rather of Jerome’s, for Jerome could not abide the notion that marriage had been instituted in the garden and was “very good”, and yet Jesus’ teaching was that marriage had been instituted before the fall. Jerome insisted that it came after. Celibacy, in Jerome’s mind was “absolutely good” and he had a hard time even accepting marriage as barely good, but instead was only a “smaller evil” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter 9).
So no, Mark. You have not found in Matthew 19 the proof of Jovinianus’ error. What you have found in the synods of Milan and Rome is the great falling away.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you said, “Straight from Matthew 19. If a believing woman divorces her believing husband, let her remain unmarried. Same for the husband. They are to remain “eunuchs” for the sake of the kingdom instead of perpetuating the cycle of adultery by adopting the Pharisaical model.”
That’s not actually what Jesus was teaching and I think is a big part of the problem with the Protestant misunderstanding of divorce. The disciples weren’t saying “it is better not to remarry”. Think about that. Jesus just said that if you remarry you are committing adultery. The disciples wouldn’t then say it is “better” not to marry. Is it “better” not to murder? Is it “better” not to steal? No, that’s not what they said. They said it is better not to marry in the first place.
Why? Because this teaching that marriage is for life with no possibility of dissolution is not an easy teaching. Being a eunuch for the work doesn’t mean to live chastely. We are all called to live chastely. Divorced people are expected to be chaste, but that isn’t the same as celibacy. Single people are expected to be chaste, but that isn’t the same as celibacy. For the single person who needs to be chaste, they are open and free to marry. For the divorced, however, they need to be chaste, but they cannot remarry.
Celibacy is a specific calling, as Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 7, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.”
Why is this? Because, “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.”
Remember too, that it was the Pope, not Jerome, who condemned Jovinianus as a heretic.
Mark–
The problem for you is that you are so demonstrably NOT perfect. Not even close. You’re a million miles away just like me.
And you seem far more holy than most Catholics I run into. (I live in a highly Catholic area.) Around here, Catholics are known for excessive drinking, foul mouths, and promiscuity. Not holiness.
I certainly am more favorably impressed with the Religious. You won’t hear me decry vows of poverty and chastity. Extreme asceticism, on the other hand, is probably not all that holy. Scripture, as far as I am aware, never calls for isolation. 1 Corinthians 13 states that giving up all one’s possessions and undergoing hardship earns one exactly nothing on its own. Radical sacrifice must be accompanied by love. It’s difficult to love anyone locked away in a cell.
At any rate, wretched man that you are. Who will save you from this body of death? (Could “simul justus et peccator” be any clearer? Does someone need to draw you a picture?)
You are rolling along under the “legal fiction” that you are somehow “perfect” because your indulgent God grades those whom he infuses with agape on a HUGE curve. Our God loves us and disciplines us without putting us on probation for the “bad” sins. He NEVER kicks us to the curb when we make mistakes like your God does. Can you cut the mustard? Can you survive the cut?
YOU’RE on a team. WE’RE in a family.
We are “covered over” in the sense of being brought into a family and officially adopted. God signs the papers, and he never reneges on his promises. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t socialized into all that permanent inclusion entails. We conform to the way family does things. We become holy.
We are created anew. We are placed in union with Christ. We are infused with agape. We don’t just whitewash over the sin and call ourselves holy. That’s what y’all do. We actually become holy. (Not perfectly, mind you. For now, we see in a mirror, darkly. But then face to face.)
Hans you said, ” We don’t just whitewash over the sin and call ourselves holy. That’s what y’all do. We actually become holy.”
I keep forgetting that there are SO MANY forms of Protestantism and so many ideas of justification. Forgive me if I don’t understand your particular brand of Christianity. It is hard to keep up with 40,000 different recipes of salvation.
Catholics don’t believe in “legal fiction”. No, when our sins are forgiven either through baptism or confession/absolution, we are made new. No covering over. We are objectively holy and righteous before God. I don’t want to assume that you understand this about Catholicism. Does it make sense?
” Catholics don’t believe in legal fiction” if I have a bank account and it is empty, and my parents decide to put in all the money to pay my bills, the money becomes mine. We don’t say thats a banking fiction. In the same way God transfers the righteousness of Christ to my account. As I have told you before Mark, God passed over the Jews, he didn’t give them sanctifying grace. Justification is forensic. The Jews deserved the same as the Egyptians. Paul could have never meant by daikaiousinae, the state of affairs at the end of your life!
Mark–
I understand the Catholic tenets just fine, but to my mind they come off as irrational, even contrary to fact. Literally MILLIONS of RC babies are baptized and never come to belief, let alone holiness of life.
Your supposed perfection is of a very odd sort. You have to go continuously to confession to fix your imperfections. And partake of the Sacrament to replenish your spiritual strength to overcome your imperfections. And pray the saints that merits from their works or supererogation might be applied to you to cover over your imperfections. Then endure the tortures of purgatory when all the preceding was not enough to get rid of your imperfections. (And I’m supposed to believe your baptism made you perfect? Perfect people don’t continually fall from grace: “I have sanctifying grace. I don’t have sanctifying grace. I have sanctifying grace once more. Oops, I lost it. Oh, wow, I got it back again. Nope, slipped between my fingers.” Truly dizzying….)
Do you even KNOW any holy Catholics? Or is it all theoretical? They’ve been baptized, and the Catechism says they’re holy now. Who cares what their lives actually look like. If you don’t really become holy, then I’d say you have a “legal fiction” going on.
We Reformed take sanctification quite seriously. We genuinely do improve our lives. A moral transformation honest-to-goodness takes place. I doubt my soteriology differs in any significant way from Tim K’s or Walt’s or Kevin’s. So you can cut the 40,000-figure crap (once again).
For what it’s worth, Mark, I don’t assume that YOU know anything much about Catholicism. Sometimes it’s tough to believe. And I KNOW you have no thoroughgoing understanding of Calvinism. (But thanks for the laughs, nonetheless!)
Hans said, “Literally MILLIONS of RC babies are baptized and never come to belief, let alone holiness of life.”
How do you know babies don’t have faith? Seems our Lord expects us to have the faith as little children. Children must be taught atheism. I think all children will believe in God if their parents do.
But that’s neither here nor there because as you know, justification isn’t a ONE TIME EVENT. No, it is a lifelong commitment. People can and do walk away from the faith. However, they have the grace they need to remain faithful, but it requires cooperation of the person. After all, God works with our free will. He doesn’t make us go against it as the Calvinists teach.
” justification isn’t a one time event, its a life long commitment” Romans 5:1 ” therefore, having been justified by faith, we have shalom with God” life long commitment? Wow. ” 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. ” Mark, look at Romans 5:1 and look at your statement side by side and please tell me you are not under the deluding influence of 2 Thessalonians 2:11. ?!
Mark said ” marriage is good” actually Paul uses the word better for marriage. He says its better to marry than to burn. If God gifted people with the desire for sex, and he said be fruitful and multiply, then there marriage is on the same level with chastity. Since salvation is devoid of our merit, then chastity can have no advantage in regard to salvation. Ambrose and Jerome should have read 2Timothy 1: 9 which says God calls us with no regard to anything we have done, but according to his eternal purpose in Christ. So those gifted with the desire for marriage including bishops and presbyters are no less under the merits of Jesus than singles. Mark, Jerome had allot of issues, not the least of which was having dreams about God punishing him for mistranslations of scripture, if I’m not mistaken. I mean this guy was batting 150 with important doctrines, namely confusing repentance with doing penance, sanctification for justification, and chastity as meritorious in salvation. From this article seems like Ambrose and Chrysostom had some issues. In fact if I’m not mistaken, Chrysostom said to trust in ones gracious works for salvation. One has to be blind to not see the sea of errors that came in 4th century. Hunter the Catholic apologist seems to see their errors.
Tim,
I was reading your 2-3 articles on Cyprian in the series
THE VISIBLE APOSTOLICITY OF THE INVISIBLY SHEPHERDED CHURCH
parts 6, 7, and 8 – lots of great information there; difficult to organize in one’s mind as to the order and context of events, though.
Maybe you did mention it, but I did not find any mention of Cyprian and 86 bishops at the 7th Council of Carthage, saying “no one claims to be bishop over all other bishops”.
Was not that also an allusion to Stephen, bishop of Rome’s claim?
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html
What do you think of William Webster’s analysis of Cyprian?
As far as I can tell, you are both agreed on this.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
Response to Steve Ray, a RC apologist, in his mis-representations on Cyprian:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/ray2.html
Thanks, Ken. I agree that there is so much data to be assessed that it is difficult to organize it effectively. At least difficult for me. Address the matter topically, and it is easy to confound the chronology. Address the chronology, and it is hard to maintain topical continuity. I’ll have to revisit those last three sections and perhaps digest and simplify them. I appreciate your comments to that effect.
Yes, I agree with Webster’s assessment of Cyprian. I think the statement from Cyprian to Cornelius could use some working out—i.e., “et at Petri Cathedram, atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitiore” which gets translated as “to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source” in Schaff (Epistle 54, Chapter 14 (listed as Cornelius, Epistle XII in Migne, P.L., vol 8). I can’t tell that Webster addressed it, although he may have. I may have missed it.
Account must be taken of the fact that the church of Carthage was a derivative congregation of Rome, and therefore Carthage’s manner of speaking of Rome as it source of its apostolic authority is a particular case of claiming Carthaginian apostolicity via an apostolic church, not a general case of a church claiming that all apostolic authority comes through Rome. That is precisely how Tertullian, also of Carthage, speaks of Rome even as he advises his opponents that they could trace any church’s apostolic lineage through any apostolic see. This could easily be done through Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, but since Rome was so near at hand, they could also do the same thing there. Note that Tertullian explains that Carthaginian apostolic authority “comes even into our own hands” through Rome because of a particular principle, but not a general one:
True, Carthage “must necessarily revert to its original for its classification,” but not all Churches must necessarily revert to Rome for theirs. As Tertullian also wrote, Smyrna traced its roots through John, whereas Rome traced its roots through Peter:
Thus, when a Carthaginian bishop or presbyter speaks of Roman derivation, it is certainly not the same as Roman primacy. This is evidenced further by the way Cyprian treats Rome and how other congregations treated Cyprian.
The context of Cyprian’s Epistle 54 is that a schismatic group from Africa was challenging a ruling of an African court. In this same epistle (from which Roman Catholics make a claim of Roman Primacy) Cyprian warned (!) the congregation of Rome not to hear the appeal, because the ruling of an African court was sufficient. Not exactly what you would expect to hear from a Carthaginian bishop who is alleged (by Rome) to subordinate himself to Rome.
Earlier the same year (252 A.D.), Cyprian had written to Antonianus (Epistle 51) to explain that he had advised the Roman congregation to forgo the election of a bishop (!) until the matter of the lapsed could be addressed, and the Roman Congregation agreed that “what you have yourself also declared in so important a matter is satisfactory to us” (paragraph 5). Not exactly the response we would have expected if the Church of Carthage, as a derivative of the Roman congregation, was also subordinate to her, especially if they believed that the bishop of Rome was necessary to handle such a widespread controversy as the matter of the lapsed. Instead of waiting for a Roman bishop to be appointed, they consulted the scriptures and arrived at a solution: “the divine Scriptures being brought forward on both sides, we balanced the decision with wholesome moderation” (Epistle 51, paragraph 6).
Also from Cyprian, no matter through which apostolic church any congregation traced its apostolic lineage, that bishop answered to the Lord, not to another higher ranking bishop:
Not exactly the kind of statement you’d expect from a bishop who, ostensibly, believed the bishop of Rome judges all other bishops but is himself judged by no one.
Two years later, Cyprian wrote to Stephen, bishop of Rome, about a letter Carthage had received from the congregation of Lyons asking for advice, and in the process Cyprian claimed that he and Stephen together “hold the balance in governing the Church” (Epistles 66, paragraph 1).
Not exactly the kind of thing any bishop would think to say of a Roman bishop if he truly believed the bishop of Rome’s opinion outweighed all others.
But is “et at Petri Cathedram, atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitiore” something we expect to hear from a Carthaginian bishop or presbyter? Of course, and we hear it from both Tertullian and from Cyprian. But such sentiments have a context, and Carthage was a derivative congregation of Rome. The problem is, these two Carthaginian clergy also spoke disparagingly of the Roman bishop when they were in disagreement with him, believing it was necessary to do so in order to maintain catholic unity, and spoke of the apostolic authority of other sees, independent of Rome.
A great deal more can be said of Cyprian, but I think Webster handles him very well, and included a lot of material that will be helpful to me. The immediate and proximate contexts don’t support the Roman interpretation at all.
Thanks again for your comment,
Tim
thanks Tim!
I hope to really digest all this on Cyprian better.
Your research is very helpful.
Do you use what Cyprian and the 86 other bishops said at the 7th Council of Carthage?
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html
If you did, I did not notice it.
IMO, this is one of clearest examples that the Papacy did not exist in the early centuries.
Actually I did not use it, but only out of ignorance. The quote was clearly in the context of Cyprian’s tiff with Stephen, and is a clear example among many that there was no central episcopate in the early church.
Thanks for the reference, as I’ll be sure to include when I update those articles.
Tim
Indeed. Great!
Hi Hans,
You said: “We Reformers take sanctification quite seriously.” I am glad you said that because we Catholics do, too. Where we disagree is in the idea of Justification as a ONE TIME EVENT. Therefore, according to your Confession, the justified may still fall into sin, earn God’s displeasure, lose the light of His countenance, but not lose his/her justification. My question to you now is this: What happens to such person if he/she dies before having a chance to repent?
God bless you.
Phil said ” What happens to such a person if he dies before having a chance to repent.” One’s justification is based solely on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith. If God justifies and ungodly man apart from anything he does Romans 4:5 fully and freely , then a lack of repenting of a sin would not disqualify one from heaven. Our justification is not grounded in repentance, it is grounded solely on the righteousness of Christ. Sometimes Catholics are confused about this. True faith produces a life of holiness, but even our sanctification is by God through his Word. 1Corinthians 1:30 ” for it’s by His doing you are in Christ, who became to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption” He already became those things for us, where we fail in holiness and repentance His righteousness covers us.
Kevin, would that include a man who kills his wife and children before taking his own life? No problemo, he goes straight to heaven?
Mark, ya, go figure, the grace of God could even cover that sin. He remembers our sins no more. Oh, except for killing someone and taking his own life. Have you repented for every sin you have committed, and if you haven’t, how are you different than the man you describe? My Bible says nothing can separate a christian from the love of God. Now, it is possible that that man was never a believer. Only God knows. But if he was a believer, yes, because a justified believer can’t lose his salvation, because He is covered by the righteousness of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 5 there was a man who had his father’s wife. Paul said he was worse than all the gentiles. Paul delivered his body over to Satan to be destroyed, that his soul would be saved in the day of Christ.
Kevin,
If we die in a state of mortal sin then we will go to hell. I am not the eternal judge of anyone, but that is the clear teaching in the Bible. You can read in 1 John 5 the warning about mortal sin.
” if we die in the state of mortal sin we will go to hell” and this is where is scripture? Under the chapter on nuns, cardinals, gracious merit, popes, sacramentals, kneeling stations, relics, bleeding hosts? Christians die in the state of righteousness. Paul says not having a righteousness of my own, but one that comes from God through faith .
One thing is clear in the New Testament…believers can fall away and be damned for eternity. Jesus taught it, Paul taught it, it permeates every teaching on judgment. Paul himself even said, “No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.”
Nothing unclean can enter the kingdom. I know this is scary to think about for the reformed camp because you believe in total depravity. It should keep every believer running to win the prize, not turn back.
Mark,
You don’t seem to understand – the Reformed doctrine says “We are justified by faith alone; but true faith does not stay alone” – it results in a changed life, spiritual growth, good works, holiness, fruit, deeper levels of repentance and hatred of one’s own sin.
If someone claims to be a believer but kills his wife and kids and himself, most likely they were not a true believer; they did not have true justification.
That is what James 2:14-26 is about. And Galatians 5:19-21 says that those who constantly practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
someone like that is like what Jesus said, “I never knew you” Matthew 7:21-23, even though they claimed to be a believer and said “Lord, Lord”. The evil deeds are evidence that they were not truly justified.
Justification results in sanctification, always, immediately at least some level or to some degree, and necessarily.
Kevin
While I am waiting for Walt to return to debate the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist I have to admit I have a very hard time understanding how to placate some of your comments with the Scriptures. You wrote
” One’s justification is based solely on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith. If God justifies and ungodly man apart from anything he does Romans 4:5 fully and freely , then a lack of repenting of a sin would not disqualify one from heaven. ”
But Kevin Rocky bought up this verse before which doesn’t make any sense based on your theology
Matthew 12:36-37 Jesus says:
” I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
If once you have Faith in Christ you are justified, why would a person have to render “an account for every careless word they utter”. How do you separate “by your words” from your works? I really am trying to understand.
” how do you separate by your words from your works.” Both are a manifestation of true saving faith. So in that sense we prove our faith by our words and our works. ” out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” so our faith is justified by our works and our words. Not to be confused with our justification before God. 2 Timothy 1:9 ” who saved us and called us with a holy calling , not according to anything we have done, but according to his own purpose and grace which was GRANTED us in Christ from all eternity.” Please explain how that verse supports the ” worthiness of merit” you attain everyday at the abominable sacraments of the ” new law” Saved us and called us is pretty comprehensive don’t you think. It was granted as a gift, a promise is pretty comprehensive don’t you think? Why merit in Rome? How do you pay for a free gift? Paul says we are justified freely by his grace. In what way can that mean in Rome being justified cooperating with his grace? Our words and our works can only and always be our reasonable service of worship and the proof of our faith , they can never be the grounds of our justification before God. What the law could not do, God did! By sending his son to condemn sin in the flesh. Even Roman apologists agree Romans 8: 1-4 its God who justifies. So you read what the law could not do, and yet you are trying to be justified by the ” sacraments of the new law, not good. And you try to support the go out and do your part gospel with verses like Mat. 12:36,37. Not good. Go look at your church mates the Jews in Roman 9:32- 10:4 and see what happened to them when they added works to grace to be accepted before God, they didn’t make it. Christ in the end of ALL law for righteousness, not the beginning of the law. God bless
Kevin, I did not see a place to post on your response above so I wanted to try and repeat your comment and give my thoughts. As I had mentioned if Christ had said “This represents My Body” there would be no controversy on the Real Presence and I asked if Christ misspoke. You responded
” ” do you believe the Lord mispoke” no, as I don’t think he mispoke when he said it was meat to do his will, or he was the door, or the shepperd, or the vine, or the BREAD come down from heaven.” The Spirit of God speaking in the scriptures teaches me that he spoke this way often. So even when He told me directly that He spoke spiritual words, I guarantee you I never believe he ever mispoke. Nor do I think Paul thought he mispoke when he understood Him to say ” for as often as you eat this bread. We all know we are eating bread that reminds us of his death on the cross for our sins. Not one time do I think He mispoke.”
Kevin, when Christ said He was the door, shepherd or vine those who were with him obviously understood He was speaking metaphorically. No one said “How can He be a door? (shepherd or vine). There are no examples of early Christians claiming that a door, a shepherd or a vine was Christ. So I think we can all understand that He did not misspeak when He was using metaphorical language. But in this instance would you not agree if Christ had said “This represents my Body ” we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I had also responded to Walt on John 6:63. I believe on the One fold blog you once said something to the effect that you had not heard a Catholic explain that verse before. Walt never responded to my comments so I’ll post them again if you would like.
Timothy P said ” But in this instance would you not agree if Christ had said ” this represents my body” we wouldn’t be having this discussion. ” no, I wouldn’t agree, because that’s exactly what he said when he said the flesh profits nothing and his words were Spirit. I’m sure a 6th grader could understand that, don’t you think. He literally tells you don’t take me literally. I often say Romanism at its core is a faulty view of the Trinity. It is a low doctrine of pneumenology. Listen Timothy, Christ call us to a spiritual relationship with Him. We are incorporated into his body through the Spirit, NOT the flesh. Paul says Christ in YOU the hope of glory, not Christ is bread the hope of glory. The Spirit of Christ is in my heart, I believed the words of Jesus. And Jesus said what I said to you isn’t to be taken fleshly, but they are spiritual words. So the question for you is why don’t you obey Jesus when he tells you ” the words I tell you they are Spirit and life” how easy is that? I will say what Jesus said to his disciples, does this trouble you, the words I tell you …….. Scripture is clear. Jesus was clear. Eating and drinking was coming and believing. Mark 1:15 Jesus says the same thing. Repent and believe in the gospel. The gospel is told and believed, not done. Catholics are dying kidney patients always in need of a transfusion. But the righteous shall LIVE by faith. You want to live and never lose that life, repent of your goodness and believe in the gospel.
Kevin, here was my post to Walt to which he never responded
“December 31, 2016 at 1:58 pm
Walt, sorry to be so slow to respond as I have been overwhelmed with work. We are debating the Biblical evidence for the real presence and so far your main evidence for a symbolic presence appears to be the following verse.
John 6:63
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Now Walt, I responded previously
“Obviously Christ is not speaking of his flesh when he says “the flesh profiteth nothing”. for if the flesh profiteth nothing why the incarnation. What does it mean when the flesh is contrasted with the spirit in the New Testament. You wrote Walt
” when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]”
so I ask you Walt when the flesh is contrasted with the spirit in the New Testament what is being compared? And could you give me the verses where that comparison is made.
Again our discussion started with your posting Scripture to disprove the belief in the real presence. I suggest you look at those scriptural quotes and tell me exactly which verses disprove belief in the real presence and I will go back an quote only those verses that I believe support the real presence. This approach doesn’t preclude further discussion as to rather the quotes are taken out of context, or can be disproven on some other basis, but I think you will agree that at least from a starting point the Catholic position is much more reasonable.”
Now Walt I may have missed your response on the Biblical perspective as to when the spirit is contrasted with the flesh in scripture. Again, the “the flesh profiteth nothing” is not referring to Christ’s flesh. In the preceding verses Christ repeatedly refers to His flesh as My flesh, in one instance “the flesh of the Son of Man”. No questions as to whose flesh Christ is speaking of in these verses. But in John 6:63 ” It is the spirit that quickenith, the flesh profiteh nothing”. Now Walt, I asked you for a Biblical perspective of contrasting the spirit with the flesh and again unless I missed it you did not respond. The examples of this contrast is found numerous times in Scripture, note Romans “For the wisdom of the flesh is death, but the wisdom of the spirit is life and peace”. ( See also Gal. 5, 13-16; 1 Pet, 4, 6; Matt 26, 41; Jo 3, 6; Rom 7, vs 5,7 25; 1 Cor 5, 5; 2 Cor, 7,1; Gal 3,3; 1 Pet 3, 18.) See also Jo 8:15; Rom 8:14; Gal 2, 20 and 2 Pet 2, 10.)
Now I think if you look at those verses you will see that “by the flesh” we understand the natural dispositions and corrupted thoughts of human nature, ie carnal knowledge, and “by the spirit” spiritual knowledge which is the opposite and provided by the effect of grace upon man. So Walt when you say you cannot see the real presence based on the scriptural verses I provided I hope you can see why I responded based on Scripture you are hampered by carnal knowledge. Walt you wrote
“All the verses you quoted, if read literally, as you said make clear that Jesus said you are to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Literally, there is no doubt that you must literally drink blood and eat his flesh”
Walt, that comment shows explicitly that you cannot see the “Incredible mystery” spoken of by the Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist. In the literal sense the options are 1)cannibalism or 2) Sacramental where Catholics partake of Christ in “a true, real, and substantial manner: His Body and His Blood, with his soul and divinity”.
So Walt, I gave you the verses in Scripture where the flesh is contrasted with the spirit. Now I believe you want to suggest that in John 6 when Christ was telling his followers that they must eat His Flesh and drink his Blood that Christ was speaking metaphorically, so can you provide me the Scriptural verses that show the metaphorical meaning of the phrase to “eat the flesh” of someone. What would the Jews that were listening to Christ understood him to be saying metaphorically ? Let me give you a hint. There are no examples even among the classical writers where a person is figuratively said to eat the flesh of another except those which convey the harsh idea of the literal sense. And what is the figurative meaning? To do a person some grievous injury , principally by slander or false accusation. So again Walt, what does Scripture teach us about the metaphorical meaning of the phrase “to eat the flesh”
I asked for a list of scriptural quotes from the bible that prove your belief that the Eucharist is symbolic and I hope you can see a pattern. It’s similar to the situation with the Church Fathers, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Catholic position. “
Timothy P, let me tell you why your view of ” the flesh profits nothing doesn’t hold up. Because the context is the disciples thought he asked them to eat his real flesh. He says ” does this trouble you?”, If Jesus were speaking of carnal knowledge like you say, why the reaction. The answer is there wouldn’t have been that reaction. Jesus knew they were troubled with the idea of eating real flesh. And the immediate answer from Jesus is don’t think of it that way, the flesh profits nothing. He isn’t talking about the flesh that died on the cross, but the fact that you are thinking about eating my physical flesh, when you should understand my words spiritually. What would that be Timothy P? Maybe the gospel believing it. Seems like Mark 1:15 supports that.
Kevin, let’s look at the verse again
John 6:63
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Now Kevin you claim that I am taking the word “the flesh” out of context, but actually I have already shown that in the preceding verses Christ is speaking of “My flesh” or the “Flesh of the Son of Man”. Now Kevin, when you have a headache do you announce “The head hurts”. Of course not. And is it not obvious that in the first sentence of John 6:63 Christ is contrasting the Spirit with the Flesh.
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing
I gave you multiple biblical examples of how that contrast appears in the New Testament. Kevin you do realize that that contrast is being made don’t you?
Now Kevin you and I both agree that we need to understand Christ’s words spiritually, but what does Christ say?
“the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit”
Note Christ does not say my words are symbolic, figurative or metaphorical! And it is my understanding that the word Spirit in the Bible is never translated symbolic or metaphorical. So explain to me Kevin if the disciples who left Christ understood Christ in verse 6:63 to be telling them they He was speaking symbolically, why did they leave him? Would you not agree that they would have had a better understanding of what he meant then you or I? They spoke the language! They knew what it meant to tell someone metaphorically to eat my flesh! They had witnessed the multiplication of the loaves and fishes! They had been told over and over again that they must believe him. And then according to your exegesis after Christ tells them 6 times they must eat his Flesh and drink his blood, but then tells them he is speaking symbolically they leave him. Does that make any sense? Of course not. Remember Kevin, as I stated above
“There are no examples even among the classical writers where a person is figuratively said to eat the flesh of another except those which convey the harsh idea of the literal sense. And what is the figurative meaning? To do a person some grievous injury , principally by slander or false accusation.”
Timothy P, you are completely missing the point of Jesus words. Take off your Roman glasses just for a moment. The reason it’s symbolic is because the Spirit is a person, the 3rd person of the Trinity. Paul refers to Him as the Spirit of Christ. When Paul says Christ in you the hope of glory, it is the Spirit who resides in the heart of a believer. Jesus says it is the Spirit who gives life. Iow, I live eternally through the Spirit of God which Jesus says are his words. In verse 35 he says ” he who BELIEVES in me will never thirst. Are you starting to understand the symbolism now when Jesus says eat his flesh and drink his blood. Drinking his blood is believing . Now, you can’t deny that because in verse 35 he says by BELIEVING we no longer have to drink, because we no longer thirst. So, believing relieves the thirst, not physically drinking His blood. So the comments Jesus made are indeed symbolic of coming and believing. You and Mark are unwilling to see 2 very important things about this passage, the direct Parallels between the early verses coming and believing and how Christ brings that message home with a vivid example. The second is that there is simply no sacramental meaning to this passage. 3 years before the supper was instituted. Wrong time wrong place, other than that your on to something. Lol. God bless
Kevin, you comment .
“In verse 35 he says ” he who BELIEVES in me will never thirst. Are you starting to understand the symbolism now when Jesus says eat his flesh and drink his blood. Drinking his blood is believing . ”
Kevin, where do you see “Drinking his blood is believing”. Nowhere right. And given the meaning of eating the flesh and drinking the blood metaphorically for the Jews I am afraid you need to take off your Protestant glasses and focus on what Christ says. Verse 6:55 “FOR MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED”.
If Christ was speaking metaphorically why would he make such a statement? The Jews ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat” , and all Christ had to do was say “I’m speaking metaphorically, drinking my blood is believing”. But what does he do? SIX TIMES he tells the Jews they must eat His flesh and drink His blood for eternal life. Not once, not twice but six times!!!!!
Now you say there is no sacramental meaning to the events is John Chapter 6 to the Last Supper. Look at verse 4, “And the Passover, a feast of the Jews was nigh. Verse 11 And Jesus took the loaves and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to the disciples. Kind of like what He did at the last supper. And do you not see any parallel to the feeding of the multitude between John 6 and the feeding of Christians all over the world in the Holy Eucharist? Do you really think it was just coincidence that John 6 starts with the feeding of the multitudes or was it a springboard for introducing his followers to the incredible mystery of the Holy Eucharist?
The Jews that left Christ left after John 6:63 where you guys believe that Christ explained that He was speaking metaphorically. Protestant who approach the Scriptures denying belief in the real presence claim it’s clear that Christ was telling His followers in John 6:63 that He was speaking symbolically and yet the followers of Christ who understood the language did not pick up on it and left Him. Of do you think they understood Him figuratively and still left Him?
Kevin I am interested if you ever shared those quotes from Irenaeus for an unbiased opinion. Maybe Ken Temple could give us his opinion since I for one believe it is relevant what the Early Fathers believe concerning the Real Presence doctrine. I am the first to admit it is an extremely difficult doctrine to believe but as Peter said “Lord….thou hast the words of eternal life”. And what did Christ say 6 times when challenged ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat”?
James White did an excellent Dividing Line podcast recently where he walked through all of John 6.
“John 6 for Roman Catholics”
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2017/01/10/john-6-roman-catholics/
I listened to James White on that. As usual, poor exegesis. He really struggled to explain the difficult parts. Why? Because he has to force his own theology into the text.
BTW, I can only stand listening to JW when he is in a debate. His monologues are painful to listen to.
Ken, I’ll try to listen to James White’s comment as many years ago I enjoyed listening to his Debates with different Catholic apologist, especially Tim Staples. I would be interested in knowing if James addresses the issue that
“There are no examples even among the classical writers where a person is figuratively said to eat the flesh of another except those which convey the harsh idea of the literal sense. And what is the figurative meaning? To do a person some grievous injury , principally by slander or false accusation.”
After all of Christ’s discussion of the need to believe in Him how interesting it is that He made no attempt to change the metaphorical meaning of the phrase “to eat the flesh”. All Christ had to say was’ “By eating my Flesh I mean to believe in me”. But what does Christ say when the Jews say “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” , “Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”.
Can you demonstrate him “struggling to explain the difficult parts” ?
Can you demonstrate “poor exegesis”?
Actually, it was very good exegesis, as he included the whole larger context, rather than what the Roman Catholics usually only focus on verses 51-60; whereas without the larger context of all that comes before verse 51, and after verse 60, the meaning is skewed.
It is obvious that “eating His flesh” and “drinking His blood” in verses 52-56 is parallel with “being drawn by the Father” (v. 44) and “coming to Him” (v. 35, 37, 45) and “believing in Him” (v. 35, 40, 47, and “not believing” (v. 36) and “some of you do not believe” – v. 64), and being given by the Father (v. 37, 65)
Notice the parallel of “and I will raise him up on the last day”
v. 40, 44, 54 – the clauses before that clause are:
“beholds the Son and believes in Him” v. 40
being drawn by the Father, and coming to Christ, v. 44
“eating My flesh and drinking My blood”, v. 54
v. 65 – “for this reason” – the reason why some believe and some don’t is because it depends on the Father doing the work of grace and actually drawing them to come to Him and believe in Christ.
Mar said ” nothing uncles can enter the kingdom” then please explain how God justifies an unclean man apart from his works Romans 4:5, seals him in the Spirit, seats him in the heavenlies with Christ? Could it be because it isn’t based on our inherent righteousness , but of the one who covers me with his righteousness. John Bunyon walking though the field looked up into heaven and said, there is my righteousnes. You are focused on the wrong thing Mark. You will never find perfect righteousness in what you do. Self centered sacramental forgiveness is useless. The righteousness of a justified man is in heaven, and resides on the Christian by faith alone in Christ alone. Look outside yourself to the gospel and you’ll find life solely in the words of Jesus. Believe them, and don’t look at your own righteousness for acceptance. Living holy takes on a whole new meaning.
also, “the work of God” in verse 29 is “that you believe in Him whom He has sent”
The work of God is the Father giving – v. 37 – the Father giving some people; and verse 44 – the Father drawing some people to Christ.
It goes all the way back to Jesus’ feeding the five thousand with bread and fish – physical needs.
Jesus says the real issue is spiritual needs, not physical needs. Only Jesus as the spiritual bread / food and drink can met the needs of the soul/spirit.
And Jesus says He is true bread that meets spiritual needs.
He is the true bread who satisfies spiritual need for spiritual nourishment, that is eternal life and relationship with God.
“true food” and “true drink” (v. 55) is parallel with John 15:1 – “I am the true vine.”
He means He is the true source and reality of what we really need, beyond physical needs for food and drink.
Jesus deliberately uses the strong language of eating His flesh and drinking His blood as a means of whittling down the crowd to the true believers.
Peter said, “you have the words of eternal life” (v. 68)
and “we have believed” (v. 69), and “come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” (v. 69)
“the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (v. 63)
They grumbled first because Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven” (v. 41-43) (alludes to incarnation and being sent by God the Father) and they grumbled in verse 60-61 over the “eating His flesh and drinking His blood”, but notice Jesus’ answer: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (verse 62) – pointing to the resurrection and ascension back to heaven.
“It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (v. 63)
Jesus is saying only the Holy Spirit can awaken your dead soul and give you life (with the Father in verses 44 and 65) – and the literal words about eating and drinking are spiritual meaning and meaning for true spiritual life.
The whole thing is about Jesus as the true spiritual nourishment (v. 35), meeting spiritual needs; rather than a political king-Messiah who meets their physical needs. (context – verses 14-15 – because Jesus feed them and they ate and were satisfied (verses 1-13- miracle of feeding the 5 thousand), they wanted to make Him king. (and earthly Messiah) But Jesus will not accept that.
The passage is also about God’s sovereignty in giving (v. 37, 65) (election and predestination) and drawing (v. 44) (effectual calling) in explaining why some believe and follow (the eleven disciples) and some don’t. (the crowds and eventually, later, Judas)
v. 70 – did I not choose you; yet one of you is a devil.
Judas eventually leaves Jesus and betrays Him, just like those crowds left (v. 66) and did not want to come to Jesus, know Jesus, and believe in Jesus.
Ken, excellent summary!
Also, Dr. White makes a great point that true faith is an ongoing believing/faith – present continuous tense. “the one believing” “keeps on believing” and that is contrasted with those in John 2:23-25 (aorist tense) and John 8:30-31 – “believed” – a temporary and/or false faith – “Jesus did not entrust Himself to them, because Jesus knew what was inside of man” – 2:25. Later in John 8 – the passage shows that they really did not really believe in Him, and after Jesus tells them they are slaves to sin (v. 34 ff) and exposes their insides and motives (liars, murderers, v. 43-47), and after Jesus claims to be “I am”, they tried to stone Him.
Kem,
Like I said, when you read your Calvinist theology into the text you can make it appear to say whatever you want it to say. Thank you for showing how JW read his Calvinist theology into John 6. As John Paul II said, the Catholic Church is the Church of John 6. One thing that is absolutely true is that the Church believed in the Real Presence from the beginning. The Bible was the Sacrament of the Eucharist before it became a document. The “New Testament” is the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Jesus established at the Last Supper. Where do you think the New Testament got its name from?
I love being Catholic! While I defend the Catholic Church on this blog and other forums, it really needs no defense. It is the Protestant innovative theology that needs defending because it was invented in the 16th century or later. The Church Jesus can trace its roots all the way back to Peter. The ECFs are echoing the Catholic faith.
Professional anti-Catholics like James White, while intelligent and skilled at debating, aren’t really truth seekers. I admire his sister who became Catholic. James White almost blew a gasket when that happened. When you understand his family background, it makes sense why he is rabid anti-Catholic. I pray for his conversion.
” like I said when you read your Calvinist theology into the text” we have another name for that, proper exegesis and hermenutics of a passage. We don’t read the book of John like a metaphysical essay, but in context. It’s why we don’t call justification infusion, because the scripture is clear.
“Kem” ?
He was not reading Calvinist theology into the text; the text is the root of why Calvinism is true.
Augustine and others saw this truth also.
Jesus clearly said the reason why people come to Him, is because God the Father had given them to Him, and whoever comes was drawn by the Father, granted by the Father (verses 36-37, 44, 65) – He explains why the crowds left and why Judas will not keep on believing and betray Christ (v. 64) – because they were not given by the Father (v. 37), not granted by the Father (v. 65), not drawn by the Father. (v. 44), Judas was not chosen to believe (v. 64 with 70-71).
Now those are words from the text, without later terminology of Calvinism. The text determined the theology; not the other way around.
Mark,
I noticed you changed the subject from the actual text and exegesis to the theology of a Pope, John Paul 2, some 1978-2005 years later read back into early church; and Dr. White’s sister, etc.
there not even a Pope as “the bishop of Rome that is over all other bishops in the world, who has jurisdictional authority and is infallible”, neither in Scripture nor in the early centuries of Christianity. Cyprian and 86 other bishops rebuked Stephen (as Tim Kauffman’s articles show) and the 7th Council of Carthage demonstrates – “for no one sets himself up as the bishop of bishops”.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html
It was John Paul 2 who was reading his theology back into John 6.
Dr. White also makes a great point that “real presence” is not the same thing as “Transubstantiation” with all the categories of Aristotelian philosophy (accidence, substance).
The people listening to Jesus sometime between 26-33 AD, could not have understood Him as talking about things developed centuries later – from 800s AD (Radbertus) to 1215 Ad and beyond – Thomas’ Aquinas’ defense of the 1215 dogma later – 1225-1274.
Ken, do you believe Jesus is consubstantial with the Father?
Because John 1:1-5; 1:14; John 17:5; 20:28; 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; John 10:30; John 14:9; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; Colossians 1:15-20; Romans 9:5; Matthew 12:1-12; 14:33; 28:9, 28:16, Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Revelation 5:13-14, and many other Scriptural passages demonstrate that truth. The “homo-sousias” (and the later Latin, “con-substantial”) of the Nicean Creed is based on the clear teaching of Scripture on the issue of the Deity of Christ.
Yes. And I gave reasons before I answered “yes”.
I am glad you believe Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. Because He is. Now, realize that the word consubstantial is not found anywhere in the Bible. This is a Platonic philosophical term. The reason I bring this up is because you mentioned the word transubstantiation. It is also not in the Bible. The Apostles and ECFs believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It took a while before the Church had the right tool tool to explain HOW that happens. Transubstantiation was that tool which helped explain it. They always believed THAT it was true, they just didn’t have the words to define it. It came from metaphysics just like consubstantial did.
Remember, all truth is God’s truth, whether that comes from Divine Revelation or Philosophy. Faith and reason can’t contradict each other because truth is truth. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. You reject some truth to support your deeply held beliefs, but much of what you believe isn’t part of the Deposit of Faith, but innovations of the last 500 years.
homo-ousias may be a Plantonic philosophical term – do you have evidence of that?
I have heard that “Logos” has background in that and that Philo used Logos, and that is some of the background linguistically of John 1:1, but don’t know about homo-ousias being a Platonic philosophical term. Even if it is; it helps explain the text.
Even so, John 6 does not even tell us he is talking about the Lord’s supper or Eucharist at all. He is talking about believing in Christ as He is.
Transubstantiation is goofy superstition. changing the invisible substance by words (magic, and like the modern heretics “Word of Faith” movement – thinking they can change circumstances and get healing and money just by saying the right words and right formulas), and believing that it is no longer bread and wine, and bowing down to it (genuflecting) after the priest says the words, etc. and keeping the leftovers in a little RC tabernacle or encasing it in a monstrance, etc.
homo-ousias (same substance/ essence) differentiates between Jesus’ nature (“and the Word was God” John 1:1 – Greek grammar shows talking about a quality – The Word was by nature God; whereas “The Word was with God” points to 2 persons facing one another.
substance vs. person explains the text of John 1:1 and other passages that speak of the Deity of Christ, and yet they are 2 distinct persons who talk to one another and relate to one another. (same for the Holy Spirit) The Son prays to the Father (John 17:1) and the Father sends the Son and loves the Son (many verses); and the Spirit testifies of the Son (John 15:16) and the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30) and lied to. (Acts 5:3-5)
Ken, you make a very interesting point about the Hocus Pocus ( actually the English derivative of the words of consecration said in Latin by a priest ) and magic being very much like the name it and claim it of the word of faith. Is it any wonder that the charismatics and papist have an affinity for one another.!
The wedding dance Hockey Pockey is a Protestant mocking of the Eucharist. Disgraceful.
Another great exegetical point that Dr. White made about John 6:65, is the imperfect tense of “and He was saying” – repeated in the past, going back to verse 44, this the reason He kept teaching and repeated Himself, that no one is able to come to Jesus unless the Father draws or grants them the ability to come. – “for this reason” explains verse 64 – why some people don’t believe and leave (the crowds, the false disciples) and Judas.
Dr. White made another powerful exegetical point in verses 64-66. In verse 66 “as a result of this” or “because of this” = ἐκ τούτου
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
“Because of this” in verse 66 points to God’s granting in verse 65; which points back to verse 64, why the crowds did not believe and left and why Judas would do what he did; and it is parallel with verse 44, the drawing of the Father.
Hi Ken,
Thank you for you reference to Dr. White’s presentation. I like to stick to only one point at a time and it will have to be his “exegesis”. He does indeed consider “the larger context” of John’s Gospel (at least some of it) but he totally ignores the rest of the New Testament, which is a fatal flaw to his argument.
By the time John’s Gospel was written the believing Christian communities had already been drawn by the Father to be living their faith and recognizing their Lord in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:35, Acts 2:46, 1 Cor 11:23-26, the Last Supper narratives of the other Gospels, etc…) for several decades and cannot be dismissed as a later development.
God bless you.
Luke 24:35 just means that the recognized that it was Jesus speaking to them in His resurrection body when He broke the bread with them. They didn’t know it was Him, their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. – verse 16 – “But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him.”
“But they urged Him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over.” So He went in to stay with them. 30 When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.”
Luke 24:29-31
The issue was the bodily resurrection, not Transubstantiation.
Acts 2:46 is just saying the practiced eating meals together regularly with fellowship and worship and we assume that they celebrated the Lord’s supper at the end of the fellowship meal. There is nothing else there that indicates that the bread changed its nature after the apostles said the words that Jesus said at the last supper.
I Cor. 11:23-26 – I am surprised you didn’t include verse 29 here, because that is the one that is usually used.
In I Cor. 11, verse 29, “judge the body rightly” is in the context of right relationships in the body of Christ – wait for one another, don’t be selfish, confess your sins and make things right with other people and believers before you partake (as in Matthew 5:21-26 – reconcile with your brother before you worship, if you know you did something or sinned against someone else) – make it right first.
That seems to be what he is talking about in 1 Cor. 11 – make your relationships are right in the body of Christ before you partake of the Lord’s upper, examine, confess, be reconciled.
It is not about thinking / discerning/judging that the bread changed into the body of Jesus.
Timothy P, he told them not to work for physical food. Eating Jesus physical body can’t save anyone. He says the work that leads to eternal life is belief. In a later verse beholding Christ and coming and believing will have eternal life. So think about it Timothy P, if the immediate result of believing in the gospel is eternal life, why would I care about a out any real presence. Because remember Jesus is calling us to believe in transubstantiation, but the atonement, the cross. ” for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. John put it this way in 1 John ” by this we have overcome the world, our FAITH.
Kevin, do you really believe
” for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
I don’t know of any Christian Catholic or Protestant except for maybe your more liberal Christians who deny the resurrection that would not fulfill that requirement . Based on that analysis why are you guys spending so much time trying to convert Catholics. How could anyone who believes in the real presence not confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead?
Actually I have a lot of problem with the Faith only theology because is seems to place Faith above Love which is clearly unscriptural. And I know you would agree that a person who confesses Jesus is Lord and in his or her heart believes that God raised Him from the dead is not going to be saved if they live a evil life. Or do you think they will be?
” based on that analysis why are you guys spending so much time trying to convert Catholics ” This is a good question. I wouldn’t describe the Reformed perspective as spending so much time trying to convert Catholics. God’s sovereign hand is on salvation? But he uses the winsome preaching of the gospel to bring men to himself. Faith comes thru hearing, hearing through the word of God, how does one hear without a preacher etc. But fundamentally Roman Catholicism offers its people 2,things idolatry and a false gospel. Transubstantiation and worthiness of merit. We make a distinction between law and gospel. The law is preached and shows us our sinfulness which makes us run to the gospel of free grace. The law requires perfection. Paul said he was Hebrew of Hevrews, blameless before the law, and yet counted his righteousness as dung, not his sin, but his righteousness. He wanted rather to be found in the righteousness that comes from God by faith. Romans 3:20 ” now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested. The righteousness that saves me is apart from the law and comes by faith alone in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic gospel of gracious merit stands against Christ’s gospel. The book of Galatians was written about those who were undermining jbfa. Paul puts works and hearing by faith in opposition in justification. We don’t merit the merit of Christ, it is applied to us by faith alone. Romans 9:32-10:4 is the best example of this. The gentiles weren’t pursuing salvation but found it by faith alone. Yet the Jews, who believed in grace were pursuing it but didn’t get there. Why? Because they pursued it by works in some way. Paul prays for their salvation in 10:1 Paul said the Jews had a zeal for God but not in accordance with knowledge. Not knowing about the righteousness that comes by faith, they sought to establish their own. The Paul says Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe. But in Rome, like with these Jews Christ is the beggining of the law for righteousness to those who believe. I wouldn’t speak for all on this site, but I do not consider Catholics as brothers in Christ, that has historically been the Reformed position. Gross idolatry in the mass,praying to saints, and a gospel of gracious go out and do your part cannot save IMHO. You would have to be a bad Catholic to be saved. There are those trusting Christ alone in that church. And Revelations 18:4 is calling them out of that communion. ” Come out from her my people ” Timothy P sorry for the long post, but if you will study who is Antichrist in scripture, and uses the wonderful articles here to assist that endeavor, you may arise at the conclusion many of us have. K
Kevin I appreciate your long answer but you seemed to skirt around the main question. From your response I would have to assume you do not believe that
” for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
What you did in your explanation was add to the above that you must not believe in ” Transubstantiation worthiness of merit and even unknowingly follow the AntiChrist”. It would appear that even if you
” for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
according to your explanation you can’t merit your salvation but you can lose your salvation. But now you are adding amendments or stipulations to the above quote. And you may be able to point out biblical support for your position just as those who claim we play a role in meriting our salvation can clearly point out the need to follow the commandments, Love our neighbor, the need for baptism and how many times did Christ say we must eat His Flesh and drink His blood?
I am also bothered by what I consider to be a False Gospel which puts more emphasis on Faith then Love. This is clearly unbiblical. 1 Cor 13, verse 2 “and though I have all faith, so that I can remove mountains, AND HAVE NOT CHARITY, I AM NOTHING!!!!!…..verse 13 “And now abideth faith, hope and charity, these three, BUT THE GREATEST OF THESE IS CHARITY.
Kevin, you also said
“You would have to be a bad Catholic to be saved”
I guess we just can’t win. Hans complains about the bad Catholics and you say they seem to be the only Catholics that might be saved. Obviously you are aware that most bad Catholics would not declare Christ our Lord and Savior and would question God’s raising Him from the dead.
As far as the Catholic Church being the AntiChrist, I think based on reason, the bible and church history I could make a better argument that the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ then you could make that the Catholic Church is the Antichrist. And if you truly believe that the Church is the AntiChrist you are going to have a tough time explaining why you subscribe to a New Testament canon endorsed and selected by the Antichrist. Maybe you could help Hans out, he never responded to the following post
Timothy P
January 10, 2017 at 7:04 pm
Hans, you earlier wrote
“The Catholic Church simply wasn’t all that necessary in determining the NT canon”
But then you write,
“How about we all just agree to go by Athanasius’ 39th Easter letter from 367 CE? ”
Hans. Athanasius was a Catholic Bishop and yet after stating the Catholic Church wasn’t that necessary you then want to defer to a Catholic bishop for your canon list. Does that make any sense at all? Why not except Marcion’s canon list? Why not accept the Gnostic Gospels? Why are you deferring to the Church that claimed apostolic succession instead of putting your faith in those who claimed a secret revelation from the apostles?
The date for the first correct list of New Testament books should make you think. At the same time you guys are claiming the Church was drifting off into apostasy praise the Lord they got the canon list right. 367 !!!!!!!. If the apostles believed in the principle of Sola Scriptura don’t you think they would have made sure that first generation had the correct canon list??
” but now you are adding amendments” on the contrary. The point of my post is the things that have been added to gospel, or piled on the cross by Rome.
Should be Jesus isn’t calling us to believe in transubstantiation, but the cross.
Mark–
So, do you know ANYTHING about Calvinism? In no way whatsoever is our freedom of will taken away from us. All we allege is that our freedom of will can neither thwart nor hinder the sovereign plans of God.
I said nothing concerning the faith of babies one way or the other (although I think it’s a downright silly concept). Many, many babies never COME TO faith. (Granted, I guess that presupposes they don’t have faith as infants or at least shows that they probably never did.)
Justification, in some sense, has to be a one-time event. Either one is justified from the beginning of one’s walk of faith and kept in that faith by the grace of God, or one is never quite justified until the end of life when one “graduates” into the next life based on his cooperative efforts with the Spirit. Either at the very beginning or at the very end. No one “graduates” in the middle of taking a course. (Some “crib” courses, on the other hand, are more or less “passed” before they are begun.)
I still think you guys tend to misinterpret Aquinas. If predestination is certain, and not based on mere foreknowledge, then justification is a “done deal” from the outset. And Aquinas makes it quite clear that predestination is certain and infallible:
“Predestination most certainly and infallibly takes effect; yet it does not impose any necessity, so that, namely, its effect should take place from necessity. For it was said above (Article 1), that predestination is a part of providence. But not all things subject to providence are necessary; some things happening from contingency, according to the nature of the proximate causes, which divine providence has ordained for such effects. Yet the order of providence is infallible, as was shown above (I:22:4). So also the order of predestination is certain; yet free-will is not destroyed; whence the effect of predestination has its contingency. Moreover all that has been said about the divine knowledge and will (I:14:13; I:19:4) must also be taken into consideration; since they do not destroy contingency in things, although they themselves are most certain and infallible.”
***********
Simply put, the elect are not the elect if they can fall (by definition if nothing else). I think y’all have lost sight of Augustine and Aquinas through the influence of the Jesuits and modernity.
Hans, I know there are so many post that it’s easy not to respond to a post one has made but since this previous post fits in with my discussion with Kevin and Ken I would like to repeat it. I think Kevin and Ken make good points but I still feel the Catholic position is so much easier to defend both biblically and based on the testimony of the early Church Fathers. I wrote to you before
“Hans, you bring up a good point
“My main point is that the early church DID NOT DEFINE the Real Presence”.
Correct Hans, the early Father’s never bothered to define “the real presence” because it was never questioned. Now let’s try to use some common sense. I hope we can both agree that the apostles would have taught their followers rather the bread and wine were a symbol of Christ’s body and blood, or rather by some incredible mystery they really were the body and blood of Christ. There is a world of difference between these views and you can argue fine nuances of the different views but I find it hard to believe that that next generation just didn’t know. Now imagine they had taught that the Eucharist was simply a symbol. How hard would it be to convince these people later in the real presence without even the hint of a debate? We know about the doctrine of the Trinity because Christ’s divinity was challenged. We know about the debate over the timing of Easter because there was a dispute. But no one is arguing as we are today over the real presence because it was never questioned. Universally believed, universally understood. The beauty of the Catholic Faith. This is not rocket science as you mentioned before. And by the way, Hans you said that I was trying to constrict the definition but then I’m still not sure if you really meant what you had said before concerning your belief in the real presence. You wrote
“Yes, the elements change when consecrated: they become consecrated for sacramental use. Do they change physically? Yes, in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving.”
I have never heard such an explanation and am interested in rather you misspoke. How do the elements change physically in our heart by faith and thanksgiving? I know Walt does not agree with you and I would like Kevin to let me know if he agrees.”
By the way Kevin, do you agree with Hans, that the elements are physically changed in our hearts by faith and thanksgiving? And do you believe that first generation of Christians believed that the Eucharist was a symbol or truly the body and blood of Christ.
Hi Timothy P, no, I don’t believe Christ is in the bread, I believe the scripture teaches Christ is in the one taking the bread through His Spirit. Scripture teaches me Christ resides in my heart ” Christ in YOU the hope of glory. There need not be any change in substance because through faith, the Word, and the Spirit taking the Lord’s supper strengthens my faith. I commemorate and remember what he did on the cross for my sins, and my faith is nourished if you will. I eat Christ’s words with my heart by faith , in this way I’ll never be hungry scripture tells me. I don’t believe God fools our senses. The best way to refute transubstantiation is look at the bread, its bread. Paul, Cleophus, and Jesus all call it bread after it was blessed. Scripture tells me how to live, ” The righteous shall live by faith.” Paul calls me righteous and he says my eternal life is by faith.
Hans, the error of Aquinas is he said a man is predestined to glory in some way according to his merit instead of just the goodness of God.
Timothy P said:
“I think Kevin and Ken make good points but I still feel the Catholic position is so much easier to defend both biblically and based on the testimony of the early Church Fathers.”
This is exactly my point I’ve been making for 3 weeks. I’ve watched Kevin and Ken masterfully detail out John 6 using scripture and not one solid rebuttal from Timothy P.
He said he was going to listen to Whites argument and then he jumps ahead to say a few good points were made but he is firmly established in his Roman Catholic position.
Just imagine of you took the time to exegete all the verses Timothy P gave me to respond too. Would anything change in his position?
Not a chance. It is one thing to cut and paste paragraphs of passages and say here is my biblical view. Read them literally and this is what the bible clearly teaches. It is far different to exegete those passages in proper context using the literal sense and proving the true meaning of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.
That is why I believe the problem is far deeper with the Roman catholic mind. It is brain washed so deeply that they are totally blinded to now matter how much time you spend proving scripture with scripture. In their mind it will always be that their truth is because their religion and the Pope told them so and so, and all other interpretations are heresy and must be ignored and blocked out from using reason or discernment. They are told implicit faith is the foundation to be a Roman Catholic and true biblical faith is to be rejected.
The more I’ve watched Mark, Tim P and Rocky respond it is so clear “debating” any subject is an incredible waste of time.
Walt, glad you are back. I was somewhat taken aback by your comment
“Just imagine of you took the time to exegete all the verses Timothy P gave me to respond too. Would anything change in his position?”
Walt, the problem is you have not taken the time to exegete any of the verses I have posted except to copy and paste your own scriptures and what the Church of Scotland says. You gave me John 6:63 and I responded. You did not give me any verses from the New Testament showing how the contrast of spirit and flesh is addressed in the New Testament. Similarly when you pointed out that Paul called the consecrated bread bread I responded
” “I am assuming your point is since Jesus and Paul refer to the consecrated bread as bread it must just be a symbol. But you then seem to undermine your position by including the following verse from Paul
“27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
Guilty of the what? The symbol of the body and blood of the Lord? No, “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
“Not discerning the symbol of the Lord’s body”. No, not discerning the Lord’s body”.
Paul obviously is calling the consecrated elements bread and in the same verse tells us that bread is the body and blood of the Lord. And of course Catholics today continue to refer to the consecrated host as bread. Remember the Hymn “One Bread, One body” Does that mean we deny the real presence? Of course not. And by the way, damnation is a pretty harsh penalty. How do you warrant damnation for not discerning a symbol?
Now are you ready to explain to me what the Jews understood at the time of Christ was the metaphorical meaning of the phrase “to eat the flesh of someone”?”
I’m waiting Walt. You accepted a challenge to debate the biblical evidence for the Real presence in the Eucharist and so far you have been missing in action. And then you say
“The more I’ve watched Mark, Tim P and Rocky respond it is so clear “debating” any subject is an incredible waste of time.”
So Walt, what was the metaphorical meaning of “to eat the flesh of someone ” at the time of Christ. Do you know? Are you interested in finding out? Can you defend your position based on the Scriptures? And do you think that first generation of Christians taught by the apostles understood rather the Eucharist was a symbol or the real presence of Jesus? And if you think they believed it was a symbol explain to me how those ignorant Christians came to believe in the real presence without a whimper of protest??????. If you had a new pastor and he started teaching the doctrine of the real presence what would be the reaction. Think man, think!
Timothy P, you seem to be hung up on the verse where Paul says eating and drinking in a manner unworthy is being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Remember the context of that passage. The Corinthians were making it a eating party and drinking party. Iow, they weren’t taking the Lord’s supper seriously, where we are to confess our sins, offer up acceptable sacrifices in praise and sacrifice, and commemorate and remember the cross. To do so lightly or just ritual is to be in violation of the body broken on the cross and the blood shed by our Lord for our sins. When Paul says is this not a participation, he means being mindful and identifying with the cross. He isn’t talking about the bread being the substantial presence of Jesus, he is talking about violating what Christ did on the cross, therefore to be in violation of his body and blood. The Corinthians were making the Lord’s supper a mockery, and by doing that they were guilty of his body and blood. Paul says some even die. Incidentally the mass is the greatest violation because it denies Christ left the cross. Making the Lord’s supper a sacrifice is to deny the sufficiency of the once and for all sacrifice that is a blanket across history and out sin away. He remembers our sin no more scripture says. Christ can’t continue to be sacrificed for sins God has forgotten.
Kevin,
It looks like until Tim, Mark and Rocky can at least consider they are locked into a cult, and there mind’s ability to reason outside this religious system, I am reading there is no chance to convince them otherwise.
As a former Roman Catholic, growing up, I know the power of their system of rituals and traditions. It is extremely attractive and powerful. The statutes, the money and wealth and the sheer size with $1 billion plus followers, it makes it nearly impossible to see any other elect in Christianity than their own.
I need to read more on how all this brain washing works, and get a better grasp on deprogramming, but just be aware that everything you say will be ignored as there mind does not allow any other form of evidence.
Poor Tim K has been providing the evidence month after month, and documenting all the errors in Rome’s claims, but as you have seen not one piece of evidence is believed or accepted. The implicit faith Roman Catholics have come from mind control, and it is impossible to get them to change their views. Mormonism, JW, SDA and others have the same appeal to their followers.
Walt, actually after reading your post and reading Mike Genron’s quote, I thought you are on to something. I took a class on how to deal with cults at my old church. Specifically Mormonism. The approach taught was comparing what they were brought up with and taught side by side with the scripture. I’m not sure there is any trick or method better than that for us because scripture itself says that it is more active than a two edged sword able to cut to the heart and bone marrow of man. I have had to learn many hard lessons, many of which Tim and you have helped me with, and that is its our job to love people and share scripture, it’s God’s job to change them. When I read that article ” Is the Papist my brother” and understood the historical Reformed view, as well as those of the second reformation, it really defined what my relationship should be with them. Especially WCF 24.3. All that to say, I think you are right to research ways to get through to Papists, however we should realize we shouldn’t seek fellowship or agreement with them. I think Hans seeks common ground with them, I dont. My wife and I have not had a relationship with her best fiend and her husband for a few years. Her friend is requesting a meeting with her, which I’m leaving up to her. However, in this modern world as Sproul says maintaining relationships is more important than letting someone perish in a false system. We chose otherwise. But that’s the price to put the truth first. ” and have mercy on some, who are doubting, save others, snatching them out of the fire” how can we snatching them out of the fire if we never confront them in love with the truth. ?
Timothy P wrote:
“Kevin I appreciate your long answer but you seemed to skirt around the main question. From your response I would have to assume you do not believe that
” for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Again, there is a major difference between the literal interpretation and face value meaning of a text and the literal sense and Gods intended meaning of a text.
If you take your passage literally than it means that all hippocrites who confess and “believe” will be saved. If this is indeed true, then certainly it conflicts with scripture which says:
Acts 13:48
[48]And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”
1 Peter 2:6
[6]Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.”
Mark 13:20
[20]And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”
John 10:25-29
[25]Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
[26]But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
[27]My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
[28]And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
[29]My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”
Romans 11:7-10
[7]What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
[8](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.
[9]And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
[10]Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Matthew 21:42-44
[42]Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
[43]Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
[44]And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”
Acts 4:10-12
[10]Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[11]This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
[12]Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Ephesians 2:20-22
[20]And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
[21]In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
[22]In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
1 Peter 2:4-10
[4]To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
[5]Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
[6]Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
[7]Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
[8]And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
[9]But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
[10]Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”
Pretty incredible who is our chief cornerstone and not Peter that the elect church is built upon.
Amen to every verse you provided Walt and I am not sure why you would think a Catholic would be bothered by those verses. And I agree Christ is our chief cornerstone. But who did Christ build His Church on? What do the scriptures say?
“15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Should we examine the biblical evidence for Peter’s primacy. I love the last chapter of John.
Timothy P wrote:
“Amen to every verse you provided Walt and I am not sure why you would think a Catholic would be bothered by those verses. And I agree Christ is our chief cornerstone. But who did Christ build His Church on? What do the scriptures say?”
Your quote of Matt.16:15-17 certainly sounds like Peter is the rock that Christ build his church upon. Very nice work in identifying those passage as certainly they literally say that Jesus built his Church on Peter the Rock.
I also assume that Peter the Rock was the first Pope. Yes, please share that literal verse where Peter is the first Pope selected by Jesus Christ.
It is fascinating to learn these literal interpretations by Rome.
John 21
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Now Walt, would you like to look at the entire chapter John 21 and we can count how many times Peter’s primacy is mentioned. Do you want to guess?
Timothy P said:
“Think man, think!”
That is exactly what I’m doing.
And you said:
“I’m waiting Walt. You accepted a challenge to debate the biblical evidence for the Real presence in the Eucharist and so far you have been missing in action.”
Yes I did. And in hindsight it was a mistake. I know better. I really should not have accepted the challenge. Soon after you provided your proof texts, and essentially stated that anyone could clearly see the literal meaning of those texts it dawned on me that I was going nowhere in this discussion. I even admitted that obviously literal interpretation meant to just grab a hunk of Jesus’ flesh and a nice cup of His blood, and we would all be pounding the real presence of Jesus. I get the passages literally. They are clear to you and all Catholics. Eat real flesh and real blood and you are following the Bible.
While traveling I saw a few more of your posts, and that one where you reduced the proof texts more specifically and it became obvious to me this is EXACTLY what I faced over many years “debating” Baptist pastors on arminianism vs. calvinism. They were so stuck in the literal interpretation mentality that no matter how many passages you posted and explained their literal sense meaning, it did not matter. They were totally brainwashed without the ability to see any other meaning except the literal, face value meaning.
With Roman Catholics, as I used to be one and also a Baptist, I know am totally convinced there is no amount of Scripture proofs or literal sense interpretation that will satisfy you.
Think Walt, think is what I’m doing now. I am looking into how to reprogram those in a cult. What are the methods to try to get a cult member to see reality.
For example, if someone is color blind, and you tell them that the have brown hair, and everyone else around them tells them the evidence is clear they have brown hair, but they only see themselves with green hair that colorblindness is the problem. It is not the evidence they have brown hair. They only can see green hair no matter what you show them.
It is the same with you. You have lost all ability to discern and reason which is why after all the work that Kevin and Ken wrote you ignored all that work to say to Hans, basically, “It was interesting what they wrote, but I believe Roman Catholic teaching is the truth.” What? You asked them to help me debate because I was ignoring you, and they responded to your challenge in great detail, and you jumped off on another topic with Hans. Why did you ask them to ever respond?
Ken took great pains to respond in detail using Scripture proofs and comparing scripture with scripture to give you the context of John 6 which is the core of your church teaching. You cannot just cut in those John 6 passages, and say, “see what it says literally…that is what it means literally….Jesus flesh and blood literally is the real presence we eat in mass everyday.”
Let me work out how to deprogram cult members, and see what works and does not work. Once I get through this research and figure out how to deal with cult members who are totally blind to reality and reason, I will reply.
Until then, I know it will be a huge waste of time. I read that today in the responses from Kevin and Ken to you. Huge waste of their time. It is like the color blind man no matter how much you try to convince him that his hair is brown he only sees green, and it is the end of story.
This is the root of the problem that has to be researched.
“Deprogramming–that is, providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them.”
–Margaret Singer, Ph.D. psychologist author of “Cults in Our Midst”
https://culteducation.com/deprogramming.html
“What is a “cult?” In his book, Rise of the Cults, Walter Martin defined cultism as “…any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.” Though unmentioned by Martin, Roman Catholicism is undeniably a “major deviation from orthodox Christianity” on many “cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith,” and thus, by his own definition, a cult. Recognition of this fact ignited the Reformation! To deny that Roman Catholicism is a cult is to repudiate the Reformation and mock the millions of martyrs who died at Rome’s hands, as though they gave their lives in vain.”
Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses
by Mike Gendron
When we study the doctrines of Roman Catholicism, Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses we discover that they have more in common with each another than with the Bible. Each religion exalts the name of Jesus Christ and claims to be Bible-based, yet each one has perverted “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 4). All three preach “another Jesus” and “another gospel” under the “supernatural authority” of man’s teachings and traditions. All three teach salvation is based on what man does for God rather than believing what God has already done for man through Jesus Christ. Each religion demands total, blind and unquestionable submission to the authority of men who claim to have special extra-biblical knowledge from God. Each religion employs manipulation, indoctrination, deception and mandatory rituals to control its members and keep them enslaved to the system. Tragically there are many sincere and zealous people in each religion, who believe they are serving the true God, but are destined for a Christ-less eternity. Let us examine eight similarities among these three religions (the numbers in parenthesis denote paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church).”
Walt given our discussion on the real presence I was amused by your comment
” “What is a “cult?” In his book, Rise of the Cults, Walter Martin defined cultism as “…any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.””
Walt, denial of the Real presence is a major deviation from orthodox Christianity! You do realize that all the apostolic churches that trace their lineage back to the time of the apostles believe in the real presence. Have you heard of the Coptic Church? By the way, Walter Martin and
Father Mitch Pacwa’s debates are available on Catholic websites.
Timothy P wrote:
“Walt, denial of the Real presence is a major deviation from orthodox Christianity! You do realize that all the apostolic churches that trace their lineage back to the time of the apostles believe in the real presence.”
Yes, I have seen this claim in your discussions here, and also the counter evidence Tim has detailed on the blog here. I’m afraid using basic logic and reason you lost that claim.
Kevin said:
“I’m not sure there is any trick or method better than that for us because scripture itself says that it is more active than a two edged sword able to cut to the heart and bone marrow of man.”
Absolutely this is the true, and one never knows who are the elect of God that listen to the word being expounded. My issue is not with talking, texting and teaching those who have a desire to learn. I guess that is why professors at universities and high school exist as 90% of the audience are there to learn, and 10% are there to cause problems and debate.
Scripture is pretty clear about debate:
“Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.” Isa.58:4
“Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” Rom.1:29
“For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:” 2Cor.12:20
We have to figure out the distinction between whether one is actually desiring to learn, or is simply incapable to learn. If they are learning, and are weak we should accommodate them as did the Presbyterians with the Independents. They were ministers who were willing to learn and discuss within the Westminster Assembly, and while the Grand Debate took place in the closing days of the assembly, there is significant unity on all other topics. They did not bring in Roman Catholics to “debate” as it would have been highly unproductive and a significant waste of time and money.
We have to make distinctions who we “debate” and what is the value of it. We can argue Scripture until we are blue in the face so to speak, but if it is just ignored and only creates division, strifes, backbitings, tumults, etc. it is not profitable.
For me, I want to know deeper why someone is brainwashed, and cannot see even the basic evidence. They have no ability to judge, to reason, to discern. All is lost. Why?
I think the answer is in cults and how they train there people to not seek out the truth, but to just implicitly accept what the cult teaches blindly. They are told that everyone else is wrong, and only the cult teachers are the true teachers. They make the claim that the cult leaders are infallible. Anything the cult teachers says is a direct extra revelation from God Himself, and the cult members are to accept it unconditionally.
As you remember, Jim used to blog here and he was just so way out there in left field that I just assumed he was having fun bouncing around the blogosphere posting.
It was not until Timothy P, Mark and Rocky showed up here that I saw all the extensive posting and explanations given by Timothy K and others that were so overwhelmingly obvious to the simplest mind, but none of these guys could see it. The responses were all robotic and same over and over. It was like they had lost all ability to reason and discern.
Month after month I was literally shocked, and it soon started to concern me. I could easily see how a Roman Catholic mom mentality could easily put dozens and thousands of bible believing Christians to death. The theology is so different, and no matter how you argue the Scriptures, or evidence, it is not going to matter. Their mind is fixed solid.
That started to concern me, and truly sent fear throughout my body. Timothy K and I disagree on the closing of the 1260 year period, and this is significant when you look at the incredible evil inside the Romish church in our generation. The amount of murder of children, now coming out in the courts, and the child sex trafficking, the homosexual majority in the Vatican and the institution having arguably the oldest, most sophisticated and highly secret intelligence community worldwide, just makes me very concerned over the next few years. While everyone is looking for a new Antichrist to show up on the scenes who partners with Satan, very few understand that Antichrist is alive and well already.
Since Tim ends the 1260 years already, there is nothing to worry about as they might just send in a few Romish apologists to stir up the crowd on a blog here and there, but in my interpretation the 1260 is not nearly completed and the worse is yet to come.
If you cannot reason with your enemy, and they have no ability to discern or learn anything due to the cult brainwashing, it is going to get very ugly when things get worse in the months and years to come. That is why I’m trying to study why they cannot understand, not to simply continue to debate scripture.
Walt, very well said. I think we can’t forget 2 Thessalonians 2:11. It is God that sends a deluding influence on them. And interestingly enough that influence is specifically so that they believe what is false. I think believers need to pray God might lift the veil on their eyes. We really need to commit Catholics to prayer, for their salvation. I believe Calvin said we should pray for all men to be saved.
Kevin said:
“Walt, very well said. I think we can’t forget 2 Thessalonians 2:11. It is God that sends a deluding influence on them. And interestingly enough that influence is specifically so that they believe what is false. I think believers need to pray God might lift the veil on their eyes. We really need to commit Catholics to prayer, for their salvation. I believe Calvin said we should pray for all men to be saved.”
Yes, this delusion is what I’m seeing first hand that I have not really paid much attention to before. I saw it in my father, and less so in my mother, but growing up as a Roman Catholic I did not see it whatsoever.
It was not until I got suspicious of how evil my Catholic nun teachers would talk about Protestants. In many ways, it is very similar to how Jewish families speak against Jesus and how they are instructed to reject everything about Jesus. I saw this first hand as a Roman Catholic. It was the beginning of the brain washing to create fear to stay away.
Not until the Priest did something to my mom years later that I became skeptical and complained to the local Bishop which went nowhere. Later it became clear that I needed to read the bible myself and the differences became overly obvious.
It took years to deprogram my mind, and a lot of reading, but I can see now from this website that those who are delusional are near impossible to change no matter how much evidence and scripture is provided.
That is why now my study and research is into cults and how to deprogram those who are in these cults. Until I understand this I don’t believe I will understand how people live and support the soul murder, martyr killings, child killings, child rape, homosexual vatican and the list goes on and on.
99% of Roman Catholics are generally supportive of those involved in such things, provided it is kept secret and not exposed, but then they get upset for exposing it and bringing it into court and the light of the public. Why?
It has to be due to the cult nature and what it means to live inside a cult without any ability to reason, discern and think independently.
Logic and reason? Walt who believes that the Church of Scotland was founded by Jesus Christ?
Walt. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t it you that claimed there were more homosexual priest then there are priest in the world? I think you admitted your mistake. And now this statement
99% of Roman Catholics are generally supportive of those involved in such things, provided it is kept secret and not exposed, but then they get upset for exposing it and bringing it into court and the light of the public.
I am sure you are going to provide documentation of that claim. I think I mentioned before when Protestant’s like Walt are unable to debate the Scriptures they turn to the pedophile priest. Good luck Walt
Timothy P.,
Walt is a bumper sticker fundamentalist. He just repeats anything that he hears or thinks he hears as long as it is anti-Catholic.
Unfortunately for all too many Protestant groups, this is their “gospel”. It’s really not good news at all. As he uses words like “brain washed” and “delustional” you start to understand that this is exactly what they think of Catholics. When well educated, reasoned, Catholics like you interact with him, his bumper sticker Christianity loses its appeal quickly. He’s got to “up the game” just go for whatever is most visceral, facts be damned.
You are better off interacting with Hans and Tim K. Just saying.
I agree Mark. Walt went from wanting everybody banned, to accepting a challenge to debate the real presence based on Scripture alone, to quickly moving to claims of cults and how 99% of Catholics are OK with pedophile priest as long as they don’t get caught. And then he wants to talk about logic and reason. I am fascinated with his obsession with the church of Scotland. He apparently with all his searching found a Church which agrees with his interpretation of Scripture.
I appreciate your defense of the Catholic Faith and welcome Home. The real presence is so Scripturally based, especially when you back it up with the testimony of the Church Fathers that I can see why it brought you into the Faith. I just can’t imagine how are Protestant Brothers can believe that the apostles taught a symbolic presence and somehow the early church changed it without the hint of a schism or protest. Logic and Reason seems to go out the window.
Timothy P,
I saw this book. Does this give you all the evidence you need to prove Peter is the first Pope?
“Ray, a former Evangelical Protestant and Bible teacher, goes through the Scriptures and the first five centuries of the Church to demonstrate that the early Christians had a clear understanding of the primacy of Peter in the see of Rome. He tackles the tough issues in an attempt to expose how the opposition is misunderstanding the Scriptures and history. He uses many Protestant scholars and historians to support the Catholic position. This book contains the most complete compilation of Scriptural and Patristic quotations on the primacy of Peter and the Papal office of any book available. It has over 500 footnotes with supporting evidence from Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, and non-Christian authorities.”
https://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234
Can we assume that Timothy K and his research would be far substandard to Stephen K. Ray book, or do you have a better book that is the most authoritative?
Walt, I am sure both men have done a lot of research but why don’t you read Stephen Ray’s book and let us know what you think. Over the last 20 years I have read many Anticatholic books and am halfway through James White’s video. I hope everyone will read Ray’s book and watch White’s video.
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/
“In particular, because he used the Eucharist as a thematic metaphor in his letters, varying its meaning according to the message, we can see that Rome’s understanding of Ignatius is grossly deficient. Roman Catholicism relies on Ignatius for support of Transubstantiation when he was simply wielding the Eucharist as a metaphor for the actual flesh of Christ against the Gnostics who said He had not really come in the flesh, and had not really suffered. Had Ignatius been less metaphorical in his writing, and had he been less prone to apply the metaphors of flesh, blood, leaven, wheat and bread so freely, Roman Catholic apologists, priests and popes might have had a case for early belief in the “real presence.” As matters stand, they do not.
As we noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, the religion of Rome struggles mightily to prove that her doctrines originated any earlier than the latter part of the fourth century. On the matter of Transubstantiation and the “real presence,” Ignatius was their last, best hope to bridge that 300-year gap. As thin as the evidence is for early Roman Catholicism, we are tempted to be sympathetic to their apologists who must stretch Ignatius to the breaking point to fill in centuries of missing dogma. But Ignatius is of no help to them.”
Timothy P, you said:
“I agree Mark. Walt went from wanting everybody banned, to accepting a challenge to debate the real presence based on Scripture alone, to quickly moving to claims of cults and how 99% of Catholics are OK with pedophile priest as long as they don’t get caught.”
Mark, if we assume 1 billion Roman Catholics, can you tell me if you really believe that 100 million or more of them left the Roman Catholic church when they discovered the massive global wave of child abuse by Priests?
If you can show me that 100 million or more left the church after they discovered this incredible abuse, and coverup, I will be happy to change my numbers. IF you can show that 500 million left after this was all discovered, I will be happy to say that 50% are in favor of their church covering up the abuse, as long as it does not go public.
The problem with all this “anti-catholic” smoke and mirrors is that we believe that we can prove in history, Scripture and solid church testimony that the Roman Catholic church and religion is Antichrist and the Pope is the man of sin.
If you can convince me otherwise, I will stop exposing all its wickedness and join you and Mark defending this evil religion. I unfortunately don’t care how anti-protestant you guys are since for me to complain you are anti-protestant is just a waste of time. Claiming anti-Catholic is the standard cry from all Catholics anytime someone exposes child molestation by Priests. They cover it up, and scream anti-Catholic hater.
Walt you did not say 99% of Catholics remained in the church after the Pedophile scandal. You said and I quote
“Until I understand this I don’t believe I will understand how people live and support the soul murder, martyr killings, child killings, child rape, homosexual vatican and the list goes on and on.
99% of Roman Catholics are generally supportive of those involved in such things, provided it is kept secret and not exposed, but then they get upset for exposing it and bringing it into court and the light of the public. Why?”
So Walt, 99% of Catholic’s support “soul murder, martyr killings, child killings, child rape, homosexual” “provided it is kept secret”.
Walt, when you are ready to discuss the Scriptures let me know but I would suggest you ask those around you whom you trust to look at your comments and see if they believe they are appropriate. I’ll do the same about my comments. Good luck
“that we believe that we can prove in history, Scripture and solid church testimony that the Roman Catholic church and religion is Antichrist and the Pope is the man of sin.”
You may believe it. But you haven’t done it. And you can’t do it. Why? Because it isn’t true. Because history, scripture, and tradition proves the Catholic Church right, every single time. That’s why I am Catholic and not your religion. I am not really sure what your religion is anyway, but I don’t want to be it.
” I’m not sure what your religion is anyway, but I don’t want to be it.” before ” That’s why I’m Roman Catholic and not your religion.” So let’s get this straight, your not sure what Walt’s religion is but you know you don’t want to be it. And that’s why you are a Catholic and not Walt’s religion. And you wonder why Walt is hesitant to debate you. If you don’t know what Protestant Christianity is, why is that? , this whole site is distinction between Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Actually Mark, if you admit to Walt you don’t know what his religion is, then you can’t tell him ” but you haven’t done it” or ” you can’t do it” or ” its not true” You will have to come out from behind the RC cliches if you want to understand what scripture, History, and solid church history has to say about your pope and his church. The proof is overwhelming to many who blog here, and many in history. We have a great cloud of witnesses, and the truth of scripture and church history on our side. But you will never know that until you come out from behind the white smoke was coming out Vatican for 2000 years lie.
Actually, Kevin, it is you who have bought into the traditions of men that are less than 500 years old. To try to give your religion legitimacy you reject the authority of the Church which Christ established. You then try say you can trace your roots of the true and faithful church back through truly heretical groups like the Albigensians or Catholic groups such as the Waldensians. You twist history to make Jovinianus some type of hero for the Protestant cause.
The main attraction of being Protestant is that you can basically believe whatever you want to believe. You are your own authority. This way you don’t have to submit to anyone. You submit to Jesus ON YOUR TERMS, not on HIS. I reject Protestantism because I have faith in Jesus and His promises.
2 Tim 4:3 sums up Protestantism nicely, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
Mark, you wrote,
That would make a great bumper sticker.
The problem with your argument is that it works just as well against Roman Catholics. The only difference is what we are interpreting. We read the Scriptures, and (so you say) we look for a church that teaches in a manner consistent with our personal interpretation of the Scriptures. You read the scriptures, the catechism, the church fathers, the magisterium and the teachings of the pope, and writings of saints and perhaps even revelations of the apparitions of Mary, and assume you can figure out what parts are right and what parts are wrong, and then find a Roman Catholic congregation that agrees with your personal interpretation of them. Aside from the content of revelation, Roman Catholics and Protestants are in the same epistemological boat. Just listen to Roman apologist Taylor Marshall explain how to select a church to attend, and join his great migration:
That’s the conservative Roman Catholic position. There are plenty of others on the other side, like this Roman Catholic congregation that had sought out a liberal priest who teaches “what we believe.”
You might say they—conservative or liberal—are their own authority. That way they don’t have to submit to anyone. They submit to Jesus ON THEIR TERMS, not on HIS. If they really believed in church authority they would just go where they’re told to go, or attend the nearest Roman Catholic church without giving any more thought than how close it is to their driveway.
But instead, they put on their thinking caps, figure out which one teaches a gospel, or a history, or a sacramentology they personally agree with, and attend there.
Oh, and one more thing: I reject Roman Catholicism because I have faith in Jesus and His promises.
Thanks,
Tim
The article you posted said, “But Bishop Clark said he made the decision to remove the priest after asking Father Callan, unsuccessfully, to change certain practices to conform with church rules. ”
You see, there is one faith, one church, one normative expectations for all priests in the Catholic Church. To violate them is going against the Church. If my priest starts preaching or acting in a way that is contrary to Catholic teaching, I have an obligation to go to the Bishop. For most non-denominational Protestant communities, the person just ups and leaves and goes down the street. There is no accountability.
But you hit it on the head when you said that you read the Bible, decide for yourself what you think it means, then you find a group that matches your beliefs. While there may be errant priests and parishes, there is one truth. The Catholic truth. The vast majority of parishes uphold the Catholic and universal faith. Heretics and schismatics will be dealt with.
I agree that there are cafeteria Catholics. However, if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches and what Catholics are obliged to consent to, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“You read the scriptures, the catechism, the church fathers, the magisterium and the teachings of the pope, and writings of saints and perhaps even revelations of the apparitions of Mary, and assume you can figure out what parts are right and what parts are wrong, and then find a Roman Catholic congregation that agrees with your personal interpretation of them. ”
No. Our faith is laid out in the Catechism. There are many issues that Catholics are free to disagree on. Take the age of the earth. One can believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or that it is 6 billion years old. I bet Kevin is a YEC and it is a litmus test for whether you are a Christian or not. You must believe in a literal 6,000 year old earth OR you aren’t a Christian.
Protestants are more divided than they are united. Catholics are more united than they are divided. Catholics stick together when they disagree, Protestants break apart and form new groups with novel teachings.
Mark, you observed,
And it also said Callan’s congregation followed him because he taught what they believed. Are you denying that they chose his church because he tickled their ears?
You also said, “Catholics stick together when they disagree.” And thus, Taylor Marshall’s great call for all Catholics everywhere to stay exactly where they are, even if they disagree with what is taught. Oh, wait, he said the opposite:
We could add, “…and promote traditional Catholic orthodoxy and practice according to your own personal interpretation of the Catechism, etc…” because that is the only possible outcome unless the pope declares infallibly which church they should attend. Can you help me find the part where Marshall says we should all stick together and ignore the de facto division that is growing? I thought you said Catholics stick together. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you (or Marshall).
You advised,
Got it.
Now who is going to interpret it for me. You? Or can I interpret it for myself and then choose a church that agrees with my personal interpretation of it? Or should I schedule an audience with pope Francis so he can tell me which church to go to? Anything less, and I’m relying on my own personal interpretation of the catechism.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K., where did Marshall call on Catholics to leave the Church and start a new group? That’s what Protestants do. I agree that Catholics should support those parishes and apostolates that are aligned with Church teachings? That’s not a call for division but unity! “They are realigning their attendance, resources, skills, and money to those parishes, orders, schools, colleges, and other institutions that support and promote traditional Catholic orthodoxy and practice.”
We should give Catholics faithful to the Church our resources and the others will dry up. Nothing wrong with that call.
Yes, you can read the Catechism and understand it. One of the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church is that the faith can be understood. If a Church is teaching/practicing things that are contrary to Church teaching, then don’t support them and/or contact the Bishop.
Tim K said, “all believers have a special relationship with God to know the truth”
ROCKY: Yes but. . .
Tim K gave: “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32)
ROCKY: So what are the ways In which we are to continue? Does this not mean being obedient to all he gave (Matthew 28:18-20). Is he not saying that our relationship with him also requires obedience or a holding fast or “continuing in” his word, which brings the truth. And so it follows that if we do not hold fast to all he gave then we are not his disciples and we will not know the truth.
So the question is, just what are we to hold fast to or “continue in” or be obedient to? Who interprets that which we need to hold fast to. Example offered: regeneration baptism or not.
Tim K gave: “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
ROCKY: The context to John 14:17 is . . . obedience to his commandments.
Jesus leads into these passages by saying: If you love me, you will keep[f] my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,[g] to be with you forever. . . 21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”
Tim K gave: “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6)
ROCKY: We know John can’t be rejecting authority in 1 John, because John instructs his readers in 1 John 2:24 to “let what you heard from the beginning abide in you” and “. . . then you will abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24). If John meant for us to follow only the testimony of the Spirit then he would be contradicting himself in this earlier verse.
As for 1 John 4:6, here John is actually saying that it is by listening to the apostles and what they gave (from Jesus and the Holy Spirit) that we are able to have or gain a share of that Spirit of truth ourselves. So again obedience to God-given authority.
John is not saying that all we need, in order to know God’s truth, is the testimony of the Spirit, but John is warning against false teachers: “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:19). And if there are false teachers that we must NOT follow then surely there must be true teachers that we MUST follow.
The Spirit does teach the faithful the truth, but NOT apart from the living teaching authority.
By the way Tim it is observed that if ALL were given an authoritative Spirit of Truth there remains still a very stark contradiction – that many competing, and even contradictory “truths”, are flourishing in Protestantism.
regards and peace
TIM K said, You might say they—conservative or liberal—are their own authority. That way they don’t have to submit to anyone. They submit to Jesus ON THEIR TERMS, not on HIS. If they really believed in church authority they would just go where they’re told to go, or attend the nearest Roman Catholic church without giving any more thought than how close it is to their driveway.
ROCKY: No one said that Catholics were to stop discerning. If you really know what the Catholic Church is and teaches (and you should if you want to argue against it) then you would know that the history of free thinking and discernment therein is far-reaching (sometimes too much so). If you do understand that then you need to take a deeper look at what the Catholic Church was and still is.
The breaking point is to call yourself Catholic and teach (or act) in a way that is in opposition to the magisterial faith.
Submitting to the magisterium is submitting to Jesus, because we know he established that Church and we believe that the living Church (protected by the Holy Spirit) provides us with sound truth (sound canon, sound doctrine etc). Now THAT lived out life of the faith IS sacred tradition and we would be foolish to turn our backs on that for later traditions that reject much of the flow of sacred life).
It is disingenuous to say that Protestants agree all critical doctrines. They don’t.
It is probably disingenuous to say that Protestantism will not continue to morph (given enough time) into something completely other than what was recognizable as what Jesus gave us, given the ego of man and the vast new methods of spreading information and error. Will all resort to the “burning of the bosom” to lead them to the truth a thousand years from now.
Despite seemingly plausible arguments against Catholic interpretation of early Church writers (all Catholics btw) the flow of God’s life in and through the Church guarantees the complete body of truth and THAT will never be found in Protestantism.
At the end of the day I will chose the Catholic faith because I see that Jesus and the apostles provided us with an authority. And there is no authority to be seen in Protestantism.
Rocky,
You wrote,
That’s precisely my point. When Catholics decide where to go to church based on what they believe to be true based on their personal interpretation of the Catechism, it is “discernment.” When Protestants do it based on the Scriptures, they are getting their ears tickled. Sure.
In any case, you chose something by evaluating the available revelation and coming to a conclusion on what it means. To you. Personally. That’s why I said we’re all in the same boat, epistemologically speaking. All that differs is the content of revelation about which we are to show discernment.
You continued,
But Callan didn’t think he was teaching in a way that was in opposition to the magisterial faith. Neither did his congregation. Neither do all the liberal seminaries and universities from which Marshall says catholics must migrate. According to their personal interpretations, they are all under the impression that they were in accord with the catholic faith, and can’t understand what all the fuss is about.
You continued,
It is equally disingenuous to say that Catholics agree on all critical doctrines. They don’t even agree on which doctrines are critical. You continued.
Exactly. And you choose your congregation the same way. I’m assuming you don’t attend a church like Father Callan’s. Instead you chose one that tickled your ears. Right?
Thanks,
Tim
“But Callan didn’t think he was teaching in a way that was in opposition to the magisterial faith. Neither did his congregation. ”
That’s a lie. Callan was under a Bishop’s authority, was told he was in error, and refused to submit. Callan doesn’t get to decide what he thinks the faith represents. He made a vow to submit to the Bishop and he didn’t.
This isn’t rocket science Tim K.
Mark, you’re confusing two different propositions. Callan refused to submit because he thought his actions were in accordance with the magisterial faith:
He clearly believed his actions were consistent with the Catholic Faith. “Refusing to submit to a single bishop” is not the same as “thinking that your actions are inconsistent with the catholic faith.” His whole congregation sided with him in their conviction that the bishop, not Callan, was out of step with the catholic faith. In other words, they all did what you think Catholics never do: choose a church based on what they personally believe to be true based on their personal interpretation of the content of revelation. Do think they weren’t choosing their church on that basis?
Best,
Tim
Tim, you are the one confused. Callan was removed because he didn’t understand or teach the Church’s teaching. When someone openly rejects the Church’s teaching, they are not in accord with the Church. As Bishop Clark said, “Bishop Clark said he would ask the next pastor to take note of certain concerns, like ”the governing authority of the bishop and accountability of the community to the bishop.”
I appreciate you sharing this because it underscores the consistency in Catholic teaching and that deviations from it aren’t part of the Catholic faith. We as individuals don’t get to determine doctrine for ourselves, like you Protestants do and why you have 40,000 plus “denominations”.
No doubt there have been dissident priests and lay people who follow the dissident priests. They will be dealt with by the Church, just as Jovinianus was.
You can’t even agree with Walt or Hans. How can you expect me to believe your version of “True Church” history? Tell me, do you have a special relationship with God to know the “truth”?
Mark, all believers have a special relationship with God to know the truth:
Thanks,
Tim
In a sense, Tim, you are right that believers have the ability to know the truth. You do, I do, even non-Christians by the grace of God can me moved to the truth.
However, God didn’t set it up so that a person could pick up a Bible and decide what truth was for themselves. There was consistency and uniformity in the the early Church. Just look at the book of Acts. What we don’t see are the Apostles saying, “it is OK for some of you to continue to circumcise while others of you do not.” No, they came together, made a decision and wrote a letter, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials”
There was universality to the beliefs, not denominational splits.
We also see uniformity of belief in 1 Cor 11:16, “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.”
So, the problem with your assertion is the same problem in all of Protestantism. You are disparate groups of people all claiming unity, but can’t decide on what that unity means. The Bible talks about a visible Church, one that was visibly unified and not broken into various groups based on how the Holy Spirit taught them truths. This carried on in the early Church against the Judaizers, the gnostics, then the Arians, etc.
I understand how you must believe that the Holy Spirit teaches people innovations of theology, soteriology, eschatology, etc. because that is what Martin Luther did. You won’t find Protestant theology (widely or narrowly defined) in the early Church. They were Catholic.
Timothy P.–
It’s going to take me awhile to catch up.
My point about Athanasius is that whereas you all like to cite his Festal Letter of 367 CE in establishing the NT canon, you always fail to mention that one of the greatest heroes of the early faith SPECIFICALLY excludes the deuterocanonicals from his OT canon. (St. Jerome wanted them excluded, as well, for what it’s worth.)
Correct Hans, and Origen expressed uncertainty about a number of the New Testament books as I am sure you are aware . An individual does not determine which books are considered canonical. Christ and the Holy Spirit have left that to the Church. Does that make sense? As I mentioned before, if the apostles believed in Sola Scriptura they would have left us an Old and New Testament canon list. And why do you guys accept a New Testament canon list that according to your Protestant friends was steeped in apostasy???
Timothy P.–
In the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, the physical bread and wine and the physical body and blood are juxtaposed. They’re both there at one and the same time. In the Catholic view of the Eucharist, the “accidents” of the bread and wine are juxtaposed with with the “accidents” of Christ’s body and blood (which remain hidden). In Calvin’s view of the Supper (which is also the view of many Anglicans), heaven and earth are juxtaposed. We literally feed on Christ’s physical body and blood which remain in heaven until his Second Coming (which Scripture and the Nicene Creed make plain). All of these explanations have in common that the miracle is spiritually mediated. (And once again, spiritual does NOT mean “abstract” or “ethereal” or “nonphysical.” C. S. Lewis, in “The Great Divorce” speculates about the possible hyper-physicality of heaven, where until you’re used to it, blades of grass will slice your bare feet as you try to walk.)
There is simply no way you can sit there and say that the ECF’s prefered one explanation over another concerning a tenet they didn’t bother to explain. Their extant descriptions fit equally well with all of the various Real Presence positions.
(To be fair to Tim K., I do want to dive into his studies of the early Eucharist. Pure memorialism / symbolism just doesn’t ring true to me. But I will give him an objective, open-minded reading.)
Hans I agree you will not find the description of the Real Presence described among the early Church Fathers in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics simply because the early Fathers never addressed the incredible mystery trying to explain it in terms of Aristotle’s concept of matter. But I think you can look at the Father’s comments and see which explanation of the Real Presence seems most consistent with that Father’s belief. I had tried to post this previously but I was under moderation and you never saw it. Fortunately at least for now Timothy K has lifted my punishment and hopefully you can give me an opinion on how Ambrose’s comments seem to fit with the different Church’s understanding of the Real Presence.
“Timothy P
November 25, 2016 at 6:41 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I think this writing from St.Ambrose who was Augustines’s father in the faith is pertinent as to rather there is a change in the elements or nature of the bread. Ambrose compares that change that occurs with the Eucharist with changes in nature that clearly take place in the Old Testament. Make’s absolutely no sense to me why Ambrose would go off on such a comparison Hans if Ambrose believed the elements were changing physically in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving. “Oh the incredible Mystery”
47. We have proved the sacraments of the Church to be the more ancient, now recognize that they are superior. In very truth it is a marvellous thing that God rained manna on the fathers, and fed them with daily food from heaven; so that it is said, “So man ate angels’ food.” But yet all those who ate that food died in the wilderness, but that food which you receive, that living Bread which came down from heaven, furnishes the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall never die, and it is the Body of Christ.
49. Now consider whether the bread of angels be more excellent or the Flesh of Christ, which is indeed the body of life. That manna came from heaven, this is above the heavens; that was of heaven, this is of the Lord of the heavens; that was liable to corruption, if kept a second day, this is far from all corruption, for whosoever shall taste it holily shall not be able to feel corruption. For them water flowed from the rock, for you Blood flowed from Christ; water satisfied them for a time, the Blood satiates you for eternity. The Jew drinks and thirsts again, you after drinking will be beyond the power of thirsting; that was in a shadow, this is in truth.
49. If that which you so wonder at is but shadow, how great must that be whose very shadow you wonder at. See now what happened in the case of the fathers was shadow: “They drank, it is said, of that Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were done in a figure concerning us.” 1 Corinthians 10:4 You recognize now which are the more excellent, for light is better than shadow, truth than a figure, the Body of its Giver than the manna from heaven.
Chapter 9
50. Perhaps you will say, “I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?” And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.
51. Moses was holding a rod, he cast it down and it became a serpent. Exodus 4:3-4 Again, he took hold of the tail of the serpent and it returned to the nature of a rod. You see that by virtue of the prophetic office there were two changes, of the nature both of the serpent and of the rod. The streams of Egypt were running with a pure flow of water; of a sudden from the veins of the sources blood began to burst forth, and none could drink of the river. Again, at the prophet’s prayer the blood ceased, and the nature of water returned. The people of the Hebrews were shut in on every side, hemmed in on the one hand by the Egyptians, on the other by the sea; Moses lifted up his rod, the water divided and hardened like walls, and a way for the feet appeared between the waves. Jordan being turned back, returned, contrary to nature, to the source of its stream. Joshua 3:16 Is it not clear that the nature of the waves of the sea and of the river stream was changed? The people of the fathers thirsted, Moses touched the rock, and water flowed out of the rock. Exodus 17:6 Did not grace work a result contrary to nature, so that the rock poured forth water, which by nature it did not contain? Marah was a most bitter stream, so that the thirsting people could not drink. Moses cast wood into the water, and the water lost its bitterness, which grace of a sudden tempered. Exodus 15:25 In the time of Elisha the prophet one of the sons of the prophets lost the head from his axe, which sank. He who had lost the iron asked Elisha, who cast in a piece of wood and the iron swam. This, too, we clearly recognize as having happened contrary to nature, for iron is of heavier nature than water.
52. We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet’s blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: “He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created.” Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.
53. But why make use of arguments? Let us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.
54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.
55. Christ, then, feeds His Church with these sacraments, by means of which the substance of the soul is strengthened, and seeing the continual progress of her grace, He rightly says to her: “How comely are your breasts, my sister, my spouse, how comely they are made by wine, and the smell of your garments is above all spices. A dropping honeycomb are your lips, my spouse, honey and milk are under your tongue, and the smell of your garments is as the smell of Lebanon. A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed.” By which He signifies that the mystery ought to remain sealed up with you, that it be not violated by the deeds of an evil life, and pollution of chastity, that it be not made known to thou, for whom it is not fitting, nor by garrulous talkativeness it be spread abroad among unbelievers. Your guardianship of the faith ought therefore to be good, that integrity of life and silence may endure unblemished.
56. For which reason, too, the Church, guarding the depth of the heavenly mysteries, repels the furious storms of wind, and calls to her the sweetness of the grace of spring, and knowing that her garden cannot displease Christ”
Hans. what do you think?
Kevin–
Do you have a citation from Aquinas which I can respond to? Augustine speaks of God “crowning his own gifts.” The RC “meriting” of eternal rewards refers to congruous merit, which strictly speaking, isn’t merit at all. It’s God graciously and equitably distributing his gifts. Protestants themselves speak of heavenly rewards granted to earthly progress in sanctification.
Here is a Catholic definition of the term “congruous”:
“It is equitable and proper that God should grant what is asked or expected of him. Congruous merit is distinguished from merit strictly so called, the latter being known as condign. Indeed, the former is not precisely merit, but instead, well-founded expectation. It refers to “gaining merit” for others, obtaining from God what a person in the state of grave sin prays for, receiving the gift of final perseverance, and, in general, all the blessings we are confident God will grant, without having the absolute assurance that he will do so. Congruous merit is associated with divine goodness, whereas condign merit depends on God’s fidelity to his promises.”
It’s kind of like venial “sin.” Strictly speaking, it’s not sin at all, being fully compatible with the infusion of agape and the retaining of sanctifying grace.
Hans, why the mention of merit at all, ” for the wages of sin is death, but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord” It doesn’t take a seminary degree to understand eternal life is a free gift. Worthiness of merit is not the gospel.
Mark, I think you are missing Tim’s point. Marshall is calling Catholics to choose a denomination within the RC who are faithful to Catholic distinctives. You make decisions on which denomination you choose within the umbrella of Catholicism ( there are so many these days I don’t know his you manage) , what you believe, etc. Welcome to Protestantism. Scripture is clear, Jesus, Paul etc. asks us to make determinations about false christs, false teachers, whether we are in the faith or not etc. I always say to Roman Catholics, your church isn’t going to stand in your place when you stand before God. You are. I’m listening to Jesus and his word through the Spirit. And my choice of church must meet those distinctives. The reason I read and listen to Reformed confessions, is because the reflect scripture. The reason I attend a Presbyterian PCA church is because I believe it best reflects the church taught in scripture. The pastor teaches the word, and we observe the Lord’s supper as per scripture.
Kevin let’s look at your statement above and I think it reflects the problem of Sola Ecclesia vs Sola Individualitica.
I always say to Roman Catholics, your church isn’t going to stand in your place when you stand before God. You are. I’m listening to Jesus and his word through the Spirit. And my choice of church must meet those distinctives. The reason I read and listen to Reformed confessions, is because the reflect scripture. The reason I attend a Presbyterian PCA church is because I believe it best reflects the church taught in scripture.
Now notice Kevin there was no mention of an effort to find the Church that Christ established. Your focus was all on you. ” I am listening to Jesus through the Spirit” And I am sure Kevin you believe that you are personally being guided by the Spirit, but so do those who started the 40,000 Protestant denominations. In you case you found a Church just as Walt did which fit with YOUR interpretation of Scripture. As I mentioned before Protestantism can’t even agree on how many Sacraments there are. Doesn’t that bother you? So when you say to Catholics
” I always say to Roman Catholics, your church isn’t going to stand in your place when you stand before God”
I would say to you “Why wouldn’t I want to stand in front of God as a member of the Church that His Son established instead of a member of some Church established by some man who thought he was being personally guided by the Holy Spirit
“.
And I’ve asked before for the name of these denominations within the Catholic Church that deny the teachings of the Catholic Catechism. Maybe you guys have responded , If I missed that response I apologize
” Your focus was all you” when the Phillipians Jailer asked Paul how he can be saved, he wasn’t thinking about his corporate badge. We are individual members of the church, and we will stand individually before God. I am already a member of the church the Church Christ established. If you mean Rome, scripture has convinced me it is the Antichrist. The revelation of Daniel, Paul, John, Peter, Jude is overwhelming convincing. One 17th century theologian said there would have to be blind delusion not to see it. ” And I’m sure Kevin you are sure you are being personally guided by the Spirit” Yes I do, and I’ll let you in on the secret 1 John 2:27 and the scriptures Tim presented in John today to either Mark or Rocky. Yes I believe the Spirit speaks to believers in scriptures, otherwise exactly why is the Spirit in me, other than to lead me in the truth and convict me of sin. ” you found a church just as Walt that fit your interpretation of scripture” Yes, I made a determination through prayer and God’s word and with my wife found a great Presbyterian church. ” As I said Protestants can’t even decide how many sacraments there are. ” Now that is amusing since your synagogue added its 5 abominable sacraments to the two sanctioned in scripture. Every Protestant church I know has baptism and the Lord’s supper. ” Doesn’t that bother you” Nothing bothers me, I am free in Christ. Free to pursue holiness. ” I’ve asked before for the name of these denominations within the Catholic church” only Mark has asked me for that on another blog ” so unless you are Mark, you have never asked me for that. Actually Mike at One Fold has provided that list if your interested. ” that deny the teachings of or the Catholic church” How about Vatican 2, I know a bunch of Catholics that think Vatican 2 deny the teachings of the Catholic church. What is your INDIVIDUAL flavor, Vatican 1 or Vatican 2? Protestants were anathematized as heretics at Trent, at Vatican 2 they are separated brethren. How do you make and individual determination on whose right? K
So Kevin, you said
” Yes I believe the Spirit speaks to believers in scriptures, otherwise exactly why is the Spirit in me, other than to lead me in the truth and convict me of sin.”
So Kevin, do you believe that the Spirit is guiding you Kevin to interpret Scripture correctly? I remember when I was debating Brian on One Fold he said something to the effect that he was so excited when he started reading the Church Fathers and they confirmed what the Holy Spirit had led him to believe from the Scriptures. You do realize don’t you that if you are convinced that the Holy Spirit is guiding you no amount of logic or reason or proof is going to convince you that you are wrong.
I wrote
“As I said Protestants can’t even decide how many sacraments there are. ”
Kevin responded
” Now that is amusing since your synagogue added its 5 abominable sacraments to the two sanctioned in scripture. Every Protestant church I know has baptism and the Lord’s supper.”
Kevin, where in the bible chapter and verse is the word sacrament defined? Does the word Sacrament even appear in the bible? I think it was John Calvin that decided there were only 2 Sacraments. Interestingly the apostolic churches that can date to the time of the apostles hold to 7 sacraments. But then again they were taught by the apostles, so what do they know.
I wrote
” Doesn’t that bother you”
To which Kevin wrote
“Nothing bothers me, I am free in Christ. Free to pursue holiness. ”
Well I guess when you are personally guided by the Holy Spirit nothing including logic and reason should bother you. Your free to believe whatever you want to believe , interpret Scripture anyway you want to interpret it. You can’t be wrong and no scriptural proof is going to convince you that you are wrong. Look how Walt refused to debate the scriptural proof for the real presence.
So Hans, how many sacraments are there?
Timothy P, you said to Kevin, “Now notice Kevin there was no mention of an effort to find the Church that Christ established.”
Without making a historical or eschatological argument, how would you go about finding that Church?
Thanks,
Tim
Hans, I’m still looking for that quote. I think I read it from Horton. I actually should have found it first and used quotation marks. But my point is Augustine said that predestination doesn’t depend on God’s foreknowledge of faith, or human worthiness, it depends solely on God’s gracious disposition. Rome’s gospel is worthiness of merit. And as far as I am concerned that is a false gospel.
Kevin–
Believe me, I understand! Many lay Catholics get confused by the works-righteousness connotations of merit, and most Catholic converts to Protestantism speak of their former faith as legalistic.
But we Protestants do talk of crowns and rewards in heaven for works done in the flesh. We are no strangers to some sense of “merit.”
And remember, despite all the biblical passages touting eternal life as a gift, or as a result of faith, there are verses like the following:
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”
Romans 2:6-8.
Hans, If you haven’t read Tim’s articles on justification, especially the one on Romans 2, it’s the best explanation of Romans 2 I’ve heard yet. It really makes sense within the jealousy narrative, and understand what Paul is addressing and how it fits in with Romans 1 and 3. Calvin gave a serious warning to those who would read works righteouness into chapter 2. I hope you read it brother.
Kevin–
Once again, do you have a CITATION from Augustine? It’s difficult for anyone to answer back without a primary source reference.
This one would suffice:
“Let us, then, understand the call by which the elect are made elect: they are not persons who are chosen because they have believed, but they are persons who are chosen so that they may believe. For even the Lord Himself made this call sufficiently clear when He said: ‘You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.'”
You could quote Aquinas, as well:
“Wherefore nobody has been so insane as to say that merit is the cause of divine predestination as regards the act of the predestinator.”
That’s pretty strong!
Conversely, most Catholics I interact with seem to have been infected with the foreknowledge bug. Probably from the influence of Molinism.
“The Deception of Scott Hahn”
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse
By Randall Paquette
http://fliphtml5.com/qncp/qoeq
Kevin–
I’m not into works righteousness even one little bit…though I don’t believe Catholic soteriology HAS to be interpreted as any more works oriented than Protestant Arminianism. Don’t get me wrong, Rome is rife with it, but it appears (at least possibly) to go against her core teachings (before the modernizing effects of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries…they’re “eat up” from the consequences of embracing higher criticism and the scientific age).
Timothy P.–
You wrote (well, actually St. Ambrose did):
“Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.”
Thank you!!! This is what I requested some time ago in a past thread. To show something akin to Transubstantiation in the ECF’s, you need to show the DISAPPEARANCE of the natural elements. This does that…if we take it literally anyway.
Unfortunately, it is from the late fourth century (later than I was looking for), plus his explanation is more than a bit lame. Moses did not throw down his rod, leaving it still looking like a rod, and declare unto Pharaoh: “Voila, I changed my rod into a snake! Bet your conjurors can’t do that!!!” Had he done so, he would have garnered nothing but sniggers and guffaws.
Hans, ” Rome is rife with it” After reading Fekso’s book and from my few years encountering Catholics on blogs, I’m convinced that that the Catholic church is more pelagian today than ever. That JP2 would say that trinity hating Muslims can stay where they are and do their best is proof. Many of these Catholics we encounter on blogs, in my mind ,are unsaved peddlers of works righteousness and Idolatry. Make no mistake, to bow and kneel to bread and wine is idolatry.
Kevin,
Watch some of these videos. I watched 10 of them yesterday from this guy. He is incredible. Almost every video shows totally drunk, angry, hateful and in some cases naked girls (they block them out) who all claim to be “Roman Catholics” going to heaven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KpoZLY8aYE#t=1579.97575
This guys is really amazing to go out there and battle these Catholics.
TIM K
ROCKY Oops! posted this in the wrong location above so am reposting here.
Tim K said, “all believers have a special relationship with God to know the truth”
ROCKY: Yes but. . .
Tim K gave: “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32)
ROCKY: So what are the ways In which we are to continue? Does this not mean being obedient to all he gave (Matthew 28:18-20). Is he not saying that our relationship with him also requires obedience or a holding fast or “continuing in” his word, which brings the truth. And so it follows that if we do not hold fast to all he gave then we are not his disciples and we will not know the truth.
So the question is, just what are we to hold fast to or “continue in” or be obedient to? Who interprets that which we need to hold fast to. Example offered: regeneration baptism or not.
Tim K gave: “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
ROCKY: The context to John 14:17 is . . . obedience to his commandments.
Jesus leads into these passages by saying: If you love me, you will keep[f] my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,[g] to be with you forever. . . 21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”
Tim K gave: “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6)
ROCKY: We know John can’t be rejecting authority in 1 John, because John instructs his readers in 1 John 2:24 to “let what you heard from the beginning abide in you” and “. . . then you will abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24). If John meant for us to follow only the testimony of the Spirit then he would be contradicting himself in this earlier verse.
As for 1 John 4:6, here John is actually saying that it is by listening to the apostles and what they gave (from Jesus and the Holy Spirit) that we are able to have or gain a share of that Spirit of truth ourselves. So again obedience to God-given authority.
John is not saying that all we need, in order to know God’s truth, is the testimony of the Spirit, but John is warning against false teachers: “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:19). And if there are false teachers that we must NOT follow then surely there must be true teachers that we MUST follow.
The Spirit does teach the faithful the truth, but NOT apart from the living teaching authority.
By the way Tim it is observed that if ALL were given an authoritative Spirit of Truth there remains still a very stark contradiction – that many competing, and even contradictory “truths”, are flourishing in Protestantism.
regards and peace
Rocky, I once confronted a Catholic apologist with this verse 1 John 2:27 ” As for you, the anointing which you received from Him, abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him” The verse before this he says the reason he is writing to them is because of those who were trying to deceive them. Iow, He told his congregation, when those trying to deceive you come, you don’t have need of a teacher, you have the Spirit and the scripture . Then he says it is true and is not a lie. Notice it isn’t if false teachers come, but when they come. We have the mechanism to know truth, the Spirit who will teach us all things. Here is where you, Mark, and Tim P make your error, you are unable to look at your church critically BECAUSE you are taught by them that salvation is only administered through the churches sacraments ex opere operato only. Therefore I think many Catholics think if they don’t get that Jesus wafer can’t be saved. But the irony is that mass is the very thing that can keep you from heaven. You all will benefit if you can take off the Catholic church guilt and fear and look at the mass for the anti gospel it is. It is earning a merit, it is a re sacrifice for sins God says he remembers no more, and its bread worship. Not good. K
Bread Worship? Tell that to Jesus, he gave it to us. And BTW the apostles believed it and taught it to the Church and THAT is why we believe. It is our inheritance. Down through each generation from apostolic time. We would be foolish to walk away from what Jesus and the apostles gave us. Wouldn’t we?
Thank you, Rocky, but I believe in the real presence of bread in the Eucharist, so when you worship it, you are worshiping bread, under the false impression that it is the divinity of Christ Himself. I can do no other than to call your practice bread worship, for the object of your worship is a piece of bread.
Given the stern and repeated warnings of the apostles and prophets that your religion would arise from the fragments of the Roman empire, take on an earthly sovereignty by claiming for itself three of the 13 dioceses that came out of Rome’s fragmentation and coming up among the remaining ten (Daniel 7), and compelling people to worship an image (the Eucharist) of the Beast (the Papacy), which image comes to life and speaks (Eucharistic miracles) at the insistence of a false prophet (the apparitions of Mary) (Revelation 13), I can do no other than to reject your novel religion. I see no evidence in the Scriptures or in the early church for your novelties until the latter part of the 4th century (which constitutes the flood of error prophesied in Revelation 12) and for Eucharistic adoration until the 11th. If your religion is the Church Jesus founded, then Peter, Paul, John and Daniel were liars, and Jesus was a cruel deceiver.
I think you know this conversation will never get beyond that point. Given what I know now, I would have been a fool not to walk away from a false religion that would have led to my eternal death had Jesus not rescued me from it.
This must sound like the ravings of a fool and madman to you. And maybe I’m a fool and a madman, but I will never, ever, return to Roman Catholicism. When I put my children to bed at night, I tell them that Jesus and His apostles and prophets foresaw the rise of that evil empire—forged out of a delusion that God had sent upon them, and caught up in a flood of demonic error that came straight from the mouth of the devil—an empire that would destroy men’s souls by keeping them from the truth and, with the help of the apparitions of Mary, cause men to believe the lie and worship a crust of bread that bleeds and speaks, and imprison and kill those who will not bow down to it, but that God promised that he would preserve a remnant of his Apostolic Church always, and that we are their descendants. You must never, ever worship the bad man’s bread idol, I tell them, and you must teach it to your children and their children after them that Antichrist has already come and his name is the Pope of Roman Catholicism, and one day Jesus will take us home and destroy the bad man and his demonic assistant and his wicked idol and abominable sacrifice and all those who believed the lie and followed after him. Oh, and sweet dreams, too.
Yes, it sounds crazy, I admit. And I am but a fool. But it’s important for you to know that I’m all in. Not that you should be compelled by my personal conviction, but you should realize that there is a legitimate eschatological alternative to your historical narrative, and it casts Roman Catholicism in a very unflattering light. As you know, I reject your historical and eschatological narratives, and I understand that you reject mine. Like I said—this conversation will never get beyond that point, so I thought I’d just cut to the chase.
Have a good day,
Tim
“but you should realize that there is a legitimate eschatological alternative to your historical narrative, and it casts Roman Catholicism in a very unflattering light. ”
Tim K., there are MANY MANY people who put forth their own versions of eschatological alternatives to Catholic history. Are you saying you have special revelation from God about these things (just like all the other false prophets claim)?
Tim K said:
“When I put my children to bed at night, I tell them that Jesus and His apostles and prophets foresaw the rise of that evil empire—forged out of a delusion that God had sent upon them, and caught up in a flood of demonic error that came straight from the mouth of the devil—an empire that would destroy men’s souls by keeping them from the truth and, with the help of the apparitions of Mary, cause men to believe the lie and worship a crust of bread that bleeds and speaks, and imprison and kill those who will not bow down to it, but that God promised that he would preserve a remnant of his Apostolic Church always, and that we are their descendants. You must never, ever worship the bad man’s bread idol, I tell them, and you must teach it to your children and their children after them that Antichrist has already come and his name is the Pope of Roman Catholicism, and one day Jesus will take us home and destroy the bad man and his demonic assistant and his wicked idol and abominable sacrifice and all those who believed the lie and followed after him. Oh, and sweet dreams, too.”
Yes, exactly. This is what I’m witnessing on this site with the Roman Catholics who post here. You don’t hardly ever see the fulfillment of prophecy often, but over the months the Lord has rallied and permitted 4-5 Roman Catholics to post on this blog and the fruits of their total mind dilusion has become visible to me more and more.
It sounds crazy to them as they all think and day them same things, but the dilusion and their inability to think or reason is just incredible. Can we see prophecy being fulfilled on this blog by those RCC adherents.
Walt, I am not sure if that quote from Timothy K is true but if it is that is about the creepiest thing I have read on any Protestant website. And you talk about brainwashing and cults. All I can do obviously is pray for you guys and your children. Sweet dreams.
” but if it is that is about the creepiest thing I’ve read on any Protestant website ” Timothy P, would you say that a host that bleeds and speaks is as creepier? I’m trying to figure out just what is creepy about putting the children you love to bed and teaching them to stay away from Satan’s empire which tricks the souls and minds of men. Timothy, you believe you are in Christ’s church, but make no mistake Tim is only teaching his children what every Reform confession and the book of Concord stated clearly the Antichrist of scripture could be no other than the man who sits on a papal throne, who carries a stick with a little Jesus still on the cross in his hand. Every time I see the pope walk with that stick it reminds me the pope has elevated himself above God and has in history to think he can be Christ’s regent. Make no mistake, the Reformers knew this is the man of sin, the son of perdition who lifted himself up in the temple of God as God. No man can fulfill that prophecy in a more perfect way than the man you bow to Timothy P. That’s creepy. Consider my words.
It’s true, Timothy P. That is what I tell them. Not every night, and not in exactly the same words every time. But often.
Best,
Tim
TIM K said, Thank you, Rocky, but I believe in the real presence of bread in the Eucharist, so when you worship it, you are worshiping bread, under the false impression that it is the divinity of Christ Himself. I can do no other than to call your practice bread worship, for the object of your worship is a piece of bread.
ROCKY: Et tu Brutus? No false impressions here. The early faith edifies John 6 and all the communion narratives and the ECFs too if that were necessary. Real Presence faith was part of the early Church faith.
You know, every time I listen to a convert from Protestantism to the Catholic faith it almost invariably hinges on their discovery of the early Church fathers and their Catholicity, in all the main points, baptism, Real Presence etc.
And so you attempt to set up plausible arguments against the Church Fathers. It was ever the weak link for protestants and I dare say it remains.
But do we really need corroboration on the Eucharist from the likes of the ECFs or even the living Church (sacred tradition) when we have scripture. Not at all.
John 6:51
“The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”
and
John 6:55
“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”
At the last supper Jesus goes on to consecrate the first Eucharist saying, “This is my body” and “This is my blood of the covenant” (Mark 14:22;24).
Can scripture be any more transparent?
Real Presence Eucharistic faith is a stumbling block to Protestantism and that is why so much time spent on attacking its foundations.
Oh yes, Rocky, transparent indeed. Because we all know that Jesus was a literal ovine (John 1:36), even though the accidents of His physical body remained, and He literally said He would literally rebuild the literal temple in three days (John 2:19) even though the accidents of the temple’s desolation remain, and we must literally be born a second time from our mother’s womb (John 3:3), and He gives us literal water to literally drink unto everlasting life (John 4:10), and that each of us literally has a literal well of literal water springing up within us (John 4:14), and the resurrection of the damned was literally going to take place in less than an hour (John 5:28), and John was literally a burning oil-soaked rag on a stick (John 5:35), and we are literally to have the writings of Moses on scrolls in our tummies (John 5:38-39,40), and Jesus is actual bread (John 6:32-33) even though the accidents of His body remained, and He gives us literal bread (both in accidents and substance) to eat unto eternal life so that we may never thirst (John 6:35).
Yes, we all know that Jesus never, ever, ever, used metaphors, similes and figures of speech in the chapters leading up to John 6—and He always spoke literally and always clarified His metaphors if someone misunderstood Him.
Because. Transparency.
Rocky, your whole argument, fundamentally, reduces to your personal belief that your religion has the authority to interpret these verses for you, and you conclude that based on your personal assessment of the historical record. Well, like I said, there’s a legitimate eschatological alternative to your narrative.
And no, all the early church fathers do not agree with you, unless you redefine “symbol” and “figure” to mean “actual” and “literal.” Heck, even if we grant “real presence” in the Early Church (and I don’t—at least not by your definition) it doesn’t rule out the fact that you’re worshiping bread, since Tertullian, Irenæus, Chrysostom and Pope Gelasius are all against you on this:
If even your own guys (Chrysostom and Pope Gelasius) knew that the consecrated Eucharist still had the substance and nature of bread in it, the least you could do is acknowledge the real presence of the Bread in the Eucharist, and that the real presence of bread is what you worship. After all, the real presence of bread in the eucharist is apostolic!
Sorry, Rocky, your historical glosses and blatant revisionism don’t work here. Nor do we submit to your personal interpretation of the magisterium.
Tim
” Real presence faith was part of the early church faith” What does this even mean? Faith in the real presence is what Christ called men to? Mark 1:15″ repent and believe in the gospel” seems like Jesus called men to repent and believe in the gospel. The gospel is good news. Its something that already happened. We are called to believe in a finished act. We remember and commemorate an act that happened in one time in history. The gospel is a finished act in the past. That’s why its called news. News is about something that happened. Faith in transubstantiation isn’t going to save you.
TIM K SAID: Given the stern and repeated warnings of the apostles and prophets that your religion would arise from the fragments of the Roman empire, take on an earthly sovereignty by claiming for itself three of the 13 dioceses that came out of Rome’s fragmentation and coming up among the remaining ten (Daniel 7),
Rocky: Hmmmm…. Okay this is a different protestant spin than what I am used to. So the 10 horns and 3 horns are dioceses. Now I am wondering if you mean patriarches rather than dioceses because there is little info on diocesen totals. I figure there must have been hundreds in the first century or two as every large city would have had one.
But Patriarchies? These would have included many dioceses.
The oldest canon law admitted only three bishops as having what later ages called patriarchal rights — the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.
The five patriarchates came along later which included.
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.[2
But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Chalcedon (451) established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place after Rome
The Council of Chalcedon (451AD) cut away Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and of them formed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Sess. VII and VIII). Since that time Jerusalem has always been counted among the patriarchal sees as the smallest and last.
There were elevations of minor patriarch by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox much later but I think you would be hard pressed to make the significance or the totals add up to 3 or 10 or 13 or whatever it is.
Okay I obviously have not found anything that is defined as what you state. So perhaps you can clear that up. Oh by the way you have a lot in common with Mormons by thinking that the early Chruch quickly apostatized. Of course THAT is a necessary plank for self-authorization and credibility isn’t it. But it proves too much. It proves God an incompetent god who could not keep his promises. Now don’t tell me. God made no promise to be with his Church and teach it and protect it right? The plan of God> Be born into his own corrupt creation, teach us to be obedient to what he gave, die on the cross and, oh, deliver a stillborn church. WHO KNEW. Except Luther and Calvin who came along 1500 years later to set things aright.
TIM K SAID: and coming up among the remaining ten (Daniel 7), and compelling people to worship an image (the Eucharist) of the Beast (the Papacy), which image comes to life and speaks (Eucharistic miracles) at the insistence of a false prophet (the apparitions of Mary) (Revelation 13), I can do no other than to reject your novel religion.
ROCKY: But the Eucharist is not image of the papacy but of Jesus and only because he said it should be so. Cheessh! And the Beast image is surely a literal antichrist not the Eucharist which he gave. Why would Jesus confuse matters so much that the very bread and wine he offered before he was crucified would become the personification of evil. I wonder who it is doing the devils work under the spirit of antichrist by making the Eucharist (Jesus) into satan.
TIM K said: I see no evidence in the Scriptures or in the early church for your novelties until the latter part of the 4th century (which constitutes the flood of error prophesied in Revelation 12) and for Eucharistic adoration until the 11th. If your religion is the Church Jesus founded, then Peter, Paul, John and Daniel were liars, and Jesus was a cruel deceiver.
ROCKY: And you see no evidence for baptism or the Eucharist or for the forgiveness of sins through man in scripture? You see NO authority being given to peter in mat 16 or John 21:15-17? And no reasonable explanation but a wave of the hand to deal with these I suppose? These to you are all just novelties. Well the early Church and all the Church up until Luther did not believe as you do. I would stick to the apostolic faith myself instead of a man like Luther. He was no Moses you know. He clearly had not the character as a divine instrument.
TIM K: I think you know this conversation will never get beyond that point. Given what I know now, I would have been a fool not to walk away from a false religion that would have led to my eternal death had Jesus not rescued me from it.
ROCKY: I cannot really fathom what could convict you of all this. Your reading all your own dreams backward into the historical documents and the Holy Spirit led apostolic Church. God did not fail his Church and let it apostatize just after it started. His love for it would not allow that.
TIM K: This must sound like the ravings of a fool and madman to you. And maybe I’m a fool and a madman, but I will never, ever, return to Roman Catholicism.
ROCKY: Never say never. And you have no real evidence for your claim that the Catholic Church is evil and if it is then your canon of scripture is false. And the Catholic monks who copied the bible and cherished it down through the centuries are actually your hated foe and how can you trust their work. No Tim, you owe everything you have to the Catholic faith because it is the full faith that Jesus gave. He said that a mustard seed grows into an unrecognizable tree. A warning for those like you who can not or will not stoop to recognize it.
Big things can spring from small seeds. The uninformed are hoodwinked by deceiving appearances. And now their hearts have been hardened and so it is passed down to their children.
He wasn’t talking about the 16th century when he said the following:
“the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.”
TIM K SAID: When I put my children to bed at night, I tell them that Jesus and His apostles and prophets foresaw the rise of that evil empire—forged out of a delusion that God had sent upon them, and caught up in a flood of demonic error . . . and his name is the Pope of Roman Catholicism, and one day Jesus will take us home and destroy the bad man and his demonic assistant and his wicked idol and abominable sacrifice and all those who believed the lie and followed after him. Oh, and sweet dreams, too.
ROCKY: lol, well I doubt they will have anything but nightmares after a goodnight talk like that. I am eschatologically minded and have seen other endtime interpretations that I have no truck with, even Catholic ones. But I am not influenced by Protestantism. I know it is a false path. It has gutted the faith once received. You know the world started to crumble once it became divided due to the errors of the 16th century. The Age of Reason and the Enlightenment were an evil spawn just around the corner and all was lost at that point. These did not arise in a vacuum and then Darwinism. It would not have happened if we had been one as Jesus prayed.
TIM K: As you know, I reject your historical and eschatological narratives, and I understand that you reject mine. Like I said—this conversation will never get beyond that point, so I thought I’d just cut to the chase.
ROCKY: I appreciate the forthrightness of your sentiments. Nothing surprises me or offends me, especially after having a conversations with Kevin and Mike or even Walt and many others before them.
Perhaps you can fill me in this 3 and 10 diocese from the Daniel 7 thing because I would like to see what these are actually referring to in terms of early Church dioceses.
Have a good day too Tim.
Rocky,
You wrote,
I mean dioceses. There is actually a great deal of information on diocesan totals. Under Diocletian’s administrative reorganization in 293 A.D., the empire was split into 12 Dioceses as recorded in the Laterculus Veronensis (c. 314 A.D.). Over the course of the fourth century some were joined, and others were split, so that by 374 A.D. there were thirteen dioceses, under thirteen vicarii, each seated in the metropolis of the diocese:
Diocese of the East (principal city: Antioch)
Diocese of Egypt (principal city: Alexandria)
Diocese of Italy (principal city: Rome (originally Milan))
Diocese of Asia
Diocese of Pontica
Diocese of Thrace
Diocese of Macedonia
Diocese of Dacia
Diocese of Pannonia (aka: Diocese of Illyricum)
Diocese of Africa
Diocese of Gaul (aka: Septem Provinciæ)
Diocese of Spain
Diocese of Britain
This information is found in the notitia dignitatum (c. 400), if you’d like to look it up. Between 314 and 400 A.D., the final 13-way division occurred, but no later than 374 A.D., the earliest reference to the Diocese of Egypt formed by the splitting of Oriens in two. Notably, by 382 A.D., Damasus had claimed three cities of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, which were by then the three metropoli of Italy, Oriens and Egypt, as the three sees of St. Peter, which was eventually colloqialized as the doctrine of the Three Petrine Sees, which Gregory would eventually call “a see of one.” Thirteen dioceses. Roman Catholicism claimed three of them for herself as the See of One—the great 3-diocese “See of Peter.”
A lot happened at the end of the 4th century. I’ve written a lot on this elsewhere, but wiki has a pretty incisive summary:
Enjoy,
Tim
TIM K
By the way . . . Have you no thoughts on the mustard seeds planted by God on Mary as:
“the Woman” – the new Eve
or
all the clear and amazing parallels to her in Luke as Ark of the New Covenant
and not to mention
the inexplicable Ark reference at the end of Rev 11 leading directly into the Woman clothed in stars who gives birth to Jesus
REV 11
19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.
REV 12
1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads.
OR Mary as the Queen Mother (the Gebirah) who in the kingdoms held sway as the queen.
I think the mustard seeds add up to a mighty mustard tree.
Rocky–
I myself have “Real Presence” Eucharistic faith, as do millions of other Protestants. So how can it be a stumbling block?
Over and over again, my reading of the ECF’s has reinforced my Reformed faith, as it has for a number of friends of mine. Most Protestants convert to Catholicism because they meet a cute Catholic girl. Same goes for most Catholic to Protestant converts (they meet a cute Protestant girl).
Why should we care that some Protestants with sketchy academic skills find themselves swimming the Tiber? Does that somehow bolster your argument?
What I don’t understand is your animus against Sola Scriptura. You keep claiming to be the church founded on the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles. But then you raise holy hell when we bring all of our tenets in line with Jesus and his Apostles. “No,” you say, “You shouldn’t go back to Jesus and his Apostles! You should go back to the CHURCH founded by Jesus and his Apostles. It’s dangerous to go back to the source!”
I mean, isn’t that the height of hypocrisy? If you ACTUALLY developed from the original sources, shouldn’t you be OVERJOYED when we go back to those sources and base our teachings on them?
Tim Kauffman,
What do you think is the root of the former Reformed folks at http://www.calledtocommunion.com ?
Bryan Cross is the main guy there, it seems. He seems to put philosophy, philosophical categories of epistemology, his knowledge of formal logical categories of logical debate, and Latin as his main way of deflecting any arguments and puts those things above the Scriptures.
His knowledge of deep things like Latin terminology and philosophy make him hard to even understand.
IMO, he fell into the trap that the apostle Paul warned about in Colossians 2:8
Ken Temple
Ken, it is hard to get inside the minds of these men, but I can tell you from my observations of those who swim the Tiber, and from what they actually say, that they appear to me to be victims of
1) a false history
2) a logical fallacy
3) a flawed eschatology
I will expound on this more later, but a couple examples will perhaps help:
1) Many Roman Catholic apologists construct their conception of Roman primacy on the precept that the 6th of Nicæa granted to Alexandria the Diocese of Egypt, but the Diocese of Egypt did not exist at the time. There are many other such examples besides, but that’s a pervasive historical myth, and yet the conviction of Nicæan codification of Roman Primacy is built upon it, and many a Protestant has departed for Rome on the alleged authority of Nicæa.
2) Many Roman Catholic apologists believe that whatever Roman Catholicism was doing by the end of the 4th century (or later), must be what God had intended to be taught as a result of a continuous unfolding of truth, which reduces to “If P, then Q; Q, therefore P,” which is the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent. (Here P = “X was taught by the Apostles”, and Q = “the late 4th century church would teach X.”) Because the late 4th century church was teaching X, it is therefore presumed to be an apostolic truth. That is a logical fallacy, and yet, many a Protestant has crossed the Tiber because of it. There is, of course, more than one possible cause for the sudden emergence of error at the end of the 4th century, and a presumed continuity of apostolic truth is only one possibility.
3) Many Roman Catholic apologists appeal to the eschatological argument that the Church would eventually be sovereign over the earth (i.e., the Stone of Daniel 2:35 “filled the whole earth,” and the saints are given a “kingdom under the whole heaven” (Daniel 7:27)). These prophecies, presumably, speak of the ascendancy of a Christian empire immediately following the Roman Empire, and thus Roman Catholicism appears to fit the bill. But in the harmonization of Daniel 2 and 7, there is of necessity an evil earthly empire that must rise between the pagan empire of Rome and the earthly kingdom of Christ and His saints, and that intervening empire is to be avoided at all costs. Missing the truth that emerges in the harmonization of Daniel 2 and 7, many a Protestant has returned to Rome thinking to find Christ’s earthly kingdom depicted by the Stone of Daniel 2, unaware that they have instead joined something very different than the flock of Christ.
There is much more to be said on all three points, but I wanted to at least touch on your question. It’s a good one. More on this later.
Tim
thanks for answering Tim.
Sorry I was busy and just now seeing this.
I will comment more later, Lord willing.
Tim,
Thanks again.
Usually, former Evangelicals, including former Reformed folks, say several reasons for their conversion to Rome:
1. the Early church fathers and wanting a connection to ancient Christianity. (History, and historical continuity with historical traditional interpretations and practices, pre-Luther, etc.)
2. The supposed need for a “living voice” (Pope, Magisterium, authority, etc.) that will tell them the right interpretation and solve disunity problems within Protestantism. (Unity that comes through submission to an ultimate external authority here on earth.)
3. Not being able to answer RC arguments against and questions on the canon (even the NT), sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura.
Have you read the calledtocommunion.com articles on the Canon and Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide?
My main point/question is to see if you have read those articles and responded to them here, either like the way you did the baptismal regeneration series, or within some articles.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/
I saw that you responded to their baptismal regeneration article and that was an excellent series.
On your # 1, I have noticed canon 6 of Nicea deep in the weeds in on-line debate with RCs, but I have not noticed it as a major reason.
On your # 2, I have not had time to read all of your articles on this sudden explosion of Roman Catholic practices and doctrines in the late 300s AD, (“When Mary got busy” was a very interesting) and the whole idea you have buttressed with lots of evidence, but they could counter with something like that is also the time of the consolidation of the doctrine of the Trinity, the battles of Athanasius against the Arians (325 AD – 373 AD) the councils and creeds such as 381 AD (a development and clarification of 325 AD), and then later with 431 AD and 451 AD on the one person with 2 natures of Christ. (Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon) That is also some great battles of Athanasius against the Arians (60 years following Nicea) and Augustine’s battles against Pelagianism, etc.
On point # 3, to be honest, the eschatology you go into here is so new to me ( I had never seen this nor heard of it before) that I have not had time to digest or understand that much. As a young Christian, I was taught the Pre-Mill, Pre-Trib, dispensationalism, but I don’t agree with that for a long time now, (never really bought into it, as it seemed forced from the beginning, and it seemed to put OT prophetic passages above NT fulfillment principle.
I am more of an Amillennialist over-all in Eschatology, and Partial -Preterist as regards Matthew 24 and Revelation, although even some of that is hard to swallow for me. I was convinced for a while by Kenneth Gentry an Gary DeMar’s material, but later, after studying some push back on some of their material, I don’t think some of that position is right or biblical. Pre-70AD date for the writing of Revelation is hard to maintain, when one looks at all the external evidence, and the time it would take for those churches in Rev. 1-3 to change from Paul writing to Timothy in 64-67 AD (1 and 2 Timothy) in Ephesus, to conditions of Rev. 1-3 in 68 or 69 AD, – well, that has become difficult to hold on to, for me.
Also, it is hard for me to believe that Rev. 1:7 is only about 70 AD. (and Matthew 24:29-31 is hard to maintain as only about 70 AD) – that the “gathering” means gathering the people of God into local churches all over the world, rather than gathering the people up at the second coming, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
Another one of the main articles of called to communion folks that I was wondering if you read and had thoughts on.
There are others, but I don’t want it go into moderation, so I am limiting it to one link at a time.
This one, and the “Question of Canon” seem to be the 2 main ones that get to the root of the ultimate issues between RC vs. Protestantism.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
I think Keith Matthison answered Bryan Cross and the called to communion article on Solo and Sola Scriptura, etc. very well.
I interacted at the articles years ago that I mentioned earlier in the comboxes (on Canon and Sola Scriptura, etc.) and also in the Sola Fide article here:
At # 353-369 ( I gave up at the end, no more time; and I think I already refuted them, IMO. ) and # 165-166 years earlier :
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/
What do you think of how I answered Bryan Cross and how Cross deflects and dismisses and deals with my arguments?
Thanks, Ken,
I will need some time to go through all the links you provided. A couple comments: the 6th of Nicæa is just provided as an example of a flawed history. There are many other examples. I agree that it is often down in the weeds. On the sudden emergence of error at the end of the 4th century, yes, they often do counter in the way you have suggested. More thoughts on that later. On the eschatology I espouse here, yes it is different than what others have proposed. The logical and historical issues (items #1 and #2 in my list), in my opinion, are why some of the tell-tale signs were missed, and in fact provided cover to justify the rise of Roman Catholicism as an authentic expression of Christianity even though Daniel and the Apostles warned us of it in advance (in my opinion). Fortunately, there is no eschatological litmus test for participation here, and I appreciate your contributions and insights. I hope I can provide clarification on my eschatological perspective as I add new installments. I appreciate your observation about Matthew 24:29-31 being hard to maintain as only about 70 AD. I hope to provide additional data in the coming year regarding my position on that, but it’s a fair observation, indeed.
Thanks so much.
Tim
TIM K SAID, your argument reduces to your personal belief that your religion has the authority to interpret these verses for you, and you conclude that based on your personal assessment of the historical record. Well, like I said, there’s a legitimate eschatological alternative to your narrative. And no, all the early church fathers do not agree with you, unless you redefine “symbol” and “figure” to mean “actual” and “literal.”
ROCKY: I don’t think you have proven anything like a legitimate eschatological alternative to my narrative or to that of the Catholic interpretation of the ECFs (who were all orthodox teachers of the faith or they would have been run out of town for not being so.
TIM K SAID, Heck, even if we grant “real presence” in the Early Church (and I don’t—at least not by your definition) it doesn’t rule out the fact that you’re worshiping bread, since Tertullian, Irenæus, Chrysostom and Pope Gelasius are all against you on this:
ROCKY: Tertullian and Irenaeus and Chrysostaom and Pope Galaius were all Real Presence Eucharistic Catholics for sure.
Pope Galaius remains orthodox in his beliefs on the Eucarhist.
See http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=383668&language=en
St. John Chrysostom,
“I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same.” “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
And
“When the word says, ‘This is My Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!” -“Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew” [82,4] 370 A.D.
ST. IRENAEUS
“For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.”
-“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.
Even Tertullian was orthodox in his beliefs despite any docetist context.
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
ROCKY You may be able some plausible sounding arguments but in the end I don’t think they will stand against the body of work on Early Church Fathers of people who really have a deeper and broader grasp on the ECFs. Unless you can take them in a debate and win them over.
Tim you argued against me and Mark Rome and we are not convinced of your spin (a pejorative term I know) but you need to make your case against some scholars who have a deeper and broader understanding of the ECFs. I can see how you are using a more substantive knowledge of the ECFs to weave an anti-Catholic narrative and win followers, or rather salve the fears of protestants who see Catholicism in the ECFs. But your balm is not strong enough to convince even the likes of me who can see that the words of the ECFs speak well enough for themselves. And that is really why so many protestant scholars/pastors have converted. You are out of touch with what the great Protestants scholars already acknowledge on the Real Presence and other early faith beliefs. I will give you that list again if you would like.
Protestants (like Hans) are looking for someone like you to counter the fact the ECFs held to orthodox Catholic positions and you are their Whitehorse knight. But I would like to see you debate a real thoroughbred scholar on the ECFs. Now THAT would be interesting.
TIM K. Sorry, Rocky, your historical glosses and blatant revisionism don’t work here. Nor do we submit to your personal interpretation of the magisterium.
ROCKY: Ahhhh… Tim you are the revisionist here not me. And your problem is you do not submit to the magisterium and so far I have never see you face up to the failure of sola scriptura and the myriad doctrinal conflicts of Protestantism that resulted and continue to proliferate.
TIM K SAID, “Oh yes, Rocky, transparent indeed. Because we all know that Jesus was a literal ovine (John 1:36), even though the accidents of His physical body remained, and He literally said He would literally rebuild the literal temple in three days (John 2:19) even though the accidents of the temple’s desolation remain, and we must literally be born a second time from our mother’s womb (John 3:3), and He gives us literal water to literally drink unto everlasting life (John 4:10), and that each of us literally has a literal well of literal water springing up within us (John 4:14), and the resurrection of the damned was literally going to take place in less than an hour (John 5:28), and John was literally a burning oil-soaked rag on a stick (John 5:35), and we are literally to have the writings of Moses on scrolls in our tummies (John 5:38-39,40), and Jesus is actual bread (John 6:32-33) even though the accidents of His body remained, and He gives us literal bread (both in accidents and substance) to eat unto eternal life so that we may never thirst (John 6:35).”
ROCKY: The first reason why this objection fails is that the people in the audiences like in the door and vine passages do not interpret Jesus literally as they do in John 6. No one listening to the door and vine teachings said, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or “a plant”. The audience recognized quickly that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.
People weren’t as thick back them as we might want to make them to be, even though they didn’t have smart phones. They knew CONTEXT just as well as any protestant scholar I think.
Tim, how the people treated Jesus in all those metaphorical examples you gave above stands in stark contrast to the participants in John 6. After hearing Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, they say things like, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and “This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?
Both the Jews (john 6:52) and Jesus’ disciples (John 6:60) understood Jesus to be speaking literally. If Jesus were speaking metaphorically, then his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. But no Christian wants to do that.
And you would think that if the folks in Jesus’ audience were misunderstanding him, thinking he was speaking literally when he was only speaking metaphorically, he would have corrected their misunderstanding, especially given the gravity of the teaching.
Formerly Jesus would take his disciples apart and corrected them if they misunderstood. The fact is they interpreted him exactly as he meant it to be interpreted. And THAT is why they left Him in John 6:66.
After the Jews murmur amongst themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52), Jesus reiterates the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood no less than six times in six verses ( John 6:53-58).
TWO INTERESTING MENTIONS BY JESUS
Why does he speak of his ASCENSION?
When you read John 6:62 ask yourself why Jesus says, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
Jesus’ command to eat his flesh and drink his blood is just as real and literal as his Ascension. Why would Jesus appeal to his literal ascension in order to explain a metaphorical command?
Why speak of JUDAS?
John 6:64-65
64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, AND WHO WAS THE ONE THAT WOULD BETRAY HIM. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”
Jesus links betrayal to those who abandon him.
Those who abandon him here were not granted to come and stay with Jesus by father.
and
John 6:70-71
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, [k]was going to betray Him.
ROCKY: Some have interpreted these passages on Judas in John 6 as an indication of just where his betrayal began. Like the unfaithful disciples of John 6:66, this is where Judas also lost his faith and turned away from Jesus.
Rocky, you wrote,
First, I made no reference to any door and vine passages. (You may have mistaken “ovine” for “vine,” but it means “sheep.”)
Second, the people in the audiences do take him literally. I commend to you the Gospel of John:
They thought he was speaking of the literal temple, but he was referring to His body. He did not pause to correct them. John knew (later) that He was being figurative, but his audience at the time did not.
Nicodemus thought He was speaking of a literal second birth, and it does not appear that Jesus did anything more than press the metaphor.
She thought that He was speaking of literal water, and He did not stop to correct her.
They thought he was speaking of literal bread.
So, in response, your statement, “the people in the audiences … do not interpret Jesus literally” is incorrect. They often did interpret Him literally, and in many of the passages I provided to you, Jesus did not stop to correct their literal interpretations of His figurative speech. He just let them misunderstand. It’s almost as if John is saying that Jesus came to His own people and they did not understand what He was saying (John 1:5). In fact, it is almost as if Jesus is saying that His own people do not understand what He is saying (John 8:43) and that God had blinded them so that they would would understand what Jesus was saying (John 12:40).
John’s point, a point he makes repeatedly and well beyond John 6, is that Jesus came to His own and His own did not understand what He was saying. Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that Jesus came to His own, and His own understood exactly what He was saying but just didn’t agree with Him. But that’s not really what John was saying, was it?
Tim
ROCKY: My point was that Jesus would clear up the confusion with his disciples if they were confused. In fact the audience that Jesus was most concerned with in John 6 were his own disciples who left him in John 6:66. They are the ones who knew he was being literal and who he did not correct – because they got it right. And they didn’t like it either. They didn’t want to listen to God. They had a better idea
BUT WHAT DOES PETER SAY . . [John 6:41-71]
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
ROCKY: Peter did not understand him either and that was clear. But here is the difference, he remained faithful though he did not understand, especially given the seemingly horrifying nature of it all. But Peter had that gift from God that would come to define the charism of the Catholic magisterium. He stated to Jesus his trust in him as the Holy one of God and therefore he knew things would become turn out okay.
And in fact they did – at the last supper – where the words of John 6 were realized as the bread and wine of our communion meal – our Eucharist.
If you cannot see that this is exactly what Jesus had in mind and that this is what the apostles taught to the early Church (and why we Catholics believe it still then someone or something has obscured your vision.
Mark 14:22-24, > “THIS IS MY BODY”
Luke 22:19-20, > “THIS IS MY BODY”
Matthew 26:26, “THIS IS MY BODY.”
1 Corinthians 11:24 > “THIS IS MY BODY”
John 6:55 > “FOR MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK
John 6:35 > Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood YOU HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU
1Cor 10:16, “The cup of the blessing that we bless, IS IT NOT THE SHARING OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? And the bread that we break, IS IT NOT THE PARTAKING OF THE BODY OF THE LORD?”
Rocky said:
“Mark 14:22-24, > “THIS IS MY BODY”
Luke 22:19-20, > “THIS IS MY BODY”
Matthew 26:26, “THIS IS MY BODY.”
1 Corinthians 11:24 > “THIS IS MY BODY”
John 6:55 > “FOR MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK
John 6:35 > Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood YOU HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU
1Cor 10:16, “The cup of the blessing that we bless, IS IT NOT THE SHARING OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? And the bread that we break, IS IT NOT THE PARTAKING OF THE BODY OF THE LORD?”
The taking of these verses literally is just so incredibly wicked and brain washed by Satan. This whole pattern of thinking that one is literally eating Christ flesh everyday in morning mass and drinking his blood literally is so evil.
As an alter bot I used to ring the bells when the priest raised the wafer above his head and again when he raised the chalice. It signified this transfer to the literal flesh and blood as Rocky quoted above. Then I had to insure non would fall to the floor when served as it was really suppose to be parts of his flesh and blood. It is so evil to get all followers to think about this devilish mass.
It is Baal worship in the flesh today and literally getting people to think they are eating real flesh and drinking real blood as a daily feast and sacrifice is so crazy. And thanks to guys like Rocky and his followers with a half dozen bible passages taken literally people believe it.
It is so sad how many cannot think for themselves.
” the audience recognized quickly that Jesus was speaking metaphorically ” on top of that Jesus himself in John 6 tells us he wasn’t speaking literally. ” The flesh profits nothing” If Jesus was speaking about his literal flesh he wouldn’t say that. But don’t feel bad the unbelieving crowd made the same mistake you did. So you have no excuse Rocky. You walked away in unbelief too. Because you miss the spiritual connotation, even in the face of Jesus telling you it was spiritual and not literal. Never does 2 Thessalonians 2:11 cine to life more that when Papist tell us John 6 is literal in the face of Jesus saying it isn’t. Of course scripture says Satan will make good look evil and vice versa. Amazing.
Keven wrote:
“the audience recognized quickly that Jesus was speaking metaphorically ” on top of that Jesus himself in John 6 tells us he wasn’t speaking literally. ” The flesh profits nothing” If Jesus was speaking about his literal flesh he wouldn’t say that.”
When Tim P quoted all those john 6 verses I responded with that same verse. Then the real confusion started in the “debate” so I knew it was going nowhere.
Be careful!
HANS SAID, Why should we care that some Protestants with sketchy academic skills find themselves swimming the Tiber? Does that somehow bolster your argument?
ROCKY: But that’s not what is happening. Its the ones who know there faith and study it that come to Catholicm. Its the scholars and pastors who are coming home to the Catholic faith.
Some Catholic leave because they want the freedom of unlimited contraception and marriages by the way.
HANS: What I don’t understand is your animus against Sola Scriptura.
ROCKY: Yes, its A great delusion swallowed whole by Protestantism as a make a substitute for authority. It was NEVER believe and is patently and demonstrably unworkable.
Hans said, You keep claiming to be the church founded on the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles. But then you raise holy hell when we bring all of our tenets in line with Jesus and his Apostles. “No,” you say, “You shouldn’t go back to Jesus and his Apostles!
ROCKY: Somehow I think you are being disingenuous with this.
HANS SAID: “No,” you say, “You shouldn’t go back to Jesus and his Apostles! You should go back to the CHURCH founded by Jesus and his Apostles. It’s dangerous to go back to the source!”
ROCKY: Well, just what source are you talking about the bible?
HANS SAID, I mean, isn’t that the height of hypocrisy? If you ACTUALLY developed from the original sources, shouldn’t you be OVERJOYED when we go back to those sources and base our teachings on them?
ROCKY: If you did that you would have come back into the Catholic faith.
I think you must be talking about the ECFs or something. I am not following.
In response to sola scriptural Rocky said ” a great delusion swallowed whole by Protestantism as a make a substitute for authority” sorry Rocky we forget the Bible is a dead letter that answers to the magisterium of Rome, we were under the impression that God’s breathed Word is the highest authority. Our bad. We should have remembered that God’s infallible Word is subjugated to men. All this time we thought the Word was perfect, come to find out its the sinners that claim interpretive authority and infallibility. Not the Spirit, but men are infallible. Do you see a pattern here. I’m so glad I’m a Protestant, I won’t have to tell the Lord some day that I was under a delusion making a substitute word of God, the Roman magisterial authority.
KEVIN,
THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: THE WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.” [John 6:61-63]
“The FLESH” always means: “according to human standards”. And certainly not to the flesh of Jesus himself.
“The Spirit” is never taken as a synonym for symbolic.
So JUST WHAT is it you think this scripture passage actually mean?
It seems you are incapable of learning and just drop old chestnuts long ago found at as having gone stale or rotten.
If you will not actually comment on things in a thoughtful manner after making it clear you read all I wrote, I will not bother responding to you.
Ken–
Like all true believers (including us), Bryan has blind spots in his logic. But I don’t believe he is a practitioner of “hollow and deceptive” philosophy. He’s pretty darn good at what he does.
His main problem, as I see it, is that he doesn’t know how to turn it off, making him akin to purveyors of other obsessions, like grammar Nazi’s. It’s not that his logic is necessarily wrong; it’s just inappropriate. It’s kind of like inviting a bunch of guys over for a Super Bowl party and then running it according to Robert’s Rules of Order. You might just lose some friends!
I’ve suggested to him that he include some Reformed guys on his board, and let them contribute on a regular basis. I’ve also suggested that he purposefully engage Reformed scholars with doctorates in philosophy. (Otherwise, he inevitably comes across as a bully.)
Currently, individual threads are monitored by the authors of the articles themselves. So pick somebody fair (like David Anders) if you want to participate. I’ve told Bryan he needs to have mediation shared with Reformed folks. He listens, but he doesn’t change. Perhaps he doesn’t honestly desire open dialogue (though, to be fair, I am not aware of any Reformed site which shares the spotlight with Catholics).
In the end, C2C functions more or less as a recruitment site and a buttress for wobbly Catholic faith: See how smart OUR guys are! Catholicism MUST be true!
(I actually think Bryan has a harder time understanding those who are academically “beneath” him than his philosophically untrained interlocutors have understanding him. He’s really quite clear, coherent, and articulate.)
Well said Hans, that is exactly what C2C comes across as. Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, John Bugay, James Swan, some of the Green Baggins crew, and quite a few other bloggers I read have been over there over the last few years, but it is same old same old in the end. I tuned out long ago when Bryan couldn’t stop using the whole Catholic paradigm schtick. Quite honestly, I’ve never met a committed RC who is open to dialogue, since their whole paradigm prevents them allowing a microscopic flaw to exist in the whole entire system. Just read Mark Rome (aka Jim) defend the whole wine making process throughout Tim K’s series, it is the premier example of why it it impossible to dialogue with committed RC’s, and the perfect example to show others who share the same mindset, that this is exactly how irrational you sound when you make arguments like this > LOL.
“Just read Mark Rome (aka Jim) defend the whole wine making process throughout Tim K’s series, it is the premier example of why it it impossible to dialogue with committed RC’s, and the perfect example to show others who share the same mindset, that this is exactly how irrational you sound when you make arguments like this > LOL.”
Is it really possible that Mark Rome is Jim? He claims he is a protestant turned catholic but it could be Jim without Jim one liners he is famous for over here? Hmmm.
LOL, I don’t really know if it’s Jim, but for all intents and purposes, he talks like, acts like, and pontificates like Jim, or any other internet RC apologist i’ve ever heard. They all make the same assertions to one degree or another, and, your not going to believe this, but they have all collectively never been wrong!!!
Dan said:
LOL, I don’t really know if it’s Jim, but for all intents and purposes, he talks like, acts like, and pontificates like Jim, or any other internet RC apologist i’ve ever heard. They all make the same assertions to one degree or another, and, your not going to believe this, but they have all collectively never been wrong!!!”
That is true and what I find dust incredible is how they defend the incredible evil that comes out of the Vatican and the priests, bishops, etc.
This blows my mind watching how brain washed they are on this concept that Rome is the one true and only church of Christ when we know from scripture she is antichrist.
Scripture is infallible in proving that she is antichrist come in the flesh and history supports it with evidence.
Their has never been a more evil and wicked institution created on earth by Satan. Just look at the fruits inside the Vatican as testified by thousands of eye witnesses and people who have been indicted, sued and exposed. These people defend this stuff like the mafia defends their criminal organization by blood oath.
I never saw this in my parents. Yes, they were mostly brain washed by growing up in the system, but if they knew what we know know about the inner workings of the Vatican today and the wicked priesthood I’m totally convinced they would have seperated. Instead it so covered up and defended by the likes of guys on this blog that the 99% of aberage, largely ignorant Roman Catholics are just blinded by this evil.
When God said He would send them a strong delusion it is so obvious now in our generation. The papacy took a massive hit in the British isles during the first and second reformation and they were removed largely from the land, but after so much murder and bloodshed she is back into these nations and stronger than ever before. She is now the most powerful, largest, wealthiest and most wicked empire to ever have existed controlling the minds of more than 1 billion devoted followers and another 3 billion protestant and religious adherents to her doctrines, worship, holy days, feast days of saints, etc. List is endless.
There has never been anything like this in world history with such global expanse and power. While Tim’s eschatology rightly exposes this system of antichrist, he closes out her reign in the 1600’s as finished in power and reign of evil. I see her near her peak of evil and power still and watching these guys on here over months getting ready to install a reign of terror coming like unseen in history against any detractors.
We know how filled with blood she has been against the true saints of Christ throughout history, but the wave coming will compound what we have seen in the way priests have abused children and been protected at all costs. The institution is evil at the core and root as it is satantic, but not 1 in 2 billion see it. They see only a big Santa Claus in the papacy traveling the earth handing out gifts and money candy for all who are weak and blind.
The evidence is demonstrated on this blog and other blogs referenced here. It is only waxing worse and worse. Rocky admits more and more are flooding into the romish religion and I believe him on this point. I can only try to tell others to beware of this great deception and stay away, and to those inside, as scripture warns, come out of her my people and be not partakers of her plagues!
Rocky–
Oh, good grief! There are Protestant patristics scholars who know the writings of the ECF’s far, far better than you and I who remain lifelong Protestants. Your notion that it’s an intellectual slam dunk for Catholicism is utterly fallacious.
Yes, I was speaking of the Bible. Sola Scriptura is the default position of practically every faith except Catholicism (including Judaism). I’m not being even a tad disingenuous. You don’t like the study of Scripture and the early, early church because it undermines your unbiblical, ecclesiolatrous thesis.
Ken, just for my part, the men who run Called to Confusion are lost. My experience with Bryan Cross is that he doesn’t really engage an argument. Every response includes it begs the question, straw man, ad hominem, or some rebuke for offending the blog policy by almost every challenge to Roman doctrine. I think he may think that his opponents are fooled into thinking because he drops a bunch of apologetically phrases that that is scholarship. I find Dave Anders much more engaging but just as lost. IMHO. K
Tim P wrote:
“Walt, I am not sure if that quote from Timothy K is true but if it is that is about the creepiest thing I have read on any Protestant website. And you talk about brainwashing and cults. All I can do obviously is pray for you guys and your children. Sweet dreams.”
Tim K Is laying out an outline for his children that touches on all the main points of the Roman catholic religion. I truly believe, as did all the apostles, 3rd and 4th century protestants who papal Rome separated from, and all the faithful elect remnant who continued to preserve the original scriptures through history until the Morningstar of the reformation taught his students and blasted forth across the British isles the trumpet of faith in Christ alone, that soul murder by the papacy is among Satan’s greatest threats.
Tim K is hardly alone in his eschatology. He deviates in a few areas from most all the reformers who generally agreed except dates that Rome and the papacy took the visible reigns of antichrist. Now his is laying out the evidence to show those in the early church who started to see the future rise of antichrist. It was their foresight and our hindsight that is telling the real true facts of history. The best thing anyone can do is document the Roman Catholics apologist own testimony like in the above article. That proves that many saw antichrist rising in the 4th century and they knew they must stay in the apostles doctrine and in Christ, and let antichrist and Satan fall away in schism to build the Roman Catholic antichrist religion.
Today it is so easy to see in hindsight with so much evidence from scripture and historical testimony. For those who saw it coming in the fourth, fifth, sixth, etc centuries…those guys are the true hero’s and elect of Christ.
Walt said ” it was their foresight and our hindsight that is telling the real true facts of history” Amen brother.
Hans said, In the end, C2C functions more or less as a recruitment site and a buttress for wobbly Catholic faith: See how smart OUR guys are! Catholicism MUST be true!
ROCKY: Intellect envy or what?
Wobbly Catholic faith? Are you trying to impress the gang here Hans? I expected more from you.
WALT SAID, I truly believe, as did all the apostles, 3rd and 4th century protestants who papal Rome separated from, and all the faithful elect remnant who continued to preserve the original scriptures through history until the Morningstar of the reformation taught his students and blasted forth across the British isles the trumpet of faith in Christ alone, that soul murder by the papacy is among Satan’s greatest threats.
ROCKY: Hmmph . . . . . there is just so much that is wrong with this kind of mumbo jumbo I don’t know if I should recommend a good teacher, a guardian or a shrink. Is this what Protestantism is ultimately reduced to then. Is this the end game of the best and brightest of the British Commonwealth. Babbling incoherently with a Scottish accent.
BTW Walt, There is a difference between babbling incoherently and articulating your stance with intelligence, passion and grace.
Rocky said:
“BTW Walt, There is a difference between babbling incoherently and articulating your stance with intelligence, passion and grace.”
If we could only get you guys to really discern this fact literally and not figuratively it would be a huge positive step toward your recovery from the rcc cult and the beginning to reverse brain washing you are facing. You have lost all cognizant ability to think with reason, logic, and see facts as evidence. Like a drug addict who does not see his problem, or even the need to seek recovery, we implore you as loving Christians trying to be very frank with you as we would any cult member or drug addict, you must stop now and seek help. You must get on the road to recovery now! Your soul depends on it.
Do not waste another minute.
Rocky, I would let Walt continue “Babbling incoherently with a Scottish accent”. I have pretty much come to expect that type of response when encountering Protestant apologist and trying to debate with them the scriptural basis on the Real presence, the primacy of Peter, and God forbid how they explain the New Testament canon that they accept from that apostate Church. I am still awaiting Han’s response as to why he accepts the St.Athanasius’s canon list after he claimed
“The Catholic Church simply wasn’t all that necessary in determining the NT canon”
Logic and reason? No correct canon list until 367? Walt, Marcion was one of those early Protestants, why don’t you follow his canon list?
Timothy P said ” logic and reason” Transubstantiation ? Hocus Pocus? Logic and reason?
DAN S SAID: Quite honestly, I’ve never met a committed RC who is open to dialogue, since their whole paradigm prevents them allowing a microscopic flaw to exist in the whole entire system.
ROCKY: Pot calling kettle black? Do you realize you all are indicted by this same thing you accuse us of. Its guys like Kevin and Walt and Mike who invariably break into horrific partisan rants which obliterate any hope for respectful dialogue.
You sound like one of those guys who takes umbrage with Catholics because we will not roll over when are informed by ya’ll that we got it all wrong and are going to hell and that you l have the truth. Sorry Dan, those days were gone a long time ago. No easy pickings here. Catholics wanted peace and brotherhood but what we got over the last several decades was rancour and attacks. We were about our own business and you were about attacking Catholicism and poaching.
This bizarre statement that our paradigm prevents us from acknowledging flaws in the system is just weird and nonsensical. Where does THAT come from anyway?
Sorry Rocky, It absolutely doesn’t fit our paradigm, you are completely wrong. Do the words semper reformanda ring a bell to you? I’m pretty sure most guys on this site operate with this perspective and can honestly and rationally change their minds when the facts and evidence are strong enough to persuade them otherwise, and they are capable because they know in of themselves they are sinners and not infallible. You operate under semper eadem, and have infallibility syndrome. Nothing Rome promulgates is ever wrong and in fact can’t even be falsified, since it is the pinnacle of all truth. Let me ask you a simple question, are there any contradictions in Roman Catholicism? or more revealing, can there be contradictions in Roman Catholicism? You’re answer will reveal whether or not you are exactly who I claimed the committed RC is.
You said: “Catholics wanted peace and brotherhood but what we got over the last several decades was rancour and attacks”
There is no such thing as RC/Protestant “brotherhood”. To be brothers would indicate we are all adopted into the family, in Christ. Your own communion denies true “brotherhood” to protestants and calls us separated brethren, (to which no Protestant would agree with) operating in ecclesiastical communities, nothing more.
Ironically, in the oft repeated RC apologetic claim that Protestants should obey; 2 Thes. 2:15 ” So then “brothers” stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
Yet, a few verses later he says (2thes3:6) “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any “brother” who is walking in idleness and NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE TRADITION THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM US.
It seems you’d like to have it both ways, since you well know that the Reformed camp adamantly refuses to acknowledge any of Romes alleged apostolic oral traditions, or the whole system from the top down, yet you still seek “brotherhood” with them?
The statement about your paradigm capabilities is neither weird nor nonsensical but incredibly tangible and on display in every corner of the RC apologists universe. It comes from experience, and quite frankly I believe every non-Catholic on here is aware of it and has experienced it to one degree or another. This is why, sooner or later, when the RC can’t defend his beliefs biblically or historically, they fall back on Sola Ecclessia, it’s the only safeguard that keeps you from denying the truth about Rome. It is a subtle and sneaky form of brainwashing that Walt and others are alluding to. You call it “the fullness of truth”, which is why you are on here defending it.
So, can Rome have any contradicitons in its system of doctrine? If No, (i’m just hypothesizing your answer) why not?
DanS said ” This is why sooner or later, when the RC can’t defend his beliefs biblically or historically, they fall back on sola ecclesia. ” this is an accurate statement. They want the world to accept that the white smoke has been coming out of the chimney of the Vatican at the election of pope for 2000 years. People actually buy it. We must be thankful everyday that God gave us his word, and that we can answer the call of Jesus ” if any man comes to you and says ” I am the Christ ” don’t believe him” A mandate from the Lord himself not to believe the claim of Rome that they are Christ’s historical and natural body in earth. I obey Jesus, and reject Rome’s claim.
Rocky said “Catholics wanted peace and brotherhood” Trust me Rocky there are Protestants, the ECT types, that are more than willing to overlook centuries , millinia of missionary work and martyrdom to strike accord with Roman Catholics. I think it is a huge mistake. Terrible mistake. What agreement can Christ have with Satan. Spurgeon said we can have no truce with Rome. He said this ” War, to the knife with her” we shall pray against it, because it is against Christ. And we shall turn our faces to heaven when we pray. He said we shall love their people and not touch a hair on their priests head, but her doctrines we will hate and pray God will throw them to the bottom of the sea. John MacArthur said that in the long war on the truth, the most rekentless, deceptive, and determined enemy has been Roman Catholicism. It is a false Christianity, apostate, a front for the kingdom of God. MacArthur goes on to say that the ignorance of the evangelical church is only matched by its lack of courage to stand for the truth. This us the truth.
That should read a front for the kingdom of Satan.
Timothy P wrote:
“I have pretty much come to expect that type of response when encountering Protestant apologist and trying to debate with them the scriptural basis on the Real presence, the primacy of Peter, and God forbid how they explain the New Testament canon that they accept from that apostate Church.”
The issue as I said is your standard literal interpretation on these verses. I said that when you first gave me the long list of verses pasted into the blog and said basically, “see what these say…it is obvious you have to eat his literal flesh and drink his literal blood.”
It took me immediately back to the Baptist minister claiming the scripture literally says that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be instantly saved. Yes, it literally days it but that is not whosoever is…the months of scripture proof texts (pages I compiled) was totally ignored.
Roman Catholics are far far worse as I’ve seen on here. They have totally lost all ability to reason, think and discern. That is why I told you (and of course you lack ability to hear or see) that I need to research cults and reprogramming first to understand how to respond to you.
You will get your day in court Tim P but I must learn more about your mind that is programmed to reject everything that is not approved by the pope and your church. Your day is coming … Just not on your schedule. Be ready when it comes because your going to instantly reject it but I hope others outside room will cone to the foot of the cross with the heads bowed in repentance.
What’s funny is that it is the Protestant who must defend their innovative beliefs which started no more than 500 years ago. Jesus and the apostles never taught Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide The early church never taught them.
There was no great apostasy in the 4th century. The man of sin wasn’t revealed. The Catholic Church didn’t become the fulfillment of the antichrist in Revelation.
The massive mess of confusion that is Protestantism is a direct result of the rejection of the authority of Jesus Christ and the Church that He established. Our culture is returning to the days of Pagan Rome as a direct result of Protestantism. It is Protestantism that reflects the pagan culture now. Accepting divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, birth control, abortion, you can’t lose your salvation, etc. Protestantism is a bastion of relativism with no moral absolutes. You claim you “agree on the essentials” but when pressed you can’t even agree on what the essentials are.
I left the self-centered “I do it my way” religion to follow the truth. The Bible, while I love it and use it and accept it as God-breathed truth, I know that I AM NOT THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET IT. It is a Catholic book and outside the Catholic Church has been abused and misused to people’s own peril. Look at Arius! He used the Bible to support his heresy.
There is much peace and joy in my life now that I am in step with the Truth that Jesus revealed and is found in the only Church Jesus established, the Catholic Church. That’s why most Catholics seem a lot more peaceful in these debates than Protestants do who are constantly attacking and belittling. That alone speaks volumes.
Mark said ” the massive confusion that is Protestantism is a direct result of the rejection of Jesus Christ and the church that He established.” I think you have drunk a little to much of the RC koolaid. There really isn’t that much confusion in Protestant churches. We are unified on the gospel. What good is unity if you got the gospel wrong. When Jesus prayed we would all be one, he wasn’t talking about a unified visible institution. Unity is around the gospel. Mark you do understand that many informed Protestants don’t believe that Rome is the church of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t have to do with confusion in Protestantism , but our reading of scripture and our reliance on our dear Reformers.
Kevin, I am glad you and Joel Osteen are unified on the gospel! I am glad you and the Methodist Church are unified on the gospel! I am glad you and the Episcopal Church USA are unified on the gospel! I am glad you and Westboro Baptist Church are united on the gospel! I am glad that you and Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, and Kenneth Copeland are united on the gospel!
Dan said, Nothing Rome promulgates is ever wrong and in fact can’t even be falsified, since it is the pinnacle of all truth. Let me ask you a simple question, are there any contradictions in Roman Catholicism? or more revealing, can there be contradictions in Roman Catholicism?
ROCKY: Perhaps you do not understand Catholicism then. Of course when it comes to doctrine Jesus gave the promise that Peter who was given the keys along with the power to bind and loose would not commit error in this crucial way. That is a given. Only in the Catholic Church is that prophecy completed. That be Mat 16:16-19.
DAN SAID, Ironically, in the oft repeated RC apologetic claim that Protestants should obey; 2 Thes. 2:15 ” So then “brothers” stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
Yet, a few verses later he says (2thes3:6) “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any “brother” who is walking in idleness and NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE TRADITION THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM US.
ROCKY: So what is the contradiction between 2 Thes. 2:15 and 2thes3:6 if your quote is correct. Both admonish to listen to sacred tradition. What am I missing here? If you are NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE TRADITION THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM US (the apostles) you are NOT following sacred tradition.
Rocky, what is the tense of the tradition received from the Apostles?
2 Thessalonians 3 (NASB)
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you [a]keep away from every brother who [b]leads an [c]unruly life and not according to the tradition which [d]you received from us.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NASB)
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter [a]from us.
1) Tradition you received from us.
2) Traditions which you were taught.
So go ahead Kevin, give us a grammar lesson and a full interpretation on how 2 Thessalonians 3 contradicts 2 Thessalonians 2:15
WALT SAID: Roman Catholics are far far worse as I’ve seen on here. They have totally lost all ability to reason, think and discern. That is why I told you (and of course you lack ability to hear or see) that I need to research cults and reprogramming first to understand how to respond to you.
ROCKY: Just last night I was watching Leah Remini’s exposé on Scientology. There was a panel discussion on the cultic aspects and there was a very bright Jewish fellow who had spent many, many years as a Moonie (a follower of Sun Myung Moon) who was now an expert on cults and deprograming. Anyway there was an interesting part of the discussion where he admitted that he himself, though he was so deeply disordered and consumed in his fake cultic church, still looked upon Scientology and Scientologist with amazement in their BLIND cultish aspects. He said he never realized the complete irony of seeing the hallmarks of a cult there while all the time missing that fact he was just as immersed in it.
The analogy is not entirely appropriate as I do not think (in general) that Protestantism is a cult because it does not have a charismatic leaders who controls the minds and lives of its members but there are definitely many local churches where some of this is going on. A real cult would have elements where members are manipulated or controlled to shun family and friends. I believe shunning is a big part of the JW cult.
In the end Walt, one is more cult-like when you get togeather with otherlike minded folk of similar disposition and then declare other groups null and void such as above where you declare that “Roman Catholics are far far worse as I’ve seen on here. They have totally lost all ability to reason, think and discern.”
The demeanour of you and your confreres on these sites often end up as being rant-filled and belligerent with special aim at Catholicism being evil and not Christian. In other words it is clearly documented that malice and ill will have more to do with Protestant posters (with obvious exceptions) here and on Onefold than any Catholic. But like the BLIND Moonie, you are the one unable to see your deficit.
And many of you feel justified in your anti-Catholic vitriol because we are of Satan right?
But Catholics still accept Protestants as fellow Christians and it is unlikely that many of you accept Catholics as Christians even though we were the first ones and actually discerned the canon of scripture for the world.
While the Catholic Church rightly declares itself the fullness of Gods Church we do not declare you non-Christians and caught up in evil. Now that would be a sign of a cult. And for us to say you were caught up in evil would be to attack Christ himself.
” a real cult would have elements where members are manipulated or controlled” there is another possibility. They could be under the delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2 which God himself puts on people. When I see Roman Catholic kissing the ring of a pope, following bread around in the street, going to adoration chapel and praying to the bread, working prayer beads, standing outside St Peters looking up and crying over a mere man, it reminds me of mind control. There is definitely a cult like worship for saints, pope, bread, church, sacraments. It brought J.C. Ryle to say Roman Catholicism is one gigantic system of church worship, saint worship, and sacrament worship.
Rocky said to Walt ” even though we were the first ones and actually discerned the scripture to the world” I think this statement actually proves Walt’s point. You make this statement on a blog dedicated to set the record straight that you weren’t the fist ones and your church discerned error to the world. The Irony is interesting because my guess is you aren’t even familiar with the arguments here against your synagogue. Its called ” Out of His mouth” not Out of Rome’s mouth.
Rocky said:
“The analogy is not entirely appropriate as I do not think (in general) that Protestantism is a cult because it does not have a charismatic leaders who controls the minds and lives of its members..”
This is correct, but the Roman Catholic church fits the definition of a cult perfectly as you have rightly stated.
Rocky said:
“And many of you feel justified in your anti-Catholic vitriol because we are of Satan right?
But Catholics still accept Protestants as fellow Christians and it is unlikely that many of you accept Catholics as Christians even though we were the first ones and actually discerned the canon of scripture for the world.”
No, I would never say that actual members of the Roman Catholic church are Satan. I don’t believe that “anti-Catholic” position at all. I believe the institution and leaders are run by Satanic powers and are Antichrist. The membership is, as I have said here over and over and over again, largely brain washed and stuck in a cult that has taken from them the ability to discern, think effectively, reason and even comprehend basic facts.
For example, Tim K spent significant time in his most current blog posting showing the hatred Jerome had toward woman who were marriage and had sexual relations to conceive children. The plain meaning of his statements totally condemn him as an evil man who totally misrepresented the Apostle’s doctrine on marriage, sexual relations in marriage and procreating the earth with children. Your Roman Catholic rock star Jerome was really messed up.
Now, of course, you don’t see any of this as a problem with Jerome. He is another great Catholic Saint we all need to pray to for this or that gift or money or something. I’m not sure what St. Jerome delivers if you pray to him. I would have to research it so I’m accurate.
However, to my point, now here comes a Roman Catholic historian and expert on this period, and he writes very clearly that Jerome and his sect of followers were not teaching the Apostles doctrine, but were separated from the true doctrine.
He writes clearly and to the facts as even Tim discovered:
“If there is a single conclusion to be derived from my study, it is that Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized; certainly he was closer to early Christian ‘orthodoxy’ than his condemnation for ‘heresy’ would suggest. … But to succeed in placing Jovinian closer to the ‘centre’ of Christian discourse is simultaneously to ‘de-centre’ some major figures in the Christian tradition, and my study has raised some questions about the ascetical theology of Ambrose and Jerome and their relation to prior tradition. Jerome’s deep dependence on the Montanist writings of Tertullian, as well as the extensive influence of Origen, led him to adopt a posture towards marriage that many, if not most, of his contemporaries found scandalous. Similarly, Ambrose’s attraction to the ideal of virginal integrity, also influenced by a heavy dose of Origen’s theology, caused him to adopt a Marian doctrine (virginitas in partu) that had only a fragile basis in earlier Christian tradition. In different ways, both Jerome and Ambrose represented the survival of the ancient encratite tradition at least in its moderate form. Both strongly associated sex with original sin and linked salvation to sexual purity.” (Hunter, David G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity (Oxford University Press (2007) 285).
So, is it possible for any Roman Catholic on this blog to see anything wrong with this picture? Of course not, because there is never anything wrong with the Roman Catholic church on any subject. All have lost ability to reason is my claim, and all have lost ability to discern.
The author above is an exception on this subject matter. It only we could get other Roman Catholics to see what he sees.
Walt said, “However, to my point, now here comes a Roman Catholic historian and expert on this period, and he writes very clearly that Jerome and his sect of followers were not teaching the Apostles doctrine, but were separated from the true doctrine.”
Uh, where did Hunter say THAT?
“Uh, where did Hunter say THAT?”
Blind as a bat…poor guy!
WHERE did he say that Walt? Is this how you roll? Make things up and think nobody notices your untruth?
Read the quote Mark. He was talking about the apostle’s doctrine just as your guys always claim. Of course, in your effected and confused mind all doctrine practiced by Rome is perfectly tied to scripture and the sacred tradition of the apostles doctrine. Unfortunately, as the author noted it just is not so. Those the pope and Jerome vilified and excommunicated were teaching scripture and the apostles doctrine. It was here that Rome established the root of schism from the apostles doctrine and never looked back. It was this point in history Rome and the papacy decided to join Satan as her teacher and reject Christ and the apostles doctrine.
Read it Mark. It is absolutely clear for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Is it not any wonder that so few can read scripture and discern the truth. They are so heavily blinded by not just ignorance of the scriptures, but of just the ability to see anything in history except only that which they have been taught to believe.
For the record, let me also make clear that I do not believe Roman Catholics are not extremely gifted, talented and highly effective men and women in many, many areas of life. Some of the sharpest people I know and the most loving are Roman Catholics. My father did more for our State and for local families than almost anyone I know in his field without asking for any compensation. He was a tireless champion right up till he passed for his causes to help people and children. However, like all Roman Catholics I know he was totally blinded to anything Christian, biblical or religious. He was very ignorant on doctrine, worship, form of church government and discipline in the Christian church. He was from Notre Dame and a catholic high school and was trained to always believe what the church and pope told him.
Like you guys here on this blog, I’m sure you are all highly successful and gifted in your family life and in your profession. However, when it comes to even understanding simple concepts that speak against the truth and purity of your darling Rome, you see nothing.
The author Tim K quoted saw the problem with your church pope and founders attacking these men. He said in his research they were more in line with the truth of scripture and the apostles doctrine than Jerome and your pope.
Yes, you don’t see it. I get it. I got it months ago reading you and others here as they responded to Tim K. It was clear that you all are blind to even believing one of your own that speaks openly against the lies your church tells about the first through the fourth centuries.
It is here where Rome caused schism in became its own religion and took on Satan as its spiritual founder rather than Christ and the apostles doctrine on marriage and children and virginity within a marriage.
I see this schism as the root to your church support if homosexual priests and clergy in the Vatican. The place is filled with this evil and has been for centuries. But now more than ever. Whole documentaries with hidden camera by journalists taping parties in Rome filled openly with priests having sex parties with other men. And you guys defend it because it is your true church in the Vatican and of course the Protestants do it too so it is fine.
Nobody is perfect, of course, but the root of this evil lies with your champion Jerome. I see this now. You do not. No I do get it.
Walt, don’t be surprised that Mark can’t see what Hunter was clearly saying. When I showed that the early church writings were replete with attributions of sins, sinfulness, doubt, unbelief, vainglory, faults, concupiscence and offenses of Mary as she is seen standing between Christ and His people, not as a “Mediatress,” but as an interrupting obstructionist, needing from Jesus not only “healing” of her sins, but “salvation” for her lost soul, a Roman Catholic reader responded that this may be so, but none of the early writers actually said Mary had sinned.
It is amazing how blind they can be to evidence that is hostile to their claims. Thus, all these writings that attributed sin to Mary before Ambrose, are all relegated to “stray private opinion” by the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia.
Sweep all the contrary evidence under the rug, and PRESTO!, the early evidence is unanimous!
Unfortunately, once the contrary evidence is swept under the rug, there is hardly any other evidence left at all:
So, aside from the evidence for Mary’s sinfulness, and the lack of evidence that they believed in her immaculate purity and sinlessness, there isn’t much to go by until… wait for it: the latter part of the 4th century:
So there’s no evidence for her sinlessness until a significant turning point in 377 A.D., and what evidence we do have before then is that Mary had sins, sinfulness, doubt, unbelief, vainglory, faults, concupiscence and other offenses of which she needed to be cleansed, but aside from that, there is an unbroken doctrinal continuity of Mary’s immaculate conception from the apostles until Pius IX’s declaration in 1854.
That’s just how Roman Catholicism works. Fortunately, the Lord has always raised up Protestants to stand against Rome’s penchant for novelty.
Tim
WALT SAID: My father did more for our State and for local families than almost anyone I know in his field without asking for any compensation. He was a tireless champion right up till he passed for his causes to help people and children. However, like all Roman Catholics I know he was totally blinded to anything Christian, biblical or religious. He was very ignorant on doctrine, worship, form of church government and discipline in the Christian church.
ROCKY: At the very least your father lived the life of Christian and probably would not have gone about slagging his adversaries and drawing extreme conclusions from some bake-in hostility. How is it that a man of such ignorance and derision lives a more Christ-like life than many Christians who claim their own assurance of salvation.
WALT said, I see this schism as the root to your church support if homosexual priests and clergy in the Vatican. The place is filled with this evil and has been for centuries.
ROCKY: And this is the kind of arrogant, unsubstantiated and malicious conclusion which damages your own credibility. Even if you do at times manage to express elements of truth (or even good will) it’s these unrestrained conclusions which beg the question in ones mind, “Where is the love of Christ in all this, while you yourself deride others? Where is the charity and goodwill.”
and
“Should I believe anything this guy says when there is so much rancour unpinning his conclusions.”
Nobody gets to this kind of hostility from faith in Christ you know. THAT is just a contradiction.
Walt, let me remind you of what you said, “he writes very clearly that Jerome and his sect of followers were not teaching the Apostles doctrine, but were separated from the true doctrine.”
I ask you one more time, where does Hunter say this? You read into the text things you want to hear instead of reading it for what it is actually saying. This is the same thing you do with the ECFs and Scripture.
Mark, did you really ask Walt that question. The whole point of Hunter was Jerome and Ambrose broke from scripture and Apostolic tradition. These were the seeds of the visible apostasy. If it stood alone, then maybe you could we could say Jerome and Ambrose had mistakes in their theology. But you miss the overall point of this series and really this whole blog. It clearly traces the apostasy in the church. ” flood of doctrines” God has always spoken to his people in clear signs. You really don’t have to look to hard Mark to see Roman Catholicism for what it is. Are you willing to look. Its right there.
KEVIN SAID, When I see Roman Catholic kissing the ring of a pope, following bread around in the street, going to adoration chapel and praying to the bread, working prayer beads, standing outside St Peters looking up and crying over a mere man, it reminds me of mind control.
ROCKY: Kevin, you seem unable to distinguish between practices (some local some general) and God-established sacraments. Even Protestants have religious practices, thought they have rejected many of his sacraments.
Bad doctrine produces bad fruit behaviorally (e.g., Mark 7:7-13; Col. 2:20-23; 1 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Pet. 2:1; Rev. 2:14-15, 20, 24), which is as true for Christians as it is for cultists.
Van Baalen stated, ‘If practice follows from theory, if life is based upon teaching, it follows that the wrong doctrine will issue in the wrong attitude toward God and Christ, and consequently in warped and twisted Christian life.’
– Alan Gomes, Cult: A Theological Definition, excerpt from “Unmasking The Cults“
SOME PROTESTANT CULT-LIKE BEHAVIOR
-Rejection of God-given intellect, goodwill and dialogue in favor of sectarian jingoism.
-Subscribing to charismatic leaders/pastors (gurus) at local levels and more broadly.
-Substituting worship with rock music and entertainment.
-Chasing after end-times and rapture predictions instead of their own Christian life and personal salvation.
CULTIC MIND CONTROL language characterized by the thought-ending cliché. Zombification. One could write a book on this one I think.
Repetition of “Are you born again”
“Are you a bible-believing Christian?”
-Looking for those diagnostic phrases or behavior that indicate you are a true Christian.
MILIEU CONTROL – Creating an ‘us’ against ‘them’ scenario.
-Rejection of God-given intellect, goodwill and dialogue in favor of sectarian jingoism. (ranting and accusations)
REGIONAL DOCTRINES VERSES UNIVERSAL
Southern US – Baptist.
Scotland – Presbyterian
Etc, etc, etc.
BASING ONES FAITH AND DOCRINES ON ONE OR TWO PASSAGES.OR SOME “ NON APOSTOLIC FOUNDERS” IDEAS.
Sola scriptura
Faith alone.
Iconoclasm (think ISIS and many bible only denominations.
KJV idolatry-like behavior
Kevin. “Mark, did you really ask Walt that question. The whole point of Hunter was Jerome and Ambrose broke from scripture and Apostolic tradition. ”
I ask you to show me where Hunter ever quoted a scripture to show that Jerome and Ambrose broke from it. Where did he quote any Apostle?
I’ve already shown how Matthew 19 supports Jerome and Ambrose.
Mark said:
“I ask you to show me where Hunter ever quoted a scripture to show that Jerome and Ambrose broke from it. Where did he quote any Apostle?”
This is what I mean by blind. And to think you were actually a university graduate studying any subject does boggle the mind.
It only goes to prove my point of what mind control does to its victims.
Mark, give it up. Its the point of the whole paragraph. Denial is more than a river in Egypt.
All Hunter claimed was that he “raised some questions” about the views of Jerome. That is a far cry from Walt’s claim that “he writes very clearly that Jerome and his sect of followers were not teaching the Apostles doctrine, but were separated from the true doctrine.”
And even though Hunter “raises some questions” he is an academic and doesn’t speak for the Church. I think he would laugh at how much praise and honor everyone is giving Jovinianus, a heretic of the Church, based on his work. In fact, Tim K., why don’t you write him and tell him about your blog and this article.
Also, none of this negates how celibacy is a better way than marriage as I’ve shown that Jesus taught this in Mt. 19.
Mark, where in Matthew 19 did Jesus teach that “celibacy is a better way than marriage”? Please cite the exact verse, because up to this point, I still can’t find where Jesus said that.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I’ve already explained it earlier. Matthew 19:9-12:
“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
He’s not telling them that it is “better” not to “remarry” because remarriage is a sin and Jesus wouldn’t say “It’s better not to sin”.
No, Jesus was saying it was better not to marry in the first place, but not everyone can receive it, but that it is a gift from God. This is consecrated celibacy.
If Jerome had any fault in his writings about Jovinianus, it was that he expressed himself too strongly which made people think he was against marriage, which he wasn’t. What’s clear though is that Jovinianus was against consecrated celibacy whatsoever. For that and other things he was declared a heretic by two synods.
Mark, it is not just that Hunter “raised some questions” about the views of Jerome. That is a myopic mischaracterization. It’s that Hunter’s detailed study of Jovinianus places Jovinianus closer to the truth than either Ambrose or Jerome, and any of his “previous critics,” and he recognized the implications of his findings:
So no, it is not just that he questioned the views of Jerome. That is not all he did. He questioned the judgment of Jovinian’s “previous critics,” including Newman, Siricius, Ambrose and Jerome. Who, after all, condemned him for heresy, but Siricius? This is as close as Hunter can come to calling Siricius’ judgment a mistake.
I grant you that Hunter is but an academic. He does not speak for the church. Nobody has claimed otherwise.
But we have recognized Jovinianus’ orthodoxy on this site, solely on the merits of what we know of the man, and nobody needed Hunter to recognize it. But Hunter is a respected Roman Catholic academic who removes from the centre of orthodoxy Jovinianus’ critics, making Siricius, Jerome, Ambrose and Newman less orthodox than Jovinianus.
Best,
Tim
That’s exactly what he said. Hunter wrote: ” my study has raised some questions about the ascetical theology of Ambrose and Jerome and their relation to prior tradition. ”
You cannot derive from that one paragraph what Walt wrote: “he writes very clearly that Jerome and his sect of followers were not teaching the Apostles doctrine, but were separated from the true doctrine.” That is a baseless and incredulous statement except that I know the mindset from the person who made it.
Rocky said:
“ROCKY: At the very least your father lived the life of Christian and probably would not have gone about slagging his adversaries and drawing extreme conclusions from some bake-in hostility. How is it that a man of such ignorance and derision lives a more Christ-like life than many Christians who claim their own assurance of salvation.”
Dad was very liberal. He supported largely any evil including abortion for rape, homosexual or lesbian lifestyles, birth control and many liberal paths accepted by the vast majority of Roman Catholics. He was a lifelong catholic and Vatican II was a positive change for Catholics in his mind. It gave a lot more freedom like Ted Kennedy and other catholic politicians support a woman’s right to choose death. Weekly they still take communion hold firm against the positions against the papacy. He would have loved this new pope and his liberal teachings.
I fortunately started reading scripture very young in catholic school and so when things went evil with Rome I turned to learn the scripture and the history of that vial and wicked protestant Luther and the reformers. I was taught to despise them, but I just put all that catholic hatred aside and started to read them. Soon I was like “Dad, I was taught lies in catholic school, I want to debate the local priest on these lies.” it was dead on arrival.
Over the years I’ve witnessed how evil the Roman church is and had been so, yes, it is possible guys like you and other Roman enforcers will get tire of my constant rants against you leaders. I know most Catholics are just ignorant and lost like mom and dad were on their beloved faith, but for you leaders and the established church I fear nothing I say. Your religion is antichrist and in case you never read scripture on the subject it would do you good to learn it is not anything to join hands with, but rather to protest loudly against.
Rocky said:
“ROCKY: And this is the kind of arrogant, unsubstantiated and malicious conclusion which damages your own credibility. Even if you do at times manage to express elements of truth (or even good will) it’s these unrestrained conclusions which beg the question in ones mind, “Where is the love of Christ in all this, while you yourself deride others? Where is the charity and goodwill.””
First, exposing this wickedness is love. Helping men to see their sin is love and I wish nothing more than to harshly express my views against your romish church and also you apologists who defend her endlessly with implicit faith.
Second, I’ve posted multiple videos on this blog of first hand testimony of victims who testify against your church for its extreme sexual abuse of children and its rampant homosexual clergy in the Vatican.
Yes…we are all haters for exposing this evil. The true Roman Catholic love is to bury it and silence the victims and move the predator to another location in secret.
It is messed up and we are all haters for exposing it as it is just not loving. That again is mind control.
Rocky–
I try to find common ground with you guys, not make common cause. When I see error, I’m going to point it out.
I find fault with C2C partly because I see potential for its being a source for actual progress in Ecumenics (which it states as its goal and advertises as its name).
An awful lot of apologetics sites are buttresses for “wobbly Evangelical faith” or “wobbly Fundamentalist faith” or “wobbly conservative Lutheran faith” or what have you. There’s no particular shame in that. But why claim to be a platform for Reformed-Catholic dialogue, and then make dialogue all but impossible? Few Calvinists frequent the site any more, preferring to comment from the safety of their own fishing ponds.
To C2C’s credit, they have from time to time had guest articles from Reformed scholars. They had Keith Mathison (from Ligonier, R.C Sproul’s ministry). They had Nicholas Batzig (from Reformed Forum). And more recently, they had an exchange of articles with Brandon Addison, a young pastor educated at Westminster-California.
Mathison, they treated somewhat shamefully. Batzig was handled at least a little better. And Addison showcased what C2C could be. I thought it a fairly respectful, even productive interchange.
Intellect envy? I dunno. I think if one wished to indulge in first-rate Catholic fare, you’d belly up to the bar at “First Things” or the like, not C2C.
Now, there is much to admire in Catholic intellectual heritage, for sure. And plenty of Evangelicals drink long, strong drafts of everything from Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux and Aquinas to Balthasar and Wojtyla and Ratzinger to Kreeft and Reno and Neuhaus.
But it’s not as if the cupboard is bare in Reformed circles. For instance, the consensus preeminent theologian in all of American history is Jonathan Edwards. And besides, it’s not as if having all the smarts is a sign of blessing:
“For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.…”
A poll of elite scientists was conducted in 1998. Respondents, taken from the membership of the National Academy of Scientists, proved to be only 7% believers in God.
Intellect envy? I wouldn’t take it if you gave it to me. I would prefer to be an anti-intellectual Fundamentalist if that were my only other option.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.”
(Oh, and notice it doesn’t say that THE CHURCH shall direct your paths!)
Walt–
I was just reading that a whopping three out of every four members of Congress educated at Jesuit colleges and universities vote pro-choice. And they make up a good 10% of the two chambers.
Walt–
Oh, and Luther’s not wicked any more. The Vatican is putting out a commemorative stamp to celebrate his Wittenberg door hammerings of 500 years ago. Also, Pope Francis has proclaimed that Luther’s intentions were to renew the church, not divide it.
Mark, we know for you to admit that a pope and Jerome were in serious doctrinal error, and your own apologist giving heed to that, really puts the question to you. Because for you to agree with what’s obviously in your eyes, that a pope and a bishop were apostate, it would be an admission that your religion was not orthodox. But, what is amazing to me, is there is a plethora of novel unorthodox doctrines that trace your religion, and you are turning your back on the truth. Tim mentioned another one. That Mary is a sinner just like the rest of us . The Marian ego, along with idolatry and a false gospel will certainly keep Rome’s people out of heaven. God isn’t like our earthly father, he doesn’t relent. To pray to, worship, or exalt anyone else besides the Son of God, will incur the wrath of God. Isaiah 42:8 ” I am the Lord, that is my name, I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.” Mark, read this scripture and then measure it against your continual support for a man who claims to be God on earth, a religion that exalts the mother of Jesus, and a religion that taught that sexual chastity was the merit of the gospel. Tim has documented I believe in one of his articles what was done to Jovinanius and Vigilantius by Jerome.
Kevin, quit changing the subject. Why don’t you deal with Matthew 19? Jesus called celibacy better than the marital state. Also, Paul says virtually the same thing in 1 Cor 7.
Does your group allow people to remarry after a divorce?
And, you are saying Hunter claimed that Jerome and Pope Siricius were apostate? What are you going to claim next? That Hunter said they used the KJV of the Bible? Your claims get more ridiculous every time you type a response.
I’ve noticed that Protestants like to shuck and jive by changing topics. When all else fails and they are backed into the corner they pull out the “scandals” card thinking that wins the argument. But it doesn’t. The Catholic Church is just as much the Church Jesus founded today as it was back in the 1st century. That’s why I am Catholic. The Papacy is the longest running institution in the history of mankind. That’s because Jesus is on his throne and his promises are TRUE. You can take them to the bank.
Mark, where in Matthew 19 did Jesus call celibacy better than the marital state? I look forward to your response.
Tim
Tim K. I’ve already shown you. I’ve told you several times now and you keep asking the same question. I understand you don’t like the answer but asking the same question over and over won’t get a different response so if you have a POINT to make, please make it instead of playing games.
Mark, no you have not “already shown” me. All you have done is quote what the disciples said and interpret it for me as what Jesus was “saying.” So far you have not yet produced the section in Matthew 19 where Jesus actually says what you say He said. By way of reminder:
But every time you explain it, you tell me what the disciples said, and then what you personally interpret Jesus’ response to mean. In other words, you provide your personal interpretation of what Jesus thought, but you never actually provide anything about Jesus saying “celibacy is the better way than marriage,” “celibacy is the better way,” or “it was better not to marry in the first place.” Does He say those words in your Bible? Can you provide a copy of it for me so I can read what Jesus said? In my bible, I can’t find any place where Jesus said what you say He said. What am I missing?
It seems to me that those asking the question wanted to find out whether, when a wife had been condemned for sexual misconduct and removed, there was any advantage in marrying another. They were asking about the particular case Jesus mentioned in verse 9 (which is the natural reading of the passage), not the general case Jesus mentioned in verse 6 (which requires that you overlook the intervening conversation). I know that must sound crazy to you.
So as I understand your position, you think that after Jesus restores marriage its Edenic stature (v. 6) the disciples realize that if marriage is permanent the way God instituted it, it is better not to marry (v. 10). So you wrote on January 13:
“It is better not to marry” thus, in your mind, was referring to the general case (v. 6).
As you know, you do not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, and you are not a member of the magisterium, so can you provide me with some official teaching from Roman Catholicism that shows that “it is better not to marry” was the disciples’ response to the general case, and that “it is better not to marry” was what Jesus was saying? You’ve given me enough of your personal, private interpretation of Matthew 19. What is the official, infallible teaching from the magisterium?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, It has been the consistent teaching from the Church this is what Jesus meant. Not that you care about any documents from the Church.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis.html
Mark,
My specific question was:
You provided me instead with a commentary on Priestly Celibacy from Paul VI, in which nothing is said of Matthew 19:10, where the disciples make the observation in question. Do you have anything from the magisterium that can support your position that the disciples’ response in Matthew 19:10 was regarding the general case of marriage in v. 6, as you have insisted?
Thanks,
Tim
I don’t have time to scour all the magisterial documents for you Tim. It is and has been the common teaching of the Church that celibacy is a special gift. This is different than just being non-married and chaste because you one is waiting for a spouse. The encyclical I posted did quote Mt. 19 but you obviously didn’t see it. Not sure what else to say.
The thing is, you already know this is the Church’s teaching. Again with the silly games. Not doing it.
Mark, I did read the link you sent. Yes, it does cite Matthew 19 in several places, but I noticed that in no place does it reference Matthew 19:10. That is why I wrote back, saying, that you “provided me instead with a commentary … in which nothing is said of Matthew 19:10.” I don’t know why you would provide a link that does not address Matthew 19:10 as proof that your personal, private interpretation of Matthew 19:10 is correct.
You want me to believe that your personal interpretation of Matthew 19:10 is authoritative, even as you acknowledge that you are not a member of the magisterium and cannot speak for the church.
I don’t know why you think this is a silly game. What evidence from the magisterium do you have to show your personal interpretation of Matthew 19:10 is correct?
Thanks,
Tim
“You want me to believe that your personal interpretation of Matthew 19:10 is authoritative, even as you acknowledge that you are not a member of the magisterium and cannot speak for the church.”
It’s funny that you appeal to the authority of the Church to try and discredit my position. Thank you for recognizing the authority of the Church! I bet if you dig a little you will find the answer. I don’t have time to research this for you.
Oh, Mark, you needn’t resort to such a misrepresentation. You think it is a concession on my part to recognize that you are, and have claimed to be, under the authority of the magisterium? And that, to you, is me “recognizing the authority of the Church”? I know that you deny the validity of personal, private interpretation of Scriptures. And yet, when asked, you cannot support your interpretation of Matthew 19:10 from the Scriptures or even from your own magisterium.
To make things a little easier for you, Clement of Alexandria provides for you the earliest known Patristic interpretation of Matthew 19:10, and he states my exact position on the verse:
For your edification, you will note that is exactly how I interpreted the verse. Earlier = closer to the apostles, according to Rome. Of course, we can probably relegate Clement’s thoughts to ash heap of “stray private opinion” (of course!), and wait for the encratite heresy to work its way into the church by Origen and Tertullian, and then be imposed with a vengeance by Ambrose and Jerome. Thus, while I do not rely upon Clement for my interpretation of Matthew 19:10, it is clear that my position, to borrow David Hunter’s terminology, puts me “closer to the centre of the Christian tradition” of the preceding centuries, and yours is thus necessarily “de-centred”.
Roman Catholicism is the novelty, Mark, not me.
If you have anything other than your own private opinion, and articles that make no mention of Matthew 19:10, please provide them.
Best,
Tim
Tim K. said, “And yet, when asked, you cannot support your interpretation of Matthew 19:10 from the Scriptures or even from your own magisterium.” I did support it from scripture. Again, you aren’t under the magisterium so there’s no reason for you to ask for magisterial documents.
As for Clement, you may want to get another translation. Here is one: “50. Concerning the words, “Not all can receive this saying. There are some eunuchs who were born so, and some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; let him receive it who can receive it,” they do not realize the context. After his word about divorce some asked him whether, if that is the position in relation to woman, it is better not to marry; and it was then that the Lord said: “Not all can receive this saying, but those to whom it is granted.” What the questioners wanted to know was whether, when a man’s wife has been condemned for fornication, it is allowable for him to marry another. ” http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html
The key is who the questioners were. It was the Pharisees. Jesus then elevated marriage back to the original state and said any remarriage is adultery. The disciples then didn’t ask a question, but rather made a statement. “His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.'” And then Jesus said it is for only those who it has been given.
So, clearly Clement doesn’t make you “closer to the center of the Christian tradition.” If you think Clement was somehow against celibacy or thought that it didn’t have merit, I invite you to read the other sections of that book, specifically chapter 12.
Mark, here are the two translations:
Leaving your own personal interpretation aside, in both translations Clement has the disciples asking the question in v. 10, and according to Clement, their question is not about the original state of marriage (as you have maintained), but of the particular case of the divorced man and woman in v. 9.
The different translation can’t change the fact that Clement had the disciples asking the question, and Clement has the same disciples make the comment “it is better not to marry” in relation to the particular case in v. 9. The words “Those asking the question” in Clement is a reference not to the Pharisees but to the disciples. His conclusion is entirely consistent with the Scriptures, but not at all like your novel interpretation.
It was a nice try, though.
Tim
Tim, you believe Clement was talking chronologically. However, “What the questioners wanted to know…” is still referring to the Pharisees. You see, the Pharisees only asked about DIVORCE and didn’t ask about marrying again. Clement is just clarifying what the Pharisees were REALLY asking.
How can we know that? Because it is the only thing that would make sense given the context. Jesus just got done saying that marriage was for life and remarriage was adultery. Jesus made it clear that celibacy was optional and only for those who it was given. It was a gift. He wouldn’t then turn around and say that celibacy for divorced is optional for those who are gifted with it. Jesus doesn’t make sin optional or not sinning just “advantageous” and only for some and not others.
Mark, just to show you how insane Jerome and Ambrose were, Paul says in 1Corunthians 7 to married couples ” stop depriving each other ” except for prayer. So according to Paul you should either be praying or having sex with your wife. He goes on to say to unmarrieds, ” it is good to remain as I, but if you have no self control, marry, it is better to marry than to burn. There is bi mention of merit of chastity. Ridiculous. Jerome and Ambrose weren’t only on less orthodox with their view, they were heretical.
Kevin, uh, I suggest correctly quoting 1 Cor 7. You must be accurate in what it says so you can rightly divide the word, which you haven’t done. Do you know what chastity is? Tell your wife that there’s no merit in chastity and see what she says.
I understand that this may be the first time you are being given the truth of these passages. It will take time to digest it.
Where does the scripture say that chastity is merit? CCC 2006 merit = recompensed owed. Uh, are you saying that people owe God chastity. Having discussed with you the sacraments of the new law in justification and you not even knowing what they were , and having you tell me the mass isn’t a sacrifice when Trent anathamatizes anyone who says it isn’t, I’m convinced you understand Mathew 19.
When you get married you don’t suddenly not have to be chaste anymore. Like I said, tell your wife there is no merit in self-restraint and that you should be able to think about having relationships with many woman and see if she agrees.
You can read about chastity starting in CCC 2337.
Kevin, was St. Athanasius a heretic too?
I find it fascinating that Hans was perfectly happy to accept St. Athanasius’s canon list for the New Testament so I thought it might be interesting to see if the Saint who took on the Arian heresy had anything to say about the celibate vs the married life. Poor St. Ambrose and Jerome seems to be getting pounded but Athanasius wrote:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria ca. 297-373
For, there being two roads in life as regards these matters, the one a more moderate and helpful road conducive to life, that of marriage, I mean; the other one being angelic and unsurpassable, that of virginity; but if anyone should choose the mundane life – that is to say, the way of marriage, though he is not liable to censure or blame, he will not receive so many gracious gifts. For what he will receive when he bears fruit will be thirty. But if he embraces the chaste and supra-mundane life, though the road is rough in comparison with the first and difficult to achieve, yet it has more wonderful features in the way of gracious gifts: for it has produced the perfect fruit, the hundred. (The Rudder: Canons of the Holy Fathers, First Epistle to the Monk Amun)
I still can’t understand why anyone would accept St. Athanasius’s canon list? I have asked but no one seems to want to respond?
Tim P.,
this is the paradox of Protestantism. They are cafeteria Catholics actually. They pick and choose things from Catholicism and make their own religions (some groups accept the councils, others reject this one or that one or this teaching or that teaching). They all follow their own traditions yet despise Catholics when we talk about tradition.
Athanasius was the MAN. He fought the Arian heresy ALL of his adult life, even after Nicaea. The Arians wanted to say even after the Council that Jesus was “of a similar nature”, homoiousios, with the Father. That one letter, the iota, is where we get the expression “Not one Iota of difference.”
Why did the early Fathers of the Church believe that celibacy was the better way than marriage? Because Jesus taught it. Because Paul taught it. Because it was practiced by the priesthood from the very beginning. That is why Paul says that the priest must be a husband of one wife. When they became a priest they took vows of celibacy while they remained married. If a man had been married more than once it said that he may not be called to a life of celibacy.
WALT SAID: Second, I’ve posted multiple videos on this blog of first hand testimony of victims who testify against your church for its extreme sexual abuse of children and its rampant homosexual clergy in the Vatican.
ROCKY: What an example of grotesque protestant hypocrisy. Take the log out of your own eye buddy. We know the ranks of Protestantism is defiled with sinners. If this is your point to prove something you lose.
And btw I have heard enough of your malicious intentions and heart by now to know that your testimony on just about anything has no merit. If you have something you would like to re-share on all of this I will also share some stuff on protestant pedophilia and moral corruption, if you think that the sin and filth that has been in the church is fact that points to falseness because if you think it is then you logic is even more debased than your goodwill.
In fact it is what the Church teaches in its doctrine an morals moreso than the sinners that all share as a common denominator.
So we will share some videos on Catholic sinners and I will share some articles and statistic on Protestant sinners and we will all have some fun.
And then I will point at what some Presbyterian churches are doing on abortion and homosexuality. Remember THAT one Walt.
Should read , I’m convinced you don’t understand Mathew 19.
Mark, Paul tells married couples to not deprive each other. How does that square with Jerome telling a bishop lay off your wife and she will eventually be your sister? Salvation is free of man’s merit. You don’t even understand the consequences of Jerome’s and Ambrose’s actions. But they meant it for bad and God meant it for good. Because he allowed his true people to see this heresy and to recognize maybe the first reformers. Praise God.
If you think the Catholic Church is against reform, think again. In fact, if Luther didn’t turn his reformation into an all out rebellion he might even be St. Luther today. Unfortunately, some individuals in history thought they knew better than the Church and often stand in defiance of it and teach heresy to which the Church must respond. It was the protestant deformation as it accepted lies as truth because individuals rejected the authority of the Church in their lives.
The gates of hell have not and will not prevail against God’s Church due to anarchy and rebellion. If you followed one of the reformers you are on the wrong side of history. Every heresy dies out and so will Protestantism. God built His Church on Truth, the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ, not on protest.
Rocky said:
“And btw I have heard enough of your malicious intentions and heart by now to know that your testimony on just about anything has no merit. If you have something you would like to re-share on all of this I will also share some stuff on protestant pedophilia and moral corruption, if you think that the sin and filth that has been in the church is fact that points to falseness because if you think it is then you logic is even more debased than your goodwill.”
Your just a bully and anti-protestant that all.
” at stake was the eternal security of the Christian, and the best way to attain it was through virginity” Mark, this was a statement in Tim’s article that struck me and shocked me the most. The heresy of semi pelagianism was always raising it’s head throughout history. This article traces the foundations of that to Jerome and Ambrose who put forward heresy that one attains salvation through virginity in merit. Mark 10:9 says ” what God has joined together let no man put asunder.” The history of the Roman Catholic church as we see in Jerome and Ambrose was to break God’s sacred covenant with the audacity to punish Bishops who stood for marriage and its enjoyments freely under the gospel. The seeds of Antichrist were at work in those men, and many popes to follow.
Mark said:
“So, clearly Clement doesn’t make you “closer to the center of the Christian tradition.” If you think Clement was somehow against celibacy or thought that it didn’t have merit, I invite you to read the other sections of that book, specifically chapter 12.”
Oh is it painful to read that back and forth dialogue between Mark and Tim K. Tim is crystal clear and matter of fact as to the issue at hand. Mark is all over the place just desperate to be heard by anyone, and dancing around the issue so that if someone new comes to the blog they hopefully will be so confused as what was the issue at hand they just assume Mark Rome must be talking about another subject.
Not one person here I have read has been saying that Clement was against Celibacy or that it does not have merit in the context of Scripture. Some like Paul are able to sustain it, even with struggles and temptations, but for Jerome, etal to tell married people they should remain celibate in marriage, or to remain a virgin in marriage, or to require an oath of celibacy is crazy speak. That could cause a man or women in their marriage to stray if they burn for children and affection with their spouse. The oath of celibacy taught by Rome is the leading cause of Priest homosexuality and child rape. The root of this sin is Jerome…not the Scriptures or the Apostles.
Mark–
You confuse me. Where in all of Scripture is celibacy made mandatory for ANYONE?
Instead, Paul will maintain:
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, WHO FORBID MARRIAGE and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.”
Celibacy is a great gift of God, and Protestants do not denigrate it in the least. But there is never supposed to be anything coercive about it REGARDLESS of one’s role within the church.
Your current pope, Francis, as I noted above, has proclaimed that “St. Luther” intended to bring about renewal within the church, not division. He is releasing a commemorative stamp honoring the 500th anniversary of the “Deformation,” as you put it. Why are you on such a different page from your exalted leader?
By the way, if St. Athanasius is THE MAN…if he is “Mr. Orthodoxy”…if he is (like Elijah) virtually the “last man standing” against rampant heresy, then why, oh, why, do you refuse to accept his explicit canon of Scripture?
Mark,
You keep setting aside Clement’s interpretation of the passage, and substituting your own. Go back and read Clement (in either translation). The context (in Clement) is that he is correcting “those who say openly that marriage is fornication” (Stromata, Book III, 49.1) and who use Matthew 19:12 to support their position. Thus, his comment that “they do not recognize the context,” goes directly into the fact that the statement “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” was made in the context of the disciples making a specific observation about the particular case referenced in Matthew 19:9. Clement never even mentions the Pharisees’ question. His entire narrative on this text begins with the disciples’ question:
Clement’s commentary completely omits any reference to Pharisees and their question at all, and picks up with the passage immediately after Jesus’ words on divorce in v. 9. How can “What the questioners wanted to know…” be in reference to the Pharisees, when Clement hasn’t even identified them as part of his exposition? And how can Clement just be “clarifying what the Pharisees were REALLY asking” when Clement wasn’t even talking about what the Pharisees had asked in the first place?
Wishful thinking, on your part, Mark. But your approach is consistent with Roman Catholic hermeneutics. I’ll grant you that much.
Anyway, you are neither equipped nor authorized to interpret Scriptures or the early church fathers with magisterial authority (as you know), so why don’t you just point me to a Magisterial interpretation of Matthew 19:10? Or do you just want me to rely on your personal, private interpretation?
Thanks,
Tim
Hans, very well done. Now I wonder who forbid marriage and demanded their people abstain from foods.? Maybe the woman clothed in purple and scarlet and adorned with gold and pearls having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations. I know this from studying scripture, throughout the OT and all of scripture, the Lord gives clear signs to his people. And based on those signs I don’t think it can be clearer who Antichrist is. And if the writer on this blog and all the Reformers historically, and all of us who believe Rome is Antichrist are right, then there should be no truce with Rome, absolutely none. Catholicism isn’t another denomination, its another religion. Thanks for your post.
Hans said, “You confuse me. Where in all of Scripture is celibacy made mandatory for ANYONE?”
Never said it. Don’t believe it. Church doesn’t teach it.
Mark–
I see.
The Orthodox have married priests. Eastern-rite Catholics having married priests. Now you’re saying that all this time I thought the priests of Rome were REQUIRED to be celibate, I was mistaken. Your parish priest can up and marry whenever he darn pleases, and everyone will be just hunky-dory with that. They’ll all come to his wedding and celebrate the Eucharist with him presiding. Well, hurray!
You do realize, do you not, that telling someone that they must remain single or lose their calling–their very life’s work–is (and unquestionably should be) considered coercion?
And their “voluntary” vows of chastity are in nowise voluntary if they cannot become priests without them!
Hans said, “The Orthodox have married priests. Eastern-rite Catholics having married priests. Now you’re saying that all this time I thought the priests of Rome were REQUIRED to be celibate, I was mistaken. ”
Yes! Don’t forget Latin Rite Catholic Churches have married priests! We have some in my Diocese.
Mark–
OK, fine. And let’s not forget the Anglican Ordinariate either. Married Anglican priests converting to Rome may practice as priests and remain married.
But, be that as it may, the general rule for Catholic priests is MANDATORY celibacy. And to portray it in any other way is simply disingenuous.
Mark, you told Hans that celibacy isn’t mandatory. Than why do you support Jerome and his punitive abusive actions against Jovinanius and Vigilanius who said the same thing as you?
Remember that everyone will be celibate for eternity in their resurrected body.
Serendipity had it that I was in contact with Dr. David Hunter yesterday. I mentioned this blog to him and how his work is being used.
Mark wrote:
“Serendipity had it that I was in contact with Dr. David Hunter yesterday. I mentioned this blog to him and how his work is being used.”
I hope he visits and reads Cardinal Newman research in the new article as well. He should feel better that others believe these “excommunicated” brethren as Protestants as well.
That’s good, Mark. David is an excellent historian, and his conclusions were stated with the conviction of a man who reports facts without prejudice. Facts led him to the conclusion—conterintuitive for any Roman Catholic—that Jovinianus’ detractors did not realize that he was closer to the truth than they realized, and that some of his most vocal accusers were, themselves, proponents of a form of an ancient heresy.
I appreciate his work, and the fact is that he reported something that is difficult to do, especially when one holds to the catechism of the church that condemned Jovinianus. That’s some great scholarship. Perhaps you would honor his great work by considering of his “rather sobering thoughts” on Jovinianus, as I implored in my previous post:
An academic could do worse than have his work commended for its excellent scholarship. Don’t you agree?
Best,
Tim
Tim K,, Dr. Hunter responded to me and did peruse this blog. I agree with you that he is an excellent academic. I won’t speak for him but suffice it to say that he and I are in agreement that Jovinianus isn’t a proto-Protestant which he has argued against.
” He and I are in agreement that Jovinianus isn’t a proto protestant” This is a straw man erected to deflect. Of course Hunter isn’t going to agree with Tim’s article. He is Catholic. It doesn’t change the fact supported by Hunter that Jovinianus was Orthodox, and Ambrose and Jerome were supporting eracidite heresy. The more macro point is we see the Protest against the one of many flood of doctrine that came from your synagogue. The most disturbing thing, next to the fact we see one of the early destructions of righteous men when they stood against the visible apostasy, was that one can merit their way to heaven by forced celibacy. Using the tactics of Jerome and Ambrose to guilt people is why I believe the power rise of the bishop in the church was the squelching of the priesthood of believers. Wolvard was right when he said this.
“little t” traditions obviously don’t go back to the apostles since the apostles never said to not eat meat on Fridays during Lent.
Priestly celibacy is also another “little t” tradition. Don’t you agree?
Mark said, ““little t” traditions obviously don’t go back to the apostles,” and “Priestly celibacy is also another “little t” tradition.”
John Paul II said: “According to the Gospel, it appears that the Twelve, destined to be the first to share in his priesthood, renounced family life in order to follow him.” It sounds like your pope thought it went back to the apostles. Are you authorized to interpret the Gospel? Don’t you think John Paul II is more qualified than you are to determine what goes back to the apostles and what does not?
Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, S.T.D., responded: “That the Gospel gives evidence of apostolic celibacy is our first consideration.” Are you a catholic priest? Are you part of the magisterium? Are you qualified to give your opinion on this?
Father Cochini said “that the obligation demanded from married deacons, priests, and bishops to observe perfect continence with their wives is not, in the Church, the fruit of a belated development, but on the contrary, in the full meaning of the term, an unwritten tradition of apostolic origin that, so far as we know, found its first canonical expression in the 4th century.” It sounds like Fr. Cochini thought priestly celibacy was of apostolic origin. Which is why his book is called The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. Have you studied this more than Cochini, so that you can say with confidence that priestly celibacy is not apostolic, and that John Paul II was wrong?
Cardinal William Levada, Archdiocese of Belo Horizonte, summarized the patristic testimony: “In general, many of the Church Fathers in the Patristic period engaged in speculative theories about the possible marriage of one or other Apostle. But the Fathers are unanimous in saying that those Apostles who might have been married gave up their marital lives and practiced perfect continence. Cochini calls this “common opinion” of the Fathers an authoritative hermeneutics of the scriptural texts in which reference is made to the detachment practiced by Christ’s disciples, especially Matthew 19:27 and Luke 18:28-30. (8) Man, these guys sure sound like they think it goes all the way back to the apostles.
On the basis of what personal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition to you deny it?
Help us out, Mark. On the one hand, you sound pretty confident that priestly celibacy, as a “little t tradition, “do[es]n’t go back to the apostles.” But all these super smart magisterial guys—Popes, Cardinals, priests—are making a pretty bold argument against you.
Will you submit to your magisterium? John Paul II’s comments sound awfully infallible to me. I mean, “According to the Gospel…” is like “It is written…”
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, the point is that little t traditions don’t HAVE to go back to the apostles, as I demonstrated with not eating meat. Of course with celibacy it does go back to the apostles but still isn’t big T. How do I know this? Through the Church’s authority. Priestly celibacy isn’t part of Divine Revelation.
Mark, as always, I appreciate your personal interpretation of the magisterium. You said ” ““little t” traditions obviously don’t go back to the apostles,” and then when the inconsistency in your personal interpretation of the magisterium was pointed out, you changed and said that “little t traditions don’t HAVE to go back to the apostles” but some do.
You continued,
That’s a great personal interpretation of the Magisterium, Mark. But Cochini, in his book (which is cited multiple times at the Vatican web page, by the way), said that the early church fathers’ unanimity on apostolic continence represents “an authoritative hermeneutics of the scriptural texts in which reference is made to the detachment practiced by Christ’s disciples.” Clearly Cochini, and those within Rome who rely on him, are staking out a big T interpretation of clerical celibacy, and they think John Paul II agreed when he said, “According to the Gospel, it appears that the Twelve, destined to be the first to share in his priesthood, renounced family life in order to follow him.”
Why should I accept your personal interpretation of the magisterium, and not theirs? Cochini thinks clerical celibacy is implicit in the scriptures, and he knows this through the Church’s authority, i.e., through the “authoritative hermeneutics of the scriptural texts.”
All you Catholics with all your personal interpretations of what is, and what is not, taught in the Scriptures, are giving me a headache. How do I know what to believe?
Thanks,
Tim
Well, I am certainly not infallible. I don’t claim to be. However, I was making the point that “little ts” don’t have to go back to the apostles and I forgot to put in the words “have to”. Sorry for the confusion.
The discipline of priestly celibacy is a “little t” tradition. The Big T tradition is what Pope Pius XII said, “his {Jesus’} doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer.”
That celibacy is superior to marriage is a Divinely revealed doctrine (from Christ). The practice from the beginning was for a celibate priesthood. If it was divinely revealed dogma that all priests had to be celibate, then the Church today wouldn’t allow married priests. Taylor Marshall is a good example of an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism. He could have become a priest in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church but chose to focus on apologetics instead.
Thank you, Mark. You have now shown that David Hunter does not believe that which I did not attribute to him.
But I’m pretty sure he does believe what I did attribute to him, namely that he had succeeded in “placing Jovinian closer to the ‘centre’ of Christian discourse.” Don’t you agree?
Thanks
Tim
Mark wrote:
“Tim K,, Dr. Hunter responded to me and did peruse this blog. I agree with you that he is an excellent academic. I won’t speak for him but suffice it to say that he and I are in agreement that Jovinianus isn’t a proto-Protestant which he has argued against.”
I’m totally shocked, but not surprised, that Mark has misrepresented what has been stated here about Dr. Hunter. Nobody said that he said Jovinianus was a proto protestant. Nobody said that Hunter stated that Jovinianus was a Protestant.
In fact, Tim wrote:
“Mark, it is not just that Hunter “raised some questions” about the views of Jerome. That is a myopic mischaracterization. It’s that Hunter’s detailed study of Jovinianus places Jovinianus closer to the truth than either Ambrose or Jerome, and any of his “previous critics,” and he recognized the implications of his findings:
“If there is a single conclusion to be derived from my study, it is that Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized; certainly he was closer to early Christian ‘orthodoxy’ than his condemnation for ‘heresy’ would suggest. … But to succeed in placing Jovinian closer to the ‘centre’ of Christian discourse is simultaneously to ‘de-centre’ some major figures in the Christian tradition“.
So no, it is not just that he questioned the views of Jerome. That is not all he did. He questioned the judgment of Jovinian’s “previous critics,” including Newman, Siricius, Ambrose and Jerome. Who, after all, condemned him for heresy, but Siricius? This is as close as Hunter can come to calling Siricius’ judgment a mistake.
I grant you that Hunter is but an academic. He does not speak for the church. Nobody has claimed otherwise.
But we have recognized Jovinianus’ orthodoxy on this site, solely on the merits of what we know of the man, and nobody needed Hunter to recognize it. But Hunter is a respected Roman Catholic academic who removes from the centre of orthodoxy Jovinianus’ critics, making Siricius, Jerome, Ambrose and Newman less orthodox than Jovinianus.
Best,
Tim”
Mark has even quoted Hunter and myself on the controversy I created and even Mark does not claim anywhere that the controversy is that I believe Hunter Jovinianus was a Protestant.
“Mark Rome
January 20, 2017 at 11:13 am
That’s exactly what he said. Hunter wrote: ” my study has raised some questions about the ascetical theology of Ambrose and Jerome and their relation to prior tradition. ”
You cannot derive from that one paragraph what Walt wrote: “he writes very clearly that Jerome and his sect of followers were not teaching the Apostles doctrine, but were separated from the true doctrine.” That is a baseless and incredulous statement except that I know the mindset from the person who made it.”
What is clear is that both Mark and by implication, Dr. Hunter, are dishonest about what has been here represented by Tim K and myself.
This is the problem with Roman Catholics. They twist the truth at all times to turn what is true to what is false hoping the ignorant can be confused into believing them by implicit faith rather than evidence.
Shame on Mark Rome and Dr. Hunter for not dealing with the issues and seeking to twist them to say something we never did.
Tim K., you said, “Roman Catholic scholar David Hunter, whose work, The Virgin, the Bride, and the Church we cited above, wrote extensively on the “Jovinianist Controversy,” and arrived at a rather surprising—and undeniably remarkable—conclusion: Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than his detractors did.”
You said that David Hunter wrote that “Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity”? Where did David Hunter write that about apostolic continuity? I don’t read that in the quote you provided.
Thanks.
Mark, you wrote,
Where did I say that David Hunter “wrote” that?
Thanks,
Tim
Hey Walt, you said, “Nobody said that he said Jovinianus was a proto protestant.”
OK, just to refresh your short term memory loss, Tim K. said in his blog post, “To put it another way, with the rise of Roman Catholicism in the late 4th century came Rome’s perennial archnemesis: the Protestant. the {true} Church adopted a stance of protest. Jovinianus, Vigilantius, Sarmatio and Barbatianus are only a small sampling of them, …”
Walt, you are becoming less and less relevant with every lie you post. I will stop responding to you unless you start owning your intentional misrepresentations. It is getting REALLY old.
Tim K., are you serious?
Here’s what you said:
“Roman Catholic scholar David Hunter, whose work, The Virgin, the Bride, and the Church we cited above, wrote extensively on the “Jovinianist Controversy,” and arrived at a rather surprising—and undeniably remarkable—conclusion: Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than his detractors did”
Yes, Mark, where did I say David Hunter wrote that “Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity”?
It should be easy for you to prove, since you are saying that I said that David Hunter wrote that.
Where did I say that he WROTE that?
Tim K. said, “Where did I say that he WROTE that?”
So, you jump to erroneous conclusions making it seem like Dr. Hunter came to that conclusion, then when you are confronted with it you are backtracking and making it seem like you never said it? Let me remind you of what you said. “David Hunter,…arrived at a rather surprising—and undeniably remarkable—conclusion: Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than his detractors did.”
Did Dr. David Hunter arrive at that conclusion or not? If it is just your opinion, then why do you attribute it to him? Why don’t you redact this and say that you INTERPRET him to be saying this. That’s the only honest thing to do right now.
Mark, you wrote,
Yes, he did. What do you think Christian Tradition is, Mark?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K said: “What do you think Christian Tradition is, Mark?”
You need to define it since you are the one who is equating what David Hunter actually said to your interpretation which you call “apostolic continuity.” David Hunter didn’t write this.
Christian Tradition, from David Hunter’s perspective, is that which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
Thanks,
Tim
So, you are saying that David Hunter doesn’t believe that Jesus and the apostles saw celibacy as a better state than marriage? He thinks Jovinianus would believe your interpretations of Mt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7 that celibacy is not a better state than marriage?
Mark, what I’m saying is that I am struggling to understand the substance of your objections. What I’m saying is that Roman Catholic scholar David Hunter, whose work, The Virgin, the Bride, and the Church I cited in my post, wrote extensively on the “Jovinianist Controversy,” and arrived at a rather surprising—and undeniably remarkable—conclusion: Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than his detractors did, removing from Ambrose and Jerome the presumption of apostolic origins for their novelties.
That’s what I’m saying.
Thanks,
Tim
My objection, Tim, is that David Hunter didn’t say “apostolic continuity”. He said “center of Christian tradition.” He then goes on to say that Jerome and Ambrose, “Both strongly associated sex with original sin and linked salvation to sexual purity.”
Your entire post was an attack on consecrated virginity you imply, based on those two words “apostolic continuity” that Hunter thought Jesus and the apostles were also against consecrated virginity. In fact, what Hunter believes is NOT center to Christian Tradition is what I just quoted above, “sex with original sin and linked salvation to sexual purity”. Consecrated virginity IS scriptural and apostolic as I have shown you in Mt. 19 and 1 Cor 7.
Mark, the article cites David Hunter to show that the rite of consecration was a late 4th century novelty. Here is what he wrote:
If you have evidence of the development of a formal ritual of consecration of virgins before Ambrose, I believe Dr. Hunter will be very eager to hear from you.
Best,
Tim
Tim K, you are confusing “ritual practice” with teachings. The formal practice may not have started until the 4th century because prior to the 4th century there weren’t many women seeking this. Remember what I explained earlier that this is after the time of the martyrs and Christians wanted to live radically for Jesus. You equate “formal practice” with innovation. I see it as the Church validating what was happening among Christians. Most religious orders didn’t start as a result of the Church mandating them. They only became recognized after the people were already doing it.
BTW, you are conveniently changing subjects and shifting attention away from your intentional misapplication of David Hunter’s work. “Apostolic continuity” isn’t the same as the “center of Christian Tradition”.
We see vows of celibacy, which were formal vows, in 1 Tim 5:11-12, “As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge.” Their “first pledge” was to remain unmarried, and they have broken their vows. These were the first nuns.
Forgive me, Mark, but you have lost me again.
Where have I ever said “apostolic continuity” is the same as the “center of Christian Tradition”?
Please help me. I am trying to understand what you are writing.
Best,
Tim
Seriously Tim K? Around and around we go. Why don’t you just admit that you shouldn’t have said “apostolic continuity” when David Hunter only said “center of Christian Tradition”.
Mark this will be a lot easier if you just show me where I said “Apostolic continuity” is the same as the “center of Christian Tradition”.
That should be pretty easy. Why are you unwilling to do it?
Tim K., please show me where I said that you said that.
Thanks.
I don’t know if you’ve ever said any such thing, and I have not accused you of saying it. I’m just asking you where I said “Apostolic continuity” is the same as the “center of Christian Tradition”.
I think we can agree: I have never said “apostolic continuity” is the same as the “center of Christian tradition.” I would never say, and have never said, any such thing.
Now that we have cleared that up, would you agree that “Christian Tradition,” according to Roman Catholicism, is that which was received by the apostles, and has been handed down by their successors, and taught unceasingly by the church, untainted, uninterrupted, uncompromised, nothing added or removed?
Best,
Tim
Tim K., your question is interesting, but it really isn’t the heart of the argument we are talking about.
David Hunter said “Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized” and you said that David Hunter had “arrived at a rather surprising—and undeniably remarkable—conclusion: Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than his detractors did.”
I think the real question is whether “apostolic continuity” is the same as “the center of the Christian tradition”. I would answer that question as no, it isn’t the same. Would’t you agree?
Thanks.
Mark, I know it is hard to believe, but just yesterday, when I asked you what you think Christian Tradition is, and instead of providing a definition, you said it is my job to produce a definition. You wrote:
Ok, now I’m defining it, and I’m asking you if you agree with the definition, and you respond that “it really isn’t the heart” of our discussion. Instead, you now want me to answer whether “apostolic continuity” is the same as “the center of the Christian tradition”.
Well, before I venture into that discussion I should like to know what “Christian Tradition” is. What is it, Mark?
Tim
Consecrated virginity is part of Christian Tradition. Can you name other consecrated virgins before Jovinianus?
Mark, what is “Christian Tradition”?
Thanks,
Tim
You already know what I think “Christian tradition” is since you explained it yourself. What you fail to address is what David Hunter meant by “the center of Christian tradition”. I think you owe your readers an explanation. Or not. I don’t care. I believe you came to a conclusion that David Hunter didn’t come to in his article. I don’t have time for these games.
Ok, thank you. We agree on a definition of “Christian Tradition.” For review, the agreed definition of Christian Tradition is:
In the Roman Catholic mind, “Christian Tradition” therefore, of necessity, exhibits both apostolicity and continuity, as the Catholic Encyclopedia insists, defining “tradition” in such a way that an indispensable attribute is continuity with the teachings of the Church since the days of the apostles:
“True” Tradition, as opposed to “false” tradition, is that which exists, Roman Catholicism claims, in the mind of the Church “in continuity with her traditional thought.”
Again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “tradition” is a doctrine, account or custom transmitted from one generation to another, continously:
Clearly, an intrinsic and inseparable attribute of Christian Tradition is its continuity since the days of the apostles. The very nature of tradition, as a form of revelation or as an organ of transmission, is its continuity with the Church’s traditional thought, transmitted from one generation to another.
Not surprisingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia also insists that the Church of today is exactly the same church as that founded by Christ upon the apostles:
All doctrine, all Christian orthodoxy, all Christian Tradition, taught by Roman Catholicism, so it says, must be “apostolic,” and since Christian Tradition as taught by the church includes “doctrine,” Tradition as taught by the Church must be apostolic and unchanged since the days of the apostles. It must therefore also exhibit continuity.
We charitably grant to David Hunter, though we have not asked him, that he would agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia on Tradition (either as a revelation of truth, or as an organ of transmission of truth), Apostolicity and Continuity.
That said, while “Christian Tradition” may be defined as “that which was received by the apostles, and has been handed down by their successors, and taught unceasingly by the church, untainted, uninterrupted, uncompromised, nothing added or removed,” as we have agreed, it may also be defined more succinctly as “the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought since the apostles,” which is indeed the same thing. And importantly, “Christian Tradition” must exhibit, and always has exhibited, the attribute of “apostolic continuity”. This, no credible Roman Catholic would deny.
I won’t be surprised if a disobliging Roman Catholic reader objects, for objection’s sake, to the statement that “Christian Tradition” is, and must be, “the thing which must exhibit apostolic continuity,” and further that a man who abides close to the centre of “the thing which must exhibit apostolic continuity,” has a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than a man who does not abide close to the centre of “the thing which must exhibit apostolic continuity.”
So, David Hunter said of Jovinian:
Contrariwise, of Jerome and Ambrose:
Hunter went on to say that “In different ways, both Jerome and Ambrose represented the survival of the ancient encratite tradition at least in its moderate form.” I think we can all agree that “the ancient encratite tradition” is most decidedly not “the thing which must exhibit apostolic continuity,” and further that in Hunter’s book, Jovinian’s beliefs were weighed in the balance with those of Jerome and Ambrose, and Jovinian’s were found to be more in line with the thing which must exhibit apostolic continuity, and Jerome’s and Ambrose’s to be less so.
And thus, I am at a loss as to why you find fault with the following statement in my previous article, a statement which is undeniably true:
Hunter certainly does not agree with my eschatology, but surely he agrees (or at least should agree) with the logical implication of his own work.
Tim
Tim, are you familiar with the difference between “Big T” and “little t” traditions?
Yes, Mark. I am familiar with the difference between big T and little t traditions.
Thanks,
Tim
So does Catholic “little t” tradition go all the way back to the apostles?
You tell me, Mark!
Right Tim. Maybe it is that you interpreted David Hunter to say “Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity.”
Not sure that’s any better. Not sure it changes anything.
Mark ” Not sure that’s any better. Not sure it changes anything.” It changes everything. It means those faithful to Christ’s doctrine were kicked out by those who were apostate to His doctrine. Mark, have you read the current article. Virtually Tim is documenting the corruption of Bishops. When they were given power by the empire to administer funds to the poor, they were corrupt. The 4th century the light is shined on those bishops who stay faithful to doctrine, those who stood up to these apostate bishops. We see the Reformation in its infancy. And the fact is the true church has always rejected the system you defend with all your heart. Even through the dark ages until today, the true church has always rejected Roman Catholicism and payed a heavy price for it. Mark, why would you defend Ambrose and Jerome who were teaching heresy. ?
Tim, wouldn’t you think that this conclusion by Hunter would serve as a template for Catholics to look for other examples of doctrines and practices that contradicted Christian tradition which according to what I understood the CCC to say must be the direct voice of Apostolic continuity in doctrine and practice. What’s puzzling is the unwillingness to use this template to see the plethora of other violations of Christian tradition, which if I understand you right must reflect the apostles and the traditions passed on.
I thought the following commentary would fit nicely with Tim’s blog post today. It is now becoming so overly obvious to anyone reading these past 5 articles in the series, that the falling away from Christ began in the 4th century, and the birth of Satan’s Antichrist is coming into play. The true visible church of Jesus Christ that is built upon Christ alone is being taken over by a wicked generation (4th century). The claims of a chief Bishop, built upon Peter the Apostle, is crumbling in this 5 part-series by Tim.
Now people see that the doctrine taught by Jerome and his followers caused the world’s first and greatest Schism in the history of the Christian church. They separated from the Apostles doctrine, which was built upon the rock Jesus Christ, and fell away from the true rock to create their own…Peter.
The Romish system is now falling apart ladies and gentlemen. The 4th century was the start of this Schism and we see now how the Romish system of mandatory celibacy and virginity was rooted in Jerome, and now created the largest homosexual and child predatory organization in the world….all because they claim their church is built upon Peter.
“C. The Promise of Growth (“Upon this Rock I will build My Church”).
1. After the Lord states that Peter’s faithful testimony has come from God Himself, Christ directs His words to Peter in the hearing of all the disciples, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter” (Matthew 16:18). Peter had taken the lead in making this faithful testimony on behalf of the disciples.
Now the Lord speaks directly to Peter: “Thou art Peter.” The Lord had previously given to Peter his name (John 1:42). Here we see that Petros is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic Cephas, and means a stone (it is in the masculine gender).
The Lord does not refer to him as Peter, a stone, in this passage in order to identify him with the one upon which the Church will be built. For no one builds a house upon a stone as a foundation.
Rather than identifying Peter with the rock upon which the Church will be built, there is a contrast between Peter (the stone) and Christ (the bedrock) as we shall see. Peter has given a faithful testimony, but let Peter remember that he is yet only a stone hewn out of the bedrock.
Peter is to remember this, for shortly hereafter he rebukes the Lord (Mark 8:32), and even denies knowing the Lord three times. Peter is indeed a part of Christ, but he too is only a living stone that is built upon the foundation of Christ.
Not only must Peter realize this, but we must realize it about Peter and about all ministers, so that we do not elevate man to the place of Christ, and thereby play the role of antichrist, the usurper of Christ’s rights and authority within His Church.
2. After having identified Peter (Petros) as the stone, the Lord promises, “and upon this rock I will build my church.”
a. Upon what rock? Upon Christ. For the Lord intentionally moves from Peter (or Petros in the masculine gender), as a stone, to Petra (in the feminine gender), the bedrock (cf. John 15:1 where the Greek word for “vine” is in the feminine gender and yet refers to Christ).
If Christ had intended Peter to be the one upon whom the church was to be built, He would naturally have said, “and upon this stone (Petros in the masculine) I will build my church. But He doesn’t. The Lord alters both the word itself and the gender of the word so that there is no confusion. Is Christ the Petra upon which the Church is built?
(1) Consider the following passages in which the Greek word petra is used of God/Christ: 2 Samuel 22:2 in the Greek Septuagint (“The Lord is my rock”); Romans 9:33 (Christ is called “a rock [petra] of offence”); 1 Corinthians 10:4 (“For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ”); 1 Peter 2:8 (Christ is once again called by Peter himself “a rock [petra] of offence”).
And though the Greek word petra (a rock—bedrock) is not used in the following passages, it is clear that these verses convey that same truth—the Church is built upon Christ: 1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Peter 2:6-7.
(2) What about Ephesians 2:20? First, Peter is not specifically mentioned at all, but rather what are mentioned are the apostles and prophets collectively. Thus, there is no pre-eminence given to Peter. But second, does Paul refer to the apostles and prophets as being the foundation of the Church or does he refer to Christ as being the foundation of the apostles and prophets (“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, [which foundation is] Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”).
On the one hand, the foundation (themelios) of 1 Corinthians 3:10 is Christ (which is the same word as used here for “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20). Since both 1 Corinthians 3:11 and Ephesians 2:20 were written by the same inspired Apostle (Paul), and since both 1 Corinthians 3:11 and Ephesians 2:20 were both talking about the place of the apostles in the Church and the place of Christ in the Church, it would seem most likely that both passages refer to Christ being the foundation of the Church.
However, if Ephesians 2:20 refers to the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the Church, it refers to their inspired teaching which is recorded in the pages of inspired Scripture, and not to their persons.
Moreover, it removes the supremacy of Peter as the foundation or rock upon which the Church is built, for Ephesians 2:20 places the apostles and prophets upon an equal footing as the inspired teachers given by Christ to the Church.
b. Thus, the Lord here (in Matthew 16:18) distinguishes Himself from Peter, and identifies Himself as the Rock upon which the Church is built. Just as He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), meaning the temple of His own body, so likewise he says here, “and upon this rock I will build my Church” meaning Himself.
c. Dear ones, with that one truth established, the Roman system crumbles; for the basis of the authority claimed by Rome depends upon the apostolic succession from Peter (as head of the Visible Church) to his alleged successor and so forth.
Without Peter as the rock upon which the Church is built, the Pope is shown to be the arch usurper of Christ’s authority and rights—he is unmasked to be the Antichrist of Scripture. And so the cry to all who are within her and to all churches who have drunk of her idolatrous doctrine, worship, and government is to come out from the midst of her—to flee her idolatry and blasphemy (Revelation 18:4).
Only Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, is a firm and secure foundation upon which the Church is built. Only His merit is sufficient to uphold sinful frail men, women, and children. All other ground is sinking sand (Matthew 7:24).
3. Now having established that Christ, the eternal Son of God is the Rock upon which the Church is built, Christ promises to build His Church (“I will build my church”). This is the Church of true believers that is built upon Christ (i.e. the Invisible Church, rather than the Visible Church of professing believers which contains both believers and hypocrites).
It is the view of Rome that Christ here promises to build His visible professing Church containing true believers and hypocrites. In the minds of Rome it justifies her visible greatness and glory as a Church which visibly reaches around the world with one billion members. They look to their visible size and how it has grown and they declare that Christ has fulfilled His promise.
However, just as hypocrites cannot be truly united as members to Christ the head, just as hypocrites cannot be truly united as branches to Christ the vine, just as hypocrites cannot be truly united as a bride to Christ the groom, so hypocrites cannot be truly built as living stones upon Christ the Rock.
For unto this Church and this Church alone that is built upon Christ is it promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. We know that in fact the gates of hell will prevail against visible professing churches composed of both believers and hypocrites, for visible churches have backslidden from the faith into apostasy, and the visible form of the church has nearly vanished due to persecution at various points of history (as in the time of Elijah).
No, this is not the Church which is composed of Peter the believer and Judas the hypocrite, nor of John the believer and Simon Magus the hypocrite. This is the Church of the redeemed against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, nor overcome as a flood that seeks to wash it away, for it is built upon the Rock.
4. Here is a promise that the Church of all the redeemed in Christ, which stretches from Adam to the end of time (all who are chosen in Christ Jesus from before the foundation of the earth), will continue to be built (cf. Philippians 4:4 where the future has the idea of continuing to rejoice not beginning to rejoice).
This is not a promise to begin building a distinct, new Church, but a promise to continue to build the Invisible church of the redeemed (which includes Old Testament believers like those mentioned in Hebrews 11).
Does not Scripture speak of Christ as Israel’s Rock (1 Corinthians 10:3)?
Does not Scripture say that Christ was in His Church of Israel there in the wilderness (Acts 7:38)?
Upon what were the redeemed of Israel built, if not upon Christ the Rock of their salvation?
Was not the gospel preached unto Old Testament believers (Galatians 3:8; Hebrews 4:2)?
If Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), is He not also the Rock upon which the redeemed are built from the foundation of the world?
The Church did not begin as an entirely new entity on the day of Pentecost. The same kingdom of God (or church) that was taken away from unbelieving Jews was that which was given to believing Jews and Gentiles (Matthew 21:43).
Christ came to rebuild the tabernacle of David (the house of Christ, the greater David), not to build an entirely new tabernacle (according to Acts 15:16). Christ had been saving believers throughout the Old Testament and adding them to His Invisible Church, and His first coming did not bring an end to saving His people, but promoted the building of His kingdom. Salvation is the same in both the Old Testament and the New Testament—by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ.”
Walt, ” it has become increasingly obvious to anyone reading these last five articles that the falling away from Christ began in the 4th century” its so clear Walt. God makes things so clear speaking in the scripture to his people. I can’t imagine God leaving the individual believer to the errors of men if He didn’t leave us the mechanism to which to judge those errors. The Spirit speaking in scripture. God also speaks through his people. And God has spoken through Tim’s commitment to discern history and scripture. It really has shined a big light on Roman Catholicism. I really pray that as many Catholics as God can bring to Out of His Mouth to discern these articles., that God might have mercy and save some. Calvin said we should pray for the salvation of all men. We can now clearly see the direction in which God’s true church emerged from the visible apostasy. Can’t wait for the next instalment.
Mark wrote:
“Walt, you are becoming less and less relevant with every lie you post. I will stop responding to you unless you start owning your intentional misrepresentations. It is getting REALLY old.”
You just quoted Tim and then called me a liar.
Tim said nothing in that quote on your claim
YOU ARE THE LIAR MARK.
OK Walt.
For Walt: http://shoebat.com/2014/05/06/sexual-abuse-protestant-churches-catholic/
“Reformed Baptist Pastor Tom Chantry Indicted on Multiple Counts of Sexual Molestation of Children”
https://thouarttheman.org/2016/12/05/reformed-baptist-pastor-tom-chantry-indicted-multiple-counts-sexual-molestation-children/
“Did the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America Cover Up Tom Chantry’s Alleged Molestation of Children?”
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/12/28/serious-allegations-did-the-association-of-reformed-baptist-churches-of-america-cover-up-tom-chantrys-alleged-molestation-of-children/
Don’t forget, “Dutch Reformed Church Votes to Lift Ban on Gay Marriage, Openly Gay Ministers in Controversial Decision”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/dutch-reformed-church-vote-lifts-ban-on-gay-marriage-openly-gay-ministers-in-controversial-decision-147554/#pYR4L2u6ifyD3EYx.99
I know, hard to read. Will you continue to defend your religion?
Mark, there is a major denial of the sexual corruption in Protestant communities. It not a surprise that grave sin could and is found in the Christian ranks, Jesus said it would be, but it is shear hypocrisy when one group of Christians points aat another group in order to delegitimize them.
Now I wonder why those particular groups stoop to these tactics?
Could it be because they have no real claim to authoritative legitimacy themselves? Grasping at straws its seems.
Mark said:
“Reformed Baptist Pastor Tom Chantry Indicted on Multiple Counts of Sexual Molestation of Children” and;
“Did the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America Cover Up Tom Chantry’s Alleged Molestation of Children?” and;
“Don’t forget, “Dutch Reformed Church Votes to Lift Ban on Gay Marriage, Openly Gay Ministers in Controversial Decision”
Thanks for the links Mark. Unfortunately, I already addressed the issues about Tom Chantry a few weeks ago on this blog after reading those links you (or another RCC posted). Let me state again.
I am not a Baptist, nor do I believe reformed or evangelical baptists are faithful in doctrine, worship, government or discipline. After I left the Roman Catholic church I became a charismatic and then about a year later a Baptist. I was a Baptist for about a year, but unfortunately I was reading Scripture all the time, and flying to London almost every weekend to sit on the floor in the antiquarian book stores reading all the old reformed books I could find.
hey did not have google books back then and interlibrary loan did not have access to many of the Presbyterian, Reformed and Covenanter books I was wanting to read. Although I built a massive library buying books online, I could not afford all these very old 1400’s, 1500’s and 1600’s books as they were very expensive. So I went to these used book stores in London where I could read them for free as long as I bought something each trip.
I’m very sorry to disappoint you as well regarding the reformed Dutch. They focus mainly on the 3 forms of unity, and as Covenanter Presbyterians we believe (like those Reconstructionists) that the English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians have far more significant maturity in Church testimony and Christian thought. I once thought about becoming a Dutch reformed, but soon it was clear that the high water mark in Christian testimony in history came out of England and Scotland during the second reformation (or perhaps now the 3rd reformation).
I recommend prosecution for any “protestant” sect with Pastors or Ministers who is a child predator. I believe they should be fully investigated, and prosecuted if found guilty. I totally reject the Roman Catholic doctrine to protect the predator and transfer them to another church, or to punish harshly the victim should they come forward with proof of priests who violate them. I do not support this teaching.
Post more if you have them. I believe they should be brought to light of day, and support you to eradicate these so called “protestant” pastors.
As far as homosexuality. I don’t support it inside the Protestant church, nor in the Vatican or among the clergy. I believe it to be a sin and can be forgiven through the shed blood of Christ, and can be overcome through sanctification of this sin, by God’s divine will, either instantly or over time.
Tim K., Mark, Walt, etc.–
In an article available online, David Hunter makes some fairly explicit conclusions concerning the tenets of Jovinian vis-a-vis apostolicity:
1. He states that from the point of view of the fourth century, Jovinian could make a sound case for inclusion “in the mainstream of Christian tradition.”
2. He quips that the “Protevangelium of James” is the “ultimate source for almost all later Marian doctrines.” Pretty damning for the apostolicity of these if you ask me. The P of J is an apocryphal work with no real authority attached to it.
3. He also comes right out and says that the doctrines of the P of J are “novelties and oddities.” Likewise damning for apostolicity.
4. He discusses what exceedingly thin evidence there is for either virginity “in partu” or “post partum” in patristic literature. There being far more evidence for alternative theories. (And what little there is for them tends to come from heretical sources.)
5. He mentions that Augustine spends considerable time and effort attempting to ameliorate the negative view of marriage bequeathed him by Ambrose and Jerome.
Here’s the article:
http://www.academia.edu/2428119/Helvidius_Jovinian_and_the_Virginity_of_Mary
Thanks, Hans. Some highlights from his articles:
In Roman Catholicism, “Christian Tradition” is that revelation, written or oral, that was given to the apostles and handed down to us by their successors. It is both “apostolic” and “unbroken,” or “continuous.” David Hunter has shown repeatedly that Jovinianus had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than his detractors did.
I am struggling to understand the substance of Mark’s objections. I have never said that Hunter wrote the words, “that Jovinian had a more credible claim to apostolic continuity than his detractors did.” And yet mark is hung up on claiming that I said David wrote that. I have never claimed that Hunter wrote those words. I have simply reported the logical implications of Hunter’s studies knowing that Hunter is a Roman Catholic historian and knowing what “Christian Tradition” means to Roman Catholicism. If Jovinian was more consistent with, and closer to the centre of, Christian tradition, than his detractors, and the substance of Christian tradition is unbroken apostolic truth, then the implications of Hunter’s words are exactly as I have reported.
Mark, if you can provide any clarification on the substance of your objection, I’ll be happy to understand it. At the moment I am at a loss.
Tim
Tim K.–
I had to smile as I read the article. A couple of times Dr. Hunter seems to be saying (with a wink?):
“Yes, yes, I know, there’s all this evidence against it…and scant evidence for it…but the official magisterial doctrine triumphantly developed anyway. How, do you ask? Mm, I don’t quite know. Magic?”
(And no, Mark. He didn’t WRITE that! ☺ )
Exactly, Hans. David Hunter is a Roman Catholic scholar who by no means subscribes to my eschatological meanderings. Nonetheless, what he concluded about Jovinianus is remarkably consistent with my assessment of late antique Roman Catholicism. Namely, that Rome’s claim to apostolicity can be traced as far back as the late 4th century, no further. Hunter is winking at something, but does not go down the path to discover the disease, but is content to report on the symptoms. I can understand his position. What he does say, however, is quite significant. The church was ambling along according to one “Christian Tradition,” and suddenly took an offramp onto another “Christian Tradition” that ended up in triumph, even though from the perspective of late 4th century Christianity, it was not the most obvious ramp to take:
Roman Catholic “orthodoxy,” whether it be late-antique, medieval, or modern, is not the continuous unfolding of apostolic truth the world has been led to believe, and there is a sudden and observable (even to Roman Catholics) discontinuity that occurs at the end of the 4th century.
One question (or at least one pressing question) remains: Which fork in the road shall we take? Roman Catholicism answers that, from the eschatological perspective, we must keep left to remain with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith, because Jesus promised that the gates of hell could not prevail over His Church.
That’s exactly the same argument I make for going right.
In the end (in my humble opinion) it must always come down to an eschatological decision. I’m with Jovinianus on this.
Thanks for your comments, and especially for providing that additional article from Hunter.
Best,
Tim
Mark said ” I see it as the church validating what was already happening among Christians. The same tactic you use in the Relic discussion. Sure Mark, forced celibacy as merit is exactly what Paul meant in Romans 5:1 ” therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God” Jerome was really reminding Jovinianus of his eternal security and his freedom to love his wife when he berated him into celibacy. One thing we have learned with those who have Roman colored glasses on, they abandon any sense of reason or absolute truth to protect mother church, because hey that’s your ticket to paradise. The fact is Mark a simple and plain one, Jerome and Ambrose were operating outside the true church and those persecuted were the apostolic faithful.
Mark, little t big T? Really. How about the fact that every Roman Catholic heresy is big T. If I understand the argument correctly Christian tradition or Only T, is the direct result of what the apostles passed on in doctrine and practice. Roman Catholicism doesn’t deviate from it, it’s opposite to it. Tim has shown this . Iow, Ambrose and Jerome were teaching opposite of the center of Christian tradition, as Roman Catholicism has done with so many other doctrines. It could actually be said it’s anti tradition, anti apostolicity, antichrist.