I am a former Roman Catholic, and now I am a believer in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. I was once a follower of the visions of Mary at Fatima, Guadalupe and Lourdes, among others, but I no longer believe those visions were from God. My passion is to warn Christ's sheep of the danger of Roman Catholicism, and to equip them to defend the faith and refute Rome's many errors.
Ian Paisley (April 6, 1926 – September 12, 2014) understood the truth about Roman Catholicism.
In honor of Ian Paisley, departed but not dead, we here publish his precis of Scottish Presbyterian James Aitken Wylie’s classic, The Papacy is the Antichrist. This was once common knowledge among Protestants, but the passage of time has turned the Church’s opposition to Antichrist into complacency, and in some cases, into complicity. But we stand with Paisley and Wylie in their insistence that “the Papacy … is the perfect CONVERSE of Christ as seen in His life.” Continue reading Ian Paisley is Alive, and at Rest→
The Early Church did not teach Baptismal Regeneration.
We are now in our 4th week of evaluating Called to Communion‘s analysis of the Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration. We originally planned to limit this to a four-week series, but we will continue beyond four weeks due to the volume of material.
Thus far, we have seen Called to Communion read Baptismal Regeneration into Ignatius of Antioch and the Shepherd of Hermas, and we have seen them read regenerate baptism out of Barnabas of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.
To this litany of interpretive errors, Called to Communion adds its mishandling of both Hippolytus and Origen. The former refers to Christ’s Passion as “the laver of washing,” and the latter refers to the Holy Spirit as “the laver of regeneration.” True to form, Called to Communion can only see Baptismal Regeneration whenever the laver is mentioned by a Church Father. But context tells a different story. Continue reading That He Might Purify the Water, part 4→
The Early Church did not teach Baptismal Regeneration.
In Part 3 of this series, we continue where we left off last week with Called To Communion‘s efforts to find Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Fathers. In the first week, we covered Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas of Alexandria, The Shepherd of Hermas, and Justin Martyr. Last week, we covered Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus.
What we find as we proceed through the Patristic writers is that the Fathers often referred to Christ Himself, His Passion, His Word, His Gospel and the preaching ministry of the Church as the “laver of washing” or the “laver of regeneration.” Because the “laver of washing” under the Old Covenant was a basin of water placed “between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar” (Exodus 30:18), the Church Fathers saw it as a figure or a type of Christ Who would wash the nations by His Passion, His Word, His Gospel, etc…. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, see the Old Covenant basin of water as a figure or type of yet another basin of water—the Roman Baptismal font. Carrying the full weight of that assumption into their reading of the Fathers, Roman apologists then seek to prove that the Fathers taught Baptismal Regeneration. Continue reading That He Might Purify the Water, part 3→
The Early Church did not teach Baptismal Regeneration.
This week, we continue where we left off last week with Called To Communion‘s efforts to find Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Fathers. Last week, we covered Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas of Alexandria, The Shepherd of Hermas, and Justin Martyr. In each case Called to Communion either interpolated its own beliefs into the Church Father, took the Church Father grossly out of context, or ignored the Church Father’s own statements which clarified his position. This week we cover Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, and we find that Called to Communion continues in the same pattern. Continue reading That He Might Purify the Water, part 2→
For those concerned about the plight of homiletics within the Church, this quarter’s Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2014) has picked up our article on Tim Keller’s exegetical method, “Getting Sanctification Done: The Primacy of Narrative in Tim Keller’s Exegetical Method.” It is also available under the same title at the Trinity Foundation.
Tim Keller is the pastor of one of the largest and most influential PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) congregations in the country, so his approach to the Scriptures is of no small concern to us. The article evaluates Keller’s exegetical method using his own words about his approach to homiletics. As noted in the article,
“… it does not take long to discover a pattern of eisegetical license in Keller’s works, a license he affords to himself as the need may arise in order to support his prevailing narrative, whatever it may be. This pattern was especially odd because of Keller’s admonition to his hearers that we must ‘be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.’ As the examples … will show, his advice is more of a suggestion than a rule. … Because Keller is one who is quick to dismiss the opinions of others because their opinions violate ‘authorial intent,’ it is valuable to know whether he exhibits a reasonable duty of care when handling ‘authorial intent’ himself.”
What we find, ultimately, is that Keller teaches a form of sanctification by worship, and by this thinks he can “get sanctification done on the spot,” even if it requires him to affirm things that he does not believe to be true.
But sanctification is by the truth (John 17:17), not by worship. Sanctification by worship is nothing more than mysticism, which is why Keller has such an affinity for Roman Catholic mystics as we noted in And the Diviners Have Seen a Lie, and Wolves Within the Gate.
We hope this article will be a helpful resource to those who either consume, or are concerned about, Keller’s vast quantity of books, papers, sermons and other ministry related materials.
Enjoy.
Because Keller is one who is quick to dismiss the opinions of others because their opinions violate “authorial intent,”[7] it is valuable to know whether he exhibits a reasonable duty of care when handling “authorial intent” himself. – See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=293#sthash.UtSHbP4T.dpuf
Unfortunately, it does not take long to discover a pattern of eisegetical license in Keller’s works, a license he affords to himself as the need may arise in order to support his prevailing narrative, whatever it may be. This pattern was especially odd because of Keller’s admonition to his hearers that we must “be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.”[1] As the examples in the following section will show, his advice is more of a suggestion than a rule. – See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=293#sthash.UtSHbP4T.dpuf
Unfortunately, it does not take long to discover a pattern of eisegetical license in Keller’s works, a license he affords to himself as the need may arise in order to support his prevailing narrative, whatever it may be. This pattern was especially odd because of Keller’s admonition to his hearers that we must “be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.”[1] As the examples in the following section will show, his advice is more of a suggestion than a rule. – See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=293#sthash.UtSHbP4T.dpuf
Unfortunately, it does not take long to discover a pattern of eisegetical license in Keller’s works, a license he affords to himself as the need may arise in order to support his prevailing narrative, whatever it may be. This pattern was especially odd because of Keller’s admonition to his hearers that we must “be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.”[1] As the examples in the following section will show, his advice is more of a suggestion than a rule. – See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=293#sthash.UtSHbP4T.dpuf
Unfortunately, it does not take long to discover a pattern of eisegetical license in Keller’s works, a license he affords to himself as the need may arise in order to support his prevailing narrative, whatever it may be. This pattern was especially odd because of Keller’s admonition to his hearers that we must “be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.”[1] As the examples in the following section will show, his advice is more of a suggestion than a rule.
“What is Truth?” (John 18:38)
In The Reason for God, Keller explains that he is writing the book in order to show how he implemented a “moderate or conservative” church in a “liberal and edgy” city (xiii). With that in mind, it is easy to see why he cited Matthew 21:31 to his readers saying, “It was the Bible-believing religious establishment who put Jesus to death.”[2]There is some tangible benefit to casting the religious establishment of Jesus’ day as “Bible-believing” to his liberal and edgy readers. But the problem is that Matthew 21:32, the very next verse, declares that “‘the religious establishment” did not believe at all, and they certainly were not “Bible-believing” (see also, John 5:46). Was it the intent of the inspired author to portray the Pharisees as “Bible believing”? Of course not. The New Testament repeatedly portrays those who rejected Jesus as the unbelievers (John 8:45-46; Romans 3:3, 10:21, 11:20; 1 Timothy 1:13; 1 Peter 2:7-8). But the context of the passage and the consistent testimony of the New Testament was no barrier to Keller who needed a narrative for his book.
In Prodigal God,[3]Keller wanted to show that the parable of the Prodigal Son contains “the secret heart of Christianity” (xiii), and adds this paradox for good measure: “one of the signs that you may not grasp the unique, radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do” (xi). To underscore this theme, he uses Matthew 21:31 again to show that Jesus’ teaching attracted the irreligious while “offending the Bible-believing, religious people of his day” who “studied and obeyed the Scripture” (Prodigal God, 8, 15, 29-30). It hardly seems to matter to him that Jesus described His bride, not the Pharisees, as the obedient Bible-believers who “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 12:17, 14:12). The consistent testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus was rejected by those rife with disobedience and unbelief. But Keller needed a narrative to carry the message of the book, and the original context of the passage did not seem to matter.
In Counterfeit Gods,[4] Keller’s objective is to show that we moderns are tempted by heart idols like “beauty, power, money and achievement” (xii). Indeed, we are. Keller uses Ezekiel 14:3a to suggest that the elders of Israel were struggling with heart idols, not physical idols, and indeed were not even aware of, and could not see, any physical idols in their midst:
In Ezekiel 14:3, God says about the elders of Israel, “these men have set up their idols in their hearts.” Like us, the elders must have responded to this charge, “Idols? What idols? I don’t see any idols.” God was saying that the human heart takes good things like a successful career, love, material possessions, even family, and turns them into ultimate things. (Counterfeit Gods, xiv)
But the second half of Ezekiel 14:3 states explicitly that their idols were in plain sight, “before their face.” The Israelites had not forsaken “the idols of Egypt” (20:8), and were offering incense to their idols “round about their altars, upon every high hill, in all the tops of the mountains, and under every green tree, and under every thick oak” (6:3). Who can possibly read Ezekiel and then have the elders of Israel saying “Idols? What idols? I don’t see any idols”? But this plain context of Ezekiel 14:3 was no constraint to Keller’s narrative. He was writing about heart idols, and it served his purpose to cast the elders of Israel as puzzled and ignorant, unaware that they were worshiping physical images.
In The Meaning of Marriage,[5]Keller sought to apply the Scripture to the institution of marriage, promising to adhere to “a straightforward reading of Biblical texts” (16). But within four pages, Keller had already recast Paul’s words in Ephesians 5:32, “This is a profound mystery,” as if Paul was stating that the institution of marriage is the mystery:
[I]t is not surprising that the only phrase in Paul’s famous discourse on marriage in Ephesians 5 that many couples can relate to is verse 32…. Sometimes you fall into bed, after a long, hard day of trying to understand each other, and you can only sigh, “This is all a profound mystery!” At times, your marriage seems to be an unsolvable puzzle, a maze in which you feel lost. (Meaning of Marriage, 21)
The context, however, is that Paul is explicitly referring to Christ’s affection for His church, and not to the legal union of the husband and wife. The reformers battled Rome on this very point, as Calvin shows, saying, “no man should understand him as speaking of marriage” in Ephesians 5:32, but rather that the “profound mystery” is “the spiritual union between Christ and the church.”[6] But this was no constraint to Keller. When writing a book subtitled “Facing the Complexities of Commitment,” his overarching narrative needed a verse that made marriage the unsolved mystery, irrespective of the context.
We could go on and on with examples, for there are many. We could also spend considerable time showing that in spite of these lapses, Keller actually states many things that are true. That Christ is preached, we rejoice, and Keller on many occasions does so. But to understand just what latitude Keller allows himself, it is necessary to produce more than a passing sample of his license. Because Keller is one who is quick to dismiss the opinions of others because their opinions violate “authorial intent,”[7] it is valuable to know whether he exhibits a reasonable duty of care when handling “authorial intent” himself.
– See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=293#sthash.UtSHbP4T.dpuf
Unfortunately, it does not take long to discover a pattern of eisegetical license in Keller’s works, a license he affords to himself as the need may arise in order to support his prevailing narrative, whatever it may be. This pattern was especially odd because of Keller’s admonition to his hearers that we must “be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.”[1] As the examples in the following section will show, his advice is more of a suggestion than a rule.
“What is Truth?” (John 18:38)
In The Reason for God, Keller explains that he is writing the book in order to show how he implemented a “moderate or conservative” church in a “liberal and edgy” city (xiii). With that in mind, it is easy to see why he cited Matthew 21:31 to his readers saying, “It was the Bible-believing religious establishment who put Jesus to death.”[2]There is some tangible benefit to casting the religious establishment of Jesus’ day as “Bible-believing” to his liberal and edgy readers. But the problem is that Matthew 21:32, the very next verse, declares that “‘the religious establishment” did not believe at all, and they certainly were not “Bible-believing” (see also, John 5:46). Was it the intent of the inspired author to portray the Pharisees as “Bible believing”? Of course not. The New Testament repeatedly portrays those who rejected Jesus as the unbelievers (John 8:45-46; Romans 3:3, 10:21, 11:20; 1 Timothy 1:13; 1 Peter 2:7-8). But the context of the passage and the consistent testimony of the New Testament was no barrier to Keller who needed a narrative for his book.
In Prodigal God,[3]Keller wanted to show that the parable of the Prodigal Son contains “the secret heart of Christianity” (xiii), and adds this paradox for good measure: “one of the signs that you may not grasp the unique, radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do” (xi). To underscore this theme, he uses Matthew 21:31 again to show that Jesus’ teaching attracted the irreligious while “offending the Bible-believing, religious people of his day” who “studied and obeyed the Scripture” (Prodigal God, 8, 15, 29-30). It hardly seems to matter to him that Jesus described His bride, not the Pharisees, as the obedient Bible-believers who “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 12:17, 14:12). The consistent testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus was rejected by those rife with disobedience and unbelief. But Keller needed a narrative to carry the message of the book, and the original context of the passage did not seem to matter.
In Counterfeit Gods,[4] Keller’s objective is to show that we moderns are tempted by heart idols like “beauty, power, money and achievement” (xii). Indeed, we are. Keller uses Ezekiel 14:3a to suggest that the elders of Israel were struggling with heart idols, not physical idols, and indeed were not even aware of, and could not see, any physical idols in their midst:
In Ezekiel 14:3, God says about the elders of Israel, “these men have set up their idols in their hearts.” Like us, the elders must have responded to this charge, “Idols? What idols? I don’t see any idols.” God was saying that the human heart takes good things like a successful career, love, material possessions, even family, and turns them into ultimate things. (Counterfeit Gods, xiv)
But the second half of Ezekiel 14:3 states explicitly that their idols were in plain sight, “before their face.” The Israelites had not forsaken “the idols of Egypt” (20:8), and were offering incense to their idols “round about their altars, upon every high hill, in all the tops of the mountains, and under every green tree, and under every thick oak” (6:3). Who can possibly read Ezekiel and then have the elders of Israel saying “Idols? What idols? I don’t see any idols”? But this plain context of Ezekiel 14:3 was no constraint to Keller’s narrative. He was writing about heart idols, and it served his purpose to cast the elders of Israel as puzzled and ignorant, unaware that they were worshiping physical images.
In The Meaning of Marriage,[5]Keller sought to apply the Scripture to the institution of marriage, promising to adhere to “a straightforward reading of Biblical texts” (16). But within four pages, Keller had already recast Paul’s words in Ephesians 5:32, “This is a profound mystery,” as if Paul was stating that the institution of marriage is the mystery:
[I]t is not surprising that the only phrase in Paul’s famous discourse on marriage in Ephesians 5 that many couples can relate to is verse 32…. Sometimes you fall into bed, after a long, hard day of trying to understand each other, and you can only sigh, “This is all a profound mystery!” At times, your marriage seems to be an unsolvable puzzle, a maze in which you feel lost. (Meaning of Marriage, 21)
The context, however, is that Paul is explicitly referring to Christ’s affection for His church, and not to the legal union of the husband and wife. The reformers battled Rome on this very point, as Calvin shows, saying, “no man should understand him as speaking of marriage” in Ephesians 5:32, but rather that the “profound mystery” is “the spiritual union between Christ and the church.”[6] But this was no constraint to Keller. When writing a book subtitled “Facing the Complexities of Commitment,” his overarching narrative needed a verse that made marriage the unsolved mystery, irrespective of the context.
We could go on and on with examples, for there are many. We could also spend considerable time showing that in spite of these lapses, Keller actually states many things that are true. That Christ is preached, we rejoice, and Keller on many occasions does so. But to understand just what latitude Keller allows himself, it is necessary to produce more than a passing sample of his license. Because Keller is one who is quick to dismiss the opinions of others because their opinions violate “authorial intent,”[7] it is valuable to know whether he exhibits a reasonable duty of care when handling “authorial intent” himself.
– See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=293#sthash.UtSHbP4T.dpuf
The Early Church did not teach Baptismal Regeneration.
Called to Communion is a Roman Catholic organization comprised of former Protestants. The desire of Called to Communion is “to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition.” Of course, there can never be “reunion” unless there had first been a “union,” and Roman Catholicism as it is practiced today was never a part of the Church of Jesus Christ. As we have noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism was formed out of a great apostasy that took place in the late 4th century and many of its doctrines—its own apologists admit this—cannot be traced any earlier than that. As we noted in When ‘Mary’ Got Busy, Eucharistic Adoration did not even arrive on the scene until the 11th century. Roman Catholicism simply is not as old as it claims to be, and is certainly not as old as the Church of Jesus Christ.
In order to speak the truth in love, one must first love the truth.
Steve Brown is a radio show host, author, seminary professor, PCA pastor and occasional “shock jock.” He has no lack of paper credentials to preach and to lead his ministry, which he calls Key Life Network. He is not lacking in personality or wit, either, and his messages are sprinkled generously with personal anecdotes and well-timed one-liners. His preaching schedule frequently takes him to other churches, and he serves on the teaching staff of Perimeter Presbyterian Church in Johns Creek, GA but his home church is in Winter Springs, Florida, USA. Continue reading Speaking the Love in Love→
The Apparitions of Mary picked up their pace just in time to usher in an 11th century “Eucharistic Revolution” in the Roman Catholic Church
Those who have been following this blog have at least some passing familiarity with the eschatology we espouse. As we have written in many entries thus far, we hold that Papal Rome is the Beast of Revelation (Revelation 13:1-10), that the Apparition of Mary is the False Prophet (Revelation 13:11-14), and that the Eucharist is the Image of the Beast (Revelation 13:14-16). Continue reading When “Mary” Got Busy→
Ignatius of Antioch was not the staunch defender of transubstantiation that Roman Catholicism makes him out to be.
One does not have to study the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation very long before finding how important Ignatius of Antioch is to its defense. As a martyr of the late first, or early second century, he is alleged to be the first witness in the sub-apostolic era for Transubstantiation and the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. Fr. John Hardon, in his The History of Eucharistic Adoration lists Ignatius first after the apostle Paul in defense of the doctrine: Continue reading Eating Ignatius→
“…for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.” — Revelation 9:19
We are now in our third and last week of analyzing the Trumpets of Revelation (Revelation 8-9). Last week, we analyzed the Fifth Trumpet, which was the “Crusading Spirit,” by which men were driven to invade the Holy Land by the sound of the locusts’ wings. The Crusading Spirit—with its obligatory vows, and promises of full remission of sins and the martyr’s crown—is the means by which men were tormented five prophetic months or 150 years (Revelation 9:5,10). After the first four Trumpets, an angel interjects with a “woe” (Revelation 8:13, 9:12) to warn John and the people of the earth of the coming calamities. With the Fifth Trumpet, or the First Woe behind us, we proceed to the Sixth Trumpet, or the Second Woe. Continue reading The Trumpets, Part 3→
“For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without number, whose teeth are the teeth of a lion….” (Joel 1:6)
Last week in The Trumpets, Part 1, we discussed the first four Trumpets of Revelation that immediately succeeded the opening of the Seven Seals. The first four Trumpets were as follows:
Trumpet 1: Eden Burning (359 A.D.) Trumpet 2: The Egyptian Tsunami (365 A.D.) Trumpet 3: The Latin Vulgate (382-404 A.D.) Trumpet 4: The Mysterious Fog over Europe (536 A.D.)
After these there is a break in the progression as an angel interrupts to say, “Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!” (Revelation 8:13). The next two Trumpets are given in much more detail than the first Four, and we will address each of them separately, beginning this week with the Fifth Trumpet.
It has been alleged by some of my historicist brethren that the Fifth Trumpet “is one of the easiest symbols in the Apocalypse to understand.” Assent to this is almost universal among them, as can be seen in the long list of expositors who have identified the Saracens as the locusts of Revelation 9. The Saracens were said to have dominated for five prophetic months, or a total of 150 years.
We will have to disagree with our historicist brethren here, as we do not believe they have sufficiently worked out how men could desire death for 150 years, and how death could escape them for that long. Likewise, the locusts are not given authority to kill men, only to torment them—yet the Saracens killed many men. Elliot takes it rather to mean that the Saracens were not allowed to destroy the civil state (E. B. Elliot, The last prophecy: An Abridgement of the late Rev. E. B. Elliott’s Horæ Apocalypticæ, p. 130), but the text of Scripture is quite clear that the locusts were allowed to torment “those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads” (Revelation 9:4) and further “that they should not kill” those men (Revelation 9:5), and those men seek death, but death escapes those men (Revelation 9:6).
We agree with Elliot that the Fifth Trumpet spans a period of 150 years. We propose a solution here that takes the rest into account as well. Continue reading The Trumpets, Part 2→
“And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.”—Revelation 8:2
Two weeks ago, in Do Not Weep for Nicomedia, we walked through the Seven Seals of Revelation (chapters 6 to 8), noting that the saints of God were marked between the Sixth and Seventh—that is, between the destruction of Nicomedia by an earthquake and the burning of Nicomedia with fire in 358 A.D. By way of review, the Seven Seals are as follows:
Seal 1: Rise of the Sassanid Empire (226 A.D.) Seal 2: The Crisis of the Third Century (235 A.D.) Seal 3: Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices (301 A.D.) Seal 4: The Diocletianic Persecution (303 A.D.) Seal 5: The “pretended relaxation” (311 A.D.) Seal 6: The earthquake of Nicomedia (358 A.D.) Seal 7: The burning of Nicomedia (shortly after the earthquake)
The Seals are worked out in much more detail in our post two weeks ago, and we invite our readers to revisit the details there.
At the breaking of the Seventh Seal, before the “fire of the altar” is cast to earth (Revelation 8:5), seven angels are given seven trumpets (Revelation 8:2). The angels began to sound their trumpets within a year of the breaking of the Seventh Seal. This week we cover the first Four. Continue reading The Trumpets, Part 1→
The Religion of Roman Catholicism began shortly after 358 A.D.
Last week we demonstrated that the Seven Seals of Revelation spanned the time frame from 226 – 358 A.D., and that the Church of Jesus Christ was marked for preservation from the coming wrath in 358, between the Sixth and the Seventh Seals (Revelation 7). As we have opined elsewhere on this blog, Roman Catholicism as a religion attempted—and failed—to introduce its institutional idolatry to the Church, and as a religion, Roman Catholicism constituted the falling away that Paul prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. As such, we are not surprised to find that much of what Rome claims as the “deposit of faith” handed down to us from the apostles can only be traced to the latter half of the fourth century. Continue reading The Rise of Roman Catholicism→
Readers on this site have read our claim on several occasions that Roman Catholicism arose at the latter end of the fourth century, and no earlier. We have opined on this particular matter under the titles, What the Fathers Feared Most, One Kingdom Too Late, and A See of One, among others. We have endeavored to show, and will continue to demonstrate, that Roman Catholicism arose three hundred years after the apostolic era, and when it did rise, her ordinances were foreign to the precepts of Christ, abhorrent to His saints, and contrary to the teachings of His apostles and prophets—although they foresaw its coming and emphatically warned against it. Continue reading Do Not Weep for Nicomedia→
“They bear it upon the shoulder, they carry it, and set it in its place, and it stands; from its place shall it not move: yea, one shall cry unto it, yet can it not answer, nor save him out of his trouble.” (Isaiah 46:7)
It should go without saying that Roman Catholic saints are intentionally held up as examples for the flock to imitate. Lest it be alleged that we have imagined this, we defer to Pope John Paul II, who at World Youth Day 2002, explained this in no uncertain terms: Continue reading “We Don’t Worship Mary*” part 2→
The terms “Latria” and “Hyperdulia” create a distinction without a difference.
One of the most prevalent and visible forms of devotion among Roman Catholics is their veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Such attributes are assigned to her, and so many accolades poured out upon her by Roman Catholicism, that the veneration paid to her appears to outsiders to be nothing less than worship. Roman Catholic apologist, Fr. William G. Most, answers these charges with the theological equivalent of “This is not what it looks like.” A summary of his reasoning comes from his tract, Devotion To Our Lady And The Saints:
Do Catholics worship her? Protestants often claim that. But let us examine the command of Our Lord: ‘Judge Not.’ We distinguish two things:
The doctrines of Rome amount to a material rejection of the incarnation.
Long before Jesus turned water into wine, He turned Mary’s amniotic fluid into meconium, and her breast milk into transitional stools. Anyone who has ever changed a child’s diaper knows that the resulting odor offends the nostrils greatly. As Jesus would later instruct us, “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly” and ends up in the toilet (Matthew 15:17), or in His case as an infant, in the diaper. Thus did Jesus’ lower gastrointestinal tract operate as it must for all men, and thus did our Lord endure the gastrocolic reflex, as all we mortals do. We therefore have no doubt that Mary’s milk passed through Him according to the course of nature, and into His diapers in a common and necessary movement. And thus did Jesus come all the way down to earth to save us, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Hebrews 4:15).
If that opening paragraph offends you, you do not know why Jesus came to earth, and you have not understood the Gospel. Continue reading Removing Jesus→
There is a reason the Scriptures never portray the Serpent or the Beast of Revelation with only seven horns.
One of the most prominently signified figures in the realm of Christian eschatology is the emergence of ten entities from the remnants of the Roman empire. They are sometimes symbolized as toes, and sometimes as horns, but always numerically as ten.
In Daniel chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzer experiences a dream in which a statue signifies the rise and fall of four empires, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman. Daniel interprets the dream for the king, and twice in his interpretation, he refers to toes (2:41, 42) as the last stage of the progression. Because time proceeds from top to bottom, and from precious materials to common, it is inferred from the toes on the statue that the final configuration of the fourth empire is a ten way division. Continue reading A See of One→
Roman Catholic counter-reformational mysticism is all the rage in Evangelical Circles.
There are certain names our evangelical readers may hear from time to time on Sunday mornings from the pulpit, or in Sunday School, or perhaps in a small bible study fellowship, or in the latest book to fly off the shelves of the book stores. These names pop up quite frequently, and they are usually offered up as examples of a bold or simple faith, godliness and a lifestyle of prayer and contemplation. What may surprise our evangelical readers is the fact that the people being offered as examples are Roman Catholic counter-reformational mystics who worked tirelessly against the Protestant Reformation to try to stamp it out. Continue reading And the Diviners Have Seen a Lie→
The so-called evangelical church has an unseemly appetite for the demonic.
As a young lady, Mary Faustina Kowalska (1905-1938) attended a dance one evening with her friends. During the dance, she experienced a vision of “Jesus,” and was no longer able to concentrate on the festivities. Not knowing what else to do, she slipped out of the dance to the local cathedral and cast herself down to worship the Eucharist, asking “Jesus” to tell her what to do. “He” did: Continue reading Wolves Within the Gate→
Follow
