Rod Bennett’s lecture, “The Four Witnesses brought me home”

Addendum: (June 15, 2015) (putting this up front; on June 13 it is at the bottom of article) 

I think that Ephesians 3:20-21 prevents us from saying the church totally apostatized completely (until the new Lutheran, Reformed, and other Protestant churches were formed and then the Council of Trent (1545-1563) made the Roman Catholic Church go into apostasy- because it anathematized the heart of the gospel by it’s rejection of justification by faith alone) – the church did not disappear before then, because of the phrase, “in the church in all generations”.

“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.” Ephesians 3:20-21


Rod Bennett and I were pretty good friends, but I was not the Evangelical friend who went with him to see the “Fields of the Woods”.  (you have to listen to his lecture to understand that reference.)   Rod was closer to my brother, Scott, but when Rod converted to Rome, Rod challenged me to study the issues of church history more, because I was the seminary grad and minister-missionary and Rod challenged me on the issues.  We debated informally with several long meetings, lunches, emails, phone calls, etc. from 1996-2004.

It was in 2004 that he told me not to discuss religion and RC vs. Protestant issues with him anymore. He cut me off from discussion, though he was open to keep the friendship and discussion on a C. S. Lewis- “Mere Christianity”- level and discuss Star Wars and Star Trek and other things that we enjoyed together.  I miss Rod and his mind and friendship.   Even though Rod converted to Roman Catholicism, I still consider Rod a friend and he is a very interesting guy and for years we loved to hang out and talk about great movies with plots of “good vs. evil”, science fiction (Star Trek and Star Wars), the Beatles music, Francis Schaeffer and C. S. Lewis, the Christmas classic, It’s a Wonderful Life with Jimmy Stewart, etc.

Rod is a gifted speaker and writer; and a lot of what he says is true (and in his book). I always thought Rod was one of the smartest people I had ever met; he always made me think; and he always liked to debate (it seemed to me) and win at debating by logic and reason and forcing an “either -or” paradigm.

Unfortunately, our Southern Baptist Churches do not teach church history very well, (the one we went to together didn’t even teach about church history at all) since he got such a strange impression of that “Great Apostasy”, allegedly beginning with Constantine in 312 (conversion), 313 (stopping of persecution) or the Nicean Council ( 325 AD).  I am glad Rod corrected the error of his false impression that Constantine made Christianity the state religion.  No; Constantine did not.  Theodosius did that later in 380-392 AD.  But for a long time in the lecture, I thought he was wrongly saying the Constantine did.

The lack of proper teaching on church history at our Southern Baptist mega church left Rod vulnerable to the claims of Rome.  I totally agree with him that the southern baptist culture of ours did not teach church history and did not give us a balanced and informed understanding of church history.  There were other things going on also in Rod’s thinking.  His bible study, called “New Vision” had failed, basically, and I think he would agree with me, because he was unprepared to deal with all the pastoral issues that came up as people came to his study and began to look to him as their pastor.  Years earlier, after being rejected as a teacher to the youth group at our church, I had actually encouraged Rod to start an evangelistic bible study and he did.  I did not realize what that would entail.

None of us had a proper understanding of local church Biblical authority.  Our model of a mega-church pastor with no elders and no accountability, that did not do church-discipline (ignored passages such as Matthew 18:15-20; Titus 3:10; 1 Corinthians 5) was not a good model.

Years later, when we debated, looking back on that bible study that he just “started up”, Rod admitted to me that after people asked him, “who gave you the authority to start a bible study?”, and  “What church ordained or commissioned you to do that?”  – it was those questions that got him to question his authority to start a bible study.   Those questions also forced Rod to think about church authority, accountability, ordination, and the proper role of church confirming people and sending them out to do ministry.  (as in Acts 13:1-4)  This reality, eventually lead him, along with the discovering the early church fathers, unfortunately, to think that the Roman Catholic church and it’s authority claims, is the one true church that Jesus founded.

After Rod read the early church fathers or around the same time, from my perspective, he was unprepared to deal with the arguments of Roman Catholic apologists such as Scott Hahn and his book, Rome Sweet Home; and the arguments of John Henry Cardinal Newman.  He was using those and Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and Surprised by Truth (volume 1) (Edited by Patrick Madrid) kind of material on me.  I quickly bought those books and studied them. Fortunately, I had gone off to seminary a few years earlier than Rod’s New Vision Bible study, and studied church history some, so I was not so shocked at the apostolic fathers as Rod was when he first encountered them.

But I totally agree that typical southern baptists do not do a good job of helping lay people understand church history, with balance, and as Rod says, “with proportion, health, and common sense”. The informed Protestant position on church history is much more nuanced and gradual about what happened to the church in history.  It was not a “BOBO” type of thing like the other “Great Apostasy” theories of cult groups and modern sects.  (BOBO = “Blink on, blink off” – I got that from Ralph Winter and his articles in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement)   We agree with Rod that the church did not “blink off” in 313 or 325 or even 380-392 or 900 or 1200, and did not suddenly “Blink on” again in 1517.  However,  somewhere between 1545- 1563 (at Council of Trent), because the Roman Catholic Church knowingly rejected and anathematized the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the Roman Catholic Church at that point became a false church.   The true churches were those in the Protestant communities, however imperfect and not unified.   I guess a different kind of theory of the apostasy theory happened at the Council of Trent.

The true, more scholarly Protestant position is NOT like the theory of “The Church of God of prophesy” or the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the 7th Day Adventists. Before, and around the 10:50 mark, Rod claims that Protestants and Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Church of God (founder A. J. Tomlinson) (but the original movement later splintered into the “Church of God” of Cleveland Tennesse” and “the church of God of prophesy”, with Tomlinson having to leave the Church of God and founded a new group, “The Church of God of prophesy”), and Pentecostalism (from the 1906 Azusa Street Revivals) , even liberal Christianity, have one dogma in common, that the original church that Jesus founded, “went bust” at the time of Constantine.  Later he says things like, “the church was totally lost”.  That is true of what Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses say, and the Seventh Day Adventents have a real obsession over Sunday worship, calling it “the mark of the beast”, but knowledgeable Protestants don’t judge history that way.  Even knowledgeable Baptists don’t do that.  Whatever “went bust” means, it means different things to a Presbyterian and a knowledgeable Baptist than to a Mormon, JW,  or Seventh Day Adventist.  Protestants, at least the knowledgeable ones, do not say the church went completely into apostasy.  Most historically minded Protestants don’t say the Roman Catholic Church went into total apostasy until the Council of Trent, from 1545-1563, when they dogmatically and officially condemned the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  So Rod is just flat out wrong on that.

Rod says that they  (the “great apostasy” theories) all go back to Constantine. But that is not true for Mormons – their view of apostasy goes back farther than that. I think his analysis is flawed and he does not take into account the nuanced difference between historic Protestantism (Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist) vs. un-orthodox cults such as Mormonism.  Historical Protestants greatly appreciate the homo-ousias (same substance) principle of the Nicean Creed  and Nicean Council of 325 AD, as accurately reflecting what the New Testament teaches about the nature of Jesus Christ with the Father, and the 3 persons / hypostasis of the Cappodician fathers and the Council of Constantinople of 381 AD.   Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults see those councils and creeds as part of the great apostasy.

Protestants embrace them as proper theological development, based clearly on infallible Scripture. Informed Protestants don’t say that the early church totally went bust or ceased to exist. Informed knowledgeable protestants would say that the early church made some mistakes and interpreted Scripture wrong on some things, (like the mono-episcopate, baptismal regeneration, penance, priests), and was a mixture of good and bad, but they got other things right – The doctrine of the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the canon of Scripture, etc.

Rod’s Four Witnesses are:  1.  Clement of Rome (96 AD), 2.  Ignatius  of Antioch (around 107-117 AD),  3.  Justin Martyr (around 165 AD),   4.  Irenaeus of Lyons (around 180-200 AD)  See here about Rod’s book, Four Witnesses. Rod discovered these writings one rainy day hanging out at a local Christian book store.  When he started reading them, he was shocked because he did not know such writings had existed.  It is true that most Evangelicals, especially in the free church traditions (Baptists, independents, Bible church, Charismatics and Pentecostals), don’t know much about church history or the early church fathers.  But, those Protestants that are informed, and have taken the time to study and investigate the early church – Evangelical, Bible believing Protestants greatly appreciate Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Didache, Cyprian, and some things even from the heretic Origen and his strange teacher, Clement of Alexandria.  We appreciate Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Ambrose also.  But they were fallible humans.

Their writings have to be measured against the infallible Scriptures.  From a Biblical Protestant perspective, there are some early mistakes in the early church fathers, true. Rod does not think they are mistakes, but Protestants do; and Rod mentions some of them, baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession (the way Rome defines it, is different than seeing sound doctrines of the faith passed on in the early churches), and the sacrificial nature of the Lord’s Supper.  But he agrees with those; most Protestants do not, or have a different understanding of them than Rome does at least.  Of course these in their early forms are not the same as later in history and not the same as how Rome defines them today.  A Protestant can acknowledge some form of these early on, without believing the church went totally and completely “off the rails”.  See Tim Kauffman’s excellent series on Baptismal Regeneration.    I think Tim poked enough holes in that to question whether the early church really taught what Rome claims it did in the area of baptismal regeneration.

Rod claims that Clement of Rome teaches apostolic succession.  Rod calls it “discipleship” and says that the Bible had not existed yet.   Well, all the NT books were written by that time, in separate scrolls, and Clement even mentions Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians. (1 Clement 47)  What he means that the individual books and letters of the New Testament were not yet collected under one cover or list, as those books which are inspired, God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16), and therefore canonical (“canon”, meaning “standard”, “criterion”, “rule”, “law”, for sound doctrine and practice)  I don’t think Clement of Rome taught apostolic succession in the way that Rome and Rod defines it today.  Clement did teach that churches should not rebel and be jealous and get rid of their elders, yes.   (1 Clement, especially paragraphs 1-6, 14, 44-47)  But that is not apostolic succession.

Rod points out that Ignatius of Antioch taught that there was one bishop over the college of presbyters and that they were key to a true local church.   That is true, Ignatius is the first to teach that, which we refer to as the “mono-episcopacy” (one bishop).  Ignatius is the first person to use the phrase, “kata holicos” (κατα ‘ολικος ) which is a combination of two words, which meant, ‘according to the whole” or “universal” and would apply to “all the nations” and “all within the known Roman Empire” at the time.  The phrase actually is used in Greek in the New Testament in Acts 9:31 – “So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up.” Greek:   μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης – you can see Kath’ holeas καθ’ ‘ολης there.)   This later morphed into the one word, “catholic”.   But before Ignatius (107 AD), in the earlier writing such as Clement of Rome, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas, and the even earlier NT books, there was no such thing as a mono-episcopacy.  Each church had a plurality of elders.  (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-5 and the elders are to do the work of overseeing (being a bishop, watching over, leading), and shepherding (pastoring).

Rod claims that Justin’s description of a church service is like a Catholic mass.  Except Justin Martyr was clearly describing believer’s baptism, and so, would seem against infant baptism.  He writes that those who partake of the Lord’s supper have had to first understood, been taught, repented, believed, and have been baptised.  That part sounds more like Baptists.  Granted, on other issues, Justin Martyr sounds like a belief in baptismal regeneration (but see above about Tim Kauffman’s articles on that issue), and sounds like some kind of change in the Eucharist, but without the Aristotelian / Thomas Aquinas categories of Transubstantiation.  See Justin Martyr, 1 Apology, 66. 

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was discipled by John the apostle. For analysis of how Rod treated Irenaeus’ Against Heresies in his book, Four Witnesses, see here.   The problem is cutting quotes (either too early or too late, leaving out context) at just the place that would have given a more Protestant understanding of early church father’s writings. Rod mentions the martyrdom of Polycarp, “complete with the exposition of his relics”.  After Polycarp was burned at the stake, around 155 AD, they early church gathered his bones (and ashes ?) and kept them, preserving them, and would take them out a year later to honor and remember his heroic faith to the death.  But Polycarp would never have approved of praying to him before his bones, or thinking they get grace by looking at them or touching them.  (But see here for an analysis of what really happened to Polycarp’s remains.)

Rod says for this lecture, he wants to go beyond the Four Witnesses book. He goes into 2 areas that get exaggerated and romanticized by later desciptions of early church history as anachronistic:  1. the persecutions are exaggerated, and the Roman Empire was really “indifferent” to Christians, according to Rod, and 2.  The early church was not so pure.  Just a comment about anachronisms:  Roman Catholic art is almost always anachronistic, painting early church father’s in bishops hats, and clothing and buildings of the time that the painter or sculpturor lived in.  So, there are lots of paintings of Augustine who looks like he lived in 1200, 1400, or 1700 rather than 354-430 AD.

He paints a different interpretation of what pagan Rome was, in it’s view of Christianity.  He tries to say that Rome was like the modern USA and sort of libertarian and had some sort of separation between church and state.  Rod calls the pagan Roman attitude toward religion as “indifference, cloaked in the language of respect”.  Why did the church have to go through those some 9 periods of off and on persecutions, that Rod points out?   The Emporers themselves did not always directly carry the persecutions out, and many times it was local persecutions done by the local governors and magistrates and it just happened under some Emporer’s reigns.

The first empire wide persecuation was Decius in 250 AD, and the worst was Diocletian and Galarius from 303-312 AD.  Nero’s is famous because of his insanity, and the burning of Rome, and that it provides the historical backround to NT books such as 1 Peter and Hebrews, and is when Peter and Paul were martyred.   (1. Nero (64-68 AD), 2.  Domitian (89-96 AD), 3.  Trajan (98-117 AD) (Ignatius was thrown to the beasts then),  [Polycarp was executed in 155 AD, during Antonius Pius’ reign, 138-161 AD, but he is usually not listed as one of the major Emperor’s who had times of persecution during their reign. ] 4. Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD) (Justin Martyr killed then), 5.  Septimius Severus (193-211 AD – Tertullian wrote his famous words during this time, “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church”) The famous martyrs of Madaura and Perpetua and Felicity in the Roman province of Africa happened during this time, but these were probably as the result of local persecutions rather than empire wide actions or decrees by Severus.  Same for the martyrdom of the bishop Pothinus in Lyons, France, with others in an arena, who was replaced by Irenaeus.   6.  Maximus the Thracian (235-238 AD)  7.  Decius (250 AD)  (Origen suffered) 8.  Valerian (256-260 AD) (Cyprian was beheaded then) 9. Diocletian and Galarius. (303-312 AD)

I understand his point to some extent, since the Romans did allow for the Jews, but the records tell us that they did honor their own Roman and Greek deities.  Why did they call Christians “atheists” then? Rod is right that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion.  That is a very common misake.  Constantine just made Christianity legal; that is, they would not persecute the Christians anymore.  (313 AD) It is amazing to me how many people repeat that mistake, even in some church history books.  Christianity was not made the state religion until Theodosius, around 390-392 AD.   As Rod says about the action of Theodosius, “about 70 years later and 8 emporers later”.

Rod calls the romantic and exaggerated idea that the early church was nothing but persecution and catacombs and feed to the lions in collasium’s and theatres was an Anachronism.   He is right that that period is romanticized and exagerated.  There are extreme ideas of total persecution all the way from Nero to Diocletian, but it was not constant; it was sporatic and off and on.  That is the myth that Candida Moss is getting at – but her point is that the histories exaggerated the persecutions.

Rod points out that the early church was not so pure.  This is true. Rod lists some of the sins that are recorded about the early period. The era of the tradiatores – the handing over of copies of the Scriptures to the Roman authors and they burned them.  Rod is right on that point. Rod then mentions the struggle he had with the way the Roman Catholic Church has over-exalted Mary in the Marian dogmas and practices and statues of the Roman Catholic Church.  He only counsels “have patience” and that is about it.  I have not seen his book on Mary, as he told me years ago he was working on that.

But Rod has another book called The Christus Experiment, which is science fiction, I think, mixed in with some church history material and time travel.  I am planning to read that.

Rod read from a historian, “the sucessor of St. Peter sat upon the throne of the emperors”. What is he talking about? I wonder what Rod means by the prophesy of Isaiah 500 years earlier?   Isaiah prophesied of the Messiah to come about 750 years before Jesus was born (Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6) and of His death (Isaiah 53), but is Rod implying that Isaiah 11:9  is about the Roman Catholic Church?  (“the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea”)  That is a very grandiose claim indeed, if that is what he means.

Rod says the Greek church was the one that allowed heresies and seems to be claiming that the western church in Rome never did: Arianism ( the some 60 years, when during a lot of that time, Athanasius was exiled 5 times, after 325 AD to around 381 AD)  I don’t think that is a fair judgment, as if the Greek church was totally separate from the western Latin speaking church.  That really does not happen until much later, especially after Islam conquers the east in the 600s and 700s, and then they had a final breaking in 1054 AD. Monophysties – the Coptic Church in Egypt, the Jacobite-Syrian Church, the Armenian Church, did not accept the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 AD, that Christ has 2 natures. Nestorians – in 431 AD, Nestorius was condemned as a heretic and exiled, but before he died, he actually agreed with the Chalcedonian creed and the Tome of Leo 1.  (in his work, the Bazaar of Heracleides, discovered in the late 1800s.) Mono-thelitism – funny he should mention that, as the most famous example of a bishop of Rome, the Pope, teaching heresy is Honorius (625-638 AD), who taught Mono-thelitism – that Christ had only one will.  He was condemned by the church for over 300 years, and each succeeding bishop of Rome had to verbally curse Honorius, “Pope of old Rome”,  for his heresy.

Honorius, bishop of Rome, heretic  – For more on Honorius, bishop of Rome, see here.

Towards the end of his lecture, Rod mentions the miracles of church history – of Anthony, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Joan of Arc, and Francis Xavier. of Anthony – the man most credit as the father of the monastic movement and desert asceticism; Athanasius wrote a biography about him. I don’t know about the claim that Francis Xavier, the famous Jesuit missionary to India and Japan,  rose someone from the dead in front of 40,000 witnesses at the time of Luther in Germany.  Rod says Luther was preaching that miracles ceased.  Did he really preach that?  or did he preach that some of the spiritual gifts had ceased in the sense of people being able to do miracles and heal at will, as it seems they did in the New Testament era.  There is a great difference in saying “all miracles have ceased in answer to prayer” and “some of the spiritual gifts have ceased as residing in one person who can exercise them at will”.  To use Mark 16 as one’s text for miracles is shaky, because that passage about picking up snakes has been greatly abused, and is not found in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

“Look for proportion, health, common sense”, says Rod.  Good advice. I can agree with that, but with a different application.  I like the term, “balance” and what Dr. James White says, ” we can let the early church be the early church” – not Roman Catholic nor Protestant, but the early church; “catholic” with a little c, meaning universal and worldwide, spreading to all nations, but not Roman Catholic, as there was no infallible Pope (1870 is very late), nor Marian dogmas (1854 and 1950 are very late) [ Theotokos, “the bearer of God” was originally about Jesus Christ, that He was always God from conception in the womb of Mary, it was not meant to exalt Mary; and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, defended by Jerome around 400 AD, and became dogma later – I have written several articles on that issue at Beggar’s All, – some of those articles are not mine], nor Transubstantiation (800s to 1215 AD) in the early centuries.

Conclusion: Rod mentions going back to The Fields of the Woods, where, the first time he went, they were claiming to be the one true church on the monuments.  Rod says now they have downplayed all that and bend over backwards to be accepted as one denomination among many.  That made Rod sad, because he agrees more with A. J. Tomlinson’s first idea, the idea that there is only one true church and all others are false, and hating the idea of denominationalism.

Well Rod, the only way out of that is to go back to the days of the marriage of the church and state, to Theodosius (380-392 AD), Justinian (527-565 AD), Heraclius (610-641 AD), and the Middle Ages of executing heretics and apostates; the era of Inquistions, Crusades (but they were responses to the Islamic aggressions first), and witch-hunts, heresy trials (which are good in themselves, without torture or physical punishment, just ex-communication) and exiling the heretics to the deserts. The policies of Justinian and Heraclius are the ones that were too harsh against the the Monophysites/ Mia-physites – the Copts in Egypt, the Mono/ Mia-physites in Syria and Armenia, and caused some of the bitterness of these groups and they seemed to welcome the Muslim conquerers as liberators, at least at first. There is some truth to that, but that is not all of the truth about the Islamic invasions.  I remember one Egyptian Christian telling me, “The Muslims deceived us”.  They were pretty good at first, but later after instituting the Dhimmi system, it was too late and it went downhill after that.  See here for more on the Islamic invasions and Dhimmism.

Addendum: (June 13, 2015) 

I think that Ephesians 3:20-21 prevents us from saying the church totally apostatized completely (until the new Lutheran, Reformed, and other Protestant churches were formed and then Trent made it go into apostasy) – because of the phrase, “in the church in all generations”.

“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.”  Ephesians 3:20-21

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in church history, Evangelicals who convert to Roman Catholicism, Rod Bennett, Roman Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to Rod Bennett’s lecture, “The Four Witnesses brought me home”

  1. Jim says:


    Okay, we will move the discussion to here since you feel we have exhausted that of the Eucharist.

    Ken, about the videos with people processing through the streets and all the kitschy statues and stuff, you saw but you didn’t see.
    The Catholic Church today is the same Church that has always existed. Yours is an upstart with no roots in reality.
    I hope I don’t hurt your feelings but I am going to be point blank. Your have no mandate to be preaching. You have not been commissioned by any authority higher than yourself. You are no more called to ministry than I am. Actually, less seeing you have never been Confirmed. You are all dressed up an playing church.

    This is a great week for Catholic devotions in Portugal. Sunday was Corpus Christ with the biggest procession in Europe. Yesterday was the feast and bank holiday of the Angel of Fatima/ Portugal. Tomorrow is the feast of the Sacred Heart. The Sacred Heart of Jesus feast is always on a Friday and the following day, Saturday, is the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This year it falls on the 13 which is also the feats of Lisbon’s patron, St. Anthony. That is Lisbon’s major holiday with parades, weddings, street dancing and the sardine festival.
    Ken, all of the stuff in the videos you called “gaudy” and that I listed are based in fact, historical fact. Events really happened and are documented. My Church, the only real one, is based on events as easy to track down as Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate”.
    And it is still alive and well. Take for example the Corpus Christie procession. The throngs of of people you saw in the video are not mere Sunday morning pew warmers. They are people who came out in the screaming heat, many of them with crutches and canes, to manifest publicly their allegiance to God in the face of a Masonic government. While the St. Anthony festival is highly seculariized like Christmas or Easter is, it still has a powerful religious theme running through it.
    As for the Sacred Heart, that started in France and was used by the Jesuits to stop the spread of the pestilence of Calvinism. The Immaculate Heart is not only the logical ( and biblical ) corollary to the Sacred Heart but is part of the history of Portugal. It is associated with the events real at Fatima and is intertwined with the Catholic doctrines of the papacy, penance, the Eucharist, purgatory, hell and the Communion of Saints.
    You are turned off by the “gaudy” stuff that is tied in with real event but you are inspired by a theory ( Mere Christianity/ Just get into a Bible based church ) that is strictly a head trip that exists only between your ears.

    Like I said, Ken, there is a real live Church out there. It has been around for a long time. It is processing through the streets right in front of you. But you have no interest in it. Rather, you are playing St. Paul with your missionizing and church building.
    The doctrines you preach are either the non-specific mamby pamby slop of Mere Christianity your friend Rod speaks of or the ghoulish doctrines of Calvinism ( I would love to hear you tell a Muslim the good new, ” God wants some people to be saved and Jesus die for them. You just may be one of them.” )
    Keep it up Ken. Keep pretending you are spreading the Gospel. If it feels good, do it. You probably aren’t doing any real damage ( as long as you don’t trash the real Church ). But just remember one thing, the real Church is already here and is moving along without you.

  2. Jim says:

    You accused me of “heresy” for saying Muslims who follow the Law written on their hearts,will inherit the Kingdom before certain men who had ” once been enlightened, and tasted the heavenly gift, and shared in the Holy Spirit” only to their backs on it and, like Judas, have betrayed Christ and trampled His Blood under their feet.
    Does the word “heresy” have any real meaning in your vocabulary?

    How does a “Mere Christian” in which doctrine is no more than opinion, define heresy? What is a Mere Christian’s rule of faith? Who decides? You?

    How does someone who tells people to “get into a Bible believing church” get off calling anybody a heretic, even a Muslim? Show me why the WCF is anymore inspired than the Koran.

    How many Bible believing churches can you find in the Yellow Pages. 10? 20? The only church that you don’t consider a Bible believing church is mine, huh?

    Don’t bother asserting your Calvinists doctrines and a denial of Mere Christianity. Calvinism is just a fatalistic branch of Mere Christianity ( much like the Islam you denounce ).

    Your Reformed “Doctrines of Grace” Grace? Robots don’t need grace! It might make you feel superior to the other brands of Mere Christians, but those “Doctrines of Grace” have no more power to bind men’s consciences than any other Mere Christian human opinion. You have just pirated a Catholic word and morphed it to mean “puppetry”.

    Open a book. Notice, there is a common theme, a thread, running all through human history. It is the Church. Not your version of church. Not some outfit that starts, falls away, disappears for centuries, is restored, falls away again and starts again, on again, off again, always being reformed from the outside.
    The Church is visible Ken. It is processing through the streets behind the Blessed Sacrament just as the Israel of old marched behind the fiery cloud. You are so busy blogging, handing out Bibles , street preaching and founding churches you are blind to the one Christ founded standing right under your nose.

    ( No doubt Falloni will be weighing in in a minute or two. You two are not in the same denomination, are you? But that doesn’t keep you from knowing what the essentials are. You don’t call each other “heretic”, do you? No sir. You both know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the only real essential is know you ain’t Catholic. That’s all that really matters is being a Mere Christian. Ha! )

    Love the video, Ken!

  3. Jim says:

    You need to join this conversation going on right now on C2C about the Church and how one get’s into it.

    First read Dave Anders’ article on how the Protestant concept of “Church” evolved away from Calvin into Calvinism.
    You have opinions. You have ideas. You are dying to shout them from the housetops. So do it. Come on over and sound off.
    Rather than read Catholics turned Calvinist like Kauffman, Bugay and Webster, come see what Calvinists turned Catholics have to say as well. The conversation goes at a snail’space because of the moderation but that shouldn’t bother you as you say you are too busy to keep up with the volume of comments on your own blog ( Kevin and me ). The moderators favor Calvinist guests so you should not feel outnumbered.

    C’mon! Live dangerously. Get out of the comfort zone of your own blog and take a walk on the wild side. Advance and defend your ideas in a real market place. Come on over and play with the big boys.

  4. Ken, I just listened to this. Obviously Mr Bennet missed the verse that said wherever to or more are gathered in my name etc.” This is typical unbelief. The is salvation in no other name that Jesus. But folks like this are looking for a church, not Christ. He says ” the church founded by Christ went bust” as if we are not commanded in scripture individually to keep ourselves from idols and to beware of false teaching. Roman Catholics want us to accept the biggest lie ever perpetuated on man, that the church for the last 2000 years was Roman Catholic, it wasn’t. He is trying to be sarcastic to accuse those who would make those determinations for ourselves. But we are told to watch over our souls, test ourselves to be in the faith, beware of false teaching, keep ourselves from idols. They want to berate us fro making these determinations, when 1 John 2: 27 says we have an anointing, and have no need of a teacher, but God teaches us all things. It doesn’t mean we don’t listen to those who are our church leaders, but it means in the end, we are to recognize error, and it is the Spirit with and by the Word that helps us understand truth from error. But, Bennet gives us proof that false teaching always cries disunity, and intolerance. Tolerance can tolerate everything but intolerance. Whats really interesting is he justifies the added revelation of the Catholic church as what was prophesied in Joel and John, as if ” the faith once delivered” is still in need of augmentation. Bottom line, men like this all have the same story. They are malcontent chameleons, always looking and never finding the church. Stellman, Cross, etc. all have the same story, they have no faith, can’t plant their flag, and have gone through 3-5 churches, never content, always searching. He says, if the true church could apostasy, why couldn’t the Luther’s, Smith’s etc do the same thing. They answer is “Reformed and always being reformed.” we should always turn to Word of God. Its that simple. K

  5. Ken, let me sum up this sermon. Hey believer, when your told in scripture to keep yourselves from error, beware of false teaching, do not be deceived, and to look for antichrist, don’t do this, because then you are putting yourself in the misfit group far from the true church. So, if the church says tomorrow for example, the supper where we commemorate and remember the one sacrifice that saved us, is going to be turned into a continual sacrifice where one earns increase of salvation, just go along with it. Because the true church can’t fall into error. Paul says the man of perdition will come from within the church, and he warned us. It will be a religious man from within the church. Paul says the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. In Kauffman’s article ” What the Fathers feared most” he shows us the overwhelming fear of the fathers that Antichrist would come among them and they wouldn’t see it. They didn’t, and either did Mr Bennett. K

  6. Jim says:


    Slide it forward to about 19 mins 15 seconds.

  7. Ken Temple says:

    In your first 3 posts, you did not interact with one point that I made in response to Rod’s lecture.
    You only mention in passing his comment about “Mere Christianity” and that you loved the video.
    You wasted a lot of time and space and don’t address specific points.

    Sort of on topic-
    The Catholic Church today is the same Church that has always existed.

    No it is not; it has morphed and changed slowly over the centuries into something heretical. Nothing of the following dates of dogma and/or corruption existed in the early church. The early catholic church was very different from that of 1215 (Transubstantiation) or 1302 (Unam Sanctum) or 1400s (Wycliffe and burning of Huss) or 1517 and 1520 (Luther) or 1545-1563 (Trent; condemnation of the heart of the gospel in the doctrine of justification by faith alone) or 1854 (Immaculate conception of Mary) or 1870 (Papal Infallibility) or 1950 (Bodily Assumption of Mary) and then after Vatican 2, totally different in a different way.

    Yours is an upstart with no roots in reality.
    No; it is right because it is based on Scripture and proper exegesis of Scripture. NT Scripture, written from 45-95 AD, is older than your claims.

    I hope I don’t hurt your feelings but I am going to be point blank. Your have no mandate to be preaching. You have not been commissioned by any authority higher than yourself. You are no more called to ministry than I am. Actually, less seeing you have never been Confirmed. You are all dressed up an playing church.

    No, you didn’t hurt my feelings.
    As for my call to ministry –
    Not true, since I was commissioned and confirmed and sent out by a Biblical, local church, after being in submission to the pastoral staff and leadership. – Acts 13:1-4

    All believers are to share their faith and make disciples – Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8

    • Jim says:

      I am commenting out of sequence, scrolling up rather than down. Below I posted a link to a video given by a priest convert at the same workshop Rod Bennett spoke. It is on the early papacy and it dispels your errors.
      Here is another talk by the same priest proving the Catholic Church today is the same as in the first century.

      Ken, the Church has historical continuity in her creed, her code and her cult.
      Let’s talk about the second point, her code.
      The Catholic Church has never altered her position on divorce, abortion and CONTRACEPTION.
      Please don’t try to buffalo me by saying your outfit has remained in continuity with the historic Church when it comes to the code.

      PS, Your Baptist Denomination has no continuity with the Apostles and cannot commission you to do anything. Bless your heart, Ken, you mean well but…

      • Ken Temple says:

        The best continuity with the Apostles is to go back to the apostle’s teaching and follow and obey their teaching, which is only found in the 27 books of the New Testament, with the OT, the ONLY infallible rule of faith and practice. We follow them in their writings. You have corrupted their teachings by adding things and distorting things and contradicting things.

        The apostles said, “don’t bow down to statues and angels and man” – yet your people do that for centuries. (Rev. 19:10; 22:9, Acts 14:11-18; Exodus 20:3-5)
        The apostles, taught, (since they believed the OT was God-breathed), “don’t pray to the dead” – yet your people do that for centuries.

        The apostles learned from Jesus that man-made traditions corrupt the word of God – Mark 7, Matthew 15 – yet your church adds man made traditions for centuries.

        The apostle said, “there is only mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ” 1 Timothy 2:5; yet your church contradicts that by calling Mary another mediator, a co-Mediatrix.

  8. Ken Temple says:

    the voice of Peter is not in the bishop of Rome. I listened to the former Eastern Orthodox Jim before. Not convinced at all. No such thing as a Pope in Scripture, nor in early centuries of church history. Nada.

    • Jim says:


      I am so glad you sent me the Rod Bennett video. It links into a whole bunch of other lectures given at the same workshop. Here is one addressing your assertion about the Pope.

      • Jim,

        Fr. Ray Ryland starts off with this bold statement:

        “Let’s start with this fact. Cardinal Newman said: ‘A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.’ That problem of authority—how do we know for certain what God has revealed?—that underlies all Christian divisions. At the root, it’s what brings us all into the Catholic Church.”

        Very interesting. I was very excited to hear Ryland tell me how many times the pope has spoken ex cathedra. If Newman was right, then unless there is a way for Roman Catholics to know for certain what God has revealed through the pope, then there simply is no authority at all. I have never met a Roman Catholic who knew with certainty what the pope has said infallibly. I was hoping Ryland would be the first.

        Because no revelation is given ex cathedra if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given ex cathedra, it therefore follows that there is no authority to reveal things ex cathedra. Thus, the pope truly serves no purpose.

        That is why it matters what Pope Leo said in Letter 106—namely that the canons of Nicæa are inviolable until the end of time. That would include canon 20 that says we do not kneel on Sundays or any day from Easter to Pentecost. Leo said, presumably ex cathedra, that “seeing that the Synod of Nicæa is hallowed by God with such privilege, … whatever is opposed to their authority is utterly destitute of all authority.” (Leo, Letter 106).

        If Leo is right, then Benedict XVI was destitute of all authority because he taught that kneeling on the Lord’s Day is correct, and that anyone who prescribes a liturgy without kneeling on Sunday is “sick at the core” (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 194). Thus, Benedict believes that the 318 bishops at Nicæa were “sick at the core” because their Sunday liturgy prohibited kneeling. But if Benedict is right, then Leo is destitute of all authority. And so was Nicæa.

        At 32:00 minutes, Ryland says that in every single case, the ecumenical councils simply affirmed what had been stated by the pope, and further that not one non-ecumenical council ever solved a single doctrinal controversy. “Every single one of them was either ignored or rejected by the successors of Peter.” A very telling statement indeed because the only early authority Rome has for the canon of Scripture is from non-ecumenical councils that solved nothing and were rejected by the “popes.” Thus, the allegedly “universal church of Rome” went 1500 years without any certain knowledge of the contents of Scripture, and still doesn’t know when the pope is speaking infallibly, much less what he means when he does.

        Because Roman Catholicism therefore doesn’t actually or certainly know what has been revealed or to what extent it has been revealed (and in Rome what is revealed is much more than the Scriptures), then Ryland is essentially conceding the fact that Roman Catholicism, by her own standards, is destitute of all authority.

        He might want to rethink his statement in light of the fact that there is no authority in Roman Catholicism that can determine what has been revealed ex cathedra and the “early universal church” went 1500 years not even knowing for certain the canon of Scripture.

        It’s a wonder the church even survived as long as she did with no Revelation at all! . Maybe, she survived because she has in Heaven a Chief Shepherd Who kept her in His tender care—and still does, in spite of, not because of Rome.



  9. Ken Temple says:

    I interacted a lot at Called to Communion in 2009 and 2010

    On Hermeneutics and Authority by Matt Yonke –

    I came in at comment # 168 here and was there until the end around # 389

    And “The Canon Question” by Tom Brown –

  10. Jim says:


    Ya’ gotta’ hear this guy! ( At least from about midway through )
    I hope you realize you owe more to Bultmann than the Reformers.

    Love the lecture series you sent me!

    • Ken Temple says:

      In the first 10-15 minutes –
      Interesting that Tertullian says Peter ordained Clement (Prescription against Heretics, 32) and yet Irenaeus writes the first bishops of Rome were Linus and Anacletus (or Cletus) – so it appears that they were equal presbyters in a college/plurality of elders originally,(and probably others were with them in the college of presbyters, but only the prominent preachers/leaders are remembered) and only later, beginning with Ignatius, does one person get exalted out and put over the college of presbyters. Ignatius does not mention the bishop of Rome in his letter “to the church of the Romans”, and Clement writes “from the church of Rome”, not as a mono-bishop. The Shepherd of Hermas also speaks of the “elders” (plural).

      Apparently, Irenaeus (about 180-200) and Tertullian (about 190-220) and Hegessipus (died in 180, quoted by Eusebius in the 300s), and Eusebius in the 300s are looking back and reading a mono-episcopate back into the early decades after the deaths of Peter and Paul (67-100), because they are defending against Gnosticism, who denied the OT and denied that God the Father created the world good as is, that matter is good, marriage is good, sex within marriage is good; so in order to fight against the Gnostic heresies, they sought to establish back a succession from Peter and Paul, and John and other apostles.

  11. Jim says:

    About your commissioning by a local church and being sent out to share your faith.
    Yes, we are to share our faith or at least not deny it before men. But that commissioning you speak of, did it involve a laying on of hands? And actual empowering? ( Mine did. )
    I mean, I hear Baptists speak of “an ordained Baptist minister”. Ordination is not a Sacrament, is it? It doesn’t actually do anything like give the Spirit does it? It sure doesn’t do anything “ex opere operato” so would you call it a “sacramental” like the De Montfort Consecration I did last week I think I may have mentioned?
    And the local church you speak of, was in in communion with the Universal Church? ( NO! )
    What continuity does it share with the original Church?
    Is was a “biblical” church? So, it is one in creed and cult with all other biblical churches? Kevin attends a biblical church too. Are you a minster in his church?

    You said my church fell into heresy. How would you recognize heresy if it ran you down in the street? What was the early Church’s rule for determining heresy? Isn’t Kev’s church heretical as it doesn’t square with your on all things?
    ( You got some video listenin’ to do! )

    Happy feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus!

    • Ken Temple says:

      Yes, I was ordained through the laying on of hands, after first being trained in the local church context and seminary and practical ministry. Empowering comes as we submit to the Holy Spirit and allow Him to fill us with His power, as we are filled with the word and walk in holiness and confession. (Be filled with the Holy Spirit – Ephesians 5:18; walk by the Spirit – Galatians 5:16-26; Acts 4:31)

      Empowering is not automatically transfered by the laying on of hands; but depends on God the Holy Spirit and our submission, obedience, and walking with Him.

  12. Jim said ” your baptist denomination had no continuity with the Apostles” Actually, the longer i study church history and scripture, the baptist are much closer than the synagog of Rome. Rome is just the NT recapitulation of the Temple. K

  13. Jim says:

    How soon after the Pentecost Sunday did the Great Falling Away take place? A week, maybe two, right?

    Like Marshner asked in the video, “has anyone ever seen a Catholic Sacramental system ever evolve out of a Protestant denomination?”

    You are the ones who broke from the Tradition of the Apostles. You can’t trace your outfit back even to the Reformation. Not if you are a Baptist as the Baptists have little in common with the Anabaptists and Thomas Munzer ( watch Marshner’s video ) ).

    • Ken Temple says:

      You wrote,
      How soon after the Pentecost Sunday did the Great Falling Away take place? A week, maybe two, right?

      It is obvious that you did not read my article after Rod’s lecture. I explain the proper view of church history. The Roman Catholic Church did not completely fall away into a heretical church until 1545-1563 at the Council of Trent when they willfully condemned and anathemitized the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

      Before that time, there were very slow additions and corruptions.

      Baptismal regeneration, mono-episcopate, penance rather than repentance, NT priests, teaching on distinctions between venial sins vs. mortal sins – these are some of the earliest false doctrines, corruptions, but they did not completely cause the church to have a “great falling away”. Opinions about Mary started appearing after the Theotokos issue in 431 AD (Counicl of Ephesus) and they morphed into over exalting her and praying to her. There was much in them (early centuries and early churches) that was still good all the way to the 500s. (they were good on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, confirmation of the canon, fight against Gnosticism, Arianism, etc.) The real excelleration of corruptions is from 600-1517 with Purgatory, indulgences, exalting Mary too much, Papal Power, development of Transubstantiation from 800s with Radbertus to 1215, the arrogance of Papal power in Innocent III and Boniface VIII and Unam Sanctum (1302), persecution of Wycliff (late 1300s, later digging up his bones, burning them and throwing them into the river) and burning of Hus ( 1400s) etc.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Mary as the new Eve in Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr was not, by itself, a totally bad thing, as they never said, “pray to her” or “make statues of her” or “think she is sinless”, etc. They only meant that she was the instrumental cause of salvation by bringing the Messiah into the world. The problem was later generations took the word “advocate” too far and corrupted it into praying to her and centuries later calling her a mediatrix, etc.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Actually, we follow the true tradition of the apostles in Scripture. ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 – election is part of the “tradition”, which you deny.

      13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, [shows that the traditions are about the gospel and divine election for salvation, which Paul, Augustine, Luther and Calvin taught properly, but which your church denies] brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

      • Ken Temple says:

        There is nothing in 2 Thess. 2:15 or I Cor. 11:1-2; or Jude 3 or 1 Corinthians 15 where the concept of oral teaching tradition is talked about, that indicated that the apostles taught other non-Scriptural truths like Mary’s sinlessness, Immaculate conception, bodily assumption, or praying to her, or making statues, or anything about a pope or indulgences or purgatory or transubstantiation.

        Since 1-2 Thessalonians are written early, 50-52 AD (only Galatians is earlier from Paul, James and Mark may have been written by that time), it is obvious that the teachings not written in Thessalonians are other truths later written down in Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, John, Luke, Revelation, etc.

  14. Ken said , “yet your people do that for centuries” and this is why i apply my rule, read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite and arrive ant biblical truth. Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. As Ken just pointed out, Rome is the antithesis of scripture. Scripture says one mediator, Rome says many. Scripture says one finished sacrifice, Rome says many unfinished, Scripture says Jesus is head, Rome says pope is head, Scripture says not of yourselves, not of works, Rome says truly merit eternal life. and on and on. K

  15. Ken, thanks brother, you are a warrior for the faith!

  16. Ken Temple says:

    Here is an article I wrote in 2012 at Beggar’s All on the slow historical developments that led to an eclipsing of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It shows how the eclipsing of the doctrine that was there from the beginning was covered over and obscured by the additions and corruptions of Rome.

  17. Jim says:


    The videos that follow Rod’s belie every one of your erroneous opinions of the Catholic Church. You need to take a time out and watch them.

    “Baptismal regeneration, mono-episcopate, penance rather than repentance,”

    Penance is never devoid of repentance. What is tarnation are you talking about?

    “NT priests, teaching on distinctions between venial sins vs. mortal sins ”

    The Bible makes the distinction, Ken.

    “these are some of the earliest false doctrines, corruptions, but they did not completely cause the church to have a “great falling away”.

    Question begging, Ken! Why was there no hue and cry against these practices and doctrines if they were innovations?

    “Opinions about Mary started appearing after the Theotokos issue in 431 AD (Counicl of Ephesus) and they morphed into over exalting her and praying to her.”

    This is the issue that got me dumped off of Beggars All. I kept demanding that Swanny explain the fact that prayers to Mary were around long before the Council of Ephesus. He was too proud to eat his words and unable to back up his assertions so he banned me rather than be embarrassed. ( James! I hope you are lurking. )

    “There was much in them (early centuries and early churches) that was still good all the way to the 500s. (they were good on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, confirmation of the canon, fight against Gnosticism, Arianism, etc.)”

    You really should listen to the Ray Ryland lecture. He addresses this silliness where people like yourself say, ” Rome happened to come down on the right side of the Trinitarian and Christological disputes”. In fact, the right side of those disputes gad to be Rome’s side because Jesus was protecting Rome from error then just as He does now.

    “The real excelleration of corruptions is from 600-1517 with Purgatory, indulgences”

    I asked you about a week ago to ask Webster and Kauffman about when the Church adopted the innovation of praying for the dead. ( From the very start, Ken )

    ” exalting Mary too much,”

    Try not to lose any sleep over it Ken. We Catholics don’t give Mary a smigeon of the honor heaped on her by God in making her the Mother of His Son.

    “Papal Power,”

    Listen to the Ray Ryland lecture.

    “development of Transubstantiation’

    I just spent a week schooling you in this doctrine. I see I wasted my time.

    ” Innocent III and Boniface VIII and Unam Sanctum”

    Feenyites like to include Eugene IV in that list of popes. Unum Sanctum still stands Ken. You just don’t understand it.

    “(1302), persecution of Wycliff (late 1300s, later digging up his bones, burning them and throwing them into the river) and burning of Hus ( 1400s) etc.”

    Digging up bones was common practice in those days. As for Hus, he broke the terms of his safe passage so Sigismund ( not the Church ) “cooked his goose”.

  18. Jim says:

    I just got done watching the annual marriage of 11 couples in Lisbon’s cathedral on this day ( St. Anthony’s Day ). Today is both the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart in the Universal Church and the feast of Lisbon’s patron saint. St. Anthony is sort of like the Portuguese St. Valentine. Part of the festivities is to televise the wedding of 11 couples. The city pays for everything including the honeymoon. I always get misty as I am a big softy and a hopeless romantic.

    As the couples were exchanging vows I suddenly remembered your post from earlier today. I had said that Protestants have all broken with the historical Church’s code by allowing divorce, abortion and contraception.
    You responded by saying the Catholic Church added doctrines of human traditions to scripture.

    WHAT?!?! Divorce, abortion and contraception are not violations of Christian morality? You violate scripture and Tradition by promoting these abominations.

    Ken, because you folks permit these evil practices, you have no consistent argument against gay marriage. Atheists and secular types spot your hypocrisy and are turned off by all religion because of it.

    You tilt at windmills Ken. So does K.F. You guys think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. Ha! The Catholic Church is the only one standing against the Harlot and her Culture of Death which is built on contraception among married couples.

  19. Ken Temple says:

    Penance is never devoid of repentance. What is tarnation are you talking about?

    “Do Penance” was a faulty Latin translation of the Greek, metanoew / μετανοεω = repent.
    Just as the Latin iustificare was a faulty translation of the Greek, dikaiow / δικαιοω – to declare righteous / to count righteous

    “Do Penance” became focused on the external ritual that the priests assigned to the confessor – such as staring at the skull of John the Baptist, or pilgrimmages to graves, kissing relics, or going up the saints of St. Peter and saying hail Mary’s at each step, or giving money to the poor, or fasting, or whipping one’s back, etc. The external ritual and action (works, going through the motions) eclipsed and over-shadowed and took over the internal reality. Dead rituals took over and for centuries it created an understanding of salvation by works-righteousness and merit and this is directly contradictory to Galatians, Romans, John, Acts, and yes, even James 2:14-26, which is teaching that true faith will result in the evidence of good works/fruit/ a changed life. It does not teach justification by faith plus works, but teaches that works prove that one is justified. (as the way dikaiow is used in Luke 7:35, Matthew 11:19 and 1 Tim. 3:16 (to prove, demonstrated, vindicate, confirm, approve)

    • Jim says:


      Why did Zaccheus say he would repay fourfold any man he might have defrauded? Yes, the Law required it but why not just paying back an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth equivalence?

      What was sack cloth and ashes all about?

      What about the Nazarite vow that Paul may or may not have taken? Speaking of Nazarites, John the Baptist never committed one mortal sin in his whole life. ( He was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb ). Yet he lived a life of extreme penance. Explain that?

      Why did people in the Bible fast? Why did people fast in mourning for Saul? ( Sounds like they may have been doing penance for him, eh? )

      What about Paul’s penitential practices of vigils and buffeting his body?

      Mortal sin ( it is biblical Ken ) has two parts. The part that demands hell or eternal separation from God and another part that calls for temporal punishment due to an inordinate attachment to or unauthorized use of a creature.
      The first part can only be forgiven by the application of the cross/infusion of grace.
      The Bible gives many examples of temporal punishment remaining even after forgiveness of sin ( I will run them down for you if you ask ) in certain cases.

      That is what penance is all about. If you don’t have a spirit of penance Ken, an earnest desire to balance the scales and do all in your power to make things right, to give back what you stole with interest, to refrain from indulging in a legitimate pleasure to make up for all the times you enjoyed an illegitimate one, you probably are fooling yourself about having really repented at all.
      And if your repentance was half hearted, the priest in Confession can add a little something to help you satisfy for the temporal punishment.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Why did Zaccheus say he would repay fourfold any man he might have defrauded?

        The evidence and fruit and proof that he really repented, and that was necessary for satisfaction/ restoration, to pay back what one stole, agreed;

        but it is when the priests started substituting dead rituals and relics and pilgrimages and empty prayers to Mary, etc. – that is the problem with the RC penance for centuries and Luther recognized it and made it his first point in the 95 theses.

        fasting and Paul’s idea of buffeting his body are evidences of repentance and sorrow over sin and helps in sanctification, but they are not causes and conditions of salvation, as the RC teaches.

  20. Ken Temple says:

    Biblical Protestants/Evangelicals are consistent in their stand against all abortion.

    Unless you want to get into the hypocrisy of the RC annulment issue (bishops, the Kennedys), and the verses that give some exceptions to divorce (Matthew 5:32; 19:9 – “except for pornea / sexual immorality” and 1 Cor. 7:15 (dessertion by an unbeleiver because of the believing spouse’s faith in Jesus), you shouldn’t bring up divorce. Since your church claims infallibility, it is a massive hypocritical problem.

    And the priestly sex scandals – pedophilia, ephebophilia (sex with older teens, 15-19), and homosexuality, etc. – you shouldn’t go there.

    The Protestants have sex scandals also, but we don’t claim an infallibility or a charism of infallibility on our ministers. The Bible lays down rules for disciplining elders/pastors who go astray – 1 Tim. 3, 5, Titus 1, 3.

    Infallibility comes from God’s character of holiness, moral perfection, purity and holiness and omniscence, so no human can have that quality. Only God and His Word (The Scriptures) are infallible.

  21. Ken Temple says:

    So Unam Sanctum (1302) of Boniface VIII still stands?

    “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    1. A massive contradiction to Romans 10:9-10; John 3:16; John 5:24; Galatians 1:6-9; 2:16; 2:21; Romans 4:5; 5:1; 3:19-20; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.

    2. It contradicts Vatican 2 and “separated brethren” and CCC 841 and 847.
    Infallibility falls, the Roman Church is proven to not to be the infallible church it claims for itself.

    3. One of the most arrogant statements made by a fallible human being in all of history.

  22. Ken Temple says:

    I am not dogmatic about this, but . . .
    Personally, I see the harlot of Babylon, the adulterous woman, the prostitute, the woman who rides the beast in Revelation 17-18 is speaking about apostate Israel – who rides and controls the Roman governors and Emperors – “we have no king but Caesar” and “crucify Him” and who persecuted Christ and His apostles. (The OT is filled with calling Israel an adulterous woman in going after the Baals, and “playing the harlot with the Baals” and idolatry and apostasy.

    There is strong evidence that the book of Revelation was written before 70 AD and I take a partial preterist position – that Matthew 23:36-39 and 24:1-34 is about 70 AD, but some things about the second coming are mixed into Matthew 24:4-34, because the disciples mixed the second coming back into the question about the temple in verse 3. There has to be some sort of double fullfillment of some of the verses from 24:4-34. But clearly Matthew 24:36 “but of that day” all the way through chapter 25 is about the second coming of Christ and judgment day.

    The sixth king of Revelation 17:9-10, “one who is” at the time of writing of Revelation, is Nero, if one starts with Julius Caesar at no. 1.

    And Neron Caesar comes out in Hebrew to be 666. John wrote in Greek, but by saying “here is wisdom” and “mystery” he is giving clues.

    Also, he calls Jerusalem “Egypt and Sodom” in Rev. 11:8, hinting that he will also call Israel “Babylon”, three famous enemies of God and Israel in OT.

    So, I don’t go with calling the Roman Catholic Church the “whore of Babylon” or the Pope the anti-Christ, as some do; those are speculations.

  23. Jim says:


    You wrote, “that was necessary for satisfaction”. Didn’t Jesus make infinite satisfaction on the cross? Why are you adding your filthy rags to the finished work of Jesus Christ?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Christ made complete satisfaction for the guilt of sin –

      but if someone steals or cheats, as Zacheus did, they have to also be willing to pay back what they owe. That is “performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:20) and “bringing forth fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8 and Luke 3:8), but it is not the internal repentance (change of heart) itself.

      That is the evidence and proof of repentance, not the internal repentence itself.

      But that is a good thing, not empty and blasphemous and idolatrous rituals like the RC Mary prayers, relics, crawling on knees, staring at skulls and kissing graves and statues or praying to statues.

  24. Jim says:


    Don’t think you can stave off my attacks on the *official* Protestant endorsement of divorce, contraception and even abortion by threatening to bring up priestly pedophilia which is not an *official* position of the Church by any means. You are a minister, right? Your run in minister circles. Then you know perfectly well that the Catholic priest scandal pales in proportion to the amount of sex abuse among ministers. It’s just that little non-denominational churches don’t have enough money to bother suing over. Besides. your minsters don’t take vows of celibacy or chastity. Nobody expects a high standard from you guys.
    Remember the movie and book called “THE THORNBIRDS”? It was a blockbuster about a priest who had a steamy affair. Imagine if the same book had been written about a minster. Who would have read it? Nobody!
    People love sex scandals about priest like they like to catch Baptist ministers with liquor on their breath. ( Priests drink like fish so nobody cares to bother smelling their breath anyway. Ha! ).

    • Ken Temple says:

      There is no official Protestant endorsement of abortion. What color is the sky in your world? All Bible believing Protestants are opposed to abortion. Those that think abortion is ok as it stands in the law, are liberals – liberals are not Christians. (deny inerrancy, miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.)

      I am not familiar with that movie.

      Many Baptists think all drinking of alcohol is sin; but that is wrong; drunkenness is sin. (Ephesians 5:18), but a glass of wine with a steak or a beer every now and then in moderation is not sin.

      • Jim says:

        Do you not know Protestant minsters told their congregations to vote against the “Catholic” anti-abortion measures? Abortion was seen as a “Catholic issue” for decades before you folks finally got on board with us. Better to have abortion on the books than let the Pope run Washington, eh Ken?
        You need to study the history or contraception and abortion in America. ( Start with the “Comstock Laws” )

  25. Jim says:


    Your attitude about penance reminds me of Judas’ attitude about the woman who wept and washed Christ’s feet with her tears and hair then splurged by pouring expensive ointment over him. Judas found it as repulsive as you find Catholic works of penance.

    Why didn’t she merely repent, do a right-about-face and decide not to sin again? Why did she go further, even unto excess? Her works of penance didn’t save her ( or did they )?
    Faith Alone did not save her. Jesus said her faith had saved her BECAUSE SHE LOVED MUCH. ( Faith formed by love as the Council of Trent taught ).

    • Ken Temple says:

      The woman’s repentance and weeping were real and from the heart and we know it becuase it is inspired Scripture.

      The problem with RC penace stuff is that it is prescribed and ritualized and legalistic and so clouds the teaching that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone; not by the merit of works. Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9

      • Jim says:

        Her Faith saved her because she LOVED much. ( (fides caritate formata) Read the text. St. Paul called it “Faith working by Love”. Faith alone cannot save anyone. Even demons can have a Faith unformed by Loved .

  26. Jim says:

    Why did Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell everything? The Bible says the kids had already kept the Commandments ( I know you guys deny the clear words of the Bible and say he hadn’t ).
    Selling all is a penitential act like taking a vow of chastity, poverty or obedience to a superior.
    Protestants don’t take such vows do they? How can a married minster with kids to feed take a vow to sell all and be poor? It wouldn’t be fair to his kids, A father is supposed to hustle and get the best for his kids, right? How can a husband and father bind himself to obedience to a superior. A husband is supposed to be the boss and make the decisions about his family’s welfare. A vow of obedience to a super would be like those nuts with wives and kids who join cults and then the cult leader is spanking their kids and sleeping with their wives.

    Married Protestant ministers can not follow Jesus like the Rich Young Ruler. Only Catholic priests can strive after holiness like Jesus and Paul.

    ( Actually Ken, I bet there are millions of Protestants who impose a penitential lifestyle on themselves. 12 Step folks do too. Jews, Muslims and pagans do penance. It is the way we are hard wired by the Creator. Luther invented an anti-human religion and went against our nature. He then pretended he was relying on Jesus’ merits alone to cover up his easy lifestyle of beer guzzling, gorging and drunken lewd talk ( Table Talks ). That way he never had to deny himself any creature comfort but could sanctimoniously renounce the monks for their “works righteousness”. What a phony!.

  27. Ken Temple says:

    Her Faith saved her because she LOVED much. ( (fides caritate formata) Read the text. St. Paul called it “Faith working by Love”. Faith alone cannot save anyone. Even demons can have a Faith unformed by Loved .

    We agree that true faith is formed by God’s love for us first, and results in our loving God. (Galatians 5:6) If someone says they have faith in Christ, but if there is no change, no fruit, no deeper levels of repentance and hatred of their own sin, no good works, then their faith is empty and vain and it is not true faith. (James 2:14-26) The demons have an intellectual assent “faith” of “ok, that happened, God is there, exists, and Jesus is real, historical, etc.” (James 2:19) but they do not have the true faith of heartfelt trust and commitment.

  28. Ken Temple says:

    Actually Ken, I bet there are millions of Protestants who impose a penitential lifestyle on themselves.

    Yes, that is called the process of sanctification and perseverance, not justification.

  29. Ken Temple says:

    Why did Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell everything? The Bible says the kids [ ? ] had already kept the Commandments ( I know you guys deny the clear words of the Bible and say he hadn’t ).

    What do you mean by “the kids” ?

    You don’t seem to know how to read the whole story and context all the way to the end. Jesus was exposing the idolatry of his possessions in his heart, and his self-deception in thinking he had kept all the commandments. Jesus was also exposing his understanding of who he was talking to. Jesus was essentially saying, “if you are willing to call Me good, and only God is good; then you must be willing to see that I am God and submit to Me as Lord-God.”

    At the end of that pericope, the disciples ask, “then who can be saved?” Jesus answered, “with men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:26-27)
    meaning, works or giving up your money is impossible. you cannot be saved by good works.
    God has to first regenerate your heart so that you can trust Him and come to Him in repentance and true faith.

    • Jim says:


      “you cannot be saved by good works.” You need to qualify that statement. “Works” and “Good works” are not the same thing for Paul.
      One cannot attain initial justification by good works. It is a free gift given in Baptism ( Titus 3:5 )
      Once justified, good works do indeed play a role in final justification. Jesus says so, Show me one instance of someone standing before God on Judgement Day pleading Faith in an alien righteousness.

    • Jim says:

      The passage says zero about the young man not having kept the law or being a hypocrite.

      • Ken Temple says:

        But since money was his idol, he lied about keeping the commandments (violating 2nd commandment), and was self-deceived. Also since no one can have no anger or no lust in their hearts, he lied about keeping those commandments also. (matthew 5:21-30)

  30. Ken Temple says:

    Only Catholic priests can strive after holiness like Jesus and Paul.

    You just also condemned all the Roman Catholic lay people that they cannot strive for holiness.

    vows of celibacy, and poverty, monks, Origen castrating himself, Simon Stylitus – all those things are man-made traditions/ corruptions/false teachings of asceticism like that Paul speaks against in Colossians 2:16-23; especially verses 20-23.

    • Jim says:

      Simon the Stylite was a tradition? Really? It was a tradition that never caught on!
      Origin castrating himself? The Church condemns the birth control pill because it is temporary castration. Why would she endorse permanent surgical castration? Origin was a nut.

      Paul spoke against celibacy? Where? I thought he was a celibate himself and wished other could be also.

      As for Jesus, He spoke of eunuchs for the Kingdom.

      Was John the Baptist ever condemned for wearing camel skin, eating bugs and abstaining from wine?

      Ken, you can be a married layman. You can be a celibate priest. There are even exceptions to the discipline that allow for a married priest. But as Fr. Ray Ryland ( he was a married priest and his son may be a priest now ) said, the married life and ministry don’t mix well. A man can have only one wife.

      The local Orthodox priest is our neighbor. He is married with kids and has a day job as a musician. He is a freak.

  31. Jim says:


    Sorry but I can’t find the part about the young man worshiping money as an idol in the passage. I think you are interjecting your theology into it. He was attached to his stuff but who says it was to a sinful degree? He had been keeping the Commandments. He had not been stealing, whore mongering, oppressing widows or ignoring the Sabbath.
    Show me where the OT Law ever requires somebody to sell all their property. The fact that he hadn’t or didn’t does not mean he had not kept the Law.
    No one is required to follow what are called the “Evangelical Counsels” of poverty, chastity and obedience. They are optional ( you don’t follow them, do you? )

    • Ken Temple says:

      The unwillingness to do what Jesus said was the test. (sell your possessions and give to the poor) the rich man could not let go of his money; it was his idol in his heart; therefore he was really violating the second commandment, even though he didn’t realise it. Colossians 3:5 says “. . . greed, which amounts to idolatry” Abraham was tested to see if he would surrender his only beloved son. He was willing, and God rewarded him with “ok, don’t kill the boy; look over there” (a ram caught in bush – offer that), etc.

      Jesus says, “how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”. Why? Because they are so dependent on their riches, they don’t see their need for God; and that is idolatry.

      The disciples say, “then who can be saved?” Jesus said, ‘with man it is impossible” – but not with God, nothing is impossible with God” – God can open a sinful, stubborn, hard heart. But man or man’s manipulation or persuasion or methods cannot. The Spirit of God has to work in the heart. (2 Tim. 2:24-26; Acts 16:14 – “The Lord opened Lydia’s heart so that she was able to respond to the things that Paul was preaching”; John 6:44; 65 – “no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”

  32. Jim says:

    At this very moment I am suffering through you recorded lecture on how churches became mosques. Pathetic.
    You say that because of Cyprians one quote about no bishop claiming authority over another bishop made you realize the Catholic Church was bad. Really, Ken? One quotes from Cyprian? Did Cyprian say anything else? Did any other Fathers speak about Rome and Papal authority?

    Your talk goes downhill from there. You say the Bible had never been translated into the Berber language but was only in Latin. So what? Why translate the Bible into Berber if Berbers could read? Had the printing press been invented yet? Would the average camel herder had had access to a book store to buy a Bible in any language, Latin or Berber?

    Other lands and people had been converted hadn’t they? Had the Bible been translated into the Lusitanian or Gallic Languages yet?
    You seem to think the original Church was a Bible Only, JBFA, church and that Sacramentalism and had slowly crept in.
    Really? How many Bible Only churches in America have evolved into sacramental churches? ( Zero )

    The worst thing you said was that people started to believe the lie that if a priest, because he was using Latin words, could cause a person to be regenerated in Baptism.
    This outlandish statement reminds me of how, about 10 days ago, you said you thought even today the Catholic priest may say all of the Mass in English except the words, ” Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” MUST be said in Latin.

    Ken, do you think Catholics think Latin is a magical language? You know less than Kevin Falloni if you do.
    The rest in standard “Trail of Blood” nonsense.
    I did enjoy your singing though. Ha!

    ( You contradict your self by quoting John Piper about doing your duty even if you don’t have the desire. Yet you attack penance as mechanical, repentanceless works.
    What about a guy whose heart is less than 100% percent sorry for his sins but he knows he has done wrong and wants to do the right thing? Shouldn’t he do the prescribed works of penance in order that his heart and emotions catch up later? )

    • Ken Temple says:

      The rest in standard “Trail of Blood” nonsense.

      What is that? I don’t know much about that. Enlighten me on what it is, and how my message is like it.

  33. Jim says:

    Protestants leading penitential lives are doing it to be sanctified, not justified? Well, that depends how you define your terms.
    Of course a person cannot do enough penitential works to merit initial justification. To accuse Catholics of say they can is a Protestant canard. about Catholic teaching.

    But show me one, ONLY ONE, example of anyone being “justified” or counted as righteous on Judgement Day based on anything but the good works of sanctification they had done while on earth.

    So, once saved, people do good works to stay saved and get into heaven. To “Strive for the holiness without which no one will see God” means no sanctification, no justification on judgement day,

    • Ken Temple says:

      Justification is a one time event at conversion – “since we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, we have peace with God” Romans 5:1

      “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed [justified] from all things, from which you could not be freed [justified] through the Law of Moses. ” Acts 13:38-39

      Acts 15:8-9 – “cleansing their hearts by faith” (the apostle Peter, whom you wrongly think was a Pope)

      Hebrews 12:14 – “without sanctification/holiness, no one will see the Lord” – this is also true; if you have no holiness or growth or change or fruit or good works, it means you really had no true faith. sanctification is the necessary and inevitable RESULT of justification, but not the cause of justification.

      without sanctification, it means you have no justification; but sanctification does not cause justification; rather true justification by faith comes first, then sanctification follows, immediately, in a process of growth, and is necessary to prove one is justified, as James 2:14-26 teaches, that one is proven to be justified by good works.

  34. Jim says:

    Sorry to stack up the comments but i have been watching Al Jazeera news and thought of your theories on churches of North Africa and the Near East Falling to Islam.

    How do you account for a vibrant Catholicism in Spain and Portugal, after 700 years of Islam, driving out the Moors and restoring those countries to the Faith in time to start sending out missionaries to the New World. Asia and Africa?

    .As for churches certain falling to Islam ( and to Protestantism , whole new mission fields opened up too?

    Portugal was the greatest force for evangelization the world has ever seen.
    I think Mary appeared in Fatima because by appearing in Portugal the message would be sure to be carried to Brazil, Macau, Goa, Timor, Angola, Mozambique and the Azores, in short, around the world.
    The catholic countries brought Christ to the pagans while the Protestant English and Dutch brought racism. ( Ever notice the U.S. and South Africa are the worst countries for race relations? )

    How do you account for Lepanto? My parish in Portland actually has a stained glass window show this victory of the Rosary.

    You criticize the crusades? If not for the crusades, you would be speaking Arabic or Berber today rather than English. Just say, “Thank You” to the Pope for calling for the crusades.

    Ken, I don’t think you know a thing about the rise of Islam. It too is under attack from the culture of death. ISIL is a reaction to it. Open your eyes to the facts.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Islam clearly got the wrong idea about Jesus and Mary and the Trinity. The Qur’an thinks the Trinity is “the Father, the Son, and the Mother” ( !!! ) (Qur’an, Surah 5:116; 5:72-78; 6:101; 112 Because of the RC and EO emphasis on Mary, “mother of God”, statues, prayers to mary, etc. Muslims think Christians think God had sex with Mary!! (Surah 6:101; 112; 19:88-92) (like the Mormons actually do teach.) Muslims still think this today!

      • Jim says:

        And just what is the Gospel message you have for a Muslim, Ken?

        “Jesus might have died for you.”

    • Ken Temple says:

      The aspect of self-defense and just war principle was good in the Crusades. I told you that – the problem was all the other atrocities, killing Jews and Eastern Orthodox in Constantinople, and the indulgences/penances theology that motivated them, rather than justice only. Why did they loose it all after 200 or so years? (1299 AD) what happened? Give me your analysis.

      • Jim says:

        Why? Lots of reasons.
        Why are all the Protestant countries of Northern Europe hot beds for suicide? They have all gone atheistic. Marriage no longer exists in Scandinavia.

        As for England, the Catholics now outnumber the Anglicans. So?

    • Ken Temple says:

      The Portugese also were the first to promote the African racial slave trade, which inspired the Spanish and British later.
      Shame ! And Papal bulls approved of it – double shame on the “infallible Pontiff” !!

      “The 15th-century Portuguese exploration of the African coast is commonly regarded as the harbinger of European colonialism. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery which legitimized slave trade under Catholic beliefs of that time. This approval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455. These papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism. Although for a short period as in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime”.[67] The followers of the church of England and Protestants did not use the papal bull as a justification. The position of the church was to condemn the slavery of Christians, but slavery was regarded as an old established and necessary institution which supplied Europe with the necessary workforce. In the 16th century, African slaves had replaced almost all other ethnicities and religious enslaved groups in Europe.[68]”

      • Jim says:

        The Portuguese did indeed have slaves. But not racism. That is a Calvinist thing. Only South Africa and America have race problems.

        Think of this; There are no Indian reservations in Latin America. Only in America.
        Why? The Portuguese baptized and married the black, red, yellow and brown people. The Calvinists exterminated those they couldn’t enslave. Any why not? They were reprobates.

  35. Ken Temple says:

    You say that because of Cyprians one quote about no bishop claiming authority over another bishop made you realize the Catholic Church was bad. Really, Ken? One quotes from Cyprian?

    85-86 other bishops at the 7th Council of Carthage agreed with Cyprian’s statement; bishop Firmillian also, to name another. Cyprian is the main writer/leader, but many other bishops agreed with this, that “no one has the right to call himself bishop over all other bishops”. 255-258 AD That historical fact destroys the Roman Catholic Papal claims as historical and “deep in history” (Newman). Ignaz Von Dollinger agreed and objected to the infallibility dogma in 1870 and was excommunicated for it. He was the top RC historian at the time.

  36. Ken Temple says:

    The worst thing you said was that people started to believe the lie that if a priest, because he was using Latin words, could cause a person to be regenerated in Baptism.

    It was called ex opere operato – “by the work, it is effective” or “by following the ritual properly, it works”. It was that way for centuries, if the words (Matthew 28:19 – in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”) were spoken in Latin and the person was baptised in water, baptism causes regeneration in RC theology. I guess that followed, and baptism ceremonies were the same until the Vatican 2 and the “new order of Mass” when then changed from requiring Latin to allowing other languages.

    This outlandish statement reminds me of how, about 10 days ago, you said you thought even today the Catholic priest may say all of the Mass in English except the words, ” Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” MUST be said in Latin.

    My mistake; ok. But it was that way for centuries until Vatican 2. And a very fiesty group of traditionalist RCs – Dave Armstrong calls them “Rad Trads” – say the new mass is wrong and modern popes are wrong. (since 1958)

    But you do believe that when the priest says the words in English (or other languages) “this is My body” and “this is My blood”, then transubstantiation takes place. Yes, that seems like magic.

    • Jim says:

      No Ken, it was not that way for centuries. It was not that way for 5 minutes. The Church NEVER said the Sacraments depended on Latin or any other language. The Catholic Church has always been made up of more than just Latin Rite Catholics and has used various languages in her liturgies. At the Last Supper, Christ did not use Latin. Your little faux pas speaks volumes about you Ken.
      Ken, you are the classic guy who knows little about Catholicism but hates it.

      • Ken Temple says:

        It was ex opere operato for centuries, and Latin was the official ecclesiastical language for the west; but ok, I agree that they thought Greek and Coptic were ok in other areas, etc. But the Roman church believed in ex opere operato from Augustine and especially bishop Optatus (vs. Donatists) onward.

    • Jim says:

      Magic? Kinda’ like when the Big Magician said, “Let there be light” and the universe leapt into existence.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Obviously, we see the sun and light as a result of God’s decree and we have the words in Genesis 1; but we don’t see Transubstantiation (still bread and wine) or baptismal regeneration (they are just wet in water) – we cannot see regeneration take place or grace coming down from heaven and adhering in the soul, etc.

        John 3:8

        we have to see fruit in the life – Galatians 5:22-23

        There is nothing in the texts such as “let the bread change into My flesh” and “it was; and Jesus saw it and said it is good” and “let the baptism in water cause and produce regeneration in the soul” or “let the water cause the holy Spirit to come into the soul and cause re-birth.” etc. Nothing

  37. Ken Temple says:

    ( You contradict your self by quoting John Piper about doing your duty even if you don’t have the desire. Yet you attack penance as mechanical, repentanceless works.
    What about a guy whose heart is less than 100% percent sorry for his sins but he knows he has done wrong and wants to do the right thing? Shouldn’t he do the prescribed works of penance in order that his heart and emotions catch up later? )

    No; it is a matter of emphasis. The Roman church had degenerated into nominalism; as has Protestant liberal churches – but you are right about a sincere person who is genuinely seeking repentance. balance and emphasis and the right order is important. My main point about all that is the the internal reality has to be the emphasis and first, then external evidence. The ritualistic and nominal churches get it backwards; they focus on the outward forms and don’t emphasis the inward reality. Infant baptism has that same danger, and is like that and state churches – creates nominal societies. Presbyterian churches with good teaching handle infant baptism properly.

    • Jim says:

      Do you really know what nominalism is? It is simul justus et peccator. It is God calling a sinner just when he isn’t. Nominalism=Luther’s view of justification.

      • Ken Temple says:

        No; nominalism is being a cultural Christian in name only; and not having the reality of the new birth and regeneration and change and being spiritually alive.

  38. Ken Temple says:

    Portugal was the greatest force for evangelization the world has ever seen.
    Why didn’t they go to Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia, etc. ? (Muslim lands)

    I respect Francis of Assissi for his trip to Egypt in 1219 AD and appearance before the Sultan; and Raymond Lull (Spanish) for his attempts in North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia). (1232-1315 AD) Lull pleaded with Cardinals and Popes for money to set up schools for the learning of Arabic, in order to preach the gospel to the Muslims, but they did not listen to him. Lull was stoned by an angry Muslim mob in Bougia, Algeria in 1314, and he later died from those wounds in 1315, back in Europe.

  39. Ken, Catholics are sanctified before they are justified ( false religion), Christians are justified before they are sanctified. Your point to Jim is good. K

  40. Francis of Assisi was inflicted by stigmata for worshiping the Roman Eucharist. Read Kauffman’s piece on him. K

    • Ken Temple says:

      Yeah, I know both of them (Francis and Raymond Lull) had other problems; but I can respect them as being the only two in all of Christiandom in those days as wanting to reach Muslims, even though their gospel was flawed and filled with sacramentalism, etc.

  41. Jim, you don’t merit justification initially, but you darn well merit your continuance in it. Paul eliminates all works and anything coming from ourselves in being justified. You do works to achieve the acceptance of God, we live out an acceptance we already have. K

  42. Jim’s religion= Jim does his level best and God gives him grace ( law) , God gives us grace and we our level best. God helps Catholics save themselves, God saves us completely by his grace through faith. K

  43. Ken, Thanks for this video by Bennett. He said ” I asked my self, can there be an apostasy like this in the true church in history, and am i supposed to be looking for this” Can you imagine saying this to people. Has he ever read the scripture, where in 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul warns believers that the man of perdition would come from WITHIN the church, and that that lawlessness had already begun. The church fathers were afraid it would come among them and they wouldn’t know. We are continually told to beware of false teaching. MacArthur says that that word means to hold your mind back from false teaching. Unfortunately, Bennett didn’t, like so many other like Stellman, Armstrong, Cross, Hahn etc. They exposed themselves to Rome’s teaching, immersed themselves in it, and succumbed to it. There is a reason christians are warned about these things. And when Peter knew his time was short, he commended us all to the Word and scripture. K

  44. Ken, can you clarify something for me. Its interesting that Bennett says Protestants locate the errors of Rome in the Nicean council. But He must know that we locate it starting in like 389. We adhere to the tenets of Nicea. It is amazing that he said he read the early fathers and he found Rome. Kauffman’s work on the early fathers ( which may be the best i have ever read) has clearly shown me that the early church was anything but Roman Catholic. In fact Kauffman has dome such a good job of showing what the early fathers taught, that when you read his best article ” the Rise of Roman Catholicism” in light of his work on the early fathers, it becomes so clear. I think Bennet is bringing up Nicea to downplay the errors that arose after that, like Marian ego, gospel of gracious works, real presence, sacrifice of the Mass, forbidding marriage, relics, the power of the Bishop overshadowing the priesthood of believers, monarchial episcopate. etc. What say you? K

    • Ken Temple says:

      I have not had time to read all of Kauffman’s series, “The Rise of Roman Catholicism”. While I agree that all those RC false doctrines and man-made traditions started appearing around that time,(especially Mary doctrines and piety and dogmas) (late 300s and 400s and 500s) – I am careful and would still need to study the whole 2 Thess. 2 issue more; and the great apostasy happening in 389 AD. (that’s a new one for me. never heard it before; but it is interesting!) 2 Thess. 2:1-12 is a hard passage. Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar have a lot of interesting material on that being either before 70 AD when Caligula tried to set up his image in the temple in Jerusalem or Nero in 68 AD and then the Roman standards/gods in the temple court as they destroyed in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple. Gentry takes the verb of the man of lawlessness as “trying to” or “seeking to take his throne in the temple” or “seeking to set himself up as god in the temple” (but he failed).

      I know a lot of Reformed commentators in history take “the temple” in 2 Thess. 2 as the church, based on Ephesians 2:19-22 and other passages; but I am at this point unsure that that applies to 2 Thess. 2 passage.

      If you read my article, I don’t think there was a total apostasy until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563 AD, when they condemned the doctrine of justification by faith alone. I would put the acceleration of corruptions from 600 – 1517, but not total apostasy yet, though Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, etc. tried to reform the church within; but they (beginning with Luther) were anathemized at Trent.

      I think that Ephesians 3:20-21 prevents us from saying the church totally apostatized completely (until the new Lutheran and Protestant churches were formed and then Trent made it go into apostasy) – because of the phrase, “in the church in all generations”. (I added this a an addendum; I had forgotten to include that in the article; and I was intending to; but didn’t realize until now that I forgot.)

      I think Rod was generally referring to Constantine, and A. J. Tomlinson saying that the Nicene Creed has replaced the Bible. But Rod was careful to say that baptists “thought Contstantine kept too much of OT law” – meaning the government using force. ( I think) As I pointed in my article, historically minded Protestants agree with Nicea; and I would add here the first four early Councils in their theological statements on Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, etc. (Nicea in 325 AD; Constantinople in 381; Ephesus in 431 AD; and Chalcedon in 451 AD).

  45. Ken Temple says:

    MacArthur says that that word means to hold your mind back from false teaching. Unfortunately, Bennett didn’t, like so many other like Stellman, Armstrong, Cross, Hahn etc. They exposed themselves to Rome’s teaching, immersed themselves in it, and succumbed to it. There is a reason christians are warned about these things. And when Peter knew his time was short, he commended us all to the Word and scripture. K

    Totally agree. 2 Peter 1:12-18 proves there was no Papacy, becuase Peter never directed them to the living voice/ successor after he he dies; Peter “knowing that the laying down of my earthy tent is soon”, “I do my best and am diligent to [write this letter to you – 3:1] so that you will be able to stir up your sincere minds in the truth [of Scripture] – “Scripture” in 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 3:16 points to NT canon and all of Paul’s letters.

  46. Ken Temple says:

    And just what is the Gospel message you have for a Muslim, Ken?

    “Jesus might have died for you.”

    No, you goof-ball.

    Repent (have to teach on sin and God’s holiness) and belief in the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the eternal Son, the eternal Word who became flesh, lived, died on the cross for sinners; rose from the dead; ascended to heaven; prays for believers now.

    Usually it requires friendship, patience, lots of teaching and explaining and eating shish kebab and hummus and drinking strong coffee and hot tea with them.

    This Pre-supposses that a Muslim has read the true Injeel (the NT; the gospel)first; and that we have worked through basic issues like helping them overcome their issues with the Son of God, God in the flesh, Trinity, cross, justification by faith alone; salvation by grace alone, etc.

    see here also

  47. Ken,

    Thanks for this post. I enjoyed reading the article, as I have experienced the same feeling as my relationships with very close personal friends broke down when I swam the Tiber in what Rod would think was the wrong direction.

    One thing that caught my attention was Rod’s statement (35:30) that the saints of Smyrna gathered annually to celebrate the anniversary of Polycarp’s death “complete with the exposition of his relics”. Only the celebration of the anniversary (actually, martyr’s birthday) is mentioned in the text:

    “Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 18)

    There is no mention of actually venerating the bones, and there is no mention of actually exposing them annually. The practice of the early church was actually the opposite of what Bennett alleges.

    If “The Martyrdom of Ignatius” can be trusted, it appears that Ignatius’ remains were returned to Antioch and wrapped in linen (the Martyrdom of Ignatius, chapter 6) and buried in a cemetery there (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter 16).

    Dionysius (c. 260) writes of a job in the church for dressing and burying martyrs (Dionysius the Great, Epistles and Epistolary Fragments, Epistle 1, paragraph 3, c. 260 A.D.). There does not yet appear in the annals of the church of official “reliquarian.”

    Athanasius says that Anthony (271-356 A.D.) abhorred the practice of the Egyptians to wrap the martyrs in linen and keep them in their homes—the people thought they were honoring the martyrs, but in fact Anthony said that they were dishonoring them by doing this. He called the practice unholy and unlawful. The Egyptians then repented of the practice, and thanked God for having been ‘rightly taught’ by Anthony (Athanasius, Life of Anthony, paragraph 90).

    It is not until about 354 A.D. (St. Babylas) that we actually see bones exhumed and translated to a reliquary for veneration. That was initiated by the emperors, as were the translations of the relics of Andrew and Timothy the same decade. The Roman Catholic church soon followed suit.

    In the context of this period in history when martyrs were wrapped in linen and given a proper burial, the real anachronism is committed when “relic veneration” of the late 300s is read into The Martyrdom of Polycarp in the mid-2nd century. In my opinion, Rod was too eager to see Roman Catholic practices that early in the church—an eagerness that manifests frequently in those who thought they had found the true church in Rome.

    Great article, and thanks for the links.


    • Ken Temple says:

      That was excellent! You are right about the Polycarp passage – “. . . and deposited them in a fitting place, . . .” is just describing a proper burial; it does not say that brought them out again at every celebration of remembrance of Polycarp’s death. Rod seemed to make more out of the passage than is there. Your analysis is more careful.

      There is no mention of actually venerating the bones, and there is no mention of actually exposing them annually. The practice of the early church was actually the opposite of what Bennett alleges.

      True; all this time I thought it was saying something more; thanks. It does not say they took his bones back out and they venerating them or praying to Polycarp by staring at his bones.

      All of your other details are excellent and shows I need to find time to read more of your blog! Thanks!

  48. Ken said ” I don’t think we can say that the church was a total apostasy until Trent” I agree, but I never said that the true church ever apostasised. I said the apostasy rose from within the church. Hence, the rise of Roman Catholicism. God has always protected His true church. Its just not in Rome. Tim is doing a greta job of tracing the church. Of course, I don’t believe that the scripture teaches a universal visible church. I believe in visible churches, just not one universal one with a home office in Rome. Paul used church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. Kauffman did a series called ” The visible apostolicity of the invisibly shepherded church” which is good. K

    • Ken Temple says:

      Indeed, visible churches are local churches, not the Roman Catholic Church with Pope and pomp and ceremony and ritual, etc. Good thoughts.

  49. Tim said ” In my opinion , Rod was too eager to see Roman Catholic practices that early in the church.” This was actually my point to Ken in an earlier post. I would go further and say Bennett did this to magnify a so called Protestant rejection of Nicaea as a way of showing how far out of step we are. In fact he uses that method through the whole talk. As if questioning Rome would be outside the command given in scripture to BELIEVERS to keep ourselves from false teaching, and idols. He tries to really lump all those who have questioned the so called “true church (Rome) into a bunch of small gnostic yahoos on a mountain. K

  50. Jim says:


    Your little faux pas on thinking the use of the Latin language was mandatory for the validity of the Eucharist is unforgivable. Did you also think the priest, in the Confessional had to say, “Absolvo te”? instead of ” I forgive you”?
    How about Baptism? Was Latin required for the formula to work, “ex opere operato”?

    You spoke of. “Tm Kauffman’s excellent work on Baptism”. Don’t you know, all of your sources, Kauffman, Bugay and Webster are all fallen away Catholics? They have a bias.
    I am a practicing Catholic. I have been telling you until I am blue in the face you are wrong on everything you say about the religion I have practiced for over 60 years.

    • Ken Temple says:

      I already conceded to you that it was not necessarily required to be said in Latin, in other areas like Greek speaking areas or Coptic speaking areas – ( I take your word on that) – however, the general tone and sentiment for centuries (400 AD until Vatican 2 and the new mass) – was that Latin was superior and “more godly” – look at how they treated Wycliffe and Tyndale for translating the Bible into English !! The attitude was English was not good enough for the Scriptures or church services.

      Nevertheless, the “magical” impression was there in ex opere operato in baptismal ceremonies and the Eucharist for centuries, because your church taught that doing the ritual properly, actually caused grace to come down and cause regeneration in baptism and cause the wine and bread to become Jesus.

  51. Jim says:

    Just so you know,Ken, I can say,” Ave maria, gratia plena…” in Latin, or I can say in Portuguese, “Ave maria, cheia de gratia…”. And I do sometimes, depending on the situation. Or I can just say, “Hail Mary, full of grace…”.
    It doesn’t matter which language I use. But you need to know that, regardless of which tongue used, Catholics don’t worship Mary. I know you think I am lying, but we don’t despite what Falloni, John MacArthur, Bugay or Kauffman might tell you.

    I can, “Our Father, who art in heaven…give us this day our daily BREAD…” or I can say, ” Pater Noster, qui es in caeliis…panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie…”. But either way, we don’t worship bread. Shame on you for misrepresenting us just to tickle the ears of your readers and the gullible sheep you preach to.

    I asked you once if you are ‘invincibly ignorant”. I am pretty sure your ignorance is not invincible. You freely choose to pooh-pooh what I tell you and freely choose to listen to men who either lie or just don’t know a thing about Catholicism. For your choices, you are going to be held accountable.

  52. Pingback: Diggin’ Up Bones | Out of His Mouth

  53. Jim said ” I am a practicing Catholic. I have been telling you until I’m blue in the face you are wrong about the religion i have practiced for 60 years.” Jim, my uncle brushed his teeth the same way for 60 years until he went to the dentist and found out he was brushing them wrong the whole time. And incidentally one man’s fallen away Catholic guy is another man’ I was blind but now I see guy” John 1:12 ” To as many as receive HIM, he has given them the right to be called children of God.” You see anything about receiving your synagog in there. Jesus said ” all power on heaven and earth has been given ME”, not any church. When we tell someone who receives Christ, their sin is forgiven, that a statement about something thats already true, our declaration doesn’t make it true. K

  54. Jim said ” for your choices, you will be held accountable.” Jim, all those who would lay the law on Christians to be justified, those who have entered Jesus rest thru faith alone, including Catholics, or even Reformed who lay their sabbath mishnah on the backs of gentile believers will answer. God didn’t clean the temple, he destroyed it. And Rome has piled on things on the cross. Some Reformed try to do it with strict sabbath keeping. Exodus says the Sabbath is a SIGN given to the JEWS, and yet some Reform seem to make it necessary to be saved. Along with the Roman church, any who would say other, that we enter in the true rest of Jesus by faith alone in Christ alone, are in dangerous territory. K

  55. Ken Temple says:

    Tim wrote:
    Fr. Ray Ryland starts off with this bold statement:

    “Let’s start with this fact. Cardinal Newman said: ‘A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.’ That problem of authority—how do we know for certain what God has revealed?—that underlies all Christian divisions. At the root, it’s what brings us all into the Catholic Church.”

    Does Newman mean by “revelation” – Scripture and oral tradition? And does he mean by “authority”, the Pope to declare it revelation and ex cathedra statements to give infallible interpretations of Scripture? are ex cathedra statements considered “revelation” ?

    I have never met a Roman Catholic who knew with certainty what the pope has said infallibly.
    True. Some say he has only give 2 infallible statements in all history; some say 6; some say 8; some say 16. Some say they can still sift all the official encyclicals and come up with more. Who’s to say?

    It seems that according to the definition of 1870, all official statements as Popes should be considered ex cathedra and there is a lot of that material. (Retroactively) But there are many mistakes and heresies with Popes in history – so they deny the 1870 statement means that. The infalliblity dogmas dies with thousands of qualifications. (George Salmon said a similar statement)

  56. Ken Temple says:

    Tim wrote:
    At 32:00 minutes, Ryland says that in every single case, the ecumenical councils simply affirmed what had been stated by the pope,

    Ryland seems wrong on that; Ossias of Cordova, who lead the council of Nicea, was not the bishop of Rome at the Council of Nicea; and the Cappadocians(Constantinople in 381), Alexandrians (Alexander, later Athanasius in defending Nicea; Cyril at council of Ephesus in 431) had more to do with the first 3 ecumenical councils. Leo is first bishop of Rome to have a major role in a council at Chalcedon. (451 AD)

    and further that not one non-ecumenical council ever solved a single doctrinal controversy.

    so much for the local provincial councils/ synods of Hippo(393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), and the so called “council of Rome” (Damasus) in 382 AD.

    “Every single one of them was either ignored or rejected by the successors of Peter.” A very telling statement indeed because the only early authority Rome has for the canon of Scripture is from non-ecumenical councils that solved nothing and were rejected by the “popes.” Thus, the allegedly “universal church of Rome” went 1500 years without any certain knowledge of the contents of Scripture, and still doesn’t know when the pope is speaking infallibly, much less what he means when he does.

    Yes; good points you make.

  57. Jim says:


    You are so right to say Hosius was not the Pope. He was merely his representative ( how many other sees sent representatives? Didn’t the bishops of the other sees have to show in person? )

    Anyway, let’s talk about you for a minute. Hosius was sent just as the Apostles were sent and Jesus was sent by the Father. You are a minister, yes? Have you been sent? You say you were commissioned by some outfit to preach. Where does that commission get its clout? Is it infallible? Does it represent the continuity of the Church from the time of Christ down to now?

    What are some of the distinctives of your church? If they are distinctives, they certainly cannot be common to the universal and historic Church, can they?

    Tell me about your commission. Can you lose sinners from their sins? Can you bind them in their sins?
    Do you preside over the Lord’s Supper? Do you have some power the members of your congregation don’t have? What do you do with the bread and wine not consumed in your service? Is Christ present somehow in your ritual? ( Is is a ritual? Do you use a prescribed formula? ) At what point does Christ become present in your Lord’s Supper ceremony? Do you invoke the Lord’s presence? Is it magic? Does the Lord come at your beck and call? How do you know?
    Do you anoint and lay hands on sick people to release them from their sins?
    Do you offer the incense? It seems the NT Church did and that the 24 Elders in heaven still do.

    May I refer to your congregation as a “Synagogue” as you and Falloni do mine?
    Your church on Sunday is where” the Gospel is preached and the sacraments rightly administered”, yes? Kevin’s too right? Do your churches differ in those rightly administered sacraments? Do one of you baptize babies and the other one not? Would you include Lutherans into your ceremony to take the Lord’s Supper? Church of Christ folks? Mormons? Witnesses?

    Do you vest yourself in a Geneva gown or some other liturgical attire when doing your ritual?
    Are you anymore indwelt by the Holy Spirit to preach the Bible than any other member of your congregation? If yes. what that authority, charism or power transmitted magically by the laying on of hands?

    Do you have a title? Are you called Reverend or Pastor? Do you have elders and deacons in your church?
    Would you let Falloni in your church?

    If one of your congregants skips church on Sunday to go fishing, is it a sin? Mortal or venial? Can peole just opt to stay home and read the Bible on Sunday? “As is the custom of some” does not say church membership is mandatory, does it?

    Do you counsel people? Prepare them for death? Marriage? Do you counsel them on birth control methods? Do you perform weddings? Is that in the Bible? Why are two people any more married after you pronounce, ‘abracadabra” over them than before you worked your magick?

  58. Jim says:

    Are you monarchical? Do you ever disfellowship people? For heresy? For public or unrepentant sin? Do you preside over a ceremony to readmit them? In matters of biblical interpretation, do you have the final say?
    Are people who disagree with you on a certain point free to break away and form their own Bible Only church?

    Are you paid for your services? Do you demand the flock tithe? If not, why not and what about churches that do?

    Are musical instruments part of your services? Harps and lyres only?

    Do you make sick calls? Prison calls? Do you bring the Eucharist to shut ins?

  59. Jim says:


    Do you now or have you ever done a funeral? Is that in the Bible. Did you attend a seminary? Where is that in the Bible?
    Does your synagogue have a bishop? Do you proclaim fasts? Do pray for or mediate for people? Even the non-elect?

    Is your synagogue KJV only? Do you use Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or any other magical language in preaching, chanting or singing in your Sunday morning ritual?

    Why Sunday? Can a Christian opt to keep the Sabbath or is he back under the law?

    Ken, there are so many questions I have for you and your synagogue (you don’t mind the use of that term do you? You allow it to be used for my fellowship ).

  60. Jim asked Ken ” Can you loose sinners from their sins” Any of us of the Priesthood of believers ( God’s cleras ) can tell someone who has confessed their sins to us( James 5) and to God that their sins have been forgiven. Its a statement about something thats already true, the declaration doesn’t make it true. Scripture tells us to confess our sins to God, and to each other. Its important to remember when someone repents and receives Christ they are forgiven of all their sins in a forensic sense. The sins past, present, and future are all payed for. Its not RC salvation on the installment plan, pay as you go. The gospel isn’t go out and do your part. Listen to Peter ” And on the basis of faith in His name , it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you you see and you know, and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all. God didn’t put us in a savable state, but a saved sate of perfect health. Acts 13:39 ” Let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone is freed from all things, for which you could not be freed thru the law of Moses. K

  61. Jim says:


    Some baptists are 5 Point Calvinists. Some 4. Some are Arminian. Do you all trace your lineage back to the Apostles?

  62. Ken Temple says:

    Hosius of Cordova was not the representative of bishop of Rome Sylvester. – Sylvester’s representatives were Vitus and Vincentius.

    Sylvester did not attend the First Council of Nicaea in 325, but he was represented by two legates, Vitus and Vincentius, and he approved the council’s decision.

    • Jim says:

      Thanks for fine tuning my comment ( I won’t say, “correcting” as some sources do indeed say “legate” ). But back to my point. The Pope had reps. Did anyone else? Or were they required to show up and be counted?
      Did the Popes always attend councils or did they send reps?

  63. Ken Temple says:

    Some of those questions I already answered.
    You are trying to switch the subject, which you admitted,

    This is fun. Let’s talk about you, your synagogue and your ministry instead of mine for a minute.

    It seems Tim and Kevin and I have hit a nerve with you, by pointing out the errors of the infallibility claim of 1870. It is such a high and arrogant claim, that one error in the past will bring down your whole church, because if it is not infallible, then that proves your church and Popes are fallible and your claims to be one true church are false, because your church claimed infallibility. That claim alone refutes your earthly visible church.

    Honorius is clear and he has been proven to have taught heresy, even by your own subsequent popes and bishops and councils for centuries after him. Newman had to work hard to re-interpret history.

    There are other examples of bishops of Rome making mistakes.

    Here are two more.

    Two good examples of Papal Fallibility
    “The Fallibility of Papal Infallibility” by Jason Engwer

    And how forgeries promoted the Papacy:

  64. Ken Temple says:

    You already know the answer to most of those questions, Jim.
    Biblical Christians and churches are not required to have some kind of physical laying on of hands all through history in a chain of bishops in order to be legitimate. Even your RCC fails that test because of the Avingnon Papacy and anti-popes in history. No way to tell who was the rightful bishop. Peter exhorted the believers to read his letter and the other Scriptures (OT and all of Paul’s letters) to be reminded in the truth (2 Peter 1:12-21; 3:1; 3:16) We can do that without a bishop or the Roman Catholic Church. We have the Bible today and the records of history and historical theology. Each generation must “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39-40; Acts 17:11) and follow the Scriptures.

    The proper way for apostolic succession to take place is when a church follows the apostolic doctrine and faith.

    We can do that by the Scriptures, and leading of the Holy Spirit, without a tracing back of bishops to the beginning. We can read history and discern where the early church made mistakes and where they went wrong.

    I was ordained and sent out by a Biblical church – in the pattern and conviction of Acts 13:1-4.
    Churches had a plurality of elders in the NT and earliest non-canonical writings. The mono-episcopate came later.

    • Jim says:

      How is a minister different from the people he preaches to?

    • Jim says:

      “I was ordained and sent out by a Biblical church ”

      Explain ordination. Is it magick? Do you have something Joe Sixpack doesn’t have? Are you better or higher or holier than Kevin?

  65. Jim says:

    Hi a nerve? I assume you are talking about Dollinger?

    Ken, the Pope had just made an infallible decree in 1854, that’s 16 years before the definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870.
    As for Kevin, I have no idea what you mean as I have already told you, I scroll past his rantings. I already know by heart everything he has to say on every issue. He gives me a headache.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Was Unam Sanctum (1302) infallible and how is it NOT contradictory to Vatican 2 and current CCC?

      How do you explaiin Honorius (625-638 AD) and the centuries of Popes and Councils that condemned him as a heretic after that?

      From the eighth to the eleventh century all new popes had to swear in their Papal Oath before assuming the office that they accepted that III Constantinople had authoritatively anathematised Honorius. This is found in the Liber Pontificalis and in the Liber Diurnus.

      Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.

      Honorius actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople in reply to a formal consultation and to several other individuals. He did this at a crucial time, when Sergius was backing off before the objections of St. Sophronius. Thus began a tragedy that would afflict the whole Church. The Monothelites were able to argue that all the teachers of the orthodox faith had confessed their doctrine, including Sergius of Constantinople and Honorius of Rome.

      III Constantinople condemned Honorius in his official papal capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.

      To give a brief summary from the Council’s acts, which are quoted more fully later where it is clear that Honorius is being spoken of:

      “We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”

      In order to approve the decrees of the Council, Pope St. Leo II (681-3) wrote to the Emperor that he anathematised Honorius because he “endeavoured by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church”, not because of mere negligence (as some also lie).

      “Nec non et Honorium [anathematizamus], qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolicæ traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est.” (Mansi, Tom. XI. p. 731)

      The Council of Trullo (692) repeated the condemnation.

      Two succeeding ecumenical councils ratified the sentence, Council II Nicea (787) and IV Constantinople (869-70). Popes approved both.

  66. Jim says:

    Speaking of Kevin, please keep him occupied here on your blog so I can address Tim Kauffman on his blog without Kevin interjecting 15 tons of spam between comments.

  67. Ken Temple says:

    Irenaeus and Tertullian were right to basically say, “the church of their day (of 180-200 AD) can trace it’s roots back to the apostle’s DOCTRINE of the rule of faith against Gnosticism and Docetics” – since Protestants agree with the early church against Gnosticism and Doceticism, we are there also. Irenaeus and Tertullian never said the principle applies into the future and that future bishops could not make mistakes. The rule of faith they expounded is the same basically as the apostles creed and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds and Protestantism agrees, since they derive their doctrines from the infallible God-breathed Scriptures.

  68. Ken Temple says:

    I am going to start deleting when you cannot stay on topic (interact with facts and statements to my response article to Rod Bennett or my comments above), and when you are just trying to be annoying with snarky remarks.
    Warning. You may end up getting totally banned from this blog, as James Swan eventually did to you at Beggar’s All.

  69. Ken Temple says:

    Those last 3 comments were off topic and snarky. Therefore deleted.

  70. Jim says:


    Ever hear of Fr. Feeney and the Boston heresy Case? Check it out and you will see why your constant rant about Unam Sanctum and Vatican II is way off.
    Please stop trying to teach me Catholicism.

  71. Jim says:

    Have you ever considered that I, a practicing Catholic, might just know a wee bit more than you when it comes to the topic of my religion?
    Read my lips, the pronouncements of Boniface VIII, Eugene IV and Innocent III do not contradict Vatican II ***WHEN RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD***. I just so happen to understand and you don’t.
    As I have just today been instructing Tim Kauffman, unlike Protestantism, we Catholics are united around the Pope and the bishops in Communion with him. You guys have a book that does not talk. It cannot explain itself. You are doomed to continue fragmenting until there is nothing left of you. You have only opinion.
    When we Catholics find a particular document troubling, we can actually approach an authorized person to explain things authoritatively. I have address this issue before. I did it 30 years ago. I took the time to get the correct information.
    You probably turned to the likes of Webster for an explanation and were given faulty information. That is your own fault for opting to go to a man with an axe to grind. Again, you cannot claim invincible ignorance on Judgement Day when your ignorance is culpable.

  72. Ken Temple says:

    “rightly understood” along with the claim of infallibility, gives you and your Pope/ Church wiggle room to interpret everything any which way you want.

    That is a big problem; because your church can anachronistically say, “that is not what Trent or Unam Sanctum meant, or what Vatican 2 means, and the Pope is infallible, therefore you are wrong”. Your church is “Whatever we say is the right interpretation” and no way to discern or judge it.

    Right. Makes a lot of sense.

    • Jim says:

      By the way, I won’t bother responding to your stuff on Honorius. Why should I? It wouldn’t do any good, would it?
      Every Catholic who gets into apologetics is immediately confronted with Honorius, Vigilius and Liberius. ( None of them threaten papal infallibility ). You have been told many times about Honorius, haven’t you? But is goes off you like water off a duck’s back.

      Ken, your name is all over the blogosphere, Devon Rose’s, Dave Armstrong’s, C2C, Triabologue, Beggars, etc. etc. You repeat yourself ad nauseum. For years. The same hackneyed stuff about the popes and Mary, over and over and over again. It is like you are practicing your come-backs and accusations just to get them down pat. You aren’t really engaged in dialogue. You are just practicing hitting your automatic response button.

      Sorry Ken, but I don’t believe you read some stuff about Honorius or Boniface VIII and were then turned off by Catholicism. I would bet money you started out against the Church and have spent your life scouring the internet like a vacuum cleaner looking for dirt to confirm the conclusions you previously came to. That is why you are so selective about the sources you find to be so believable, Bugeye, Webster, Kauffman, etc. etc.

      Like most of the other Protestant blog owners, you don’t really spend much time on Catholic blogs do you? Other than occasional cameo appearances, you stay home or on Beggars or Triabologue where you can be referee and contestant both, huh?

      Just like the discussion on the Eucharist. You couldn’t win so you decided the discussion was over and moved on. Same with purgatory. You changed that discussion to the Mass and later changed that topic mid way through too. ( And you accuse me of straying from the topic. Ha! )

      You are no fun. There is nothing to learn from you. You are as predictable as Kevin Falloni.
      You really need to check out C2C and learn how to have an honest give and take dialogue.

      • Ken Temple says:

        I engaged at C2C a lot in 2009 and 2010 – you didn’t read very well, it seems.(because I gave you those links above on June 11)

        Then, more recently with David Anders, who I like discussing with on his article, “Lost Christianities”.

        Truth never changes.

        You also contradicted yourself because you say:
        “you are all over the internet” (at Roman Catholic blogs – Devin Rose, Dave Armstrong (we discussed and debated for several years, as my friend Rod told me he didn’t want to debate anymore, so “go to Dave Armstrong’s blog, he loves to debate”, C2C)

        But then you say:
        “you need to check out C2C . . . ”

        you just said you admitted I already checked it out and saw me there. But it seems you didn’t really take the time to follow what I wrote with the C2C folks.

        “and learn how to have honest debate, “give and take”, “discussion” , etc.

        you contradict yourself; and you also did not seem to read all my interaction with c2c in 2009 and 2010 on the basic issues of Sola Scripture and the canon.

    • Jim says:


      That’s right Ken. Christ established a Church to interpret scripture and her own documents.

      Just like the Pope said in the Book of Acts,
      “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”

      He applied it to replacing Judas with Mattias.

      Prior to Acts 1, nobody had ever interpreted the passage like that.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Peter was not a Pope; there is no Pope in Acts 1 nor anywhere else in Scripture; and there is no Pope in the early centuries either. Even the EO KNOW that.

  73. Jim said ” you guys have a book that does not talk” It doesn’t speak to dead people, ignorant in unbelief, dead in sins. It talks allot to those who are saved, filled with the Holy Spirit, its the bread of life. When I hear a Roman Catholic say its a dead letter, i say i get it, for you it is. Paul said it was foolishness to unbelievers, but the bread of life to believers. Listen to John talk to his congregation ” As for you, the anointing which you have received from HIM abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things , and it is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in Him” He continues “The one who believes in the Son of God HAS THE TESTIMONY IN HIMSELF. And the testimony is this, that God has given eternal life. ” Jim not a word about your Papacy or your magicksterium. God has jurisdiction on the heart, not a church. K

  74. Jim says:


    Because you are outside the Church, you have no way of knowing what either the Bible nor Unum Sanctum mean. You look, you read, and yet you don’t understand. Just like when you look at the Eucharist you see only bread. It takes the eyes of Faith, the Obedience of Faith, to see and understand.
    You are too proud to bend your stiff neck. You trust yourself. You and Jesus, eh, Ken? You don’t need His Church. You just need Jesus, ( or so you think ).
    Sorry Ken, but that won’t fly. That isn’t the system Christ set up. We don’t find Jesus and then join a church. It is in becoming a member of His Body, the Church, that we find Him.

    • Ken Temple says:

      wrong; I do need Jesus and His church and it is in local Biblical churches, one of which I am a member of and submit to. So you are wrong. Your church is not Biblical and therefore not the true church.

      • Jim says:

        Local biblical churches? I thought the CHURCH ( singular ) was the Bride of Christ. How many brides does Christ have?
        He told Peter, ” Blessed are you Sim Bar Jonah… I will build my CHURCH ).

        By the way Ken, don’t you mean “local Baptist churches”? Surely you can’t mean the myriad of squabbling Protestant denominations are all the Bride/Body of Christ.

        The Church ( not churches ) is the pillar and bulwark of truth.

        In the OT, how many Chosen People were there? Just one? Or many?

        The various churches Paul founded, were they not of one mind on all matters of faith and practice? Were they not all part of the same Church? Just different bishoprics or dioceses. One with the churches founded by the Apostles?

  75. Jim said ” just like when you look at the Eucharist you only see bread. It takes the eyes of faith of Faith.” Actually the opposite is true. The writer of Hebrews warns that the need for a physical altar, priesthood, and sacrifice is shrinking back from faith. Christ’s altar, priesthood, and sacrifice are in heaven. ” Blessed are those who don not see, yet believe. It takes faith to to believe in a finished work that accomplished salvation. And when we take the bread it is a symbol of the only flesh that means anything, the one that was broken on the cross, the one that is a blanket across history. Your need for Jesus to turn into bread is idolatry and unbelief, and the fact that your church makes it a continual offering for your sins wounds Christ and denies the sufficiency of the once offering that accomplished our salvation. The gospel isn’t go out and do your part with God’s help, it is He did his part on our behalf, lived the law in our place, and fulfilled all righteousness. We pray for those lost in your church and false religion who are taught that they are good Catholics who need to accumulate the righteousness necessary for salvation through what they do. K

  76. Ken Temple says:

    Kevin makes an excellent point –

    Jim said ” just like when you look at the Eucharist you only see bread. It takes the eyes of faith of Faith.” Actually the opposite is true. The writer of Hebrews warns that the need for a physical altar, priesthood, and sacrifice is shrinking back from faith. Christ’s altar, priesthood, and sacrifice are in heaven. ” Blessed are those who don not see, yet believe. It takes faith to to believe in a finished work that accomplished salvation.

    “blessed are those that do not see, yet believe” –

    the message of Hebrews is the opposite of Roman Catholicism – you go back to sacrifice, physical altars, priesthood, etc. the opposite of the eyes of faith.

    very good.

    • Jim says:

      Kevin makes an interesting point?
      Sorry Ken, I started to read but when I saw you referencing Falloni Balloni, I just scrolled past whatever it is you wanted me to read.
      I told you, my policy is to ignore the man. Since I can’t make an appropriate response to the irritant via cyberspace, I choose to not let him get my ire up. Maybe someday I will have the pleasure of meeting the gentleman face to face. Until then, if you want me to read what you have to say, don’t preface it with a reference to something fellow might have said.

  77. Ken Temple says:

    Jim wrote:
    We don’t find Jesus and then join a church. It is in becoming a member of His Body, the Church, that we find Him.

    Actually, the pattern of the NT is just the opposite.

    “We have found the Messiah” – John 1:41
    Jesus gathered His discples, appointed them as apostles, who would then later become the church – Acts 2, etc.

    Evangelists are sent out to go out and witness and evangelize – Acts 13:1-4
    Those that believe in Christ then are gathered into churches or join a church.

    Jesus did not say, “Invite people to church to then see Me in bread” etc.

    He said, “go and preach the gospel” and “go and make disciples”
    Mark 16:15 and Mattthew 28:18-20

    Acts 14:21-23
    1. they preached the gospel
    2. they made disciples
    3. They taught those disciples about suffering and perseverance in the kingdom of God
    4. They encouraged and strengthened their souls
    5. Then, they appointed elders for each church.

    sometimes, an unbeliever comes to a church and hears about Jesus there and comes to faith; but the NT pattern and early church pattern was evangelism and then faith and then churches were gathered.

  78. Ken Temple says:

    If I am no “fun”, then why do you keep posting here?

    You obviously enjoy discussing and debating and want to be heard and seem to think my blog is “fun” in that it is valuable enough for you to spend time in commenting here and seeking to defend the Roman Catholic Church.

    • Jim says:

      I am not defending the Catholic Church as you have not made one serious charge against her. Just the same old same old.

      As for the Book of Acts, On Pentecost, 3,000 men were added to the Church ( before the Book of Acts was even written, Mr. Stott ). They were not added to the local Jerusalem Church as they were out-of-towners. They were added to the Universal Church.

      By “fun”. I meant I don’t learn anything from you, either about my own Church or your Protestant denomination. You regurgitate other people’s ( Webster’s? Bugeye’s? ) stuff.
      It’s all so old.

      Do you have any idea how often I have answered the Honorious issue? I don’t even bother with those standard attacks as I know anyone bringing them up can hit google and answer it for himself. You insult me by advancing such amateur stuff. And Beginner Apologetcs 101 Book, under “Papacy”. has Honorious, Vigilius, Liberius, down as Protestant favorites.
      It is right before the chapter on Galileo. Or the Inquisition.

  79. Ken Temple says:

    Actually every charge I have made (and Webster, Kauffman, James White, John Bugay, R. C. Sproul, Steve Hays, Turretfan, James Swan, and the older ones like George Salmon, William Witaker, Goode, etc.) – about exalting Mary too much, the Papacy, Purgatory, etc. are all true and truth never changes, so your apologetic is defeated. The reason why you cannot defend the Roman Catholic Church is becaue you cannot. It is indefensible.

  80. Ken Temple says:

    As for the Book of Acts, On Pentecost, 3,000 men were added to the Church ( before the Book of Acts was even written, Mr. Stott ). They were not added to the local Jerusalem Church as they were out-of-towners. They were added to the Universal Church.

    We can agree with that; but it was not the Roman Catholic Church in Rome. The Universal Church is the body of Christ of true believers everywhere among all the nations.

    • Jim says:

      Universal=Catholic. Thanks for the assertion. Could you actually advance a reasoned argument?
      And do notice, Peter was in charge of that Katholicos Ecclesia. The 3,000 entered the Church by Baptism or, as you would assert, “magick”.

  81. Ken said ” And the reason yo cannot defend Roman Catholicism is because you cannot. Its indefensible” And all God’s people said amen!

  82. Ken Temple says:

    Closing down this comment section also.
    We pretty much covered everything for now.

    Lord willing, when I time to write another article on Roman Catholicism, I will take comments later; but now I don’t have time to moderate, and I enjoy too much responding to everything that our Roman Catholic friend Jim writes here.

  83. Pingback: Refutation of Baptismal Regeneration in the early church | Apologetics and Agape

Comments are closed.