John R. W. Stott:
“The Roman Catholics teach that, since the Bible authors were churchmen, the church wrote the Bible. Therefore the church is over the Bible and has authority to interpret it, but also to supplement it. But it is misleading to say that the church wrote the Bible. The apostles, the authors of the New Testament, were apostles of Christ, not of the church. Paul did not begin this Epistle ‘Paul, an apostle of the church, commissioned by the church to write to you Galatians’. On the contrary, he is careful to maintain that his commission and his message were from God; they were not any man or group of men, such as the church. See also verses 11 and 12.”
“So the biblical view is that the apostles derived their authority from God through Christ. Apostolic authority is divine authority. It is neither human, nor ecclesiastical. And because it is divine, we must submit to it.” (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, p. 16)
“Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia.” (Galatians 1:1-2)
“Apostle” (sent one) is the word Jesus used to designate His 12 disciples as those sent out on a mission to preach the gospel. (Luke 6:12-13; Mark 3:14 – notice they had to first “be with Him” before being sent out.) Jesus said, “Just as the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” John 20:21
It seems that when Jesus said to the disciples/apostles that the Holy Spirit would “guide them into all the truth” (John 16:12-13; see also John 14:26; 15:26; 17:8; 17:17-18 ), that Jesus is referring to their being able to receive more revelation in preaching and teaching and then to write that revelation down in the Scriptures in the future. Jesus said, “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12) Jesus is anticipating the future writing of Scripture. He is speaking directly to the apostles Matthew, John, and Peter, 3 of the 11 who are with Him in John 14-17 who will write Scripture.
Jesus is also anticipating that there will be other apostles and writers of Scripture such as the apostle Paul, Luke, Mark (writing for the apostle Peter), James and Jude (Jesus’ half-brothers), and the writer of Hebrews. We don’t know dogmatically who wrote Hebrews, but Barnabas seems a very good candidate for that. (Barnabas is called an apostle – Acts 14:4, 14; he was a Levite – Acts 4:36 – and this comports well with the details in Hebrews of the Levitical priesthood and details of the temple and sacrificial system; he is called “son of encouragement”, and seems to allude to that in Hebrews 13:22 “letter of encouragement” or “exhortation”; and Tertullian believed Barnabas was the human writer of Hebrews. On Modesty, 20 ) Why didn’t other apostles write Scripture? We don’t know and, we cannot know why, since history gives us no other Scriptures from other apostles, although false and forged Gnostic and Docetic gospels were written by others in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and claimed to be from other apostles, like the Gnostic gospels of Thomas, Judas, Bartholomew, Philip, etc. Certainly the other apostles were consulted, along with Mary, in Luke’s gospel, as Luke says he investigated everything carefully from the servants and eyewitnesses of the Word, and they handed down the truths to them. (Luke 1:1-4)
“The word apostle was not a general word which could be applied to every Christian like the words ‘believer’, ‘saint’, or ‘brother’. It was a special term reserved for the Twelve and for one or two others whom the risen Christ had personally appointed. There can therefore be, no apostolic succession, other than a loyalty to the apostolic doctrine of the New Testament. The apostles had no successors. In the nature of the case no one could succeed them. They were unique.” (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, p. 13)
One may argue that the apostles did appoint elders/overseers for churches, and that is true. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7) But that is not “apostolic succession” in the way that the Roman Catholic Church claims. But they were not appointed as “apostles” with special authority to write Scripture and oversee many churches, nor expected to have an infallible interpretation of the Scriptures; nor was there any power in them as a person to cause grace to come down and regenerate people in the waters of baptism, nor did they have ex opere operato powers to change the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus. Rather they were appointed as elders/overseers, a plurality or college or team or council of equal status of authority of one church.
Notice the plural of “elders” in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. See also Acts 20:17 (elders), and in Acts 20:28, all the elders are to be doing the work of overseeing (overseer, “bishop”, episcopais – επισκοπης ) and the work of shepherding, or pastoring the flock – teaching sound doctrine and guarding against heresy and false prophets and teachers.
It is true that Paul left Timothy and Titus to carry on the work of ministry in churches, indicated in those pastoral epistles. Those that argue for a 3 office episcopal church government (one bishop, elders, deacons) rather than a two office church government (a plurality of elders, and deacons for each church) – with an overseer or bishop above the council of presbyters/elders, argue that Timothy and Titus were bishops, and they also argue that James, the half-brother of Jesus and writer of the epistle of James, was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Timothy and Titus are not called bishops, and they are commanded by Paul to appoint and train elders and deacons, so after they are gone, the pattern seems to be that there is no more any “one man” leader over a church, rather a plurality of elders. The mono-episcopate (one bishop leading a church over a council of elders) developed later in church history, beginning with Ignatius.
For a good discussion and debate over the differences in church government, see below. The third one is a defense of a plurality of elders for each local church.
1. Perspectives on Church Government: 5 Views of Church Polity, edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanto Norman. James White wrote the defense of the Plurality of Elders view.
2. Who Runs the Church? Four Views on Church Government, edited by Steven B. Cowan
3. Biblical Eldership, by Alexander Strauch.
For more articles that I wrote on elders and overseers being interchangeable and the earliest form of church government, along with other issues in early church history, see:
1. Review of Rod Bennett’s book, Four Witnesses. (see part 1 and 2)
2. Analyzing Jason Stellman’s claim in the early church, specifically, 1 Clement
3. An Evangelical Introduction to Church History (Part 1)
4. An Evangelical Introduction to Church History (Part 2)
Distinction between apostles and early writers/bishops/ elders shows it was not apostolic succession the way Rome tries to anachronistically apply it back into history.
Ignatius (writing around 107-117 AD), one of the earliest Christian writers of the second century that we have records of, is keenly aware of that distinction as he wrote,
“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.” (To the Romans 4:3; see also, To the Ephesians 3:1 – “I do not give you commands as if I am somebody important”; To the Trallians 3:3 “I did not think myself qualified for this, that I, a convict, should give you orders as though I were an apostle”) So, Ignatius seems to go against the idea of apostolic succession, even though he did start the mono-episcopate.
The apostle Paul was specially chosen by Christ (Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26, Galatians chapters 1-2; 1 Corinthians 9:1-2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-9) to be an apostle; and many believe that He was the Lord’s real choice to replace Judas, not Mathias.
Others are called apostles in the New Testament:
Barnabas-Acts 14:4, 14; James, the Lord’s brother – Galatians 1:18-19, 2:9;
1 Cor. 15:7-9 – “then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ”
Silas and Timothy – 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6; and Romans 16:7 might refer to two more apostles, Andronious and Junias, or it may mean that they have an outstanding reputation among the apostles (the 12 and Paul’s missionary team).
“We should get used to calling him ‘the apostle Paul’ rather than ’Saint Paul’, because every Christian is a saint in the New Testament vocabulary, while no Christian today is an apostle.” (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, p. 13)
“not from man, nor through the agency of man” (Galatians 1:1) –
Paul is saying that man or humans or a council or a church did not appoint him to be an apostle, but that he got his commission directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. “. . . his apostleship is not human is any sense, but essentially divine.”(Stott, ibid, p. 14) In other letters Paul notes that he is an apostle, Romans 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1, 2 Cor. 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1; but here in Galatians, his first letter, written around 48-49 AD, right before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, Paul wants to make sure that everyone knows that his apostleship is a direct divine calling from the Lord Himself; that it is not a human coming up with his own idea from his own heart and mind of being an apostle of Christ, or just human thinking that “it might be a good idea for you to do this work”.
There seems to be a clear distinction between “apostles of Christ” and “the apostles of the churches” ( see 2 Corinthians 8:23; Philippians 2:25)
Even so, Paul and Barnabas were also sent out by a local church as missionary evangelists. (Acts 13:1-4) Is that contradictory to what we have written? Not at all; one is the commission to be an apostle directly by Christ, the other is confirmation and accountability from a local church and guarding against just anyone claiming that they had a special revelation from God, when they really did not. (Like Muhammad of Islam, Joseph Smith of Mormonism, and Charles Taze Russell of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.)
John Piper writes: “Paul’s apostleship was virtually the same as Peter’s, for Galatians 2:8 says, “He who worked through Peter for the apostleship to the circumcision, worked through me also for the Gentiles.” (“To Deliver us from this present evil age”)
And they (Paul and Barnabas) were approved of and confirmed by the original disciples/apostles of Jesus. (Galatians 2:9)
See here also:
Did Paul preach a different gospel than Peter, James, and John?
Did the apostle Paul hijack the original Christianity or original teaching of Jesus?
Apologetics and Agape 
Ken,
Let’s enjoy the convoluted logic of John Stott together, shall we?
“The Roman Catholics teach that, since the Bible authors were churchmen, the church wrote the Bible.”
Well, if the Book of Acts tells us that on Pentecost 3,000 were added to the Church, we can probably safely conclude that the event took place before it was written down, yes? I mean, wasn’t the biography of Ghengis Khan penned after Mr. Khan had actually lived out the life recorded in that same biography? You know, the things I am going to see on the evening news later tonight will , in all probability,have taken place sometime during today, right?
Now, that event recorded in Acts 2:41 about that first Pentecost speaks of 3,000 men being “added to”, not forming or comprising, the Church they were “added to”.
I’m gonna be bold and say, the Church must have already been in existence at that time.
There, I said it! Call me provocative, reckless, wild and even downright naughty if you will. I won’t take it back.
Let’s proceed, shall we Kenneth?
Professor Stott then says Paul was and Apostle of God, not the Church, that he was commissioned from the Lord Himself and not, “any man or group of men, such as the church.”
(Actually, in that passage, I don’t see where Paul actually says, “not of the Church”, as if there is some dichotomy between Christ and His Body. I suspect that he is interjecting his won emphasis there. )
Prof Stott seems to see the Church as just “any group of men”? You know, like the Elks Lodge, the Boy Scouts, the Society for a Flat Earth or even the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
Somebody should tell the good Professor that Jesus and His Church form One Christ. Direct him to where the same St. Paul, when knocked off his horse on the road to Damascus, hears Jesus say, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute **ME**?”
If the Professor had only continued reading until Gal 1:12, he would have seen, “For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.”
Evidently, the Church he was persecuting already existed before he stopped persecuting it became a member.
Ken, very good article, biblical perspective needed. K
Jim said ” If the Professor had only continued reading until Gal.1:12 he would have seen , ” For you have heard of my previous life in judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it” Jim, the irony of this is that the opposite is true of your point. Rome is the recent version of judaism and has always persecuted the true church. Rome gets works and grace reversed like they Judaism did, and they got the true church reversed as Rome does. Is it not interesting that Paul explained justification in a book to the Roman church. God knew it would be the Roman church who would reverse the words of Paul into judaism. Jim, remember, before you write something like this, apply my rule. Read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Paul left Roman Catholicism, and became a member of ” it was for freedom Christ set you free” Galatians 5:1, the true church. No one is free in Rome, because you are a slave to “ex opera operato” salvation. Romans 10:9 says if you confess and believe you are righteous and saved. Can a Roman catholic pope, who demands obedience to himself as a necessary requirement for salvation, say what Paul said to a person. NO! K
the first 11 disciples are the beginnings of the church; and, if you want to make that case, the 12 with Judas was the first visible church, having unregenerate people (like Judas) within their physical environment.
The church existed, but the commission for Paul to be an apostle is not “from the church”, but from the Lord Himself. (Acts 9, 22, 26, Galatians 1-2, all above, etc. ) the canon is based on apostolicity – from an apostle or apostolic authority (Mark wrote for Peter, an apostle; Luke interviewed Mary and the other apostles, and was on apostle Paul’s missionary team; James is called an apostle in Galatians 1:18-19; 2:9; 1 Corinthians 15:7-9; Jude is with James and half-brother of Jesus; Hebrews is apostolic because it was probably written by Barnabas; or possibly Luke; maybe Silas; content is apostolic doctrine.
Scripture is God-breathed, commissioned by God and His Spirit, not from man or humans or church institution. Stott is right; but that does not mean that church is not important or God’s institution on earth and Christ’s body on earth for ministry and worship, but not the source for Scripture/revelation.
Judas was unregenerate? Who says? He is more than likely in hell now but that doesn’t prove he was never regenerated.
Simon Magus was also a believer at one time. That means he was born again. But he lost his way.
Sorry Ken, you are in no position to conclude Judas was never sincere, never in a state of grace or regenerated.
Jesus said so in Matthew 7:21-23 – “I NEVER knew you” (past tense)
1 John 2:19 – “they left us because they were never really one of us”
He also said it in John 13:9-11
9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”
Judas was never cleansed.
After Judas leaves (end of 13), in 15:1-6, Jesus confirms this – “you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” – the 11 disciples there with Him.
the one who does not abide, has no fruit, no evidence, is cut off (verse 2) and is thrown away and burned in hell. (John 15:6) Those are fake branches that “hang out” with the other branches (as in church meetings), but are not truly regenerate.
Galatians 1:11-24 – Paul is still emphasizing the whole way through that he did not get his revelation or content from humans or the other apostles (see the boldened verses) – only after he explains his gospel / revelation to the 12 apostles later do they then confirm it as truly revelation directly from God. (Galatains 2:8-9)
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas [ the apostle Peter], and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.”
All of this shows the church existed, but the apostle Paul did not consult with the other apostles or flesh and blood (humans) or churches to get his revelation/content for letters/Scripture. The Scriptures were directly “God-breathed” out, but also later confirmed as truth by the other apostles – Galatians 2:8-9.
so church is not over Scripture, nor the source for Scripture, even though the church existed for ministry.
Ken,
Are you implying Paul was not a member of the Church? Are you saying he was independent or a loose canon somehow? Was his theology different from that of the Church in which the other Apostles and Evangelists belonged to? Are you saying Paul had a strictly “me and Jesus ” spirituality? Was Paul encouraging his readers to follow his example and trust their own guts on matters of Faith and morals?
Why did he go up to Jerusalem in order to “see” James and “ISTORAI” ( consult with ) Peter? Why didn’t he just “see” Peter, too? Why didn’t Peter and James consult with Paul if he had such a profound revelation that had to do with not just Paul, but the entire Church?
apparently, you didn’t read what I wrote.
Ken,
Why are you ranting? I know scripture is God breathed. The Bible says so. Why are you claiming the Bible for yourself? It’s the one source of authority we have in common.
( Actually, we wrote the Bible ).
Why are YOU ranting? I am not ranting. The difference in this issue is the source of the Scriptures. (God the Holy Spirit; God-breathed, inspired directly by God) then, later, Paul confirmed with Peter and James and the rest of the apostles that it was the same gospel message. The church confirmed it, but did not breathe it out, nor is the church over the Scriptures and cannot interpret it infallibly, and cannot add to revelation by tradition centuries later and claim it is also “the word of God”, as Trent and Vatican 1 and 2 does.
Ken,
You MUST BE RANTING if you think I don’t know the Bible was written BOTH by the Holy Spirit and men. God breathed it out through men ( men of the Church that is ).
Do you deny it?
Jim said ” Are you trying to say Paul was not a member of the church?” You know that is not what he said. He said he didn’t receive the gospel from the church, but directly from Christ. H received His commission from the Lord. But Catholics have a problem understanding this because they think the church is Jesus Christ. They collapse the Head into the body and usurp the work of the Trinity on the heart of Man. Jesus said all power in heaven and earth has been given ME. not the church. Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. Its that simple. Catholics believe in a church, and we believe in the Word, but a church can’t save you Jim. K
You know that is not what he said.
Thanks Kevin!
Ken,
Do you believe that every cause must precede its effect?
Did the Church come out of the Bible or the Bible out of the Church? Were not the writings of Paul and the 4 Evangelists originally called “The Books of the New Testament”? That means the New Testament spoken of at the Last Supper when Christ instituted the sacrifice of the Mass existed before anything was written about it. ( Just like Moses did a sacrifice at the First or Old Testament instituted on the mountain ).
In other words, folks were celebrating the Lord’s Supper (a.k.a. the Mass )long before Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul wrote about it.
You MUST BE RANTING if you think I don’t know the Bible was written BOTH by the Holy Spirit and men. God breathed it out through men ( men of the Church that is ).
Do you deny it?
That is true that God used men and man’s personalites – “they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” – 2 Peter 1:20-21
that is means; not source.
The source is God – “for no prophesy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own loosing/unraveling/ “interpretation” – he didn’t come up with it on his own – but God breathed it out in Scripture and used the man/prophet/apostle to write it.
The issue here is not that God used men, means; the issue is the source – Paul, said, “not from human, not through man” – “I did not consult with flesh and blood” – I did not even consult Peter and James and John, etc. “the churches did not know me”, etc.
The Church is not over Scripture and was not the source of Scripture, though the church existed and the writers of Scripture were members of the body of Christ.
I don’t smoke – maybe you do – you are the one who needs a smoke and to calm down.
Ken,
This FUN after all. It’s like taking candy from a baby ( not that I take candy from real babies ).
Your opinion of Judas is a good example of how you are hamstrung while I am not. You cannot show Judas was never regenerate using your self imposed burden of Bible Alone.
I am not bound by any such nonsense. You are. You are painted into a corner you can’t crawl out from. You have gone out on a limb and can’t get back because I am waiting for you to try with a saw in my hand.
Oh, sure, you can draw inferences. But only inferences. And they are monstrous Calvinist inferences about Judas being purposefully designed for hell by the Bible’s God of Love.
If you dare to discuss Calvinist issue, I am your man. But you can’t delete me out like you did a few days ago just because the tables are turned and it is your belief system in the hot seat.
You cannot deal with clear verses on Judas –
Jesus said so in Matthew 7:21-23 – “I NEVER knew you” (past tense)
1 John 2:19 – “they left us because they were never really one of us”
He also said it in John 13:9-11
9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”
Judas was never cleansed.
After Judas leaves (end of 13), in 15:1-6, Jesus confirms this – “you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” – the 11 disciples there with Him.
the one who does not abide, has no fruit, no evidence, is cut off (verse 2) and is thrown away and burned in hell. (John 15:6) Those are fake branches that “hang out” with the other branches (as in church meetings), but are not truly regenerate.
Ken,
The verses you list all say that Judas was not in a state of grace or justified at that particular time. Not of them say Judas was NEVER justified. None of them speak to that point.
Some of your verses are not specifically about Judas. You are applying them to him.
You are assuming I agree with your Calvinist paradigm. I don’t.
Just for FUN, let’s say the verses you listed are about Judas. Do you therefore assert that his situation sets the pattern, that all the damned were”never known” by God? Can we say of all damned apostates, “they were never with us, that’s why they went out from us”?
Again, you are begging what you have not demonstrated. I told you in one of the comments you deleted out that your views of God and election poison everything for you.
Ken,
Like I said, if you actually understood the Catholic paradigm, you would not try running that stuff past me.
Jim said ” did the church come out of the bible or the bible out of the church.” Lets see did the Word exist before the church, hmmm, I think so. K
Ken,
Just so you know, I draw inferences too. We all do. The problem is when your inferences and my inferences don’t click. What do we do, where do we go for a resolution. God did not reveal Himself only to be indifferent to what men believe about him. Truth in matters of religion is important.
In the Bible we see Jesus call together 12 men. He also drew a multitude of followers. He instructed the followers with parables. But to the 12 He spoke in plain language. He gave those 12 men powers and authority over the followers. To make sure those 12 men remained united, He called out one man and set him as chief Apostle, to shepherd not only the sheep followers but also the other shepherds. He gave that one chief shepherd the authority over MY Church. Elsewhere Jesus spoke of “the” church, meaning the local assembly. The 12 were given authority to adjudicate disputes between the sheep followers at the local level. But to the chief Apostle Jesus gave authority over “MY” entire Church, sheep and shepherds both.
Jesus knew these 12 men were going to die within a few decades. He did not intend His Church to die with them. He set up a structure that was to survive those 12 mortal men.
That authority structure is authorized to make inferences. You and I can too on matters of no consequence. But when we need to have an absolute assurance on a matter of doctrine, we are to take it to the shepherds. If they can’t agree, they will take it to the chief shepherd.
I am a member of that Church established by Christ on that chief Apostle, Ken. As you are a Baptist, you are a member of an offshoot of the Anglican church a few centuries ago. This is not just an inference. You can look it up in any encyclopedia. It is a fact of history.
Your Baptist group has no roots in Christ. He did not establish it. Your own ministry has no foundation in doctrine nor Sacrament ( laying on of hands and imposition of the Holy Spirit ) with the original 12 shepherds.
What you call a “ministry” is a mere usurpation of the office of those 12 men. You may mean well, but you have not been called to an office as that Church has not called you nor does it recognize your credentials.
To make matters worse, you have set yourself as an enemy of that Church founded by Jesus Christ on those 12 shepherds. For sure, you see yourself as a follower of Paul. That is because you see Paul as outside and independent of the authority structure of Christ’s Church. But my inference would be you are more of a follower of Judas since you hate the Church of Jesus Christ and His shepherds.
Have a great day.
Ken,
I need to recalibrate. You are not a successor to Judas. No way.
I hope my comparing you to him did not come off as harsh. ( When you or your buddy say harsh things to me about magic or false religion or call my church a synagogue, you are just doing it because you love me and love the truth so much, right? )
Of course you are not like Judas. Judas really was called to ministry in the Church. You haven’t been. Not yet anyway. Should you enter into full Communion with the Church, you will be called as I have been, to be Confirmed by the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands by a successor to the 12 Apostles ( the biblical way )..
A follower of Judas would be an apostate Catholic bishop like Arius or Nestorius. Not that Judas laid hands on them and imparted a special evil charism to them. But in so far as they were true bishop/shepherds who betrayed their office, yes.
Notice that I said you are like Judas only in so far as you hate the Church and the successors to Peter and the other Apostles.
Please don’t fire back some nonsense about Honorius or the Medici or Borgia popes. Don’t try telling me there were no monarchical bishops in the early church. And please don’t try denying Peter was ever in Rome like that Orthodox nut ( John? ) did over on Boogers All did. ( Remember, he said Peter was bishop of Babylon ). None of that stuff addresses or belies what I am saying. It is just smokescreen in an attempt to change the subject.
Please don’t bother telling me about some religious conviction or feeling you may have once had. I have had them too. I am not questioning your desire to serve. I am questioning your authorization.
Let me retract the Judas business. You are more like Sceva’s 8th son. You know, the usurpers in Acts 19 who went around pretending to be ministers of Jesus Christ and ended up getting a whooping by some demon for their efforts.
Ken,
I just stumbled on this article a minute ago. I haven’t read it myself, not yet anyway, but I am sure it answers your constant charge about Vat II and Unum Sanctum.
OOPS. I forgot to paste it. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=209
Jim,
No; you are wrong –
As Athanasius wrote “they have the places/buildings, but we have the faith” (Fragment of Festal letter 29, around 356 AD) Speaking of the Arian takeover of churches, and that lasted some 60 years. Your RCC is like the Arians of those years.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxiv.html
We have the apostolic faith because we found it in the holy Scriptures. You have buidings and places and baptismal fonts and records of priests and bishops that claim a chain of ordanation back to Peter, but that chain has been broken many times in history by false doctrines.
You are like the Arians: You have physical buildings, history of the force of the state government, literal laying on of hands (but no proof that some of the chains were not broken, or even non existent in the early centuries, especially during times of schism, Avignon Papacy, etc.,) you have incense, statues of Mary, statues of other saints and angels, tabernacles with bread in them, mitre hats, rituals, indulgences, Your church is like the Arian takeover that Athanasius was talking about, because your focus is on the physical stuff of ordained bishops that you allegedly claim you trace back to Peter.
Your church anathemetized the heart of the gospel when it condemned justification by faith alone at the council of Trent, so you lost the gospel since that time, and have added de fide dogmas onto it, bringing people into more bondage. (1854, 1870, 1950 – de fide dogmas) Trent also dogmatically affirmed Transubstantiation of 1215, another addition to the gospel, which is corrupting the true gospel.
Galatians 1:8-9
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”
We hold to the faith of Peter, who said to Jesus, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) The rock is that confession, that doctrine, that truth, not in a successor to him just because he layed his hands on them. You have added man-made traditions to that. True apostolic succession is holding to the doctrine of the apostles. You added Mary as a mediator – contradicting 1 Tim. 2:5. You have added works to justifying faith, contradicting Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:3-5; Romans 1:17; 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Galatians 1:6-9; 2:16; 2:21; 3:6-8; 3:19-24; Philippians 3:9, John 1:12; 5:24; 3:16; 11:25.
Earliest portait of Augustine of Hippo – notice the simplicity – no mitre bishops hat or gloves or special clergy robes; no pomp. Most other Roman Catholic anachronistically paints him with the garb of the 11th or 14th or 15th or 17th or 18th century Roman Catholicism.
Your whole church is anachronistic – based on Newman’s “acorn to oak tree” / Developement of doctrine theory of reading anything you want back into the earliest history.
Augustine didn’t wear a miter? Says who? Why would it matter? He spoke Latin too. Is that a problem?
( He wore a miter ).
You are wrong:
“Worn by a bishop, the mitre is depicted for the first time in two miniatures of the beginning of the eleventh century. The first written mention of it is found in a Bull of Pope Leo IX in the year 1049. By 1150 the use had spread to bishops throughout the West; by the 14th century the tiara was decorated with three crowns.” (from the Wikipedia article)
Ken wrote ” As Athanatius wrote ” they have the place/buildings, we have the faith” Wow, Ken never saw that quote. We can say that today about the Roman Synagog. K
Ken, great posts! It couldn’t be said any better. They have piled so much on the cross, they covered it up. K
Thanks!
Indeed that have added so much that they have covered the truth of the gospel and the infallible Scriptures; so much, that they corrupted it.
And please don’t try denying Peter was ever in Rome like that Orthodox nut ( John? ) . . .
I have no problem with Peter being in Rome in the 50s and 60s, off and on (traveling in and out), as an apostle-evangelist-missionary who traveled to other areas. But he was not a monarchial bishop. The evidence from 1 Clement, Ignatius (the letter to the Romans does not mention the bishop as in other letters), and the Shepherd of Hermas is that the church in Rome had a plurality of elders until around 150 AD.
But Peter told the churches in Asia (modern day Turkey) to submit to the elders. ( 1 Peter 5:5-6)
They had a plurality / college of elders (presbyter-overseers). The elders do the work of overseeing and pastoring (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4)
There is no mono-episcopate in the canon of 27 books (ie, first century), and no mono-episcopate in the earliest non-canonical documents. That developed later, but even so, Cyprian, (around 255-258 AD) who was the mono-episcopos in his area, and 86 other bishops from all over, rebuked Stephen, bishop of Rome for claiming to be the “bishop of bishops”. This is a clear historical fact that there was no such thing as a “Papacy” of jurisdiction of “one bishop over all the other bishops in the city of Rome.” etc.
Seems we are going over ground we covered on Boogers All.
Jim,
And you still could not deal with these verses and you did not answer them. Jesus clearly said that Judas was not cleansed in John 13:9-11, but that Peter and other disciples were cleansed. (with John 15:3)
You cannot deal with clear verses on Judas –
Jesus said so in Matthew 7:21-23 – “I NEVER knew you” (past tense)
1 John 2:19 – “they left us because they were never really one of us”
He also said it in John 13:9-11
9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”
Judas was never cleansed.
After Judas leaves (end of 13), in 15:1-6, Jesus confirms this – “you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” (John 15:3) – the 11 disciples there with Him.
the one who does not abide, has no fruit, no evidence, is cut off (verse 2) and is thrown away and burned in hell. (John 15:6) Those are fake branches that “hang out” with the other branches (as in church meetings), but are not truly regenerate.
Ken,
Judas was not clean at that time. Jesus does not say Judas had never been cleansed. Maybe he never was clean but that was not by design as he had been offered grace. Still,someone can have a bath one day and fall into a puddle of mud the next day.
Your mission Ken, should you decide to accept it, is to show me that Judas was never loved by God, that he came into the world predestined to betray Christ and go to hell. Judas was offered grace, as all men are. I know that doesn’t jive your your paradigm, but if you deny it, the implications are horrendous.
On some of the other blogs we were discussing the atonement and Christ’s descent into hell and agony in the Garden and on Calvary. You guys say some awful things about Christ’s suffering in the Garden. Some of our guys say that the cup Christ asked to forego was the betrayal by Judas whom he loved so much.
Judas was loved by Mary too.
Judas freely sinned and spurned God’s overtures. He was not a puppet or robot.
The issue is not about robots or puppets – Reformed theology has never denied that people make their own real choices; it is just that their choices are tainted, controlled, motivated, and enslaved by some level of selfishness and prideful motives that makes even good choices and good works tainted as “falling short of the glory of God”. (until God graciously opens the heart and mind) People freely choose what they want to choose out of their own natures, without any outside coercion.
The issue is also not about whether Jesus offered to Judas the gospel or His love.
The issue is not about election and predestination. (though John 17:12 implies that Judas was not chosen for salvation, rather chosen in order to fulfill the Scriptures that speak of someone betraying Jesus – psalm 69 and Jeremiah and Zechariah about the potter’s field and 30 pieces of silver. John 6:70-71 implies that Judas was chosen to be a disciple physically, but internally was a devil; from the beginning.
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
The specific issue is that those who don’t have faith in Christ now, never did have true faith, as is shown by the Matthew 7:15-23 passage and 1 John 2:19 and John 13:9-11 and 15:3. Matthew 7 is alluding and hinting at someone like Judas, because he did miracles and was a disciple of Jesus ( Physically, environmentally – he was around Jesus and with the group and did miracles, and we would assume, baptized in water. John chapter 1 – Andrew and others are assumed to be baptized by John the baptizer, later Jesus’ disciples baptize others, so we would assume that they were baptized also – John 4:1-2, etc. ) – this also shows, proves that baptismal regeneration is false.
“Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),” John 4:1-2
Ken,
“Jesus said so in Matthew 7:21-23 – “I NEVER knew you” (past tense)”
How can you be sure this applies to Judas? I don’t see his name there.
Who else did miracles and healings and prophesied ? (Many will say to Me on that day, did we not do miracles and prophesy in Your name, etc. ) but was not a true believer?
It definitely applies to Judas as the first kind of person like this. Obviously, there are others in history.
Augustine used to remove his miter when he went to the movies so it wouldn’t block the view of the people in the row behind him. Your picture is about Augustine at play, not when he was preaching.
Ken, are you for real?
In Walt Disney’s Fantasia Cartoon, Micky Mouse swipes the pointed hat of the sorcerer and makes the brooms fetch water. The pointy hat was magic.
No wonder you and Falloni think we Catholics believe in magic.
Ken, this is as corny as what you said about Latin being a magic abracadabra type language. Are you and I having an adult conversation? Or are you busy showing off for and hi-fiving Kevin?
Tell Kevin to shut down the computer and help his wife. She is working hard and he is sitting on his fat duff playing with you, looking up miter stuff. Tell Kevin to make his wife some tuna fettucine for when she comes home from a day on the job. ( None of that fake cyber stuff he offers people online ). Tell him to wash the dishes, take out the garbage or vacuum the rug. Don’t leave it for his wife.
Miters indeed?
(Pssst; we have even older art from the catacombs showing Peter wearing a miter )
I googled “St. Peter in catacomb art” and none of them show him wearing a mitre. Most show him and apostle Paul with no hat. There is one that claims from the late 4th Century, but the hat does not look like a mitre, but a round cap with a cross at the top. Not a mitre. something like a halo or symbol of him as a Chrisian.
The text of the explanation of the painting claims that it is of the apostle Peter striking a rock and water flowing out – of course there is no such story and appears to be taking the story of Moses and imputing it to Peter, but that is wrong.
Augustine used to remove his miter when he went to the movies so it wouldn’t block the view of the people in the row behind him. Your picture is about Augustine at play, not when he was preaching.
What a goofy answer! “movies” ? right. Augustine was clearly studying the Scriptures; you can see the book; so it was not about “Augustine at play”. goofy you are.
It’s a goofy topic.
I have a confession to make Ken. When I heard your Georgia Peach accent, I immediately made a knee jerk judgement that I repent of. Then, when you started talking about Latin as if it were some scary occult language used for demonic incantations, I was convinced I was dealing with a KJV Only, 6 Day Creation, Flat Earther ( If the KJV was good ’nuff fer St. Paul, it’s good ’nuff fer me )..
All the nasty stereotypes came pouring in of hayseeds, hill-billies, Bible thumpers, snake handlers, rednecks and yokels wearing, not mitres, but bib overalls and straw hats.
I told myself not to judge a person’s doctrines based on their externals and to stick with the real issues of theology.
But Ken, I am starting to wonder if you aren’t the stereotype. This mitre stuff is the silliest thing I’ve ever been confronted with. It is really scraping the bottom of the (cracker ) barrel trying to dredge up stuff against the scary, foreign Church o’ Rome.
Mitres have as much to do with doctrine as whether or not you Baptist boys wear shoes , drink moonshine or eat possums and sweet ‘tater pie.
Show me one piece of catacomb art where St. Paul is wearing bib overalls or carrying a squirrel gun. Then and only then do I care to pursue this mitre nonsense any further.
You are wrong:
“Worn by a bishop, the mitre is depicted for the first time in two miniatures of the beginning of the eleventh century. The first written mention of it is found in a Bull of Pope Leo IX in the year 1049. By 1150 the use had spread to bishops throughout the West; by the 14th century the tiara was decorated with three crowns.” (from the Wikipedia article) see also “the Evolution of the Mitre” from the Catholic Encyclopedia, in the same article.
Mitres as we know them today, Ken,
I have seen many depictions of Aaron wearing what I would consider a mitre in Protestant books.
Would a king be a king if he didn’t wear his crown? Or are crowns magick hats?
Again, did Luther or Calvin get into the issue of mitres? ( Actually, I think Luther continued to dress as an Augustinian monk even after he left the Church ).
35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 And Jesus turned and saw them following, and *said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?” 39 He *said to them, “Come, and you will see.” So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the [aa]tenth hour. 40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He *found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”
John 1:35-42 – shows Andrew was already a disciple of John the baptist, and we would assume, I think very reasonable, that he was already baptized. I cannot image the other disciples not getting baptized, including Judas. But Judas was a devil and not a true believer and was never cleansed; so this proves baptismal regeneration is wrong.
Ken,
It says nothing against Baptismal regeneration. Baptism is NOT magick. One can place an “obex” between the Sacrament and the flow of grace. IOW, if you cross your fingers while being baptized, intending only to trick people watching, the Sacrament has no affect.
Peter, the apostle you claim is the first Pope, said, “cleansing their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9), so a person is internally cleansed by faith in Christ, and baptism in water is the symbol of that cleansing and picture of our death, burial and resurrection with Christ.
Peter said ” gold and silver I have none” just the thought of a man wearing a diamond tiara should give anyone pause. Can you just picture Peter a man who called himself a fellow elder, and man who told a man who kneeled to him to get up he was just a man, meeting one of those popes in the big hat who called himself God on earth. Yes indeed. K
Ken,
” John 6:70-71 implies that Judas was chosen to be a disciple physically, but internally was a devil; from the beginning.”
You are dancing around the issue, Ken. Why was Judas a devil? Was it because God had refused him grace?
Ken, do you consider Calvin to be reformed? Among we Catholics, we sometimes must distinguish between Thomas and Thomists. Most Thomists follow the interpretations of Thomas by Cajetan and Banez rather than what Aquinas actually said on. let’s say, God universal salvific will or grace.
In your case, I bet you are feeding me what the WCF said rather than Mr. C himself. Calvin did not say men were punished for their free decisions. He said God made them sin and then punished them for it.
Now, I am using this Judas issue to gt you to open up a much broader and important issue. Did God want Judas in heaven or not?
Again, you keep infereing, infereing, infering certain passages apply to Judas.
As for the mitre ( this is how it should be spelled ), James, the monarchical bishop of Jerusalem are depicted in ancient art as wearing a Jewish mitre.
But why are you interested in a non doctrinal issue like this? Popes wear white. Do they have to? Have they always? Would it matter if they opted not to? NO! This pope jettisoned the red shoes. Do you want to make an issue out of that? Some Popes wore a triple tiara. A pope in th 60s decided to drop the custom. So what? Want to bring up the issue of nuns’ habits too? How about Roman Collars? ( Lots of Protestant minsters wear them ).
I do think this is an important point. Oh, not whether or not Bishops wore mires in the early Church. That is altogether unimportant. What is important is that you find it important. It’s like the issue of Latin. Please, what is it you are driving at?
Kauffman, following Lorraine Boettner or Alexander Hislop or somebody like that, tried making an issue out of candles about a year or so ago. I am starting to fear I am in a discussion with someone just as nutty.
What is the doctrinal point you are driving at Ken?
My main point was that Roman Catholic art is anachronistic by painting ancient early church fathers in the papal and bishop clothes of the middle ages and renaissance era. This plants the lie that the early church was “Roman Catholic” deep in the mentality of people, because the art is so common with putting the bishop’s mitre on early bishops and calling the early bishops “Pope’s”, as if it the Roman bishop was over all the other bishops was an ancient doctrine. it was not. Peter was not the first Pope and Augustine did not wear a mitre, as evidenced by the earliest portrait of him (and I prooved it by that evidence I gave to that – both the picture and the entry from Wikipedia. There are so many other paintings of Augustine that present him as clothed and living in a 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 century culture. That is wrong, and people needed to reminded of the anachronistic art, because it is not accurate to history. If you want to follow Newman’s sentiment of being “deep in history”, you, and other Roman Catholics need to acknowledge that.
You are not able to refute that, so you resort to ad hominem attacks against my southern accent, etc.
Ken,
I am not able to refute…? You are the one trying to refute the claim thay Catholicism has an unbroken line back to the Apostolic source.
The trouble is with that proposition is that it leads to some absurdities such as there was no Church on earth from the rise of the Harlot until its restoration in the 16th century.
You also have no way of proving your assertions. Just saying, ” Augustine didn’t wear a mitre” proves nothing. Just because there is no mention of him wearing this headgear until the middle ages does not prove the idea was concocted then.
The onus is not on me to prove A wore a mitre. You are the one making the charge. And it’s an innovative charge. Prove he didn’t wear a mitre. ( And should you do so, then prove what difference it makes ).
You say I am trying to shoehorn a medieval headpiece into the 5th century. I say you are always trying to shoehorn the ideas of 16th century Geneva into the 1st century Church.
Why was there no outcry by the faithful when the Church’s propaganda minister decreed that artists should start depicting Augustine wearing a mitre? Why did it take 2,000 years for some guy named Ken Temple to smell something fishy?
Ken,
Again, your doctrine of election renders everything from mitres to Baptism to be superfluous. Like I said, your view of God’s salvific will poisons everything.
Romans 8 ” who can bring a charge against God’s ELECT” is it you Jim ?You said to Ken, ” your doctrine of election” Ken’s doctrine of election? The word ELECT Paul uses. Do Catholics read the bible. The word chosen before the foundation of the world, predestined, elect. These words aren’t from Calvin, Smokey, they are from God. God bless
Ken,
Did God really hate Esau when he was a little baby and had done nothing to deserve it?
Why did God look favorably on Cornelius and tell him to send for the Pope to come Baptize him?
What’s your favorite story, either book, movie or both? Let’s say you, being a Southern boy, like Huck Finn. What about nasty old Pap in that story? Remember how he was always up to no good, always trying to catch Jim and sell him?
What if Pap repented and turned good? Who would we give the glory to, Pap or Mark Twain? Mark Twain, of course because the only way for Pap to repent would be if Mark Twain wrote the script.
Would it make sense for Mark Twain to get mad at old Pap’s refusal to repent? Let’s say Twain lost patience with Pap’s obstinate refusal to repent and therefore wrote lines in the story that had Pap eaten by gators? Would that make sense?
Is your image of God something like this?
Now answer for yourself. Don’t let Kelvin do your talking for you.
Put your foot in your own mouth.
This is off topic, but ok, I will venture a brief answer.
The doctrine of God’s providence, sovereignty, election and predestination is taught clearly in the Scriptures – Ephesians 1:4-11; Romans 8:28-34 (which Kevin quoted one of those verses, along with Ephesians 1:4); Romans 9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; John 15:16; John 3:27; John 6:44, 65; Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28; and many other passages. Lam. 3:37-38
You alluded to Romans 9:13 – well, it is there for one thing. But look at the entire context, especially verses 10-11 and “before the twins were born and before they did anything good or bad” – that is an amazing truth and is clear and bold.
Romans 9:10-24
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
[If you say, “that is not fair!!” – well, verses 14-24 answer that objection. God through the apostle Paul answers that objection that humanists, atheists, skeptics, Roman Catholics and all Arminian theologians make – ]
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
[notice no word “beforehand” there on the vessels of wrath]
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
I recommend the book, “Chosen for Life” by Samuel Storms, if you want an excellent book to help you wrestle with and understand the Biblical doctrine of election.
It’s off topic? What is the topic? Who wrote the Bible? I can’t remember what the topic was. Somebody started talking about whether Augustine wore a mitre or not .
http://www.desiringgod.org/labs/jacob-i-loved-but-esau-i-hated
We are creatures, humans, and we cannot see who the elect are. The Bible clearly tells us to love other people – our neighbors, unbelievers, and one another in the church – we are to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15) and “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19) for the gospel is the power of God that can save anybody – whether Jews or Gentiles (all nations) – Romans 1:16. The Bible also teaches predestination and election. We do not have permission to then take the doctrines of predestination and election and play games with them with people in real life and ask the questions you are asking – we are to love them and say “repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15) and pray for them and plead with them ( 2 Cor. 5:9-21).
As long as people are alive, there is opportunity for repentance. 2 Peter 3:8-15 – “consider the patience of God to be salvation”; but it is God’s right and choice to draw those whom He wills
and leave the others justly in their sins. leaving people in their sins is JUSTICE. They deserve justice. No one goes to hell unjustly. There is no injustice with God. He is Holy and Just. Giving people the grace of repentance and faith is mercy. They don’t deserve it, but God lovingly gave it.
Ken,
“The Bible clearly tells us to love other people – our neighbors, unbelievers, and one another…”
Even the ones God hated while still in their mother’s wombs?
“As long as people are alive, there is opportunity for repentance. 2 Peter 3:8-15 – “consider the patience of God to be salvation”; but it is God’s right and choice to draw those whom He wills
What is God being patient for if it is all on him? Is He patiently waiting for Himself to draw someone to Himself? Sounds crazy if you ask me.
Peter says, “God is patient towards “you” (2 Peter 3:9) (the believers, the saints, the churches Peter is writing to in Asia) to consider why Christ as not returned yet (context of 2 Peter 3:3-9) and Peter is basically saying the reason why Christ has not returned yet to earth is because God wants to save more people (v. 15 – “consider the patience of God to be salvation” – for who? for those who have yet to repent – (v. 9). So God is patient with the believers to get involved in evangelism and missions and to live holy and godly lives (v. 11-12) before Christ returns.
King James Version Only-ism is truly cultic and part of the anti-intellectualism and leaves them with no apologetic against liberals such as Bart Ehrman.
I recommend Dr. White’s book, which thoroughly debunks KJV-Onlyism; and gives great apologetic answers for handling the issues of the textual variants, while at the same time holding firmly to inerrancy and the inspiration of the Bible.
http://store.aomin.org/christian-controversy/books/the-king-james-only-controversy.html
Did God really hate Esau when he was a little baby and had done nothing to deserve it?
It’s like you deliberately never read Romans 9:10-11 –
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Thanks Ken,
I now see the passage is about service, not heaven or hell.
If it was just about service and not about salvation from hell at all; then why does the objector say, “that’s not fair!” (verses 14-21) and why does Paul talk about vessels wrath (leading to hell) vs. vessels of mercy (leading to heaven) in verses 22-24 ?
And why is the subject of being separated from Christ and accursed (hell) the subject that introduces the chapter?
Romans 9:1-3
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
Why would Paul have such great sorrow in his heart for his unsaved Jewish brethren, if the subject is just about “service” and not about salvation from sin and hell?
The context of salvation, God’s wrath, continues:
Romans 10:1
My heart’s desire and prayer to God is for their salvation . . .
Ken,
Tell me about this evangelism stuff.
How do you do it? Do you say, “Repent and believe the Good News. Jesus just might love you. He just might be offering you the grace to believe. It is quite possible your name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life”.
Do you tell them they are part of the great mass of damned clay? Do you then tell them how they can’t keep the Law, how it was given so men would know they can’t keep it? Do you drive them to despair?
Then, after they fail “Are You A Good Person Tes?”, and admit they are liars, adulterers, thieves and murderers in their wicked hearts, do you give them the good news that Jesus may have paid their debt?
After they weep and come to believe, do you then tell them they need to get into any one of the bizzilions of “Bible based churches” at loggerheads with one another over Baptismal regeneration, pedobaptism, musical instruments, the rapture and the charismatic gifts?
You avoided the issues in Romans 9, not even interacting with it; because you cannot argue against its clear teaching. Then you change the subject to some goofy understanding of your own and caricature of what you think Calvinism is.
I avoided the issues in Romans 9? I didn’t mean to, What are the issues I avoided?
By the way, explain this “goofy caricature of Calvinism”. How did I misrepresent your position?
( Ken with your mind-boggling caricature of the Catholic Sacraments, calling them “magick”, your error in thinking Latin is required for the valid Consecration of the bread and wine, and your reading something weird into a non-essential trapping ( mitres ),you are hardly the guy to be accusing anyone of “goofy caricature”. )
You were forced to change the subject because Romans 9 – Romans 10 is about heaven and hell – salvation from sin and the wrath of God – not just “service”.
Romans 10:1 – salvation
Romans 9:22-23 – vessels of wrath vs. vessels of mercy
Romans 9:1-3 – Paul’s pain over the Jews not coming to Christ to be saved.
If you truly repent and believe in Christ as Savior and Lord, God promises eternal life.
1 John 5:13
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
We have authority to proclaim forgiveness to those who repent and believe; and danger of hell to those who refuse. John 20:23
A good Calivist never says “might” the way you interject your goofy mis-understanding of the Bible.
All of those Bible based churches that disagree on secondary issues – those are all secondary issues (if you mean the baptismal regernation of Lutherans – though I don’t understand it), are better than a false church which teaches a false gospel of faith plus ritualistic and meritorious and sacramental works, such as your false church.
Ken,
“If you truly repent and believe in Christ as Savior and Lord, God promises eternal life.”
Repentance and Faith are gifts right? Unless God sincerely offers these gifts to all men, your statement is absurd. If God withholds these gifts, how can He then hold men accountable for their lack of repentance and unbelief?
Ken, I did not paint a caricature of Calvinism. I hit you right between the eyes with a fact you cannot be blind to.
This is not just a Catholic issue. Most Protestants are turned off by the double talk of your system that says God does not want all men saved and at the same time punishes men for their rejection of salvation.
Ken, I was talking to another Protestant friend of mine today, both of us in the last couple of years participating in CCC blog heavily. We both agreed from our experience there sharing the gospel, we received for 2 years nothing but pushback against jbfa and vitriol for addressing their idolatries Marian, and Transubstantiation, almost all of the Catholic regulars there said we merit eternal life in some way, we will be judged on our obedience to faith, etc. So this friend and I discussed the naive position of many Protestants to deal with Catholics as co laborers for Christ. How we categorize Roman Catholics changes everything. Do we preach the gospel to them. Of course we firmly believe a resounding yes. No one would deny that there are believers in the RC despite all that has been piled on the cross, but you would have to be a bad Catholic to be a Christian. To be a good Catholic, children of Trent, is to submit to all their false doctrine, false gospel, and idolatry, and would disqualify anyone following that doctrine from the kingdom. If I learned anything from the Catholics at CCC, it was they are all in on Catholic doctrine, defend it to the utmost, and are more pelagian than anything i have ever seen. It confirmed to me how lost they really are, and we shouldn’t assume differently. We have to preach repent and believe, trusting in Christ alone for salvation, and we must continue to point out the errors of this apostate religion, calling the elect out of that church. Jim is an old man, but I continue to pray for him. K
Ken,
“A good Calivist never says “might” the way you interject your goofy mis-understanding of the Bible”
Of course you don’t. Your system is not that honest. Instead it pretends the prospective convert really is able to repent and believe all the while withholding the truth that God MAY BE withholding the grace to do so because he/she has already been earmarked for hell.
Ever notice how Mormon missionaries cleverly withhold their creepy doctrines of eternal of Eterna Mother and progression/regression? Only if you press them do they come clean. They know these doctrines are so bizarre they would immediately turn people off and they couldn’t get in the door. These doctrines are “too lofty” to be divulged before having you safely hooked and brain washed.
Ken, if you lead with your doctrine of “horrible decrees”, nobody would give you the time of day.
Ken,
You say you preach to all men because you don’t know who is or is not elect. Is this biblical?
NO!
1Tm 2:1-4 says we intercede for all men BECAUSE, BECAUSE, BECAUSE God wants all men saved.
IOW, you don’t pray for or preach to all men because you don’t know if they are or are not elect. You pray for and preach to all men BECAUSE God does indeed want all men saved.
Ken, God wants every man, woman and child saved. Cain, Judas, Pharaoh, Esau were not forced to sin because of their corrupt natures. They were all given all the graces necessary for them to get to heaven. They were not passed over.
I know God wants me saved and I know Jesus died for me, not because of some burning in the bosom or interior illumination by what I think is the Holy Spirit. I know I am called because the Catholic Church (a.k.a Christ on earth ) tells me God wants all men saved.
Try this simple syllogism;
Major-God wants all people saved.
Minor- I am a people
Conclusion-God wants me, Jim, saved.
You sir, cannot say preach that. All you can say is, “Jesus saves sinners”. ( Wink, wink! You don’t say “which sinners” ). If your listener responds, Voila! They were saved or elect all along!
If they don’t shout, “Hallelijia!” and profess Christ, oh well, they were never wanted in the first place. You done your duty and preached at ’em so you are in the clear.
Ken, God wants ALL MEN SAVED. If you ain’t preaching that Gospel, you are preaching another gospel.
Just in case I wasn’t clear enough, I will say it again.
You preach to all men because you don’t know who is chosen/loved by God.
I preach to all men precisely because I do know who is chosen/loved by God.
You cannot be sure for whom Christ died. I am 100% sure.
Ken, God wants every man, woman and child saved. Cain, Judas, Pharaoh, Esau were not forced to sin because of their corrupt natures.
Through preaching, the Lord offers the gospel to all.
But it is up to Him to draw whom He will. (John 6:44; 6:65 – No one is able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them” )
“It does not depend on the man who wills. . . ” [ no free will, the will is bound in sin; but people freely choose to hold on to their own sin] – Romans 9:16
It is you who add the word “force” in there, not God and not the Bible. People sin because of their own corrupt natures and all sinned in Adam (Romans 5:12; Psalm 51:4-5) – very Augustinian.
God holds all men accountable for their own sins. “All of us like sheep have gone astray” (Isaiah 53:6) – out of mercy He saves some from all nations. “but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.”
They were all given all the graces necessary for them to get to heaven. They were not passed over.
So, the bottom line, is that you are saying that human sin is stronger than God, because of their own free will, they resist God’s grace – like Cain, Esau, Pharaoh, Judas, etc. – Yet, if you think about it more deeply, you should realize that God could have drawn them if He wanted to overcome their stubbornness. Otherwise, you are attributing some level of goodness inside of yourself and those who did choose Christ, to themselves inside of them, because they were better, or more spiritual or more moral and let Christ into their souls. Romans 9:19-23 teaches that God did pass over the vessels of wrath (“prepared for destruction” – sitting on ready because of their own sin – there is no Greek word “pro” = “beforehand” for the vessels of destruction); but the vessels of mercy were “prepared beforehand” (elect from before foundation of the world” – Ephesians 1:4)
“A man can receive nothing unless it has been granted to him from above” John 3:27
You cannot see this truth because God has not opened your eyes.
People don’t come to Christ in faith because they cannot; they are bound in sin, dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-3) God has to make them alive and give them a new heart. (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
Lydia could not respond until the Lord opened her heart. “The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things which Paul was preaching. (Acts 16:14)
People hear with their ears, but do not hear with their hearts. Until God takes away the veil. 2 Cor. 4:4-6 – quoting Genesis 1:3 – God has to say, “let their be light” into their hearts.
Matthew 13:11-16 (quoting Isaiah 6:9 – also quoted in Mark, Luke, John, and Acts)
Jesus said, “why don’t you understand Me?” Because you cannot hear My word.” John 8:44
“. . . for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God” John 8:47 (you were not chosen and God didn’t draw you and overcome your stubbornness in your heart.)
Ken,
“But it is up to Him to draw whom He will. (John 6:44; 6:65 – No one is able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them” )
Do you think I deny this? Do you think man can come to God unless drawn?
Where you err, is in denying that ALL men are drawn. If they weren’t, if they were not offered Faith, unbelief could not be considered a sin.
Again, Paul says to Timothy, there is One God. All men have that same God. There is no other. The same God who created the Greeks also created the Jews.
Paul says there is one mediator. All men have the same mediator. There is not a mediator for Jews, another one for Greeks and another one for Romans.
And there is one salvific will for all men. There are not two wills.
Would you like me to copy and paste what the Fathers said about this passage and God’s will to save every man?
Just as all fell in Adam, all are redeemed in Christ.
Again, if you or some angel of light preach any other gospel than the one that says God wants all men to come to knowledge of the truth, you are preaching a false gospel.
Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
15 For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’
Matthew 13:13-15, quoting Isaiah 6:9
Jim wrote:
You preach to all men because you don’t know who is chosen/loved by God.
No; we preach to all men because Christ commanded us to.
I preach to all men precisely because I do know who is chosen/loved by God.
No; RCC does not even do much evangelism at all. They say, and you even said it earlier, “come to THE CHURCH, there you find Christ” (encased in a tabernacle, in the shape of bread).
You say, “Get baptized in water” then you may get initially justified, but not totally justified; (no peace yet, contradictory to Romans 4:1-16 and 5:1)
RCC leaves atheists and Muslims in their sins, and does not preach the gospel to them, for the Catholic Catechism 841 and 847 says that people without Christ can be saved and Muslims are saved.
Thanks for teaching me Catholic doctrine. All my life I have been told one thing by my teachers, priests and catechists but now get the real scoop from you. I should have just asked you, a Calvinist, what I believe. Thanks.
Now, tell me, am I hungry? Am I tired? Tell me how I feel Ken as you know me better than I know myself.
Jim , said ” i preach to all men precisely because I do know who is chosen.” Really, maybe you can mark their chest with an E for us so we can lift their shirt before we preach to them. Im yet to meet a man in the Roman Catholic religion that preaches anything but Mary crucified for our sins, and ” the we must accept the Roman Catholic church in our heart to be saved. ” For God so loved the world that he gave Mary, that whosoever believe in her should have eternal live.” Or God so loved the world that whosoever believe in the pope ( Roman Church) has everlasting life” This is what you preach.
Ken,
” “come to THE CHURCH, there you find Christ” (encased in a tabernacle, in the shape of bread).”
Well, would you prefer they come to some hick storefront church where some hillbilly usurper preaches a false gospel of despair?
Ken,
Yes, they should come to the Church where they can eat the Body of Christ under the appearances of bread. Do you have a problem with that? Take it up with Christ.
Christ never meant what your church has over the centuries distorted, especially with Radbertus in the 800s to 1215 in transubstantiation and then defense of it later in Aquinas.
Assertions are like elbows. Everybody’s got ’em.
Ken, I am amused at your forays into Church history. How do you know so much? Were you there? Or have you just read Alexander Hislop and Wm Webster? You make such magisterial assertions as if you could back them up. I am amazed that a guy who follows some made up religion form the 16th century knows so much about the early Church, especially since that early Church knew nothing of your and Koukl’s TULIP theory.
Ken,
You decide the level of disrespect. You mock my religion, I mock yours.
“If God commands that a person repent, but then, not on the basis of foreseen rejection of grace by that person, refuses to give sufficient grace for that person to repent, not only does God not truly desire that person’s salvation, but God has fallen into a performative contradiction, saying one thing, but doing something contrary to what He says. Either He does not mean what He says, in which case He is not the Truth, or He rebels against Himself, in which case He is in need of salvation. The notion that there are two actual contrary wills in God (in which neither will involves an abstraction from what God knows about human choices) is not only a theological schizophrenia, it is also a form of Manichean dualism. Calvinists use Scriptural examples of the difference between what is in fact divine antecedent will and divine consequent will, as though this supports a decretive-preceptive distinction not based on an antecedent-consequent distinction.”
Good stuff, eh Ken? Or is it just a “goofy caricature”?
Good stuff, eh Ken? Or is it just a “goofy caricature”?
It would have been nice if you gave the source of your quote, but I found it anyway. It is from footnote 5 of Lawrence Feingold’s article here at Called to Communion.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/lawrence-feingold-on-gods-universal-salvific-will/
I have not read the whole thing, with comments and all – interesting. Thomas Aquinas seems to have taught Calvinism. I remember R. C. Sproul and John Gertsner claiming Aquinas for the Reformed (on this issue only; not on Transubstantiation or church).
Interesting discussion.
Actually, Banez and the “Thomists” may have. Not Thomas himself. But either way, that just goes to show why I follow the Church and not a particular theologian.
Ken,
“encased in a tabernacle, in the shape of bread).”
The Eucharist is not “encased”. It is reserved.
Do you have some fixation on the word “tabernacle”? A few weeks back you did. Then moved to the idea of Latin. A few days ago you were in a dither of mitres. Where will you go next Ken? Call no man Father?
Bread is not a “shape”. Circles, squares and triangles are shapes.
You seem determined to stay off the essentials and obsess over peripherals. Why?
Ken, could we not waste our energy over external trappings? Let’s talk about the fact you believe in a god who makes men for hell.
All your cant about men being justly punished for their sins is hogwash. According to your system, men sin because they are compelled to by their fallen nature. You may say the freely sin but by that you mean something other than normal men do by the term “freewill”.
C’mon Ken, if someone shoves you and you lose your balance an fall onto a third person, who is to blame? Who should be held accountable? You or the guy who shoved you?
You have kids right? Do you ever give them orders to do chores you know in advance they will be unable to fulfill due to their young age or inexperience? Do you then punish them for their disobedience?
If you don’t act so unjustly, why do you say it is okay for your god to act thus?
Please, no, “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God. Doesn’t the potter have a right to…”. That is a cop out. You hide behind sanctimonious rhetoric to hide your inability to explain the unbiblical contradictions in your system.
Please, no more obsessing over the color of vestments, whether the chalice is made of gold or clay, the length of nuns hair or skirts, if Vatican II said women need not cover their heads or people could eat meat on Friday, or the horsepower of the popemobile.
None of this matters. Nothing matters when your foundation is rotten. Your foundation is your erroneous view of God and election. It poisons everything.
Please, no, “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God. Doesn’t the potter have a right to…”. That is a cop out.
those are the words of God Himself, the God-breathed words through the pen of the apostle Paul.
Romans 9:19-21
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
You are accusing God of using a “cop out” and you are saying to God, “Please no” such and such argumentation” – you actually are rebelling against the word of God itself.
No. I am accusing you of a cop out, hiding behind scripture to cover up your ghoulish doctrines.
Speaking of M. Theresa and the hindu gods, which one of those demons ( maybe Kali ) is scarier than your concept of the divinity?
Explain the god you want me to bow down to. The one that needs sin and hell to display his justice.
You used holy Scripture’s statement and argument in Romans 9:19-21 and called it a cop-out.
Explain what God through the apostle Paul means.
Bread is not a “shape”. Circles, squares and triangles are shapes.
You are right. I should have written something like, “you think that bread, ontologically, in substance, by nature, is Jesus, that is in the tabernacle in your RC church building.”
As Athanasius said, “you have the buildings, we have the apostolic faith”
Bishop Athanasius wore a mitre.
speaking of the RCC’s lack of evangelism – you boasted that you share Christ with everyone because you know that they are chosen.
the famous Mother Teresa –
“While she worked with the poor, Mother Teresa was adamant that any type of evangelism was unnecessary. In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, she says:
“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Pages 81-82)
With such a statement we can only be left believing that she was more than a Catholic, but was a Universalist, believing essentially that all religion leads to the same God. Time and again we see her expounding such universalist beliefs. In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.”
. . .
Through the entire book [The Simple Path, by Mother Teresa] there is never a hint that she relies on Christ alone for her salvation. Rather we read things like, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” (Page 31).
There is much more there, at Tim Challies article, “The Myth of Mother Teresa”
http://www.challies.com/articles/the-myth-of-mother-teresa
Ken,
What are your views on the Westboro Baptist Church?
What are your views on the Westboro Baptist Church?
It is an evil cult; not Christian at all.
Ken: “But it is up to Him to draw whom He will. (John 6:44; 6:65 – No one is able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them” )
Jim: Do you think I deny this?
Yes
That is just one more example of your ignorance of Catholicism ( yet you pontificate on the topic )
Actually, I know your Church claims that; (but cannot explain the second part of Jesus’ statement, “and I will raise him up on the last day” = means the drawing is all the way to new birth and perseverance until the end – that Grace is sufficient. The debate of the Reformation was not the necessity of grace (RCC and Reformers agreed), it was about the sufficiency of Grace – is God’s grace powerful enough to overcome the sinner’s rebellion and bring him/her all the way to new birth and then keep them in perseverance and growth in sanctification all the way until the end of life.”
The Synod of Orange of 529 AD taught against Pelagianism and condemned Semi-Pelagianism also; but Roman Catholicism brought Semi-Pelagianism back into the Church “in a roundabout way” (Bavinck, Berkouwer) after Orange all the way to Trent and beyond. see more in my article below for details:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/between-orange-and-trent.html
This is pretty good.
I know Greg personally. It’s been years but …
Did you listen to him here (only 7:17 minutes) ?
Yes. ( But I’ve heard it before too ).
But he errs in saying if Jesus atoned for all sin, the logical conclusion is universalism.
“Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass,
Unless the Lord has commanded it?
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That both good and ill go forth?”
Lamentations 3:37-38
“If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?
If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?” Amos 3:6
“But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” Job 2:10
“The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.” Proverbs 16:4
Keep up the good work, Ken. The ghost of Guy Fawkes has nothing, still.
Ken,
Thanks but I own a Bible too. You need not post scripture quotes rather than answer in standard American English.
Now, tell me in your own words, is God the author of sin and evil?
Now, tell me in your own words, is God the author of sin and evil?
No; God is not the author of sin. God cannot sin.
Titus 1:2 – God cannot lie.
1 John 1:5 – God is Holy.
James 1:13-14 – God cannot be tempted by evil.
When the Reformed say that “God ordained all things, even sin”, it means that He decided that it would happen, He decided to allow it; but fallen angels (Satan and demons) and humans are the ones who actually do the sin. God does not sin, and cannot sin. God cannot do anything that is against His nature.
3. God’s Decree
“God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass. [Ephesians 1:11]
– Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature , nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
– In all this God’s wisdom is displayed, disposing all things, and also His power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.”
1689 2nd London Baptist Confession, Chapter 3:1, On God’s Decree
Good. You disagree with R.C. Sproul the junior.
Ken,
Back to tabernacles and mitres.
Should a Bishop show his authority by wearing a top hat? A baseball cap on backwards?
Should Catholics reserve the Blessed Sacrament in Tupperware? Assuming of course it is everything we say it is.
Should our Churches be as drab as yours?https://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=911&bih=445&q=storefront+churches&oq=storefront+churches&gs_l=img.3..
Are churches and tabernacles worthy of embellishment?
Ever see the hand copied Bibles of the monks with the ornate illumination? Is the word of God worthy of embellishment?
Is God’s dwelling place worthy of embellishment?
Why are your houses of prayer so drab? Is God pleased by ugliness? Why has your denomination produced no art? No music? No great cathedrals towering over cities reminding people of God’s sovereignty? No beauty of any sort? Is God not worthy of the effort?
Where are your tabernacles Ken?
Jim said “is God’s dwelling place worthy of embellishment?” God doesn’t dwell in buildings anymore, but in the heart of His people by faith. We are the Temple of God. Horton says Romanism is a faulty vie of the Trinity. He is right. K
Thanks but I own a Bible too.
But you (and your RCC) don’t seem to read it much, (or when your church uses it, it is a few verses like Matthew 16:18 and John 6:53 isolated from larger context and taken out of context), or know what it teaches or emphasize it either.
Your Church’s emphasis is and has been through the centuries – an emphasis on traditions that have been added (Mary, Pope, purgatory, works added to faith for justification, indulgences, treasury of merit, relics, statues, etc.) and the priests, bishops, and Pope’s words, rather than God’s Word.
Mark 7:6-13 (also in Matthew 15)
And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
Minister ken,
I will match my knowledge of scripture with yours any day of the week. I went to a Catholic school where we were taught to read the the Bible better than any Protestant kid I have ever known.
I can admit that some of the buildings of old churches with arches and stone masonry work is much more beautiful than modern Evangelical buildings. Liberal Protestants have better buildings; older. More expensive. Stone and nice arches and skillful architecture is more expensive. But when the RC churches add statues to the other wise excellent architecture, it makes them gaudy and ugly.
Ken,
Ever visit Geneva and compare the two cathedrals? The once Catholic, now Calvinist, one of St. Peter’s to the Catholic cathedral of Notre Dame?
Calvinist churches reflect Reformed theology and Catholic churches reflect Catholic theology. And I don’t mean just the architecture. I mean those very statues you disdain.
The stained glass windows depicting saints have been smashed and replaced with ordinary glass in the Protestant church. That says the light or grace comes in directly onto the sinners therein, no mediation via the saints or Mother the Church.
The place looks like an austere courtroom where the criminal has been acquitted. The dominant spot is the pulpit where the verdict is read that the debt has been paid by a proxy and so the guilty wretch is, not truly innocent, but legally acquitted.
Enter Notre Dame and one is immediately met with two Holy Water fonts. This reminds one of Baptism where one is washed clean and born into the Church, the family of God. And explosion of color from the stained glass windows and statues depicting our elder brothers and sisters, that great crowd of witnesses, the saints and our Mother, Mary. On either side are Confessionals where the prodigals son is welcomed home into his Father’s house. The whole thing seems not so much like a judicial court room but a royal court room where our Father is king and we are princes. Up front and center is the family table we we are nourished by the God Himself.
Justification for you is forensic. For us, it is familial. Which is more biblical?
Session 6 of the Council of Trent says it so well. Justification is the translation of being a child of Adam to a an adopted son and heir in Christ. The Gospels and St. Paul testify to the Catholic view. The lawyers Calvin and Melancthon to yours.
Do you have a documentation of R. C. Sproul Jr.’s statement ?
I found some articles and quotes from, and analysis of Sproul Jr.’s book, “Almighty Over All” – yeah, Sproul Jr. went too far and he is wrong; and I definitely disagree with him on that. I think I had heard about this before, but didn’t pursue it.
Sproul Jr. ‘s interrpetation is unbiblical and wrong.
Not off the top but just google him. There is even some utube stuff with him saying God is author of everything.
Back to my comparison of our houses of worship.
Ken, the center of our churches with all the art and stuff is the tabernacle.
God dwells in our midst. He calls us to come to Him. He waits on us like a beggar. He stands and the door and knocks. Christ draws or woos us. He does not compel.
They remove the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle in churches over hear so they can be used for secular concerts on certain occasions.
Let me tell you, you feel it when a church is turned into an auditorium, even for a few hours.
Whenever I enter a church for one of my wife’s performances, it feels so barren despite all the masterpieces on the walls and gold leaf decoration. Without Our Lord’s Presence, it is as good as empty. The art is meaningless in and of itself. It is only there to embellish the Reality of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Even when the theme is religious music like the Bach Passion or Hayden’s Seven Last Words, one feels the absence of Jesus when He is not there.
Over on C2C Bryan or Dave tell the story of how Calvin entered a church in Geneva once during a weekday and caught a man in the act of praying ( I think for his dead son ). The man responded by asking why Calvin was there if not to pray also and Calvin defended himself by assuring the man he had not entered to pray but for some other mundane reason.
For Calvin, God was present in churches only when the congregation was assembled. There was no truly objective Presence outside of Sunday morning. That explains why your churches are locked during the week and ours aren’t.
I am looking forward to my weekly Holy Hour of Eucharistic Adoration later this evening.
How I wish you could have what I have.
“nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. ” Galatians 2:16
As a result of that, our hearts cry “Abba, Father”, as the Holy Spirit testifies that we are children of God – Galatians 4:6
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. ” Ephesians 2:8-9
Yeah. that’s in my Bible too. It’s pure unadulterated Catholic doctrine. You should heed it.
No; Roman Catholicism actually denies the truth of those verses. (though claiming to believe and teach them)
Peter said, “cleansing their hearts by faith” – Acts 15:9
Did he say, Faith ***ALONE***?
When the Bible says “apart from works” (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9) it means the same thing as “justification by faith alone”.
But true faith does not stay alone, as I have said, and which you know what we believe and how we understand James 2:14-26. James obviously means that works confirm, prove, vindicate, demonstrate that a person has true saving faith, and that it is not just “saying” one has faith, but actually possessing faith in Christ. True faith always necessarily produces good works and fruit and change and growth in sanctification. (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-16) James 2:24 means the same way that dikaow is used in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 and 1 Tim. 3:16 – to prove, demonstrate, confirm, vindicate.
Justification for you is forensic. For us, it is familial. Which is more biblical?
Session 6 of the Council of Trent says it so well. Justification is the translation of being a child of Adam to a an adopted son and heir in Christ. The Gospels and St. Paul testify to the Catholic view. The lawyers Calvin and Melancthon to yours.
Justification in Roman Catholicism is a process – and your church even divides it into “initial justification” at baptism, then on the treadmill of sacraments all your life (loosing it by mortal sin, and then gaining it back by confession to the priest and penance- doing the good works/rituals/hail Mary’s / kissing a statue /crawling up steps of St. Peter’s / giving alms/ staring at John the baptist’s skull / paying money for a certificate – a piece of paper saying an indulgence of so many years out of Purgatory, etc.
Your church confuses justification with the process of sanctification.
Then you have to go through Purgatory after death and maybe after 200 or so years (it was traditionally that way for centuries, until recently your church has been denying that time is involved – think of all those Crusader soldiers and people in Germany that Tetzel lied to about indulgences and all the other priests and Popes who lied to the people between 1095 and 1517 (at least 5 centuries of lies !! and even more from then to Vatican 2) and even beyond) , you can come out clean, and be accepted into heaven, which you call “final justification”.
Justification is the translation of being a child of Adam to a an adopted son and heir in Christ.
But you never know if you are truly an adopted son and heir with Christ until you go through the process which I summarized above.
Whereas, we believe in John 1:12 -13 – you are a child of God when you repent and believe (receive Christ as Savior from sin and Lord of your life) –
“As many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a male (alluding to Abraham’s false “work” to try and help God out), but born of God.” John 1:12-13
Ours is both forensic and familial (above; Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:5; 4:1-16; 5:1; Galatians 4:6, Ephesians 1:3-14; John 5:24; 3:16; 11:25; Acts 16:31; Acts 13:38-39; etc.) – yours is meritorious and works-righteousness and contradicts the above verses.
“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 [Greek: justified] from all things, from which you could not be freed [Greek: justified] through the Law of Moses. ” Acts 13:38-39
One again there you go, ranting at me and telling me what I think.
I assure you, I have an absolute assurance I have been reborn. You see, Ken, I have a Baptismal certificate dated many moons ago. You have a burning in your bosom. ( Probably just some of that possum pie you ate disagreeing with you ).
Mock purgatory all you want. You will be fortunate to get there. I say fortunate because your only alternative is hell.
Ken, I have a Baptismal certificate dated many moons ago.
you are trusting in a piece of paper; but you lost that initial justification later when you had an evil thought of mortal sin; and you have been on and off on the treadmill ever since. You don’t know for sure, because you could commit mortal sin tonight or tomorrow, then die in your sleep, and mortal sin causes you to loose your justification. So, you don’t really have objective peace, since it is based on your ability to keep up your sacramental treadmill of good works that are added to faith for justification.
I am not mocking; just arguing for biblical truth.
What do you say to all those souls over the course of over 500 years where the Roman Catholic Church, priests, bishops, cardinals, Popes said that indulgences get time out of purgatory?
Romans 5:1
“Therefore, having been justified by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we have peace with God”
You have no real peace your whole life, being on the treadmill of sacraments and thinking that tonight when you go stare at that bread, you are somehow worshipping Jesus, and that counts as merit toward your final justification on judgement day.
You guys don’t seem to know about John 4:21-24. Sad.
I don’t stare at mere bread my boy. I stare at bread that comes down from heaven.
As for assurance, yours is an illusion based on a lie.
“the bread that came down from heaven” means the incarnation, and the “giving” of it means the atonement on the cross; and that He is the true source of Spiritual food. “whoever is hungry” and “whoever is thirsty” is parallel with “coming to Me”, “believing in Me”, “being drawn by the Father” (notice verse 44 and verse 54 have the same second half – “and I will raise him up on the last day” – so it is saying that “eating His flesh” and “drinking His blood” are metaphors for being drawn to Him, coming to Him, believing in Him, trusting in Him, being satisfied with Him.
By the way, our buddy Greg Koukl misunderstands the atoning sacrifice as penal substitution. Such ignorant blindness fell over him when he abandoned the True Church and her Sacraments for the lies of the Deformers.
He thinks he is assured salvation too.
Greg is right; the atoning sacrifice is penal substitution as that is the meaning of propitiation – to satisfy the wrath of God by voluntarily taking the punishment for us.
Isaiah 56:10
Romans 3:21-26
Galatians 3:10-13
Isaiah 53:6
John 10:18
2 Corinthians 5:21
Mark 10:45
Leviticus chapters 1-6, 16-17
Hebrews chapters 7-10
If we sincerely believe that when Jesus holds up the bread and cup at the last supper (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; I Cor. 11), and because He is in His incarnational body right there on earth; then it cannot mean “this has changed into My flesh and blood” – rather it has to mean, “this represents My body/blood” just like “I am the true vine” points to spiritual truth, not literal vines or ” I am the door” doesn’t mean He is ontologically wood, rather He is the entry way into spiritual life and connection to God the Father.
If we sincerely believe that is what the Bible teaches, then it is not mockery to say that “you are just staring at plain ole bread” – flour and water baked, etc.
John 6 is about being drawn by the Father and believing / receiving Christ and all that He is and being satisfied with Him rather than physical bread. It is not even about the Last supper or Eucharist at all. That may be one of the greatest mistakes of the early church, to take John 6:53-55 out of context and apply them to the Lord’s supper in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22 and I Cor. 11.
I am not mocking you or your religion; I am using argumentation. If it is not Jesus, then all you have is staring at something material of this world, bread, that will rot if you let it sit there long enough.
Jim said ” Justification for you is forensic, for us its familial.” This isn’t true. First God passed over the Jews at Passover, he didn’t start a renovation project that would earn justification. The Jews deserved exactly what the Egyptians deserved. He passed over them. Forensic. He didn’t inject them with a soul substance sanctifying grace. We are offered a person through the Spirit of Christ, not a derivative off that person that is a philosophical category. And by faith we are saved once and for all, not being reconverted to an increase in grace and justice each time we do a mass. K
Comments are now closed for this post.
I think we have pretty much covered everything for now, at this post and at the Rod Bennett lecture post before this.
Jim and I have pretty much addressed the main issues about Roman Catholicism vs. Reformed Protestantism now.
Another issue is the amount of time this takes up. I love interacting and responding to Jim’s points; but I just don’t have time to keep it up right now.