Tag: Catholicism

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 17.1

What continued in history with the Jesuits and the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re getting closer and closer to the time of the KJV. What’s going to happen? It’s time to look into the history here and see what happens. The link can be found here.

The previous chapter explored some of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We concluded the two doctrines are 180 degrees apart. And we learned that Catholic doctrine is trying to infiltrate God’s Bible.

We learned nothing of the sort. It was asserted they would want to do this.

At this point in our study of the Bible, God is using: The Greek text of Erasmus (1522 A.D.), the Tyndale English Bible (1525 A.D.), and Luther’s German Bible (1525 A.D.).

Satan is using the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits.

I personally think God is using all of them and even if you include villains, well, God uses them too. As C.S. Lewis said, Judas served the purposes of God as did John.

In this chapter there will be ANOTHER attack on God’s true Word.

 

T H E S T R U G G L E

 

“Sixty years elapsed from the close of the Council of Trent (1563) to the landing of Pilgrims in America. During those sixty years, England had been changing from a Catholic nation to a Bible-loving people. Since 1525, when Tyndale’s Bible appeared, the Scriptures had obtained a wide circulation. As Tyndale foresaw, the influence of the Divine Word had weaned the people away from pomp and ceremony in religion. But this result had not been obtained without years of struggle. Spain at that time was not only the greatest nation in the world, but was also fanatically Catholic. All the new world belonged to Spain, she ruled the seas and dominated Europe. The Spanish sovereign and the Papacy united in their efforts to send into England bands of highly trained Jesuits. By these, plot after plot was hatched to place a Catholic ruler on England’s throne” [S2P237-8].

Gotta love the start implying Catholics aren’t Bible-loving. Still, I’m not wanting to argue against the historical claims. I’m willing to accept them for the sake ofa rgument.

“At the same time, the Jesuits were acting to turn the English people from the Bible, back to Romanism. As a means to this end, they brought forth in English a Bible of their own … If England could be retained in the Catholic column, Spain and England together would see to it that all America, north and south, would be Catholic. In fact, wherever the English-speaking race extended, Catholicism would reign. If this result were to be thwarted, it was necessary to meet the danger brought about by the Jesuit Version” [S2P238].

“So powerful was the swing toward Protestantism during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and so strong the love for Tyndale’s Version, that there was neither place nor Catholic scholarship enough in England to bring forth a Catholic Bible in strength. Priests were in prison for their plotting, and many fled to the Continent. There they founded schools to train English youth and send them back to England as priests. Two of these colleges alone sent over, in a few years, not less than three hundred priests” [S2P238-9].

“The most prominent of these colleges, called seminaries, was at Rheims, France. Here the Jesuits assembled a company of learned scholars. From here they kept the Pope informed of the changes of the situation in England, and from here they directed the movements of Philip II of Spain as he prepared a great fleet to crush England and bring it back to the feet of the Pope” [S2P239].

“The burning desire to give the common people the Holy Word of God was the reason why Tyndale had translated it into English. No such reason impelled the Jesuits at Rheims” [S2P239]. The purpose of the Jesuit New Testament was: “… to do on the inside of England what the great navy of Philip II was to do on the outside. One was to be used as a moral attack, the other as a physical attack – both to reclaim England” [S2P237-9].

Earlier, I had said that I had used the RCC Bible being talked about here when Johnson claimed some verses had been taken out and I saw that was nonsense. I am pleased to see it looks like I have been right about where he was going.

We pick up the history of the Bible in 1582:

And we will pick up next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 16.1

What’s first to discuss with the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So last time we covered looking at the RCC. Again, I am not interested in differences between Protestants and Catholics here. I am interested in the history of textual transmission and anything related to that. As always, the source material can be found here.

In the previous chapter Satan used both Rome and the Roman Catholic ‘Church’.

In the previous chapter, we saw a bunch of assertions without primary resources cited. Unfortunately, more of the same here.

In this chapter he will use the ‘Jesuits’.

“The founder of the Jesuits was a Spaniard, Ignatius Loyola… [S2P232], As to his character, Ignatius “… was known as a youth to be treacherous, brutal, and vindictive” [S1P88]. Later in life, it is said he was “… unruly and conceited …” [S1P88].

Said to be that way by who later in life? As for in his youth, so what? There’s a number of great Christian people today who I am sure did not live holy and godly lives as youth.

Also, it is this same Ignatius Loyola that: “… the Catholic Church has canonized and made Saint Ignatius” [S2P232].

Well, that settles it doesn’t it? He must have been a complete heathen. This might work if you’re someone who is extremely anti-Catholic, but not for the majority of us. Also, it doesn’t demonstrate problems with the text even if granted.

“Wounded at the siege of Pampeluna (1521 A.D.) so that his military career was over, Ignatius turned his thoughts to spiritual conquests and spiritual glory. Soon afterwards, he wrote a book called: “Spiritual Exercises”, which did more than any other document to erect a new papal theocracy and to bring about the establishment of the infallibility of the Pope. In other words, Catholicism since the reformation is a new Catholicism. It is more fanatical and intolerant” [S2P232].

Actually, it’s more called the counter-reformation. Also, kind of amusing to see Johnson citing a source condemning fanaticism and intolerance.

It is said that Ignatius Loyola “… produced an elite force of men, extremely loyal to the Pope, who would set about to undermine Protestantism and ‘heresy’ throughout the world. Their training would require fourteen years of testing and trials designed to leave them with no will at all. They were to learn to be obedient. Loyola taught that their only desire was to serve the Pope” [S1P88].

It is said by who? How reliable is the source? We don’t know. Johnson in this work has done everything he can to avoid primary sources. Also, of course they wanted to undermine Protestantism. Johnson wants to undermine Catholicism. Should I decree everything he says wrong then about the Catholic Church?

“The head of the Jesuits is called the ‘Black Pope’ and holds the title of General, just as in the military. That they were to be unquestionably loyal to this man and their church is reflected in Loyola’s own words, “Let us be convinced that all is well and right when the superior commands it”. Also: “… even if God gave you an animal without sense for master, you will not hesitate to obey him, as master and guide, because God ordained it to be so.” He further elaborates: “We must see black as white, if the Church says so” [S1P88].

The last line is from Ignatius but that is also because the Church was seen as an infallible authority. Also, the fact of words being left out concerns me. It looks like it doesn’t concern Johnson.

“The Jesuits were to be the Vatican’s ‘plainclothesmen’. They were founded to be a secret society, a society that was to slide in behind the scenes and capture the positions of leadership” [S1P89].

Sounds like medieval conspiracy theory honestly. It would be nice to know what this is based on.

“Politics are their main field of action, as all the efforts of these ‘directors’ concentrate on one aim: the SUBMISSION of the world to the papacy, and to attain this the heads must be conquered first” [S1P89].

“The Jesuit priests were not required to dress in the traditional garb of the Roman Catholic priests. In fact their dress was a major part of their disguise” [S1P89].

And “Murder is not above the ‘means’ which might be necessary to reach the desired ‘end’. The General of the Jesuits will forgive any sins which are committed by the members of this Satanic order” [S1P91].

Certainly no bias here!

“He [the Jesuit General] also absolves the irregularity issuing, from bigamy, injuries done to others, murder, assassination … as long as these wicked deeds were not publicly known and this cause a scandal” [S1P91].

“That the Jesuit priests have such liberties as murder is reflected in the following … quote from Paris’ book ‘The Secret History Of The Jesuits'” [S1P91].

“Amongst the most criminal jesuitic maxims, there is one which roused public indignation to the highest point and deserves to be examined; it is: … A monk or priest is allowed to kill those who are ready to slander him or his community …” [S1P91].

I’m not here to say if this is true or not, but if you are condemning people, even those who are deceased, of great wicked acts, you need more evidence than just assertions from people years later without citing primary sources.

Color me skeptical of again anything that Johnson says.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 8.1

How far does supposed biblical corruption go? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So last time we say church history’s favorite whipping boy of Constantine whipped out. As we move on now, once again, Johnson lands on a new villain. Everyone has been involved in this diabolical plot and of course, this time the Pope is involved. We’ll be citing the source material from here.

After Origin, Constantine, and Eusebius:

The “… corruption of God’s Word was taken over by Jerome who was called upon by the Pope to prepare a Bible that would favor the Roman Catholic teaching” [S7P8]. “Jerome was furnished with all the funds that he needed and was assisted by many scribes and copyists” [S2P217].

I highly question this seeing Johnson doesn’t even realize that Origen believed that Jesus lived physically on Earth. However, one could accept this and still say Jerome strived to copy the text faithfully. So far, as far as I have seen, Johnson’s only sources are other KJV-onlyists, hardly convincing to those on the outside.

“Jerome in his early years had been brought up with an enmity to the Received text, then universally known as the Greek Vulgate … The hostility of Jerome to the Received Text made him necessary to the Papacy” [S2P219].

Color me skeptical that the Papacy this early was opposed to one version of the Bible. We have none of Jerome’s actual words cited, which considering he wrote a lot, would be easy enough. All we are getting is at best thirdhand information.

“Jerome was devotedly committed to the textural criticism of Origin, an admirer of Origen’s critical principles …” [S2P218]. To corrupt the Bible, Jerome went to “… the famous library of Eusebius … where the voluminous manuscripts of Origin had been preserved” [S2P218].

It would be nice to know what is missing in these ellipses. However, since Origen did the most work before this in the area of textual criticism, it’s not a shock if Jerome would want to utilize that. It would actually be foolish if he didn’t.

As to the manuscripts of Origin and Eusebius, we know that: “it was from this type of manuscript that Jerome translated …” [S2P195]. And we also know that Jerome’s translation “… became the authorized Catholic Bible for all time” [S2P195].

Which shouldn’t be a surprise if true. Again, Origen had done the most work on this at the time. Wouldn’t that make him a proper source to go to?

“… It was through Jerome that … Apocryphal books were placed in the Bible. These were soon accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as authoritative” [S7P8]. “Jerome admitted that these … DID NOT belong with the other writings of the Bible. Nevertheless, the Papacy endorsed them …” [S2P218].

And boys and girls, time to recognize the irony. Which books were included in the original 1611? Ding ding ding! That’s right! The Apocrypha!

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

“The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.”

https://1611bible.online/Apocrypha/

So obviously, the original KJV was in the service of Rome. Right?

Note at this it is not my goal to address whether the Apocrypha belong in the text or not. The point is the hypocrisy of it all. If the translation of Jerome is to be called into question for it, then so should the 1611 KJV be called into question.

In his book “An Understandable History Of The Bible” Reverend Gipp tells us that:

“Rome enlisted the help of a loyal subject by the name of Jerome. He quickly translated the corrupt Local Text into Latin. This version included the Apocryphal books … which no Bible believing Christian accepts as authentic” [S1P82].

This is quite a claim since I know a number of Christians who do accept, however, if this is the case, then the original translators of the KJV were not Bible-believing Christians. Why is Johnson defending a Bible that was not translated by Bible-believing Christians? Wouldn’t they be in the service of Satan?

“The Latin version of Jerome, translated by order of the Roman Catholic Church, was published in about 380 A.D. It was rejected by real Christians until approximately 1280 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church chose the name ‘Vulgate’ … for Jerome’s translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people … It would seem that such deception lacks a little in Christian ethics, if not honesty” [S1P68].

It’s amazing how much Gipp thinks he knows about real Christians back then. Also, what happened in 1280 that real Christians could accept it? How did the text change?

But: “The name ‘Vulgate’ on the flyleaf of Jerome’s unreliable translation did little to help sales. The Old Latin Bible, or ‘Italic’ as it is sometimes called, was held fast by all true Christians …” [S1P83]. Thus: “The common people recognized the true Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it” [S1P82].

So does this mean the Holy Spirit would not bear witness to the original 1611 KJV? After all, it had the Apocrypha. Why not include it in the Satanic plot?

So: “… the people for centuries refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles … The old Latin versions were used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to … Rome” [S1P84]. “True Protestants have always rejected … Roman Catholicism and maintained the very opposite” [S12P103].

One can reject Roman Catholicism without thinking all Catholics are outside of Christianity. There are Protestants who think that they are. I’m not one of them.

This ‘Old Latin’ Bible was:

“… universally accepted by faithful Christians …” [S1P68] and that “… it was responsible for keeping the Roman Catholic Church contained to southern Italy for years. It was not until the Roman Catholic Church successfully eliminated this Book through persecutions, torture, Bible burnings, and murder that it could capture Europe in its web of superstitious paganism” [S1P68].

Again, no sources are cited. Gipp is Samuel C. Gipp who has been on Ankerberg’s show defending the KJV. I find this even worse though since this is someone from a time where more and more of this information is easily accessible and if so, then that means Johnson is from this time as well and yet has chosen to not access this information.

Reverend Gipp says:

“Perhaps we should learn a lesson. Where the … King James Bible reigns, God blesses …. Oh, that America could but look at what has happened to England … Yes, the sun began to set on the British Empire in 1904, when the British Foreign Bible Society changed from the pure Textus Receptus …” [S1P69].

Also, not long after the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV. Maybe that’s why God removed His blessing. At best, we have simply a post hoc fallacy here.

Thus, Satan used Jerome and the Catholic Church to substitute his counterfeit Latin Bible. But, this corruption “… which we will now call Jerome’s translation – did not gain immediate acceptance everywhere. It took nine hundred years to bring that about. Purer Latin Bibles than Jerome’s had already a deep place in the affections in the West. Yet steadily through the years, the Catholic Church has uniformly rejected the Received Text wherever translated from the Greek into Latin and exalted Jerome’s …” [S2P220].

And again, all we have is an assertion.

T W O B I B L E S T R E A M S

In the history of the Bible, we see the development of two ‘streams’ of Bibles: God’s true Word and Satan’s counterfeit. This started in the Garden of Eden and continues today. In fact, every Bible both old and ‘new’, and every Bible in every language, falls into one of these two categories.

We also see that some people are (knowingly or unknowingly) propagating the corruption and some are passing on the original.

In the next chapter we will break from our historical study and look at the personal side of the struggle for God’s Word. We will look at a group of people, within the ‘true Church’, called the Waldenses.

The Waldenses, of the Italian Church, are trying to pass on God’s original Bible.

Their’s is an interesting story. Let’s review the role they played in history.

And so we shall, next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Other Extreme

Is it possible to go too far the other way? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Lately, a quote has been going around the internet of John MacArthur saying that God has no blood and then talking about salvation and the blood of God. I have Catholic, Orthodox, and indeed fellow Protestant friends who have been pointing out the error in this. Now if this is a right assessment, the problem with what is being said is more akin to the ancient heresy of Nestorianism.

The tragedy is it could be that Nestorianism rose out of a noble concern, which I think honestly most heresies would in wanting to defend something of God. In this, Nestorius could have heard people calling Mary the mother of God. At this, many of my fellow Protestants do get concerned, and to an extent I can understand it. God doesn’t have a mother after all! It could be, Nestorius was concerned.

Now it could be that there is some misunderstanding on what Nestorius taught, as we all know many times someone’s opponents have misrepresented him, but the idea seems to be to separate Christ into two hypostases with one human and the other divine. No doubt, this would be a serious error and the reason for this is similar to the idea of the blood of God. We may never know fully what Nestorius taught, but we know the idea should not be believed.

Now everyone knows that God doesn’t LITERALLY have blood. This in the sense that God is not eternally a flesh and blood human being made of matter that has blood. In the same way, God does not literally have a mother. God never came into being. What is being said by the phrase “Mother of God” is not that Mary brought God into being, but that Mary is the mother of a human being who is fully man and fully God. God chose to dwell in a sense in the womb of Mary, which is something that all Christians should consider incredible.

When we say the blood of God then, we mean that Jesus, a real human being who is also God in nature, saves us by His blood. This does not mean that the Trinity itself has blood. This would apply to a passage like Act 20:28.

So what can happen in this? I understand that too many of my fellow Protestants can see terms like mother of God and see a whole branch of study on the person of Mary and think “Whoa. That’s taking things too far.” However, if we Protestants are right and the others are in error here, it is just as much error to totally ignore Mary and only bring her out around Christmastime. Mary should be able to be used as a constant role model for Christian women especially.

Suppose we think, rightly or wrongly, that Catholics and Orthodox go too far with honoring the saints by praying to them. It is just as much a mistake to say, “Therefore, we will ignore the saints.” We should study the lives of the great men and women of the early church and seek to emulate that which we hold to be in keeping with the character of Christ.

Suppose we think there is too much put in church tradition when many times we don’t know the source of a tradition. That is understandable. It is a mistake to think that Christians should not study the church fathers at all. We should read them and learn from them. They said many things that were admirable. They said many things we will find questionable, but they were the ones who passed down the faith that we eventually inherited.

I’m part of a Thomas Aquinas study group that meets on Thursday nights on Zoom. I don’t always agree with Aquinas’s interpretation of Scripture, but I think much of his philosophy and theology is accurate. There is a lot that can be learned from him.

This also goes the other way. Catholics and Orthodox have a lot to learn from one another, but also a lot to learn from we who are Protestants. I remember my ex-wife and I when we were going to an Orthodox Church for her met a couple from that church at a restaurant and they offered to join us and one thing the husband said is, “Those Protestants do know their Bibles.” We have engaged in much Bible study and research and it would be a great error for others outside of Protestantism to say, “Forget that. I only study from my own tribe.”

I disagree with many of the things that my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters say, but they are my brothers and sisters and they do say many things that I agree with. I find Catholic moral philosophy to be highly enlightening. I find the Orthodox to have a great grasp on practical day-to-day living and wisdom. When I am with the Aquinas group, I am one of a few Protestants in there, but I do think that my contributions on biblical studies are appreciated. There are plenty of ways I could disagree with them, but as a believer in mere Christianity, I choose to focus on what I agree on.

It just works better that way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology

What do I think of Andrew Louth’s book published by IVP? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When my wife’s mentor was visiting recently, I was looking for a book for her and found this one on the shelf. I didn’t remember when I requested it, but I figure I did with my wife’s current looking into Eastern Orthodoxy. I got it out and decided to soon read through it.

Now I have and I found it an interesting read and informative. I am curious to see that it’s a work by an Orthodox Priest but published by an evangelical press. I really encourage that. I think Orthodox Christians should read books by evangelicals about their position and vice-versa and the same goes with Catholics. We have differences and similarities and we need to understand those.

The book is written on the level for laymen so that part is a bonus. It’s also not really argumentative. I would have liked to have seen a little bit of that seeing as an evangelical needs to know what makes the Orthodox position distinct and that would require telling some of our differences.

Fortunately, what we agree on is covered well in this book. The evangelicals should stand up and say amen to the news about the Trinity and the person of Christ. There could be some pause on issues of creation since the author doesn’t say there’s a necessity for a literal Adam and Eve. Some also might be concerned about Louth not having a problem with evolution.

Those positions don’t trouble me, but I know they will trouble some. It’s good though that Louth is familiar with these issues and I like seeing the Orthodox having the same kinds of discussions we Protestants have. Now let’s get also to some things I would like to see changed in the book.

First, I would love for there to have been something like a glossary. There are times terms are used about Orthodox worship that I doubt many evangelicals would know and they are not explained. Louth will write about the Metropolitan and I suspect some Christians would say “I know we have bishops and elders and deacons and presbyters. I don’t remember that position in the church.” A glossary would have it that an evangelical reader could look back and see terms explained.

Second, I would really like to see what Louth thinks makes the Orthodox Church distinct. I realize this would entail some criticisms of Protestantism and Catholicism, but I think that’s a good thing. We need to hear those criticisms. If we are wrong, then we can embrace a true position. If not, then we can hopefully learn to refine our own position.

Third, some history of Orthodoxy would be nice. Now I don’t mean saying “Our church started in 33 A.D.” I don’t know anyone in the other camps who is at all persuaded when the Orthodox say that. I don’t think this needs to be extensive, but something needs to be there.

Fourth, I would like more explaining on the doctrines we do disagree with. Why do the Orthodox hold those positions? I know the reasons, but many evangelicals might not. Why do you hold that Mary was perpetually a virgin and is the mother of God? Why do you hold that it is okay to pray to saints? Why do you think the way that you do about the Eucharist?

Of course, this could have made the book longer than intended. In all fairness, Louth does have listed books for further reading, but I would have liked more categories and many of them more specific. What if someone wanted church history specifically, as an example?

What I might like even more if someone was to write it, and it could be out there already, would be a dialogue book with an Orthodox and a Protestant in dialogue and it could be interesting to include a Catholic. There is some of this in Plummer’s Journeys of Faith, but it could be interesting to have a book dialoguing different positions. Salvation, the eucharist, Mary and the saints, original sin, etc.

Still, if you want to understand Orthodox theology, this is a good introduction. I encourage reading it. I also want to again point out that while I am still a devout Protestant, I am thankful for my brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church. I’ve learned a lot of wisdom from them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Primal Loss

What do I think about Leila Miller’s book published by LCB Publishing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The kids will be alright if the parents split. Right? I mean, the experts all told us it was for the best for the children. If the parents are happy, the children will be happy. Right?

Those children are now speaking and they are not happy. They are speaking about the damage that the divorce caused them. These are people who even if they have gone on to have functional lives, still carry the scars of divorce with them even into their own marriages and other relationships.

Now let’s be clear on something. This does not mean that divorce is never a sad necessity sometimes or the unforgivable sin. I believe that if there is a marriage where both people want to work for the good of the marriage, then they can work for it and reach it. This can include even in the case of an actual affair. There could still be times of separation that are needed, however, such as in the case of physical or sexual abuse.

Leila has seventy correspondents she has talked to about this matter. Each of them are asked about eight specific topics. They are left anonymous although details about each can be found in the back. No names are given.

The following are the eight topics.

1. Effects of the divorce.
2. Feelings as child vs adult.
3. View of marriage.
4. Are children resilient?
5. Speak to your parents then and now.
6. What society should know.
7. The role of faith in healing.
8. To those facing divorce.

After this, she has stories of hope of people who overcame divorce in their own marriages and are now happily married. Then, she has a section on what the Catholic Church teaches on divorce. The former section contains several short stories and the latter section is just a few pages.

The stories in the book of what the children went through are gripping and painful to read. They need to be read though. They need to be heard. These are people being raw and candid and not writing to impress. They’re not normally going on and on about themselves or being overdramatic. They are expressing the pain they have as a result of the divorce. They are urging people to work on their own marriages.

There are some further steps I would like to see from a book like this.

First off, I understand this is by a Catholic writer reaching Catholics, but I would like to see this work broadened beyond that. I would like to see Protestants and Orthodox included as well as other religions and even secularists. Is the role of divorce in the lives of these other people the same? Will an atheist be hurt by the divorce of their parents?

I also think this will be good for people outside of the Catholic tradition who read the book. Divorce hits all people groups and all people groups need some help with it. I would like to know what people in my Protestant tradition would say to these questions as well as what other people would say in other faiths or no faiths?

Sometimes, I also thought the large number was good, but it could also be good to have a book that would have fewer correspondents, but those would be far more extensive. Perhaps a sit-down style of interview such as could be found in a Lee Strobel book on the topic.

I would also like to know what encouragement would be given to couples who don’t have children and are considering divorce. If the reason given is the kids will be damaged, what happens if kids aren’t involved? What reason is given then?

Still, this is a book that needs to be read. We need to hear about the effects divorce has on a culture. No. The kids are not alright.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Gospel Allegiance

What do I think of Matthew Bates’s book published by Brazos Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

What is the gospel? Many pastors today write books on the topic and talk about how central it is and how important it is to be proclaiming the good news. Sadly, many of them don’t have the good news right, and these are not the liberals. These are conservative God-honoring pastors who truly want to build up the church. The gospel becomes all about what happens individually in a person’s life. Justification by faith is said to be the gospel or in some cases I’ve seen such as saying Calvinism is the gospel.

My wife and I once attended a church where the pastor at the end of every sermon gave a call to accept Jesus as savior. Unfortunately, it seemed like the whole goal every time was to get someone to go to heaven. It’s as if it’s decided that the whole point of Jesus coming and dying and rising again is all about the next life and not here.

Matthew Bates says this must change. Now while it sounds like he’s wanting to change the gospel, what he’s wanting to change is our perception. He wants the gospel to go beyond forgiveness of sins. He’s not opposed to that as it’s certainly included in the message and he’s not opposed to justification by faith, but what is the gospel?

The gospel is about Jesus coming and living and dying and rising again and thus, being the Messiah, the King of the Jews, and everyone else for that matter. We treat Messiah like it’s a name. I have even had atheists ask me why a Jewish guy would have a Greek last name, as if Jesus was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Christ. The religion of Islam stresses that Jesus is the Christ, but it gives no content to this whatsoever.

When we say Jesus is the Messiah, we mean He is the king and He came to institute the Kingdom of God on Earth. Our response to this is not intellectual assent which is normally meant by faith. Instead, what is required is a life of allegiance. This does not mean that we earn our salvation, but that our lives model what we say we believe.

The kingship of Jesus means that we are not just agreeing with a proposition, but living lives of loyalty to the king. When we get the gospel wrong, we make the gospel be all about what happens to us. The gospel is all about what Jesus did and who He is. You could give a gospel presentation today to people that would not require Jesus being the Messiah or being the king. We are doing something wrong at that point.

Bates’s message then is that this a more biblical way of viewing salvation. Salvation is something that God does in us, but we willingly submit to him with a life of faith lived outward in allegiance to him. Bates does take on some of our modern pastors who emphasize too much justification by faith. He doesn’t disagree with them, but he does say that we need to move beyond that. He does have some problems with Catholicism, though he does not say Catholics are not Christians and is concerned when any Christian is restricted from partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

This is stuff I have already believed, but once you see it spelled out, it’s hard to not see it in other places. When I hear someone give a gospel presentation or read it now, it seems so lacking. While this is something I have even done a sermon on, it is something that needs to be stressed. We have made Christianity be about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which is reducing Jesus down to the buddy Jesus idea, and not about Jesus being king. When I introduce myself at a Celebrate Recovery meeting, I do not describe myself as a faithful believer in Jesus, but rather as a faithful servant of king Jesus.

I hope more pastors and more Christians read Bates’s book. Bates is doing the church a great service. He is taking the material of scholars and giving it to the public on these issues in a way that is easy to understand. This book is highly readable for the layman and I recommend it greatly.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Steven Anderson on Mount Athos

What do I think of Steven Anderson’s views on Orthodoxy? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

For those who don’t know yet, I am a thoroughly convinced Protestant. I have a wife who is interested in Eastern Orthodoxy and that did get me looking into issues of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It really was something I never wanted to get into since I am one who tries to be ecumenical. Now I do have a greater understanding of both positions and still disagree, but I don’t want people speaking wrongly against my brothers and sisters on the way.

For those who don’t know, Steven Anderson is this crazy pastor who thinks that we should kill all the homosexuals or that they should kill themselves. This is not to say that I think homosexuality is fine. I think Scripture is clear on the wrongness of homosexual practice. It’s also clear to me that we’re not in an Israelite theocracy based on the Old Testament Law.

I also find it interesting that the video we’ll be looking at has a description that says the real way to get to Heaven. It’s a shame that Pastor Anderson thinks that the whole point of Christianity is to get to Heaven. That is part of it, but the goal of the gospel is to bring honor to God and has an impact for this life and not just the next one.

In this video, Pastor Anderson says that he is told that he needs to look into Mount Athos. Some of you might not know that for Orthodox people, Mount Athos is one of the most holy sites out there. I don’t claim to fully understand that, but I know when I’m at the Orthodox Church and hear Mount Athos mentioned, it’s a really big deal.

The first thing he talks about is the idea of vain repetition. I understand the concern with saying the Jesus Prayer over and over and I do agree that some people could get into this being a rote thing that they do without any real motivation behind it, but the constant repetition does not equal vain repetition. Jesus condemns a certain kind of repetition, but He does not condemn all of it.

The Jesus Prayer in my understanding is meant to change the person praying more than be a constant plea for mercy. It’s meant to make them think about who Jesus is. It’s up to the person to determine if they’re being vain in their repetition or not.

Next he mentions praying to Mary. Now I do disagree with this practice, but at the same time, I’m not ready to say everyone who has done such is being thrown into hell or is outside of the body. I would find it hard to condemn Christians across the centuries who have been doing this since whenever it started, and any Orthodox person who wants to convince me it started early had better bring some really good historical evidence to the table.

The same will be said with praying to the saints. While I disagree with this, I am not one who thinks that there were no true Christians after the apostles died until Martin Luther showed up again. I actually think most Catholics while disagreeing with Luther would agree that the Catholic Church needed some reformation and change in it and there were corrupt practices going on. Any material about practices like this then I will not say further on but just point back to these sections.

He also says something about the drinking of alcohol. He is right that the Bible condemns drunkenness, but it does not follow that it condemns alcohol, any more than the Bible condemning gluttony means that it condemns eating. The Bible condemns extramarital sex, but it thoroughly commends it between husband and wife in marital union. Jesus did not turn the water into grape juice at Cana.

I want to say at this point also that I do not say this as one who drinks alcohol. My wife has come to accept that I am willing to change my diet in many areas, but I just never want to drink alcohol. If you can control it, I have no problem with you drinking it, but I will abstain.

He then goes on to a monk carving a crucifix and says it is the making of idols even though we are told to not make any graven images. To begin with, if images are the problem, then what is going on behind Pastor Anderson in his own church video with watching a service live? Would we really say the problem with the image is that it is graven instead of that it is an image?

The first person to be explicitly said to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the Bible is a man named Bezalel. Who was he? An artist. He made images that he was ordered by God to make. Now it could be that the Bible contradicts itself in such an obvious way, or else the prohibition is not against images, but rather against the use of images to worship.

This is a point the Iconophiles brought up against the iconoclasts in the debates about the use of icons. At the same time, I want to be aware that yes, some people could treat icons and relics as if they were magic charms which is just as bad. The misuse of an object does not point to a lack of a proper use.

He also says that the Bible says it’s a shame for a man to have long hair and every priest and monk on Mount Athos has that. Samson also had it as that was part of the Nazarite vow. What is going on in 1 Corinthians is Paul is addressing practices of the day. How men and women wore their hair said something to their culture then. Were I to visit Anderson’s church, would he want me to greet his wife with a holy kiss? That’s what Scripture tells me I am to do.

Pastor Anderson said that Jesus said to beware of the ones who go around in long clothing. Jesus was speaking more of the tassels on the garments and those were used to show a special kind of holiness. In other words, Jesus was against wearing clothes for the purpose of showing off your holiness. It’s not as if Jesus would have no problem with the scribes and Pharisees if they suddenly switched to shorts and T-shirts.

He also has a statement about the prohibition of calling people Father. Now at this time, I also do not call priests in the church by the name of Father. At the same time, I recognize there are some ridiculous extremes that can be taken, such as the video my wife and I saw once about the man who called his parents by their names instead of Mom and Dad even to avoid breaking the commandment of Christ.

He also looks at collections of skulls and femurs and other bones they have and says that the Bible says to bury the dead out of sight and to not touch dead bodies. It’s really a shame a pastor has such a poor understanding of Israelite Law and its relation to Gentiles today in light of the new covenant. My understanding is that these are gathered to remind the people of the resurrection that is coming.

There’s a part here where in what is apparently an aside he says that the monks are dressed like warlocks. I am sure in movies and TV shows and video games warlocks dress in these robes, but I am also sure that in real life, they could dress just like everyone else for the most part. As I say this, it is still morning and I am wearing my Legend of Zelda robe. I suppose Pastor Anderson is convinced I’m a heathen then.

He also says that the Bible says that all those who hate me love death. He doesn’t say who says this, but it is Wisdom in the book of Proverbs. This is said about the skull collecting, but does that equal a love of death? Does someone who grows up wanting to be a mortician then hate Jesus? This is not done to worship the dead but to honor the dead.

He then goes and says there is no monastery or monk in the Bible. True. There’s also no such thing as a pulpit or a pew in the Bible as well. I wonder if Pastor Anderson’s church has a parking lot and heating and air system in it since those aren’t in the Bible. His services are recorded, even though the Bible says nothing about that. If he wants to go the argument from silence route, I expect him to be consistent.

Finally, in criticism, he says that Orthodoxy is closer to Eastern practices and he gives Buddhism as an example. The thing is, he’s right and also wrong. I don’t think it’s like Buddhism, but it is closer to Eastern practices. What else is closer to that is the culture of the Bible itself. Pastor Anderson probably knows nothing about the eastern dynamics of honor and shame and agonistic societies. The Bible is itself not a Western book. It is a Middle Eastern one.

He encourages people to come to the real Jesus and the real gospel. I encourage that, but I have many friends who are Orthodox and Catholic. We disagree on many things, but there is something we don’t disagree on. We agree on who Jesus is.

I am sure Pastor Anderson’s motivations for this are noble, but his criticisms are way off the mark. I encourage healthy dialogue between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox on our differences, but let’s make sure they are informed criticisms. I also encourage that we try to recognize that others are Christians as well. Not all Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants are Christians, of course, but for the most part, the doctrines all agree on the centrality of Christ and His work in salvation.

Let’s try to focus first on what we agree on. Alright?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 10/13/2018: Glenn Sunshine

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Just over 500 years ago this month, the Reformation started which shook the world, and not just the Christian world. There is much debate about this event. Was it a good thing? Was it a bad thing? Why was it done?

This month on the Deeper Waters Podcast, we are focusing on these kinds of questions. This one obviously is rooted in history. How shall we approach it? Many of us don’t know much about what the world was like 500 years ago. Just as in studying the world of the Bible, we need to know what the world was like at the time of the Reformation to better understand the dynamics.

To discuss this, I have decided to bring on a historian of the Reformation. I have seen this person do some debating and I was quite impressed with what I saw. It is my hope that he will be able to shed some light on this event for us and help us better understand what it was and how it shapes our world today. His name is Glenn Sunshine.

So who is he?

Glenn got his B.A. from Michigan State University in 1980 in linguistics with high honors. He got his Masters at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985 in church history graduating Summa Cum Laude, another M.A. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1987 in Renaissance/Reformation history and his Ph.D. in 1992 from the same place in the same subject.

So what did happen in the Reformation? Is this where a new church rose up that was completely cut off from the old? Did the Reformers decide to just get rid of everything and ignore all of the tradition of the past? Did the Reformers originally even intend to break away from the Catholic Church?

How about relations with the Eastern Church? What role did those play? We often forget that there is a third major block of the Christian church.

Did the church really need reform? Would even Catholics think that the church had issues at the time that needed to be addressed? If so, what really led to the events happening that were so dynamic that several people moved away from the Catholic Church and before too long, you had several other churches showing up?

How are we to approach figures like Martin Luther? Sure, he did a lot to reform the church, but didn’t he leave a lot of blotches behind, such as anti-semitism? Was he accurate in what he said and would any of his opponents have conceded that?

Finally, how has the Reformation affected us today? What are the positives? What are the negatives? How are we to be Christians in a post-Reformation culture?

These are the kinds of questions I plan to ask. I can’t guarantee I’ll get to all and there will be new ones rise up, but it will be great to talk about this with a professor of Reformation history. I hope you’ll be listening and please consider going on iTunes and leaving a positive review of the Deeper Waters Podcast.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 10/6/2018: Orthodoxy and Protestantism

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This month is the month that the Reformation took place in history. This is an event in history that changed Christianity greatly. Many people grow up thinking that if you’re not Catholic, then you’re Protestant. This means that they forget about the other pathway of Orthodoxy.

Readers of this blog know that I am not Orthodox. I have read on it and done writing on why I disagree, but I am always for people exploring questions. What better way to explore than have both sides come together and discuss what they agree on and what they disagree on and how Protestant and Orthodox relations can move on from here?

To do this, I first asked the priest at the church Allie and I have been attending if he would come on to talk about Orthodoxy. Who to have discuss on the other side? I searched for awhile and asked a number of people and eventually found that Dr. James Payton would take on the task.

So who are these men?

Dr. Payton:

According to his bio:

B.A. (Religion), 1969 — Bob Jones University
M.A. (Theology), 1971 — Bob Jones University
M.Div., 1975 — Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)
Th.M. (Historical theology), 1975 — Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)
Ph.D. (Intellectual History of Early Modern Europe [2nd field: Late Medieval Political and Ecclesiastical History]) — University of Waterloo (Waterloo, Ontario)
8 years as a pastor (1977-1985)
30 years as a history professor (1985-2015) at Redeemer University College (Ancaster, Ontario)
— now, Professor Emeritus of History (Redeemer University College)
And Father Barnabas Powell:

According to his bio:

Fr. Barnabas (Charles) Powell is a native of Atlanta, Georgia. Having been raised in a small Pentecostal church as a boy, Barnabas grew to love the church, enjoy the music, and eventually came to be the youth pastor of his home church.

Barnabas attended Toccoa Falls College, an Evangelical Protestant school in North East Georgia, and received his theology degree there in 1988. He then went on to establish a new church in the Atlanta area. While pastoring, Barnabas also was heavily involved with Evangelical Christian media. He served Dr. Charles Stanley’s In Touch Ministries as Promotions and Public Relations coordinator, and also served as the Affiliates manager for Leading The Way Ministries with Dr. Michael Youssef.

Barnabas became interested in the history of the Church, and began a reading program that would eventually lead him to enter the Orthodoxy. Several of the families that had been with him during his pastorate entered the Orthodox Christian Church together in November of 2001.

Barnabas joined the staff of Orthodox Christian Network, the producers of Come Receive The Light, in April of 2003, and now serves the media outreach as the director of development. Orthodox Christian Network is the SCOBA Agency commissioned to create and sustain a national media outreach for the Orthodox Christian Churches in the U.S.

In 2007 Barnabas was given the blessing of Metropolitan ALEXIOS of Atlanta to enter Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.

On November 8th 2009, Barnabas was ordained to the diaconate in his home town of Atlanta, GA at Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral by His Eminence Metropolitan Alexios and on Sunday March 8, 2010, Barnabas was ordained to the holy priesthood at the same cathedral. He is now the proistamenos (senior pastor) of Sts. Raphael, Nicholas, and Irene Greek Orthodox Church in Cumming, GA.

Fr. Barnabas founded Faith Encouraged Ministries in 2014 and is the host of Faith Encouraged LIVE on Ancient Faith Radio. He also produces the Monday thru Friday Devotional called Faith Encouraged Daily.

Fr. Barnabas is particularly motivated by the beauty and timelessness of our Orthodox Christian faith and strives to see this timeless faith put down deep roots here in America. The Orthodox Christian faith is uniquely suited to quench the spiritual thirst of Americans from all backgrounds with the depth and beauty of our Orthodox faith.

Ultimately, Fr. Barnabas believes that Orthodoxy is the path to both spiritual renewal in our Orthodox homes and the path for all believers to spiritual maturity.

This is already agreed to not be a debate, but a discussion. We will discussing what unites us and what we disagree on and how we can move on from there. What should Protestant and Orthodox relations be like in the future? What can we learn from one another?

I hope you’ll be listening. Please also be sharing our work and go on iTunes and leave a positive review for the Deeper Waters Podcast with Nick Peters. I love to see them!

In Christ,
Nick Peters