Tag: RCC

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 15.1

What about the RCC? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. I made a goof. Somehow, I skipped over chapter 15 which is about the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, we’re going to go back and look at that one and see what has to be said. The original source can be found here.

In chapter 7 of his book: “An Understandable History Of The Bible”, Reverend Gipp gives us some insight into the Roman Catholic ‘Church’. He first begins with a contrast:

“It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope.” (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.) [S1P80].

So I did my looking up (Which is more than Johnson did I am sure) to find different responses to this just out of curiosity. One source said this would happen when we entered into Heaven. Others indicated that the church is not as dogmatic. One source said that the Protestant churches are rife with heresy and immorality. This might be interesting to look into more later, but it is not relevant now.

“FOR BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH; AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES: IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD: NOT OF WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) [S1P80].

As Reverend Gipp says: “Here lie two totally contradictory statements. They cannot both be correct. The one which you believe will depend on the authority you accept” [S1P80].

I am sure Catholics have their own interpretation here. Again, this is not the goal of this research.

“The Roman Catholic Church has always been antagonistic to the doctrine of salvation by grace. If salvation is by grace, who needs mass? If salvation is by grace, who needs to fear purgatory? If Jesus Christ is our mediator, who needs the Pope? If the Pope cannot intimidate people into obeying him, how can he force a nation to obey him?” [S1P80]

“Rome can only rule over ignorant fear-filled people. The true Bible turns ‘unlearned and ignorant’ men into gospel preachers and casts out ‘all fear’ [S1P80-81].

For this latter one, I know some devout Catholics and these are the last words I would use to describe them.

“The true Bible is the arch-enemy of the Roman Catholic Church [S1P80-81].

Therefore, Rome wanted a ‘different’ Bible. So:

“Rome received the corrupted … text … and further revised it to suit her own needs” [S1P81]. “This text suited the Roman Catholic Church well since it attacked the doctrines of the Bible. Rome is wise. To attack salvation by grace directly would expose her plot to all. So instead she used subtlety. The Roman Catholic Church strips Jesus Christ of His deity, separates the divine title “Lord” and “Christ” from the human name Jesus, having the thief on the cross address Him as “Jesus” instead of “Lord” (Luke 23:42). It also removes the testimony to His deity in Acts 8:37, and it eliminates the Trinity in I John 5:7″ [S1P81].

Well, Gipp doesn’t tell us where this happened. I went and looked up these verses in the Douay-Rheims Bible online. Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are there and Luke 23:42 refers to Jesus as Lord. Awfully strange how the RCC decided to hide those by putting them in their Bible.

And so, summarizing the corrupted Minority Text: “Its two outstanding trademarks are that orthodox Christianity has never used it, and that the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that ‘bloodily’) supported it” [S1P69].

Waiting for some argument for this in light of the above.

As to the gospel of Christ: “Would not a weakening of the place of Jesus Christ weaken the Roman Catholic Church’s reason for even existing? The answer is ‘No’. The Roman Catholic ‘Church’ does not even claim to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ” [S1P81].

I would like to know where this is.

Romanist Carl Adam admits this:

“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame – nay with pride – that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the gospel of Christ” [S1P81]

Thus we see the TRUE ‘doctrine’ of Rome! Now, let’s find out what Rome substitutes in place of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

First, it’s Karl Adam. Second, this sounds convincing, but as one who has seen political statements either made up or taken out of context, I wanted to look further. A deeper look at this section shows that

“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity. And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will probably be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law and worship than the Catholicism of the present day.”

Anyone can read it here.

“The vacancy left by the removal of Christ would be easily filled by Mary and other ‘saints’ along with a chain of ritualism so rigid that no practitioner would have time to ‘think’ about the true gospel” [S1P82].

Asserted but not shown and has nothing to do with textual history.

What else does history record about Rome? Some samples:

1) “In the fourteenth century the church of Rome … canonized Buddha as a saint” [S3P140].

If done, this was done in error not realizing the figure was Buddha and was seen as St. Josaphat. If this did happen, then what I have found is that it has been undone.

2) It was Rome who: “… burned persons who provided the Bible in a language the laity could read for themselves” [S3P140].

This did happen with Tyndale at least.

3) In the 16th century: “… the Roman Catholic Church put out the Majority Greek New Testament text, then placed the Textus Receptus, on ‘The Index’ of forbidden books” [S3P140].

This appears to be accurate, though likely not because of a conspiracy or cover-up. Anyone could go and get that if they really wanted to from a Protestant publisher.

4) It was Rome who was responsible for crucifying Christ (Matt.27:35).

This assumes that the nation of Rome is equal to the RCC.

5) It was Rome who was responsible for throwing Peter into prison (Acts 12:4 ).

6) It was Rome who was responsible for cutting off James’ head (Acts 12:1). and ….

7) It was Rome who was responsible for killing Paul (2 Tim 4:6).

And more of the same.

Next time, we will return to the Jesuits.

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 14.1

What about the Council of Trent? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re returning to this look at KJV-onlyism. After all, we’ve come this far. Might as well go all the way to the end. Anyway, the source material can be found here.

The reformation is running wild across Europe. There is revival in the land. Major changes are occurring and the good news of the gospel of grace is spreading. Many people are being blessed and many are thankful.

However, not everyone likes the gospel of grace. There are enemies to this good news.

In this chapter, Satan is once again seeking to kill, steal, and destroy. And, he is seeking those he may ‘use’.

Gotta love how the devil is always the boogeyman. Personally, there was good and bad both in the Reformation and I’m sure the same can be said for the counter-Reformation.

“In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church formed the Council of Trent” [S1P87]. “The Council of Trent was dominated by the Jesuits” [S2P235]. The purpose was to: “… undermine the Bible, then destroy the Protestant teaching and doctrine” [S2P237].

The latter could be true if you meant undermining Protestantism. I think at that time the genie was out of the bottle and there was no eliminating it. However, I have no reason to think they were trying to undermine the Bible.

“The Council of Trent systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that ‘tradition’ was on equal authority with the Bible” [S1P87].

The Council of Trent also decreed that:

“… justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was CURSED” [S1P87].

The council’s exact words were:

“If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be ANATHEMA” [S1P87].

While I think this is an accurate set of quotations, would it have killed Johnson to go straight to the source?

“Now we see that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of officially cursing Jesus Christ! Would God use this ‘Church’ to preserve his Words?” [S1P87].

Apparently he had for 1,000 years.

So this was the ‘policy’ of the Council of Trent. But what about the results?

Specifically, history records that:

1) The Council of Trent condemned: “That Holy Scriptures contained all the things necessary for salvation …”

This could be since the RCC does put tradition up there with Scripture, but it needs to be shown, not asserted.

2) The Council of Trent condemned: “That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the help of Christ’s Spirit”.

Again, this needs to be shown. I think there are things that are plain that the RCC would agree we can all understand, but also that there are difficult things that Protestant scholars would say are not plain and we do need help to understand.

3) As to certain books in the Traditional Majority Text, the Council of Trent condemned them saying: “… they were apocryphal and not canonical”.

At this point, a writer could name those books, but I suppose Johnson doesn’t want to.

Either way, I have read the Apocrypha and I have no problem with Christians doing so.

4) The Council of Trent also said that: “… lay members of the church had NO RIGHT to interpret the Scriptures apart from the Clergy” [S2P237].

5) “The Council of Trent, after a prolonged and stormy session, also issued a decree that the entire Old Testament, including the Apocryphal books, were to be received and venerated with unwritten tradition as the Word of God” [S4P100].

6) On April 8th 1546, the Council of Trent declared that Jerome’s, corrupted, Latin Bible was: “… the authentic Bible of the Roman Church” [S4P99].

Again, would it have been too hard to quote Trent directly?

And lastly:

“The Papal machine officially closed all investigation into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in 1546, at the Council of Trent, by declaring -without a single German philologist, historian, or scholar present – that the corrupt manuscripts … are the inspired, canonical scriptures, and that anyone who does not go along with them is anathema – ACCURSED” [S11P61].

It’s hard to say what is going on here. The RCC did later on issue their own translation called the Rheims-Douay so it’s hard to imagine they closed all investigation.

So we see Satan using the Roman Catholic ‘Church’, the Jesuits, and the Council of Trent to resist the Reformation and to resist the spread of the true Word of God.

Actually, we just see assertions. There’s a lot of back and forth that went on and this is neither the time nor the place to deal with those issues. I’m just interested in textual issues and we have none of those really being dealt with here.

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

Book Plunge: Roman, But Not Catholic

What do I think of Jerry Walls and Kenneth Collins’s book published by Baker Academic? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

For the most part, I have never got into the debate between Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox. As a good Protestant, I have my reasons, but it has never been a focus. Still, as a podcast host, I have been a fan of the work of Jerry Walls and when I heard about this book coming out, I thought it would be a good one to have a discussion over.

The thesis behind the book is that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed Roman, but it’s not Catholic, as it is not what is universally believed. While that is a charge, there is not anger in the book. It’s not an attempt to destroy Roman Catholicism. The writers have a great love for Catholics. Collins grew up with a Catholic education and Walls did some of his studies at the Catholic school of Notre Dame.

Despite that, they do think there is something at stake. There is a reason the Reformation matters. The writers then take us on a trip through church history and various theological issues such as questions of authority, looking at the Papacy, Marian devotion, etc.

They did point out that it looks like for many converts to Rome from Protestantism, it is an all-or-nothing game. As someone who loves history, this is of great interest to me. I meet many people who have the attitude that if there is one contradiction in the Bible, how can we know that any of it is true? This is a position I find frankly, ridiculous. I may not know how it is that Judas died for betraying Jesus exactly, but that would be a far cry from saying I can’t even know that Jesus existed.

It ultimately comes down to a question of authority. Suppose the Roman Catholic claims that I do not have an authoritative magisterium to interpret the text. Am I to really think that I have no reason whatsoever to think I don’t know what some particular texts mean unless someone else tells me? Sure, there are difficult passages, but there are passages that are not difficult. Even while simple passages have great underlying nuances to them many times that can amplify their meaning all the more, the basic context is the same.

Consider John 3:16. I can get the basic message. God loved the world and then gave His Son for that world so that none could perish but that all could have eternal life. Of course, a deeper understanding of Christianity will bring out more for me from that passage. I could ask questions about what it means to perish or whether in a Calvinistic context the world refers to everyone or just the elect? The basic message though of God loving and wanting to redeem humanity is still there.

What has to be asked is even if one thinks one has to have an authority, why this authority? Why should I think this one is right on everything in fact, including Marian positions I see zero support for in Scripture or church history? There are many groups that take the same approach with a ruling authority who says what the Scriptures mean. Why should I think the RCC has it all right?

The history of the Papacy I have found as a problem as well. There were no doubt many wicked Popes in the history of the church. This has to be taken seriously. If it is true then how can we say that God was guiding the church when wicked Popes were elected?

I should say in all of these concerns, I am pleased to see that many things I do not remember being brought up. For instance, there was no political gain made about the claims of pedophile priests, something I think is not really as accurate as it is made out to be and there are even worse cases in the public school system. Let’s be sure. One can disagree with Catholics without being anti-Catholic. I happen to have a great delight in my Catholic brothers and sisters and happily work with them in defending Christianity.

The book ends with a cry for unity. It would be great to see it happen, but we are not there yet. Pope Francis certainly is being a different Pope and rocking the boat a bit. Only time will tell what will happen to the RCC in the future.

Still, those who are considering crossing the Tiber and going to Rome should really consider the material in this book first. It does give a lot of food for thought. I also think many Catholics reading this book would not think they were being attacked, which is good. We need to be able to discuss our differences and discuss them in true words but loving words as well. We may not like what the other side has to say, but we should all hear what others have to say and be willing to consider their position. If we have to change ours, we change it. If we don’t yet, we at least have a better understanding of one another.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

What do I think of Philip Jenkins’s book published by Oxford Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am not a Catholic. That having been said, why would I read a book about a problem of anti-Catholicism? It’s simply because this kind of prejudice does affect all Christians. If Catholics can be targeted, anyone else is not too far behind. Plus, there are a lot of rumors that one hears and that really you want to know how good the claims are behind them.

It’s not a secret that you can watch many a movie or a TV show and the church is a villain. One of my favorite gaming series is Final Fantasy, but unfortunately one knows that even though not specified as Roman Catholic, if the church shows up in a game, you can be sure it will be evil. Since this book came out, we have of course seen works like The Da Vinci Code, which only further the idea that there is a conspiracy cover-up by the evil Vatican.

Jenkins’s book is a hard look at many of the ways of thinking. Most anything can be connected with the Roman Catholic Church and it is thus automatically branded as evil. Of course, sadly a lot of Protestants haven’t helped with conspiracy theories about the Pope being the antichrist or the False Prophet. Of course, this prejudice Jenkins points out doesn’t mean one can’t disagree with Catholicism, but it means that one takes that beyond just disagreement with doctrine to the idea that Catholicism is an evil system.

One great chapter in this book will be the chapter on the claims of pedophilia and the priesthood. Jenkins has the hard numbers on this to show that while any case is certainly a problem to be dealt with, there was much that was overstated by the media with hyped up numbers. He points out that every denomination and religion and such has people that do these kinds of things and in other systems, it’s a problem of the individual, but in the RCC, it’s seen as a problem of the system. It would also be good to have more official comparisons to other people guilty of such transgressions, say teachers in the public school system. (Of course, it must be made clear that pedophilia doesn’t exactly include teenagers and others in both cases.)

There’s also a section on the history of the church and supposed great crimes. It’s usually taken for granted that the church was a wicked institution when it came to things like the Crusades or the Inquisition or claims of anti-Semitism. Jenkins looks at all of these. In all of this, he doesn’t say that the church is without fault in everything, but he does try to be fair and show that there is a double standard often and the church can be held to be guilty on much less evidence than other bodies would be.

I found this to be an eye-opening read and leaves me once again not trusting anything I see in the media about Catholicism. We do need to have open debates and discussions between Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox and others, but let us not make this an issue of prejudice. Let us discuss the issues that we disagree instead of thinking the worst of the people.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Babylon Connection?

What do I think of Ralph Woodrow’s self-published work? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the outset, I’ll tell you I don’t know a lot about Ralph Woodrow. A month or two ago I hadn’t even heard his name. Now that I have heard of him, this book gives me a tremendous respect for him. Why is that?

Ralph Woodrow used to be one of the greatest advocates of the work of Alexander Hislop. He was well-known in that position by his opponents. At one speaking engagement, he was even introduced as Reverend Hislop. His book on the Babylonian Connections between the Roman Catholic Church and Babylon was the best seller of his ministry. If you wanted to know what was his greatest success and money-maker was, look at that book.

Most of the response was positive, but there was a high school history teacher who really liked Woodrow’s ministry, but knew there were problems. Hislop was not the reliable source that Woodrow thought he was. This teacher wrote Woodrow challenging him to go and investigate the claims of Hislop by looking up the primary sources.

Woodrow found that he had been fooled by Hislop. On paper, Hislop looked impressive after all. He had an impressive bibliography and several notes to back his case. The problem was those sources were rarely checked. Woodrow’s response? Was it to keep selling the book he had written and get the money? No. It was to sacrifice it by removing the book from sale and by writing this book in response. Woodrow owned up to his mistake.

At this point, I don’t care if you agree with Woodrow or disagree, but if someone is willing to do that, I think that deserves respect.

A work like this is needed today because there are too many Christians who buy into conspiracy theory type thinking and ideas like that of Hislop fuel into it. Let’s not forget that also atheists are buying into this. If you want any evidence of this, just look at Jesus mythicism. Just yesterday I had someone share with me all the similarities between Horus and Jesus. Had they done any verification of the claims? No. Could they name any respected living Egyptologist who would back the claims? No. Still, it was shared. Sure, you can count the number of Jesus mythicists on one hand out of thousands of NT scholars and classical and ancient historians (By scholar, I mean someone with a Ph.D. in the relevant field and passes peer-review and not just some person on the internet with a blog, web site, self-published book, etc. and yes, I know that means I am not a scholar so don’t treat me like one) but hey, the modern internet atheists knows better than all of them!

If most of us had the guts to go and look at the claims closely like Woodrow did and be open to being wrong, we would have much better debates.

So on to the book. An aspect of it is that Woodrow is seeking to show how ridiculous Hislop’s system is, and I think he succeeds wonderfully. For Hislop, everything traced back to Nimrod in the Bible and his being married to Seimramis. Never mind that even if Semiramis existed, it would have been centuries apart from Nimrod. A theory should never be dislodged by some inconvenient facts after all.

Hislop then tries to show that if you name any pagan god, that goes back to Nimrod. (Goddesses go to Semiramis.) Do you see a ritual here in Hawaii honoring deity X? That traces to Babylon. Do you see something in Scandanavia? That goes back to Nimrod. Is a belief being honored in Tahiti? Nimrod is responsible. Why? Well who else would it be? If everything went forth from Babylon and the rule of Nimrod, then if it shows up anywhere, that’s because of Nimrod.

You’re not convinced?

Yeah. Neither am I.

Hislop also argued from similarities based on words. Of course, this would often be their English spelling but hey, we know the rest of the world always thought in English. It’s just like the people who think Jesus is a way of saying “Hey Zeus!” It’s the people who think Israel is a way of saying “Isis, Ra, and Elohim.” Do you think this sounds ridiculous? There are plenty of people who actually believe this.

Now a downside would be that if you’re a believer in Scripture, you’ll agree with a lot that Woodrow says. If you’re not, then chances are you could wind up walking away and thinking “Yeah. The Bible borrowed everything from the pagans too.” Of course, that’s not the fault of Woodrow because I don’t think this book is written to atheists, but I do know the way that too many online think. Everything in Christianity was borrowed from the pagans!

Whatever your stripe, take this book as a warning. Just because that source you are using points to multiple sources and looks compelling (*cough cough* Wikipedia *cough cough*) that does not mean it is reliable. Try and go back and check the sources as much as you can. If some atheists had done this with the Zeitgeist movie, they might not have embarrassed themselves so much by hyping it everywhere they went.

Also, Woodrow is certainly no Catholic and neither am I, but I do agree with him that there’s a great deal we agree with them. I am happy to call many Catholics my brothers and sisters in Christ. At the same time, when it comes to our discussions about our differences, let’s make sure those differences are grounded in fact. Hislop’s work is not and the most ardent Protestant arguing against Catholicism should not use a work like Hislop’s. We have better areas to debate rather than accusing one another of pagan practice.

I recommend Woodrow’s work then for anyone who has bought into Hislop’s false information. Unfortunately today, there are a thousand Hislops from numerous other perspectives. (Again, think Jesus mythicists.) Maybe someday our culture will learn the practice of going and reading academic works and checking claims, but I am skeptical.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

 

Apostles Creed: The Holy Catholic Church

Can a Protestant say they believe in the Holy Catholic Church? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Sometimes, I discuss the question of Catholicism, but in the long run, it doesn’t really interest me that much. As it stands, I have numerous other things to study and I tend to focus on what Lewis referred to as “Mere Christianity.” I am Protestant and actually attend a Lutheran church at the moment. Am I ready to sign on the dotted line and say I’m a Lutheran? No. Still, I think our church right now is simply wonderful and I look forward to what we’re doing and I’m honored to get to serve.

My own position with regards to Catholics and at this point I could say members of the various churches called Orthodox (With a capital o as really, all churches should seek to be orthodox in their teaching) is that they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am certainly not one of those who thinks the Catholic Church is hellbound or that the Pope is the antichrist or such ideas as that. I am thankful that my Catholic brothers and sisters that I interact with also do not call my Christianity into question.

Some readers out there might be saying that there are several lost Catholics out there. You know what? I agree with them.

There are also several lost Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc.

Now the word Catholic really means universal. A good Christian can then say they believe in a universal church. Some might wonder about this with the supposed claim of x thousand denominations. (The number keeps changing.) The reality is that this claim is usually not looked into too much. You could have two churches in the same town that have the exact same belief and both of them could be counted as denominations. Why? Because these are self-governing bodies. There could be two in the same town because maybe it’s a really large area and two are set up due to the distances people are willing to travel to go to church.

For more on this, see this helpful and entertaining video by my ministry partner, J.P. Holding.

The main advice I’d give here is we all need to seek to avoid the extreme positions. I have learned much from my brothers and sisters of other denominations. Peter Kreeft comes to mind immediately and he is one who prays for the unification of the churches. I would hope that many of my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters would say that they too have learned from reading the writings of those of us who are Protestant.

Also, if I was asked to state what the church of Jesus Christ truly is, it is those who recognize Jesus as Lord and Messiah both. Wherever you have them gathered, you have the church to an extent. Christ is present in the midst of us. When we get to eternity, we will find people from the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox traditions there together worshiping before the throne of God. We might as well learn to get along together now. Of course we can discuss our differences, but let’s strive to do so realizing that we all still proclaim Jesus as Lord.

In Christ,

Nick Peters