Follow
It should go without saying that Roman Catholic saints are intentionally held up as examples for the flock to imitate. Lest it be alleged that we have imagined this, we defer to Pope John Paul II, who at World Youth Day 2002, explained this in no uncertain terms:
“How many saints, especially young saints, can we count in the Church’s history! In their love for God their heroic virtues shone before the world, and so they became models of life which the Church has held up for imitation by all…”
On the back cover of John Paul II’s Book of Saints, we are told that he “left a treasury of ideals and hope for the future in these ‘examples of courage and coherence.’ He offered us these real lives lived in extraordinary ways as ones to identify with, aspire to, and ask for intercession.” “Saints” are examples with whom we can identify, and who we aspire to imitate.
Indeed, the Roman church has held saints up for “imitation by all” precisely because we can identify with them. The Roman Catholic web site, Catholic Legate, emphasizes this, listing it as one of the three pillars of the doctrine of the communion of saints:
“The second pillar of this doctrine rests on the imitation of virtuous people. Many Protestants … do not accept that we are to imitate anyone but Jesus [but] it is not a biblical teaching to refuse imitation of the saints.”
Another Roman Catholic apologetics web site, explains that part of the canonization process through which saints are officially recognized, is to determine whether their lives can be held up “as examples to be imitated.”
We repeat this principle for a reason. Saints are considered necessary to inspire the flock, encourage obedience, and to offer real life examples for the sheep to imitate. However, when the life of a saint is examined in the light of Scripture and found wanting, the same people who claimed that saints are to be imitated will then run from the saint and claim that saints are not to be imitated at all, and that it is foolish to try. Where once saints were held up for imitation by all, we suddenly “cannot understand them” for “they are beyond us” and we should not try to imitate them.
In his famous Letter to Dr. Pusey on “Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching,” Cardinal Newman responded to concerns about the extravagance of devotion, the hyperdulia or “hyperveneration” of Mary. In particular he was responding to the extreme devotion to Mary as documented by St. Alphonsus de Liguouri in his work, The Glories of Mary. Newman wrote,
“[I]t never surprises me to read anything extraordinary in the devotions of a saint. Such men are on a level very different from our own, and we cannot understand them. I hold this to be an important canon in the Lives of the Saints, according to the words of the Apostle, ‘The spiritual man judges all things, and he himself is judged of no one.’ But we may refrain from judging, without proceeding to imitate. I hope it is not disrespectful to so great a servant of God to say, that I never have read his Glories of Mary; but here I am speaking generally of all Saints, whether I know them or not;—and I say that they are beyond us, and that we must use them as patterns, not as copies.” (§5.4, emphases added).
It is necessary to document Newman’s wavering rejection of the “imitation” of the saints, because this week we will examine their words and practices; Newman’s words here are an implicit acknowledgement that Rome’s saints model for us a veneration that is indistinguishable from worship. Otherwise, Newman would have had no reason to distance himself from them.
We must understand that the saints are people who are very much like us in their humanity, and so their “holiness” is held out by Rome as an example to us that we might imitate it. Newman’s opinions aside, John Paul II included Maximilian Kolbe, Louis de Montfort and Alfphonsus de Liguori in his Book of Saints, not because “we cannot understand” Kolbe, or because Liguori is “beyond us,” or because we ought not aspire to be like de Montfort. He included them in his book precisely because they are examples that can and should be imitated.
Last week, we evaluated the standard objection to the charge that Roman Catholics worship Mary. In that article, we highlighted the difficulty for the Roman apologists. While they maintain that there is a distinction between hyperdulia, which is offered to Mary, and latria, which is offered to God, they are unable to explain or define a meaningful, objective difference between the two. The only difference between hyperdulia and latria, it seems, is that hyperdulia is not latria, because if it were, it would be latria, but it’s not, so it isn’t. No matter the extremes and excesses of hyperdulia, it cannot possibly be worship because if it were, it would not be hyperdulia. That is mere tautology. What is needed, and what we introduced last week, is an objective definition of latria and idolatry from the Roman Catholic catechism.
Therefore, instead of asking, “Do Roman Catholics worship Mary?”, we ask rather,
“Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as the Lord and Master of everything that exists? Do Roman Catholics acknowledge her as infinite in Mercy and Love? In their veneration of Mary do Roman Catholics acknowledge in respect and absolute submission, the ‘nothingness of the creature,’ who would not exist but for her? Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as creator and savior? Do Roman Catholics divinize Mary, and transfer to Mary what belongs to God?”
We will start with “creator” because that is usually the first objection to the charge of Mariolatry. We will then follow with every individual component of worship as identified in Rome’s definition of latria, and by this we shall determine whether hyperdulia is just latria by another name.
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Creator?
This ought to be the easiest charge to refute, for Mary is herself created, and therefore came after the first moment of creation. Yet this has been no barrier to the remarkable ingenuity of Rome’s passionate Marian devotees. It begins with Mary’s universal motherhood, which Pope Leo XIII affirmed in his encyclical Adiutricem, saying that Mary became the mother of “the whole human race” at the foot of the cross. But her motherhood is necessarily elastic, according to apologist, Fr. Donald Calloway, because Mary’s spiritual motherhood stretches all the way back to Adam and Eve:
“Mary’s spiritual maternity is elastic, stretching all the way back to the beginning of time, because God made her the spiritual mother of all in light of the fact that she is the original intention of motherhood in the divine plan. … Yes, even Adam and Eve call her mother.”
Yet even before Adam and Eve, Mary was yet a mother, taught St. Chrysologus, for how could there ever be a time when Mary is not a mother? She was even a Mother before Adam and Eve were created, yes even when the world was yet formless and void (Genesis 1:2).
“Mary is called a Mother. And when is Mary not a Mother? The gathering together of the waters He called Seas (Maria) [Genesis 1:10]” (St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 146)
But Fr. William Most takes it back even further, defending the title “Eternal Mother,” because “her Motherhood … was planned from all eternity.”
Such adulation is then increased by St. Thomas of Villanova, who observes that while it was by God’s Word, His fiat, that all things were brought into existence, yet, when Mary gave her permission for God to become Man, her fiat was even more powerful, more efficacious than God’s, and is to be venerated above even His:
“O powerful Fiat!” exclaims St. Thomas of Villanova; “O efficacious Fiat! O Fiat to be venerated above every other Fiat! For with a fiat God created light, heaven, earth; but with Mary’s fiat,” says the saint, “God became man, like us.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
When we consider that Mary’s powerful fiat is greater even than that of God, it is no wonder then that St. Bernard concludes the obvious: that Mary was there even earlier than Genesis 1:10. She must have been there at Genesis 1:1, with God, forming all things:
“St. Bonaventure… says, addressing her, The world which thou with God didst form from the beginning continues to exist at thy will, O most holy virgin;” the saint adhering in this to the words of Proverbs applied by the Church to Mary: I was with Him forming all things.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary).
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Creator? Yes, they certainly do, and Rome’s saints are the very model Roman Catholics are to imitate. Once this is established, the rest of the components of latria, or worship, flow from it with epistemological certainty.
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Savior? Yes they do:
“St. Bonaventure says that Mary is called “the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary).
“For thy eternal glory, let it be said that thou hast snatched a wretched creature from hell, to which he was already condemned, and that thou hast led him to thy kingdom. O yes, sweet Mother, I hope to have the consolation of remaining always at thy feet, in heaven, thanking and blessing and loving thee eternally.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“…Yes, Mary is necessary for me at Thy side and everywhere: that she may appease thy just wrath, because I have so often offended Thee; that she may save me from the eternal punishment of Thy justice, which I deserve; …Would that everyone might know I should be already damned, were it not for Mary!” (St. Louis de Montfort’s Prayer to Jesus)
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Lord and Master of everything that exists? Yes they do:
“‘At the command of Mary, all obey, even God.’ St. Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.” (Pope Pius XII, Radio message to Fatima, Bendito seja, May 13, 1946, AAS 38, p. 266)
“‘Yes, Mary is omnipotent,’ says Richard of St. Laurence, ‘for the queen by every law enjoys the same privileges as the king. And as,’ he adds, ‘the power of the son and that of the mother is the same, a mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent son.’” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“And we honor her, glorified above all the Saints, crowned with stars by her Divine Son and seated at His side the sovereign Queen of the universe.” (Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Encyclical of September 8, 1894)
“Let me remind you again of the dependence shown by the three divine Persons on our Blessed Lady. Theirs is the example which fully justifies our dependence on her.” (St. Louis de Montfort, Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin)
“Hail Mary, my dear Mother, my loving Mistress, my powerful sovereign! …it is thy privilege to triumph gloriously in Heaven at the right hand of thy Son and to hold absolute sway over angels, men and demons; it is thy privilege to dispose of all the gifts of God, just as thou willest.” (St. Louis de Montfort’s Prayer to Mary).
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Infinite…? Yes they do:
“For as Aquinas correctly states: ‘The Blessed Virgin, because she is the Mother of God, has a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God.'” (Pius XII, Encyclical Fulgens Corona, September 8, 1953)
“St. Thomas of Villanova says the same thing: ‘There is something infinite in being the Mother of him who is infinite.’” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
… in Mercy… ? Yes they do:
“Hence St. Leo observes, ‘that the Blessed Virgin has so merciful a heart, that she deserves not only to be called merciful, but mercy itself.’“ (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“Mary is also Mother of Mercy because it is to her that Jesus entrusts his Church and all humanity. …Thus Mary becomes Mother of each and every one of us, the Mother who obtains for us divine mercy.” (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor)
… and Love? Yes they do:
“Mary is our Mother, not as we have already observed, according to the flesh, but by love: ‘I am the Mother of fair love.’” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“…and if we concentrate all the love that mothers bear their children, husbands and wives one another, all the love of angels and saints for their clients, it does not equal the love of Mary toward a single soul.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary in respect and absolute submission? Yes they do:
“Remember that you belong exclusively, unconditionally, absolutely, irrevocably to the Immaculate: Whoever you are, whatever you have or can, whatever you do (thoughts, words, action) and endure (pleasant, unpleasant, indifferent things) belong to the Immaculate.” (Maximillian Kolbe, St. Maximillian Kolbe’s Rule of Life for those Consecrated to the Immaculate Virgin)
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge “the ‘nothingness of the creature’…”? Yes they do:
“Consequently, …it belongs to Her all your intentions; therefore, may she transform them, add others, take them away, as She likes (in fact, She does not offend justice). You are an instrument in Her hand, therefore do only what She wants; …Recognize that everything you have comes from Her and nothing from you.” (Maximillian Kolbe, St. Maximillian Kolbe’s Rule of Life for those Consecrated to the Immaculate Virgin)
“…who would not exist but for” her?
“O Immaculate, my life (every moment of it), my death (where, when and how) and my eternity belongs totally to you. Of everything You do whatever You like. …Recognize that everything you have comes from Her and nothing from you.” (Maximillian Kolbe, St. Maximillian Kolbe’s Rule of Life for those Consecrated to the Immaculate Virgin)
“St. Bonaventure… says, addressing her, ‘The world … continues to exist at thy will, O most holy virgin;‘ ” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary).
Yes they do.
To return now to the Catechism and its definition of idolatry, we must ask whether Roman Catholics “divinize Mary, and transfer to Mary what belongs to God.” They most certainly do. When Maximilian Kolbe can say “that the will of Mary should be the will of God for us,” or that Mary is the “quasi-incarnation” of the Holy Spirit, it is clear that Mary has been divinized by Rome and her saints. That Roman Catholics have imitated Kolbe in this is evidenced by the devoted faithful at Catholic Tradition.org:
“The Most Blessed Virgin is the one in whom we venerate the Holy Spirit, for she is His spouse. The Third Person of the Blessed trinity never took flesh; still, our human word ‘spouse’ is far too weak to express the reality of the relationship between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit. We can affirm that she is, in a certain sense, the ‘incarnation’ of the Holy Spirit.”
Yes, indeed, Roman Catholics divinize Mary, and transfer to Mary what belongs to God. But the original question remains: Do Roman Catholics actually worship Mary? Charity demands that we respond in the negative. We simply love Mary too much to claim that it is she who Roman Catholics worship. The “Mary” that Roman Catholics worship bears no resemblance to the simple Jewish handmaiden of the Lord in the Scriptures.
It is not Mary that Roman Catholics worship with latria, but a grotesque monstrosity that shares her name. The “Mary” upon whom Roman Catholics heap such titles as Eternal Mother, Incarnation of the Holy Spirit, Mercy Itself, Infinite Sovereign Queen of the Universe through whom the Lord created all things and to whose commands the Lord Himself must bow in submission, upon whom the Trinity of God depends, whose fiat at the Annunciation makes God’s at the creation of the universe pale in comparison, who holds eternity in her hands, and by whose will the universe continues to exist, is not the Mary of the Bible. To conclude anything else would be uncharitable to our sister in Christ, Mary the mother of Jesus.
And to our Roman Catholic readers who believe they can accept and continue to worship in Roman Catholicism while selectively rejecting the inherent Mariolatry—it is not possible. Your popes and saints insist that you bend the knee to a monstrosity that holds your eternity in “her” hands and can snatch you from the flames of hell. But neither the Mary of the bible, nor Rome’s repulsive caricature of her, can save you.
“Come out of her, My people.” (Revelation 18:4)
Tim, Another great article. Let me ask you a question. Do you think the forbidding of marriage by the Roman church directly against scripture is contributes(ed) for these men to have a love affair and panting for Mary, which has contributed to the twisted view. All these Popes have no wives and it seems like its a love dream or wanting? So the unnatural deal of one’s physical needs leads lead to a perverted view of Mary and scripture?
“Tim, Another great article. Let me ask you a question. Do you think the forbidding of marriage by the Roman church directly against scripture is contributes(ed) for these men to have a love affair and panting for Mary, which has contributed to the twisted view.”
Ha! Real horse —-, eh Tim?
Tim, this article can’t be refuted. You have laid out methodically how Catholics worship her as their savior. I was watching a show on EWTN the other night, the one by the older blond lady who talks constantly about Mary, she sole focus is on the growth of Mariolatry in the church. I don’t think we know how tied this is to the church’s appeasement of the women’s libbers in the church. ” We can just hear Helen Ready “I am woman watch me roar in numbers to big to ignore” I don’t want to get to deep with this. But I believe because of the throwing aside of the Word of God for centuries in the RC, where husbands were to answer their wife’s questions at home and wives were to be silent, women having the sinful desire to Lord over their husbands. All the Catholic men that I know don’t know scripture and their wives are into mysticism and the power of Mary.
Tim WORSHIP IDOLATRY! Mike Genron said something really important. Catholics trust everything but Christ alone the author and PERFECTER of our faith. Baptisms, Mary, sacraments, scapulars, saints, themselves and their works, penances, Priests, Popes, but not only in the blood of our savior and his finished work on the cross. He obtained salvation for us sand gave it to us thru faith in Him, and yet they reduce the sufficiency of the atonement for the fatal trail of the attainment. ” Come out from her my people” Repent and believe the gospel and be saved.
Tim,
I actually like the article! Oh, I don’t mean the negative spin you put on things, but I am happy to see the Fr. Most piece. I had never seen it before and appreciate getting to see it.
Can we talk about Fatima for a minute?
Tim, why do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? None of the Gospel writers were present. You weren’t present.
You believe it because of the transformed lives of the writers, their holiness and readiness to die for their witness, right?
Think of the Fatima kids. They were so young and un lettered. Yet they became such profound theologians and 2 of them died almost as martyrs. The 3rd one lived out a life of sanctity never wavering in her testimony.
As for the miracle itself, possibly/probably a mixture of natural and supernatural causes, is as believable as that of Josua making the sun stand still.
As for the fruits of Fatima, we have the countless transformed lives. We also have the defeat of communism as a fruit of Fatima. Stalin had described Lisbon as the most atheistic capitol in Europe. If it had gone red, Franco would not have save Spain and France would have fallen too. All of Europe was saved by Fatima.
We have the extraordinary account of how JPII was saved from the assassins bullet. ( You saw the video I sent Walt )
Of course, as it is private revelation, no Catholic is required to believe in Fatima. Still, I think it strange that you claim to believe the Bible and public Revelation.
You believe Beelzebub casts out Belzebub dont you?.
Jim, as regards your comment,
No, I do not believe in the Resurrection because of the transformed lives of the writers, etc… I believe in the Resurrection because it is recorded in the Word of God. The resurrection is true, even though Peter denied Jesus and compromised the gospel, and Barnabas with him, and even though Paul and Barnabas had a split over the ministry of John Mark. The transformation in the lives of believers is evidence that they believe in the resurrection, but by itself it is not proof of the resurrection. All things must be tested by the Word of God, which is why I do not believe the message of the Fatima visionaries. They, and their apparition, propagated a false gospel that contradicts the Word of God. They and it should be rejected on that account.
Thanks for writing,
Tim
Tim,
I am embarrassed by Kevin’s groveling praise of you. It goes beyond mere admiration.
Please, don’t misunderstand. I think Kevin is fixated on you. I am not saying he is homosexual. Not 100% anyway. But I think it is on you to cool his jets before people get the wrong idea.
Children could happen to read this blog and get the impression Kevin is actually in love with you.
I have ridiculed him for his over the top praise of you many times but he has no shame.
Please delete his bootlicking infatuation/love letters.
Tim,
I am not really a licensed therapist but I would like to return the compliment to kevin for his psychological work up he gave us Catholics.
I think it stems from his lack of a good relationship with his father. Kevin says he was never taught any religion by his unbelieving father. He was probably aloof and uncaring. Kevin, probably a bed wetter and thumb sucker into his teens, was hungry for male love. His war hero father may have been a star in the eyes of some, but Kevin sought elsewhere for male love.
Later in life he turned to drugs. When he met John MacArthur, he saw the dad he never had. Mac told him to look to the cruel god of calvinism for a sense of specialness. The god of Calvinism says Kevin is elect. This makes him feel loved by the father he never had.
Kevin hates Mary. He hates women although he has boasted of his “good looks”. Not wanting to face the erotic fantasies that haunted him, he married. Unfulfilled in marriage, Kevin throws himself into hating his the quintessential woman, Mary.
I feel he finds you Tim, to be his father. He loves you with an unnatural love.
Let’s put our heads together to figure out how we can help Kevin get over his fixation with you.
Kevin,
You have boasted to me of your good looks.
Were you ever a male prostitute or “man whore” for women or men?
( Don’t be ashamed to let it out here. We all love you on this blog. )
King James of Scotland ( Walt! are you there ?) who authorized the KJV was himself a homosexual. And he hated his mother, Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. He allowed her to be executed by the vile Elizabeth of England. ( Mary was the true quenn of England but the Prots had seized the wealth of England and were afarid of having to give it back so they supported Henry VIII’s bastard as queen.
Here is a site that says Calvin himself may have had same sex attraction..https://sites.google.com/site/standfordrives/dcms-research/1534-conviction
There are several 12 step groups that come from a Christian perspective you can check out.
COURAGE is a Catholic ministry so you won’t want to go there. Exodus is Protestant so you may find them more welcoming.
Love you dude! Hope you get the help you are looking for.
Jim, I can assure you I have no fixation on anyone. I have praised Tim’s work and research here and I think his exegesis has been spot on. I don’t know Tim personally and may never meet Him. I can assure you I worship Jesus Christ solely. But if your worried about fixation Jim, maybe you need a case of ingrown eyeballs to see your fixation as well as millions of others on the Goddess Mary in the Roman Religion. The soccer goalie for Croatia in the world cup was wearing and Blessed virgin Mary undergarment while playing the other day. Something you would have given hearty approval to. Someone who hands out plastic rosaries shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on fixation. Just saying!
Kevin, you almost “pant after” Tim. men don’t pant after other men. Didn’t your war hero father ever tell you that ( if he was ever around ).
Boot lickers are always sack stabbers. You went from shining Nick’s boots to attacking him. ( I knew it was only a matter of time ).
You will turn on Tin too. A lover spurned always does.
You are icky.
Mary is a woman Bozo. Tim is a man.
Mary is “our, life, our sweetness and our hope”.
Tim is yours.
Leave Tim alone. He is married.
Jim, I love Mary she is my sister in the Lord I hope to meet in heaven some day. But I don’t worship her. And she is no more important to God than any other believer. She considered herself a sinner and and a handmaid of God. Maybe you should consider her the same way.
Maybe you should consider Tim a sinner. He is human. Quit worshiping him.
He can’t give you what you need. Move on.
Tim, it is important to mention as you did that Catholics don’t worship the Mary of the bible, but a graven image ( Roman caricature Mary) which they have put up as God. Just like they put up the graven” image of the beast” to be marched around and worshiped, in the bread.
Tim,
Some Catholic/Reformed dialogue, eh Tim. Great apologetics, too.
Real scholarly work being done on your site Tim.
As long as you invite the likes of kevin Falloni to comment on your blog, you are only going to have mud slinging.
Dump the troll! ( The you might rise to the level of the White Horse Inn ).
Tim, I think you should give Kevin Falloni equal billing as he is the dominant figure on this blog.
You are necessary just to keep the site up and to act as a backdrop with your occasional articles as a backdrop for his “gospel preaching”.
You are like the straight man or pretend interviewer who feeds the the popular comic the lines for him to cap off of.
This is the Falloni Blog. You can go away. You have been made redundant. He came as a guest and now sits in your chair.
Like a cancer, Falloni has been given an inch and took a mile.
He is more than an unctuous butt kisser. He has upstaged you.
Even if you tried to cool him down, he could turn on you as a turn coat. A guy on Jason’s blog didn’t get on board 100% with his extremism as Kevin retaliated against the traitor.
You have a tiger by the tail, don’t you?
Jim, said, “Mary is our life, our sweetness and our hope.” Worshiping Mary can very well be your ticket to hell. Why don’t you read what Tim wrote. He is warning Catholics to worship anyone other than Jesus Christ is fatal to one’s soul. There is a word for it in scripture. Idolatry. You ought to be worried about what he is writing than anything else.
Tim,
Why don’t you send Kevin one of your half eaten pancakes, sandwiches or burgers.
He can venerate it, sniff it, and nibble on until it is green with mold. He will cherish it forever. He adores you with, hmmmmm, hyperdulia.
C’monTim! Please tell me you don’t purr and preen yourself reading his oily praise.
Or do you bask in it? You have a following of one apple polishing brown noser. Surely you find him as putrid as I do.
Before you delete, the phrase actually refers to a false, silver plated copper coin bearing the likeness of the English Protestant king.
Instead of the the likeness being a profile, it was full fave on.
Since the nose stood out slightly, it was the first part of the coin to have the silver wear off revealing the brown and cheap real value of a penny.
Jim, Just like when Walt wrote you about regeneration and faith, you have no retort on the substance of the article, just character assassination. You have called me a troll, igor, and every name in the book and then you whine. This isn’t a Roman Catholic blog Jim. Its a blog proclaiming the gospel, biblical Christianity and outing sola eclessia. You don’t have the power like the Vatican to sensor truth here. You would have been one of the guys putting it to the Huguenots. Not here Jim, here you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Pope Jim Peter Gregory the ix can’t enforce the inquisition here. Truth will reign. You can’t sell you Marian indulgences here Pope Jim Peter Gregory ix. You can’t silence the William Tyndales here. So repent and believe the gospel Jim.
Tim,
http://blog.royalmint.com/old-coppernose-quantitative-easing-the-medieval-way/
why not send him an email and ask him to stop being such a “cable guy”.
” Gosh Tim, you are so great, I mean, wow, Tim, that last article was so fantastic, you have to be divinely inspired, ( pant pant ) Can I have your autograph? Please Tim, ( drool. slobber and drool ) I swear Tim, you light up my life. What are you going to write next Tim, huh Tim , huh Tim?
Latria, duila or hyperdulia. For a man who ridicules Catholic devotion, you sure seem to appreciate the groveling of a sychophantic brown noser.
I am starting to wonder about YOU Tim.
Jim,
You may impute to me whatever frame of mind you wish.
You are always welcome here.
Tim
Thanks for the warm welcome but I think I will be spending my blogging energies elsewhere. I have had a snoot full of the Falloni brand of Gospel preaching.
Email me when you have dumped him.
Jim, Let me explain something to you so you will have no “fog” in your mind. My support for Tim and his ministry has nothing to do with a fixation. It has everything to do with the fact he is one of the few Reformed who are willing to confront Roman error with the truth of Scripture. Most of what goes on on Jason’s blog is allot of butt kissing and acquiescing by Reformed to guys like Jonathan who think the book of John is a metaphysical essay. Tim is taking on directly and exposing the fallibility of sola Roman eclessia. Any Catholic lurker would do well to look at the evidence Tim provides from extensive quoting of Roman Catholic sources compared to the Word of God. He is tearing down the walls of the Roman lie one by one, IMHO. And as he is dismantling this false Christianity doctrine by doctrine, ( Mary, worship of the Roman Eucharist, the Apostasy, the antichrist, removing Jesus, etc) he is laying barren again for truth seekers why one should turn to the Word of God for eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone. And I can’t wait for justification and Romans 4, because he will open the hole in that Roman church heresy too. I can’t wait to hear Nick explain how the word justify means make righteous, or change in moral character. “It is God who justifies” who can bring a charge against God’s elect”. You jim or Nick. And I can’t wait to hear how “not that of yourselves” and not of works” really is code for “of your grace enabled works” and” partially of yourselves.” My encouragement for my brother here Jim is about the war of tearing down strongholds and forces and freeing the people of Roman Catholicism from Satan’s lie that you can save yourself with God’s help. ” If its by works it is no longer by grace” Repent of a life of works to merit grace thru sacramental efficacy and believe in Jesus Christ who is “the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe” K
Well yeah Jim, Kev is a bit of a fanboy, but as he says:
The soccer goalie for Croatia in the world cup was wearing and Blessed virgin Mary undergarment while playing the other day. Something you would have given hearty approval to. Someone who hands out plastic rosaries shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on fixation.
No kidding.
Bob,
We have kevin’s word for this. I think he is confusing catholics with Mormons. We Catholics don’t have blessed undergarments.
No kidding.
Jim,
Think plastic rosaries.
And Rome and Mormonism both add something to Sola Scriptura; Tradition/Apocrypha and Book of Mormon/Peral of Great Price.
The similarities are there in principle.
cheers
Jim, I am an avid Soccer fan. I watched the Brazil Croatia match the other day. They said the Croatian Goalie was a very Religious man and wears a The blessed Mary undershirt under his Jersey. You make a good point about the Mormonism undergarments. In fact if you think about it Mormonism is very much a recapitulation of Roman Catholicism. I had a friend who I thought I had led to Christ and he ran back to the RC. But he made an astute statement once. He said Mormonism reminded him of Roman Catholicism. Added revelation. Reducing Christ to something less than who He is and what he accomplished. And a system based on works in some way. Mormons are like Catholics, they don’t believe that death is the wages of sin. Rom. 6:23. Therefore becoming divine is more important than redemption. Thats why Rome still has Christ on the altar and the cross as an eternal victim. They won’t let Him off. He didn’t accomplish anything for them because they weren’t dead in their sins without hope. But we know God nailed his wrath and our sins to the cross. When you know you are dead in sins and unable to obey the law perfectly you run to the cross, the one who did not let the cup of wrath pass Him by but accepted God’s punishment and abandonment for our sins. ” He was delivered up for our transgressions and raised for our justification.” He was crushed for our iniquities and by His stripes we are healed. Not given medicine but healed. After obtaining redemption He sat down on at the right hand of God. In Rome Christ’s one time act accomplished nothing because they have to re break His body over and over and over and over and over and over and over like the OT sacrifices never saving anyone. Our Lord was raised in power and declared son of God. “For if he was not raised our faith is useless and we are still in our sins.” Paul gives us the eschatological reality, He has been raised and we are no longer in our sins. Catholics let him off the cross and repent of your abominable mass. Believe on Him for salvation where he in heaven making intercession for the saints. I”t is God who justifies, who can bring a charge against God’s elect.”
Eric W, I see you are back on Jason’s blog. I read your post and thought it was excellent. If your peeking in here, miss you bro and hope you and your family are well.
Kevin,
Blessings to you and your family. We are doing well. I just wanted to visit and say hello.
Eric W, Glad you posted. Really miss your insight, hope you will come back soon. K
Tim, There is an incredible article by Nicholas T. Batzig called the ” The justification of imputation” Have you read it? Thx kevin
Kevin, I have not read it, but I’ll be sure to check it out. Thanks for the heads up.
Tim
Tim, It has become evident to me that Catholics are baptized into a church and taught that original sin is washed away, they are born again, it is a profession of faith, and now they are neutral or good. That they have the capacity to fulfill the ” New Law”,as if loving your neighbor and God with all your heart were an easy task, and they can participate in the propitiation of their own sins. IOW Tim I’m asking you from a faulty view of one’s complete depravity, and dead in sin, and a faulty view that death is caused by sin, it will be difficult to accept the clear teaching of psub. Also they don’t understand the Law requires perfect obedience Gal.3:10. IOW would these understandings be necessary in the exposing of the false axiom of Sola Eclessia of the Roman church? Thx Kevin P.S. I hope what i’m asking makes sense. I am a firm believer that we have to show people how lost they are before they can understand the cross properly and their complete distrust of themselves and trust in Christ alone. Although salvation is all a work of God.
Tim said ‘ it is not Mary that Roman Catholics worship with Latria but a grotesque monstrosity that bears her name.” All this from “the Church that Jesus personally built” we are constantly told, the self proclaimed infallible Magisterium. And the gullible Catholics check their brain at the door and accept all of it hook line and sinker. Blindly praying to the Mother of Jesus and bowing to a piece of bread telling us she is Christ and it is Christ. Roman Catholicism is a front for the kingdom of Satan, the exact antithesis of Christianity. Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. The Emperor in his new clothes. Catholics don’t want the gospel, they want something more, they want to be God. Genesis 3 the real sin of man Idolatry. Isaiah 45:22 ” Turn to Me and be saved all the ends of the earth; For i am God and there is no other” Catholics turn fro your idols, turn to the Gospel and be saved.” Faith alone in Christ alone = eternal life. ” No man will be justified by observing the Law” ” For Christ is the end of the Law to all those who believe”
Tim,
I just gave a shout out to you from Jason’s blog. You really ought to go over and enjoy the repartee. All the old gang is back blogging. You can leave Bozo to mind the store. If any new people log on , he can say”death wafer” or “panting after Mary” or some other pin headed statement to them.
The best part of Jason’s blog is, of course, no Bozo the Clown. He would love to be there but, now that I have a vast record of his slurs to show Mateo, Nick and Jonathan, he will have to stay here and fawn over your masterpieces.
I see Eric just hi-fived Bozo. I really think he should stay here with you guys. But there is nothing here but Bozo and Bozo and more Bozo. Even he would get sick of it here.
Jim, Thats all you got, throwing mud. You ought to know about Bozo, because your a clown.
Jim, If your still lurking. Here is the thing. The church isn’t the goods, the church delivers the goods. And the goods is the gospel. The church can only preach the gospel which thru the power of the Holy Spirit thru faith ( not because of) brings a man in union with the Christ whose righteousness becomes ours and justifies us because it is perfect. He payed the penalty for our Law breaking by fulfilling the righteous requirements of the Law and condemning sin in the flesh. Listen to Colossians 2:13-14 ” When you were dead is your transgressions, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions. having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile against us; He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” Our sins and God’s wrath were nailed to the cross. Christ became sin and we became the “righteousness of God” in Him. God made the iniquity of us all to fall on Him and we were justified.” The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Our righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is His righteousness. In Philippians 3:9, Paul puts all his righteousness in one column that s derived from the Law, and the “righteousness that comes from God thru faith “in Him” in the other column. Thats why the scripture says we are justified now, we are saved and justified by His blood and thru faith alone. It never says we are counted just because of faith but “by” or “through’ faith. The Lord’s supper is a God’s gift and confirmation of God’s grace, not a sacrifice and a payment on your part to increase grace and justice. Psalm 31 says by His righteousness we are justified, not ours. And 1 Corinthians 1:30 says by His doing we are in Christ who became to us ( past tense) wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” And of course Jeremiah 23 says ” His name shall be called : the Lord is our righteous” We are not to trust in our works or our righteousness in any way. Galatians 2:16 is clear no man shall be justified by observing the Law, but thru faith in Christ. Titus 3:5 says “not by righteous deeds” but by His mercy we are saved. John arguably the most important gospel, John doesn’t even mention the Lord’s supper in his gospel, but says to as many as receive Him and believe on His name He has given the right to be called children of God. The Philippians jailer asked What must I do to be saved? Paul did not tell him go down the street and start a doing a sacramental process for your life and then in the end we’ll see how you did. He said” believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” The Roman Catholic has been taught that with the help of sanctifying grace they are to earn their salvation thru sacraments and by their works. They are taught that grace is given by God in response to an action or ability. They are on a treadmill of works to perfect inherent righteousness. But the Gospel says exactly the opposite, that God justifies the ungodly by faith, apart from works, by not counting their sins against them, and by counting ( imputing) Christ’s righteousness to our account. 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:19. Listen what the Apostle says ” For the righteous shall live by faith” He calls us righteous and simply says live by faith. Faith is not some initial mental assent to knowledge of the church in the bible ( as proposed in the RC system) it is described as a life of trusting Christ for one’s salvation. “Hearing by faith” is opposed to works in justification. Romans 11:6 ” For if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, or grace is no longer grace.” Roman Catholics repent of your oppressive system of attaining your salvation by your works, and a sacramental system of earning increase in grace and justice, which provides you no assurance and will only merit hell for you, and believe the Gospel which says that God counts just those who trust in Christ alone for their salvation, and receive the assurance of the Gospel that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead ” YOU WILL BE SAVED” Revelations 18:4 ” come out from her my people” and be saved. The true church of Christ is awaiting you where there is now no more condemnation for those in Christ, only adoption and inheritance which Peters says is of an incorruptible seed that will NEVER fade away. Christ reconciled us by his blood. He didn’t put us in a suspended sate of reconciliation based on if we can get there and a final justification based on the our inherent righteousness. He saved us and redeemed us and gave us the free gift of eternal life thru faith alone in His son.
Tim, it becomes ever more apparent that Roman Catholicism is fictitious divine worship. None of this stuff has any scriptural basis. Condign merit, congruous merit, hyperdullia, dullia, lattria, infused substance, caricature and worship of Mary, synergistic sacramental system of efficacy, relics, indulgences, Purgatory, Celibacy, sacrifice of the mass, Popes, cardinals, nuns, pilgrimages, bleeding Eucharists, salvation by one’s own works, and on and on. Fictitious divine worship. Roman Catholicism isn’t a different denomination, its a different religion. The Reformers came to disassemble the ecclesiastical machinery that was mostly human in origin and content. Spurgeon said they came to tear down the compost pile. Hopefully we can continue to do the same thing by perching the simple gospel.
Kevin,
I agree with you. Roman Catholicism is not a Christian denomination, and some of our confessions say as much. There was no fuzz on this years ago, but as time has moved on, so has the Evangelical resistance of Rome. It is sad to see so many embracing Antichrist in order to bring about the “unity of the Church.” Just as when Abraham tried to bring about God’s promises by the flesh, the result is Ishmael. It will be the same with anyone who runs to Rome in order to “help” God answer Jesus’ prayer for unity.
The truth is, Jesus’ prayer has always been answered in the unity of the faith of His people. That unity does not originate in us but in Him.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, you said:
“King James of Scotland ( Walt! are you there ?) who authorized the KJV was himself a homosexual. And he hated his mother, Catholic Mary Queen of Scots.”
I’m back. I had to speak at the World Bank conference this week in Jakarta Indonesia, and was in Abu Dhabi the week before. It was a bit of a busy schedule, but after 25 hours of flight/travel time I’m back home a few hours ago. It will take me some time to catch up, but I would encourage you not to be so focused on Calvin and his alleged arrest. You may find it more profitable to read his commentaries on the Scriptures.
Welcome back, Walt. I’ve made the Jakarta flight, too, and it is definitely a long haul. I am glad your travels were safe, and I hope your speaking engagements went well.
Tim
Tim,
I had a return flight via Malaysia, Amsterdam and Detroit connections before getting home with the last flight. Whew, it was among the longest I’ve ever had in traveling more than 45 countries. It is nice to be back home… Yes, the meetings were great, and I think we got a few more believers on the same page as ours from the Muslim part of the world. It was my first time to Jakarta, but I can really say how impressed I am with the people. They are so wonderful and amazing how they treated us foreigners. I’m sure there are exceptions, but generally amazingly wonderful people I met everywhere.
Walt, Glad you had safe travels. welcome back brother. K
Hence we see that the reformed Protestant religion is the only true religion that is in the world, because it is built upon the infallible truth and veracity of God. We have reason to be thankful to God, that it is not built upon such sandy foundations as human unwritten traditions, or any human testimony whatsoever. It is built upon the God of truth, and not upon fallible men. We admit the testimony of the church as an help to our faith, but not the ground and foundation of it. The precious truths which we believe, we receive them not upon the testimony of the God of truth that cannot lie. But the Popish religion hath no sure foundation. The faith of Papists is built upon the testimony of the churches, Popes, or councils, but upon the testimony of the God of truth that cannot lie. But the Popish religion hath no sure foundation. The faith of Papists is built upon the testimony of men; so that their religion hath no more certainty in it, than these men have of infallibility.
Thomas Boston, An illustration of the doctrines of the Christian religion, with respect to faith and practice, upon the plan of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism; comprehending a complete body of divinity , ed. Samuel McMillan (2 vols, Aberdeen, 1848), i, 129.
Walt, When Tim posted the statement on justification made by Clement of Rome in the first century reenforcing Paul, juxtaposed against the statement by a Patristic father in the late 4th century saying we should trust in our works after grace for salvation, it crystalized even more for me, along with the other evidence he has presented, that the Roman church was the apostate. It had clearly, thru its unbiblical doctrines, like justification of grace plus works, and Bishops not being allowed to Marry etc. showed a distinct turn. The true church has always known this and separated itself from this system. Yet to today Reformed and Evangelicals are just throwing their arms around these Roman errors as if they are another denomination. It is a different Religion and if you noticed Tim address it this way and so do I. We must not shy away from presenting the truth which will offend. But Rome has offended the truth enough, and the Pope and his religion will not permit men to be saved.
Tim, exactly, according to Paul in Galatians the gospel was the one thing worth protecting and doing everything to preserve its truth. He wrote the book of Galatians to refute those who were trying to undermining the doctrine of justification by faith, the gospel, and said anyone including himself if they preached another gospel ( adding works to hearing by faith to be justified) should be anathema. The church is unified in the gospel. Catholics always say ya but you don’t belong to the visible church, and I say come with me on sunday and I’ll let you touch my visible church. Rome makes a giant error thinking the Church has control of man’s conscience when it is God alone who has control of man’s conscience. The Spirit brings the Word to the heart, not the church. The church can only witness the gospel, but it is the Spirit who delivers all of Christ’s benefits to us. But Tim, Rome is a clever system, having their people roped in by telling them their is no salvation outside their church and receiving the death wafer. They are baptized into a system which cannot save them. You are right that it wasn’t so fuzzy years ago. But today is more subtle. We must stay committed to the truth.
Eric W, made this point on Jason’s site which cannot be underestimated. John 3:8″ The wind blows were it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where its going, so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This is a direct statement to any church who magically thinks their scoundrel can put magic water on someone and poof produce faith and infused habits. God says no, I will put my Spirit in you where and how I want. We receive the Spirit of CHRIST. It is CHRIST that is offered not am infused philosophical soul substance, habit, but the Spirit of christ thru faith.
Tim, have you seen this?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/presbyterian-church-leaders-declare-gay-marriage-christian-n136256
Are you familiar with this Presbyterian denomination?
Walt,
I just heard about this vote over the weekend. I am not very familiar with the PC-USA, and although there was some twitter activity when one reporter accidentally identified it as the PCA. The PCA general assembly took place the same week, which is why there was some confusion.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt, the true church will always stand for truth because the gates of hell won’t prevail against it. And as Tim says the unity of the church is the unity of faith of His people, the unity around the Word, the gospel. This Presbyterian church as any evangelical, arminian etc. that stands against God’s truth is apostates themselves. Those who possesses the gospel will always stand behind JBFA and upholding the Law of God. If some church is willing to marry homosexuals, it does not have the truth. My wife was talking to a Pastor of a big conservative evangelical church in the Phoenix area the other day. He says the biggest sin that is pervading the church today that they have to deal with is homosexuality. John MacArthur does an amazing message titled ” When God abandons a nation” and in it he describes what the conditions are when God turns people over to their sin. Romans 1, it always involves a sexual revolution and then a homosexual revolution. I think we have seen the sexual revolution of the sixties and now they are parading their homosexuality sin young in the street just like Sodom and Gomorra right before God destroyed them.
Kevin,
You said:
“Walt, the true church will always stand for truth because the gates of hell won’t prevail against it. And as Tim says the unity of the church is the unity of faith of His people, the unity around the Word, the gospel. ”
I would suggest that the unity of the true church is more than the unity of faith and the gospel.
The reformers taught that true unity was an obedience to the law and testimony. Unity comes from covenanting as one true church and upholding Terms of Communion that detail out unity and uniformity in the doctrines and teachings of Scripture. It is an independent error to claim unity in faith and the gospel is sufficient to mark the true church in my opinion.
If we are to only mark the true church by faith and the gospel, I fear that we will end up in a growing sectarian culture of evangelicals who claim to be “one with Christ” but will never be able to demonstrate their true unity. They will certainly show a pretended unity in faith and the gospel, but true unity comes from covenanting as one voice through the law and our testimony as a true church…which is ONE in history.
Tim is trying to show us where this true church split in history during the first 400 years, and prophetically where we are going from here, but unity is so much more.
Walt said ” If we are only to mark the true church by faith and the gospel I fear that we will end upon a growing sectarian culture of evangelicals who claim to be one with Christ but will never be able to demonstrate their true unity.” If I’m not mistaken I said the true church preaches the gospel and the Law rightly. Calvin said anywhere the word is preached rightly and the sacraments are administered rightly there be the church. Do you agree with this? You sound a little Catholic still to claim there is no unity in the Evangelical church. I think the church is made up of many denominations who are committed to preaching the word and sacrament who are in unity. I don’t buy the 20000 different sects thing Catholics always say. IMHO the cultural sectarianism of the Evangelical church is a result a failure to preach the great doctrines of the Reformation to its people. The ignorance of the Evangelical church is paramount and is a direct result of the leadership not perching the gospel and Law to their people. When you say unity is so much more, do you mean to say all Christians will be under the tent of Scottish Reformed churches?
Kevin,
I believe in Presbyterian form of church government, so thereby, I believe in a national church similar to the Church of Scotland per country. I believe in a church court system administered by these national church that includes local church court sessions, regional court prebysteries, regional or national synods and a national general assembly that acts with authority. All of these courts, court officers, churches owe their allegiance to Jesus Christ as the sole head of the church, and no court (in any of the four divisions) or church body has any authority to do anything outside of the revealed will of God in the Scriptures. If any court or church body decides to act outside of Scripture they are seeking to overturn Scripture, and take upon their role a higher authority than Scripture itself. At this point, they seek to become a faithful church of Christ and backslide from the true unity taught in Scripture as followers of Christ being one in doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of government.
I agree with the RCC that there are more than 20,000 denominations in the so called Christian church, and that some of these have degenerated to become synagogues of Satan. I see many of these synagogues of Satan in the public eye today that perform Satanic signs, wonders, healings and miracles in the name of Christ…which are actually Satanic.
In answer to your question if the true church is visible by means of preaching the gospel rightly, and administering the ordinances rightly, I would say “yes” and “no”. Yes, if a church in Iran or some non-convenanted nation has believers, the true invisible church is more visible as perhaps they worship in their homes under threat of persecution, or in Sudan where even public testimony of the gospel can get you a death sentence. There are God’s elect there and the true preaching of the gospel, and perhaps ordinances are being offered in secret.
In covenanted nations like Scotland, England, Ireland, USA, Australia, Canada, etc. where the attainments reached during the second reformation are ignored, and claims are made that there is true and faithful churches are marked by only the gospel and ordinances rightly taught, I would not agree. I think there is need for far more covenanted obligations to be followed as we see with both Israel and Judah during times of their reformations.
Walt, Where do you see a national church in Scripture? Thanks And would I be right by assuming you believe in a model like the RC only guided by correct doctrine and to the obedience to the Law and the Testimony. Incidentally Jesus said my kingdom isn’t of this world. As I look at the NT church i don’t see any evidence of a a National church. I see a church in Philippi, Corinth, Rome etc. Rome has there 20000 sects. The Jesuits aren’t even trinitarian, some being Buddhists. There is a plethora of doctrinal diversity in Rome even though they claim home office. Bear with me as I’m trying to understand your position and support for it. Thanks Kevin.
Kevin, here is a good simple place to start to read. It is the very basic primer on the subject of biblical church government.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/index.html?mainframe=/documents/wcf_standards/p395-form_presby_gov.html
Another document that is very good to read, but takes a bit of time and is not reprinted yet (I’ve got 90% of it retyped) is the Grand Debate that compares independent church government with presbyterian church government.
No. The RCC church government is not in any way a hopeful model of the reformers who used Scripture alone to define a presbyterial form of church government.
I assume you adhere to the independent and congregational form of church government, and that anything beyond the local congregation is not biblical, but I would encourage you to read at least the primer referenced above.
If you want more details, here is a list of references to study.
http://www.truecovenanter.com/kirkgovt/index.htm
Presbyterian Church Government:
An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland. By George Gillespie.
The First and Second Books of Discipline: David Calderwood’s Edition of 1621.
Terms of Communion: The Authority of the Books of Discipline within the R.P. Churches. By J.B. Johnston.
The Ministerial Office:
The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. A Sermon by John Fairley.
Ordination Sermon: We are Labourers together with God. By Thomas Nairn
The Faithful & Wise Servant; or The Authority, Character, & Work of a Gospel Minister, in the Church of Christ, opened up. By John M’Millan II.
The Ministry a Perpetual Ordinance of Christ. Chapter 1 from George Gillespie’s Miscellany Questions.
Concerning the Right of Prophesying. Chapter 8 from Robert Baillie’s Dissuasive from Errours.
A Humble Acknowledgment of the Sins of the Ministry of Scotland. By James Guthrie.
A Sermon on 1 Timothy 3:1-4, concerning the qualifications for Shepherds in the Church, wherein is discovered the difference between the Popish Clergy with their wicked Hierarchy, and the true Church of Jesus Christ with the faithful ministers thereof. By John Calvin.
Ministerial Qualifications, from the Reformed Presbyterian, 1854.
A Sermon on How Christ is the True Shepherd, from John 10.11-16: Distinguishes the characteristics of good pastors with their helpful preaching, from bad pastors and their unsuitable preaching. By Martin Luther.
On the Calling of Ecclesiastical Officers:
Of the Election of Pastors with the Congregation’s Consent. Chapter 2 excerpted from George Gillespie’s Miscellany Questions.
Concerning a Calling to the Ministry, and Clearness therein. Excerpted from James Durham’s Lectures on Revelation.
Whether Ordination be essential to the calling of a Minister. Chapter 3 excerpted from George Gillespie’s Miscellany Questions.
Objections against the necessity of Ordination answered. Chapter 4 excerpted from George Gillespie’s Miscellany Questions.
An Ordinance of Parliament for the Ordination of Ministers pro Tempore, according to the Directory for Ordination, 1644.
Ruling Elders:
A Treatise of Ruling Elders and Deacons. By James Guthrie.
The Form and Order of the Admission of Elders, as done by Mr. James Renwick.
The Duties of Ruling Elders and the People over whom they are Appointed Overseers. By Thomas Boston.
An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland: Part 1: Concerning Ruling Elders. By George Gillespie.
Deacons:
A Treatise of Ruling Elders and Deacons. By James Guthrie.
Terms of Communion: A Defence of the Deacon’s Office & Responsibilities. By J.B. Johnston.
The Marks of the True Catholic Church:
The Marks of the True Catholic Church: An Answer to a Jesuit. By John Knox.
Marks of the True Church. From The Original Covenanter.
Ecclesiastical Assemblies:
The Westminster Assembly. From The Original Covenanter.
The Nature & Benefits of Church Membership:
Church Membership. From The Contending Witness
Biblical Principles of Ecclesiastical Dissent & Separation:
The Informatory Vindication of the True Presbyterian Church of Scotland: Head 4
Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting: A Summary Article from The Contending Witness
The Reasons of Mr. Alexander Craighead’s receding from the present Judicatures of this Church, (early PCUSA,) together with its Constitution, 1743.
A Short Account of Mr. Thomas Nairn, Minister of the Gospel in Linktoun… his Secession from the Associate Presbytery; with the Grounds and Reasons, 1743.
Occasional Hearing from The Reformed Presbyterian, 1839.
The Duty of Separation by John McAuley from The Original Covenanter
Queries and Admonitions used in the Private Social Profession of Faith of Christian Children. From Memoirs of the Life of John Howie.
Ecclesiastical Association & Terms of Communion:
A Modest Reply to a Pamphlet, entitled A Letter from a Friend to Mr. John McMillan, 1710. (Early Defence of R.P. Principles & Terms of Communion.)
The Constitution of the Associate-Reformed Synod in America… Testified Against, by the Reformed Presbytery of Scotland.
The Necessity of Testifying Against the U.S. Government as a Ground of Ecclesiastical Fellowship for the R.P. Churches, from the Minutes of the R.P. Church of Ireland.
Terms of Communion From The Contending Witness.
Introduction & Appendix to the Auchensaugh Renovation by Thomas Henderson.
Remarks on a Letter… by Adam Brown, (Concerning the Auchensaugh Renovation) by John Dow.
Against Anti-Scriptural forms of Church Government:
The Bishop’s Doom. A Sermon by Alexander Henderson on the occasion of the Excommunication of several bishops from the Church of Scotland.
From whence essentially is the calling of a Pastor? Against Independency; Excerpted from Samuel Rutherford’s Peaceable Plea for Paul’s Presbytery.
Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Against the Papacy and the Tyranny of the Roman Heirarchy; Compiled by the Lutheran Theologians Assembled at Smalcald, in the Year 1537.
Whether the power of Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction belongs to the People or to the Presbytery. Chapter 9 from Robert Baillie’s Dissuasive from Errours.
A Letter from the Synod of Zeeland expressing their desire for uniformity in Kirk-Government in Scotland, England, & Ireland, and their joy in the overthrow of the intolerable tyranny of Episcopal government, 1643.
Against Ecclesiastical Tyranny:
A Protestation, Declinature, & Appeal, given to the Commission of the General Assembly, 1708, by John McMillan & John McNeil.
A Vindication of the Ministerial Mission & Authority of John McMillan I by John McMillan II.
The Vindication of Mr. James Gilchrist, Minister of the Gospel at Dunscore, by A Dissenting Presbytery of the Church of Scotland.
Walt, thanks, I will look in to this thoroughly. Appreciate you taking time to provide this information.
Kevin,
Please watch this video and put in perspective how tiny the true church is, and how broad is the way to hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weEWl52wevI
The first and second reformation was a bright light and a time of refreshing in the wilderness.
Tim is an expert as you can see on the early church fathers, and is endeavoring to map out the faithful from the unfaithful church in history. He is doing an incredible job, but notice how this blog has so few compared to what the Pope might say, or what these mega church ministers might say. It is true often that so few want to learn these hard things, and even fewer want to hear the truth. They want what the video proves above. They want to be told how good they are and they want to be led to spiritual darkness by the millions and billions.
The proof is eye popping in the video, and when you see the billion that follow the RCC and her teachings.
I recommend you get yourself into the teachings during the second reformation doctrines. If you take the same view as Jim does here on the Scottish presbyterians and covenanters, I fear you will mix modern evangelical, and “church father” doctrines…missing the REAL MEAT that is taught to the Christian world coming out of the first and second reformations.
In all due respect to the writings of the early church, and those who preach in our generation that is the “waterflood” of false doctrine, the great reformers are unmatched in history.
Study and learn from there ministries and writings and sermons and teaching…it is there you will find the gospel and the law that you think is floating around our generation.
Kevin,
The core issue you will want to study, if you have time, is A Refutation of Religious Pluralism (Absurdity & Perfidy of All Toleration).
It has been retyped by a member of our church and is read unto an MP3 audio by another person of our church. This book was written by John Brown of
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=swrb&keyword=Refutation+of+Pluralism&keyworddesc=Refutation+of+Pluralism
“Gospel Covenant Publications has been founded with the specific purpose of bringing you timeless Christian literature that is at the same time both evangelical and reformed. It is our assumption that only in the writings of true biblical Protestantism and of the Covenanted Reformation will we find a truly faithful understanding of the good news of Jesus Christ.
Please visit our website at http://www.gcpublications.com for our products and free literature.”
A Refutation of Religious Pluralism
John Brown of Haddington (1780)
Mr. John Brown’s manifesto shatters the glass walls that have been erected (not only by political leaders, but also by religious leaders) around the ‘sacred’ doctrine of religious pluralism (or religious toleration) within the political realm.
Mr. Brown argues that for a nation to tolerate gross heresy and blasphemy (and even false religions in their entirety) is not to take a neutral position with regard to religion, but is rather to protect and promote false religion (contrary to God and His Moral Law, which perpetually bind all people in the world to its obedience – including political leaders).For God is not morally neutral and does not grant a so-called ‘religious liberty’ in the civil realm to violate His Moral Law (as summarized in the Ten Commandments). For that which is truly a moral wrong can never be a civil right.
In the two Letters found in this volume are summarized Biblical, historical, and logical arguments against the toleration of gross heresy and blasphemy in the constitutions and practices of nations (and especially those nations that are engaged by way of lawful National Covenants to God). In addition, Mr. Brown has cited numerous objections against the magistrate’s God-ordained duty to legally and morally prevent religious toleration and pluralism within a nation, and has provided answers to the objections that manifest a consistent Scriptural reasoning revealing the fantasy of ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious pluralism’ in the civil realm.
If Mr. Brown had written his book in the United States (rather than in Scotland), an appropriate title might have been, The Religious Pluralism Granted In The First Amendment Is Not Granted In The First Commandment.
Dear reader, be ready to have your political worldview shaken and turned right-side-up!
Walt, Thanks, and i can assure you I whole heartily agree the what the Reformers are absolutely unmatched in History. In fact MacArthur once told me that the Scottish Reformers were his favorite readings. I have and will continue to study those Reformers and grow in knowledge, and maybe you don’t understand me I think none of this knowledge is being taught or floated around today, I’m in agreement with you . Evangelicalism has abandoned the Reformers and their teaching. But I still believe where the Gospel is, there is the church.
Walt, Thanks for all the references. I have allot of study ahead of me.
Walt. i listened to the first tape. Very interesting. I would have to say I agree the scriptures teach that God has created Government as His restrainer and His arm of jurisdiction over His glorious Law to the people and the civil protection and upholding of the Christian Religion. I also believe that the move toward religious tolerance and acceptance and the societal secular tolerance stems historically from the abuses by governments that were pagan and sinful and their influence on the Church and the Church’s use of civil power for bad, namely Rome. Because even though God created government as His arm, governments are run by sinful men. This is MacArthur’s argument, that Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, and every time we have had state religion’s in History or the mixing of the church with states it has led to corruption and persecution of people. His contention is Christ called us to preach the Gospel and submit to government, whatever it is. We aren’t called to Christianize the government, because Government is run by corrupt sinful men. God however intended for government to function as John Brown had rightfully pointed out from Scripture. It seems from what i heard Walt that with the passing of time men descanted even in Scotland from God’s perfect setup in Covenanting thru civil Magistrates. I hope I said that right. Love to hear your response, and I will finish all the material you gave me. I find next to Scripture and writings of the Reformers I really need nothing else.
Kevin,
You wrote:
“His contention is Christ called us to preach the Gospel and submit to government, whatever it is. We aren’t called to Christianize the government, because Government is run by corrupt sinful men.”
I would recommend you listen to that first audio one more time. There is a lot of information there that might be better understood by buying the book as well.
What is clear is that the civil magistrate is obligated to upload both tables of the law, including the first four commandments. Thus, the magistrate is to insure that the one true God of the Bible is defended by the magistrate.
However, the civil magistrate cannot force men to become Christian, nor to accept Jesus Christ, nor force them to join any church as was common with Rome during the time of inquisition and the killing times in Scotland through Erastianism.
Listen again to point #10 on the audio starting at 0.55 to understand what I make mention above.
MacArthur is in error if he teaches that man is to submit to unlawful and tyrannical civil magistrates. This view was the total opposite belief of Covenanters, and they even went so far as to proclaim they had a right of self defense with arms when the tyrannical and unlawful civil magistrate under Cromwell and Charles II issued warrant to capture, murder and destroy all ministers, children, parents who swore to the Solemn League and Covenant that refused to denounce it. While MacArthur would submit to this tyranny, as many ministers did to protect their lives and livelihood by taking money offered them to recant across the 3 kingdoms, the true Covenanters. They did not protest the king’s right to rule, only his right to rule as a tyrant violating the laws of God. Even the king is subject to the laws of God.
In summary, the Christian has a duty to obligation to follow lawful civil government, but when the government becomes tyrannical and unlawful promoting evil and wickedness, they can resist for conscience sake, but can also submit for wrath’s sake to avoid certain death and preserve their life. Some ministers and common people will choose to resist for conscience sake holding Scripture above their lives, and others will submit for wrath’s sake to preserve their lives. Which is better I do not render a judgment, but can say that for each Christian family it is their choice. For me personally, I have my limits as to how far I could be pushed for wrath’s sake before I would follow the 18,000+ Covenanters who refused to take bribes and recant their SLC signature, and rather choose death.
They stood against the Roman Catholic funded and supported Charles II tyranny, and chose liberty rather than tyranny.
Walt Romans 13:1 ” Let everyone be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” It is clear here Walt that we are to subject ourselves to the government because it is God who is sovereignly working, for there is no authority except from God. Jesus was in subjected himself to authority. Paul says in verse 2 : “therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves” These are strong words Walt, there are no qualifiers as to subjection to governing authority, we are to subject. In fact the next verses focuses on the individual behavior of a man ” for rulers are not a cause of of fear for good behavior.” IOW no matter what persecution we are under we are to behave rightly. He ends by saying it is necessary to be in subjection because of conscience sake. Now He goes on to say that rulers are servants of God. And lastly we are given the barometer. ” Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” God certainly has set up government as a restrainer on people and you are right civil magistrates are to uphold God’s law , but they are run by sinful men. The focus here is on our behavior not the government, and we have to balance the desire for godly civil magistrates with the command to subject ourselves to authority. I will continue to fully listen and understand these tapes. Thx brother. Hope your caught u on our jet lag. God bless
Kevin,
Read a few commentaries on Roman 13 and see what the literal sense interpretation (eg, intended meaning) of the verse means rather than the literal interpretation means.
I think there are some excellent exegetical interpretations on that verse that might surprise you.
Walt, Ok i will. I want to keep an open mind. Walt are you Post millennial? Thx K
yes, I am historicist post-mill, but am following Tim’s research in the area that is fascinating in the first 358 years, but I’m not sure where it can go from her considering the 1260, 1290 and 1335 years…so we will have to see if all of scripture is integrated as I have seen others do so well. Those three periods have tripped up many many historicist post-mill authors. Let’s wait and see.
Thanks, Walt,
The 1290 and 1335 days are easily integrated. Although I must tell you: I do not believe Daniel 9 is messianic. That changes everything.
Tim
Walt, I think it is fascinating too. My wife asked the same question about where it can go from here considering the same amounts of years. Yes it will be exciting to see. Walt can you recommend a book on Post millennialism. K
Kevin, you wrote:
“Walt can you recommend a book on Post millennialism.”
Well, there are not many that are historicist post-mill.
One good study is Horae Apocalypticae by Elliot. Although he is not historicist post-mill, he is a historicist pre-mill. He is not a futurist like 99% of the evangelical church today, nor is he a preterist. He would be good for you to study as it gives you the “presuppositions” of all the major thought on eschatology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horae_Apocalypticae
The set is available on the puritan hard drive from swrb.
The two best books on the subject are:
Notes on the Apocalypse by David Steele
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14485/14485-h/14485-h.htm
Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation by Alexander M’Leod.
http://archive.org/stream/lecturesuponprin00mcle/lecturesuponprin00mcle_djvu.txt
If you read the last two, and work toward researching the first one you will be mostly in line with what is largely the best and most faithful commentaries/lectures on the subject.
If you want a modern day, and detailed version of the best exegetical study on the matter, I would download either the audio or print versions of these sermons here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=swrb&keyword=Sovereignty+Of+God+Ezra+Series&keyworddesc=Sovereignty+Of+God+Ezra+Series
If you want, I have in one document the entire “Ezra-Eschatology” series completed in word format so you can search for key words. I also have another series called “Israel’s Restoration” series in word that will allow you to search too.
You would have to get me your email address and I can send it too you by email. Both series are incredible and very detailed with Scripture proofs so you can understand the context of each proof text used.
They will not agree with where Tim is taking his series, but between this research and following Tim’s commentary you will be a far wiser student of Scripture than you are today.
I wrote in 2014 the following truths.
“The two best books on the subject are:
Notes on the Apocalypse by David Steele
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14485/14485-h/14485-h.htm
Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation by Alexander M’Leod.
http://archive.org/stream/lecturesuponprin00mcle/lecturesuponprin00mcle_djvu.txt
If you read the last two, and work toward researching the first one you will be mostly in line with what is largely the best and most faithful commentaries/lectures on the subject.
They will not agree with where Tim is taking his series, but between this research and following Tim’s commentary you will be a far wiser student of Scripture than you are today.”
It is the last sentence that will get you removed from this site. Beware!
Walt,
Since the Seventh Day Aventists and M’Leod both predicted, incorrectly, the end of the 2,300 “years,” Adventists placing it in 1844 and M’Leod placing it in 1896, and you despise the Adventists for their “time setting” and their false prophecies, on what basis do you commend to us M’Leod, an errant time setter and false prophet, while condemning the Adventists for their errant time-setting and false prophecy?
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Walt,
Douglas Douma has a comment about David Steele recently. I think Douma’s argument is a good warning.
https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/low-high-and-in-between-confessional-subscription-and-the-clark-van-til-controversy/
John,
Are you joking? You believe Tim Kauffmann is a true prophet. How can you be a true prophet when all your predictions are in error? You cannot.
Read David Steele and avoid Tim. David Steele would never silence his critics like Tim does on this block. All faithful ministers are open in the light. Tim operates in darkness which should be a warning to all of us.
John Macarthur used to say if you want to know what a man struggles with the most, listen to what he talks about all the time. Walt’s words and accusations proves he is the one who thinks he is a prophet, and a living magisterium. He comes here and tells us who is a prophey and who is not, who is light and who is darkness. And yet he is able to make those determinations and conclusions without ever proving his position. Walt, your actions show you are a fraud, unrepentant, lacking in knowledge and understanding, only able to make subjective proclamations of people’s characters, and utterly failing to ever disprove their work. And after acusing Tim of trying to be a prophet turn around and tell John that David Steele is one. You hypocrite, you don’t even say according to my study, but you condemn Tim for being a false prophet while simultaneously telling us who is the true prophet, and yet you can’t prove your case. Fraud
Hi Walt,
Thx for your reply.
I’m not sure where you thought I said “I believe Tim is a true prophet”.
The article I referred to above by Doug Douma was arguing for a Confessional Standard, especially the WCF. His argument was that we have the tendency to go beyond the standard with additions, or beneath the standard with subtractions. What people add on or subtract from the WCF is open to argument. But that is the point. It is only the WCF that is the agreed standard amongst Pressies. The rest is a matter of opinion. Asking people to go under or over the standard is schismatic i.e. A Presbyterian needs only to hold to the WCF in a good conscience. Those asking for less, or more, are entitled to do that, but they should not judge a brother who is at ease holding to the standard he gave an oath about. I am not talking about error here. Error is to be rejected. But opinion (which the additions or subtractions are) is just that, opinion.
But for your extra consideration, how do we respond to opinion and even to error. Gordon Clark has a little book on The Incarnation. It is a very interesting challenge to the “status quo” of Reformed thinking on that subject.
In Clark’s book, reference is made to a BIG disagreement that occurred between John Wesley and George Whitfield. The disagreement was over the doctrine of election. Clark recommends that everyone read Whitfield’s letter of reply to Wesley.
It taught me a lot about how to respond to others with whom we have sharp disagreement. Much of their disagreement was argued over the 39 Articles of the C of E. Whitfield, IMHO, wins the argument hands down, but it is not only the content of his words but the methods he uses, which I think we can benefit from.
I would recommend the letter to you for your consideration.
Here is a link (Starts about 3 paragraphs down on the page. Goes for several pages):
https://graceonlinelibrary.org/biographies/a-letter-from-george-whitefield-to-the-rev-john-wesley-by-george-whitefield/
Walt,
You continue to avoid the main problem with your position which is internally inconsistent. I will restate the problem for you here, and encourage you to address this glaring inconsistency in future comments:
I addressed a similar problem in another comment, as well:
These should be very simple for you to address, and yet you seem to avoid them.
The Church of Scotland has taught you to obey. Has it taught you to think?
Thanks,
Tim
Walt, how can I get you my email?
If you both concur, I will be happy to provide your e-mails to each other so they aren’t broadcast online.
Just let me know.
Tim
Tim, Ok with me. Thx
Tim, I just finished Graven bread. Thanks for writing that book Tim. The perversion of the communion table will be unforgivable.
Thanks, Kevin,
There are some things I would change in Graven Bread—like the appendix on the mortal head wound. More on that later. I wrote Graven Bread in the 1990s, and would change a few things. The underlying message is the same, though: papacy is the beast, apparitions of Mary the false prophet, miracle of the sun is the fulfillment of Revelation 13:13, eucharist is the image, eucharistic miracles are the image coming to life and having the power to talk, inquisitions are the period when people were put to death for not worshiping the image, etc…, as I have expounded here.
Thanks for your note.
Reading this took my breath away. I had no idea of the things written here.
I can now understand why exRomanists who have become Christians are often so outspoken against Rome’s teachings. Thx very much Tim.
John, ya, it is amazing isn’t it. The biggest ” church” in the world, dressed in robes and purporting to be Christ historical body, and be the way to heaven, is actually Satan’s door into hell. But why would he do it any other way. If he makes good look evil and vice versa then he would certainly use the external visibility to billions as “Christ’s church” to deceive all who enter. How many of my friends have always bragged to me about fuller communion that Protestants don’t have. But that’s just another way of saying I need to participate in my salvation by my works. It’s anti gospel and just a dressed up version of law system. But the gospel says repent and believe in the gospel Mark 1:15. As Spurgeon aptly said,Rome has piled so much rubbish on the cross, you can’t see it. Our hearts should break for those people, who are caught up in rampant idolatry and think they need a priest or absolution, when the need to believe the words of the gospel alone.
Thx Kevin. Yes, it puts new emphasis on the words about the devil that “he is the father of lies”. It also makes me realise afresh what a unique treasure we have in the Bible, which alone is the truth. This essay really shocked me.
Tim, you are laughable. All my responses have been block for what seems like a year, with the exceptions of those you let through so you and Kevin can jump on and say something and then blick my response to you. Give me a break. It is like sending someone into a boxing match where you tied both my hands and you and your darling Kevin can just pound on me over amd over, and my one chance is to kick you both with one message out of 30 you let slip through so you both can pound some more.
This is a very good experience for me as I have never faced this before in any blog debate. I was on many discussions and never had all my moderator choose what to release and then pound on me publically, and then block all my replies to defend myself. It is really fascinating and is teaching me how careful I must be to say anything where the only publish what they can use against me.
It has been a valuable lesson. John you are wrong but my replies to you are all blocked and have been for many months.
Walt, I have never blocked your answer to that question because you have never answered that question. Why all the bluster and complaining? Just answer the question. Here it is again:
Why are you unwilling to answer such a simple question?
Tim
Walt, your hands are tied behind your back? That’s rich. It’s my observation that you have received more Grace and rope here than anyone, although Tim has been gracious to us all to participate. But he expects us not to waste time on ad hominem but adresses the arguments. Please drop the I’m outnumbered stuff. I come here to study eschatology. I’m open to what scripture is saying. I have given difference to Tim because I think he has proven his positions from scripture. If you have a better argument against his position make it, I’m open. How, no one cares about your opinion on whose a prophet and who isn’t, let the man of God prove his position from scripture.
I have responded to one portion of the above article:
Catholics Think Mary is “Co-Creator”? (Refuting a Distortion of What St. Alphonsus de Liguori Actually Teaches in “The Glories of Mary”)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2023/07/catholics-think-mary-is-co-creator-vs-t-l-kauffman.html
NOTE: I have never yet received notice of replies to my comments in my email (for about eight comments so far).
Dave, thank you again for notifying me of your article.
The centerpiece of my position was simply to define “worship” using the Roman Catholic definition, and then see if Roman Catholic veneration of Mary technically meets the minimum requirements of their own definition. Roman Catholicism’s own definition states explicitly, among other things, “To adore God is to acknowledge him … as the Creator and … the Lord and Master of everything that exists.” As exhibit A, I offered Bonaventure saying of Mary, “The world which thou with God didst form from the beginning continues to exist at thy will, O most holy virgin.” As Bonaventure concedes, “the words of Proverbs [are] applied by the Church to Mary: I was with Him forming all things.” “The world continues to exist at thy will, oh most holy Virgin” is latria. Bonaventure’s sentiments ought not be defended, but rather he should be scolded and his words condemned.
This is precisely why John Henry Cardinal Newman distanced himself from such statements as these, yes, these very statements you are defending. Newman claimed “we cannot understand” what Bonaventure meant, and we ought not “imitate” such extravagance, for such men who utter these things are “beyond us.” The saints are offered to Roman Catholics as godly examples to imitate, and yet Newman could not bring himself to imitate Liguouri or Bonaventure:
Indeed, Newman would have rather remained in ignorance of him than actually read him, or imitate him, so jarring to him was Liguori’s “hyperdulia”.
That said, I found your response to have several significant weaknesses.
First, in your defense of Liguori’s adulation, you concede that this is “a complex theological topic” and that the words on their face “imply that Mary was literally creating with God,” and that “if it takes you this much work to defend what was said” it sounds like rationalizing. You should go with that. It does sound like rationalizing.
Second, your subject matter expert, Fastiggi, attempted to clarify Bonaventure’s words by acknowledging that “many Catholics are unaware” of the very criterion by which the “actual” meaning of Bonaventure’s words may be properly understood: “the doctrine of Mary’s predestination”. This is a rather remarkable concession, for it means the words sound very much like I read them, and that the key to understanding the actual meaning is unknown by “many Catholics.” Thus, “many Catholics” would read it exactly as I have — a point that rather undermines the position you are trying to make.
Third, Fastiggi’s defense of Bonaventure’s words is nonsensical, for it matters not what Fastiggi thinks Liguori meant. What matters is what Bonaventure plainly said, and what Liguori plainly affirms to be the correct interpretation according to the Church:
Liguori cites Bonaventure as follows:
Liguori then says Bonaventure’s statement is in perfect conformity with the teaching of the Church, which applies Proverbs 8:30 — “I was with him forming all things (cum eo eram cuncta conponens)” (Proverbs 8:23-30, Douay Rheims/Vulgate) — to Mary:
Fastiggi’s attempt to justify Bonaventure’s interpretation makes the passage (Proverbs 8:30) nonsensical, for he says Bonaventure’s words “quem et tu cum Deo fundasti ab initio” have been mistranslated as “thou with God didst form” but in reality simply mean “Mary was with Him … in a predestined sense.”:
The problem with Fastiggi’s attempt is that the Proverb, in which Bonaventure was properly “adhering” to Church teaching, itself is not about Wisdom being merely with God at the beginning when He formed all things, but rather that wisdom was making everything with Him:
In fact the Scriptures are replete with such passages of the role of Wisdom in Creation.
That is the “historical and theological context” of the Proverb that Liguori claimed Bonaventure had properly understood in accordance with Church teaching when he applied it to Mary — that Wisdom was with God at the beginning, forming all things, and Wisdom in this case may be properly understood to mean Mary.
For Fastiggi’s argument to work, the passage itself must mean not that God founded the earth by His wisdom (which it actually does), but rather Wisdom just happened to be with Him at the time He founded the Earth, but that His wisdom itself was not “forming all things.” The fact that God founded the earth by His Wisdom is the very point Bonaventure had drawn out, and which Liguori confirms is the correct interpretation, and the Vulgate confirms, and thus Bonaventure is said to be correct when he applies it to Mary saying “world which thou [Mary/Wisdom] with God didst form from the beginning.”
But Fastiggi has claimed, implicitly, that while Proverbs 8:30 means “the world which thou [Wisdom] with God didst form from the beginning” when applied to Wisdom, for indeed the Lord “established the world by His wisdom” (which is absolutely true), but must be rearranged to mean, “the world, which was formed from the beginning by God alone, but with you present” when applied to Mary. That is a remarkable stretch, for Fastiggi essentially changes the very text of the Scripture to justify his interpretation. Casuistry, indeed!
Finally, Fastiggi’s attempt to make this about Mary being predestined to be Jesus’ mother ends up heaping even more hyperlatria upon Mary rather than alleviating the concern I raised. He wrote,
If God’s decision is “free,” there are no “buts” to it. If there is a “but,” it is not “free.” Either God’s decision was “free” (unconstrained), or Mary’s was, but both cannot be. If God’s predestination required Mary’s “free consent,” then God’s decision was not “free” for it awaits the exercise of Mary’s “free consent”. Liguori goes on, indicating that God’s “free decision” was suspended from Mary’s “free consent,” and depended upon it:
This is how Mary’s “consent” ends up constraining God’s “free decision.” And thus, Liguori very justifiably concludes the only logical implication of that arrangement: that Mary’s “free consent,” her “fiat,” is greater than the very “fiat” that depended upon her “consent”:
Thus, in your and Fastiggi’s attempt to rationalize and justify Liguori by claiming that the saints do not adore Mary as equal to God, you end up conceding that in fact, she is adored above Him! That is hyperlatria.
Twisting yourself in knots like this is unseemly. How hard would it be, Dave, simply to say, Bonaventure and Liguori were wrong here, and should not have heaped such unseemly adoration upon Mary.
Instead, you justify it, and by doing so, justify Liguori’s logical conclusion from his erroneous premise, namely that if God’s decision to create the world depended upon Mary’s consent, then her Fiat is greater than His — the very concern you were trying to alleviate.
Nowhere else to go with this one. But I have another critique of this article that I just put up:
Mary, Not Jesus, is the Catholic “Savior”? (Response to More Misrepresentation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s Book, The Glories of Mary)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2023/07/mary-not-jesus-is-the-catholic-savior.html
Still no notifications of anything.
Dave Armstrong ” nowhere else to go with this one” then ” response to more misrepresentation of ……. Ligouri’s book” wait, Dave, you just conceeded the first argument to him and now you’re saying there is more misrepresentation to deal with ? Of course what else can you say when Kauffman says to you ” instead you justify it……….Ligouris logical conclusion from his erroneous premise , that if God ‘s decision to create the world depended on Mary’s consent, then her fiat is greater than his, the very concern you were tring to alleviate” im not sure you were trying to alleviate it Dave but imho you conceeded because how can one really justify Msry having any thing to do with creation, let alone giving her consent. Newman in his quote saying these men were so beyond him is not a denial but i dont dare go there. These men were treading on the sovereignty of God who alone said my glory I share with no one. Scripture says it is God who dwells in unapproachable light. These men were fools Dave who ascribe one ounce of any attribute of God’s creation or meditation to any sinner. Salvation is forever and only an rescue operation of God and no one else. Mary said “my sould rejoices in God my SAVIOR” . Mary knew jer place before God, a sinner by nature in need of forgiveness . My prayer is that Roman Catholics would repent of their idolatry and works righteousness and perceived goodness and believe alone in the gospel of scripture which Paul says ALONE holds the power for salvation. Thank you for indulging me. Regards Kevin
“Indulge” is certainly the apt word.
I have replied to a second portion of this article, too:
Bible on Imitating Saints
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2023/07/bible-on-imitating-saints-vs-t-l-kauffman.html
It almost amusing ( if it werent dead serious) that praying to Mary, calling her the mediatrix of all graces( no one is better at substituting people for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit than Rome which JC Ryle called one giant system of idolatry) is just a little immitation of the saints. This is how it works in Roman Catholicism. God is transcendent, a tough guy, and you cant go to him. And Jesus hes tough too, so you go to his mother because who can resist a mother,and then she goes and softens him up. This strikes at the heart of God the saviour who is a savior by nature. Hes the one who said come unto me all weary and of heavy burden. For Dave Armstrong its just a bit of imitating of the saints thats going on, nothing to worry about. Parying to Mary is a serious thing Dave, calling her the mediatrix of grace is serious. Pope JP 2 committed the whole church into the hands of Mary when he died,neven having his devotion to her sewn into his garments. Its delusional. Roman Catholics have a hard time distinguishing things and with discontinuity, like no works no you gift by faith in Ephessians 2:8 with ” who by those works truly merit eternal life” , or the discontinuity betwen the Old Covenant and the New, or Aquinas saying man is predestined to glory by his merit in some way and the bible saying man is saved just be the goodness of God as a gift. Imitating the Godly behavior of a saint does not involve praying to them or saying grace comes from them. Paul said ” i am what i am by the grace of God” . In the Roman Catholic false religion grace is simply the currency of exchange on the church merit system and praying to Mary is just a bit of imitation.
The “101 objections” routine, unfortunately filled with misrepresentations and ignorance of our doctrines. Keep reading my stuff and at least you’ll learn what we actually teach — agree or disagree.
” keep reading my stuff and at least youll learn ” what man says this about himself. Whats fascinating is your approach though , you said ” refuting a distortion” it takes one to know one. Ill tell you what distortion is, reading the Exodus 20 verse that Kauffman quoted in his argument while your church bows to bread and prays to a dead woman who hasnt heard a prayer since the day she died., and then saying hes making a legalistic argument. Now thats distortion.
Here is the reasoning the Roman apolgist like Dave Armstrong “thou shall have no other gods before me . Thou shall not make unto thee ANY graven image , or likeness of ANY thing that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath , or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shall not bow down to them, nor serve them” now here is Armstrong’s statement right after quoting Tim Kauffman quoting this scripture, ” He ( Tim Kauffman) would make out ( as far as i can tell from his remarks) that all bowing bedore images is an act of idolatry” hey Dave, thats what the verse just said. You immediately imply that not all bowing before images is idolatry, even after the verse tells you not to bow to any images under over on the earth. None. What you are really saying is there are exceptions to the commandment. There isnt. You are right Mr Armstrong, if i continue to read your stuff ill learn a lot. You go on about Kauffman’s point ” in effect, he makes all images ” graven images” thats right, any image you bow down OR SERVE is forbidden. Your article refutes scripture under the guise of ” legalistic” saying there are exceptions, when the verse says any image. Poor reasing Mr Armstrong. You finish in that section with ” but this too is a falsehood” no its not a falsehood because Kauffman didnt say it, the scripture did, and Kauffman is saying the RC violates that commandment. It is you Me Armstrong in an attempt again to justify your church practices is making some images acceptable for bowing and serving. Incidentally, pointing out error and stating scriptural truth isnt 101 objections, its calling to account what you wrote. Sorry you giving me your resume ofv qualifications on RC doctrine holds no weight with me. Thx Dave.
Am I banned now? Just checking.
Dave, you are not banned. I had to go into the server and actively subscribe you to notifications. You were already subscribed to comments on this post, but were not subscribed to notifications overall. You should see notifications going forward.
Thanks for the explanation. I still have not received a single notification of any replies to my comments. Some sort of glitch there.
Ah, good. I tried five times and one came through.
What I was gonna say is that I eagerly await Timothy’s replies. More critiques are coming.
Dave” the strong insinuation is that Catholics make Mary their savior, not Jesus” well if a Catholic calls her the gate to heaven, a Catholic prays to her, and you say she was sinless ( something you personally confirmed in your retort, even saying Jesus other family members might be ) then yes you are placing her above God and in place of the savior. Again JP2 at his death commited the whole church into the hands of Mary, seriously . She is referred to as the mediatrix of all grace. John MacArthur does an amazing message on how as Jesus’s ministry grew Mary lesssened. He deflected glory away from her and she fades away, actually Paul mentions her once in the epistles ” born of a woman”. And this is the prpblem with Roman Catholicism, its a false religion, human institution witch a false gospel of human achievement. Its interesting to me Dave that you put Tim Kauffman’s statement that he was saved out of Catholicism into Christianity at the top of your retort. Because you need to understand either we are co laborers for Christ, or Roman Catholicism is the mission field. It cant be both. And Protestants shouldnt be willing to throw away 500 years of the reformation and martyrdom for the true gospel, for some ecumenical joint statement and false unity. Unity comes thru the truth, and the Marion ego in your church is just one of many examples of idolatry and usurping the Trinity with men, sinners. K
Dave said” indulge ” is certainly an apt word for you. Well lets find an apt word for Dave . He said ” for God shares his glory with them” in Dave’s attempt to justify imitating special saints with exrra special merit. But Isaiah 42:8″ I am the Lord. That is my name. I will NOT yeild my glory to another” . So the apt word for Dave is ignorant, of the scriptures. God says he shares his glory with NO ONE, and Dave says no God shares his glory with the special Roman Catholics.
Of course the qualification for being Roman Catholic is the utter inability to distinguish the difference between things. Imitating Godly behavior with ” he shares his glory with them” does God share his glory with us? No he doesnt. Do we imitate Godly behavior in others. Yes. They arent the same. But as Tim points out we should imitate Christ as our example. One mediator from more than one. Can one logically distinguish, not Roman Catholics. No works no you Ephessians 2:8 from as a reward to those very works. He offered himself once and for all from he offers himself again and again, since Trent anathematized anyone who says each and every mass isnt a real and proper sacrifice of Christ in itself. Finished from ongoing. Believe from merit. Idols from Jesus. And so it goes. 1 John 2:27 says those who truly believe in the gospel of scripture have an annointing to believe what is true, and clearly the ability to distinguish clearly these things. ” keep yourselves from idols”