What do I think of Robert Louis Wilken’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
The subtitle of this book is the Christian Origins of Religious Freedom. At the start, Christianity was not treated well by the Romans. Tertullian was the first to actively speak about the freedom of religion in his apology for the Christians. (For those who don’t know, an apology is a defense in the ancient world. He is not saying the Christians had done anything wrong.)
Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one — if you choose to take this view of it — count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered him; and so the very Egyptians have been permitted the legal use of their ridiculous superstition, liberty to make gods of birds and beasts, nay, to condemn to death any one who kills a god of their sort. Every province even, and every city, has its god.
And thus, we have the first argument for freedom of religion, fifteen centuries before the Constitution.
Wilken also has an interesting section on conscience. The ancients would not find it sensical to say with Jiminy Cricket, “Let your conscience be your guide.” We read it individually in a passage like Romans 2. The ancients would have read it collectively. It was the idea that your actions had moral significance and could be judged by others. It comes from two words, scientia and con, meaning knowledge with.
By the time we get to the Reformation, this has changed in that conscience is more of an internal guide. (Now also, we often say it can be the voice of God, which is a much bigger problem.) So can one say that Luther was wrong when he invoked conscience in making his defense? If you do, you have to be aware that several Catholics at the time also invoked conscience for their own freedom to worship as they saw fit. Luther, like the Catholics of his time, was to some extent a product of his time.
From the Reformation on then, we have countless battles and controversies going on. The church used to be a solidifying factor of stability, but what happens when the church itself has divisions in its ranks? This is where the majority of the book looks. The main idea is often that there are two swords, the sword of the spiritual kingdom and the sword of the physical world and the kings have no jurisdiction on the former.
This is also why it’s such a big deal when the King of England breaks away and starts the church of England. All of a sudden, you have a king who is in charge of both spiritual and physical matters. What is to be done then?
When you read through the book, you also see that in all of this, both sides did awful things to each other. You will grimace at some of the ways that Catholics treated Protestants. It will be just as hard to read of the ways that Protestants treated Catholics. The freedom of religion that those of us in America today have is something we dare not take for granted.
While Wilken goes through many thinkers of the time in looking at the topic of freedom of religion, I have one major criticism of the book. I would have at least liked to have seen one chapter dedicated to the American experiment. How did our Founding Fathers take all of these and make freedom of religion so important in our country? What has been the result? Are we in danger of losing that freedom? (By the way, the answer to that last question is yes.)
If you like history and political ideas, this is a worthwhile book to read. Many times, people in our times look at where we are and think that it’s obvious that all should have this position today. It rarely is. Books like Wilken’s remind us that there were a lot of hard questions to ask along the way.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Is Reformation Day a day to celebrate? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
Sometimes it seems odd to me to celebrate Reformation Day. Don’t get me wrong on this. I’m happy to be a Protestant Christian. I do have points I disagree with with both the Catholic and the Orthodox branches. At the same time, I see them as my brothers and sisters in Christ. My ex-wife used to attend an Orthodox Church and I’m sure if I went back to Georgia and visited them, they would recognize me and welcome me with open arms. I was always a friendly face at the Bible studies and other things that would take place.
On the other side, I have several Catholic friends I more regularly get to interact with because we have a Zoom meeting every Thursday night. It’s a group to discuss especially Thomas Aquinas. I’m one of the token Protestants in the group who does know Aquinas well and my running joke is I am there to make sure everyone gets their doctrine and their Bible correct, especially when I answer a question many seem stumped on or have to explain a point of Thomism. Last Thursday, I even commented on Luke 1:35 and how I would exegete it, certainly not a contentious verse between us.
I am a member of a debate group on Facebook for all three branches, but when I see something, rarely do I say how one group is wrong in their doctrine. I have no interest in that. Instead, I comment when one group is I think misrepresenting another group. I would hope that over the years, people would know I want to make sure any position is represented accurately and that even my Catholic and Orthodox friends who disagree with me will say I am still fair with them and don’t have a chip on my shoulder against them.
Now I do appreciate that the Reformation took place. At the same time, it’s a sad state of human affairs that we couldn’t have everything worked out. As is the case in most any human affair, I suspect there were bad moves played on both sides. I’m not about to claim Martin Luther is the holiest man who ever lived, nor am I to say he’s a total villain.
I also am sure everyone can agree there were problems in the Catholic Church at the time. Even if one doesn’t agree with all that happened, it can be said that Luther did raise up some valid concerns that needed to be addressed. If he hadn’t, then why was there ever a Counter-Reformation?
I do think there was good that came out as we had a renewed look at exploring the traditions that the Catholic Church held to to see which were likely to be true and which were not. Naturally, there are some I disagree with or else I would be Catholic today. There was a renewed interest in Bible study and a push to let everyone have access to the Bible.
These are good, though I won’t deny there are some downsides, like again any human endeavor, as when great minds who have great respect for the Bible and its culture read it, we get some great insights. Unfortunately, there are a number of people who are convinced the Holy Spirit is telling them stuff that’s absolutely nonsense and no need to study. Consider it like the internet. Put great information in the hands of the populace and a lot of people will misuse it.
One of the greatest areas of sadness with this to me is the Lord’s Supper. (Which the way we do it is hardly a supper anyway and I think the majority of churches just giving out a piece of bread or a cracker and a drink of wine or juice are doing it wrong anyway then) This was meant to be a time of unity where we were all to gather together and celebrate. Instead, it’s now a reminder of disunity. I am remembering going up in the Orthodox Church and I could get a blessing from Father B who led it, but he could never give me a piece of the bread. (Although I did come up afterwards when extra were handed out and it was okay.) I wonder if there were times he wanted to give me some of the bread as well anyway.
I celebrate many of the doctrines that came out of the Reformation, but I don’t celebrate the disunity. I look forward to celebrating at the throne one day with all my Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I suspect we won’t spend eternity going on and on about who was right. (Some of you better hope not because you know me and if it’s me, I will never let it go!)
So yes, I did celebrate in some sense, but I will celebrate even more when we can all worship together.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
If someone has been abused, what do you say about why God allowed it? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
Yesterday I wrote about abuse, but I didn’t say much about why it is allowed. This is always the kind of question you don’t really want to get because in many ways, the person is searching for answers perhaps to try to make sense of their lives. Many of us have gone through a trial of suffering and wondered what was going on.
When my divorce was becoming a reality, I prayed hard every night. I wanted a healing for my marriage. I wanted this nightmare to go away and things to be the way they should. I wanted God to show up in a remarkable way, or really just any way, so that the day could be saved and I would have a happy marriage. Surely God would want to do this! Right?
All I can say is God allowed me to get divorced and well, I don’t like it, but I have also learned He didn’t owe me a marriage and I just need to keep serving regardless and hope that door opens again someday. That being said, I know that’s not the same as abuse still. After all, in abuse, you are actively being hurt and seeking an end to pain. I say it though because I want those of us dealing with this to think about what is the greatest pain in our lives we went through that God DIDN’T answer the way we wanted.
The thing is, an abuser in many ways becomes a controller. One lives constantly with the pain that has come about because of the abuse. This is something that occurred to me as I had to move in to my parents’ house again after my divorce, feeling like a failure in many ways as a 40+ year-old man having to do this again. Don’t get me wrong. I’m grateful to them for taking their son in again, but it wasn’t where I wanted to be as much as I love my parents.
Yet I told myself that I have been playing games all my life. Will I not try to approach this the same way? I can either keel over and be a victim, or I can get up and be a victor. The motto “Play to Win” became an anthem in my life.
Ultimately, I also encourage people to do this. Choose to be a victor. I know some people going through divorce can seek revenge. I earnestly battle not to within myself. The only exception is this other saying I try to live by. “The best revenge is a life well-lived.” Holding hostility does no good.
For abuse victims, I wonder if it could be the same. Can you learn to be a victor? Can you be able eventually to forgive internally at least your abuser? Could you want their well-being to take place? I think about someone I have met who has made a ministry from overcoming her abuse to helping others overcome abuse. You can find her here.
Yet the question is still unanswered. Why does God allow it?
Why?
Folks. Unless you are 100% absolutely sure that you have a divine message, which I seriously doubt you do, the best answer is really, “We don’t know.” Does that mean atheism is true? Not even close. If anything, atheism just makes the problem worse. As I have argued elsewhere, you gain nothing removing God from the equation. After all, you still have the evil. You have just removed the source of goodness and justice.
We can say generally the reasons God allows evil, but why a particular evil is allowed? That cannot be said without divine revelation. Too often we in an effort I suspect to appear spiritual try to act like we know the will of God. We do more harm than good. Scripture instead tells us to mourn with those who mourn and weep with those who weep.
There are good works out there on the problem of evil, but the best answer to one in the pain is not an argument. It is a friendship with them. It is showing them love and being willing to bear their suffering with them. Will there come a time later to discuss the problem of evil? Of course, and it should be done when the person is ready.
Some of you might be disappointed by that answer and were hoping for some major insight you could use in this situation. There isn’t one. Evil ruins so much and we need to realize that. We know Jesus is the answer ultimately, but we don’t have all the answers on an individual level. We shouldn’t claim to.
We do know we should love on an individual level.
Let’s do what we know.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
What do you say to someone who was abused in the church? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
I was talking with someone on Facebook recently who was making an argument about the Catholic Church and children being abused. I asked the question of if they condemn the public school system. After all, the case of abuse by teachers in the public school system is actually far worse statistically than it is in the church, be it Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox.
That being said, there is one way that it is definitely worse in the church. While all teachers should care for the welfare of children and put the children first, it is far worse when those who claim the name of Christ abuse children. That is directly contradictory not just to a job code, but also to the very faith they claim to represent.
Let’s face it with something I hope we can all agree on. Abuse is evil. Abuse of children is evil. Abuse of animals is evil. Abuse of adults is evil. Abuse is never okay no matter what kind it is.
Now normally, when I dialogue with someone who brings up the abuse scandal though, I often get the impression they’re wanting to just use it to bash Christianity. After all, if abused kids are the problem, then you should equally condemn the abuse in the public school system. As a Christian, I can equally say I condemn all of it. There are horrible people out there who should not be clergy. There are wonderful people out there who I am thankful are clergy. The same applies to teachers. The problem isn’t so much the worldview as it is, well, just people.
The person I was talking to told me they were abused by a youth pastor and prayed to Jesus every night for it to end. So what do you say then? There’s no real grounds upon which to question the story and I can say I can understand how if someone had that happen, they would have a hard time with Christianity.
Note I am not saying it is a rational reason to think Christianity is untrue, but if you are undergoing abuse and you pray and it doesn’t go away, one can understand why one has a hard time trusting God. It’s like people who grew up with abusive fathers and then hear that God is Father. There’s a whole lot to deal with.
So what do you say, especially if you’re not a licensed professional counselor?
Let’s start with one thing you don’t say. “I understand.” You don’t, and when people are grieving and you haven’t gone through a similar experience, you don’t say that. If I met someone going through the pain of divorce, I could tell them I understand how painful that is. If I met someone who had lost a child, I could not tell them I understand that.
One of the other things to do if you are in person is sometimes to not say anything. Just listen. Just be a comfort. Let the person cry or scream or do whatever they need.
I also try to not really answer the problem of evil there. Now on Facebook, this is a bit different since you have to say something. I did make sure to ask regularly if this person had gone to see a therapist. I never got that answered, but anyone who has gone through abuse needs to see a therapist.
I did try to point out that if Christianity is true, there is at least hope. Justice delayed is not justice denied. Someday, those evil people and all who defended them will get justice. Sometimes, the whole church can take part in the cover-up. It is better to them to admit there is evil in their midst and instead blame the, in their eyes, alleged victims.
By the way, this never happened to me, but having gone through divorce and talked to others who have, I know of too many stories where an innocent party was divorced and the church was hardly helpful to them. The church should always be willing to show the love of Christ to those who are suffering.
Ultimately, until a person gets past their emotional wounds, a rational argument really won’t make sense to them or be effective. Definitely pray for them. I have been praying for this person every night ever since hearing about this.
Also, you’re likely to not bring resolution by yourself. You’re a part of a longer chain of people working on an individual. Now it could be you’re the final link in that chain, but don’t presume that. You might be Paul or you might be Apollos. God will bring the growth either way. Play whatever part you have well.
Finally, let’s all do our part to end abuse wherever it may be. Definitely this is so in the church. I have no problem with thorough background checks being done on those who will work with our most precious resource, our children.
And of course, if you yourself are an abuse victim, get help for it. No shame in that. I hope eventually, you will find complete healing in the person of Jesus for what has happened to you.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
How bad can an atheist argument get? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
There are a number of atheists that can make good arguments. They can also dialogue. They know religion is a serious topic. They know faith is not belief without evidence and they know there are actual arguments for theism and they can say some of them are good arguments even if they think they’re wrong. They can think that Christians and other theists can be reasonable people.
Then, there are internet atheists aka fundamentalist atheists.
Please don’t be one of them.
Let’s consider as exhibit A, this hot mess that I received from someone.
I will go through it bit by bit with IA being the internet atheist.
IA: “Religious Manipulation and Evolution In 325, Constantine the Great created the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea after the genocide of 45,000 Christians,
Reply: Horrible grammar aside, I actually did something unusual here, well, unusual for an internet atheist, and I looked up the church fathers to see if any of them used the term “Catholic Church.” I have them entirely on my Kindle so let’s see.
Well, we were going to until I realized how long the search feature was going to take, so I just went to EarlyChristianWritings.com.
“1 The church of God which sojourneth in Smyrna, to the church of God that sojourneth in Philomelia, and to all the settlements of the holy and Catholic Church in every place, mercy, peace, and love from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied unto you.”
“Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.”
That Constantine must have been a time traveler!
I’m also finding nothing that says how many Christians were killed, though most Wiki sites seem to indicate 3,000 – 3,500.
Constantine: where he tortured them to renounce reincarnation.
Reply: I’ll take imaginary events for $400, Alex!
Nope. We have what was discussed at Nicea. We have the minutes from the conversations. Reincarnation was never on the table. The only church father who held a view at all similar was Origen. No one followed him on this. I recommend readers check Paul Pavao’s website on this.
IA: At the same time, the religious books of all the villages of the empire were collected and thus the BIBLE was created.
Reply: Even non-Christian scholar Bart Ehrman argues against this.
Widespread Misconceptions about the Council of Nicea (For Members)
“One of the reasons I’m excited about doing my new course for the Teaching Company (a.k.a. The Great Courses) is that I’ll be able to devote three lectures to the Arian Controversy, the Conversion of the emperor Constantine, and the Council of Nicea (in 325 CE). It seems to me that a lot more people know about the Council of Nicea today than 20 years ago – i.e., they know that there *was* such a thing – and at the same time they know so little about it. Or rather, what they think they know about it is WRONG.
I suppose we have no one more to blame for this than Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code, where, among other things, we are told that Constantine called the Council in order to “decide” on whether Jesus was divine or not, and that they took a vote on whether he was human or “the Son of God.” And, according to Dan Brown’s lead character (his expert on all things Christian), Lee Teabing, “it was a close vote at that.”
That is so wrong.
There are also a lot of people who think (I base this on the number of times I hear this or am asked about it) that it was at the Council of Nicea that the canon of the New Testament was decided. That is, this is when Christian leaders allegedly decided which books would be accepted into the New Testament and which ones would be left out.
That too is wrong.
So here’s the deal. First, the canon of the New Tesatment was not a topic of discussion at the Council of Nicea. It was not talked about. It was not debated. It was not decided. Period. The formation of the canon was a long drawn-out process, with different church leaders having different views about which books should be in and which should be out. I can devote some posts to the question if anyone is interested (I would need to look back to see if I’ve done that already!).
Short story: different church communities and Christian leaders preferred different books because they (the communities and leaders) had different understandings of what the faith was and should be – even within the orthodox community there were disagreements.
The *first* author ever to list *our* 27 books and claim that *these* (and no others) were “the” books of the New Testament was the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, in the year 367 (45 years *after* the council of Nicea!) in a letter that he wrote to the churches under his control to whom he was giving his annual episcopal advice. And even that did not decide the issue: different orthodox churches continued to think that some books should be in, for example, that didn’t make it in (e.g. 1 and 2 Clement; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Letter of Barnabas).
There never was a church council that decided the issue – until the (anti-Reformation, Roman Catholic) Council of Trent in the 16th century!”
IA: In 327, Constantine, known as the Roman Emperor, ordered Jerome to translate the Vulgate into Latin, changing the Hebrew names and distorting the scriptures.
Reply: This was quite an accomplishment again! Where did Constantine get his time machine?! Jerome wasn’t even born until 347! Before he was born he was asked to translate the Vulgate, which is the Latin version of the Scriptures that Jerome translated, into Latin! Well, that doesn’t sound right to translate Latin into Latin, but hey! What do I know?
Also, we can compare the Masoretic texts to the Dead Sea Scrolls. No Hebrew names were changed.
IA: In 431 the VIRGIN cult was invented.
Reply: The first mention I know of perpetual virginity is in the Protoevangelium of James which is around 2nd-3rd century. In 431, Ephesus said that Mary was the mother of God. This is hardly the establishment of the cult of the virgin though, if you want to call it that.
IA: In 594, the CLEANER was invented.
Reply: Um? Lysol? Windex? Oxyclean? What is the cleaner? I can find nothing specific being invented in 594.
IA: In 788, the worship of pagan deities was introduced.
Reply: For the most part, Paganism was long dead at this point essentially and I can find no references to any pagan deities being introduced in 788.
IA: In 995, the meaning of the word “kadosh” (sanctified) was changed to saint.
Reply: Again, I can find nothing on this. Saint comes from the Greek term “Hagios” and Kodesh is a word referring to something holy in Hebrew.
IA: In 1079, celibacy was imposed on priests >> a completely Catholic word.
Reply: Yeah. Again, not as cut and dry as that. The only sources I can find with a 1079 date are ones like this. Again, no sources cited.
IA: In 1090, the Rosary was installed.
Reply: Again, no sources given and Catholic sources talk about events even later.
IA: In 1184, an inquisition was carried out.
Reply: The first one was carried out then, but again, it would be horrible for an internet atheist to actually read a book on the topic like this one.
IA: In 1190, indulgences were sold.
Reply: I find a lot of anti-Catholic websites giving this date and generally, I want to go with friendly sources as much as I can. Either way, if true, what follows from this?
IA: In 1215, priests were forced to confess.
REply: The same sources say confessions began at this time, but again, nothing from Catholic sources I find.
IA: In 1216, Pope Innocent III. made up a story about the fear of bread (a god in Greek mythology) becoming human flesh.
Reply: It was Transubstantiation and had nothing to do with a fear of bread or bread being a god in Greek mythology.
IA: In 1311 he overcame the karst.
Reply: Wow! That Pope sure lived a long time! He makes up a story in 1216 and overcomes something 95 years later! Incredible! At any rate, the event I see happening is the Council of Vienne and I have no idea what is meant by the Karst.
IA: In 1439, the non-existent PURGATORY was dogmatized.
IA: There are more than 2500 things invented by this religion to enslave people to Christianity…
Reply: Things the author gets right are really only things that are much more recent. The further back he goes, the more wrong he gets.
IA: Religions and their Gods were created as a means of MANIPULATION and BUSINESS.
Reply: Those early Christians were rolling in wealth and glory for sure!
IA:As part of the EVOLUTION of man comes liberation from these modes of manipulation. Although man is gradually in the age of AWAKENING, for two generations young people are becoming less FAITHFUL every day and the Catholic faith will be in decline. (I’d like to see this moment)
Reply: I am fully Protestant, but I do not see this happening and our atheist gives no data to back this. As for moments he’d like to see, I’d like to see the moment of this guy reading a book and learning something.
IA: All this will be part of our EVOLUTION. It is up to you to continue to believe what you now consider to be the absolute truth because you have not asked yourself… ask yourself and you will see that all religions are fabrications… of man.”
Reply: Nothing about metaphysical arguments for God. Nothing about historical arguments for Jesus. Seriously internet atheists! Do some research on this stuff before going on like this. It’s embarrassing.
I think only one thing can be said in closing to this person.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
What do I think of Gilles Emery’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
Emery’s book is stated to be a book on Catholic doctrine on the triune God. That being said, the Trinity is a doctrine for all branches of Christianity. If you are Protestant or Orthodox, there is still a lot you can get from this book.
Actually, as I read it, I found myself thinking the book read very much like a Protestant book on the Trinity could read. This is not at all to knock Catholics or imply that they are thinking like Protestants, but I did see the constant emphasis on pointing to Scripture primarily. About the only major difference it looks to me is that Catholics tend to cite more Catholic sources and Protestants tend to cite more Protestant sources. A Protestant like myself would not likely go and cite the Catechism in order to demonstrate the Trinity.
Something else refreshing is that while Emery is writing about deep topics, and sometimes it could be hard to follow, generally, it isn’t. Emery doesn’t come off as if he’s writing to academics. He’s writing to the layman, but at the same time, he is encouraging the layman to go deeper. You will find talk about divine simplicity, for instance, and how that works with the Trinity.
Yet as you are going into these “deeper waters” (couldn’t resist) of the Trinity, Emery takes your hand step by step. This is not a sudden plunge. This is a gradual wading as the Trinity is explained at a steady rate until one gets into the deeper topics. You start with just examining the confessions of the Trinitarian faith and then end with discussing the saving action of the Trinity.
For instance, consider the word God. What does this mean? It is a mistake of groups like the JWs and others to assume that God means Father. The first mistake these groups make is the assumption that God is unipersonal. If you make a one-to-one equivalent of God and Father, you have a problem, but if you realize God is not referring to a person alone but rather speaks of a nature that is fully embraced by a tripersonal being, it fits.
Thus, when we say Jesus is God, it is easy to take that to mean that Jesus is the Trinity or some modalistic sense, but what is really meant is that Jesus is a person who fully possesses the nature of God. The same applies to the Spirit and the Father. This doesn’t mean that there is no difference in relation as the Father is usually seen as the origin and the Son and Spirit exist both because the Father exists as well.
The Trinity is not an easy doctrine to understand, if one can really understand it all as it is more likely to be apprehended. However, with resources like Emery’s, Christians can have a better grasp on it. I recommend this reading not just to Catholics, but to Protestants and to Orthodox as well. The chapters are long, but not too long. A dedicated reader can go through one per day and thus finish the book in a week, a worthwhile investment.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
What do I think of Michael Allen and Jonathan Linebaugh’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
I got this book on sale on Kindle. (Pro tip. Sign up for emails that tell you when books go on sale on Kindle.) I do have some friends who are Catholic and Orthodox and I thought this would be an interesting read. A historian and a theologian look at one reformer’s work on one epistle and then each write a chapter critiquing what they have to say in light of modern scholarship.
Something definitely worthwhile to point is that sometimes, it’s tempting to think the Reformers moved us away from tradition entirely. This is not so. There were a number of decisions the church made that the Reformers agreed with, such as the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Many of them loved the writings of John Chrysostom and especially Augustine.
As is said in the book about interpretation:
For good or bad, the Protestant Reformation heritage has bequeathed to us a sense of interpretational autonomy , which has led to the idea that the sola individual is capable of being an authority on Scripture without recourse to how the church has read these texts across generations. But this is never how the reformers read the text. The reformers always read their biblical texts with ancient friends. This volume reminds us of the need to rekindle some of these friendships, lest our dementia become crippling. It is within this context, then, that I echo John Bradford’s appeal to “remember the reading and preaching of God’s prophet and true preacher Martin Bucer.”
And we should seek to do the same. It would be a mistake to say the church fathers got everything right. It would also be one to say they got everything wrong. While Scripture is the final authority, it is foolish and arrogant to think that the Holy Spirit has only aided people since the Reformation.
The book looks at Melanchthon, Luther, Calvin, Bucer, and Crammer. It goes through and then gives concluding thoughts overall. Those interested in the debates of the time and seeing them in light of what we know today will definitely enjoy this.
For my end, I have to say that while I do appreciate the work being done, and I do know how important it is, it sometimes doesn’t seem to always apply on a practical level. I do know that I am forgiven in Christ. I do not claim to understand how that fully works out with justification and sanctification.
Also, I do think a lot of times the writers are way too heavy-handed on the New Perspective on Paul. I am sure if the Reformers were here today, they would be eager to study the position and see what they thought. The last thing they would want is to have their position be the new position that dare not be challenged.
If you enjoy discussions of justification and sanctification and free-will, you will enjoy this book. If you enjoy discussions of the Reformation and Catholic/Protestant dialogue, you will enjoy this book. Either way, you will walk away being more informed than you were before.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
What else happened with the Bible of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
Normally, I would place each section on its own, but these are all so short that I’m going to take them in one fell swoop.I try to reach a specific word count in each blog post after all. Anyway, the source material can be found here.
Johnson puts this in a number of sections and I will do the same.
The Spiritual Attack
“About 1582 … the Jesuit Bible was launched to destroy Tyndale’s English Version” [S2P233].
“The appearance of the Jesuit New Testament of 1582 produced consternation in England. It was understood at once to be a menace against the new English unity” [S2P239].
“Immediately the scholarship of England was astir. Queen Elizabeth sent forth the call … to … undertake the task of answering the objectionable matter contained in the Jesuit Version” [S2P239-240].
Thomas Cartwright undertook the task. “With inescapable logic, he marshalled the facts of his vast learning and leveled blow after blow against this latest and most dangerous product of Catholic theology” [S2P240].
Thus, Cartwright defended the English people against the spiritual attack. But, that was only 1/2 the battle …
The problem with all of this is we have no statements from Catholic and/or Jesuit sources. It reminds me of what we say happens in politics on the conservative side. You get a leftist to present their case and then another leftist to say what they think about the conservative case.
The Physical Attack
“Meanwhile, 136 great Spanish galleons, some armed with 50 canons, were slowly sailing up the English channel to make England Catholic. England had NO SHIPS. Elizabeth asked Parliament for 15 men-of-war – they voted 30. With these, assisted by harbor tugs under Drake, England sailed forth to meet the GREATEST FLEET the world has ever seen. All England teemed with excitement” [S2P240].
Cartwright sent forth the Word of God against Satan’s lies. With Drake, a type of ‘David’ was sent forth against an attacking Goliath.
Now, which side do you think God was on?
I use it to the experts on war history to comment on this. For the last question though, first off, I think the response from a Civil War discussion is better and I think it was Lincoln who said it. We should hope we are on God’s side. Second, I am not convinced God has a “side” in this. It could be a case of “A pox on both your houses.” This is not to say neither side is Christian, but both were acting outside of the Christian tradition.
The Outcome: God Protects His Own
Although England was outgunned by every measurable indication (in the physical), history has forever recorded the results:
“… the Armada was crushed, and England became a great sea power” [S2P240].
Hallelujah! Praise God!
I would think a more fitting response would be mourning like was done in Judges when Benjamin had been defeated. Yes, they were in the wrong, but they were still the brothers of Israel.
The Perfect Masterpiece
“Flushed with their glorious victory over the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and over the Spanish Armada of 1588, every energy pulsating with certainty and hope, English Protestantism brought forth a perfect masterpiece” [S2P242].
This perfect masterpiece: “… was not taken from the Latin in either the Old or the New Testament, but from the languages in which God originally wrote His Word, namely, from the Hebrew in the Old Testament and from the Greek in the New Testament” [S2P242].
English Protestantism: “… gave to the world what has been considered by hosts of scholars, the greatest version produced in any language, – The King James Bible, called ‘The Miracle of English Prose'” [S2P242].
And if this is not idolatry, it comes awfully close. I wonder if Johnson thinks the Apocrypha is part of this perfect masterpiece. Oh, wait. Just did a check. He’s never mentioning it again after chapter 15. I’m not surprised.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
What continued in history with the Jesuits and the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
So we’re getting closer and closer to the time of the KJV. What’s going to happen? It’s time to look into the history here and see what happens. The link can be found here.
The previous chapter explored some of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We concluded the two doctrines are 180 degrees apart. And we learned that Catholic doctrine is trying to infiltrate God’s Bible.
We learned nothing of the sort. It was asserted they would want to do this.
At this point in our study of the Bible, God is using: The Greek text of Erasmus (1522 A.D.), the Tyndale English Bible (1525 A.D.), and Luther’s German Bible (1525 A.D.).
Satan is using the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits.
I personally think God is using all of them and even if you include villains, well, God uses them too. As C.S. Lewis said, Judas served the purposes of God as did John.
In this chapter there will be ANOTHER attack on God’s true Word.
T H E S T R U G G L E
“Sixty years elapsed from the close of the Council of Trent (1563) to the landing of Pilgrims in America. During those sixty years, England had been changing from a Catholic nation to a Bible-loving people. Since 1525, when Tyndale’s Bible appeared, the Scriptures had obtained a wide circulation. As Tyndale foresaw, the influence of the Divine Word had weaned the people away from pomp and ceremony in religion. But this result had not been obtained without years of struggle. Spain at that time was not only the greatest nation in the world, but was also fanatically Catholic. All the new world belonged to Spain, she ruled the seas and dominated Europe. The Spanish sovereign and the Papacy united in their efforts to send into England bands of highly trained Jesuits. By these, plot after plot was hatched to place a Catholic ruler on England’s throne” [S2P237-8].
Gotta love the start implying Catholics aren’t Bible-loving. Still, I’m not wanting to argue against the historical claims. I’m willing to accept them for the sake ofa rgument.
“At the same time, the Jesuits were acting to turn the English people from the Bible, back to Romanism. As a means to this end, they brought forth in English a Bible of their own … If England could be retained in the Catholic column, Spain and England together would see to it that all America, north and south, would be Catholic. In fact, wherever the English-speaking race extended, Catholicism would reign. If this result were to be thwarted, it was necessary to meet the danger brought about by the Jesuit Version” [S2P238].
“So powerful was the swing toward Protestantism during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and so strong the love for Tyndale’s Version, that there was neither place nor Catholic scholarship enough in England to bring forth a Catholic Bible in strength. Priests were in prison for their plotting, and many fled to the Continent. There they founded schools to train English youth and send them back to England as priests. Two of these colleges alone sent over, in a few years, not less than three hundred priests” [S2P238-9].
“The most prominent of these colleges, called seminaries, was at Rheims, France. Here the Jesuits assembled a company of learned scholars. From here they kept the Pope informed of the changes of the situation in England, and from here they directed the movements of Philip II of Spain as he prepared a great fleet to crush England and bring it back to the feet of the Pope” [S2P239].
“The burning desire to give the common people the Holy Word of God was the reason why Tyndale had translated it into English. No such reason impelled the Jesuits at Rheims” [S2P239]. The purpose of the Jesuit New Testament was: “… to do on the inside of England what the great navy of Philip II was to do on the outside. One was to be used as a moral attack, the other as a physical attack – both to reclaim England” [S2P237-9].
Earlier, I had said that I had used the RCC Bible being talked about here when Johnson claimed some verses had been taken out and I saw that was nonsense. I am pleased to see it looks like I have been right about where he was going.
We pick up the history of the Bible in 1582:
And we will pick up next time.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
What about the practices of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
My apologies for this being so late in the day. My computer was not being kind this morning and was failing to connect to the internet. Fortunately, the information technology team at NOBTS got it working again. My thanks to them. For now, the source material can again be found here.
These are some of the Jesuits’ beliefs. But what about their practice? What have they actually done?
“In 1572, the Jesuits, with the help of Prince Henry III were responsible for the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. At this infamous event, which took place on August 15, 1572, the Jesuits murdered the Huguenot (Protestant) leaders gathered in Paris for the wedding of Princess Margaret, a Roman Catholic, and Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot. The murders inspired Roman Catholics to slaughter thousands of Huguenot men, women, and children. Henry of Navarre was not killed but was forced to renounce Protestantism, although his renounciation was insincere, and he remained a Protestant until 1593. The number of victims in this Jesuit conspiracy is estimated to be at least 10,000. In 1589, when Henry III was no longer useful to the Roman Catholic Church, he was assassinated by a monk by the name of Jacques Clement. Clement was called an ‘angel’ by the Jesuit priest, Camelot. Another Jesuit priest by the name of Guigard, who was eventually hanged, taught his students that Clement did nothing wrong. In fact he voiced rerets that Henry III had not been murdered earlier at the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. He instructed them with lessons such as this: … Jacques Clement has done a meritorious act inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we can make war against the King then let’s do it; if we cannot make war against him, then let’s put him to death … we made a big mistake at the St. Bartholomew; we should have bled the royal vein …” [S1P91-92].
As bad as that was, “The Jesuit’s murderous ways were not yet completed in the history of the French Protestants! When Henry III was murdered, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot [Protestant], came to power. A hope for a Catholic rebellion never materialized, and Henry IV was allowed to reign. In 1592, an attempt was made to assassinate the Protestant king by a man named Barriere. Barriere admitted that he had been INSTRUCTED TO DO SO by a Father Varade, A JESUIT PRIEST. In 1594, another attempt was made by Jean Chatel who had been TAUGHT by Jesuit teachers and had confessed to the Jesuits what he was about to do. It was at that time that Father Guigard, the Jesuit teacher previously mentioned was hanged for his connection with this plot” [S1P92-93].
Six years later, “In 1598, King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes, granting religious freedom to the Huguenots [Protestants]. They were allowed full civil rights and the right to hold public worship services in towns where they had congregations” [S1P93].
Well “This was the last straw! Henry the IV had to be eliminated! This time the Jesuits would allow for more careful planning. Edmund Paris details the assassination of King Henry IV:
… On the 16th of May, 1610, on the eve of his campaign against Austria, he was murdered by Ravaillac who confessed having been inspired by the writings of Fathers Mariana and Suarez. These two sanctioned the murders of heretic ‘tyrants’ or those INSUFFICIENTLY DEVOTED to the Papacy’s interests. The duke of Epernon, who made the king read a letter while the assassin was lying in wait, was a notorious friend of the Jesuits, and Michelet proved that they knew of this attempt. In fact, Ravaillac had confessed to the Jesuit Father d’Aubigny just before and, when the judges interrogated the priest, he merely replied that God had given him the gift to forget immediately what he heard in the confessional” [S1P93].
All of these sound bad and there are no primary sources cited. I do know there is a lot of misinformation on the medieval church and that period altogether, but for the sake of argument. Let’s accept all of this as true.
So what?
I mean, of course, it matters that it happened, but that doesn’t show that the text has been altered. I suspect most Roman Catholics who would read this would be quite ashamed to hear these kinds of accounts (Assuming they are true) and I dare say there are likely many times in Protestant history we have been the villains as well.
Reverend Gipp says: “This is the spirit of our enemy! THIS is the ruthlessness of the Roman Catholic Church against those who will not bow their knee to Rome! Would God use this church to preserve his word? [S1P93-94]
This is a horrible argument with just a simple question to show how bad it is.
Who preserved the Old Testament before Jesus came?
Why, yes. The nation of Israel. Now what was that nation like? Just read your Old Testament and you will see. They were hardly honoring to YHWH for the majority and yet, they were the ones that God used to preserve His word.
God uses flawed human beings regularly. Aside from Jesus, they’re the only kind of human beings He has.
Do these two doctrines (Protestantism and Catholicism) have anything in common? Obviously, not!
Now I would say we have a lot more in common that not, but that’s not relevant.
Should Protestants form ‘pacts’ or ‘agreements’ with Catholics? I think not.
The Protestant and Catholic beliefs are 180 degrees apart. These two belief systems are diametrically opposed to one another and will always be that way.
What happened in the past if true was horrible, but one should not stay there. If Johnson wants the RCC to answer for all the sins of its past, and to an extent they should, then we as Protestants should own up to ours.
Either way, bad argument.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)