Category: Catholicism

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 14.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Council of Trent also decreed that:

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

The council’s exact words were:

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

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

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

Apparently he had for 1,000 years.

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

Specifically, history records that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And lastly:

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

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

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

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

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 8.1

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

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

After Origin, Constantine, and Eusebius:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://1611bible.online/Apocrypha/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This ‘Old Latin’ Bible was:

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

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

Reverend Gipp says:

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

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

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

And again, all we have is an assertion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so we shall, next time.

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

Book Plunge For Fun: Murder in the Convent

What do I think of Tanya Taylor’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Someone has murdered the Mother Superior. She’s found by one of the nuns in the convent and that nun before any investigation can be done pulls a knife out of her body. Two other nuns make a survey of the convent. Is anyone else there? Is there any sign of an open window or anything? Nothing.

Naturally, the police are called in who do an investigation of the nuns and interview them all, but there is one person that is known to the detective and apparently to everyone else who does his own investigation. This is Father Joe McCullen. A later event leads to him having a more personal interest in finding out who did the crime.

So who murdered this nun and why would they want to? How was it done? All of these questions are discussed and Father Joe with his position in the community uses his knowledge to get to the bottom of the situation.

At the same time though, he is always a priest. When people are coming to him with concerns they have in the aftermath of what happened, he is right there. When someone needs to go and comfort the nuns and help them work through whatever they are going through with this, he is there again. However, he is not only a priest, but he is a very wise priest. This is a man who lives out his Christian walk and references to that walk are constantly found throughout the book.

At the same time, a Protestant reader can happily enjoy this book. Aside from nuns, I can’t think of anything right off in the book that is really distinctly Catholic. At the same time, I would not have wanted to give up on the book in disgrace if such had been there, but a Protestant reader can find themselves right at home reading this material.

The book is also short as there are just fifteen chapters and I did cheat with one chapter being a couple of pages so I read that in addition to my normal one chapter a day. Because of that, I finished the mystery in two weeks and I did find that I enjoyed it.

I will grant that this is the first one in the series that I have read and so I did find it rather simple to figure out who did the crime and why as the story went on, but seeing how it all worked out was also interesting. The main theme of the book is not to be found in the crime. It’s to be found in the values that the people in the book live by. It is to be found in how a Christian community struggles when one of the worst sins is found in their midst.

If you like a mystery like I do and want to read something that is also family friendly and wholesome, this is a good one. I do know there are other books in the series and I plan to get them as they go on sale, or unless someone feels generous. If you want to get it, you can find it here.

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

The Other Extreme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It just works better that way.

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

MacArthur and the Principle of Charity

How do we read even our opponents? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There’s a rule in debates of any kind that if there are at least two possible readings of a text and you have no good reason to prefer one to the other, you go with the one that puts your opponent in the best light. You would want him to do the same to you if he thought your statements were ambiguous. If you don’t understand a concept also, you should not put it in a way that is absolutely ludicrous.

So let’s look at something John MacArthur is claimed to have said. My friend who shared it is a Catholic and I have not known him to post false information so if this was never said, I will gladly rescind any comments about MacArthur, but the concept will still be the same because this is a common mistake. Anyway, it all begins with this picture.

I understand a lot of my fellow Protestants get antsy when they hear the phrase “Mother of God” and I will be discussing that concern later on, but no matter how much you might think Catholicism is false whether you just disagree with it or whether you think it’s the biggest cult on Earth, and I am indeed the former, let’s state something about what is meant by Mother of God. The fact is that no Catholic takes it to mean something along the lines of, “God did not exist and then Mary came along and Mary gave birth to God and God came into existence at that point.” Every Catholic knows that God in His divine essence was not born. God is eternal. They do know that a man named Jesus who is both God and man was born. That is what is meant.

Now that doesn’t mean you have to accept every bit of Mariology that comes from Catholics and Orthodox, but it does mean that you can accept this term when it is understood. If by Mother of God, one means that Mary gave birth to a person who is fully God and fully man and brought the incarnation into the world through her body, there is not a problem. Protestants agree that Mary was the one to do this and to this degree, she should indeed be honored even in Protestant circles. While I think Catholics and Orthodox have gone too far with Mary, I think the Protestant reaction has gone too far in the other direction.

Now let’s address something a Protestant friend said in the discussion. Catholics should say what they mean. When people hear Mother of God, they do tend to think something along the lines of God came into being through Mary. Why not let them just say what they mean then?

The problem here is that everyone does theological shorthand. Were you to go up to Protestant Evangelicals and ask “Is Jesus God?”, they would say yes. Now you go to someone like Greg Stafford, who is a Jehovah’s Witness who wrote a book defending them. He will take that and go this way.

Jesus is God.
God is a Trinity.
Jesus is a Trinity.

Obviously, no one accepts this, but Stafford will use it to show the Trinity is nonsense if you think Jesus is God. Some will look at this and say, “I know it’s wrong, but I don’t see where.” The problem is the first premise is theological shorthand. Evangelicals don’t go around stating the doctrine as “Jesus is the man in whom the fullness of the divine nature, the second person of the Trinity, dwells in bodily form.” No. We just speak of the deity of Christ and say Jesus is God hoping people will understand rather than use a long and clunky phrase every time.

Getting back to the picture itself, the reality is MacArthur should know enough about Catholicism to know this. I could grant some grace to Joe Protestant who doesn’t walk in highly theological circles and hears this phrase and reacts that way. On the other hand, how much better would our discussions be if we would go to our opponents over ideas like this and say “Do you really believe this? Explain this to me please.”

And again, if the citation is wrong and MacArthur never said this, fair enough. This can be changed. What is still the same is the point. We ought to read our opponents in the best possible light and if we don’t know something, try to understand before critiquing. How much better could our dialogues be if we did that?

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

Why Can’t Protestants Be More Protestant?

Are we really people who take the Bible as our authority? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many times as a devout Protestant, I hear my fellow Protestants speaking in ways that trouble me. We often talk so much about what the Bible says to us and how it is our final authority in faith and practice. By the way, let’s make that clear, the Bible is not our only authority, but it is the one such that if anything contradicts Scripture, it is false, and any good Orthodox and Catholic would say the same thing. None of us want to believe anything that contradicts Scripture. Whether anyone does is another debate.

Yet when I get together with my fellow Protestants, I wonder about this. Often times, I hear talk about doing what you feel like God is leading you to do. It’s as if God is sitting up in Heaven trying to get your attention by giving you feelings in your heart. Question. Where in Scripture do you see anything like this described? Where do we see anyone being told to follow their feelings? If anything, we know too often that listening to your heart leads to trouble. As Jeremiah tells us, it’s deceptive above all.

Not only that, we would also need a guide as to which feelings are from God and which are not. I remember hearing Derwin Gray talking about talking to a Mormon once who said he knew God was speaking to him when he got goose bumps. Gray said, “If that’s the case, then when I’m watching Rocky 3, the Holy Spirit must be all over me.” It’s humorous, but you get the point. I also realize that we are not Mormons, but we do know Mormons are a fine example of what happens when you listen to strong feelings.

By the way, none of this means that I am opposed to feelings. It means that I am saying feelings must be guided by Scripture and if Scripture doesn’t tell us to listen to our emotions and feelings as cues from God, then we should not do so. Many people look at guilt as such a judgment from God. Guilt can always be a good reason to self-examine, but we all know people who feel guilty for things when they have done no wrong, and we know people who have done wrong and feel no guilt. It’s not reliable.

You may feel like God doesn’t love you. That can tell you that there’s an emotional problem to work out for you, but that says nothing about God. God’s love for you is not dependent on your feelings. If you think it is, then your feelings are greater than God. I have said before if we could ever for the briefest moment of time grasp how much God truly loves us, we would never live our lives the same way. Maybe the reason we don’t have that made fully manifest here is because honestly, in our sinful natures, we cannot handle that.

What would happen if we all took the promises of Scripture more seriously? I realize that my Catholic and Orthodox friends add tradition to the list of something else infallible, but I know they would agree wholeheartedly with this. If we took Scripture more seriously, all of us, we would all be better off. That book contains some pretty incredible promises for all of us. We spend so much time looking at ourselves often that we overlook what Scripture says about the matter.

Let’s consider one example. I am a sensitive guy in many ways when it comes to the fear that I have committed some sin. Of course, we all do, but I know this is one area I am very neurotic in. Now there is no doubt we need to reflect on the gravity of sin, but it would be absolutely awful to see the gravity of sin and then also to miss the greatness of the grace and forgiveness given to each of us. That could actually be a sin in itself. It has a God who would rather judge us than to forgive and love us. (And even if He doesn’t forgive us, He still loves us.)

Maybe you’re like me and your past isn’t filled with heinous sins. Sometimes, we can hear testimonies of people who came from a sordid past and they sound so glorious in a way because they know what they are forgiven for very well. If you don’t have that, it’s hard to experience it the same way. It might seem easy for Paul to write about seeing as he was guilty of murdering Christians, or Peter since He denied the Lord three times, but what about someone like the disciple whom Jesus loved? Are there not plenty of people who are seen as righteous regularly in the Bible and yet celebrate their salvation and thus their forgiveness. We have a hymn in the church about grace that is greater than all our sin. Why do we often act like sin is greater than grace?

After all, any one sin can separate you from God forever. God does not have to forgive you. He doesn’t even have to provide a way of forgiveness. He could have let us all just go to Hell and He would have been justified in doing so. He owed us nothing. That He gave us even an offer is a sign of His grace. If anything, it should tell us God is more serious about our need for forgiveness than we are.

Consider then if you’re a Christian whatever you have done, you have been spared of that. Regardless of if you hold to some form of eternal conscious torment or to annihilationism, you have been spared. Even if you hold to Universalism, you can say that God did not have to do that. We are the ones who have done wrong against God and rejected Him and spat in His face and yet He offers us forgiveness and even still wants to be with us despite the wrongs that we have done against Him, and keep in mind we are to show that love to others as well.

It is something I need to think about as well. I think for instance if an employer wants to do a background check on me, go ahead. They won’t find anything. That’s true. Before the law, I’m a quite clean individual. God help me though if I had to give an answer to Him for any background check. Every careless word and deed and even intention of my heart examined? Instead, forgiveness is given for all of that.

That’s a promise we all have.

Protestants. Our feelings will often lead us astray. We don’t have any guarantee that God is speaking through feelings, dreams, circumstances, etc., but we do know He has spoken in Jesus and in Scripture. Let’s always treat those as our final authorities. There’s a lot of awesome truths in there that we still need to think about.

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

Book Plunge: The Liturgy Trap

What do I think of James Jordan’s book published by Athanasius Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As one a few years ago who started having to interact with the Orthodox Church, I have become curious about the divide between the Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. I have a great respect for all three traditions, although my home is in Protestantism. Still, when I saw a book about the liturgy trap and evangelicals being drawn into Catholic and Orthodox churches because of the worship, I decided to see what was said.

I had a concern at the start hearing that the author was part of the Reformed tradition. I am thankful for my fellow Protestant Christians who are Reformed, but at the same time I realize too often they can take too hard a line on the issues. I was relieved to hear that Jordan does not write off Catholics and Orthodox as non-Christians even if he does disagree with their churches.

I was also pleased to hear that he points to a real problem in evangelical churches. Our worship is way too shallow. Much of our songs are really filled with emotional pablum with no theological depth to them whatsoever. The songs focus on the singer and how they feel for the most part. Few of our sermons have any real depth to them. When I would attend an Orthodox Church, one benefit I had is while I never got into the liturgy, when I heard the sermon, I at least knew I would hear something substantial even if I didn’t agree with it, which was the minority for the most part.

A number of Jordan’s criticisms though I found lacking. I found it difficult to tell what his position was on praying to saints although I know he disagreed. I did get the impression that he has no problem with the idea of the word worship properly understood. For instance, it used to be in some marriage ceremonies each spouse would say to the other, “With my body, I thee worship.”

I agreed with his point on tradition. When I hear someone say that they hold to Scripture and tradition, I think they hold to certain traditions. Catholics and Orthodox both say they hold to the apostolic tradition, and yet there is disagreement between the two of them. When I hear a tradition, I want to know who said it, when did it start, and how reliable is it? If I hear of a tradition and it first shows up a few centuries after Jesus, I am skeptical.

One such tradition dealt with is the idea of perpetual virginity. This is one tradition I definitely question as it looks highly convincing to me that Jesus had brothers and sisters and I have no reason to think of these as anything but natural brothers and sisters. I do not find convincing the story of Jesus at the cross giving His mother to the beloved disciple as a reason to question that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I think Protestants should give honor to Mary as the mother of our Lord and so on our end, I think we don’t show enough reverence.

Overall, I think Jordan does definitely hit on valid points, but I think he overdoes it to at times. What I would like to see, and I just checked and it still isn’t on there, is something like a Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox counterpoints book by Zondervan. I realize there is Robert Plummer’s Journeys of Faith, but I find that one too limiting in interaction as there is just one reply and I would like to see all the positions interacting.

I also wish something had been said about, you know, liturgy. I was hoping there would be some look at worship in church history. For a book with that title, one would think that would be an emphasis, but sadly, it wasn’t. I won’t deny for some, the liturgy is quite beautiful and I understand that. For me, it really didn’t resonate and I suspect I am not alone in that.

If you’re interested in the debate, this one is a good one to interact with still. I do appreciate that it was said that there are real Christians in other churches instead of all guns blazing. We need to be able to debate our disagreements, but still do so as brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Donate to my Patreon here.

Deeper Waters Podcast 4/18/2020

What’s coming up?

April is Autism Awareness Month. As an aspie married to an aspie, I am always doing something in April for this month. This month is no exception. Back in January, I was told about an interesting individual I should have on my show for this occasion.

While I am thoroughly Protestant, I have no problem associating with Catholics and Orthodox and hold strongly to a Mere Christianity. This week, I am having on a Catholic priest who very well understands the ins and outs of autism. This is because he himself is an autistic priest. His name is Matthew Schneider and he will be telling us about life as an autistic priest.

So who is he?

According to his bio (Taken from his blog on Patheos):

Jesus loves us. I love Jesus. My name is Fr Matthew P. Schneider, LC I’m a priest with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi. I try to fulfill our mission of helping people know and experience Jesus, be transformed by him, and become his apostles.

I began working in youth ministry and wrote some of the material for the Conquest and Challenge Clubs but in recent years I have moved away from that. In relation to youth ministry, I wrote the only book on doing 1-on-1 spiritual mentoring with teenagers called Spiritually Mentoring Teenage Boys based on my experience (90% of it probably applies to teen girls too but I don’t have much experience there).

Slowly I’ve become one of the biggest Catholic voices on Twitter with over 50,000 followers.

I’m currently writing my doctoral thesis in Moral Theology through Regina Apostolorum in Rome. On the side, I write some articles for the Regnum Christi site (no byline), post inspirational stuff and Catholic commentary online (including this), help with sacraments at local parishes, and occasionally talk publicly on subjects I discuss here (use the contact form if you want this). I do this while living in the Legionary community in the Philadelphia metro area.

Along with my writing here, I have written for or appeared in at least 65 other media outlets.

  • I have written pieces appearing in the National Catholic Register, America, Crux, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Aleteia, ZENIT, ChurchPOP, Catholic.net, Ignitium Today, Regnum Christi Live, CatholicismUSA, and Shalom Tidings.
  • My pieces have been featured on New Advent, The National Catholic Register, BigPulpit.com, The Catholic Herald, and Spirit Daily.
  • I have been interviewed on/in the EWTN Nightly News, Catholic News Agency, The Son Rise Morning Show, Crux, Morning Air on Relevant Radio, The Catholic Channel on SiriusXM, EWTN Pro-Life Weekly, EWTN Noticias, The Catholic Herald, Elite Daily, and Kresta in the Afternoon.
  • I or my work has appeared in stories by Catholic News Agency, Crux, the Associated Press, the Huffington Post, Christianity Today, Slate, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, CNN Español, The Washington Post, Elite Daily, BuzzFeed, The Christian Science Monitor, NBC 4 (New York), RT, “On Religion” (syndicated column), LifeNews.com, The Washington Times, CBS News, The Hill, and The Guardian.
  • These lesser-known sources also had me or my work featured in some way: CatholicPhilly.com, March for Life, Grandin Media, UPolitics, The Troubadour (Franciscan University), World Religion News, The Family Research Council, ClevelandPeople.Com, International Badass Activists, Christian Daily, AsumeTech, CathNews USA, The Assyrian International News Agency, Aspie Catholic, The Brown Pelican Society, Macoco TV CHANNEL, Regnum Christi, The Diocese of Madison this week on Relevant Radio, Radio Maria, Iowa Catholic Radio, Sacred Heart Radio, EpicPew, and Upworthy.

So we will have a show with two aspies in ministry, one a Protestant and one a Catholic, talking together about what it’s like. We’ll discuss Matthew’s story and how he got to where he is and what challenged and even blessings there are in being an autistic priest. I hope you’ll be joining us.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Primal Loss

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

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

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

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

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

The following are the eight topics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 11/23/2019

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

Most any joke today about a Catholic priest is fair game. After all, everyone knows that they’re all secretly pedophiles. Never is this kind of joke made about the public school system, but with Catholic priests, all bets are off. Hasn’t there been a cover-up? Isn’t the Catholic Church defending these priests?

For those of us who are Protestant, it could be tempting to see this as a matter that the Catholics need to deal with, but we do as well. After all, this is used as an argument against Christianity in general as well. Second, it could be a case that if we don’t stand up for truth now, who is going to stand up when our opponents come after us?

Speaking of truth, if we’re talking about different relationships, maybe the priests should be out of that position if they can’t help it, but maybe homosexuals can’t help the way they feel as well. What if as the joke song says about it, that homosexuality is in your DNA and you’re just born that way? Does that mean that it’s okay if you’re gay?

These are important issues today. The second one definitely hits home to a lot of us. If someone has a genetic basis for homosexuality or even a disposition to it, is that something that we can blame them for? Are we not going against their nature?

To deal with these issues, I am bringing on a guest who has looked at both of them seriously. He is a Catholic himself and we will discuss how he handles the claims about the church that he belongs to. We will also discuss homosexuality and how we should discuss the question of if homosexuals are born that way. My guest’s name is Paul Sullins.

So who is he?

Paul Sullins SociologyTaken – 10/15/08 – 1:20:58 PMphoto by Ed PfuellerSullins_Paul_003.JPG

According to his bio:

The Rev. D. Paul Sullins is Research Professor of Sociology and Director of the Leo Initiative for Catholic Social Research at the Catholic University of America and Senior Research Associate at the Ruth Institute.  He has written four books and over 150 journal articles, book chapters and research reports on issues of faith and culture.  He recently published  “Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse related to Homosexual Priests?” (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Winter 2019); “Danish-like regulations may improve post-abortion mental health risk” (JAMA Psychiatry, January 1, 2019),” “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents (Depression and Research Treatment, Sept 2016)”, “Abortion, Substance Abuse and Mental Health in Early Adulthood: Thirteen Year Longitudinal Evidence from the United States”, available via Pubmed or at http://ssrn.com/author=2097328, Keeping the Vow: the Untold Story of Married Catholic Priests (Oxford University Press, 2015), and co-edited (with Pierpaolo Donati of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences) The Conjugal Family: An Irreplaceable Resource for Society (LEV Press, Rome: 2015).  Fr. Sullins is also the Director of the Summer Institute of Catholic Social Thought; a member of the board of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists (SCSS), the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM), and the Natural Family Journal; a Fellow of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI); Associate Pastor of the Church of Saint Mark the Evangelist, Hyattsville, Maryland; and (not least) a Fourth Degree member of the Knights of Columbus.  Formerly Episcopalian, Fr. Sullins is a married Catholic priest with an inter-racial family of three children, two adopted.

I hope you’ll be looking forward to this episode. We are working quickly on getting new episodes up. Please also leave a positive review for the Deeper Waters Podcast.

In Christ,
Nick Peters