The Five Patriarchs (Pentarchy) - Separating Fact from Fiction

It is often argued by the Eastern Orthodox that rather than there being a Papacy in the early Church, there was a Pentarchy, consisting of the co-equal leadership of the Church by the Five Patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. From this the Eastern Orthodox argue that Rome "fell away" from the orthodoxy of other Four Patriarchs, demonstrating that Rome is the odd-man-out and clearly in the wrong. Obviously only one of these can be correct, as they are two mutually exclusive forms of ecclesiology. The focus of this post will show that the Eastern Orthodox concept is false, and from this refute the idea that Rome is effectively 'out voted' 4-to-1 by the other Patriarchs. I will be presenting two definitive blows to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology in this matter.

My biggest work on Imputation/Logizomai. Protestantism is in trouble.

I cannot believe I forgot to alert readers about Devin Rose hosting a long article on Imputation/Logizomai that I worked very hard on. You can read it HERE. The article consists of basically two parts, a Biblical look at imputation and a look at what Protestant pastors and scholars say about imputation. People will be shocked to see what they say.

Southern Baptist Professor tells how the books of the New Testament were chosen.

Protestants are an interesting bunch. On one hand, they radically distrust Church history, on the other hand they rush to appeal to Church history when it suits their needs. This is especially true for Baptists, who stand alone against 99% of all Christians (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism) on the issue of infant Baptism, which means history is an extremely unreliable guide in the Baptist mind. Confirming this, Baptist John Piper wrote an astonishing article last year on how Christians today are on a more sure foundation doctrinally because we have the complete Bible, where as the early Christians did not. Just a few days ago, a Baptist professor named Timothy Jones wrote an article explaining how the New Testament canon was formed. Unlike Piper, who wasn't opposing any errors in general, Jones has to defend the NT canon against an apostate (and now anti-Christian) apologist, Bart Ehrman. The sole defense Jones has to appeal to is, ironically, the testimony of the Early Church Fathers - which, in turn, refutes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

5 Ways Evangelicalism Has Failed Our Children

I came across an interesting post recently written by an Evangelical, titled "5 Ways Evangelicalism Has Failed Our Children". I thought it was well written overall, but he doesn't seem to realize some of these problems are self-stemming from Protestant itself, not just an abusive 'strain' of Protestantism. I'll quote his 5 reasons and give a brief commentary on them.

1. Evangelicals have identified themselves with the conservative political movement. Being pro-life and anti-gay marriage doesn’t mean those who hold those positions can communicate the Gospel in any coherent manner, and if we can’t communicate the Gospel clearly, lucidly, then our conservatism means very little, if anything, doesn’t it?

I thought this was very insightful. He clearly shows that "Conservative" is not synonymous with "Christian". That's because, as I noted in other posts on the matter, Conservatism says nothing specific about religion. In effect, what we have today is a large Conservative base with less and less specifically Christian content or rational supporting it. But it almost has to be this way because Conservatism has a 'big tent' mentality behind it, meaning that one can be pro-life and allow abortion under certain circumstances, allow contraception, or promote otherwise anti-family policy (e.g. mothers working outside the home). The same thing goes for being anti-gay-marriage, since Conservatives, as a whole, allow divorce, and more and more are in favor of "civil unions"

Why do bikinis fit Conservative women so nicely?

By the title of this post you might be wondering why a blog dedicated to Apologetics and Traditionalism has to do with bikinis fitting. Don't worry, this post isn't about some diet or exercise regimen that a lot of Conservative women must be into these days while gearing up for summer, but rather a different type of fit all together. All Conservatives "know" that Liberals are all about being promiscuous and immodest, but what Conservatives don't realize is the striking inconsistency with their own position. If you stop and think about it, wearing a bikini is the epitome of immodesty and promiscuity, so why do Conservatives (in general) see nothing wrong with bikinis?

Kicking kids out of the house at 18 years old.

This time of year is both a time of excitement and of dread. Graduating is obviously something to celebrate, but what about the next step? While millions of these high school graduates will be looking forward to going to college, a significant percentage are living in unnecessary fear. This fear isn't about which college they will attend, or what vocation they're called to, or even what job they will pick up over the summer. Those are normal fears. The fear I'm talking about comes from none other than their own parents, who tell their children they will kick them out of the house now that they've turned 18. What is not surprising to me, but will be to many readers, is that this problem is the worst among Conservative parents (both Protestant and Catholic), and I've seen them make such comments quite frankly. But what many don't realize is that it is very anti-Catholic, since it's totally contrary to Catholic Social Teaching and the furthest thing from being Pro-Life.

Blessed is the man whom the Lord will NOT forgive? (A Silver Bullet against Calvinism)

I'm pretty sure I have discovered another devastating verse against the Protestant doctrine of Imputation. If you have followed this blog or know the basics of Justification by Faith Alone, you know that Protestants interpret "faith is counted as righteousness" in Romans 4:5 to mean "faith transfers the righteousness of Christ to the believer". (Protestants flatly deny that faith itself is what is counted as righteousness.) But is this consistent with how Paul argues in Romans 4:8, using the same term "counted" (Greek: logizomai)?

Consider the verse: "Blessed is the man whom the Lord will not count his sin."
Now the substitution: "Blessed is the man whom the Lord will not transfer his sin."

Clearly, with the substitution, the text is now saying the blessed man is the one who's sins God will not take away. That's plainly absurd, especially considering the verse prior (v7) explicitly says "who's sins are forgiven." Thus, the only possible answer is that "counted" (logizomai) cannot mean "transfer". Instead, "counted" must mean something akin to "regarded," so the blessed man is he who God will not regard as a sinner, but consistency requires a reinterpretation of the prior verses, meaning we must read verse 5 as "faith is regarded as righteousness". This is unacceptable to the Protestant side, and thus they either must embrace a contradiction and shoddy exegesis or abandon their doctrine of Imputation.

Gold nugget in Galatians 3:9 (Sola Fide)

I came across a 'gold nugget' while researching information for a bigger project that I wanted to share. I noticed it when reading the famous "Abraham believed God and [his faith] was reckoned as righteousness" in Galatians 3, which many overlook since they're so fixated on reading this in Romans 4. Here is how Paul recounts the passage in Galatians 3,

5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? [Gen 15:6] 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” [Gen 12:1-3; Heb 11:8] 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

What this Protestant translation (ESV) and various other modern Protestant translations 'hide' (not sure if it's intentional) is that in verse 9 when it says "along with Abraham, the man of faith," the more accurate rendering of this verse is "along with faithful Abraham". See this list of standard translations and note how the more literal and older versions are more accurate.

This, to me, is a significant translation error, because verse 9 uses two different Greek words for 'faith' here: pistis (faith, G4102) and pistos (faithful, G4103). The words are extremely similar and they derive from the same Greek word for 'trust', but the point here is that though different they are being used the same. Why does this matter? Because Protestants insist "faith" in this context, especially for Abraham, is an 'empty hand' that has no intrinsic value, but simply 'reaches' and takes hold of the "righteousness of Christ". Though that Protestant notion of faith is totally novel (with no basis in Scripture, cf Heb 11:6) and read right into the text, this Protestant idea is further refuted by the fact Paul employs (see Gal 3:9b KJV) the term "faithful" instead of "faith". The term "faithful" is synonymous with "faith" in Paul's thought here, and it's plainly ridiculous to suggest "faithful" can mean faith is an 'empty hand'. So what Paul is saying, and this fits perfectly with the Catholic understanding, is "those who are of faith are justified along with faithful Abraham," which is not the sort of "faith" that Protestants can accept.

The significance of this seems to be missed in the various Protestant commentaries I've consulted, but this is understandable since it's easy to overlook (particularly when a poor translation is used).

Sola Fide dilemma: When did Abraham turn 100 years old?

I've come upon another argument that I believe further turns up the heat on Protestants claiming Romans 4 as their own. Though many don't realize it, Protestants basically 'tune out' after verse 8 in Romans 4, treating the rest of the chapter as an appendage. I've already written extensively about the horrendous exegesis Protestants have for Romans 4:1-8, so I wont go into that now. Instead, I'm going to focus on Romans 4:16-22,

Were Saints Justin Martyr and Pope Clement really Christians?

I am currently in the process of writing one of my most important articles on Sola Fide, and as I was doing some research I came across an astounding facepalm quote in a well respected Protestant dictionary. The TDNT speaking on imputation says this about Romans 4:3-8:

Justin Dialogue 141.2-3 rather misses the point when he suggest that repentance is the ground of nonimputation (cf. Faith in 1 Clem. 10.6).

This is a polite way of saying Saint Justin and Saint Clement totally misunderstood and botched a fundamental text of salvation (Rm 4:3ff). Upon tracking down those two quotes, I felt it worth making a short post about it.

The importance of 70AD for Christianity - Was Revelation actually the first NT Epistle?

I have come to truly appreciate the relevance of the year 70AD. This date is most popularly associated with the year the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed for the second time (and has never been rebuilt to this day). I have posted on this subject tangentially in the past on a post I made about Judaism. For anyone who takes the Bible and Christianity seriously, it cannot be seen as an insignificant event in Salvation History for the Temple to be destroyed (2 Kings 25:8-9; Jer 21:10; Jer 26:18; Mich 3:12 - and see these Church Father quotes). We often forget that God still directs the events of history, and instead tend to think God only interacted with Israel and the Church during Biblical times, after which He left man alone. That latter view is called Ecclesial Deism, and it must be rejected.

Why identifying the Papacy with the Antichrist is an "essential" doctrine of Protestantism.

Over at the Called To Communion blog, Dr David Anders (who is one of the most solid converts in recent memory) wrote an article called Why Protestants Need the Antichrist. I highly encourage you to read the article and subscribe to CTC's feed. The thesis of the article is how some Protestants (not all!) have shifted their historical world-view from that of a restored Gospel to a developed Gospel. The tough part about the restoration thesis is that the Protestant must necessarily approach Christianity from an anti-intellectual standpoint, essentially ignoring Christian history from approximately the Apostolic Age up until the (Pretend) Reformation. Since this doesn't sit well with the more educated class, the "alternative" is essentially that of the classical Liberal Protestant thesis, which holds that the Gospel truths developed over time, right up to today. While classical Liberal Protestants went so far as to suggest doctrines such as Christ's Divinity were developments from primitive Christianity, this (rightly) doesn't sit well with many modern Liberal Protestants (i.e. Evangelicals) today, who thought that took "scholarship" too far. Instead, these Evangelicals felt there had to be some way to not ignore Christian history, yet still ignore or downplay the very unProtestant (and very Catholic) looking historical facts.

Did John Calvin preach a false Gospel? The honest Calvinist says yes.

Over at TurretinFan's blog he just posted an exchange between a Cardinal and John Calvin, where Calvin allegedly soundly defeated the Cardinal in the span of a few paragraphs. However, as Calvin was teaching the Cardinal, he seems to have been ignorant of the true saving (Protestant) Gospel. This is a quote of what Calvin said to the Cardinal:

First, We bid a man begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to sift his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by his obedience, he has wiped off our transgressions; by his sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by his blood, washed away our stains; by his cross, borne our curse; and by his death, made satisfaction for us. We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy. When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the righteousness of faith.

Here, Calvin is speaking on what takes place at Justification, more or less in line with what Scripture says. But, unknown to him, there is an essential part of justification that Calvin never knew about (and neither did Luther, it seems), and that is the doctrine of Christ's Active Obedience. In the Reformer's mind, Christ's Righteousness, by means of Christ's Obedience, resulted in the forgiving of sins. However, the later Calvinists denied this as heresy, stating not only is forgiveness of sins required, but also a "perfect law keeping" record as well.
 

Consider this analogy: If Adam started his life at "Level 0," he needed to keep the commandments perfectly to reach "Level +1" to be justified. Since he sinned, Adam took himself and all mankind to "Level -1". In Luther and Calvin's mind, Christ needed to forgive man's sin in order to take from from "Level -1" to "Level +1," but in the mind of later Calvinists, Christ's Cross only took man from "Level -1" to "Level 0." Man still needed Christ's perfect law keeping record transferred to their account to bring the "Level 0" to a "Level +1," just like Adam originally required. Clearly, this is two different Sola Fides, two different Gospels! In Calvin's Gospel, the Cross was sufficient; in the Gospel of most of Calvinism today and throughout history, the Gospel is that the Cross was insufficient. We know what Paul had to say about false Gospels (Gal 1:8).
 

Most Protestants are totally unaware that the Gospel their Seminaries and Pastors are teaching is "another Gospel," and indeed many think Calvin taught Active Obedience. See my Calvin & Active Obedience article or my John Calvin & Double Imputation article for more information.

Sola Fide Debate (vs Drake Shelton)

The following are the Essays for this Justification by Faith Alone Debate (vs Reformed Blogger Drake). As the Essays are transferred to Google Docs. Hopefully Google Docs keeps the proper formatting.

-Drake's Opening Essay
-Nick's Opening Essay

-Drake's 1st Rebuttal Essay
-Nick's 1st Rebuttal Essay

-Drake's 2nd Rebuttal Essay
-Nick's 2nd Rebuttal Essay

-Drake's 5 Cross-Examination Questions
          -Nick's Responses
-Nick's 5 Cross-Examination Questions
          -Drake's Responses

-Drake's 3rd Rebuttal Essay
-Nick's 3rd Rebuttal (including Concluding) Essay

-Drake's Concluding Essay 

Two JW Whoppers: God is neither omnipresent nor omniscient

Many don't realize that the god of Jehovah's Witnesses is not the Almighty God of the Scriptures. While it is true they believe they worship the same God as mentioned in Genesis 1:1, the official JW teachings state that God is neither omnipresent (present in all places) nor omniscient (knowing of all things). Though these conclusions are based on apparently plain texts of Scripture, these conclusions are neither Biblical nor logical.

Does going to Prom promote the contraceptive mentality?

I have not done much research on the history of (high school) proms and formals, but if I had to guess I would assume they originally began or were done in a era/culture where couples married early (i.e. around 18 years old) and the prom facilitated the dating/courting process. Like the hedonistic and antiChristian craze over sports, the tradition of going to the prom has likewise devolved into something very unnatural and even sinful. Proms encapsulate everything false about what love and responsibility is supposed to entail.

Does the Letter of 3rd John refute Protestantism?

The 3rd Letter of John is one of those interesting books of the Bible that everyone knows is there but pays little attention to. Being the shortest book of the Bible (with only 219 Greek words; 2nd John having 245, and Philemon having 335), one can wonder how much significance it has. Glossing over it, you see the standard stuff found in the rest of the New Testament, but since it's so brief it naturally it gets neglected. But could 3rd John actually contain information that knocks-out Protestantism in one punch? I believe so.

Daniel Wallace: "There is no Protestant Ecclesiology" - Can Ecclesiology be a "Non-Essential" for Christians?

A Catholic friend sent me a link to a recent blog post titled The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology, written by Dr Daniel Wallace, a Reformed Protestant who is a professor and Greek scholar. The post is short enough that I will be able to quote "long" portions that highlight his frank admissions that all Protestants will have to come to terms with some time or another.

I am unashamedly a Protestant. I believe in sola scriptura, sola fidei, solus Christus, and the rest. I am convinced that Luther was on to something when he articulated his view of justification succinctly: simul iustus et peccator (“simultaneously justified and a sinner”).

But with the birth of Protestantism there necessarily came a rift within the western church. By ‘necessarily’ I mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome. Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity. Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity, but the follow-through was devastating. This same mindset began to infect all Protestant churches so that they continued to splinter off from each other. Today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations. One doesn’t see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not even close.

Does Romans 9 condemn Unconditional Election as heresy?

Pope St Peter warns believers that St Paul's Epistles contain things "hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort" (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Undoubtedly, the 9th chapter of Romans would have to be one such text St Peter had in mind, for it has been twisted and distorted for a long time, particularly at the time of the Reformation when the Pretend Reformers were pushing for Double Predestination (the teaching that God decides to save and damn apart from any good or evil on the part of the individual). For centuries, Protestants (especially Calvinists) continue to be unaware that they are guilty of not heeding St Peter's warning, twisting Paul's lesson on God's sovereignty to teach almost the opposite of what he intended to teach.

Those who have engaged in such discussions with Protestants are aware that their chief (and favorite) text is Romans 9:16-21, focusing particularly on the phrase "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." The Protestants contend that this is crystal clear proof that God saves and damns according to his pleasure, apart from considering the lifestyle of the individual. To suggest otherwise, they say, is to twist Paul's message and argue in favor of the Judaizers, who taught man could save himself by his own works. Sadly, this kind of argumentation is not only wholly false, it has scandalized many Christians and continues to deceive many Protestants.

How do we know we are living in the Last Days? (JWs)

The so called "Last Days" mentioned in Scripture are not what many people conceive them to be. Many people mistakenly (but understandably) think the Biblical term "Last Days" refers to a period some time in the future of untold suffering and hardship with the end of the world being immanent. In reality, while that concept has much truth to it, that is not the Biblical terminology for it.

So why is this distinction important? The reason why it is imperative to be aware of the distinction is because rabidly anti-Christian groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) build grand (but false) dogmas from such confusion and twisting of Scriptures, and being aware can not only protect you and other Catholics, but even plant seeds in the JW's mind (which hopefully could take root some day). It is also important to be aware that most JW's are genuine and innocent at heart, but deeply deluded and under serious pressure to conform and never question their authority, The Watchtower. Given that, you should only approach this subject with them if you are sufficiently grounded in the truth of Catholicism and falsity of Jehovah's Witnesses (see this link for some good apologetics), and taking special care to present the Truth to them calmly and in Charity. JW's are taught to 'shut off' and 'retreat' as soon as they feel they are losing an argument or don't feel they are making progress - this means that a key strategy when dealing with them is dealing in subtlety, slowly bringing upon them the Truth.