The second most important passage in Protestantism (Romans 4:5)

Following closely behind 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 (which I address here), the second most important passage of Scripture for Protestants is Romans 4:5, especially the part that says God "justifies the ungodly". In the Protestant mind, Paul's chief concern in life is how a holy God is able to declare an unrighteous person to be righteous, without violating His justice. This mindset first originated with Luther, who struggled to explain and understand how he, being a rotten sinner, could stand before an all-holy God and yet be found acceptable. The "solution" to this dilemma is what Luther and Protestants think is the heart of the Gospel: that God formulated an ingenious legal scheme, through Jesus Christ, which made it possible for God to declare the unrighteous person to be righteous and thus justify them, all without violating his holiness, justice, and integrity. This mentality has taken over the minds of most Protestants throughout history, and is perpetuated through the mistaken appeal to Romans 4:5.

Sorta-Scriptura or Sola-Scriptura?

Those who follow this blog (and my comments) know that I am a huge fan of Biblical exegesis, that is making apologetics arguments from properly interpreting Scriptural texts. Everyone is well aware that Protestants like to parade around holding up the Bible as if it is their trusted book for guiding their paths, but over the years I have come to see how utterly false and deluded this attitude is. In reality, it is just the opposite: Catholics are the ones who base their teachings from Scripture, while Protestants do not. And any Truth in Protestantism was already considered Truth in Catholicism, so it follows that any uniquely Protestant doctrines are unscriptural by this very fact. Since Protestants do not follow Scripture alone but rather traditions of men, Catholics need to start insisting the term "Sola-Scriptura" is inaccurate and rather opt for the more correct slogan: "Sorta-Scriptura". I say this for the same reason that Catholics should stop granting Protestants the use of the term "Reformation" when in reality what happened was a DEformation. St Francis de Sales (patron of this Blog) was even in the regular habit of calling Luther and Calvin "Pretend Reformers," because they didn't do any genuine reforming at all.

What does Sorta-Scriptura mean? It means Protestants "sort-of" follow Scripture. Throughout Protestant history they have had good insights to various texts when defending traditional Catholic teachings, so this should not be discounted. In those situations, Protestants are following Scripture. But when it comes to unique Protestant teachings (including Sola Scriptura itself), most Catholics have no idea just how embarrassingly shallow the Protestant proof-texts are. Take the widespread doctrine of The Rapture as one prime example: the chief Protestant proof-text is 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, which they claim teaches that Jesus will "take up" (Rapture) all true Christians just prior to the Great Tribulation in order spare them the suffering it will entail. Yet this passage indicates no such thing, instead it is plainly talking about the very end of the world, when Jesus returns and separates the Sheep from the Goats to judge them (Matthew 25:31-46). Can you believe that millions of American Protestants (including many with Ph.D.'s) actually believe in the Rapture and think that there is all this great Biblical proof for it? Or take another example, the Reformed teaching that Christ, in our place, kept all the commandments we were required to keep: their chief proof-text is Romans 5:19, yet the "obedience" mentioned here says nothing about keeping the commandments for us. Rather, when the Bible uses the term "obedience" in reference to Christ, it is referring to Christ's sacrificial "obedience unto death" for us (Phil 2:8; Heb 5:8).

Other examples of significant Protestant doctrines being built on the most laughable of "Biblical foundations" are: the Baptist notion that Baptism is purely symbolic; the Anglican idea that the King of England holds a supreme leadership position in God's Church; the Lutherans name their church after Luther and give Luther a Popish status; the Seventh-Day Adventists say Ellen White is a prophetess and that Jesus judged the world in the year 1844; the Salvation Army rejects the Sacraments of Baptism & Communion; and the Pentecostals believe speaking in tongues is a ordinary rather than an extraordinary gift. The list could go on, but you get the idea.

The problem, in a nutshell, is this: Protestantism is not built on Divine Revelation, but rather on traditions of men, and so the Protestant mind first embraces the tradition of men and only then proceeds to "find" Biblical support for it. Catholics would do well to remind other Catholics and Protestants that Catholicism is the only Biblical religion while Protestants reject and denigrate the full teaching of Scripture. The Bible is a Catholic book, and the Catholics who know their Bible can easily trounce any Protestant of any denomination.

1 Corinthians 15:44-50, a Jehovah's Witness favorite

Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) love 1 Corinthians 15 because they think it teaches that Jesus was resurrected as an angelic “spirit-creature” (St Michael the Archangel, to be exact, but that's another story) rather than being resurrected as a human with His same body. Most don't realize it, but the JWs deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus, which is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. Instead, JWs teach human bodies cannot go to heaven, only “spirit type” creatures, like angels, can go to heaven. So when the Bible speaks of Jesus being resurrected, the JW will say they agree, but that's because they've tampered with the definition of “resurrect”. To add insult to injury, they teach there are two types of resurrection, one type as a spirit-creature reserved for Jesus and 144,000 faithful witnesses, and a second type as a bodily resurrection for regular faithful Witnesses and all those billions of people who never heard about the Gospel. The reason why they teach this dual resurrection is to support their other twisted doctrines, for example their denial of an immortal soul. The unsuspecting Christian should be on the lookout for this, because the key proof-text the JWs use can scandalize the unsuspecting Christian. That text is from 1 Corinthians 15:44-50, which will now be examined.

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.