Faith That Justifies?

Here is a great example of Reverts back to Rome from Protestantism is so confusing. Tiber says:

"4. Through Word and Sacrament we are drawn by grace into a transforming union with the Lord Jesus, and having been justified by faith we are called to sanctification and equipped by the Holy Spirit for the good works of the new creation. We must, therefore, learn to live as faithful disciples and to reject whatever is contrary to the Gospel, which is the Good News of the Father’s mercy and love revealed in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Since so many Protestants do not understand the Reformed or historic Protestant faith such as Sola Scriptura (something Tiber misunderstands as has been demonstrated time and again) or Sola Fide, we have Protestants converting out of Protestantism left and right. Some are going to Mormonism as can be seen by the articles printed in Christianity Today's interaction with Millet. While others are converting back to Rome for various reasons.

The problem with the above quote is that a Protestant could agree wholeheartedly. This is precisely the problem with Reverts. They use Protestant language while mixing the terms with Rome's definitions. It is almost impossible to have a conversation with people like this (remember the long string with Theo in which he did the same thing. He said he believed in Justification alone while admitting later he didn't.).

What really bothers me about this deception is Roman Catholics didn't use to speak this way. (Using terms like justification knowing full well Prots mean something entirely different.) With the Ecumenical movement sprinting forward, it is a wonder if there are any pastors left to challenge these claims. All one has to do is ask, "What does being Justified mean?" Or ask, "How is one truly justified?"

Notice he says in the Tract post that one is born through Baptism. In other words, saving grace is dispensed through the sacramental act of Baptism. This is not faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone.

Tiber says at one point, "One could go to Mass for a lifetime and never fully understand and appreciate all the mystery and grace that is there for us."

The reason is simple. The Mass never actually takes away sin. A person may repeat this act in faith hourly till the day he dies and never have peace with God.

Tiber has apostacized the faith which he probably never understood being in a Schick type church. Romans 5:1 is sufficient for me.

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

This is something Tiber does not possesses by faith.

Tiber Vs Schick: Both Lose

Tracts are written to convey an idea or belief persuasively in a short amount of space. Christians often use tracts as a means of evangelism. Over the years I have seen some pretty dumb tracts by Protestants. This, however, comes close to Jack Schick mentality only in reverse.

Tiber, who has been nominated one the Best Catholic Blog Awards, has taken a Jack Schick tract and rewritten it against Protestants. What I find interesting about it is that it is so postmodern in its thinking I wonder if perhaps Mormons will be in heaven too. You see, the Gospel is never definitional as to whether a person is a Christian while claiming that Prots and RCs have the same Gospel. How do we know they have the same Gospel? We are not told.

The Protestant couple in the tract claims the main character (a Roman Catholic) has believed in a false Gospel to which he replies, "Catholics believe the same Gospel that Jesus preached. Unless you are born again (thru baptism), you won't see the Kingdom of God." Notice the Protestant lingo is used right back at the Protestants. Definitions are useless at this point since the plane begins to crash (right along with this form of evangelism). At this point, would even a modern Mormon object?

After the plane crashes and everyone is in heaven, we find (according to this RC's viewpoint) Jerry Falwell playing golf with Pope John Paul. This conclusion is arrived at because Jesus tells us we are not to be judgmental. Therefore everyone who names the name of Jesus is Christian. Again, I have to ask, "What is the basis for anyone getting to heaven?" Apparently, if you have a good heart then you are in.

The conclusion of the tract is also a direct attack against the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture. It was asked, "Could our understanding of salvation be wrong?" Since no one can know for certain anything, since the Gospel is not clear, since we can't judge wisely according to the clear teachings of Scripture because there are no clear teachings of Scripture, we really have no idea who is getting into heaven. It will be one big "surprise"!

This is where RCism must derail from its own history. Would a RC of even 60 years ago have thought this way? Of course not. With Anathemas from Trent condemning Protestants to hell, it is hard to imagine how anyone from that era of Rome's history siding with the ecumenism of today's Popes.

Another problem that has been pointed out by others is the mischaracterizations of Protestants who oppose the false gospel of Rome. Simply because those of us who have pointed out the errors of Rome (along with other groups) does not make us anti-catholic. Should I , based on this tract, call Tiber anti-Schick or anti-Protestant and anti-true Gospel or anti-Reformed Baptist? The very brush he hates being painted with as a Catholic is used by him against Protestants. The hypocrisy is indeed glaring.

The tract is not about how one is saved or what is the true Gospel. James Swan has demonstrated this time and again. The evangelism of Rome's apologists is to get someone to mother-church. The evangelism of reformed Protestants is to bring someone to Christ. The difference should be apparent to all.

Steven And I Play Catch

We decided it was too dark to go outside and play catch. Jacob seemed to be the next best toy.

Is There a New Creation Without an Old One

Let's suppose for a moment that the earth is billions of years old, then what? Does this satisfy the Christian intellectual who is trying to reconcile Genesis and Evolution?

If the earth is billions of years old what was it like. Genesis says it was very good. Death did not enter the scene until after Adam's sin. The curse was not given till Adam had sinned. Therefore was the earth just a wonderful place for billions of years? Was it the paradise we all long for in the New Creation?

I have yet to hear a Christian, that presupposes Theistic/Evolution, describe the ancient world in this manner. Mostly I hear how God used death and struggle to bring about the earth as we know it today. Is this the "good" that God speaks of in Genesis? Is the what we have to look forward to in the New Creation?

Perhaps salvation is not a new creation at all. Perhaps there is no resurrection. Perhaps we are just looking forward to a new evolutionary period? If you can't believe that God created out of nothing in a short time period the current creation, then why would you believe in a new creation composed of resurrected bodies and a regenerated earth?

Why Presuppositions Matter

I had an interesting conversation today with a good friend of mine, whom I will not name for his own protection J. We were discussing a little bit of Ken Ham’s new museum in Kentucky, and eventually the conversation turned to a discussion on Biblical interpretation and science. It was believed that the scientific evidence “clearly” shows that the earth is billions of years old, so how do we reconcile the Bible and science?

This is a good question. For this question is not coming from someone who rejects the Bible, but from someone who actually has come to believe in God and his Son Jesus Christ. Perhaps for many Christians who have already resolved this issue in their minds such as myself, we may easily tend to forget that others who may be coming out of an evolutionary worldview may still be struggling. So I would like to interact with some points that were made in order to give rise to honest and sincere dialogue.

One issue that was raised was the fact that there is so much disagreement among Christians. Since this is the case, could it be that perhaps Christians are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible? Could it be that the Bible is not clear or that “we have only translations and copies that may not be reliable?

This is one of those situations where one could spend arguing evidence for the Creation account and never get anywhere. We could argue the many “clocks” that one could use to judge the guess the age of the earth. When I pointed out that all conservative interpretations of the Bible show that Genesis 1 & 2 are clear as well as the rest of the Bible is clear as to an actual 6 day Creation account, it was agreed that perhaps the Bible is clear. So how do we reconcile the apparent problem? The problem is not evidence but our thinking.

Why is guessing the age of the earth clear? Is not reason involved? Is logic involved? How do we account for such things? Does Reason become our ultimate authority? Simply using the naturalist’s arguments while borrowing from the Christian worldview when convenient is not satisfying. Which “supernatural” worldview does one accept if we agree that naturalism doesn’t answer our presuppositions? If we think naturalism is true, then which theory of man do we follow? How do we account for such presuppositions?

Why does science trump the clarity of Scripture? Why should I as a Christian accept man’s reasoning over God’s revelation? I realize that it is extremely tempting to believe what appears to us to be obvious. Yet we must be willing to examine the presuppositions that give rise to such conclusions as an old earth. Old earth theories are not based upon science. They are based upon a non-Christian worldview. Then the presuppositions are read into the evidence.

As a Christian I have come to understand that you may not have more than one ultimate authority. To simply think that science is one area of knowledge while religion is another and both are equal is to fool yourself into thinking you are somehow objective and neutral. Man is not morally neutral and is by nature an idolater. He exchanges the truth of God for a lie.

Col 2:1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face,

Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself,

Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Col 2:4 I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.

Col 2:5 For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ.

Col 2:6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,

Col 2:7 having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Do not be deceived. Verse 3 is clear. Christ is the fountain of all knowledge. How could it be otherwise? Would not the One who created us and is the Creator of all things be the source of all knowledge? We must start with Christ and finish with Christ. Anything else is to fall into foolishness.

Naturalistic Science is making a claim. It is making claims upon the lives of men and women worldwide. Jesus Christ is making a claim. He makes His claim upon the lives of men worldwide. You may not have two Masters. You must follow one. Which will it be?

Greg Bahnsen 3 -part lectures on this very topic is a must. You will be blessed.

Memorial Day With Jacob

Once again we celebrate Memorial Day by going to the cemetery and attending the service. It has become a new Tradition to actually take part in the service itself.





This year it was neat to have our new 10 month old participating with us. Jacob got his first graveside teaching on the wonder of the resurrection. I take the kids to Aunt Ella's grave since they Steven and Rachel knew her and attended her funeral. I attempt to paint a picture of the Coming of Christ and His raising the Dead.

Memorial Day truly is a great time to equip our children with their heritage, to secure them in their identity and give them a solid future.

Infallible List Please

Dr. White found this quote through the internet:

If you read a little more on the blog, you’ll see that at one time I had a sola scriptura philosophy. Then I realized such a philosophy is unbiblical. I couldn’t find anywhere in the Bible where the Bible says that the Bible is the sole authority for all matters related to faith. Rather I saw the Bible pointing back to the Church as an authority. History shows that the Bible is authoritative because the Church says it is (by virtue of the fact that the Canon was determined by the Church) and not the other way around. But, you’ve heard that argument before and have closed your eyes to it.

I don't know how many times this has been said to me by RCs over the years. Even on Crossed the Tiber's Blog I was told that this argument is not circular. Yet how do they know the church has authority? Well, the Bible says so. How do they know the Bible is able to tell us who has authority? Well, the church says so? If this doesn't pit Scripture as an ultimate authority against the church's ultimate authority, I do not know what does?

In other words, how can there be two ultimate authorities? Either God speaks and that is ultimate, or the church speaks and that is ultimate. For those who wish to trump God's Word with their Traditions, the choice is obvious. Sola Ecclesia!

So those of you who are RC and are always asking the question "How do you Protestants know what is in the Canon without the church?", I ask is there an infallible list of infallible Traditions please. If it is demanded of me, then turn-about is fair play. I have only been waiting for close to 13 years or more.

Answers In Genesis Is Open

I just love it when atheists and secularists and naturalists and evolutionists are put on the defensive by a good Christian apologetic. Answers In Genesis is doing just that. Yahoo News has linked to an ABC News video story that the Answers In Genesis Museum is finally finished.

What is great in this video clip is how the Evolutionists hate being challenged. Their dogma may not be questioned even though their own Poll shows that 60% of Americans believe God created the world in a literal 6 days.

One museum person states that evolutionists have no logical or rational basis for morality. This truly must anger the Evolutionary community. Yet they need to be called on the fact they they are doing exactly what Creationists claim. They are leading the world into an immoral swamp. They question the very foundational book of the Bible, without which there is no reason for Christ or sin or salvation. They know this only too well.

What the museum will do for the Christian is equip him to be able to trust that God is able to consistently explain to us His world. God's Word is reliable and trustworthy. It will also challenge the presuppositions of a world view that is irrational and inconsistent.

Also a recent Scott City graduate, Adam Taylor, wrote an excellent paper on this very subject. It is such a good paper I thought I'd put it up on my site. You can read it here. Keep in mind it was written in Word format, and I had to attempt to edit it slightly to make it work. Enjoy!

Australia On Immigration

Rush Limbaugh points out an interesting story on immigration in Australia and comments:

"The Australians have a citizenship test for immigrants. "The controversial citizenship test being introduced by the Federal Government has been branded 'biased' and 'unAustralian' by the nation's key Muslim body. Australian Federation of Islamic Councils today released a statement strongly questioning the proposed test, saying members 'share the serious concerns' it has raised in 'the wider Australian community.'

'While AFIC does not oppose regulated immigration, it believes that a test with biased questions targeting particular cultural or ethnic groups goes against the very values of democracy and a fair go that the government is trying to inculcate,' said President Ikebal Adam Patel. ... But he said he it is 'unfair and un-Australian to expect them to study about Anglo-celtic and Judaeo-Christian values, especially when those migrants are coming from a different religious and cultural background.'" And the Australians are saying, no, it's not; this is who we are. We are an Anglo-Celtic and a Judeo-Christian country and these are the values. If we're going to have immigrants, we're going to have a citizenship test. Now, the Islamofascist immigrants need to be taught, why do they want to come here? Why do they want to go to Australia? What's the point? Our culture's not like theirs at all, especially the radical Islamists. They need to be reminded that the comfortable lifestyle, the ample freedom in choices, the high standard of living, freedom of speech, and all the other freedoms, particularly freedoms for women in secular Western society are directly related to the Judeo-Christian tradition."

He then asks the relevant questions that seem obvious to the average conservative.

"What the Islamic world has given us is theocracies, convert-or-die choices, and laws about stoning women and honor killings and so forth, stoning rape victims. They treat women as genuine second-class citizens. They are truly anti-Semitic and the same thing is happening in our country here, although we don't have a citizenship test. So the question arises, why do they want to come here?"

Exactly! Why do they want to come here? I admit that many probably enjoy the freedom. If our immigration policies do not bring the best immigrants have to offer and at the same time teaching them to leave behind the reason that made them want to come here, we will only be converting to the worst Islamic countries have to offer.

Islam has nothing to offer the American way of life. A simple test to promote the best may be politically incorrect, but it sure seems wise. Yet I agree that an assimilation policy where average Americans force the average immigrant to learn the language and common culture just seems like common sense. If one wishes to be elected to a public office then they must take an oath on the Bible, not the Koran. If this is against their conscience, then why come here if it is not to overthrow the American way of life?

Kirk's New Moral World

This past week's Local New York Times/Scott County Record printed an article of a former Scott City resident, Andrew Kirk, receiving a scholarship from the Point Foundation. There is no source cited as to the article's origin. I say this since I am not at liberty to reprint the article, nor am I even able to give an internet link.

The article states, "'The Points Foundation provides financial support, mentoring and hope to meritorious students who are marginalized due to sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity,' according to the Foundations website."

So here is a former Scott City student receiving a scholarship from an organization that flaunts God's Law in the most radical of ways. They go after our youth, and we simply hand our children over to them.

Kirk is quoted at one point in the article saying, "I grew up in a community where fear and ignorance dominated perceptions of homosexuality, and consequently, I didn't have any openly gay role models."

Kirk seems to have found a home with this group. One of the purposes the Point Foundation is "to identify students who are physically, intellectually and morally capable of leadership to play an influential part in the betterment of society."

Here is one place I must take issue. I have often wondered why those who take theologically liberal positions are allowed to make assertions while conservative Christian's are not. If I made a similar statement to this last quote in reverse, would I not be challenged at every point? No conservative Christian that I know says homosexuals may not be physical or intellectual. In fact, are they saying that one must be physically capable for the ability to be a leader, but that is a double standard we must review at another time.

The question is one of morality. In James White's and Jeff Neill's book The Same Sex Controversy, by citing liberal theologians and the many positions they have on key Biblical texts, they demonstrate that Liberals seek to make clear passages difficult and impossible to interpret. This is done purposely by those on the Left in order to cloud straightforward biblical texts. It is simply to make the Bible unclear where it is clear. In doing so, the Bible becomes a book that is not able to speak to our modern situations. God becomes a mute and His people become deaf and ignorant.

The problem with this kind of hermeneutic is that it requires the Christian to be on the defensive. Trying to justify a belief system while assuming the Liberal's worldview. This simply can not be done. To reject that God is able to clearly speak to His creatures in the bible is to embrace an irrational worldview. This is where homosexuality takes us...to irrationality. It is to be forced to believe in the impossibility of the contrary.

God's Law is clear no matter how difficult it might be for man to accept His revelation. In fact, Romans 1 tells us that Andrew Kirk's sin is sin. Since Kirk refuses to repent of his sin, since society intuitively recognizes homosexuality as sin (man is made in the image of God and therefore knows...), since the church must proclaim the Law/Gospel message, then those like Kirk must fulfill the passage's description. They must surppress the truth of God. They simply hate being reminded of their sin and seek to rid society of every reminder that demonstrates this to them.

Here is the real problem. In exchanging the truth of God for a lie, they must undermine the very system that gives rise to their liberty. Society simply can not live in a world where God is not allowed to define the creation He has created. If a vccuum is created then someone will fill it. By what authority will this someone step in? Might makes right and whoever has the might will be right. If God is not right, then some man and his man-made system will be.

How will homosexuality withstand a Hitler? How will it withstand a Stalin? How will it withstand Islam? It can not. A system that denies there is any ability to say there is no wrong can not in turn tell Stalin he is wrong. Stalin shot everyone that he feared would question his authority.

Now it could be that the homosexual movement is the next stalinist movement. Are they not seeking to silence free speech by refering to Biblical passages and anyone that preaches them as "hate speech"? Canada and Western Europe have already demonstrated where this is all leading. So Kirk's new morally better world will be one without God and Christians, and it will and must remove them by force.

Andrew Kirk's sin is not the unpardonable sin. If someone knows this young man, with gentleness and reverence, he must be called to repent of his sin and believe in Christ. It is in Christ where true forgiveness is to be found. It is in Christ where Andrew may come into a fellowship beyond anything that his homosexual friends may give him.

This is not a little matter. With the life span of homosexual males being reduced significantly to the 30s and 40s, this is truly a matter of life and death, spiritual life and spiritual death.