Category: Throwback Thursday

Throwback Thursday: Does 2 Timothy 1:16-18 teach Purgatory?

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on May 29, 2018 and has been revised.

Catholicism differs in many respects from Biblical Christianity, including its belief in Purgatory. The Catholic church defines Purgatory as “a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating (i.e., atoning for) their sins before going to Heaven.” Catholicism teaches that even one unconfessed mortal (i.e., major) sin on the soul dooms a person to Hell, while venial (i.e., small, forgivable) sins or any residual temporal punishment remaining after confession must be expiated in Purgatory. However, references to Purgatory can neither be found explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. Catholic apologists, of course, argue that the doctrine is based on Scripture.

The other day I was listening to my daily dose of Catholic talk radio via the “Called to Communion” radio show with host David Anders and a listener called in asking where Purgatory could be found in the Bible. Anders responded by saying the doctrine of Purgatory and praying for the dead can be found in 2 Maccabees 12:38-45. See here.

While the Roman Catholic church accepts 2 Maccabees and the other books of the Apocrypha (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther) as Scripture, the Jews of ancient Israel never embraced those writings as Scripture and, likewise, Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from them. Besides, the dead soldiers cited in the passage had been participating in gross idolatry, a “mortal” sin according to Catholic dogma, so they would have been disqualified from Purgatory anyway.

But wait! Anders also claimed the apostle, Paul, refers to Purgatory in 2 Timothy 1:16-18. Let’s take a look at that passage:

“16May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains, 17but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me earnestly and found me— 18may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!—and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.”

But is this passage referring to Purgatory? Let’s look at John MacArthur’s exegesis of this passage from “The MacArthur Bible Commentary,” 2005, p. 1805:

1:16 Onesiphorus. One of Paul’s loyal coworkers who had not deserted Paul, but befriended him in prison and was not ashamed or afraid to visit the apostle there regularly and minister to his needs. Since Paul asks Timothy to greet those in his house (4:19), the family obviously lived in or near Ephesus.

1:17 when he arrived in Rome. Onesiphorus was perhaps on a business trip, and the text implies that his search involved time, effort, and possibly even danger.

1:18 that day. This is also called the “Day of Christ,” when believers will stand before the judgement seat and be rewarded (Phil. 1:6, Phil. 1:10, 1 Cor. 3:13, 2 Cor. 5:10, 1 Pet. 1:5).

Catholicism errs greatly by confusing the judgement seat of Christ (aka the Bema Seat), where the works of saved believers will be judged, with the Great White Throne Judgement where the unsaved will be judged in their sins and condemned to Hell.

Claiming from 2 Timothy 1:16-18 that Onesiphorus is dead and in Purgatory and that Paul is praying for him is forcing-a-square-peg-through-a-round-hole eisegesis. Onesiphorus was alive at the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy and the apostle was praying that Onesiphorus be ultimately rewarded at the Bema Seat for his service. Paul was also praying for his family back in Ephesus for their sacrifice in his absence.

Over the centuries, Rome, with its works gospel of salvation by sacramentalism and merit, created an elaborate system with regards to Purgatory involving indulgences, the church’s alleged treasury of merit, and prayers for the dead. But believers know that God’s Word mentions only two afterlife destinations for the dead; Heaven and Hell.

“So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” – 2 Cor. 5:6-8

There is no “middle place” for the punishment of small sins. “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” – James 2:10. Purgatory is a man-made creation meant as a “safety net” for credulous works religionists. There is only Heaven and Hell. We are all sinners and none of us can merit Heaven. Repent of your rebellion against God and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior through faith alone.

What does the Bible say about Purgatory?
https://www.gotquestions.org/purgatory.html

Throwback Thursday: An Invitation to Examine Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on May 30, 2018 and has been revised.

Test All Things: A Gentle Invitation to Examine Your Catholic Faith in the Light of Scripture
By Joseph Mizzi
PDF Download, 2005, 128 pages

Joseph Mizzi of the island nation of Malta has written this excellent primer on the irreconcilable differences between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. Mizzi was raised in a devout Catholic family, but was taken aback when his brother trusted in Jesus Christ as his Savior through faith alone and left the family religion. Joseph set about to study the Scriptures himself with the aim of persuading his brother to return to Catholicism, but also ended up accepting Jesus Christ as his Savior through faith alone.

This book avoids heavy theological jargon and appeals to the Catholic layperson in a winsome, loving manner. Scripture passages are plentiful. Chapter headings are as follows:

  1. What Will It Profit A Man?
  2. God’s Word Is Truth
  3. Built Upon Christ
  4. Guilty!
  5. Justified!
  6. Baptism
  7. Forgiveness
  8. Purgatory
  9. The Sacrifice Of Christ
  10. The Eucharist
  11. Jesus, Our Priest
  12. My Soul Magnifies The Lord
  13. One Mediator
  14. Salvation Is Not By Works
  15. Jesus Is The Way

For the free 128 page PDF download of “Test All Things,” see here.

“A friend of mine explained (Catholicism’s salvation system) in a simpler way. “God did his part. Now it’s up to you to do your part too.” I used to believe this, and did my utmost to “do my part” but never did I find rest and peace for my soul. How could I know whether I’ve done enough? If I die, would I go to heaven or would I go to hell? These doubts held me captive in a gloomy prison cell, and I know many Catholic friends who are in the same predicament.” – page 103.

Mizzi maintains the website below, Just for Catholics, which has a large amount of information for Roman Catholics who are searching for the truth about salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.

Just for Catholics
http://www.justforcatholics.org/

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” – Ephesians 2:8-10

May the Lord bless you in your search for the truth.

Throwback Thursday: Is repentance a work?

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on April 6, 2018 and has been revised.

Repent.

It’s become a ridiculed word in society and, surprisingly, even among some Christians.

When I encourage readers to accept Jesus Christ in my posts, I’ll often write something like, “Repent of your sin and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior through faith alone.”

Some may ask, what exactly is meant by “repent”?

The Greek words for repent (verb) and repentance (noun) are metanoéō and metanoia and they appear a total of 55 times in the New Testament. The “Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance” defines metanoia as:

“Change of mind, repentance, the state of changing any or all of the elements composing one’s life: attitude, thoughts, and behaviors concerning the demands of God for right living: note that this state can refer to the foundational salvation event in Christ, or to on-going repentance in the Christian life” (my italics and boldface).

When a person is saved, they change their mind (repent) about their rebellion against God, agreeing with God that they are an absolute helpless sinner in need of the Savior, and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior through faith alone. Repentance is part of the conversion to Christ. A person can’t accept Christ as Savior until they have understood through the ministry of the Holy Spirit their desperate need of the Savior and repented (changed their mind) about their rebellion against God. Every person who has accepted (some prefer to say “trusted in”) Christ as Savior has repented of their sinful rebellion. Many preachers of the Gospel even use “repentance” as shorthand for conversion to Christ.

Repentance, turning from sinful rebellion against God to trusting in Christ as Savior through faith alone, is Scriptural and is well understood as basic, elementary theology by most Christians.

Apostle Peter declared to unbelievers, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.” Acts 3:19

Apostle Paul later declared to unbelievers, “How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. – Acts 20:20-21

Once a person is saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone, they will follow Christ imperfectly and must repent of (turn from) subsequent sins of disobedience, however that is not a matter of salvation, but of sanctification.

Pretty basic stuff, huh? Shouldn’t even be an issue, right? So why am I making a fuss about all of this?

A fellow WordPress blogger has repeatedly accused me of adding works to the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone by mentioning repentance as part of conversion. He claims that repentance is a work and cannot be added to simply accepting Christ as Savior.

I’ve been wrongly accused of a lot of things, but I don’t like being accused of distorting the Gospel. I’ve explained several times to this individual that repentance is turning from rebellion against God to agreeing with God about the need for Christ, so it is a vital component of accepting Christ. You can’t accept Christ until you have understood (changed your mind regarding) your need for Christ. But this blogger is having none of it and believes he is defending the pure Gospel against an imaginary work. While I applaud this person’s defense of the Gospel of grace, his misunderstanding of repentance causes him to tilt at windmills. It’s very clear that he understands “repentance” only in some type of Catholic penitential, self-reformational sense.

However, this blogger is not alone in this viewpoint as I have seen some others rankled over the same issue. So why do I continue to include admonitions to repent in my invitations to receive Christ if some are troubled by it? As I explained, repentance is a very necessary part of accepting Christ. At many churches, there are often ambiguous invitations to “follow Jesus” or “receive Jesus into your heart.” Church visitors often “respond” to invitations without truly understanding their depraved, sinful state and their need of Christ as Savior. They make a “decision” and then go home and live their lives like they always have. Their was no genuine conversion. Sinners MUST repent (change their minds) about their sinful rebellion against God and turn to Christ. You cannot genuinely trust in Christ UNLESS you have repented! Repentance is absolutely mandatory in Biblical salvation! Attempting to concoct some type of salvation in Christ without repentance would be like an imaginary scenario in which someone just showed up at a doctor’s office out of the blue with no symptoms. “I’m here, Doc, but I don’t know why I’m here!” Does not compute. Only people who admit they are sick seek a doctor’s help. That’s repentance.

I’ll admit I’m a little frustrated at having to repeatedly defend myself against accusations of adding works to the Gospel, but I hold no ill will against this blogger who has a limited understanding of theology and is sincerely attempting to defend the Gospel of grace. I have suggested to the person that he do a word study of repent/metanoéō and repentance/metanoia in the New Testament, but that would precipitate an uncomfortable paradigm shift on his part.

“Repentance means that you realize that you’re a guilty, vile sinner in the presence of God. That you deserve the wrath and punishment of God, that you are hell bound. It means that you begin to realize that this thing called sin is in you, that you long to get rid of it and that you turn your back on it in every shape and form. You renounce the world, whatever the cost. The world in its mind and outlook as well as its practice and you deny yourself and take up the cross and go after Christ. Your nearest and dearest and the whole world may call you a fool, or say you have religious mania, you may have to suffer financially, it makes no difference, that is repentance. It’s always been understood the same way. It is a complete change, life-changing and it begins at salvation and that just starts a permanent lifelong process of ongoing confession of sin.” – Martyn Lloyd-Jones from “Studies in the Sermon on the Mount”

Throwback Thursday: What’s with all of those little candles at Catholic churches?

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on April 5, 2018 and has been revised.

As I’ve mentioned before, I listen to an hour of Catholic talk radio daily in order to stay abreast of what’s going on in the Catholic church for the purposes of this blog, although I obviously would not recommend the practice to others as a general rule. I used to listen to a local Catholic talk radio show, “The Catholic Connection,” but their recent decision to revamp their format and refrain from criticizing the church’s hierarchy has made for very dull listening, so I’ve switched to EWTN’s “Called to Communion,” an “outreach” to Protestants and lapsed Catholics.

This morning, I was listening to the 4/3/18 podcast of the “Called to Communion” show featuring moderator, Thom Price, and host, David Anders. A listener, Ken from Camden, Tennessee, called in and asked why Catholics have large candle displays in churches and at shrines. If you visit a Catholic church or a shrine, you’ll notice a large display of small “votive” (definition: “offered or consecrated in fulfillment of a vow”) candles, usually in red glass containers and placed in front of a statue of Jesus, Mary, or some other saint. Votive candles are made available to Catholics visiting a church or shrine. Supplicants contribute an offering into a nearby donation box, take a candle, light it, place it in the display, and then say a prayer to Jesus, Mary, or a saint. But why do Catholics do this, was Ken’s question.

Anders answered that the candles serve as physical signs and reminders that the supplicants’ prayers are ascending to God (or to Mary or to a saint). He stated that it’s useful to have physical “props”/sensory objects so that the accompanying sounds, smells, lights, and touches “can help us elevate our minds to the eternal.” In Catholic parlance, candles and other such religious objects are “sacramentals,” supposedly “sacred signs” that bear a resemblance to the sacraments by which people “are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments.”

Anders qualifies his endorsement of candles by saying, “It would be wrong to think of (candles) in a superstitious way, as if the candle kept praying after (the supplicant is) gone.” But, of course, that is the exact thinking of many/most who use these candles.

Catholicism has always conflated the physical with the spiritual and votive candles are just one example in a multitude of many other such practices. In place of a genuine spiritual relationship with God through the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, the Catholic church has substituted ritualism, legalism, and the veneration of objects.

Pious Catholics love the ambiance of burning candles as part of their religious ritual, as if they somehow create an atmosphere of reverence and heightened spirituality. Practitioners believe a burning candle in conjunction with prayer will enhance the effectiveness of the prayer. And, yes, many/most walk away believing the prayer continues as long as the candle burns.

Capture22

Votive candles are just part of the elaborate ritualism that developed within the increasingly institutionalized early church. Yes, in the Old Testament there was the lampstand/menorah standing in the Holy Place in Israel’s Tabernacle and Temple, which was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ as the Light of the World.

“Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” – John 8:12

But there’s no record of ritualistic candle burning in the New Testament. Besides that, nowhere in the entire Bible does a believer pray to anyone other than God. Burning candles while praying or “meditating” is also becoming popular among non-Catholics who are increasingly attracted to Catholic, New Age, and Eastern “mysticism.” We don’t need candles to “enhance” our prayers and we should only be praying to the Lord.

Catholic friend, religious ritualism and formalism do not help you merit Heaven. The Bible says we are all sinners and all of us deserve eternal punishment. But God loves us so much he sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to this world to live a perfect life and pay the penalty for our sins. But He rose from the grave, conquering sin and death, and offers you forgiveness of sins and the free gift of eternal life if you will just come to Him in prayer, repent of your rebellion, and accept Him as your Savior through faith alone. Will you trust in Christ?

Is it allowable to use candles in connection with prayer?
https://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-candles.html

Postscript: I can remember as an eighth-grade Catholic grammar school student (1970), going with my classmates to the attached church building during school hours for some type of religious instruction. In every Catholic church near the “altar” or “tabernacle” box (where surplus consecrated Jesus wafers are stored), burns a large candle in red glass, which is meant to symbolize the perpetual presence of Jesus in the church. The candle must never be allowed to go out. Well, on this particular occasion, our nun-teacher, Sister Mary Virginia Sweeney (d. 2003), noticed that the flame of the red candle had in fact gone out! She became emotionally frantic as if something terrible had happened. A student would have suffered injury if they had gotten in the way of the nun’s determined efforts to relight the candle. It’s this kind of ritualistic, material-minded, superstitious, false spirituality that Catholicism breeds.

Capture23.PNG
Above: A Catholic church’s red “tabernacle” or “sanctuary” candle must never be allowed to go out

Throwback Tuesday: Balancing blogging with “real life”

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback” installment. I switched the post from Thursday to Tuesday because of scheduling constraints. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on April 17, 2018 and has been revised. It was interesting perusing through my thoughts about blogging from eight years ago. Most of the convictions still apply.

Lately, I’ve seen a few notices from Christian bloggers like the example above, in which the person announced they were disengaging from all social media because they felt like it was overtaking their life.

I don’t have a smart phone1 nor do I have a Facebook, Twitter,2 Instagram, or Pinterest account, but I have posted on the WordPress blogosphere most every day for the last thirty-three months. I view my blog as a ministry from the Lord, providing content that’s getting harder and harder to find in this increasingly ecumenical era. The Lord provides the motivation to research the subject material and write the posts. Oh, if the nuns could see me now. I also enjoy reading others’ postings and I’m regularly blessed by the blogs that I subscribe to. I purposely limit the number of blogs I follow because I actually do try to read the postings and there’s only so much time in the day.

I’ve been very blessed by many bloggers over the past three years, too many to name. I’ve shared personal thoughts and struggles and have been blessed by prayers and encouragement. It’s also a blessing to encourage others and uphold them in prayer. We’ve had some disagreements, but that happens in a family. The Lord has often taught me humility through brothers and sisters who hold opposing views. No, I definitely don’t have the “final word” in regards to secondary doctrinal beliefs. Friends have come and gone over the last three years. Some former blogging friends have abruptly withdrawn from WordPress. With others, the theological (or other) differences turn out to be too wide to bridge. I also realize a blog such as mine rubs many the wrong way these days. As I’ve shared before, when it comes to theology I’m a bit of a square peg in that I’m too “liberal” for fundamentalists and too “conservative” for ecumenists.

So what am I getting at with all of this? Many Christians here at WP also see their blogging activity as a ministry and more than worthy of their time and effort. However, as I’m reminded by these recent “farewell” postings, social media can also easily overtake our lives, drawing us away from our relationships with our family and “non-virtual” friends and even from our time with the Lord. The tail sometimes ends up wagging the dog. Over the past three years, I’ve struggled to properly prioritize the time I spend here at WP as I’m sure some of you have also. We all need to find the proper balance, right? How have you successfully managed your blogging time?

A few more random thoughts:

  • Most bloggers enjoy having their posts read and acknowledged. Most importantly, we pray that our posts might be used by the Holy Spirit to pique the interest of the lost and to be of help to believers. It’s enjoyable to encourage others and to be encouraged, but I realized a long time ago that my subject material by its very nature isn’t going to garner a lot of  followers and “likes.” So my motivation ultimately has to be to please the Lord.
  • Isn’t it amazing when someone “likes” your 700-word post three seconds after you’ve published it? That’s fast reading!
  • Blogging can be profitable if you accumulate enough followers. One of the strategies of becoming a popular blogger is to “follow” a multitude of blogs and hit the “like” button on as many posts as possible and hope for reciprocation. Caralyn at beautybeyondbones has been faithfully “liking” my posts for three years although I doubt she has actually read a single one of them since we’re worlds apart theologically. Damien at mrdparrott was doing the same for awhile.
  • My wife would rather see me working on projects around the house than blogging, so I write most of my posts when she’s sleeping or out of the house. My wife knows I maintain a blog, but has no interest in reading my posts. Well, that’s one way of keeping me humble.
  • Anytime we create something, there’s always the temptation to be prideful rather than giving credit to our Creator.
  • I recently decided to take Mondays off from blogging.3 A second day is a future possibility. I think the break will be a healthy respite. I’m also trying to limit my posts to 500 words for my benefit and the benefit of readers. Whoops! So much for good intentions! I’m already 200 words over!
  • The souls we interact with on the internet are no less “real” than those in the non-virtual world.
  • The following is a Public Service Announcement addressing the widespread misuse of the word, “blog”: A blog is a website where “posts” are published. A post is not a blog and a blog is not a post.4
  1. My wife and I acquired smart phones later in 2018 because she needed one for work at the time. ↩︎
  2. In December 2020, I began re-publishing my posts on Twitter/X, although my activity on that particular platform is less than minimal. ↩︎
  3. My Monday sabbaticals didn’t last long. I’ve been publishing a daily post for quite some time. I have no shortage of topics to post about. Perhaps I’ll begin taking a day off each week at some point later this year. ↩︎
  4. Blog vs. Post: What’s the Difference? – Grammarly article ↩︎

Throwback Thursday: Sacred Tradition: Roman Catholicism’s convenient “wild card”

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on April 23, 2018 and has been revised.

Several months ago, I wrote a post about one of my memories of growing up within Roman Catholicism. Back when I was in grammar school, the nuns would periodically go to the blackboard and draw a three-legged stool as a symbol of the Catholic church. The idea was that the church was extremely well-supported by its three pillars of guidance and authority: Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the magisterium (the pope and the bishops as teachers). All three legs were taught to be equal in authority. It was pointed out by the sisters that, in contrast, the poor Protestants had only one leg, Holy Scripture, supporting their stool, which of course made for a laughable and completely untrustworthy seating device.

In that previous post, I commented on how pope Francis’ controversial lifting of the ban on communion for remarried divorcees has exposed the baselessness of the claims regarding the divinely-led teaching authority of the papacy. See here.

In this post, I would like to focus briefly on the other non-Biblical leg of Catholic authority; Sacred Tradition. Catholicism defines “sacred tradition” as “the oral teachings of Jesus Christ given to His apostles, not recorded in Scripture, that were faithfully handed down within the church from one generation to the next.” One would think that BY NOW, Catholicism would have published a book that collects all of these alleged oral teachings, but that is NOT the case. If you go to a nearby Catholic bookstore, you won’t find a book titled, “The Compendium of Sacred Tradition.” Why not? It turns out that  Sacred Tradition is Catholicism’s convenient “wild card.”

Wild card definition: A playing card whose value can vary as determined by its holder.

As the early Christian church became increasingly institutionalized, it began absorbing and adapting many pagan beliefs and practices. These doctrines could not be traced to any explicit teachings in Scripture. In many cases, there wasn’t even an implicit basis. In all such cases, Rome invoked its wild card, Sacred Tradition. A doctrine may not have had any explicit or even implicit basis in Scripture, but the church was able to claim the teaching had its origin in the unrecorded oral teachings of Christ and His apostles and was therefore beyond criticism and examination. One example, among literally hundreds would be the teaching of the efficacy of praying to Mary and the “saints.” Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments are there examples of believers praying to anyone other than God. There is no explicit or implicit basis in Scripture for such a practice. In contrast, Scripture expressly forbids communicating with the dead and teaches that God alone is to be prayed to and worshiped and that Jesus Christ alone is the Mediator between God and men. But Catholicism absorbed and adapted the pagan belief in multiple patron deities (see here) into the intercession of Mary and the “saints” and was able to invoke its mysterious and unverifiable “sacred tradition” as the basis of such doctrines.

As I said, you will not find a book detailing all of Catholicism’s sacred traditions, but the category is conveniently used as a wild card to justify any Catholic teaching that is not found in the Bible.

“Sacred tradition: A body of oral tradition, supposed to have been handed down from generation to generation in unbroken succession, either from the Lord Himself or from the apostles enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Rome has been challenged to disclose what that body of tradition is, and what are its contents beyond what has already been announced by the papacy, but she has never made it known. It can only be concluded that she prefers to have its substance secret; that she may draw further upon its hidden store as later circumstances require. It reminds one of the hat out of which the conjuror produces his rabbits one after another.” – from “Roman Catholicism In the Light of Scripture” by F.C.H. Dreyer and E. Weller, Kindle position 494.

Untethered from Scriptural Truth, Rome has granted itself the ability to create a plethora of doctrines that are either un-Biblical or anti-Biblical, all under the murky, inscrutable guise of “Sacred Tradition.”

“This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” – Matthew 15:8-9

The Roman Catholic church revels in its “superior” three-legged teaching authority, but by supplanting God’s Word, it has led its followers into spiritual darkness.

Throwback Thursday: Roman Catholics and Astrology: “Am I a Taurus or an Aries?”

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on April 25, 2018 and has been revised.

We’re all somewhat familiar with the signs of the Zodiac and horoscopes because they’re so prevalent in our culture. Historians tell us the signs of the Zodiac (Latin zōdiacus: “cycle or circle of little animals”) originated in the 5th century BC in Babylonian astronomy/astrology, which was embraced by the Greek empire, and subsequently embraced by the Roman Empire. Archaeological digs have even unearthed Zodiac mosaics in ancient Jewish synagogues. Yes, even the Bible mentions some of the signs of the Zodiac, although in a critical way (see article far below).

The premise of astrological superstition is that the Earth is influenced by the position of the heavenly bodies throughout the course of an astronomical yearly cycle and that people born within one of the 28-day intervals (specified by one of the thirteen Zodiac “signs”) will exhibit certain distinct personality traits. Astrologers claim to be able to predict the future for individuals based upon their sign or ascertain favorable or unfavorable conditions for supplicants in connection with various endeavors. Daily horoscopes are published in newspapers, which give advice for each sign group. Studies reveal that around 30% of Americans believe in astrology to some degree.1 One of the favorite ice-breaker “pick-up” lines in American society is “What’s your sign?” Argh!

Why do I bring this up? The other day, I was perusing through some blog posts written by Roman Catholics and one person wrote a post sharing 26 personal items about herself on her 26th birthday. Item # 13 was as follows:

“I am pretty sure my zodiac sign is a Taurus, however, my birthday falls on the cut-off date, so certain charts will show my birthday as Aries.”

Most Catholics have only a shallow understanding of the Bible. For them, mixing a little astrology in with their works religion is “good, clean fun” and nothing to be embarrassed about. I’m reminded of my deceased mother-in-law who wasn’t a practicing Catholic (she was excommunicated in the 1950s for remarrying after a divorce), but still considered herself a member of the church and made sure her daughters were educated at Catholic schools. She read her horoscope daily and occasionally had her palms “read” by an astrologer. Catholicism itself is a syncretic mixture of paganism and (c)hristianity, so it magnanimously “looks the other way” in regards to these excursions into “harmless” amusements.

Could a blood-bought, born-again follower of Jesus Christ become enmeshed in the Zodiac and horoscopes? Why would they? Does not compute. If a person is walking with the Lord and filled with the indwelling Holy Spirit, the last thing they would need or want to do is consult with pagan Zodiac horoscopes. Who would choose to eat out of a maggot-infested garbage can when they’re seated at THE wedding feast?

“And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.” – Deuteronomy 4:19

What does the Bible say about astrology or the zodiac? Is astrology something a Christian should study?
https://www.gotquestions.org/astrology-Bible.html

  1. 30% of Americans Consult Astrology, Tarot Cards or Fortune Tellers ↩︎

Throwback Thursday: Creation or Evolution?

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on March 6, 2018 and has been revised.

The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate
By Jason Lisle
Master Books, 2010 Kindle Edition, 256 pp.

My brain is wired in such a way that I generally avoid most material dealing with science, technology, mathematics, and such like. But Christians can’t help but encounter the debate over divine creation versus evolution, so it’s helpful for all believers to get some grounding on the topic. This book is one of blogger SlimJim’s favorite resources on the creationist view of origins and he finally talked me into downloading it to my Kindle.

“The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis (website below) can be broken down into four sections. The first part of the book explains the basic arguments of the creationists and the evolutionists in the origins debate. Each side approaches the debate from its own worldview and presuppositions. Only a worldview based upon the Bible is able to successfully account for the existence of morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature. The atheist evolutionist cannot rationally account for these outside of the Bible. Advice is provided on how to debate with atheistic evolutionists. The evolutionist often resorts to arbitrariness and presents claims that are inconsistent with evolution theory. He/she must also reject preconditions of intelligibility such as the reliability of the senses and memory since these are not dependable sources of information in a strict, hypothetical evolutionist worldview.

The second part of the book deals with logical reasoning. I have seen many of the rules of logic – logical fallicies, begging the question, the straw man argument, circular reasoning, etc. – in various books and articles over the years, so it was very helpful to see this information presented in a systematic manner. But I won’t lie, this was difficult reading for a “right-brain” guy like myself.

In the short third part of the book, Lisle argues that for the creationist debater, a presuppositional approach is superior to an evidential approach. Atheists view all evidence through their worldview, so evidential arguments will not persuade them. Lisle recommends a presuppositional approach, which argues for a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account based upon the Bible as the Word of God right out of the gate. This approach may seem counterintuitive, but the presuppositionalist is able to draw upon the nature and characteristics of God as recorded in the Bible as the basis for morality, logic, and uniformity in nature. Once again, the atheist evolutionist cannot rationally account for morality, logic, and uniformity in nature from their worldview.

The last part of the book includes a large number of actual emails sent to Lisle and Answers in Genesis that attack the creationist view. I found this section to be very helpful. After reading through the somewhat challenging initial material, which detailed the opposing views of creationists and atheists regarding origins, Lisle pulls all of the information together by using actual examples of how to counter the atheist’s faulty reasoning, thereby reinforcing the preceding material.

This was a very interesting book and I recommend it highly. But if you’re new to the origins debate, you may want to get grounded first in something a little more basic. The author assumes the Christian reader already has some familiarity with the fundamentals of the origins debate and means to equip them to be more effective witnesses, and even debaters themselves, for the Biblical account of creation.

Answers in Genesis website
https://answersingenesis.org/

Throwback Thursday: Civil Religion is the enemy of Biblical Christianity

Posted on by Tom

Above: “The Apotheosis of George Washington,” a painting based upon an engraving (c. 1802) by John James Barralet, is a blatant example of American Civil Religion

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on February 6, 2018 and has been revised.

This morning, I was reading through 2 Chronicles and came across the very familiar verse below:

“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” – 2 Chronicles 7:14

Oh, the memories!

Way back in the 1980s, my wife and I attended an independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) church that patterned itself strongly after Jerry Falwell, Sr. and his Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Needless to say, faith and politics went hand in hand at our church. Our pastor took the position that America was in a special covenantal relationship with Almighty God in much the same way as ancient Israel. He was not alone. Beginning with the voyage of the Separatist Pilgrims to Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620, American Christians have historically taken the view that America is a “Christian nation” and that God was in an implied covenantal relationship with the country.

Old Testament passages such as 2 Chronicles 7:14 that were meant only for the ancient nation of Israel were appropriated by patriotic American ministers. I believe 2 Chronicles 7:14 was quoted from the pulpit of our old church as much or possibly more than any other verse in the Bible.

What started me going on this topic?

Yesterday, I posted a review of an excellent book which examined how the early church was led down a dangerous path in which Christianity was mixed with Roman imperialism and paganism resulting in an institutionalized “civil religion.” See here.

Many Americans over the last 400 years genuinely accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior because of the strong Gospel witness here, but of course many others did not. Over the last 100 years there’s been a tremendous watering down of Biblical doctrine and the Gospel message in this country. The Gospel was increasingly replaced by “civil religion,” whereby Americans of all religious stripes – Protestants, Catholics, Jews (and now, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) – could join arms and sing together, “God Bless America,” “America the Beautiful,” and “My Country ‘Tis Of Thee,” united in their temporal citizenship and shared belief in a nebulous “Supreme Being.”

But civil religion is the enemy of Biblical Christianity. It opposes the teaching of Jesus Christ, Who proclaims that He alone is “the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Civil Religion denies the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and promotes accommodation, cooperation, compromise, and betrayal of the Gospel in the pursuit of civic morality and national brotherhood and unity.

Jesus Christ did not come to this earth to establish civil religion. Countries don’t become Christian, only people do, one individual soul at a time.

American Civil Religion – Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion

Below: Graphic examples of ecumenical American Civil Religion and its cousin, ecumenical Christian Nationalism

CR1
CR2

Throwback Thursday: What are the differences between Catholics and Protestants?

Posted on by Tom

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on March 9, 2018 and has been revised.

Just what are the major differences between Catholics and evangelical Protestants/Gospel Christians? Some people may not want to wade through a 400-page book on the topic, but here’s an excellent 8-minute video from the folks at Got Questions that briefly touches upon the four major differences listed below:

  • Authority
  • The pope
  • How a person is saved
  • Purgatory

Note from 2026: One statement by Pastor Nelson needs clarification. In his introductory remarks regarding purgatory, Pastor Nelson states, “Both (Catholics and Protestants) believe unbelievers will spend eternity in hell…” In actuality, the Roman Catholic church shifted towards semi-Universalism beginning with the Second Vatican Council and teaches all religionists – Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews – and even atheists may also possibly merit Heaven if they sincerely follow their beliefs and are “good.” Some Catholic theologians and prelates are even leaning towards full Universalism or annihilationism for those who don’t merit Heaven rather than spending an eternity in hell.1

  1. Catholicism’s steady shift towards Universalism presents a conundrum for Catholic conservatives – WordPress post ↩︎