You're listening to Megiddo Radio. Megiddo Radio is a radio ministry of Megiddo Media. For more, visit our website at MegiddoRadio.com. That's MegiddoRadio.com. Everybody welcome, this is Paul Flynn with Megiddo Radio for the 21st of October 2017. Thank you all for tuning in. On tonight's program, we're going to be talking about Roman Catholicism. We'll be dealing with some issues. Don't know how much exactly we're going to get finished tonight, but we'll see what we can get done. First thing I'm going to look at now, I'm hoping to look at if we get time and I'll see how things work out. Anything we don't get done, we might look at on Monday as well. Bishop Barron, who I've talked about on the program before, he's a bishop in Los Angeles, has a big YouTube channel, and he's got a program called World on Fire, and it's very, very popular, and he talks about Roman Catholicism and Reformation, and I kind of wanted to respond To that, now it's not a new video, it's from a couple of months ago, but he's talking about it in relation to the 500th anniversary, your anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, some of the comments that he makes. Before that. Something very much links in with Roman Catholicism. We're talking about the Reformation and especially if people want to send me on any videos or anybody talking about this issue from the Roman Catholic side and maybe might want me to respond to it, MegiddoFilms at gmail.com and I'll do my best to possibly deal with as much as possible. over this, you know, this kind of next week or two that people are thinking about these issues, Lord willing, thinking about these issues. I don't know if people are thinking, I don't know, because We've all, all I seem to notice at the moment is a lot of pet things that annoy us. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't, different things that people specialize in, except for, well, unfortunately, the gospel. And the last two programs I did were on John Piper and that whole controversy, whether he's adding works to the gospel or not. Lord willing, I don't know if I'll be able to get it done before I get to bed tonight. It might have to go out on Monday, but there's an article that's pretty much finished, bar some mild editing. Now, it's two and a half thousand words as of this moment, so I go through some of the articles and also the sermon he preached. in this article to lay it out for people because I know some people prefer reading articles and things like that to listening to a whole hour program. with the title of the article. Lord willing, it'll be out today, but I don't know. Desiring God and John Piper's Works, quote, Final Salvation, unquote, and False Gospel. At least that's the title right now. It'll be up when it's up on TheMegiddoReview.com. And if you want to get latest, any latest articles and things like that, once they come out, just type in TheMegiddoReview, M-E-G-I-D-D-O, Review, into the search bar on Facebook. And I lay out my case against what I believe John Piper's false gospel is and how it is similar to Norman Shepard and the neolegalism which came out of Westminster Theological Seminary. People might have their various theories about that, but I should just think we should stick to the fact, what was Norman Shepard teaching? And what are the guys who were involved in the Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul? Let's stick to that. Now, if we can get, at the moment, it doesn't seem like many people are interested. And people are kind of going, well, I just noticed some of the comments, it's like they've read the article about Piper and they can't seem to understand what is wrong here. because the fact that he uses slightly different terminology from Norman Shepard, and that worries me greatly. Because for all the studying that many people have done in many different areas, and I've noticed some people run blogs and things like that, We can't, and this is ministers, and I've seen some of the responses to this whole John Piper thing, that it's just been, well, we can't be too sure. Well, it's not really sure what he's saying. How much more blatant can you get when you say on your Twitter account, we are not saved by faith alone? This is on the Desiring God Twitter. If that cannot be put down to dangerously stupid terminology, and that by itself is serious enough, but we're told by some, well, you know, if you've got a problem, you're obviously not educated enough, But I digress. I mean, the fact that that cannot be discussed, at least, is astonishing. And it seems like, well, I don't know, is it kind of like an intellectual intimidation kind of going on? It's the gospel. It's the rule of works. Why has this become so confusing for people? The Westminster Confession of Faith is not confusing on the issue. So pray about that. Are you reading books? For all the Christian books you read, I'm not saying you can't read an eschatology. I'm not saying you can't read on different topics that people read on. But are we reading on justification? Are we reading on sanctification and how the two are distinct and connected to each other? Are we reading about, are we studying about what are the role of good works in salvation? How their evidences and proofs of a salvation already become? Are we passionate about defending the gospel? And I'm sorry, but I just do not notice that anymore. Well, I never really noticed it. And I am, I've been horrible at this, you know, looking back over the years, because there's been so many issues that I've talked about in the program. I'm not saying that they're not important, but how much have I done looking at the central core truths of the gospel? Not enough. And I actually hope to change that. I want to encourage myself and anybody else listening to focus on the gospel and the 500 year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. Are we just going to go, yay, You know, the Protestant Reformation wasn't that great, and we have no idea the central truths that distinguished the true gospel of grace from that of Roman Catholicism. Many people who forward all these statements, how they're celebrating the Reformation and all this kind of stuff, side with Rome on massively important issues. And while they may not be Romanist in their doctrine, they are on their way there, professing to be reformed and not professing to be reformed. So anyway, that article is hopefully going to be on the internet soon. Not too long before this went up today, relating to Rome With Horses, and I like to keep, if I'm gonna do a topic, I'm gonna stick on the same topic, I don't like jumping around the place, but Newsweek put out an article, and a brother-in-law had sent me an email. about this, Newsweek today, anybody's aware of what Newsweek are like, I don't know if they've, I don't know who takes them seriously anymore, and I think their readership is dwindling all the time, but I don't know what the numbers are. And they really are, Newsweek at this point are pretty much illiberal propaganda, I don't know if there are any real journalists in Newsweek. Last time I did a vlog, last time I did something on Newsweek, I did a short vlog on how there was an article sympathetic to those who go off and fight for ISIS and come back and can't find work. You can't make the stuff up. That, anyway, we won't even get into that because I already talked about that, but in an article by Newsweek, did Satan create Catholicism? Trump supporting pastor Robert Jeffress thinks so. Now, I remember Yahoo reported on this as well. They just kind of basically shared this around. And I think this is important because there's this outrage. I'll be honest, I don't know what it's about really with this whole Congressman Wilson. She's a, sounds like a black woman who's just calling everything racist, but that's not really too uncommon on the left. Everything becomes racist after a while. They just see racism everywhere, but Um... They're kind of freaking out. The left is kind of freaking out that, or at least trying to find something on Trump. They just don't like Trump. Okay. Not a big, not a Trump fan either. The man is not a Christian man, does not have a credible profession of faith. Let me put it like that. And I've done videos on that. I did a video on that before. I did one or two videos on that before, and I'm not going to go through it again, but he's never been able to explain the gospel properly. It's a works salvation for him. And yeah. So, He says, this is, Donald Trump tweeted today, great book just out, quote, A Place Called Heaven, unquote, by Dr. Robert Jeffress, a wonderful man. Now, some of the things I've heard from Robert Jeffress over the years have been great. I'm like, ooh, very good. And some of the things not so great. Now, I've dealt with, I've talked about Robert Jeffress on the program before, a couple years ago, I think about two years ago, he called Pope Francis, a sincere Christ follower. Anyway, he was on Fox. I think he was on Fox. Actually, if you go to the Megiddo radio programs, and one of the programs is called, is, get it up here. Give you the name. I don't know where it disappeared. Here we go. So, is Pope Francis a good Christian? And I just cover that and Robert Jeffress made the argument that, I'm just trying to get the exact words he said here. So, Robert Jeffress said, this is, I don't know, what, two years ago maybe now? I have great respect for Pope Francis. He is a humble Christ follower. We can learn a lot from him. So, sometimes he can sound great. Now, I've seen him on different programs, didn't have a lot of time for it. He was on Jenna Mefford, didn't hear anything strange there, but he's very ecumenical. Now, he is now in the spotlight because Donald Trump has talked about his book, his latest book, and obviously he's gonna get a lot of book sales just plainly from that alone, but he's very ecumenical. That comment alone is very ecumenical. How Christianity has faded away from the view that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist, a view that was held by medieval Christians from at least the 7th or 8th century onwards. the Bogomils and Poletians, later groups that were called the Waldensians, the Albigensians, and then, you know, like, pre-Reformation groups that believed in salvation by faith alone, through Christ alone, for salvation. Very similar to the Reformation doctrines, pretty much the same thing. Except not as detailed and as good of an exposition as was offered by the Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin, you know, the articulation of what we know as the Bondage of the Will now by Martin Luther, things like that. That's the blessing of going deeper into Scripture, and the Lord used the printing press and all that to spread the Reformation, because Europe was ignorant at that time. Anyway, so there seems to be a bit of a, oh no, someone Like Kirk Eichenwald, who I've talked about before in the program, but if you want to listen to that program, it's like show 143 or 144, something like that, where I talked about his hatchet job on the Bible. You know, typical Gnostic Gospels linking it in, you know, some of the books apparently were missing and all that, but I dealt with that a couple of years ago. Kirk Eichenwald, who said this, and he writes for Newsweek, this nut is Trump's biggest supporter in the evangelical movement. And just for laughs, his knowledge of the Bible is on par with Trump's. Now, I don't agree with everything he's saying. I don't call Roman Catholicism a cult. It's an apostate. It's no longer part. It's not a Christian church anymore. It's a departure. It's cut off from the visible church because it's been cut off due to unbelief. And that's, if you look at the view, for centuries, the Christians have seen the Pope over on that manor sitting in the Son of Perdition. 2 Thessalonians, trying to find the exact passage here, 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2, verse 4, "...who opposeth and exalts himself above all that is called God on that which is worshipped, so that as God, said in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." The word there, temple, is the spiritual temple, the Holy of Holies, basically referring to the church. That's what was the exposition on that verse for centuries. Also other verses as well, linked in with the man of sin, that antichrist, the little horn that came out speaking great and mighty things. claiming to be God, and that has been seen through for centuries, all the Reformed creeds, et cetera, and so on, that the Pope of Rome was that man of sins and a perdition. And Revelation 17 is describing the Roman Catholic Church, basically growing on top of the ruins of the old Roman Empire. Very old view, nothing new. There's, okay, there's various different modern reinterpretations of Revelation 17, but this is their big story of the left. Wow. Robert Jeffress, if you've just taken this isolation and all you know is this, Robert Jeffress believes the Bible. or believes that Rome... I can't say that I agree with every single thing he said. Maybe some of the things I hadn't heard before, I'm not too sure, I'm not trying to give an endorsement. Again, because the guy is fairly ecumenical, he can be pretty strong in Islam and stuff like that. Sometimes I'm listening to him and go, I really agree with that, and then sometimes he's incredibly weak on things. Honestly. He said Roman Catholicism is a cult. And this video that they're quoting from in this article, because they're really annoyed that an evangelical gets any press time, and this is the only real reason, this is from something that was posted on Right Wing Watch back in 2011, and Right Wing Watch sees anybody Well, make me watch, I don't know if it's even relevant. But anyway, this is an old video from what, six years ago? It's old news now. He did, and this is an interview I played on the program two years ago, which I have a problem with. He backed down from his view on Roman Catholicism and said, there's going to be millions of Catholics in heaven, and also another time, I just quoted there earlier, that we can learn a lot from Pope Francis and all that. So giving the impression that it is just another Christian denomination, without a doubt. But that's what they've got a problem with, you know, basically disagreeing or believing that it's another gospel and all that kind of stuff. That is seen as being a complete not. But you have to realize the left, right-wing watcher they're quoting from, sees anybody who will give even conservatives the time of day and allow them to be represented. For example, Dave Rubin has been, I'm trying to remember, there was a video that was put together, botched together by, oh yeah, this is amazing, that Trying to work out. Yeah, like right wing watch believes that there's a video called the extremists using YouTube to spread hate. And right wing watches use a lot. They all look at all the crazy right wingers. And now some of them are kind of unhinged and yeah, all that kind of stuff. But the people that they believe are spreading hate and all this kind of thing. I give you an example, Dave Rubin, not a Christian. He is a quote-unquote homosexually married man. Now, obviously, if anybody's listened to the program long enough, he's not married. He may have a ring, he may live with a man, and all this kind of stuff. He's a homosexual. But anyway, that's what people refer him to. And he dares to have conservatives to share their opinion. on his program and doesn't go along with the social justice warrior movement or whatever the black lives matter propaganda or whatever so he therefore is an extremist i'm just giving an example of somebody who's really on the left but seen as an extremist and that's how far that the left has gone so but i digress i mean it's just unfortunately it's going to get worse so To answer the question, did Satan create Catholicism? Yes, it's an apostate church. It is... I can't remember what we said. It was the genius of Satan. A number of Christian pastors throughout the century. This is nothing new. So... It's freedom for all except for Christians. Don't share your opinion. Newsweek said in their article, an evangelical pastor and President Donald Trump supporter says Catholicism is a cult-like pagan religion and the success of the religion is due to the genius of Satan. Dr. Robert Jeffress, and again this is old, this is from years ago, I don't know why this is even relevant now. He doesn't even, I don't even think he holds this view anymore. I wish he did. I wish he spoke against Roman Catholicism. That's the thing. His view now is disappointing. But I digress. Just again, sloppy, quote unquote, journalism from Newsweek. Dr. Robert Jefferson, Southern Baptist pastor, says that the Roman Catholic Church is the result of the Babylonian cult system founded by the Book of Revelation in a video posted on YouTube by Right Wing Watch blog. Twitter slammed and mocked the Southern Baptist pastor for making the comments on the religion. Well, they're allowed to criticize the Roman Catholicism all they want, except when you're an evangelical. Leftists don't like to hear that there's a difference between the Gospel and the Roman Catholic Church. They do not follow the authority of the Bible. Why? Because they want to be able to pin all the atrocities linked with the Roman Catholic Church, with the Inquisition, whatever else you want to talk about. the Inquisition especially, on Christianity, rather than being a departure from Christianity. To give you a bit of a history, briefly, Roman Catholicism came out of, you could say, the bosom of the Church. The Pope of Rome came out of the bosom of the Church. That's what 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 4 talks about. The temple of God, God's people, that's a metaphor for God's people. Not the physical temple, let's talk about the naos, the holy of holies, the people of God. And that happened about the 7th century, when Boniface III declared himself to be the universal bishop, taking the title that was kind of wrestled back and forth for a time between the West and the East. Those split legs between Rome and Constantinople. Anyway, John of Constantinople took the title first, but then eventually, Not too long after Gregory the Great, so-called known to history, or Gregory I, said that anyone who takes the title of the universal bishop is the forerunner of Antichrist. John Calvin wrote about this. A lot of people have written about this. I've done programs on this as well. Gregory said that anyone who takes this title is the forerunner of Antichrist. This is the late 6th century, not too long before Boniface III in 606 AD takes the title to himself. Universal Bishop. Because they were aware of this doctrine. Even before, go back to Tertullian, he has... Okay, the Pope of Rome was not there at that point, you're talking about the 2nd century. 2nd to 3rd century, but they saw this kind of the Roman Empire being taken out of the way, Tertullian did anyway, and then a man emerging on top of this and would come out of the church a couple of centuries later. That was revealed. Now, put papal infallibility wasn't always believed. Roman Catholicism The Catholic Church, right, in the first reason, that was a Christian church. But it became more and more corrupt with false doctrines. It gradually started going away from the truth. And this, you know, the episcopacy, bishops above the presbyters and all this kind of thing. Rather than presbyters or elders all having the same power as you have in Presbyterianism, you have eventually the Some of the theories are that the moderators of the presbyteries kind of got exalted positions, and then by about the late second century, you had what was called a bishop. Now, bishop is synonymous really, you know, it means overseer, but it's the same role as elder. It's another function of the same role. So there's no hierarchy in a real sense. Yeah, there's different types of courts in churches. That's demonstrated by Acts chapter 15. And then local courts and things like that, you know, which are presided over by the elders, or those bishops, whatever you want to call them. Elders is generally the word now because bishop has got, you know, it's kind of a loaded term now, more associated with episcopacy than it is more biblical forms of church government. But I digress. Anyway, or pastor is another term that's used sometimes. So this apostasy started happening, for example, the sacramental system was in around the time of Augustine, that was kind of creeping in more and more. And gradually, it took a long time, and then there was a battle around the 6th, 7th century between the Bishop of Rome. After that vacuum, I mean, the Bishop of Rome took that vacuum, left politically by Constantine, and that took time. It didn't happen overnight, as some people might claim, but it took a couple hundred years and then gradually those titles of the Emperor were taken to the Bishop of Rome. Then, say from the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th century, this battle kind of took place with power over between the two of them. It was kind of like, which one would come out on top? Eventually the Bishop of Rome, you're talking like 9th, 10th, especially the 11th century when the for a couple of centuries there prior to the reformation the pope of rome became the undisputed head of europe and ruled europe prior to that you had J. Wiley in his History of Protestantism talks about the Diocese of Milan being kind of preaching a gospel until about the 9th or 10th century. And out of that came the Waldensians. A lot of Waldensians came out of that in Northern Italy. And the real Christians, those who believed in salvation by grace through faith alone, the real gospel, were in the mountains in Northern Italy. in the valleys, Piedmont, in southern France, fighting for their lives against Roman soldiers who were coming to kill them and do unspeakable things to them. So that's the history of the Christian Church, not the Inquisition. The Inquisition was often against people who did not acknowledge the doctrine of transubstantiation and things like that. It wasn't always Christian, sometimes it was other groups as well, but a lot of it was. Anyway, this is all really about... So anyway, the church apostatized, and then you had groups outside of the Catholic Church, by the way. Again, different groups like the Bogomils, Polynesians, Waldensians, they tend to be known as, after the 12th century figure Peter Waldo, they're named after. Albigensians named after the town in southern France called Albi and I think that was wiped out as the Protestants wiped out there during one of the Crusades but it's been a while since I've done research on that. So the church gradually apostatized and then it wasn't until about the 16th century in 1517 which we're remembering this year When the gospel, on a large scale, the gospel never went away, okay? But on a large scale was recovered. The doctrine of justification by faith alone. Igniting the Protestant Reformation and also the doctrine of Antichrist. A lot of people don't want to talk about that, but that came about as well. This is Protestantism. Acknowledging that the Pope around the Son of Perdition is not to be trusted, right? But the gospel, well the gospel is the most important thing. Justification by faith alone. That was wrestling away the sacramental system power that the Roman Catholic Church had over people and their salvation. Anybody came forward with the true gospel for centuries before that was killed. Just look at William Tyndale, he was burned at the stake. Just for daring to translate the Bible. He died with the Bible hung around his neck. So this is the history of Roman Catholicism. It is apostatized Christianity and formally cut off of the Council of Trent. Lots of apostasy before that, but the Council of Trent in the 16th century is when Roman Catholicism anathematized the gospel, especially if you look at the succession on justification. The canons First of all, they condemn in the first few canons Pelagianism, which, if you're Christian, you also will agree with that. But from about the third, fourth, fifth canons onwards, there is a condemnation, not just a succession, but I think the succession is the most obvious to the very core of the gospel. when they condemn justification by faith alone. If you trust in Christ alone, let him be anathema, let him be a curse. That's what the Council of Trent declares. The Council of Trent is still authoritative today, regardless of whether it's Vatican II or whatever. Vatican II references the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent has not been done away. The Council of Trent's teachings are still, by and large, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which they started publishing back around 1984. So, yeah, the Roman Catholic Church denies it's an apostate religion. It's a departure from the faith. I don't use the term cult because the difference between Mormonism, which is a cult, and Roman Catholicism is Roman Catholicism was once part of the visible church and left. Mormonism was never a part of the church. Mormonism is polytheistic. Can't believe that... Can't believe in the Trinity, for example, because if you're a good Mormon, you can go and be a god of your own planet one day, and that Elohim was created. This is Mormonism. This is complete denial of Christianity, and these liberals Newsweek and I think Vox as well try and get the other guys posting this Matthew Yg le sias I don't know how to pronounce his name, but anyway, so I Don't know does he work for Vox. He's got a vox.com link or maybe just happens to like Vox anyway so So they take exception to that, especially Kirk Ike and all who have talked on the program before. It's funny, right? At other times, these same people on the left, I don't know if it's these people specifically, but people on the left, they have a massive problem with evangelical disagreeing and calling another religion false, but they've no problem saying every religion is false. It's an interesting double standard. And no problem being whatever you want, just don't be an evangelical Christian who actually believes the Bible. That's the big breaking news here. Pastor expresses biblical view of Roman Catholicism. It goes back centuries. It's not new to him and it's Yeah. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith, maybe, and realize Revelation 17 being linked to Roman Catholicism isn't anything new. Now, I'm not endorsing anything Robert Jefferson says in the message, because I've only listened to a small bit of it, but the whole point of it was... media goes crazy just because somebody expresses an evangelical view about the Bible. Let's go back to Bernie Sanders. Remember a few months ago we did a program on this? I think it was anti-Christian bigotry. I'm going to play a small clip of this, which everybody on the left, that I could see anyway, was supporting his bigotry, but they have no problem against Christianity. But they have no problem, they have a massive problem with somebody having to believe in the Bible. But if somebody's against the Bible, no problem. This is what Bernie Sanders said a few months ago in the Senate with Russell Vought over his concerns about Islam. Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned? What about Jews? They stand condemned too? Senator, I'm a Christian. I understand you are a Christian, but this country is made up of people who are not just. I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people who have different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned? Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. Muslim groups and the ACLU... So anyway, that's a couple months ago. Leftists were all, oh that's great, fine, they're all 100% behind Bernie Sanders, who's pretty much a communist. And this video of him, he loves what they do in Nicaragua back in the 80s. But I digress. So, they have no problem with that, but if you believe the Bible, well... It's, well, it's astonishing. But anyway, so what else is this article from Newsweek? We might just cover only this today. I'm not too sure how this will go today. Anyway, Trump praised the book almost an hour after Jeffress appeared on Fox Business Network, Lou Dobbs Tonight, to comment on the criticism represented by Frederica Wilson, directed at Trump for his disputed phone call with the widow of a slain soldier. The L.A. Times reported, the president reportedly told the widow her husband, quote, knew that he signed up for, unquote, when he joined the army. During the interview, Jeffers defended Trump and said that his message to the slain soldier's widow was absolutely appropriate. He called Wilson a wacko, rhinestone, cowboy, Congresswoman, and she was only accusing Trump of these comments for own self gain. So even somebody, you know, a lot of people were responding, saying, every religion is a cult. You know, is that wrong? Are you all nuts too? Because you're condemning Roman Catholicism as well. But I digress. Jeffress has been a longtime Trump supporter. This is why they're covering this. Mainly, and they just do not like Christianity. In July, Trump tweeted a flyer to promote the Celebrate Freedom concert and rally in Washington, where Jeffress spoke. The first Dallas Baptist Church, Jeffers mega church was one of the event sponsors. Anyway. A bit of I'm not gonna spend too long on it. It's a bit of a some ways a bit of a non story. But again, I'm just like, this was covered ages ago. And they're talking about this now. Anyway. So that's that. Changing over now to talk about things relating to the Reformation. Hopefully we can talk more about this. And look at this video. Now, this is just going to be audio. I'm not going to be doing probably another TV program probably until the end of next week. And where I hope to be doing a program on Bible translations, underlying texts, and things like that. So Lord willing, that will go ahead. Saturday of next week anyway, but what is it the 28th of October? I'm hoping as well to do another program on Monday Would be audio only I'm gonna try it cuz like I'll be honest Doing the TV and updating YouTube is takes a lot of work. I'm not gonna stop doing TV programs because there's like three cameras around the room and I want to use them and if you don't know and they've already bought me get a tv.com so Well, the probably frequency of updating the YouTube, I just think is going to reduce. And if people really want to listen to me twice a week, as I'm hoping to do from now on, that they'll just have to come to me to get a radio.com because it just takes up too much time, even even to render the audio version. Maybe there's a quicker way of doing it. I'm missing it, but it takes a long time. And I've got a slow old version of Sony Vegas that I use. Sometimes it takes about two hours to render. And that's that's for. YouTube version. I suppose I could do a low-resolution version that would just look really, really bad. I kind of don't want to do that, but anyway. So, yeah. Hopefully, this will work. I think it will, anyway. That's been my plan for a while. Now, again, Robert Barron, who became, I think it was about a year or two ago, he became auxiliary bishop in Los Angeles. I think there's a number of bishops in the Los Angeles area. It's obviously a big place. I'm going to try to go through his arguments and Very popular guy, well-spoken. One of those guys, even though you don't agree with him, you could just listen to him. He's got a very... All I can say is you can just see why he's popular. You know, he talks really well, but we also have to remember he's teaching a false gospel. However nice or intellectual somebody can sound. If anyone teaches any of the gospel, 1st Galatians 1.6-9, let him be cursed. And you know what, if he's going to be consistent with the creeds of his own church, the Council of Trent, he would say the same about me. I'm not saying Vatican II is consistent with that, but that's what they still hold to. Those condemnations are anathemas still applying. So anyway, let's go through this video and comment on it and look at some of the arguments that he makes and talk about Catholicism and the Reformation. Well, 2017 is the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation, usually dated to October 31st, 1517. So a lot of us are reflecting on the significance of this great event in the history of the Church and indeed of civilization. I've always been kind of sympathetic with a remark made by Yves Congar, the great Dominican theologian. who said, you know, if things had been a little different in the 16th century, both on the Protestant and the Catholic side, there might be an order in the church today called the Lutheran order, as we have a Franciscan or Dominican or Benedictine order. In other words, if things had gone a little bit differently and things had been a bit more balanced on both sides, we might have been able to take in the observations and critiques of Luther without leading to a split, a fundamental split. And that's kind of the way the Roman Catholic Church works. This is kind of how the whole Roman Empire religions would have worked. They basically would have taken a little bit of their religion, a little bit of their, and amalgamated it. That's kind of what a lot of pagan religions work, an amalgamation of different views. But most of the time, especially in the Roman Empire, Caesar worship was the most important. you know, primacy of the Pope. If you're gonna be a Roman Catholic, you have to believe in the primacy of the Pope and believe in transubstantiation, a proper one, I mean. So, yeah, if Luther hadn't been saved, if, because, if you read some of the accounts prior to Trent, some of the historians would have said that, you know, a number of the, it was a mixed bag. I think this is one of the reasons why the reformers, the first generation reformers, didn't reject Catholic, you know, baptism, because at that point prior to Trent, they were not cut off from the visible church. Now, if Calvin had lived long enough after the Council of Trent, maybe that would have changed. Because I know a lot of people will quote back to Calvin, things like that, for his view that not to be rebaptizing people and all that kind of stuff. Bit of an anachronism if you ask me this argument, but I digress. I don't accept Roman Catholic baptism at all, and I think it should be within the visible church, the professors of the true religion, not just being Trinitarian. So what happened with Luther? Salvation by faith alone. The just shall live by faith. He saw this in Romans chapter 1. As long as he believed faith alone for justification, That just took the power away from the sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church and away from their merits system, which hadn't really been set down, quote unquote, set down in stone up until Trent. There was a lot of error, obviously going through various councils and things like that right up. But it wasn't until Trent, really, that Rome said, here is the gospel. They said it in explicit terms. And they said, we condemn this. You believe the gospel. You are accursed. That's what happened to Trent, that's why it was a bit different. Previous councils, even though there's plenty of heresies in previous councils as well, the departures from the faith, leading many to go away from it, those who held to the Bible and things like that. Now, Could he have remained? I think some groups tried to within the Jansenists. I don't know how orthodox they were, but they held to the view, you know, they held to an Augustinian view of grace and things like that. But could they have remained in? No. they believe the true biblical gospel. So there's no way that Luther could have remained in that church if that church, which later went on to officially anathematize the gospel, in the Council of Trent. And of course, Kongar was himself very active at Vatican II. Now, you read the text of Vatican II, and you can do it under different rubrics, but one of the most illuminating rubrics is an overture toward Protestants. Look at the themes emphasized in Vatican II, from a recovery of the Bible to the priesthood of all believers. to, in the wake of the Council, a communion under... What is the recovery of the Bible? Yeah, you couldn't kill them off. Look, if you're not aware of this issue with Rome and the Bible, People weren't allowed to translate it. It was kept in Latin so the people didn't understand it. It wasn't allowed to be translated into the vernacular of the people. You needed permission from the bishop a lot of the time to be able to read the Bible. Rome did not translate. I think the only Reformation translation I'm aware of, it was a bit of a disaster actually, I don't think it sold too much, was the Douay Rheims of 1610. Probably anticipation, I think, of the King James that was being translated at the time just finished a year later, but I don't think it really, really went very far. It was only really in the 19th century that Rome started getting really involved in Bible translation work and actually caring about it, because primarily they were losing. And their position was getting weaker and weaker. Late 19th century, the Pope loses the Papal States. So Rome got weaker and weaker. They were very bigoted, openly so. I'm very anti what they call modernism and all this is like but a hundred years ago. It's only around Vatican II that they softened up their approach. Why? Who's the other view, the other approach? Plainly wasn't working. Rome is a chameleon. It will say whatever has to be in different lands, different and easily. It's different in Ireland to what it's a little bit different in the United States. You see, Robert Barron is very much the United States version of Roman Catholicism that they like in the United States. Talking very eloquently and all this kind of stuff. Body go to places where they're not really bothered about that. And they'd be very much, much more dogmatic and things like that, or a lot more Marxist. It depends whatever they, you know, whatever they need to be in different countries. So there is a flexibility that they allow, but there's a rigidity that they have towards ultimately power. Both kinds. There were a number of gestures toward the great themes of the reformers. So obviously from, you know, Kongar and through the council on, a lot of us have recognized great value in the Reformation. Now look at the moves of Pope Francis recently. Really? Yeah, let's look at the sola. Sola fide? Sola scriptura? What exactly? It's a bit like the liberal saying, I have a lot of respect for Christ. No, you don't. Unless you bow the knee to him and follow him and repent of your sin and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, you don't have any love for Christ at all. And it's the same with, if you're a Rome Catholic, property Roman Catholic believing in the Council Trent like he claims to be believe and like and all this then you hate the Protestant Reformation. You can't have your foot in both camps and we're gonna explain later why that is. I think he too is recognizing that that we can benefit from some of these insights. Insights? The semi-Pelagian gospel, that the works, merits, cooperating with grace and all this kind of stuff, partly God, partly man, all this kind of thing, is a false gospel. The initial part of the Roman Catholic Church system, they mix up justification and sanctification, unfortunately like a lot of Protestants today, because of our ignorance of the gospel, unfortunately. But justification and sanctification ultimately almost become the same thing. And at the beginning, I don't think people realize, the beginning it's gracious. If you look at the Council of Trent, 6th Session, Chapter 8, how the gracious justification of the sinner by faith is to be understood. And it says, But when the apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in the sense of which uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely that we are therefore said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation. the foundation and root of all justification." So they say faith is the root. They didn't even be able to say faith alone at the beginning, and then works later. He goes on to say that, "...without which it is impossible to please God, and to come to the fellowship of his saints, and we are therefore said to be justified graciously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace justification. So they say grace alone at the beginning, then later on it's grace and works contribute to justification. Or if you're listening to certain, unfortunately certain professing Protestants, it's called final salvation at times. There's different ways people can sneak in works and make it your righteous standing before God, be it in the first day or the last day, to depend upon your efforts. It's another gospel. At the same time, we draw back, and what I want to do in the course of this very brief presentation is talk about both of those sides. So, first of all, on the positive side, what is the great contribution of Luther and Reformers? I would say this, a renewed emphasis on the principle of the primacy of grace. I think arguably the fundamental biblical principle is the primacy of grace, namely that God's love comes first. Israel is a chosen people. Why? Because they're the most heroic? No, on the contrary. Whatever heroism there is, is because they've been chosen. Jacob is chosen. Why? Because he's obviously so much a better guy than Esau? No, no. The primacy of God's love is what we notice. David is chosen. Why? Oh, he's clearly the most gifted, the handsomest of the sons of Jesse. No, we're told on the contrary. God chooses, God gives, God graces, and everything else flows from that. When we forget this principle, and mind you, it has been forgotten a lot over the Christian centuries. Whenever we do that, we get into serious... It's actually quite interesting, maybe I already thought about this now, is he basically saying, kind of agreeing with William Cunningham, who's a church historian in his Historical Theology Volume 1, that prior to Trent, Catholic Church had become quite Pelagian. Completely forgotten about us to know then they had to deal with the wrong the reformers charges during the council trend and so they have to be couldn't go and agree with them because that would completely am shattered or their merit system. What they ended up with some kind of an amalgamation in the middle. First of all, condemning Pelagianism, because they had to. If they didn't condemn Pelagianism, then it would have been completely obvious that they were anti-Augustine's position on the Doctrine of Grace. I think this shocks a lot of people. Augustine on the Doctrine of Grace is basically the Protestant view. It's not Rome Catholic. Every scratch... sometimes people don't have much knowledge of Augustine, will kind of draw back and say, oh, isn't he a Roman Catholic or something like that? Why do Roman Catholics think he's fantastic and all this kind of stuff? Well, why do Greek Orthodox think that Chrysostom's very good? I mean, was Chrysostom a believer? I think he was. Roman Catholics think Irenaeus is great. Of course, if they can't claim these people to themselves, they can't claim this unanimous view of the Church Fathers just because Roman Catholicism claims somebody doesn't mean ergo their apostate or anything like that. Their views might be tortured in order to get them to confess anything. It's possible. More of a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church really is Thomas Aquinas. And he's He wasn't alive at the time, obviously, but Aristotle was known as the philosopher in his writings. So, anyway, let's continue. Spiritual trouble. Now, to give it a technical name, it becomes Pelagianism, which is a theory. It's grounded in Pelagius, this early patristic figure. of auto-salvation, that I can save myself through my heroic efforts. If I'm just morally good enough, I will, as it were, compel God to save me. My moral excellence comes first. Auto-salvation. When we get on that track, what happens? The whole biblical thing, all of Christianity, basically falls apart. Because in that case, I don't really need a savior. And Jesus does, in fact, devolve. You see it a lot over the centuries, including today. Jesus devolves into being a, you know, vague religious teacher, rather than a savior. So, in the measure that Luther and his colleagues re-emphasize, It's important to know Rome has never denied, at least in the last couple hundred centuries, officially, the necessity of grace and salvation. Okay? So just somebody emphasizes grace and says grace alone at the beginning point of salvation and all this kind of stuff doesn't mean that they've not given over to the Roman Catholic era. Because they tried to... First of all, the accusation from Rome was, when the reformers started, and from 1517 onwards, it was like, oh, this is a complete novelty. It doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. And later on, it was basically like, hey, you know what? We agree with each other. Let's come together and talk. And It's a kind of massaging of the details, which unfortunately, it happens in a lot of, that's what heretics do. They depart from the truth, but then when they're confronted with what the Bible actually teaches, it kind of comes like this. You know what? We actually believe the same thing. What's your problem? That happens time and time again. I remember I posted a comment there a few days ago on Facebook, and I'm doing research on Charles Finney at the moment, and I'm reading this review of Revivals of Religion, and this is, I think, the first thing he published. I think it was back in the 1820s, I think it was, and the Presbyterian Church professes the belief of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Why didn't they charge him with heresy? He was clearly a Pelagian in the early writings. And whatever else, he was clearly not a Calvinist. So, ultimately, we should be careful about trusting somebody who takes us away from the Word of God, regardless of who they are, regardless of what the numbers are. brought right to the fore, this issue of the primacy of grace. I say, good. I say, yes, the church must always hear that message. And may I say this, especially today, when Not only do we believe in auto-salvation, we now believe, look around our culture, in the auto-generation of meaning. I give meaning to my life. I determine what the purpose of my own life is. As I've argued many times, Nietzsche's Will to Power, Sartre's Existence Preceding Essence, all this high philosophy is now the ordinary view of most people in our culture. Do we especially now need to hear the primacy of grace? It's not you who've chosen me. It's I who've chosen you. It's God's love comes first and whatever we have comes second. Yes, indeed. And I think it's great on the anniversary of the Reformation if we all reiterate that principle. Okay, so how come You're not a Lutheran, you might say to me. How come you don't just accept the Lutheran critique? How come there isn't a Lutheran order in the Catholic Church as there is a Franciscan and Dominican? Well, I think a lot of it hinges on this little fact. If Luther had stopped at saying, gratia prima, I'd be okay. Grace first. The trouble was, he pushed it and said, gratia sola, by grace alone. How dare he actually went grace alone. Not of works. And this is where the rubber hits the road. Merit, when you look at modern legalism, that's kind of around the church at the moment. I'm going to wrap it up here. We'll continue, Lord willing. I'll see how things go with this video, maybe on Monday. It kind of goes off into another area that I kind of want to maybe deal separately, if possible. But this is kind of where the rubber hits the road. Removing the merit system. Now, when the church becomes more and more legalistic, like the segments of the OPC and the PCA, haven't really dealt with some of the legalists in their ranks, I don't think. You know, like the Norman Shepard influence. adding works to, you know, the second justification or final salvation or whatever we want to call it. And they say, well, the works aren't actually meritorious. Why? Because they say that the covenant of works in the Garden of Eden was actually a covenant of grace. They actually say that there is no covenant of works, so works then being added in are no longer seen as meritorious. It's very subtle. This is meritorious. It's illogical. If you have to do something in order to attain, attain means to succeed at something, and on the 500th anniversary, should we not be studying, or any time, it doesn't matter when it is, the central truths of the gospel? Because, you know, what are we celebrating 500 years for? If we don't understand the role of grace in the gospel, sola gratia, you know, we can have these things and carved in wood and the five solas, cool, and then it has no impact in our lives. We don't know what it means. So that when we see something, when the gospel drifts, and it was a drift in the early centuries as well, when the gospel drifts towards Roman Catholicism, we don't see it. Now what would I recommend for people to do? Recommend for people to obviously study the Bible above all else, but get good, sound, biblical commentaries. Read good, sound, systematic theologies from Luitzius, John Calvin's Institute of Christian Religion. Go read the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorraine Bettner on and on. Surround yourself in the multitude of counselors. There is safety. Focus on justification. Honestly. How many books have you read on the doctrine of justification? I haven't read that many. I'm trying to get a few more actually. I've already read a few. Usually the sections I've read on justification by faith alone are in systematic theologies I've read. But James Buchanan, excellent. Just go buy it. It's a good place to start. It's not, in my opinion anyway, it's not too difficult. And if you've read that and you want to go really deep, John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, it's published by Reformation Heritage Books. I pray this has been a blessing to you. Lord willing, the article will be up on the internet soon on megareview.com. If not, it'll be up next Monday. Lord willing, we can return again Monday to talk about some more topics maybe in this general area. This has been Paul Flynn. May God bless you all. you