Reformed Blogging

Acts 2:42 in its context takes place during Peter's first sermon in Pentecost. After that, we read that the crowds were convicted, Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. In Acts 2:41, we read that they believed first before they were baptized. The logical order is simple - believing precedes baptism. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit had happened (Acts 2:17) and the apostles were given that power. The apostles were granted the ability to speak many languages without having to study them. In Luke 24:29, the apostles were told to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with the power from on high. This would be the Holy Spirit in granting them their power. It's no wonder lying to Peter caused the couple, Ananias and Sapphira, to be knocked down dead (Acts 5:1-5). We later read that they were breaking bread and in prayers. The believers continued steadfastly to hold in apostolic doctrine or the apostles' teachings. The Greek word for doctrine or teaching is didache. I r...

As I'm reading through Nehemian for the nth time - we can see the role of Ezra in the life of Nehemiah. Before Nehemiah is the Book of Ezra. It's said that Ezra wrote Ezra and Ezra wrote Nehemiah which is most probable. What we can see is the role of the Levite priesthood with Ezra. Although we have Joshua the High Priest yet Ezra seems to have eclipsed the former. We do read of Joshua the High Priest in Ezra, Zechariah, and Haggai. Yet, Ezra seems to be focused for a reason. I think Ezra was focused because he was that scribe or historian of the Jewish people. It seems that he did some editing on Nehemiah himself. What we can also read in Nehemiah 8 is the situation of Ezra preaching the Word of God to the people. Those who say Sola Scriptura wasn't applicable until a certain century fails to see the canon. When it came to God's standards - they had God's Word. The Bible was still an expanding book. The first books that the people had as their Bible was the Pentat...

I remembered having gone from a journey from Roman Catholicism to becoming near agnostic after a crisis of faith. Back when I was a Roman Catholic - the Bible just didn't matter to me because: I had a priest who would guide me in spiritual matters and only he was "qualified" to interpret it. There was the "infallible" council who was supposedly granted immunity from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit. Of course, the Pope himself couldn't be wrong about doctrine, right? Studying Roman Catholic doctrine was of course more interesting to my carnal mind than the Bible back then. So why did I hate the Bible? Why did I hate having Bible classes when I got into a Baptist academy a a Roman Catholic? If I could summarize it, it's because "I hated the Bible because it knew all about my sins." The Bible is very offensive towards the lost sinner. After all, who wants their sins named one by one and evaluated before them? One always wants to have a...

I'm amazed at the audacity of Roman Catholicism to claim that she supposedly gave the Bible to the world. I have run into an argument with some self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologists or some professional Roman Catholic apologists who agree at one point: they both agree that the Roman Catholic institution gave born again Christians the Bible. But there's one problem: their claim that the Roman Catholic institution is supposedly apostolic and Peter is the first Pope is built on shaky ground. Even if they claim that Peter could have just been out of town when Paul wrote to the Romans, wouldn't that be rude of Paul to forget Peter in the first place? One reason I got from some self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologists is that not anyone may read the Scriptures. They think that the interpretation of the Scriptures should be left to the "infallible magisterium" of the Roman Catholic institution with Popes and councils to justify why it was once illegal to own a...

The Catholic apologist may say that Galatians 2:11-13 and the incident in Acts 15 is not proof whatsoever that the Pope doesn't have the right or privilege to papal infallibility. They may say that Paul was simply giving brotherly correction. They may say that it would be just like a cardinal telling the Pope about being wrong on certain stuff. One situation they may want to compare is would be a cardinal tells the Pope something like, "Your holiness, you are wrong about my favorite food. I don't like pasta."  This kind of problem happens because of a lack of understanding of what Roman Catholics believe about papal infalliblity.  I agree with Roman Catholics in the sense that the Pope isn't perfect and that he can still make mistakes. The doctrine of papal infallibility doesn't teach that the Pope is always right. On the other hand, it means that the Pope is supposedly preserved from doctrinal error. Here's what the Vatican II Council says: Vatican...

Imagine the only "crime" he did was to translate the Bible so everyone can read it for themselves! I remembered reading the life of William Tyndale from the "Foxe's Book of Martyrs". Just reading that book made me cringe thinking about the bloody persecution of the martyrs and the horrors of the Inquisition. I decided to read Tyndale's biography which revealed the reason why he was burned in the stake was for translating the Bible into the English language. If the Roman Catholic institution compiled and gave us the Bible then why in the world did they forbid the public from reading it?  Some (not all) Roman Catholic apologists would give the answer that it's because the Bible can't be read by just anyone. Some even dare to say that Tyndale was a false prophet and a heretic so he must be burned all the while while they condemn John Calvin for supposedly taking part in Michael Servetus' burning alive. Speaking of the Calvin/Servetus affai...

My head spins and my temper is ignited to explode whenever I hear somebody who reads Mark 7:8-9 against Sola Scriptura. What's chilling about it is this: how can anybody who adheres to Sola Scriptura ever be rejecting the Word of God to keep one's own tradition?! It can't happen! Because if you fully embrace the Bible as it is in its entire moral code, you definitely aren't keeping your own tradition compared to those who add their own personal tradition NOT found in the Word of God.  What's worse some people think that the Bible actually condoned to "certain evils" and they say they're Christian. I have zero percent reason to believe them when they say they're Christian and say that the Bible and the principle of Sola Scriptura condoned to certain evils. What evils are they saying that the Bible condoned? Slavery and death penalty. They say that death penalty was only for the Jews because it was only given to the Jews. Well then, don't ...

Tomorrow is July 31 which happens to be the feast day (and death anniversary) of Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuit Order. Both Ignatius of Loyola and John Calvin once went to the University of Paris together. While they used to be schoolmates but the two became opponents throughout their lives. Loyola founded the Jesuits as part of the Counter-Reformation and Calvin continued the Reformation. Some may say that Calvin was the one who introduced Reformation Theology which is also called Calvinism. Reformed Theologians would later be founders of schools, universities, hymn writers and the Puritans (a group of Reformed thinkers) to rival the Jesuit institutions also became responsible for the translation of what's commonly known as the King James Bible.  My key verse for continuing the Reformation is Romans 12:1-3 which says: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is y...

When people don't read the Bible then they don't discern what they hear. As if the Pope living in Rome isn't enough, there's also pastors who more or less imitate the Pope's cloak of deception by making people have the mentality that when the pastor says it then it must be true. Bro. Gerry Soliman of Solutions Finder Apologetics wrote an entry called Spoofing the Catholic Clips.  Here's something meaningful you could take into context: Yes folks, the maze is like professional wresting entertainment: the result is already predetermined. While there is no explanation or discussion in the clip as to why the Catholic Bishops have apostolic succession, the clip makes that claim simply because the artists say so. And thus, we have exposed their bias.  How would they feel if we present that the Catholic Bishops lead to Satan while Protestant Ministers lead to Christ simply because we said so? While Bro. Soliman was attacking the fallacies of the Catholic Cl...

I remembered reading the Good News Version of the Bible while I was still a Roman Catholic. It was a Roman Catholic translation yet even that, I wasn't allowed to read it on my own. But after I wanted to know God more as a Roman Catholic, nothing filled my curiosity than the fact that the Bible is the Word of God. I started reading that Roman Catholic translation of the Bible at my own pace and I felt the thunder and lightning. I hated the Bible because it knew all about my sins. When I started reading Revelation first, nothing scared me at the thought of the world ending soon and I wasn't good. I really started to panic at the thought. I tried to be "good" all I can but I realized I got sick of going to Mass, I got sick of the sacraments... they offered nothing but emptiness, a lot of people in the Roman Catholic system were living like they have a license to sin. Nothing was more true that I was ready to become an atheist or I was about to become indifferent towa...

People will do ANYTHING to reject Sola Scriptura even take Scriptures out of context. Some even dare to slam Mark 7:8-9 on my face saying that I'm rejecting God's Word whenever I say Scripture is sufficient to be the rule in moral and spiritual matters. No, they're the ones who're rejecting God's Word if they refuse to use it as a standard. Then there's always their excuse that "Well Bible alone is faulty!" and says that certain evils were "approved" by the Bible. What's worse is that I'm even hearing it from Roman Catholics who not only claim that their religion gave us the Bible. The problem of theological jello is that those who make it take parts of God's Word, takes them straight out of context and add their own views. It's just like how pseudo-Christian organizations take certain verses out of context and insert their own doctrine. Anybody can claim to be a prophet by misquoting certain verses. The Pope claims to ...

Some amateur Roman Catholic "faith defenders" tend to suggest that Sola Scriptura isn't Scriptural and that it was just an "evil invention" by Martin Luther. After reading Luther's biography from Dr. John F. MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus", I still can't forget the tower experience he had where he did an analysis on the Book of Romans. Luther could only see himself as what the Bible says all men are: unrighteous men in need of Christ's righteousness. Luther went against compromise by saying, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other."  It's unbelievable (or not) that the Roman Catholic institution claimed that they gave us the Bible to read when they banned it from the public. But if they did give u...

I noticed many Roman Catholic apologists tend to tell me that Bible alone will get you into a load of error. The real issue is that the Bible contradicts the sinner. The Roman Catholic institution BANNED Bible reading to favor their own tradition. What's even funnier is that some Roman Catholic apologists are already using Mark 7:8-9 to tell me that I'm rejecting God's Word to "keep my tradition".  Does the Bible go against tradition in general? The answer is only if such traditions goes against the Word of God. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that that the only tradition to be followed is from the apostolic writings. Nowhere in the apostolic writings is it required that priests must be celibate. Ephesians 4:11 in fact mentions NO PRIEST as part of the New Testament. You have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers but no priests. Both Douay and Good News Translation (both approved versions for Roman Catholics) mention pastors in Ephesians 4:11 and not p...

Roman Catholics who try to sway me back to the system tell tend to tell me stuff like, "The Catholic Church gave you the Bible you ungrateful Protestant! Read your history!" Of course, they'll just let me read the revisions done by Catholic historians like they claim Peter to be the first Pope. But I have no reason to believe that the Roman Catholic Church gave me the Bible. The others say, "Well the apostles didn't carry a Bible with them." I want to say this, "Well the apostles carried copies of Scriptures! Today we have that as the Bible!" In studying church history, the Bible was forbidden by a number of incumbent Popes. Pope Clement IX had even said that reading the Bible causes more harm than good. He's right about that in part as it causes more harm than good for them. When people started reading the Bible, the truth became clear as day that they were misinformed. Today, I hear that Roman Catholics who became born again Christians a...

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone? Many people misunderstand what Sola Scriptura means. Some Roman Catholic apologists say they reject it because the Bible doesn't contain everything they need to know. Now I agree we need more than the Bible to get information but Sola Scriptura is not the same as Solo Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the principle that every practice and doctrine is to be weighed in accordance to the Word of God. Solo Scriptura is the extreme of reading no other book but the Bible. Why do so many hate Sola Scriptura? Mark 7:8-13 makes it clear that people reject the authority of God's Word in order to keep their own tradition. Isaiah 29:11-13 makes it clear how the Scriptures are sealed away from the public so the tradition of men can prevail. What's strange is that Roman Catholic apologists as far as I've observed anyway tend to first quote the Scriptures but when it's not enough, they go to Canon Law. It's a very dirty tac...