Tag Archives: Church

The Confusion of Catholicism

Posted on by
5

It will be a shock to no one that the Reformed Church and Roman Catholics disagree about authority. While the Reformed Church accepts the revelation of the Almighty in the Bible, the Roman Catholics hold to a splintered authority structure that gives the Magisterium/Vatican, Catholic traditions, and the Bible to have equal authority over matters of faith and practice.

This difference was highlighted in the fall of 2025 when the Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV, addressed a question about rewarding an American Democratic Senator, who has a notorious record for supporting the murder of unborn children. Rather than chastising the supposedly Catholic senator for pushing a platform that is obviously against the teachings of the Vatican, Roman traditions, and the Bible, the Pope completely capitulated to Leftist ideology by answering: “I think that is very important to look at the overall work that this Senator has done during…40 years of service…Someone that says they are against abortion but says they are in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.” Ignoring the fact that the Pope equivocated the just punishment of a criminal with the unjust murder of the unborn, the Pope’s comments (correctly) raised the hackles of many self-professing Catholics, who do indeed hold to a pro-life position.

This brings up the crux of the disagreement between the Reformed and the Roman: By what standard can a Catholic disagree with the Vatican? If the person that they believe is God’s Vicar on Earth (or any priest/bishop/cardinal in Roman Catholicism) makes a declaration that is in disagreement with the Bible, how can a mere Catholic disagree?

I asked a very knowledgeable and well-spoken Catholic this question on X, and this is his response:

Let’s analyze this response to see if it is valid or confusion:

  1. “I know a bishop or priest is in error when he contradicts the teaching authority of the Church”
    • Unfortunately for Catholics, the bishops/priests/cardinals ARE the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. A Catholic has no authority to which to appeal to criticize the teaching authority of Rome because the bishops and priests ARE the teaching authority of the Vatican. In this case, the bishop of Rome (Pope) is (according to them) Christ’s vicar on Earth. They believe he is the supreme authority over the Roman Catholics because he is supposed to be the representative of Christ Himself. So, if a Catholic doesn’t like something that the Pope says – too bad! They have nothing higher to appeal to than Christ’s representative. If they believe that the pope is mistaken (according to their OWN beliefs), they need to change themselves, because the pope represents the church and Christ Himself. To disagree with the Vicar of Christ is to reject their own beliefs
    • In the never ending debate between the Reformed and the Romans, SOLA SCRIPTURA is brought up. As a Reformed Christian I recognize and yield to the authority of God’s Word as the preeminent authority over matters of faith and practice. The Catholics inevitably say: “Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. You just believe your own interpretation of the Bible”. For sake of argument, I’ll just accept that assertion in this case, but I will push back on their own presuppositions. The reason that the Catholic gives for having a “better” epistemology is that they have the local priest/bishop to correct their private interpretation. I’m sure you noticed the problem: The Catholic in the screenshot above reserved the right to criticize bishops and priest as being in error, but they rely on the bishops and priests to correct the private interpretations of the Bible. It’s circular confusion. They can’t “know a bishop or priest is in error” since it is the bishop or priest on whom they rely to correct private interpretations. Confusion reigns for these poor Catholics.
  2. “The church has two thousand years of consistent teaching”
    • Regarding the claim that Rome has had two thousand years of consistent teaching, I will point out that the Roman Catholics have a consistent tradition of adding new traditions:
      • Purgatory 1274 AD (2nd Council of Lyon)
      • Indulgences 1415 AD (Council of Constance)
      • Papal Infallibility 1870 (1st Vatican Council)
      • Mary Queen of Heaven 1954 AD (Pope Pius XII)
      • Today, the Roman Catholics aren’t known primarily for their commitment to the gospel of Jesus. They are instead known for their trendy traditions: Mariology, indulgences, purgatory, and focus on the Pope (including papal infallibility). These traditions are obviously not found in the Bible, but Rome continues to add these manmade traditions to their religion as if they have the same authority as scripture itself. In this situation with the pope capitulating to the leftist’s mantra about “you can’t be pro-life if you support the death penalty”, who is to say that this isn’t a new tradition that the current bishop of Rome is adding? In the same week, the Pope was roundly panned for blessing a block of ice at a pagan global warming ceremony. Who’s to say that blessing ice or supporting globalist initiatives won’t be new traditions of Roman Catholics? Certainly not Catholics, who might dislike the optics or the new direction of doctrines. They have no consistent standard to question (in their beliefs) “The Vicar of Christ on Earth”!!!
      • If the pope refuses to stand against abortion by the authority of the church against the state (in this case, a Senator), what good is his supposed authority? It was for such a time as this that the pope could rightly condemn a state representative for heretical views. Senator Durbin claims to be under the authority of the Vatican, yet he has persistently and callously voted for the continuation of child murder (abortion). Isn’t the pope Catholic? Why won’t he exhort (in the strongest possible terms) the political support by Senator Durbin of the genocide of the unborn?

What About Protestants?

The second half of Aaronaeus’s post was to ask about the protestants. How do protestants determine what is the right interpretation of scripture?

  1. Perspicuity of Scripture – This concept that comes from the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is clear. It can be understood. Does that mean that EVERY single passage of scripture is easily understood on its first reading? No. The doctrine of perspicuity is “that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.” In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle tells us that some things are hard to understand. Immediately following, Peter tells his audience to grow in grace and knowledge. How does one grow in grace and knowledge? Proverbs 2:6 says that knowledge comes from the mouth of the LORD (the Bible). Psalm 119 “Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I trust your commands” (the Bible). Reformed Christians can also gain knowledge from faithful teachers of the Bible in their Bible-believing church. And we should listen to those, who have worked hard spending time building a faithful Christian worldview based on the Bible. Let God’s word, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, give you knowledge from the mouth of God. As Christians, we should be studying God’s word and letting the faithful preaching of the word in the Bible-believing reformed church change our lives for the better. Someone might bring up 1 Corinthians 2:14 which says that the unspiritual person CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit. This is true, but this is not the claim of the Catholic. Those, whose hearts have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit DO have access to guidance by the Holy Spirit in matters of understanding God’s revelation.
    • Deuteronomy 6:6-7
    • 2 Timothy 3:14-15
    • Psalm 19:7
    • Psalm 119:130
    • Romans 3:21-22
    • I Corinthians 14:33
    • Matthew 28:19-20
  2. Denial of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism – Implicit in Aaronaeus’s post is the idea that ANY and ALL protestant interpretations are equally faithful to the biblical text. I deny interpretive pluralism. While there are extremely minor acceptable interpretations within Christendom, the post-modern reinterpretations of the Bible to accommodate worldliness, modern paradigms, sexual perversion, and prosperity “gospels” are rejected because they are internally inconsistent.
  3. SOLA SCRIPTURA – When God speaks, that is the authority. SOLA SCRIPTURA has been shown to be the authoritative structure by which Christians should live, so I won’t duplicate the effort of Christian philosophers who’ve done the work before me.
  4. Acts 17 – When the Bereans were faced with what they thought might be a new gospel from the apostle Paul, they did not call the supposed pope (Peter) to confirm whether it was ok for them to accept the arrival of the Messiah in Jesus. They went to the scriptures to test. The highest authority was what God had revealed in scripture, and when they tested Paul by them, they were commended by God. This is proof that the scriptures have greater weight than an ecclesiastical structure to which Roman Catholics yield.
  5. God’s ability to communicate > than man’s ability to communicate. God has spoken through his word, and by God’s grace, we have the ability to read it. Under guidance by the Holy Spirit, the Christian is able to discern God’s Word. What the Catholic church teaches, is that lay people CANNOT discern God’s Word; they must get the infallible interpretation based on Rome’s manmade traditions mixed with the Vatican’s ever-changing interpretation. The Catholics say that you must listen only to what Rome says. Only Rome’s interpretation matters. I’ve asked Catholics several times where I can find the infallible interpretation of every verse in the Bible, so that I would know what Rome’s infallible interpretation is, but they can never provide it. The Catholic will be tempted to say: “whose interpretation is valid?” Firstly, it is not the entity that teaches Mariology, indulgences, and blesses ice. Secondly, the faithful Christian will strive for the best and most consistent application of using scripture to interpret scripture. While the scriptures are generally perspicuous, there are passages that need deeper study. So, we use the plain to interpret the obscure. We know from Luke 24:27 that ALL of scripture is about Jesus, and with this general principle in mind, we can (with the help of the Holy Spirit & faithful pastors/teachers) discern the correct interpretation. If there is dispute, we reason from the scriptures (the highest authority) to have consistency.
  6. Distraction fallacies
    • Sweeping generalization: The sweeping generalization fallacy is: since most everyone disagrees about most things, then everyone disagrees about everything. For Catholics it takes the form of: “There are 40,000 protestant denominations.” One of the worst and most common misrepresentations from Catholics about protestants is that when people reject the Vatican that everyone splinters into irreconcilable denominations. Firstly, this is a hypocritical claim because the Catholic church has many denominations…perhaps as many as 250. These Catholic denominations have been deceived by the things of the world. Secondly, just because some protestants have a disagreement about some doctrine is NOT proof that everyone disagrees about everything in unreconcilable divisions. It’s fallacious.
    • Hasty generalization: A hasty generalization is taking a small sample size and applying it universally. So they fallaciously say: “private interpretation leads to snake handling because there’s a protestant sect that lets snakes bite them, so all protestant doctrine is false.” Catholics believe that since A protestant denomination misinterpreted the biblical text, then ALL protestants have misinterpreted the biblical text. It’s fallacious.
    • Equivocation fallacy: “The Catholic church as 1 single interpretation given to them from the Pope, so protestants must too”. It’s a perspective that views tribe as important rather than the biblical text itself. This is covered in the section below
  7. Another implicit claim of the Catholics regarding the debate between the authority of Rome’s traditions vs. the authority of scripture, is TRIBE. For the Roman Catholics, it’s not so much about which doctrine or which interpretation speaks most consistently, it is “Are you a part of my theological tribe (Roman Catholicism)?”. They get the idea that there’s a Catholic tribe and a protestant tribe, so they think that the protestant tribe is both wrong (since it’s not in the Catholic tribe) and internally splintered since there are so many interpretations. I’ve already shown why Catholicism itself is wrong, but their belief that there is a single protestant tribe is also incorrect. Christians, who are reformed, don’t consider membership in a particular “tribe” to be what’s important. We consider what the text actually says/means to be what’s important for doctrinal faithfulness. Consistency and faithfulness to the text itself is what defines reformed Christianity rather than membership in a tribe as Catholics believe.

So Aaronaeus’s question is not applicable. Faithful Christians sit under the authority of elders in a Bible-believing church that holds to the authority of the the faithful Christian creeds/confessions. If an elder in the local body of believers acts outside the boundaries of Biblical doctrine, a Christian can appeal to scripture (the highest authority) to correct him. If a creed/confession is shown to be unbiblical, then a Christian can appeal to scripture. The Catholic has no such authority to which to appeal. They must obey the teachings of their priest, bishop or cardinal because that person IS their highest authority

What has the Church Historically Understood About Death Before Sin?

Posted on by
3
Photo by Jeswin Thomas on Pexels.com

As a reformed Christian, I hold to SOLA SCRIPTURA, which is the idea that the Bible is the highest (and only infallible) authority for matters of faith and practice. The words of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so they cannot fail to be true. My highest appeal in all matters will always be to the text of the Bible itself.

But is there some value in seeing what the church always believed about a topic? Of course. My authority structure is

  1. The Bible
  2. Reformed Creeds/Confessions
  3. Elders/Shepherds in my local body of believers
  4. Historic church fathers

Why are the historical fathers so low on the list? There’s some debate about who counts as a church father, and there’s some debate about which side of the sad schisms a church father might represent. Regardless, the reason why it’s worthwhile to see what the church has historically believed on a topic could help us find aberrations and cult-like teachings from trendy revisions. In my lifetime, I’ve seen several trendy ideas (Pentacostalism, faith healing, dispensationalism, prosperity gospel…) burn through Christendom, like a wildfire. Most of the time, they are short-lived and burn out quickly because there’s no root or truth to them. Sometimes, they cling like Texas-heated road tar…sticky and difficult to get rid of. So, there is every reason to see what has been the historic Christian position on topics of interest. Most theological heresies were dealt with early on and have been recorded in the confessions and the creeds. I expect old earthism will be a road-tar type of false teaching that becomes very difficult to cleanse from Christianity due to its strong ties to scientism, which has the appearance of authority even though it changes its position with nearly every new discovery.

My first step in researching this topic was to let Grok AI do a quick search across the internet. I asked “What was the dominant Christian position prior to 1800 on why there is animal death and natural evil in the world today?” You can click that link and get the same results as I did:

Obviously, this is a 30,000 foot view, and does not address specific writings of specific authors. But we get the idea that in general, Christians prior to the writings of Darwin fully accepted the Biblical account that there was no death or suffering in the world until after Adam had sinned. NOTE: Any bold, italics or underline is my own addition. Let’s look at a few individual men, who are generally recognized as church fathers:

  • Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-202 AD): In his “Against Heresies”, Irenaeus argued that death was not part of the original creation, and that sin brought both physical and spiritual death to all of creation. The curse of sin introduced corruption and mortality into creation, and that the promises mentioned in Isa 11 would restore the harmony of animals to their pre-fall state.
  • Tertullian (c. 160-220 AD): In “Against Marcion”, Tertullian emphasizes that the Creator is good, and his creation was absent of death and corruption which entered creation through human sin. He describes death as an “intruder“. He understands Romans 8:19-21 to teach that futility and subjection to corruption for ALL of creation is due to the fall into sin. In “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” Tertullian describes the peace and harmony of animals in the future to be a renewal of the harmony that was once known before the fall.
  • Theophilus of Antioch (c. 168 AD): In his work “ad Autolycus” Theophilus says “And the animals are named wild beasts, from their being hunted, not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first—for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,—but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them …. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness.”
  • Athanasius (C. 296-373 AD): In “On the Incarnation” he emphasizes that the state of the creation today (death and corruption) was brought by human sin. Though animals are not specifically mentioned, the context of his broader theology and the deduction that animals are included within creation leaves little room to doubt that he understood that the fall into sin was the corrupting force that invaded God’s once-very-good creation
  • Augustine (354-430 AD): In “The City of God” Augustine says that death, including animal death, was not part of God’s original creation. It was an intruder into the creation that before sin was very good. In “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis” he says further that the predatory behaviors and mortality of animals started after human sin. Before sin the original creation was free from violence, corruption, and predation
  • Basil the Great (c. 330-379 AD): I’ll spend the most time on Basil of Caesarea. It was just recently that I was challenged by an internet personality to research to see whether Basil the Great taught (as the Bible says) that there was no death among animals prior to the fall. Basil is known mostly for his 9 Homilies, the Hexaemeron, which means “The Six Days of Creation”. Clearly, Basil agreed with the authors of scripture that Genesis was history of the works of God in creation. In Homily 5 Basil writes: “But then (pre-fall) the rose was without thorns; since then (post-fall) the thorn has been added to its beauty, to make us feel that sorrow is very near to pleasure, and to remind us of our sin, which condemned the earth to produce thorns and caltrops.” Basil understood from the text of scripture that creation was changed after the fall. As Genesis 3 teaches, there were no thorns in creation prior to the fall. This is a serious problem for those, who deny YEC since fossil thorns have been found in layers that they think were formed millions of years prior to the sin of Adam. More relevant to this discussion, in his work:
    • “On the Origin of Humanity” Homily 2 section 6 Basil says: “God did not say: “I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds.” It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise…To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) … We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. what fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with? Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits…after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods; “eat all that in the same was as edible plants”. By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them…Since then (post-flood) the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment (creation week) when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness…the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores … But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow.” You can see from Basil’s writings that he was in agreement with the scriptures when he taught that there was no animal death prior to the fall. No carnivory behavior. No scavenging because there were no dead animals…no corruption. Sidebar: to learn how I was able to get the information from “On the Origin of Humanity” and the screenshots of the source material, see *** below
      • In his Homily on Fasting, Basil argued that the original diet of both humans and animals was limited ONLY to fruits, herbs, and plants.
  • Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395 AD): In “On the Making of Man” Gregory says that the fall into sin introduced corruption and death not only humanity but also the created order, which includes animals
  • I could find NO church fathers who explicitly taught that there was human or animal death prior to the fall

When Did Christians Begin To Believe That Animals Died Before Sin?

The first Christian of note to write and teach definitively that animals died before the fall was George Frederick Wright in his 1906 book “Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History”. In that book he tried to bring the Bible into concordance with the modern academic paradigm. Sadly, in order to do so, he had to deny the Bible’s account of a global flood, which is the biblical explanation for the geologic layers. But at the time when Wright was writing, historic Christianity was under deep attack from the modern academic paradigm, which has come to be known as “the science”, even though it has little to do with actual science. Today, the view that Wright espoused has metastasized throughout Christendom. What was considered historic Christianity for 1900 years has been dismissed by modern mainstream thought as a cult.

So instead of Basil being an old earther, the evidence confirms that Saint Basil the Great was an outspoken advocate of young earth creation as were all of the church fathers because it’s just what the Bible says. Old earth creationism is a trendy fad that is brand new to Christendom first appearing about 1800 years after the Creator Himself walked the Earth. No church father held to a billions of years old earth. Until Darwin in 1859, nearly every Christian held to what we would today call young earth creation.

You might wonder: “What about the Roman Catholics? Today they believe evolution. What has been their traditional view of Genesis 1-11?” I’m glad you asked. The Roman Catholic Church for 1800 years accepted the strict young earth creation view, but today that branch of Christianity has almost completely capitulated to Darwin. Sadly, the RCC has capitulated to many other false teachings and worldliness as well.

You might also wonder: “What about the Eastern Orthodox Church? What has been their traditional view of Genesis 1-11?” In general, the EOC was pliable on the length of days, but they held strongly to the Genesis chronogenealogies on the age of the Earth. They have also accepted God’s revelation of a historical global flood in judgment for sin, and that death, disease, suffering, and corruption were a result of the sin of mankind. Sin affected all of creation as the Bible clearly teaches. Here is a book from one of their teachers

So all three principle branches of Christendom held to the truth of God’s word as authoritative until the modern paradigm stole the “throne” of magisterium from the Bible.

The Gospel of Jesus is: The Creator made a very good creation that was free of the curses for sin. But because of the universal effects of the curse of sin over all of creation, Jesus took on the human form as a descendant of Adam, was born of a virgin in accordance with scripture, and lived a perfect life by keeping the whole law. After He was crucified for the sins of those, who would repent, He defeated death by rising again and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Those, who repent and put their faith in Him will have abundant life

***

In my research for this blog post, I searched using the usual tools available to me on if Basil taught that animals died before the fall: Grok, Google, Brave search…Grok answered my question with the quotes that I used above, but the attribution was to the Hexaemeron by Basil. There are several links to English translations of the Hexaemeron, but the quotes did not appear in any of the text of the Hexaemeron itself. I kept digging and digging for any writings that show that Basil taught that animals died before the fall, because I had been ASSURED by The_Blind_Guide that Basil taught death before sin. A link from oldbelieving.wordpress.com attributed the quote to Basil’s work “On the Origin of Humanity”. There is NOT an English translation of Basil’s “On the Origin of Humanity” readily available on the internet…as far as I can find. My next step lead me to archive.org…the Internet Archive. I created a free account and began to search for the writings of Basil. There were all kinds of writings, duplicates, and writings ABOUT Basil. Filtering the Media search to “Text” and Author search results to “Basil, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea” there were 36 results. Still no “On the Origin of Humanity”…except there was something called “Sur l’originè de l’homme”. Looks kinda Frenchy for the origin of hominids (humans). I checked it out and found that it was the French translation of the original Greek in which Basil wrote his works. I speak neither French nor Greek. It’s all Greek to me. But being the intrepid ApoloJedi that I am, I started working my way through the text with Google Translate. Homily 2 chapter 6 yielded the pot of gold. Basil cannot be considered anything other than a young earth creationist based on his own words as shown above. I did find all of this information from creation.com as well, but I know that scoffers and the Christians, who have been deceived by old earthism, refuse to listen to the scientists from creation organizations. Source materials are harder for them to ignore. Having completed my research, I began to imagine what it must have been like to be an investigator from as late as 1990. To get the information, that today I was able to get from my desk during my lunch break, might have taken months or years of deep investigative work and collaborations with multiple people. Technology has been a wonderful tool for searching and learning

ark:/13960/t0204f225 Property of archive.org
ark:/13960/t0204f225 Property of archive.org