Dr Paul Allen

Imagine standing before Peter at the pearly gates, waiting to find out if you will be let into Heaven or not. After looking over your resume and commenting about how well you kept the Roman Catholic rules, he double-checks your baptism. You were 8 days old. Your parents took you right away like they were supposed to. The priest sprinkled / poured water on you just like he was taught to do. You thought you were purified from your original sin, but then come to find out the priest did something wrong! Instead of saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” he said, “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And just like that Peter informs you that your baptism was invalid and that you didn’t partake in an essential sacrament which is the only way that the Roman Catholic Church knows of by which a man can be saved! You might be tempted to think of this as a farfetched idea, one that no one believes, but y

As for the other events of the reign of Ahaz, and what he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? [2 Kings 16:19] We do not have the “annals of the kings of Judah,” but we do have ancient Hebrew writings that are not part of what the Protestant church regards as the Bible. These writings are the Apocrypha and come down to us from the ancient Hebrews. Jewish writers since the first century, notably the historian Josephus, made it clear that these books were not authoritative, nor deemed inspired. The Greek Alexandrian Canon seems to include the Apocrypha. Ancient copies of the Greek Old Testament found in Alexandria, Egypt, include the apocryphal books. This does not mean Alexandrian Jews believed these books inspired. Our Bibles contain introductory articles, notes, and guides that we do not consider to be part of the Word of God. We cannot be sure how the Alexandrian Jews regarded the apocryphal books, but we know for certain that Palestinian Jews

In view of the question posed during the Reformation , what about the Roman Catholic Church today? Is it a true church? Here it seems that we cannot simply make a decision regarding the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, because it is far too diverse.  To ask whether the Roman Catholic Church is a true church or a false church today is somewhat similar to asking whether Protestant churches are true or false today—there is great variety among them. Some Roman Catholic parishes certainly lack both marks: there is no pure preaching of the Word and the gospel message of salvation by faith in Christ alone is not known or received by people in the parish. Participation in the sacraments is seen as a “work” that can earn merit with God.  Such a group of people is not a true Christian church . On the other hand, there are many Roman Catholic parishes in various parts of the world today where the local priest has a genuine saving knowledge of Christ and a vital personal relationship

Painting, 14th century, Flanders. Rogier van der Weyden. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 “In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’” ( v. 25 ). There are many different bodies that call themselves churches, whether or not they are true manifestations of the church of Jesus Christ . How then can we tell when a church in name is also a church in reality, or a house church or even a connect group claiming to be a church? Faced with this same problem, the Reformers and Roman Catholics answered this question very differently. Rome has said that the bishop is the mark of the church, that is, the true church is present when you have a duly consecrated bishop who is part of a line of succession going back to the apostles. Ultimately, a bishop is a true bishop only if he submits to the pope; thus, in Roman Catholicism only Roman Catholic parishes consti

Engraved from the original oil painting in the University Library of Geneva, this is considered Calvin's best likeness. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The late theologian Cornelius Van Til once made the observation that Calvinism is not to be identified with the so-called five points of Calvinism . Rather, Van Til concluded that the five points function as a pathway, or a bridge, to the entire structure of Reformed theology. Likewise, Charles Spurgeon argued that Calvinism is merely a nickname for biblical theology. These titans of the past understood that the essence of Reformed theology cannot be reduced to five particular points that arose as points of controversy centuries ago in Holland with the Remonstrants, who objected to five specific points of the system of doctrine found in historic Calvinism. Those five points have become associated with the acrostic TULIP : Total depravity , Unconditional election , Limited atonement , Irresistible grace , and Perseverance of the

Portrait of Martin Luther as an Augustinian Monk (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It was just over 500 years ago, in the fall of 1510, that a desperate Roman Catholic monk made what he thought would be the spiritual pilgrimage of a lifetime. He had become a monk five years earlier—much to the surprise and dismay of his father, who wanted him to become a lawyer. In fact, it was on his way home from law school, that this young man—then 21 years old—found himself in the midst of a severe thunderstorm. The lightning was so intense he thought for sure he was going to die. Fearing for his life, and relying on his Roman Catholic upbringing, he called out for help. “Saint Anne,” he cried, “Spare me and I will become a monk!” Fifteen days later, he left law school behind and entered an Augustinian monastery in Erfurt, Germany . The fear of death had prompted him to become a monk. And it was the fear of God’s wrath that consumed him for the next five years—so much so, in fact, that he did everyt

St. Peter's Basilica at Early Morning (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 “In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’” (v. 25). There are many different bodies that call themselves churches, whether or not they are true manifestations of the church of Jesus Christ . How then can we tell when a church in name is also a church in reality? Faced with this same problem, the Reformers and Roman Catholics answered this question very differently. Rome has said that the bishop is the mark of the church, that is, the true church is present when you have a duly consecrated bishop who is part of a line of succession going back to the apostles. Ultimately, a bishop is a true bishop only if he submits to the pope; thus, in Roman Catholicism only Roman Catholic parishes constitute the true church. Protestants recognize the biblical failings of this view and, i

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “ Real Presence ” view is held by Eastern Orthodox , Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a realspiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way: By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. Thi

emblem of the Papacy: Triple tiara and keys Français : emblème pontifical Italiano: emblema del Papato Português: Emblema papal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I think Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) and similar efforts to make common cause with Roman Catholics are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of where the Roman Catholic Church is theologically and what it actually teaches. There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church has changed since the sixteenth century.  But the changes have not closed the gap between Rome and Protestantism . Indeed, the differences are greater now. For instance, the formally defined proclamation of the infallibility of the pope and all of the Mariology statements have come since the Reformation . Neither has Rome backed down from any of the positions it took in the sixteenth-century debate. In the updated Catechism of the Catholic Church, released in the mid-1990s, the treasury of merit, purgatory, indulgences, justification thro

Karl Barth (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It’s not just what we say, but how we say it, that matters. Peter reminds us to be “always prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” ( 1 Pet 3:15-16 ). We have to be ready with arguments and reasons, but we have to give thought also to how we present them. Good Arguments First and foremost we need to avoid the ubiquitous ad hominem (“to/concerning the person”) variety—otherwise known as “personal attacks.” Poor papers often focus on the person: both the critic and the one being criticized. This is easier, of course, because one only has to express one’s own opinions and reflections. A good paper will tell us more about the issues in the debate than about the debaters. (This of course does not rule out relevant biographical informat