Fun

On Computing The Number Of The Beast

And it was given him to give life to the image of the beast, and that the image of the beast should speak; and should cause, that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast, should be slain. And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads.

And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred sixty-six.

Some manuscripts, it is said, say 616 and not 666. I possess no textual (small-e) expertise and cannot comment. But I do understand our bias toward the beauty of the fuller, richer, more redolent number 666.

The point of this post is simple. Take any name, in any script, and you can find a mathematical function of that name in that script that comes to 666—or 616. Mathematicians will agree with this instantly, the proof being clear without having to state it. However, the rest of us will need some persuasion.

Take this example mailed to me. Start with A = 65, B = 66, and so on. The take the Latin script for BERGOGLIO, and add the value of the individual letters. 66 + 69 + etc. = 666.

Well, I can’t say it’s wrong, and neither can you. But I don’t believe it. The man occupying the Vatican now does not, to my lights, possess any of the important qualities of the Antichrist. He certainly does not inspire universal devotion. He is too old. He has displayed no signs or wonders.

None of that is definitive either. I don’t offer it as proof, but as reasons I don’t buy him as the Antichrist, whatever else you may want to say about him, good or bad.

It will, of course, have struck you as odd that the sequence began with A = 65. Why not A = 1? Then, as is obvious without doing the arithmetic, we don’t reach 666 (we get 83). Same thing if we start with A = 66: not 666. Or any other number.

Then we realize his name is not BERGOGLIO but JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO, which if input into our function does not work, either. But if we let A = 28, B = 29, and so on, and also add 1 for every space, counting the last one that separates the name from other text, or three spaces, then we also get 666.

No fair adding the spaces? Why not? What’s unfair about it? It is a legitimate mathematical operation. There is certainly nothing in the Biblical text that suggests the correct mathematical function, though there is historical evidence adding letters was not uncommon.

We certainly aren’t married to decimal numbers. As Wiki says “NRON QSR”, which is Nero name written in a traditional Roman way, “which when interpreted numerically represents the numbers 50 200 6 50 100 60 200, which add up to 666.”

How about the illustrious WMBRIGGS, the name I use for all professional matters—and if being the AC isn’t a profession, I don’t know what is. If we let A = 71, B = 72, and ignore spaces, because you think them unfair, then we get 666.

Let’s do the current White House occupant. Let A = 7, B = 8 and so on. Then adding JBIDEN gives 80. Next multiply the digits of JBIDEN. Gives 4,224,000. Then all we have to do is divide that by 80^2, to give the adding its historically important greater weight. This gives 660. Lastly, we add in the number of letters: 666 once more.

I take it my point is proved. A mathematical function can always be found to come to the desired total. It need not be so complicated as the last one; but, on the other, it can be more complicated, too. We can stick with just adding letters, giving them, in the positions of the name variable values, for whatever reasons we think we can get away with. For instance, first A = 1, second is 27, first B = 2, second is 28 and so on.

Here’s a fun page showing how 666 is hidden in corporate logos, showing that the mathematical function can be graphic, too.

Do not come away from this with skepticism about the existence of the Antichrist, who I believe, along with Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine, will be a real person.

But you should be skeptical of fanciful numeral tricks that show names equating to 666. It’s been done at least hundreds of times, all wrong so far. It can be done with any name. It’s like with that book The Bible Code which purported to find all kinds of hidden—read gnostic—prophecies and predictions hidden in the text of scripture, if you combined them in similar arcane ways as we just did with JBIDEN.

I’m guessing that until the real guy comes along, what that 666 means won’t become apparent, for most, it’s too late.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Fun

58 replies »

  1. Your exercise in numerology undercuts your other arguments!
    One hopes its tongue-in-check.

  2. I’m still not convinced that the “number of the beast” is an actual number with any meaning.

    I still think that John saw something in his visions that looked vaguely like the Greek numbers for 666 (or 616 or whatever). It could be a logo, it could be something written in a language that didn’t exist back then (or John wasn’t aware of).

    Former PLO terrorist turned anti-Islamic Christian apologist, Walid Shoebat has a theory that what he saw was the Arabic “Bismillah” and the crossed swords of Jihad and that looked vaguely like the Greek numbers to him. I don’t know if that’s correct, but the basic idea that John saw something a man of his era wouldn’t recognize and tried to cobble together an explanation of what it was makes more sense to me than “OMG X politician’s name when translated into Hebrew and converted to numbers = 666 therefore they’re the Anti-Christ!”

    So at this point I’m not going to put a lot of effort into trying to calculate the number and what modern names it might be associated with.

    I believe Christ warns us against putting too much effort into trying to predict the last days in Matthew 24:6. I think he’s probably right … its more important that we live by the Truth and look out for any deceivers (not just the final Anti-Christ).

  3. Just as nothing has a probability, nobody IS the AntiChrist. The probability of one being the AC is contingent on the function, f(name), chosen.

  4. I’m going strictly off of memory here, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that in Hebrew, the number 6 is, among other things, the number of imperfection or incompleteness, that number being related to the 6th (and last) day of creation, which, although materially complete, was not blessed until the 7th day, which was the Sabbath, the day of rest and completion and blessing. In a similar vein, the number 3 refers to (again, among other things), hands that shed innocent blood, deeds that tear down instead of ones that gather and build, sowing seeds of death and discord. Seen in this light, the number 666 (three 6s in a row) could refer to a man who will be the full embodiment of earthly “incompleteness” and “discord”. Now Hebrew numbers have both positive and negative meanings and connotations, and I may well be constructing my own self-fulfilling algorithm to come up with a meaning for the number 666. If you go to https://graceintorah.net/2015/06/15/hebrew-numbers-1-10/ you can make up your own interpretation. All I’m suggesting is that the common assumption that the letters in the name of the anti-christ will add up to 666 may be mistaken; the number 666 itself may be metaphorically symbolic based on meanings given to numbers in Hebrew. Just a thought…

  5. Briggs I’m beginning to think you suffer from numerophilia, 666*** who cares we wanna
    know about those ‘fallen angels’ who scooped up all the hot chicks. I stumbled across this
    rabbinical exegete who described a situation during early biblical times when women were
    forced to cover their hair with shawls and their faces with veils because it excited the
    angels so much that they would kidnap the wives and daughters for sex. He claimed that
    the early Jewish and current Muslim prohibition against women appearing in public without
    these accouterments was implemented and incurred such severe penalties because of this
    situation with the horny angels. And giants; well then there’s the giants and Leviathan
    and the abyss, the cutting of roots, the introduction of women to makeup, and the casting
    of spells. I mean really 666 is just plain old school, lets move on to the juicy bits, the real
    mysteries that are historically anchored but waved away by the church as mere mythology.

  6. Reminds me of computer models. You put in whatever you need to arrive at the conclusion you’re trying to get.

  7. Why the confusion?

    Surely it’s obvious that this vision predicts the modern age where only those who have the tattoo proving they’ve had their 664th booster shot may engage in commerce?

    Or, maybe not.

  8. There will be a person whom the world will worship and follow … those who do not belong to Jesus Christ will do so.

    Who it will be we know not yet, but those still here will know when it is time. In the meantime, belong to Jesus Christ abiding in Him that His peace fills you, be led and guided by the Holy Spirit, receive God our Father’s fathering and loving you, you will be able to go through that which God sets before you.

    Read the Old Testament book of Daniel and the New Testament Book of Revelation, also known as The Apocalypse, and believe God’s Word, along with the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus Himself tells of the last times. It is not as though God did not give us information, for He did do so rather specifically.

    Make it your aim to live for Jesus Christ.

    God bless, C-Marie

  9. I understand the sum of the name to be in Greek or Roman numerals. An interesting fact, COVID 19 added up in Latin numerals c100 O is nothing v 5 I 1 d 50 which makes 606 and 1 plus 9 gives you ten which makes 616.

  10. Just as there’s always a way to numerologically process any set of words to produce the number 666, there’s also always a way to process any amount of suffering to make it compatible with the claim that a loving God exists, or to process the lack of evidence for God to make it compatible with the claim that God exists. I could go on.

  11. @swordfishtrombone – We don’t want you to go on. We want you to go away and let us adults continue our conversation in peace.

  12. Swordfish,
    They need to lighten up don’t you think?
    also always a way to process any amount of suffering to make it compatible with the claim that a loving God exists
    The problem is also that if the evidence for God is processed away, suffering remains.
    For that reason, if there’s a whisper of hope that he is there, then it’s worth remembering.

    Re: the number 666, although I’ve thought about it lately prior to this post, I agree, that it is ‘easy’ Would add that it’s probably mixing with the occult power of satan himself as we used to be told at school when we tried to do a midnight seance…water everywhere, lots of screams.
    They frighten themselves and make themselves feel bad.

    The suffering we’re seeing overseas, in Ukraine and some people see in their own personal lives, is evidence, to me, that we know it is wrong and the indignation and hurt is evidence of our moral fibre as humans. This sets us apart from beasts. Hence he is also known as ’the best’. Yet that is also figurative, Many are ‘friends’ with a lot of animals and I find that they are quite a good example for humans in many ways. Calling Satan the beast doesn’t explain it all. Animals can teach and heal.

    Evil appears to operate in the physical world.
    Yet the salvation offered is not from physical harm, it is spiritual salvation, even in the presence of immense suffering. Seeing that in the resilience and heroism in Ukraine, in the refusal of many of the Russian soldiers to fight the war of a gangster bully.

    Those who do not have such a ‘resource’ (faith) WILL find it highly insulting to suggest that through some lack of their own, their suffering is made worse, and worse than that, it’s their own fault! That is and example of heartless, evil.

    It multiplies the suffering in the mind and heart of someone who is truly in pain. I believe for that, people should show that they have physical and practical help to offer, particularly if they believe that God is watching, but even if not.

    The Christian God is a suffering God, through Jesus. No other God explanation offers this.
    Jesus took what he knew was going to happen, and if HE believed he was who he said, that is consistent. Thee is more to understanding the nature of suffering as Swordfish, you make the correct observation that it looks more like evidence of weakness in a purely physical sense.

    If death is not the end, and there is more as the comedian says, then the entire picture and calculation changes and we don’t know what we’re talking about. We’re at least one dimension short of a full theory.

    God does not blame people for doing what they cannot help or not doing what they cannot help.

    https://youtu.be/NWQPyXlzTTo
    Still the french and the english are at it again

  13. I’m gonna do it again as the code was stripped out

    also always a way to process any amount of suffering to make it compatible with the claim that a loving God exists

    The problem is also that if the evidence for God is processed away, suffering remains.
    For that reason, if there’s a whisper of hope that he is there, then it’s worth remembering.
     
    Re: the number 666, although I’ve thought about it lately prior to this post, I agree, that it is ‘easy’ Would add that it’s probably mixing with the occult power of satan himself as we used to be told at school when we tried to do a midnight seance…water everywhere, lots of screams.
    They frighten themselves and make themselves feel bad.
     
    The suffering we’re seeing overseas, in Ukraine and some people see in their own personal lives, is evidence, to me, that we know it is wrong and the indignation and hurt is evidence of our moral fibre as humans. This sets us apart from beasts. Hence he is also known as ’the best’. Yet that is also figurative, Many are ‘friends’ with a lot of animals and I find that they are quite a good example for humans in many ways. Calling Satan the beast doesn’t explain it all. Animals can teach and heal.
     
    Evil appears to operate in the physical world.
    Yet the salvation offered is not from physical harm, it is spiritual salvation, even in the presence of immense suffering. Seeing that in the resilience and heroism in Ukraine, in the refusal of many of the Russian soldiers to fight the war of a gangster bully.
     
    Those who do not have such a ‘resource’ (faith) WILL find it highly insulting to suggest that through some lack of their own, their suffering is made worse, and worse than that, it’s their own fault! That is and example of heartless, evil.
     
    It
    multiplies the suffering in the mind and heart of someone who is truly in pain. I believe for that, people should show that they have physical and practical help to offer, particularly if they believe that God is watching, but even if not.
     
    The Christian God is a suffering God, through Jesus. No other God explanation offers this.
    Jesus took what he knew was going to happen, and if HE believed he was who he said, that is consistent. Thee is more to understanding the nature of suffering as Swordfish, you make the correct observation that it looks more like evidence of weakness in a purely physical sense.
     
    If death is not the end, and there is more as the comedian says, then the entire picture and calculation changes and we don’t know what we’re talking about
     
    God does not blame people for doing what they cannot help or not doing what they cannot help.

  14. Christianity is about following The Commands of Jesus Christ and worshiping God as Jesus taught mankind to worship Him – The Holy Holocaust/Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    Far too many folks think Christianity is about doing what they personally prefer to do as worship.

    Now in a sentence which has been embodied in one of the prayers in the Roman Missal (the Secreta of the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost), St. Leo tells us that in His one sacrifice Our Lord has united and consummated the ancient rites with all their diversities. And indeed it is easy to see that His offering of Himself was a holocaust by reason of its completeness ; a propitiatory offering for sin by reason of its atoning efficacy and purpose, and finally a peace-offering whereby the atonement was not only made but sealed by a sacrificial meal.

    Owing to His desire to ransom us from our slavery to Satan, The Holy Holocaust was the Pluperfect Salvific Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary in which His burning love substituted for the material fire of the Old Testament holocausts, all of which sacrifices were instituted to prepare the once chosen people to accept the Messias as their Saviour.

    Few Jews accepted Him and far more putative Christians also refuse to accept Jesus.

    They refuse to join His Church and receive His Sacraments and which Sacraments are necessary to actualising in their lives the two reasons Jesus established His Church.

    Salvation

    Sanctification

    They imagine God forgives their sins because they confess to God directly. But that is not how Jesus required men be forgiven their sins – via Confession to Priests, John 20:22 (i’s in many of the better Bibles).

    They shipped over the parts where they also Baptised their own selves but , C’es la vie. At heart they are Autocephalic.

  15. The central tenet of Christianity is simple.

    Re forgiveness must come after confession to a priest:

    Remember the ver curious episode which some ‘supposed/putative christians’ apparently say didn’t happen in their bible, where Jesus asked those gathered to throw the first stone if they were without sin?
     
    The interesting part, for me, is what Jesus says, afterwards
    “has nobody condemned you?”
    “Then neither do I condemn you…”

    THAT, is in all the bible versions I’ve read and it’s something worth contemplating for those who are allowed.

    He waited to see if others were going to judge /condemn her.
    That’s placing a lot of weight on one word ‘then” but He did also stop to ask her what they concluded.
    There’s something deeper there
     
    Also, there are multiple passages in the new testament which contradict the idea that it must be a priest who forgives on behalf of God. That is one of the worst errors of the Catholic Church. Not that Priests cannot intervene but that the catholic belief is that only a priest can do so.
    The truth is that ONLY JESUS and his word, will set someone free from sin.
    See John 8

  16. I am curious if this is the closest “swordfish” has ever come to actually acknowledging Mr. Briggs has ever been right about anything.

    It would be an interesting development if so.

  17. There is one man in the Bible who by name is associated with the number 666.

    With multiple occurences!

    The yearly trubute paid to him was 666 talents of gold.

    His (by name) temple prominently featured 6-6-6 elements throughout.

    Care to guess?

  18. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/8john.htm

    Those who have read all of scripture know that God has always had His priests as mediators for the forgiveness of sins – from the priesthood of the Old Testament to the Priesthood instituted by Christ – but many protestants have kept alive the lies of their progenitors.

    God ordered the Jews to obey His commands regarding the various holocausts for the forgiveness of sins and it was never claimed by any faithful Jew that he could go directly to God rather than to obey the commands and ordinances of God Himself for the forgiveness of sins.

    Have you never read the Pentateuch? I have and I don’t recall God saying – do whatever you want when it comes to having your sins forgiven. No, He repeatedly commands what is necessary for Him to forgive their sins

    Q. Can a man be saved who dies in the state of mortal sin?

    A. He cannot; because God cannot unite Himself to a soul in heaven who, by mortal sin, is His enemy.

    Q. Do Protestants commit other mortal sins besides those above mentioned?

    A. Very many besides.

    Q. How do you prove this?

    A. If it is a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic wilfully to doubt only one article of his faith, it is also, most assuredly, a mortal sin for Protestants wilfully to deny not only one truth, but almost all the truths revealed by Jesus Christ.

    Q. Do they die in the sins of apostasy, blasphemy, slander, etc.?

    A. They do, because all die in mortal sin who, having grievously offended Almighty God, are nor willing to confess their sins.

    Q. How do we know this?

    A. Because Jesus Christ assures us that those sins which are not forgiven by His apostles and their successors, by means of confession, will not be forgiven. “Whose sins you retain they are retained.” John xx. 22, 23.

    Q. Are Protestants willing to confess their sins to a Catholic Bishop or priest, who alone has power from Christ to forgive sins? “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.”

    A. No, for they generally have an utter aversion to confession, and therefore their sins will not be forgiven throughout all eternity.

    Q. What follows from this?

    That they die in their sins and are damned.

    Rev Michael Mueller

    Matt 9:Ver. 6.—But that ye may know, &c. Observe the expression, Son of Man, for Christ forgave sins, not only as He was God, but in that He was man, authoritatively and meritoriously. Because His Humanity was hypostatically united to His Divinity, and subsisted in the Divine Person of the Son of God, therefore He was able to make full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

    Wherefore this primary power and authority of forgiving sins was given unto Him, next unto God, which power He is able to grant unto others likewise, such as priests, who are instituted by Him, as His ministers, that they too should forgive sins. Whence S. Thomas says (3 part. quæst. 63, art. 3), “The power of the excellence of Christ standeth in four things. 1. Because His merit, and the virtue of His Passion, operate in the sacraments. 2. Because by His Name the sacraments are sanctified. 3. Because He Himself, who gives virtue to the sacraments, had power to institute them. 4. Because the effect of the sacraments—in other words, the remission of sins, and grace—Christ is able to confer without the sacraments. This power is peculiar to Christ alone, quâ man; and therefore it has been communicated neither to priest nor pontiff, nor to S. Peter.”

    Cornelius a Lapide

  19. Matthew 9 verse six:
    Mine says:

    ” But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”

    What’s contentious about that? except it’s an S not a z in paralysed?

    Where do you get the rest from?, if it’s scripture you’re saying supports your view, whatever that is in this instance?
    I understand, from a world class Theology scholar, Reverend and philosopher, that it is not simply scripture that underpins the catholic faith but that appears to be your “proof” above, prior to the opinion of the Reverend Michel Mueller. Wonder if he likes the rolling stones
    It’s charming the way that catholics seem to think Protestants haven’t read the bible where in fact it is usually the Protestants who are more familiar, since they do not have a preparatory “faith” but have to work it out themselves!
     
    another interesting fact for you.
     
    Anglicans are catholics, they’re just not Roman Catholics.
    Don’t blame e if you bump into some of us in the hereafter, we didn’t make the rules

  20. God ordered the Jews to obey His commands regarding the various holocausts for the forgiveness of sins and it was never claimed by any faithful Jew that he could go directly to God rather than to obey the commands and ordinances of God Himself for the forgiveness of sins.

    Have you heard of the new Testametnt and the New covenant?
    Are faithful members of the protestant church just deluded by God’s action in their life?
    Because that’s how you’ve been taught it all works?
     
    The controversy between Calvinism, lutherans and the Catholic Church ave been largely resolved. So many Catholics are still being misinformed and don’t understand the situation as it stands.
    As soon as they are corrected and proved wrong there’s another one coming along behind to restate, erroneously that of the faith of their fellow Christians and even make egregious errors about their own “official” Roman Catholic position with regards to the acceptance of Christians who are not Roman Catholic.
     
    It’s quite an important thing to get right if you think people are dammed.

  21. pope pious the ninth. 1864 (From the syllabus of errors):

    “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he should consider true”

    Second Vatican council stated that the human person has a right to religious freedom.
    So some are stuck back in 1864
    Pretty much, everybody’s a protestant, some just don’t admit it and find that hating the Pope is a Christian way forward. Easy to see who’s wrong.

    “We believe that it is through the Grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved”
    from Acts chapter fifteen, all of which is instructive in many ways, regarding Christian debate.
     
    Matthew 7:6, seems at odds with 1 Peter, too, but then that’s the dilemma in Christianity.
    A lot to think about if you take the time, but the central message isn’t confusing. Nor the central tenet of Christianity which IS that Jesus is who he said he was. That does change everything.
    Evidence for that is found in Acts and all of the books which follow the Gospels.
    source?
    Professor Rev Kieth Ward, doctor of divinity and regis professor of divinity at Oxford, among severalother things:
    On the reformation. Referenced many times and clearly makes no difference to the entrenched views of individuals who won’t accept simple truth

  22. Joy vs. Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque,

    It seems the two of you interpret the Christian message in two completely different and mutually exclusive ways. Doesn’t it strike either of you as somewhat unlikely that the all-powerful creater of everything is incapable of communicating an unambiguous message?

  23. || Those who have read all of scripture know that God has always had His priests as mediators for the
    || forgiveness of sins – from the priesthood of the Old Testament to the Priesthood instituted by Christ – but
    || many protestants have kept alive the lies of their progenitors.

    Hebrew 8 (6-13)
    The New Covenant
    (Jeremiah 31:26–40)

    6 Now, however, Jesus has received a much more excellent ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is better and is founded on better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
    “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
    when I will make a new covenant
    with the house of Israel
    and with the house of Judah.
    9 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their fathers
    when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of the land of Egypt,
    because they did not abide by My covenant,
    and I disregarded them,
    declares the Lord.
    10 For this is the covenant I will make
    with the house of Israel
    after those days,
    declares the Lord.
    I will put My laws in their minds
    and inscribe them on their hearts.
    And I will be their God,
    and they will be My people.
    11 No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother,
    saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
    because they will all know Me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
    12 For I will forgive their iniquities
    and will remember their sins no more.”b
    13 By speaking of a new covenant,c He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

  24. Swordfish,
    Of course it has struck me as you say, that there are so very different interpretations of Scripture
    But, for me, it is not just scripture that holds the evidence that is of the most sway, in particular on matters of the central message and the conviction that death is not the end.

    Since:
    1 I don’t know enough about scripture
    2 I have always had knowingly or otherwise an ongoing dialogue with God
    That must make me deluded, mad, which is possible, I suppose *mistaken,
    3 Like you, I kind of wish I could let it go but it doesn’t let me go?
    4 The factors which convince me hat there is more than material exists (outside of what you and I have already discussed) do not depend on my own internal thoughts, but have objective components of real physical word events, many of which too personal to speak of in public (it’s not you, it’s the walls that have ears?).
    5 As said, I’m very used to the atheist responses and some of them I share in my own head at. Times when I’m questioning God. So when I say that I understand I’m not just being agreeable.
    6 Those who disagree so vehemently have a right to do so of course and I can also understand their position of adamant certainty. I’ve been there, too! When I was a little less experienced in life in general, and prior to my having experienced what I believe to be the actual living presence of the Holy Spirit, since that’s what others who have given testimony, call such things.
    I have had visions, dreams, and hear cries on waking, actual cries, from external to me, as I have to go and check if everybody’s okay when I get up.

    You kind of know whether you’re building yourself up to this kind of experience or whether it is very different to anything you’ve had happen before. I wonder if I ought to write it all down because when I contemplate it, there’s quite a bit happening!
     
    What number?
    1 Timothy chapter four (verse ten), where Paul wrote to his son.
    Is the truth, I have other reasons to believe that God Saves ALL the world and that all things are possible with God. Also, I remember that Paul was writing not to me, but to someone specific along time ago. Only the absolute truth survives the filter of time. The bible rings true having gone back to it after things happen.

  25. Sorry, another important clarification:
    When people speak of “salvation” they are not often clear about what they mean, there are two distinct areas which often are mixed when christians discuss the subject. Then there are the infinite personal ideas that theologists have described over the centuries, where they depict their own, or another’s idea of heaven or hell.
    Michael 2 put it well when he said salvation From or To?
    I tend to think much of the time the word is intended in the bible to be salvation from sin in this life. From fear, envy, hatred, anger…etc.
    What happens after we die is some kind of justification, justice. Anybody who is truthful appreciates, does not reject, the concept of justice, you and me both. As for not being worried about being dead as yo mentioned, rather the suffering of this life which people have to endure? You’re right, that IS the central message of the Angel Gabriel who you and I remember from infant school, did you take part in the nativity? I was always an angel, mum worked in the hospital and she had access to theatre gowns! A wire coat hanger can be fashioned into a halo that appears to float, wrap it in tinsel and well, who needs CGI
    I bet you were a shepherd? Wise man?

  26. The quote is misrepresented in the comment on Briggs …. See just below, the link and from where within the Papal writing, this quote was taken, as it does comes from in the Syllabus of Errors written by Pope Pius the Ninth.
    As can easily be seen, the quote is listed under types of heresies. Always best to go to the source when applying another’s writing to one’s own opinion.

    Here is the link: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/syllabus-of-errors-9048

    And here is the original writing of the Syllabus of Errors:

    “III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

    15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

    16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

    17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

    18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.”

    And here is the comment on Briggs blog:

    “pope pious the ninth. 1864 (From the syllabus of errors):

    “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he should consider true”

    God bless, C-Marie

  27. Dear Joy. There was not one doctrine in Vatican Two that is binding on Catholics – as the Secretary of the Council made plain- so it is no wonder you are confused because the modern Popes have not taught the fullness of truth

    https://sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/home/-i-the-church-militant/history/6-vatican-ii/nota-praevia-to-lumen-gentium

    The fact is that the vast majority of Catholics accept the idea that Doctrine changes – it doesn’t – so there is no surprise in reading that you think it does also.

  28. From comments on Briggs, regarding Vatican II:

    “Second Vatican council stated that the human person has a right to religious freedom.”

    LINK IS HERE: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/declaration-on-religious-freedom-1537

    What the council actually said:
    “1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,(1) and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.

    First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you” (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

    This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

    Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  29. There was not one doctrine in Vatican Two that is binding on Catholics – as the Secretary of the Council made plain- so it is no wonder you are confused because the modern Popes have not taught the fullness of truth

    I’m not confused whatsoever about this. The situation is laid out clearly, I haven’t read C Marie’s comment but note she’s going over the second Vatican council again
    and I don’t have time for repetition of what I’ve said. I can clarify though.
    Absolutely clear and simple phraseology is necessary here so there can be no claims of confusion.
    I’m having a cup of tea right now though, first things first.
    Perhaps it’s necessary to take a dictated transcript from the video as people are lazy about audio.
    That might be a good project in spreading the truth.

  30. “and here is the original wording g of the syllabus of errors:”
    15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true….[latin plus date]”
    That’s what I wrote….It’s what Kieth ward quoted [verbatim], that’s why I repeated it faithfully and accurately

  31. The fact is that the vast majority of Catholics accept the idea that Doctrine changes – it doesn’t – so there is no surprise in reading that you think it does also
    1
    “it doesn’t” isn’t an restatement of your position.
    2
    Truth doesn’t change, but how people perceive it and what they know
    does
    change.
    3
    Refer back to the point about the New covenant. God doesn’t change? He doesn’t need to it’s us who need to change.
    His covenant changed or was altered to more closely represent God’s purpose and his relationship to us and with us. (AtOneMent); God’s will for us. (last will and testament, covenant is also a legal term used in trusts after death).
    Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “New” as Johnby’s Hebrews quote attests. Thee are other references in the books of the New Testament which support that one but it’s clearly stated in that book AND was predicted in the Old Testament.
    Argument is legitimate in the church as it happened throughout the time following the Death of Jesus. Yet Paul nor Peter, Nor Barnabas would presumably have excommunicated each other, despite the “sharp” disagreement.
    Transcript of Kieth Ward’s explanation and an admission that Catholics are all confused, at a high level as to what is a doctrine of faith and what is not, which is probably where you’re picking up on the confusion point.
    I don’t care how confused they are when they’re on a mission to do the impossible. We (I) know enough about Jesus not to be confused about what he commanded.

  32. Transcript of Kieth Ward’s explanation and an admission that Catholics are all confused, at a high level as to what is a doctrine of faith and what is not, which is probably where you’re picking up on the confusion point.
    Should read;
    I “will” “deposit” the transcript of what Rev Kieth Ward said about the “despite” of faith, (not doctrine of faith, my error there)
    I can’t help notice how God’s power is used as currency, where deposits are made, prices for sin are paid, indulgences bought and sold, penance paid and truth is guarded as if it needed such a thing, just like a bank.
    So earthly, so mundane

  33. Dear Joy Are indigenes wrong only when Catholics defend the truth of them but Luther was not wrong when he used to preach them?

    A wise man, Father Gaume, “Catechism of Perseverance,” observed that since Original Sin existence has been one giant Indulgence:

    The whole of Christianity is but one great indulgence, granted to the human race, in consideration of the Just Man by excellence, who was voluntarily immolated for a sinful world. As we perceives, an indulgence in general is a reversion of the merits of the just to the guilty

    Of course, you will not get this because “selling of indulgences” but one imagines you still accept money even though counterfeiting.

  34. Definition of difference between Dogma and Dictrine in Catholocism from pediaa.com:

    “Dogma is the divinely revealed truth, declared as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church. Doctrine is teachings or beliefs taught by the Magisterium of the Church. Relation (of the two) Dogma is a subset of doctrines. Doctrine includes dogma and other teachings by the Church. Authority Dogma is divinely revealed.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  35. Truth is guarded due to heresies which can and do cause misbelief and unbelief in and about Christ Who is the Truth.

    God bless, C-Marie

  36. Yes, here is comment:

    “and here is the original wording g of the syllabus of errors:”
    15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true….[latin plus date]”
    That’s what I wrote….It’s what Kieth ward quoted [verbatim], that’s why I repeated it faithfully and accurately.”

    C-Marie: And here is the pertinent part which Kieth Ward left out:

    The title of the section in inder which these heresies were listed, which he apparently left out:

    III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
    And, under which heresies Pope Pius XI wrote:
    “15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.”

    See my previous comment for the whole list of heresies inder this title.
    God bless, C-Marie

  37. Mick and C Marie, I think you’e both being obtuse, and I’m not here to defend Luther or anybody else but what I believe. Since others can defend what they believe. Just stop guessing though.
    Here’s some of the transcript:: seven tenths?
    => 35th minute, that’s enough. And it’s all been said before.

    Tonight, I’m talking about the reformation, and it’s quite clear of course that the reformation was something quite new , something unforeseen and in fact not desired by the reformers themselves..

    There’d been lots of movements to try to reform the church throughout history; most of them had been unsuccessful. For a number of reasons it was mostly in the sixteenth century that reformation movements gave rise to Churches which separated themselves from the Roman Church. They didn’t want to, neither Luther nor Calvin wanted to leave the Holy Roman Church but they were really forced out of it.
     
    Key dates I suppose are: one in 1517, when Martin Luther posted up his 95 Theses on the doors of Wittenberg Cathedral…and the main thing people know about that, and it’s true, is that he was protesting about the sale of indulgences. An indulgence is something Church will offer to take the temporal punishment away from souls in purgatory…and this can be obtained, according to Catholic doctrine by prayer and penance…But in the sixteenth century, unscrupulous people were selling indulgences and claiming that if you paid for them, you or your relatives would be able to get out of purgatory. That was certainly abuse, everybody agreed it was an abuse, but it was the heart of the beginning of Luther’s protest.
     
    The word protestant itself was First used in 1529 and its use was by those who protested against the Emperor, The Holy Roman emperor’s condemnation of Luther’s doctrines.
     :
    As a matter of interest to people in England…Henry VIII actually wrote a book, agreeing with that condemnation, so Henry VVII was certainly not a protestant. He was a person who was called, by the Pope, “the defender of The Faith” because he’d written a book in defence of the Catholic claims against Luther’s protests against them.
     
    So Henry was definitely an arch Catholic, he just didn’t like the Pope. Very much and I think it would be a vast oversimplifications to say his desire for children was the cause of the of the break with Rome. There were lots and lots of reasons for that…but in fact the English reformation at the beginning was a Catholic reformation: that is to say it was a reformation for which the church remained Catholic but relations were broken with the Pope.
     
    There are..it’s a similar state today in Europe where there exists an old Catholic Church which broke with the Pope, when papal infallibility was declared.
     
    Now of course English history gets very complicated after that, and there’s no doubt now, that the Church Of England is protestant.. There’s no doubt because, when the Queen accedes, when she acceded to the throne, she had to swear an oath that she would defend the protestant faith of the Church Of England. So there’s no doubt that the Church Of England uses the word, but it’s a very flexible word indeed, as we shall see:
     
    So what is protestantism? and has it made a break with the Catholic Church which could never be repaired? which is irreparable? And what are the signs for the future of the unity of Christendom. We mustn’t forget of course, all the orthodox Christians who broke from the Roman Catholic Church many many years before and still remain a quite separate church and refusing papal supremacy.
     
    So there are lots of separated parts of the Christian Church but for people in Europe, protestantism is the split that is most widely known.; though in matter of fact, it’s is not very widely understood.
     
    And it’s my main hope in this talk tonight, just to show how little the reformers understood of what they were actually doing and what they let themselves in for:
     
    So what was the beginning of it? Well the beginning of it really was a protest against abuses, that’s certainly true; but another very important thing that happened at the time _, that in 1440 Johannes Gensfleisch had invented printing with movable metal type. And he produced a few years after that, the Gutenberg bible, if you have one, you’re a millionaire, there aren’t very many, only three, I think, but these Gutenberg bibles were the first printed bibles.
     
    Now printing… was, like, the internet today, er, something which revolutionised people’s knowledge of what was going on in the world. (Er it made a lot of things possible which people shouldn’t have known about) but at the same time, it enabled people to read the bible. The bible had been, controlled by the Catholic Church, in the sense that er, the Catholic teaching authority, the Magisterium, had always claimed the sole right to interpret the bible and since the bible was written (of course Originally the New Testament, in Greek) and then translated into Latin, very few people could read it anyway, even if the’d heard it, they didn’t know what it was about.
     
    So the translation of the bible and it’s publication in printed form, really changed the nature of people’s appreciation; they could go and read the New Testament to check the facts… about what the Church or the representatives of the church were telling them.
     
    Well, what happened when they did this ware… they found that quite a lot of things that were going on in the church at that time, were not mentioned int the New Testament and some things actually seemed to contradict what was said in the New Testament, or so they thought.
     
    So protestantism became a religion of the book. Whereas the Christian Church had not been the religion of a book at all. It’s worth remembering that when Christians traditionally talk about Jesus they call Jesus “The Word Of God”, “The eternal word, begotten of the Father”
    So the word of God, for traditional Christians, is Jesus, it’s a person, and Jesus never wrote a word except three or four in the sand. He never wrote a word that anybody now possesses. He even spoke a different language than we have in the New Testament because Jesus gave his teaching in Aramaic and the New Testament is in Greek.
     
    In Islam the Koran is “the actual words of God in Arabic”, now these are the “actual words”, so God has written them down, or rather God has put the words into the mind of the prophet who then recites them and they then get written down by those who hear them. Because these are the “words of God” the original language is very important and you are not permitted to translate the koran in its use in worship. Now Christians have never regarded the Bible like that. It’s never been a Christian view that God actually in person wrote the bible. There are bits of the bible that some people say that God might have written: for example, the books of the bible from Genesis to Deuteronomy, some people think perhaps God dictated them to Moses, but it has never been thought by any responsible Theologian that God dictated the letters that Paul wrote to various Churches around the world. Dictation is just not a view that Christians have ever held.
     
    And of course one reason why you can’t hold that view is because the bible was written over a period of thousands of years, by lots of different people, in lots of different languages, three different languages and in lots of different styles. So it’s just not possible for a Christian to think of the bible as a Muslim thinks of the koran.
     
    So if a Christian calls the bible “The Word of God”, they don’t and can’t mean the words of God.
    They don’t mean “these are the actual words” they have to mean something more sophisticated.
    Now that ‘sophisticated something’ is quite difficult to spell out.
     
    But nevertheless it means that if Protestants are going to appeal to the bible..(and i’ll, take the New Testament as the most interesting case) as their source for doctrines, they’re not going to be able to say,
    ”this is what God said, literally”
    They’re just going to have to say,
    “well this is my source of authority” and the’ll have to think of some reasons for that.
     
    But what Protestants were saying, once they’d thought about it, was that there is no Magisterium in the church. Now just examine that for a minute:
    The magisterium is somebody who has the right to interpret the text and tell you what it means.
    &nbspNow it is the Catholic faith, the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, that the teaching authority of the church embodied in the end in the Pope has the right and the sole authority to tell you what biblical passages mean. Now the Pope doesn’t tend to do this very often, fortunately, but he does have the right if he ever says it.
     
    Now for Calvin and Luther, nobody has that right, nobody other than you , had the right to tell you what words in the bible mean. So this is really quite a radical doctrine. There’s the bible you have it in your hands, you can read it, and you can decide what it means.
     
    But of course this unleashed something that Luther and Calvin had never dreamed of and that is that everybody began to disagree publicly. Calvin himself says, and you can find it in the thirty nine articles of the Church of England, that even councils of the church, ecumenical councils of Bishops when they meet together, can, and have, erred. They can err, and they have erred, even on matters concerning God. So it’s quite clear that Calvin thought meetings of Christians, when they get together and tell you what the bible means, eg, is there a purgatory? Is that in the bible? If they say something can well be wrong. ..and of course, Calvin and Luther both decided that there was nothing about purgatory in the New Testament, so any Church that had said there was, or that you could at least read purgatory into the New Testament were wrong, or if they weren’t wrong you were entitled to say at least you were entitled to say that they were wrong.
    …Freedom of opinion… that was the protestant principle.
    If you ask me what is the one thing that characterises protestantism it is this, I think , The statement:
    “everybody can be wrong about anything’
    Now that has a sting in the tail of course because what if it’s wrong?
     
    Well at least you might say it’s only one of the things I’m wrong about so.. some of the others might be correct anyway.
     
    But this is quite a remarkable difference. Take the official attitude of the Roman Catholic Church,
    Which is that the Pope, The Bishop of Rome cannot err, when he speaks on behalf of the whole Church on a matter of Faith and morals, which is part of the original deposit of faith.
     
    Now actually, that is a tremendously sophisticated doctrine too. It’s so sophisticated that I assure you, non of my Roman Catholic theologian colleagues know which statement a Pope has ever made are infallible:
    …Because you can make all sorts of distinctions about “was this in the original deposit of faith? ( If not then was it infallible?…even if the Pope said it was? So if the Pope says,
    “I am infallible” is that infallible?
    I shall leave this to my Roman Catholic colleagues.
     
    The important thing is that protestants said, “Well no, nobody’s infallible, not even Calvin and not even Luther”
     
    What about the bible?
    Ah well this was the paradox, er that many protestants, including Luther and Calvin, came to hold, that the bible was in some sense infallible. And I think =this is a very difficult Protestant doctrine. The meaning of Infallible has to be “cannot make a mistake” but do you include in that a mistake about anything? Like for example how long it took God to create the universe? Could that be a mistake? Well if it’s only infallible in matters concerning your relationship to God, then there could be such a mistake, but you see the problem that protestants are going to get into. Catholics don’t really have this problem, ‘cause they say,
    “Oh the Pope can tell us what it means, we don’t have to worry about that.”.
    And as a matter of fact in Catholic interpretation of the bible, there’s a very wide latitude of how you can interpret it and most interpretation of the bible, within the catholic world, is… allegorical, or spiritual, or not literal. So you’d say this is not to be taken *metaphorically, just let me give you one example of that:
     
    …You will read the New Testament and Luther found this in the New Testament it says,
    “call no man father’
    So along comes Luther and says,
    ‘Gosh it says “call no man father” we’d better take this literally’.
    So you don’t call priests ‘father’ any more.
    Well you may think he’s missed the point here, but nevertheless, that’s what taking it literally leads to.
    And of course Catholics have never had a problem with calling priests ‘father’. The fact that it says in the New Testament “don’t do it”. Is irrelevant. Now why? Would take us a long way but the point I’m making here, is that:
    the fact that something is in the bible has never for Catholics been decisive because the bible has to be interpreted and you have to interpret some texts in the light of others, discern which are the important ones, which ones are obsolete and which ones are more helpful.
    So you do meed that tradition of interpretation.
     
    So a big question here, straight away is: Is interpretation of the bible is easy or difficult? Just a question. What do you think?
     
    Well if you think it’s easy I can [produce twenty five texts immediately which we will disagree upon. I will think my interpretation is better than yours, but you won’t, of course. How many protestant churches are there? Well an increasing number. I’ve known places in Britain where people have started new churches ‘cos they didn’t agree with the one they were in already!
    So a protestant can just say “I don’t agree with this, I’m going to start another church and Some of my best friends have started their own churches actually, and they’re doing very well. ..and So they say “we have a right to do this “ so here’s the principle, you have the right to start a new Church if you disagree with somebody else’s church. Why? Well because nobody has the authority to tell you what the bible means.
     
    Now part of my case tonight is that really, protestants very rarely actually carry this principle through as it should be carried through. Because once you say , nobody’s infallible, everybody can make a mistake.” You are irretrievably a Liberal and many protestants would say Liberalism is a bad thing…So you really need to look at what is involved in being Liberal.
     
    And my case tonight, my major case, is that protestantism is by its essential defining nature a liberal move in religion. Let me try to help you define that by taking a quotation from Pope pious IX, who in 1864, published a booklet called “A syllabus of errors”. There were quite a lot of them, (these were errors that everybody else was making in the world).
    And one of the things which he said that was an error and that Catholics cannot believe; this was 1864, remember… one of the things he said was an error was this, and I quote …from the syllabus of errors, This is an error:
    “that every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”
    If you deny that statement you are a liberal.

    So a liberal is, in it’s most basic and important meaning, the assertion that, contrary to what Pious ninth said, every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, that is by his own or her own conscience he shall consider true.
     
    And I do have to tell you in case you get the wrong idea that the second Vatican council stated that the human person has a right to religious freedom. So Pious’s doctrine was changed at the second Vatican council. ..but… and really that is probably entirely the inference of protestantism because the protestant faith is built on the right to dissent. If you don’t claim that right then you can’t be a protestant because you can’t dissent. And you can’t jus claim the right to dissent for yourself and not let other people have it. That’s what the classical protestant theologians didn’t always see. Sometimes they thought I’ve got the right to dissent but other people haven’t. So I can actually throw you out of the church but I don’t have to be in somebody else’s church. So the right of dissent is just for me. Well in common justice of course you have to extend that right to everybody. The only country in the world, in the eighteenth century which acknowledged and actually practiced that right was the United States of America…and look what a mess that got them into. What happened was really just that just people started all sorts of completely lunatic churches all over the place…and there was nothing to stop them doing that because of course they were free to say, “if this seems right to me then it seems right to me”.
     
    And the catholic accusation would be this leads to chaos and it does, you have to admit it leads to chaos. So the protestant world is inherently diverse, fragmentary and chaotic. Is that a good thing? Now I’m not in any position to tell you it’s good or bad, I’m completely neutral. I’m just trying to point out the consequence of saying you have a right to freedom of conscience and the consequence of that is of course you’d have to work out if any conscientious person could possibly believes this. I mean there might be things you didn’t really think anybody with a conscience could really believe…and in fact this came up in a big way at the Nuremberg trials
    after the war. Where the defence of course of those who were accused of being war criminals the defence was they were all acting under their own law. They had all sworn an oath of allegiance to the Feurer and They were doing what was in obedience to their own conscience in following it.
     
    Now the point is that the prosecution lawyers did not accept that defence they said,
    “there are some things which no rational moral person could possibly genuinely believe”.
    So there is a very difficult question which no liberal has ever resolved to my knowledge: of where you would draw the line between things that reasonable people could believe and things they shouldn’t be allowed to believe. Most of us in the end think there’s some thing people shouldn’t be allowed to believe but what is it? So that’s the protestant problem. Everybody can make a mistake but are there mistakes so big that they shouldn’t be allowed?. ..and are there things which people couldn’t sincerely believe? Considering the wide variety of human opinions I’ve come to think there’s nothing that can’t be believed by somebody. So that is a problem but protestantism really had no defence about this. But I think that ’s the reason why protestants tend to say “we accept the infallibility of the bible” because it would b e a defence, you’d say “If it wasn’t “….that would help you out you see…if you say…, “if it isn’t in the bible, you shouldn’t believe it’. Now that’s a typical protestant statement: that if it can’t be shown to be in the bible then it’s not binding on belief. So that’s a possible way out, but it has it’s difficulties and in fact protestants don’t stick to this, non e of them stick to this. None, no protestant (here’s a challenge) no protestant actually believes those things only which can clearly be seen to any reasonable person in the bible. Let me give you an example: The Trinity, there’s absolutely nothing in the New Testament which would convince anybody that there is such a thing as the Holy Trinity in which three persons are all co_equal. Isaac Newton, of course, who was a very firm bible believer did not believe in the Trinity and his reason was it wasn’t in the bible. So where did The Trinity come from? Well now if we’re being kind you’ll say, the doctrine of the Trinity was developed by the church and defined in the third or fourth century it came to be widely believed, certainly, it came to be orthodox, out of hints which were in the bible and out of theoretical reflections about what those things implied. It’s not only the Trinity which gets difficult it’s the incarnation itself. Was Jesus the incarnate son of God? Well you’d find it difficult really to find that quite clearly in the New Testament. Certainly the first three Gospels imply that Jesus was the Son of God, but of course that expression could mean just a person especially chosen by God; as Solomon was, as David was, as the people of Isreal were. So the point is that the orthodox Christian doctrines were worked out over a few hundred years and I myself would say, to come clean, I think they were rightly worked out I mean I agree with them, I agree with what the counsel said myself, but Calvin and Luther said “but counsels can be wrong.”
    &Nbsp;
    So if (this is my point) if you’re going to stick to the view that you should only believe what’s in the bible and think that, what comes out of that is not necessary to belief, it follows that it is not necessary for any protestant to believe in the Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus.
     
    Now that’s not a thing protestants are terribly happy about. And those are only two things. A more important one would be a very widely held view among protestants and that is the view that Jesus died on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice for human sin. That is to say the doctrine that we, (it was, as people who went to my last lecture will remember) invented by Anselm in the 11th century…er and Anselm had argued that views about the atonement, how Jesus’ death, I mean nobody’s denying that Jesus’ death is the means of redemption. The question is how does it work? Perhaps nobody should’ve asked that question really there are things it’s better not to probe into, but people did ask the question and Anselm said it worked because we owe God a huge debt and Jesus pays the debt, so Jesus is a substitute that pays a debt that we owe. Now of course the obvious objection to that is that if the debt is owed to God, why can’t God just say I’m not going to pay it myself why should I? I’m just going to forgive it. Because on Anselm’s view God has to pay the debt in person. And can you imagine if you were owed a debt by somebody else saying “i’ll pay it” you’d just say “oh forget it”…right? You wouldn’t say “oh I’ll have to pay this”, it’s a funny sort of thing and the point is it isn’t in the bible. Or let me put that more carefully, of course you can read it into some passages of the New Testament but it’s actually an eleventh century view which was then updated by John Calvin in the sixteenth century, er which provides a particular and highly disputed interpretation of some New Testament texts. So my only point is here: somebody who says anybody can make a mistake can say, “well that’s one of the mistakes that people have made”. And the whole of Calvin’s institutes Of The Christian Religion, his great work was actually just a mistake, and Calvin admitted that that might be the case. So you see the paradox, once you say anybody can make a mistake you can’t have an authoritarian religion any more and you can’t say there are some things which all true protestants must believe. You’re forbidden, you’re prevented from saying that by the fact that you admit diversity of interpretation. But you’ve got the problem, some interpretations are going to be lunatic, not mine of course, er, so which ones are going to be lunatic? And I’m not saying it’s impossible to find out, some do look a bit crazy, er, but at the same time you might say I’ll have to allow even those because that’s the protestant principle,
    “anybody can make a mistake.“.
     
    So The strange thing about the protestant reformation was that it actually did something different than it thought it was doing. It thought very largely in the persons of the classical reformers, particularly Luther and Calvin , but others too, it thought it was returning to a pristine Christian faith, against the accretions of the Church. But it wasn’t doing that at all. I mean supposing somebody who’s a sixteenth century protestant says actually my church is more like the original Christian Church than the Catholics are, and one of the reasons I would defend a protestant church, you would say, is that it’s really based on New Testament principles. Well let me just conclusively show that that is entirely wrong. It’s entirely wrong …because…for three reasons:
    One is that in New Testament times, the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation and of the atonement had not even been worked out. There was no New Testament, that people had to refer to. So it was not a biblical church. The New Testament didn’t exist. It was not a Church in which there were orthodox doctrine. Just imagine the people Paul turned into Christians: How much did they know about the Theology of the fifth century Greek fathers? Well nothing, obviously, not a thing, so they couldn’t possibly have been orthodox because that category didn’t exist. Also, it’s a fact, indisputably, that the first Christian believers were Jews and kept the Jewish law. And it’s recorded in the New Testament itself that in Acts chapter fifteen you’ll find that they had a debate about whether they should keep the law. And Paul constantly complained that James, described as the brother of Jesus, had sent out Missionaries to Pauls’ churches saying that you must keep the Jewish law. And Paul said, of course James was wrong, and so was Peter. ..and so were all the other apostles, amazingly only Paul was right and that was of course that you needn’t keep the law. Now again, I have no complaint about that er if the Christian church wants to decide that we don’t keep Jewish law well that’s okay by me. But you can’t say that this is the original Christian belief. It was a result of a highly disputatious argument that all the apostles except Paul, who didn’t know Jesus we don’t think, well almost certainly didn’t know Jesus, all the apostles had thought the law ought to be kept. So going back to the original Christian belief is I think bluntly impossible. It’s, you cannot seriously make that claim. And what the reformers were doing was actually inventing a new form of Christian belief. Now I’m not against that either, I’m not criticising protestants, I am a protestant if you want to know, you probably do, I’m just saying that if you are a protestant there are things you can’t say. And one of them is our belief is more primitive, more original, more pure than the Catholic faith or the orthodox faith, well it’s not at all it’s just a new invention, well a sixteenth century New invention.
    And you also can’t say well, there is some authoritative interpretation of the bible which you just accept if you’re going to be a protestant because the basic principle of the Protestant churches is nobody has the authority to interpret scripture and tell you what you ought to believe. So there are big paradoxes in the movement. And ini fact in a way I think protestantism speaking even as a protestant is self destructive. That is to say it’s very difficult to maintain a non liberal protestant view. Where being liberal means you can believe what you conscientiously like. And of course this is often put up as an objection by conservative protestants. They say you can’t believe what you like. You must believe what’s in the bible but in fact what they’re really saying is you must believe what “i” think is in the bible. And you say, what do you think Is in the bible? And you get a very remarkable different set of answers:
     
    Let me take the just obvious one again, if you were a protestant would you think that the first chapter of Genesis is to be taken literally or not? Fair question! And I guess some Protestants say yes it should be taken literally and some say no it shouldn’t be taken literally. Now, which is right? Well the protestant view is ‘well they might both be wrong for all I know. That’s not very satisfactory, or is it? Well at least my argument is this: if you are a protestant yo have to be a liberal, so stop complaining! And you can’t complain about other people not believing the same thing as you do because that’s precisely what the protestant church revels in, disagreement, that’s the whole point about it. It’s the right to disagree.

    And of course this lead a very short time later to, to liberalism as a religious movement which became the movement that everybody has the right to come to their own conclusion. So that’s one part of a liberal faith is that you have the right to dissent, to come to your own religious beliefs. Another, I think equally following from the protestant faith, really, the basic principle of the right of dissent is the acceptance of diversity of plurality. That where there is no authority to tell you what you should believe then you must accept that people have a right to believe different things. And you can’t criticise them on the grounds that they are not believing what is correct. You can criticise them on the grounds that they are not believing what you think is correct. But you can’t say that it is certain that the bible says this and people who disagree with me, are not just having a different view, they’re wrong. But people like me do tend to say that people who we disagree with are wrong. So there’s a difference between relativism and pluralism. A relativist says, nobody’s opinion is any better than anybody else’s opinion. None of them are really true or they’re all equally good. That’s relativism which Pope Benedict hates, and keeps writing encyclicals about it.
    And relativism is that it isn’t a matter of truth at all, you just come to your own opinion. But actually, acceptance of plurality, is different from relativism. Plurality says there is a truth, no doubt the truth is very important but who has the right to tell me what that truth is?
     
    And the protestant answer is nobody does. Nobody has that right. It’s your responsibility to seek out the truth the best way that you can. And I think that entails another point which some protestants seem to miss. That you’ve got to be a little bit humble about the way that you put your beliefs. You have to say that I realise these are only one set of beliefs among many others. So they could well be wrong. My own view would be that I’m almost certain that many of my own deepest beliefs are false, but I don’t know which they are. So obviously I think they’re true. So there’s a difference between saying I don’t think there’s any such thing as truth and saying this is what I think is true but I have no privileged access to the mind of God. I have no privileged access to what the meaning of the New Testament is, so this is my opinion. Now maybe the protestant world would be transformed if all protestants said this is only my opinion. This is the way I interpret the bible but I of course I realise there are lots of other interpretations as well.
     
    Well, anyway, that’s what protestantism is committed to. My question is why doesn’t the protestant world look like that? It looks like a lot of different people all saying I’m certain that what I believe is correct and it’s what the bible really says and everybody else has got it wrong. It jus says that can’t be a protestant belief. So why is it? I don’t know, I can’t answer that except to say, well it’s because people are afraid of being left to make up their own minds or afraid of being uncertain about things? That if your’e going to hold religion as a Matter of life and death maybe you need to be certain about it. So there’s another very interesting question. Do yo thank it’s true that if something is important to your whole life you need to be absolutely theoretically certain about it? Well some people talk as if that’s true. I think it’s clearly false. That most of us live our lives in such a way that the most important decisions we make are not at all certain. They can change our whole lives. But we might say well I wasn’t really certain about that, but I had to make a decision.

    *] misspeak? should probably be ‘Literally’

  38. Kieth Ward has errors concerning truths of Christianity in this teaching.

    Also, Islam made up its god.

    God bless, C-Marie

  39. C Marie, he doesn’t make errors, you just disagree withhim.
    Re Islam, you don’t appear to understand what he’s saying about the religion. He’s speaking about how the holy text relates to God’s word. Hence my use of quotes above. Surely you can understand that? Or are you so brittle that you can’t even bear to hear someone speak about a faith that is not your own?
    I think you’re confusing the old chestnuts:
    epistemology `and ontology! *horrid words.
    So you’re telling me that Islam’s made up, but it’s not relevant to the discussion because the quote speaks “about” what Islam IS. Not whether it’s true, do you see the difference?
    Like reading the off side rule in football doesn’t mean you’re pushing the idea.

    This is the error you keep making in response to my comments. You assumed something about What Kieth said.
    Elsewhere, he has said, that as a Philosopher an teacher of philosophy, he is interested in problems…rather like Briggs, who doesn’t give solutions. This, Kieth ways, often leads to a misunderstanding about what’s actually going on in the discussion or the talk or whatever.
     
    However, I think the criticisms he makes of protestants actually applies to many Catholics.
    They don’t know what their own official teaching is and have caught the bug of latching on to some of the protestant ideas. Still, as. aprotestant I see no problem with that.
    I fail to see how anybody can tell you what to believe because I don’t think it’s possible to believe anything that you don’t truly believe! Otherwise it’s just lying, or some sort of coercion.
     
    I also believe that God knows that as he knows the heart, or he wouldn’t be able to hear our prayers.
    No point saying that you believe something which you really don’t
    The word “faith” means something else in catholicism.

  40. Kieth Ward has errors concerning truths of Christianity in this teaching.
    Which “Truths of Christianity” do you mean?
    Not even sure he covered “truths of Christianity”.
    Do you mean “the truth” or some technical or historical point?

    He wasn’t making a case for the truth of Christianity. He does that elsewhere.
    This was about the reformation. He touched on the notions of truth with regards to pluralism versus relativism.
    He defines them and they are not inaccurately defined or controversial.

  41. Of course, you will not get this because “selling of indulgences” but one imagines you still accept money even though counterfeiting.
    What charming thoughts you have in your imagination.

    Sale of indulgences is old news. It’s not the point.
    The point you made was about being damned because of your perception of the faith of someone else.
    …and a misconception about the New Covenant.
    Where does you hate come from? Hate without a cause has special mention in the bible, too.
    Yet you betray that by saying “dear Joy”. after having callously boast that I/we are dammed.
     
    So it’s truth by fear, for you, again. That ‘s the old way, very Leviticus or medieval?
    God Is Love.

  42. Re the syllabus of errors:
    The first time it was quoted accurately.
    Your quote was identical, so again, no controversy.

  43. “And of course one reason why you can’t hold that view is because the bible was written over a period of thousands of years, by lots of different people, in lots of different languages, three different languages and in lots of different styles. So it’s just not possible for a Christian to think of the bible as a Muslim thinks of the koran.”

    True regarding the Old Testament books, but only, maybe, two thousand years have passed since Jesus arose from the dead, and then even less years since the gospels and letters and Revelation (apocalypse)’ were written. We Christians do have Holy Spirit Revelation concerning the Letters and Gospels.

    ?”…I mean nobody’s denying that Jesus’ death is the means of redemption. The question is how does it work?” It works because the penalty, known before the sin was committed, was death, See Genesis.

    “…One is that in New Testament times, the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation and of the atonement had not even been worked out.”
    Read the New Testament, those events and their effects were known and were written about recorded in the letters, visions, and revelations, and words from God to the Apostles and followers of Jesus.

    Why the Church worked on more minute definitions later, was due to heresies working to invalidate the truths.

    “It was a result of a highly disputatious argument that all the apostles except Paul, who didn’t know Jesus we don’t think, well almost certainly didn’t know Jesus, all the apostles had thought the law ought to be kept. So going back to the original Christian belief is I think bluntly impossible.”
    Paul did not meet Jesus on the earth, but did know Him better than most through Christ’s revelations to him.

    “I ( Mr. Ward) am a protestant if you want to know, you probably do, I’m just saying that if you are a protestant there are things you can’t say. And one of them is our belief is more primitive, more original, more pure than the Catholic faith or the orthodox faith, well it’s not at all it’s just a new invention, well a sixteenth century New invention.”
    Important to know and which explains much coloring his point of view.

    Maybe his difficulty is not believing in or accepting the Holy Spirit Whom it appears is not mentioned in this writing, and more, are parts of Mr. Ward’s concerns of: “My own view would be that I’m almost certain that many of my own deepest beliefs are false, but I don’t know which they are. So obviously I think they’re true.”

    Thank you, for your efforts.
    God bless, C-Marie

  44. C Marie, You’re talking across what’s been said and appear to be unaware
    No need to thank me for my efforts, I did it for myself, I realising that posting the video leaves people with an out and excuse to remain in the dark about simple, uncontroversial points of reasoning.
    I’m sure Rev, Kieth Ward, who is treasured by many Christians, lives by The Spirit.
    Many in the comment box below speak of how he restored their faith. He certainly clarified many points RE philosophy in general, separate from Christianity, which had hitherto been knitted into a Rubik’s cube. Just because someone explains ideas doesn’t mean you have to follow them.
    The truth doesn’t need defending. Think about it. The Truth can’t fail and there is nothing to fear.
    Your /our, job is not to defend The Truth but to Share The Truth.
    People need defending, yes, physically or Spiritually.

  45. Last point of correction:
    Comments in this video on reformation are also refuting the simple logic that the Vatican II contradicts what Pope Pious IX said was an error. So it’s clearly a blind spot with Catholics. It’s the protestants he’s being critical of!
    The video on fundamentalism by Rev Kieth Ward displays statements like:
    “This guy helped save my faith.”

  46. Last point of correction of last point of correction:
     
    Comments in this video on reformation also ignore and fail to comprehend the simple logic that the Vatican II contradicts what Pope Pious IX said was an error. So it’s clearly a blind spot with someCatholics. It’s the Protestants he’s criticising.
     
    In contrast:
    The video on fundamentalism by Rev Kieth Ward displays statements about Ward, like:
    “This guy helped save my faith.”
     
    (Mark 9:40:
    For he that is not against us is on our part.
     
    John 14:2
    “My Father’s house has many mansions, if it were not so I would have told you”

  47. Pope Pius IX wrote specifically concerning particular heresies as shown below.

    From comment on Briggs:

    : “pope pious the ninth. 1864 (From the syllabus of errors):

    “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he should consider true”

    Second Vatican council stated that the human person has a right to religious freedom.
    So some are stuck back in 1864
    Pretty much, everybody’s a protestant, some just don’t admit it and find that hating the Pope is a Christian way forward. Easy to see who’s wrong.

    End of comment on Briggs.

    C-Marie: The Actual Facts follow:

    Here is the original writing of the Syllabus of Errors concerning these heresies.

    “III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM (Heresies … my addendum)

    15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

    And the original of Vatican II … referring to freedom from coercion in civil society … my addendum)

    “Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

    Nothing in Vatican II overrides Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors concerning heresies.

    Link to the Syllabus of Errors: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/syllabus-of-errors-9048

    Link to the reference to Vatican II: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/declaration-on-religious-freedom-1537

    God bless, C-Marie

  48. Interesting that “The Number of the Beast” should come up in these troubled times. There are plenty who would seem to qualify, some of whom are clearly self-annointed.
    First question: Does the Book of Revelation depict future events in the cause of God?
    I think most Christians go along with this in some way or other. They have been analysing and agonising over the book for a couple of millennia.
    Second question: does “future events in the cause of God” include Islam?
    Hooo-aaah that’s the tricky one. Some have gone down this path, and found that Revelation becomes significantly less cryptic. “666” under this version is taken to be a reference to Mu’áwíyah, the first Umayyad Khalif. (Khalif being the Protector of Islam.) Maybe around 666 AD?
    Revelation appears to refer to another date, in the phrase that runs something like ‘blessed is he who comes to the “thousand two hundred and three-score day”. “Day” of God being one year. So 1260 AD became a prompting for the crusades, and the need to recover Jerusalem from the Saracens before that date.
    But, what if that was the right date, but the wrong calendar? AH (After Hijra) rather than AD ?

  49. C Marie,
    Der? Yes, that is the point? It’s what I said and it’s what Reverend ;Kieth Ward said

    The book written by Pope pious IX called The Syllabus Of Errors
    was, surprise surprise! a list of “errors”, or ‘heresies’ as you are referring to them. Hence you are simply restating the point that Kieth Ward is making.

    So allow me to explain what he is actually saying since youu still have misread or something:
    If you think that what Pope Pious IX said is false or ‘NOT an error” in the way that he clearly DID,

    You are a liberal, irretrievably .
    Pleas note that this is not the same as saying that someone is politically a liberal. Don’t get confused or run away with the wrong idea, this has to do purely with “religious” belief.
    In Summar again:
    You simply restated the point and the quotes, as if something untrue or unhistoric was said wherein the
    the problem was your own comprehension or apprehension.
    Clearly you agree, I take it with what Pope pious IX said in his Syllabus Of Errors but that’s not strictly the point here. You make my point though as another who’s stuck with the conclusions of Pope pious IX
    So point made.
    Vatican II is not compatible with the quote from the syllabus of errors.
    There’s no place for contradiction, yet two Pope contradict each other.
    This appears to support the idea that Popes like other mere mortals, make mistakes.
    that is just one of the points made.
     
    There’s nothing unclear or untrue, even in the original point.
    Yet you presented it as if there was, which is a shame, and now you’re reduced to avoiding typing the name of your interlocuter, also a shame, so please don’t say,
    “god bless” because I don’t believe you mean anything like it

  50. So there is a very difficult question which no liberal has ever resolved to my knowledge: of where you would draw the line between things that reasonable people could believe and things they shouldn’t be allowed to believe. Most of us in the end think there’s some thing people shouldn’t be allowed to believe but what is it?

    I also disagree with Kieth’s point for the same reason that you cannot, *by external force/coercion, believe what is not right or true, to you. You can deny something that’s really is true, which is lying,
    or you can say you believe something when you don’t, which is lying

    Both ways are lying, nonetheless. It’s not necessary with God because he knows, so lying is a waste of time and against God’s will.
    Perhaps I take Kieth too literally there.

  51. I think some say (and I once wondered too) that Francis is the False Prophet. However, Scripture is clear there too: Bergoglio is utterly unattended by the necessary “signs and wonders.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.