We have good news ladies and gentlemen. Protestant apologist Ken Temple has admitted that there was a good Pope. A couple posts ago he said the following in the comments section:
The only good bishop of Rome was Leo 1, because of his Tome on the 2 natures of Christ.
There is one good Pope! I’m glad that Temple thinks this. However, I wonder if Temple has actually read the writings of Pope Leo the Great. I’m going to have to take a guess and answer no. If he did the number of good Popes would go from one to zero. I actually have read the writings of Pope Leo the Great(at least the writings in the Schaff set). Let’s introduce Mr. Temple to the teachings of the one good Pope.
Ex Opere Operato
For they who have received baptism from heretics, not having been previously baptized, are to be confirmed by imposition of hands with only the invocation of the Holy Ghost, because they have received the bare form of baptism without the power of sanctification.
– Letter 159 to Nicaetas, Bishop of Aquileia
The Eucharist
And since to conceal their infidelity they dare to be present at our meetings, at the Communion of the Mysteries they bring themselves sometimes, in order to ensure their concealment, to receive Christ’s Body with unworthy lips, though they altogether refuse to drink the Blood of our Redemption.
– Sermon 42
For while the disciples were lying down with Him at the mystic Supper, and when discussion was proceeding in the hall of Caiaphas how Christ might be put to death, He, ordaining the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, was teaching them what kind of Victim must be offered up to God.
– Sermon 58
Intercession of Saints in Heaven
On Wednesday and Friday therefore let us fast: and on Saturday let us keep vigil with the most blessed Apostle Peter, who will deign to aid our supplications and fast and alms with his own prayers through our Lord Jesus Christ, who with the Father and the Holy Ghost lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen
– Sermon 12
On Wednesday and Friday therefore let us fast; and on Saturday keep vigil all together in the presence of the most blessed apostle Peter, by whose merits and prayers we are sure God’s mercy will be vouchsafed to us in all things through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.
– Sermon 88
Works as part of Salvation
In which regard, dearly-beloved, you ought all to help one another in turn, that in the kingdom of God, which is reached by right faith and good works, you may shine as the sons of light: through our Lord Jesus Christ.
– Sermon 33
Baptismal Regeneration
And because through the transgression of the first man the whole stock of the human race was tainted, no one can be set free from the state of the old Adam save through Christ’s sacrament of baptism, in which there are no distinctions between the re-born, as says the Apostle: “For as many of you as were baptized in Christ did put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female: for you are all on in Christ Jesus.”
– Letter 15 to Turribius, Bishop of Asturia
Papal Authority
But the bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicaea in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.
– Letter 105 to Pulcheria Augusta
From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself; but that there should be in each province once whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.
– Letter 14 to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica
The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God
I recently wrote a post on how Pope Leo the Great believed in the Immaculate Conception so here’s the link:
James White’s Faulty List: Pope Leo the Great and the Immaculate Conception
There are many more quotes I could bring about on all of these and other topics. I’ve actually read the writings of Leo the Great. He’s a great witness to Christian truth. I wonder if Ken Temple still thinks he’s the one good Pope? I actually don’t wonder at all. If he’s read this post the number of good Popes has gone from one to zero.
All of the quotes from Pope Leo the Great can be found at newadvent.org.
“. . . because of his Tome on the 2 natures of Christ.”
not the other stuff. You kind of left out some important information.
Also, notice I said “bishop of Rome”, not “Pope” – there was no such thing as a “Universal Bishop over the other bishops” at that time. Western bishop claiming that was wrong.
“For they who have received baptism from heretics, not having been previously baptized, are to be confirmed by imposition of hands with only the invocation of the Holy Ghost, because they have received the bare form of baptism without the power of sanctification.
– Letter 159 to Nicaetas, Bishop of Aquileia”
That is an amazing thing to think and believe, since it is so unBiblical. “bare form of baptism”, “baptism of heretics” – this really is ridiculous and absurd. The Mormons and others do these things – they are bare empty ceremonies without true faith and without true doctrine. You said you don’t care to look into why your church says their forms are wrong, but according to what I have read, their form is the same – in water and with the formula “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.
Your church is a church has taken these things and made them into empty ceremonies.
So the Reformation was right .
more later.
Those other beliefs were wrong. plain and simple, since they are unBiblical.
Did they accept the baptism of Arians of those days?
What about Nestorians since that was one of the heresies around Leo 1’s time?
If the form is right, but the faith was wrong (and of the Son = a creature), is that ok?
Cyprian and others were right – baptisms by heretics are wrong. Bare forms don’t do anything. Infant baptism and ex opere operato are wrong.
The “chair of Peter” is something that all bishops everywhere had all over the Christian world, if they held to the content of the faith of Peter’s confession.
Cyprian and 86 other bishops were right on that.
The bishop of Rome was not the top bishop over all other bishops.
This later came out in the split with Eastern Orthodox bishops.
“. . . because of his Tome on the 2 natures of Christ.”
not the other stuff. You kind of left out some important information.”
Leo is more than his Tome. Can you at least be honest and say he’s not a good Pope. It’ll be consistent.
Pope Siricius and Liberius believed Arian baptism was valid so I assume Leo as their successor would think likewise. The early church believed in Ex Opere Operato. What if you found out 20 years after your baptism that the man who baptized you believed that Christ only spiritually resurrected? Or believed in monophysitism? Or believed in Lordship Salvation? Would you have to get someone to rebaptize you? No, because it’s form. It’s not about the guy doing it.
“Your church is a church has taken these things and made them into empty ceremonies.
So the Reformation was right .”
LOL, Last I checked Luther, Zwingli and Calvin never thought that they had to get rebaptized. They thought their Catholic baptisms were valid even though they thought those administering them were heretics. You disagree with all the major reformers on this one and tell me they’re right at the same time? Stop praising people that think you’re a heretic and would have put you in jail at best.
But at the end of the day, just be consistent and say Leo was a bad Pope. He’s more than his Tome.
Church history is very important; and it is important to be accurate. But sometimes a Biblical exegetical argument trumps the historical development argument of John Henry Newman, etc. that the Roman Church takes to an extreme that only she has the right to interpret seeds centuries ago and claim that they were apostolic tradition that was not written down in the 27 books of the NT.
The Biblical exegesis of the relevant passages that demonstrate that we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone, and apart from our own works or ceremonies or rituals, etc. trumps the ideas of ex opere operato sacramentalism, which later developed into such a hideous system – illustrated by Tetzel’s indulgence campaign that taught those poor souls that by going through the motions and giving money to the Pope/Church to get loved ones a hundred years or whatever out of purgatory, that that was effective – “as soon as the coin rings, a soul from purgatory springs”, etc.
older statements and opinions that “giving alms” brings forgiveness or grace down. Catholic writers have written, “when the priest says the words, he brings Christ down from heaven and He is represented on the altar as a sacrifice in the Eucharist, etc.
These heresies and external acts are the same for water baptism.
It is the result / fruit/ evidence of true faith (like good works in James 2:14-26), but it does not cause faith or forgiveness. Of course someone should be baptized in a local Biblical church after conversion (repentance and faith).
The principle of the Reformation is true – this statement is in both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession:
“We are justified by faith alone, but true faith does not stay alone.” (It results in baptism, change, growth, church membership, holiness, desire to grow spiritually and continue.)
Thank God for the Reformation!
Well, can you be honest them and stop calling him the one good Pope. Especially when he said that works were part of salvation. I’m assuming that the statement alone was is the biggest offence to reformation theology.
Again, I wrote “bishop of Rome” NOT pope
and “because of the Tome regarding the 2 natures of Christ”
Leo is an EO saint btw so appealing to the EOs won’t refute him.
On the claim that Leo 1 believed in the Immaculate conception of Mary – this does not seem to teach that at all – it is not talking about Mary’s conception at the beginning of her life, it is talking about the conception in her womb as a Mother – that “this one” received purification – that is, that Jesus’ conception was protected / purified – “of her conception” means her ability to conceive in her womb the Son of God, Jesus; he is not jumping back to Mary’s beginning of life.
And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception.
– Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 22, Chapter 3
Can you at least read the article on the immaculate conception that I wrote? I deal with that quote from Leo. Why don’t you actually read his writings and learn from him instead of just copy and pasting from Schaff who is a pseudo-scholar and an enemy of God. Every single quote that I quote is stuff I’ve researched myself. I actually read fathers from cover to cover and makes notes. When you said he was the one good Pope I couldn’t resist and got the notes out. Btw there is plenty more I could have give but I don’t like going over a thousand words per post.
Please read Leo before you comment on him. Remember how you didn’t know that Orange taught baptismal regeneration? You need to actually read these documents.
I did read your article on the Immaculate conception! That is where I got the quote from Leo 1 – from your article. So, I did not “cut and paste”, etc.
how can Schaff be an enemy of God when Vatican 2 theology says the Protestants are just “separated brethren” (accepting their baptism, which post Post Vatican 2 Popes have also said.) ?
It seems you did not read my article “Between Orange and Trent” – I pointed out canon 13 of Orange was wrong. ( Apparently I had not noticed canon 5 at the time, but I did notice Canon 13 )
Again, I wrote “bishop of Rome”, not “Pope”. It is anachronistic for RCs to apply that term with the meaning of “Universal bishop over all other bishops” etc.
But thanks for teaching me more details about Leo 1. Yeah, my respect for him is lessened, if all those things mean what Rome reads into them back into history.
But we can accept things in history as “what happened” and we can discern what is proper and what is wrong, and accept them, warts and all. No one was infallible in history. (except Christ)
we can accept that Leo 1 got it right on the 2 natures of Christ, and wrong on other things.
Believers have discernment, potential and access to the mind of Christ (because of the written word, studied, and the Holy Spirit). 1 Corinthians 2:14-16
All Christians are “saints”, according to the beginning of most all the letters of the apostle Paul, and Hebrews 10:10-14 and many other passages.
“how can Schaff be an enemy of God when Vatican 2 theology says the Protestants are just “separated brethren” (accepting their baptism, which post Post Vatican 2 Popes have also said.) ?”
Schaff isn’t an enemy of God because he’s Protestant. He’s an enemy of God because he spent his whole life lying about Church history and theology. James White would probably be Catholic if it wasn’t for him. I’m going to guess that he’s your number one source on Church history. I hope that you’re coming along with Bede.
“It seems you did not read my article “Between Orange and Trent” – I pointed out canon 13 of Orange was wrong. ( Apparently I had not noticed canon 5 at the time, but I did notice Canon 13 )”
Remember, you brought up this council, not me.
“Again, I wrote “bishop of Rome”, not “Pope”. It is anachronistic for RCs to apply that term with the meaning of “Universal bishop over all other bishops” etc.”
Call him what you want. It doesn’t alter what the ecumenical councils say about his role.
“But thanks for teaching me more details about Leo 1. Yeah, my respect for him is lessened, if all those things mean what Rome reads into them back into history.”
Anytime Ken! You know I love my church history!
He’s an enemy of God because he spent his whole life lying about Church history and theology.
where did he lie about church history and theology?
give specifics.
Amazing, since your RC church (which claims to be infallible) was shown to be built a lot on the forgeries of the “Donation of Constantine”, which was used for centuries to promote Papal authority.
(written in the 700s AD and not discovered as forgery until 1400s)
Well, for one he said that those 7 Popes denied the Immaculate conception. I refuted Pope Leo. William Albrecht has actually refuted several more on the list.
The DOC actually was just collecting dust in a papal archives and was almost completely unknown until the archives were ravaged in the 11th century during the Gregorian reforms. Old documents were surfaced because they were trying to make new canon law. Btw, it has nothing to do with religious authority, it was just a supposed gift of certain areas of Italy. It had to do with politics.
Btw, I’ve noticed this pattern. Those who cannot argue against Papal authority always bring up forgeries even though we never use them to argue and most people throughout history haven’t. I mean, you do bring up the Cyprian thing to your credit at the same time refuse to address the problems with it as I’ve said repeatedly.
Btw, if you found out that the pastor who baptized you believed that Christ resurrected spiritually and not physically would you seek another baptism? I’m not trying to trap you with this question or anything. I just want to know what you’d do since you don’t like Ex Opere Operato.
Those who cannot argue against Papal authority always bring up forgeries even though we never use them to argue and most people throughout history haven’t.
I am reading more and more on that; and without having type out all the details, Popes from the 700s AD onward, used these documents to bolster their power.
“we never use them to argue” – of course not now, since they were exposed, but they were used in the past from 700s onward, in the battles of “Pope vs. Emperor” / Charlemagne 800 AD, etc.
I mean, you do bring up the Cyprian thing to your credit
Thanks for that.
at the same time refuse to address the problems with it as I’ve said repeatedly.
Because it does not matter what later commentators said about that, since it shows 87 area bishops disagreed with Stephen’s audacious and prideful and tyrannical claim (the Council of Carthage called it “tyrannical” ) in 257 or 258 AD. This is very early and shows that the claims of the bishop of Rome were wrong in early history.
We are deeper in history, and bring Newman’s famous statement down.
Btw, if you found out that the pastor who baptized you believed that Christ resurrected spiritually and not physically would you seek another baptism? I’m not trying to trap you with this question or anything. I just want to know what you’d do since you don’t like Ex Opere Operato.
Both the Donatists of the late 300s into 400s and afterward and the violence by some, and the Catholic Church at the time – both sides demonstrated extremes and lack of balance.
There are some aspects of the idea behind “ex opere operato” that are true, but the Roman Church took the principle too far from after the Donatus controversy to the Indulgence controversy in the 16th Century (Tetzel vs. Luther, etc.) the combination of the doctrines and practices around purgatory, treasury of Merit, relics, prayers to icons, statues, visiting graves, praying to the dead, and the simple people being duped that by rubbing something or by the priest saying over words over bread and wine or over them, etc. – the whole idea of that by the physical act and form, somehow spiritual reality is made to happen – this is wrong. You cannot cause something spiritual to happen by something physical. Only God the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit causes things to happen behind scene. The Father revealed to Peter the truth about Christ – Matthew 16:16-18. “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven”. Acts 16:14 – “the Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond to what Paul was preaching.”, etc.
“cleansing their hearts by faith” – Acts 15:9
“not the removal of dirt from the flesh” – 1 Peter 3:21 – it is not the bare ceremony of getting wet, etc. that saves, but “an appeal to God for a good conscience” = true repentance and faith
My baptism would not be annulled by that; as the main reality is my faith in Christ, based on God’s word and promise, in Scripture, (Colossians 2:11-12; Romans 6:1-7; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Matthew 28:18-20) and all the proper teaching about baptism. But I was sprinkled as a baby in a United Methodist Church (similar to most RCCs in history – infant baptism is empty, but Presbyterians and other Peodobaptists – bless their hearts, they are my brothers in Christ, but wrong on that one issue), (Calvin’s view – “sign of entry into the covenant community” was genius.) – my baby baptism – I did not accept that as valid, so after I was converted, I followed the Lord in believer’s baptism and local church membership, which is also what Acts 2:38-42 points to. But if it was in a Mormon Church or Liberal United Methodist, etc. I would seek to be baptized properly. The Anabaptists were right about that, but wrong on their Arminian theology and extreme pacifism.
The United Methodist Church that I was baptized in was also very liberal – later I discovered the pastors did not believe anything miraculous – virgin birth, resurrection, etc. – so not only do I repudiate the baptism I got wet by as a baby, because there was no repentance and faith FIRST, on my part (as Acts 2:38 does teach), but also the rank liberalism also, in my heart and mind, nullified it.
So if John Calvin baptized you as a baby, you’d repudiate it? Keep in mind he wasn’t truly baptized as well according to you.
Yes, I would get baptized as an adult after conversion (after faith and repentance), which is what Acts 2:38 teaches. Baptism follows faith and repentance. Colossians 2:11-12 – “through faith in the working power of God, who raised Jesus from the dead”
Infant baptism is wrong. But we are unified with Presbyterians and other infant baptizers who have the gospel right (vs.RC theology). It is a secondary issue compared to the gospel and justification by faith alone.
Galatians 1:6-9
Galatians 2:16
Romans 3:38
Romans 4:1-16
Romans 5:1
Acts 13:38-39
Philippians 3:9
Ephesians 2:8-9
John 5:24
Romans 8;1
Romans 8:28-34
John 1;12-13
John 3:16
John 11:25
Acts 16:31
You need to investigate why the RCC does not accept Mormon baptism, because they do in the same form. in water and quoting Matthew 28:19, etc.
Ken, I’m not going to waste my time studying Mormon baptisms. I’m too busy studying Scripture and Church history. Maybe you think my priorities should be elsewhere but I disagree.
But hey, if you want to waste your finite time on this Earth researching Mormon baptisms then be my guest.
Ken,
If a Presbyterian who has the correct gospel wanted to convert it your church would you rebaptize him?
If you say yes, you’ve admitted that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and many other of your heroes weren’t baptized.
If a Presbyterian who has the correct gospel wanted to convert it your church would you rebaptize him?
first of all, conversion is to Christ, not to a church or denomination. If the person’s infant baptism was so dear to him that he held the position that it was that “one baptism” in Ephesians 4, but also gave a clear testimony of being converted (faith and repentance), then, I would not force it. If I was the pastor, I would prefer they choose to be rebaptized, and strongly teach it and encourage it and urge it, but I would not force it, if they just cannot handle rejecting their infant baptism and see it as falling into that Ephesians 4 passage of meaning “one time getting baptized”.
If you say yes, you’ve admitted that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and many other of your heroes weren’t baptized.
Some baptists do “force” the issue, but some do not.
If they were in liberal Presbyterian or Lutheran or Anglican church, I would investigate that and press them to be re-baptized. But if it was a good Bible believing church of those groups, then there is no need to force the issue.
So it all depends on the orthodoxy of the minister? After all, liberal and Bible believing Anglican baptisms are identical in form. How is this not Slightly modified Donatism? Yes the issue was different with the Donatists but it ultimately boils down to the beliefs and morals of the baptizer.