Baylyblog's latent Roman Catholicism...

Some man or woman--can't tell by the first name--just sent me the following rebuke:

Dear Tim

Shame on you for praising the Pope!  Your endorsement is now posted on the internet for all to see...

Your endorsement of the pope is an embarrassment to every Bible believer—not to mention the Reformed Presbyterian church. I am disgusted and horrified by your praise for the Pope.


(John or Jane Van der something)

Receiving this as a private e-mail, I thought Baylyblog readers should be warned, also. Beware of Baylyblog's incipient Roman Catholicism! Also our waiting-to-be-born feminist sympathies and secret love for Tupperware.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


In case anyone was concerned that our pastors are closet Roman Catholics here is a link the Christianity Today article on another blog from 2005 (the link on Christianity Today for me is dead) and then here is a link to the baylyblog post that was quoted in the Christianity Today article.

This about as goofy as saying that the LCMS church my sister and her family used to be belong to is in "in bed" with the RC church. Why? Because they believe a ministry to the needy in their city organized by Catholic Charities is run better and gets parishioners from local churches more involved than those sponsored by Lutheran Social Services or the Salvation Army.

Yes, who is this Pope Alexander you quote?  And how did they hide this English pope all these years?  

The reformed church traditionally views the Pope as the Anti-Christ. Jesus said “call no man father, except my father in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) Jesus was talking about the danger of calling someone father in a spiritual sense. The Pope claims to be the Heavenly Father, with the power on earth to forgive sins. This is totally unbiblical and evil. In contrast, 1 Timothy 2:5  tells us that Jesus is our mediator. We don’t need a priest or pope to confess our sins. As you probably already know, the Roman Catholic church also upholds the unbiblical concepts of purgatory, transubstantiation, worshipping idols and graven images, and the list goes on.

If Tim and Joe Bayly are truly Born Again believers, they should not be endorsing the pope and the Catholic church (which isn't Christian at all)

Roman Catholicism: The Cult of Romanism
The King and Queen of All Cults (Second to None)

by Michael Houke

This is it the Granddaddy of all cults, bar none. All the other cults and false religions in the world, combined have nothing on her. No religious entity in history is responsible for putting more Christians to death than the “Harlot of Babylon”. During the “Inquisition” she put to death nearly 900,000 Christian brothers and Sisters of Christ alone. Protestants were put to death in the pope's war to exterminate the Waldenses.

In the Netherlands, over 100,000 were massacred. In St. Bartholomew's
Massacre (August 24, 1572, lasting for five or six days), approximately 50,000 Huguenots were killed; in the Huguenot Wars, 200,000 perished as martyrs, and another 500,000 fled for their lives. In Bohemia, a country with a population of four million by the year 1600, 3.2 million of which were Protestant, only the 800,000 Catholics were left alive by the time the Hapsburgs and Jesuits were through. The list of Catholic burnings and torture of Protestants is almost endless.

The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon.

While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of "bishops" ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse.

The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the "Dark Ages" (500-1500 A.D.). Approximately 313 AD Emperor Constantine established himself as head of the church. He made this new Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal. For those who opposed the new Church of Rome it was declared; “let them be anathema!!

Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.

The Papacy and Priesthood

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church. The Bible teaches that Jesus is our High Priest, not any man or Pope.

The Worship of Mary

They worship Mary as the “Queen of Heaven” They claim she is still a virgin even though scripture reveals that she had other children, brothers and sisters of Jesus. Both James and Jude who wrote epistles in the New Testament were half-brothers of Jesus. This was recognized by the early church Fathers. Rome has her sitting in heaven and making intercession for Christians but the Bible says there is only one mediator between man and God and that is the person of Jesus Christ. They claim that Mary was sinless, this is a lie as the Bible clearly teaches that Mary needed a savior, she even claimed so herself. There is not one Scripture in the entire Bible that teaches the Immaculate Conception of Mary, that she was born without a sin-nature. The truth is that Mary was a dirty, rotten sinner just like you, me, or anyone else (Romans 3:23). The only perfect and sinless human being who ever lived was Jesus Christ, and the Bible makes this very clear (2nd Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). Catholics also foolishly believe that Mary lived a sinless life. Again, this contradicts even the plainest teachings in the Word of God (Romans 3:10). Jesus was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), which excluded Him from having the sin-tainted blood of sinful mankind. Mary on the other hand had an earthly father, and was born with a sin-nature just like Adolf Hitler or any other sinner. Even more absurd is the Catholic dogma that Mary was "assumed" into Heaven, and never died an earthly death. This is simply not in agreement with the Word of God, which states in Hebrews 9:27.


They teach that after a Catholic dies they go to purgatory and that a Christian’s soul must burn in purgatory after death until all their sins have been purged. To speed up the process money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for the early release of that soul. This is taught nowhere in scripture unless you use the “Apocrypha” (1 Maccabees) which have never been considered inspired writings by the Church of Jesus Christ.


This is Rome’s greatest money making scheme ever and the single number one money making scheme in the history of Religion. It is a continual sacrifice of Jesus. At this Mass they teach that the bread and wine taken at communion are changed into the body and blood of Jesus, this is called Transubstantiation. They believe the holy Mass is a literal eating and drinking of the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, that the Priest has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Again this is taught nowhere in scripture but is just another man-made tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.

Image Worship

The Roman Church teaches Image worship. Just take a look around any Catholic Church and observe all the Images in the Sanctuary. Notice that their Jesus is still on the cross. They do not believe that when Jesus said it was finished it was really finished, they believe that you must still do things in order to get to heaven “a salvation by works”.

Salvation by Works

What they teach you must do in order to get to heaven:
1. You must be baptized (Baptismal Regeneration)
2. They also teach that infants must be baptized
3. You must keep the Sacraments
4. You must be a member of the Church (Elitism)
5. You must attend Mass
6. You must pray to Mary
7. You must go to confessional

They do not believe in Grace by Faith alone
They do not believe scripture alone

The Apocrypha

They have added the uninspired Apocrypha books to their Bible which have never been declared inspired writings except by the Catholic Church. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha and the Apocrypha is not referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Errors in the Apocrypha:
1. It condones the use of Magic
2. It teaches Salvation by Works
3. It teaches that money can be offered for the sins of the dead
4. It gives wrong historical facts.

Rome says it never changes, yet that is all that it has done for centuries. A Large portion of rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church are of pagan origin! Next, the list of their man-made, extra biblical, false traditions that they have added to and placed on par or above scripture!

Catholic Heresies and Traditions * Dates are Approximate.

1. 310 Sign of the Cross
2. 310 Prayers for the Dead
3. 320 Wax candles
4. 375 Veneration of Angels
5. 394 The Mass
6. 431 Worship of Mary
7. 526 Extreme Unction
8. 593 Purgatory
9. 600 Prayers directed to Mary
10. 610 The Papacy: Title of Pope
11. 709 Kissing the Pope’s Feet
12. 788 Worship of the cross, images and relics
13. 850 Holy Water
14. 995 Canonization of dead Saints
15. 998 Fasting on Fridays and Lent
16. 1079 Celibacy
17. 1090 The rosary
18. 1184 The Inquisition of Heretics (true Christians)
19. 1190 The Sale of Indulgences
20. 1215 Transubstantiation
21. 1215 Confessional to a Priest
22. 1439 7 Sacraments confirmed
23. 1545 Council of Trent: Tradition declared equal with scripture.
24. 1546 The Apocryphal Books added to scripture
25. 1834 Immaculate Conception of Mary
26. 1870 Papal Infallibility
27. 1930 Condemnation of all Public Schools
28. 1950 Assumption of Mary
29. 1965 Mary proclaimed the Mother of the church

Galatians 1:6-9 teaches us that there is only one Gospel. The Church of Rome has another Gospel all together. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus or Paul ever elude to the fact that man-made traditions are to be placed on par with scripture. In fact Jesus ripped the Pharisees for placing their man-made traditions on an equal plane with scripture. They constantly clashed over love, money, and mercy. And Paul, well Paul was eventually martyred like Jesus for preaching that there is “Only One Gospel”.

The Roman Catholic Church is having its day in the Sun and will continue to do so until the middle of the Tribulation period, this is where Satan (the Antichrist) will turn on the “One World Religion” and the “Blood of the Martyrs” will finally be avenged!!


The Reformers may have seen the pope as "the" antichrist (despite the Bible not actually referring to one person as the one and only antichrist anywhere in its pages) but this is clearly problematic since the RCC, heretical as it is, has been around for more than 1000 years without any of the othr predicted eschatological events predicted actually occuring. So while we can look back at the RCC killing Christians who held to the true gospel, and we can understand why the Reformers would have thought the RCC was the beast, within that historical context, moving ahead many centuries, we can see that this story did not unfold in history as they predicted, and as would have had to occur for your view about the RCC to be true. Some of our Reformed fathers felt that the end would be in their lifetime. If we lived during that period of testing, we might have, too! But they were wrong.

There are many, Biblical reasons to oppose the theology of Roman Catholicism. The eschatological reasons you espouse in your post below are not exegtically founded, despite the original WCF and despite what the Reformers may have taught. Further, the Bayly's are no more cryptic Roman Catholics than you are a cryptic Jehovah's Witness because of your belief in a tribulation period. Guilt by association is not a sound argument, since you are not pinpointing shared, core, distinctive beliefs between different theological systems.

The fact that something admirable can be said about one of the popes is not a wholesale endorsement of RC teaching. Anyone without an axe to grind can see that.

Dear brothers and sisters,

After receiving permission from Tim, I wanted to post the following link to an article from Dr. Ken Gentry, a Reformed theologian who has written extensively about eschatological matters.

The view of the end-times that many of the Reformers held is often referred to as Historicism, and Dr. Gentry addresses some of the exegetical difficulties regarding the application of apocalyptic Biblical passages to the papacy. I believe this short article helps to answer some of the concerns raised by Nicky, so that the heretical teaching of the RCC can be opposed on Biblical grounds, without the over-reaching statements about the RCC being an eschatological figure of prominence in the usually cited passages.

As an aside, I have read several of Dr. Gentry's books, and they are quite edifying.


Nicky, you are so right that inventions should not be allowed into the pure Christian faith. Witness the innovations with which Protestantism has adulterated the Gospel:

AD 90 Sunday worship taught by Didache
AD 180 God first declared as a “Trinity” of three persons by Theophilus
AD 381 Prayer to the Holy Spirit authorized by Council of Constantinople
AD 397 Book of Revelation (till now dubious) proclaimed to be “Scripture”
AD 400 Augustine invents “original sin”
AD 418 Salvation apart from Jesus declared heretical by Pope Zosimus
AD 431 Ephesus declares Mary’s human son to be God himself
AD 525 Calendar for Easter Sunday instituted
AD 950 Invention of Bible in English
AD 1215 Declaration that God created the world “out of nothing”
AD 1455 Scheme for printing the Bible invented by Gutenberg
AD 1760 Singing of “Amazing Grace” instituted by John Newton
AD 1776 Protestant Founders of America downgrade Blessed Trinity to “Nature’s God”
AD 1825 Altar calls instituted by Charles Finney
AD 1863 U.S. government enforces Thanksgiving to God as official state holiday
AD 1864 Mammon worship first authorized by United States government. “In God We Trust” stamped on U.S. money
AD 1900 Light bulbs used in worship services
AD 1929 Wednesday night Bible study invented
AD 1951 Preachers begin to dress in polyester suits
AD 1959 Televangelism instituted by Pat Robertson
AD 1965 “Four Spiritual Laws” promulgated by Bill Bright
AD 1969 Unbiblical phrase “Accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior” popularized
AD 1970 Overhead projectors used in worship service
AD 1978 Abortion declared to be a grave sin by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists
AD 1991 “Promise Keepers” founded on pattern of neo-pagan “men’s groups”
AD 1998 Sale and commercialization of WWJD bracelets
AD 2001 “Faith-based” government founded by George W. Bush.

(David and Tim, you knew I wouldn't be able to stay out of this one.)

I'm having trouble keeping up with all of these lists. Must be my ADHD acting up...


It looks like Nicky may have exposed your "incipient Roman Catholicism" with item 27 on the list of oh-so-terribly-awful Catholic errors:

    27. 1930 Condemnation of all Public Schools

Of course, you haven't condemned all public schools anymore than Pope Pius XI did. However, it is interesting to note that your frequent condemnations of many aspects of modern public schools compares well with what Pius XI wrote almost 73 years ago:

"By nature parents have a right to the training of their children, but with this added duty that the education and instruction of the child be in accord with the end for which, by God's blessing, it was begotten. Therefore it is the duty of parents to make every effort to prevent any invasion of their rights in this matter, and to make absolutely sure that the education of their children remain under their own control in keeping with their Christian duty, and above all to refuse to send them to those schools in which there is danger of imbibing the deadly poison of impiety."

It must be borne in mind also that the obligation of the family to bring up children, includes not only religious and moral education, but physical and civic education as well, principally in so far as it touches upon religion and morality .

This incontestable right of the family has at various times been recognized by nations anxious to respect the natural law in their civil enactments. Thus, to give one recent example, the Supreme Court of the United States of America [in 1925], in a decision on an important controversy, declared that it is not in the competence of the State to fix any uniform standard of education by forcing children to receive instruction exclusively in public schools, and it bases its decision on the natural law: the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty, to educate him and prepare him for the fulfillment of his obligations.

History bears witness how, particularly in modern times, the State has violated and does violate rights conferred by God on the family.

He goes on to write:

Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

Sadly, as much as I would like to claim you as a Catholic based on the items on which we see eye-to-eye, they are probably not quite numerous enough to warrant labeling you "incipient".

Anyway, as a long-past-incipient Catholic myself, I can say that I have always appreciated your forthrightness, both when you are agreeing with the Church and when you are in vehement opposition.

In Christ,


Stephen Baker wrote:

I'm having trouble keeping up with all of these lists. Must be my ADHD acting up...

Me too, Stephen.  Maybe I shouldn't muddy up the waters further by listing Anglican distinctives that could be considered additions to the Gospel. On the other hand, there are probably some items from both Nicky's (Roman Catholic) and Joel's (Protestant) lists to include in the Anglican one.

If anyone would like to dive deeper into the Nicky's list (originally penned by Loraine Boettner in 1962), several items on it are explained in depth here and here.

This page contains an even more comprehensive examination of the list, including items in the original that got edited out or modified sometime in the last 50 years. Here's a small taste:

2. Making the sign of the cross....300.

Again we go back to Tertullian's The Crown of 211 AD: "In all the occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our foreheads with the Sign" [5]. This makes Boettner's date 89 years off.

[5] Jurgens, pg 151.

3. Wax candles, about....320.

The extant Roman record of the execution of Cyprian of Carthage (Acta Proconsularia) indicates that his funeral included the use of candles and torches; this occurred in September of 258, more than 60 years before Boettner's date.

Candles? Torches?? Zoot suit alours!!

What else are they going to use for lights?? Fireflies??

Whoever puts such claptrap in a list (including Loraine Boettner and Nicky) must rename that list My Favorite Claptrap and place his own name in every other entry, beginning with first place.

Fr. Bill,

A hearty Amen to what you wrote.

John Callaghan,

Thanks so much for the links you provided about Loraine Boettner's list.  They sure helped to provide clarification and the facts about many of the items on Boettner's list. For example, anyone who has a problem with unction (anointing of the sick) has a problem with the scripture in the book of James, not the RC church nor any other Christian denomination.


There is one big flaw in those Catholic Answers pages -- they try to dismiss Boettner as a fundamentalist rather than calling him Reformed. No Reformed theologian I've ever heard of prohibits alcohol consumption. Baptists and Fundamentalists prohibit, not Reformed. 

I steer away from most professional apologists because of these sorts of biases. 



The CA pages are mostly excerpts from Karl Keating's 1988 book, "Catholicism and Fundamentalism".  In the preface to that book, Keating explains why he chose the word "Fundamentalist" and how it (or any other label trying to encapsulate a large group of Protestants) is problematic. I suppose he could have used a different label (the subtitle contains the labels, "Romanism", and "Bible Christians"), but the book was targeted to a Catholic audience who knew little or nothing about the difference between Calvinists and Arminians or what "Pentacostal" and "Reformed" mean.

Back in the 80's fundamentalists such as Jimmy Swaggart were aggressively targeting Catholics with misinformation about the Catholic faith. One of their principal sources of misinformation was Boettner's book. Keating's book was directed as an answer to those arguments. The fact that Swaggart and Boettner had very different theologies was not germane to the subject of the Keating's book, which was really much more about Catholic theology than about either Fundamentatist or Reformed theology.

In Christ,


Ah. That makes more sense. 


Oops! I said, ".They sure helped to provide clarification and the facts about many of the items on Boettner's list." I should have said, "...They sure helped to provide clarification and the errors about many of the items on Boettner's list. 


This is Possibly themost laughable accusation I've seen put against you yet, Dad. Congratulations to these guys for upping the ante on ludicrous. I keep wondering why you've spent so much time in the past six months warning us against the heresy of Roman Catholicism. Hmmm...

>>I keep wondering why you've spent so much time in the past six months warning us against the heresy of Roman Catholicism...

Dear Michal,

For the same reason I spend so much time warning against sodomy: I'm a latent homosexual and a latent Roman Catholic.


(Howdy Tim. Check this out - what I ran into on the surprising net.)

          Who Needs Holy Catholics?

  There's already enough holy stuff:

  Holy Father, Holy Mother, Holy Week, Holy Virgin, Holy Water, Holy Orders, Holy Bingo, Holy Savior, Holy Family, Holy Matrimony, Holy Oils, and Holy Communion. So who needs Holy Catholics, especially in politics? 
  The New Testament (Phil. 2:9-11) says that "Jesus" is "a name which is above every name." Since many have viewed Catholicism as a "blasphemous counterfeit" of true Christianity, shouldn't the Pope tell folks in Catholic countries to quit naming their boys "Jesus" and threaten to excommunicate them if they do? Wouldn't this be a step in the right direction?

  (Believe it or not, the above message was inspired by "good Catholics" like Boehner, Biden, Pelosi and Madonna!)

Add new comment