Translate

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Refuting De Maria On Transubstantiation

  • Introduction:
        -Back in the month of April this year, a lay Roman Catholic apologist who goes by the name of De Maria wrote an article responding to a fellow Protestant's objections to the Real Presence doctrine titled "Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God". In his article, he addressed the claim that, "There is no Biblical basis for two separate killings of two different lives (of the lamb and of Jesus) being one sacrifice." Hence, the purpose of this article is to deliver a brief response to his arguments defending the Roman Catholic Mass.

       1.) First, De Maria asserts that God commanding Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice on Mt. Moriah is biblical evidence for the alleged prefiguration of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the New Testament. While we can readily see the typology in these passages of the Book of Genesis in relation to the sacrificial work of our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. carrying wood up on a hill; the exact location of the sacrifice; God providing a lamb for an offering; etc.), we still see no evidence for the Catholic Mass. For the most part, it can be said that God was simply testing Abraham's faithfulness to His will. But the passages of Genesis 22 only provide biblical support for the concept of vicarious atonement, since God provided Abraham a lamb to be offered as a holy sacrifice in the place of his own son. If Genesis 22 was meant to serve as a biblical prefiguration of the Roman Catholic Eucharist, then we should see Isaac being offered repeatedly on an alter (in the same manner as Jesus Christ is supposedly sacrificed on alters in Catholic Churches). But we never see this happening in the Bible. Indeed, Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who's blood was shed on the cross ONCE FOR ALL to redeem mankind from sin.

      2.) Concerning De Maria's comments on the Passover in Exodus 12, we do see the literal sacrifices of sheep. But I don't really see what this Catholic apologist is trying to prove when he refers to these blood of the covenant passages, for all sacrifices that were performed in the Old Testament pointed directly to the one perfect, final sacrifice accomplished by Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Hebrews 10:1). Although we can see many clear examples of typology in Exodus 12 (i.e. the bones of the lamb [symbolizes Christ] not being broken), we have no reason to interpret these passages as being supportive of transubstantiation because they do not say anything about a mysterious transformation in the consecrated elements of the Mass into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. Although the event at Calvary was a one time event, its effects are permanent. The ministerial priesthood of the Old Testament has been replaced by the New Testament universal priesthood of believers under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:24-28; 1 Peter 2:5-9). "Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:18). 

      3.) One of the underlying problems with De Maria's use of Old to New Testament typology in defense of the Catholic Eucharist is the NATURE of the sacrifices. While the sacrifices performed by Roman Catholic priests during the worship ceremonies are "unbloody", all biblical sacrifices were bloody. This is very problematic for De Maria's position because Scripture tells us that without the shedding of blood we cannot have any forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22). Not only does Scripture fail to equate two different sacrifices as being one sacrifice, but we also are never informed about any sort of transition from "bloody" to "unbloody" sacrifices. Thus De Maria has been forced to read utterly foreign ideas into passages of Scripture in order to substantiate any of his points.   

       4.) A lot could be said about De Maria's misuse of John 6:51 as a proof-text for transubstantiation, but this paper was meant to only be a short response to the issues in De Maria's article. The surrounding context of John 6 is about coming to Christ and believing on Him for salvation (i.e. John 6:35; 40). THAT is the meaning of consuming His flesh and blood, nothing more. Jesus said of His words, "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63). Not only would Jesus Christ never violate the Law's restriction on drinking blood (i.e. Genesis 9:5; Leviticus 17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:23), but cannibalism is a sure sign of spiritual apostasy (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Ezekiel 5:10). If Jesus literally meant to eat His literal body and drink His blood in order to obtain eternal life, then His disciples would have done so on the spot! The simple truth of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is totally unbiblical, as well as it is illogical.

Refuting Islam: "The Christian Bible Has Been Corrupted...Only The Koran Has God's Revelation..."

  • How can Muslims claim that the Bible has been corrupted when their own holy book admits to the divine inspiration of the Torah (Sura 2:87), the Psalms (Sura 4:163), and the gospel (Sura 3:3; 5:46)? According to the Koran, the words of Allah cannot be perverted (Sura 6:34; 6:115; 10:64). It follows that the Muslim claim that the Christian Bible has been lost and corrupted is false. If Muslims are going to be consistent with their own argument, then they will have to call Allah a liar.