Does Isaiah 53 Teach Penal Substitution?

        "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. " (Isaiah 53:4-6)

         This text states in cause-and-effect manner that man's sin brought about Christ's suffering. It contains substitutionary language, with Him bearing the consequences of our actions instead of us being dealt with by God for them. He was offered up in the same manner as an unblemished lamb for our sins (1 Peter 1:18-19). His innocent blood was shed on our behalf (1 Peter 3:18). Our sins are forgiven by His wounds, not our own merit (1 Peter 2:24). The Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:7-8 alludes to the humility and humanity of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53:7). The idea of vicarious atonement finds its basis in the sacrifices performed under the Mosaic Law:

         "When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness." (Leviticus 16:20-22)

         Animals paid the price for the sins of the people with their own lives. Similarly, Jesus Christ gave up His life in bearing the penalty for our actions. The animals did nothing to deserve their fate. Thus, they served as an innocent substitute in the place of the offerers. Similarly, Christ did not deserve to die but suffered in our place anyway. Though animal sacrifices temporarily held off the judgment of God, the Levitical sacrificial system pointed to the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1-2). He has the power to spare us from eternal condemnation. Richard L. Mayhue provides this helpful synopsis of Isaiah 53 emphasizing the substitutionary elements contained therein:

         "1. v. 4 - "our griefs He...bore" 2. v. 4 - "our sorrows He carried" 3. v. 5 - "He was pierced... for our transgressions" 4. v. 5 - "He was crushed for our iniquities" 5. v.5 - "by His scourging we are healed" 6. v. 6 - "caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" 7. v. 8 - "He was cut off...for the transgression of my people" 8. v. 11 - "He will bear their iniquities" 9. v. 12 - "He Himself bore the sin of many"

         The people who betrayed Christ and had Him executed thought that He was receiving due punishment for His own crimes. They thought God was exacting justice on Him, even though He was really suffering for the sins of those wounding Him. Jesus was treated unjustly by the Jews for their own benefit, even though they did not realize it. He allowed Himself to undergo undeserved pain in order that we not receive due punishment for our own sins against God. While contrary to human expectations, matters went exactly as God intended them to be. The suffering of this humble Servant is a foundational part of God's plan.

         The New English Translation has this footnote on Isaiah 53:5:

         "tn The preposition מִן (min) has a causal sense (translated “because of”) here and in the following clause. tn Heb “the punishment of our peace [was] on him.” שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace”) is here a genitive of result, i.e., “punishment that resulted in our peace.”sn Continuing to utilize the imagery of physical illness, the group acknowledges that the servant’s willingness to carry their illnesses (v. 4) resulted in their being healed. Healing is a metaphor for forgiveness here."

         It was because of things we did that Jesus Christ suffered. Our own actions resulted in Him bearing the weight of our sins and their penalty. He did this with the intent of restoring us back to a proper relationship with God. Christ died a criminal's death in order that enmity between man and God be resolved. This hostility does not originate from God to us, but us to God. Human nature has a bent of rejecting Him, which accounts for the Jews rejecting their own Messiah.

         The New English Translation has this footnote on Isaiah 53:6:

         "tn Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object—the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack."

         In Isaiah 53:6-7, the imagery of sheep is deployed with a contrasting effect. We are likened to sheep that have strayed from their shepherd. We have stepped out of line and merited for ourselves condemnation by God. The imagery of sheep in this case stresses our rebelliousness to His commandments. Jesus Christ is likened to a sheep that is totally obedient to its master. He obeyed the will of God in every jot and tittle. He was obedient even to the point of death. The imagery of sheep in this case emphasizes the humility and gentleness of Christ.

How Catholic Apologists Deal With The Thief On The Cross

• Discussion:

          -Catholic Nick wrote an article in an attempt to rebut the common citation of Luke 23:39-43 as a proof text for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The author briefly comments on the potential faith background of the thief, grasps at straws by saying that nowhere is personal faith brought up, and other issues. Following are excerpts from Nick along with a critique of his assertions:

          "We don’t know his faith background, e.g., if he was ever baptized in the past or if this was his first time meeting Jesus. His prayer “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom” shows he had some knowledge of the Gospel, since no such “kingdom” details are given in this passage."

          It is doubtful that the thief would have been baptized if he continued living as a thief, a crime for which he was being punished. By the way, folks who say that the criminal did not need to be baptized due to being under the Old Covenant would simultaneously argue that Nicodemus needed baptism in order to be justified (John 3:5), who was also under the Old Covenant. That is a glaring logical inconsistency.

          "Terms such as ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ are not used in this passage, so there’s no reason to think ‘faith alone’ is even the focus, just as the Parable of the Pharisee & Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14) doesn’t use such terms, but rather highlights the virtue of “humility”.

          What good works did the thief on the cross do for salvation? Further, the words “faith” and “belief” do not need to be specifically mentioned in order for such to be present. The way that the thief spoke to Christ implies that he had faith in what He proclaimed. While the convict did have a penitent heart, all that we see from the context is him placing his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Humility is not a work, but a state of heart.

          As for the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Christ was clearly addressing self-righteous individuals. The tax collector humbly trusted in God for justification, whereas the Pharisee relied on his own efforts to please Him. The first went home justified, whereas the latter was not. This parable is obviously about justification and the forgiveness of God.

          "In fact, we see a range of virtues being expressed here, including ‘Fear of the Lord’ (23:40; cf Prov 1:7), Repentance (which Jesus distinguishes from belief, see Mark 1:5), Warning Sinners (2 Thess 3:14b), Public Professing (John 10:42; Rom 10:10b), as well as Hope of going to Heaven and certainly Love for Jesus. The thief was even willing to suffer and die for his own sins, not to be freed from them, which means he carried his own cross (Lk 9:23). So this was *far from* faith alone."

          God has not prescribed the various things listed by the author as being requirements for getting a right standing with God. Repentance from sin is not a work, but an expression of faith. It presupposes faith and stems from it. Only one whose heart has been changed by the grace of God would exhibit fear of Him. These things are inextricably associated with justification before God, but they do not make up its essence. It appears some sort of a watered-down concept of faith has been attacked.

          "This was a unique situation, it isn’t the norm for how people typically accept the Gospel (see Acts for the norm), and as such it has its limits. For example, Jesus had not yet Resurrected, Ascended, or sent the Holy Spirit yet, so Dismas probably didn’t profess faith in these, whereas these aspects of Jesus’ mission are required for us to profess (Rom 10:9b). Even the command to “baptize all nations” wasn’t even given until *after* Jesus resurrected (Matt 28:19), so pointing to this as an example of ‘not needing baptism’ is kind of moot."

          The "norm" that we observe in the New Testament is people believing on the gospel before getting baptized. In fact, there are over one hundred instances of the word faith being used in the New Testament, and none of them bring up the doing of good works to earn a right standing before God.

            "Plus, can we take this one example as an excuse to ‘not really have to’ obey the many teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, including getting baptized, gathering to worship with others, being subject to your pastor, sharing our possessions, etc?"

           This is a complete distortion of what Sola Fide means. Obedience to God is done out of love for Him and gratitude for His atonement sacrifice for us. The heart of a saved person is transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit.

A Biblical Showstopper For Catholic Eucharistic Theology

Introduction:

The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that during the mass, the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. This transformation is said to occur under the appearance of bread and wine, while their substance becomes Christ Himself, body, blood, soul, and divinity. While this belief is central to Catholic worship, it faces serious theological challenges when examined in light of Scripture, particularly Acts 17:24–31.

In this passage, the Apostle Paul addresses the philosophers of Athens with a sweeping declaration of God’s transcendence, self-sufficiency, and spiritual nature, a declaration that stands in stark contrast to the idea of God being localized or physically consumed through ritual.

God Is Not Contained Or Controlled:

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything…” (Acts 17:24–25)

Paul’s words dismantle any theology that suggests God can be summoned, manipulated, or made present through human ritual. The Roman Catholic claim that a priest can consecrate bread and wine into the literal presence of Christ implies that God responds to human action in a way that contradicts Paul’s teaching. If God is not served by human hands, then He is not dependent on liturgical formulas or priestly invocations to manifest Himself.

This passage is not merely a rejection of pagan temple worship. It is a sweeping theological statement about the nature of divine presence. Paul presents a God who is radically independent of human mediation, who “gives everyone life and breath and everything else.” To suggest that God’s presence is triggered by ritual action reverses this relationship, making the creature the initiator of the Creator’s manifestation.

The Divine Nature Is Not Material:

“We ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by human skill and imagination.” (Acts 17:29)

This verse challenges the notion that God can be physically present in created elements. Bread and wine are tangible, earthly substances, crafted by human hands and subject to decay. To claim that these elements become the full presence of Christ equates the divine with material form, a concept that the Apostle Paul explicitly rejects.

Roman Catholic theology attempts to resolve this tension through Aristotelian metaphysics, distinguishing between “substance” and “accidents.” Yet this explanation introduces a philosophical framework foreign to Scripture. Paul appeals to the universal intelligibility of God’s nature, not to hidden metaphysical categories that require philosophical decoding. Why should a first-century Jewish audience understand Jesus’ words through a fourth-century Greek lens?

Moreover, Acts 17 presents a God who “commands all people everywhere to repent,” not a God who hides behind appearances. Transubstantiation introduces a kind of sacramental opacity, where what appears to be bread must be believed to be Christ, despite all sensory evidence to the contrary. This stands in tension with Paul’s emphasis on clarity and accessibility in divine revelation.

Symbolism, Not Transformation:

Catholics often cite Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, “This is my body… This is my blood,” as evidence for a literal transformation. However, Jesus frequently used metaphorical language (“I am the door,” “I am the vine”), and He was physically present when He spoke those words. The bread and wine served as symbols of His impending sacrifice, not as transformed substances.

The eucharistic elements do not become Jesus Christ, but an image of Himself. They are only an earthly depiction of the divine. This point is a springboard for a separate objection: if the bread and wine remain materially unchanged, then the act of worship directed toward them becomes indistinguishable from the kind of image-veneration Paul condemns.

Since the bread and wine are still bread and wine in substance, then worshiping them constitutes a form of idolatry. Paul’s warning in Acts 17:29 against thinking “the divine being is like gold or silver or stone” could just as easily be paraphrased: “or bread and wine.” The theological implication is unavoidable: worship directed toward created elements, however well-intentioned, violates the very nature of God’s transcendence.

The Spirit Of Christmas Present

"Good Spirit,' he pursued, as down upon the ground he fell before it:' Your nature intercedes for me, and pities me. Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life.'

The kind hand trembled.'

I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone.'

In his agony, he caught the spectral hand. It sought to free itself, but he was strong in his entreaty, and detained it. The Spirit, stronger yet, repulsed him.

Holding up his hands in a last prayer to have his fate aye reversed, he saw an alteration in the Phantom's hood and dress. It shrunk, collapsed, and dwindled down into a bedpost."

A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens; Stave 4: The Last of the Spirits, pages 10-11

A Biblical Critique Of The New Apostolic Reformation

Defining The Issues:

A powerful and controversial movement has taken root within global Christianity, one that claims to be the vanguard of a new spiritual age. Known as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), this movement asserts that God has restored the offices of apostle and prophet to the church in order to bring about the transformation of society and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. Its ideological architect, C. Peter Wagner, envisioned a post-denominational Christianity led by charismatic leaders who receive direct revelation from God and wield spiritual authority over nations, institutions, and cultures.

Though not a formal denomination, the NAR is a sprawling network of independent churches and ministries united by a shared dominionist theology. Its adherents believe that the fall of man resulted in the forfeiture of dominion over the earth, and that Christ’s redemptive work was not merely salvific but also restorative in terms of earthly authority. This theology, often referred to as "Seven Mountain Mandate" teaching, calls for Christians to reclaim control over seven spheres of influence: religion, family, education, government, media, arts and entertainment, and business. The goal is not simply to evangelize but to conquer, not merely to disciple but to dominate.

The movement has gained significant traction in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, regions where rapid church growth has often outpaced theological depth. It has even infiltrated established denominations, such as the Assemblies of God in Australia, blurring the lines between classical Pentecostalism and neo-charismatic innovation. The NAR’s mission extends far beyond preaching the gospel or making disciples; it seeks to establish a global theocracy under the spiritual governance of modern-day apostles and prophets.

Apostolic Authority: A Closed Canon And A Completed Foundation:

The NAR’s central claim, that the offices of apostle and prophet have been restored, is a direct challenge to the historic understanding of ecclesial authority. Scripture teaches that the apostles and prophets were foundational to the church, not perpetual offices to be revived at will. Ephesians 2:20 states that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The word “foundation” implies a once-for-all laying down of doctrinal groundwork. Foundations are not repeatedly laid; they are established once to support the superstructure.

In Ephesians 4:11–13, Paul writes that Christ “gave” apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers for the equipping of the saints. The verb tense used here indicates a completed action in the past. The apostles and prophets were given to the early church to establish doctrine and bear witness to the resurrection (Acts 1:21–22; 1 Corinthians 9:1). Their role was unique and unrepeatable. Paul himself, in 1 Corinthians 15:8, refers to himself as the “last” of the apostles, underscoring the finality of the apostolic witness.

Moreover, the qualifications for apostleship are clearly delineated in Scripture. An apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ and personally commissioned by Him (Galatians 1:1). Paul’s apostleship was validated by his direct encounter with the risen Lord and by the miraculous signs that accompanied his ministry (2 Corinthians 12:12). No modern claimant to apostleship can meet these criteria. The canon of Scripture is closed, and with it, the apostolic office has ceased.

Prophetic Claims And The Test Of Scripture:

The NAR’s prophetic wing is equally problematic. Its prophets claim to receive ongoing revelation from God, often in the form of dreams, visions, and impressions. Yet Scripture provides stringent tests for prophetic authenticity. Deuteronomy 18:22 declares that if a prophet’s word does not come to pass, it is not from the Lord. The standard is 100% accuracy. Even a single failed prophecy disqualifies the prophet. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 13 warns that even if a sign or wonder accompanies a prophecy, if the message leads people away from the true God, it is to be rejected. The content of the message must align with revealed truth. Isaiah 8:20 affirms that if a prophet does not speak according to God’s Word, there is no light in him.

The New Testament also urges discernment. Paul commands believers to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and the Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures daily to verify Paul’s teaching (Acts 17:11). The NAR, by contrast, often discourages scrutiny, promoting a culture of spiritual elitism in which apostles and prophets are above question. This authoritarianism is antithetical to the New Testament model of mutual accountability and doctrinal fidelity. Isaiah 8:20 affirms that if a prophet does not speak according to God’s Word, there is no light in him. The NAR’s prophets often issue vague, ambiguous, or failed predictions, and their teachings frequently deviate from biblical doctrine, emphasizing personal empowerment, political conquest, and mystical experiences over repentance, faith, and holiness.

The Old Testament provides further criteria for evaluating prophetic legitimacy, and these criteria are devastating to the claims of the NAR. First, if a prophetic utterance fails to come to pass, the prophet is false—regardless of charisma, sincerity, or accompanying signs. Second, if the content of the prophecy contradicts previously revealed truth, it is to be rejected outright, even if the prophet performs miracles. In the context of Deuteronomy, this included leading Israel to worship other gods, but the principle applies broadly: any deviation from God’s Word is a disqualifier. Third, the moral character of the prophet must be consistent with the office. A true prophet is marked by humility, integrity, and reverence for God, not self-promotion or manipulation. Finally, the message of a true prophet exalts God, not the prophet. False prophets draw attention to themselves, demand allegiance, and often build personal empires. These biblical standards expose the spiritual bankruptcy of the NAR’s prophetic movement. There are no well-documented, verifiable prophecies or miracles that validate their ministries. Their utterances are often vague, subject to reinterpretation, and devoid of theological substance. If Scripture is already the complete revelation of God, then the need for new prophets and apostles is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. 

The Kingdom of God Is Not Of This World:

Perhaps the most egregious error of the NAR is its redefinition of the kingdom of God. Jesus declared unequivocally, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). This statement affirms that Christ’s reign is spiritual, not political. The kingdom is not built through legislation, cultural dominance, or institutional control. It is manifested in the hearts of believers through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Luke 17:20–21).

The NAR’s dominionist agenda conflates the church’s mission with political activism and cultural conquest. But the Great Commission is not a mandate to seize power; it is a call to make disciples of all nations through the proclamation of the gospel (Matthew 28:18–20). The early church did not transform the Roman Empire through legislation or revolution but through suffering, witness, and love. The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:4).

The mission of the church is not to bring heaven to earth through human effort but to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection, as the only hope for salvation. The kingdom of God advances not through coercion but through conversion. It is the Spirit who regenerates hearts, not apostles who legislate morality.

Scripture Alone Is The Final Authority

The sufficiency of Scripture is a bedrock doctrine of the Christian faith. Paul writes that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). This affirms the divine origin and authority of Scripture. It is not merely inspired; it is the very voice of God. To claim ongoing revelation is to imply that Scripture is insufficient, that God’s Word needs supplementation by fallible human impressions.

The NAR’s embrace of the Passion Translation, a paraphrase riddled with theological bias and lacking scholarly rigor, is emblematic of its disregard for biblical fidelity. By altering the text to fit its agenda, the movement undermines the clarity, authority, and trustworthiness of Scripture. This is not reformation; it is deformation.

A Call To Discernment:

The New Apostolic Reformation is not a harmless renewal movement. It is a theological Trojan horse, smuggling in doctrines and practices that erode the foundations of biblical Christianity. It redefines apostolic authority, distorts the nature of prophecy, politicizes the mission of the church, and undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. Its influence is growing, particularly in the Global South, where explosive church growth is often accompanied by shallow theology and susceptibility to charismatic authoritarianism.

The church must respond with clarity and courage. We must recover a robust doctrine of Scripture, a biblical understanding of the church, and a Christ-centered vision of the kingdom. We must test every spirit, examine every teaching, and hold fast to the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The gospel is not a call to cultural conquest but to spiritual transformation. Christ alone is King, and His Word alone is our final authority.

Answering The Mormon Claim Of Total Apostasy

• Introduction: 

          -Mormonism is a religious sect that was founded by Joseph Smith in the woods of Palmyra, New York, in the year 1820. He claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him to establish a completely new church. In other words, he had visions that gave him allegedly new revelations to restore the church back to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. The loss of divine truth is said to have occurred sometime after their deaths. The Mormon church was officially recognized in 1830.

          -Smith claimed that the "Angel Moroni" gave him some golden "Nephi Plates" so that he could translate them into English. This religious text is known as the Book of Mormon. The three other religious texts used by the Mormons are the King James Version, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. The underlying assumption of Mormonism is that the entire Christian church has gone totally astray. The message of the Bible has been corrupted and lost, to be trusted (to borrow a Mormon phrase) only "as far as it is translated correctly."

• Examining Claims Of Total Apostasy In Light Of Biblical Teaching:

          -If Mormonism is correct in claiming a total apostasy, then Jesus’ promises in Matthew 16:18 and 28:20, and Paul’s declaration in Ephesians 3:21, must be false, which would make God a liar, an unthinkable conclusion for any Christian. Jesus explicitly said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and that He would be with it always, even to the end of the age. Paul affirmed that God would be glorified in the church throughout all generations, world without end. These are not vague spiritual sentiments. They are declarations of divine continuity and protection. To assert that the church ceased to exist for over 1,700 years until Joseph Smith restored it is to deny the very words of Christ and the enduring work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture consistently shows that God preserves a faithful remnant, not through reinvention, but through continuity. The Mormon narrative of total apostasy and restoration contradicts the biblical witness and undermines the trustworthiness of God’s promises.

          -While the apostles spoke of the coming of false teachers, they nowhere spoke of a total apostasy. It is one thing to say that the church became unrecognizably dirty throughout history, but it is another to claim that the church essentially disappeared from the face of the earth.
          -His Word endures forever, unlike the things of man (Isaiah 40:8; Proverbs 30:5-6; 1 Peter 1:23-25). The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). The Word of God has not been lost, corrupted, or forgotten. Divine providence rules out that possibility. 

          -Those who present strange doctrine are to be deemed heretics (1 Timothy 1:3-4; 2 John 9-11), of which the Mormons teach several science fiction sounding ideas. Further, angelic visions are not an acceptable method of drawing attention to oneself (Colossians 2:18).

          -The Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 wrote a categorical condemnation of any different gospels that could arise during his lifetime or in the future after his death. He even issued an anathema to angels who could theoretically arrive to preach differently from the doctrine originally delivered by the apostles. 

          -So, even granting that Joseph Smith had an encounter with the Angel Moroni, Mormonism is a false religion because it preaches a different message of salvation. According to Paul, another gospel is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-7). The gospel never needed to be restored because it was not lost to begin with.

• Examining Claims Of Total Apostasy In Light Of History:

          -When did the Christian church go into the state of total apostasy? If this happened, one should be able to chronicle the steps at which it took place and how it happened. One should be able to refer to established facts, writings, history, etc. However, this has never been done successfully by Joseph Smith or Mormon apologists.  

          -The New Testament is supported by thousands of different manuscripts and manuscript fragments. Further, a creed summarizing the gospel message that the Apostle Paul recounted in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 has been dated back to the first century. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles have not been lost or altered, disproving the claims of Mormonism.
          -Why would Mormons use the Bible at all, since they maintain that the whole of Christianity became irredeemably corrupt after the first century and the canon was assembled by an (allegedly) apostate church? Which parts of the Bible have been corrupted?

A Micro-Refutation Of Mormonism

• Discussion:

          -Joseph Smith claimed to have received divine revelation from God to establish a new sect that possesses the fullness of lost truth. This encounter has been described as a face to face dialogue between a so-called prophet, God the Father, and God the Son. Consider the words spoken by God to Moses during the journey to the Promised Land:

          "And he said, Please, show me Your glory. Then He said, I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But He said, You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live. And the Lord said, Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:18-23, emphasis added)

           No man in his present condition can look into the fullness of God's glory and survive. God cannot be looked at by the eyes of a sinful mortal. Moreover, the New Testament tells us that no man alive on this earth has seen God the Father:

          "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." (John 1:18)

          "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." (1 John 4:12)

          The mere fact that Joseph Smith came out of the woods of Palmyra, New York, testifies to the falseness of his claims. He certainly would not have been able to walk and talk in his flesh. Thus, he is a liar and a deceiver. Smith received no divine revelation.

Is The Watchtower Society Correct In Asserting That Jesus Was Created?

          The following excerpt from a Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower publication outlines their view of Christ’s origin and role in creation:

          “God created Jesus before creating Adam. In fact, God created Jesus and then used him to make everything else, including the angels.”

          This claim—that Jesus is a created being who assisted God in creation—stands in stark contrast to the testimony of the Old Testament. Scripture affirms that God alone is the Creator, unaided by any part of the created order:

          “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: I am the Lord, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.” (Isaiah 44:24)

          Here, God explicitly declares that He created the universe by Himself. No subordinate being, no intermediary, no created helper participated in the act of creation. He is both the source and the agent of all that exists.

          Malachi 2:10 reinforces this truth:

          “Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created us?”

          The biblical Creator is unique—set apart from the false gods of the nations. He alone is worthy of covenantal faithfulness and worship.

          If Jesus were merely a created being, as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, then He could not have participated in creation. Yet Scripture teaches that He did.

          “For by Him all things were created—in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him.” (Colossians 1:16)

          This verse does not describe a created agent assisting God. It identifies Jesus as the Creator Himself. He is not part of creation—He is the origin of it. He sustains all things by the power of His word (Hebrews 1:3), a divine prerogative.

          Further evidence of Christ’s divinity is found in the messianic prophecy of Zechariah 12:10, where God declares:

          “They will look on Me whom they have pierced.”

          In the New Testament, this prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus’ crucifixion (John 19:36–37; Revelation 1:7). Isaiah 53:5 also foretells that the Messiah would be “pierced for our transgressions.” The implication is profound: the one who was pierced is none other than God Himself. But God, being spirit, cannot be pierced—unless He takes on human flesh.

          This is the mystery and majesty of the incarnation. Jesus Christ is not a created being. He is God in the flesh—the eternal Son, coequal with the Father, and the Creator of all things.

A Problem For Roman Catholic Mariology

The Roman Catholic Church teaches two dogmas about Mary: that she was conceived without original sin (the Immaculate Conception) and that she remained a virgin for her entire life (the Perpetual Virginity). These doctrines are held as essential truths. However, when examined together in light of Scripture, they present a theological contradiction.

In 1 Corinthians 7:2–5, the Apostle Paul commands that spouses must not deprive one another of sexual intimacy, except temporarily and by mutual agreement for spiritual purposes. He states that each spouse has authority over the other’s body and that withholding intimacy invites temptation and sin. This is not presented as optional advice. It is a moral directive grounded in the nature of marriage.

If Mary and Joseph were truly married, and Mary permanently withheld sexual intimacy, then by Paul’s standard, she violated the moral obligations of marriage. That would constitute sin. But Catholic doctrine insists that Mary was sinless. Therefore, one of two conclusions must follow:

• Mary was not sinless, which contradicts the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
• Mary was not truly married to Joseph in the full sense, which contradicts Scripture and tradition.

Or, Paul’s moral directive does not apply to Mary and Joseph, which undermines the universality of apostolic teaching.

To affirm both dogmas simultaneously, one must carve out an exception to Paul’s teaching, an exception not found in the text itself. This requires assuming that Mary and Joseph had a unique, divinely ordained marriage exempt from normal moral obligations. But such an assumption is theological special pleading: it introduces an exception to resolve a contradiction without scriptural support.

Therefore, the tension remains unresolved. Either Mary sinned by withholding what Paul calls a marital duty, or she did not remain perpetually virgin. Both cannot be true without redefining either sin or marriage in a way that departs from the ordinary meaning of Scripture.

Is Your Sin Beyond The Forgiveness Of God?

        There are Christians who feel burdened and disheartened in their journey of faith as a result of previous shortcomings in their lives. There are those who feel guilty on a constant basis for sins committed in the past, seemingly unable to find comfort in the forgiveness that God provides. There are people who feel hopeless, utterly beyond the point of redemption. Further, the reality that we cannot change our past can be a difficult one to accept. That haunts the minds of certain people. It is also a basic fact of life that all decisions we make have consequences. However, this does not mean that all hope for us is lost. We must take responsibility for bad choices made by us rather than make excuses to justify them or shift the blame on to other people or things.

        We do have the present moment in life. That is the mode in which we all operate. Any vague notion about hope for the future is nothing but an empty delusion without a focus on the here and now, with single steps being taken at a realistic pace. Eternity is to be our biggest focus, in which God guides and shows grace to us. The deliverance that He gives from sin is complete, and without cost to us. We must trust God at His word. Our problem is sin, which is rebellion against Him who made us. It cannot simply be pushed aside or ignored. Sinners must either receive forgiveness from God or face divine judgment. That is the reason Christ came to this earth. He died for our sins. Consider the words of King David in the Psalms:

         "The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever; he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust." (Psalm 103:8-14)

         Those words came from a man who was guilty of adultery and murder. To be "slow to anger" means to not speedily express wrath. God gives people time to repent of sin. When God is said to "abound in love," it means His love exists in great quantity and makes itself known in action. If God did not have compassion for sinners, then He would not have spared the Israelites who repeatedly turned against Him. He would have destroyed David the instant that he sinned, and had every right to do so. God would simply not pardon our iniquity. He is not under obligation to save us. Nobody is deserving of His salvation. The mercy of God has no limits. 

          Jesus Christ came to earth so that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness could live life more abundantly (John 10:10). The kind of life that we experience in Him is a higher quality of life. It is spiritual life that God gives. It is not a matter of having millions of dollars in the bank or living in a mansion. Countless believers throughout history, the apostles included, did not have access to earthly comforts or luxuries. We must turn not to ourselves, but to God who resurrects the dead (2 Corinthians 1:9). If one is still struggling with how God could possibly forgive his sins after reading all this, then he needs to consider the notorious example of the Apostle Paul:

         "I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life." (1 Timothy 1:12-16)

         If Paul, who even had put to death God's own people, could be saved, then so can anybody else who calls upon His name. If God can forgive two murderers (i.e. King David and the Apostle Paul), then He certainly has the power to forgive more. There is no such thing as a cut off point for the mercies of God, except physical death. As long as there is life, there hope remains. It was that same man who uttered these refreshing words:

         "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)

         If this kind of a description of the love of God does not suffice to remove doubt from a man's heart, then nothing else will. It is safe to assume that he has no faith in Him. The Apostle Paul exhausted the words of his finite vocabulary in an effort to convey to readers the depth of God's love for sinners. Things cannot be broken down any further than they have.

A Study On The Jewishness Of Jesus Christ's Atonement

In The Old Testament, Animals Were Offered For The Sins Of God's People:

• "Then to the sons of Israel you shall speak, saying, ‘Take a male goat for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both one year old, without defect, for a burnt offering." (Leviticus 9:3)

Animal sacrifices were a crucial part of the Old Testament law, serving as a tangible representation of atonement for sin. The offerings needed to be without defect, symbolizing the purity required to approach a holy God.

Jesus Christ Offered Himself As A Sacrifice Once For Our Sins:

• "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:12)

• "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

Christ’s sacrifice marked a pivotal shift from the Old Covenant to the New. Unlike the repeated animal sacrifices, His single offering was sufficient to atone for all humanity's sins, signifying eternal redemption.

The Animal Sacrifices Of The Old Testament Were To Be Unblemished:

• "Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats." (Exodus 12:5)

• "and he said to Aaron, “Take for yourself a calf, a bull, for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering, both without defect, and offer them before the Lord." (Leviticus 9:2)

These unblemished animals prefigured Christ's purity. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices needed to be perfect, Christ, as the final sacrifice, was without sin.

Christ Is The Final Unblemished Sacrifice For The Sins Of Mankind:

• "knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (1 Peter 1:18-19)

Christ’s unblemished life and sacrificial death fulfilled the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, offering redemption that surpasses earthly possessions.

The Animal Sacrifices Of The Old Testament Were Peace Offerings:

• "Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he stepped down after making the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings." (Leviticus 9:22)

Peace offerings were a form of fellowship and gratitude towards God, symbolizing reconciliation and harmony with the Divine.

The Lord Jesus Christ Is Our Peace Offering:

• "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God." (Romans 5:1-2)

• "For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (Colossians 1:19-20)

Through Christ, believers find ultimate peace with God. His sacrifice is the means by which reconciliation is achieved, ensuring eternal peace.

The Blood Of Animals In The Sacrifices Served As A Temporary Covering For Sin:

• "And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." (Leviticus 17:10-11)

• "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off." (Leviticus 17:14)

The life contained in the blood was critical in the sacrificial system. It provided a means for temporary atonement, foreshadowing the eternal atonement through Christ's blood.

The Shedding Of Blood Was Foundational To The Entire Levitical System:

• "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22)

The necessity of bloodshed for atonement was a central tenet of the Levitical system, underscoring the gravity of sin and the price of redemption.

Insightful Comments On The Shedding Of Blood And The Law:

• "Even though the Law does mention some cleansing rites apart from sacrifice (for example, Num. 19:11–12), we must remember that once a year, on the Day of Atonement, blood was offered for the sins of the entire nation (Lev. 16). As such, all of the cleansing rites of the old covenant were subsumed under the absolute necessity of a blood sacrifice once every year. Likewise, the grain offerings that in some cases could atone for sin were ultimately effectual only because of this annual, “bloody” event. The shedding of blood was absolutely necessary for atonement under the old covenant, and, as we are to infer from these verses, death is also absolutely necessary for atonement in the new covenant." (https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/without-blood)

These comments emphasize the indispensable role of blood in the sacrificial system, pointing to the ultimate necessity of Christ's sacrificial death under the New Covenant.

Offerings In The Old Testament Produced "Pleasing Aromas" (A Theme Of Propitiation) To The Lord:

• "Present with this bread seven male lambs, each a year old and without defect, one young bull and two rams. They will be a burnt offering to the LORD, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings—a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the LORD." (Leviticus 23:18)

The pleasing aroma of the offerings symbolized God's acceptance and the propitiatory nature of the sacrifices.

Christ's Sacrifice Had A "Pleasing Aroma" To God:

• "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." (Ephesians 5:1-2)

Christ’s sacrificial love is described as a fragrant offering, signifying God’s pleasure and acceptance of His atonement.

Just As The Blood Of Lambs and Goats Were Offered For The Sins of Israel In The Old Testament, So Jesus Christ Had His Blood Shed For The Sins Of Mankind:

• "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28)

• "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)

Jesus, the Lamb of God, fulfills the sacrificial system’s ultimate purpose, offering His blood for the forgiveness of sins, not just for Israel, but for all humanity.

The Fraudulent Nature Of The Charismatic Movement

"If these faith healers have the same ability as the apostles, why do they do their “healings” in church buildings, in front of people who already believe? Signs are given for unbelievers; Christians do not need to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ—they already believe.

Why don’t modern faith healers do what Christ and the apostles did and perform a public healing on someone that everyone knows is crippled? The answer is simple: they can’t.

If miraculous healings were still occurring today, it would be very easy to prove. Anyone could take a camcorder to the healing crusade and film the miracle for all to see. But why is this not happening?

If Charismatics were healing crippled legs, withered hands, cut-off ears, blind eyes, deaf ears, palsy, hemorrhages, etc., like Christ and the apostles, they would be on the nightly news, 60 Minutes and 20/20. Sadly, the only Charismatic faith healers who make the news are there because of fraud, adultery, theft, prostitution, and the like.

If Charismatic healers could raise the dead, like Christ and the apostles, then they could prove it by doing it in front of a large group of witnesses."

Brian M. Schwertley, The Charismatic Movement: A Biblical Critique, p. 33-36

The Charismatic Movement Violates 1 Corinthians 14

"There is often speaking in "tongues" without proper interpretation (contrary to 1 Corinthians 14:28); unless this requirement is met, it does absolutely nothing to edify the church (14:4-5). The biblical requirement of speaking in turn is frequently not observed (14:27-30); rather, a number of individuals speak at the same time (this lapse in proper church order is inexcusable, for "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets," 14:32)."

Brian M. Schwertley, The Charismatic Movement: A Biblical Critique, p. 20

Does Protestantism Have A Problem With Subjectivity?

• Discussion:

          -Leila Miller wrote an article attempting to illustrate how the concept of Sola Scriptura is unworkable, resulting in hopeless doctrinal confusion and disorder. The author characterizes non-Catholic interpretations of biblical texts as being inherently relativistic, since they do not originate from an infallible teaching authority that issues decrees for everyone else to obey. This seems to be a fairly lopsided defense of Rome's authority and how it works. Following are excerpts from Miller in bold letters along with a critique of those assertions:

          "...this new paradigm of each Christian interpreting Scripture for himself means that there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are Protestants. As you can imagine, this leads to a host of problems for a religion that exists to proclaim Truth."

          The biblical authors intended that their writings be used in instructing believers while absent (Romans 15:4; 2 Corinthians 13:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:14-15). We have no other source to turn to but them today, since the apostles and prophets have all passed away. With that being said, some parts of Scripture are more complex and require in-depth study. Sometimes we may even need other people to explain passages to us. However, that does not require a person to have some ability to infallibly interpret Scripture. The Bereans serve as a historical example of individual interpretation without an infallible authority to guide them (Acts 17:11-12). Therefore, individualized examination of Scripture to find out its meaning is not a "new paradigm."

           The New Testament church embraced a unity that allowed for cultural and practical diversity. Jewish and Gentile believers differed on food laws, holy days, and customs, yet were united in Christ. This model of unity, centered on the gospel rather than institutional uniformity, remains a powerful witness. True unity is forged not by coercion but by shared faith, mutual love, and the work of the Spirit in the community of believers. The unity that Christ prayed for is not found in stiff and unyielding institutional allegiance, but in shared life in Him. Unity is a fruit of the Spirit, not a product of ecclesiastical control. The gospel, justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, is the true center of Christian fellowship. This unity transcends denominational lines and reflects the spiritual reality of the one body of Christ.

          "Protestants will tell you that sincere Christians can find the Truth easily, because the "Scriptures are clear" -- and yet Protestants cannot seem to agree on even the essentials of salvation."

          It is a fact there are disagreements that are peripheral and tertiary in nature. Some of those issues are both philosophical and exegetical. For example, the debate in regards to the nature of predestination is one that can be traced back to the days of Augustine. It has not even at this point in time been dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church. Further, anyone who takes even a cursory glance at various historic Protestant creeds knows that there are hardly any differences on the essentials of salvation. Finally, there is the possibility that people reject what Scripture says in spite of its "clear" teaching. That the dogmas of Rome have been laid out in a systematic fashion, does not by itself prove anything. Any group can do the same with its own teachings. Therefore, the Magisterium is by no means the silver bullet it has been made out to be. A centralized authority can enforce uniformity, but that does not ensure that the beliefs held are true or reflect the apostolic faith.

          "Catholics, thankfully, don't have that headache. We know what the Church teaches on every issue that touches on salvation, because Tradition has been handed down intact throughout the centuries, both written and orally, and those teachings are accessible to all."

          This reasoning sounds good in theory, but has not proven itself to be effective in real life. It is even naïve as to how solutions to everyday problems are discovered. Further, there are just as many divisions within the Roman Catholic Church as there are Roman Catholics themselves. For example, they disagree on the relationship between Scripture and tradition. They disagree on the number of teachings which should be considered infallible, and even what they are. Catholics disagree as to the meaning of several passages in the Bible. Many Catholic biblical scholars do not even uphold the inerrancy of the Bible or the traditional authorship of various biblical books like they used to. Other issues have arisen, such as a threat of schism within the Church of Rome with more traditionalist folks, on the issue of homosexuality:

          "Much of the dissent has remained within the Vatican walls, as Francis’s opponents worked to stonewall reforms. A few high-ranking church leaders have questioned him publicly about his teachings. But the simmering opposition has suddenly exploded across the Catholic world, with a former Vatican ambassador accusing the pope of covering up sexual abuse — and demanding that Francis step down. The accusations came in a 7,000-word letter written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò that could be viewed as an act of courage or unprecedented defiance. Either way, it sheds light on the opposition movement, and particularly its insistence that homosexuality within the church — and Francis’s inability to keep it at bay — is to blame for the sexual abuse crisis."...“We are a step away from schism,” said Michael Sean Winters, a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. “I think there is a perception among the pope’s critics that there is vulnerability here — on the part of the pope and in the Vatican generally.”

          Consider also that Rome's teaching on the death penalty is subject to change. In the words of Edward Feser, a Catholic philosopher:

          "For another thing, if the Pope is saying that capital punishment is always and intrinsically immoral, then he would be effectively saying – whether consciously or unconsciously – that previous popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and even divinely inspired Scripture are in error. If this is what he is saying, then he would be attempting to “make known some new doctrine,” which the First Vatican Council expressly forbids a pope from doing. He would, contrary to the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, be “proclaim[ing] his own ideas” rather than “bind[ing] himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word.” He would be joining that very small company of popes who have flirted with doctrinal error. And he would be undermining the credibility of the entire Magisterium of the Church, including his own credibility. For if the Church has been that wrong for that long about something that serious, why should we trust anything else she teaches? And if all previous popes have been so badly mistaken about something so important, why should we think Pope Francis is right?"

           Consider this excerpt from Ignitum Today on the issue of Catholics being divided on the dogma of transubstantiation:

           "According to John Young, theologian and philosopher, “Protestants reject transubstantiation, and so do many Catholic scholars. The average Catholic is vague concerning the nature of the Eucharistic presence of Christ, and one can sympathize with him, in view of the lack of clear teaching about the Most Blessed Sacrament." He further asserts, “The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason.” Theologian and professor at Virginia Seminary, Charles P. Price similarly believes that “most Catholics, without realizing it or perhaps considering it, actually believe in Consubstantiation,” as did Luther, and even a Catholic would be hard-pressed to refute the allegation."

          Is not the dogma of the mass essential to Roman Catholicism? Indeed it is. Yet, the above excerpt plainly tells us that a significant number of Roman Catholics do not agree with official church teaching on this issue. Consequently, claims of unity existing within the Roman Catholic Church have been blown out of proportion. Further, should we conclude from this that the Magisterium needs an infallible interpreter in order for it to make sense to us? The root cause of this rejection of Catholic dogma by Catholics themselves is not the point of emphasis here. It is enough that division over transubstantiation exists among Catholics in many parts of the Western world. Additionally, even if this situation were to somehow change, the fact remains that divisions of this severity have occurred and always remain a possibility, which is all that is necessary to undermine any authoritative appeal that the Magisterium has in eliminating doctrinal conflict once and for all.

          While the Church of Rome claims certainty in the infallibility of its decrees, it offers no such guarantee for the theological reasoning underpinning those decrees, leaving room for inconsistencies and ambiguity. Consider the words of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online:

          ''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached."

          This creates an insurmountable problem: how can one trust the conclusion if the path to it is riddled with fallibility, ambiguity, or even political motives? The distinction between an infallible conclusion and a fallible process undermines confidence in the conclusion itself. It is akin to trusting a math answer without trusting the calculation.

          Claims of unchanging doctrinal unity are challenged by the historical emergence of dogmas that were unknown or contested for centuries. When doctrines are declared essential long after the apostolic era, it raises questions about whether the early church possessed the fullness of truth. If the content of the faith can be expanded or redefined over time, then the claim to preserve the apostolic deposit becomes difficult to sustain.

         The Roman Catholic appeal to visible unity mistakes institutional cohesion for theological integrity. While centralized governance may preserve organizational continuity, it cannot guarantee doctrinal clarity or fidelity to truth. Unity of governance is also not the same as unity of belief. Catholics must still rely on fallible human reasoning to interpret magisterial teachings, just as Protestants interpret Scripture. If unity is defined merely as agreement with an authority one must first choose to trust, then it offers no epistemic advantage, only the illusion of certainty dressed in institutional form.

          "At base, the divide between Protestants and Catholics boils down to authority. If there is no earthly, human authority, if everyone gets to decide for himself what the Bible means, then we have a system of subjectivity and chaos."

          The claim of Protestants being "subjective" is ironic, since Roman Catholics *subjectively* believe the Roman Catholic Church to be objectively authoritative. We all have to make personal decisions in searching for truth. No man is exempt from using his reasoning faculties in analyzing written and spoken content. Everybody has to use their fallible minds to fallibly interpret communicated messages. It is impossible for one to escape from this reality. All understanding is filtered through fallible human cognition. Catholics must fallibly interpret every word of church teaching, whether they retrieve information from Papal Encyclicals, Ecumenical Council documents, the catechism, hearing priests during mass, or the Code of Canon Law. Regardless of whether one is Catholic or Protestant, fallible minds interpret infallible claims. Subjectivity is not inherently problematic nor unique to Protestantism.

          Roman Catholics can and do possess individualized, subjective interpretations of Roman Catholicism. They must judge for themselves the validity of the Roman Catholic Church in order to argue their position. Catholic apologists *subjectively* appeal to evidence, which has to be analyzed in their own minds and by those who encounter their claims. In arguing for the absolute necessity of an infallible teaching authority to prevent church divisions from happening, Roman Catholics sever the very branch of logic that they sit on. One could not even begin to submit to some outside authority without *subjectively* making the choice to do so. Therefore, Catholics are not in any better of a position to understand spiritual truth than anyone else. Their belief in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church is itself fallible. The difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is not in the presence of subjectivity, but how each tradition chooses to handle it. Both sides alike must use reason, discernment, and conscience.

          When interpreting biblical literature, a person must take into account historical context and various literary devices. Commentaries, lexicons, concordances, and dictionaries are valuable aids for biblical interpretation. Further, not every argument or interpretation is equally valid. The presence of diverse interpretations does not negate the sufficiency of Scripture. Rather, it underscores the need for humility, dialogue, and continual reformation under the Word of God. Moreover, if one must have some special authority in order to provide justification for his beliefs, then he could not become a Roman Catholic in the first place. One cannot argue for an authority by appealing to that same authority. There has to be external sources verifying to some degree its reliability or credibility, which, once again, requires a person to sift through data on his own. The moment that someone chooses to trust the Magisterium, he has already exercised subjective judgment. The question becomes not who has the authority, but how we responsibly engage with truth claims in light of our limitations.

          On what basis does a person establish the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? Since the answer to that question requires using one's own powers of reason to evaluate evidence, then he must rely on inherently fallible faculties. Hence, there is no such thing as infallible certainty of possessing the fullness of divine truth. There is always the possibility that one is wrong in his decision-making. Further, having a representative available like the pope to preside over a whole group of people only proves that they have decided for themselves to accept as true the claims he makes on religious issues. It is entirely possible for people who have different points of view to co-exist peacefully. 

          The Magisterium itself is interpreted by fallible minds, so the claim of infallibility does not eliminate subjectivity. That office merely directs it toward itself as the object of trust. This undermines the claim that Roman Catholicism escapes subjectivity. It simply relocates it to the act of submission and calls that a resolution of conflict. This is not really the resolution of doctrinal conflict, but a reclassification of it, a rhetorical maneuver that avoids the real problem of disagreement. By defining unity as agreement with the Magisterium and excluding dissenters from “the faith,” Catholicism creates a self-sealing system that is immune to critique. That is not real unity, but redefining the problem away. It is definitional arbitration, a "unity" that exists by redefining disagreement out of existence.

          If Roman Catholics must use their own fallible reasoning to recognize Rome’s authority, interpret its teachings, and decide to submit to it, then they are in the exact same epistemic position as Protestants who use fallible reasoning to interpret Scripture. The claim that the Magisterium resolves doctrinal confusion collapses, since its authority must first be subjectively accepted and its teachings individually interpreted, just like Scripture. Therefore, the appeal to an infallible authority does not eliminate subjectivity. It merely shifts it to the act of choosing and interpreting that authority, leaving adherents of Rome no less reliant on personal judgment than those that they critique.

Do Not Conform To This World

"Anyone can be a non-conformist for nonconformity's sake. ... What we are ultimately called to is more than non-conformity; we are called to transformation. We notice that the words conform and transform both contain the same root form. The only difference between the words is found in the prefixes. The prefix con means "with." To conform, then, is to be "with the structures or forms." In our culture a conformist is someone who is "with it." A nonconformist may be regarded as someone who is "out of it." If the goal of the Christian is to be "out of it," then I am afraid we have been all too successful.

The prefix trans means "across" or "beyond." When we are called to be transformed, it means that we are to rise above the forms and the structures of this world. We are not to follow the world's lead but to cut across it and rise above it to a higher calling and style. This is a call to transcendent excellence, not a call to sloppy "out-of-it-ness." Christians who give themselves as living sacrifices and offer their worship in this way are people with a high standard of discipline. They are not satisfied with superficial forms of righteousness. The “saints” are called to a rigorous pursuit of the kingdom of God. They are called to depth in their spiritual understanding.

The key method Paul underscores as the means to the transformed life is by the “renewal of the mind.” This means nothing more and nothing less than education. Serious education. In-depth education. Disciplined education in the things of God. It will call for a mastery of the Word of God. We need to be people whose lives have changed because our minds have changed.

True transformation comes by gaining a new understanding of God, ourselves, and the world. What we are after ultimately is to be conformed to the image of Christ. We are to be like Jesus, thought not in the sense that we can ever gain deity. We are not god-men. But our humanity is to mirror and reflect the perfect humanity of Jesus. A tall order! To be conformed to Jesus, we must first begin to think as Jesus did. We need the “mind of Christ.” We need to value the things he values and despise the things He despises. We need to have the same priorities He has. We need to consider weighty the things that He considers weighty. That cannot happen without a mastery of His Word. The key to spiritual growth is in-depth Christian education that requires a serious level of sacrifice.

That is the call to excellence we have received. We are not to be like the rest of the world, content to live our lives with a superficial understanding of God. We are to grow dissatisfied with spiritual milk and hunger after spiritual meat. To be a saint means to be separated. But it means more than that. The saint also is to be involved in a vital process of sanctification. We are to be purified daily in the growing pursuit of holiness. If we are justified, we must also be sanctified."

R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, p. 163-164

Evaluating Deism As A Worldview

• Discussion:

          -Deism is the belief that God created the universe, set everything in order, and has not been involved with it since. This viewpoint maintains that there is no supernatural intervention by God in creation. It is a rejection of divine providence. It is a rejection of God interacting with human beings. Deists rely solely on reason in their rejection of miracles and divine revelation.

          We as Christians should regard this system of thought to be erroneous and outright heretical, since God has indeed given to us divine revelation. We know from that source that He is active in creation. The Bible describes in ample detail His character. God desired fellowship and communion with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. 

           Further, the Old Testament records Him intervening for Israel on multiple occasions. He redeemed the Jewish people from Egypt. In fact, God the Son descended from heaven above in flesh to make atonement for our sins. There may be times in this life when God may seem distant, but we know very well that He is concerned about the affairs of man.

          Deism is not at all coherent as a life philosophy. Reason has its limits. For example, how can a person on the basis of creation alone (physical entities) deduce the existence of logic and reason (non-physical entities)? How can one derive morals from observing nature without reference to divine revelation? Why reject the possibility of miracles when creation itself is a miracle?

          Would it make sense to worship a god who does not interact with man? Why would a rational, goal-oriented being create a universe and then lose all interest in it without reason? It is not enough to merely posit the existence of some deity. Deism is a rather awkward position for one to espouse. God's ongoing involvement is necessary even to sustain the universe's existence

Giving Thanks In The Christian Walk

        One major theme of Scripture is thankfulness. There are literally dozens of exhortations in the Bible, from the Psalms to the Pauline epistles, for the saints to be showing appreciation for and rejoicing in the things of God. It is from Him that all blessings, temporal and eternal, flow (James 1:17). God is the ultimate source of our provisions in life. Acknowledging our blessings cultivates a peace that is rooted in the knowledge of God’s faithfulness and promises.

        The fundamental reasons for giving thanks to Him should be evident to any sincere, faithful Christian. We have been redeemed and forgiven of our sins (Colossians 1:14). We have been rescued from the kingdom of Satan (Colossians 1:13). We can also show thankfulness to God for the natural world and its beauty. These are blessings which God has given to us.

        A person cannot praise God without also giving thanks to Him. A person cannot worship God to the fullest extent without also giving thanks to Him. The aforementioned point accounts for Scripture associating ingratitude with sin (Romans 1:21-32; 2 Timothy 3:1-5). If we are unthankful, then how can we really trust in God? If we are not trusting in God while professing to follow Him, then we bring dishonor to His majesty. We fail to recognize His goodness.

        The Lord is the source of all wisdom. We are to be appreciative for whatever gifts that He has bestowed to us (Matthew 7:11). Every gift or blessing that we have originates from Him. Every good thing no matter how small by human standards is from Him. We are not to approach life in a secular way that leaves out the workings of God.

        Thankfulness is good for our souls. It reinforces humility and selflessness. It counteracts our tendency to boast. It keeps anger and resentment at bay. Giving thanks serves as a constant reminder of the blessings that we do have. Giving thanks takes our focus off potential things that we may desire to have, thus making us happier. Complaining only makes life unbearable for oneself and others.

        Thankfulness changes our perspective of matters in this life. It is an inward state of heart, which points to God and brings glory to Him. The test of whether we are truly thankful does not lie in good times, but in our times of trouble and unease. We should be thankful, even in the midst of suffering and persecution (James 1:12; 1 Peter 4:12-19). Thankfulness acknowledges that things usually can be much worse than what they are, which itself is a blessing in disguise.

        A refusal to show heartfelt gratitude is one of the biggest mistakes that one can make in the Christian life. The preaching of the gospel is to be done in thanksgiving to God. The gospel itself is a call for all people to give thanks to God. If we refuse to give thanks to Him, then already existing bitterness will fester within us and rob us of any real joy.

Liberty Requires Sacrifice

"Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present generation, to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams April 26, 1777

The Meaning Of Holiness

"The primary meaning of holy is “separate.” It comes from an ancient word that means “to cut,” or “to separate.” To translate this basic meaning into contemporary language would be to use the phrase “a cut apart.” Perhaps even more accurate would be the phrase “a cut above something.” When we find a garment or another piece of merchandise that is outstanding, that has a superior excellence, we use the expression that it is “a cut above the rest.”

God’s holiness is more than just separateness. His holiness is also transcendent. The word transcendence means literally “to climb across.” it is defined as “exceeding usual limits.” To transcend is to rise above something, to go above and beyond a certain limit. When we speak of the transcendence of God, we are talking about that sense in which God is above and beyond us. Transcendence describes His supreme and absolute greatness. The word is used to describe God’s relationship to the world. He is higher than the world. He has absolute power over the world. The world has no power over Him. Transcendence describes God in His consuming majesty, His exalted loftiness. It points to the infinite distance that separates Him from every creature. He is an infinite cut above everything else.

When the Bible calls God holy, it means primarily that God is transcendentally separate. He is so far above and beyond us that He seems almost totally foreign to us. To be holy is to be “other,” to be different is a special way.

We are so accustomed to equating holiness with purity or ethical perfection that we look for the idea when the word holy appears. When things are made holy, when they are consecrated, they are set apart unto purity. They are to be used in a pure way. They are to reflect purity as well as simple apartness. Purity is not excluded from the idea of the holy; it is contained within it. But the point we must remember is that the idea of the holy is never exhausted by the idea of purity. It includes purity but is much more than that. It is purity and transcendence. It is a transcendent purity."

R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, p. 37-39, 212

A Roman Catholic Quotable On The Eucharist

"When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ."

John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, p. 255-256

Is Your Pastor Qualified To Be Preaching From The Pulpit?

Introduction:

The Apostle Paul expressed in a straightforward manner the qualifications required of a man before he can be ordained a bishop or elder in the church (1 Timothy 3–5). These are not arbitrary standards, nor are they subject to cultural revision. They are divinely inspired criteria, given for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the church and protecting the flock from spiritual harm. The first point of consideration is whether a man even desires to wield such a position of authority (1 Timothy 3:1). This desire must be rooted in a genuine calling, not in personal ambition or a thirst for recognition. The office of overseer is not a platform for self-promotion—it is a sacred trust.

The required characteristics are presented in outline form as follows:

*Not needing continued criticism
*Wise
*Worthy of respect (this has to be earned)
*Able to show hospitality
*Competent (well grounded in the faith and not a new convert)
*Responsible
*Faithful
*Loving, selfless, and humble
*Setting a good moral example (e.g. not selfish, conceited, greedy, combative, aggressive, contentious, or an alcoholic)

These qualifications are not merely external traits—they reflect the inward condition of the heart. A man who is to shepherd the people of God must first demonstrate spiritual maturity and moral consistency in his personal life. The church is not a place for experimentation with leadership; it is the household of God, and its leaders must be proven and trustworthy.

A rhetorical question that the author raises in this context illustrates the importance of fitting the above provided description: "If a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:5)

How a man manages his own household is indicative of how well he would handle a leadership position in the church. Is he fiscally responsible? Are his children believers? Does he lead with gentleness and conviction? Obviously, authority comes with responsibility. It is even more so the case with becoming a minister, since it entails preaching the entire counsel of God. The spiritual health of the congregation is, in part, shaped by the character of its leaders. If a man cannot lead his family in righteousness, he is not equipped to lead the church in holiness.

The Holy Spirit has given to us through Paul a thorough set of guidelines to be adhered to so as to determine whether a man is fit to be a pastor. He regards this kind of work as being of a most excellent kind. It is not a casual endeavor, nor is it to be taken lightly. The weight of responsibility is immense, and the consequences of failure are severe. If a man has qualities that do not match up with the list provided, then he is not fit to be in that office. The church must not compromise on these standards for the sake of convenience or sentimentality. The purity of the gospel and the spiritual well-being of the congregation depend on faithful adherence to these divine instructions.

Receiving Praise From God

          "It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God." (1 Corinthians 4:3-5)

          The Apostle Paul focuses on stewardship in the church of God. From the viewpoint of oneself, we are not to evaluate in a non-spiritual fashion the quality of ministerial work. Themes of selflessness and humility are clearly being enforced here. All manner of teaching, preaching, and exhortation is to be done for the glory of God. We plant the seeds of conversion, but it is He who causes the growth. It is He that makes godly the ungodly. His praise and approval are what ultimately matters.

          The Apostle’s words also serve as a reminder that human perception is inherently limited. We are prone to error, partiality, and bias. Even our own self-assessments are flawed, for we do not see ourselves as God sees us. Paul’s refusal to pass judgment on himself is not an act of pride, but of spiritual sobriety. He entrusts his standing to the Lord, who alone discerns the heart with perfect clarity. This posture of surrender is what all ministers of the gospel must adopt—knowing that their labor is not in vain if it is done in faith and obedience.

          From a general standpoint, this text serves as a condemnation of passing hasty or harsh judgments regarding the faithfulness of those who preach the counsel of God. We do not know the thoughts and intentions of other people. Only God has that kind of knowledge. He reveals truth. On Judgment Day, every person will be rewarded according to his or her deeds. God looks at our works in judgment because they are descriptive of who we are as people.

          Furthermore, this passage reinforces the principle that divine judgment is both patient and precise. The Lord does not rush to condemn, nor does He overlook what is hidden. In His appointed time, He will expose every motive and intention, bringing to light what was once concealed. This should instill both reverence and hope in the believer. Reverence, because nothing escapes His notice; hope, because those who have labored in secret for His glory will be openly vindicated. The praise that comes from God is not based on outward success, but on inward faithfulness.

The Uniqueness Of Trinitarian Monotheism

         In simplest terms, polytheism is belief in the existence of multiple gods. Cited examples could range anywhere from the Roman pantheon of gods to religions that still thrive such as Hinduism. It is both an ancient and modern concept. The fundamental logical dilemma for polytheistic worldviews is rooted in the fact that the gods of such religions do not function in perfect harmony with each other. They certainly are diverse. Such gods are by no means unified. 

         In a polytheistic framework, there is no final arbitrator of truth. The deities fight amongst each other. In Greco-Roman literature, gods killed and stole wives from each other. They spitefully contradicted and blasphemed one another. The gods of polytheistic religions are subject to defeat. Thus, morality is rendered subjective in a polytheistic worldview. Peace becomes nonexistent. Chaos abounds fully. Of what avail is polytheism to our lives?

         In contrast, the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview exists as one in three separate, divine persons. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present. He is eternal and self-sufficient. God is love, and enjoys fellowship with creation. He is righteous. Trinitarian monotheism is the most rational expression of monotheism. No mere man could have invented a doctrine as sophisticated, yet so profound, as that of the Trinity. The gods of pagan religions, however, act exactly like depraved man himself. Are they even worthy of being worshiped? Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek wrote:

         "...the Trinity helps us understand how love has existed from all eternity. The New Testament says God is love (1 John 4:16). But how can love exist in a rigid monotheistic being? There's no one else to love! Tri-unity in the Godhead solves the problem. After all, to have love, there must be a lover (the Father), a loved one (the Son), and a spirit of love (the Holy Spirit). Because of this triune nature, God has existed eternally in a perfect fellowship of love. He is the perfect being who lacks nothing, not even love. Since he lacks nothing, God didn't need to to create human beings for any reason (he wasn't lonely, as some preachers have been known to say). He simply chose to create us, and loves us in accordance to his loving nature." (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 353)

         The so-called deities of polytheistic religions are defective and so have proven themselves to be nothing to us. They are beneath our consideration. They are not fit recipients of our effort, attention, or respect. The history of the Old Testament makes this reality clear to us who have faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was He who delivered the Jews from the hands of Egypt's pharaoh. It was God who spared Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. It is against this kind of a backdrop that a Psalmist wrote about pagans and their gods:

         "Their idols are silver and gold, the work of man’s hands. They have mouths, but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see; They have ears, but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell; They have hands, but they cannot feel; They have feet, but they cannot walk; They cannot make a sound with their throat. Those who make them will become like them, everyone who trusts in them." (Psalm 115:4-8)

         This passage contains elements of sarcasm as well as irony. The Psalmist disparages the gods of foreign nations by noting their inability to do anything even for themselves. People who follow after them are thus considered stupid and senseless. They are viewed as objects of contempt. The gods of foreign nations are described as having characteristics of living beings, yet having no life or power in them. They have no use, being nothing but a product of human imagination.

          The Bible from beginning to end tells us in no uncertain terms that there is only one true God (Exodus 20:1-3; Isaiah 43:10-11). He stands out in contrast to the false gods of this world. He is the living God; the rest are dead and helpless. God has no name like Zeus or Apollo. Human reason cannot even begin to fathom the depths of who He is. God alone is the Creator of heaven and earth. Logical deductions used to argue for the existence of God, such as an orderly universe and objective moral truths, are consistent with monotheism.