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 clearly occupies substitutionary language. This passage foretold Christ bearing the sins of man upon Himself. 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 for us (1 Peter 3:18). Our sins are forgiven by His wounds (1 Peter 2:24). The Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:7-8 alludes to the humility 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 people with their own lives. They did nothing to deserve their fate. They served as an innocent substitute in the place of men. Though animal sacrifices temporarily held off the judgement of God, the Levitical sacrificial system pointed to the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1-2). 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 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."

         The New English Traslatio 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."

         The following excerpt was taken from a study by William D. Barrick, Professor of Old Testament:

         "The Septuagint (LXX) evidences a pre-Christian Jewish understanding of atonement (especially in the use of the Hebrew words for atonement, 19 [kipper) and 19 [koper]) as propitiation since it employs é u dokopci (exilaskonal) 83 times for translating kipper." Summing up a detailed analysis, Morris deduces that the basic meanings of kipper and ĆELA.COkouci involve the thought of the offering of a ransom which turns away the divine wrath from the sinner." In addition to ransom and divine wrath, kipper "denotes a substitutionary process... so plain as to need no comment in the cases where life is substituted for life. Since the OT reveals the reality of divine wrath, it cannot be ignored or explained away as impersonal wrath, mild displeasure, mere irritation, or capricious passion. In nearly 600 OT texts more than 20 different Hebrew words provide a rich wrath vocabulary. Divine righteousness, holiness, and justice require divine retribution. Without divine retribution, divine mercy becomes nothing more than a vestigial appendage without function or purpose."

How Catholic Apologists Deal With The Thief On The Cross

• Discussion:

          -A blogger named Catholic Nick wrote an article titled The Good Thief and Bad (Protestant) Apologetics, which is a rejoinder to the common citation of Luke 23:39-43 as a proof text for Sola Fide. Following are excerpts from the author alongside with a critique:

          "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."

          There is a possibility that the repentant thief on the cross was either baptized or unbaptized. Although the importance of baptism cannot be minimized, the grace and forgiveness of God is not restricted to this ritual. There is no reason to even mention baptism. In fact, it is doubtful that he would have been baptized if he continued living as a thief, a crime for which he was being punished.

          By the way, a lot of the 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? The words “faith” and “belief” do not need to be specifically mentioned. The fact that the thief said what he did demonstrates he had faith in what Jesus proclaimed. He had to have heard some of Christ's teachings to know who He was. While he did have a penitent heart, all that we see from the text of Scripture 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 believed on 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 justification. Repentance is not a work, but a change in heart (how can a person be saved if he does not recognize the need of a Savior?). Things such as fear of the Lord take place as a result of our hearts having been changed. These things are inextricably associated with justification. Our obedience should stem forth from a love of God and gratitude for the atonement that He has made on our behalf. It appears that the author is attacking some sort of a watered-down concept of faith.

          "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. If we are capable of adding our own works to the sacrifice of Christ, then He must have died in vain (Galatians 2:16-21).

            "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?"

           Talk about a classic example of a straw man fallacy! If a person gets saved, then his heart will be transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit.

We Are Back In Rome

"Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1788) said that the following five attributes marked Rome at its end: first, a mounting love of show and luxury (that is, affluence); second, a widening gap between the very rich and the very poor (this could be among countries in the family of nations as well as in a single nation); third, an obsession with sex; fourth, freakishness in the arts, masquerading as originality, and enthusiasms pretending to be creativity; fifth, an increased desire to live off the state. It all sounds so familiar. We have come a long road since our first chapter, and we are back in Rome."

Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, p. 227

A Problem For Roman Catholic Eucharist Theology

• Discussion:

           -The Roman Catholic Church maintains that its priests transubstantiate bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It wholly ceases to be what it originally was. Roman Catholics believe that they literally eat Him at each worship gathering. On the other hand, we are told in the New Testament that the Lord does not dwell in places made by human hands:

           "However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is the footstool of My feet; what kind of house will you build for Me?’ says the Lord, ‘Or what place is there for My repose?" (Acts 7:48-49)

           "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things." (Acts 17:24-25)

          If God in some mysterious way is said to not "dwell" in temples, then it is only fair to infer that He is not "coming down" from His throne in the heavenlies at the command of some priest. Roman Catholic theology does not simply affirm Christ's presence in the bread, but that the bread actually becomes His body under unchanged substance and accidents.

          There is no change in the communion elements in the way alleged by Rome. He is simply not made present at the words of consecration by the parish priest. Jesus Christ is omnipresent in His divinity, but it is absurd to claim He is physically consumed in His entirety ("body, blood, soul and divinity") to begin with.

          Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands. So there is no reason to suppose that He is going to come down from heaven on a daily basis to be a sacrifice for sin. The Catholic priest's act of consecration is null and void. Neither is God served with things made by human hands. We are told in the New Testament that we are not think of deity as being a material object:

          "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man." (Acts 17:29)

           Is not the eucharist wafer manna, which is material? Certainly. The bread and wine used in the Mass does not in actuality become Jesus Christ, but an image of Himself. It is but an earthly depiction of the divine. This point is a springboard for a separate objection, namely, Catholics are guilty of idolatry as a result of worshiping the eucharist.

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

Orwell And Huxley Revisited

"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another — slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New Word. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, “people are controlled by inflicting pain.” in Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.

A Biblical Critique Of The New Apostolic Reformation

           There is a global movement taking place within Christendom known as the New Apostolic Reformation, which maintains that God restored the offices of prophet and apostle so as to fix the problems of humanity. The ideological founder of this group is the charismatic theologian C. Peter Wagner. It is maintained that a consequence of the fall was that man lost his dominion over creation, and that Christ came not only to pay for our sins but also enable Christians to regain possession of the world. The hundreds of unaffiliated, self-governing churches and organizations which comprise this movement have been for a few decades striving to acquire or secure control over every sphere of business, culture, and politics. Members of the New Apostolic Reformation claim that God is giving new revelations to so-called prophets and apostles to aid in the process of establishing the universal sovereignty of the church. 

           The New Apostolic Reformation is purportedly working to bring the kingdom of God to earth. It is also responsible for a large proportion of the church growth in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It has even infiltrated denominations, with the Assemblies of God in Australia being a prime example. In summary, the mission of various "apostolic networks" extends far beyond the preaching of the gospel and making disciples. Succinctly stated, it is claimed that Jesus Christ instituted a "five-fold ministry," which is a neo-charismatic belief that all five offices mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-15 remain operative in contemporary Christianity.

           When considering the verses from Ephesians, it is important to note that the Apostle Paul wrote in the past tense. This is a reference to the apostles and prophets who were alive during the first century. The passage of Scripture being discussed is not suggesting a continuation of the two offices. In other words, it is not saying that God is giving or will assign apostles and prophets. They were a part of the church's foundation, with Christ being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20; 3:5). Christ completed His propitiatory work. The apostles and prophets delivered to us divine revelation. Moreover, Scripture speaks of the performance of miracles in the past tense (2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:3-4). The apostles and prophets are still edifying believers through their writings, which are self-sufficient (2 Timothy 3:15-17). God has now spoken to believers through Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John the Baptist (Luke 16:16). Cults throughout history have made identical claims of receiving revelation from God.

           Nobody today can rightly claim to be an apostle, as is evidenced by looking at the qualifications necessary for one to obtain such an authoritative office. In order to qualify as an apostle, a person would have to be a direct eyewitness to the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21-23; 1 Corinthians 9:1). In order to qualify as an apostle, a person would have been personally instructed by Christ (Luke 24:45; John 14:26; 16:13-14; Acts 1:2). Paul said he was the last appointed apostle (1 Corinthians 15:8). Therefore, this criterion is impossible to fulfill in modern times. Nobody wields the same authority today. Unlike the ministry of Christ and the twelve apostles, there are no verifiable miraculous accounts giving credence to the self-proclaimed apostles and prophets of this movement. Also, the prophetic utterances given are vague, subject to reinterpretation. Those who believe in the restoration of the five-fold ministry tend to teach that the so-called prophets and apostles deserve unquestioning acceptance, which is inconsistent with scriptural principles (Acts 17:11-12; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 1:8-9). Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:21-22 lays out four guidelines as to what we should watch for when testing so-called prophets:

            * The utterance does not come to pass (even if someone can perform miracles, that does not necessarily mean he is approved by God).
            * The utterance contradicts divine revelation.
            * The moral character of the person giving an utterance is inconsistent with office of profession.
            * The utterance exalts self, rather than God.

          Surely, this doctrinal test is problematical for the self-proclaimed prophets in the New Apostolic Reformation, or any group that has a leader who claims to have been given revelation by God. There are literally no well-documented prophecies and miracles that these people can show us to demonstrate the validity of their ministries. If the Bible is already complete revelation from God, then why would we need prophets in the first place?

           Furthermore, the notion of the church bringing the kingdom of God into this world expressly contradicts biblical teaching. Jesus emphatically stated that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). The Kingdom of God is not a worldly kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom (Luke 17:20-21). His kingdom is not based on diplomatic relations. His kingdom does not require the approval of sinners. It is the Holy Spirit that stimulates conversion of the human heart. Our mission as Christians is to present the gospel of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). What the church needs to be preaching is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That is the good news of salvation. We must entrust ourselves entirely to the power of God, who is working all things out to His eternal glory. Our undivided attention belongs to Him. We need not heed to subjective New Age occultism, but the objective Word of God. The New Apostolic Reformation is a significant source of aberrant doctrine. To make matters even worse, this movement has its own horrendously corrupt Passion Translation.

Logical Thinking Is Hindered

"When your mind has been so seared by acceptance of evil that you condone amputation of healthy body parts, it's not surprising that your ability to think logically is hindered. If you start with the premise that radical mutilation of the body is an acceptable practice ... you shouldn't be surprised to find it applied in ways that are different, yet equally disturbing."

Joe Carter, "The Diabolic Logic of Transableism", The Gospel Coalition, 6/5/15.

Answering The Mormon Claim Of Total Apostasy

• Introduction: 

          -Mormonism: a religious cult that was founded by Joseph Smith in the woods of Palmyra, New York in the year 1821. He claimed that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him to establish a completely new church. In other words, he had visions that told him to start a new religion.

          -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 use by the Mormons are the King James Version, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.
          -The Mormon Church claims that the entire Christian church and the Bible have been totally corrupted. Thus, its alleged purpose is to restore the church back to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles.

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

          -Jesus Christ specifically taught that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). Paul said that God would be eternally glorified in Christ and His saints (Ephesians 3:21). If the Mormon Church is correct, then God must be a liar. God has always preserved His faithful remnant, but that is not the followers of Joseph Smith. 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.
          -The Words of the Lord are incorruptible. His Word shall endure forever (Isaiah 40:8; Proverbs 30:5-6; 1 Peter 1:23-25). The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). It is simply not possible for Word of God to be lost and 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). 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 in 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 never lost to begin with.

• The Mormon Claim Of Being The Restoration Of Lost Truth Is Unfounded:

          -When did the Christian church go into the state of total apostasy? The New Testament is supported by thousands of different manuscripts. The creed summarizing the gospel message that the Apostle Paul recounted in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 has been dated back to the first century, thereby proving that it has not been lost or altered.
          -Why would Mormons use the Bible at all, since they maintain that the whole of Christianity was lost in the first century and the canon was assembled (along with the King James Version being produced in the seventeenth century) by an allegedly apostate church? Which parts of the Bible have been corrupted?
          -If any of Joseph Smith's claims regarding the alleged total apostasy of Christendom were true, then he should have been able to give an extensive list of all of the original teachings of Jesus Christ, where every denomination had went wrong, provide the date of when Christianity went extinct, and go back to the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles. He should have been able to refer to established facts, writings, history, etc. However, Joseph Smith never took the time to verify any of his claims.

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 allegedly lost truth. This encounter is described as a face to face dialogue between a so-called prophet and God the Father and God the Son. Consider the words spoken by the Lord to Moses in the Old Testament:

          "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)

           No man in his sinful nature can look into the fullness of God's glory and survive. Also, 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 walking and talking in his flesh testifies to the falseness of his claims. In other words, he is a liar and a deceiver. Joseph Smith received no divine revelation from God. Mormonism is based on utter falsehood.

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

        Following is an excerpt from a Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Publication

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

        According to Scripture, God created the universe by Himself. He did not have assistance in doing so from any created being:

        "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)

        "Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?" (Malachi 2:10)

        No created entities worked alongside Him in the process of creation. If Jesus Christ is not God, then He played no role whatsoever in creating the universe. He is not a created being, but the second person of the Triune God. He is co-eternal with God the Father. He is the creator of everything (Colossians 1:16). He is holding all things together. He is preeminent in all things. There are multiple lines of biblical evidence proving that Jesus is God in the flesh.

        Consider, for example, the messianic prophecy of Zechariah 12:10. God spoke of Himself as being "pierced" through the prophet. In the New Testament, Christ was "pierced" in the side while on the cross (John 19:36-37). Revelation 1:7 also alludes to the text from Zechariah. Isaiah 53:5 also prophetically speaks of the Messiah being pierced. An immaterial God cannot be pierced, except if He takes on human flesh. What is very telling is this excerpt from Watchtower literature:

        "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago." (Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981)

A Biblical Dilemma For Roman Catholic Mariology

          The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was conceived immaculately and also a perpetual virgin. Yet, an inescapable dilemma arises in the process of upholding the two dogmas. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul in regard to intimacy in marriage:

       "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)

         If Mary refused to have marital relations with her husband Joseph, then she would have been guilty of sin. In order to remain consistent, a Catholic would either have to reject the notion of her remaining a virgin for her entire life or her sinlessness. Both cannot be true at the same time.

The Repulsiveness Of Eugenics

Voices haunt the pages of every book. This particular book, however, speaks for the never-born, for those whose questions have never been heard—for those who never existed.

Throughout the first six decades of the twentieth century, hundreds of thousands of Americans and untold numbers of others were not permitted to continue their families by reproducing. Selected because of their ancestry, national origin, race or religion, they were forcibly sterilized, wrongly committed to mental institutions where they died in great numbers, prohibited from marrying, and sometimes even unmarried by state bureaucrats. In America, this battle to wipe out whole ethnic groups was fought not by armies with guns nor by hate sects at the margins. Rather, this pernicious white-gloved war was prosecuted by esteemed professors, elite universities, wealthy industrialists and government officials colluding in a racist, pseudoscientific movement called eugenics. The purpose: create a superior Nordic race.

To perpetuate the campaign, widespread academic fraud combined with almost unlimited corporate philanthropy to establish the biological rationales for persecution. Employing a hazy amalgam of guesswork, gossip, falsified information and polysyllabic academic arrogance, the eugenics movement slowly constructed a national bureaucratic and juridical infrastructure to cleanse America of its “unfit.” Specious intelligence tests, colloquially known as IQ tests, were invented to justify incarceration of a group labeled “feebleminded.” Often the so-called feebleminded were just shy, too good-natured to be taken seriously, or simply spoke the wrong language or were the wrong color. Mandatory sterilization laws were enacted in some twenty-seven states to prevent targeted individuals from reproducing more of their kind. Marriage prohibition laws proliferated throughout the country to stop race mixing. Collusive litigation was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sanctified eugenics and its tactics.

The goal was to immediately sterilize fourteen million people in the United States and millions more worldwide—the “lower tenth”—and then continuously eradicate the remaining lowest tenth until only a pure Nordic super race remained. Ultimately, some 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized and the total is probably much higher. No one knows how many marriages were thwarted by state felony statutes. Although much of the persecution was simply racism, ethnic hatred and academic elitism, eugenics wore the mantle of respectable science to mask its true character.

The victims of eugenics were poor urban dwellers and rural “white trash” from New England to California, immigrants from across Europe, Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Native Americans, epileptics, alcoholics, petty criminals, the mentally ill and anyone else who did not resemble the blond and blue-eyed Nordic ideal the eugenics movement glorified. Eugenics contaminated many otherwise worthy social, medical and educational causes from the birth control movement to the development of psychology to urban sanitation. Psychologists persecuted their patients. Teachers stigmatized their students. Charitable associations clamored to send those in need of help to lethal chambers they hoped would be constructed. Immigration assistance bureaus connived to send the most needy to sterilization mills. Leaders of the ophthalmology profession conducted a long and chilling political campaign to round up and coercively sterilize every relative of every American with a vision problem. All of this churned throughout America years before the Third Reich rose in Germany.

Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race

Is Your Sin Beyond The Forgiveness Of God?

        There are Christians who feel burdened and disheartened in their walk with God as a result of previous shortcomings in their lives. There are those people who feel guilty on a constant basis for sins committed in the past, seemingly unable to find joy in the forgiveness that He provides. There are people who feel hopeless, utterly beyond the point of redemption. Indeed, the fact that we cannot change our past is a difficult reality to accept. It haunts the minds of some people. A basic fact of life is that all decisions have consequences. However, this does not mean that all hope is lost. We must take responsibility for bad choices made rather than make excuses to justify them.

        We do have the present, and can work to change our future (especially eternity) with God's help. He does love us. No transgression is beyond the power of His forgiveness. The salvation that He gives is complete, and without cost. We simply must ask Him to pardon our iniquity, even though it may be difficult or awkward to do so. We must trust Him at His Word. Our problem is sin, which is rebellion against God. It cannot simply be left unaccounted for. Sinners must either receive forgiveness from God or face judgement. That is the reason Christ came to offer Himself up as an atonement sacrifice. He paid an infinite ransom on our behalf, thereby enabling our redemption. This act in itself demonstrates the unfathomable depths of God's love for us. 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 murder and adultery. To be "slow to anger" means to not speedily express wrath. God gives people time to repent from sin. When God is said to "abound in love," it means His love exists in great quantity and makes itself known in action. If the Lord did not have compassion for sinners, then He would not have spared the Israelites who repeatedly turned against Him. He would not have spared David's life after the crimes that he committed. 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 His is a higher quality of life. It is spiritual life that God gives. We must turn not to ourselves, but to Him who resurrects the dead (2 Corinthians 1:9). We must entrust ourselves to Him. If one is still struggling with how God could possibly forgive his or her sins after reading all this, then he or she 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 the people of God sentenced to death, could be saved, then so can anybody else who calls upon the name of the Lord. If God can forgive two murderers, then He certainly has the power to forgive more. 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 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)

• 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."

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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 Paul's Instructions Set Forth In 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:

          -Roman Catholic apologist Leila Miller wrote an article titled "Catholicism is objective, Protestantism is subjective," attempting to illustrate how Sola Scriptura results in hopeless doctrinal confusion and anarchy. The author characterizes non-Catholic interpretations of biblical texts as being inherently relativistic, in contrast with the Roman Catholic Church as being the exclusive source of doctrinal truth and certainty. Following are a handful of excerpts from the author alongside with a critique:

          "...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 inspired authors of the Bible wrote for the express purpose of instructing believers in their absence (Romans 15:4; 2 Corinthians 13:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:14-15). Scriptural truths relating to salvation and holiness are easy for us to comprehend. Other parts of the Bible are more complex and require more study. Sometimes we may even need other people to explain a passage to us, but that does not require a complex church hierarchy. The "paradigm" that the author speaks of is certainly not new, as it was the Bereans who were considered noble for daily searching the Scriptures to test the gospel message delivered by Paul (Acts 17:10-11). The Proverbs were written to give people "certainty" in regards to proper moral instruction (Proverbs 22:17-21). Luke wrote his gospel narrative to give Theophilus "certainty" concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:1-4). Scripture brings clarity in the midst of disorder. That is at least the testimony it provides in regard to itself.

          "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."

           The same logic is advanced by cultic groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and International Churches of Christ. We do have disagreements that are more peripheral and tertiary in nature. There are differences that are more philosophical in nature than 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 Rome itself. There are also pseudo-Christian sects which redefine biblical terminology to fit their theology. There is the possibility that people reject what Scripture says in spite of its clear teaching.

          "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."

            Matters for Roman Catholics are nowhere near as simple as Leila Miller makes them out to be. There are just as many divisions within the Roman Catholic Church as there are Roman Catholics themselves. Catholics disagree on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Catholics 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 contemporary Catholic Scripture scholars do not uphold the inerrancy of Scripture. There has even been a threat of schism within the Church of Rome with the 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.”

           In addition, the Catholic teaching on the death penalty is subject to change. Note the words of Roman Catholic philosopher Edward Feser:

           "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 a Roman Catholic website called 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 central to Roman Catholicism? Indeed it is. Yet, the above report plainly tells us that a significant number of Roman Catholics do not agree with official Church teaching on this issue. Consequently, the claims of unity existing within the Roman Catholic Church have been greatly inflated. Should we conclude that the Magisterium needs an infallible interpreter in order for it to make sense? Who could take on that task?

           The Roman Catholic Church has never given an "infallible" interpretation of every passage in the Bible. In fact, it has done so only on a handful of occasions to serve its own purposes. What is even more interesting is that, while the Church of Rome guarantees certainty behind the infallibility of its official decrees, it never promises that the theological reasoning used to support a decree is accurate itself. Consider these words from 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."

           "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 "Bible only Christians" 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 one is exempt from using fallible reasoning faculties in discernment. Everybody has to fallibly interpret communicated messages. Roman Catholics cannot have their cake and eat it too. They 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. Roman Catholics do and must 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. Catholics operate no differently than Protestants because they *subjectively* appeal to evidence which has to be analyzed in their own minds. Catholics are severing the very branch that they sit on because one could not even begin to submit to some outside authority without *subjectively* making the choice to do so. They are not in any better of a position than anyone else.

            When interpreting Scripture, a person should take into account historical context and various literary devices. Commentaries, lexicons, and concordances can be useful in matters of interpretation. We should approach Scripture with a humble and prayerful heart. The Word of God should be treated with utmost respect. Not every argument or interpretation is equally valid. If one must have some special authority in order to give grounds for his beliefs, then how does he become a Roman Catholic? One cannot argue for an authority by appealing to that same authority. There has to be external sources verifying at least to some degree its validity. On what basis does one establish the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? If such a process involves using one's own powers of reason to evaluate evidence, then the person investigating is behaving as does a Protestant. "Infallible" certainty is but a mirage. Having some sort of a representative present to preside over a body of people does not translate into having no divisions of any kind. 

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 outright heretical, since God has indeed given to us divine revelation. We know 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. 

           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 the Lord 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 philosophy. Reason has its limits. 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? Is such a god even worthy of our worship and time? Would such a god even have a reason to exist? It is not enough to merely posit the existence of God. It must be understood that He is present and interacting with creation. Deism is a rather awkward position for one to espouse.

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 God. The fundamental reasons for giving thanks to Him should be evident to any sincere, faithful Christian. He is gracious and merciful. His love is everlasting. 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).

         The Lord is the source of all wisdom, and wants to teach His children to be appreciative for whatever gifts that He has bestowed (Matthew 7:11; James 1:17). Every gift or blessing that we have originates from Him. Thankfulness is good for our souls. It reinforces humility and selflessness. It counteracts our tendency to boast. It keeps anger and resentment at bay. It keeps our hearts in a morally sound state. Giving thanks serves as a constant reminder of the blessings we do have. Giving thanks takes our focus off potential things we may desire to have, thus making us happier. It changes our perspective of matters in this life. We must thank Him for everything, even in the midst of sadness, suffering, and persecution (James 1:12; 1 Peter 4:12-19).

         We should thank God for holding us up spiritually during times of pain and suffering. He is working things out for the good of those who love Him. He is working things out to His eternal glory. If we refuse to give thanks to God, then already existing bitterness will fester in our minds and so rob us of the peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:4-8). 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.

Are Christians Sinners Saved By Grace?

• Discussion:

          -The Bible plainly identifies the problem that impacts the entirety of mankind, which is sin. We have incurred the wrath of God as a result of our transgressions against Him. We do not deserve to be in His presence. But the good news is that God by His grace has provided us one way to salvation through trusting in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. He has made known to us the greatness of His love and mercy. Consider the following:

             * The ungodly are justified through faith (Romans 4:4-6).
             * Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6-10).

          Does this mean that it is permissible for a Christian to continue living in sin after conversion? Absolutely not. Consider the following points of Paul's argument:

             * The Law is upheld by our faith (Romans 3:31).
             * Christians are to put to death fleshly works through the Spirit (Romans 6:1-2).
             * The truth sets us free from the shackles of sin (Romans 6:17-18).

          The Christian walk is a call to put away the deeds of the flesh. Our conscience has been purified by the blood of Christ to serve the living God. The Christian walk is a higher calling, firmly established on the foundation of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have been called to walk humbly with God. We have been called to faithfully serve God.

           The very reason that boasting is excluded from justification is that we are all sinners. We are not deserving of salvation. Even Christians still have spiritual weaknesses. We are still subject to temptation. We need the righteousness of God. He is gradually conforming our character to that of Jesus Christ. God has saved us in spite of our sins.

          It may sound noble or pious to deny that we are sinners saved by His grace, but such a notion could not be further from the truth (1 John 1:7-10). In fact, Jesus instructed His disciples to pray for the forgiveness of sin on a daily basis (Matthew 6:11-13). If we sin, then we have Jesus Christ as our advocate before the Father (1 John 2:1). Other passages of Scripture confirm that the righteous do occasionally stumble (Psalms 130:3-4; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; James 3:2).

          To deny that we are sinners saved by the grace of God is the preaching of a false gospel and calling God a liar. Our sin nature does not immediately disappear in its totality at the moment of conversion. Christians are called saints because they have been consecrated by the Holy Spirit. We are not to continue in sin. We have been called to grow in sanctification. It is the grace of God that transforms our nature in this life.

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

Can The Roman Catholic Church Offer People Assurance Of Salvation?

• Discussion:

           -Catholic Answers published an article titled "Assurance of Salvation?," which claims that faithful adherents of Rome can know that they possess eternal salvation. As a matter of fact, the author goes as far as to claim:

           "Sometimes Fundamentalists portray Catholics as if they must every moment be in terror of losing their salvation since Catholics recognize that it is possible to lose salvation through mortal sin.”

           But the truth of the matter is that numerous Roman Catholics act as though they cannot have assurance of salvation. When asked what it takes for one to enter heaven, Catholics tend to point to their church attendance and being a good person. Christ is not the point of focus in life. This may not true in every instance, but we cannot overlook this problem. Consider also the words of Cardinal John O'Connor:

           "Church teaching is that I don't know at any given moment, what my eternal future will be," the Cardinal wrote. I can hope, pray, do my very best-but I still don't know. Pope John Paul II doesn't know absolutely that he will go to heaven, nor does Mother Teresa of Calcutta, unless either has had a special revelation."

           What is more, Catholics attend Mass on a weekly basis for the express purpose of receiving grace from God. Justification for them is viewed as a fixed regular payment that can be depleted daily by sin. The Roman Catholic Church views grace as forgiveness plus works of obedience, which is not a biblical definition of grace at all. It is an unmerited, undeserved gift of God (Romans 5:6-10; Ephesians 2:8-9).

           The Bible tells us that we can have absolute assurance of salvation (John 5:24; 1 John 5:13). If we are in Jesus Christ, then we are fully justified (John 1:12; Romans 8:15-17). The salvation that He gives to believers is complete and instantaneous. We simply need to place our trust in Him (John 3:16; Acts 16:30-31). If we repent and believe on the gospel, then we are saved (Romans 10:9-10). We are saved by trusting in His work alone. Consider two quotes from Roman Catholic sources:

           "If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema." (Sixth session, Canon XVI)

           "The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this: that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 262)

            We do not have to fear as Roman Catholics about quickly and unexpectedly loosing fellowship with God as a result of no longer being considered worthy. Justification cannot simply be a gift of God if our works contribute to it at all. Our justification is not based on performance, even though we are responsible for our eternal destiny. The question is how we respond to the gospel. Constant doubt is a logical consequence of a system of works righteousness.

           We can have infallible assurance of salvation because God has promised such to us in Scripture. He is faithful and trustworthy. He can neither lie nor deceive. In Roman Catholicism, committing one mortal sin constitutes a loss of all saving grace and so requires confession to an ordained priest. Thus, one could hypothetically lose his salvation thousands of times in a lifetime. Moreover, no man knows if he is going to commit one of those allegedly salvation forfeiting sins. What if a person dies before getting to the confessional? God is much bigger than this. The author of the article at Catholic Answers makes the following statements:

           "Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

           The New Testament most certainly does use three tenses in describing salvation. The initial tense simply involves God pardoning the iniquity of the sinner. Christians are no longer under the penalty of sin. That is justification. The ongoing tense involves being conformed gradually to character of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is sanctification. The future tense involves being utterly taken away from the presence of sin in heaven. That is glorification. The author seems to have equated justification with sanctification, which is an abysmal error. In addition, James Swan has made an observation regarding the irony interwoven in the midst of this theological catastrophe:

           "Roman Catholics are always bringing up certainty, as if by being a member of the Roman Church, one of the benefits is certainty. That is, by being a Roman Catholic you can (allegedly) know with certainty which books are supposed to be in the Bible, you can know with certainty which is the church Jesus Christ established, you can know what the Bible says and means with certainty. But ironically, on a very basic (and important) fundamental human issue, you can’t have certainty of your salvation."

           If one takes the Word of God to heart, then he will depend wholly on Christ for salvation (Matthew 11:28-30). We cannot make reparation for our sins because doing such requires a perfect substitute (Hebrews 7:25; 10:10-14).We cannot make reparation for our sins because that has already been accomplished at the cross. The gospel nowhere demands that it be administered through some complex church hierarchy. Works are the product, not the cause, of our justification before God. We do them out of gratitude for what He has accomplished on our behalf. We should do them because our hearts have been transformed through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Answering Practical Objections To Sola Scriptura

• High Illiteracy Rates In The Early Church: 

          -Being illiterate does not mean that a person is dumb or has less of an ability to understand concepts. Sola Scriptura was still possible for the early Christians because:
            *Scripture can be taught orally by those who are literate.
            *Scripture can still be memorized or recited from memory.
            *Scripture can still be studied, though it may take more time to grasp the meaning behind certain passages of Scripture.
            *The Scriptures were read in the Synagogues and churches. In fact, the heretics of the early church would use Scripture to engage Christians.
          -The fact that persecution of Christians in the early church was problematic for the spread of the gospel did not reduce the importance of the unconverted hearing that message. In similar fashion, illiteracy rates would indeed be a problem for the study of Scripture. But at the same time, that point does nothing to lessen the authority of Scripture.
          -If the Lord Jesus Christ passed on infallible, extra-biblical oral traditions that were meant to be heard by the layman, then what about the people who are deaf? If illiteracy rates disqualify Scripture from functioning as the only infallible rule of faith, then is the Roman Catholic "three-legged stool" disqualified because deaf people cannot hear oral teaching?

• Concerning Malnutrition In The Early Church:

          -Everybody had the same fundamental diet. It takes no more nourishment to understand teachings found in a catechism or newspaper than it does to understand passages of Scripture.

• The Invention Of The Gutenberg Printing Press In 1436:

          -The underlying problem with the "practical arguments" against Sola Scriptura is that they misrepresent the doctrine. All it means is that Scripture alone is the ultimate standard of authority in spiritual matters. These points, however relevant, are separate issues that need to be addressed on their own terms. These points do not undermine the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura, or other articles of the Christian faith such as the Trinity.

          -In order to refute Sola Scriptura, one actually has to demonstrate that the principle is unbiblical or conflicts with Scripture. The authority of Scripture is not determined by our intelligence. The authority of Scripture is not determined by our health. The authority of Scripture is not determined by its availability. Scripture is inherently authoritative because it is God-breathed.

Is Your Pastor Qualified To Be Preaching From The Pulpit?

• Discussion:

          -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). The first point of consideration is whether a man even desires to wield such a position of authority (1 Timothy 3:1). 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
           *Not having fellowship with sin/setting a good moral example (e.g. not selfish, conceited, greedy, combative, aggressive, contentious, or an alcoholic)

          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? 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 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. If a man has qualities that do not match up with the list provided, then he is not fit to be in that office.

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.

        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 Judgement Day, every person will be rewarded according to his or her deeds. God looks at our works in judgement because they are descriptive of who we are as people.

The Uniqueness Of Trinitarian Monotheism

         In simplest terms, polytheism is belief in the existence of multiple gods. Examples would include the Roman pantheon of gods and Hinduism. It is both an ancient and modern concept. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the fundamental logical dilemma for polytheistic worldviews, which 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 divine entities of polytheistic religions are defective and so have proven themselves to be nothing. The history of the Old Testament makes this reality clear to us. It was God 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, "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)

          The Holy Scriptures tell 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 has no name like Zues 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.