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. Thus, animals 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 people who betrayed Christ and had Him killed thought He was receiving due punishment for His own actions. 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. 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 into a proper relationship with God. Christ died a criminal's death in order that enmity between mankind and God be resolved. This hostility does not originate from God to us, but us to God. Human nature has a bent of rejecting God.

         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? The words “faith” and “belief” do not need to be specifically mentioned in order for such to be present. Further, 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 total misrepresentation of the position that the author aims to prove to be in error. 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.

Observations About Culture And Morality

"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 Biblical Dilemma For Catholic Eucharistic Theology

• Discussion:

           -The Roman Catholic Church maintains that its priests transubstantiate bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Hence, it wholly ceases to be what it originally was. Roman Catholics believe that they literally eat Him at each worship gathering in order to obtain a further supply of grace from God. However, we are told in the New Testament that God does not dwell in places made by human hands. The biblical teaching on the presence of Christ is distinct from that taught by the Catholic Church:

           "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 (Christ is God in the flesh) is not "coming down" from His throne in the heavens at the command of some priest. Roman Catholic theology does not simply affirm Christ's presence in the bread and wine, but that they actually become His body and blood 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 (i.e. "body, blood, soul and divinity") to begin with. Christ's divinity transcends physical forms.

          Christ did not enter a holy place made with human hands, so there is no reason to suppose that He is going to descend from above on a daily basis to be sacrificed for sin. The Catholic priest's act of consecration is null and void. It does not effectuate a true transformation of the communion elements. Further, the divine is not to be equated with physical matter:

          "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? Is it not earthly and tangible? The answer to both questions is a resounding yes. The bread and wine used in the mass does not really 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, namely, Catholics are guilty of idolatry as a result of worshiping the eucharist. They worship bread and wine. This claim is rooted in the commandment against idolatry and the worship of created things (Exodus 20:4-5).

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 passage 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. 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). 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). Hundreds of cults throughout history have made identical claims of receiving divine messages 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 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 always 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 Thessalonians 5:21; Galatians 1:8-9). 

           Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:21-22 lay out guidelines as to how to examine self-proclaimed prophets:

             1.) If an utterance does not come to pass, then the person who gave it is a false prophet. Even if someone can perform miracles, that does not necessarily mean he is approved by God. If a person's predictions come true only sometimes, then that also makes him a false prophet. People with a God-given message are always proven correct.
             2.) If an utterance contradicts divine revelation, then the person who gave it has not been sent by God. In the context of Deuteronomy, we are given the example of pagans trying to sway Jews away from the worship of Yahweh to the gods of neighboring countries.
             3.) The moral character of the person giving an utterance must be consistent with office of profession. A prophet must have no deceit in his heart.
             4.) The message of false prophets exalts self, rather than God.

          Surely, this is a problem for the so-called prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation. There are literally no well-documented prophecies and miracles that these people can show us to demonstrate the validity of their ministries. Further, if the Bible is already complete revelation from God, then why would we need prophets and apostles 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. Our undivided attention belongs to Him. We need not heed to subjective New Age occultism, but the objective standard of Scripture. 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 is 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 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 scriptures and revelations to restore the church back to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles.

          -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 and the Bible have been totally corrupted and lost.

• 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. He 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.
          -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. 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 never 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, 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. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles has 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 was lost sometime 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. Scripture is clear that no man alive on this earth has ever seen God in the fullness of His glory. Joseph Smith received no divine revelation.

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

        Following is an excerpt from a Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Publication on creation and the nature of Christ:

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

        According to the Old Testament, no created entities worked alongside God in the process of creation. He created all things by Himself:

        "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)

        God is here said to not have had any assistance from any part of the created order in laying out the universe. He is both the cause and agent of creation.

        "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)

        The true Creator is presented as standing out from the false gods of this world. It would be wise for the people of God to not violate the terms of the covenant they entered into with Him.

        If Jesus Christ is not God, then He played no role whatsoever in creating the universe. However, He is not a created being, but the second person of the triune God. He is the creator of everything (Colossians 1:16). He is holding all things together by the power of His word. There are multiple lines of biblical evidence showing 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 Problem For Roman Catholic Mariology

          The Roman Catholic Church teaches as dogma that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, which is known as her immaculate conception. It also teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, meaning that she never consummated her marriage. However, an inescapable dilemma arises in the process of embracing both dogmas. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul in regard to physical intimacy within 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 theologically 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 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 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. We can work to change our future, especially eternity, with God's help and by His grace. No transgression is beyond the power of His forgiveness. The salvation that He gives is complete, and without cost. We must trust God at His Word. Our foundational problem is sin, which is rebellion against the God who created 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 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 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 the people of God sentenced to death, 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, then nothing else will. It is safe to say that such a person has no faith. The Apostle Paul exhausted the words of his vocabulary in an effort to try even in the smallest sense to convey for readers of his letter the nature of God's love for sinners. It does not get any clearer than this.

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. Rome touts itself to be the solution to all theological and exegetical debates. Following are excerpts from the author 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, private examination of Scripture is not a "new paradigm."

          "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 Catholic Church. Further, anyone who takes even a cursory glance at various historic Protestant traditions 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. The Magisterium is not quite the silver bullet it is made out to be.

          "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 Scripture. 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.”

           If that is not bad enough on its own terms, consider also Rome's teaching on the death penalty being subject to change. Note 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 greatly inflated. 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 teaching by Catholics themselves is not the biggest issue here. Division over transubstantiation exists in many parts of the Western world.

           Further, the Roman Catholic Church has never given an "infallible" interpretation of most passages of Scripture. It has done so only on a handful of occasions to serve its own purposes. To add insult to injury, while 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 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.

           "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 one is exempt from using his fallible reasoning faculties in analyzing written and spoken content. 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 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. Catholics apologists *subjectively* appeal to evidence, which has to be analyzed in their own minds and by those who encounter their claims. In making this kind of an argument, Catholics are severing the very branch of logic 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 to understand spiritual truth than anyone else. The belief of Catholics in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church is itself fallible.

            When interpreting Scripture, a person should take into account historical context and various literary devices. Commentaries, lexicons, concordances, and dictionaries are useful in matters of biblical interpretation. 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 in the first place? 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 reliability or credibility, which, once again, requires a person to sift through information on his own.

           On what basis does one establish the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? Since such a process involves using one's own powers of reason to evaluate evidence, then the person investigating is acting just like a Protestant or anyone else. Rome's "infallible" certainty is but a mirage. Having a representative available like the pope to preside over a whole group only means that Catholics have decided for themselves to believe the claims he makes on religious issues. It does not make hard questions go away. Rome can only provide organizational unity. If Sola Scriptura is invalidated because of divisions, then the same standard applies to the Magisterium.

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 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. This reality is called divine providence. 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 we do have. Giving thanks takes our focus off potential things 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 God, then already existing bitterness will fester in our minds and so rob us of the supernatural peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:4-8). 

Are Christians Sinners Saved By Grace?

• Discussion:

          -The problem of sin, or violations of divine law, is one that impacts the entirety of mankind. It is for that reason we have justly incurred for ourselves eternal condemnation by God. However, He has provided to us one way of deliverance from that curse through Jesus Christ. God has made known to us the greatness of His love and mercy. Our fates would be irreversible apart from His grace. Consider the following points:

             *Those who work are given only what is owed to them (Romans 4:4).

             *Those who do not work are declared righteous by God, deemphasizing claims of personal worth (Romans 4:5).

             *God makes righteous the ungodly through faith (Romans 4:5).
             *Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6-10).

          Does it follow, then, that Christians can continue to live in sin after conversion? Absolutely not. Consider this aspect of Paul's argument:

             *The Law is not nullified, but upheld, by faith (Romans 3:31).
             *Grace sets us free from the shackles of sin (Romans 6:1-2).

           We are called to put away the deeds of the flesh. Those are consistent with our old way of living. We have been purified to serve the living God. Our new calling is a higher one from the lifestyle that we had prior to the experience of conversion.

           The very reason that boasting is excluded from justification before God is that we are all sinners, not deserving of His salvation. We did not do anything to appease Him, but He did everything necessary to rescue us. God saved us, regardless of our fallen condition.

          It may sound pious to deny that we are sinners saved by His grace, but that notion is actually narcissistic. It is not the truth as to who and what we are (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). Other texts attesting to our sinfulness would include Psalms 130:3-4, Proverbs 20:9, and Ecclesiastes 7:20.

          If we fail to live up to our calling, then we have Jesus Christ as our advocate before God (1 John 2:1). Heaven is not reserved for people who are already righteous, but sinners who have been saved by the grace of God. Doing good works does not make us a Christian, but divine grace does. That the gospel decries man attempting to earn salvation is proof to our sinfulness (Romans 3:20; 24; Ephesians 2:8-9).

          To deny that we are sinners saved by the grace of God is the preaching of a false gospel. It amounts to calling calling Him a liar. Our sin nature does not immediately disappear in its totality at conversion. Even the greatest of saints like Abraham and King David sinned during the course of their earthly lives. Believers are called saints because they have been consecrated by the Holy Spirit. 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:

           -An article was published at Catholic Answers, in which attempts are made to answer what is perceived to be common misconceptions about Rome's teaching on the assurance of salvation and provide clarity on this topic. While the effort is laudable, it fails to shed real light because the underlying issues prompting various criticisms are not addressed in a meaningful way. Below are excerpts from the article, along with a critical analysis of the author's points:

           "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.”

           On the contrary, many, if not most, Roman Catholics act as though they cannot have assurance of salvation. When asked what it takes for one to enter heaven, they usually point to their church attendance or being a good person. Christ is not the point of focus in their lives. This may not true in every instance, but we cannot afford to minimize or 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...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."

           That is not a satisfactory way to address the issue of how one can know that he has been saved from his sins and their due penalty. The bottom line is that the Roman Catholic Church has not adequately considered the question of how a man can know he has, in fact, been forgiven of his sin by God. This is a serious defect in the way that the gospel has been presented. 

           Further, Catholics attend Mass on a weekly basis for the express purpose of receiving grace from God. Justification for them is comparable to a fixed regular payment that can be depleted daily by sin. Rome 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). 

            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 alone. If we repent and believe on the gospel, then we are saved (Romans 10:9-10). Consider also this excerpt from Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 262

           "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."

           Constant doubt is an inevitable consequence of any system of works righteousness. Justification cannot simply be a gift of God, if our works contribute to it in any way. Our justification is not based on our performance, even though we are responsible for our eternal destiny. The question is how we respond to the gospel. We can have infallible assurance of salvation because it is rooted in the promises of God, who 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. One could hypothetically lose his salvation tens of thousands of times during a lifetime. Moreover, no man knows when he is going to commit one of those allegedly salvation forfeiting sins. What if a person dies before getting to the confessional? This system is overly rigid and is lacking in perspective. Is God not bigger than this?

           "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 uses 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. James Swan has noted 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). The gospel nowhere demands that it be administered through some complex church hierarchy. We do good works with the intent of pleasing our Creator. We do them out of gratitude for what Christ has accomplished on our behalf. God has given us a new heart. The purpose of good deeds in the Christian life is not to merit salvation.

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.