How The Gospel Brings About Unity

"One of the defining characteristics of modern cults is the turning of the convert against his family, and the cutting off of that convert from his parents. The true gospel does not do that. We teach young converts to honor their fathers and mothers, even when those parents oppose the Gospel. Unlike the modern cults, the alienation comes only when unbelieving parents disown, expel, or disenfranchise believing children. In such cases, the family of the local assembly is all the more important. The original family has cast out the new believer."

Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 98

Pillar And Ground Of The Truth

"The word pillar (στῦλος, stylos) would have special significance to the Ephesians in that their city was the site of the Temple of Diana which had 127 marble pillars upon which announcements were regularly affixed. The local church was a pillar upon which the truth was to be held up that all might see it. By “truth” (ἀληθεία, alētheia) Paul means the full revelation of God in Christ as [1 Timothy] verse 16 makes clear...The church is a household called to manifest the truth in its message and to conform to it in its conduct. Paul adds that the church is the “support” or buttress (ἑδραίωμα, hedraiōma) of the truth. The church, the Apostle implies, exists to maintain the faith and protect it from all danger."

Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 49

Non-Christians And Church Attendance

"Nowhere in the New Testament is there any indication that the church met to preach the gospel. Rather the church met to worship, to teach the word, to pray, to have fellowship. The meeting of the church was to edify believers and to glorify God. But it was not to preach the gospel to unbelievers. Rather the saints went out into the world to preach the gospel. … there is no biblical mandate for an “evangelistic service” when the church comes together. There is a mandate to equip the saints to preach the gospel. The work of Christians is not to invite unbelievers to church so that they might hear the gospel. It is to preach the gospel themselves."

Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 132

Conversion Entails Spiritual Change

"If conversion to Christianity makes no improvement in a man’s outward actions—if he continues to be just as snobbish or spiteful or envious or ambitious as he was before—then I think we must suspect that his “conversion” was largely imaginary; and after one’s original conversion, every time one thinks one has made an advance, that is the test to apply. Fine feelings, new insights, greater interest in “religion” mean nothing unless they make our actual behavior better; just as in illness “feeling better” is not much good if the thermometer shows that your temperature is still going up."

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 207

Examining The Catholic Dogma Of The Real Presence In Light Of Scripture

        Roman Catholics believe that at the moment of consecration by the priest during the mass, the communion elements become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Ludwig Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 379, says, "Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood...This transformation is called Transubstantiation.”

        The Apostle Paul's language of "proclaim His death" and "until He comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26) logically suggests that the body of Jesus Christ is physically absent from the world at this point in time. He will return again to establish everlasting peace. If transubstantiation is true, then this passage of Scripture has been made of no effect because Christ would be coming down from heaven on a daily basis by the command of ordained ministerial priests.

        The Lord Jesus Christ told His disciples that they would not see Him in the flesh after His ascension into heaven (John 7:33; 16:10; Acts 1:8-9). If He comes down from His throne at the command of a priest, then He would be contradicting Himself because He would be descending on a daily basis for believers to behold under the appearance of bread and wine.

        Paul stated that Christ is sitting at the right hand of God the Father (Colossians 3:1). If he believed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the real presence, then it would have been perfectly reasonable for him to provide an exception to that idea. But he does nothing of the sort. Paul said elsewhere, "...even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer." (2 Corinthians 5:16).

        The concept of the real presence faces theological difficulties when viewed through Christ's own teachings about His omnipresence. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus assures His followers, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” This promise of an ever-present Christ implies a spiritual, rather than a physical presence, since a physical presence would conflict with the limitless nature of divinity. If Christ ascends into heaven in His flesh, then it stands to reason that He is not present on earth in the same way.

        Matthew 24:23-26 clearly warns against false claims of Christ's physical presence in specific locations, urging believers not to be deceived by such assertions. This directly challenges the Roman Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation and real presence, which claim that Christ is physically present as the eucharist. Christ’s true presence is spiritual and omnipresent, negating the need for physical manifestation in the form of bread and wine.

        What can be deduced from the text of Scripture is Jesus Christ being present amongst believers in a spiritual sense. Moreover, He is brought to our minds as we remember the significance of His life and teachings during communion. That is psychological presence. Further, Jesus does not need to physically come down from heaven to be orally consumed in order to impart grace to our souls or nourish our faith.

        Deliberately failing to participate in the Sunday mass is called a mortal sin in Roman Catholic theology, which would make such a person in a state outside of grace and in danger of going to hell. That would suggest that it is necessary for salvation, thereby adding to the teaching of Scripture that we are saved by faith apart from works (Acts 16:30-31; Ephesians 2:8-9).

A Patristic Witness Against Baptismal Regeneration

          Following are a number of excerpts from an Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism (254-257 A.D.), which seem to convey early disagreement with the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. The first objection from the author concerns people who heard the gospel and never had a chance to get baptized upon becoming a Christian:

          "And what wilt thou determine against the person of him who hears the word, and haply taken up in the name of Christ, has at once confessed, and has been punished before it has been granted him to be baptized with water? Wilt thou declare him to have perished because he has not been baptized with water? Or, indeed, wilt thou think that there may be something from without that helps him to salvation, although he is not baptized with water? They thinking him to have perished will be opposed by the sentence of the Lord, who says “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven;” because it is no matter whether he who confesses for the Lord is a hearer of the word or a believer, so long as he confesses that same Christ whom he ought to confess...therefore nobody can confess Christ without His name, nor can the name of Christ avail any one for confession without Christ Himself."

          The author references Jesus' promise in Matthew 10:32. This would suggest that confession of faith is sufficient for salvation, regardless of baptismal status.

          The author of this treatise also uses the example of the apostles and their betrayal of Christ as an argument against baptismal regeneration:

          "...but all the disciples, to whom, though already baptized, the Lord afterwards says, that “all ye shall be offended in me,” all of whom, as we observe, having amended their faith, were baptized after the Lord’s resurrection with the Holy Spirit…the baptism of water, which is of less account provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account."

          The example of the apostles, who despite being baptized, abandoned Jesus but later received the Holy Spirit, is used to argue that the baptism of the Spirit holds greater significance than water baptism. This implies that a sincere faith and the reception of the Holy Spirit are more crucial for salvation than the physical act of being baptized with water.

         The author even goes to distinguish between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit:

          "Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother’s womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe."

          He notes instances where the Holy Spirit was bestowed without prior water baptism (e.g., John the Baptist and those with Cornelius). This would suggest that the Holy Spirit can precede or follow water baptism, or even occur in the absence of water baptism, emphasizing faith as the key to receiving the Holy Spirit. Consider this excerpt from the treatise:

          "And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water, as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied, forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle’s hands and without the laver [baptismal font], which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith."

          The last excerpt underscores the belief that people can be saved through the Holy Spirit without being baptized with water. Water baptism is seen as supplementary, conferring the invocation of Jesus' name. It is not seen as necessary for the remission of sins or salvation.

Why People Need Not Be Baptized Twice

"And so there was this same presumption concerning Christ in the mind of the disciples, even as Peter himself, the leader and chief of the apostles, broke forth into that expression of his own incredulity. For when he, together with the others, had been asked by the Lord what he thought about Him, that is, whom he thought Him to be, and had first of all confessed the truth, saying that He was the Christ the Son of the living God, and therefore was judged blessed by Him because he had arrived at this truth, not after the flesh, but by the revelation of the heavenly Father; yet this same Peter, when Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders, and priests, and scribes and be killed, and after the third day rise again from the dead; nevertheless that true confessor of Christ, after a few days, taking Him aside, began to rebuke Him, saying, “Be propitious to thyself: this shall not be;” so that on that account he deserved to hear from the Lord, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me, because he savoured not the things which are of God, but those things which are of men.” Which rebuke against Peter became more and more apparent when the Lord was apprehended, and, frightened by the damsel, he said, “I know not what thou sayest, neither know I thee;” and again, when using an oath, he said this same thing; and for the third time, cursing and swearing, he affirmed that he knew not the man, and not once, but frequently denied Him. And this disposition, because it was to continue to him even to the Lord’s passion, was long before made manifest by the Lord, that we also might not be ignorant of it. Again, after the Lord’s resurrection, one of His disciples, Cleopas, when he was, according to the error of all his fellow-disciples, sorrowfully telling what had happened to the Lord Himself, as if to some unknown person, spoke thus, saying of Jesus the Nazarene, “who was a prophet mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people; how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and fastened Him to the cross. But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel.” And in addition to these things, all the disciples also judged the declaration of the women who had seen the Lord after the resurrection to be idle tales; and some of them, when they had seen Him, believed not, but doubted; and they who were not then present believed not at all until they had been subsequently by the Lord Himself in all ways rebuked and reproached; because His death had so offended them that they thought that He had not risen again, who they had believed ought not to have died, because contrary to their belief He had died once. And thus, as far as concerns the disciples themselves, they are found to have had a faith neither sound nor perfect in such matters as we have referred to; and what is much more serious, they moreover baptized others, as it is written in the Gospel according to John."

Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism (254-257 A.D.)

The Forgiveness Of God For Lapses In Faith

And now blush if thou canst, Novation; cease to deceive the unwary with thy impious arguments; cease to frighten them with the subtlety of one particular. We read, and adore, and do not pass over the heavenly judgment of the Lord, where he says that He will deny him who denies Him. But does this mean the penitent? And why should I be taking pains so long to prove individual cases of mercies? Since the mercy of God is not indeed denied to the Ninevites, although strangers, and placed apart from the law of the Lord, when they beseech it on account of the overthrow announced to their city. Nor to Pharoah himself, resisting with sacrilegious boldness, when formerly he was stricken with plagues from heaven, and turning to Moses and to his brother, said, “Pray to the Lord for me, for I have sinned.” At once the anger of God was suspended from him. And yet thou, O Novation, judgest and declarest that the lapsed have no hope of peace and mercy.

A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop

Does Acts 17:11-12 Support Sola Scriputra?

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin wrote an article in response to the citation of Acts 17:11-12 as being supportive of Sola Scriptura. His focus is on the nature of the response of the Bereans to Paul's teaching and the canon of Scripture being incomplete. Akin's comments are cited in bold and followed with a critique:

          "...the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question. Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ."

          Acts 17:11-12 supports Sola Scriptura in that the Bereans had tested the validity of the Apostle Paul's message by comparing it to the Old Testament, which is Scripture. As for the contrast in the nature of the response of people from that city and that of the Thessalonians, that does not change the argument. In fact, the context records Paul himself as appealing to those same Scriptures as the final court of authority in debating Jews (Acts 17:1-3).

          "There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament. What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.” While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith."

          Saying that Paul and Silas did not have a compiled New Testament in their hands is nothing but a red herring. The original intent of an author does not rule out a present application of a biblical passage to broader conditions. It is therefore not out of bounds to cite Acts 17:11-12 as a supporting text for Sola Scriptura. Further, in Roman Catholicism, scriptural proof is not necessary in order for a dogma to be true. The "laypeople" are not even allowed to interpret Scripture authentically:

          "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." (CCC # 100)

          This kind of thinking is different from what we see taking place during the encounter with the Bereans and them accepting the gospel message. Paul did not direct these people to an infallible teaching office in order for them to understand the content of his message. The Bereans did not wait for a council or bishop to tell them what to believe. They interpreted the Word of God for themselves. The Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient for the purposes of Paul as he witnessed to others. They were also sufficient for the Bereans to verify the message that he delivered. Otherwise, they would not have appealed to them as the final source of authority to begin with.

Why God Cannot Tolerate The Presence Of Sin

        There are countless idols in our society, from celebrities to personal lifestyle habits. Anything that is worshiped in this world besides God Himself is a false god. It makes no difference whether worship involves Baal or oneself. One idol prevalent throughout the world of evangelicalism is a god who cannot render judgment on unbelievers because of his love. The end result of that is believing in a god who condones sin. Is such a deity even worthy of paying homage to? Many who claim to follow Jesus Christ in Western culture struggle to accept God for who He is.

        If God is unable to judge unrepentant sinners as a result of being overwhelmed by sentiment, then He must be a weak God. He must be a feeble and miserable God. After all, in this scenario, He cannot bear to enforce His own moral commandments. God would be slave to a wishy-washy concept of love. Consequently, He could no longer rightly be said to be ruler over the universe. It would be governed by empty tenderness and any existing moral order would cease to be. 

        If God were to accept the sinful ways of mankind, then He would no longer be righteous and just. He would no longer be God, which is logically impossible. He would be exactly like us. God would no longer be judge, but a coward and hypocrite. Such a portrayal of God does not come about as a result of thinking critically about His character. It is based on a redefinition of love. The love of God is made evident in Him providing for both the just and the unjust:

        "...for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:45)

         The above cited text from the Sermon on the Mount mentions common graces of God, which we take for granted. These are things that no one deserves. He has the power and authority to both give and take them from us. All things that are good and enjoyable are gifts from God. If, however, we fail to take into account the character of God in its entirety, then we will inevitably reach a wrong conclusion as to who He is. A false god will be worshiped. It is a truth that God judges the wicked (Revelation 20). He is holy by His very nature.

Christ Our Wisdom And Righteousness

        "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption." (1 Corinthians 1:30)

        Jesus Christ is the fountainhead of salvation and all graces that follow. He is the outward manifestation of God's love and mercy. 

        It is worth noting that the Paul here distinguishes between "righteousness" and "sanctification." He did not teach a merit based system of salvation.

        God imparts to us a measure of wisdom regarding salvation. It was demonstrated through Christ's work on the cross, and contrasted with our ideas of what is wise.

        We receive a righteous standing before God on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness, which is instantaneous. Sanctification is progressive and gradual.

        Redemption refers to our future glorification in which we will actually be made perfect as Christ Himself is perfect. 

        In the Old Testament, the Law is called wisdom and righteousness (Deuteronomy 4:6; 6:25). Christ is our wisdom and righteousness.

A Biblical Presentation On The Doctrine Of Adoption

        Adoption is a profound act of divine grace whereby God graciously and lovingly considers us members of His eternal family. Through faith, we are deemed His children. The term “adoption” is borrowed from legal terminology to vividly illustrate a significant transformation in our standing before God. Much like justification, adoption is an act of God’s unmerited favor, wholly undeserved yet freely given.

        The doctrine of adoption implicitly acknowledges that humanity, in its natural state, is estranged from God due to sin. Not all are inherently children of God by birth. We require a Redeemer to liberate us from the bondage of sin, underscoring the need for a supernatural act of God to enable us to become part of His divine family, a status we cannot achieve through our own efforts.

        This divine adoption is not determined by physical lineage or human endeavor but is received through faith (John 1:12-13). God initiated the rescue mission by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for our sins. The privilege of being adopted as God's children is unparalleled, granting us an imperishable inheritance in heaven.

         Paul used the metaphor of adoption to convey that believers share in the inheritance that belongs to Jesus Christ:

         “and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” (Romans 8:17)

         Paul's message here is deeply rooted in the theme of adoption. He emphasizes that as believers, we are not just children of God, but also heirs. This means we have an inheritance waiting for us, just like Jesus. Being "heirs of God" signifies a shared inheritance with Christ, highlighting our unity and co-heirship with Him. The mention of suffering underscores the reality that following Christ may come with challenges, but these trials are part of our journey to ultimate glorification with Him.

         “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5)

         Paul highlights the divine timing in God's plan. "When the fullness of the time came" refers to the precise moment in history when God chose to send Jesus into the world. Jesus, born of a woman, signifies His humanity, and being "born under the Law" illustrates His submission to the Jewish Law. The purpose of His coming was to redeem those bound by the Law, enabling them to be adopted into God's family. This adoption is not merely a legal status but signifies a deep, familial relationship with Him.

         Christ possesses all things, and we are invited to share in His glory and riches as members of the kingdom of heaven (John 17:22; 2 Corinthians 8:9). This adoption through Jesus Christ is a predestined act, reflecting the kind intention of God’s will:

        “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.” (Ephesians 1:5)

        The shed blood of Christ secures both our justification and our adoption by God the Father. This divine relationship is not merely legalistic but deeply personal. He belongs to us, and we belong to Him.

        The implications of our adoption by God are vast. It signifies that we are no longer slaves to sin, but are now partakers in the divine nature and inheritors of the kingdom of God. We are granted the privilege of calling God "Father" and enjoying the intimacy of a familial relationship with Him. This newfound status as children of God comes with responsibilities, living in a manner worthy of our calling and reflecting God's character in our lives.

        Moreover, adoption assures us of God's unbreakable love and commitment. As His children, we are under His protection and care, guaranteed that nothing can separate us from His love (Romans 8:38-39). Our adoption also fosters unity among believers, as we recognize that we are all members of the same divine family, united in Christ.

        Forensic justification causes things which are not forensic in nature to happen. We obtain peace with God by faith, which includes assurance of salvation and the freedom to pursue holiness in gratitude for what God has done for us. These blessings have a consequential relationship to justification by faith alone. The relationship of God to the unbelieving world is that of a judge to a convict, whereas our relationship to Him is that of a father to a son.

Editors Should Pay Attention When King David Bursts Into News 3,000 Years Later

Merriam-Webster’s definition 2(b) of the term “peg,” as a noun states: “something (such as a fact or issue) used as a support, pretext, or reason,” for example “a news peg for the story.”

When it comes to media peg-manship and the Bible, it certainly appears that any old pretext will do.

Yet news pegs of any kind are remarkably absent with the most recent example of the genre, in The New Yorker dated June 29. The 8,500-worder by Israeli freelance Ruth Margalit consumes 10 pages of this elite journalistic real estate.

The cute headline announces the pitch: “Built On Sand.” Subhed: “King David’s story has been told for millennia. Archeologists are still fighting over whether it’s true.”

Was David the grand though flawed monarch the Bible depicts, or merely some boondocks bandit or sheik?

The debate affects current Israeli-vs.-Palestinian settlement politics, but in archaeology the last major news peg on David occurred 15 years ago while this pretext-free article appears in most news-crazed year imaginable.

That should tell media strategists something. Margalit’s reputation as a writer and skill at story pitches presumably helped, but the magazine’s editors knew that multitudes gobble up this stuff. The New Yorker’s long-form journalism is well suited to exploring such matters.

Pegs from the past? Any claims that David never even existed were all but eradicated by the 1993 discovery of the “House of David” inscription within a century of the king’s reign. A 1996 paper by Margalit’s central personality, Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, contended that though there was a David the Bible’s account of him is mostly exaggerated fiction. (Finkelstein later co-authored a 2006 book on this for popular audiences.)

Then in 2005, Eilat Mazar of Hebrew University made a dramatic announcement about unearthing what she believes is the foundation of David’s Jerusalem palace, indicating the grand scope of the Phoenecian building project the Bible describes. Finkelstein dissents.

Margalit is a sure-footed guide through these and other disputes among top archaeologists over the decades. She does not cite any Orthodox thinkers who accept the entirety of the Bible narrative as factual. The best scholarly book from that viewpoint is the readable “On The Reliability of the Old Testament” by British Egyptologist K. A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool, a conservative evangelical.

Kitchen argues for the plausibility of David’s story in the context of broader Mideast history, surveys the scant material evidence, and explains why that’s so. An archaeologist’s maxim tells us “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” and Jerusalem’s many rounds of destruction reinforce the importance of the point.

Mazar depicted her find in 2006 for Biblical Archaeology Review, which followed with updates and coverage of archaeologists who doubt the claim.

Religion writers should be subscribers or at least familiar with this magazine, which is written for lay readers and blessedly free of technical jargon. It’s a prime source for keeping on top of new developments and story ideas in this field.

https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2020/6/30/editors-should-pay-attention-when-king-david-bursts-into-mainstream-press-3000-years-laternbsp

Proclaiming The Lord's Death And Resurrection

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on whose account the earth trembled! He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree. The Sovereign is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand. This is the One who made the heavens and the earth, and formed mankind in the beginning, The One proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, the One enfleshed in a virgin, the One hanged on a tree, the One buried in the earth, the One raised from the dead and who went up into the heights of heaven, the One sitting at the right hand of the Father, the One having all authority to judge and save, through Whom the Father made the things which exist from the beginning of time. This One is "the Alpha and the Omega," this One is "the beginning and the end." The beginning indescribable and the end incomprehensible. This One is the Christ. This One is the King. This One is Jesus. This One is the Leader. This One is the Lord. This One is the One who rose from the dead. This One is the One sitting on the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father. "To him be the glory and the power forever. Amen.

Melito of Sardis, On the Passover

On The Completion Of The Old Testament Canon And Apocrypha

• Discussion:

          -This article serves as a rebuttal to a number of claims set forth by Trent Horn regarding whether the apocryphal books belong in the Old Testament canon. He tries to show that the authors of the apocrypha did not believe the canon to be finished, appeals to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and references early writings which cite these works as authoritative. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique:

          "The authors of the deuterocanonical books did not believe the Hebrew canon was closed or that there was a set of books called “the Writings,” to which no more could be added. The prologue to Sirach only references “the law and the prophets and the others that followed them” and “the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books.” Second Maccabees describes Judas the Maccabee encouraging his troops only with words “from the law and the prophets” (15:9)."

          This attempt at refutation by Trent Horn is ridiculous and manufactured. For instance, the translator of Ecclesiasticus in no uncertain terms distinguishes "these things" (meaning the work that he is translating) from "the law and the prophets and the others that followed them." Thus, he believed that there was a threefold structured collection of sacred books that were accorded a unique status. Even the last of the three divisions of the Hebrew canon is spoken of in this passage as being "of our ancestors." Thus, this process was not going on in the days of the person translating this work or even his grandfather. This description suggests a closed canon.

          Another text relating to the completion of the Hebrew canon is 2 Esdras 14:45-46. It makes reference to a collection of twenty-four books which are intended to be read by all people. That number is equivalent to the number of books comprising the Jewish canon. These twenty-four writings are distinguished from a different set of seventy in that the later are meant only to be read by those who have wisdom. The seventy books are described as having been "written last" (meaning after the writing of the first set).

          "According to Old Testament scholar Otto Kaiser, the deuterocanonical books “presuppose the validity of the Law and the Prophets and also utilize the Ketubim, or ‘Writings’ collection, which was, at the time, still in the process of formation and not yet closed.” In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain Jewish writings from the years 400 B.C. to A.D. 100, include copies of deuterocanonical books like Sirach, Tobit, and Baruch, which shows they were considered to be part of the Writings."

          Hundreds of manuscripts of non-biblical material have been discovered in the Qumran caves. It was comparable to a library which contains several different genres of literature. So one cannot simply appeal to the Dead Sea Scrolls as grounds for including the apocrypha in the Old Testament canon. These people were educated in the literature of their time and would have known books such as Sirach and Tobit. 

          "Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews."

          The author of Hebrews could have referenced the Maccabeean Revolt for the reason this rebellion took place in more recent history, not that he ascribed canonical status to 2 Maccabees. It would make sense for one to consult that work for historical purposes due to that event having a particular significance to an audience with a Jewish background. Furthermore, there could have been multiple sources or family traditions from which the author of Hebrews gathered his information.

          "The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,” and none of the pre-Nicene Church fathers ever declares the deuterocanonical books to be uninspired or non-canonical. St. Jerome even tells us that at the Council of Nicaea the deuterocanonical work of Judith was considered to be a part of the canon of Scriptures."

          There were church fathers who were not familiar with the Hebrew canon of Scripture and so mistakenly thought the deuterocanonicals to be inspired Scripture. Further, a distinction was made between the canonical books of the Old Testament and the deuterocanonicals as early as the second century, which lasted until the timing of the Protestant Reformation. Bruce M. Metzger writers:

          "The prevailing custom among the Jews was the production of separate volumes for each part of the Hebrew canon…When the codex or leaf-form of book production was adopted, however, it became possible for the first time to include a great number of separate books within the same two covers…For whatever reason the change was instituted, it now became possible for canonical and Apocryphal books to be brought into close physical juxtaposition. Books which heretofore had never been regarded by the Jews as having any more than a certain edifying significance were now placed by Christian scribes in one codex side by side with the acknowledged books of the Hebrew canon. Thus it would happen that what was first a matter of convenience in making such books of secondary status available among Christians became a factor in giving the impression that all of the books within such a codex were to be regarded as authoritative. Furthermore, as the number of Gentile Christians grew, almost none of whom had exact knowledge of the extent of the original Hebrew canon, it became more and more natural for quotations to be made indiscriminately from all the books included with the one Greek codex.”  (An Introduction to the Apocrypha, 177-178)

Did God Abandon Jesus Christ At The Cross?

"The words of Jesus at Matthew 27:46 have come in for many kinds of interpretation. Unfortunately, many of the theories have compromised the Bible's teachings on the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Father was never separated from or abandoned the Son. This truth is clear from many sources. Jesus uses the second person when speaking to the Father-"why have You forsaken Me?" rather than "why did He forsake Me?" as if the Father is no longer present. Immediately on the heels of this statement Jesus speaks to the Father ("Father, into your hands. . "), showing no sense of separation. Whatever else Jesus was saying, He was not saying that, at the very time of His ultimate obedience to the Father, the Father abandoned Him. Rather, it seems much more logical to see this as a quotation of Psalm 22 that is meant to call to mind all of that Psalm, which would include the victory of v. 19ff, as well as verse 24, which states, "For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hidden His face from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard."

James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering The Heart Of Christian Belief, p. 215, note 1 for chapter 11

Using The Exodus To Illustrate Imputed Righteousness

        The purpose of the Passover meal was to bring into the hearts and minds of the Jews their deliverance by God from captivity in Egypt. He was moved with compassion to redeem His people as they cried out to Him for intervention (Exodus 3:9-10). The Jews grew in number, but ended up enslaved by Pharaoh and forced to work under merciless conditions (Exodus 5:1-23).

        Every item on the seder plate carries deep symbolism. For instance, bitter herbs signify the bitterness of slavery, while unleavened bread, known as matzah, symbolizes the bread that the Israelites brought with them during their escape from Egypt.

        Being the final part of a series of plagues, God required that the Jewish people sacrifice lambs and apply blood to their doorposts in order that He pass by those houses and leave the firstborn children unharmed (Exodus 12:7; 12-13; 21-24; 27). The Pharaoh lost his firstborn son as the Lord cast judgment on the Egyptians.

        This incident is illustrative of the imputation of Jesus Christ's righteousness to those who have placed their trust in Him. We have a righteous status credited to our account before God because we have been covered by the shed blood of His Son.

        We are not under divine judgment, but forgiven of our sins. Just as the blood of the lambs was applied to the doors of the houses to spare the oppressed people of judgment, so the blood of Christ is applied to us by faith to enable access to God.

Examining Catholic Redemptive Suffering In Light Of Scripture

          The Roman Catholic Catechism says that our suffering, "...can also have a redemptive meaning for the sins of others" (CCC, 1502). It also asserts that, "Christ not only allows himself to be touched by the sick, but he makes their miseries his own: ... By his passion and death on the cross Christ has given a new meaning to suffering: it can henceforth configure us to him and unite us with his redemptive Passion" (CCC, 1505). The Catechism claims that our suffering in Christ, "...acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus" (CCC, 1521).

          Contrary to Catholic belief, Scripture affirms that it is Jesus Christ Himself who atones for sin. This does not involve our suffering in addition to what He has done for our sakes. Christ's work on the cross has ensured that we obtain redemption and the forgiveness of sins. It was accomplished "by His own blood" (Hebrews 9:12), without reference to any suffering on our part. While suffering can result in being conformed to Christ, it should not be considered as having redemptive value or making amends for wrongdoing.

          Nowhere in Scripture is our pain and suffering said to be brought together with the shed blood of Christ to make atonement. The New Testament speaks of His blood only in the context of His suffering for our sins (Hebrews 9:26-28; 13:12; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 5:9). He alone took that burden from us, rendering any other potential atoning work unnecessary. Psalm 49:7 tells us, "No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them."

          2 Corinthians 1:5-7, Colossians 1:24, and Galatians 2:20 are the primary texts cited to support the Roman Catholic concept of our suffering being used by God to cancel out punishment for sins when offered together with the sacrifice of Christ. However, these verses do not identify human suffering with His suffering in the way that Rome claims, as follows:

          2 Corinthians refers to hardship for preaching the gospel, which resulted in it being shared and exemplified to the Christians in Corinth. Suffering can produce comfort and hope in God, as one can relate to the situations of other people. This does not imply that our sufferings carry meritorious value in Christ.

          The text from Colossians speaks of the sufferings of believers when viewed as part of the overall suffering of Christ’s body, the church. These sufferings are for His sake and serve as a testimony of His truth. However, they do not reconcile us to God or satisfy for sin, as Christ's sacrifice has already accomplished that perfectly. Instead, they serve as examples to others and help in the growth and maturity of the saints.

           The passage in Galatians identifies believers with Christ, this does not mean that their sufferings have any merit in regard to justification before God. Paul speaks of his own life as if it were the life of Christ Himself, showing his appreciation and living out his life in view of Christ's love and sacrifice for him.

          The idea of participating in the redemptive work of Christ through our temporal sufferings is a misunderstanding. It fails to grasp the beauty and power of God's grace. Every religion on this earth is unable to receive the totality of God's kindness. To lost souls, the Lord Jesus Christ is simply not enough.

2 Thessalonians 2:2 And The Reliability Of The New Testament Canon

        "that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come." (2 Thessalonians 2:2)

       The above reference shows us that even the earliest Christians were aware of the possibility of pseudonymous letters. That bolsters our confidence in having the full New Testament canon because they did not simply accept any writing which claimed to have been written by an apostle. The early Christians were aware that forgeries existed.

Answering Evidences For The Existence Of A Papacy In The Early Church

• Discussion:

           -This article serves as a refutation of claims made by Trent Horn in regards to the question of whether the office of pope withstands biblical and historical scrutiny. Each of the author's claims are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

           "But didn’t Peter refer to himself as a “fellow elder” and not as “pope” in 1 Peter 5:1? Yes, but in this passage Peter is demonstrating humility that he is encouraging other priests to practice. He wrote, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another” (5:5), so exalting his status would have contradicted his message. Besides, St. Paul often referred to himself as a mere deacon (see 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 11:23) and even said he was “the very least of all the saints” (Eph. 3:8)—but that did not take away from his authority as an apostle. Likewise, Peter’s description of himself as an elder does not take away from his authority as being “first” among the apostles (Matt 10:2)."

           The above argument rests on a few questionable presuppositions: 1.) Peter described himself in the humblest of terms in order that he set a good moral example, not that he knew nothing in regards to having been bestowed papal authority, and 2.) Peter was addressing members of an ordained ministerial priesthood. Nothing in the context of 1 Peter 5 gives credence to either of these. Further, even granting that the apostle is setting forth a model for other elders to emulate, the text still weakens the idea of Peter being first pope because it shows him putting himself on par with other elders in the church. He never indicates being in a superior position of authority. He never distinguished himself from other leaders in the church, and no one else is recorded as recognizing his special authority.

          "In regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, in the first century Clement of Rome (the fourth pope) intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth. He warned those who disobeyed him that they would “involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger,” thus demonstrating his authority over non-Roman Christians."

           In the early Christian church, leadership roles were decentralized, with congregations often being overseen by a group of elders, also referred to as bishops (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). These terms were used interchangeably, signifying that there was no hierarchical distinction among them. This plural leadership model stands in contrast to the later centralized authority of a singular bishop, as seen in the Roman Church's structure.

          The letter commonly attributed to Clement of Rome, written to the church in Corinth, does not explicitly claim to be authored by Clement or even by a single authoritative bishop. Instead, it appears to represent the collective voice of the Roman congregation. The letter’s tone and language suggest a communal rather than hierarchical intention, where the writer's role seems more aligned with that of a presbyter or even a secretary representing the church as a whole.

          Catholic apologists may argue that this letter demonstrates early recognition of the Bishop of Rome's authority over other churches. However, such an interpretation assumes a level of centralized power that is not evident from the text itself. The lack of a personal signature or direct reference to a reigning bishop weakens the argument for singular authority. Furthermore, the letter’s emphasis on plural eldership aligns more closely with the shared leadership model found in Scripture and other early Christian writings.

          "St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. In fact, the writings of Pope Clement (A.D. 92-99) and Pope Soter (A.D. 167-174) were so popular that they were read in the Church alongside Scripture (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9)."

           The above presented information shows us, not that Rome held a position of primacy, but it was honored amongst other churches. “Presiding in love” could reflect a form of moral or ethical leadership rather than administrative supremacy. Eastern Orthodox priest Andrew Stephen Damick notes regarding the use of Ignatius to support papal authority:

           "…the modern Roman Catholic vision of Church unity being defined by subjection to a worldwide bishop in Rome is not found in Ignatius’s writings. We saw how he described his friend Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna as “one who has God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as his bishop” (To Polycarp, Salutation). He does not say that Polycarp has the bishop of Rome for his bishop nor even a regional Asian primate (i.e., a senior bishop in his area). Being a bishop, Polycarp’s bishop is God. With all that Ignatius has to say about the episcopacy and especially about unity, he had the perfect opportunity to insist on a worldwide pontificate for Rome’s bishop. Rome was certainly on his mind, since he was traveling there to be martyred as Peter and Paul had been before him. Yet in his six letters addressed to churches, it is only his letter to Rome in which he does not even mention their bishop (who was probably either St. Evaristus or St. Alexander I). In the other five letters to churches, the bishop is mentioned, and in three of them, the bishop is mentioned by name. When writing to the Roman Christians, he does mention Peter, but equally with Paul as both are apostles who could give them “orders,” while Ignatius himself would never presume to do that (Romans 4:3). In Ignatius’s writings, there is never any special role given to the Roman bishop or the Roman church, nor even to the Apostle Peter. And when he writes to Rome, he does not ask the Roman bishop to send a bishop to Antioch to replace him. Rather, he makes that request of Polycarp and his church in Smyrna (To Polycarp 7:2)."

           "In A.D. 190, Pope St. Victor I excommunicated an entire region of churches for refusing to celebrate Easter on its proper date. While St. Irenaeus thought this was not prudent, neither he nor anyone else denied that Victor had the authority to do this. Indeed, Irenaeus said, “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome] on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2)."

           The West and certain Eastern churches claimed to have the correct date of Easter that was delivered from the apostles. If this episode of contradictory church tradition proves anything at all, it would only be that it is unreliable as a source of dogma. Thus, what we are left with is Scripture alone as our guide in matters of faith and morals. Further, Irenaeus did not say that churches should submit to Rome due to it being higher in authority, but come together as that church was reputed for being doctrinally orthodox. His appeal for unity was not a recognition of supreme jurisdiction, but rather a call for mutual agreement to preserve harmony. This was but a call for cohesion in belief. Consider this introductory excerpt from Philip Schaaf on the translation of Irenaeus' Against Heresies:

           "After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix. And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote. Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning."

           Consider translator footnote 3313 from that same version of Irenaeus' Against Heresies:

           "The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome."

           "Some people object that if Peter and his successors had special authority, why didn’t Christ say so when the apostles argued about “who was the greatest” (Luke 22:24)? The reason is that Christ did not want to contribute to their misunderstanding that one of them would be a privileged king. Jesus did say, however, that among the apostles there would be a “greatest” who would rule as a humble servant (Luke 22:26). That’s why since the sixth century popes have called themselves servus servorum Dei, or “servant of the servants of God.”

            If Peter had an exalted position over the other apostles, then why did Jesus not clear up confusion on this matter by pointing to him? He could have put that matter to rest easily. Trent Horn offers us nothing but smoke and mirrors here. The pope with his kingly attire and multitudes who bow down before him in adoration does not in the slightest resemble a "humble servant."

           "Pope Gregory I used the title in his dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster, who called himself the “Universal Bishop.” Gregory didn’t deny that one bishop had primacy over all the others, since in his twelfth epistle Gregory explcitly says Constaninople was subject to the authority of the pope. Instead, he denied that the pope was the bishop of every individual territory, since this would rob his brother bishops of their legitimate authority, even though they were still subject to him as Peter’s successor."

            That is absolutely untrue. Gregory emphatically denounced the title of universal bishop. He thought that such should be reserved for no one. The following excerpt has been taken from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia as an example:

           "a proud and profane title ... I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow-bishop that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. ... the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others." (Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XXXIII)

Does The Bible Support The Institution Of Slavery?

          "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." (Leviticus 25:44)

          The Old Testament's historical records include many practices that modern readers might find troubling. It is crucial to understand that these accounts do not inherently suggest divine endorsement of such practices. Instead, the biblical texts often describe the societal norms of the time rather than providing a moral treatise on these issues.

          In the ancient world, slavery was often a result of economic hardship. For instance, individuals might become slaves due to an inability to pay debts or provide for their basic needs (Genesis 47:13-19). Others entered servitude as a form of reparation for theft (Exodus 22:3). Importantly, slaves were typically set free after six years of service (Exodus 21:2), and were not to be abused or mistreated.

          Moreover, the biblical laws were quite progressive for their time in certain respects. For example, God explicitly forbade the kidnapping and selling of individuals into slavery, a practice punishable by death (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). The Apostle Paul also condemned human trafficking, describing those who engage in such acts as ungodly and sinful (1 Timothy 1:9-11).

          This form of slavery was markedly different from the brutal and racially-based slavery that occurred in America and the African slave trade. Ancient slavery was not based on skin color. While slavery in any form is a grievous condition, it is essential to note that Moses did not express approval of slavery itself but rather provided regulations to mitigate its harshness.

          The Apostle Paul encouraged slaves to obey their masters, not as an endorsement of slavery, but as a means of serving God within their given circumstances. Christianity, at its core, is not a political movement aimed at overthrowing governments but a transformative faith addressing the sinful condition of the human heart. The true change in culture comes through the conversion of souls to Christ.

The Uniqueness Of The Bible As Literature

"The Bible is primarily a religious book and as such it is unique in the world of literature. How could uninspired man write a book that commands all duty, forbids all sin, including the sin of hypocrisy and lying, denounces all human merit as insufficient for salvation, holds out as man's only hope faith in in the atoning death, physical resurrection, and present intercession of Christ, and condemns to hell for all eternity all who reject this one way of salvation and persist in sin?"

Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 85

Made In The Image And Likeness Of God

        "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27)

        God made man to be a reflection of His glory. He made us to be morally upright. He gave us reason and the ability to make our own choices. God created us to have communion with Him. Man was created with knowledge of his Creator. Animals have no such awareness and do not seek to worship a higher power.

        Mankind is the greatest of His creations. He has been given by God a conscience. With that comes the ability to make moral deliberations. Animals are not self-conscious like man. What follows from being made in the image and likeness of God is the responsibility to serve Him. Adam's fall was devastating due to him being designed to mirror the divine glory.

        The terms "image" and "likeness" are virtually synonymous. Both relate to the concept of resemblance. The idea of human life having indelible value finds its basis in having been fashioned in the image and likeness of God. It is this factor which distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. Men and women are different, but are equally created in His image. Adam Clarke once noted:

        "Gregory Nyssen has very properly observed that the superiority of man to all other parts of creation is seen in this, that all other creatures are represented as the effect of God's word, but man is represented as the work of God, according to plan and consideration: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. See his Works, vol. i., p. 52, c. 3."

        God made man to represent Him on earth and to take care of creation. The earth was meant to be the domain of man (Psalm 115:16). This is comparable in certain respects to the ancient Near Eastern idea of statues of kings or deity representing their presence. The object of emphasis was not so much physical appearance as more so one's special rights or privileges. It is in that sense we are made in the image of God.

The Application Of Biblical Principles

"...we read in 1 Thessalonians 4:7, "For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life." A principle that may be drawn from this statement, as well as Philippians 4:8, is that viewing pornographic literature or films is wrong. Obviously such media is not explicitly condemned in Scripture, but sexual purity in thought and action is a principle clearly seen in these and other passages. A personal application of this principle would be, I will not view pornographic literature or films."

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 288

Living A God Honoring Life

"It is one thing to read 2 Timothy 1:9, noting that God has "called us to a holy life," and to understand that holiness is a life of purity and godliness, made possible by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. But it is another thing to deal with sin in our lives so that we are in fact leading holy lives. It is one thing to study what the Scriptures say about the return of Christ in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-56. But it is another thing to build on and move beyond those facts to the point of loving His appearing (2 Tim. 4:8), that is, longing for and anticipating His coming, and continuing steadfast in serving the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58)."

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 14

Correctly Handling The Word Of Truth

Observing what we see in the biblical text, we then should correctly handle it (2 Tim. 2:15). The participle “correctly handling” (incorrectly translated in the King James Version “rightly dividing”) translates the Greek word orthotomounta. This combines two words that meant “straight” (ortho) and “cut” (tomeo). One writer explains the meaning of this as follows:

Because Paul was a tentmaker, he may have been using an expression that tied in with his trade. When Paul made tents, he used certain patterns. In those days tents were made from the skins of animals in a patchwork sort of design. Every piece would have to be cut and fit together properly. Paul was simply saying, “If one doesn’t cut the pieces right, the whole won’t fit together properly.” It’s the same thing with Scripture. If one doesn’t interpret correctly the different parts, the whole message won’t come through correctly In Bible study and interpretation the Christian should cut it straight. He should be precise…and accurate.

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 12-13

A Critical Assessment Of Roman Catholic Indulgences

• Introduction:

          -Indulgences, a dogma deeply rooted in Roman Catholic theology, have sparked considerable debate over the centuries, especially regarding their alignment with Christ’s atoning work. The practice invites adherents to engage with the Church’s teachings on sin, forgiveness, and penance, positioning indulgences as a means to alleviate temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven. However, a nuanced exploration of the theological implications surrounding indulgences is crucial for a deep understanding of their significance and the challenges they present to core Christian doctrines.

• The Historical Context Of Indulgences:

          -The commercialization of indulgences led to widespread abuses, most notably exemplified by the sale of indulgences by clerics such as Johann Tetzel. His infamous slogan, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” epitomized the problematic conflation of financial transaction with spiritual benefit. Such abuses fueled the Protestant Reformation, prompting Reformers like Martin Luther to challenge the legitimacy of indulgences.

          -While the Roman Catholic Church officially taught that indulgences could not be "sold" as mere transactions, historical reality shows that church authorities, including Pope Leo X, sanctioned fundraising campaigns involving indulgences. These campaigns blurred the line between voluntary donations and financial transactions, creating the perception—and often the practice—of a sale. Though individuals like Tetzel may have pushed the limits of propriety, these abuses were not entirely rogue actions but rather reflected broader ecclesiastical practices of the time.

          -Martin Luther's objections went beyond the misuse of indulgences. He questioned the very framework supporting them. Rooted in his belief in justification by faith alone (i.e. Sola Fide), Luther argued that indulgences undermined the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and God’s grace in saving souls. He also rejected Rome’s institutional authority to remit temporal punishment for sins, marking a theological departure from Catholic teachings.

          -The Council of Trent (1545–1563) later addressed these controversies, condemning the abuses surrounding indulgences while reaffirming their spiritual value. The council sought to abolish the "evil traffic" in indulgences and establish stringent guidelines to prevent further corruption. This acknowledgment of past abuses highlights the complexity of the historical relationship between church teaching and practice.
          -This doctrine originated in the early Middle Ages when the Roman Catholic Church began to link specific works of penance with the remission of temporal effects of sin. Initially, indulgences were tied closely to pilgrimages and acts of charity. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, indulgences provide a necessary complement to the sacrament of confession. They are perceived as an application of the Church’s authority to draw upon the "treasury of merits" accumulated by Christ and the saints. The Roman Catholic Catechism states that indulgences are granted under certain prescribed conditions, including sincere contrition and a disposition to receive them (paragraph 1471).

• The Nature Of Forgiveness: 

          -The premise of indulgences implies that while sins may be forgiven, the associated punishments require further rectification. This raises the question of Christ’s complete redemptive work. As expressed in Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” If believers are free from condemnation, the rationale for remaining temporal punishments becomes questionable. Is the satisfaction required beyond what Christ has already provided? This contradiction challenges the very foundation of justification and reconciliation as entirely fulfilled in Christ.

          -Protestant doctrine emphasizes the principle of Sola Fide, justification by faith alone. Introducing the concept of indulgences, where certain works and conditions bear weight in the forgiveness of sins, contradicts this doctrine. It suggests a transactional relationship with God, contrary to the understanding that grace is unmerited and cannot be earned. This dichotomy promotes a meritocratic system within salvation that undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.

• Repentance And Sanctification: 

          -The Roman Catholic view maintains that indulgences encourage genuine repentance and spiritual growth. Yet, by focusing on the application of indulgences, this practice could engender complacency among believers. Instead of fostering true contrition and a transformative relationship with God, indulgences may reduce sin and its consequences to a mere checklist of actions, marking them off rather than nurturing deep spiritual renewal.

• Indulgences And The Sufficiency Of Christ's Atonement:

          -Many proponents of indulgences hinge their arguments on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church as the steward of grace. However, Romans 5:1-2 explicitly states that believers have peace with God through faith in Christ, emphasizing that this it is not contingent on any additional acts or through any religious group. The assertion that temporal punishments must still be addressed after Christ’s atoning work contradicts the assurance found in Scripture that believers are wholly justified.

          -Hebrews 10:14 presents a powerful rebuttal regarding the completeness of Christ’s work. It says, "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” If believers are declared perfect and sanctified through the singular act of Christ, indulgences are made redundant because they imply a continued need for satisfaction beyond what has already been accomplished. In the context of Hebrews, this perfection is viewed as a positional standing before God, based on Christ's sufficient sacrifice. The term "perfect" in the New Testament often implies completeness or bringing to an end. The immediate context of Hebrews 10:14 speaks to the efficacy of Jesus Christ's single offering to complete the work of salvation for believers.

          -Hebrews 10:14 uses the term "perfected" in a broader context of cleansing the conscience and providing full access to God through Jesus' sacrifice (Hebrews 10:19-22). This context emphasizes the sufficiency of Christ's atonement. The use of teteleiōken in other New Testament passages (e.g., Hebrews 7:19, 9:9) reinforces the idea of completeness or fulfillment. These passages focus on the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice compared to the inadequacy of the Old Covenant sacrifices. For example, in Hebrews 7:19, "for the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." This usage clearly contrasts the ineffectiveness of the Law with the completeness brought by Christ's New Covenant.
          -The term "perfect" in the context of Hebrews 10 highlights the ultimate effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, making any additional purification unnecessary. It is about the completed work of Christ. Hebrews 10:18 underscores this point: "And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary." This verse reaffirms the idea that Christ's sacrifice was once for all, effectively eliminating any need for further purification, including purgatory.

• The Implications Of Purgatory:

          -Central to indulgences is the dogma of purgatory, a state in which souls undergo purification before entering heaven. It has been a cornerstone of Catholic eschatology. The reliance on purgatory to justify indulgences reflects an underlying view of sin that obscures the profound truth of Christ’s redemptive work.
          -If purgatory is necessary for the purification of souls, it raises critical questions regarding the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. The idea that purified merit can be transferred or drawn upon from the saints introduces a complexity that dilutes the singular authority of Christ as the sole mediator. 1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The theological implications of this assertion conflict with the belief in a treasury of merit that can be accessed or administered through Rome.

Mormon Contradiction: Is There Salvation After Death Or Not?

        "Therefore, if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment." (Mosiah 2:38-39)

        This teaching is consistent with historic Christian theology concerning the human soul and divine justice. The except in question says that there are no chances for salvation after death. Much of the distinguishing tenants of Mormonism, however, are found in other standard sources used to teach Mormon dogma. This has helped missionaries for that religion to draw in converts. In contrast, the Doctrine and Covenants affirms the idea of postmortem salvation:

        "And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh." (section 88:99)

        This goes to highlight inconsistency in Mormon revelation. It disproves any claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. One cannot be both sentenced to an eternity in hell and be given a chance to receive the gospel, which is the message of salvation from sin. One is either sentenced to eternal condemnation by God or has not been given that verdict.

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Nature Of God Changeable Or Unchangeable?

        The Book of Mormon contains a number of passages describing God as having an unchangeable nature:

        "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18)

        "Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved." (Alma 41:8)

        These passages are so clear as to require minimal exposition. They communicate themes of the immutability of God. These are words that could come from the mouth of anyone who professes faith in Him. Taken by themselves, these statements may even hoodwink one into thinking that Mormonism is thoroughly consistent with traditional Christianity. 

        "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9)

        This text is of interest here, especially considering how Joseph Smith took the words describing Christ in Hebrews 13:8 and applied them to God the Father. The point is not that such a description of Him is incorrect, but the verbatim words from the biblical text have been inserted into the Book of Mormon. This is arguably an instance of plagiarism.

        Official Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, affirms that God is increasing in knowledge. Consider this excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, volume 6:

        "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth....There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven."

         If God can grow in terms of knowledge, then how can He be said to be unchangeable? If God is as man once was and man can become what God is, then He cannot have that trait applied to Him. Smith's teaching on this issue is muddled and contradictory.

         If God is able to increase in knowledge, then it follows that He can make mistakes. His judgments are liable to error. The Mormon conception of god is not a god in any meaningful sense of the term. The god of Mormonism has no power to save lost souls.

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Trinity One God In Three Persons Or Three Separate Gods?

          The Book of Mormon contains passages that articulate the concept of the Trinity as one unified and eternal God. These texts underscore the harmony and singularity of God, expressed through the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as seen in Alma 11:44:

          "Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

          This passage paints a vivid picture of divine unity and judgment, portraying the Trinity not as separate entities but as one eternal God, seamlessly integrated in purpose and essence. It emphasizes the doctrine of restoration—a universal process by which every individual, regardless of status or moral standing, will be restored to their perfect frame and judged righteously by the united Godhead. This concept highlights the depth and inclusivity of divine justice and salvation.

          Similarly, 2 Nephi 31:21 reinforces the indivisibility of the Godhead in the context of salvation:

          "And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

          This passage unequivocally declares that salvation is attainable only through Christ, reiterating the unity and eternal nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It affirms the singularity of the Godhead, emphasizing their oneness as an enduring truth.

          However, this depiction contrasts sharply with the broader theology taught in Mormonism, which delineates the members of the Godhead as three distinct gods. According to the "Articles of Faith" and authoritative Mormon texts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are independent and separate personages, collectively forming the Godhead:

          "Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe. Each member of the Godhead is an independent personage, separate and distinct from the other two, the three being in perfect unity and harmony with each other (AF, chap. 2)." (Source: BYU Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

          This teaching emphasizes the individuality of the three divine figures while asserting their perfect unity and harmony in purpose and action. Mormon theology thus presents the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three separate gods who collectively wield power over the universe.

          The theological divergence between the Book of Mormon's description and Mormonism's broader doctrine is striking. On the one hand, the scriptures of the Book of Mormon describe a single, unified, eternal God—a seamless integration of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Mormon theology explicitly defines the Godhead as three distinct and independent gods, unified in harmony but separate in being.

          This contradiction raises profound questions about the consistency and interpretation of Mormon beliefs. How can essential Mormon scriptures and teachings offer such divergent perspectives on the nature of the divine? The tension between the doctrine of one eternal God and the concept of three separate gods challenges the coherence of Mormon theology, prompting doubts as to the truthfulness of that religion's teachings.

A Refutation Of The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Papal Infallibility

• Defining Papal Infallibility:

          -The Church of Rome teaches that the Pope cannot pronounce doctrinal error when making official declarations from his chair in matters pertinent to faith and morals (i.e. "ex-cathedra"). In other words, he cannot err when speaking in his fullest capacity, not as a mere private theologian. Further, it is believed that the entire body of legitimate Roman Catholic bishops, who constitute the teaching office known as the Magisterium, cannot err when they unanimously agree on a doctrine formally defined by the pope.

          -"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful-who confirms his brethren in the faith-he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals...The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council...This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." (CCC # 891)

• Papal Infallibility Is A False Doctrine Of Because History Has Shown That Popes Can Officially Teach Heresy:

          -One of the most striking historical challenges to papal infallibility is the case of Pope Honorius I, who was officially condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council for promoting the heresy of Monothelitism—the belief that Christ had only one will. His endorsement of this doctrine was not a private opinion but a formal theological position that influenced the church’s teaching. The fact that a pope could be anathematized by an ecumenical council for doctrinal error directly contradicts the claim that the papal office is divinely protected from heresy when teaching on faith and morals.
          -During the Arian controversy, Pope Liberius signed creedal statements that weakened the Nicene position on Christ’s divinity and excommunicated Athanasius, a key defender of orthodoxy. These actions were not merely political concessions but had significant theological implications. Even if made under pressure, the fact remains that Liberius officially compromised core doctrine, demonstrating that papal leadership is not immune to error.
          -Pope Zosimus further illustrates the fallibility of the papal office. Initially, he declared the Pelagian teacher Caelestius to be orthodox and demanded that African bishops accept his judgment. This endorsement of Pelagianism—a heresy that denies original sin and the necessity of divine grace—was later reversed after widespread backlash. Zosimus’s doctrinal reversal, made through formal papal correspondence, shows that even in his official capacity, a pope can misjudge theological truth.
          -Pope John XXII publicly taught that the souls of the righteous do not experience the beatific vision until the Last Judgment, a view that contradicted long-standing church teaching. He preached this doctrine repeatedly in sermons, causing widespread confusion and scandal. Although he eventually retracted the teaching and it was later condemned by his successor, the episode demonstrates that a pope can persistently teach error on a matter of salvation, even in a public and authoritative manner.

• Further Objections To The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Papal Infallibility:

          -The Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility is a circular appeal. In other words, the pope's claim is considered correct because it aligns with the beliefs of those who deem it to be correct. If he were to make an error while declaring something infallibly, what would be the method to recognize that mistake? This scenario creates a closed loop, which does not allow for external verification or challenge.

          -If the pope was meant to be the infallible speaking instrument of the church by authorization of Jesus Christ, then why did so many church councils have to assemble over periods of many years to resolve doctrinal disputes? What was stopping the pope from resolving those matters once for all by simply making an ex-cathedra pronouncement?

          -During the Western Schism (1378-1417), three different men declared themselves to be pope at the same time. Which one actually possessed the gift of infallible teaching authority? Is it reasonable to uphold the Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility in light of the fact that the pope can officially be deemed a heretic?

          -If the church was meant to be infallible, then why is it that the Apostle Paul exhorted his younger companion Timothy to watch and guard his doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 1:14)?

• Papal Infallibility Lacked The Official, Binding "De Fide" Status Until The First Vatican Council:

          -Why is it that this idea was not officially considered a dogma until 1870? Following is an excerpt from A Doctrinal Catechism, authored by Stephen Keenan, bearing the Imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic Bishops, prior to 1870: "Must not Catholics believe the pope himself to be infallible? This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it is received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, the bishops of the church."

            *This question and answer section bears significance because it was removed from Keenan's catechism after 1870.

• On The Rarity Of Ex-Cathedra Pronouncements:

          -The extreme rarity of ex cathedra pronouncements—only two in over a century and a half—raises serious questions about their practical significance within Roman Catholic doctrine. If papal infallibility were truly essential to guiding the faithful, one would expect it to be exercised more frequently, especially in times of doctrinal confusion or moral crisis. Instead, its near absence suggests that the Church either lacks confidence in invoking it or finds it largely unnecessary. This infrequency undermines the claim that infallibility is a vital tool for spiritual leadership and instead portrays it as a symbolic relic—invoked sparingly, disconnected from the evolving challenges of contemporary faith.

Does John 3:16 Support Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

           -The purpose of this article is to answer claims made by Steve Ray on John 3:16 as it relates to the doctrine of Sola Fide (i.e. justification by faith alone). He seems to think that the tense of belief or how it is used in the New Testament somehow undermines this teaching. Following are quotations from the author in bold along with a critique of his arguments:

           "The present tense, “that whosoever believeth in him,” or in other words, “that whosoever is believing in Him” sheds a different light on the entire verse. One would expect, according to Protestant tradition, the word “believe” to be aorist, showing that it is a “one-point-in-time” event. I used to say, “I believed in Christ on such and such a date, so I know I am saved.” It could be asked why Jesus switched to the present tense in a verse full of aorists. The answer is that Jesus makes it utterly clear what he is really trying to say; that this belief is an acting, continual belief, and not just a past act of faith."

           The Apostle John's usage of the continuous tense merely indicates that a person who ceases to have faith will not enter the kingdom of heaven. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is not a denial of faith being ongoing. Biblical faith involves continued trust or reliance on God.

           "...consider whether the word translated “believe” means a mere mental assent. The word in biblical times carried with it the concept of obedience and reliance. Kittel [Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the NewTestament Eerdmans, 1968] states, “pisteuo means ‘to trust’ (also ‘to obey’).” Vines [W. E. Vines, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984)] says, “[R]eliance upon, not mere credence.” This is confirmed further by John the Baptist’s statement in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (apeitheo) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” The word “apeitheo” is understood by all good translators and commentators to mean obedience. The opposite (antonym) of believe is disobey."

           This is a red herring because justification by faith alone does not reduce faith to "mere mental assent." That is not how scholars and theologians who hold to such a concept have historically defined it. Ironically, the authors of the lexical sources that Steve Ray appeals to would say that one obtains a righteous standing before God only on the basis of faith.

           Consider the purpose and creation of the bronze serpent in the Old Testament:

           "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." (Numbers 21:6-9, emphasis added)

           The unfaithful Israelites were dying from getting bitten by poisonous snakes. As a result, they needed an antidote to ensure their survival after envenomation by these creatures. They were God's curse to punish His people for sin and rebellion. In response to their plea for clemency, God instructed the Jews to simply look at the bronze serpent, which was created by Moses. Those who placed their trust in the Lord by looking at it miraculously got rescued from the sentence of physical death. We can infer from this historical event the spiritually bankrupt nature of man. Jesus Christ Himself is the typological fulfillment of the bronze serpent:

           "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:14-18, emphasis added)

           This Old Testament incident of people getting spared from physical death is a typological illustration of Jesus Christ's power to save us from spiritual death. Those who turn to Him by trusting in His redemptive work are saved from eternal condemnation. Sinners are cured of their spiritual illness by the Great Physician, Jesus Christ. The Jews were not saved by good works, but by simply placing their trust in God. The atonement of Christ is applied to all who come to Him by grace through faith. Salvation from sin comes through faith in God's provision, not through our works, which aligns with the doctrine of Sola Fide.