Amazing Grace

        Amazing grace! How sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see.

        ’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed.

        Through many dangers, toils and snares, I have already come; ’Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, And grace will lead me home.

        The Lord has promised good to me, His Word my hope secures; He will my Shield and Portion be, As long as life endures.

        Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail, And mortal life shall cease, I shall possess, within the veil, A life of joy and peace.

        The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, The sun forbear to shine; But God, who called me here below, Will be forever mine.

        When we’ve been there ten thousand years, Bright shining as the sun, We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise Than when we’d first begun.

Lyrics originally written by John Newton

Did The Catholic Church Give The World The Bible?

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Church of Rome argues that if we did not have what it considers to be apostolic oral tradition, then we would not know what books belong in canon of Scripture. This claim is obviously an attempt by Rome to exalt itself as an infallible authority in addition to the Bible.
          -It is claimed that the canon issue was settled at the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). Then, these decisions are said to have been cemented by the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD). Therefore, we are indebted to the Roman Catholic Church and personally obligated to submit to its claims to infallible teaching authority.

          -Roman Catholic apologists oftentimes argue that we must embrace the traditions of their church in order to know with certainty which ancient writings are canonical. They make the assertion that we can have no certainty as to which books are authentic, apart from Rome's authoritative declarations on the matter.

• This Claim Is A Circular Appeal:

          -It is the Roman Catholic Church that defines what the contents of the Bible are and what constitutes apostolic tradition. That same institution interprets those same sources in a way that gives credence to its claim of having been given infallible teaching authority by Christ. That is a circular position for one to embrace. For starters, we cannot know for sure whether Rome's claims are true, unless we are permitted for ourselves to evaluate the meaning of Scripture and weigh that against various oral traditions, a move denied to us at all times. If that were to be allowed, then Rome's highly skeptical approach to our ability to make sense of divine revelation without an infallible teaching office has been undermined. After all, we would be competent to assess the truthfulness of religious claims on our own, defeating the very purpose for which Rome claims to exist. This is obviously an awkward position to hold from which there is no escaping. Further, "infallible" dogmas must be fallibly interpreted by the individual, rendering absurd the claim that we need an infallible teaching authority to interpret Scripture for us.

• What About The Councils Of Hippo And Carthage?:

          -The councils of Hippo and Carthage were only provincial. The decisions of these groups were limited to their respective regions, despite there being debates with broader implications than their associated localities like clerical discipline, baptism, and heretical practices. Their rulings were not binding on the Christian church as a whole. Further, these were African councils, not decisions made by Rome. Neither the councils of Hippo nor Carthage were able to definitively settle any issues occurring in the church during the time in which they occurred. Several of the texts that Christians now regard as canonical were already long regarded as canonical, making the councils of Hippo and Carthage less relevant in the context determining the canon of Scripture.

• The Problem Of The Old Testament Canon:

          -How did the Jewish people, who lived centuries prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, correctly identify which Old Testament books were inspired by God? How did they know what writings were inspired without the assistance of an infallible teaching authority? For example, the Prophet Daniel makes mention of the Book of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2). Moreover, Jesus cited the Prophet Isaiah by name (Matthew 15:7-9) and spoke of the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47). Peter cited Joel by name (Acts 2:16-18). Paul specifically cited Isaiah (Romans 9:27-29). The author of Hebrews quotes David from the Psalms (Hebrews 3:7-11). The author of Matthew quotes Jeremiah by name (Matthew 27:9).

          -The Roman Catholic Magisterium could not have identified the inspired books of the Old Testament for the Jews because it did not exist before the birth of Christ. Moreover, there is no historical evidence pointing to any sort of belief in the infallibility of the Jewish religious leaders. Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for doctrinal errors (Matthew 15; Mark 7). This undercuts any claims made by Rome that we need an infallible authority to declare which books are canonical, since the Jews did so by themselves and had no such thing available to them.

• How Can We Know Which Person Wrote Which Books Of The Bible?:

          -We must be dependent on outside sources of information in order to correctly identify the canon of Scripture. No figure from the early church can directly tell us which texts are authoritative because they are now deceased. The apostles themselves are no longer alive to be able to tell us anything. Therefore, we must resort to the extant extra-biblical writings of the early church (for the New Testament canon) as well as Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament canon). We must draw a number of our conclusions from people who lived before us.

          -As far as the New Testament canon is concerned, there was surprisingly little disagreement over its contents. Early councils only affirmed what was already widely regarded as canonical. There has been unanimous consensus on that matter for roughly 1,500 years. This picture is contrasted with something like the apocrypha, which has always been challenged as to its reliability.

          -As far as apocryphal gospels are concerned, they contain fanciful stories of Jesus bringing deceased friends back to life, Him healing the bones of people, and turning clay birds into living ones that fly away. None of this silliness is consistent with the simplicity of the four canonical gospel accounts, which points to their authenticity. Spurious works usually were written long after the apostles were deceased, which eliminates them for consideration into the New Testament canon.

          -Canonical writings such as Job and Hebrews have unknown authors, yet the Roman Catholic Church has never officially identified who wrote those books. If "not knowing the author" automatically means a denial of the divine inspiration of a text, then would Roman Catholics be willing to discard those books of the Bible, since their authors are unknown?

• The Irony Of Affirming The Need Of Infallible Certainty Over The Canon:

          -“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, page 29, Copyright 1967; Under “Canon, Biblical”)

            *If infallible certainty over the canon is as important as Roman Catholic apologists make it sound, then why did it take Rome over 1,500 years to officially settle the issue at the Council of Trent? Why would a supposedly infallible institution wait so long to give adherents infallible certainty as to the canon of Scripture?

            *If the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically settled the issue of the canon during the fourth century, then why did other canon lists continue to get produced and circulated at much later times? Was Rome unsure of itself on this issue?

            *The claim that Rome is the custodian of the canon of Scripture is absurd, for many of its own scholars no longer hold to the traditional authorship of various biblical books. Further, there is no universally recognized or explicitly defined list detailing the precise number of infallible statements made by popes throughout history. This absence invites inquiry into the practical application and scope of infallibility, especially given the Catholic insistence that infallible certainty is essential for understanding divine revelation and guiding the faithful.

• The Canon Of Scripture And Church Councils:

          -While church councils helped to make more pronounced the canon of Scripture, they did not assign to those books their authority. Further, that claim is not an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but a popular assertion parroted by its apologists. Church councils mostly reflected what was already the popular opinion of their times.

          -The degree of certainty that one can possess regarding the canon is sufficient certainty. The early Christians identified inspired writings and affirmed them as such. The lists produced by church councils were not inspired, but the lists named inspired books.

          -There were already lists containing almost the entire New Testament canon by the second century. Given that our knowledge of this period is fragmentary, it is possible that there may have been earlier lists that corresponded exactly to what we have today.

          -Rome was never the sole contributor to the development of the canon or its sole possessor. Eastern churches, heretics, Jews, and even pagans possessed copies of biblical books. It would be an oversimplification to claim that any single church council decided for all time and for everybody else what books belonged in the canon of Scripture.

          -"It is a remarkable fact no early Church Council selected the books that should constitute the New Testament Canon. The books that we now have crushed out all rivals, not by any adventitious authority, but by their own weight and worth. This is in itself a strong proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the books that have survived. It is not until the close of fourth that any Council even discussed the subject." (Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 25)

Loving One's Neighbor

We all have the tendency to act selfishly toward others. In our world, people are constantly thinking of themselves and fail to recognize that it is not right or proper for them to behave in such a manner. If we can support ourselves and focus on our own desires, then what barrier is preventing us from doing the same with other people? A distinguishing characteristic of Christian piety is not simply love for one's own, but love even for enemies. We often do not live according to Christ's teaching ourselves. Why would God create us if our purpose was only to live in a dungeon of sin? Jesus Christ commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our purpose in life is to know, love, and serve God in this world with the intent of spending eternity with Him.

We act according to God's will when we love our neighbors as ourselves. His Son gave Himself up on a cross for our sake so that we could be with God eternally in heaven. We who worship Him can give ourselves up by spreading the Gospel of Grace. We can help others to see beyond a self-serving scope which is created by the lenses on the glasses of sin. We know God through His work. We can see things clearly when we put on the glasses of godliness. What is the right decision in life? The proper decision is to demonstrate our love for God by loving our neighbor. We can do kind deeds for others such as raking lawns for the elderly, giving food to the poor, and forgiving the wrongful actions against us committed by others.

We more fully understand what it means to love God when we love our neighbors. If we do not love them, then we do not love God and cannot serve Him. Jesus said,"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Our lives as Christians are to be lived out in obedience to Him. Human life itself has intrinsic value. God judges without showing partiality. The love of self is the natural predisposition of man. It is our assumed state of being. The challenge lies in projecting that love away from ourselves. We ought to love God and neighbor. 

We serve the Creator when we love our neighbors as we love ourselves. When we serve others, we are fulfilling His message of doing good for others. When we feed the hungry, we are serving God. When we cloth the naked and visit the prisoners, we are serving God. When we do any form of charity, we are serving God. Preaching the gospel should be our utmost way of serving Him.

We live in a world that is selfish. This is not the way that God intended things to be. That way of life is contrary to His morality. We must look beyond ourselves and our passions. We must extend a helping hand to others, especially our brethren in the church. We are fully capable of doing good works through the grace of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He changes the hearts of people who repent of their sins and believe on Christ for salvation. We are to devote ourselves to the will of God with an eternal perspective.

What Is The Relationship Between Faith And Reason?

          Secular people tend to believe that religion and science contradict each other. They are depicted as not being compatible entities. It is claimed by atheists that faith and reason together cannot be used to construct a coherent worldview. A dichotomy is set up between an irrational, old-fashioned person who believes in religion and the rational, educated, sane person who believes in science alone. On the contrary, that is a misguided conception of things. It would be akin to saying that one has greater faith in science than in faith itself.

          The truth of the matter is that people who maintain that faith and reason are utterly opposed to each other have presented us with a false dichotomy. A logical person can also be religious. A religious person can indeed be intelligent. Further, foundational scientific advancements were made during a time when most scientists were openly religious people. While faith and reason are distinct from each other, they function together in different degrees.

          Faith and reason are inseparable. Faith cannot operate without reason. Reason cannot operate without faith. One cannot function independently of the other. Both co-exist harmoniously. Faith and reason overlap. The two do not stand in contradiction to each other when their relationship is properly understood. They complement each other. Beliefs rest on both faith and reason. Faith exists no matter how strong the evidence for a given proposition is.

          Our faith should not be blind, but informed by evidence. We occupy reason to grasp scientific concepts such as DNA, the atmosphere, and dinosaurs. Truths revealed solely through divine revelation would include the Trinity and virgin birth. These spiritual truths transcend the natural realm. Faith and reason overlap in areas such as intelligent design, objective moral laws, and the resurrection. These matters require both elements. 

           When faith and reason walk together, we see completeness in our lives. Rather than opposing forces, they enhance our understanding of reality. Intertwined, they provide a balanced lens through which we can view the world. By harmonizing the spiritual with the rational, faith and reason together enrich our journey, offering profound insights and guiding our pursuit of truth. It forms a holistic perspective of things.

Is Mandatory Celibacy For Church Leaders A Biblical Custom?

• Introduction:

          -For centuries, the Church of Rome has enforced strict regulations regarding the marriage of clergymen. Bishops and priests have been required to remain in an unmarried state as long as they practice their profession. However, we must ask whether this custom has any grounding in solid biblical or ethical principles? Is it lawful for any church government to establish as a discipline the prohibition of ministers from having marital relationships? This Roman Catholic practice is here weighed against the bar of Scripture and the historical record.

• Consider This Quotation From The Roman Catholic Catechism:

          -"In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry." (CCC, 1580).

• Pope Paul VI, In His Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, On The Ministry And Life Of Priests, Says That The Celibate Life Is:

          -"...not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches, where, besides those who with all the bishops, by a gift of grace, choose to observe celibacy, there are also married priests of highest merit. This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them."

• Consider These Words From The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia On The First Lateran Council:

          -"Canons 3 and 11 forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to marry or to have concubines; it is also forbidden them to keep in their houses any women other than those sanctioned by the ancient canons. Marriages of clerics are null pleno jure, and those who have contracted them are subject to penance."
          -In 1079 AD, celibacy was first enforced for priests and bishops by Pope Gregory VII. Previously, they were permitted to marry.

• What Does Scripture Say About The Matter?:

          -The New Testament teaches that a bishop (also known as an "elder" or "overseer") can be married and have children (1 Timothy 3:1-5; Titus 1:5-9). In fact, how a man raises his family shows whether he can handle a position of authority in the church. Clergymen at least have the right to make that decision for themselves without being required to give up their ministerial position.

• Married Church Leaders In The New Testament:

          -The Apostle Peter was married (Matthew 8:14). This is significant because the Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was its first pope. In addition, the Apostle Paul said that the other apostles (including Peter) and all brethren in the Lord have the right to marriage (1 Corinthians 9:5). Scripture always speaks positively of marriage (Genesis 2:18). It is not as though sex within the confines of marriage makes one unfit to uphold a position of leadership in the church.

• A Route Into Apostasy:

          -The Holy Spirit warns that "forbidding to marry" and "commanding to abstain from meats" are "doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1-4). Not only does the Roman Catholic Church forbid its leaders from marriage, but it also teaches adherents to abstain from meats for long periods of time such as Lent. In fact, the Church of Rome used to forbid all of its adherents from eating meat every Friday. However, no elder in the church has any authority to impose these kinds of restrictions on the people of God. Rome has therefore clearly been shown to be in error. These kind of things happen when leaders are not held accountable for their actions.

• Any Scriptural Support?:

          -Biblical texts such as Matthew 19:11-12 that commend the concept of celibacy say nothing about making an entire profession only to celibate men or women. Rather, they affirm that marriage is a matter of choice. It is simply cruel and arbitrary to make a man choose between being a minister and becoming a husband and father.

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Biblical?

• Introduction:

          -Transubstantiation is the belief that, during the mass, the elements (i.e. bread and wine) are changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They are to be literally consumed by believing attendees of the worship service. There is said to be a change in the substance, but not in the appearance, of the bread and wine. This transformation occurs at the elevation of the elements by a priest. The center of the mass is the eucharistic sacrifice, which is called a bloodless "re-presentation" of Christ's death. The most common biblical references cited to substantiate Roman Catholic eucharistic theology are the Lord's Supper and bread of life discourse.

• There Is No Evidence That Christ Intended His Words To Be Understood In A Woodenly Literal Sense:

          -There are no implications in the biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper that the apostles believed the elements to literally be changed into the body and blood of Christ. Nor are the consecrated elements ever worshiped as God in Scripture. Jesus presented bread and wine to his disciples, stating that they were His body and blood. Yet, He sat there with them, whole and unblemished. Obviously, Christ's words were metaphorical, emphasizing a symbolic act rather than a literal transformation.

• After The Institution Of The Lord's Supper, Both The Elements Were Still Called Bread And Wine:

          -Jesus Christ spoke figuratively of His blood as being the "fruit of the vine," even after transubstantiation was supposed to occur (Matthew 26:28-29). The Apostle Paul mentions the Lord's Supper and still refers to the element of bread as bread and the element of wine as wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Further, no one clarified that the teaching on communion was to be understood literally.

           *If Roman Catholic apologists claim that the words "bread and wine" are a synecdoche, then that opens the door to more symbolic Protestant interpretations of that meal being valid. Even the literalist view of communion admits a degree of symbolism. It would also make the Catholic interpretation of these passages seem less based on "common sense" or "obvious" than has been claimed.

• The Mass Violates Old Testament Prohibitions Against Drinking Blood:

          -The Levitical Law condemned the practice of drinking blood (Genesis 9:5; Leviticus 3:17; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:23), so Christ's teaching during the bread of life discourse and Last Supper had to be understood figuratively.
           *The New Covenant was not established until Jesus' blood was shed on the cross (Luke 22:10; Hebrews 9:15-16). Thus, taking Christ's words literally would make Him an impostor who is guilty of breaking the Law. He would not be able to atone for our sins, defeating the purpose for which He came into this world.

• The Mass Reduces The Glory Of God To A Physical Likeness:

          -Since God declares in Isaiah 42:8 that He will not share His glory with another, how can the doctrine of transubstantiation, which posits that the essence of bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ, align with the idea that God's glory remains uniquely His? Could this transformation be seen as attributing a divine quality to elements that are not inherently divine, thereby contradicting the assertion that God alone is worthy of glory and reverence?  How does the doctrine of transubstantiation, which involves the physical presence of Christ as the eucharist, avoid contradicting this prohibition against creating tangible forms of the divine (Deuteronomy 4:15-16)? Isaiah 40:18 says, "To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?" The dogma of transubstantiation does not align with the Old Testament's clear distinction between God and physical representations.

• There Is No Remission Of Sins Without The Shedding Of Blood (Hebrews 9:22):

          -Christ's atonement is propitiation for our sins. His blood was shed on the cross. That is what is required in order for the wrath of God to be turned away from us. While the context of Hebrews relates to the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant, the point remains that eucharistic sacrifices are unbloody. They therefore are not valid before God. The context of Hebrews 9:22 allows for no new economy of sacrifices for sin like that of the Levitical system.

• Jesus Christ's Body Was Shed On The Cross Once For All, Not On A Continuous Basis:

          -The Book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus Christ made atonement for our sin once and for all during these last days (Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10-18). His act was done a single time for eternity. That means His work is not ongoing or continuing to be offered. There is no "re-presenting" His work on a weekly basis as the Roman Catholic Church claims.

• The Kingdom Of God Does Not Consist Of Food And Drink, Which Contradicts The Emphasis Of Eating The Eucharist To Receive Divine Grace:

          -Rome teaches that the eucharist is the means by which Christians maintain spiritual life. It is viewed as the summit of communion with God. The Apostle Paul, however, says that the kingdom of God does not comprise of food and drink (Romans 14:17). The blessings that He provides are a result of His grace. If Paul believed that the repeated consumption of Christ's body as the eucharist was a requirement for salvation, then this would have been a place for him to affirm such rather than categorically rejecting matters of food and drink as relating to the kingdom of God.

• Exegetical Comments On Eating Christ's Flesh And Drinking His Blood:

          -Jesus oftentimes spoke to the crowds using parables (Matthew 13:10-11; 34; Mark 4:11; 34). Notice that the Gospel of John itself records many symbolic statements made by Jesus. Examples would include "born again," "living water," "meat that ye know not of," and "destroy this temple." Moreover, Christ made several "I am" statements throughout John's gospel (John 15:5; 8:12; 10:7; 10:11). Out of the four gospels, only in John are these terms used by Jesus. Thus, we have good reason to believe that He was speaking metaphorically in John chapter 6. Jesus often used physical metaphors to illustrate spiritual truths.

          -In the Old Testament, eating bread was considered the equivalent of obedience to God (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4). This kind of reasoning in regard to the Book of the Law is echoed in the Jewish apocrypha (Sirach 24:20-22). Ben Sira also spoke of being fed with the bread of understanding and given the water of wisdom (Sirach 15:3). The Book of Proverbs employs similar imagery in the context of receiving instruction (Proverbs 9:5). The Jewish Philosopher Philo spoke in terms of consuming divine wisdom.

          -Just as God had provided manna to the Israelites in the desert as deliverance from starvation, so He had sent Jesus Christ into this world as a sacrificial provision to deliver us from eternal condemnation. That is the meaning of Christ being "bread from heaven."
          -Unlike the Torah, Christ can completely satisfy our spiritual huger and thirst (John 6:49-51). "Eating flesh" and "drinking blood" is to be understood as trusting in Christ for salvation. We consume Him by faith and He sustains us spiritually by that same means.

          -The use of future tense (i.e. "The bread which I shall give") refers to the forthcoming crucifixion and the spiritual nourishment that comes from Jesus' sacrificial act. This act is foundational for belief in Jesus and the salvation that He offers. When the Jews murmur about Jesus' statement of coming down from heaven, the focus remains on belief rather than literal consumption. The continuation of metaphorical language in this context would suggest that the introduction of “flesh” and “blood” as elements to be "eaten" and "drunk" are intended to deepen the metaphor, not pivot to a literal sacramental understanding.
          -It is the words of Christ that impart life to those who believe (John 5:24; 6:63). This perspective of eating finds its basis in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 2:8-3:3). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood means coming to Him and believing on His name (John 6:35).

          -The teachings about faith surrounding the discourse on eating Christ's flesh suggest a continuous theme: that spiritual nourishment and eternal life come from believing in Jesus and accepting His sacrifice. The "eating" and "drinking" metaphorically describe the depth of this spiritual communion and dependence on Christ. Just as the food and drink that we consume becomes a part of our being, so we become one with Christ as we abide in Him by faith.

          -Just as circumcision was a symbol of the Mosaic Covenant (Genesis 17:10-11), bread and wine are used as symbols by Jesus for the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). The Lord's Supper has sacrificial overtones because the elements point to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary, not themselves.

• Why Did Many Disciples Leave Jesus Christ During The Bread Of Life Discourse? Was It Because He Taught They Literally Had To Eat His Flesh And Drink His Blood?:

          -No, the audience left Jesus because it did not believe the claims that He had established concerning His divine messiahship (John 6:52). Unbelievers, who were in this case the Jews, had hardened their hearts against God. They only remained around Christ temporarily because they were physically hungry. They were thinking only in material terms, whereas He pointed them to greater realities. The Jews were not searching for the truth of the gospel, which satisfies all longings of the human soul. Their thinking was not spiritual, but carnal.
          -After the departure of the 5,000, Jesus told the twelve remaining disciples that the words of His lecture were not literal but spiritual (John 6:63). His speech was not to be understood in a physical sense. Christ said that it would take an act of God to open the human heart to the salvific truths He had just taught to the people. We must come to Jesus Christ and place our trust in Him for salvation. He is life to us, and we partake of Him by faith.
          -Even if the Jews had understood His words literally, that does not prove such an interpretation to be correct. It is clear throughout the four gospel accounts that Jesus Christ did not have a problem with speaking bluntly and offending those who clung to their man-made traditions. He was not afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities. He spoke in a figurative manner, which requires interpretation. Jesus did not always explain His teaching, nor was He obligated to do so (John 2:19-21). He knew from the very beginning who would have faith and who would not (John 6:64). 

          -Jesus often taught difficult and seemingly paradoxical truths (e.g. "the first shall be last," "lose your life to find it"). The difficulty that the disciples faced was about grasping the profound spiritual truth and the need for faith, not a literal directive to eat His flesh. Further, the Jews had erroneous ideas as to what the Messiah would be like. Therefore, Christ did not meet their expectations. His focus was on the kingdom of God, whilst theirs were political aspirations of an earthly kingdom.

• Does Christ's Use Of Graphic Language Prove His Teaching To Be Literal?:

          -The shift from a generic term for eating in John 6 to a more graphic term in Greek (i.e. phageîn) would be the intensification of a metaphor. Emphasizing the graphic nature of eating would be a rhetorical device to drive home the importance of fully internalizing and believing in Jesus' sacrifice and teachings, rather than indicating a literal command.

• Does The Repetitive Nature Of Christ's Words Prove Them To be Literal?:

          -Repetition can be a method to ensure a consistent message throughout different lectures. It does not necessarily prove literalness, but serves to reinforce a particular teaching or theme. In many cultures, especially in ancient times, repetition was a common rhetorical device used to emphasize important points. For instance, Ezekiel repeatedly laid on his side for long periods to symbolize the siege and suffering of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1-8). The prophet's use of vivid imagery and repetition helped to emphasize his messages and make them memorable to his audience. Further, Ezekiel frequently repeated phrases such as "Thus says the Lord God" to emphasize the divine authority behind his prophecies. Ezekiel often reiterated themes of judgment and restoration. Another example of phrases and themes happening again and again would be that of Solomon in Ecclesiastes (e.g. "vanity of vanities" in 1:2, "a time for" in 3:1-8, the theme of the pursuit of knowledge, and themes of toil and labor). This piece of wisdom literature emphasizes the transient nature of life and recounts man's quest of finding joy and meaning. It uses repetition to drive home philosophical messages. Repetition helps in memorization and emphasis, which are important in oral traditions.

• Does The Forcefulness Or Vividness Of Christ's Words Prove Them To Be Literal?:

          -The use of vivid language can often be attributed to the author's literary style rather than a call for literal interpretation. Authors, especially in religious texts, use powerful imagery to convey deeper meanings and evoke emotional responses. The vivid language in religious texts often served to captivate and persuade the audience. For example, the Book of Revelation, authored by John himself, used incredibly vivid and powerful imagery to convey his eschatological visions (6:1-8; 13:1-10). This persuasive technique was meant to leave a lasting impression, not ensure a literal interpretation of said teachings.

• Does Genesis 14:18 Foreshadow The Roman Catholic Eucharist?:

          -The bread and wine Abraham offered to Melchizedek was in celebration of victory over Kedorlaomer and his allies. It has nothing to do with some alleged change in the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ during the Last Supper. Bread and wine were actually commonly used in the days of Abraham. Further, even if the bread and wine in Genesis 14:18 did somehow foreshadow the bread and wine used during the Lord's Supper, they could just as well serve as a memorial of His passion. This is not a matter of literally eating the Jewish Messiah's flesh and drinking His blood for eternal life.

          -The offering of bread and wine by Melchizedek can be seen as a symbolic act. In this context, they symbolize God's provision and blessing through Melchizedek. If bread and wine are symbolic in the Old Testament, they can be seen similarly in the New Testament. The communion elements, then, are a memorial of Christ's sacrifice. They symbolize His body and blood rather than a literal transformation. The use of bread and wine as symbols can show a continuity of God's message through different covenants. In this view, the elements in the Lord's Supper serve as symbols that remind believers of Christ's sacrifice and the New Covenant established through His death.

• Does Malachi 1:11 Prove That The Lord's Supper Is A Sacrifice?:

          -The "incense" is a reference to prayers (Psalm 141:2; Revelation 8:3-4). The "pure offering" is a metaphorical reference to believers offering their praise and good deeds as sacrifices which satisfy God (Hebrews 13:15-16; Philippians 4:18). The theme of spiritual sacrifice or offering is found throughout Scripture (Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 66:20; 1 Peter 2:5).

• Does Hebrews 9:23 Support The Repetitive Sacrifices Of The Catholic Mass?:

          -"sacrifices--The plural is used in expressing the general proposition, though strictly referring to the one sacrifice of Christ once for all. Paul implies that His one sacrifice, by its matchless excellency, is equivalent to the Levitical many sacrifices. It, though but one, is manifold in its effects and applicability to many." (Excerpt taken from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on the Whole Bible)

The Wrong Idiom

"We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he “wants a woman.” Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus."

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 134

What Is Love?

        "If anyone says, 'I love God', but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother." (1 John 4:20-21)

        On what basis or by what standard can one claim to have authentic love? Why is love significant? Love extends our focus beyond ourselves and what we want. It directs our attention to the plight and trouble of others. Love puts others before itself. It is the foundation of morality. Love is different from a mere instinct or psychological obsession because it is recognized by reason and acted on by free will. It is not something which we have no control over. It does not have unrealistic expectations. Love is therefore a pillar which gives even a semblance of peace in this world. It is not an empty sensation, but something acted on.

        Just imagine what this world would be like if the concept of love was merely a product of the mentally deranged; not something beautiful and universally experienced. Love is kind. Love is caring. Love entails self-sacrifice. All these concepts are interrelated. They function together in perfect harmony. If love did not exist, then human life would cease to be in just moments. Further, the existence of love presupposes the existence of care. Love rejoices in the truth, and weeps tenderly in the presence of falsehood. Animosity and vindictiveness negates any demonstration of love.

         If people cannot work together because of hatred, then life on earth would come to an unnecessary, abrupt termination because no further progress could be made. Love and hatred cannot co-exist because they are diametrically opposed to each other. In addition, hatred brews other states of heart such as being prideful, jealous, selfish, and unforgiving. Hatred is the foundation of immorality and lawlessness. Without love, life would collapse like a line of dominoes. Mankind cannot thrive without love, any more than a tree can survive without water. Hatred presents us with a rather hopeless and miserable picture of life in general.

         We cannot claim to love God while possessing contempt and ill will in our hearts for other people. It is not possible for us to obey Him while holding animosity toward other people. In fact, no Christian has power in himself to faithfully live out the Christian life. It is not something natural to man, but must be brought about by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. We have even been admonished by the Apostle Paul to not let the sun set on our anger. Remaining in such a spiritual condition can have ominous consequences (Ephesians 4:26). Jesus Christ Himself associated hatred with murder (Matthew 5:22-26).

          Hatred is incompatible with the self-sacrificial love demonstrated by the life of Jesus Christ. It is entirely out of touch with Christian charity. Thus, people who claim to be serving God faithfully, who at the same time are continually harboring hatred for others in their hearts, are liars. They are not acting according to God's revealed will for us. They are not acting consistently with their profession of faith. Their profession is unreliable and without merit. On the basis of divine revelation and plain reason we can claim to know what love is. God Himself is love.

          Love of God and love of neighbor fulfills the Law. Love of God and love of neighbor is the basis on which true morality stands. We cannot grow in our relationship with Him, if we do not love Him and other people. It rather counts as evidence against any claim one can make to actually knowing Him. We are called to hate that which is evil, but hatred toward others is destructive to who we are as people. No one really lives up to the standard of love which God expects us to live up to.

Is The Lord's Day Saturday or Sunday?

• Introduction:

          -The observance of the Sabbath, originally instituted by God in the Old Testament, was intended as a day of rest from physical labor and an opportunity for His people to focus on worshiping Him. The term "Sabbath" originates from the Hebrew word shabbat, meaning "rest" or "cessation." This is first used in Genesis 2:2–3, where God "rested" on the seventh day after the work of creation. The idea of "rest" here conveys more than physical inactivity. It symbolizes completeness and divine satisfaction.

          -This command to abstain from physical labor is later formalized in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:8–11), where the Sabbath is explicitly tied to God's rest following creation. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates the term "Sabbath" as sabbaton, which retains the meaning of cessation and rest.
          -Notably, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath did not extend to acts of necessity or mercy. Jesus Himself highlighted this principle in Matthew 12:1–12, where He clarified the spirit of the Sabbath law, showing that compassion supersedes ritual. For Christians, the observance of the Sabbath as a covenantal sign (Exodus 31:13) is no longer binding under the New Covenant. The Apostle Paul, writing in Greek, uses the term sabbata in Colossians 2:16–17, explaining that the Sabbath, along with other ceremonial observances, was a "shadow" of things to come, with the reality being found in Christ.

• Sabbath Worship Nowhere Mentioned In The New Testament:

          -The New Testament restates nine of the Ten Commandments. Worshiping God properly covers the first three. Six deal with proper conduct toward other people. However, the Sabbath is the missing one. Why did the apostles not mention that commandment? The reason is that Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), and He is our rest (Hebrews 4). The Sabbath rest of the Old Testament was only temporary, whereas the rest we have in Christ is of eternal value.

• What Is The Purpose Of Sunday Worship?:

          -Christians have historically gathered on Sunday, referred to as the "Lord's Day" (Kyriake hemera) in Revelation 1:10, to commemorate Jesus' resurrection. In Acts 20:7, we find early Christians meeting on the first day of the week for worship and the breaking of bread, a practice that became a central aspect of Christian tradition. However, Christians do not have a Sabbath to observe like the Jewish people.

• Is Sunday Observance Custom Or Dogma?:

          -The idea of Christians gathering on Sunday can be traced back as early as the Didache (early second century). However, it is still not an inspired document like the writings of the New Testament. It therefore does not carry the same weight or authority in the development of doctrine. Further, it is never appropriate practice to take statements from later sources and treat them as representative of earlier time periods. We should start with the New Testament as our earliest source for doctrine and then move onward to evaluate what later writers believed. 

          -It is totally fair to disagree with assertions made by patristic authors, as we do not have to accept ideas just because they were believed to be true in prior eras. They are subjective opinions without an objective standard (e.g. Scripture) to evaluate them and are not inherently authoritative. The statements of patristic writers ought to be put into their proper place. In all fairness, one disagreeing with such positions should explain why his position is correct or better.

          -Sunday worship is special and important to certain people, but that does not mean it is something that God commanded us to do. The only thing that the New Testament exhorts us to do is to assemble ourselves together. It does not specify which day of the week that is to be done. Custom does not translate into dogma. If the fact that the apostles gathered themselves together on Sunday to honor Christ means that we are allowed to do so only on that day, then does it follow that we can only celebrate communion in the evening, since the New Testament records the apostles doing so at that time?

• How Often Should We Celebrate Communion?:

          -The New Testament does not identify a specific time when Christians are to partake of the communion meal. Notice how the Apostle Paul recorded a statement of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11:25: "Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." We can infer from those words that we have been given some degree of flexibility. The frequency of participating in the communion meal is not as important as our state of heart when we do it. We should observe the Lord's Supper often enough to make it a vital part of our ongoing worship services. To partake of the meal too frequently would be to reduce it to an empty ritual. To partake of communion in too seldom of a manner would cause people to forget the significance of Jesus Christ's work.

A Biblical Defense Of Sola Scriptura

        Sola Scriptura is the doctrine which states that the Bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith or spiritual standard for the church. It functions as the ultimate standard of authority in spiritual matters. It does not mean that the Bible provides us with exhaustive information about every topic, but everything we need to know regarding salvation and godliness. Every necessary thing that we need to know about the faith is recorded in the Scriptures.

        There are other legitimate, but lesser, "rules of faith" for us to make use of. These would include creeds, catechisms, concordances, lexicons, commentaries, and the wisdom of godly leaders in the church. However, only Scripture is infallible. Such things, while useful, are therefore to be kept in check by that written standard of divine revelation.

        "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

        The admonition against adding to God’s words suggests that what He has provided in the Scriptures is complete and sufficient.

        "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)

        Scripture is said to bring us certainty of the Lord's actions and teachings. In the midst of competing oral traditions and uninspired writings, we turn to Scripture as the only safe guide for spiritual truth.

        "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31)

        Scripture alone is sufficient to lead one to eternal life in the name of Jesus Christ. If the Gospel of John by itself is sufficient to bring about conversion of heart, then it stands to reason that the same is true of the three other gospel narratives. This form of argumentation is known as minore ad maius, meaning from the lesser to the greater.

        "and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

        Scripture alone is sufficient to be regarded as containing the instructions to salvation.

        "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)

        Scripture alone is sufficient to give one assurance of salvation.

        "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 14:37)

        Scripture alone is sufficient to contain the commandments of the Lord.

        "These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

        Scripture alone is sufficient to establish boundaries of proper conduct in the church. It is our guide now that the apostles have been deceased.

        "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2:1)

        Scripture alone is sufficient to be a means of protection against sin.

        "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

        Scripture alone is sufficient to be a guide to a life of godliness. It identifies wrong behavior as well as corrects it. For example, Scripture condemns thievery and prescribes work as the solution to that way of living (Ephesians 4:28). 2 Peter 1:3 compliments this text well, "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue." Profitability implies utility. For instance, an esteemed mariner would never want to set sail without navigational tools. Scripture is self-sufficient to function as the church's rule of faith.

         The Holy Spirit moved through the apostles and prophets as they wrote down divine teachings (1 Peter 1:16-21). Further, the Greek word for inspired, which is theopneustos, literally means "God-breathed." The purpose of Scripture is to convict the conscience of sin, confront error, and teach upright living. Note the surrounding context of this passage: 1.) The coming of false teaching (2 Timothy 3:1-13), 2.) Paul was about to experience martyrdom (2 Timothy 4:6-7), and 3.) 2 Timothy was Paul's last epistle. The context of this passage points to no other rule of faith than Scripture itself. Thus, it addresses everything that we need to know about living out a godly life. It contains all necessary details for salvation.

        "And these things we write to you that your joy may be full." (1 John 1:4)

        Scripture alone is sufficient to bring joy that is complete. It points us to fellowship with God the Father and the Son.

        "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4)

        Paul believed Scripture to be a sufficient source of hope and encouragement for the people of God. His words are reminiscent of what he said elsewhere about Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16. They give us the assurance that, "all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)

        "Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior." (2 Peter 3:1-2)

        Scripture is how we are reminded of apostolic oral traditions. The implication of this would be that it has replaced them. Scripture therefore stands alone as our rule of faith.