A Study On Salvation And The Atonement

• Introduction: 

           -Different theories on the atonement of Jesus Christ have been developed throughout the history of Christianity. Examples of theories on the atoning work of Jesus Christ are the "ransom theory," "moral influence view," "governmental theory," and the "example theory." These developments were all attempts to understand how God reconciles sinners to Himself. The doctrines of atonement, justification, sanctification, and glorification articulate a coherent theological framework that emphasizes God’s justice and mercy in the process of salvation through Christ. Understanding these concepts is vital for grasping the essence of the Christian faith and the nature of God’s redemptive plan for humanity.

• Understanding Different Shades Of Meaning In The Old Testament Usage Of The Term Atonement:

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

           -Dr. Barrick's exploration of atonement cited here delves into the fundamental theological principles of substitution and propitiation. His analysis shows that the Hebrew term "kipper," often translated in the Septuagint as "hilasterion," carries the profound implication of turning away divine wrath through a ransom or substitutionary sacrifice. This concept is not about appeasing a capricious deity, but addressing the inherent justice and righteousness of God. Divine wrath, as presented in the Old Testament, is a consistent, principled response to sin, necessitating a mechanism for reconciliation. Barrick’s argument ties the concept of divine retribution directly to God's attributes of holiness and justice. Without such retribution, the very essence of divine mercy would be undermined, becoming an empty gesture. The rich vocabulary surrounding wrath in the Old Testament emphasizes the gravity and complexity of this divine-human relationship.

• Defining The Biblical Doctrine Of Atonement: 

           -Vicarious atonement, which is also known as penal substitutionary theory, means that Jesus Christ died in our place to pay the price for sin and its penalty. He resolved the problem of the separation of mankind from God on the cross. Jesus bore the punishment that we deserve in our place. In exchange, God gives to us His perfect righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness). That is the grounds by which we are accepted before our Creator. The one sacrifice of Christ satisfied both God's wrath and His righteousness. We are in need of a redeemer because our hearts and minds have been corrupted by the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12).

           -In the Old Testament, bloody animal sacrifices were needed to atone for unintentional sin (Numbers 15:22-29; 16:47). There were no such said provisions, however, for people who sinned wilfully and habitually. The performance of these rites were thus indented to evince one's faith in the Living God. He was the object of the various offerings, which symbolized divine forgiveness. None of these sacrifices could actually get to the heart of man's problem.

           -The high priest offered sacrifices on behalf of himself and Israel. Consider the Day of Atonement, which is known in the Hebrew language as "Yom Hakippurim" (Leviticus 16). All of these bloody animal sacrifices pointed to the final, perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1-4). Everybody, including the high priest, needed a true and perfect sacrifice that only a High Priest with those same characteristics could provide (Hebrews 8:3-6; 9:6-15).

           -In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is presented as being God's ultimate provisional sacrifice for our redemption. He is described as being our reconciliation to God (2 Corinthians 5:18). His work is described as being propitiatory in nature (1 John 2:1-2), which means that it turns away divine judgment on sinners. Christ's life was given as a ransom for the people (Matthew 20:28). His blood was "poured out" for the remission of our sins (Matthew 26:28).

• The Origin Of The Vicarious Atonement Theory: 

           -Penal substitutionary atonement was a further development of Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory, also known as the commercial theory of atonement, by the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century. It best fits with the language of Scripture and was articulated most explicitly by them.

• Background Information On The Commercial Theory Of Atonement:

          -The atonement theory of satisfaction teaches that because sin robs God of His honor, it was necessary for Him restore it by either punishing sinners or through atonement work. Since He chose to make atonement for sin by offering up Jesus Christ, He was able to fully recover any lost honor. Any surplus honor remaining from Jesus' sacrifice was given to God in our place, only if we do good works.
          -"Scholars such as F.W. Dillistone have observed that Anselm's view of the atonement is set within the context of criminal law, where concepts such as honor, debt, and satisfaction feature prominently. The Reformers, by contrast, set the atonement within the context of criminal law, emphasizing guilt, punishment, and substitution. Yet both systems involve forensic interpretations of the atonement." (Nathan Busenitz, Long Before Luther, p. 141)

• A Patristic Exposition Of The Doctrine Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement:

          -"And so, when our unrighteousness had come to its full term, and it had become perfectly plain that its recompense of punishment and death had to be expected, then the season arrived in which God had determined to show at last his goodness and power. O the overflowing kindness and love of God toward man! God did not hate us, or drive us away, or bear us ill will. Rather, he was long-suffering and forbearing. In his mercy, he took up the burden of our sins. He himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us—the holy one for the unjust, the innocent for the guilty, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else could cover our sins except his righteousness? In whom could we, lawless and impious as we were, be made righteous except in the Son of God alone? O sweetest exchange! O unfathomable work of God! O blessings beyond all expectation! The sinfulness of many is hidden in the Righteous One, while the righteousness of the One justifies the many that are sinners. In the former time he had proved to us our nature's inability to gain life; now he showed the Saviour's power to save even the powerless, with the intention that on both counts we should have faith in his goodness, and look on him as Nurse, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, Mind, Light, Honor, Glory, Might, Life—and that we should not be anxious about clothing and food." (Mathetes to Diognetus, 9)

          -In essence, penal substitutionary atonement revolves around the idea that Christ, who is sinless and righteous, took upon Himself the punishment that was due to humanity for their sins. This passage speaks to that notion by emphasizing the "sweetest exchange" where the "holy one" is given for the "unjust," highlighting the sacrificial act where the sinless Christ endures the penalty that humanity deserves.
          -The above cited paragraph also reflects on God's forbearance and mercy, stressing that God, in his overflowing love, does not hate or drive humanity away despite their unrighteousness. Instead, he takes up their burden, offering his own Son as a ransom. This directly ties into the concept of penal substitution. Christ pays the penalty on behalf of humanity, so their sins are covered by His righteousness.
          -Finally, it touches upon the transformative aspect of this atonement. The Righteous One justifies the many sinners, illustrating the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice. This transformation is profound: those who are powerless are saved, not by their own merit but by the Savior's power, reinforcing the complete dependence on divine grace.

• The Biblical Basis For The Theory Of Vicarious Atonement: 

           -Isaiah 53 speaks of Christ being "pierced" for our transgressions and "crushed" for our iniquities. Romans 3:25-26 says that the atonement of Christ is the way that God can forgive our sins without compromising His holiness. Texts such as Romans 4:25 and 1 Corinthians 15:3 speak of Christ dying on our behalf for sin. Ephesians 5:2 employs rich sacrificial imagery to communicate the same idea. 1 Peter 2:24 speaks of the wounds of Christ as being the cause of our sins being forgiven.

          -Consider how Abraham ended up offering a ram as a sacrifice to God instead of his son Isaac (Genesis 22:13). An animal was offered in the place of Abraham's son. This typology reveals the relationship between the application of the work of Christ and the sinner.
          -Jesus Christ made the propitiatory sacrifice to satisfy God's wrath, which occurred as a result of us breaking His Law. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins. His sacrifice is a legal act. It reconciles those who believe to God, who is holy. Christ is our advocate before the Father.

• What Is Justification?: 

          -God declares a sinner to be righteous on the basis of faith (Romans 4:1-11; 5:1). This status has been accorded to us apart from our actions. It is done apart from meritorious works. Justification is an undeserved, free gift of God (Galatians 2:16-21).

• When Is One Justified?: 

          -A person is justified the moment that he first believes. Christians are saved from eternal condemnation and spiritual death the instant that they place their trust in God and His work. Thus, justification is not a process, but a one time event (Luke 18:14; John 5:24; Romans 5:1; Acts 13:38-39; 1 John 3:14). In this sense, salvation can rightly be spoken of as a done deal.

• What Is Sanctification?: 

          -This is the process of being set apart for God's work and being confirmed to the image of Christ. We contribute to sanctification through human efforts and through the Holy Spirit's power (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 9:13-14).

          -This process occurs after justification and ends at the moment of physical death. Only after our sins are forgiven can we begin to lead a holy life. The ongoing process of sanctification is about growing in holiness, not re-earning salvation or forgiveness.
          -To sanctify means to be set apart for holy use (1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:9-11). We are called for the purpose of sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:7) and are therefore expected to act in a holy manner (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-26).
          -Even if we do not live a perfect life, we are still justified. There may be times in life where believers may stumble into sin, but they turn themselves to God in repentance and keep moving forward in their spiritual walk.
          -So, while we are more holy at the end of our life than the beginning, we will never be perfectly holy until we are in heaven. As long as we are on this earth, we still exist in fallen human nature. In Jesus Christ, God sees us as without blemish because we are covered in His blood.

• What Is Glorification?: 

          -This is the end of the sanctification process and takes place when we get to heaven (1 John 3:2; Ephesians 3:15; Philippians 3:20-21). The agent of glorification is the Holy Spirit. We are then in an eternal state and have been fully perfected in our nature.

• On The Three "Tenses" Of Salvation:

          -The New Testament uses three tenses in describing salvation. The initial tense simply involves God pardoning the iniquity of the sinner. Christians are no longer under the penalty of sin. That is justification. The ongoing tense involves being conformed gradually to character of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is sanctification. The future tense involves being utterly taken away from the presence of sin in heaven. That is glorification.

• Confusing Justification With Sanctification:

          -Certain professing Christian groups, such as the Mormons and International Churches of Christ, teach that a person is not justified until the final Day of Judgment when their works are evaluated, determining their worthiness of a place with God in heaven. These groups blur the lines between justification and sanctification, treating them as one and the same. This theology results in a works-based salvation, allowing humans to boast before God.

• Labeling Justification As A Process Is Highly Illogical:

          -The idea of justification being a process makes no logical sense. How would it work? The notion of being "a little justified now" or "more or less justified tomorrow" is absurd. If we are guilty in God's eyes, then we face His divine wrath and eternal condemnation in hell. We cannot be simultaneously justified (and thus going to heaven) and unjustified (and thus heading to hell). We are either justified or not at all.
          -The false notion that justification is a "process" amounts to a works-based system of righteousness, where, at the moment of physical death, God would tally our deeds to decide if we have performed enough good works to earn entrance into heaven. This is not a valid theological definition of justification. Such a description only outlines a process (with an unknown name) leading up to justification.

What Does The Bible Say About Consuming Wine?

• All Food And Drink Has Been Declared Clean By God:

          -Issues pertaining to food and drink are of tertiary importance according to New Testament teaching (Romans 14:1-14). These were given to us by God so as to nourish our physical bodies. They are, therefore, to be received with gladness and thanksgiving.
          -If we are going to view professing Christians who dogmatically condemn the consumption of certain meats as being legalistic, then the same must also be true of those who dogmatically oppose the consumption of wine under any circumstances. Anything can be misused and abused.

          -Just as consuming too much of any food is morally wrong, the same is equally true with wine or any other drink. Addictions are sin, which includes alcoholism (Galatians 5:19-21). Becoming an alcoholic can be fatal and ruins good morals.
          -We ought to take measures to prevent becoming a stumbling block to fellow brethren in the church (Romans 14:15-21). Moreover, it is honorable to abstain from wine for the sake of conscience. In fact, a life of faith is inseparable from a life led by conscience, for it is through conscience that we discern what honors God and edifies others.

• Should Churches Use Wine Or Grape Juice In Communion?:

          -Either wine or grape juice is acceptable for use in communion, since both are derived from the same source: grapes (Matthew 26:26-29). The Mishna's Seder spoke of the "fruit of the vine" as intoxicating wine.
          -The juice extracted from the grapes is a part of God's creation. So is the fermentation process of that juice. All things created by God are to be received with thanksgiving because they are good (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 4:4).
          -The ultimate question that needs to be answered is not whether the contents of the communion cup are wine or grape juice. Rather, do we partake of communion with due respect or treat it as a mere ritual or tradition (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)?

• Drinking Wine Is Acceptable By Biblical Standards:

          -Jesus Christ Himself turned water into wine during the wedding feast at Cana (John 2). If the act of drinking wine in and of itself is sinful, then Jesus would be sinful just like we are and thus disqualified from redeeming us from sin.

          -The Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to drink some wine to help with his frequent stomach illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23). It served for medicinal purposes. The biblical view of wine is that it has been given to us by God as a gift to enjoy (Psalm 104:14-15; Ecclesiastes 9:7).

          -Wine in biblical times was generally consumed by the wealthier members of society. This accounts for the warnings to kings against being addicted to such beverages in Proverbs.
          -The only group of people whom God forbade (in the Old Testament) from consuming alcoholic wine were those who took the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:1-21).

• Is The Greek "Oinos" To Be Translated As Wine Or Grape Juice?:

          -For most of church history, the translation of the Greek word oinos was not a point of contention. It was widely understood to mean fermented wine, consistent with the cultural and agricultural realities of the ancient Mediterranean world. Only in more recent centuries, particularly among certain temperance movements, did the idea emerge that oinos might refer to unfermented grape juice. Yet the biblical and historical evidence strongly supports the traditional understanding. This accounts for biblical texts that warn against drunkenness. 

          -The Jewish Encyclopedia provides a detailed account of the types of wine known in Hebrew tradition: "There were different kinds of wine. 'Yayin' was the ordinary matured, fermented wine, 'tirosh' was a new wine, and 'shekar' was an old, powerful wine ('strong drink'). The red wine was the better and stronger (Ps. lxxv. 9 [A. V. 8]; Prov. xxiii. 31). Perhaps the wine of Helbon (Ezek. xxvii. 18) and the wine of Lebanon (Hos. xiv. 7) were white wines. The vines of Hebron were noted for their large clusters of grapes (Num. xiii. 23). Samaria was the center of vineyards (Jer. xxxi. 5; Micah i. 6), and the Ephraimites were heavy wine-drinkers (Isa. xxviii. 1). There were also 'yayin ha-reḳaḥ' (spiced wine; Cant. viii. 2), 'ashishah' (hardened sirup of grapes), 'shemarim' (wine-dregs), and 'ḥomeẓ yayin' (vinegar). Some wines were mixed with poisonous substances ('yayin tar'elah'; Ps. lx. 5; comp. lxxv.9, 'mesek' [mixture]). The 'wine of the condemned' ('yen 'anushim') is wine paid as a forfeit (Amos ii. 8), and 'wine of violence' (Prov. iv. 17) is wine obtained by illegal means." 

          -The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, edited by R.K. Harrison, says, "In most of the passages in the Bible where yayin is used (83 out of 138), it certainly means fermented grape juice; and in the remainder it may fairly be presumed to do so…. The intoxicating quality of yayin, is confirmed by rabbinical testimony…. although usually intoxicating, it was not only permitted to be imbibed, but was also used for sacred purposes and was spoken of as a blessing (Gen. 49:11-12; Deut. 14:24-26; Ex. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5). Some, indeed, have argued from these passages that yayin could not always have been alcoholic. But this is begging the question and that in defiance of the facts. Although invariably fermented, it was not always inebriating, and in most instances, doubtless, was but slightly alcoholic, like the vin ordinaire of France." This rich taxonomy of wine types, ranging from fresh juice to strong drink, spiced wine, and even wine adulterated with toxins, demonstrates that fermented wine was a central part of ancient life. The linguistic, cultural, and theological context all point to oinos being understood as wine in the fermented sense, not merely grape juice.

Does Ezekiel 37:19 Prophecy The Coming Of The Book Of Mormon?

          "Ezekiel saw in vision [Ezekiel 37:19] the coming together of the stick of Judah, and the stick of Joseph, signifying the Bible and the Book of Mormon...The Nephites were then of the tribes of Joseph, and their record or 'stick' is as truly represented by the Book of Mormon as is the 'stick' of Judah by the Bible." (The Articles Of Faith, p. 276, James E. Talmage)

          Citing Ezekiel 37:19 is ineffectual to serve the purposes of the Mormons. The passage itself is simply too vague. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses could appeal to this text to make the same argument in favor of the Watchtower Society and its magazine publications. Any group of people could appeal to this passage in the way that Mormons have done to support their claims.

          The only thing that Ezekiel recorded on to the stick was the phrase, "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions." (Ezekiel 37:16) That was all that God had told Ezekiel to write on the stick. Therefore, Mormons are wrong when they assert that the Book of Mormon was what was written on the stick by the prophet.

          In context, the Jewish people asked Ezekiel, ‘Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these?’ (Ezekiel 37:18). The joining of the two sticks represents the divided state of Israel. The northern kingdoms and the southern kingdoms constitute the nation of Judah. It is about them being reunited again (Ezekiel 37:21-22). The two sticks represent the union of two kingdoms, not two different religious books.

          Mormons impose 19th-century religious ideas onto an ancient Hebrew prophecy without historical or linguistic evidence. Further, the passage's original context pertains to the reunification of Israel's divided tribes, with no reference to religious texts or future scripture. This interpretive leap, therefore, undermines the legitimacy and historical accuracy of using Ezekiel's prophecy to validate the Book of Mormon.

Do Church Divisions Invalidate Sola Scriptura?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Sola Ecclesia is the Latin term that describes the Roman Catholic belief that the church, not Scripture, is the final authority in religious matters. The Church of Rome touts itself to be the true church established by Jesus Christ, who appointed the Apostle Peter as its first pope. Thus, Rome demands from its members complete and unquestioned submission to its authority. The bishops in harmony with the pope infallibly interpret the Scriptures in order to preserve unity and truth.
          -Consequently, the Church of Rome claims that Christians who rely on the Bible alone for teaching and correcting doctrinal error rather than the Magisterium will inevitably end up in a state of hopeless confusion. Irreconcilable doctrinal contradictions will exist for which there is no remedy but an infallible teaching authority. No one can know anything for sure because no one is infallible. Thus, the meaning of Scripture must be unpacked by an earthly organization.

          -The claim that we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture is essentially the same as saying that the Bible is too difficult for the average person to understand. Both ideas use the same logic in their premises in order to reach the same conclusion. If the basic message of Scripture is plain enough for us to grasp on our own, then why would we need an infallible interpreter in the first place? If Christ entrusted the preservation of His teaching to an infallible office, then why do we even have a Bible?

          -"...no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books")

          - "Q. Are the doctrines of the Catholic Church then entirely independent of Scripture? A. They are; because she taught her doctrines, and they were believed by the early Christians before the New Testament was written—centuries, indeed, before the Bible was collected into its present form; and she would have done so, in precisely the same manner, had they never been written." (Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine, Michael Müller)

          -“...the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC # 82)

• Biblical Evidence For The Doctrine Of Perspicuity:

          -The doctrine of perspicuity, the belief that Scripture is sufficiently clear for believers to understand its essential truths, finds strong support throughout the biblical narrative. From kings to commoners, the Word of God has proven accessible to those who approach it with humility and faith. Consider King Josiah, who came to repentance upon hearing the rediscovered Book of the Law read aloud (2 Kings 22:8–13). There was no infallible interpreter guiding him, only the words of Scripture, which convicted his heart and led to national reform. Similarly, Psalm 119:97–105 celebrates the transformative power of meditating on God’s Word, declaring that it grants more wisdom than even teachers and elders. This is not a call to abandon instruction, but a testimony to the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture for guiding the faithful.
          -The Apostle Paul reinforces this principle in his epistles. In Ephesians 3:3–5, he affirms that the mystery of the gospel can be understood simply by reading what he wrote. In 2 Corinthians 1:13–14, he assures believers that his letters are not cryptic or inaccessible, but written plainly for their understanding. This presumes that the average Christian, not just clergy or scholars, can grasp the core message of salvation and godliness.
          -Moreover, the New Testament epistles were overwhelmingly addressed to entire congregations, not just church leaders. With the exception of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, letters like Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and others were written to all believers (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; etc.). This widespread audience implies that Scripture was meant to be read, understood, and obeyed by the whole church, not filtered through an exclusive interpretive office.
          -Throughout the New Testament, believers are urged to read and respond to Scripture directly. The Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures daily to verify Paul’s teachings (Acts 17:11). Paul instructed churches to circulate his letters and ensure they were read publicly (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). These commands presuppose that Scripture is not only readable but comprehensible to ordinary Christians.
          -Even during Jesus’ earthly ministry, His teachings were understood by the common people, many of whom were poor, uneducated, or marginalized. He praised the Father for revealing truth to “babes” rather than the wise and learned (Matthew 11:25), and His audience often responded with understanding and amazement (Matthew 13:51; Mark 12:37). Not once do we see an infallible interpreter standing beside Him to clarify His words. The implication is clear: God’s truth is accessible to all who seek it with a sincere heart.
          -In sum, Scripture consistently affirms its own clarity. While teachers and elders play a vital role in guiding and equipping the church, the essential message of the Bible is not locked behind ecclesiastical authority. It is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, meant to be read, understood, and obeyed by all who belong to Christ.

• We Cannot Understand Scripture Unless Someone Explains It To Us (Acts 8:28-38)?:

          -There are people with authority to teach in the church. In fact, the doctrine of perspicuity does not mean that all portions of Scripture are equally clear or easy to understand. We may very well need things explained to us at times. However, this text says nothing about the concept of teaching infallibly or that only an infallible interpretation of Scripture would suffice for the confused Eunuch.
          -The Eunuch was from far away (i.e. Ethiopia), and he had apparently not been given a chance to hear about the teachings of the gospel. Philip, who was at the right place at the right time by the power of the Holy Spirit, was given the opportunity to explain Isaiah 53. The Eunuch was confused simply because he did not know who the prophet Isaiah was referring to (v. 34). The gospel was not spread out back in the day, as it is today. That is what this text is about.

• No Prophecy Of Scripture Is Of Any Private Interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)?:

          -How can a person develop a biblical argument against the principle of Sola Scriptura by making a personal interpretation of a verse that allegedly condemns private interpretation of Scripture?
          -How can a person rely on prophecy or compare Scripture to a "light" (v. 19), if they have been forbidden to use it (v. 20)?
          -The context of 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one's reading of Scripture, but rather concerns the origin of Scripture. No true prophecy was given to the prophet by his own interpretation. Prophecy originated directly from God. It is not a product of our imaginations.

• People Twisting The Scriptures To Their Own Destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16)?:

          -First of all, this text merely states that SOME things in Paul's epistles are hard to understand. It does not even specify which parts those are. This simply means that we need to pray and study Scripture more diligently.

          -This text says that people "twist the Scriptures to THEIR OWN destruction" (v. 16, emphasis added), which indicates that we are responsible for how we handle the Word of God.
          -2 Peter 3:15-16 is only speaking of the unfaithful and the unbelieving, not the humble and prayerful Christian.
          -Although the context of 2 Peter 3 would have been a great place to introduce the concept of an infallible teaching authority, it is not mentioned at all.

• Do We Need Some Special Authority In Order To Make Interpretations Of Scripture?:

          -Interpreting biblical texts is not so much a matter of personal authority, but rather something God expects us to do. This does not mean that ministers in local congregations have no special authority to teach at all. The written text is clear enough for readers to obtain truths related to salvation and godliness. God does not require that we understand Him infallibly, since we are but finite creations. Further, we can have sufficient certainty behind the meaning of Scripture on our own. However, this is not to suggest that we can interpret biblical texts in any way that we desire. We should examine Scripture in its context, use our common sense, consult commentaries, etc. The claim that fallible humans require an infallible interpreter of biblical texts inadvertently assumes that truth cannot be known unless perfectly understood. But Scripture itself never demands infallibility from its readers, only faithfulness, humility, and diligence. God expects us to seek truth through study, prayer, and community, not to outsource understanding to an institution. Fallibility does not equal futility. It simply means we must approach Scripture with care, not surrender our judgment entirely.

• Reflections On Religious Division:

          -Jesus Christ desires unity in the church. His will is that we be one in the Spirit. Christ despises factions amongst His people, with the existence of such indicating carnality. Since truth is of utmost importance, it ought to be sought after and protected at all costs. However, we are imperfect beings, and things are not always clearly defined in Scripture.

          -There are scenarios in which division is necessary: “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Further, even if an infallible interpreter of Scripture would simplify matters for us, that does not mean God has given us one. That our interpretations can be wrong does not mean they are always wrong, they are prone to be so most of the time, or that fallible reasoning abilities cannot discover truth accurately on their own.

          -In places with millions of people where freedom of speech and freedom of religion exists, there will inevitably be diversity of beliefs. That is simply a logical consequence of being in a free society. In order to obtain the organizational conformity that Rome requires, there would have to be coercion, threats, and intimidation involved. Getting different people to agree completely on every issue is not a realistic goal to strive for in the first place.

          -Essential doctrines that are clearly or repeatedly defined in Scripture would include the virgin birth, sinlessness of Christ, deity of Christ, the veracity of His miracles, the sinfulness of man, the resurrection of Jesus, among other things. Doctrines that are of secondary importance would include women's head coverings, musical instruments in church, modes of baptism, etc. 

• Is Roman Catholicism A Theologically Divided Body?:

          -While the Church of Rome may appear to be fairly unified because it is organized under the headship of the pope, the unity to which Catholics appeal is largely exaggerated. There are significant theological differences among the Catholic laity, priests, scholars, theologians, and bishops. There are entire societies, movements, and orders within the chambers of Roman Catholicism. There are liberal and conservative Catholics. Although these divisions are hidden under the Roman Catholic hierarchy, theological differences still exist and merit our attention.
          -Many Roman Catholics are unlearned in regards to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. Many flatly contradict official teachings on issues such as abortion, artificial birth control, the death penalty, homosexuality, on whether priests should be married, letting females join the priesthood, stem-cell research, and more. Roman Catholics are divided over creation versus evolution, the material sufficiency of Scripture, charismatic occurrences, and whether practicing Jews and Muslims can be saved without conversion. Catholic theologians are even divided over the interpretation of Vatican II documents.
          -Roman Catholicism is a group that is lead by a single human leader and occupies the same title all throughout its domain (i.e. "Roman Catholic"), whereas Protestantism is made up of individual churches with different labels. Protestantism is not an ecclesiastical structure like Rome. Therefore, it is misleading to compare both systems in this regard. Further, the principle of Sola Scriptura was never intended to bring about complete agreement of thought on every issue.

• Refuting The 33,000 Protestant Denominations Myth:

          -Scott Eric Alt, at the National Catholic Register, said in regard to the claim that there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations: “There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions. There are not any­where close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of rep­e­ti­tion, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to con­cede, relies on too loose a def­i­n­i­tion of the word “denom­i­na­tion.”…How­ever strong the temp­ta­tion some may have to char­ac­ter­ize any­thing not Catholic or Ortho­dox as “Protes­tant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protes­tant apol­o­gists is that you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, or what its dis­tinc­tives are—and they would be right. And why would they take any­thing you say seriously after that? If you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, who are you to be talk­ing about its errors? Not only are Mor­mons, Jehovah’s Wit­nesses, One­ness Pen­te­costals, Uni­tar­i­ans, Pros­per­ity Gospel believ­ers (included among 23,600 Inde­pen­dents and Mar­gin­als) not Protes­tant, they are not even Chris­t­ian; they adhere to a false Chris­tol­ogy. Protes­tants and Catholics are in agree­ment about who Christ is; these other groups have other ideas.”

          -In reality, the vast majority of Protestant churches, whether Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, or Reformed, share a common foundation of essential Christian convictions. These include the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the necessity of personal repentance and faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the reality of final judgment, and the priesthood of all believers. While differences exist in areas such as church governance, worship style, or views on spiritual gifts, these are typically secondary matters. Such distinctions do not amount to doctrinal chaos. The real concern is not the number of denominational labels, but whether each church faithfully upholds the gospel and teaches the Word of God. Structural unity does not guarantee doctrinal purity, and diversity in form does not preclude unity in truth. Therefore, the focus should remain on whether Scripture is being rightly interpreted, Christ is being faithfully proclaimed, and believers are being equipped to walk in obedience.

          -The inflated number often cited includes not only distinct theological traditions but also individual congregations, mission organizations, and even regional church networks that share identical beliefs and practices. For example, a Baptist church in Texas and another in Kenya may be counted as separate “denominations” simply because they are geographically distinct or administratively independent, even though they affirm the same doctrinal statements. This method of counting exaggerates fragmentation by conflating organizational autonomy with theological division. True denominational diversity should be measured by substantial doctrinal differences, not by the number of church buildings or administrative structures.

Refuting The Atheistic "God Of The Gaps" Argument

          Atheists depict belief in the existence of God as being nothing but a filler for things that science as of yet has been unable to answer. This objection to the idea of a higher power operates on the premise that it has been assumed on a priori basis the necessity of God's existence in all matters for which we currently posses inadequate knowledge. Science itself will be able to account for all things satisfactorily in the long run. However, there remains intelligent and reasonable arguments for the existence of God, which amount to more than simply assuming things based on incomplete data. They are not appeals to silence or based on a lack of knowledge.

           When arguments for the existence of God are made, they are based on inferences from foundational observations rooted firmly in science. Further, they are made in accordance with principles of elementary logic. More specifically, many of our collected evidences point to the existence of an external, greater reality. Philosophical proofs for the existence of God point beyond the scope of the natural world. Therefore, it is not all that exists. If the premises of such arguments are true, then their conclusions are not assumed but automatically follow. It does not matter how people feel or react to the validity of presented deductive arguments.

           The validity of each logical premise in various arguments for the existence of God is based on the validity of each scientific or philosophical point used in making them. For instance, the universe does have fine-tuning. The universe has a first cause. Biological structures have a degree of complexity that appears to have been designed. These are scientific facts, which must be dealt with. Theistic arguments do not simply assume the existence of God as a means of providing an explanation, but are logical deductions that are unpacked to get an intended point across.

          The secularism of today's scientific landscape is the polar opposite of what the learned men who came to the Americas from Europe upheld. The latter were primarily Puritans who held that God orchestrated world history in such a way, that He dictated the outcome of even the smallest occurrences. The uncovering of scientific laws seemed to contradict this view of divine sovereignty, opening the door to a view of God who is more distant and uninvolved with creation. The idea of a watchmaker who winds up a clock and lets it unwind fully illustrates this perception. The radical approach to science taken by the Puritans has since been thoroughly discredited, helping to lay the ideological groundwork for the world of science that exists today.

           

           A true scientist must be open to the possibility of many things, for they dedicate their lives to seeking answers. Scientists are to be focused on truth. Scientists are supposed to be about evidence. Those who reject the existence of God are very biased indeed. Science is about the study of the natural world, not searching for naturalistic explanations with the intent of ruling out the supernatural. The fact that science has discovered answers to a number of complicated questions, does not mean that it alone is sufficient to unravel all foundational questions which shape reality as we understand it.

A Biblical Theology Of Marriage And Divorce

        "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" (Matthew 19:4-5)

        Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4–5 reaffirm the divine origin and intent of marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. By referencing the creation account, He emphasizes that this bond is not merely contractual but covenantal, rooted in God’s design for human relationships. The phrase “the two shall become one flesh” speaks to a profound unity that transcends physical connection, pointing to a deeper spiritual and emotional oneness. This foundational truth sets the stage for understanding the nature of biblical love and the enduring commitment that marriage requires.

        "Biblical love is based on the spiritual relationship between a man and a woman before any relationship of the flesh. They who are spiritually joined together become one flesh that never separates. They who are attracted only by the physical appearance constantly live in the temptation of seeing someone else who many be more attractive. The possibility of steadfastness in a marriage that is based on looks and mere sexual satisfaction is very small indeed compared to the spiritual relationship based on agape, love that seeks not self-satisfaction primarily, but meeting the need of one’s partner. The satisfaction of meeting the need of another is far greater than the satisfaction of selfish procurement." (Spiros Zodhiates, What About Divorce?, p. 72-73)

        In Romans 7:2-3, Paul explains that a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. However, if he dies, she is free to remarry without being guilty of adultery. This analogy is used to illustrate that believers are released from the Law's binding power through Christ's death, just as a widow is freed from her marital bond upon her husband's death. Therefore, the passage indicates that it is permissible for a widow to remarry, aligning with the broader theological point that Christians are freed from the Law's condemnation through their union with Christ. 

        In 1 Corinthians 7:14-15, Paul addresses the situation of believers married to unbelievers. He explains that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through their believing partner, which means their children are also under a godly influence. However, if the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave the marriage, the believer is not bound in such circumstances and is free to let them go. This passage underscores that while a mixed-faith marriage can have a sanctifying effect on the family, the believer is not obligated to remain in the marriage if the unbelieving spouse departs. The Christian is thus granted freedom in such situations.

        In Matthew 19:9, Jesus states that anyone who divorces their spouse, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery. This verse allows for divorce in the case of sexual immorality, suggesting that remarriage is not adulterous in such circumstances. The passage highlights the sanctity and permanence of marriage, permitting divorce only in specific, severe cases. The exception clause suggests that while marriage is intended to be permanent, severe breaches like infidelity justify dissolution and subsequent remarriage.

        In the cultural and historical context of Jesus' time, Jewish law allowed for divorce on the grounds of serious marital unfaithfulness, such as adultery. This broader understanding of "porneia" included various forms of sexual immorality, which suggests that Jesus' audience would have interpreted His exception clause in Matthew 19:9 as permitting divorce in cases of adultery. Further, different Jewish sects had varied interpretations of permissible grounds for divorce, indicating a less rigid approach than the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the indissolubility of marriage. Thus, the view of "porneia" as solely referring to unlawful marriages does not fully align with the broader and more flexible understanding prevalent during Jesus' era.

        Marriage is intended to be the life-long dedication of one to a partner of the opposite sex. Thus, adultery is wrong for obvious reasons. It involves lying in that the promise of fidelity gets broken and unfair in that the wronged spouse is robbed of due benevolence. Adultery turns what was intended to be a permanent vow right on its own head. If fornication and adultery are morally permissible, then that undermines the purpose for which marriage exists. 

        As for eliminating temptation, that cannot be done perfectly because human nature is fallen and said proclivities will creep up on us from time to time. The best way to dampen down temptation is to identify with certainty its source and find ways to permanently remove or avoid it. Jesus Christ specifically taught that lusting is equivalent to actually committing adultery and fornication (Matthew 5:28-29). It is a form of idolatry (Colossians 3:5). However, being physically attracted to a member of the opposite sex is not wrong in and of itself. We were biologically hardwired to be that way.

        God absolutely despises divorce (Malachi 2:16). He regards it as evidence of faithlessness. Divorce was not a part of His original order of things. God only tolerated the termination of marriages because the hearts of men are hard (Matthew 19:8-9). He knew that our relationships could go sour. Therefore, if it be at all possible, it is best for arguing couples to seek reconciliation. That may entail a degree of compromise in either one or both parties. For instance, wives and children should never be placed into a situation that leaves them without sustenance to provide for their needs. Every situation is different and must be dealt with accordingly.

          Marriage is a sacred institution that calls for mutual commitment and love between spouses. The biblical teachings on marriage, such as in Ephesians 5, encourage believers to love and respect one another within the marriage relationship. These teachings can be interpreted in ways that recognize both distinct and shared responsibilities between husbands and wives. In the framework of a healthy marriage, spouses are encouraged to honor their unique roles while also supporting and valuing each other's contributions. Marriage involves personal accountability. It is based on commitment of the spouses to each other. The underlying principle of marriage is self-sacrifice.

        Marriage was instituted by God, so He has complete authority over it. Divorce could actually be seen as a grace in that it exists when no potential remedies work. This kind of a decision should never be taken lightly and only in sorrow. The best thing to do is marry somebody who shares a similar worldview. Even a person who claims to be a Christian may be a bad candidate for marriage (Matthew 7:21). Some people may have to wait a long time before finally getting married, like Isaac who was forty before he got married (Genesis 25:20). In fact, a person does not have to get married if he does not want to. Even Christ spoke of the celibate (Matthew 19:11-12).

Are All Sins Equal In Severity?

        It is true that all sins are worthy of condemnation because they are a violation of God's Law (Romans 6:23). All of them are unrighteous. All of them are an offense to God because they go against His very nature, which is holy. Any and all sin is sufficient to stop one from becoming a partaker in His kingdom. All sin can accurately be spoken of as mortal before Him. It is also true, however, that any and all sin can be forgiven because of Christ's work on the cross (Romans 5:20). The depths of His grace is deeper than the worst that we can do.

        God's Law does not exist outside Himself as do human laws to judges. It exhibits perfectly who He is in terms of His righteous and just qualities. God is the perfect moral standard of righteousness (Genesis 18:25). Sin, therefore, is not merely in opposition to some principle, but to God Himself. He is not changeable like human theories and rules. Sin merits eternal separation and death because He is holy, impartial, and equitable. It is an offense against God on a personal level. Sin goes against everything that He is.

        Some sins are indeed greater in severity than others (John 19:11; 1 John 5:15-17). That means God judges some with more harshness than others based on what they did during this life, while exercising mercy accordingly. He judges in a way that is both rigid and flexible. Ezekiel 8 speaks of certain acts as being more detestable to Him than others. There are different levels of severity in punishment for those in hell (Matthew 23:14; Luke 10:7-12; 12:47-48). God judges those who have greater knowledge of His truth more harshly (Hebrews 10:28-29; James 3:1-2). This should foster in us a deeper understanding of the gravity of various actions and the need for sincere repentance.

        That homosexual behavior, adultery, and bestiality were considered capital crimes in Israel shows God does indeed see some sins as more heinous than others in terms of earthly consequences. Unintentional sins could be atoned for in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 4). The former types of sin were more grievous to God because they involve full consent in doing them. Thus, it can be said that He looks at people's motives, circumstances, and their ability to understand propositions in judging them. God is just in executing judgment.

         Some have quoted James 2:10-11 to support the notion that all sin is the same in terms of severity, but that notion is mistaken. Theft, for instance, is not said to carry the same weight of guilt and consequences as does murder. In fact, sympathy is extended to those who steal food to feed themselves (Proverbs 6:30). This passage merely says that if one commits sins such as theft and murder, then he has violated God's Law. In other words, there are multiple ways to break the Law of God. This is true even of various laws instituted by man.

Annihilation Refuted

• Introduction:

          -The teaching of annihilationism stands in stark contrast to the traditional Christian teaching of hell, which is eternal condemnation. The orthodox teaching is that the souls of unbelievers are sentenced to an eternity of misery and humiliation. They are separated from God because He is holy. They will be made to confess that He is Lord out of subjugation, not submission.
          -Annihilationism is the teaching that lost souls, fallen angels, and even Satan himself will eventually get destroyed or cease to exist. As for the duration of the divine sentence in this view, it is usually taught that unconverted souls cease to exist after the moment of physical death. Thus, there is no conscious afterlife for these people. Only the righteous will experience immortality.

• Annihilationism Minimizes The Seriousness Of Sin And Its Consequences:

          -If a person desires to continue acting in a sinful manner and dies in an unrepentant and unbelieving state, then he will have no serious concerns about any sort of future punishments. After all, a non-existent being cannot face judgment for sin by God. So there will ultimately be no punishment for any sins in this theological framework.

• Exegetical Problems For The Doctrine Of Annihilationism:

          -If annihilation is true, then why not also believe that our comfort and existence in heaven will last only for a short period of time? The word "eternal" is used to describe both "life" and "punishment" in Matthew 25:46, which puts advocates of annihilationism in a pickle. The same comments are equally applicable to Daniel 12:2.

          -In Revelation 14:9-11, the emphasis is on eternal torment, with the phrase “the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever.” This language suggests a continuous, ongoing state of suffering rather than a one-time act of destruction.

          -In Revelation 20:10, the imagery is of perpetual torment. The devil, the beast, and the false prophet are subjected to continuous suffering “day and night for ever and ever,” implying no end to their punishment.

          -Jude said that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah suffer "eternal fire" (Jude 7) which lasts "forever" (Jude 13) as an object lesson for the ungodly. That language has very specific implications, which do not sit well with annihilationism. The people of those cities were still suffering divine judgment at the time of this epistle being written.

• The Story Of The Rich Man And Lazarus Serves As Biblical Evidence That Souls Remain Conscious After Physical Death And That Unbelievers Do Not Cease To Exist (Luke 16:19-31):

           -Even if one does not interpret this story to be literal history, plenty of details exist to indicate conscious life after death with the moral lesson that unrighteous people will face judgment by God.

• On The Greek Term Kolasis In Matthew 25:26:

          -"κόλασις kólasis; gen. koláseōs, fem. noun from kolázō (2849), to punish. Punishment (Matt. 25:46), torment (1 John 4:18), distinguished from timōría (5098), punishment, which in Class. Gr. has the predominating thought of the vindictive character of the punishment which satisfies the inflicter’s sense of outraged justice in defending his own honor or that of the violated law. Kólasis, on the other hand, conveys the notion of punishment for the correction and bettering of the offender. It does not always, however, have this strict meaning in the NT. In Matt. 25:46, kólasis aiṓnios (166), eternal, does not refer to temporary corrective punishment and discipline, but has rather the meaning of timōría, punishment because of the violation of the eternal law of God." (Excerpt taken from the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, edited by Spiros Zodhiates)

• On The Greek Term Aionion:

          -Proponents of annihilationism correctly point out that the Greek word "aionion," which is translated into English as "eternal," does not always mean eternal. However, the New Testament clearly uses that word to describe the length of God's reign (Revelation 11:15), the nature of God (Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:17), and our salvation (John 3:16). Those are things for which there is no end. Further, there is no better word in New Testament Greek to denote an eternal length of time than aionion itself. The concept of eternal conscious punishment in hell is indeed terrifying to hear about. Attempting to deny its existence is foolish to the utmost.

Does Luke 1:28 Support The Immaculate Conception Of Mary?

          "The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" should herself be "full of grace." She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the "Daughter of Zion": "Rejoice." It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son." (CCC # 722).

          The best description that we get about Mary from Scripture is that she is "the Lord's servant" (Luke 1:38). Nothing much else is said of her elsewhere. Further, it is an unrealistic jump to go from describing Mary as being an instrument used by God to being a woman who was conceived without sin, ascended into heaven without physical death, and being exalted as the queen of heaven. The context of Luke 1 contains no clear evidence that Mary holds a mediatory role between humanity and God or was intended to be venerated in the way that Catholics have done with her.

          The angel Gabriel’s greeting, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28, NRSV), underscores God's favor upon Mary as the chosen vessel for Jesus' incarnation. However, there is no indication that this favor confers an ongoing role for Mary beyond being the mother of Jesus. Moreover, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) emphasizes Mary's acknowledgment of her own humility and God's greatness. While she praises God for the honor given to her, the prayer's central focus is on God's mercy, justice, and faithfulness to His covenant. There is no suggestion that Mary sought or should receive adoration from others.

          The context of Luke 1 reveals important sayings of Elizabeth, Mary, and the Angel Gabriel. However, nothing is said about Mary being without sin. Further, we need to ask why Gabriel would announce the important message of Mary's birth so many years after the occasion took place (i.e. when she was already a fully grown woman)? Both the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were proclaimed before their birth dates. It would be highly unusual to make a prophecy of an event after the fact that it has already happened. Luke chapter one centers around the conception of Jesus.

          In addition, the phrase "full of grace" is not found in our Greek manuscripts. It is derived from a faulty translation of Jerome in his fourth century Latin Vulgate. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church has derived its doctrine from a corrupted Latin translation, not the Greek original. Interestingly, modern-day Catholic translations of the Bible do not have the rendering "full of grace" in Luke 1:28. Examples of reputable texts omitting that term would include the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. Consider this excerpt from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378:

          "The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace."

          Gabriel’s greeting in Luke 1:28 does not prove Mary was eternally sinless. The Greek perfect tense (kecharitōmenē) simply indicates that God had blessed her in the past with results still present, not that she possessed a permanent or eternal condition. Other uses of the perfect tense show this clearly: Pilate’s “What I have written, I have written” (John 19:22) is not eternal, and participles like “merciful” in Hebrews 2:17 describe roles, not immutable titles. Catholic apologists argue the perfect tense here is unique, but the same verb (charitoō) appears in Ephesians 1:6 for all believers, proving it cannot imply sinlessness exclusive to Mary. Explicit references of Luke 1:28 to the immaculate conception developed later in church history. The broader theological claim that Christ required a sinless vessel is also unsupported, since God has repeatedly worked through imperfect people to accomplish His purposes. The context itself shows Gabriel’s words are a greeting of divine favor for her role, just as Noah “found favor” (Gen. 6:8) or Gideon was called “mighty warrior” (Judg. 6:12). In short, grammar, usage, and biblical parallels dismantle the apologetic claim: Luke 1:28 is about God’s choice of Mary for her mission, not proof of doctrines like the immaculate conception.

          Consider this excerpt from The Augsburg Confession: A Commentary, by Leif Grane, p. 209, which is thoroughly reasonable to add here:

          "She [Mary] does not seek her own enjoyment in the honor which God has permitted her to share, but keeps her spirit pure. In this way the Magnificat becomes a proclamation of God's own goodness toward poor and lowly mortals. It is God's grace toward Mary, who is unworthy, that we should praise. Mary does not desire that praise be directed toward her, for thereby God's grace is diminished. If one would honor her, one should regard her low estate and marvel at God's exceedingly abundant grace toward her. Thereupon one should praise God, who acts this way toward poor and wretched human beings, and so learn to depend of God oneself, when one is despised and degraded. By elevating Mary into a sublime being, one destroys the comfort which Mary's words can bring."

Examining The Catholic Rosary In Light Of Scripture

       One Roman Catholic legend is that Mary showed up before St. Dominic in 1208 at the church of Prouille and revealed the rosary beads to him. Catholic Priest William Saunders writes that, "the origins of the rosary are sketchy at best." Gregory the Great made popular a form of the Hail Mary Prayer. In response, many began praying this prayer in repetitions with stringed beads. However, Jesus declared unfit for use this kind of prayer:

        "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words."  (Matthew 6:6-7)

         For what other reason would the scribes and Pharisees pray the kind of prayer that Christ expressed disapproval of, other than heaping up words and phrases in an attempt to make their utterances more efficacious or more heard? The rosary consists of exactly these elements. The context of His teaching here is more than saying the same prayers repeatedly.

        Jesus Christ emphatically condemned this kind of prayer by calling it vain. It is uttered by pagans in their ecstasy and by legalists in their pride, but worthless before God. He already knows everything that we are going to pray about and our motives for doing so, even before anything is said. He knows everything that we need, even better than what we know ourselves.

         Further, more prayers are dedicated to Mary in the rosary than to God Himself in the process of it being cited. The praises given to God are outnumbered nine to one in favor of Mary. Hence, it does not take much to notice how such a prayer can diminish one's affection for God. Observe the utter contrast of Roman Catholic devotion to Mary in the rosary with words of devotion to God from the Psalms:

        "My soul, wait in silence for God only, for my hope is from Him. He only is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold; I shall not be shaken." (Psalm 62:5-6)

        This psalmist obviously would have rejected any concept of offering some lower form of religious devotion to someone other than God. He viewed his Creator as his one and only source of spiritual sustenance during hard times. 

        "Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth." (Psalm 73:25)

        There is nothing in these words that would even remotely imply that using something like the rosary would be palatable for use in worship. No one ever prayed with beads in the Bible, a concept instituted by pagans long before Christianity began (making them even less appealing to devout Jews). For instance, the Hindus did so in prayers to their gods. The biggest problem for the rosary is that it involves prayer to someone other than God.

        Why do we need to know how many times that a prayer is said? Why is there an emphasis on the number of repetitions in citing the rosary? Are there consequences for saying too many or too little of a specific prayer? Does the rosary involve some sort of self-hypnosis technique? What is the significance of even using this relic if the repetition serves no purpose?