We know from Scripture that it is impossible for genuine Christians to be possessed by demons because they are owned by God Himself (1 Corinthians 7:23). He is sovereign over creation, and nothing can snatch us from His hand. As Jesus declared, "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:29). Demons, therefore, have no control or dominion over us.
God has redeemed us with the shed blood of His Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 20:28). The cost of our redemption was the precious blood of Jesus, signifying the immense value God places on us as His children. This redemption means that we have been bought at a price and now belong to God. Consequently, demons have no claim over us; we cannot be taken possession of by them.
The God who indwells us is greater than the forces of this world (1 John 4:4). The Holy Spirit's presence within believers signifies God's ownership and protection. The Spirit empowers us, guides us, and assures us of our standing as God's children (Romans 8:15-16). Demons, being part of the created order, are subject to God's authority and cannot possess a believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. As Paul writes, "For you are the temple of the living God" (2 Corinthians 6:16), and there can be no fellowship between the Holy Spirit and demons.
Christ's victory over demonic powers is comprehensive and conclusive. Colossians 2:15 tells us that Jesus disarmed the principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them by triumphing over them through the cross. This victory is not only historical but also active in the lives of believers. As we stand firm in Christ, we are reminded that He has already defeated the enemy, and this victory is ours to claim through faith.
Understanding that Christians cannot be possessed by demons has significant practical implications. It provides believers with a sense of security and confidence in their spiritual walk. This assurance allows Christians to focus on their sanctification process, growing in holiness without fear of demonic possession. However, believers must remain vigilant, recognizing that while they cannot be possessed, they can still be oppressed or tempted by demonic forces. Continual reliance on God's strength and the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Scripture reading, and fellowship are essential in maintaining spiritual health.
Monday, May 7, 2018
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Does God Hate Sinners?
"The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity." (Psalm 5:5)
God's Law is perfect. It is a reflection of His character and nature. He cannot allow sin and rebellion into His kingdom. God absolutely despises iniquity. He judges sinners. He punishes sinners. Sin stems forth from the human heart. His wrath is a reality. God cannot simply ignore or overlook our sin. This biblical truth should give rise to a state of concern in people. However, there is good news which counterbalances the bad news of humanity being condemned by God for sin.
God is loving and gracious. He is patient. At the same time, our Creator is holy and just. He is provoked to wrath by our unrighteousness. God's love and hatred are perfect. He hates without sinful intent. To be hated of God means to be under His wrath and judgment. Those whom He loves are those who have found favor in His sight. It was out of His unfathomable love for us that He sent His only begotten Son into this world to make atonement for our sins:
"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." (Romans 5:8-10)
There exists a debt of sin against God, who is holy, that needed to be settled (Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:56). No man in his fallen condition could possibly fulfill the necessary demands to make restitution. Thus, Jesus Christ took on human flesh so that we could be reconciled to God. He is without sin. An infinite debt requires a ransom of infinite value.
"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)
"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)
Jesus is the tangible manifestation of God's love for humanity. He came to bring spiritual life to us. Therefore, those who desire to have fellowship with God must be restored to harmony with Him through faith in Christ. We must have our sins forgiven. We must have our sins removed. God took the initiative to save us, even though we had no merit on our part.
How can a God of love hate at the same time? God is love, but love is not God Himself. That is not all there is to God. There are many aspects of His character. He is a complex being. God's provisional love for sinners is not incompatible with His righteous judgment. He has every attribute perfectly. If we are Christians, then God is not only our King but also our Father.
God does indeed love us, but it is more than warm feelings. He has provided a means for us to escape divine condemnation. The richness of His mercy is unsearchable. He desires reconciliation with sinners, especially those who believe on Christ for salvation. Nevertheless, we should not take these truths lightly. We should abhor sin, just as He does. We should reject it, regardless of the cost. In fact, the command for us to love our enemies is rooted in God's provisional love for sinners.
We are justified by God's grace through our faith in Christ's atonement for sin. We cannot merit our salvation. God desires that all men come to salvation (Acts 17:26-31). He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). He has no desire in punishing the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:10-11). It is not God who sends people to hell. People end up there because that is the eternal destiny that they chose for themselves. There is a day coming in which every man will give account of himself to God.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
How Miracles Illustrate The Foolishness Of Atheism
Atheists quickly rule out the possibility of miracles because a consistent naturalistic worldview does not allow them to embrace the validity of supernatural realities. They automatically deem false anything that is not observable to the five human senses in their attempts to eliminate God from the equation of life. Following are a number of points that can be used to counter this way of thinking about God and the miraculous:
There are indeed rare, extraordinary phenomena, such as recovery from near impossible medical ailments or survival without injury from natural disasters. Further, there has been drastic character transformation in formally malicious people who converted to Christianity. Consider the example of the Apostle Paul, who was a murderer prior to his conversion. It would be more reasonable to attribute such incidents to divine providence than mere chance.
We should not make the hasty generalization of dismissing authentic miracles along with counterfeit claims. Authentic experiences serve as evidences for God being at work throughout creation. The real issue is that we lack faith in Him, which is a tendency of our fallen nature. The issue that carries the greatest weight here is whether miracles are even possible.
Empirical evidence is not the only form of available evidence. There is also eyewitness testimony. One need not assume without proof that the New Testament writings are historically fraudulent, especially when it has much manuscript evidence favoring its textual veracity. Something is termed miraculous only when no other explanation exists that is scientific.
Scientific experiments tell us how nature regularly operates under certain conditions, not that miracles are an impossibility. Thus, there exists both natural and supernatural explanations for things that happen. It is because of our scientific knowledge that we can discern whether an occurrence is a miracle. Miracles do not contradict natural laws, but rather transcend them. God has the power to temporarily suspend scientific laws for His own purposes because He created them.
Furthermore, it is a highly unscientific to assume that God does not exist because such a colossal argument requires that one obtain infinite knowledge about everything. This cannot be done by beings who are finite by design. He is beyond the limited scope of nature. A test-tube will never be capable of coherently explaining the fullness of reality.
If the God of the Bible does exist (which we maintain that He does), then the case is closed. He can indeed work miracles. Whether one believes in the possibility of miracles is ultimately a matter of underlying philosophical presuppositions about this world. Even if there were no supreme deity governing the universe, atheism would still have no reason to exist or proclaim itself to be true. The concept of moral truths would be no different than our personal appetites.
We should not make the hasty generalization of dismissing authentic miracles along with counterfeit claims. Authentic experiences serve as evidences for God being at work throughout creation. The real issue is that we lack faith in Him, which is a tendency of our fallen nature. The issue that carries the greatest weight here is whether miracles are even possible.
Empirical evidence is not the only form of available evidence. There is also eyewitness testimony. One need not assume without proof that the New Testament writings are historically fraudulent, especially when it has much manuscript evidence favoring its textual veracity. Something is termed miraculous only when no other explanation exists that is scientific.
Scientific experiments tell us how nature regularly operates under certain conditions, not that miracles are an impossibility. Thus, there exists both natural and supernatural explanations for things that happen. It is because of our scientific knowledge that we can discern whether an occurrence is a miracle. Miracles do not contradict natural laws, but rather transcend them. God has the power to temporarily suspend scientific laws for His own purposes because He created them.
Furthermore, it is a highly unscientific to assume that God does not exist because such a colossal argument requires that one obtain infinite knowledge about everything. This cannot be done by beings who are finite by design. He is beyond the limited scope of nature. A test-tube will never be capable of coherently explaining the fullness of reality.
If the God of the Bible does exist (which we maintain that He does), then the case is closed. He can indeed work miracles. Whether one believes in the possibility of miracles is ultimately a matter of underlying philosophical presuppositions about this world. Even if there were no supreme deity governing the universe, atheism would still have no reason to exist or proclaim itself to be true. The concept of moral truths would be no different than our personal appetites.
Human Love Can Become Corrupt
"We may give our human loves the unconditional allegiance which we owe only to God. Then they become gods: then they become demons. Then they will destroy us, and also destroy themselves. For natural loves that are allowed to become gods do not remain loves. They are still called so, but can become in fact complicated forms of hatred."
C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 8
C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 8
True Love Entails Self-Sacrifice
"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell."
C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 121
C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 121
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Is The Office Of The Pope A Fulfillment Of Moses' Seat?
"After Jesus established His Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter’s chair became the new seat of authority under the New Covenant. This is why, when the Pope officially speaks on a matter of faith and morals with the intention of proclaiming a universal doctrine for the Church (which is rare), we say He is speaking “ex cathedra” (from the “chair”). Jesus’ use of the “chair of Moses” [Matthew 23:1-2] certainly shows a continuum of authority as the New Covenant replaced the Old." (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/qa-seat-moses/)
A closer examination of Moses' seat reveals a more symbolic and pragmatic role within the framework of theocratic governance. Moses' seat was emblematic of teaching the Pentateuch, the foundational laws of the Hebrew Bible, and encompassed both religious instruction and civil adjudication (Exodus 18:13–27). Those who sat in Moses’ seat wielded authority to interpret and enforce God's laws, but did not possess any mandate to create new doctrines or laws. Their authority was confined to what was divinely established, a key distinction from the idea of papal authority, which purports the ability to articulate new doctrinal declarations under specific conditions.
If the chair of Moses served as a prophetic precursor to the papal office, it raises critical questions. Foremost among them: why was the authority of Moses’ seat exercised by multiple leaders simultaneously, rather than centralized under one supreme figure? The distributed nature of this authority contrasts sharply with the Roman Catholic model, which emphasizes the singularity of the pope as the universal shepherd.
If the chair of Moses served as a prophetic precursor to the papal office, it raises critical questions. Foremost among them: why was the authority of Moses’ seat exercised by multiple leaders simultaneously, rather than centralized under one supreme figure? The distributed nature of this authority contrasts sharply with the Roman Catholic model, which emphasizes the singularity of the pope as the universal shepherd.
The New Testament provides no explicit linkage between Moses' seat and a “chair of Peter.” Neither does it establish Peter as having successors in an authoritative sense that parallels the imagery of Moses' seat. Even if there were historical evidence of a tradition of succession tied to Moses’ seat (which is absent), it does not logically follow that such succession would extend to the Roman bishopric. Furthermore, the Jewish leaders who occupied Moses' seat were never believed to possess infallibility in teaching—a concept central to Roman Catholic dogma concerning the papacy. On the contrary, the gospels portray the scribes and Pharisees, custodians of Moses' seat, as propagators of significant doctrinal errors. Jesus Himself referred to them as "blind guides" (Matthew 23:16) and criticized their elevation of human traditions to divine status (Matthew 15:1–9).
While Jesus instructed His followers to heed the teachings derived from the Law and the Prophets as communicated by these leaders, He concurrently warned against emulating their hypocrisy and corruption (Matthew 23:3). The religious leaders of Jesus' time prioritized outward displays of piety and public recognition over genuine devotion to God. Their motivations were rooted in human praise, earning them earthly rewards rather than divine favor. This admonition serves as a universal caution against pride and superficial religiosity, which remains relevant across all religious traditions.
Significantly, Matthew 23 highlights the dangers of authoritarian leadership when it becomes disconnected from genuine humility and accountability. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for using their positions of authority to burden others with heavy, oppressive expectations while failing to offer meaningful guidance or assistance (Matthew 23:4). This pattern of spiritual leadership contrasts starkly with Christ’s model of servant leadership, which prioritizes humility, compassion, and serving others (Matthew 20:25–28). A similar critique can be directed toward the concept of centralized papal authority, which, over the centuries, has at times led to the imposition of doctrines and practices that have weighed heavily on the faithful, sometimes without adequate biblical justification.
Another key issue lies in the nature of authority itself as described in Matthew 23. Jesus explicitly warned against seeking honorific titles or positions that elevate oneself above others, stating, “You have one Teacher, and you are all brothers” (Matthew 23:8). He admonished the scribes and Pharisees for their desire to be called “rabbi” and for placing themselves in a position of spiritual superiority over others (Matthew 23:8–12). This teaching undermines the hierarchical model of authority embraced by the Roman Catholic Church, where the pope is seen as occupying the highest seat of honor. Such practices contradict the egalitarian ethos promoted by Christ, who emphasized humility and mutual service among His followers.
Throughout Matthew 23, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees for their focus on external appearances, such as their elaborate garments and public displays of piety, rather than fostering a heart-centered relationship with God (Matthew 23:5–7). This critique resonates today when evaluating the formal and ritualistic elements of the Catholic Church. Even if liturgical practices have spiritual value, they risk becoming empty formalities when divorced from genuine faith and devotion. Jesus’ warning against this type of superficial religiosity calls for a return to the simplicity and authenticity of worship that prioritizes God over human traditions. The reliance on lineage and tradition as justifications for papal authority mirrors the claims of the scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus rebuked for placing undue emphasis on ancestral ties and human traditions (Matthew 3:7–9; Mark 7:7–13). If the leaders occupying Moses’ seat could err so gravely despite their lineage, then historical succession alone cannot guarantee doctrinal purity or divine favor. This continuity of human fallibility offers a stark caution against equating institutional heritage with spiritual authority.
While Jesus instructed His followers to heed the teachings derived from the Law and the Prophets as communicated by these leaders, He concurrently warned against emulating their hypocrisy and corruption (Matthew 23:3). The religious leaders of Jesus' time prioritized outward displays of piety and public recognition over genuine devotion to God. Their motivations were rooted in human praise, earning them earthly rewards rather than divine favor. This admonition serves as a universal caution against pride and superficial religiosity, which remains relevant across all religious traditions.
Significantly, Matthew 23 highlights the dangers of authoritarian leadership when it becomes disconnected from genuine humility and accountability. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for using their positions of authority to burden others with heavy, oppressive expectations while failing to offer meaningful guidance or assistance (Matthew 23:4). This pattern of spiritual leadership contrasts starkly with Christ’s model of servant leadership, which prioritizes humility, compassion, and serving others (Matthew 20:25–28). A similar critique can be directed toward the concept of centralized papal authority, which, over the centuries, has at times led to the imposition of doctrines and practices that have weighed heavily on the faithful, sometimes without adequate biblical justification.
Another key issue lies in the nature of authority itself as described in Matthew 23. Jesus explicitly warned against seeking honorific titles or positions that elevate oneself above others, stating, “You have one Teacher, and you are all brothers” (Matthew 23:8). He admonished the scribes and Pharisees for their desire to be called “rabbi” and for placing themselves in a position of spiritual superiority over others (Matthew 23:8–12). This teaching undermines the hierarchical model of authority embraced by the Roman Catholic Church, where the pope is seen as occupying the highest seat of honor. Such practices contradict the egalitarian ethos promoted by Christ, who emphasized humility and mutual service among His followers.
Throughout Matthew 23, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees for their focus on external appearances, such as their elaborate garments and public displays of piety, rather than fostering a heart-centered relationship with God (Matthew 23:5–7). This critique resonates today when evaluating the formal and ritualistic elements of the Catholic Church. Even if liturgical practices have spiritual value, they risk becoming empty formalities when divorced from genuine faith and devotion. Jesus’ warning against this type of superficial religiosity calls for a return to the simplicity and authenticity of worship that prioritizes God over human traditions. The reliance on lineage and tradition as justifications for papal authority mirrors the claims of the scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus rebuked for placing undue emphasis on ancestral ties and human traditions (Matthew 3:7–9; Mark 7:7–13). If the leaders occupying Moses’ seat could err so gravely despite their lineage, then historical succession alone cannot guarantee doctrinal purity or divine favor. This continuity of human fallibility offers a stark caution against equating institutional heritage with spiritual authority.
Does Daniel 7:13-14 Affirm The Deity Of Christ?
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14, emphasis added)
This profound messianic prophecy, articulated through the inspired vision of Daniel, vividly portrays a scene of cosmic significance. God, referred to here as the "Ancient of Days," is revealed as the eternal and sovereign Judge, presiding over the rebellious kingdoms of the earth. These kingdoms are symbolically represented as various beasts, highlighting their transient and chaotic nature in contrast to the eternal and righteous rule of God's kingdom. The establishment of the everlasting throne of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is presented as the climax of divine providence, underscoring His supremacy over all creation and His unique worthiness of worship. This awe-inspiring vision communicates the shared authority of God the Father and God the Son in their rule over heaven and earth.
The designation "son of man" in this passage holds immense theological weight, as it is the singular instance in the Old Testament where the term exclusively identifies the promised Messiah. In contrast to the earthly perspective of the gospel writers, Daniel's prophetic lens is oriented from the realm of heaven, presenting Christ in His divine glory. Following His resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven, enveloped by clouds, signifying divine approval and fulfillment of prophecy. Now seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 10:12), Jesus reigns in majesty and authority, His dominion encompassing all creation and enduring eternally. His throne is not merely symbolic but signifies the fullness of His kingly authority.
This imagery echoes forward into the apocalyptic visions of Revelation, particularly chapters 4 and 5, where the Lamb of God is uniquely found worthy to open the scroll that decrees the inheritance of the nations. This act signals the culmination of history, as the rebellious powers of the world are decisively vanquished and the kingdom of Christ is fully realized. The authority, glory, and sovereign power ascribed to Him in Daniel 7:13-14 are fully manifested in this ultimate revelation. His reign is adorned with unparalleled majesty and shared glory with the Father, offering a compelling affirmation of His divinity. Christ is not merely a figure of historical significance; He is God incarnate, reigning eternally with the Father, and worthy of unending adoration and devotion.
Moreover, the interplay between Daniel's vision and the New Testament writings affirms the continuity of God’s redemptive plan. The Son of Man’s dominion, as described in Daniel, reflects the ultimate hope for believers: the restoration of God's perfect order and the unshakable promise of an eternal kingdom. His rule serves as both a source of comfort and a challenge—comfort for those who trust in Him, knowing that His kingdom will never fail, and a challenge to live in alignment with His sovereign will, as faithful subjects of the King of kings.
Jerome wrote the following in his commentary on Daniel 7:13:
“And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man.” He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven' (Acts 1:11)”.
Wayne A. Grudem provides further insight on the text of Daniel 7:13-14 being a messianic prophecy:
"Someone who had heavenly origin and who was given eternal rule over the whole world. The high priests did not miss the point of this passage when Jesus said, ‘Hereafter you will see the Son of man seated on the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven‘ (Matt. 26:46). The reference to Daniel 7:13-14 was unmistakable, and the high priest and his council knew that Jesus was claiming to be the eternal world ruler of heavenly origin spoken of in Daniel’s vision. Immediately they said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy…. He deserves death’ (Matt. 26:65-66).” (Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, p. 238)
The designation "son of man" in this passage holds immense theological weight, as it is the singular instance in the Old Testament where the term exclusively identifies the promised Messiah. In contrast to the earthly perspective of the gospel writers, Daniel's prophetic lens is oriented from the realm of heaven, presenting Christ in His divine glory. Following His resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven, enveloped by clouds, signifying divine approval and fulfillment of prophecy. Now seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 10:12), Jesus reigns in majesty and authority, His dominion encompassing all creation and enduring eternally. His throne is not merely symbolic but signifies the fullness of His kingly authority.
This imagery echoes forward into the apocalyptic visions of Revelation, particularly chapters 4 and 5, where the Lamb of God is uniquely found worthy to open the scroll that decrees the inheritance of the nations. This act signals the culmination of history, as the rebellious powers of the world are decisively vanquished and the kingdom of Christ is fully realized. The authority, glory, and sovereign power ascribed to Him in Daniel 7:13-14 are fully manifested in this ultimate revelation. His reign is adorned with unparalleled majesty and shared glory with the Father, offering a compelling affirmation of His divinity. Christ is not merely a figure of historical significance; He is God incarnate, reigning eternally with the Father, and worthy of unending adoration and devotion.
Moreover, the interplay between Daniel's vision and the New Testament writings affirms the continuity of God’s redemptive plan. The Son of Man’s dominion, as described in Daniel, reflects the ultimate hope for believers: the restoration of God's perfect order and the unshakable promise of an eternal kingdom. His rule serves as both a source of comfort and a challenge—comfort for those who trust in Him, knowing that His kingdom will never fail, and a challenge to live in alignment with His sovereign will, as faithful subjects of the King of kings.
Jerome wrote the following in his commentary on Daniel 7:13:
“And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man.” He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven' (Acts 1:11)”.
Wayne A. Grudem provides further insight on the text of Daniel 7:13-14 being a messianic prophecy:
"Someone who had heavenly origin and who was given eternal rule over the whole world. The high priests did not miss the point of this passage when Jesus said, ‘Hereafter you will see the Son of man seated on the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven‘ (Matt. 26:46). The reference to Daniel 7:13-14 was unmistakable, and the high priest and his council knew that Jesus was claiming to be the eternal world ruler of heavenly origin spoken of in Daniel’s vision. Immediately they said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy…. He deserves death’ (Matt. 26:65-66).” (Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, p. 238)
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
AMA Statement on Abortion
"There we shall discover an enemy in the camp; there we shall witness as hideous a view of moral deformity as the evil spirit could present…. Men who seek not to save, but to destroy; men known not only to the profession, but to the public, as abortionists….
“Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment is given to all, and applies to all without exception…. Notwithstanding all this, we see in our midst a class of men, regardless of all principle, regardless of all honor; who daily destroy that fair fabric of God’s creation; who daily pull down what he has built up; who act in antagonism to that profession of which they claim to be members….
It matters not at what state of development his victim may have arrived—it matters not how small or how apparently insignificant it may be—it is a murder; a foul, unprovoked murder; and its blood, like the blood of Abel, will cry from earth to Heaven for vengeance….
Every practicing physician in the land (as well as every good man) has a certain amount of interest at stake in this matter…. The members of the profession should form themselves into a special police to watch, and to detect, and bring to justice these characters. They should shrink with horror from all intercourse with them, professionally or otherwise. These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society."
American Medical Association 1871 statement on abortion, as cited by Randy Alcorn in "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments," p. 217
“Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment is given to all, and applies to all without exception…. Notwithstanding all this, we see in our midst a class of men, regardless of all principle, regardless of all honor; who daily destroy that fair fabric of God’s creation; who daily pull down what he has built up; who act in antagonism to that profession of which they claim to be members….
It matters not at what state of development his victim may have arrived—it matters not how small or how apparently insignificant it may be—it is a murder; a foul, unprovoked murder; and its blood, like the blood of Abel, will cry from earth to Heaven for vengeance….
Every practicing physician in the land (as well as every good man) has a certain amount of interest at stake in this matter…. The members of the profession should form themselves into a special police to watch, and to detect, and bring to justice these characters. They should shrink with horror from all intercourse with them, professionally or otherwise. These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society."
American Medical Association 1871 statement on abortion, as cited by Randy Alcorn in "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments," p. 217
Friday, April 20, 2018
Evaluating Roman Catholic Claims Of Apostolic Succession
- The Catechism Of The Roman Catholic Church Says In Regard To Apostolic Succession:
-“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (CCC # 77)
-"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (CCC # 882)- Apostolic Succession As Defined By The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
-“…the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession...Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession.…Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles…” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Apostolicity")
-There is very little evidence that the Apostle Peter stayed in Rome, apart from the timing of his martyrdom. No one can rightly claim to have the same authority as the apostles, since they are not eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection (Acts 1:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1).- Biblical Arguments Against Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession:
-The New Testament never records the apostles passing on their authority to successors.
-The original teachings of Jesus Christ, the apostles, and their closest associates have been accurately recorded and preserved in the New Testament. Scripture equips the man of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Truth can easily be determined when Scripture is properly exegeted.
-The determining factor of the truthfulness and faithfulness of a church is its adherence to Scripture (Acts 17:11-12). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to have a physical, traceable lineage back to Abraham, yet Christ rejected them (John 8:36-45). We do not need a chain of apostolic successors from Christ and the original apostles to preserve divinely revealed truth (Matthew 3:7-9; Galatians 3:7). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to posses divine extra-biblical tradition, yet Christ publicly refuted them with Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9).
-The only known historical record containing the inspired words of Jesus Christ and the apostles is the New Testament itself. That is the remnants of apostolic authority. The Encyclopedia Britannica affirms that, "the origins of episcopacy are obscure."
- Is Acts 1:15-26 An Example Of Apostolic Succession, As Roman Catholic Apologists Claim?:
-At this point, the apostles did not begin their apostolic ministry. They did not even receive the power Christ had promised to bestow upon them earlier in this chapter (Acts 1:8). The apostles did not receive it until the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, this is not an example of the apostles passing on spiritual authority to successors. The apostles did not have any power at this time.
-This occasion was the actual replacement of an apostle with another apostle. This is dissimilar with the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession, considering that they teach that only apostolic authority is passed on (not the essence of the office itself). Papal "successors" themselves do not become apostles like Matthias did.
- Does 2 Timothy 2:2 Provide Evidence For Apostolic Succession?:
- Apostolic Succession And The Early Church:
-Some modern perspectives suggest that doctrinal continuity can be maintained through a process of organic development. However, the earliest expressions of apostolic succession emphasize the importance of preserving an unaltered deposit of faith. The early churches operated autonomously, fostering fellowship and collaboration when addressing disputes. This decentralized approach further underscores that doctrinal integrity was safeguarded by adherence to apostolic teaching rather than by evolving theological constructs or centralized authority.
-The Jewish background of the earliest Christians provides further context. Concepts of succession, such as the priestly transition from Aaron to Eleazar, were familiar to them as mechanisms for preserving spiritual leadership. However, the early church placed its emphasis on the continuity of apostolic truth rather than on processes of change or adaptation. Creeds were crafted on the foundation of Scripture, and any new ideas were subjected to rigorous scrutiny to ensure fidelity to the truths originally delivered by the apostles. This method ensured that any theological developments adhered strictly to apostolic teaching, rather than reflecting an evolving understanding of doctrine.
-Apostolic succession, as practiced in the early church, was a means of safeguarding apostolic truth in its original form, rather than accommodating an evolving theology. The preservation of doctrine was paramount, with a focus on maintaining the spiritual and doctrinal lineage established by the apostles. This view presents a marked contrast to interpretations that place value on the adaptation or development of doctrine over time, demonstrating that the priority of the early Christians was unwavering fidelity to the teachings handed down by the apostles.
- Contradictions In Early Succession Lists Of Roman Bishops:
- The Papacy And Its Historical Development:
-No historical evidence from the first or second centuries affirms that the Apostle Peter was appointed as the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The earliest Christian writings, which form the foundation of the faith, are conspicuously silent on the necessity of believing in Peter’s primacy or the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. This silence is critical, as it challenges the claim that these doctrines were essential elements of the faith established by Christ. Furthermore, in early apologetic debates, neither pagan critics nor heretics such as those confronted by Justin Martyr and Tertullian raised objections regarding the existence of a papacy. Such an omission is revealing, as it would have been a natural point of contention if the concept of a singular, supreme papal office had existed in the early church. Instead, what we find in the earliest writings is a consistent emphasis on congregations being governed collectively by a plurality of elders—a model reflective of shared leadership rather than centralized authority.
-The absence of evidence for the papacy’s early existence is further underscored by the writings of the apostolic and post-apostolic fathers, who, while addressing various theological and ecclesiastical concerns, never refer to a central, supreme bishop in Rome. Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians (circa A.D. 96), exhorts unity within the church but does so from a position of moral authority, not papal supremacy. The letter provides no indication that Clement perceived himself as the head of all Christendom or that the Roman church wielded jurisdiction over others. Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch, in his early second-century epistles, emphasizes the importance of bishops and unity within individual churches but makes no appeal to a singular bishop in Rome as the ultimate arbiter of faith or practice. If the papacy were a foundational component of early Christianity, one would reasonably expect explicit recognition of its authority in these seminal writings. Instead, these documents reflect a decentralized structure of church governance, undermining the claim that the papacy was divinely instituted from the beginning.
-For the first three centuries of Christianity, the Roman church was indeed held in high regard among Christians, but its esteem arose not from a divinely mandated primacy but from its unique characteristics and circumstances. Rome was the capital of the empire, the "Eternal City," and this location alone conferred a degree of prestige. By the mid-third century, the Roman church had grown to an estimated 30,000 members, becoming the largest congregation in the West, despite periods of intense persecution by the Roman authorities. Its size and resources allowed it to become a focal point of charity and a bastion of theological orthodoxy. Apostolic tradition attributed its founding to both Peter and Paul, further enhancing its reputation by the second century. However, this recognition was based on custom and tradition, not on any explicit divine appointment. The absence of any early writings that confer primacy upon the Roman church underscores the argument that its prominence was circumstantial, not institutional or theological.
-A major shift in the trajectory of ecclesiastical authority coincided with the political realignments of the Roman Empire. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine relocated the imperial capital to Byzantium, later renamed Constantinople, or "New Rome." This momentous move shifted the empire's political focus to the East, naturally elevating the stature of the bishop of Constantinople. Over time, this bishop acquired a position of prominence akin to that of a religious head, further challenging the Roman church's claim to primacy. This transition was accompanied by a cultural divide: the Western church continued to use Latin, while the Eastern church adopted Greek as its primary language. The linguistic and cultural differences deepened after Constantine's death in A.D. 337, when his sons inherited a divided empire, further fragmenting the unity of the early church.
-The assertion of the papacy's divine institution is profoundly challenged when viewed through the lens of historical progression. Rather than emerging as a clear mandate from Christ or a definitive apostolic teaching, the papal office developed gradually over centuries, shaped by political, cultural, and ecclesiastical shifts. The earliest Christian communities, spread across diverse regions, displayed remarkable autonomy in governance. They adapted their leadership structures according to local needs, with no indication of centralized authority vested in the bishop of Rome. Indeed, early writings such as those of Ignatius of Antioch emphasize the role of bishops in maintaining unity within individual congregations but are silent on the existence of a singular leader presiding over the universal church.
-In A.D. 381, Emperor Theodosius convened an assembly that formally elevated the bishop of Constantinople to a position of supremacy, citing the city's status as "New Rome." This decree sparked immediate opposition from the Roman church. Bishop Damasus, in response, was the first to explicitly declare the supremacy of the Roman church. His arguments rested on passages such as Matthew 16:18, claiming that Christ instituted this authority—a line of reasoning that remains central to modern Roman Catholic apologetics. Yet, this appeal to Scripture remains unconvincing when weighed against the historical record, as no trace of such claims is found in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
-By the time of Bishop Leo's appointment in 440, the Roman church had further entrenched its authority. Leo introduced the argument that the church's authority was grounded in the figure of the Roman bishop, whom he presented as Peter's successor. Leo interpreted the "keys of the kingdom" given to Peter by Christ as the foundation for papal power. However, this claim represents a misinterpretation of Scripture that deviates significantly from the teachings of the early and apostolic church. Crucially, such assertions arose over 400 years after Christ's ministry, underscoring the historically contingent nature of papal authority. Councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon, convened to resolve theological disputes, notably did so without reliance on papal authority. If the papacy were integral to the church's structure, it would undoubtedly have served as the primary mechanism for defining orthodoxy in such debates. Its absence from these critical moments highlights its later development as a historical innovation, not an apostolic foundation.
-As historian Joseph F. Kelly noted in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity: “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.” These historical developments strongly suggest that the rise of the papacy was not an apostolic institution but a later innovation shaped by political, cultural, and theological shifts.
-A major shift in the trajectory of ecclesiastical authority coincided with the political realignments of the Roman Empire. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine relocated the imperial capital to Byzantium, later renamed Constantinople, or "New Rome." This momentous move shifted the empire's political focus to the East, naturally elevating the stature of the bishop of Constantinople. Over time, this bishop acquired a position of prominence akin to that of a religious head, further challenging the Roman church's claim to primacy. This transition was accompanied by a cultural divide: the Western church continued to use Latin, while the Eastern church adopted Greek as its primary language. The linguistic and cultural differences deepened after Constantine's death in A.D. 337, when his sons inherited a divided empire, further fragmenting the unity of the early church.
-The assertion of the papacy's divine institution is profoundly challenged when viewed through the lens of historical progression. Rather than emerging as a clear mandate from Christ or a definitive apostolic teaching, the papal office developed gradually over centuries, shaped by political, cultural, and ecclesiastical shifts. The earliest Christian communities, spread across diverse regions, displayed remarkable autonomy in governance. They adapted their leadership structures according to local needs, with no indication of centralized authority vested in the bishop of Rome. Indeed, early writings such as those of Ignatius of Antioch emphasize the role of bishops in maintaining unity within individual congregations but are silent on the existence of a singular leader presiding over the universal church.
-In A.D. 381, Emperor Theodosius convened an assembly that formally elevated the bishop of Constantinople to a position of supremacy, citing the city's status as "New Rome." This decree sparked immediate opposition from the Roman church. Bishop Damasus, in response, was the first to explicitly declare the supremacy of the Roman church. His arguments rested on passages such as Matthew 16:18, claiming that Christ instituted this authority—a line of reasoning that remains central to modern Roman Catholic apologetics. Yet, this appeal to Scripture remains unconvincing when weighed against the historical record, as no trace of such claims is found in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
-By the time of Bishop Leo's appointment in 440, the Roman church had further entrenched its authority. Leo introduced the argument that the church's authority was grounded in the figure of the Roman bishop, whom he presented as Peter's successor. Leo interpreted the "keys of the kingdom" given to Peter by Christ as the foundation for papal power. However, this claim represents a misinterpretation of Scripture that deviates significantly from the teachings of the early and apostolic church. Crucially, such assertions arose over 400 years after Christ's ministry, underscoring the historically contingent nature of papal authority. Councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon, convened to resolve theological disputes, notably did so without reliance on papal authority. If the papacy were integral to the church's structure, it would undoubtedly have served as the primary mechanism for defining orthodoxy in such debates. Its absence from these critical moments highlights its later development as a historical innovation, not an apostolic foundation.
-As historian Joseph F. Kelly noted in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity: “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.” These historical developments strongly suggest that the rise of the papacy was not an apostolic institution but a later innovation shaped by political, cultural, and theological shifts.
- Forgeries And The Papacy:
-The Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are prime examples of medieval forgeries crafted to enhance the papal authority. The Donation of Constantine, purportedly written by Emperor Constantine I, grants vast privileges and territories to the pope. It claims to transfer control over the Western Roman Empire to the Pope, which significantly bolstered the papacy's claims to temporal power. However, this document was later proven to be a fabrication, likely created in the 8th century, centuries after Constantine's death.
-Similarly, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a collection of forged documents produced in the 9th century, were designed to support the independence and supremacy of the Church. These documents attributed various legal decisions and decrees to early popes, enhancing the papal authority against secular rulers and local bishops. By presenting these decrees as ancient and authoritative, the forgers aimed to create a historical precedent that strengthened the papal position in ecclesiastical and political matters.
-The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online says that the, "Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages." Indeed, the creation and use of fraudulent documents was not uncommon during this period, as competing powers sought to legitimize their authority and claims through seemingly ancient and venerable sources. These forgeries had a lasting impact on the medieval church and its structure, influencing the balance of power between the papacy and other political entities. Although they were eventually exposed, their effects continued to resonate throughout the centuries, demonstrating the potent role of written documentation in shaping historical narratives and authority.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel?
- Defining The Issues:
-The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel are the same person. They teach that Michael is Jesus in His preexisting form. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Christ was the first part of God's creation, prior to the formation of Adam. It is believed that Christ resumed His role as Michael the Archangel after His death and resurrection. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the concept of a bodily resurrection, so they teach that He rose spiritually from the grave. This view carries with it a number of exegetical and theological problems, however. For instance, Jesus cannot simply be Michael the Archangel because the angels worshiped Him:
"You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?...And let all the angels of God worship Him...Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands... But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”?" (Hebrews 1 paraphrased)
Jesus Christ is exalted by God in a way never given to angels. His name is above that of the angels. Further, angels are never called the Son of God. Never has God said that He is their Father. Thus, the author of Hebrews clearly distinguishes Christ from the angels.
Consider the following passage from Revelation in which angels worship Christ. He is given adoration, which no angels can justifiably claim for themselves:
"And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped." (Revelation 5:13-14)
"And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped." (Revelation 5:13-14)
Christ has a position of authority over creation that only God Himself can legitimately be said to have. If He is a created being, then the angels who offered Him worship would have been condemned by God for acts of idolatry. Scripture forbids the worship of creations (Deuteronomy 6:13), including angels. Therefore, Jesus Christ must not be an angel, but God Himself.
The Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear Translation renders Hebrews 1:3 as follows: "[Jesus] is the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being." If Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, then, according to the logic of the cited text, then that would mean the very essence or nature of God must be that of an angel. That would be nothing short of sheer blasphemy.
If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, then why is it that he had to call upon the name of the Lord in order to cast judgment on the devil?:
"But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you." (Jude 9)
Christ openly rebuked Satan without invoking any name of authority. He wields the same power and authority as God because that is who He is:
"and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." (Matthew 4:9-10)
"But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you." (Jude 9)
Christ openly rebuked Satan without invoking any name of authority. He wields the same power and authority as God because that is who He is:
"and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." (Matthew 4:9-10)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)