Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist A Re-Sacrifice Of Christ?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer a number of claims made by Steve Ray over at Catholic Answers. He touches on a variety of topics, but the emphasis here will be limited to the dogma of transubstantiation. Following are quotations from the author in bold letters and critical analyses of each claim of interest:

          "The Catholic Church does not teach that Christ is "re-sacrificed" on the altar. Why does Ankerberg say that it does? The quotation he uses from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not use anything like"re-sacrifice," yet Ankerberg says it teaches "re-sacrificing." Words are important; smart Catholics will catch on to what he is doing- playing footloose with terminology to suit his own interests."

          The eucharist is called a divine sacrifice (CCC, 1068). We are told that the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of Jesus are "one in the same sacrifice" (CCC, 1367). The eucharist is believed to be propitiatory (CCC, 1367). It is believed to make atonement for sin (CCC, 1414). However, this "sacrifice" is done repeatedly. These sacrifices take place across the world. Thus, the Roman Catholic distinction between "re-sacrifice" and "re-presentation" is a distinction without a difference. The principle of Jesus Christ being offered "once for all" remains violated. He is not offering Himself for the sins of the world today because that has already been done (Hebrews 10:10-14). Even the presence of a sacrificial alter would seem to suggest a plurality of sacrifices being made.

          "Catholics teach that there was only one sacrifice and that the Mass is a re-presentation of that sacrifice, a partaking in and of the one sacrifice-the eating of the Lamb (Ex. 12:11, John 6:52-58)."

           The atonement sacrifices that were performed in the Old Testament pointed to the one sacrifice accomplished by Jesus Christ at Calvary (Hebrews 10:1). Steve Ray's use of typology is rather imaginative given that even pagans ate their own sacrifices of animals and those had nothing to do with us. On the other hand, there are valid connections made to Christ in Exodus 12, such as the bones of the lamb not being broken. According to the gospels, His bones were not broken during crucifixion. The blood of the covenant passages are not supportive of transubstantiation because they say nothing about a mysterious conversion of the consecrated elements at the mass into the literal flesh and blood of Christ.

          "So we have an anomaly: Christ seated at the right hand of the Father, and Christ, the Lamb of God, standing on the altar. In the temporal world, he was slain once-but in heaven, the world outside time, it appears that the sacrifice of Christ is an eternal event. We are even told that he was crucified before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8)."

          The reason for the imagery of Christ standing on the alter in Revelation is to remind us continually of His sacrifice for our sins. The effects of His work are permanent. Christ does not need to be offered as a sacrifice today. Only He could offer Himself up anyway.

           "Why is the Protestant position on the Lord’s Supper at such odds with the universal teaching of the first Christians who called the Lord’s Supper “Eucharist”?"

           It should not surprise us when early Christian writers made statements similar to "this is my body" and "this is my blood," since they were alluding to the words spoken by Jesus Christ during the Last Supper. The focus should become what is meant by such language. A person, for example, can point to a country on a map and say, "This is Israel." In that instance, he would not be literally saying the place pointed at on the paper is that nation, but that is what it represents. Even if a church father believed in some mystical presence of Christ in the communion elements, that does not demonstrate he believed in transubstantiation. The former notion can be embraced without knowledge or acceptance of the later.

           Augustine, for example, in his commentary on Psalm 33, spoke of Christ “holding Himself in a manner.” That is to be understood metaphorically. The point of emphasis there is the deep mystery and significance of the eucharist. It does not imply a literal physical presence. This aligns with the broader theological perspective that Christ’s presence in the eucharist is spiritual and symbolic rather than a physical transformation. This view underscores the belief that the communion elements are a profound reminder of Christ’s sacrifice. They are a means of spiritual communion with Him, rather than a physical consumption of His body and blood. It highlights the idea that the true presence of Christ in the eucharist is experienced through faith and the Holy Spirit, rather than through a literal change in the elements of bread and wine.

           This excerpt from Church Historian Philip Schaff's work called History of the Church, Volume II, paragraph 69, is pertinent here:

          "The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.”

          Robert J. Daly writes in his paper titled Eucharistic Origins: From The New Testament To The Liturgies of the Golden Age:

          "We do not know and cannot reconstruct in precise detail what Jesus did at his "Last Supper." The New Testament itself remembered and interpreted what Jesus did in quite different ways. Attending to these differences undermines the assumption that there is a single line of development that runs from Jesus to the later Eucharist of the Church, and that can be traced back by us toward Jesus. And indeed, if by Eucharist is meant what is now done in the Church, the farther back one goes, for example, to the "Eucharists" of James, Peter, and Jesus, the farther one gets from the Eucharist of the present. Indeed, if an exact reconstruction of what Jesus did at the Last Supper were possible, it would probably look quite different from what Christians now celebrate."

           This excerpt from John D. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 274, summarizes the current of interpretation present amongst various patristic authors:

          "...they saw the Lord's Supper with a strong degree of realism, though with a spiritualizing tendency. The elements really and truly were the body and blood of Christ, yet not in such a way as to be identical with the historical body of the Savior. Christ's literal body had ascended into heaven, to be brought from heaven only in His return in the last great judgment." 

          This excerpt from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online points out the ambiguity of the early development of what has been called the mass:

           "The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries show us what is practically our present Roman Mass. How did the service change from the one to the other? It is one of the chief difficulties in the history of liturgy. During the last few years, especially, all manner of solutions and combinations have been proposed. We will first note some points that are certain, that may serve as landmarks in an investigation…Justin gives us the fullest Liturgical description of any Father of the first three centuries (Apol. I, lxv, lxvi, quoted and discussed in LITURGY). He describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated at Rome in the middle of the second century; his account is the necessary point of departure, one end of a chain whose intermediate links are hidden. We have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries. This is the mysterious time where conjecture may, and does, run riot. By the fifth century we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change. At this time we have the fragment in Pseudo-Ambrose, “De sacramentis” (about 400. Cf. P.L., XVI, 443), and the letter of Pope Innocent I (401-17) to Decentius of Eugubium (P.L., XX, 553). In these documents we see that the Roman Liturgy is said in Latin and has already become in essence the rite we still use." (emphasis added)

           Following are comments by John Darby regarding the substance and accidents Aristotelian philosophy on which the idea of transubstantiation rests: 

           "The doctrine of transubstantiation is simply the fruit of the scholastic use of Aristotle in the middle ages...this theory of a particular substance and accidents was a mere metaphysical theory, without any real foundation. We have got nowadays to molecules and atoms infinitely minute, which may be called perhaps substance or essential matter; but all this Aristotelian theory of an imaginary substance and accidents in material objects, is a mere groundless fancy. We see different qualities which awaken sensations in us; colour, form, hardness, etc., and the mind recognises there is something there. Of this conviction, which in relation to us creatures I do not dispute, Aristotle and the schoolmen, who were as a rule wholly under his influence, made a distinct but imaginary substratum in which the various qualities were inherent. There was the substance of bread, etc. But this was a mere philosophical notion, a mere theory of the heathen Aristotelian school, adopted by the schoolmen, and has no other foundation whatever. But the whole doctrine of transubstantiation, and even the word, depends on it, cannot exist without it, is the mere expression of it, only bringing in a miracle on the ground of it, as to the Lord's supper."

           Dr. Francis Nigel Lee highlighted ongoing debates and opposition to transubstantiation within the Roman Catholic tradition itself:

           "Even since A.D. 831, many Roman Catholics still opposed such transubstantiation. So: Ratramnus, Berengarius, John Scotus Eriguena, Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, Florus Magister, Eusebius Bruno (Bishop of Angers), Frollant (Bishop of Senlis), and Elfric. Also, according to the famous RC Cardinal Bellarmine in his De Sacramento Eucharistea (111:5 and 4 dII q.6 art. 1,2 and q. 3 art. 1,2 and I:5) - even the celebrated Cardinal Cameracensus said: "Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Holy Writ .... To this Cardinal Roffensis, Cardinal Cajetan and also Scotus all concur." Indeed, the RC scholars Gabriel, Nicolus, Cusanus, Tapper, Hessel and others all present the "Protestant" interpretation of John 6:54. See Dr. P.G. Logan's Ph.D. dissertation The History and Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Sydney, 1994, pp. 84f."

           "Notice the sacrificial language being used. The term "table of the Lord" is a technical term which in the Old Testament always refers to a table of sacrifice. Why would Paul use such blatantly sacrificial terminology if he is trying to deny any association between the Eucharist and sacrifice?"

          The context of this passage is about appropriate conduct and the use of discernment in worship services, not having a correct view of the eucharist. The purpose and meaning, not the substance, of the communion elements are addressed in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Moreover, the communion that the pagans had with idols was very real, yet no evidence exists suggesting that their offerings were transubstantiated. Even granting that this text makes mention of the eucharist, that fact in and of itself does not prove the communion elements become the literal body and blood of Christ at the words of consecration by a priest.

Christians Should Not Belong To Sects

"If your church associates with a group of churches that requires exclusive allegiance to itself, you are part of a sect. Despite their boastful claims, sects do not understand the New Testament doctrine of the Church. They are in error. All sects are based on half-truths, faulty reasoning, doctrinal oddities, deceptions, guilt-manipulation, and fear, which are not of the Spirit of truth and liberty. If your church denies you your Spirit-given right and privilege to fellowship with all Christ-loving, bible-loving Christians and churches, you need to obey God rather than man and free yourself and family from these unbiblical chains."

Alexander Strauch, “The Interdependence of Local Churches.” From the book, Understanding the Church, compiled and edited by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 206-207

A Case For The Traditional Authorship Of 2 Peter

• Defining The Issues:

          -2 Peter has been rather controversial amongst critical scholars in regards to its dating and authorship. It was actually questioned the most heavily out of all the New Testament books in the early church. Many Christians in the conservative realm have been quick to dispute claims of this epistle being second century pseudepigraphical literature. Such claims, if true, would jeopardize the doctrines of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. This article strives to present evidences pointing in favor of the Apostle Peter being the author of the writing in focus. The fact that 2 Peter underwent such scrutiny in the early church and still passed standards of canonicity is an argument for it being genuine. Also, why would a forger produce a letter that speaks out against false teachers? Critics of the Bible are overstating their case here.

• The Internal Evidence For The Apostle Peter Being The Author Of 2 Peter Is Strong:

          -The author of the epistle claims to have been present in the transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18), which was not a major theme of later Christian preaching. Nowhere in context did the author claim to have received additional special revelation from this event. This is perfectly consistent with the Apostle Peter being the author of 2 Peter.

          -The author of this epistle describes Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16 as being a "beloved brother," as if both were well-acquainted. 

          -The author of the epistle claims in 2 Peter 1:13-16 to have been ready to be martyred for his faith as Jesus Christ solemnly foretold. This is consistent with traditional authorship, since the Apostle Peter would have been an elderly man being held in custody under Roman guards awaiting his death sentence by the Emperor Nero. 

          -The author of 2 Peter claims to be an eyewitness of the risen Lord. The author in 2 Peter 3:1 even claims to have written a previous letter.

• Addressing The Rejection By Critical Scholars The Internal Evidence Of 2 Peter Being Authentic:

          -"Claims that personal references prove forgery are based purely on prejudice because unless the ink is still wet and the author long dead, it cannot be proved to be false. Charles Bigg says, “As regards what an author says about himself, we can ask only whether…it is possible or impossible. But no document was ever condemned as a forgery upon this ground.”15." (Hampton Keathley IV, "The Authorship of Second Peter")

          -"...At points it seems the critics almost expect Peter’s second epistle to be simply a rehash of the same material so that identical vocabulary and themes would reappear. However, this expectation is certainly unreasonable considering the very different circumstances and purposes behind each epistle. Another difficulty with these types of arguments is seen in the fact that Peter’s writing style is not so easily defined or identified as some other New Testament authors." (e.g. John and Paul)." (Michael J. Kruger, PDF document “The Authenticity of 2 Peter", pages 12-13)

• Similarities Between 1 Peter And 2 Peter:

          -Both epistles speak of Noah (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:6) and Old Testament prophecy (1 Peter 1:10–12; 2 Peter 1:20–21).

          -2 Peter contains allusions to Psalms (2 Peter 3:8), Proverbs (2 Peter 2:22) and Isaiah (2 Peter 3:13). Those sources are clearly cited in 1 Peter.

          -It is not unrealistic to believe that Peter wrote this epistle: "...there is good external evidence that it was written in the 1st century by someone like Peter who was a contemporary of the events. The noted archaeologist William F. Albright dated 2 Peter before a.d. 80. The discovery of the Bodmer papyri (P72, ca. a.d. 250) reveals that it was highly respected in Egypt at an early date. The book was cited as authentic by numerous early church fathers, including Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine." (Norman Geisler and Thomas A. Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, p. 454-455)

Multiculturalism And Moral Relativism

"Once the ideas and insights of an individual or group are disseminated, anyone can employ them. No one culture owns its accomplishments; they belong to everyone. When the knowledge is out there, we can all access it. There is no inexorable link to race or ethnic origin.

For example, even though primarily Western scholars have developed modern physics, it is not inherently Western. If a primitive thinks he can jump off a thousand-foot precipice and fly because the totem told him he can, he will die. His death is not caused by Eurocentric science but by his ignorance of the nature of reality Western scientists articulate.

Having said all of this, we must emphasize that if significant accomplishments have been ignored, we should redress the injustice-not because of the race or ethnicity of the thinker but because of the importance of the ideas.

George Reisman, an economist at Pepperdine University, has made similar observations. He argues that the trends toward "multicultural education" and "diversity" as well as critiques of "Eurocentric" or "Western" values are misguided and ill-informed.

For one thing, these trends imply that all cultures have contributed to human progress and knowledge equally. Reisman argues that this is false, since Western values-whether scientific, philosophical, economic, or moral-have proved to be vastly superior. These societies that have embraced Western values, whether geographically in the Far East or in the West, reveal this.

In addition, Western civilization is open to everyone, since it constitutes a body of knowledge and values that is not linked inexorably to any race, nationality, or region of the globe. For these reasons, Reisman contends that multiculturalism is a new form of racism because it reduces matter of the intellect to a matter of racial or ethnic membership."

Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, p. 94-95

What About People Who Have Never Heard Of Jesus Christ Or The Gospel?

• Discussion:

          -Whether or not people who never had an opportunity to hear and believe on the gospel for salvation are exempt from the judgment of God is more of an emotional than rational question. It concerns the eternal destiny of every individual. Everyone has to face the reality of death. How this question is answered shapes the way that we preach the gospel to people of different religions.

          God has inscribed His moral laws into our hearts (Romans 2:15). He has manifested Himself plainly through creation (Romans 1:18-20). He is not far from any one of us (Acts 17:26-27). The inability to hear the Gospel is not the problem. Our lack of knowledge is not what condemns us. The real issue is that our sins against God have merited eternal condemnation.

          Even though men like Cornelius feared God prior to receiving the message of the gospel, Scripture still records the Lord directing him to the Apostle Peter so that he could receive the good news of salvation. In addition, God does take into account one's ability to understand His commandments in judgment (John 15:22; Romans 2:12-13). Every person who has a rational mind is culpable.

          If every unbeliever is automatically saved just because of a lack of knowledge regarding the Person of Christ and His atonement, then the gospel that we preach would be needless. The concept of evangelism would be rendered nonsensical. We should be making the greatest effort possible to ensure that everybody gets a chance to hear the gospel. We should be grateful that God has provided even one way for us to be reconciled with Him (John 14:6; Hebrews 4:14-16).

Debunking Catholic Apologist Steve Ray On James 2 And Justification By Faith Alone

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer a few arguments made by Steve Ray at Catholic Answers on the issue of James 2 and how it concerns the doctrine of justification by faith alone. His post addresses many issues, but the emphasis here is solely about the nature of faith and the necessity of good works. Following are quotations from the author along with a critique of each claim:

          "This passage does not sit well with Ankerberg's interpretation. He says that it is always faith that is proven by works, whereas the apostle James seems to say it is the person."

          On the contrary, the context of James 2 indeed contrasts two different kinds of faith. It centers on a profession that results in good works and another that is dead. One man says that he believes in God, while another actually does what He commands. A man himself is "justified" by works in the sense of being vindicated or proven righteous.

          "We must take care with this theory, or we'll end up scratching a few verses out of Genesis. Was it men who were testing Abraham's faith? The book of Genesis says God, not men, who was testing Abraham in Genesis 22. Ankerberg writes that James is referring to justification before men, because God can already see the heart (37)."

          God can test our faith to produce obedience. Even though God already knows whether our faith is genuine, Abraham was tested so that future generations could see for themselves that he is worthy of being considered the father of our faith. This incident serves to illustrate his unwavering trust in God. A faith that saves is one that obeys God. A saving faith is very much alive and active. A faith that is not evidenced by good works is dead. The context of James 2 discusses the inherent features of a saving faith.

          "Another problem with the Fundamentalist interpretation is that there were no men around to be "vindicated" before-this test was strictly between God and Abraham."

          Sure there was. Isaac himself got to witness the greatness of his father Abraham's faith. This incident was also penned down in Scripture by Moses. As a result, multitudes of readers in later centuries could see the greatness of Abraham's faith. He trusted in God to the point at which he would even give up his dearly beloved son. Abraham obeyed God even when things did not make sense to him.

          "James thinks Abraham was not justified in Genesis 15 or 17, but much later in Genesis 22, when he offered up Isaac. He states, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (James 2:21, KJV). And then James is bold enough to say, "So you see, a man is justified by his works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)."

          The problem here is that the context of James 2 is not about how one is made right with God, but rather how one lives out his faith before others. The Apostle Paul addresses the matter of justification by faith more than any other biblical writer. 

           According to Hebrews 11:8, Abraham was justified in Genesis 12. Genesis 15:6 is simply the proclamation of Abraham's salvation as a result of his faith and a promise to future generations that they would be saved by the same means.

          "James elaborates what faith is, and its crucial element of obedience (works), as does John in his first epistle. The Catholic vs. Protestant argument, the faith vs. faith and obedience debate, has nothing to do with the discussion Paul was having with the Jewish Christians in Rome and Galatia."

           Scripture contains principles that are applicable to all people, at all places, and at all times. Obviously, the Apostle Paul was unfamiliar with Catholic verses Protestant issues on the nature of salvation. However, he still knew the basic contents of this controversy because he had to address in writing the Judaizers who promoted a faith plus works gospel.

Does Psalm 106:30-31 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologists and others sometimes cite the text of Psalm 106:30-31 as evidence of works being a necessary condition in addition to faith for justification before God. It is claimed that Phinehas was given the same kind of righteousness that Abraham had on the basis of a good work. Consider this excerpt from Steve Ray as an example of how this argument has been made:

         "...centering on Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Catholics agree with this Scripture, but the same words ("it was reckoned to him as righteousness") are applied to another person in the Old Testament besides Abraham, and the "justification" was there attributed to actions and zealousness, not faith alone. The phrase used in Psalm 106:31 is the same (in both the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint) as is used in Genesis 15:6. In Psalm 106:30, 31 we read, "Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore" (KJV). Evangelicals say his faith justified him, like his father Abraham-but the Psalmist must not have understood the faith alone doctrine, for he attributes the imputation of righteousness to Phinehas' zealousness." 

          The background of this event is recorded in Numbers 25. Jewish men were committing fornication with the women of Moab. Therefore, God was provoked to wrath. He cast a plague over Israel. Then, Phinehas took a spear and drove it through a couple in the act of fornication. He obtained mercy from God, terminated the plague, and was regarded as a righteous man due to his desire for righteousness. His deed would be blessed and remembered from generation to generation. The reality of his faith was demonstrated before other men. This is a testimonial of faithfulness, not justification before God. Consider for a moment how a few translations of greater dynamic equivalence render this passage:

          "This was counted for him as a righteous deed for all generations to come." (Psalm 106:31, New American Bible Revised Edition)

          "This brought him a reward, an eternal gift." (Psalm 106:31, New English Translation)

          "for this he is the example of uprightness, from age to age for ever." (Psalm 106:31, New Jerusalem Bible)

          What has been brought out here are the more practical aspects of the righteousness that Phinehas exhibited. At the very heart of the matter lies a deep concern for maintaining the purity of the worship of God and of His people. Phinehas boldly took action during a time of peril. He is now known forever in the Jewish annuls as a man of impeccable integrity. 

           Following is an excerpt from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Psalm 106:31:

           "31. counted … righteousness—"a just and rewardable action." for—or, "unto," to the procuring of righteousness, as in Ro 4:2; 10:4. Here it was a particular act, not faith, nor its object Christ; and what was procured was not justifying righteousness, or what was to be rewarded with eternal life; for no one act of man's can be taken for complete obedience. But it was that which God approved and rewarded with a perpetual priesthood to him and his descendants (Nu 25:13; 1 Ch 6:4, etc.)."

           The similarity in sentence structure between Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 106:30-31 (i.e. "it was reckoned unto him as righteousness") has no bearing because the context of the latter passage is not concerned with how one gets right with God. It would be out of place for Paul to use this passage because he emphasized faith rather than works in being justified before God. Moreover, the passage in Genesis 15 is not the moment of Abraham's justification, but rather is God's promise of salvation to him and posterity through faith. Genesis 15:6 foretells the foundational message of salvation, which has now been revealed through the gospel. That is what makes it relevant to Paul's argument.

          God certainly procures a righteous status to those who are faithful to Him, but we are not justified by works of righteousness (Titus 3:5). We are saved because God is merciful. He saved us in spite of our unrighteousness (Deuteronomy 9:3-6; Ephesians 2:4-9). The gospel requires that one must believe in order to receive pardon from sin by God, not perform various deeds of merit. This righteous act of Phineas had nothing to do with him earning justification in part by good works. Rather, God considered his conduct to be righteous and assured him that the priesthood would not depart from his line. It is not as though Christ would commend His servants for driving spears into unconverted pagans. Christianity places a greater emphasis on grace and mercy than does Judaism.

The Myth That All Religions Lead To God

          The belief that all religions worship the same God is rooted in the relativistic nature of our culture, which has sadly even influenced many who profess to be Christians. Our culture is saturated with the idea that all belief systems are equally valid. People naturally perceive themselves as already being good. This is the end result of man believing that he is the final arbitrator of truth. Individuality has been emphasized in an extreme way. People who express disagreement with the religions of others may as a result be considered arrogant.

          The idea that all religions lead to God is logically indefensible, since they contradict each other at the most basic tenets. Further, the religions of this world do not even claim to serve one god who presides over humanity. Regardless of what belief system that one espouses, he inevitably makes a truth claim. Everybody else must be wrong. A rejection of opposing views is what follows from faithful adherence to any given worldview. Logical consistency requires that one make an absolute truth claim. Coherence demands a rejection of all opposing claims upon accepting one set of ideas.

          Christianity is unique among the religions of this world in that its message of salvation is one of God's unmerited grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Others teach salvation to be merited in part on the basis of righteous deeds. Christianity is the only religion which posits a realistic view of our sinful nature. The Judeo-Christian worldview is unique in that its God desires to have a personal relationship with man. Truth is very much a real thing. Something can be either true or false. It cannot be both ways in the same way at the same time.

           The gospel is available to all who call upon the name of the Lord. No one deserves to inherit the kingdom of God, since we have sinned against Him. Christianity is an inclusive religion in the sense that the atonement of Jesus Christ is applied to all who believe on Him for salvation. Christianity is exclusive in that it presents Him as being the only way to being reconciled with God. It is exclusive in the same sense as every other religion, namely, by making truth claims.

          If Christianity is true, then it follows that every other existing belief system is false. If the religions of this world are right, then it follows that Christianity is false. It cannot be accepted with the other religions of this world. If Christianity is false, then Christians are the most pitiable of all people (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). They have no real hope. If there are multiple ways to salvation, then the gospel itself becomes redundant. Thus, we see that this pluralistic thinking is actually a threat to the Christian faith. No compromise or negotiation is permissible on this matter.

Abandoning Our First Love

"In considering the apostasy, we have seen its root in the loss of the first love, whereby a separation was made between the Lord and the Church,— the Head and the body, — and He was hindered in the exercise of His headship. Through the same loss of love, the Holy Ghost, sent by the Son, was unable to fulfill His mission. After a time the expectation of the Lord's speedy return passed away, and also the hope of it; and the Church made it her work to bring all the world under subjection to Christ before His return.

Thus the history of the Church has not been that of a community of one heart and mind, carrying out the will of its Head under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and steadily growing in love, holiness, wisdom, and power; but of a community divided against itself, forgetful of God's purpose, filled with ambition to rule in this world, and covetous of its pleasures and honours. The Holy Ghost has not been able to do His full work in the Church, and therefore her witness to the world has been partial and feeble. The Head, though nominally honoured, has passed more and more from the thought of the Church as her living and ruling Lord, and from the knowledge of men as the King of kings.

We have seen in the movements and tendencies of the present time the preparation for the final fulfillment of the Scripture predictions. Modern pantheistic philosophy is leavening the public mind with its denials of a personal God, of man's moral freedom, and of immortality. Modern science, particularly in its evolutionary phase, is denying a Creator and a creation, and can find in the Universe no Divine purpose, only an endless evolution, in which man appears for a moment as a shining bubble, then disappears for ever. The Bible is put aside by many as a book outgrown, with its doctrine of sin and its legendary miracles and history. Much of modern literature is imbued with the pantheistic spirit, or is critical and skeptical, and, when not positively irreligious is indifferent to religion."

(Samuel Andrews, Christianity and Anti-Christianity in Their Final Conflict, “Summary and Conclusion,” part IV, originally published in 1898)

Stay Away From The One New Man "Bible"

     The One New Man Bible, translated in 2011 by William J. Morford, is a product of both the Hebrew Roots Movement and the New Apostolic Reformation. This translation is essentially an effort to make the New Testament Hebrew. It goes on at length to define the meaning of various Hebrew words, while seemingly ignoring the reality that the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. Members of this movement tend to render the name of Jesus in the Hebrew "Yeshua." That is not a name which Christians would ordinarily ascribe to Christ, unless they are Arabic. 

        The underlying problem with the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it poses a direct threat to the gospel by encouraging Christians to observe Mosaic customs. It is claimed by adherents that Jesus Christ did not terminate the Old Covenant, but rather reaffirmed it and expanded upon its message. It is claimed by adherents of the Hebrew Roots Movement that Christianity has apostatized from its original Jewish roots through the incorporation of Greco-Roman philosophy. On the contrary, these claims do not withstand scrutiny when compared to the New Testament itself.

        Consider, for instance, that the Apostle Paul taught uncircumcised people need not seek fleshly circumcision (1 Corinthians 7:17-19; Galatians 5:6; 6:15). Thus, Gentiles should not seek to become Jews. The church of Jesus Christ includes both the Jew and the Gentile (Galatians 3:26-29). Nowhere does Scripture require that Gentiles keep the Law (Romans 7:6; Galatians 2:14). We are not under Law but grace (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:25; 5:16-18). Christ is the end of the Law to all who believe (Romans 10:3-4). 

        The gospel does not depend on works of the Law (Romans 3:27-28; Galatians 2:16-21). We are not sanctified by the works of the Law (Galatians 3:1-6). The very reason that Paul sharply rebuked the churches of Galatia in one of his epistles is that they were reverting back to customs, practices, and traditions instituted in the Old Testament. He even called doing such behavior the preaching of "another gospel" (Galatians 1:8-9). The epistle to the Hebrews was written to encourage Jewish Christians to not revert to the Jewish religious system.

        There is nothing wrong with Christians being in support of Israel for political reasons, but it is a completely different matter for us to seek to be under the Law of Moses. Those who wish to keep the Law must also do so perfectly (Romans 3:20; Galatians 5:1-3; James 2:10-11), which is impossible due to us having a sin nature. The Jerusalem Council was convened to address the Judaizers who claimed that one need be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15:1-5; 10-11). The Hebrew Roots Movement is spiritually dangerous because its premises are opposed to the foundational ideas of the gospel. The ideology is emphatically condemned by the New Testament. 

        This whole "new man" business seems to be instigated by charismatics. In fact, it is commended wholeheartedly by them. This source says the following:

        "The NAR specifically call it [i.e. their doctrine of deification] the New One Man but can also mix it with New Breed language, names often ending with ‘Generation’ like the ‘Joshua Generation’ (as Joshua led Israel to victory into the promised land, being led by the presence and power of God to take dominion over the land). However, both the NOLR and NAR cults and it’s leaders use Gideon and his army to further this Man-Child Company, One New Man or New Breed heresies."

        The One New Man Bible is promoted by the false charismatic prophet Sid Roth. He promotes the works of William Morford. It would also be interesting to note that the author of the translation being reviewed in this article believes that the Trinity is heresy. Here are the translator's own words:

        "It is past time to recognize that the Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is not Scriptural. The Trinity came into Christian thought as former Heathens took over leadership of the Church in the second and third centuries..."

        In view of the presented information, it would certainly be wise for one to steer clear of the One New Man Bible. It is not a product of sound scholarship. If one desires to understand the Jewish background of the New Testament, he is going to have to consult various biblical commentaries and dictionaries.