Salvation Fables

Salvation Fables which I embraced: Two very commonly embraced doctrines which are considered by many to be foundational truths of the Christian faith are actually false doctrines…  In upcoming posts I will deal with each of these in detail along with the related scriptures.

 -Justification by faith alone: This is one example of a true doctrine (Justification by faith, Romans 3:28; 5:1; Galatians 3:11etc ) being made into a false doctrine, by the addition of just one word alone”, and  thus made to contradict many other truths of scripture such as justification by Christ, justification by blood, justification by grace and justification by works but NOT by works of the law!   In order to embrace all the scriptural truths regarding justification, I had to reject the doctrine of “justification by faith alone”!

 – Substitutionary Atonement, or the teaching that the Lord Jesus became a substitute for sinners for whom He died…. This is a false assumption from such passages as Romans 5:6,8 and I Peter 3:18 which clearly teach that  He died for the ungodly, for sinners and for the unjust.  But neither these texts nor any others suggest that Christ was our substitute, i.e. that He came to do something for us which we could normally have done for ourselves! He came to do something for us which we could never have done! Such a work is NOT that of “substitution”!   When a teacher and is sick for a day- another teacher may teach for them and thus be their substitute.  But when one is seriously injured in a highway accident and needs to be flown hundreds of miles to a hospital, the man who flies a helicopter to pick them up is the pilot for them but he is NOT their substitute!  He comes to do something for them which they have never done and cannot do (i.e. fly a helicopter). Just as the helicopter pilot is not a substitute for the accident victim, neither was the Lord Jesus a substitute for the sinner!

30 comments on “Salvation Fables

  1. esgatch says:

    Yes! Jesus was, and still is, our Atonement, as He ever lives to intercede for us with the Father.

    Like

  2. Galen says:

    Jesus said to teach disciples to obey his commandments. “If you love me, then you will obey my commandments.” God gives his Holy Spirit to those who obey him, Ac 5.32. “The obedience of faith” = faith that obeys. God declares just those who have real faith. Works, too, declare just those who have real (obedient) faith. Repent! Be baptised! Do something, dummy! “By the works of the law shall not flesh be justified.” Obey what, then? Obey Jesus: repent, believe, love God and others, pray in my name, take communion, adhere to my words, help others do the same!
    || There is one thing that we can do, ourselves: die forever. Jesus died in our place, so that we can live eternally. However, being the Prince of Life, he could not stay dead, though we could have stayed dead in hell. I praise God! Jesus died in my place, and he now shares with me his eternal life. Wow!

    Like

  3. John F. Morin says:

    Jesus came to give us access to the Father and the new life (the eternal type of life) that is in Him. So we walk by faith in the power of resurrection above sin and all darkness. The light is stronger than any darkness. Walk in the light! Walk in His power that we are redeemed from this world to walk in.

    Peace

    John

    Like

  4. Steve, Galen and John,
    Thank you all; for stopping by to check out this radical blog! Thanks also for your comments and the value you place on the Lord Jesus! Hallelujah, what a Saviour!

    Like

  5. papakevin says:

    Not familiar with your site but I love what Ive read so far. I absolutely LOVED the Peter Larson quote! Praise God!
    Irenaus had an interesting way to identify accurate doctrine. The Gnostic heretics were everywhere sprouting up and each of the sects claimed they had the proper understanding and interpretations. Each of whom supported their claims from scripture. He said roll out your lists of succession to the Apostles who each in turn appointed successors to the present day (because he knew their heresies were invented “Yesterday.”) The Nicene Creed names four marks of the Church: “…I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” The Church that Jesus started 2000 years ago is still “One.” This fact brought me reluctantly, heels dug in kicking and screaming into the Catholic Church a few months ago. My reading of the Holy Scriptures didnt compute with most of what I believed and I had been taught in the evangelical tradition. I thought if I read the writings of those who sat at the feet of the apostles themselves they would be in a much better position to accurately interpret scripture. (They were prolific writers) So I read Clement of Rome, Ignatious of Antioch, Polycarp (Each of whom were companions and diciples of the Apostles) and their immediate successors like Justin Martyr and Irenaus (Even more prolific writers) and found their beliefs and practices light years from modern evangelicals (Especially Calvinists) and strangely and uncomfortably “Catholic” sounding. What a disconcerting revelation THAT was!

    One of the things that cushioned my entrance into the Church was I am a pro life activist and spend a lot of time sidewalk counseling outside of abortion clinics which are 90% Catholics. If you cant beatem joinem! 😉 Actually, after I formed views that are rejected by almost all protestant denominations and discovered they are the views of the Catholic Church on contraception, echotology, and other doctrines I had to follow Luther’s advice that “To go against ones conscience is neither right nor safe.”

    Like

  6. tollelege10 says:

    Romans 3:25, 26 – Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
    To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

    Like

    • Dear Friend, I’m so glad you quoted scripture this time and this is absolutely true. WE are justified by faith but that is not all! Faith must have an object – we are justified by Christ. But Christ had to finish a work… we are justified by His blood. We are also justified by His grace and by works, but NOT the works of the law. WE are not justified by faith ALONE! Just one additional word (Proverbs 30:5,6) makes a sound doctrine into a false one!

      Like

  7. tollelege10 says:

    You are completely wrong. We say “by faith alone”, since we want to be clear that faith alone is the instrument by which we get the rightneousness of Christ, the object of faith. Faith itself is a gift from God, so that salvation is entirely by grace. Works are the proof and fruit of salvation in those, who have Christ and His rightneousness, the object of their faith. Why you are messing it all? You obviously have some bad religious background, otherwise you wouldn’t open a blog, trying to deny the Truth. I warn you, your blog contains serious errors, which speaks that you don’t know the Lord and you will burn in hell. Repent in believe the Gospel, my friend, today!

    Like

    • papakevin says:

      tollelege Your comment “you don’t know the Lord and you will burn in hell. Repent in believe the Gospel, my friend, today!” Is with the finger of the accuser. Beware because there are three pointing back at you. Who gives you authority to make such a judgement against a fellow believer?
      Your other statement ” “by faith alone”, since we want to be clear that faith alone is the instrument by which we get the rightneousness of Christ, the object of faith.” contains truth mixed with the lie. Why do YOU say “By faith alone” at all when the only place in scripture you see those words back to back is in James 2:24 it says that we are NOT justified by “faith alone”
      I have little doubt that you say you are “Sola Scriptura” If you do you are the one who is untruthful or you would believe what the Scripture says.

      Like

      • tollelege10 says:

        You really need to study James epistle before using that verse. James is dealing with those who say that thay have faith, but don’t have the fruit of a new life.The idea is true faith is confirmed by works, i.e. proofs of repentance, but not that a man is saved by faith AND works. That’s sunday school level, man. Romans 3:28 is enough in this case, if you know little theology: For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

        Like

      • tollelege10 says:

        Also> For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

        Like

      • tollelege10 says:

        Here is a beginner level article : http://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html

        Like

      • tollelege10 says:

        Here is an advanced level article : http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/justification.htm

        Like

      • tollelege10 says:

        And yes, you got one right. I’m accusing you both of herese and i hope this finger will lay hard on you! Brother Paul is my fellow, not you: For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

        Like

    • No my friend, theologians who say “by faith alone” simply do so because they feel they can state God’s truth better than the Holy Spirit, Himself! He never used such language. WE cannot improve on His own words. BTW, I don’t claim this site is free from errors. I am certainly not infallible. You will do me a favour to point out such errors and their scriptural reproofs and corrections and I will be happy to retract, repent and make the appropriate corrections. I really do appreciate such correction.

      Like

  8. papakevin says:

    tollelege10 You misrepresent Paul as did the Gnostics in the early Church and the Gnostics of the 16th century. You should read Paul in the context. Calvinostics, For example will quote Ephesians 2;8-9 and sweep vs 10 under the rug, most often denying half the data for the other half. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS, that He has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” We dont deny that the good works or deeds are grace because HE prepared them beforehand that we should walk in them. HE enables us by His grace and Spirit to do them. He gets all the credit. We are saved by Grace alone We are not saved by works. You need to pull Hebrews 11:1 out from under the rug (Along with thousands of other texts and stop denying half the data for the other half.) You should look at Romans 3 in light of Romans 2 where PAUL (My friend and brother whom I dont misrepresent) said God “Will render to each one according to his WORKS, eternal life to those who by patient continuance in DOING GOOD…” You need to learn to differntiate between works of the Law such as keeping dietary laws, sacrifices, circumsision etc and deeds of Faith. Hebrews 11 is a good go to chapter to define what true faith is and not the Gnostic definition.
    You need to look into the heresies of the first and second centuries that the Apostle John and Earenaus fought (Against Heresies) An earlier and less refined system not unlike Calvinism. You would feel right at home (On the wrong side of the issues I might add)

    Like

  9. Bruce Woodford says:

    Dear Friend, (BTW what is your name?)

    The epistle of James is just as inspired as Paul’s epistles and they do not contradict one another. James is NOT talking about “works of the law” and neither am I! Genuine faith in Christ is evidenced by works and if there are no works, (no change of behaviour, no righteous response) then one’s professed “faith” is dead. Had Abraham stayed in UR of the Chaldees, it would have demonstrated that his “faith” was dead! Had Rahab not received the spies with peace, it would have demonstrated that her “faith” was dead. So we are not justified by faith alone! We could not be justified by “faith” had Christ not died. (We are justified by Christ). We could not have been justified by faith had Christ’s blood not been shed. We are justified by His blood. (Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.) We also could not have been justified by faith apart from God’s grace. (WE are justified by His grace) Nor could we be justified by faith alone if there were no works evident (change of mind, change of heart, change of attitudes, change of actions I.e. REPENTANCE! To say we are justified by faith alone contradicts so many other clear statements of scripture! Otherwise “alone” does not mean “alone”!

    Again, you cannot demonstrate the doctrine of “justification by faith alone” in the words of scripture but must appeal to the words of men in both the articles to which you referred us. This is no different from those in the Roman Catholic Church who claim that “the church” has the right to interpret the scriptures to the people! No difference at all between RC popes and councils doing it (teaching doctrines which the scripture doesn’t) and Reformed “fathers” doing the same!

    The Westminster Confession of Faith article on the scriptures actually destroys what they claim is a very “high view of scripture”. The WCF claims that what is expressly set down in scripture is NOT sufficient, but that we also need “what may be deduced therefrom by good and necessary consequence”! This is precisely what Reformed theologians and many others have done by deducing a doctrine which is not expressly stated in scripture, namely “justification by faith alone”!

    They have disregarded the divine warning set out in Proverbs 30:6 “Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar.

    It is not surprising that folks (such as yourself in this instance) are perturbed by those who speak truth to them which contradicts their traditions. Prophets and apostles of the Lord all through history AND the Lord Jesus, Himself, experienced the same. The Lord Jesus was always “upsetting the applecart” so to speak of the Pharisees as he challenged their traditions and showed them that they had rejected the truth of God in the scriptures.

    I sincerely hope that you, my friend, will come to value the scriptures much more highly than you do the words and writings of fallible men.

    Like

    • papakevin says:

      Brother Bruce. I love your views on salvation and faith. Your courage to step out of the mold of so many Calvingnostics and Dispensatiognostic evangelicals who would typically hold a “Prophecy conference” down the street from where tens of thousands of babies have been sacrificed to the god of “choice” and speculate on how Jesus is going to come and whisk them away from a raging battle that they never even bothered to engage in to begin with. I SO honor your courage to speak out. We live in an era of great apostasy. But I must respectfully disagree with your statement: ” This is no different from those in the Roman Catholic Church who claim that “the church” has the right to interpret the scriptures to the people! No difference at all between RC popes and councils doing it (teaching doctrines which the scripture doesn’t) and Reformed “fathers” doing the same!”
      There is a great deal of difference between what the gnostic reformers cooked up for Theology and what the Church Fathers guarded since the beginning of the Church. “The Church” has guarded the deposit of faith and has faithfully passed it down and that is why there is “One, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.” as most all Christians believe in the Nicene Creed. One Baptism. One Spirit. One teaching authority. If there were 40,000 Holy Spirits it might explain why there are 40,000 Protestant denominations. But there is only one Holy Spirit and “The Church” DOES thankfully have the Authority that Jesus Gave her to interpret the scriptures to the people.Matthew 28:18-20 After spending a decade going from One end of the spectrum to the other of Protestant Churches I cant tell you how relieved I am that I can (And Ive learned this from experience and much study) lay my head on the bosom of the Church and stop being my own personal Pope. I am SO glad it is not just me, my Bible and Jesus any more. Every time I disagreed with the teachings of the Church and set out to proove her wrong I had to yield to the wisdom of the Church and the Scriptures. Domino after domino after domino fell. I finally said sink or swim Im diving into this ancient Church that Jesus founded.

      One of the many things that started this journey is someone gave me a book titled “Will the real Heretics Please Stand Up” written by an anti Catholic, by the way, about the first two centuries of the Church. He quoted heavily from the early Church fathers. The same ones who were companions and ordained by the Apostles. Their theology was light years from modern fundamentalist Theology. With one voice the early Church believed in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Communion meal, (Even most of the Reformers such as Luther did as well) The true passover of which the Old Testament Passover was but a type. Jesus said, when He instituted the New Covenant in Luke 22;19-20 “THIS CUP is the New Testament in My blood….Write this….Read this… in remembrance of Me…NO HE DIDNT…He said “DO this in remembrance…” The New Testament was a Sacrament Many years before it became a Document. (Which was given to us by the Catholic Church, by the way) With one voice the early Church believed in Baptismal regeneration. That Jesus words to Nicodemus were true! “Most assuredly I say to you unless one is born of the WATER and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God…” John 3:5 The early Church Fathers believed and taught Mary was the second Eve even as Jesus was the second Adam. The entire early Church and even the reformers believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary and her assumption. Try to find in history or arcaeology a Church that claims to have the relics of Mary. You wont. They were not left here to be fought over. Jesus honored his Mother too much for that. None of this did I believe from my Protestant background. I challenge you to read the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, St Clement of Rome. All companions and ordained by the Apostles. Was Jesus a liar that the Church He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against couldnt even last 40 years? I think not. Read Irenaus, Justin Martyr and the many documents that are extant of the early Church Fathers and you will see the present Catholic Church echo their teachings and practices.Noone else. With all the gnostic heresies springing up everywhere the distant outposts would bypass nearby established Churches and send to the See of Peter, Rome for determinations of schizms etc. Augustine was recorded as saying “Rome has spoken. The matter is settled!”
      I cant begin to tell you how joyous I am when I partake of Communion. If I had it yesterday it makes today a little extra holy, just because it is joined to yesterday. And the same if I know I will partake of Him tomorrow. I had to run the gauntlet of my street preacher friends and pro life activist friends that are not Catholic but it was all worth it and I would gladly do it again.
      I must mention that I still attend the same Baptist Church Sunday mornings that I have been previously. There is great faith and devotion to prayer and love for the lost and for Jesus Christ there. I believe their doctrines are deficient. But their faith and actions are not and they are dearly loved.

      Like

  10. Hi Kevin,
    Thanks so much for your reply and explanation of what you have embraced in recent years. But I would respectfully disagree with you that “the church” does not have the authourity to interpret scripture for anyone! None of the various doctrines which you have mentioned were ever taught by the apostles and their teachings (not that of any uninspired men who followed them) are our standard. Romans 16:17,18
    The apostles never taught the “real presence of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus” in the bread and the cup! What we “do” is simply eat bread and drink a cup in remembrance of Him, not in ingestion of him!
    As to the “perpetual virginity” of Mary scripture clearly refutes it as it records that the people knew the Lord Jesus’ brothers and sisters! Nor is her “assumption” taught in scripture, nor does scripture ever teach us to seek “relics” of the virgin!!! The Roman Catholic church may follow the teaching of “fathers” but they have departed from the teaching of the apostles!!!

    BTW, regarding Augustines’ “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled!” Rome was far too late for that! We have in scripture “the faith” which was once delivered to the saints! (Jude 1:3) That has never changed and never will. What “Rome” has spoken has changed continually down through the ages!
    Brother, there really is only ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus! I pray that you devotion might be to HIM alone and not to a system of religion which claims to be the “vicar” of Christ!

    Like

  11. papakevin says:

    Brother Bruce. i sense you are a man of prayer. Please pray for a girl named Dania. Her father threatens to throw her out if she doesnt get an abortion. Im offering her many resources, homes and ministries who are offering her a place to live etc. I need to be drumming up prayer support as well as there is a spiritual battle going on and the real problem is the lies of the enemy and fears of her heart from leaving her fathers home so I must be brief. Pray for her father as well that he will soften his hard heart.

    Let me address your objections one by one. You said 1. “I would respectfully disagree with you that “the church” does not have the authourity to interpret scripture for anyone!” Your statement contradicts the words of our Savior. Matthew 28:18-20 “And Jesus came to them saying “All Authority has been given to Me in heaven and in earth. (You) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations baptizing them in the Name of the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and lo I am with you always even to the end of the age.” Brother I dont think it could be stated any clearer that Jesus in fact DID give teaching authority to His Church. I could refer to Many more passages and elaborate but as I said I need to move on.

    2 You said ” None of the various doctrines which you have mentioned were ever taught by the apostles and their teachings…” That is quite uncharitable of you to throw that blanket over my statements without refuting them one by one dont you think? Starting with my first statement of a doctrine. I quoted Jesus Himself in his institution of the New Covenant. He defined what the New Testament really IS. He made no mention of a document, only a Sacrament “The true passover of which the Old Testament Passover was but a type. Jesus said, when He instituted the New Covenant in Luke 22;19-20 “THIS CUP is the New Testament in My blood….Write this….Read this… in remembrance of Me…NO HE DIDNT…He said “DO this in remembrance…” The New Testament was a Sacrament Many years before it became a Document.” I dont think you have a problem believing the words of Jesus do you? The Greek word for both Testament and Covenant is Diatheke. It is used interchangeably. I wish I had more time to elaborate.

    3. Did I understand you right that No men after the apostles are inspired? Does that mean that the words of Jesus went away that I already cited in Mathew 28? Jesus is with us always, even unto the end of the world but His Elect cannot be trusted to reliably pass on His teaching because the inspired ones all perished in the first generation? Was Jesus a liar and his Church that He said the gates of hell could not prevail against has no inspiration? No teaching authority? I think not. Not according to the words of Jesus. In the first Jerusalem counsel the Church in Jerusalem made no mention and didnt even cite scripture. They said “It seemed right to us and the Holy Spirit” and thus ruled on the controversy of circumcision. Acts 15 They cited their own authority coupled with that that Jesus had bestowed upon them before His ascension.

    4. You said “The apostles never taught the “real presence of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus” in the bread and the cup! What we “do” is simply eat bread and drink a cup in remembrance of Him, not in ingestion of him!” I dont know why it is that people who say they are “Sola Scriptura” NEVER believe what the Scripture, what Jesus or His Apostles quite clearly said. “I Am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever and the bread that I shall give is My FLESH which I shall give for the life of the world.” John 6:51 The jews, many of them who the text says were His disciples didnt have any trouble understanding what Jesus was talking about because their response was instantly “How can this man give us His flesh to eat. (Remember a few verses earlier Jesus was feeding this same group supernaturaly when He multiplied the loaves and the fishes. Did Jesus clear up any misunderstandings they might have had? YES He said instantly and imphaticly “MOST ASSUREDLY I SAY TO YOU EXCEPT YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU.” He repeats this over and over in this text. Then interestingly in 6:66 it says “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.” Earlier they said “This is a hard saying, who can understand it?” Jesus said He is the true manna. The word Manna literally means “What is it?” ironically starting in the 16th Century History repeats itself as there is a radical departure from what the Church had always believed. That what Jesus said was true. They ironically called themselves “Sola Scriptura” and rejected the clear words of Scripture. John 6 was a foreshadowing of the Calvinostic rebellion. Here we are again haggling over “What is it?” I say it is exactly what Jesus and scripture says it is. Jesus said “He who feeds on Me will live because of Me.” vs 57

    Another Apostle who clearly taught the “Real Presence of The body and Blood in communion is the Apostle Paul. 1 Cor. 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup OF THE LORD in an unworthy manner will be guilty of fermented grape juice and baked bread….no no no “Will be guilty of symbols of ….no no no “Will be guilty OF THE BODY AND THE BLOOD OF THE LORD JESUS…” Please repeat that a couple of times to yourself and then repeat “I am Sola Scriptura” THAT is why I cannot believe what the Scripture clearly and repeatedly says. Bruce, Can you not see the absurdity in that?

    I want to address the word ” Remembrance” You said ” What we “do” is simply eat bread and drink a cup in remembrance of Him, not in ingestion of him!” The Greek word for remembrance (Anamnesis) is a very technical word. Also interestingly it is a relatively rare word in Scripture. Outside of its uses in the last Supper it is only used one other time in the new Testament. This is in Hebrews 10:3 where the “remembrance” is the act of carrying out a sacrifice. “Those sacrifices are an annual reminder (Remembrance) of sins. If you would check a Greek Old Testament you find the word used only twice. Both times the remembrance is actually a sacrifice. “Put some pure incense as a memorial to be an offering.” Leviticus 24:7 and “Sound the trumpets over your burned offerings and fellowship offerings and they will be a memorial for you.” Numbers 10:10 Two of the Psalms are headed with the word Remembrance in the title Ps 37 and 69. Both speak of that Psalm with a memorial sacrifice. Anamnesis is more than “Think about Me by calling this event to mind.” It is a word fraught with sacrificial overtones, used in the Bible to mean “Remind yourself by PARTICIPATING IN A SACRIFICE.”

    Like

    • Bruce Woodford says:

      Hi Kevin,
      I certainly will be praying for Dania, the little life she is carrying and for her father as well!
      RE. Matt.28 and Jesus giving authority to the church to interpret scripture, that is not what He said at all!
      Rather all power/authority was given to HIM and he was commanding his disciples to teach others to do what He had commanded them! Not to “interpret” what he had commanded!
      Re the cup “of” the new covenant, Kevin, you seem to forget that the terms of the New Covenant had been given by Jeremiah centuries before see Jeremiah 31. Every covenant which God makes is a promise or a series of promises which God signifies with a visible token or sign which lasts as long as the covenant does. The New Covenant was the series of 7 promises (Jer.31 and Hebrews 8) and the cup was the visible token given as the sign or token of that covenant which Jesus dedicated with his own blood.
      The Lord Jesus dedicated the New Covenant with His blood at Calvary and the cup which would be drunk continually in remembrance of Him is the token of that covenant.
      Yes, you did hear me correctly, Kevin. When men claim “inspiration” and add to scripture which God has indeed inspired, theirs is a false claim! Prov.30:5,6 and Rev 22:18 But no, this does not mean that the words of the Lord Jesus in Matt.28 “go away”! They are to be obeyed always! NOT interpreted to mean something which he did not say!
      The church which Jesus is building is NOT an not organization with a pope, cardinals, bishops etc for they totally deny his teaching concerning those who would be great among his people. See Matthew 20:25-28 25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
      Kevin, you claim that the council at Jerusalem didn’t even cite scripture! You need to read that chapter again, brother! Read James’ words from verse 14 to 20 where he continually cites scripture. The last of verse 20 is Leviticus chapters 17 and 18! These men had no authority of their own, they simply acknowledged the authority of scripture and this is where the RC organization (Like many other denominations) has utterly departed from scripture by substituting their own authority and interpretations!
      The RC church is NOT the church Jesus is building but rather those from every nation whom he is taking out for his name. It is a called out people, the Greek word EKKLESIA. There are many features of R Catholicism which are entirely contrary to scripture.
      Re the Lord Jesus being the bread of life and his people eating his flesh and drinking his blood….the Lord Jesus said also, I am the door, by me if any man enter in he shall be saved. He said, I am the vine, ye are the branches, I am the light of the world, he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life. He also said he is the good shepherd and we are his sheep.
      If you believe that you literally eat the body of the Lord Jesus and literally drink His blood, then you must also literally be a sheep with 4 hooves and wool! You must believe that he is literally a light which shines literal visible light into all the world. You must believe that to come to Christ you must come to a literal door on hinges!!! You must believe that you are a literal branch on a vine that bears grapes! Brother, how ridiculous! The Lord Jesus spoke in parables, accounts about normal everyday objects which he used to teach spiritual and eternal truths.
      If you claim to take “I am the bread of life…eat my flesh, drink my blood” etc literally you will have to be consistent and do the same with all the other figures of speech which he used! Do you?
      All of these statements teach very real and valuable truths, but to take them woodenly literal is obviously not at all what He had in mind!
      Rather than eating the literal flesh of the Lord Jesus, it is receiving him (John 1:12) and believing on him (John 6:47) which brings everlasting life!
      Re. “remembrance” and “sacrifice”… our lives are to be a continual sacrifice of praise giving thanks to his name (Hebrews 13:15), and we are to offer our bodies a living sacrifice wholly acceptable to God (Romans 12) but sacrifices of flesh and blood are entirely inconsistent with the New Covenant after the blood of Christ was shed once and for all! The Lord Jesus was NOT teaching that the supper was a sacrifice but that He, Himself was the sacrifice offered once! Not continuously!!
      See Hebrews 7:27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
      Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

      Hebrews 10:11,12 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

      Thus, our sacrificing is not to be a repetition of his which was once for all, but rather the continuous sacrifice of praise! Hebrews 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

      Hebrews 13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

      1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

      Re the “perpetual virginity of Mary” you and many writers may well have much to say about it, but such are not the authority! The scriptures are!
      Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
      Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
      Mark 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
      Luke 8:19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
      John 2:12After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
      John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
      John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
      John 7:10But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
      Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

      The testimony of scripture always “trumps” the traditions of men!

      Like

      • papakevin says:

        Brother Bruce. Thank you for your prayers for Dania.

        You brought up Many things that need to be addressed. Here is a case for the Perpetual virginity of Mary.
        Those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity most commonly refer to two texts:

        Matthew 13:55-56: Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of his sisters with us?
        Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Gk. prototokon) son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)
        A surface reading of these passages seems problematic. If Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters,” would not Mary have had other children? If Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn,” would there not be at least a second-born? And if “he knew her not till,” did he not then “know her” at some point? We’ll begin with Matthew 13:55-56.

        Oh, Brother!

        First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.

        Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: “Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

        Notice, the “James” of whom Paul was speaking was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.” He most likely would not be the “James” referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.

        Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this “James” was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as “apostles” in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak. When Paul wrote about going “up to Jerusalem” to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he “should be running or had run in vain.” It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about “apostles” (proper), or “the twelve.”

        But for those inclined to argue the point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses another line of reasoning:

        The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (CCC 500)

        The Catechism here refers to the fact that 14 chapters after we find the “brothers” of the Lord listed as “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,” we find “James and Joseph” mentioned again, but this time their mother is revealed as being named Mary, but not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. We can conclude that “James and Joseph” are “brothers” of Jesus, but they are not uterine brothers.

        But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

        Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

        The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

        Until Then

        Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

        2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
        1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
        1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
        In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

        The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”

        Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

        The Affirmative Argument

        Now let’s look at some reasons to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among the many we could examine, we will briefly consider three:

        1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, “How shall this be since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

        When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

        This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question “How shall this be?” She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

        2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

        Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus “knew all men” (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his “brother” Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.

        3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

        This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

        Mary’s Protector

        An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then “take [Mary] his wife” according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?

        The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true “son of David” and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.

        Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.
        The above was written by Tim Staples.

        Like

  12. papakevin says:

    Oops it accidentaly got entered prematurely. What a strange word for Jesus or Paul to use (Anamnecis) if he did not intend to set up the New passover (Communion) as a sacrifice. In fact Jesus choice of this rare word is unexplainable if he did NOT view the Last Supper as a Sacrifice.

    Brother Ive got a lot to say about the perpetual Virginity of Mary and when I get more time I will respond. I love defending the honor of Jesus Mother. The mothers of people I dearly love are dearly precious to me and they are worthy of honoring. How much more so the Mother of my Savior. How can someone be Sola Scriptura and have enmity against the command “Honor thy father and thy Mother.” For the first 15 centuries of History the Church believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. I can give you quotes to that affect from Luther, Calvin and Zwingly. Let me ask you this. How could anybody even dare THINKING of having sex with the Mother of Jesus Christ? You dont see a problem with that?

    Please forgive any typos. I sent the above without proof reading it. Thanks for your prayers for Dania and her baby.

    Like

  13. Hi Kevin,

    Please keep us posted re Dania and her situation. Any changes?

    I find it amazing how doctrines of all kinds and descriptions are invented, perpetuated and defended which have no basis at all in scripture!
    The perpetual virginity of Mary is one! Your above article is a great example of the lengths to which defenders of such unscriptural doctrines must go.
    But scripture gives us 6 simple tests by which to identify FABLES of men. These are set out in many places on this site but I’ll review them here quickly with reference to “perpetual virginity”…
    F Such are “fair speeches which deceive the hearts of the simple which were not taught by the
    apostles or the Lord Jesus, Himself. “The perpetual virginity of Mary” was not taught by any of
    them! Such doctrines are also taught “for filthy lucre’s sake”. (Titus 1:11 & I Peter 5:2) In places
    where such doctrines are embraced – men who refuse to teach them will be out of a job!
    A Additional words to those inspired by the Holy Spirit in the scriptures must be used to state
    such a doctrine. Proverbs 30:5,6 That Mary was a virgin until she had brought forth her
    firstborn son is without question. But her virginity is never mentioned after the birth of the Lord
    Jesus, nor is the word “perpetual” ever found in scripture in relation to her at all!
    B Bereans and those who follow their example (Acts 17:11) will not embrace such a teaching for it
    is not found in scripture! It was never prophesied before nor was not taught by the Lord Jesus
    nor was such a teaching included in the scriptures written by the apostles. Bereans search the
    scriptures, not the traditions of men to see whether such things are so!
    L Lying in wait to deceive children who are tossed about by every wind of doctrine.is the
    motivation of those who taught such doctrines by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness.
    Eph.4:14 Such men have succeeded in deceiving many. But the masses of people who may be
    deceived by any doctrine does not prove it to be a scriptural doctrine! Scripture itself is the test!
    E Eye-witnesses of the Lord’s majesty did not follow such cunningly devised fables. II Peter 1:16.
    This is evidenced by the fact that this doctrine is totally absent from the apostles’ inspired
    writings in the scriptures.
    S Statements in words which man’s wisdom teaches must be used to state such fables, for they
    cannot be stated in the pure words of the Lord (Ps.12:6) nor in words which the Holy Spirit
    teaches (I Cor.2:13)

    So, in closing, this web site was NOT set up to present and defend FABLES, but rather to test and expose such. So comments which present and defend any doctrine which is a fable will be deleted. But any doctrine which can be demonstrated by these tests to be a sound and scriptural doctrine will be welcomed on these pages.

    Like

  14. papakevin says:

    God Bless you for your prayers for Dania. I havent heard back from her and fear the worst. I have friends praying for her from the UK across Canada and the US and Hawaii. Im sure it spread much farther as people in the pro life movement are invariably people who depend heavily on prayer.

    No prayers are ever wasted.

    I have responses to your posts but will be busy in street evangelism over the next several days. I look forward to continuing the conversation. I got burned out on arguing doctrine on line a few years ago unless it had to do with protecting the sanctity of Life and family. Seems most Calvinists thrive on typing their fingers to bloody stubs. I am a new Catholic and not a Catholic Apologist. I have examined extensively the Church and am just learning how to frame it in words and explanations.
    I have some resources Id like to share with you. I produced a documentary “Conceived in Rape and other Exceptions” It went viral on utube and has almost 700,000 views. It can be watched on my website conceivedinrape.com along with many extended interviews. I have a message from there if you would like to communicate directly.

    We are working on another film project specifically about families and their children with Down Syndrome. the website is Downsyndrome.love there are some beautiful stories we posted there. we will be uploading our own interviews there soon.
    Thanks again for your prayers for Dania. There is hope she postponed or ran out of the clinic. I know many who have.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s