Who is the Rock?

On Elena's blog, Visits to Candyland, we were having a discussion about Scott Hahn's view, as a Roman Catholic convert, of the papacy, which they claim is founded on Matthew 16:17-19 in which the RCC thinks Jesus is founding His church upon Peter. In the comment thread, I made some comments that I wanted to keep a record of, so I am reposting them here.

I'm not going to have much time to comment this weekend after this, as we've got a conference tonight and tomorrow and church on Sunday, but after so far reading half of Scott Hahn's article on the papacy, a couple of things occur to me.
First, if Jesus is specifically referring to Peter as the rock and giving him the keys, which I don't think is clear, how does this lead to the Bishop of Rome being the only successor of Peter? The Apostles appointed many pastors (bishops) and planted many churches all over the known world. Peter was in Jerusalem for many years and then I believe in Antioch, and then it is controversial whether he was even in Rome, or if he was, for how long. If Peter was in Rome at the end of his life, for some have added up the years and it couldn't have been long, it may have only been like Paul who was brougt there as a prisoner to be tried and then executed. Why is the claim of the Roman bishops any better than any other bishop?
Secondly, Hahn makes the point at the beginning of his article that the church is like a family rather than just a 'people'. If indeed Peter is established as a father (though I think this is debatable) how does this translate to there always being only one successor? Adam was the father of the human race, but there was not just one successor but many fathers came from him and had many children, who in turn became fathers/mothers as well. Peter and the Apostles appointed many bishops and led many to Christ and those in turn led many more until a great and constantly growing family was established. It is a building with a foundation upon which many stones are being added. I don't see anything that supports the idea of one successor or especially that it has to be the Roman bishop.
There is much more that could be said about infallibility, and how for instance one knows which statements of the pope are infallible and which are faulty. I hope someone else has time to address this, because I have to go.

--------------------------

In the Augustine passage in the Webster article I linked to above, Augustine seems to see a parallel between the raising of Lazarus and the Matthew 16 passage about Peter, the rock, and the keys.
Here is the passage from Augustine:
Let those who are bound fear, those who are loosed fear. Let those who are loosed be afraid of being bound; those who are bound pray to be loosed. 'Each one is tied up in the thread of his own sins' (Prv 5:22). And apart from the Church, nothing is loosed. One four days dead is told, 'Lazarus, come forth in the open' (Jn 11:43), and he came forth from the tomb tied hand and foot with bandages. The Lord rouses him, so that the dead man may come forth from the tomb; this means he touches the heart, so that the confession of sin may come out in the open. But that's not enough, he's still bound. So after Lazarus had come out of the tomb, the Lord turned to his disciples, whom he had told, 'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' and said, 'Loose him, and let him go' (Jn 11:44). He roused him by himself, he loosed him through the disciples.

Here are the two Bible passages:
John 11:38 Then Jesus, again groaning in Himself, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.”
Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”
40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” 41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.” 43 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” 44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.”

Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

These passages are parallel because they both show Christ, the Head, the Rock, the Cornerstone as the one who stands before the gates of Hades (death) and calls forth the one who is dead, and death cannot withstand Him. He calls the dead forth by His word in the power of the Spirit, and the dead obey His word. He then tells His people, the believers, the church, the disciples, to 'loose him and let him go.' Peter represents all the church, and all the church has the commission to share the gospel (remove the stone and let the dead hear His word) and to take off the graveclothes when the dead is called to life.

Jesus is the Head and the Rock upon which the Church, represented by Peter, is built. Peter himself said this: 1 Peter 2:4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,


“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

Here are the quotes I used earlier from Augustine:
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.1

Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.13

Augustine said in the same passage as above:
None of us lacks Christ. He is complete in all of us, and still there is more of his body waiting for him. Those disciples believed, through them many inhabitants of Jerusalem came to believe, Judea came to believe, Samaria came to believe. Let the members join the body, the building attach itself to the foundation. For no other foundation can anyone lay, says the apostle, except what has been laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11).30

That Jerusalem of ours, though, still in exile, is being built in heaven. That's why Christ, its foundation, preceded it into heaven. That, you see, is where our foundation is, and the head of the Church, because a foundation too is also called a head; and indeed that is what it is. Because the head of a building too is its foundation; its head isn't where it is finished, but where it starts growing upward from. The tops of earthly buildings are raised up high; yet they set their head firmly in the solid ground. In the same sort of way the head of the Church has gone ahead into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Just as men go about their work, when for laying foundations they bring along suitable material to make a solid base, to ensure the security of the mass that is going to be placed on top of it in construction of the edifice to be; so in the same sort of way, by all those things that took place in Christ, being born, growing up, being arrested, enduring abuse, being scourged, crucified, killed, dying, being buried, it was like material being brought along for the heavenly foundations.

---------------------------

Going back to our original discussion about the papacy, and Peter as the rock, I have been trying to get the ideas in scripture organized in my mind for the last several days and finally I have it clearly in my mind.
I don't want to go into a long discourse, but just summarize the way it all seems to fit together.
First of all, the idea that God (Christ) is the first, unshakeable, foundational Rock is one of the overarching themes of scripture from beginning to end. Because some mere mortals are referred to as rocks as well, such as Abraham and Peter, doesn’t mean that they are the first bedrock stone, the ‘Head of the Corner’ type of stone that Christ is. They are only worth anything as stones because they are built upon Christ who upholds everything by the power of His word. In the New Testament, Christ is always Petra, the cornerstone. One of the rules of interpretation is that obscure passages must be interpreted in light of what is known for sure. We know for sure that Jesus is the One foundational stone upon which all other stones are laid. The Matthew 16 passage has been debated for centuries. Even in the 4th century there was not agreement on it , as we have already seen, though many then saw it as protestants do.
Along with this are many scriptures that support the idea that Christ is the one cornerstone, and the Apostles are together the 12 foundation stones built upon Him, along with the OT prophets. Then the other stones (believers) are built upon these. See 1 Peter 2:4-8 and Revelation 21:14. Revelation shows all the Apostles as the foundations of the New Jerusalem, which is the Bride. The Apostles are part of the moveable stones built upon the immovable Rock of Christ.
Remember also the Rock in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2, and Elijah in the cleft of the Rock, and Moses and the water from the Rock, and Isaiah 32:2 ‘the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.’
Secondly, if you look at the story of the raising of Lazarus as a parallel passage to Matthew 16, as Augustine did, which I quoted in an earlier comment, you will see that it is Christ who stands before the gates of Death and by His word and Spirit brings the dead to life, showing that the gates of Hades cannot withstand Him who is the Rock, the Head of the Church who is built upon Him. If we are standing upon Him, and His word, death will not stand before us, His church. We speak His word by the Spirit and people will be set free. I believe it is the Rock of Christ first, and THEN the church built upon Him which the gates of death cannot withstand.
Thirdly, as I said at the beginning of this thread, where are the scriptures that show a that a single succession from Peter as the authority for the Church is what was established? Where is the proof that Rome is that succession, and not all the other bishops who descended from the Apostles? There is not agreement on this universally, and it is not in scripture, and not supported by the Fathers.

---------------------------


Also, Augustine brought out in that same passage I quoted earlier from Webster, that Peter represents all the Apostles, and all the church. We are all his successors if we are built upon Christ and His word, as taught by the Apostles, by faith.

----------------------------
Here again is the link to Webster.
----------------------------

Except I don't agree with Augustine and others that it is Peter's confession that is the Rock upon which the church is built, but the One Whom Peter confessed.

-------------------------------

Also,
the story of Lazarus shows that the moveable stones (us) have to be moved out of the way so the immovable Rock can do His work, so the dead can hear His voice. That means Peter and all believers have to bow to Him and move out of the way.

Here are some other helpful links: These first two links were provided by Paul, who also commented on Elena's blog and mine: An article by William Webster on Forgeries and the Papacy and an article from New Advent on Liber Pontificalis, a document that is referred to in Webster's article. In view of Webster's article, which shows the faulty foundation of forgery upon which the modern Roman Catholic view of the papacy is built, I believe much of what today's Roman Catholic apologists say on this subject should be held as suspect.
There is much information on the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church on Webster's website, christiantruth.com. Other good sources are bereanbeacon.org, and aomin.org.

Sola Scriptura: John 12:44-50

'The mouth of the LORD has spoken it' is the criteria for that which is called 'the word of God.' The word of God was first spoken by Himself to His people, such as Adam and Noah and Abraham and Job, and in the New Testament, His Apostles and disciples; then His word was spoken to His prophets (Old Testament) and the Apostles (New Testament) by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which these men wrote down for the sake of future believers. These men were all eyewitnesses of God and recipients of His inspired word. All other future words are only the words of men and must be measured against God's word, the final rule. There are no more eyewitnesses or inspired men who speak or write infallible words. God's plan has been written down and all that remains is to delve into it with the Spirit's help as we wait for the promised return of Jesus Christ.

John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith

The three volume set, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, by David T. King and William Webster, was recommended to me as a good comprehensive resource on the doctrine of sola scriptura. The best price I found for the set was at aomin.org I'm hoping to get the set soon, maybe as a birthday present :)
Here is the description of the set on the store page:

The first volume by David King, a PCA minister and long time student of the sufficiency of Scripture, presents a biblical defense of sola scriptura. King interacts with the wide range of Roman claims concerning the nature of Scripture and the alleged need of an infallible interpreter. Included is a full and devastating critique of Not By Scripture Alone, edited by Robert Sungenis.

In the second volume of this series, author William Webster tackles the historical issues inherent in the debate over sola scriptura, including the ever-present battle over the canon of Scripture.

The third in this series comprises a 312-page compendium of patristic citations affirming the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. Every person who has gotten tired of seeing the same old out-of-context citations batted around on EWTN or in This Rock magazine will find this volume invaluable, as it contains a most thorough listing of relevant citations, some of which have never appeared in English before this edition. A must for all who are interested in this vital area.

Heaven and Hell: a sermon by Charles Spurgeon

My pastor quoted from this sermon by Charles Spurgeon today in his sermon, and I looked it up and thought it would be good to share it.
Following is the introduction to the sermon; please follow the link to read the entire sermon.

A Sermon

(No. 39-40)

Delivered on Tuesday Evening, September 4, 1855, by the

REV. C.H. SPURGEON

In a field, King Edward’s Road, Hackney.

“And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”—Matthew 8:11-12.

This is a land where plain speaking is allowed, and where the people are willing to afford a fair hearing to any one who can tell them that which is worth their attention. To-night I am quite certain of an attentive audience, for I know you too well to suppose otherwise. This field, as you are all aware, is private property; and I would just give a suggestion to those who go out in the open air to preach—that it is far better to get into a field, or a plot of unoccupied building-ground, than to block up the roads and stop business; it is moreover, far better to be somewhat under protection, so that we can at once prevent disturbance.

To-night, I shall, I hope, encourage you to seek the road to heaven. I shall also have to utter some very sharp things concerning the end of the lost in the pit of hell. Upon both these subjects I will try and speak, as God helps me. But, I beseech you, as you love your souls, weigh right and wrong this night; see whether what I say be the truth of God. If it be not, reject it utterly, and cast it away; but if it is, at your peril disregard it; for, as you shall answer before God, the great Judge of heaven and earth, it will go ill with you if the words of his servant and of his Scripture be despised.

My text has two parts. The first is very agreeable to my mind, and gives me pleasure; the second is terrible in the extreme; but, since they are both the truth, they must be preached. The first part of my text is, “I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” The sentence which I call the black, dark, and threatening part is this: “But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

I. Let us take the first part. Here is a most glorious promise. I will read it again: “Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” I like that text, because it tells me what heaven is, and gives me a beautiful picture of it. It says, it is a place where I shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. O what a sweet thought that is for the working man! He often wipes the hot sweat from his face, and he wonders whether there is a land where he shall have to toil no longer. He scarcely ever eats a mouthful of bread that is not moistened with the sweat of his brow. Often he comes home weary, and flings himself upon his couch, perhaps too tired to sleep. He says, “Oh! is there no land where I can rest? Is there no place where I can sit, and for once let these weary limbs be still? Is there no land where I can be quiet? Yes, thou son of toil and labor,

“There is a happy land

Far, far away—“

where toil and labor are unknown. Beyond yon blue welkin there is a city fair and bright, its walls are jasper, and its light is brighter than the sun. There “the weary are at rest, and the wicked cease from troubling.” Immortal spirits are yonder, who never wipe sweat from their brow, for “they sow not, neither do they reap;” they have not to toil and labor.

“There, on a green and flowery mount,

Their weary souls shall sit;

And with transporting joys recount

The labors of their feet.”

To my mind, one of the best views of heaven is, that it is a land of rest—especially to the working man. Those who have not to work hard, think they will love heaven as a place of service. That is very true. But to the working man, to the man who toils with his brain or with his hands, it must ever be a sweet thought that there is a land where we shall rest. Soon, this voice will never be strained again; soon, these lungs will never have to exert themselves beyond their power; soon, this brain shall not be racked for thought; but I shall sit at the banquet-table of God; yea, I shall recline on the bosom of Abraham, and be at ease for ever. Oh! weary sons and daughters of Adam, you will not have to drive the ploughshare into the unthankful soil in heaven, you will not need to rise to daily toils before the sun hath risen, and labor still when the sun hath long ago gone to his rest; but ye shall be still, ye shall be quiet, ye shall rest yourselves, for all are rich in heaven, all are happy there, all are peaceful. Toil, trouble, travail, and labor, are words that cannot be spelled in heaven; they have no such things there, for they always rest.

And mark the good company they sit with. They are to “sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.” Some people think that in heaven we shall know nobody. But our text declares here, that we “shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.” Then I am sure that we shall be aware that they are Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. I have heard of a good woman, who asked her husband, when she was dying, “My dear, do you think you will know me when you and I get to heaven?” “Shall I know you?” he said, “why, I have always known you while I have been here, and do you think I shall be a greater fool when I get to heaven?” I think it was a very good answer. If we have known one another here, we shall know one another there. I have dear departed friends up there, and it is always a sweet thought to me, that when I shall put my foot, as I hope I may, upon the threshold of heaven, there will come my sisters and brothers to clasp me by the hand and say, “Yes, thou loved one, and thou art here.” Dear relatives that have been separated, you will meet again in heaven. One of you has lost a mother—she is gone above; and if you follow the track of Jesus, you shall meet her there. Methinks I see yet another coming to meet you at the door of Paradise; and though the ties of natural affection may be in a measure forgotten,—I may be allowed to use a figure—how blessed would she be as she turned to God, and said, “Here am I, and the children that thou hast given me.” We shall recognize our friends:—husband, you will know your wife again. Mother, you will know those dear babes of yours—you marked their features when they lay panting and gasping for breath. You know how ye hung over their graves when the cold sod was sprinkled over them, and it was said, “Earth to earth. Dust to dust, and ashes to ashes.” But ye shall hear those loved voices again: ye shall hear those sweet voices once more; ye shall yet know that those whom ye loved have been loved by God. Would not that be a dreary heaven for us to inhabit, where we should be alike unknowing and unknown? I would not care to go to such a heaven as that. I believe that heaven is a fellowship of the saints, and that we shall know one another there. I have often thought I should love to see Isaiah; and, as soon as I get to heaven, methinks, I would ask for him, because he spoke more of Jesus Christ than all the rest. I am sure I should want to find out good George Whitefield—he who so continually preached to the people, and wore himself out with a more than seraphic zeal. O yes! We shall have choice company in heaven when we get there. There will be no distinction of learned and unlearned, clergy and laity, but we shall walk freely one among another; we shall feel that we are brethren; we shall “sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.” I have heard of a lady who was visited by a minister on her deathbed, and she said to him, “I want to ask you one question, now I am about to die.” “Well,” said the minister, “what is it?” “Oh!” said she, in a very affected way, “I want to know if there are two places in heaven, because I could not bear that Betsy in the kitchen should be in heaven along with me, she is so unrefined?” The minister turned round and said, “O! don’t trouble yourself about that, madam. There is no fear of that; for, until you get rid of you accursed pride, you will never enter heaven at all.” We must all get rid of our pride. We must come down and stand on an equality in the sight of God, and see in every man a brother, before we can hope to be found in glory. Aye, we bless God, we thank him that there will be no separate table for one and for another. The Jew and the Gentile will sit down together. The great and the small shall feed in the same pasture, and we shall “sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.”

We Will Dance

We sang this song today at our church worship service; I have the video with the words and music below so you can enjoy it too.

We Will Dance

(David Ruis)


Sing a song of celebration
Lift up a shout of praise
For the Bridegroom will come
The glorious one
And oh, we will look on his face
We’ll go to a much better place

Dance with all your might
Lift up your hands and clap for joy
The time’s drawing near
When he will appear
And oh, we will stand by his side
A strong, pure, spotless bride

We will dance on the streets that are golden
The glorious bride and the great Son of man
From every tongue and tribe and nation
Will join in the song of the lamb

Sing aloud for the time of rejoicing is near
(Sing aloud for the time of rejoicing is near)
The risen King, our groom, is soon to appear
(The risen King, our groom, is soon to appear)
The wedding feast to come is now near at hand
(The wedding feast to come is now near at hand)
Lift up your voice, proclaim the coming Lamb
(Lift up your voice, proclaim the coming Lamb)

Copyright © 1993 Mercy/Vineyard Publishing. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

Charles Spurgeon: The Form and Spirit of Religion

Following is the introduction to a sermon by Charles Spurgeon. Please follow the link to read the whole sermon.
A Sermon

(No. 186)

Delivered on Sabbath Morning, April 4, 1858, by the

REV. C.H. SPURGEON

At the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.



“Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies.”—1 Samuel 4:3.

THESE MEN made a great mistake: what they wanted was the Lord in their midst; whereas they imagined that the symbol of God’s presence, the ark of the covenant, would be amply sufficient to bestow upon them the assistance which they required in the day of battle. As is man, such must his religion be. Now, man is a compound being. To speak correctly, man is a spiritual being: he hath within him a soul, a substance far beyond the bounds of matter. But man is also made up of a body as well as a soul. He is not pure spirit; his spirit is incarnate in flesh and blood. Now, such is our religion. The religion of God is, as to its vitality, purely spiritual—always so; but since man is made of flesh as well as of spirit, it seemed necessary that his religion should have something of the outward, external, and material, in which to embody the spiritual, or else man would not have been able to lay hold upon it. This was especially the case under the old dispensation. The religion of the Jew is really a heavenly and spiritual thing; a thing of thought, a thing that concerns the mind and spirit; but the Jew was untaught; he was but a babe, unable to understand spiritual things unless he saw them pictured out to him, or, (to repeat what I have just said) unless he saw them embodied in some outward type and symbol: and therefore God was pleased to give the Jew a great number of ceremonies, which were to his religion what the body is to man’s soul. The Jewish religion taught the doctrine of the atonement, but the Jew could not understand it, and therefore God gave him a lamb to be slain every morning and every evening, and he gave him a goat over which the sins of the people were to be confessed, and which was to be driven into the depths of the wilderness, to show the great doctrine of a substitute and atonement through him. The Jewish religion teaches, as one of its prominent doctrines, the unity of the Godhead; but the Jew was ever apt to forget that there was but one God; and God, to teach him that, would have but one temple, and but one altar upon which the sacrifice might rightly be offered. So that the idea of the one God was (as I have already said) made incarnate in the fact that there was but one temple, but one altar, and but one great high priest. And mark, this is true of our religion—Christianity: not true to so full an extent as of Judaism—for the religion of the Jew had a gross and heavy body—but our religion has a body transparent, and having but little of materialism in it. If you ask me what I would call the materialism of our religion, the embodiment of the spiritual part of that in which we trust and hope, I would point, first of all, to the two ordinances of the Lord, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I would point you next to the services of God’s house, to the Sabbath day, to the outward ritual of our worship: I would point you to our solemn song, to our sacred service of prayer; and I would point you also—and I think I am right in so doing—to the form of sound words, which we ever desire to hold fast and firm, as containing that creed which it is necessary for men to believe if they would hold the truth as it is in Jesus. Our religion, then, has an outward form even to this day; for the Apostle Paul, when he spoke of professing Christians, spoke of some who had “a form of godliness, but denied the power thereof.” So that it is still true, though I confess not to the same extent as it was in the days of Moses, that religion must have a body, that the spiritual thing may come out palpably before our vision, and that we may see it.

Sola Scriptura: Psalm 56

Psalm 56
To the Chief Musician. Set to “The Silent Dove in Distant Lands.” A Michtam of David when the Philistines captured him in Gath.
1 Be merciful to me, O God, for man would swallow me up;
Fighting all day he oppresses me.
2 My enemies would hound me all day,
For there are many who fight against me, O Most High.

3 Whenever I am afraid,
I will trust in You.
4 In God (I will praise His word),
In God I have put my trust;
I will not fear.
What can flesh do to me?

5 All day they twist my words;
All their thoughts are against me for evil.
6 They gather together,
They hide, they mark my steps,
When they lie in wait for my life.
7 Shall they escape by iniquity?
In anger cast down the peoples, O God!

8 You number my wanderings;
Put my tears into Your bottle;
Are they not in Your book?
9 When I cry out to You,
Then my enemies will turn back;
This I know, because God is for me.
10 In God (I will praise His word),
In the LORD (I will praise His word),
11 In God I have put my trust;
I will not be afraid.
What can man do to me?

12 Vows made to You are binding upon me, O God;
I will render praises to You,
13 For You have delivered my soul from death.
Have You not kept my feet from falling,
That I may walk before God
In the light of the living?

Nuns with guns

And Can It Be, a hymn by Charles Wesley

Words: Charles Wesley, 1739 (Acts 16:26)
Music: Thomas Campbell, 1835

1.
And can it be that I should gain
an interest in the Savior's blood!
Died he for me? who caused his pain!
For me? who him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

2.
'Tis mystery all: th' Immortal dies!
Who can explore his strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
to sound the depths of love divine.
'Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
let angel minds inquire no more.
'Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
let angel minds inquire no more.

3.
He left his Father's throne above
(so free, so infinite his grace!),
emptied himself of all but love,
and bled for Adam's helpless race.
'Tis mercy all, immense and free,
for O my God, it found out me!
'Tis mercy all, immense and free,
for O my God, it found out me!

4.
Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
fast bound in sin and nature's night;
thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
my chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

5.
No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in him, is mine;
alive in him, my living Head,
and clothed in righteousness divine,
bold I approach th' eternal throne,
and claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th' eternal throne,
and claim the crown, through Christ my own.

The Harlot: Part Two: Mary as the Second Eve

Psalm 2:
11 Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

We had been talking about the Assumption of Mary over at Elena's blog, and as I was thinking about this and looking up information, I found these two opposing sources exressing views on the place of Mary in the church: Mary's Praise on Every Tongue, by P. J. CHANDLERY, S.J. and Dogmas of the Papacy: Book II, Chapter XIX: The Worship of the Virgin Mary by Rev. J.A. Wylie LL.D.

From 'Mary's Praise on Every Tongue' by P. J. CHANDLERY, S.J.:

ST. IRENAEUS, Bishop of Lyons (d. 202), speaks of
Mary as the Second Eve, as unfallen Eve, bearing a
part in man s Redemption similar to that which the first
Eve, by her transgression, had in his Fall. Livius, 37
seq., 43.

St. Ambrose of Milan (d. 397). " Evil came by the
woman (Eve), so good has come by a woman : for by Eve
we fell, by Mary we stand ; by Eve we were prostrated,
by Mary we are raised ; by Eve we were reduced to slavery,
by Mary we are made free (through her Divine Son). Eve
took from us length of days, Mary restored to us immor-
tality ; Eve caused us to be condemned by an apple of
the tree, Mary wrought our pardon by the gift of the
tree ; because Christ also hung upon the tree as fruit.
As therefore we died through a tree, so by a tree are we
brought to life. All (the evil) that was done by Adam
is washed out by Mary " (i.e. through the Blood of her
Divine Son). Livius, 52, 53.

From Dogmas of the Papacy: Book II, Chapter XIX: The Worship of the Virgin Mary by Rev. J.A. Wylie LL.D.

In the third place, the same works are ascribed to Mary as to Christ. She hears prayer, intercedes with God for sinners, guides, defends, and blesses them in life, succours them when dying, and receives their departing spirits into paradise. But passing over these things, the great work of Redemption, the peculiar glory of the Saviour, and the chief of God's ways, is now by Roman Catholics, plainly and without reserve, applied to Mary. The Father who devised, the Son who purchased, and the Spirit who applies, the salvation of the sinner, must all give place to the Virgin. It was her coming which prophets announced;[7] it is her victory which the Church celebrates. Angels and the redeemed of heaven ascribe unto her the glory and honour of saving men. She rose from the dead on the third day; she ascended to heaven; she has been re-united to her Son; and she now shares with Him power, glory, and dominion. "The eternal gates of heaven rolled back; the king's mother entered, and was conducted to the steps of his royal throne. Upon it sat her Son. . . . . 'A throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat upon his right hand.' And upon her brow he placed the crown of universal dominion; and the countless multitude of the heavenly hosts saluted her as the queen of heaven and earth."[8] All this Romanists ascribe to a poor fallen creature, whose bones have been mouldering in the dust for eighteen hundred years. We impute nothing to the Church of Rome, in this respect, which her living theologians do not teach. Instead of being ashamed of their Mariolatry, they glory in it, and boast that their Church is becoming every day more devoted to the service and adoration of the Virgin. The argument by which the work of redemption is ascribed to Mary we find briefly stated by Father Ventura, in a conversation with M. Roussel of Paris, then travelling in Italy.

"The Bible tells us but a few words about her" [the Virgin Mary], said M. Roussel to the Padre, "and those few words are not of a character to exalt her."

"Yes," replied Father Ventura, "but those few words express every thing! Admire this allusion: Christ on the cross addressed his mother as woman; God in Eden declared that the woman should crush the serpent's head; the woman designated in Genesis must therefore be the woman pointed out by Jesus Christ; and it is she who is the Church, in which the family of man is to be saved."

"But that is a mere agreement of words, and not of things," responded the Protestant minister.

"That is sufficient," said Father Ventura.[9]

Not less decisive is the testimony of Mr. Seymour, as regards the sentiments of the leading priests at Rome, and the predominating character of the worship of Italy. The following instructive conversation passed one day between him and one of the Jesuits, on the subject of the worship of the Virgin.

"My clerical friend," says Mr. Seymour, "resumed the conversation, and said, that the worship of the Virgin Mary was a growing worship in Rome,--that it was increasing in depth and intenseness of devotion,--and that there were now many of their divines--and he spoke of himself as agreeing with them in sentiment--who were teaching, that as a woman brought in death, so a woman was to bring in life,--that as a woman brought in sin, so a woman was to bring in holiness,--that as Eve brought in damnation, so Mary was to bring in salvation,--and that the effect of this opinion was largely to increase the reverence and worship given to the Virgin Mary."

"To prevent any mistake as to his views," says Mr. Seymour, "I asked whether I was to understand him as implying, that as we regard Eve as the first sinner, so we are to regard Mary as the first Saviour,--the one as the author of sin, and the other as the author of the remedy."

"He replied that such was precisely the view he wished to express; and he added, that it was taught by St. Alphonso de Liguori, and was a growing opinion."[10]

Roman Catholics claim Mary as the Second Eve, who brings salvation instead of sin. They appropriate the verse that says 'by Adam all died, by Christ all are made alive' and give it to Mary. It becomes 'by Eve all died, and by Mary all are made alive'. See

1 Cor. 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Eve is not mentioned, because she is included in Adam, as his wife who is one flesh with him, submitted under him. Mary is not the second Eve; the Bride is, who is one flesh with Christ and is submitted to Him. Mary is a representative of the Bride and is a member of her, which includes both Israel and the gentile church, one body. God is no respecter of persons, and Mary is not exalted above the church, but is 'blessed among women', not above them.

The Roman Catholic Church has condemned themselves doubly by this. First because they have given to Mary what belongs to her Son. Secondly because they have now committed the sin of Eve again in their worship of Mary and truly made 'Mary' the second Eve who brought sin into the Church, the temple of God, making her to be like God as Eve was tempted to do by the serpent. History has repeated itself because the lesson was still not learned though God Himself came down to teach it. Giving Mary the office and glory of Jesus Christ is idolatry and blasphemy. The RCC is exalting the creature rather than the Creator, and adding to the gospel by placing Mary in a position which does not belong to her. In this the Roman Catholic Church shows herself to be a harlot church rather than a true church, because she lifts up her word above the word of God and teaches and practices idolatry.

The Harlot: Part One: The Woman

Proverbs 7 is commonly taken to be a literal warning to young men to avoid the harlot who would seduce them, and it certainly is that. However, I am not the first to see that it is more importantly a prophetic warning parallel to the passage in Revelation 17 in which the Apostle John sees a vision of Mystery Babylon the Great, the Harlot that sits upon many waters.

First read Proverbs 7:
1 My son, keep my words,
And treasure my commands within you.
2 Keep my commands and live,
And my law as the apple of your eye.
3 Bind them on your fingers;
Write them on the tablet of your heart.
4 Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
And call understanding your nearest kin,
5 That they may keep you from the immoral woman,
From the seductress who flatters with her words.

6 For at the window of my house
I looked through my lattice,
7 And saw among the simple,
I perceived among the youths,
A young man devoid of understanding,
8 Passing along the street near her corner;
And he took the path to her house
9 In the twilight, in the evening,
In the black and dark night.
10 And there a woman met him,
With the attire of a harlot, and a crafty heart.
11 She was loud and rebellious,
Her feet would not stay at home.
12 At times she was outside, at times in the open square,
Lurking at every corner.
13 So she caught him and kissed him;
With an impudent face she said to him:
14 “ I have peace offerings with me;
Today I have paid my vows.
15 So I came out to meet you,
Diligently to seek your face,
And I have found you.
16 I have spread my bed with tapestry,
Colored coverings of Egyptian linen.
17 I have perfumed my bed
With myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.
18 Come, let us take our fill of love until morning;
Let us delight ourselves with love.
19 For my husband is not at home;
He has gone on a long journey;
20 He has taken a bag of money with him,
And will come home on the appointed day.”
21 With her enticing speech she caused him to yield,
With her flattering lips she seduced him.
22 Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter,
Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks,
23 Till an arrow struck his liver.
As a bird hastens to the snare,
He did not know it would cost his life.
24 Now therefore, listen to me, my children;
Pay attention to the words of my mouth:
25 Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways,
Do not stray into her paths;
26 For she has cast down many wounded,
And all who were slain by her were strong men.
27 Her house is the way to hell,
Descending to the chambers of death.

The first part of the proverb is a command and warning to 'keep my words, and treasure my commands within you' to 'keep my commands and live' and to 'write them on the tablet of your heart' so that they may 'keep you from the immoral woman, from the seductress who flatters with her words.' Is this just a warning to a young man to listen to his father's words to keep away from a literal harlot? I believe it is much more than that.
The introduction to the proverb is a command to keep God's word and treasure it; to write it on our hearts and learn wisdom and understanding from it. If we do this it will keep us from being seduced by the immoral 'woman' who flatters with her words. If we do not treasure God's word and keep His commands within us, the rest of the proverb tells us how we will be seduced by the harlot. It says the young man went out 'in the evening...in the black and dark night.' He is not walking in the light of God's word, and will stumble in the darkness. He is not seeing that the night of tribulation has come and soon the Day of judgment will come, when the 'Husband' will return from His long journey. The harlot wife does not look forward to His return or know that it may be before she thinks.
She next says 'I have peace offerings with me; Today I have paid my vows.' She has made ritual peace offerings which she thinks will protect her and her intended victim. She flatters him saying 'So I have come out to meet you, diligently to seek your face' to draw him in.
She shows her ignorance of her Husband's word by saying:

"Come,
let us take our fill of love until morning;
Let us delight ourselves with love.
19 For my husband is not at home;
He has gone on a long journey;
20 He has taken a bag of money with him,
And will come home on the appointed day.”

But she forgets that her husband has said 'Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.'
Matthew 24:42-44

Look next at Revelation 17, which reveals the identity of the harlot, the immoral woman:

1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”
3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

7 But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. 8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
9 “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.
12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Notice that this woman is in 'the wilderness' which prophetically shows that she is the 'church'. Not the faithful church, but an unfaithful church who has not kept her betrothed husband's word. The wilderness is a reference to the same foreshadowed wilderness in Exodus, in which the people of God wandered in unfaithfulness for 40 years. It has now been 40 'years' prophetically since the church began: It has been 40 jubilees or Sabbaths since Christ left 'to go on a long journey' warning us that He would come back to take His Bride to Himself. He also said 'when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith in the earth?' See also Song of Solomon 8:5 Who is this coming up from the wilderness,
Leaning upon her beloved?
This is the purified Bride, the faithful church.

Notice that for a while this harlot church will ride the beast who rules with the 10 kings of the earth, and will be 'drunk with the blood of the saints'. But the 10 kings will hate her and will burn her with fire. In Revelation 18 we see the judgment of the harlot, who is called Babylon, that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.

1 After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illuminated with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! 3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.”
4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. 7 In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ 8 Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her.

God warns His people, His church, His faithful Bride: “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues." Listen to His warning, and don't trust in the peace offerings and vows of the harlot. Listen to His words and treasure them in your heart, 'that they may keep you from the immoral woman,
From the seductress who flatters with her words.'

In summary, the Proverbs 7 passage shows first a warning to treasure God's words in our hearts because they will keep us from being seduced by the false church. This is a direct statement of the doctrine of 'sola scriptura', the teaching that God's word is the supreme authority and is sufficient for all our needs. If we depart from this, we will be seduced by the false and deceitful 'woman' who diligently seeks for our souls. The Proverbs passage ends with these words:
24 Now therefore, listen to me, my children;
Pay attention to the words of my mouth:
25 Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways,
Do not stray into her paths;
26 For she has cast down many wounded,
And all who were slain by her were strong men.
27 Her house is the way to hell,
Descending to the chambers of death.
We must listen to our Father's words and not turn aside to her flattering ways, because many have been deceived before by her, including many 'strong men' who were or are great scholars with mighty intellects, as she herself boasts. Her judgment is shown in Revelation 18, and we are warned to 'come out of her' so that we will not be judged with her.

Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

Why should we not believe in transubstantiation?

Elena asked,
Why cannot it be understood as literally Christ giving his body to eat?

She was referring to this quote she gave from Ambrose:
It is wonderful that God rained manna on our fathers and they were fed with daily food from heaven. And so it is written: Man ate the bread of angels. Yet those who ate that bread all died in the desert. But the food that you receive, that living bread which came down from heaven, supplies the very substance of eternal life, and whoever will eat it will never die, for it is the body of Christ. Ambrose of Milan, treatise On the Mysteries was originally spoken to newly baptized Christians around the year 370 AD.
This quote is apparently referring to John 6. I would like to give a few scriptures to show why Jesus in John 6 is not referring to Christ literally giving us His body and blood to eat, and that the bread is not literally the 'body, soul, and divinity of Christ' or the whole Christ.
Matthew 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
This passage says that if anyone tells you that Christ is here or there on earth DO NOT BELIEVE IT and DO NOT GO OUT to look for Him, because His coming will be 'as the lightning come from the east and flashes to the west'. Jesus is telling His disciples that He will NOT be present physically on earth until He comes again in the sky, and not to believe anyone who says He is, even though you see signs and wonders to prove that it is He.
John 19:30 He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
Jesus finished His propitiatory work on the cross and for those who believe in Him, their sins are forgiven and there is no more need for an offering for sin.
Hebrews 9:25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
This passage says that He appeared once to put away sin by His sacrifice of Himself, not often, and that He will appear for those who eagerly await Him a SECOND TIME, APART FROM SIN, for salvation. He will appear a second time when He comes back to earth, 'just as He ascended' the first time. He will appear 'apart from sin' that is, not as a sacrifice for sin. He does not come back as a physical perpetual sacrifice. Every word of Hebrews denies this doctrine. He sat down at the right hand of the Father in victory over sin and death and having finished His suffering, He intercedes for us against our accuser the devil.

UPDATE:
Elena has a post up about this too: http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/hebrews-matthew-and-john-6.html

Sabbath Rest-Part Three: A Parting Thought

I have two earlier posts about 'The Sabbath Rest' showing how salvation through Christ is our sabbath rest, fulfilling the law of the sabbath.
Under another discussion thread, Leo, a Roman Catholic, made some comments about my posts and I wanted to share my answer as a summary of the Sabbath Rest posts.
Leo said:

Now let's talk about why Jesus healed on the Sabbath. He wanted to end the misapplication of Sabbath regulations at the expense of those who were suffering. He said that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around.

Jesus wanted to show that mercy always comes first. He said that it was always okay to do good, even on the Sabbath.

Here is my answer:
It is correct that Jesus wanted to teach these things, but that is not the only meaning. The sabbath was a day to rest from our labors for ourselves, but works of love are always appropriate. But how can we cease from working for ourselves, for our own salvation, until it is achieved? If we have to work to merit our salvation, then we are never working for only love and mercy, but for ourselves.
Jesus died to take our sin upon Himself and to declare us righteous by giving us His righteousness. Then we can by faith accept it, and then work by faith to show love for God first and then love and mercy for others.
First we must be free of sin by grace through faith, and only then can we do true works by faith, being made holy by the Spirit in us.

Renewed discussion on Mary under a previous post

We have been having some more discussion about Mary under an older post I did called 'Mary as the Ark of the Covenant' if anyone is interested in joining in.

Tony Bartolucci; Drowning in the Tiber: Parts 10 and 11 are now up!

Parts 10 and 11 of the sermon series Drowning in the Tiber by Pastor Tony Bartolucci of Clarkson Community Church are now available for listening. Please see the link at the top of the list of sermons to read Pastor Tony's explanation of why he is preaching this series.

Exchangedlife.com: Examining Predestination and Calvinism

My husband Eddie has just completed a study on predestination which is available on his website, exchangedlife.com. In the study, my husband looks at the issue of predestination from a Biblical perspective, hoping to resolve the conflicts between opposing camps on this subject. The study examines the scriptures that indicate free will and those that affirm the sovereignty of God and shows that these do not disagree.

NOTE: My husband is transferring his website to another location, so while this is being done, please look for the link here; then click on 'Bible Studies' and find the study on 'Examining Predestination and Calvinism' with the date '08/2009'.

Daughter of Wisdom: Discussion on the sin of Onan

Recently some readers were having an interesting discussion about the sin of Onan as reported in scripture: Genesis 38:6-10. Daughter of Wisdom has agreed to continue the discussion on her blog, as I am not able to post about it right now, being busy trying to wind up a very short summer vacation. Please visit Daughter of Wisdom to join in the discussion.

Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical? from gotquestions.org

A reader who is Catholic told me that if I have a problem with the idea of people asking Mary and other saints to intercede for them in prayer, then I should also have a problem with asking other believers to pray for me. I found the following article on gotquestions.org and posted the first part of the article here. Please go to the link to read the entire article. I think the writer brings up many good scriptural points to refute the practice of praying to Mary and the saints or asking for their intercession.


Question: "Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical?"

Answer: The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any Biblical basis.

The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in Heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholic pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence..."

1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Tony Bartolucci: Drowning in the Tiber--Part 8 and 9 are up

Part 8 and 9 of Pastor Tony Bartolucci's sermon series Drowning in the Tiber are up and ready to download. I'll be listening ASAP!

The Sabbath Rest: Part Two

After I wrote 'The Sabbath Rest' post, I remembered that my husband had written a sermon series a while back about the ten commandments, which of course included one about the sabbath. I went back and read it, and it fit exactly what I was trying to hint at in the first post. Following are a few exerpts from the sermon, but please follow the link to read the entire message.
First my husband talks about the commandments in general:

In our New Testament age, the real application of these commands belongs to the church. Sometimes Christians get confused when they remove the New Testament foundation from their understanding of these commandments and try to put themselves under the Old Testament law. The cross of Jesus Christ is the lens by which everything in the scripture must be viewed. We cannot go back and try to put our lives under the Old Testament law, but we must submit ourselves to the New Testament commandments that are applied through the law of faith. Jesus said that He did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill the law and then offer Himself as a redemptive sacrifice for us. This Bible, Christianity, encouragement, Jesus, justification, salvation, Sufficiency of Christ, The Gospelis affirmed and explained in Romans 3:

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

After explaining more about this, he goes on to speak specifically about the sabbath:

Since we are looking at the Ten Commandments through the light of the New Testament and the lens of the cross, I decided that the Sabbath should be the first point of study. The reason being is that this is the most misunderstood commandment by Christians and it also points God’s people directly to Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is the focal point by which we view the Old Testament and all commandments, it only makes sense to begin from this point.



The Sabbath is not Sunday. The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week which is Saturday. In the beginning, God created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them in six days and on the seventh day He rested. God rested in order to provide an example for God’s people to follow His example and to rest on the Sabbath. This principle also points to a deeper spiritual understanding as we will soon explore. Many who oppose the concept of Sunday worship such as the Seventh Day Adventist frequently challenge all the other denominations to prove that the Sabbath was changed. One leader in this denomination offered $64,000 for anyone who can prove biblically that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday in the scriptures.



Don’t waste your time with this challenge for you will not find anything in the Bible where God changed the day in which we celebrate the Sabbath. The problem is that the question is flawed.

After explaining the concept of the sabbath, my husband goes on to the most important part of the message, which speaks of the meaning of the sabbath rest, and how it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Jesus made a point of shaking up the religious leader’s view of the Sabbath. If you read through the gospels, take note of the number of times Jesus blatantly violated the Sabbath in the sight of the Pharisees. As you do, keep in mind that the Pharisees were not condemned for questioning Jesus’ breaking of the Sabbath, they were condemned for rejecting Jesus. A little earlier I noted that the command to keep the Sabbath pointed to a deeper spiritual principle. Jesus broke the traditional view of the Sabbath in order to draw attention to the spiritual meaning of the Sabbath. He constantly proclaimed that He was Lord of the Sabbath and that the Sabbath was meant for man. Man wasn’t created for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was created for man (Mark 2:27). As we examine this law, keep in mind the teaching of Galatians 3:24-25

24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.



The law of the Sabbath pointed to what was fulfilled in Christ. In the Old Testament, breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death. Look at Exodus 31:14-15

14 'You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 'Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.



Not all the commandments carried a death penalty; so why did God put such importance on the Sabbath that any who broke it would pay with their life? To understand the reason we must understand the meaning behind the Sabbath which could not have been known before Christ revealed the covenant of the New Testament to the church. The above scripture also helps us to understand why the Jews had such a hard time accepting Jesus’ breaking of the Sabbath. Any work was punishable by death regardless of how miniscule it was, but when Jesus came, He intentionally broke the Sabbath for the purpose of bringing attention to His Lordship and the principle of the Sabbath.

What is that principle which is so essential that if we do not obey it, the end is death?

If Jesus was indeed the Lord of the Sabbath, then He had to have a reason for breaking the Sabbath and teaching His disciples to do so. In the Old Testament, God clearly instructed people not to gather food on the Sabbath and someone found picking up sticks for firewood was executed for breaking the Sabbath. Now Jesus and His disciples are walking through a field and gathering food on the Sabbath in the sight of all. When questioned, Jesus says that the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath and then claims that He has the right to do what He is doing because He is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus is making the claim that not only does He have the right to rule the Sabbath, but He is also changing the way mankind views the Sabbath.



The law of keeping the Sabbath clearly served a purpose that God reinforced with severe judgment, but as revealed by Jesus, the Sabbath was a tutor for a greater principle that was now being revealed by His ministry on earth. The Sabbath is the rest given by God and the promise to God’s people. Through the law, God taught His people to understand the promise but God did not permit God’s people to inherit the promise by the law. When God led the people to the Promised Land, He required faith before they could inherit the promise. Without faith, God delivered the people out of the bondage of Pharaoh; without faith God led them through the wilderness; without faith God defeated all enemies, gave them manna, water from the rock and showed the children of Israel many mighty works. However, when the time came to inherit the promise, God required faith.



God sent twelve spies into the land – one from each tribe. He did this to test God’s people. They spied out the land and brought a discouraging report to the people. The land was just as God promised, but the inhabitants were strong and could not be defeated. Even though God defeated everyone that challenged Israel and even humbled Pharaoh, the children of Israel still had no faith and rebelled against the Lord. It was not the law that prevented them from inheriting the promise, but unbelief. Keeping the law meant nothing if faith was absent. Look at Hebrews 3:

17 Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest,' " although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"; 5 and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest." 6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today," after such a long time, as it has been said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts." 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. 11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.



This passage of scripture is where the rubber meets the road. This scripture clearly makes a connection between God’s example of rest on the seventh day, the Promised Land of the children of Israel and the rest provided through Christ as it ties them together as being all a part of the same principle. Notice that God speaks of the ‘rest’ of God’s people as the ‘rest’ of the Sabbath. This passage in Hebrews provides an important key to understanding the command to keep the Sabbath for it links the rest of the promise of God with the rest of the Sabbath. God used the example of Israel to teach us the principle of our promise of salvation. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath because He is Lord of our salvation. We enter the rest of the Lord through the cross of Jesus Christ for He alone leads us into the promise.

Please read the entire message to see all the points my husband brings out.
Jesus performed many miraculous healings on the sabbath. I again submit that, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear His word, this is a clear message that our healing is accomplished by Him on a day of rest and not on a day of works. He is our Sabbath Rest, by faith and not by works.

Hebrews 4

1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:

“ So I swore in My wrath,

‘ They shall not enter My rest,’”

although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.”
6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said:


“ Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.

The Sabbath Rest

Why did Jesus so many times heal people on the sabbath? Was it simply to annoy the Jews, or was there some deeper reason?
I submit, after reading the story of Jesus healing the man born blind, in John 9, that He did it to show that our healing is done on a day of rest (faith) and not a day of works.

William Webster: How Rome Defines Saving faith

We've been having a discussion here about whether Rome teaches salvation by works (merit) and while I take a break for the weekend before investigating the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I wanted to give people the opportunity to read these two articles by William Webster. The first is his testimony called Did I Really Leave the Holy Catholic Church?
The second is his article called Saving Faith: How Does Rome Define It?

As these articles will show, IF the catechism does NOT teach justification by works (which I have not admitted, and I believe it has been shown before that it does)then there are other ways in which the Roman Catholic Church adds works to salvation, and subverts the true gospel of Christ, namely, by adding dogmas which must be believed for salvation, but which were never taught in scripture or believed by the early church.

Two false gospels: Daughters of Augustine--Part Three, a clarification

I had said I would talk some more about Augustine's influence on Calvin next, but I wanted to clarify something first. I have called the two belief systems, Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, that descend (in part) from Augustine 'false doctrines.' That does not mean, however that I believe everyone who is within these belief systems is not a true Christian. As far as Catholicism goes, I believe it is wholly false, yet some within it are saved. As for Calvinism, I know and know of many Calvinists who are true believers, and Calvinists are great defenders of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Pastor Cloud has written of this in the article I linked to in the last post, 'The Calvinism Debate.' Following is an excerpt from the article, from the section called 'I do not treat all Calvinists the same.'

It is important to understand that there is a great variety of doctrine and practice among Calvinists, and by no means do I consider a man to be an enemy of the truth just because he accepts some of the Calvinist theology. The book Spurgeon vs. Hyper Calvinists: The Battle for Gospel Preaching by Iain Murray (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1995) does an excellent job of describing some of the differences among Calvinists. There are soul winning Calvinists, Calvinists with great evangelistic and missionary zeal; and there are Calvinists who condemn these things. Some interpret Calvinism in such a way that they do not believe in offering salvation to or preaching the gospel to all sinners; they do not even believe that God loves all men. According to Murray’s definition, these are “hyper Calvinists.”

Charles Spurgeon refused to try to reconcile every seeming contradiction in the Bible, and he was wise enough to know that he could not understand every mystery of God. He said:

“That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring” (C.H. Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 4, 1858, p. 337).

Spurgeon warned about creating theologies that attempt to reconcile every biblical difficulty:

“Men who are morbidly anxious to possess a self-consistent creed, a creed which will put together and form a square like a Chinese puzzle,--are very apt to narrow their souls. Those who will only believe what they can reconcile will necessarily disbelieve much of divine revelation. Those who receive by faith anything which they find in the Bible will receive two things, twenty things, ay, or twenty thousand things, though they cannot construct a theory which harmonises them all” (C.H. Spurgeon, “Faith,” Sword and Trowel, 1872).

In these matters, Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist but he was much more than a Calvinist; he was a Biblicist. It has been said of Spurgeon, that if you pricked him, even his blood was “bibline.” He loved theology and studied theology earnestly, but the bottom line was that he had childlike faith in everything the Bible says.

And while Spurgeon was a Calvinist, he was at the same time a great evangelist and believed in offering the gospel to all men and urging all men to be saved. Spurgeon believed that more sinners could be saved if the gospel was preached to them, and he did not try to reconcile such a view with God’s election. He believed his responsibility was to preach the gospel to as many sinners as possible. He believed that tools such as prayer could result in a greater harvest of souls. He had prayer meetings before the preaching services and every Monday night and on other occasions. Sometimes when the auditorium of the Metropolitan Tabernacle was full, a group would remain in the downstairs prayer hall and pray during the preaching (as per an e-mail from Mrs. Hannah Wyncoll, Administrative Assistant, Metropolitan Tabernacle, June 2, 2000). Spurgeon loved soul winning and taught his people to be soul winners. His famous book The Soul Winner is still in print. There were some in Spurgeon’s church who “made it their special work to ‘watch for souls’ in our great congregation, and to seek to bring to immediate decision those who appeared to be impressed under the preaching of the Word. [Bro. Cloud: Note the word ‘decision’ in Spurgeon’s description of this soul winner!] One brother has earned for himself the title of my hunting dog, for he is always ready to pick up the wounded birds. One Monday night, at the prayer-meeting, he was sitting near me on the platform; all at once I missed him, and presently I saw him right at the other end of the building. After the meeting, I asked why he went off so suddenly, and he said that the gas just shone on the face of a woman in the congregation, and she looked so sad that he walked round, and sat near her, in readiness to speak to her about the Saviour after the service” (C.H. Spurgeon, The Full Harvest, p. 76). Thus we see that Charles Spurgeon was a man who was very zealous for the winning of souls, and his Calvinism and his convictions about the sovereignty of God in no wise hindered that.

On the other hand, many Calvinists of that day opposed Spurgeon vehemently from their pulpits and in their magazines and denounced his practice of giving invitations for sinners to come to Christ. (He did not have the people actually come forward during the church service as is commonly practiced today, but he invited them to come to Christ all the same; and he believed that a sinner was saved in every seat in the Metropolitan Tabernacle’s massive auditorium of that day.)

For example, one popular Calvinist paper of Spurgeon’s day was the Earthen Vessel. In one of its issues in 1857, it boldly stated that “to preach that it is man’s duty to believe savingly in Christ is ABSURD.” Well, that was exactly what Spurgeon preached, so to a great many Calvinists of his day, Spurgeon was an absurd fellow!

This reminds us that there are different kinds of Calvinists and it is not wise to lump them all into the same mold.

I have had the privilege of knowing, and communicating at a distance with, many godly soul winning Calvinists. Though I am in strong disagreement with such men on the subject of Calvinist theology, I do not consider them enemies.

Next time I would like to talk about Augustine, and discuss the perspective I have already given, plus another perspective I have just found that sees him as, not only a great defender against heresies, but because he was a man always learning and growing, his voluminous writings have inspired two opposing systems: Roman Catholicism and the Reformation doctrines of grace.

Two false gospels: Daughters of Augustine--Part Two

Pastor David Cloud of Way of Life Literature has several good articles about Calvinism in his topical database. One if these is called The Calvinism Debate; it was very helpful to me in understanding Calvinism and comparing it to scripture. One of the sections that was helpful was called 'Some central errors of Calvinism. Number 7 of this section was called 'CALVINISM GOES BACK TO THE “CHURCH FATHERS” FOR AUTHORITY INSTEAD OF STRICTLY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES AND PROPHETS' and stresses that Calvin was very dependent upon Augustine for his doctrines and philosophies. St. Augustine is also a major founder of much Catholic doctrine. Following is section 7:

Calvin freely acknowledged that his authority was Augustine. Consider the following quotes:

“If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his” (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22).

“Let Augustine answer for me…” (Ibid.).

“[Augustine is the one] we quote most frequently as being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity” (Institutes, Book IV, chap. 14).

“Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so ... out of his writings” (Calvin, “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God,” trans. by Henry Cole, Calvin’s Calvinism, Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing, 1987, p. 38; cited in Laurence Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, 1999, p. 38).

WHO WAS AUGUSTINE? He was so polluted with heresy that the Roman Catholic Church has claimed him as one of its “doctors.”

Augustine was a persecutor and the father of the doctrine of persecution in the Catholic Church. The historian Neander observed that Augustine’s teaching “contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.” He instigated bitter persecutions against the Bible-believing Donatists who were striving to maintain pure churches after the apostolic faith.

Augustine was the father of amillennialism, interpreting Bible prophecy allegorically; teaching that the Catholic Church is the kingdom of God.

Augustine taught that Mary did not commit sin.

Augustine believed in purgatory.

Augustine was one of the fathers of the heresy of infant baptism, claiming that unbaptized infants were lost, and calling all who rejected infant baptism “infidels” and “cursed.”

Augustine exalted church tradition above the Bible and said, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

A great danger of christians following the doctrines of one man, such as Calvin, and Augustine before him, is that people become dependent upon those doctrines as systematized or 'crystalized' by that one man instead of seeking God directly in His word and letting the Holy Spirit teach us. This doesn't mean it's not good to be taught by godly men; of course it is; but we are responsible to compare everything to scripture and God promises He will teach us if we seek Him diligently in His word.
I'd like to look more at what Calvin taught as he received it from Augustine next time I post, if possible.

Answers in Genesis: Study shows many populations descended from only three genetic groups: Shem, Ham, and Japeth? Not a surprise to bible-believers

Answers in Genesis posted a newsletter article entitled “Among Many Peoples, Little Genomic Variety” which links to a Washington Post article about a study on this subject. The results of the study are no surprise to those who hold to the literal truth of God's word in the creation story in Genesis. Following is the Answers in Genesis article:

A new genetic study of 53 human populations shows that each falls into one of three genetic groups—yet that the three groups aren’t as different as was thought. The legacy of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Noah’s three sons), perhaps?

Washington Post writer David Brown reviews a recent study that analyzes genetic information from 53 human groups, comparing and contrasting what makes us human.

Generally speaking, all people groups seem to fall into “just three” categories, Brown reports. According to evolutionists, this tripartite division originated when humans left Africa tens of thousands of years ago, splitting into African, Eurasian, and East Asian groups (the third of which includes Pacific Islander and Native American groups).

For creationists, that division makes plain sense as reflective of the people groups that split off after Babel, all descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Of course, in the millennia since, those people groups have migrated and interbred, so it’s difficult to say perfectly what modern groups belong to what ancestor—or even to imply that the ordinary human descends from just one of Noah’s three sons/daughters-in-law. Additionally, the genomes have been influenced over the years by environment. So a population of Shem’s descendants and a population of Japheth’s descendants living in the same environment for millennia would come to resemble one another. Brown makes the point, albeit from an evolutionary perspective:

People adapted to what they encountered the way all living organisms do: through natural selection. A small fraction of the mutations constantly creeping into our genes happened by chance to prove beneficial in the new circumstances outside the African homeland. Those included differences in climate, altitude, latitude, food availability, parasites, infectious diseases, and lots of other things.

Nonetheless, the study is an exciting reminder of the reality of the Genesis account.

But what else is interesting is that the three broad groupings in the study aren’t as different as evolutionists expected. Brown writes, “Scientists have long known that regardless of ancestral home or ethnic group, everyone’s genes are pretty much alike. We’re all Homo sapiens. Everything else is pretty much details.” Brown identifies skin color as the “most obvious” of these details. Of course, that reflects what creationists have emphasized, but differs from what some evolutionists originally preached (see Darwin’s Plantation for more). He goes on, “Population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences . . . [but] that’s not what scientists have found. Dramatic genome variation among populations turns out to be extremely rare.”

The entire study reminds us of how the variation we see among human populations today could have arisen as our forbears left Babel. Genetic drift and natural selection played important roles over time, which is why any two humans randomly selected may differ in stature, skin color, disease susceptibility, lactose tolerance, and so forth—even while all of us remain entirely and equally human. The Bible’s message in Acts 17:26—that we are all of one blood, descendants of Adam through Noah—is a powerful truth explaining our world.

Two false gospels: Daughters of Augustine, Part One

I've been looking into the doctrines of Calvinism off and on during this same time that I've also been studying Roman Catholicism, and today I again came across this statement about Calvinism here
by Pastor David Cloud of Way of Life Literature:

Thus, while I have not read every book on this subject that could be recommended by my readers, I have made a considerable effort to understand Calvinism properly and not to misrepresent it (though I have learned that a non-Calvinist will ALWAYS be charged with misrepresentation).

The Calvinist will doubtless argue that I simply don’t understand Calvinism properly, and to this I reply that if Calvinism is that complicated it can’t be the truth. If a reasonably intelligent preacher who has studied and taught the Bible diligently for 32 years and has published a Bible encyclopedia and many other Bible study books can study Calvinism with a desire to understand it properly and still not understand it, then it is far too complicated to be the truth! The apostle Paul warned that it is the devil that makes theology that complicated. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). Of course, Calvinism is not simple by any means and this is one reason why it produces an elitist mentality. To understand Calvinism one must deal with compatibalism, monergism versus synergism, electing grace vs. irresistible grace, effectual calling vs. general calling, effective atonement vs. hypothetical atonement, libertarian free will vs. the bondage of the will, objective grace and subjective grace, natural ability and moral ability, mediate vs. immediate imputation of Adam’s sin, supralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, infralapsarianism, desiderative vs. decretive will, and antecedent hypothetical will, to name a few!

This statement reminded me of a statement I made to Elena (who is a Roman Catholic) about Roman Catholicism under the comment section on my post called 'Pastor Tony Bartolucci on Francis Beckwith: Drowning in the Tiber.' I had commented to Elena that I have been studying Roman Catholicism consistently for months, and on and off for several years, and she, apparently believing that Roman Catholicism is impossible to understand without years of study, or by those who do not adhere to it's tenets, said: " ooooo!! Months huh? Honey, you haven't even scratched the surface." My reply was:

That's arrogant, Elena. If it takes years to understand enough about the RCC to know whether or not it teaches the true gospel, then we are all hopeless, Elena. If the RCC teachings are so hard to understand that a normal person, a born again person like me, can't understand them when comparing them to scripture then the RCC teachings are definitely not the gospel, because the gospel is simple and concise. I don't need to study for twenty years and have an advanced degree in theology to be able to compare doctrines to scripture. All believers are told to do this, to beware of false teachings, and we all can do it in days or weeks if we prayerfully study with the help of the Spirit who teaches believers.

I have been coming to the conclusion that both Roman Catholicism and Calvinism are false doctrines, and both,coincidentally(?), descending at least in part from Augustine of Hippo.

Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome: The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle-- By Bob DeWaay

Here is a message by Bob DeWaay on why evangelicals are returning to the Roman Catholic church. Following is the introduction to the message.

The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”2 Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers.” This he claims shows that, “Christ is guiding the process.”3

Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.

Here is the conclusion to the message, but please go to the link above to read the entire article.

Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things are invisible.

But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)? Why have the scriptures of the Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continue to speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews are striking. Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences?

I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology. If my Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.

The Prophetic Calling of Every Believer by Bob DeWaay

In this article by Pastor Bob DeWaay, he teaches about the prophetic authority given to each believer by the Holy Spirit to speak God's word from the scriptures. Following is an excerpt from the message. Please go to the link to read the entire article.

“Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” (1Thessalonians 5:19-22)

Paul instructs us to take prophetic utterances seriously. To “despise” means to treat with “dismissive disdain.”1 In 1Corinthians 14:31, Paul wrote, “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted.” He spoke, not about utterances of official authoritative prophets, but about prophetic utterances that could be given by any member of the congregation.

Today many are confused about the meaning of the term “prophecy” as it was used in the 1st century church, and what, if anything, it is in the church today. Some assume that prophesies were spontaneous, “ecstatic utterances” caused by the Holy Spirit. Some, who hold this view, believe that these utterances have ceased. Others hold the same view, but believe that these ecstatic utterances are also for the church today. Still others believe that prophecy in the first century was the Holy Spirit giving inspired revelation that was necessary to fill in the gap caused by the incomplete canon of the New Testament. Those who hold this latter view generally say that all prophecy has ceased.2

Here is what I believe: that prophecy, as addressed by the passages above, is to proclaim valid implications and applications of authoritative Scripture. Under the New Covenant, every redeemed child of God has the Holy Spirit, and therefore may prophesy. This is an implication of Peter's citation of Joel in Acts 2:17—rather than the Holy Spirit only coming upon certain persons as under the Old Covenant, He indwells every true New Covenant believer. This is why they “may all prophesy” as Paul wrote.