Matti Friedman of the Associated Press filed this portion of a news story on Monday, February 22, 8:07 pm Eastern Standard time.

"JERUSALEM – An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era. If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century BC. That's a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible's account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time."

Once more the credibility of the Bible is being authenticated. While the Bible has many liberal critics within the church and more skeptics outside, it continues to stand the test of scrutiny of objective investigation. Indeed, Christianity is the only major religion that basis its foundational validity on a historical fact, the resurrection. The hearts of Christians everywhere should rejoice, not because the spade of the archeologist has confirmed Scriptural data, but because God has spoken to humanity and given us a sure Word of prophecy. I am reminded of A. Z. Conrad's poem, There It Stands:

"Century follows century—there it stands.
Empires rise and fall and are forgotten—there it stands.
Dynasty succeeds dynasty—there it stands.
Kings are crowned and uncrowned—there it stands.
Atheists rail against it—there it stands.
Agnostics smile cynically—there it stands.
Profane, prayerless punsters caricature it—there it stands.
Unbelief abandons it—there it stands.
Higher critics deny its claim to inspiration—there it stands.
The flames are kindled about it—there it stands.
The tooth of time gnaws but makes no dent in it—there it stands.
Infidels predict its abandonment—there it stands.
Modernism tries to explain it away—there it stands."

Steve Ray has posted 35 Questions for "Bible Christians". Apparently, he believes these questions expose the internal inconsistencies of Protestantism. TurretinFan has already provided responses to each of these questions which can be found here, but I thought I would add a few comments of my own.

Questions 2: "Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?"

Answer 2: This sort of question seems only relevant to the one who is uncertain about the authority of the Bible. Steve Ray presumably believes in the authority of Scripture so one can only wonder how this is relevant to Protestants and not to Roman Catholics as well. That said, we must bear in mind the Scriptures were not given to us by the will of men, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21). Moreover, the subtle attack on the authority of the Bible appears to stem from an ignorance of the nature of Scripture as being theopnuestos. See part 1 of this series for a further explanation of "God-breathed". 

* * *

Question 3: "Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations of Christians that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

Answer: How do we even know about the apostles if it were not for the "book"? Again, Steve Ray does seem to understand the nature of Scripture, nor does he appear willing to listen to the arguments presented on why the Bible is authoritative.

* * *

Question 4: "Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matt 23:2)?

Answer 4: Classical Protestantism has never rejected oral tradition per se. Instead, Protestants recognize that traditions can originate from the zealous intentions of men, such as the corban rule as discussed in Matthew 15, and as such, all tradition must be tested in light of Scripture. This is the very thing which Jesus did when He was accused of violating the "tradition of the elders". Yet, when accused of violating the purported oral tradition handed down from Moses, Jesus opposed their tradition after testing the corban rule in light of Scripture.  

Steve Ray has posted 35 Questions for "Bible Christians". Apparently, he believes these questions expose the internal inconsistencies of Protestantism. TurretinFan has already provided responses to each of the questions which can be found here, but I thought I would add a few comments of my own. 

Question 1: Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

Answer: If by "Christian faith...exclusively on a book" Steve Ray means to ask why do we believe the Holy Bible is the only certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience that constitutes salvation, the answer is quite simple. Scripture is infallible and inerrant and serves as the guiding rule because it is theopneustos, God breathed (2 Tim 3:16). Meaning, there can be no higher rule of faith because of what it is, the very Word of God. If Tradition cannot be demonstrated to be of the same nature as Holy Scripture, that is, if one cannot prove Tradition is, in and of itself, God-breathed, then it must be subordinated to Scripture. Until someone can prove Tradition is theopneustos, he has no basis to claim it is binding on the conscience of the believer.

The answer, therefore, to the question is simply this: the exclusivity of the "book" in the Christian faith is given preemince because it is God-breathed. There is no other authority on earth that supersedes the very Word of God.

For those who might be struggling with the intellectual assaults of liberalism upon the reliability of the Bible, or from the audacious presumption of cults, like the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) or the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) regarding Scripture, and yet desire to have a fuller understanding of Jesus, it is important first to remember the Lord’s view of Scripture. Once we understand how Christ viewed the Hebrew canon (since there was no New Testament at the time of Jesus), we will be able to see just how biased against Scripture both are and realize how far their view is from that of Jesus. 

Neither liberal scholars nor the cults have a sufficient view of God’s Word. Meaning, the former approach the Bible as if it is merely another ancient document to be examined using the same methodological approach as one would use when dealing with the works of Homer, Plato, or Plutarch. The presupposition liberal scholars bring to textual criticism is that the Bible—much like many other ancient documents—has been transmitted to us via an extensive redaction or editing process and is the compilation of various stories and myths acquired through the centuries. Likewise, the cultic view of the Bible, while perhaps not as radical, is just as skeptical. Each group touts their own "inspired writings," and in so doing, arbitrarily dismisses the Scripture in places that contradict the tenets of their faith. That said, the conservative Christian can find no greater comfort and security for faith than to remember our Lord’s view of the Word of God when attempts are made to impugn the inspiration of Scripture.

1. Jesus believed the Scriptures were historically accurate.

Item. Jesus believed in the story of creation which includes the life of Abel.

· Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel [Genesis] unto the blood of Zacharias [2 Chronicles], which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Special note. In the Hebrew canon, Genesis is the first book of the Bible and 2 Chronicles is the last. Jesus is saying that He believed the Scriptures completely. It is also here worth mentioning that this verse is relevant to point out the extent of the Old Testament canon, which Jesus and His disciples used and believed was "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16)—a canon that did not include the books commonly referred to as the "Apocrypha".

Item. In matters of eternal judgment Jesus appealed to Scripture as a basis for His teaching. See also Matthew 11:23-24.

· Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Item. Jesus believed in the historical figures and used them to validate His divinity.

· John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Item. Jesus believed in the unusual story of Lot and mentions Lot’s wife who was turned into stone. Jesus did not merely accommodate erroneous beliefs in order to make a point. He believed the reality of the inspiration of Scripture.

· Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Item. Jesus mentions both the Elijah and Elisha who performed many miracles. He authenticated their lives and ministry.

· Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; 26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

Item. Jesus believed in the story of Jonah and the whale and used that narrative to teach about His own resurrection.

· Matthew 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

2. Jesus believed the Scriptures were accurate in regards to authorship.

Item. When speaking about divorce, Jesus acknowledged what Moses wrote in the law.

· Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Item. Jesus declared that David wrote Psalm 110:1.

· Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

· Psalms 110:1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Item. Jesus believed in the harmony of the Scriptures for He embraced both accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 as the Word of God. Modern scholarship believes these chapters are contradictory. Jesus believed otherwise.

· Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read [in Genesis 1:27], that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said [in Genesis 2:24], For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Item. Jesus did not believe that the Scriptures became the Word of God and He experienced them. He believed the Scriptures were the literal Word of God.

· Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read [in Genesis 26:24] that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

3. Jesus believed the Scriptures must be fulfilled because they were the Word of God.

· Prior to His death. Mark 14:48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? 49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

· Following His resurrection. Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The First Epistle of John
Written: early date prior to AD 70;
late date c. AD 80-95

Key word: Fellowship

"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."—1 John 1:3

John: The Son of Zebedee

There are several individuals named John (lit. God is gracious) in the New Testament. There is a particular priest named John, who was on the council (before whom Peter and John were brought following the healing of the lame man at the Gate Beautiful, Acts 4:6). There is John Mark who wrote the second Gospel (Acts 12:12,25; 13:5; 15:37). There is John the son of Zechariah, a priest in the lineage of Abia (Luke 1:5), who is known as John the Baptist. His ministry began shortly before that of Christ, in fulfillment of prophecy (Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1). Finally, there is John the son of Zebedee, who became a disciple of Christ. He is the author of five books of the Bible: The Gospel of John, 1–3 John, and Revelation.

The date of writing is placed by scholars either as an early date, prior to AD 70, or as a later date, between AD 80-95. The exact dating of John’s epistles is not so important, except when we consider The Revelation, because only there does the date of writing affect proper interpretation.

John was in Ephesus when he wrote his epistles, serving as the leader of the church there. He thinks of his people as "my little children" (1 John 2:1), a reference to the circle of Gentile believers in Ephesus (5:21).

Why Written: Falsehood versus Fellowship

Similarly to Paul in Colossians, John’s purpose in writing his letters was to combat the rise of Gnosticism, the first major heresy in the early churches (see chapter 14). Gnosticism was a mixture of Greek philosophy, Jewish legalism, and Eastern mysticism. It taught: that matter was evil, that God did not create matter, but that an eon (a spirit) emanated from God until one of "them" created all things. In Gnosticism, angels were worshipped. The followers of this system came to believe that they were spiritually superior to all others, but yet sexual promiscuity was allowed. A dualism was embraced whereby there was a division between the soul and the body: what the body did might be sin, but it did not matter because the soul was pure.

As John wrote to combat the rise of Gnosticism in general, he also wrote to challenge the teaching of Cerenthus in particular. Cerenthus was the first heretic of the early Church. He suggested that the "Christ" was different from "Jesus." The "Christ," he said, was immaterial, sinless, and spiritual perfection. In contrast, "Jesus" was a material, sinful person. The "Christ" came upon "Jesus" at His baptism, but left Him prior to the crucifixion, so that it was the sinful man who 72 died at Calvary. Once, John fled from a bathhouse to which Cerenthus had come, crying out, "The enemy of the truth is within."

These thoughts deny the incarnation, that God became man. They also deny that the God-man died. It is instructive to notice that the denial of the humanity of Christ was challenged at the end of the first century, whereas the denial of the deity of Christ is the challenge to the Church in our day. The teaching of Cerenthus led to Docetism, which taught that Jesus only appeared to be a man. That He only appeared to be real, said Docetism, is confirmed by the life He lived, the

miracles He worked, and the death He died! Surely "God" could not have endured as this, they said. But John and the entire New Testament prove both the deity and the humanity of Christ.

Overview of 1 John

As John wanted to combat Gnosticism (1:1, 3:9, 5:6), he also wanted to accomplish other objectives. He wanted them to know fellowship with God (1:3) and joy as a Christian (1:4). John will teach that true joy does not come from circumstances, but from communion with Christ and other believers. John also wrote so that the Christians should not sin (2:1). Nor should they be deceived. As an apostle, John was determined that all teachers in the churches be tested for the truth (4:1). Chapters 2 and 3 contain over 25 tests which indicate whether or not a ‘professing Christian’ is truly saved. Finally, with a pastor’s heart, John wanted the true believers to have assurance of their salvation (5:11-13).

The Spirit of Anti-Christ

The primary biblical teaching of anti-Christ is found in the epistles of John, for the word only appears in the writings of this apostle.

Four verses set forth the biblical teaching. Anti-Christ is:

a. anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ 1 John 2:22
b. anyone who denies the Father and the Son 1 John 2:23
c. every spirit that does not confess Jesus 1 John 4:3
d. all those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh 2 John :7

An excerpt from Stanford Murrell's The New Covenant in Christ: A Survey of the New Testament

(Click each link to read the associated Bible passages.) 

***********

OUTLINE OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

I.      Introduction: Eternal Life Has Appeared (1:1–4)

II.    Light and Darkness (1:5–2:27)

         A. Walk in the Light (1:5–2:11)

              1. Forgiveness of Sin (1:5–10)
              2. Keeping the Commandments (2:1–6)
              3. Loving the Brother (2:7–11)

         B. Escaping from Sin (2:12–17)

              1. Overcoming the Wicked One (2:12–14)
              2. Overcoming the World (2:15–17)

         C. Counsel for the Last Hour (2:18–27)

              1. Apostasy (2:18–21)
              2. Denial of Christ (2:22–24)
              3. Reminder About the Anointing (2:25–27)

III.   The Life of Righteousness (2:28–4:6)

          A. The Righteousness of God's Children (2:28–3:3)

          B. The Practice of Sin and the Devil (3:4–10)

          C. Love Against Hate (3:11–15)

          D. Love and Generosity (3:16–18)

          E. Assurance (3:19–24)

          F. The Spirit of God and the Antichrist (4:1–6)

IV.    Love is Perfected in Us (4:7–5:12)

          A. God is Love (4:7–21)

          B. Belief and Obedience (5:1–12)

V.      Conclusion (5:13–21)

          A. Prayer for the Sinner (5:13–17)

          B. Life in God (5:18–21) 

There is a spate of anti-biblical and anti-Christian rhetoric dominating the blogosphere, media, and literary world which contends that there is tension between God's moral purity and his love. Such charges are usually brought forth from those who do not understand the God of Christianity or from others who have not taken the time to seriously consider what it is they are arguing.

We currently live in a society that diminishes the seriousness of sin and accentuates the goodness of humans. Oftentimes our thinking goes something like this: If God is loving, how can he send anyone to hell? The purpose is to create a dichotomy in Christian beliefs, but in reality, the charge only serves to neglect the entirety of God’s attributes. If we were to take pause and to think critically about what is being propounded, we would soon discover that we are attacking the character of God.

Keeping in mind that God’s moral purity is comprised of several dimensions, specifically, holiness, righteousness, and justice, how could God have anything but anger towards those who violate his commands? Every day that we do not keep his laws, love him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, love our neighbors as ourselves, love our wives as Christ loved the church, and so on, we violate his holiness. And this neglect is a willful, volitional choice to disobey the commands of the Sovereign of the universe. Our violations are not directed merely against another equal but are a direct affront against a infinite God. His justice—one of the dimensions of his moral purity—therefore, must be satisfied. God cannot merely wink at sin or turn a blind eye, as his nature will not allow for this. Indeed, his wrath against those who violate his law must be placated.

We would do well to remember that God does not conform to some standard, but he is the standard. So by definition whatever God does is holy, just, righteous, pure, etc. When some choose to attack the actions of God, they are judging him from their finite perspective; they are placing him under the microscope and rendering judgment against the infinite. Yet, in spite of God’s absolute and sovereign right to eternally separate all violators of his law, he has chosen to manifest his love by sending his eternal Son to bear the eternal wrath of God in our place. In so doing, Christ serves as a propitiation for our sins, since a finite punishment would never satisfy sin against an infinite Being.

But then some continue to object. Why does God pour out his wrath for eternity against those who did not believe? Is not that excessive and unloving? Two responses come to mind. First, we must always continue to remember that a temporal punishment can never satisfy God’s infinite wrath. Otherwise, why send the Son to bear the sins and wrath of his people? If we could placate the anger of God, expiate for our own sins, we would be left with a deficient view of the atonement and be forced to embrace universalism—to some degree or another. Second, there is no evidence that the denizens of hell ever stop sinning. There is no biblical warrant to conclude that if the inhabitants of hell were released they would bow before the presence of the Almighty. In fact, I would dare suggest that God unleashes his restraining power and allows the depravity of mankind to be manifest, eternally screaming their utter detestation and hatred of God.

The moral purity and loving nature of God, therefore, are wholly compatible and provide no dichotomy when earnestly considered. The more we focus upon God and who he is, the deeper our love and more at awe we should become—both for his majesty and what he saved us from.

Over the years we have received many expressions of appreciation for the work of the ministry. A recent email was particularly touching to my heart because it reminded me that the gospel is going forth in areas of which I was not aware. Indeed, it was a telling reminder that God has His elect from every tribe and language and people and nation. Specifically, we have been able to reach the underground church in the Middle East through our association with Chapel Library in Pensacola, Florida. From where he is currently ministering in Auckland, New Zealand one pastor wrote the following:

Dear Dr. Murrell,

I just received the books and CD’s you sent. I really appreciate your support and love for the ministry. I know God will bless you truly as you serve Him more…I had contacted the underground church…and they are excited knowing you as well. I am really astonished that I am communicating to the author of the other materials we are literally using in Saudi Arabia and Qatar! Yes its true Pastor, we are using your book in church history, "The Glorious Institution: Church History Part 1 and 2. A lot of believers benefited from this material. We downloaded it from Mount Zion web site but we did not realize that they are giving books and materials as well. I will write them an email as well and will follow your instructions…

Many thanks again for your care and love for the ministry.

It is a sobering realization that our brothers and sisters in Christ are risking so much to study the Bible and the history of His church.

Such letters from individuals in persecuting countries crystallize why we do what we do. It is not for love of money. In fact, despite our limited income, all of our material is propagated free of charge. No one who has requested the free materials we offer has ever been denied. RGM was not established for self promotion for the message of the gospel is more important than any man.

The truth of the matter is that we are compelled by the love of Christ to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. We are doing what God has laid upon our hearts to do and will continue to do so in the will of the Lord.

How many people know what the Mass is all about? How many even care? The very idea of discussing its nature and substance has probably already inspired some yawns. There are, however, those who are fascinated by the Mass—some who want to understand the essential difference and others who are perhaps intrigued by its mystique. I once met an Evangelical minister who fell into the latter category.

When I was serving onboard my first ship I worked with a Protestant minister who continually asked the Roman Catholic priest to allow him to celebrate the Mass. The priest, however, refused his repeated requests to participate in the Roman Catholic rite for obvious reasons. I never discovered why his insistence on participating, but am convinced that he did not fully understand what the Mass is all about. Otherwise, I would dare say that he would have been dismayed at the prospect of wanting to partake in such a celebration.

For those unfamiliar with what transpires during the sacrament, John O’Brien, writing in his The Faith of Millions explains:

"When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon on altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man…

…[T]he priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ."

O’Briens’ words should strike the core of every Evangelical. Those who profess a love for and devotion to Calvary must seriously consider what it means to partake of the Eucharist. That O’Brien articulated the idea of the Eucharist as a reoccurring event when Christ is offered as a sacrifice upon the Roman altar, that Christ bows in "humble obedience to the priest’s command," and that Calvary is offered up a thousand times is the practical application of allowing another to define what is white when it is clearly black. That is, when the New Testament writers are not allowed to speak for themselves by defining the meaning and extent of a number of biblical doctrines from the atonement to the Lord’s Supper—all of which are perverted within the Eucharist—then any number of imaginable deceptions take root and are presented as serious dogma, essential in the salvific process of the sinner.

That Rome views the Mass as the same work, that is, a propitiatory sacrifice as Calvary cannot be overstated. The Catechism states that, "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice." Remember that is was Ludwig Ott who summarized the Roman dogma when he wrote that the Mass is a "propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice…[that] possesses a finite external value." One cannot arbitrarily dismiss this teaching as merely a peripheral issue or one that is not central to the gospel of grace. On the contrary. We are, after all, talking about the core of the Christian message, and the idea that Calvary does not perfect for all time those who approach is in contradistinction to God’s Word. It is inconceivable to suggest that the Cross has limited value and that it fails to accomplish what it set forth to do and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Roman "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of Christ is not a finished sacrifice.

If ever there were a more devoted Roman Catholic in all of King George County other my neighbor, she was never to be found. So dedicated was she to keeping her rituals and traditions, she immersed herself in the dogmatic teachings of the Church, spent at least 1/96 of each day in prayer, made daily examinations of conscience, observed liturgical celebrations from the first day of the year’s Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God to the last day’s First Vespers of thanksgiving for the end of the year, prepared feasts for all the saints, adorned her residence with statues and icons, engaged in austere Mariolatry, fashioned rosaries for her family and friends, and most importantly, observed the Mass—all for the sake of meriting eternal salvation. She explained once that a commitment to each of these rituals would help one enter through heaven’s gate, especially the latter. So each day she loaded her van with her kids and took them to the local parish for meditations and the celebration of the Mass.

Day after day, week after week, month after month, she religiously attended the Mass, the "propitiatory sacrifice" for her sins. Over the course of her life she might perhaps approach Calvary nearly twenty thousand times and yet she will always return the next day. Even though she participated in the "most holy sacrament" more times than all the other Roman Catholics I have met combined, it is at least theoretically possible and quite plausible that she could die imperfect and must endure purgatorial cleansing, or worse, commit a mortal sin and die and enemy of God and be eternally separated. Despite the rigid devotion to her traditions, namely, the Mass, she had no assurance that her sins were paid in full, yet she was confident this was the gospel of grace. She was beholden to a system that professed "grace," but new nothing of the sort. If only she recognized that her rigid devotion to performing good works were "as filthy rags," then she might have better understood biblical charis. Lighting candles to Mary, reciting the Rosary in a mantra-like fashion, consuming a wafer god and drinking his blood is no more redemptive than the addition to the Mosaic Law was by the Pharisees. In so doing, they were convinced that their actions were God-honoring, yet Jesus excoriated them by saying, "for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God" (Matt 15:6). Adding anything to the "once for all saints faith" (Jude 1:3) makes "void the word of God," and nullifies the apostolic message.

It is reasonable for one to ask the question: If the Mass removes guilt and takes away sin, why does one keep going? That is, if one can come to Calvary over and over again how can he not be perfected for all time? How is it even possible for the sinner to approach the "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of Christ and still die impure? I would submit to you that these questions become even more haunting when Hebrews 9 and 10 are properly understood and the idea of the Mass if fully comprehended.

It is important to remember the context behind this epistle. Jewish Christians were being tempted to abandon their Christian ideals and return to their former ways in Judaism. It is evident from the language of Hebrews that these Christians were being influenced to return to the Temple and to the synagogues and the sacrifices under the Old Covenant. But in chapters 9 and 10 the author repeatedly demonstrates the superiority and supremacy of Christ and how He was greater than all other priests were. Christ "entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12). Christ’s sacrifice was radically different than the Old Testament offerings in that the former is able to "purify our conscience" (9:14).

Verses 24 through 28 are a comparison and contrast with the Old and the New with Christ bringing to fruition the latter. Christ entered heaven, the dwelling place of God, and presented the completed and perfect sacrifice on our behalf. He does not need to offer the sacrifice repeatedly because of its completion, whereas the high priest entered the holy place every year with "blood not his own".

Christ does not need to endure the passion more than once since His act is sufficient and able to "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself". The sacrifices of the Old Testament were never sufficient to "put away sin" since they had to be repeated over and over. The repetition of the Old sacrifices proved the insufficiency of their offerings and pointed towards a future sacrifice, a better one to come. They were looking for a "single sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:12). The sacrifices were committed again and again, demonstrating that they provided no real and lasting solution to the problem of sin which is why the priest stood "daily at his service" (Heb 10:11), because the priest’s job was never done. Yet, when Christ "offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb 10:12). Here is one of the most beautiful pictures in the Bible. Christ sat down, because His work was completed, a single offering that perfected for all time—the clearest proof that the sacrifice during the Mass is not the same sacrifice pictured in Hebrews.

The writer to the Hebrews pointed out to his readers that the sacrifice of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, was simply an anamnesis, a reminder, of sin. Meaning the sins of the people were not dealt with. The sinner standing before the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement knew the sacrifice would be repeated next year. He understood that it was not a finished sacrifice and that there was more to come. He knew on that day he would be standing in the exact same place the very next year. The sacrifice on the Day of Atonement was not a completed sacrifice—it was only an anamnesis of their sins and that they were not perfected. "But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year" (Heb 10:3). The repetition highlighted the imperfection of the sacrifice under the Old Covenant, and in a similar manner, the repetition of the Mass shows the imperfection and reveals that it is not that one sacrifice for all sins that perfects those for whom it is intended.

What, then, shall we say about its sufficiency? The only logical conclusion in the sacrifice of the Mass is that it is insufficient to accomplish real and lasting redemption otherwise it would not have to be conferred over and over again. Yet the author in Hebrews 10, specifically verses five through nine, goes to painstaking detail to ensure his audience understands the superiority of the final sacrifice and how Christ supersedes the Old Covenant—a covenant that could "never take away sins" (Heb 10:11). But Christ’s sacrifice was different. It was a perfect and completed sacrifice which enabled Him to sit "down at the right hand of God" (Heb 10:12). That final offering needs no further additions nor does it need to be "re-presented" for sinners. The work is accomplished for all time. Just as it is recorded in verses seventeen and eighteen: "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more. Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin." Where there is an offering still being presented, forgiveness is not yet found. However, Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice ushered in the New Covenant and results in the transformation and sanctification of the believer, and in the forgiveness of sins for all time.

The Mass and the work of the Cross are said to be the same, but we can see clearly that they stand at open variance with each other. Rome insists that one can come to Calvary through the Mass thousands of times during his lifetime yet remain unpurified and ultimately die an enemy of the God. In contradistinction to this viewpoint we find the biblical writer of Hebrews who presents the gospel message of grace in and through our great High Priest and His singular sacrifice that has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. The Mass, therefore, simply becomes a reminder of sin and how the sacrifice of that celebration is no greater than the sacrifices under the Old Covenant. The sacrifice of the Mass cannot and will not perfect, because it is not the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary. The inability of the Mass to purify the heart, mind, and soul of the sinner leaves him without the glorious hope of knowing we have a Savior who—as the angel foretold—saved a people from their sins (Matt 1:21). A sacrifice that does not perfect is not the biblical offering of our Lord Jesus Christ.

With that said, Evangelicals do have a reminder in the Lord’s Supper. This one, however, is radically different than the presentation of Rome. Arguably the greatest difference is that we do not suggest that the Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice. Instead, it is an anamnesis, a reminder. The same word used in Hebrews is also used in 1 Corinthians 11 by the apostle. Paul speaks of observing the Lord’s Supper as a reminder—a reminder of what? Of sins? No. Paul quotes from Jesus who said, "Do this in remembrance of me" (italics mine).

Christians do not have an anamnesis, a reminder, of sin, but of a Savoir who bore the sins of His people. We remember the one sacrifice that brought the perfect and complete remission of sins. And that is how we know the Mass is not the same sacrifice.

Indeed, Rome leaves one with a great uncertainty, even after having participated in the sacraments. No where else is this illustrated as clearly as in the words of Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, who wrote the following: "The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification." Those words by Ott crystallize the pains Luther endured. For years he attempted to do everything the Church told him to do in order to achieve justification and peace with God but it was not enough. He never knew if he did enough. Similarly, no Roman Catholic can ever say with the apostle, "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim 1:12). Nor can he have the assurance that John tells us we can have when he writes, "And by this we know that we have come to know him…" (1 John 2:3).

In the final analysis, the Roman Catholic view of grace does not bring about peace with God—the peace which Paul said we have having been justified by faith (Rom 5:1). Even the most devoted and earnest Roman Catholic who is born into the Church of Rome, baptized as an infant, faithfully receives the sacrament of Confirmation (which is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace), celebrates the Eucharist daily, approaches the sacrament of Penance faithfully, and receives Holy Orders, cannot know for certain if all his efforts will yield life in the eternal Kingdom. When the Roman Catholic lays his head on his pillow at night he cannot say for certain if he needs to undergo suffering in purgatory or if he has knowingly or unknowingly committed a mortal sin and is an enemy of God. It is no wonder Luther was plagued with insanity and attempted at all costs to taste that bit of righteousness. The crazed torment he endured was never palliated while he embraced the theology of Rome, and it is understandable when we learn how he lived in constant fear of the wrath of God pouring out upon him—especially since he could never know if "he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification".

The grace of God cannot be reduced to fulfilling certain rituals that purportedly serve as the basis of our justification. Instead, the Christian must stand in awe at the established relationship that God has made available through the eternal love and covenant relationship He had with the other members of the Godhead. We must not let ourselves become prisoners of a servile sacramental system that produces endless fear and perpetual uncertainty. We can come to Him in confidence in knowing that He paid the price for our sins and with the reality that we have access to Him through His Son. We have peace with God having been justified by His blood. Let us remember that each and every time someone attempts to usurp the grace of God and replace it with man-made rituals and take us back under a Law, that cannot save.

Another reader expressed some disconcertment after recently discovering some troubling news about a prominent figure in church history. Believing this individual to be a juggernaut of the Christian faith, this person was somewhat taken aback at discovering previously held beliefs do not always comport with reality. Below is a portion of my response which you may find useful as well.

***********

I can appreciate how shocking it can be to discover the darker side of human nature, especially those figures that played a prominent role in the history of the church. With that said, however, after the initial disappointment, I would submit to you that the mercy of God is seen to be magnified all the more when we realize how gracious God is to fallen humanity. That is, it is particularly remarkable to consider how God redeems His creatures and uses them for extraordinary measures to bring Him glory.

As a person studies church history, I would like to suggest a word of caution, if I may.

There is often an imbalance when investigating the past, and our tendency can be to idolize individuals to the point where we think they can do no wrong. It is easy to gloss over the trouble spots in light of the good. This aspect is not just relegated to church history. It is also found in secular history as well. One particular example that comes to mind is the life of George Washington. Finding numerous websites designed to prove the Christian fervor of Washington is not difficult at all—albeit a task that requires more than the historical record merits, the truth be told.

For example, I noticed one conservative website quote the conclusion of Washington biographer Jared Sparks, who concluded after publishing a 12 volume series that our nation’s first president was a devout Christian. Of course, Sparks, a Unitarian minister, has a different perspective of what a Christian is than the rest of Orthodox Christianity. The problem, however, is that his subjective conclusion does not reflect the actual evidence found in the twenty-eight volumes of Washington’s papers. In them, there is only one reference to Jesus—and that was by accident. So, there is no primary evidence for such a conclusion. Historians can only speculate at best. The search for "true truth", therefore, can thus be elusive.

Then there is the other extreme where some individuals have such an antipathy for church figures that they can do no right. There are some that take this attitude towards Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers.

A third category is to try to discredit everyone no matter what they did, good or bad.

There is another area in the study of church history in which care must be taken. That is, in the matter of labels such as "replacement theology". The label is misleading because there is no "replacement". The concept behind the label contends that the church is the "true Israel of God", not that the church replaced Israel for the church existed before Israel. God has always had a called out assembly of the elect. Perhaps "surpass" would be more applicable, just as a butterfly surpasses a caterpillar—it does not replace it. And so labels too have to be dealt with carefully lest the true position of each camp be misunderstood. Labels such as Calvinism, Arminianism, amillenialism, Dispensationalism, and so on can be misleading. I prefer to discuss the "doctrines of grace" rather than the term "Calvinism", though a Calvinist I am when properly understood.

And we have yet to mention movements that come and go. Modern day movements would include the Charismatics (The Third Wave), New Covenant Theology, Preterism (full and partial)—and the list goes on and on.

It takes a lot of years and hard work to sort all of this out—but the time spent is well worth the effort.