Problems with the Mary of Roman Catholicism


Problems with the Mary of Roman Catholicism

She is called The 2nd Eve

Let Us Reason Ministries

Since through Eve the original fall occurred it is through the 2nd woman mankind would be restored. There is no term for a second Eve, but there is a last Adam. In 1 Cor.15. Jesus is called this because both Adam and He had a supernatural birth. God blamed Adam for the fall; Jesus brings us back from the fall to restore us to God (not Mary).

Eve had other children, Eve also fell before she had other children; Eve had sin. If there is any correlation, so did Mary. Yet Catholics deny Mary had a family. Some Catholics even claim Mary was the first Christian; the very definition of being a Christian means one is a sinner in need of a Savior. To say this means she is sinful not sinless. Something the Mary of the Scripture would agree with but the Catholic church does not. Yet Scripture records she said, I rejoice in God my savior..

NAMES OF MARY

The Church calls Mary the “inexpressible gift of the Almighty,” (384)

The Bible in Jn.3:16 says, Christ is the gift from the Father. This is high treason to compete Mary to Jesus her creator.

Rom. 5:15: “… the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.”

Rom. 5:18: “so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.”

Rom. 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

2 Cor. 9:15: “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!”

In Catholicism Mary is called the “Cause of Our joy,” (385)

The Bible-Rom. 14:17, “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Ps 16:11, “in Your presence is fullness of joy.”

Mary is called the “Gate of Heaven,”(387 )

The Bible-Jesus said in Jn.14:6 he is the way (the gate) Jesus says in Jn.10:2, He is the shepherd of the gate if anyone tries to come up any other way they are a thief and a robber.

Mary is called the “Morning Star,”(386)

The Bible-in Rev 22:16, “I, Jesus, … I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”

Mary is the “Mother of Mercy (2677)

The Bible-In 2 Corinthians 1:3God is the “Father of mercies.” Paul writes in 2 Tim 1:2,” To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.”

The same is written to Titus 1:4. Speaking of Christ Heb. 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat Heb. 4:16 the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. 2 Jn. 1:3, “ Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:21: “looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.”

Mary is called the “Refuge of Sinners (388)

The Bible-Ps 9:9, “The LORD also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble.” Ps. 31:2, “deliver me speedily; be my rock of refuge, a fortress of defense to save me.” Mt.11:22 “Jesus says come unto him.” Nowhere does he ever hint to go through his mother to get to him.

Mary is called “Our Lady of Perpetual Help”( 389 )

The Bible-Ps 46:1: God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”

Mary with Christ, is said to be “… the instrument and guardian of our salvation” (390)

The Bible-Ps 3:8 Salvation belongs to the LORD. Your blessing is upon Your people. Selah Ps 38:22 Make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation!

Luke 2:30: “For my eyes have seen Your salvation” (speaking of Jesus)

Acts 4:12: ,”Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Rom. 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.”

The Church promises that “all those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity.”(391)

The Catholic church teaches that one should entrust themselves to Mary, surrendering “‘the hour of our death’ wholly to her care.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, (2677)

The Church describes Mary as the “Seat of Wisdom. (397 The Scriptures describe God as the source of all wisdom (James 1:5). The Church says that Mary is the “Mother of the living.(398) The Bible says that God is the God of the living (Mark 12:27).

Mary, according to the Church, is “‘the All-Holy’ (Panagia)”(493) God dwells in perfect holiness seated on a throne guarded by Seraphim (Isaiah 6:1-3).

Therefore the blessed Virgin is invoked in the church under the titles of ADVOCATE, HELPER, BENEFACTRESS, AND MEDIATRIX” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 62, pp. 382-383).

The Bible-1 Tim 2:5 “ For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

Heb 8:6 inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.”

Heb 9:15” He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death.” “To Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 12:24)

Mary did not die for your sins so she cannot be called a mediator for the redemption of sins in anyway shape or fashion. It is wrong to apply to her what only Jesus, the God/man could do.

“ And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
(I Jn. 2:1) Mary cannot be your advocate because she does not have the righteousness required.

Everything that is applied to God and Christ the Catholic church applies to Mary also. The implications of this position soon become evident, we now have a woman whom their Church has exalted above every other creature. If she has all the attributes of God then she must be God. If she is not God then why does she have all His attributes? The only missing attributes are that she is eternal, omnipresent, but that may soon be forthcoming. The only way to come to the truth is to look to The Bible which records what God had said, since He does not lie.

Mary the Ark

Some have gone as far as to claim Mary is a type of the Ark of the Covenant. Jn.1:14 the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory. In the Greek the word dwelt is skeinoo from the Hebrew word shekinah which was the word for God residing in the tabernacle. Jesus clothed himself in human flesh Phil.2:5-8, the ark was His body it had carried the creator of the universe. It was not Mary who was the ark Jesus’ body was the tabernacle. Mary is not the fullness of Graces the scripture is clear on this particular matter. The law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ and it does state of his fullness we have received grace by grace. (Titus 2:11) For the grace of God has appeared to all men. Through all of the letters we find Grace to you and peace from God our father and the lord Jesus Christ. There is no Mary involved in dispensing grace.

Mother of God

Mary appears only four times in Scripture and her words are recorded in only one of the occasions Jn.2:11. She appears only twice in the public ministry of Jesus Mt.12:46-50.

She is titled by the RCC  as “…the mighty Mother of God.( 395) “Virgin Most Powerful.(394) The power “…in her hands is all but unlimited. (396)

The Roman Catholic view is God the Father and Mary. As God is our Father, “Mary is our Mother.(392 ) Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father, so Mary remained a virgin her whole life that Jesus might be the “only-begotten son of His Mother. (393) He is then the only begotten of the father and Mary.

But here is no such thing in Scripture, since God has no mother, Mary is the mother of his flesh body only, since He pre-existed before He came to earth as her creator.

The Catholic argument is since Jesus is God, Mary is the mother of Jesus, therefore she is the mother of God. It is not the title of Mother of God that is contrary to Scripture as much as the meaning that is poured into it. Mary is the mother of Jesus humanity only. Yet He is one person, which has two natures. When we think of God He is triune, certainly Mary is not the mother of the trinity, Father, Son and Comforter. Jesus before He came to earth was her creator. For her to actually be the mother of God she would have needed to exist alongside Him before He came to earth. The title mother of God is not found in Scripture nor is it insinuated to be taught. Jesus never called Mary his mother, but woman. How does one give her titles that the Holy Spirit has not revealed to us in Scripture or said by Jesus. This can certainly be misleading, and needs to be better qualified otherwise one might consider the eternal God has a eternal mother. It would be beneficial to Catholics instead of arguing Mary is the mother of God, to say the son who created her chose her to be his earthly mother.

The Catholic teaching is Mary is the Mother of the Church. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 963, 975)

But the very scripture they use for Peter being the Pope refutes this. Mt.16:16 Jesus said “I will build my church…” Jesus owns and builds the church, the Bible says He is the head of the church and shares this position with no one. Col.1:18: “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He preeminent.” Eph. 5:27, “that He might present her (the church) to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.” Eph. 5:23, “as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” In the book of revelation he addresses the churches not Mary.

When Jesus rose from the dead he didn’t appear to Mary His mother but instead to Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mary is another member of the church, she is not put in a special place above any.( Acts 1:14; I Corinthians 12:13, 27) She was not made an apostle and she stayed in the upper room with the rest of the disciples to receive the Holy Spirit.

The Bible does not teach Mary is our mother, Paul writes in Gal. 4:24-27 “for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children– but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written: “Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband.”

Praying to her

The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name…above every name, that at Thy name, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.” (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, p. 260).

Phil.2 “Every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

Pope Pius the 12th “Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and glory and might, she is exalted to hypostatic union with the blessed Trinity.” This hypostatic union makes her part of the Godhead.

How different is the Biblical portrayal of Jesus to Mary?

Ps. 21:5, “His glory is great in Your salvation; honor and majesty You have placed upon him.”

Ps. 8:5, “For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor.”

John 5:23, “that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Rev. 5:12, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing!”

Rev. 19:1, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God!”

“The Holy Church commands a worship peculiar to Mary “ (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri p. 130).

The bible says only God is to be worshipped, if you worship any saint it is idolatry.

Many things…are asked from God, and are not granted; they are asked from Mary, and are obtained, for She…is even Queen of Hell, and Sovereign Mistress of the Devils.” (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931). pp. 127, 141, 143).

John 14:13-14”And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. John 15:16 “that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.” John 16:23 “whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you.” Nowhere are we told to pray to anyone but God.

Queen of Heaven

Pius the 12th 1950 said of Mary “reigns in heaven with her son.”

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth (966). She is to be praised with special devotion. Catechism of the Catholic Church, (2675)

The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth. (Psalms 148:13).

The Catholic Church has made Mary the “Queen of Heaven”. The mention of the “queen of heaven” in the Bible makes God angry, it is not a good thing for the simple reason there is no biblical queen. The similarities of the practices of these people who worshipped her in the OT and the Catholic Church are not to be overlooked.

Jeremiah 7:18, “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes (wafers?) to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings (wine) unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” Why would God be angry? Because He is a jealous God, and does not want any false replacements.

Jeremiah 44:15-25, “Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not harken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense (candles, worship?) unto the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes (wafers) to WORSHIP HER, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men? Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.”

The word to make cakes in Hebrew atsab has the connotation of carving in worship, this was done by the women. They were in rebellion to God, notice they say, “for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not harken unto thee.” They didn’t listen, without obedience to the word they went into idolatry. Incense, burnt drink offerings made her cakes and worshiped her. As Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun. False worship is practiced today and is just as wrong as when this was written. As we can see the Queen of heaven is not a good thing but a rebuke.

There is no Queen mentioned in Scripture, but we do have a King.

Mary never had so many problems until the Roman Catholic church gave her the offices and positions that God did not.

GRACE FROM MARY

Leo the 12th 1891 “nothing according to the will of God comes to us except through Mary”

“No grace is bestowed upon man without her intercessory cooperation she is the mediator of all graces by her intercession in heaven.”

The Bible teaches Jn.1 “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” v.16 “and of his fulness we have all received and grace by grace.”

Throughout the Scripture we find grace coming from Jesus Christ and God the father there is no Mary mentioned, a strange omission if it is true. Grace comes from God and Jesus Christ, this is why there is no other included (Gal.1:3; 6:18; 2 Cor.13:14; Phil.4:23; 1Thess1:1,4:28; 2 Thess.1:2, 1 Tim.1:2; 2 Tim.1:2; Philemon 25.)

1 Pt.3:18 Nowhere does it say it comes from Mary. Grace is found in God and through the Gospel; the correct one. (Acts 20:24). No gospel of salvation– then there is no grace.

Those who know and have experienced Gods grace and mercy certainly don’t look to Mary for this. No apostle did, neither does the Bible teach this. So why are Catholics practicing this?

Salvation found in Mary?

Mary is called…the gate of heaven because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her (p. 160). The way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary, and since our salvation is in the hands of Mary…he who is protected by Mary will be saved, he who is not will be lost” (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri, Redemptorist Fathers, 1931 p. 169-170).

The Bible says Jesus is the gate, the way, the door, anyone else who comes up another way is a thief.

“Taken up to heaven she [Mary] did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…” [new Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 252, number 969]

Pius IX, Ubi Primum, 1849: For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that THROUGH HER are obtained every hope, every grace, and ALL SALVATION. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.

Peter who Catholics claim is there first Pope stated Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation IN ANY OTHER ( not Mary either): for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” If they were in the first century would they listen to Peter or their Church?

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 618, 964, 968, 970) “All power is given to thee in Heaven and on earth, so that at the command of Mary all obey-even God…and thus…God has placed the whole Church…under the dominion of Mary” (pp. 180-181). “Mary is also the Advocate of the whole human race…for she can do what she wills with God” (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, p. 193).

The Bible-Ps 49:7-8 “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him–For the redemption of their souls is costly, and it shall cease forever.”

The Bible teaches Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin. I Peter 1:18,19. It is an Enigma that the church that claims to have given the world the Bible, now ignores its teachings the most.

Mary is the co-Mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 968-970, 2677)

Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and prayers to. The Scripture says, “ cast your cares upon him.” He alone sends the Holy Spirit. I Timothy 2:5; John 14:13,14; I Peter 5:7. This is a affront to the very work and purpose of the savior.

Bishop Alphonse de Liquori The Glories of Mary p.160 “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.”

The Bible– John 10:9: “And being made perfect, He became the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him.” “I AM the Door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9). John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “ I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, BUT BY ME. “Who are we to believe? The Church who leads people away from the Son or the Son who leads people to the Father.” There is but one way and it is by Christ alone, not the Church. The true Church proclaims Christ alone by faith and by the Scripture. If they do not do this can they be God’s Church?

MARY AND THE EUCHARISTIC CONNECTION


How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? – Hebrews 10:29 (NIV)

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.- Hebrews 6:4-6 (NIV)


MARY AND THE EUCHARISTIC CONNECTION

The Myth of Mary Continues To Grow

By Rebecca A. Sexton – Former Catholics For Christ
www.cuttingedge.org

As a Catholic, I had often heard that Mary was the “Co-Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptress” of the faith. Roman Catholicism teaches that all graces flow through Mary, and this includes the sacrament of the Eucharist. But it wasn’t until I purchased and read a small book called, Jesus Our Eucharistic Love, that I realized the “inseparable” connection between Rome’s “Mary” and the Eucharist. Theologians and saints are quoted in this book by “Father” Stephano Manelli, O.F.M. Conv., S.T.D., and it has been published in several different languages from the original Italian. It has the “imprimitur” by Antonius Zama, vic. Generalis Neapoli, die21 Aprilia 1973, and the “nihil obstat and imprimitur” from P. Antonius M. Di Monda, min.pov. Neapoli, 1973. It is put out by “Our Blessed Lady of Victory Mission”.

According to Manelli:

“Many Saints and theologians (St. Pater Damien, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernadine …) say that Jesus instituted the Eucharist above all for Mary and then through Mary, the Universal Mediatrix of All Graces, for all of us” (107).

In the Biblical account of the last supper, Mary is not present. Since it is the teaching of Roman Catholicism that Jesus instituted the Mass at the last supper, then it would seem reasonable to question Mary’s absence from it especially if it were instituted “for Mary and then through Mary”. Romans 11:36 tells us:

“For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” It would also seem reasonable to question how she is present at each Mass. Since Mary is not omnipresent, as admitted by RCC, how then can one be sure that she is there to mediate the graces that flow through the Mass? Yet, from a child, the Catholic religion would teach us to go through Mary to get to Jesus. According to My Catholic Faith, page 312, we read:

Children receiving Holy Communion ought to think of themselves approaching to take the Child Jesus from the arms of our Blessed Lady.”

If the Mass was instituted at the last supper, why are children being taught that they “ought to think of themselves approaching to take the Child Jesus from the arms” of Mary? Jesus was a 33 year old man when the last supper took place, not a young child in His mother’s arms. This has to be very confusing in the mind of a child.

Let’s examine just how the Catholic church, her saints and theologians feel Mary is present in the Eucharist. On page 106-107 of Jesus Our Eucharistic Love, we read:

“The Holy Eucharist is the Bread that comes from our Heavenly Mother. It is Bread produced by Mary from the flour of Her immaculate flesh, kneaded into dough with her virginal milk. St. Augustine wrote, ‘Jesus took His Flesh from the flesh of Mary’. We know, too, that united to the Divinity in the Eucharist there is Jesus’ Body and Blood taken from the body and blood of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore at every Holy Communion we receive, it would be quite correct, and a very beautiful thing, to TAKE NOTICE OF OUR HOLY MOTHER’S SWEET AND MYSTERIOUS PRESENCE, INSEPARABLY UNITED WITH JESUS IN THIS HOST. Jesus is always the Son She adores. He is Flesh of Her flesh and Blood of Her blood. If Adam could call Eve when she had been taken from his rib, ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ (Gen. 2:23), cannot the holy Virgin Mary even more rightly call Jesus ‘Flesh of my flesh and Blood of my blood’? Taken from the ‘intact Virgin’ as says St. Thomas Aquinas, the flesh of Jesus is the maternal flesh of Mary, the blood of Jesus is the maternal blood of Mary. Therefore it will never be possible to separate Jesus from Mary. For this reason at every Holy Mass which is celebrated, the Blessed Virgin can repeat with truth to Jesus in the Host and in the Chalice, “You are my Son today I have generated you” (Ps.2:7). And justly St. Augustine teaches us that in the Eucharist “Mary extends and perpetuates Her Divine Maternity”, while St. Albert the Great exhorts with love, ‘My Soul if you wish to experience intimacy with Mary let yourself be carried between Her arms and nourished with Her blood’ … Go with this ineffable chaste thought to the banquet of God and you will find in the Blood of the Son the nourishment of the Mother.”

I’d like to start by commenting on their misuse of Psalms 2:7. The King James Bible reads: “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Notice that the scriptures clearly say that it is the LORD speaking and not Mary. How then can Manelli (a Catholic priest) teach that those words can or are spoken by Mary at every Mass? Was it not the Father that had begotten His own Son? Could Mary have done the same? Does Mary have the ability to “generate” life within herself? Of course not!!!! She is not God, and it is erroneous for Manelli to apply that verse to Mary.

It is equally erroneous to say:

“Furthermore, if we reflect that Jesus, the Fruit of Mary’s immaculate womb, constitutes Mary’s love, all of Her sweetness, all of Her tenderness, Her whole riches, Her whole life, then we see that when we receive Him we cannot fail to also receive Her who, by ties of the highest love, as well as by ties of flesh and blood, forms with Jesus one unity, one whole, as She is always and inseparably “leaning upon Her Beloved” (cant. 8:5)” (ibid. 108)

It was not Mary’s love that saved mankind, but “…God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) Neither is there any evidence from scripture that to receive Christ is to receive Mary. The scriptures clearly teach Christ came

“To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” (Gal.4:5-7)

Here we see there is no mention of Mary’s spirit, but rather it is the Spirit of his Son that comes into our hearts. Neither is there mention of us crying out to Mary, but rather, we cry “Abba Father”. Eph 2:18 says “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Notice “one Spirit”…not two spirits! And again in Eph.4:4, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling”. 1 Cor.12:13 says, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” Seeing that Jesus is omnipresent, we are assured that His Spirit is everywhere, but Mary is not omnipresent, and her spirit cannot dwell in those who call on her! Yet, we read in Legio Mariae, pages 206-207:

“From the moment when she conceived the Son of God in her womb, Mary possessed, so to speak, a certain authority or jurisdiction over every temporal procession of the Holy Ghost, in such sort that no creature receives any grace from God except through her mediation…ALL THE GIFTS AND VIRTUES AND GRACES OF THE SAME HOLY SPIRIT ARE ADMINISTERED BY HER TO WHOM SHE PLEASES, WHEN SHE PLEASES, AND IN THE QUANTITY AND MANNER SHE PLEASES .”

The Bible is very clear the it is God who dispenses the gifts, “…dividing to every man severally as he will.” (1Cor.12:11) Seems that Catholicism knows no bounds when it comes to lying against the scriptures. Mannelli goes on to say:

“When we go before Jesus on the altar, we ALWAYS FIND HIM ‘WITH MARY HIS MOTHER’…St. Augustine beautifully illustrates even better how MARY MAKES HERSELF OUR OWN AND UNIFIES HERSELF TO EACH ONE OF US IN HOLY COMMUNION. ‘The Word is the Food of the angels. Men have not the strength to feed it to themselves, nor need they do so. What is needed is a mother who may eat this supersubstantial Bread transform it into her milk and in this way feed her poor children. This mother is Mary. She nourishes Herself with the Word and transforms It into the Sacred humanity. She transforms It into Flesh and Blood, I.e., into this sweetest of milk which is called the Eucharist.”

1 John 5 tells us that there are three that bear witness in heaven, “Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Where is the mention of Mary here? If RCC is correct, and Mary is in heaven sitting on the throne as “Queen of Heaven” and Mediatrix of all graces, then why is there no mention of her as a witness in heaven? Yet RCC would have us believe that Mary is in hypostatic union with the Godhead and inseparable in all His workings of grace. “St.” Pater Damian went so far as to say that “the Son in His turn gives Himself wholly to the Mother, making Himself similar to Her and making Her fully Godlike”(109). “Fully Godlike”? Does that mean she isn’t lacking in any of the qualities and attributes of God? God says, “ To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.” (Isa.40:25) And again in Isa 46:5, “To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?” Yet for all the rebukes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #460 has no problem teaching that “The Son of God became man so that we might become God…the only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he made man, might make men gods.“ Is it any wonder why Manelli feels comfortable saying Mary is “fully Godlike“?

One more point should be made. Manelli quotes “St.” Augustine who claimed men are not able to feed themselves, so Mary has to nourish us. Eph.5:29 says, “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” It is the Lord Jesus who nourishes us. He prepared a banquet and invited all men to come and eat. There simply is no scripture to support Mary as the one who nourishes the true church.

In Jesus Our Eucharistic Love, page 108, Manelli goes on to say:

“Is it not true that love, and above all divine love, unites and unifies? And aside from the Unity in the bosom of the Blessed Trinity, can we think of a unity more close and total than that between Jesus and the Virgin Mary? Mary’s purity, Her virginity, Her tender ways, Her sweet manner, Her love, and even the very features of Her heavenly face — all these we find in Jesus; for the most holy humanity assumed by the Word is wholly and only Mary’s humanity, on account of the great mystery of the virginal Conception accomplished by the Holy Spirit, Who made Mary, Jesus’ Mother, while consecrating Her as a Virgin that would be forever undefiled and glorious in soul and body. And thus “The Eucharist,” writes St. Albert the Great, “produces impulses of a love that is angelic, and It has the unique power to put in souls a holy feeling of tenderness toward the Queen of Angels. She has given us what is Flesh of Her flesh and Bone of Her bone, and in the Eucharist She continues to give us this sweet, virginal, heavenly banquet.” Here we have Catholicism admitting that their Eucharist will produce “impulses of a love that is angelic” towards Mary. Then they pervert the word of God to make Mary the one who gives “flesh of HER FLESH and bone of HER BONE”. This is an obvious twisting of scriptures. Eph.5:30-32 clearly teaches:

“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

Before we are finished, the RCC will be trying to tell us that it was Mary’s blood that was poured out on Calvary instead of our Lord Jesus Christ’s blood. Well…surprise…that’s exactly what they were bold enough to say! Just listen to this quote from Legio Mariae (Legion of Mary):

“It was first from HER VEINS THAT THE BLOOD WAS DRAWN WHICH NOW LIES SCATTERED CHEAPLY ABOUT, BUT WHICH HAS RANSOMED THE WORLD….That Precious Blood will henceforth flow through the Mystical Body, forcing life, so to speak, into every crevice of it…In that moment, those Sacred Hearts [Jesus and Mary] entered into a union so close as to approach IDENTITY. Henceforth, they will beat together in and for the Mystical Body. Thereby Mary has become the Mediatrix of all graces, the Spiritual Vessel which receives and gives Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood.” (164-165)

That statement alone is enough to expose Roman Catholicism as a cult. May I add, that the book from which it comes, Legio Mariae, has the endorsement of Pope Pius XI (Sept.16, 1933), Pope Pius XII (July 22, 1953), Pope John XXIII (Mar.19, 1960) and Pope Paul IV (Jan.6, 1965), so it is not some book no one ever heard of. Yet several popes endorsed and recommended this garbage. What a lack of discernment, and a total disregard for the evidence in the scriptures. They are without excuse and so are those that blindly follow them.

According to Manelli, there is a monstrance (a stand that holds the Eucharist when it is on display, usually made of gold) made in the figure of Mary carrying the Eucharist in her breast and contains the words, “O Christian who comest full of faith to receive the Bread of life, eat it worthily, and remember that it as fashioned out of Mary’s pure blood” (Jesus Our Eucharistic Love, 113).

Padre Pio of Pietrelcina would sometimes say to his “spiritual children”, “Do you not see the Madonna always beside the tabernacle?” How so? Is she omnipresent? Is she there at every altar? St. Alphensus Liguori, in his book of devotions, used to always join a visit to the “Virgin Mary” to each visit to Jesus in the “Holy Eucharist”. How could Liguori be sure that Mary was there to appreciate his “visit”? Saint Maximilian M. Kolbe asked to recommend that:

“When we go before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, we never fail to remember Mary’s presence, calling on Her and associating ourselves with Her, at least seeing to it that Her sweet name comes to mind”. The word of God says in Col.3:17, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.”

“In the life of the Dominican friar, St. Hyacinth, we read that once in order to avoid a profanation of the Blessed Sacrament, the Saint hastened to the tabernacle to take out the ciborium [resembles the chalice except with a cover] containing the sacred Particles [In Roman Catholicism it is believed that every crumb that falls from the host is the “whole and entire Christ”], in order to put it in a safer place. When, hugging Jesus in the Eucharist close to his breast, he was about to leave the altar, he heard a voice coming from the statue of the Blessed Virgin which was next to the altar saying, ‘What? Would you take Jesus away without taking me?’ The Saint halted in surprise. He understood the message, but he did not know how he could manage to carry Mary’s statue too. Puzzled, he drew near the statue to see if he could take it with his one free hand. There was no need to strain himself, for the statue became as light as a feather. There is a precious lesson in this miracle: When we take Mary along with Jesus, she adds absolutely no weight or cost, for in a wonderful way they abide in one another (John 6:57)” (Jesus Our Eucharistic Love, Manelli, 109-110).

I’m not sure why they used John 6:57 as a proof text in their fable. It would have been more honest for them to have used 1Tim.1:4, “Neither give heed to fables….” When someone put the question to St. Bernadette Soubirous, “What would please you more, to receive Holy Communion, or to see the Madonna in the grotto?”, she replied, “What a strange question! The two cannot be separated. Jesus and Mary always go together.” It is evident that Mary and the Catholic Eucharist are intricately entwined, they cannot be separated. As Manelli says, “The Madonna and the Holy Eucharist are by the nature of things united inseparably ‘even to the end of the world’ (Mt. 28:20)”. He goes on to say:

“For Mary with Her body and soul is the heavenly ‘tabernacle of God’ (Apoc.21:3). She is the incorruptible Host, “holy and immaculate” (Eph.5:271, who, with Her very self, clothes the Word of God made Man. St. Germain ventured to call Her ‘sweet paradise of God.’ According to a pious opinion, supported by the ecstasies and visions of St. Veronica Giuliani and especially those of Blessed Magdalen Martinengo, within Her breast the Blessed Virgin in paradise preserves and will always preserve Jesus in a visible Host; and this is for Her ‘eternal consolation, ‘is an occasion of rejoicing for all the blessed inhabitants of Heaven, and in particular is an everlasting joy to all devotees of the Blessed Sacrament.’ This is represented in the ‘Madonna Mediatrice Universale,’ which Mother Speranza in recent times has painted and which has been placed in the Shrine at Collevalenza. It is the same as the image often reproduced in monstrances (sacred stands for exposing the Holy Eucharist for adoration) of the last century, which represent the Madonna, and make a place in her breast for the visible cavity in which the consecrated Host is put. ‘Blessed is the womb that bore Thee!’ cried the woman amid the crowd (Lk.11:27). [How convenient to have left off the next verse where Jesus replies to the woman’s comment, “...Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”] Thus in some of the churches in France the tabernacle used to be encased in a statue of Our Lady of the Assumption. “

“The significance is quite clear: IT IS ALWAYS THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY WHO GIVES US JESUS, Who is the blessed Fruit of Her virginal womb and the Heart of Her Immaculate Heart. And She will forever continue to carry Jesus in the Holy Eucharist within Her breast so as to present Him for the joyful contemplation of the Saints in Heaven, to whom it is even now given to see His divine Person in the Eucharistic Species, according to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. It is in the Eucharist, and especially in Holy Communion, that our union with the Madonna becomes a full and loving conformity with Her. WE RECEIVE HER DEVOTED CARE AND PROTECTION ALONG WITH THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. Her tender attentions overlook nothing as Christ is united to each of us, Her children, moving Her to pour out all Her motherly love on our souls and bodies. The great St. Hilary, Father and Doctor of the Church, wrote this excellent passage: ‘The greatest joy that we can give Mary is that of bearing Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament within our breast.’ HER MOTHERLY UNION WITH JESUS BECOMES A UNION ALSO WITH WHOEVER IS UNITED TO JESUS, ESPECIALLY IN HOLY COMMUNION. And what can give as much joy to one who loves, as union with the person loved? And do we not happen to be beloved children of the heavenly Mother? When we go before Jesus on the altar, we always find Him ‘with Mary His Mother,’ as the Magi did at Bethlehem (Mt.2:11). And Jesus in the sacred Host from the altar of our hearts, can repeat to each of us what He said to St. John the Evangelist from the altar of Calvary, ‘Behold thy Mother’ (John 19:27)” (ibid. 111-112).

Again we see that RCC teaches that Mary and the Eucharist go hand in hand. That is why all the Marian shrines foster devotion to the Eucharist, so much that they are often referred to as “Eucharistic shrines”, such places as Fatima, Lourdes, Loretto, Pompie and Guatalupe. Although Rome will tell you that they do not worship Mary, it is evident that they do indeed worship her and give to her the attributes that belong to God alone. At the very end of the book, Manelli recommends the following prayer be said to Mary before receiving “Christ” in the Eucharist.

“O most holy, Immaculate Virgin and my Mother Mary, to Thee who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, the hope, the refuge of sinners, I, who am the most miserable of all sinners, have recourse today. I venerate Thee, Oh great Queen, and I thank Thee for all the graces Thou hast conferred on me until now, especially for having delivered me from hell, which I have so often deserved. I love Thee, O Most amiable Lady, and because of the love I bear Thee, I promise to serve Thee always and do all in my power to make Thee loved by others. I place in Thee all my hopes; I confide my salvation to Thy care. Accept me as Thy servant, and shelter me under Thy mantle, O Mother of Mercy. And since You are so powerful with God, deliver me from all temptations, or obtain for me the strength to triumph over them until my death.” (ibid., 125)

There is not one scripture to support this blasphemy, yet millions upon millions will say this prayer and confess to their Christian friends that they do not worship Mary. Rome will drag millions upon millions to hell promising them that Mary will meet them at the hour of their death, and it will be at the hour of their death they will find out Roman Catholicism lied to them. The only problem is…it will be too late.

The connection between Mary and the Roman Catholic Eucharist is “inseparable” and anyone partaking in it should be aware of this. 2 Cor.11:4 warns us of bearing with “another spirit” and that’s exactly what has happened. It is very clear from scripture that we have access to God through One Spirit. This elevation of Mary is a trick of the devil to lead men away from Christ and not to Him. Jesus said, “Come to me” NOT “Go to Mary”. Let’s not grow weary in reaching out to the Catholics with the truth. Only the true light of the gospel can break the demonic spell that this “Mary” has cast over the eyes of Roman Catholics, from her priests, saints and theologians to her popes. As 2 Cor.4:4 says, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”“For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor.4:5-6)

By Rebecca A. Sexton — Former Catholics For Christ

If you would like to become Born Again, and come to know this wonderful heart peace, turn to our Salvation Page now.

Return to What Saith Rome

Eucharist or the Mass


How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? – Hebrews 10:29 (NIV)

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.- Hebrews 6:4-6 (NIV)


Catholic Dogma Answered Scripturally

All quotations come from the Authorized Version in English AKA the King James Version

Eucharist or the Mass

http://catholicdogmarefuted.com/mass.htm

The Eucharist, also called the Mass, of the Roman Catholic Church in its present state (not far removed if at all removed from its origins) puts forward many issues of what can only be considered heresies by Biblical Christianity.  I am familiar with the rites of the Mass and its basic history within the RC system.  I have been to the Mass given in its current form in America in English as well as the Tridentine Rite in Latin enough to be able to speak on the issue from first hand experience. I have lived long enough to witness the variants of the rite throughout Catholicism as well as some Protestant churches.  And though I do not speak Latin, I am versed in the church dogma and past traditions regarding the Eucharist.

I will, therefore, answer the greatest issues of concern in regard to the Mass.  I feel it is necessary first to look at the scriptural foundation of the Lord’s Supper in brief.

“And he said unto them, ‘With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:  For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, ‘Take this, and divide it among yourselves:  For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.’ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!’“  Luke 22:15-22

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.’ Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:23-27

Now before getting into any discourse on any blasphemous trait of the Mass, let us ask a few important questions.  In other pages we have referred to times where people take direct statements from symbolism and symbolism from direct statements adding or removing meaning to support an interpretation.  Let us examine these passages and ask a couple questions.

First, you will notice I quote one of the gospel accounts of the last “Passover” of our Lord as well as Paul’s account of the same Passover meal.  Why? So that we have the event described by the Word (God), then, we have a description of practice of the rite or sacrament from the early church apostles. If the Eucharist is a rite of the early church carried on by the Roman Catholic Church to this day, shouldn’t the RCC Eucharist and its rites be in perfect keeping with the early church accounts of their practices of it?

I believe the answer is YES.  If you are making a claim of tradition uniting your practice to that of the Early Churches, then, your rite and their rite must be the same.  If it isn’t someone is the wrong rite.  If the rite does not agree with the actual description given by the Apostle Paul to the first churches and Christians, anything else or any other ritual must have another source than the Apostolic practice of the Passover celebrated by Jesus (If B=A then it must follow that A=B).  As that is the logical and biblical fact of the matter, then, does the RCC “offering” of the mass match the accounts we have just read where Jesus does not offer himself?  Also, does Jesus or Paul even imply that the Passover meal have ANY salvational or cleansing properties or value?

Next question, Is the bread Jesus gives the disciples to eat broken? Yes, in both accounts.  We could look to another Gospel account for the reason it is broken ,but, Paul explains it with his quote of our Lord, “this is my body, which is broken for you”.

Does He mean His literal body is broken?  YES. His body is to be broken and therefore the bread is broken in accord with the events of His death.

Does He mean the disciples are eating His literal body? NO!
If He, God, meant that the disciples were going to eat His literal body, there are two MAJOR problems.  First, He would be promoting a pagan ritual from Babylon.  Second, if they were supposed to eat His actual (literal) body and drink His literal (actual) blood, Jesus should have simply carved off a piece of flesh and bled into the cup for them.  However, I read that no where in the Bible texts on Passover.  Also, I see a distinct absence of a couple things consider absolute dogmas of the RCC Eucharist.

One: Do we see Jesus saying an incantation over his bread converting it into His flesh?
Second: Does He warn the disciples not to spill any of His “blood” on the table or floor or to make certain their beards do not get any “blood” on them? (I cite this as it is a claim which has been made in the past to deny the cup of the Eucharist to Catholics)
Third: Did Jesus command them to worship Himself or the bread?

We see that the direct reading of the Word is the correct reading of the Word.  You cannot have it both ways.  If Jesus meant that the bread was His flesh and would transform into His flesh (“transubstantiation”), the text would have read something like, “He blessed the bread and it became His flesh and then He broke His flesh and did give them to eat of it, saying…”  But it does not read thusly.  As a matter of fact the Catholic Encyclopedia points out the the concept of transubstantiation was formed or laid out (see their words in the link above) in around 1079.  This is at least 1000 years after Jesus served Passover without any incantations, mention of actual transformation, etc.

Can you argue that He was present at the Passover, therefore, He did not have to transubstantiate?  Of course not, if the “host” were Biblical, then, the first bread of the Passover would have had to be the same “host”, same flesh, same blood.  Obviously, the text says what Jesus did and said and nothing more and is then a symbolic gesture.  As usual, God taught finite man with an object lesson and symbolism that they might understand the mystery of an Infinite God.  If it was meant literally and had literally happened then all further references by Paul should have the same reading, the same style discussing the literal body of the Christ being eaten.  It is not literal in either passage.  That means forever after, the Passover of Jesus or Lord’s Supper must always be taken as a symbolic rite without the “fleshly presence” of our Lord.

Where then do we see the practice of eating of gods or flesh? In pagan rites and rituals.  The Free Masons even have a communion supper like this where they too claim to eat the very particles of the body of Jesus, too which they add also the bodies of Buddha and other so-called gods and prophets.  Research out the cult of Mithras, the cult of Nimrod and the Babylonian Mystery religion.  You will find that they have these rites where they ate the sun god Mithras as a part of Mithraic rites and a derivation of the “mother-son” cult (which again ties to the ancient Babylonian Mystery religion).  Is that why the wafer is round like the sun and is NOT broken by the priest?  Is that why the Lord’s Supper is held in the morning mass like the sun worshipping religions did, eating the sun god every morning?

I know this is a lot of reading.  it is a lot of typing, too.  But, there are so many aspects to the problems of the RCC Eucharist and Biblical Christianity.  We have only really covered one.  Let us go on to the way that the Mass is “offered” and not “in remembrance of” Jesus.  Jesus said ‘Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ He is NOWHERE in scripture quoted as saying this is an offering of me.  He said, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me”.

Had He died yet? So, He was speaking of the cross to come symbolically.  Otherwise, He would have had to sacrifice Himself to God at that moment and would not have made it to the cross.  I am trying to make certain you see the clear meaning of direct statements made about a symbolic teaching.  Jesus did not offer Himself.  But, before He even died did He not commemorate His sacrifice?

Why Passover? Jesus celebrated Passover in this new way with Jews who understand the importance of Passover.  Passover is the celebration of the “passing over” of houses of the Jews in Egypt by God when he slew all the first born of Egypt (Exodus 12).  The significance of Passover to all of us is that the blood of the Lamb is applied on the house so that God will not punish that house with death.  The blood is that of the lamb that each household killed.  What was Jesus saying?  He was showing them that He was the lamb.  He was the messiah, He who would lay down his life for the whole world (John 3:14-17).

As we know now why He had to explain the Passover to His disciples and established the “Lord’s Supper”, we come to the question “Was the lamb slain for Passover killed over and over as in the ‘offering’ of the mass as a continued sacrifice?”   No.
The lamb died only once.  Just as Jesus offered Himself ONLY once.  We see this explained in the letter to the Hebrews.  The book explains Jesus’ death on the cross, then, puts that sacrifice in spiritual perspective in regard to blood atonement.

(The Old Testament of Blood)
“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.  Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.”
(
The need for Blood Atonement for Sins)
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.  It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”
(Jesus is in Heaven not in an earthly temple)
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:”
(He offers sacrifice ONLY ONCE!)
“Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; “
(WHY NOT MORE THAN ONCE?)
“For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
Heb 9:19-28 (Parenthetical and underlines added)

We see in this passage that a sacrifice must be a blood offering to atone for sins.  That means that if the Eucharist is a sacrifice, it is useless on its face because there is no blood.  Secondly, the entire passage absolutely refutes any claim that a man can call the body of our Lord down from Heaven and offer Him again unto God.  By definition, this is blasphemy because we see in this passage and throughout the book of Hebrews that Jesus is our high priest (“Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 6:2).  And, in the passage above He is the one offering Himself to God the one time, anyone else trying to offer Jesus as a sacrifice is blaspheming God.  That is because Jesus is God and you cannot take on the title or right of God. (I will not argue for the deity of Christ here because if you do not believe the Jesus is the “I am”, you are not a Christian and you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

Also, we see that He suffered from the foundation of earth and must suffer if there is additional sacrifice.  A second or repeat sacrifice is absolutely unscriptural.  Look to Revelations and the name of Jesus to confirm the statement above…

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Revelations 13:8

Jesus is the Lamb and the Lamb of the Lamb’s Book of Life (Jesus book of the names of the children of God) is the “Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth”.  He is eternal and was already the victim of our sins from the beginning of this world.  If that isn’t enough, I cite more scripture once for all offering and on the open shame of a repeat sacrifice of the Lamb.

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:” 1Peter 3:18 (Underline added)

“If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.Hebrews 6:6 (Underline added)

Jesus suffered the death of the cross once and only once.  So, if Jesus were crucified or offered a second time, He is openly shamed by it.  The sad thing is that we have to give a written explanation of the obvious truth of the direct statements that contradict Roman Catholic teachings on the Eucharist.  Not only that, we have to quote a second passage that directly contradicts the teachings and traditions of the Mass. To re-affirm the obvious.

For he that is dead is freed from sin.  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Rom 6:7-10 (Underline added)

At this point, I could go on with other aspects of the Eucharist such as venerating the wafer that are blasphemous.  However, if the truth of the Word of God presented above has not made you think long and hard about your participation in and acceptance of the unbiblical Eucharist, further explanation is a waste of time and becomes merely an exercise in logic for my own benefit.  Therefore, I will stop here.  As you have read, I have applied as little opinion or interpretation of my own as is humanly possible for any exposition of scripture.  We have used scripture upon scripture to interpret scripture.  We do have to exercise a little logic and definitions to come to the conclusion we have.  Still, the conclusion remains.

  1. The Mass should be a symbolic rite commemorating the death of Jesus in keeping with the Passover which was established by God before the Lamb came in the flesh.

  2. The “host”, “presence”, “bodily presence” or physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is totally unscriptural due the the symbolic nature of Passover and the absence of any flesh eating or blood drinking from the actual body of Jesus at the Passover.

  3. The Mass cannot offer Jesus again as a sacrifice as Jesus has already entered heaven and presented that one time sacrifice to God, the Father.

  4. Even if the offering could be made a second time, anyone attempting to offer Jesus in sacrifice to God is claiming to be in the place of Jesus and therefore blaspheming God, Himself.

  5. Jesus suffered from the foundation of the world and would have to suffer again if He was to be offered a second time.  Therefore, a daily offering of the Lamb would be a daily torturing of the Lamb.

If you have read and reread the scriptures provided against the teachings of catechisms, encyclicals, encyclopedia references and teachings of the RCC, you surely see the problems.  You must think about the ramifications of doing something contrary to the Word of God.  It is a choice you are brought to now.  Do you please men or your God?  I do not like one verse quotes, but, here is a short and in context verse that answers the Christians position when he or she is caught between pleasing men and doing that which pleases God.  Paul says,

“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” Galations 1:10

This page is not an attack on you personally, but, a Biblical answer to what you are being taught in catechism and what you are witnessing in Mass.  We hope you will think gravely on the spiritual consequences of pleasing men and thereby failing to serve God.   If you wish to choose to serve God even when it means disagreeing with men, read this shorter page on the Choice Before You

Transubstantiation and the Real Presence

Transubstantiation and the Real Presence

catholic eucharistTransubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord’s Supper (Communion), the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

The “Real Presence” is the term referring to Christ’s actual presence in the elements of the bread and the wine that have been transubstantiated.

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).

Because they are the presence of Christ himself, Catholics worship and adore the elements.

The Mass contains a series of rituals leading up to the Lord’s Supper which also contains a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ.  Furthermore, transubstantiation states that the substance of the elements are miraculously changed, even though their appearance is not. In other words, the bread and wine will appear as bread and wine under close scientific examination, but the true substance is mystically the Body and Blood of Christ.  Synonymous with transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Real Presence.  Where transubstantiation is the process of the change, the real presence is the result of that change. In other words, the doctrine of the real presence states that the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Christ in bodily form as a result of the process of transubstantiation. Roman Catholicism states that the incarnation of Christ itself, where Jesus was a man but contained an invisible divine nature, is analogous to the the doctrine of the real presence.

Some of the verses used to substantiate this teaching are the following:

  • Matt. 26:28, “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”
  • John 6:52-53, “The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.’”
  • 1 Cor. 11:27, ” Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.”

Can we conclude from the above verses that the Communion Supper actually involves the change of the elements into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ?  Let’s take a look. First – there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal.

No where in scripture do we find this teaching.   We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words:  It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63).  He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, “This is My blood…” and “This is my body…” This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms:  “I am the bread of life,” (John 6:48); “I am the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25); “I am the true vine,” (John 15:1), etc.  Jesus often spoke in figurative terms and in the context of Jesus telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood, He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, “…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63).

After Jesus said, “This is my blood,” (Matt. 26:28), He said, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom, (Matt. 26:29).  Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as “the fruit of the vine” if it was His literal blood?  We can clearly see that Jesus was speaking figuratively.

Second – there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed

There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ.  There simply isn’t any indication of this. Should we say that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus, actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his own body and blood?  That would be ridiculous.

Third – there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements

We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements.  The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass.  Catholicism says, “Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone.”1 Where is the worship given the sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament?  It is not there.

Fourth – the supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion

The Mass is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ.  Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become broken body and shed blood of Christ and represent the crucifixion ordeal.  But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified?  Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread it actually became His sacrificial body — even though the sacrifice had not yet happened?  Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine that it became His actual sacrificial blood — even though the sacrifice had not yet happened?  That would make no sense at all.

Fifth -the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood.  Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.  Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism.  What does the Scripture say concerning this?

“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off,” (Lev. 17:14).

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ.  To the RCC it is not just symbolic, it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

Sixth – It is a violation of the incarnation

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This “became flesh” involves what is known as the hypostatic Union. This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time and He will forever be God and man.

Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human He must be located in one place. This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time.  To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time, is to deny the incarnation.  That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man — since a man can only be it one place at one time.  Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.

But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always, even to the ends of the earth?  Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere?  No, this is not what is stated.

The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum. This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ.  It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature.  It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ.  Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent, not in His human nature, but in His divine nature.

To make this more clear, let’s look at some verses that illustrate the communicatio idiomatum:

  • John 17:5, “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”
  • John 3:13,And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man.”

Please notice that in these two verses, Jesus lays claim to the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. He also claims to have descended from heaven. But how could these be true since He is a man? The answer is because the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore the person of Christ could claim to have glory with the Father and could claim to descend from heaven. But we know that the man Jesus, in the flesh, did not exist until His conception.  Furthermore, this means that the two natures of Christ are distinct, yet they are in Union in the one person of Christ (the hypostatic union).  It further means that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another — the divine does not become localized and the human does not become infinite.  If this were the case, then the nature of the divine and the nature of the human will be violated. Therefore, we can see that for Jesus to be a man, He must retain the attributes of humanity. This means that He must be localized and it means He cannot be physically omnipresent. If He were, by definition He would not be a man. But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation.  Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture.

Seventh – the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ

The Bible tells us:

“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, (Heb. 10:10-14).

In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ.  In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass.  This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.  It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace.  The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.  We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith, not by a ceremony.

Conclusion

It should be obvious to anyone who believes the word of God, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical.  For the reasons listed above, we urge that Roman Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ died once for all and that there is no need to participate in a ritual where His re-sacrifice is practiced.

Finally, because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, it is sufficient to save us and we do not need to maintain our salvation by our efforts or by our participation in the Lord’s supper.  It is not a means of grace that secures our salvation or infuses into us the grace needed that then enables us to maintain our salvation by our works.  Instead, we are made right before God by faith.

  • “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24).
  • “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” (Rom. 3:28).
  • “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3).
  • “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith,” (Rom. 4:13).
  • “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
  • “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved,” (Rom. 10:9).

This article is also available in: Español



  1. 1.
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-i_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html.

The Methodology of Satan – Genesis 3:1-7


The Methodology of Satan
Genesis 3:1-7

by Matt Slick

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.’” 4And the serpent said to the woman, “You surely shall not die! 5″For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings” (Gen. 3:1-7).

  1. When we speak, we speak out of what is in our hearts.
    1. Matt. 12:34 is where Jesus said that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.
  2. The first spoken words recorded in the Bible are those of God as he brought the universe into existence, gave it order, and illumined it with the presence of His holy glory. God said, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3).
    1. With these words we see what fills God’s heart: light. We see the nature of God revealed in beauty and in clarity. We see His essence which is purity.
      1. 1 John 1:5, “And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.”
      2. John 8:12, “Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
    2. There is no darkness in God. There is no lie, no fault, no impurity. This is why He first spoke by saying, “Let there be light.”
      1. Note that God did not first say, “Let there be space and time” or “Let there be creation”, or “Let there be the heavens.” Instead, He first said “Let there be light.”
      2. We need the light of His word and truth. We need His truth.
    3. Have you ever blindfolded yourself and walked around? I have.
      1. Once when I was young, I did volunteer work for the blind. One of the exercises we did in order to understand how the blind had to live was to blindfold ourselves, use canes, and trying to navigate around the block and across the street using a crosswalk. Of course, we had a sighted person with us. In my blindness, I almost stepped in front of a car. I could not see the danger because I was in darkness.
    4. If we walk without the light of God, we will stumble and fall. If we cannot see where we are, or where we should go, then we will be lost.
    5. If God’s word is not lighting your paths in thought, word, deed, worship, prayer, etc, then you are without hope. This is why the Bible says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105). God’s word is light and truth. We absolutely must have it, study it, put it in our hearts, and live it.
  3. The first recorded words in the Bible from Satan are words that are a challenge and contradiction to God’s word.
    1. “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.’” 4And the serpent said to the woman, “You surely shall not die! 5″For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings” (Gen. 3:1-7).
    2. The enemy has a method of bringing us away from trust in God’s word.
      1. First, he gets you to doubt God’s word:
        1. “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1).
        2. SATAN APPEALED TO HER PHYSICAL NEEDS – her appetite. She listened to Him. Her first mistake.
      2. Second, he then contradicts God’s word:
        1. And the serpent said to the woman, “You surely shall not die! (Gen. 3:4).
        2. SATAN APPEALED TO HER PERSONAL GAIN in that he was trying to convince her that she could have it all: what her eyes desired and life without death.
      3. Third, He reinterprets God’s word.
        1. “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:5).
        2. Within this last comment of Satan, we see the heart of Satan: He wants to be like God and he uses the tempting deceptions of self-will, self-sovereignty, and self-rule to replace God’s will, God’s sovereignty, and God’s rule with his lies.
        3. Notice: In those lies is an appeal to the person to be like God, to be independent of God.
        4. SATAN USES AN APPEAL TO PERSONAL POWER AND/OR GLORY.
    3. So, the first thing that Satan does is go against God’s word. Why?
      1. Because the Word of God is true. It reveals wisdom, goodness, faithfulness, and God Himself. It also exposes the darkness and the evil of Satan’s methods. The Devil doesn’t want that.
      2. The devil wants to bring confusion, misery, and death.
        1. Illustration: China, a man surnamed Long, claimed people could leave behind the woes and cares of the world if they stood naked by a road with their identification papers on the ground and killed the first person who came along to check the papers. On June 29, 1998, Wu, his wife Long Zaihua, his ‘Cousin Wu Qiugou and the cousin’s two sons went to a roadside at dawn, took off their clothes and put their papers on the ground. They grabbed the first farmer who approached, forced him to look at the papers and then stoned him, to death. But such foolishness and murder only brought them the judgment of the law.
          They believed a lie and suffered the consequences.
        2. “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8).
        3. The devil uses anything he can to get people to disobey God and bring destruction
    4. Some of the “reinterpreted” words of Satan can be found in the health and wealth gospel
      1. Charles Capps (positive confession preacher), “God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness. The word “likeness” in the original Hebrew means “an exact duplication in kind.”… Adam wasn’t exact duplication of gods kind!” (Christianity in crisis page 379, #9.)
        1. “Notice that when Jesus said, ‘I have finished the work’ [John 17:4], we know that he had not finished the work.” [ibid p. 382, #38]
        2. Kenneth Copeland: “God spoke at him into existence in authority with words (Genesis 1:26, 28 [Let us make man in our image]). These words struck Adam’s body in the face. His body and God were exactly the same size.” (Ibid, p. 379, # 12)
        3. Kenneth Hagan: “originally, God made the earth and the fullness thereof, giving Adam dominion over all the works of his hands. In other words, Adam is the god of this world.” (ibid, 379, #13)
        4. Benny Hinn:”Adam was a super being when God created him. I don’t know whether people know this, but he was the first Superman that really ever lived. First of all, the Scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea-which means he used to fly.” (ibid, 380, #16)
          1. “I’m going to be led by the Holy Ghost today. Is that all right with you?… god it came from heaven, became a man, made man into little gods, went back to heaven as a man. He faces a father as a man. I faced doubles as the son of God.” (ibid, 382, #43)
          2. “When you were born again the word was made flesh in you. And you became flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. Don’t tell me you have Jesus. You are everything he was everything he is and ever shall be… it [the new man] says, ‘I am as he is.’ That’s what it says. As he is so are we in this world. Jesus said, ‘go in my name, Bell in my stead.’ Don’t say, ‘I have,’ say, ‘I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.’” (ibid, 382-383, #44)
  4. Satan attacks us in our areas of weakness.
    1. He attacked Jesus after Jesus had fasted 40 days and had become hungry and was in need. Then Satan came in the hour of Jesus’ weakness and tempted Him
      1. Satan even tempted Jesus by using God’s own word, the same thing he did to Eve in the garden.
      2. Notice how Satan’s methods are predictable.
      3. Temptation Genesis – Eve Matthew – Jesus
        Appeal to Physical Appetite You may eat of the tree (Gen. 3:1) You may eat by changing stones to bread (Matt. 4:3)
        Appeal to Personal Gain You will not die (Gen. 3:4). You will not hurt your foot (Matt. 4:6).
        Appeal to Power and Glory You will be like God (Gen. 3:5). You will have all the world’s Kingdoms (Matt. 4:8-9)
  5. How do you resist the devil? You rely on God’s word.
    1. The Bible is full of things to say about resisting and having victory over the enemy. But, even Jesus, who is God in flesh, resisted the devil by relying on God’s word.
      1. When Satan said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread,”
      2. Jesus said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”
      3. When Satan said, “If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give His angels charge concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, Lest You strike Your foot against a stone.’”
      4. Jesus said, “It is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
      5. When Satan said, “All these kingdoms and thrones things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me.”
      6. Jesus said “Begone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”
      7. Jesus could have changed Satan into a heap of stinking cow fertilizer with a command, but instead He quoted God’s word. Jesus relied on God’s word in His defense against the enemy. And… you must too.
  6. Therefore, your best defense against the temptations of the devil is to rely on God’s word.
    1. Satan fled after Jesus quoted God’s word.
    2. The enemy has no power over God’s word. But you being a Christian have the power and authority to use God’s word and you must use it and know it.
      1. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God…” (John 1:12).
    3. You have the power to use God’s word because if you are a Christian then you have been saved by the sacrifice of Christ and made right before God by faith in Him.
      1. “You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world,” (1 John 4:4).
      2. “But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Rom. 8:37).
    4. We have no need to fear the enemy because Jesus has defeated him.
    5. You must study God’s word, listen to it be preached, and believe it.
    6. You must believe it and you must trust it to be powerful and true in your life, in your good times, and in your difficult ones.
    7. Resist the devil and he will flee from you, (James 4:7).

THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES

THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES

www.justforcatholics.org

God’s revealed will on the proper way to worship is expressed in the Ten Commandments:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments (Exodus 20:4-6).

Catholics and Protestants divide the commandments differently. Following the early catholic church and the Orthodox Church, Protestants consider the prohibition against other gods and the prohibition against images as separate commandments. The Jews however considered them as a single commandment, and from the time of Augustine, the Latin church has also followed that tradition.

That does not mean that the Catholic Church has removed the second commandment. The Church does not delete the prohibition against images from Catholic Bible versions or its major catechisms.

But the prohibition against image worship is left out, and effectively hidden, in the abbreviated lists of the 10 commandments commonly used to teach children. While it is perfectly acceptable to summarize the commandments to facilitate memorization, it is wrong to present the abridged form as if it is the whole commandment. Many Catholic children, including myself, grew up without ever having heard that such a prohibition is part of God’s law.

Unlike the Jews (who do not worship images), the Catholic tradition contradicts the plain meaning of the commandment by permitting and encouraging the faithful to make, bow down before, and serve images. The Second Council of Nicea (787) goes as far as condemning with anathema (a curse) those of us who do not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints. [1]

The Second Commandment

The first commandment (You shall have no other gods before Me) forbids the worship of false gods, whereas the second forbids the false worship of God. The first tells us whom to worship; the second tells us how to worship him.

The second commandment forbids us to make and worship images of God. We are called to know God as he revealed himself, and to serve him according to his ordinances, not in any other way devised by human wisdom. “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

The second commandment does not prohibit paintings and sculptures which are not intended to be used in the worship of God. This is clear from the words “you shall not bow down to them nor serve them”. Moreover, shortly afterwards giving the Ten Commandments, God instructed Israel to make two cherubims of gold for the Ark of the Covenant, and later on, a bronze serpent (Exodus 25:28; Numbers 21:9). Solomon decorated the temple with twelve oxen, and its walls with carved images of cherubims (1 Kings 7:25; 6:29). In all these instances, the Israelites did not break the commandment because they were not called to “bow down” or “serve” the images. But when the Israelites began to burn incense to the bronze serpent, the godly king Hezekiah broke it to pieces. The depravity of the human heart soon turns an image to an idol.

The Image of God

Images of angels and the saints are not necessarily wrong. But we should never make any image of God. When God made a covenant with Israel, the Lord spoke to the people, and they heard the sound of his voice, but they did not see any form. God did so on purpose. “Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female…” (Deuteronomy 4:15, 16). Elsewhere the Scripture reproves us, “To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him?” (Isaiah 40:18).

But some may ask: Can we make an image of Christ since he was made flesh and was seen by the people? The answer must be no, not least because we do not know how he looked like. The hundreds of different pictures of Jesus testify against each other that they are false images. What is called a picture or a statue of Christ is not his true likeness. Like the idols of old, the modern portrayal of the Lord is “a teacher of lies” (Habakkuk 2:18). Moreover, Jesus is the true God, and therefore the only appropriate response to seeing his image is worship and adoration. Sadly, the “Jesus” imprinted on the mind by artistic creations is “another Jesus” – an idol. False images lead to false worship.

In a very real sense, God has given us an image of himself. God has revealed himself in his Son; “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). Christ is the perfect icon of God. But then, how can we know Christ in truth? The Lord himself answers, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). We know Christ in Scripture, not in the imaginations of sculptors.

During our pilgrimage on earth, we are called to live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). The apostle Peter reminds us that we believe and rejoice in him even though “now you do not see him” (1 Peter 1:8). Yet we have a living hope. Eagerly we await that glorious day when “we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Then our joy will be complete.

Catholic Worship Images

The Catholic Church approves the worship of images of Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2132) states:

The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honour rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honour paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is. [2]

We should note several important points:

1. Catholics are not supposed to honour the image itself, as a mere physical object that would be crass idolatry. However, they are called to venerate the image not as a thing, but only as far as it is an image.

2. The Church teaches that the honour given to the image passes on to the person represented by the image; or perhaps we can say, Catholics honour the saints and angels through honour rendered to their images. The Council of Trent explains:

… the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear. [3]

3. The church distinguishes between the worship and adoration of God (latria) and the lesser form of honour, or veneration (dulia), given to saints and angels. Thus a statue of St Paul should not be worshipped (latria) but simply honoured (dulia). On this account, it would be contrary to Catholic teaching to worship the image of a saint. “The honour paid to sacred images is a ‘respectful veneration,’ not the adoration due to God alone.”

At this point, a series of questions springs to mind. What about images of Christ, who is God incarnate? If the veneration given to the image of a saint passes on to the saint, what kind of honour should be given to the image of Christ? Surely Christ deserves more than mere veneration of the dulia type. Being God, Christ deserves to be honoured with the highest form of worship and adoration (latria). If Christ’s image is merely venerated, isn’t that honour far less than the adoration he is worthy to receive? Shouldn’t then the image of Christ – if Catholic theology is correct – be honoured with the highest form of worship (latria), given that this worship to the image passes on to the Person represented?

In other words, if saints can be honoured (dulia) by honouring (dulia) their statues, should God incarnate by worshipped (latria) by worshipping (latria) his image? That seems to be the logical conclusion. Indeed that is what the Catechism teaches, albeit in a rather obscure way. Look again at the sentence quoted above from the Catechism.

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.

This statement denies images are worshipped “in themselves” and “as mere things”. That is quite obvious: Catholics do not intentionally worship wood and stone, but the same sentence continues to affirm that religious worship is directed to images “under their distinctive aspect as images”. Thus, according to the Catechism, images of God incarnate are worshipped.

The Catechism is actually quoting St Thomas Aquinas. In the same paragraph, Aquinas concludes that “religious worship is paid to the images of Christ.” [4] Elsewhere in his discussion of the question, “Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of latria”, Thomas Aquinas is even more explicit — excerpts [5]:

  • The honour given to an image reaches to the prototype, i.e. the exemplar. But the exemplar itself–namely, Christ–is to be adored with the adoration of latria; therefore also His image.

  • Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ’s image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of latria, it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of latria.

  • Whereas we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ, Who is true God, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is.

  • Among these traditions is the worship of Christ’s image.

One would hope that Catholic writers would be as clear and honest as Thomas Aquinas in saying publicly, “we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ.”

Catholic Defense Refuted

Two basic arguments are brought forth in defense of the Catholic practice – the first is based on the incarnation of the Son of God; the second on the proper use of images.

Argument #1

The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. . . . It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. . . . By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new “economy” of images. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2129-2131) [6]

This argument admits that the Jews were not permitted to make a material representation of God, because until the incarnation of the Son, God had revealed himself as a “transcendent” being.

“Transcendent” means “beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding” or “being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable”. Hence the impossibility making a representation of God.

But, it is argued further, since the Son of God was made man, the transcendent God is made visible. Christ had a real human nature, he could be seen and touched. Therefore since that time, it has become possible to make images of Christ. (It is unclear why the incarnation justifies the making of images of saints, since the saints have always been human, and yet the Jews were forbidden to make and bow down before such images).

Response

In a very real sense God was and will always be transcendent. He is infinitely glorious, and we, being finite creatures, can never fully know the Infinite. Yet God is able to reveal himself, albeit in a limited manner. Even before giving the 10 commandments, God appeared to Abraham and to Jacob in human form, and he led the people of Israel out of Egypt in a visible form (as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar fire by night, see Exodus 13:18-22).

Even so, the Israelites were not permitted to fashion images of those or any other manifestation of God, and bow down before them. To emphasize this prohibition, God did not appear in any visible form when he established the covenant with Israel in the wilderness so that they will not be tempted to make a graven image of him (see Deuteronomy 4:15, 16).

So, the incarnation of the Son – the ultimate revelation of God to us – does not justify the making of graven images of God incarnate or bowing down before them. On the contrary, since God has perfectly revealed himself in Christ, and since it pleased God to reveal his Son in the Word, we ought to be content with that knowledge rather than create an imaginary image of our Lord.

Argument #2

The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honour rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2132) [7]

It is claimed that the commandment prohibits idolatry, which is defined as the worship of the physical image itself as if it was divine or had divine qualities attributed to it. The Catholic Church insists that the image is honoured as an “image”, and thus the honour given to the image is passed on the person it represents.

Response

This argument is devoid of any biblical support. No scriptural references are offered to prove the point. Where is the evidence from the NT that indicates that the early Christians used images in their worship? Where is the scriptural evidence that God only condemns the worship of images in themselves but allows his people to bow down before them in order to adore him and venerate his saints?

When the people of Israel were gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai, and Moses was delayed on the mountain, they demanded a visible representation of God. When Aaron produced the golden calf, the people acclaimed the appearance of their God: “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 32 NAB) They knew that the Lord God had delivered them from the slavery in Egypt, and accepted the newly-formed image as a representative of their powerful Redeemer. Evidently Aaron shared their belief because he went on to build an altar and proclaim a feast “to the LORD (Yahweh)”.

Immediately after those events, the Bible records God’s intense displeasure with his people because they worshipped “his” image. He had told them not to bow down before statues – how could they delude themselves in thinking that they would please God by contradicting his will?

We would be wise to learn from the mistakes of our forefather. If we bow down before the images of Christ and the saints, irrespective of our good intentions, we would be disobedient to the commandment of God: “You shall not bow down before them”! Idolatry is not only the worship of physical things, but also the unlawful worship of God.

Popular Apologetics

We should also take a look at a typical argument by a modern Catholic apologist.

Catholics do not worship the Cross or images or relics. They use these physical objects to remind themselves of Christ and his special friends, the saints in heaven. The man who keeps a picture of his family in his wallet does not worship his wife and children, but honours them. (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius, 1988, pp 40, 41.)

This kind of argument is popular and easily understood. Who would think that keeping a picture of your family is wrong? Surely Protestants too keep pictures of their loved ones. Why then should anyone object to pictures or statues to remind us of Christ?

I have often been told that an image of Christ is like a picture of my wife that I keep in my wallet to remind me of her. But the analogy is misleading. The pictures of Christ are not really pictures of Christ; they are but the imagination of the artist. What is called “Christ” is not a likeness of Christ at all. My wife would not be particularly delighted if I keep a picture of another woman, kiss it, and call her my wife!

Moreover the popular argument is evasive and irrelevant; it does not do justice to the Catholic doctrine. It is claimed that “Catholics do not worship the Cross or images”, but St Thomas Aquinas states otherwise. “[The Cross] it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of latria.” And again, “we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ” [8]

Catholics do not use images merely to “remind” themselves of Christ and the saints. There’s nothing wrong with having pictures and statues to remind us of King David or the apostle Paul. But that is beside the point. Catholics are called to do more than just remember. Catholics are called to kiss images and even to bow down before them.

“…because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear” (Council of Trent, Session 25, On the Invocation, Veneration, Relics of Saints, and Sacred Image.) [9]

The intention of many Catholics is undoubtedly right and noble—their motive is to worship Christ. But good intentions are not good enough when our actions contradict the clear teaching of God’s Law: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.”

God threatens severe punishments on those who disobey and promises great blessings on the obedient. If we love God, let us worship him as he has commanded. If however we attempt to worship him by graven images, contrary to his commandment, we are found to be haters of God and worthy of his wrath.

Recommended Reading:

Bowing Down Before Mary

Praying to the Saints: An Unbiblical Practice

Praying to the Saints: A Dangerous Practice

© Dr Joseph Mizzi. 2008. Permission is given to reproduce and distribute this article in any format provided that the wording is not altered and that no fee is charged. Please include the following statement on distributed copies: Copyright Dr Joseph Mizzi. Website: www.justforcatholics.org. Used by permission.

What is the Canon of Scripture?

What is the Canon of Scripture?

www.gotquestions.org

Canon: a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged: Eg. 1) the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity. 2) the works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine: the Shakespeare canon.

Also See Why Isn’t the Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible?

www.inplainsite.org

What Is The Canon of Scripture?

This is a very important question because Christianity does not start by defining God, or Jesus Christ, or salvation. The basis of Christianity is found in the authority of Scripture. If we can’t identify what is Scripture, then we can’t properly distinguish any theological truth from error.

The word “canon” comes from the rule of law that was used to determine if a book measured up to a standard. It is important to note that the writings of Scripture were canonical at the moment they were written. Scripture was Scripture when the pen touched the parchment.

What measure or standard was used to determine which books should be classified as Scripture? A key verse to understanding the process and purpose, and perhaps the timing of the giving of Scripture, is Jude 3 which states that a Christian’s faith “was once for all entrusted to the saints.” Since our faith is defined by Scripture, Jude is essentially saying that Scripture was given once for the benefit of all Christians. Isn’t it wonderful to know that there are no hidden or lost manuscripts yet to be found, there are no secret books only familiar to a select few, and there are no people alive who have special revelation requiring us to trek up a Himalayan mountain in order to be enlightened? We can be confident that God has not left us without a witness. The same supernatural power God used to produce His Word has also been used to preserve it.

Psalm 119:160 states that the entirety of God’s Word is truth. Starting with that premise, we can compare writings outside the accepted canon of Scripture to see if they meet the test. As an example, the Bible claims that Jesus Christ is God (Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 1:22-23; John 1:1, 2, 14, 20:28; Acts 16:31, 34; Philippians 2:5-6; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1). Yet many extra-biblical texts, claiming to be Scripture, argue that Jesus is not God. When clear contradictions exist, the established Bible is to be trusted, leaving the others outside the sphere of Scripture.

In the early centuries of the church, Christians were sometimes put to death for possessing copies of Scripture. Because of this persecution, the question soon came up, “What books are worth dying for?” Some books may have contained sayings of Jesus, but were they inspired as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16? Church councils played a role in publicly recognizing the canon of Scripture, but often an individual church or groups of churches recognized a book as inspired from its writing (e.g., Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Throughout the early centuries of the church, few books were ever disputed and the list was basically settled by A.D. 303.

When it came to the Old Testament, three important facts were considered: 1) The New Testament quotes from or alludes to every Old Testament book but two. 2) Jesus effectively endorsed the Hebrew canon in Matthew 23:35 when He cited one of the first narratives and one of the last in the Scriptures of His day. 3) The Jews were meticulous in preserving the Old Testament Scriptures, and they had few controversies over what parts belong or do not belong. The Roman Catholic Apocrypha did not measure up and fell outside the definition of Scripture and has never been accepted by the Jews.

Most questions about which books belong in the Bible dealt with writings from the time of Christ and forward. The early church had some very specific criteria in order for books to be considered as part of the New Testament. These included: Was the book written by someone who was an eyewitness of Jesus Christ? Did the book pass the “truth test”? (i.e., did it concur with other, already agreed-upon Scripture?). The New Testament books they accepted back then have endured the test of time and Christian orthodoxy has embraced these, with little challenge, for centuries.

Confidence in the acceptance of specific books dates back to the first century recipients who offered firsthand testimony as to their authenticity. Furthermore, the end-time subject matter of the book of Revelation, and the prohibition of adding to the words of the book in Revelation 22:18, argue strongly that the canon was closed at the time of its writing (c. A.D. 95).

There is an important theological point that should not be missed. God has used His word for millennia for one primary purpose—to reveal Himself and communicate to mankind. Ultimately, the church councils did not decide if a book was Scripture; that was decided when the human author was chosen by God to write. In order to accomplish the end result, including the preservation of His Word through the centuries, God guided the early church councils in their recognition of the canon.

The acquisition of knowledge regarding such things as the true nature of God, the origin of the universe and life, the purpose and meaning of life, the wonders of salvation, and future events (including the destiny of mankind) are beyond the natural observational and scientific capacity of mankind. The already-delivered Word of God, valued and personally applied by Christians for centuries, is sufficient to explain to us everything we need to know of Christ (John 5:18; Acts 18:28; Galatians 3:22; 2 Timothy 3:15) and to teach us, correct us, and instruct us into all righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

Recommended Resource: The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.

Link to Read/ Download PDF: The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce

Related Topics:

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible?

What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? Do the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books belong in the Bible?

How do we know when the books of the Bible were written?

Is it possible that more books could be added to the Bible?

Council of Trent: Canons on Justification.

Council of Trent:
Canons on Justification.

www.carm.org

Lutheranism was growing strong in the 1500’s.  In response to this, the Roman Catholic church convened a council in November of 1544 in an attempt to counter the doctrines raised and supported by the Reformers.  The official opening of the council was on Dec. 13, 1545 and was closed on Dec. 14, 1563.  The council delivered many statements on various subjects.  These Canons have never been denied by the Roman Catholic Church.

Following are several of the doctrinal statements made on Justification at the council of Trent.  After each Canon are scriptures that contradict that Canon.  These scriptures are linked to the KJV on CARM so you can click on them and read them in context.

Finally, you will see the word “anathema” used many times by the Council.  This means that those who disagree with the doctrines of this Council are cursed.  In Gal. 1:8-9, the word “anathema” is used.  The curse must come from God.  Therefore, we conclude that according to Roman Catholicism, anyone who disagrees with the following Canons are cursed of God.  The Roman Catholic church excommunicates those under anathema.  In other words, excommunication means being outside the Christian church.  Being outside the church means you are not saved.

In spite of what Catholicism states, the Bible speaks differently.  Following each Canon is a list of appropriate scriptures countering the Catholic position.

  1. CANON 9:  “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
    1. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3:20).
    2. “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24).
    3. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” (Rom. 3:28).
    4. “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3).
    5. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
    6. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,” (Eph. 2:8).
    7. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” (Titus 3:5).
  2. CANON 12:  “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed”
    1. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name,” (John 1:12).
    2. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” (Rom. 3:28).
    3. ‘For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3).
    4. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples: for this he did once, when he offered up himself,” (Heb. 7:25-27).
    5. “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for 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).
  3. Canon 14: “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”
    1. “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3).
    2. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
  4. Canon 23: “lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.”
    1. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” (John 3:36).
    2. “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day,” (John 6:40).
    3. “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand,” (John 10:28).
    4. “That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Rom. 5:21).
    5. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us,” (1 John 2:19).
    6. “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God,” (1 John 5:13).
  5. Canon 24:  “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
    1. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:1-3).
    2. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law,” (Gal. 5:1-3).
  6. Canon 30:  “If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.”
    1. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
    2. “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross,” (Col. 2:13-14).
  7. Canon 33:  “If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
    1. This council declares that if anyone disagrees with it, they are damned.

Why Didn’t God Respect Cain’s Offering?

Why Didn’t God Respect Cain’s Offering?

Was it because of the type or quality of the offering,
the heart of the offerer, or something else?

www.answersingenesis.org

What do you believe is the reason the Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor (Genesis 4:4)?

Was it because of the TYPE of offering (blood vs fruits, ref Hebrews 9:22)? It’s reasonable and logical to think they must have had some instruction in how to make offerings to the Lord. Although my understanding is that the word translated offering is different than the word translated as sacrifice, so the issue of blood sacrifice may not apply? Also, throughout Leviticus many different types of offerings are described, including grain offerings.

Was it because of the QUALITY of the offering? “some of the fruits” vs “fat portions from some of the firstborn”?

Was it because of the HEART of the person making the offering? (ref Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did.)

Or do you believe all of these reasons are applicable?

P.D., U.S.

Thank you for the excellent question (and analysis), P.D. You’ve laid the groundwork for our answer by sticking to Scripture—exactly what we advocate. The Bible itself is the number one resource for interpreting itself!

The Bible spends relatively little time on the life and times of one Cain Adamson, but that’s where we can start. Let’s read what Scripture tells us about Cain’s sacrifice:

Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Genesis 4:2b–7

Elsewhere we read, “By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Hebrews 11:4) and “[W]e should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous” (1 John 3:11–12). On the other hand, Jesus called Abel righteous (Matthew 23:35 / Luke 11:51), and Charles Spurgeon considered Abel a type of Christ.

You identify three possible reasons why God may have “respected” Abel’s offering but not Cain’s: the difference in the type of offering; the difference in the quality of offering; or the difference in the heart of the offerer. Or, you suggest it may be a combination of those three reasons.

Let’s look at each of these possibilities in turn; then we’ll take a look at the ultimate answer as to why God respected Abel’s offering and not Cain’s.

Wrong Type?

Is it possible that Cain’s offering was the wrong type? Hebrews 9:22 (which you reference), Leviticus 4:25–26, and Leviticus 17:11 all clearly state the connection between the shedding of blood and the atonement of sin. God established a precedent, of sorts, with a blood sacrifice in Genesis 3:21, when He killed an animal to make a literal and figurative covering for Adam and Eve. This foreshadowed the blood sacrifices that were later delineated in Levitical Law and ultimately Jesus Christ as the only blood sacrifice that could truly atone for our sin.

The law given to Moses codifies the role of blood, connecting specific transgressions with specific sacrificial offerings. So it is very clear that a blood sacrifice has a special significance beyond what a fruit, vegetable, or grain offering could bring.1 (The Hebrew word used for “offering” in Genesis 4:3, minchah, can also be translated “sacrifice” or “meat offering” according to Brown–Driver–Briggs, and is used elsewhere to refer to meat offerings [e.g., Leviticus 7:37; 14:21; 23:18]).

Nevertheless, it’s only circumstantial evidence that supports this as the reason God didn’t respect Cain’s offering. While it seems reasonable to conclude—as Henry Morris did (see sidebar, right)—that the difference in the type of offering was a contributing factor, there’s no verse that says, “God rejected Cain’s offering because it wasn’t meaty enough.” And while it is a “reasonable and logical” extrapolation, as you put it, to think Cain and Abel were given offering instructions (either directly or through their parents), it’s nonetheless an extrapolation; Scripture never says that God had required them to sacrifice, nor (if He had) that He specified the type of sacrifice.2 It is also worth noting that the passage does not indicate that Cain was presenting a sin offering to the Lord. If we assume that the offering was for the covering of sin, then a blood sacrifice is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Poor Quality?

Was Cain’s offering rejected because it was not of superior quality? This does seem to be an implication of the passage itself, since it explicitly states that Abel offered “of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat,” while saying nothing about the quality of Cain’s offering. Not only that, but the law given to Moses specifically requires the sacrifice (or redemption) of the firstborn of livestock (Exodus 13:2, 34:19) and specifies the inclusion and significance of the fat (Leviticus 3:9–10, 16; 4:19–20, 25–26). Later in Levitical Law, we see that God required firstfruits in grain offering as well (Leviticus 2:14).

The details of Abel’s offering are more circumstantial evidence that indicate Cain and Abel may have been given instructions about their offerings—instructions Cain ignored. That, along with the fact that Scripture praises Abel for offering “of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat,” seems to support the argument that Cain’s offering was rejected at least partly because of its lower quality—even if God hadn’t required a sacrifice of meat. But once again, Scripture never makes the connection explicit, so this explanation remains speculative—albeit backed by more circumstantial evidence and reasonable assumptions based on Scripture.

The Heart of the Matter

While we’ve seen some implied and circumstantial evidence for why God rejected Cain’s offering, the New Testament comes to the rescue in giving more explicit reasons for why Cain’s offering was rejected:

By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

Hebrews 11:4

[W]e should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

1 John 3:11–12

It’s important for us to keep both verses in mind: not only was Abel’s offering more excellent and offered by faith; the Bible also tells us Cain’s works were evil. This begs the question: which of Cain’s works were evil? Obviously his murder of his brother was, but Scripture says evil works preceded the murder, so it must be talking about other evil works. What could they have been?

  1. Perhaps Cain had committed evil before the sacrifice of Genesis 4. In this case, Cain could have had an unrepentant heart, and God may have rejected the sacrifice because of Cain’s unrepentant attitude.
  2. Cain’s “evil” could have been his sinful attitude; although this does not seem to fit as an actual “work” of evil.
  3. Or, the “evil works” could refer to Cain’s offering itself. This would imply that Cain did, in fact, violate instructions God had given (but that aren’t listed in Genesis) for what type/quality of offerings to give.
  4. Additionally, there is the very important issue of Cain’s reaction. It could have been that God hadn’t given specific instructions for sacrifices, and thus that Cain legitimately didn’t realize his offering was inferior in type or quality.3 But if so, when God convicted him, Cain was defiant. The Bible says “And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it’” (Genesis 4:5b–7). God provided a “way out,” but Cain, in his pride and stubbornness, allowed sin to rule over him—ultimately driving him to commit the first murder. He (as we all) are responsible for our response to be repentant when being confronted with our wrongdoing. Cain was anything but repentant. He wanted to make the rules, and he didn’t want to change his ways.

Compounding this is that Hebrews 11:4 can be read/interpreted in two different ways: was Abel’s sacrifice “more excellent” solely because it was offered by faith, or was it one of the other reasons previously discussed?

The Ultimate Answer

Can we even be clear that either Cain or Abel knew exactly what would be pleasing to God as a sacrifice ahead of time? Even with all this circumstantial evidence, we don’t absolutely know that God required a blood sacrifice of Cain. We can’t say for certain that the quality of Cain’s offering was inferior. And we can’t prove Cain’s heart was in the wrong during the sacrifice itself. Although the scriptural account does seem to point to each of these reasons, we can’t be emphatic about any of them. So, what’s the ultimate answer to God preferring Abel’s offering?

We must come to grips with one thing: God, as Creator, is sovereign over His creation. While there are proximate reasons for God’s decrees, what ultimately makes “right” right and “wrong” wrong? God’s sovereign choice. This does not mean God is capricious or arbitrary; God is always reasonable because He is the creator of reason. If God’s actions seem to conflict with or transcend man’s sense of “reason,” that doesn’t mean God is wrong; it means His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8). He respects one offering and rejects another, ultimately, for His own reasons and pleasure—and isn’t that the Creator’s prerogative? Again, this isn’t to say He is arbitrary; His Word gives us all the knowledge of Him and the reasoning we need to understand and obey.

And since the Bible doesn’t tell us exactly what was required of Cain and Abel (like we see clearly expressed in the Levitical laws), we can’t know for sure which of the reasons explain why God respected Abel’s offering and not Cain’s, or if this was just God’s way of informing them of what was acceptable. But, ultimately, does it matter? As Abraham rhetorically asks in Genesis 18:25, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” And as God rhetorically asks Job, “Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?” (Job 40:8).

Our duty is to make sure that our actions are right and that our hearts are in the right place. In the case of offerings, that includes humbly giving from the firstfruits (does God deserve any less?) of our labor with a cheerful heart, understanding that such works themselves do not save us, and gladly accepting instruction, correction, and even rebuke from the hand of the Almighty. The lesson of Cain is that sin and rebellion runs through our attitudes and our actions, and that the two ultimately cannot be divorced.

Finally, P.D., thank you for remembering to start with Scripture when interpreting Scripture. That’s always the right answer!

In Christ,
Peter Galling, AiG–U.S.

Footnotes

  1. However, the law does incorporate grain offerings (Leviticus 2:1–2) and even makes exceptions to animal offerings in the case of poverty (e.g., Leviticus 5:11). This is a good example of God’s mercy even amid His justice.
  2. In Cain’s Offering, David Reagan uses Romans 10:17 to add further strength to the argument that Cain and Abel had been given explicit sacrificial instructions.
  3. It is possible to do the wrong thing with the right attitude.

THE FORM OF GODLINESS WITHOUT THE POWER


THE FORM OF GODLINESS
WITHOUT THE POWER

SERMON NO. 2088
Volume 35
www.spurgeongems.org

DELIVERED ON LORD’S DAY MORNING, JUNE 2, 1889,
BY C. H. SPURGEON,
AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON.

“Having a form of godliness
but denying the power thereof:
from such turn away.”

2 Timothy 3:5

PAUL warns us of certain characters which will appear in the last times. It is a very terrible list. The like have appeared in other days but we are led by his warning to apprehend that they will appear in greater numbers in the last days than in any previous age. “Lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.”

These will swarm like flies in the decay of the year and will make the times exceeding perilous. We are nearing that period at this very time. That these people would, some of them, be within the Church is the most painful part of it. But they will be so, for they are comprehended in this last clause of the black catalog, which we have taken for our text—“Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”

Paul does not paint the future with rose-colored glasses—he is no smooth-tongued Prophet of a golden age into which this dull earth may be imagined to be glowing. There are sanguine Brothers and Sisters who are looking forward to everything growing better and better and better, until, at last, this present age ripens into a millennium. They will not be able to sustain their hopes, for Scripture gives them no solid basis to rest upon. We who believe that there will be no millennial reign without the King and who expect no rule of righteousness except from the appearing of the righteous Lord, are nearer the mark.

Apart from the second Advent of our Lord, the world is more likely to sink into a pandemonium than to rise into a millennium. A Divine interposition seems to me the hope set before us in Scripture and, indeed, to be the only hope adequate to the occasion. We look to the darkening down of things. The state of mankind, however improved politically, may yet grow worse and worse spiritually. Certainly, we are assured in verse 13 that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” There will spring up in the Christian Church and round about it, a body of faithless men who profess to have faith—ungodly men who will unite with the saints—men having the form of godliness but denying the power.

We may call these hard times, if we will, but we have hardly yet come to the border of those truly harder times when it will go hard with the Church and she shall need, even more than today, to cry mightily unto the Lord to keep her alive. With this cloud upon our spirit, we come to the text itself. Let us consider it carefully and may the Holy Spirit help us!
True religion is a spiritual thing but it necessarily embodies itself in a form. Man is a spiritual creature but the human spirit needs a body in which to enshrine itself. And thus, by this need, we become allied to materialism. And if not “half dust, half Deity,” as one has said, we are certainly both matter and soul. In each of us there is the form or body and the soul or power. It is so with religion—it is essentially a spiritual thing but it requires a form in which to embody and manifest itself.

Christian people fall into a certain outward method of procedure, a peculiar outward mode of uttering their faith, which becomes to true godliness what the body is to the soul. The form is useful, the form is necessary, the form ought to be vitalized—just as the body is useful and is necessary and is vitalized by the soul. If you get both the form, as modeled in the Word of God and the power, as bestowed by the Spirit of God, you do well and are living Christians. If you get the power alone, without the ordained form, you somewhat maim yourself. But if you get the form without the power, then, you dwell in spiritual death.

The body without the spirit is dead. And what follows upon death with flesh? Why, corruption—corruption so horrible that even love itself has to cry, “Bury my dead out of my sight.” So that if there is in any the body of religion with out the life of religion, it leads to decay and thus to corruption—and that has a tendency to decompose the character.

The raw material of a devil is an angel bereft of holiness. You cannot make a Judas except out of an Apostle. The eminently good in outward form, when without inward life, decays into the foulest thing under Heaven. You cannot wonder that these are called “perilous times,” in which such characters abound.

One Judas is an awful weight for this poor globe to bear but a tribe of them must be a peril, indeed. Yet, if not of the very worst order, those are enough to be dreaded who have the shadow of religion without its substance. Of such I have to speak at this time—from such may God give you Divine Grace to turn away! May none of us ever be spots in our feasts
of love, or clouds without water carried about of winds. But this we shall be if we have the form of godliness without the power thereof.

With great solemnity of soul I approach this subject, seeking from the Lord the aid of His Spirit, who makes the Word to be a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. First, I shall speak of the men, and secondly, of their folly. And when I am done with that, I shall have some words of instruction to give by way of conclusion.

I. First, let us talk awhile of THE MEN. They had the form of godliness but denied the power thereof. Note what they had and then observe what they had not. They had a form of godliness. What is a form of godliness? It is, first of all, attention to the ordinances of religion. These, so far as they are Scriptural, are few and simple. There is Baptism, wherein, in figure, the Believer is buried with Christ, that he may rise into newness of life. And there is the Lord’s Supper, wherein, in type and emblem, he feeds upon Christ and sustains the life which came to him by fellowship with Christ’s death. Those who have obeyed the Lord in these two ordinances have exhibited in their own persons the form of godliness.
That form is every way instructive to others and impressive to the man himself.

Every baptized person and every communicant at the Lord’s Table, should be godly and gracious. But neither Baptism nor the Lord’s Supper will secure this. Where there is not the life of God in the soul, neither holiness or godliness follow upon the ordinances. And thus we may have around us baptized worldlings and men who go from the table of the Lord to drink the cup of devils. It is sad that it should be so. Such persons are guilty of presumption, falsehood, sacrilege and blasphemy. Ah me, we sit beside such every Sabbath!

The form of godliness involves attendance with the assemblies of God’s people. Those who have professed Christ are accustomed to come together at certain times for worship and, in their assemblies, they join in common prayer and common praise. They listen to the testimony of God by His servants whom He calls to preach His Word with power. They
also associate together in Church fellowship for purposes of mutual help and discipline. This is a very proper form—full of blessing both to the Church and to the world—when it does not die down into mere form. A man may go to Heaven alone but he will do better if he travels there with Mr. Great-Heart and Father Honest and Christiana and the children.
Christ’s people are called sheep for one reason—they love to go in flocks. Dogs do very well separately but sheep do best in company. The sheep of Christ love to be together in the same pasture and to follow in a flock the footsteps of the Good Shepherd. Those who constantly associate in worship, unite in Church fellowship and work together for sacred
purposes have the form of godliness and a very useful and proper form it is. Alas, it is of no value without the power of the Holy Spirit.

Some go further than public worship. They use a great deal of religious talk. They freely speak of the things of God in Christian company. They can defend the doctrines of Scripture, they can plead for its precepts and they can narrate the experience of a Believer. They are fondest of talking of what is doing in the Church—the tattle of the streets of Jerusalem is very pleasant to them. They flavor their speech with godly phrases when they are in company that will relish it. I do not censure them—on the contrary, I wish there were more of holy talk among professors. I wish we could revive the old habit, “They that feared the Lord spoke often one to another.”

Holy conversation causes the heart to glow and gives to us a foretaste of the fellowship of the glorified. But there may be a savor of religion about a man’s conversation and yet it may be a borrowed flavor—like hot sauces used to disguise the staleness of ancient meat. That religion which comes from the lips outward but does not well up from the deep fountains of the heart is not that living water which will spring up unto eternal life. Tongue godliness is an abomination if the heart is destitute of Divine Grace.

More than this—some have a form of godliness upheld and published by religious activity. It is possible to be intensely active in the outside work of the Church and yet to know nothing of spiritual power. One may be an excellent Sunday school teacher after a fashion and yet have need to be taught what it is to be born again. One may be an eloquent preacher, or a diligent officer in the Church of God and yet know nothing of the mysterious power of the Spirit of Truth upon the heart. It is well to be like Martha in service. But one thing is needful—to sit at the Master’s feet and learn as Mary did.

When we have done all the work our position requires of us, we may only have displayed the form of godliness. Unless we hearken to our Lord and from His Presence derive power, we shall be as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. Brethren, I speak to myself and to each one of you in solemn earnestness. If much speaking, generous giving and constant occupation could win Heaven, we might easily make sure of it. But more than these are needed. I speak to each one of you. And if I singled out anyone more than another to be the pointed object of my address, it would be the best among us—the one who is doing most for his Master and who, in his inmost soul, is thinking, “That warning does not apply to me.”

O my active and energetic Brother, remember the word, “Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” If any of you dislike this searching sermon, your dislike proves how much you need it. He that is not willing to search himself should stand self-incriminated by that unwillingness to look at his affairs. If you are right, you will not object to be weighed in the balances. If you are, indeed, pure gold, you may still feel anxiety at the sight of the furnace but you will not be driven to anger at the prospect of the fire. Your prayer will always be, “Search me, O God and know my heart: try me and know my thoughts: and see if there is any wicked way in me and lead me in the way everlasting.”

I need not enlarge further. You all know what a form of godliness is and most of us who are here present hold fast that form—may we never dishonor it! I trust we are anxious to make that form accurate according to Scripture so that our form of godliness may be that into which the earliest saints were delivered. Let us be Christians of a high type, cast in our Lord’s own mold. But do not become sticklers for the form and neglect the inner life—that will never do. Shall we fight about a man’s clothes and allow the man, himself, to die?

But now, as these people had not the power of godliness, how did they come to hold the form of it? This needs several answers. Some come by the form of godliness in an hereditary way. Their ancestors were always godly people and they almost naturally take up with the profession of their fathers. This is common and where it is honest, it is most commendable.
It is a great mercy when, instead of the fathers, shall be the children. And we may hopefully anticipate that our children will follow us in the things of God, if by example, instruction and prayer, we have sought it before the Lord. We are unhappy if we do not see our children walking in the God’s Truth. Yet the idea of birthright membership is an evil one and is as perilous as it is unscriptural. If children are taken into the Church simply because of their earthly parentage, surely this is not consistent with that description of the sons of God which is found in the inspired Scripture—“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God. ” Not generation but REGENERATION, makes the Christian. You are not Christians because you can trace a line of fleshly descent throughout twenty generations of children of God.

You must, yourselves, be born again. For except a man is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Many, no doubt, lay hold naturally on the form of godliness because of family ties—this is poor work. Ishmael is a sorry son of Abraham and Esau of Isaac and Absalom of David. Grace does not run in the blood. If you have no better foundation for your religion than your earthly parentage, you are in a wretched case.

Others have accepted the form of godliness by the force of authority and influence. They were, as lads, put apprentice to godly men. As girls, they were under the guidance of pious teachers. And as they grew up, they came under the influence of persons of superior intelligence and character who were on the Lord’s side. This accounts for their form of godliness.
Many persons are the creatures of their surroundings—religion or irreligion is with them the result of circumstances. Such persons were led to make a profession of faith in Christ because others did so and friends encouraged them to do the same.

The deep searching of heart, which they ought to have exhibited, was slurred over and they were found among the people of God without having to knock for entrance at the wicket gate. I do not wish anyone to condemn himself because he was guided to the Savior by godly friends—far from it. But, nevertheless, there is danger lest we fail to have personal repentance and personal faith and are content to lean upon the opinions of others.

I have seen the form of godliness taken up on account of friendships. Many a time courtship and marriage have led to a formal religiousness, but a lacking heart. The future husband is induced to make a profession of religion for the sake of gaining one who was a sincere Christian and would not have broken her Lord’s command to be unequally yoked together
with an unbeliever. Godliness should never be put on in order that we may put a wedding ring upon the finger—this is a sad abuse of religious profession.

Other kinds of friendship, also, have led men and women to profess a faith they never had and to unite themselves visibly with the Church, while in spirit and in truth they were never truly a part of it. I put these things to you that there may be a great searching of heart among us all and that we may candidly consider how we have come by our form of godliness.
Certain persons assume the form of godliness from a natural religious disposition. Do not suppose that all unconverted people are without religion. Much religiousness is found in the heathen and there are races which have naturally more of reverence than others.

The German, with his profound philosophy, is often free, not only from superstition but from reverence. The Russian is by race naturally religious, not to say superstitious. I am speaking after the manner of men—the usual Russian takes off his hat to Holy Places, pictures and persons—and he is little inclined to disbelieve or scoff. We perceive like differences among our own acquaintances—one man is readily fooled by skeptics, while another is ready, with open mouth, to believe every word. One is naturally an infidel, another is as naturally credulous.

I mean, then, that to some the form of godliness commends itself because they have a natural leaning that way. They could not be happy unless they were attending where God is worshipped, or unless they were reckoned among the Believers in Christ. They must play at religion even if they do not make it their life business. Let me remind you of the questionable
value of that which springs out of fallen human nature. Assuredly it brings no one into the spiritual kingdom, for “that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” Only “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” “You must be born again.” Beware of everything which springs up in the field without the sowing of the husbandman, for it will turn out to be a weed. O Sirs, the day will come when God will try us as with fire and that which comes of unregenerate nature will not stand the test but will be utterly consumed!

I do not doubt that, in these silken days, many have a form of godliness because of the respect it brings them. Time was when to be a Christian was to be reviled, if not to be imprisoned and, perhaps, burned at the stake. Hypocrites were fewer in those days for a profession cost too much. Yet, strange to say, there were some who played the Judas even in those times. Today religion walks forth in her velvet slippers. And in certain classes and ranks, if men did not make some profession of religion, they would be looked upon with suspicion and therefore men will take the name of Christian upon them and wear religion as a part of full dress.

The cross is at this day worn as a necklace. The cross as the instrument of our Savior’s shame and death is forgotten, and instead thereof, it is made the badge of honor, a jewel wherewith ungodly men may adorn themselves. Is this indicative of the deceitfulness of the age? Beware of seeking respect by a hypocritical godliness. Honor gained by a heartless profession is, in God’s sight, the greatest disgrace. The actor may strut in his mimic royalty, but he must take off his crown and robes when the play is over. And what will he then be?

From the days of Iscariot until now, some have taken up the form of godliness to gain thereby. To make gain of godliness is to imitate the son of perdition. This is a perilous road and yet many risk their souls for the lucre which they find therein. Apparent zeal for God may really be zeal for gold. The Emperor Maximilian showed great zeal against idolatry and published a decree that images of gold and silver should be melted down. He was extremely zealous about this. The images were all to be melted down and the metal forfeited to the emperor.

It was shrewdly suspected that this great iconoclast was not altogether swayed by unselfish motives. When a business brings grist to the mill, it is not hard to keep to it. Some love Christ because they carry His money bag for Him. Beware of that kind of godliness which makes a man hesitate until he sees whether a duty will pay or not and then makes him eager because he sees it will answer his purpose.

Once more—I do not doubt that a form of godliness has come to many because it brings them ease of conscience and they are able, like the Pharisee, to thank God that they are not as other men are. Have they not been to Church? Have they not paid for their pew? They can now go about their daily business without those stings of conscience which would come of neglecting the requirements of religion. These people profess to have been converted and they are numbered with Believers. But, alas, they are not of them.

Of all people these are the hardest to reach and the least likely to be saved. They hide behind the earthworks of a nominal religion. They are out of reach of the shot and shell of Gospel rebukes. They fly among the sinners and they have taken up their quarters among the saints. Sad is that man’s plight who wears the name of life but has never been quickened by the Holy Spirit. Thus, I have very feebly tried to show what these men had and why they had it.

Let us now remember what they did not have. They had “the form” of godliness. But they were denied “the power.” What is that power? God Himself is the power of godliness, The Holy Spirit is the life and force of it. Godliness is the power which brings a man to God and binds him to Him. Godliness is that which creates repentance towards God and faith in Him. Godliness is the result of a great change of heart in reference to God and His Character. Godliness looks towards God and mourns its distance from Him. godliness hastens to draw near and rests not till it is at home with God. Godliness makes a man like God. Godliness leads a man to love God and to serve God. It brings the fear of God before his eyes and the love of God into his heart. Godliness leads to consecration, to sanctification, to concentration. The godly man seeks first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and expects other things to be added to him. Godliness makes a man commune with God and gives him a partnership with God in His glorious designs. And so it prepares him to dwell with God forever.

Many who have the form of godliness are strangers to this power and so are in religion worldly, in prayer mechanical, in public one thing and in private another. True godliness lies in spiritual power and they who are without this are dead while they live.

What is the general history of those who have not this power? Well, dear Friends, their course usually runs thus—they do not begin with denying the power but they begin by trying to do without it. They would like to become members of the Church and as they fear that they are not fit for it, they look about for something which looks like conversion and the new birth. They try to persuade themselves that they have been changed—they accept emotion as regeneration and a belief of doctrine for belief in Christ.

It is rather hard at first to reckon brass as gold but it grows easier as it is persisted in. Patching up a conversion and manufacturing a regeneration, they venture forward. At the first they are a good deal suspicious of themselves but they industriously kill every question by treating it as a needless doubt. Thus, by degrees, they believe a lie.

The next step is easy—they deceive themselves and come to believe that they are surely saved. All is now right for eternity, so they fancy. And they fold their arms in calm security. Meeting with godly people, they put on a bold front and speak up as bravely as if they were the true soldiers of King Jesus. Good people are charmed to meet with fresh Brethren and at once take them into their confidence. Thus they deceive others and help to strengthen themselves in their false hope.

They use the choice phrases of earnest Christians. Mixing with them, they pick up their particular expressions and pronounce Shibboleth in the most approved fashion. At last they take the daring step of denying the power. Being without it themselves, they conceive that others are without it, also. Judging from their own case, they conclude that it is all an affair of words. They get on very well without any supernatural power and others, no doubt, do the same—only they add a little cant to it to please the very godly folk.

They practically deny the power in their lives, so that those who see them and take them for Christians say, “There really is nothing in it. For these people are as we are. They have a touch of paint here and a little varnish there but it is all the same wood.” Practically, their actions assure the world that there is no power in Christianity. It is only a name. Very soon, privately, in their hearts they think it is so and they invent doctrines to match. Looking about them they see inconsistent Christians and faulty Believers and they say to themselves, “There is not much in faith, after all. I am as good as any of these Believers and perhaps better, though I am sure there is no work of the Spirit in me.”

Thus, within their own hearts they believe, what, at first, they dare not speak—they count godliness an empty thing. By-and-by, in some cases, these people profanely deny the Divine power of our holy faith and then they become the greatest enemies of the Cross of Christ. These traitors, nourished in the very House of God, are the worst foes of the Truth of God and righteousness. They ridicule that which once they professed to reverence. They have measured Christ’s corn with their own bushel. And because they never felt the powers of the world to come, they imagine that no one else has done so either.

Look at the Church of the present day. The advanced school, I mean. In its midst we see preachers who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. They talk of the Lord Jesus but they deny His Godhead, which is His power. They speak of the Holy Spirit but deny His personality, wherein lies His very existence. They take away the substance and power
from all the doctrines of Revelation, though they pretend still to believe them. They talk of redemption but they deny substitution, which is the essence of it.

They extol the Scriptures but deny their infallibility, wherein lies their value. They use the phrases of orthodoxy and believe nothing in common with the orthodox. I know not which to loathe the more—their teachings or their spirit—surely they are worthy of each other. They burn the kernel and preserve the husk. They kill the truth and then pretend to reverence its sepulcher—“they say they are Jews and are not but do lie.”

This is horrible, but the evil is widely spread and in the presence of it the children of God are framing compromises, selling their Lord and becoming partakers with the despisers of His Truth. “Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.” It is the sin of the age—the sin which is ruining the Churches of our land.

II. In the second place, we are to observe THE WICKED FOLLY of this hypocritical conduct. Those who rest in the mere show of godliness are acting in a shameless manner and I will try to expose it.

First, they degrade the very name of Christ. Brethren, if there is no spiritual power in godliness, it is worth nothing. We want no clouds without rain. Of shams and mere pretences we have more than enough. Those who have not the power of godliness show us a very damaging picture of religion. They make out our Lord’s religion to be comparable to a show
at a country fair, with fine pictures and loud drumming on the outside and nothing within worth a moment’s consideration. The best of the show is on the outside.

Or if there is anything within, it is a masquerade where all act borrowed parts but no one is what he seems to be. Gracious Lord, never suffer us so to act as to make the world think that our Redeemer is nothing more than the clever manager of a theater, where nothing is real but all is pantomime. Brothers and Sisters, if you pray at all, pray God to make you real through and through. May you be made of true metal! It were better for you that you had never been born than that you should make Christ dishonorable among the sons of men by leading them to conclude that religion is all a piece of acting.

The folly of this is illustrated by the fact that there is no value in such a dead form. The form of godliness without the power is not worth the trouble it takes to put it together and keep it together. Imitation jewels are pretty and brilliant. But if you take them to the jeweler he will give you nothing for them. There is a religion which is all paste gems—a godliness
which glitters but is not gold. And in that day when you will want to realize something from it, you will be wretchedly disappointed.

A form of godliness joined to an unholy heart is of no value to God. I have read that the swan was not allowed to be offered upon the altar of God because, although its feathers are as white as snow, yet its skin is black. God will not accept that external morality which conceals internal impurity. There must be a pure heart as well as a clean life. The power of
godliness must work within, or else God will not accept our offering. There is no value to man or to God in a religion which is a dead form.

Next, there is no use in mere formality. If your religion is without spiritual life, what is the use of it? Could you ride home on a dead horse? Would you hunt with dead dogs? Would anyone like to go into battle with a pasteboard helmet? When the sword fell on it, what use would such a helmet be? What an outcry has been raised about bad swords! Is false
religion any better? In the depth of winter can you warm yourself before a painted fire? Could you dine off the picture of a feast when you are hungry?

There must be vitality and substantiality—or else the form is utterly worthless. And worse than worthless, for it may flatter you into deadly self-conceit. Moreover, there is no comfort in it. The form without the power has nothing in it to warm the heart, to raise the spirits, or to strengthen the mind against the day of sickness, or in the hour of death. O God, if my religion has been a mere form, what shall I do in the swelling of Jordan? My fine profession will all disappear and nothing will come of it wherewith I may face the last enemy.

Peter called hypocrites “wells without water.” You are thirsty and you gladly spy a well. It is well surrounded with a curb and provided with a windlass and bucket. You hasten to draw water. What? Does the bucket come up empty? You try again. How bitter is your disappointment! A well without water is a mockery. It is a mere pit of destruction—a deadly delusion. Are some of you possessors of a religion which never yields you a drop of comfort? Is it a bondage to you? Do you follow Christ as a slave follows his master? Away with such a religion!

The godliness which is worth having is a joy to a man—it is his choice, his treasure, his all. When it does not yield him conscious joy, yet he prizes it as the only source from which joy is expected of him. He follows after Christ with love, out of his heart’s desire after Him and not from the force of fashion, or the power of fear.

To have the form of godliness without the power of it is to lack constancy in your religion. You never saw a mirage, perhaps. But those who have travel in the East, when they come home, are sure to tell you about them. It is a very hot and thirsty day and you are riding on a camel. Suddenly there rises before you a beautiful scene. Just a little from you are brooks of water, flowing between beds of osiers and banks of reeds and rushes. Yonder are palm trees and orange groves. Yes, and a city rises on a hill, crowned with minarets and towers.

You are rejoiced and ask your guide to lead you nearer to the water which glistens in the sun. He grimly answers, “Take no notice, it is a mirage. There is nothing yonder but the burning sand.” You can scarce believe him. It seems so real! But lo, it is all gone, like a dream of night. And so is the hope which is built upon the form of godliness without the
power. The white ants will eat up all the substance of a box and yet leave it standing till a touch causes the whole fabric to fall in dust—beware of a profession of which the substance has been eaten away. Believe in nothing which has not the stamp of eternity upon it.

Be careful, poor Child—you may blow your bubble and the sunlight may paint it with rainbows. But in an instant it is gone and not a trace of it remains. Your transient globe of beauty is for you and your fellow children and not for men. In reality, this kind of religion is in opposition to Christ. It is Jannes and Jambres over again—the magician of hypocrisy is trying to work miracles which belong to God only. In appearance he would produce the same marvels as the finger of God. But he fails. God grant we may never be guilty of resisting the Truth of God by a lying profession. False men do serious injury to true godliness. For, like Ehud, they come with a pretended message from God and with their dagger sharpened at both edges, they strike vital godliness in its very heart. Nobody can do so much damage to the Church of God as the man who is within its walls but not within its life.

This nominal godliness, which is devoid of power, is a shameful thing. I close with that. It is a shameful thing for this life, for the Lord Jesus loathes it. When He passed by the fig tree, which was so early with its leaves but so empty of fruit, He saw therein the likeness of the vainglorious professor who has no real holiness and He said, “Henceforth let no fruit
grow on you forever.” His Word withered it at once—it stood a terrible emblem of the end of a false profession. How shameful will such a fruitless, lifeless professor be in eternity, when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed! What shame and everlasting contempt will await him when his falsehood shall be detected and his baseness shall fill all
holy minds with horror! O, beware of the Hell of the false professor!

I have done when I have added a few words of instruction. The form of godliness is most precious. Let those who feel the power of godliness honor it and use it. Do not despise it because others have damaged it. Come forth and make an open profession of religion. But see that you have the power of it. Cry to God that you may never wear a sleeve which is
longer than your arm—I mean may never go beyond what is really and truly your own. It will be better for you to go to God as a lost soul and cry for mercy, than to profess yourself saved when you are not.

Yet confess Christ without fail or fear. Do not be ashamed of Jesus because of the ill manners of His disciples. Regard the ill savor of false professors as a part of the cross which you will have to bear for your Lord. To be associated with some who are not true seems inevitable in this life—however carefully we choose our company.

My next is a word of discrimination. Those to whom my text has nothing to say will be the first to take it home to themselves. When I discharge my heart with a faithful sermon, certain trembling souls whom I would gladly comfort are sure to think that I mean them. A poor woman, in deep distress, comes to me, crying, “Sir, I have no feeling.” Dear
heart, she has ten times too much feeling. Another moans out, “I am sure I am a hypocrite.” I never met with a hypocrite who thought himself one. And I never shall.

“Oh,” said another, “I feel condemned.” He that feels himself condemned may hope for pardon. If you are afraid of yourselves I am not afraid of you. If you tremble at God’s Word, you have one of the surest marks of God’s elect. Those who fear that they are mistaken are seldom mistaken. If you search yourselves and allow the Word of God to search you, it is well with you. The bankrupt trader fears to have his books examined. The sound man even pays an accountant to overhaul his affairs. Use discrimination and neither acquit nor condemn yourself without reason.

If the Spirit of God leads you to weep in secret for sin and to pray in secret for Divine Grace. If He leads you to seek after holiness. If He leads you to trust alone in Jesus, then you know the power of godliness and you have never denied it. You who cry, “Oh, that I felt more of the power of the Holy Spirit, for I know that He could comfort and sanctify me and make me live the life of Heaven on earth!” You are not aimed at either by the text or the sermon. For you have not denied the power. No, no, this text does not belong to you but to quite another class of people.

Let me give you a word of admonition. Learn from the text that there is something in godliness worth having. The “form” of godliness is not all—there is a blessed “power.” The Holy Spirit is that power and He can work in you to will and to do of God’s good pleasure. Come to Jesus Christ, dear Souls. Do not come to the minister, nor to the Church, in
the first place. But come to Jesus. Come and lay yourselves at His feet and say, “Lord, I will not be comforted unless You comfort me.” Come and take everything at first hand from your crucified Lord. Then shall you know the power of godliness.

Beware of second-hand religion, it is never worth the carrying home. Get your godliness direct from Heaven by the personal dealing of your own soul with your Savior. Profess only what you possess and rest only in that which has been given you from above. Your heavenly life, as yet, may be very feeble but the grain of mustard seed will grow. You may be the least in Israel but that is better than being the greatest in Babylon.

The Lord bless these words and apply them to each one in his own way by His Holy Spirit. You can make either a blister of them or a plaster of them, as conscience shall direct. God guide you, for Jesus Christ’s sake.   Amen.

Adapted from The C.H. Spurgeon Collection, Version 1.0, Ages Software, 1.800.297.4307

PRAY THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL USE THIS SERMON
TO BRING MANY TO A SAVING KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST.

Article LINK: – Read/download PDF

« Older entries