85 thoughts on “Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 7)”

1. Tim, 7 articles now, completely detailed, all Fathers in unified concert that the sacrifice and oblation offered was not the Lord’s supper, but of praise, thanksgiving, of our lives in obedience, as thanksgiving for the one sacrifice that saved us and is being applied to us now as we await the real presence of our savior. He is really present now with us thru His Spirit and His Word. We have been made complete in Christ Colossians, given all things pertaing to life and godliness, and have been perfected by the one sacrifice that we commemorate. The evidence you have provided is not only ovewhelming, but it shows the complete uniformity in teaching in the early fathers. The sacrifice of the Mass was indeed, in the words of John Owen, an invention of man. The saddest part, is that Catholics will spend their whole life going to Mass, adoration chapels for hours, following what they think is their salvation in the streets, refusing to realize it is an unacceptable sacrifice unto God. They knew God, but they honored Him not as God, they worshiped the creation instead of the creator who is blessed forever amen. K Thanks for the work you put in Tim.

   Reply

2. To those interested, here is one of the best explanations on infant baptism I’ve ever seen. He also goes into details starting around 30:00 covering the sacraments and what they mean in the covenant of grace. I recommend Catholics and especially any Baptists out there watch this video. The speaker is a former “reformed” Baptist as well for those who consider themselves a reformed baptist by proclamation.

   Reply

3. TIM–

   I find this interesting:
   “Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
   In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.
   Heb. 9:23 – in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
   1 Cor. 10:20 – Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice – both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.
   1 Cor. 10:21 – Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.

   I am no Greek expert, but if the translation “offer this as my memorial sacrifice” is indeed a correct translation, then Jesus instructed His apostles to offer bread and wine–His Body and Blood–as a memorial sacrifice, not just praises and thanksgivings.
   Can it be a correct translation for the transliteration of “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin”–“this to make for my remembrance”?

   Reply

   1. Bob, the citation you provided said,

      “Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.”

      Jesus did not “literally” say “offer this as my memorial sacrifice” because He did not use the term “sacrifice” (θυσία). To say “sacrifice” literally, He would have had actually to use the term “sacrifice,” which He did not.

      Your citation continued,

      “The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar).”

      Here are some other uses of “poieite” (ποιεῖτε) in the New Testament:

      Matthew 3:3 “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make (ποιεῖτε) his paths straight.”

      Matthew 5:44 “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do (ποιεῖτε) good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

      Matthew 5:47 “And if ye salute your brethren only, what do (ποιεῖτε) ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?”

      Matthew 7:12 “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do (ποιεῖτε) ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

      Matthew 21:13 “And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made (ποιεῖτε) it a den of thieves”

      Matthew 23:3 “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do (ποιεῖτε) not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”

      Matthew 23:15 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make (ποιεῖτε) him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

      Mark 1:3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make (ποιεῖτε) his paths straight.”

      Mark 7:8 “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do (ποιεῖτε).”

      Mark 7:13 “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye (ποιεῖτε).”

      Mark 11:3 “And if any man say unto you, Why do ye (ποιεῖτε) this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither.”

      Mark 11:5 “And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye (ποιεῖτε), loosing the colt?”

      Luke 3:4 “As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make (ποιεῖτε) his paths straight.”

      Luke 6:2 “And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye (ποιεῖτε) that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?”

      Luke 6:27 “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do (ποιεῖτε) good to them which hate you,”

      Luke 6:31 “And as ye would that men should do to you, do (ποιεῖτε) ye also to them likewise.”

      Luke 6:46 “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do (ποιεῖτε) not the things which I say?”

      John 2:16 “And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make (ποιεῖτε) not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.”

      John 8:38 “I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do (ποιεῖτε) that which ye have seen with your father.”

      John 8:41 “Ye do (ποιεῖτε) the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”

      Acts 14:15 “And saying, Sirs, why do ye (ποιεῖτε) these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:”

      Acts 21:13 “Then Paul answered, What mean ye (ποιεῖτε) to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”

      1 Corinthians 10:31 “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do (ποιεῖτε), do (ποιεῖτε) all to the glory of God.”

      Ephesians 6:9 “And, ye masters, do (ποιεῖτε) the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”

      Philippians 2:14 “Do (ποιεῖτε) all things without murmurings and disputings:”

      1 Thessalonians 4:10 “And indeed ye do (ποιεῖτε) it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;”

      1 Thessalonians 5:11 “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do (ποιεῖτε).”

      2 Thessalonians 3:4 “And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do (ποιεῖτε) and will do the things which we command you.”

      Hebrews 12:13 “And make (ποιεῖτε) straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.”

      James 2:8 “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do (ποιεῖτε) well:”

      James 2:12 “So speak ye, and so do (ποιεῖτε), as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

      2 Peter 1:19 “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do (ποιεῖτε) well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:”

      The word “poieite” (ποιεῖτε), simply describes an action. It is not the term, but the context in which the term is used, that makes it sacrificial. The author you cited merely assumed that the Lord’s Supper was a sacrifice, and so read sacrificial meaning into “poieite” (ποιεῖτε). In other words, he merely assumed what it was his duty to prove, and reasoning from his assumption, concludes his assumption, and then thinks he has found that “poieite” (ποιεῖτε) is used sacrificially. It is merely circular reasoning.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Bob,

         Tim did a great job in his clarification for you in how Scripture should be interpreted. Here is the rule:

         “IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

         2PE 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

         ACT 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up.

         Reply

      2. TIM–
         You said: “Jesus did not “literally” say “offer this as my memorial sacrifice” because He did not use the term “sacrifice” (θυσία). To say “sacrifice” literally, He would have had actually to use the term “sacrifice,” which He did not.
         Your citation continued,
         “The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar).”

         Ok. But what I see is that “poiein” (do) refers to the word “offering”:
         poieō
         to do
         to act rightly, do well
         to carry out, to execute
         to do a thing unto one
         to do to one
         with designation of time: to pass, spend
         to celebrate, keep
         to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
         to perform: to a promise

         You also said: “The word “poieite” (ποιεῖτε), simply describes an action. It is not the term, but the context in which the term is used, that makes it sacrificial.”
         You did not consider the rest of the quotation. So in the context of the sentence which includes the word anamnesis it would follow that “poiein” could be rendered in a sacrificial context.
         The quote said “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
         In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

         I checked it out in the lexicon and he’s right. Every time the word anamnesis is used, it is in a sacrificial context–only 4 times in the New Testament. In every other case, the word mnemosunon is used. As Walt would say “scripture interpreting scripture.”

         In this light, “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin” could be correctly rendered “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.”

         Reply

         1. He said do this in remembrance of ME, Pual says in commemoration of. Hebrews says ond offering perfected. He obatained eternal redemption andcsatvdown. It is finished. Not it is continued. Tim j u st finished 7 articles on a plethra of fathers, and not one of them, not one has thd bread ever being offered to anyone but men. Either his sacrificecwas sufficient or it wasnt. Do a Mass 500 times is inconsisten with Hebrews 10:14 which says one sacrifice perfected us. Your continual sacrifice never perfects, never. K

            Reply

            1. “not one has thd bread ever being offered to anyone but men. ”

               I was unaware that Catholics offer bread to God. Could you point to a document that says we do?

         2. Bob wrote:

            “I checked it out in the lexicon and he’s right. Every time the word anamnesis is used, it is in a sacrificial context–only 4 times in the New Testament. In every other case, the word mnemosunon is used. As Walt would say “scripture interpreting scripture.”

            Bob, using a lexicon is not interpreting Scripture with Scripture. Can you tell me the author of the greek and hebrew lexicon you are using to reach your conclusion?

            Lexicon and Dictionaries are often defined by the presupposition of the author of these books. In fact, most Lexicon’s are based upon bible dictionaries which are often in error by the author himself.

            Can you tell me the author of the Lexicon’s you are using to interpret Scripture rather than using the Scripture to interpret Scripture?

            Reply

            1. WALT–
               The lexicon is Thayers Greek Lexicon from blueletterbible.org.

         3. Bob, when you say “But what I see is that “poiein” (do) refers to the word “offering”,” where does “poiein” refer to offering?

            Thanks,

            Tim

            Reply

            1. TIM–
               “Bob, when you say “But what I see is that “poiein” (do) refers to the word “offering”,” where does “poiein” refer to offering?”

               Let me rephrase, “poiein” (do) corresponds with the word “offering”, as in the verb of the sentence.
               If you would prefer to use the word “do” then it would read “do this as my memorial sacrifice”.

               This = subject noun
               do as = predicate verb
               my memorial sacrifice = object

               The object is what sets the context of the verb in this case. “My” is the adjective of the word “memorial”. “Memorial” is qualified as “sacrificial” by its unique use as a noun in other uses of Scripture.

               So “offer” could be a rendering of the verb from the definitions sited in the lexicon for “poiein” :
               1. to do
               2 .to act rightly, do well
               3. to carry out, to execute
               4. to do a thing unto one
               5. to do to one
               6. with designation of time: to pass, spend
               7. to celebrate, keep
               8. to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the Passover
               9. to perform: to a promise
               when used in the light of a sacrificial object.

            2. Thanks, Bob. It seems to me then that the weight of your argument rests on

               ““Memorial” is qualified as “sacrificial” by its unique use as a noun in other uses of Scripture,”

               which as I recall, was based on this statement from the source you provided:

               “In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4).”

               But this assumes that “prayer” and “alms” (Acts 10:4) are “nonsacrificial.” Yet the Scriptures identify them as such, for they are sacrifices of praise with which God is well-pleased:

               “But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.” (Philippians 4:18)

               “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)

               If prayer and providing for the needs of the needy are discussed in a sacrificial context in Hebrews 13:15 and Philippians 4:18, and in fact are identified in the old testament as sacrifices with which God is well pleased (Psalms 141:2; Isaiah 1:17), there is no basis for simply dismissing Acts 10:4 as nonsacrificial, when the text describes the alms and the prayer as offerings that have ascended before God like incense:

               “A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway…. And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.” (Acts 10:2,4)

               Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. I don’t think Acts 10:4 is so easily dismissed as nonsacrificial in order to make “poiein” appear more like an offering. Your source said, “and especially Acts 10:4,” as if prayers and alms are definitely nonsacrificial. And yet, since they definitely are, your source’s arguments fall away.

               Thanks,

               Tim

4. I just finished watching this young man’s testimony. He is a former member of the Roman Catholic church out of Ireland, and a former baptist. This guy’s testimony is really incredible. Much of it sounds like my own despicable Roman Catholic upbringing.

   His testimony should be listened to by all Roman Catholics as he goes through his background sufficiently to show anyone the evil, Satan filled idolatry inside the Romish church…even as he points out in the all seeing eye hanging in his own Irish Catholic Church that he finally recognized after being saved:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qZOMg41Sxo

   And for all of you who are spending the day in the idolatry of NFL football and all the wickedness that goes along with it (especially the satanic half time show), here is another video he just posted yesterday on the Sabbath. Amen brother!

   Reply

   1. Walt,
      ” the evil, Satan filled idolatry inside the Romish church”.

      You are such a horse’s arse.

      Reply

      1. Jim, you wrote:

         “Walt,
         ”the evil, Satan filled idolatry inside the Romish church”.

         You are such a horse’s arse.”

         I’m not a fan of the idolatry inside the church Jim. You don’t see any problems with all the statutes, icons, idols, graven images that people worship in your church. You see it all as just normal, biblical man made “holy” icons. There is really nothing holy about those images as they have nothing to do with anything biblical….and that is serious idolatry.

         Reply

5. Tim, I thought I cut out just the scripture texts…can you please delete the mess that came along with my copy/paste? Thanks.

   Reply

   1. Sure, no problem.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

6. “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath”
   –Mark 2:27

   “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
   –John 14:15

   “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
   –Exodus 20:8-11

   “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.”
   –Psalm 1:1-2

   The Westminster Confession of Faith writes in Chapter 21:8 that the “Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.”

   Reply

7. Walt, were the believers that played in the Super Bowl today guilty of idolatry? Thanks K.

   Reply

   1. Yes, guilty of violating the 4th commandment and the 2nd commandment.

      Reply

8. Walt, do you also realize gentiles were never required to keep the Sabbath in the OT? K

   Reply

   1. Kevin wrote:

      “Walt, do you also realize gentiles were never required to keep the Sabbath in the OT? K”

      Whew, wow. What religion are you teaching?

      All mankind is subject to the moral law of God, and that included all in the world. Anyone who says that those from Adam to Kevin are not liable to keep the commandments of God are really confused. That is why I quoted Scripture which you obviously ignored.

      Reply

      1. Walt. why are you such an extremist. You know these arguments. Did I say I am not supposed to keep the commandments of God. But we are not under Law, but under grace. Romans 7:6 Paul says he has been released from the Law, in the sense we aren’t under the penalty, unless of course you are still being justified by Law. Colossians 2:16 ” Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or respect to a festival or new moon or a SABBATH day” I sometimes wonder if your under grace, because you show none. K

         Reply

         1. Kevin said,

            “Did I say I am not supposed to keep the commandments of God. But we are not under Law, but under grace. Romans 7:6”

            That is the old antinomian argument who were later declared heretics by the reformers. Hate to put you again back in that camp, but you might want to research the reformed faith before you call yourself one.

            Reply

            1. Walt, Paul was accused of being antinomian, so thanks, Im in good company. K

            2. Walt, incidentally you cant claim the Reformers for yourself. And you can put me in whatever camp you want me too. Reformed truths have penetrated into Baptist churches and other Protestant churches. In fact we feel likecwe fully reformed from the Beast, you still got one foot in. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. Walt, I have been on here one year, you have shown no grace to Protestants from otger churches who believe in thd doctrines of soveriegn grace. Roman Catholics treat me better than you treat me. You do the same things to us as Rome did to the Reformers. Im not your enemy, im your brother. Im fighting for the same gospel.

9. Walt, those who are not strict Sabattarians argue that the Sabbath was part of the ceremonial law. And it has been abrogated. And can you explain your view of Paul saying we dont observe sabbaths and etc. Thanks. Im just trying to get your view? K

   Reply

10. Walt, Colossians 2:16,17, Romans 14:5. In Acts 15 it seems imaginable that if Gentiles were held to the Sabbath that the Apostles wouldnt have mentioned this. Im really interested to hear you explain Colossians 2:16. Thanks

    Reply

11. Walt, that should read unimaginable, sorry. Thanks

    Reply

12. Walt, Its unwise to get into this discussion on here. So this will be my last post on it. If your interested MacArthur has a message on this ” Understanding the Sabbath” If you are not, fine. I’ll finish by saying, how did Jesus treat the Sabbath, anyway He wanted. He was Lord of the Sabbath. Since you have no problem continuing to come on here and calling those who do not observe the Sabbath idolators, and you have no problem coming here and calling those who believe the gospel of sovereign grace heretics, I have no problem calling you a judaizer. You show me no indication you are a believer. When i approached you about bearing false witness of me, you did not repent. The pharisees were strict Sabbath keepers, and missed the whole point. They had no rest from their endless works salvation and no real honest repentance. Christ gave us true rest thru a better covenant. He didn’t clean the Temple, where Priests were doing their work of sacrifices on the Sabbath. He abolished it. And in John 5: 16 ” For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing things on the Sabbath. But He answered them ” My Father is working until now, and I myself am working.” You Walt, like the Judaizers who persecuted Jesus for doing what He wanted on the Sabbath, persecute believers. K

    Reply

13. Bob, This is funny. You import sacrifice into the sentence by saying the verb do means sacrifice. You rearange a sentence to cnange the meaning. And you totally leave out ” in remembrance” He says do this ” in remembrance” ( looking back) of me. It is a reminder of Him and whatvHe did for us. Memorial sacrifice isnt the object. You imported that into the sentence. When He says do this, He means breaking bread and taking lthe cup. The rest of the sentence tells us how, in remembrance of Me. Its a memorial meal. Paul says its done in commemration. We are justified by faith the Scripture says, not by an ongoing sacrifice. Sacramental efficacy cant be put up in the place of the atonement. The church isnt the agent of redemption. Christ’ one sacrifice pays for all our sins past, present, future. Salvation has been accomplished, and now its being applied. He continues to intercede for us as we confess. He c doesnt continue to be immolated as He gives you grace on an instalment plan. Ephesians 2:8. Saved! 5:1, tenses give you a problem. God bless k

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You didn’t read my original post.

       Reply

14. Bob, I saw your original post. Do doesnt mean offer. And the context doesnt change do into a gifferent meaning. There is no sacrifice anywhere in the verse. Your importing Rome’ position into it. This falls flat. One of your Priest friens gave you this. Lol its typical Catholic exegesis. K

    Reply

15. Question 115: Which is the fourth commandment?

    Answer: The fourth commandment is, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    Question 116: What is required in the fourth commandment?

    Answer: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he has appointed in his Word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called the Lord’s day.

    Question 117: How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?

    Answer: The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.

    Question 118: Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?

    Answer: The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own.

    Question 119: What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?

    Answer: The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required, all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them; all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations.

    Question 120: What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it?

    Answer: The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it, are taken from the equity of it, God allowing us six days of seven for our own affairs, and reserving but one for himself, in these words, Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: from God’s challenging a special propriety in that day, The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: from the example of God, who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: and from that blessing which God put upon that day, not only in sanctifying it to be a day for his service, but in ordaining it to be a means of blessing to us in our sanctifying it;Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    Question 121: Why is the word Remember set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?

    Answer: The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; and partly, because we are very ready to forget it, for that there is less light of nature for it, and yet it restrains our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; that it comes but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it;and that Satan with his instruments much labor to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.

    Reply

16. In his work against the Antinomians, Luther rejected the idea that he had taught the abolition of the Ten Commandments.[29] Another Protestant Reformer, John Wesley, stated “This ‘handwriting of ordinances’ our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2:14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away …. The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law …. Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages.”[30]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

    Reply

17. For those who desire to read on the Sabbath rather than watch football games and defile the Sabbath, here is an excellent choice:

    “A

    TESTIMONY & WARNING, &c.

    THE VIOLATION OF THE SABBATH.

    THERE is scarcely a divine ordinance, about which a greater diversity of opinion has obtained, than about the Sabbath. Every thing respecting it has been controverted. Its change from the seventh to the first day of the week, with its obligation under the New Testament, is denied. It has been ranked among the Jewish ceremonies, and held to have evanished with them. Others, admitting the duty and propriety of appropriating some part of time to the service of God, maintain that a discretionary power is committed to the Church, to determine what particular day shall be observed, and how often. Some contend that the Sabbath ought to be observed with all that strictness peculiar to the Jewish dispensation; whilst others consider themselves as warranted to appropriate all that time, not occupied in public worship, to recreations and convivial entertainments. It does not consist with our present design to enter upon any of these controversies. What is now proposed respects the practical sanctification of the Christian Sabbath, as a mean to check the present mournful abuse of it, now become so prevalent.

    The Sabbath means that seventh part of our time, which God claims as his own, and to be employed in his service. Mere cessation from bodily labour does not comprehend the whole work of sanctifying the Sabbath; nor is it, strictly speaking, any part of the positive service of it: for by this we are not distinguished from the brutal creation. This is, however, required. On the Sabbath, God ceased from working. So did the Saviour, on finishing the work of our redemption, on the first day of the week. These are exemplary to us. But God also {10} blessed and sanctified the Sabbath; and thereby set it apart for holy spiritual purposes. By blessing it, he annexed some good to it, to be enjoyed by man, in the due sanctification of it. By enjoining him to rest on that day, he gave him to understand that it was not his property, as the other days of the week. And by sanctifying it, he signified, that it should not be spent in indolence and inactivity; but in the active duties of his service. The fourth precept in the decalogue contains substantially, the work and service of this day. “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” We are enjoined to keep the Sabbath “from polluting it; to call it a delight, the holy of the Lord and honourable; not finding our own pleasures, not speaking our own words.” Notwithstanding these explicit injunctions, an allowance is given for doing such things as are of moral necessity. Man and beast must have their necessary food: both must be relieved in distress, and defended against imminent danger. Jesus himself wrought miracles on the Sabbath to relieve the distressed, and justified the disciples in plucking the ears of corn, &c. The doing of these things does not convert sacred time into civil. It is still the Lord’s day, and, in doing these, a spiritual frame of soul should, as much as possible, be studiously maintained. It is to be feared that too many convert such allowances, into an occasion of encroaching on the Sabbath, and of appropriating it to unnecessary civil pursuits. Necessity is urged, while the only operative reason is convenience. This is to make the goodness of God an occasion of sin; and to rob him in proportion as he is bountiful. To many this holy day is a galling yoke, from which they are anxious to be relieved. “What a weariness is it to serve the Lord?—”When will the sabbath be gone, that we may set forth wheat?” [Mal. 1.13; Amos 8.5.] Carnal men would have the time, to be employed in the service of God, left wholly to themselves. They cannot be restricted within the limits set by him. A seventh part of time is, with such, by far too much to be abstracted from their secular pursuits, and appropriated to the service of Jehovah. Tho’, from {11} prudential considerations, they may abstain from pursuing civil business openly, they can easily attend to it in private. Such, instead of regarding the Sabbath, hate it. Others, who profess some regard to the Sabbath, in many instances, depart from the duties of it: either through a culpable inadvertence, not considering what are properly matters of necessity, or by following an established custom. It may not be improper, in this place, to take notice of a few things, out of many, by which the Sabbath is profaned.”

    http://www.truecovenanter.com/reformedpresbyterian/reformed_presbytery_testimony_against_immoralities.html#reformed_presbytery_testimony_against_i

    For those who desire football and sports on the Sabbath, I recommend to listen to MacArthur or Rome who offers you Saturday night (5pm & 7pm) to worship and Sunday to go to the super bowl.

    Reply

    1. WALT–
       You realize that the true Sabbath is on Saturday and not Sunday, right? It was the Romish Church that changed it from Saturday to Sunday on the orders of Constantine in the 4th century AD. And I am willing to bet you that Tim and Kevin and even you, Walt, don’t think there is any problem with that.

       Reply

18. Walt, I watched the believers do their work in the Super bowl to the glory of God. The bible never says Adam, or Abraham or any man kept any sabbath, before it was given as a sign in the children of Israel. You set up a straw man saying those who believe the Sabbath was part of the ceremonial law dont want to obey God’s law. Your more Roman Catholic than John MacArthur. Just look atvhow Jesus dealt with the men who were accusing Him of working on the sabbath. You would have been there right with them. I listened to the tape you provided. Im unconvinced. K

    Reply

19. TIM–
    You said: “But this assumes that “prayer” and “alms” (Acts 10:4) are “non sacrificial.”

    The way he stated it sounds like it, doesn’t it? But, who said anything about prayer and alms not being included in “anamnasin”? Prayer and alms are included in the sacrifice, not excluded. “Do this”(touto poieite ) includes all of that which Christ instituted in the sacrament.
    1Co 11:23
    For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
    and gave thanks,
    and He broke it
    and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
    and He also took the cup
    andagain giving thanks
    and saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
    andyou proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
    andlet a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
    Andwhen they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount Mat 26:30

    “Do this” includes a lot of things. Hymns, blessings, giving thanks, giving alms, breaking bread, pouring wine, words of consecration, inner reflection, all of these things are included in the “touto poieite” of the “anamnasin”.

    Tim, why do you think the word anamnasin is used in Jesus’ remembrance instead of the word mnemosunon?

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Bob. To my comment,

       “But this assumes that “prayer” and “alms” (Acts 10:4) are “non sacrificial.”

       You responded,

       The way he stated it sounds like it, doesn’t it?

       Yes, it does. You continued,

       But, who said anything about prayer and alms not being included in “anamnasin”?

       You may recall that your source thought to prove that “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin” must be sacrificial because Jesus did not use “mnemosunon” which (so he said) cannot be sacrificial. His proof relied heavily on Acts 10:4:

       “If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4).”

       Nobody “said anything about prayer and alms not being included in ‘anamnasin'” because that is not what you were asking about. As you have now conceded, the strongest point in his argument has evaporated.

       So, by way of anamnasin, let’s summarize your Scriptural argument that “the Lord’s Supper is sacrificial”:

       assertion 1) “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin” literally means “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.”

       That is not true. Neither “offer” nor “sacrifice” occur in the original text. Therefore, “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin” cannot possibly mean that literally.

       assertion 2) The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar)

       That is true. The term used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) is “ποιήσεις.” It means “do” but is rendered “offer” in this context, because the context is an offering. It is also used in 1 Kings 8:39, “Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do (ποιήσεις), and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)”. In this case, the context is not an offering, so the term has no sacrificial overtones. Unless your source is suggesting that God in heaven is sacrificing to us….

       assertion 3) “If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4).”

       As you have now conceded, Acts 10:4 is actually sacrificial, so the only remaining argument for you is that the Lord’s supper is sacrificial—not because He literally said it was a sacrifice (He did not), not because “touto poieite” is inherently sacrificial (it is not), not because “mnemosunon” cannot be sacrificial (it can)—but because, well, just because Rome says so.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. TIM–
          You answered all the questions but the most important one.
          So,Tim, why do you think the word anamnasin is used in Jesus’ remembrance instead of the word mnemosunon?

          Reply

          1. Bob, you asked,

             So,Tim, why do you think the word anamnasin is used in Jesus’ remembrance instead of the word mnemosunon?

             Because it means to “reminisce” or “call to mind,” and that’s what Jesus wanted us to do. You can see its definition here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29na%2Fmnhsin&la=greek&prior=e%29s

             In the Septuagint, it is often used that way, as in Psalms 38:1, “A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance (ἀνάμνησιν),” and Psalms 70:1 “To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance (ἀνάμνησιν).”

             It is even used that way in the apocrypha, as in “Affliction struck them briefly, by way of warning, and they had a saving token to remind (ἀνάμνησιν) them of the commandment of your Law” (Wisdom 16:6).

             Notably, the word, mnemosunon (μνημόσυνον) is actually used sacrificially in the Septuagint, as in Leviticus 2:2, “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial (mnemosunon, μνημόσυνον) of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD:”

             Yet your source insists that mnemosunon (μνημόσυνον) is not sacrificial, writing, “If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4).”

             Don’t you think your source is being a little selective when he seeks to prove from the Septuagint that poiein is sacrificial (Exodus 29:38-39), and then ignores the Septuagint’s sacrificial use of mnemosunon (Leviticus 2:2)? I have every confidence that if Luke 22:19 had used mnemosunon (μνημόσυνον) instead of anamnasin (ἀνάμνησιν), your source would be making the same argument, i.e., that mnemosunon must be sacrificial because it is used that way in Leviticus 2:2 in the Septuagint.

             What it comes down to is a case of so desperately wanting to the see a sacrifice on the Lord’s Table that your source is willing to go any lengths to prove it. What matters is what the text actually says, and it most certainly does not say, as he alleged, “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.”

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. TIM–
                “Bob asked, why do you think the word anamnasin is used in Jesus’ remembrance instead of the word mnemosunon?
                You answered “Because it means to “reminisce” or “call to mind,” and that’s what Jesus wanted us to do. You can see its definition here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29na%2Fmnhsin&la=greek&prior=e%29s
                In the Septuagint, it is often used that way, as in Psalms 38:1, “A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance (ἀνάμνησιν),” and Psalms 70:1 “To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance (ἀνάμνησιν).”

                I have found an in depth explanation of the use of “anamnasin” here: http://barqueofpeter.blogspot.com/2011/02/blog-post.html
                It is quite convincing. The research is impressive. And since the terms anamnasin and mnemosunon are both used sacrificially, then neither can be ruled out. The first blog author I cited didn’t do as in-depth of study as you and I just did.

                I feel smarter already, don’t you?

             2. Bob, you wrote,

                I have found an in depth explanation of the use of “anamnasin” here: http://barqueofpeter.blogspot.com/2011/02/blog-post.html It is quite convincing. The research is impressive.

                The blog post you cited stated the following:

                In the Septuagint (LXX) translation, the word anamnesis is used four times, to translate the Hebrew word zikkaron. The four passages are Leviticus 24:5-9, Numbers 10:9-10, and the titles of Psalms 38 and 70.

                It is used four times in the Septuagint to translate a Hebrew word that can mean sacrifice. It is also used elsewhere in texts that were not translated from Hebrew to state things that are not sacrificial. Wisdom 16:6 is in the Septuagint, and it is considered sacred Scripture by Roman Catholics, and by your source. Wisdom 16:6 uses anamnesis in decidedly non-sacrificial terms:

                “εἰς νουθεσίαν δὲ πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐταράχθησαν, σύμβουλον ἔχοντες σωτηρίας εἰς ἀνάμνησιν ἐντολῆς νόμου σου”
                “But they were troubled for a small season, that they might be admonished, having a sign of salvation, to put them in remembrance of the commandment of thy law.”

                Reading your source, you would think the Septuagint only used αναμνησιν four times and never used the term ἀνάμνησιν in non-sacrificial terms.

                In fact it uses it more than four times, and uses it in non-sacrificial terms.

                Thanks,

                Tim

          2. Bob, your exchange with Tim over the word “do” and ” remembrance serves to show the utter irony with Roman Catholics. You will not believe a 7 week documented exegesis of the Fathers which definatively shows the bread was never offered to God and therefore never transubstantiated, and yet you willingly accept a source who changes the meaning of a verb and imports sacrifice into the word for remembrance. I understand if you cant get to that Eucharist you cant be saved. But there is an alternative Bob, trusting in Christ and His righteouness alone for your salvation. John did say, ” but as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to be children of God” Notice the tense of the verb Bob. Received. Then John says ” who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” Bob, you can stop working for your salvation at that Mass today which cannot get you to heaven, and you can receive Him by faith alone and have justification forever. Th righteous shall live by faith” The time of salvation is near. Repent of the Roman Eucharist and believe. You can enter his rest today. For those who have believed have trully entered his rest. God bless

             Reply

             1. You are such a putrid butt-kisser to Tim. You act like every time he breaks wind it is a revelation from God.

20. Bob, was the cup the actual New Covenant? Bob, you took Tim’s works about alms etc. being sacrificial and youvran with it just as I thought you would. You say Tim weccan include those things in with the Sacrifice of the Mass. Have youbread Tim’ last 7 articles. Let me see if I can describe it for you. Its seven weeks of continual citings from a plethra of early Fathers, all of them uniform in the bread was NEVER sacrificed to God. Never offered to anyone but men. Never. ? Have you honestly examined all the proof he offered. Not one disagreed with each other. Im going to guess he had 30 citings all uniform on the bread never being an offering. Transubstantiation and bread offering to God did not exist in the early church. The sacrifice of thd Mass is an invention of man. You and CK ask for even more proof from him, and yet all you got is a verb with a foreign meaning. Im yet to see one Cathokic Apologist come here and argue t b ese positions. Where are the Ccc or CtC guys. Silent, God bless.k

    Reply

    1. Kevin,
       Where are the C2C or CCC guys? The CCC guys are here. The question is, WHY.

       Why do I keep coming back to Tim’s blog? I don’t learn anything here. I don’t think I am going to get through to him ( or you ). I think Walt is a write off. Why do I always come back? I ask myself every time I post here.

       Why do men climb mountains? I don’t know. I do find you fascinating. Like something in a museum. Your spelling gaffs, you boot licking to Tim, your ugly views, your hate, all of you. I have tried to get you to post on certain Protestant blogs just so I can stick you in their faces and say, ” Check out Kevin Falloni. He is one of you”. I have coaxed Catholics from other blogs to lurk here just so they can see Tim and you together as examples of classic old time, Know-Nothing bigotry.

       You bring me back Kevin, you.

       You know, when you find that carton of milk in your fridge that you bought 2 months ago, you know it has gone sour and stinks to high heaven. Rather than just pitching it out though, some weird compulsion always drives you to open it and give it a sniff just to make sure it has gone off. Upon confirming it is rotten, you always say to yourself, ” why in the hell did I sniff it. I KNEW it would make me want to vomit but I had to stick my nose in it. Why? Why? Why?”

       Okay, I got my Kevin fix and am out of here for a while.

       Reply

       1. Jim, we are like family, thats why you keep coming back. Lol k

          Reply

21. Jim asked ” can you tell me where Catholic doctrine says they offer bread to God. Yes I can. Please look at all Trent doctrines regarding tranaubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Its a fairy tale and some magic. The Priest makes the wafer God out of the bread on the altar and its offered to God as a sacrifice. They believe its the physical body of Jesus. But its bread being offered for sins as if it is his glorified body. But Christians look to the sacrifice of ourLord’s not yet glorified body as the sacrifice for sins. Be careful though, they will tell you it is a re presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary, even though Paul says in Romans 6 He is vever to die again. Even though the scripture says He offered himself once, one time, obtained redemption, perfected the sanctified, reconciled us to God, Trent will tell you no, His work wasnt accomplished, but is being finished through the real agency of redemtion, the Roman church and its bread victim that has to come back down on the cross to do it again and again and again. The bread God is an eternal victim on the cross. And the reason we know its bread is because the real Christ was raised for our justification and glorified ruling over his real kingdom, the true church, which isnt in Rome where Priest’s are making the dough God everyday on the altar. Hope this helps. K

    Reply

    1. CK, BOB, Anybody,

       Could you please explain to kelvin that in this statement of his he inadvertently admits Catholics don’t offer bread to God. Instead, we offer what he some colorfully calls the “wafer-god”. Please make him understand. Please. Please! PLEASE!!!!

       “The Priest makes the wafer God out of the bread on the altar and its offered to God as a sacrifice. ”

       I have told him so many times, I am weary.

       Reply

       1. JIM–
          He can’t discern the difference between bread and God, thus wafer-god.
          And you wonder why Catholic apologists look at Kevinism and shake their heads.

          Reply

          1. Bob, the rationale behind your words, “He can’t discern the difference between bread and God, thus wafer-god” is in fact the very cause of Eucharistic adoration. Because the priest does not have the sense to say “Is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isaiah 44:20) and “neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say,… shall I make the residue thereof an abomination?” (Isaiah 44:19), the priest cannot tell the difference between God and bread, and so he worships bread. He honestly cannot tell the difference, “for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand” (Isaiah 44:18). Thus, the wafer-god.

             You seem to think that because Roman Catholics believe in Transubstantiation that therefore they are not worshiping bread. That is a logical fallacy. They are worshiping the Eucharist. The Eucharist is bread. Therefore they are worshiping bread. Neither all the faith in the world, nor all the priests of Rome, nor the sincere conviction of a world full of Roman Catholics can change the bread into something else. They are, in fact, bread worshipers.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

22. Everyone, I just finished racing again the book by Allison on Roman Catholic theology and practice. It is simply the best book i have ever read. It clearly explains the differences between RC and Evangelical theology. It helps me understand the constant differences here over how we treat and look at created things. He does an amazing job explaining two faulty axioms of Roman Catholicism. Nature grace interconnection, and church as a continuing incarnation. The first being the ground of the view of the second. One of his premises is that in RC theology fallen Nature has a capacity to receive grace. It can prepare to receive and builds on it. For instance Mary thru her fluid cooperation with grace provided the sinless circumstances for the birth of Jesus. So Catholic theology sees created things as conduits for grace. Nature, only wounded can receive this inner accident and builds on it, elevates it outside itself until it glows. Purgatory being the final scrub. Evangelical theology has a radically different view, not based on philosophical categories, but on Scripture. We tend not to speak nature but in terms of creation. And when Adam and Eve fell, creation, the created world ( including man’s created nature) was corrupted by sin and severely impaired. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden with all the other consequences. Creation was polluted. When John speaks of the light come into the world and the very creation He created and its people not receiving Him, we can see the effects of fallen human nature being dead to sin. Grace came from outside to redeem fallen nature, not from inside to elevate it, and fallen nature could play no part. This world will pass away and all that is in it. The RC system is synergistic in that the church ( created thing) and all created things, Mary, Priests, Christ’s natural returned body in the bread become the conduit for the infusion as one is transformed from the inside from sinner to divine. . Virtues known by the natural law also facilitate. This physical grace which flows from nature is also transforming the body into divine. We can see what faith isn’t sufficient in the Roman system. Of course we believe this is a gross violation of scripture. We reject philosophical definition, and believe the bible teaches that salvation can only come to a dead man in sins who is in need of the supernatural act of redemption thru the spirit and Word of being born again. Abraham was called out of fallen human nature and believed and was declared righteous. Nature played no part. It was redeemed and renewed. I hope I explained this well enough. God bless everyone. I hope you all will get Allison’s book. K

    Reply

23. Bob, true believers have entered Jesus rest. The Sabbath was a sign to the children of Israel put in the middle of the ten commandments to remind them of God’s perfect creation and entering his rest. Like the sign God gave in the Noaic covenant or Abrahamic, without a believing heart it meant nothing. Of course it pointed toward the true rest to come. When Jesus came everything radically changed. He treated the sabbath anyway He wanted. The Sabbath is never repeated in the NT. The Jews did to Jesus what Walt does to believers accusing them of working on the Sabbath. But Jesus said to the Pharisees who had not ceased from working to earn their salvation or had honest repentance, I and me father are working until now, John 5. We have entered into Jesus rest. We dont need to follow someone’e mishna. We obey God’s comandments, but it is my position that the Sabbath has been abrogated. In Acts 15 the Apostles never mention the Gentiles observing the Sabbath. Not all Reformed held the same position on this. I believe Calvin held a different position. K

    Reply

24. KEVIN–
    Ok. So far what I have gleaned from your responses is that you teach:

    Because of Jesus death on the cross and his resurrection and ascension into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, we are deprived of His presence until He comes at the end of time. So all we can do is just believe that He existed and that His atonement on the Cross was for the elect of God only. If we are elect, then great. No matter how we live our lives, we are saved and might as well think that we are already in heaven. Those who are not the elect can do nothing to be saved and it doesn’t matter how we live our lives, we are doomed to hell.
    Thus, there is no reason in the world to believe in merit, or cooperation, or anything in our power that can make any difference in our eventual destination after death. The Lord’s Supper is just crackers and grape juice, but we are supposed to only remember that Christ died for the elect and that they are saved, whoever they are. There is no need to keep the Sabbath, but you have to be careful not to fall into idolatry. And of course the moral laws have to be kept only for the purpose of getting along with others around you, because it doesn’t matter to God since Christ’s atonement has been imputed to the elect and no one else can keep the commandments perfectly to be saved.
    Sanctification is only for the elect but it has no bearing on whether you go to heaven because you are there anyway. Sanctification is only good for the non-elect in getting along with others, but being made holy does you no good if you are doomed to hell. There is no instalment plan for salvation.
    There is no reason to think that prayer will do you any good whether you are elect or not, because God knows what you are going to pray for anyway.
    Baptism does nothing to save you. You do it just because Jesus said so. The water is just symbolic.
    The Eucharist does nothing to save you. You do it because Jesus said to do it just to remember Him. Their is no putting Him back on the Cross and crucifying Him over and over again. And it’s fruitless to put Him on the altar of sacrifice because He only died once and is risen. It’s just bread and wine for us to eat, that’s all. It’s not His Flesh and it’s not His Blood. It’s just bread and wine that are symbolic of Him so that we can remember Him.
    All believers are priests because there is no one between God and man except for Christ and He only died for the elect.
    The 66 books of the Protestant Bible are the only thing in existence in the world that is infallible. But it only makes any sense to those who happen to be elect. To all others, it’s meaningless.
    The Church of the Elect began when Jesus died on the Cross, thus His shed Blood begat the New Covenant. That Church was ordained at Pentacost in the 1st Century AD. All things pertaining to the New Covenant was developed in that early Church pretty much before the 1st Century ended. A few loose ends were tied up over the next 300 years or so until the Great Apostasy happened in the middle of the 4th Century.
    The Romish Church took over at that time and the True Church of the Elect went into obscurity. For the next 900 years, the True Church was never heard from–no writings or even any acknowledgment of any kind. Then came some very small outcries among a select few against the Romish Church that eventually lead to the Reformation 200 years later. Finally, the True Church of the Elect bursts on the scene claiming to have been there all along, just not participating with the Romish Church as they appeared in the pews of the same.
    The True Church claims no infallibility on its part in teaching although at the same time it claims guidance by the Holy Spirit in all things. The Protestant Bible is the sole rule of faith, and the last say-so in all spiritual matters, even though there is no authority to bind all believers when it comes to interpretation of what the Bible says. The Church of the Elect has no denominational bounds since its jurisdiction spans all of Christendom–the invisible Church.
    And last but not least, those who do not believe in the doctrines set down by the invisible Protestant Church of the Elect have fallen into apostacy by adhering to idolatrous Romish dogmas.
    Bottom line–if you attend any church that is not specifically with these parameters, you are doomed to hell and are called to come out from the Harlot of Babylon before She spills your blood on the Altar of Satan.
    And all the evidence you need to see that all this is true is in Tim Kauffman’s articles on this very blog.

    Does that about cover it?

    Reply

    1. Bob, where do I start, there are so many misrepresentations in my position that you have made that it will take me all day. but I will try. First let me say. Christ brought, ushered in a new covenant. Things radically changed. He didn’t clean the Temple, but He destroyed it and all the system of judaism with it. All the Ten Commandments are mentioned in the NT repeatedly except for the Sabbath. Its never mentioned by the Apostles. Jesus treated the Sabbath anyway He wanted. When he was accused of breaking the Sabbath He said ” which of you who had an Ox fall down a well wouldn’t save it? Why? Jesus abolished all that had to do with the OT system. Now those who believe enter his true rest. The Old system is passed away with continual sacrifices, Sabbaths, feasts days, new moons etc. We have a new and better way. The Pharisees were hypocrites, earning their salvation, Priests working in the temple on the Sabath, never coming to true repentance. You said ” We are deprived of the body of Christ until He comes again” Augustine said this, I agree. Christ has a body like ours and its in one place, glory. You continued ” All we can do is believe He existed and His atonement was for the elect only.” I don’t think I said we believe He existed. We have a live relationship with Him thru his Spirit as his perfect sacrifice which obtained salvation is applied to our lives. It is a blanket across history. Acts 13: 38-39. But you must understand Hebrews 10:14 says His one sacrifice perfected our works, no Purgatory for us. Kinda like no soup for you. And yes Christ atonement was for someone, not everyone. He died for men in a general sense but his atonement was for the elect. Otherwise we would say Christ’s atonement didn’t work for the ones who don’t make it. We can’t say that. You continued ” No matter how you live your lives blah, blah, etc. This is an old canard, its tired. Of course it matters how we live our life, it just doesn’t matter for justification. We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone because we have received forgiveness and the perfect righteousness of Christ thru faith alone. In our system our works are inconsequential to our status before God. Not yours. They are meriting you the increases on interior grace for heaven. A complete violation of scripture. You continued ” The non elect can do nothing about it and it doesn’t matter how they live their life” Thats correct, no matter how good a non christian thinks he is, he is going to hell. Sheep ain’t goats. In some sense God is patient waiting for all to come to repentance. So there is still hope for you. But those who don’t believe in the biblical gospel are not elect and are going to hell. If we could have everybody lift their shirt and they had a big E on their chest, we could just talk to those. But for know we spread the gospel, and God saves his people. You continued ” there is no reason to believe in merit, cooperation that has any being on our destination after death.” Yes, your starting to get it. Those that tied this in Roman 9:32 -10:4, like Catholics, found hell. Read it for yourself. One way in, trusting in Christ alone. It is an ongoing trust in the righteousness of Christ to save you, although faith may be weak at times. Paul says when we are faithless, he remains faithful. You know all these verses, He loses none, He is able to save to the uttermost. Elect cannot lose their salvation, because it depends on God. You know He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ. Catholics want to put the Potter into the clay’s hands. John 1:13. You labored on ” There is no need to keep the Sabbath” I agree. We have entered true rest from earning salvation. Certainly we thai God on the seventh day for his creation, and the 1st day for his redemption. But no, all God’s moral law is repeated in the NT, except the sabbath, which was a sign to the the children of Israel and has been abrogated. We have found rest in Jesus. You continued ” The Lord’s supper is just crackers and grape juice…..” Another tired canard. No one here thinks the Lord’s supper is crackers and grape juice. It reminds us of the sacrifice that payed for our sins, its an opportunity to examine ourselves and confess our sins, and give Him praise and glory. What it isn’t is another sacrifice to that I must continually do to pay for my sins. Eating the bread, abiding in Him, etc. is faith, believing. You continued ” And of course the moral laws have to be kept ………. since Christ’s atonement has been imputed to the Elect …….. and no one else can keep the commandments perfectly to be saved. You have almost got it Bob. No, no one can keep God’s law perfectly and thats whats required, thats why Christ did and merited for us eternal life. Notice its “eternal” we can’t lose it, it lasts forever. And Christ’s perfect righteousness has been imputed to the believer and our sin has been imputed to Him. Its called mercy and grace. Its a gift. We can only receive it. Even Catholic theologians now admit the forensic declarative language of salvation. And now we who have been justified by his blood and by faith strive to Iive holy lives, yet always imperfect in this life. You continued ” All believers ….. ” that paragraph was great, i couldn’t have written it better myself. Good job. You said ” the Apostasy started in the fourth century” indeed it did. Right on time with revelation. Tim does a great job of documenting this in ” The rise of Roman Catholicism” You continued ” The Roman church took over at that time and the true church of the Elect went into obscurity. No, the Roman church never took over the true church. Its a faulty conclusion to think the first 2000 years of the church was Roman Catholic, it wasn’t. In fact the true church has always set itself against that system. Jesus said My kingdom isn’t of this world. The true church has always been made up of those who believe true religion. I don’t believe in a visible church with a home office in Rome. We don’t see anything like that in the NT. There were many visible churches, as there are today that rally around the same gospel and administration of the Sacraments. Rome sadly is apostate. You said ” the true church of the Elect burst on the scene” No, God’s elect from the beginning are preserved, superintended by the Spirit. No scene bursting. You continued ” The church claims no infallibility …….” Correct. The church isn’t the agent of Salvation, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. It can only pass on the message, preach the gospel, carry on his mission, obey Him. Churches don’t connect us to God, He comes to us in the Gospel thru the Spirit when and how He wills. No church owns God. And churches aren’t continuation of incarnation, what is uniquely his finished work. The church is a metaphor for the Body of Christ, and we are incorporated into his body thru the Spirit. You continued ” if you attend a church that is not specifically with these parameters, you are doomed to hell ….’ What matters is what gospel you believe! My view is any church that preaches the correct gospel and administers the sacraments rightly is a good church to attend. But, you must come out of that communion, the communion of Rome. Participating in the Mass and works to merit increases of salvation is a violation of the gospel in the highest order. The idolatry of Mary, the Roman Eucharist, and all the other things piled on the cross is abominable. I hope I answered your points K

       Reply

25. I thought so.

    Reply

26. Bob, at least we have have been consistent. We havent lied to you. A dear brother once told me he had to decide whether he wanted to be liked by Catholics, or whether he was going to tell them the truth and not be liked. He decided to tell them the truth. Me too. I just think the free gift of eternal life that comes through simple belief in Christ is the greatest news ever, and Im going to tell evryone. How anyone could ever support a system that God only givesyou enough grace to get you started and you merit increases through your works. You got to get there and if you dont get there, you dont get there. Romans 6:32 says the free gift of eternal life” its free and its eternal. It lasts forever. ” I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. God justifies the ungodly by faith, and im glad he does. One must see his utter spiritual bankrupcy to understand his need to trust completely in the righteouness of Christ. Only God can reveal that to man. There are no clearer doctrines taught in scripture than God’s election and eternal security, and this who do not see this are under a veil. K

    Reply

27. Bob, I read the link you left for Tim. He, like you fail to realize that the whole purpose of Hebrews is to tell us that their was one final sacrifice offered at the consumation of the ages that sanctified and perfected us past tense. The whole point of the book is that all sacrifices have ceased, the OT system became obsolete. Thats thecwhole point of this covenant of Hebrews, Christ doesnt need to of r er himself over and over like OT priests. He is the mediator of a better covenant, and his sacrifice put sin away. Its finished, thats the point. Instead the source you supplied uses Hebrews to support ammnesn ” remembrance” as meaning sacrifice in support of the words of Jesus in thecLord’s supper being the Mass. But Hebrews point is exactly the opposite . It clearly says sacrifices have ended and the final one perfected and sanctified his people. So your source uses a portion of scripture to support his meaning for a word that is teaching exactly the opposite. And you wonder why we look at Catholic apologists and shake our head. The guy has guts. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: ” the whole purpose of Hebrews is to tell us that their was one final sacrifice offered at the consumation of the ages that sanctified and perfected us past tense. The whole point of the book is that all sacrifices have ceased, the OT system became obsolete. Thats thecwhole point of this covenant of Hebrews, Christ doesnt need to of r er himself over and over like OT priests. He is the mediator of a better covenant, and his sacrifice put sin away. Its finished, thats the point.”

       Yes you are right. And that’s what he says in his article.

       You also said “Instead the source you supplied uses Hebrews to support ammnesn ” remembrance” as meaning sacrifice in support of the words of Jesus in thecLord’s supper being the Mass. But Hebrews point is exactly the opposite . It clearly says sacrifices have ended and the final one perfected and sanctified his people. So your source uses a portion of scripture to support his meaning for a word that is teaching exactly the opposite.

       No he’s not. Go back and re-read it. Look at what he actually says instead of what you think he says.

       You also said: “And you wonder why we look at Catholic apologists and shake our head.”

       I don’t have to wonder at that anymore. You have demonstrated to me why.

       Reply

       1. Bob said “you are right and thats what he said in the article.” No he isn’t. Lets get something straight Bob, and maybe you are just obstinate. Trent says that the Mass is a true sacrifice that is efficacious for sin. So she someone tells you that it is a representation or Christ’s sacrifice brought forward, you can tell them bull……. Official Catholic doctrine anathematizes anyone who says it ISNT a true sacrifice for sins. It is a re breaking of our Lord’s body. And even though the scripture says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins, Rome in defiance says the unbloody immolation is. Blasphemy! Mention sacrificium to the Priest and he will hide in the other room. If you walk away with one thing from our exchanges, understand this, the Mass is an abomination to the Lord. It obliterates true biblical Christology and Soteriology. 1. It undermines the sufficiency of the one time finished work of Christ. 2. It is a WORK to earn increase of salvation. 3. It puts a piece a bread up in the place of our savior. 4. It can’t perfect you. 5. It is Preistcraft, magic, hocus locus. 6. It violates what Jesus asked that we worship Him in Spirit and truth through faith. It puts sacramental efficacy up in the place of the atonement. Be warned Bob, don’t bow to Rome’s death wafer. Walk away and believe the gospel. Enough said for me on this subject. Thanks for the exchange. K

          Reply

          1. KEVIN–
             You said: “Enough said for me on this subject.”

             Really?

             Reply

28. TIM–

    You said: Reading your source, you would think the Septuagint only used αναμνησιν four times and never used the term ἀνάμνησιν in non-sacrificial terms. In fact it uses it more than four times, and uses it in non-sacrificial terms.”

    The fact is that ἀνάμνησιν is used both ways, so it can be taken either way according to the context. And context can be as narrow or as broad as tradition allows. So now it comes down to tradition as to how it should be interpreted. You have your spin and Catholics have theirs. And that depends on how far you want to go to research it.

    Tim, you have done a lot of research, and I commend you for all your work. And it looks like the Catholic apologists have done as much as you have. Your words vs. their words. I am just glad I have the opportunity to weigh both sides. That’s the power of the internet.
    I find this fascinating, don’t you?

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Bob. You observed,

       “Your words vs. their words. I am just glad I have the opportunity to weigh both sides. That’s the power of the internet.”

       That is quite true. I have no expectations that my positions will be believed or received by anyone. Nice to have a way to publish them and have them weighed. I am glad you are able to weigh both sides.

       Tim

       Reply

29. Bob, no it can’t mean both things in this context. Are you listening . You have to understand what Jesus is saying in this context. You must also way the the rest of scripture. Why are you stubborn. Hebrews and the rest of scripture teaches He offered himself once at the consummation of the ages and Paul says in Romans 6 He is never to die again. Revelations 1:17 says ” I was dead and now I live for evermore.’ He doesn’t come back down on an Roman altar or a cross again. He did it right the first time. On top of this Tim has unequivocally shown that the early church saw it this way also. The bread was NEVER offered to God. He has provided 30 or so fathers who maintained their categories and said as much. Yet you ignore all the proof and want to force ” Do this in sacrifice of Me.” instead of the plain meaning ” Do this in remembrance of me” He said this to the Apostles, He didn’t offer himself to God until the cross, and the Apostles never offered the bread to God. But we get your underlying motive to force this meaning in the face of the clear teaching of the bible, fathers, you got to get that Eucharist for your ongoing justification by merit. If you don’t have faith in Christ alone and what he DID for your sins, you can work your tail off at the Roman Idol eating it, adoring it, bowing to it, it won’t matter. You are rejecting the sufficiency of the one time sacrifice that Hebrews says perfected us 10:14, sanctified us 10:10, stopped ALL sacrifices 10:18, and put sin away 9. You have been brainwashed by Rome because they make you believe that is the SUMMIT of salvation. The sad thing is you can do it 10000 times and never have enough sanctifying grace for heaven. Here is a novel idea, trust Christ and receive the righteousness that comes by faith which will justify you before God. And then the supper will be what it was intended to be, a confirmation of the grace we have received by faith, the word, and the Spirit. Christ is in the one taking the bread, not the bread. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: “Bob, no it can’t mean both things in this context. Are you listening.”

       You are exactly right. It can’t mean both in the same context.

       Reply

30. Bob, I wanted to apologize, I was re reading my post to you and I used the word bull. I dont use those words, so I apologize. God bless.

    Reply

    1. Obviously you do use those words.
       Apology accepted.

       Kumbaya, m’ Lord,
       Kumbaya…….

       Reply

31. Bob said to my apology ” obviously you do use those words, apology accepted. Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya. ” You just cant leave grace” alone” , can you ?

    Reply

32. Yeah, but I have faith alone. I can feel it in my bones.

    Reply

33. All, there is a sermon by John Piper on Romans 3:25 and the glory of God on Beggars All Reformed blog. It is amazing. It deals with the man centered religions of the world, Islam, Catholicism, Muslims etc. and what our approach should be. I hope all here will take the time to listen to it on Beaggars All. God bless. K

    Reply

34. ALL–
    This blog http://barqueofpeter.blogspot.com is the most amazing explanation I have read so far on Catholic teaching.
    It is extremely easy to read, very well researched, and a must read for anyone who thinks he understands Catholics but really doesn’t. I hope you will take a comprehensive look.
    May God bless. B

    Reply

35. Bob, I dont get what your getting at. Romans 1 says that men know about God thru what has been made. What is it that you think we dont understand in relationship to that article?

    Reply

36. KEVIN–
    Articles, not article, but articles. All of them, not just the first one.

    Reply

37. Bob, let me get this right, you trust a 3 year convert from a Pentacostal church to Roman Catholicism over Kauffman. You found what your looking for. That guys site reminds me of Scott Alt’s site. K

    Reply

38. KEVIN–
    You said: “And even though the scripture says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins, Rome in defiance says the unbloody immolation is. Blasphemy! ”

    Obviously so does Eusebius in Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 10:
    “Here it is plainly the mystic Chrism and the holy Sacrifices of Christ’s Table that are meant, by which we are taught to offer to Almighty God through our great High Priest all through our life the celebration of our sacrifices, bloodless, reasonable, and well-pleasing to Him.”

    Tim quoted this very text in his article above. You might want to read Tim’s articles, Kevin. They are very informative.

    Reply

    1. Bob, thats right Tim dealt with that quote. The bloodless sacrifice is praise and tganksgiving through our mediator. That isnt the same as offering bread to God as if it were Christ’ body being re broken fficacious for sins. You know this, and yet you act like you dont. Christ died once, got it, and is never to die again. What does it mean that one sacrifice perfected and sanctified Christians past tense? What does that mean Bob in Hebrews? Can you build on perfect? What does it mean there no longer remain any sacrifices for sin? What does not any more mean Bob? Oh, thats right thats just the bible, I mean the RC wrote the bible, right? What part of one time perfected sacrifice are you having problems with. One? Perfected us? No longer any remain? Which one of those means ongoing ? Hint, none of them? Scripture becomes pretty perspicuous when you have the correct glasses on ?

       Reply

39. kevin said :
    “let me get this right, you trust a 3 year convert from a Pentacostal church to Roman Catholicism over Kauffman. You found what your looking for. That guys site reminds me of Scott Alt’s site. K”

    Actually, I like this guy’s a little better than Scott’s.

    Reply

40. Bob, use the information on this site to figure out who the antichrist is. Have you thought about that? Would you be able to recognize the man of perdition who has put up himself in thd church as God? Have you ever seen or known any man who made claims to Holy Father, head of the church, Vicar? Do you know of any Prophet who points billions of people to an idol, a graven image! Like that in scripture? Do you know of any idol, graven image in a church that billions of people would be deceived by? Are you looking for these things? Tim said he remembered when he realized he was in the midst of it? My guess is that false church would tell its people there is no salvation outside of its system? So they would never leave. Sound possible? Look close. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN says: “use the information on this site to figure out who the antichrist is. ”

       I haven’t fallen for it. There’s too many holes in the theory. The logic is not sound, and too much conjecture involved. Besides, the anti-Christ is characterized by all sorts of wickedness:
       1Jo 2:22 ff Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
       Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

       Rom 1:29ff Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

       I know of no devout Methodist or Catholic that act like that. Sorry, I’m just not buying it.

       Reply

41. Eusebius said: “Since, then, Christ neither entered on His priesthood in time, nor sprang from the priestly tribe, nor was anointed with prepared and outward oil, nor will ever reach the end of His priesthood, nor will be established only for the Jews but for all nations, for all these reasons He is rightly said to have forsaken the priesthood after Aaron’s type, and to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.”

    Priesthood of Aaron’s type = Mosaic Law which requires circumcision and offerings of outward sacrifices of killing animals and spilling blood on the altar and eating the good meat and burning the rest so that it is all consumed.

    Priest after the order of Melchizedek = non-Mosaic worship for those uncircumcised, still requiring sacrifice, but of an unbloody type.

    Eusebius continues: ” And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even to-day in sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek’s. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices(the bloody type), but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood. This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw, and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says:
    “And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine: and he was priest of the Most High God, and he blessed Abraham.”

    Which is exactly what happens in the celebration of the Eucharist–we are blessed by the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church(the liturgy)using bread and wine expressing the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.

    Reply

42. Bob, Mathew Henry on 2 Thessalonians 2 ” Corruption of doctrine came in degress, and the usurping power was gradual, the mystery of iniquity prevailed. Superstition and Idolatry were advanced by pretended devotion, and bigotry and persecution were promoted by pretended zeal for God and his glory. The mystery of iniquity was even then begun, while the Apostles were yet living, persons pretended zeal for Christ, but really opposed Him. The pure word of God, with the Spirit of God will discover the mystery of iniquity in due time it shall be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming. Signs and wonders, visions and miracles are pretended, but they are false signs to support false doctrines, and lying wonders, or only pretended miracles, to cheat the people, and the diabolical deceits with which the antichristian state has been supported, are notorious. The persons are described, who are his willing subjects. Their sin is this; they did not love the truth, and therefore did not believe it, and they were pleased with false notions. God leaves them to themselves , then sin will follow its course and spiritual judgments here, eternal punishments hereafter. These prophecies in great measure have come to pass, and confirm the truth of scriptures. This passage exactly agrees with the system of Popery, as it prevails in the Romish church, and under the Romish Popes. ” Its not hard to see Bob. But God must open your eyes. Mathew Henry says the are like dogs at the heals of those who preach the truth. Bob, you are fixated on the Roman death wafer and its sacrifice, its all you talk about. And you are fixated on your works to justify you. But the true gospel says we are saved by faith apart from all merit or works by trusting in Christ alone for ourcsalvation. Bob, turn you eyes away from the work of the Mass which can never perfect you, and turn from your works which can never perfect you, fix your eyes upon Jesus and his righteousness, who is the only one who can perfect you Heb. 10: 14. K

    Reply

43. Catholics, here is a quote by Michael Taylor on CCC that sums it up for me, ” In whose world does a temporary, loseable state of sanctifying grace be equivalent to John’s meaning of Eternal life. Only in Rome’s. He goes on to say Catholics have mistakenly used philosophical categories to change the clear meaning of everlasting life. It last forever. Jesus loses none of the Elect. Rome what twisted religion. Making eternal mean temporary, another example of my rule, read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. K

    Reply