It is finished

 

Click on picture to enlarge

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Turin Shroud

THE TURIN SHROUD IS IT GENUINE? IS IT RELEVANT? A BIBLICAL RESPONSE

Called one of the most venerated relics in the Catholic Church, the Turin Shroud is believed by many to be the burial sheet which wrapped the body of the Lord Jesus. The Shroud measures 14 feet 3 inches long and is 3 feet 7 inches wide. It bears the double image, cast like a shadow, of a powerfully built man with a beard and long hair, laid out in death. It was photographed for the first time in May 1898 and the negative image showed the horrific injuries of a man who died from crucifixion.  Bloodstains appear on the neck, wrist, feet and chest. On the rare occasions when it is displayed some 50,000 people queue each day for short time the Shroud is on display. Often their time of viewing is limited  to a mere two minutes before being required to move on.

 IS IT GENUINE?

Carbon dating dated the Shroud back only to around 1300 AD but experts warned then that fire and water damage suffered by the Shroud could affect the accuracy of the test. Besides carbon dating enjoys a greater press than it really should as it has proved notoriously wrong in the past. One scientist admitted that if carbon dating supported your theory it was quoted in the text of your report, if it was not all that far out, it was relegated to a foot note and if it was distant from what you wanted, you omitted it altogether! We should not let carbon dating influence our thoughts on this matter.  It is interesting that whilst the Catholic Church has not formally made any claims, yet 3 Popes have pontifically sanctioned the cult of the Holy Shroud of Turin. Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini announced that any priest visiting the relic will be able to absolve any woman in the city from the sin of abortion - an act only reserved for the Pope, a local bishop or any one authorised by the bishop. It would therefore appear that the Church accepts the authenticity of the Shroud. Certainly if it is not genuine, being either a genuine mistake or an elaborate hoax, then  we must wonder at the legitimacy of the  various spin-offs associated with it. What, for instance, if this was the burial sheet that covered the body of that unrepentant thief who died cursing Christ? It is highly unlikely that it was, for the bodies of criminals were usually taken down from the cross and burned. But if, somehow, this was his sheet, then what power could it have? Also, when Jerusalem was overthrown in  70 AD , there were so many Jews crucified that they ran out of trees - what if this winding sheet belonged to an unbelieving Jew? Furthermore, even if it is the genuine article, on what basis can it give any man power or authority to forgive sin? “Who can forgive sin, but God only?” (Mark 2:7) But whatever interesting side issues crop up, we have a right to enquire: Is this Shroud the authentic burying sheet of the Lord Jesus?

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?

Matthew 27:58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. 59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
SUMMARY: Matthew records that there was one clean linen cloth.

Mark 15:44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. 45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.
SUMMARY: Mark simply records that Jesus was wrapped in linen. His account is more ambiguous than that of Matthew.

Luke 23:52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
SUMMARY: Luke follows Marks account. Very simply - wrapped in linen.

John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

 
John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. 5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. 8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

 
SUMMARY: Out of the four evangelists, John gives us the fullest account. John twice tells us that the body of Jesus was wound in linen clothes - (plural) and also that a napkin or handkerchief was used to bind Christ's head. This handkerchief was separate from the linen clothes and wrapped in a place by itself. It was usual for the Jews to bind the head of the corpse with a napkin. It had been this way with Lazarus of Bethany whom the Lord Jesus raised again from the dead:

John 11: 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Note again the plural in the grave clothes for Lazarus, but especially the face bound with the napkin.

If the gospel writers contradict each other, then the whole gospel is a sham. In such a case of apparent contradictions, we look to see if we can reconcile the passages together. We have already seen how both Mark and Luke are very ambiguous in their account. They do not tell us anything about the number of cloths used - only the material. Matthew states that a linen cloth was used, but importantly, he does not say that only one linen cloth was used. John tells us twice over that Jesus was bound in linen clothes. Where you have two (or more) of something, you must by necessity have one of it also.  Without contradicting any of the others, John gives us the fullest account and says quite clearly that more than one cloth was used to bind the body of the Lord Jesus.

Since this is so, it is hard to see how the single sheet on display at Turin, bearing the full imprint of a crucified man could be authentic. Of course, there are many questions to which answers would be interesting. Why was the sheet kept in the first place? Does it survival of two major fires mean anything? [The relic was almost destroyed by fire in 1532. The silver casket housing the Shroud melted in the intense heat and burned holes right through the folded cloth. Twenty four patches were required to repair the most damaged areas, but amazingly the image itself was not touched.] All sorts of claims are made concerning the Shroud - but when all is said and done, there is a major obstacle in reconciling its claim to fame with the infallible word of God. Do we seek to silence God because His word stands in the way of popular opinion? Is it not better that popular opinion be dictated to by the word of God. It was the wise course of the Psalmist David to test all things by the word of God:

Psalm 119:128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.

SUPPOSE THERE IS AN ANSWER…

What if there is an answer that can reconcile this single sheet in Turin with what God has written in His word  - what then? This leads us on to the second question: IS IT RELEVANT? Let us suppose that the Shroud of Turin really was the very burying sheet. What do we do?

It is at questions like these, that we ought to thank God that He has given us the Book that is for many of us the sole rule of faith and practice. When others are “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (Ephesians 4:14) we have something solid that will survive every storm. Since “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9) the Bible has this situation covered. All that changes are a few local details, but there is nothing new in the people being faced with a relic on display. Please read on…

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SCRIPTURES…

If you are interested in antiquity, consider that the passage below was written approximately 550 years before the Shroud of Turin  came into existence and speaks of an event  which occurred some 350 years before that again.  I speak of King Hezekiah and the serpent of brass. 2 Kings 18:1-7 reads as follows:

2 Kings 18:1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses. 7 And the LORD was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth: and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not.

1) THERE WAS NO DOUBT OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF HEZEKIAH’S RELIC:

The inspired writer makes this clear. It was the brazen serpent which Moses had made (v4) It was not merely based on tradition or legend. The connection with the Shroud of Turin  can be clearly seen, although the case for the serpent is stronger again. However this enables us to argue from the greater to the lesser.

2) HEZEKIAH’S RELIC HAD A MOST GLORIOUS HISTORY:

It’s story is told in Numbers 21:4-9 where (to summarise) it was used by God to heal those who gazed upon it after been bitten by the serpents. The glory of the serpent lay far deeper however than a mere physical healing. It’s relevance is heightened by the fact that the Lord Jesus referred to it in John 3:14-15:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Hezekiah’s relic had been used as a type of Christ. God had used it to teach the truth that those who look to Christ are saved. Just as Moses lifted it up in the wilderness, so too Christ would be lifted up on a Cross and all who looked in faith to Him would be pardoned and forgiven. They were not to try and save themselves from the serpent’s sting. They were not to look to one another, or even to Moses. They were commanded to look in faith to the serpent on the pole and any man when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.  Likewise the Lord Jesus can say: Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

This is the only way of salvation. We made mention earlier on to one of the thieves who died on the Cross beside Jesus. He was saved at the last moment. That very day, Jesus said, he would be in paradise. How was he saved? By looking to Christ. He was not saved by good works, since his hands were nailed to a Roman Cross and he could do no good work. He was not saved by any church sacrament, for there is no mention of any in the gospel record. With all due respects to the Blessed Virgin, the thief does not seem to notice her at all even although she is standing within earshot. He was saved by simply looking in faith to the Lord Jesus. As it was for him, so too with us. As Isaiah makes clear in the quotation above, this is a message for all men - the ends of the earth. Those who look in simple faith and repentance to Christ are saved for eternity!

The Turin Shroud cannot claim a history like this. If indeed it is the genuine thing, it has a story to tell. It is but another evidence for what we read in the Bible. But the “faith of God's elect” (Titus 1:1) does not stand on the availability of relics.  Perhaps many such relics were in abundance during the days of the apostles.  Yet when Peter gave the grounds by which the gospel was preached, he did not link it to a few relics, but to “the word of the Lord (Bible) which endureth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:24-25) Not a few relics have been found to be false. To put unswerving faith in a relic is to build upon a foundation of sand. But Hezekiah’s relic had a glorious history indeed.

3) DESPITE ALL THESE THINGS, RELIGIOUS REVERENCE OF THIS RELIC WAS NOT CONSIDERED GOOD:

It is worth noting that the people of Hezekiah’s day showed great interest in this relic. It did not suffer the indignity of apathy. Very few said “So what?” People cared greatly Moses had once used this very relic to deliver the people during the wilderness years of the nation. They recognised its great significance.

However, they went to the other extreme. They paid it homage. They “did burn incense unto it” Perhaps someone here asks the obvious: Can we not revere something without actually worshipping it? Such distinction often exists only on paper and not in reality. Augustine said:

“No man prays or worships looking on an image without being impressed with the idea that it is listening to him.” (Epistle 49)

Hezekiah saw the danger that this relic was posing. There was plenty of idolatry against which he could have taken his stand. He could have spared the serpent and smashed the rest. Certainly he  would have had he followed the argument that since this relic was encouraging the people to pray then it must be good. After all, could we not say that there was an improvement here? At least, the people were interested in a Biblical item! But Hezekiah did not swallow that one. He had an insight which very few seem to have today. He perceived that the serpent of Moses was the greatest threat to the spiritual well being of the people and therefore most worthy of his attention. He smashed it in pieces!

“That which was at first a type of the Saviour, is now a deadly engine of the enemy.  Hezekiah willingly forgets who made the serpent, when he sees the Israelites make it an idol. It is no less tolerable for God to have a rival of His own making.” (Joseph Hall)

He did not engage in half measures. This relic was not merely withdrawn from public view. Perhaps like the Shroud of Turin , such would only increase its aura and mystique. He did not merely break it in two with an eye to future repairs when the climate would be more suitable. No, he “brake it in pieces” - he reduced it to a pile of rubble. It was final. To “add insult to injury” he gave it a name of reproach. He called it “Nehustan” or “a piece of brass” or in modern language: “Scrap metal!” Supposing you were to go to Turin with insight that the famous Shroud was indeed the very winding sheet of the Lord Jesus. Supposing you were to rip it up into a thousand pieces and call it a “mere cloth” or “an old rag”  - what do you think would happen? Do you think that you be hailed as a hero? Would you not be regarded as an unspeakable villain?

4) GOD'S BLESSING ATTENDED WHEN THIS RELIC WAS DESTROYED:

It is to be noted that Hezekiah is set forth in this short passage as a good man. Read the appraisal of the Holy Spirit upon his life and character. There was no divine judgement upon his head  - only divine praise. It is interesting to read that he kept the law of Moses (v6) even though he destroyed the very relic which Moses, under God, had created.

Should the Shroud of Turin  be destroyed? I am not saying that it ought to be, but I will answer that question with others: What if it was? Would it be a big loss? Furthermore, which would be the greater loss - the shroud which some openly pray to and worship (remember Augustine’s observation above) or the soul’s of those who openly flout the second commandment which clearly forbids the worshipping of any image? Jesus asked two very important questions in Mark 8:36-37:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Would it not be better to destroy this relic if it kept some benighted soul out of the blackness of darkness forever? Man corrupts everything he puts his hand to. It should be possible to put  something like this on display without someone attributing powers to it. Even if it is the true shroud, what power can it give any priest to forgive (as it has been claimed and indeed promised) a woman who wilfully murders the fruit of her womb? Such teaching is void of any Scripture basis.

IN CONCLUSION:

We have tried to be neither emotive or offensive in our study on this subject. We are not asking you to agree with our opinion, but simply to accept the verdict of the Scripture which, when all is said and done, must be accepted as the sole rule of faith and practice.

 

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

patrick

Cuz pointy hats aint my thing...

Postcard English Sermon notes

WILL THE REAL ST. PATRICK PLEASE STAND UP?

READING: PROVERBS 10:1-17 

The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot. (v7)

We do not worship saints at all nor do we elevate them beyond the strict boundaries set in the Bible. However, we do honour them and our text gives us a warrant to do so. Patrick was a just man (Romans 5:1) and is worthy of our remembrance. Again: He being dead yet speaketh (Hebrews 11:4) and it for us to hear what he has to say. 

A popular view of Patrick is to have him appear as a rather severe looking statue robed in the full regalia of a Roman bishop, with mitre and bishop's crook.

As we examine Patrick's own writings (final authority in this matter) we find that he was not a Roman Bishop at all. I suggest that mitred headgear wasn't his thing back then either. How does Patrick reveal himself? 4 areas/thought on this matter:

1) PATRICK'S SLAVERY  - PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL:

Assumed (not told) he came from Britain to Ireland. Scotland? Wales? Some venture to say: France. Not vitally important. Thought/born around 390AD  If from Briton, then he is  the only native Briton we know anything about from this era.

A/ Christianity had already come/Britain. His father (Calpurnius) was a deacon/Celtic Church and also a high ranking civil servant under Roman Empire. Patrick: known the old Celtic tongue and also Latin (privileged) Our advantage: his writings in Latin.

B/ Despite His Christian upbringing, Patrick tells us that he rebelled against it all. In his Confession: "Knew not true/God...departed from God and kept not His commandments and disobeyed those who preached to him salvation."  

Try/picture him sitting in simple meetings, ever resisting the claims/invitations of the gospel:
Hearing words like Jn 7:37/Matt 11:28 and saying: Not for me!
When this is the case, you are looking at spiritual slavery. 

Patrick's Bible tells us this:
John 8:34 Whosoever commits sin is the servant i.e. the bondslave of sin.
2 Timothy 2:26 says sinners are led captive by the devil at his will

C/ Such spiritual slavery soon gave way to the physical.
When 16 years old, Irish raiders came and killed some servants and carried away others plus Patrick. A common occurrence. 

Patrick:
Many thousands of persons were carried away/Ireland. 

A very traumatic time. Patrick quotes Bible: The Lord pouring upon him the fury of His anger. So it was no picnic! 

D/ Worth saying here. God was in control/events. Get the big picture. Events just don't happen. They are ordained beforehand.

 Humanly speaking this ought to have driven Ireland ever from Patrick's thoughts and created undying bitterness etc., with memories too painful to conjur up again. 
But it didn't. God makes the wrath of man to priase Him (Psalm 76:10)
Certainly so here. Patrick himself: 
"God kept me...before I knew him and before I had discernment between good/evil, [God] protected/comforted me as a father doth his son."  
And yet he was still unsaved. Still a rebel/God. But God was in control/all things. 
Still the same God today.

2) PATRICK'S CONVERSION BY THE GRACE OF GOD:

A/ Like the Prodigal Son, Patrick: down/dumps in a strange land and most miserable. Began to think about home. Advantage. Though a rebel/God, he was familiar with the gospel/Christ. Flooded back.

B/ Sat among the heathen Irish/great hardship he tells us:
The Lord opened/understanding of my unbelieving heart that I might recall my sins and turn with all my heart to the Lord my God.
Recalling/sins is important: Luke 5:32 Patrick: did a very un-Irish thing!
Did not deny/excuse sin or cover it up.
When enslaved, (Cp Repentant Thief) acknowledged slavery was his just deserts. 

We can see here: Repentance is so necessary/saved (Luke 13:3)

C/ As quoted: He turned/all heart to the Lord His God. (Faith)
Believed God would receive him. Believed He could receive him.
How can God receive the guilty sinner? Patrick's doctrinal part:
Christ overcoming death when interpreted (light/NT) refers:
Cross-work of Jesus Christ. Substitutionary atonement/Christ:
Summed up: Galatians 2:20 i.e. paid price for our sins.

D/ Patrick speaks often re: grace/God. 

Key/salvation: Ephesians 2:8-9
Every word here: important. Not of works, religious/otherwise.

E/ How can we tell Patrick truly converted?
Gave the evidence of a new life.
Before: Unlearned/clownish. Lived as a fool lived. Lived without God in sin/rebellion.
Afterwards: Sober life. Became a praying man - true praying - studied Bible. 

(His writings are saturated/Scripture)
Test of a true Christian: Nothing vague about this.
Bible is very precise/matter: Matthew 7:21/2 Corinthians 13:5
If you have just a vague notion/salvation...you can readily improve it.
Vagueness: Probably linked to mere religious views without any real place give/authority of the Bible.

3) PATRICK'S RETURN TO PREACH THE GOSPEL:

After his conversion/grace of God, Patrick escaped from slavery. Trevalled 200 miles (foot?) and took boat to the mainland and was reunited/family.

A/ His days/slavery had stood him in good stead.
Often alone in communion/God/.
Learned Irish language/customs and had borne testimony to his faith/among the captives. 

Truly: Romans 8:28 All things work together etc.

B/ "A few years later" Patrick had a dream:

"And there verily I saw in the night visions a man whose name was Victoricus coming as it were from Ireland with countless letters. And he gave me one of them, and I read the beginning of the letter, which was entitled, "The Voice of the Irish"; and while I was reading aloud the beginning of the letter, I thought that at that very moment I heard the voice of them who lived beside the wood of Foclut which is nigh unto the western sea. And thus they cried, as with one mouth, "We beseech thee, holy youth, to come and walk among us once more." And I was exceedingly broken in heart, and could read no further. And so I awoke. Thanks be to God that after very many years the Lord granted to them according to their cry."

C/ Despite every fear/dread/nasty memory he might have had: Patrick returned again/Ireland to preach the gospel/Irish. We know that he had to overcome the violent Druids etc. 

He faced great opposition from the High King/Tara and many other dangers etc., but he remained faithful/calling and saw many churches established/island. 

D/ He particularly speaks of people turning from idols.
He tells us again how such a transformation came about:

"I am a debtor exceedingly to God who granted me such great grace that many peoples through me should be regenerated to God [born again]"

Patrick preached (like the Lord Jesus/Apostles) the need of the new birth.
The old heart cannot be patched up...it needs to be made new. "a new heart will I give you..." (Ezekiel 36:26)

4) PATRICK'S GOSPEL - ABLE TO SAVE SINNERS:

Entitled our message: Will the real St Patrick please stand up?#

A/ Patrick preached holiness/life.
On one occasion, he returned the gifts people gave him (caused some offence) but he desired to "keep myself warily in all things" so that he would give no occasion to the unbelievers etc., to defame/disparage him.
Far removed from drunkenness/gross ungodliness associated with this day.

B/ Was St Patrick a Roman Bishop? Was he sent/Ireland by the Pope?
If so, then there is no mention of it.
Seems very strange especially when we are looking at a not inconsiderable amount of his writings.
An argument from silence is no argument at all.
Historical fact: Early Celtic Church was independent from Rome until long after Patrick.
Interesting: No mention in Patrick's writings of any distinctive Roman doctrines.
No mention of of the Blessed Virgin Mary for example.
Writings are thoroughly evangelical in character.

C/ In Patrick's Ireland, there was a Bishop for each Church. 

Goldwin Smith: "There seems to have been a bishop in every village" (Irish History & Irish Character p.33) 

This effectively rules out prelacy. 

Bishop = Teaching Elder.

D/ Whatever we may think of Patrick, here is something far more important:
What do we think of Jesus Christ?
If Patrick was here, Patrick would preach Christ.
He says: "I have devoted myself to the end/my life to Christ my Lord"
Patrick would preach: Acts 4:12/Romans 10:13
At the end of that doctrinal part known as Patrick's Confession, he specifically quotes Psalm 50:15
"Call upon me in the time of trouble and I will deliver thee..."
That's the way/salvation. 

THE END

 * CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

fearless

 

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

cain

DID CAIN OFFER THE FIRST MASS?

The fruit of the ground?

 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:  But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect... (Genesis 4:5)

We are not told how "the fruit of the ground" was made up into an offering for the Lord. Perhaps it was a nice vegetable display with a few flowers thrown in for good measure. Perhaps not. With some perception, Presbyterian, Henry Cooke, the great Protestant protagonist in Ulster in the 1850's suggests that it came in the form of a wafer made from flour. Obviously no one can be too dogmatic about it, but Cooke had a good point. The shoe certainly fits.

The mass is the central act of worship in the Roman Catholic Church. That, however, does not put it above investigation, but actually demands that it be carefully examined and repudiated if found wanting in the balances of Holy Scripture.

 1) IS JESUS CHRIST REALLY PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE BREAD AND WINE OR IS HE ONLY SPIRITUALLY REPRESENTED?

ROME: He is physically present.
"The bread and wine are changed truly, really and substantially into the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, and the bones and sinews of Christ," (Catechism of Council of Trent)

BIBLE: He is spiritually present only.

SOME OBJECTIONS TO ROMAN THEORY:
1) If Christ is actually physically present, then we cannot remember Him as He has bid us to do. You cannot remember one who is actually physically there. You can remember one who is not physically there but who has left tokens that remind us of him.

2) The Lord’s Passover (when the feast was instituted) was itself symbolic. The words of Moses: It (i.e. the lamb) is the Lord’s Passover. No Jew was so irrational as to think that the lamb was transubstantiated into the Lord passing over the houses of the Israelites. The Passover was a figurative feast - likewise the supper which replaced it: "This is my body etc.,"

3) The grammar bears the symbolic sense also. Illustration: You produce a photograph and say, "This is my friend." You point at an outline on a map and say, "This is Ireland." It is not really, actually what you said it was. It is a representation. Likewise when the Bible says: "Issachar is a strong ass couching down between two burdens." (Genesis 49:14) or "I am the door" (John 10:9) then, we understand it figuratively.

4) Did Christ have two bodies in the Upper Room? The one body breaking and distributing the other? Was one body being offered up as a sacrifice that night and the other offered up the next?

5) The purpose of the Lord’s death is given in 1 Corinthians 11:26 i.e. to show forth the Lord’s death. The word translated "show forth" is translated as "preach" elsewhere. By contrast the mass is a virtual re-enactment of the Lord’s death, with different bread and wine being used, different priests at different times and in different places and in different languages etc., all vaining trying to persuade us, contrary to basic grammaer, that it is the one same sacrifice.

6) The Lord’s death is shown "till he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26) Surely if the mass is right, then He is come already? If so, has every eye seen Him and the earth wailed because of Him? (Revelation 1:7)

7) The mass wafer even when transubstantiated into the body of Christ soon corrupts. This is contrary to Psalm16:9-11 (quoted in Acts 2:27) which declares that His body would not see corruption.

8) The mass denies our senses since the bread still looks, smells, tastes and feels like bread. Luke speaks of the senses as furnishing infallible proofs (Luke 1:3) Christ Himself appealed to the senses:"Handle me and see" (Luke 24:39) In the only case of true transubstantiation in the NT - wedding feast at Canaan where the water was turned into wine - the senses were appealed to particularly the richness of the taste.

9) A similar passage appears in 2 Samuel 23:25-17 where the water poured out unto the ground before the Lord is called blood. This was figurative language which was put so forcefully to recognise the risks that had been taken to get this water in the first place. No one takes it literally.

10) Christ cannot be bodily in more than one place at once. He cannot be in Heaven at God's right hand and at the same time be elsewhere not only in one place but in many other places. It would not be a true human body if it could.

11) Christ’s body cannot possess opposite properties at the same time. It cannot be glorified in Heaven and at the same time be humbled on earth under the appearance of bread and wine.

12) When a body is in parts, the parts cannot be individually and separately be equal to the whole. Not only is it declared that the body of Christ is complete in each of the millions of wafers handled by the priests of Rome, but if each single wafer was broken into a thousand parts, each single part is declared to be a whole Christ. This cannot be said of a true human body.

13) How can a priest of Rome create out of a piece of bread not only the true physical body, but also His soul and divinity? This makes (to quote St Alphonus de Ligouri) the priest to be greater than the Creator. Surely we have to say of the mass wafer: "For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God..." (Hosea 8:6)

14) How could Paul say "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." (2 Corinthians 5:16) if His flesh was present there on the altar?

15) Rome refers to the mass as an unbloody sacrifice - surely this is a denial that the wine has turned into blood? A clearer inconsistency would be harder to find.

16) If we are going to take all the language of the words of institution strictly literally, then surely when Jesus said: "This cup is the New Testament in my blood" (Luke 22:20/1 Corinthians 11:25) we mean that it is the cup and not the contents which is the New Testament. If we take a figurative look at the passage, then the cup speaks of the wine which in turn speaks of the blood.

17) The Bible expressly forbids the eating or drinking of blood in the NT: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:28-29)

18) Consider particularly the old style masses (which continued for hundreds of years) and see the priest dressed in a gaudy fashion. See the candles - smell the incense - hear the ringing of the bell etc., observe (as is still the situation) only the priest partaking of the wine. How far removed it is from the simple meal presented in Scripture. One could not be simpler - the other burdened down with many complex rules and regulations etc.,

19) Two of the greatest Cardinals in the RC Church (Cajetan and Bellarmine) both expressly confessed that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not founded on the word of God, but received from the Church. This means that the words of institution as recorded in the gospel records and 1 Corinthians 11 cannot be taken literally.

20) If the wine turns into the literal blood of Jesus Christ, how is it possible to get drunk if you drink the consecrated wine in excess?

21) The canon law of the Church (Canon of Aelfric 957AD) gives instruction as to what should happen if, through carelessness, a mouse should eat the wafer. Indeed, "Quid comedit mus" (What eateth the mouse?) became quite a debating point in the various schools. Did the wine sanctify the mouse or did the mouse pollute the wine? Canon law also required the priest either to re-swallow a vomited host or at least separate the consecrated species and laid up in a sacred place. Can God be eaten by a mouse or vomited by a priest? The whole thought is revolting and ridiculous - but such are the questions which can be and indeed were raised and answered by the Church as it sought to defend a teaching that is far removed from the simple feast instituted so long ago.

2) IS JESUS REALLY SACRIFICED AT THE LORD’S TABLE?
ROME: Quoting from Catechism of Christian Doctrine: [Catholic Truth Society. Revised: 1985]
Q.274: Is the Blessed Eucharist a Sacrament only?
Ans:- The Blessed Eucharist is not a sacrament only: it is also a sacrifice.
Q. 277: What is the Holy Mass?
Ans:- The Holy Mass is the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, really present on the altar under the appearances of bread and wine, and offered to God for the living and the dead.
Q.275: What is a sacrifice?
Ans:- A sacrifice is the offering of a victim by a priest to God alone…

THE BIBLE: Jesus Christ is not sacrificed at the Lord’s Table.

SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE ROMAN THEORY:
1) The Bible speaks consistently of the sacrifice of Christ being only a one off act: Hebrews 9:27-28/10:10-14/Romans 6:10/1 Peter 3:18. This cannot be if He is being continually offered even now on many Roman altars.

Objection: Rome claims (above catechism Q278 that the mass is the one and same sacrifice as that of the cross i.e. there is only one sacrifice which is still ongoing.
Note: That a different priest takes a different wafer and a different cup of wine and pronounces yet again the words of consecration grammatically means another offering is professedly being made. The semantics say one thing - the reality another.

2) Why then did Jesus cry: "It is finished"? (John 19:30) Surely it would have been better to have cried: "It is only beginning!" or cried nothing at all? The RC Douay Version renders it: "It is consummated"

3) Why then does the Bible say: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." (Hebrews 10:12) The word "after" is so significant. It is finished. There can be no "after" in the RC teaching.

4) The offering of Christ upon the Cross was a sin offering. According to Leviticus 6:30 the sin offering was not to be eaten afterwards. The two are not the same.

5) The Lord Jesus used the present tense to describe His body being broken: "Which is broken for you" not shall be i.e. future. This is in line with the one sacrifice which is now finished forever.

6) Why does the Bible say in Hebrews 10:16-18 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." This language is grossly inconsistent with the teaching of Rome. Rome would have to contradict the inspired writer and point to the mass and say to the effect that there the writer could find an offering for sin. Both cannot be right. I choose the inspired writer.

3) DOES PARTAKING OF THE LORD’S SUPPER CONVEY SAVING GRACE TO THE PARTICIPANT?
ROME: Same catechism quoted above:
Q.269 Why has Christ given himself to us in the Holy Eucharist?
Ans:- Christ has given Himself to us in the Holy Sacrifice to be the life and food of our souls. ‘He that eateth of me, the same also shall live by me’: ‘He that eateth this bread shall live for ever." (John 6:58-59)

BIBLE: No sacrament can impart eternal life to its participants.
Note: The passage in John 6 has no reference to the Lord’s Supper. If so, then it was instituted about two years earlier than Paul makes out in 1 Corinthians 11:23 i.e. the night in which He was betrayed. The arguments against Christ referring to His flesh and blood being literal may be referred to in the first section.

SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE ROMAN THEORY:
1) What becomes of those who never partook of the sacrament of the mass? The Dying Thief coming immediately to mind.

2) Nowhere in Bible is any sacrament presented as an instrument of salvation, be it baptism or the Lord’s Supper.

OTHER INTERESTING INFORMATION:
The Mass as we know it today was not formally adopted until the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. Arguments that Councils only issued statements when something was challenged is a weak argument. There are plenty of evidences that the Church Fathers did not believe the teaching of the mass e.g. "Jesus made the bread, which He took and distributed to His disciples His body, saying, ‘This is my body’ that is to say, ‘a figure of my body." (St. Tertullian.) Where the Church Fathers sometimes use language like "drinking His blood" or "eating His flesh" (so loved of Roman apologists) consider how we are to interpret such words, as defined by St. Augustine: "For we must not consider in the sacraments what they be, but what they signify. For they be signs of things, being one thing in themselves and yet signifying another thing."

THE END

ALL INDEXES:

* PROTESTANT INDEX 
* CALVINISM INDEX 
* CH SPURGEON INDEX  
* EVANGELISM INDEX  
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

wiseman

Cardinal Wiseman

WISE WORDS FROM A WISE MAN! 

(At least on this occasion)

  Regular visitors to this blog will realise that my tendencies to quote Roman Catholic Cardinals (at least favourably) are few and far between. However, I do like to give credit where credit is due and I readily acknowledge that truth is truth no matter what source it comes from. I have decided to give you a quote which I came across a few years ago from one Cardinal Wiseman, who tirelessly worked for the conversion of England to Romanism after the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1831. In the quote below, he deals with the thought of a man who converts from Roman Catholicism to Bible Protestantism. Wiseman, in keeping with the church that spawned him, was a wily character but he never spoke truer words than these:

 "The individual - by some chance or other - probably through the ministry of some pious person - became possessed of the word of God, of the Bible; that he perused this Book; that he could not find it transubstantiation or auricular confession, that he could not discover in it one word of purgatory, or of venerating images. He perhaps goes to the priest, and tells him that he cannot find these doctrines in the Bible; his priest argues with him, and endeavours to convince him that he should shut up the book that is leading him astray; he perseveres, he abandons the communion of the Church of Rome - or, as it commonly expressed, the errors of that church - and becomes a Protestant. Now through all this process, the man was a Protestant; from the beginning he started with the principle, that whatsoever is not in that book, cannot be true in religion or an article of faith - and that is the principle of Protestantism."

These are true words, no matter who spoke them. Coming from a Cardinal of the Roman Church, they are very perceptive indeed. 

If the Cardinal is right…

[1] The Psalmist David espoused Protestant principles because he wrote:
"Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way." (Psalm 119: 128)

[2] Then Isaiah espoused Protestant principles because he wrote:
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

[3] Then the Bereans espoused Protestant principles because when Paul spoke in their synagogue:
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

[4] Then Agur the son of Jakeh espoused Protestant principles because he wrote:
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

[5] The Apostle Paul espoused Protestant principles because he wrote:
"What saith the Scripture…?" (Romans 4:3/Galatians 4:30)

I appreciate the difficulty of attributing a historical title to those who lived long before it came into popular usage, but perhaps this is just another way of saying that true Protestantism is really Bible Christianity. If so, then where does this leave Cardinal Wiseman and others like him who came so far, but it seems not far enough?

THE END 

ALL INDEXES:

* PROTESTANT INDEX 
* CALVINISM INDEX 
* CH SPURGEON INDEX  
* EVANGELISM INDEX  
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

 

augustine

WHY SAINT AUGUSTINE FLATLY REJECTED THE  ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION ON JOHN 6:53 

(ROME'S SO CALLED PROOF TEXT FOR THE MASS)

 "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." [John 6:53] This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." Christian Doctrine (3:16)

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

difference

JOHN CALVIN POINTS OUT THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIBLE PROTESTANTISM AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM

THE DIFFERENCE AFFIRMED:
"Here then is the difference. They place the authority of the Church without the word of God; we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it."

 

THE DIFFERENCE DEFENDED:
"And is it strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her lord and master as to hang carefully and constantly on his lips? In every well-ordered house the wife obeys the command of her husband, in every well-regulated school the doctrine of the master only is listened to."

 

THE DIFFERENCE PERPETUATED:
"Wherefore, let not the Church be wise in herself, nor think any thing of herself, but let her consider her wisdom terminated when he ceases to speak. In this way she will distrust all the inventions of her own reason; and when she leans on the word of God, will not waver in diffidence or hesitation but rest in full assurance and unwavering constancy.

 

THE DIFFERENCE ENCOURAGED:
Trusting to the liberal promises which she has received, she will have the means of nobly maintaining her faith, never doubting that the Holy Spirit is always present with her to be the perfect guide of her path. At the same time, she will remember the use which God wishes to be derived from his Spirit. “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). How? “He shall bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you.” He declares, therefore, that nothing more is to be expected of his Spirit than to enlighten our minds to perceive the truth of his doctrine."

 Full quote:

"Here then is the difference. They place the authority of the Church without the word of God; we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it. And is it strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her lord and master as to hang carefully and constantly on his lips? In every well-ordered house the wife obeys the command of her husband, in every well-regulated school the doctrine of the master only is listened to. Wherefore, let not the Church be wise in herself, nor think any thing of herself, but let her consider her wisdom terminated when he ceases to speak. In this way she will distrust all the inventions of her own reason; and when she leans on the word of God, will not waver in diffidence or hesitation but rest in full assurance and unwavering constancy. Trusting to the liberal promises which she has received, she will have the means of nobly maintaining her faith, never doubting that the Holy Spirit is always present with her to be the perfect guide of her path. At the same time, she will remember the use which God wishes to be derived from his Spirit. “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). How? “He shall bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you.” He declares, therefore, that nothing more is to be expected of his Spirit than to enlighten our minds to perceive the truth of his doctrine. " (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion 4:8:13)

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

eci

Blind leading the blind (Click to enlarge)

WHAT IS AN EVANGELICAL CATHOLIC?

The following is taken from an article written by Paddy Monaghan, a leading "Evangelical Catholic" in the Republic of Ireland. I carefully analyse his words.

Please note, setting this article up in blogger has been a bit of a nightmare.  Every effort has been made to separate each individual paragraph,  but the gremlin has had other ideas :o(
 .

PM: Between 1972 and 1978 there was a major move of the Holy Spirit in Ireland when some 10,000 Catholics came into a deeper, or first-time, personal relationship with Jesus as Lord and Saviour and were baptised in the Holy Spirit.
.
MY ANALYSIS: Between 1972 and 1978 (Mr Monaghan's dates) it is true to say that many Roman Catholic people began to ask questions about the things of God. There was an interest in reading the Bible and finding out what God had to say. Doubtless there were many saved at this time. These were those who tended to separate sooner or later from the Roman Catholic Church. When Mr Monaghan, as a devout Roman Catholic, speaks about people coming into a deeper or first time relationship with Christ as Lord and Saviour, he is basically speaking about them beginning to act on the saving grace which they received at baptism. This is standard Roman Catholic teaching, which Mr Monaghan, is very loathe to repudiate. "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" to Mr Monaghan simply means that they started speaking in unknown tongues, as the next sentence shows.
.
PM: Within a short period there were vital charismatic prayer meetings in nearly every town and village in Ireland. A feature of this revival was its trans-denominational nature - very often God used Catholic Christians to bless Protestant and vice-versa. In 1978 this revival seemed to dry up as major efforts were made to promote "single identity" renewal within individual Christian denominations, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church.

.MY ANALYSIS: While no one denies that there are some true Christians within the RC Church (who should separate from this organisation in accordance with 2 Corinthians 6:14-17/Ephesians 5:11 etc.,) this is not what Paddy Monaghan has in mind. It is the last thing on Paddy Monaghan's mind that such Christians are in a very small majority. If this is revival (as claimed) then it was totally unlike any other revival in Ireland when its converts were given grace to forsake the doctrines of Rome and  not propagate them.
.
PM: From 1978 to 1988, while many Catholic Christians held on to an inter-denominational vision, most of the 400+ Charismatic Prayer Groups gradually became exclusively Catholic, while some left to form House Churches. This caused a measure of hurt, and gave rise to allegations of proselytism. New Age practices made some inroads and there was a return to more traditional forms of Catholic devotion.

.MY ANALYSIS: In other words, it failed, At least if judged by the Bible. However, Rome will have been reasonably happy. She still has her hand very much upon this movement, notwithstanding the exuberance of its earlier years and losing a few to house meetings. She got herself accepted a bit more with the so called Protestants. Well done, Charismatic Movement, Rome's good and faithful servant.
.
PM: In 1988, a group of Catholic Christians in Ireland produced a 6 page document What is an Evangelical Catholic?, published with the official permission of the Roman Catholic Church. It was updated in June 1992 with comments of welcome from Bishop Joseph Duffy, Dr. George Carey and others. It has now been translated into different languages and has helped build bridges between Christians in many different countries. This led to the birth of the Evangelical Catholic Initiative (ECI).
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Does any one really think that Bishop Duffy would welcome this booklet if it contained even that most basic doctrine of the Reformation (Justification by faith alone) which (real) evangelical Christians were prepared to die for at the hand of the RC Church rather than renounce? The reality is that Bishop Duffy can't welcome it. Because if he does, then he incurs the anathema's of his church. The gap here is too wide to be bridged without one side capitulating completely to the other. No amount of conniving and semantics can change it.
.
PM: Motivation. One aim in setting up ECI was to build bridges between Evangelicals in the Protestant and Pentecostal Churches and evangelical Catholics. We believe that what unites us is far greater than what divides.

.MY ANALYSIS: I disagree. We might share some very basic doctrines e.g. belief in the Virgin Birth, the Trinity etc. but that's about it. We still disagree radically on other very basic doctrines like the way of salvation, the sole authority of the word of God, the one sacrifice for sins for ever. Again, the battle lines have been drawn and there can be no compromise. From what we read and know about the Evangelical Catholics, we see that they want to hold unto their "damnable heresies" (2 Peter 2:1) and that renders Christian fellowship null and void. To wish them godspeed is to be a partaker of their evil deeds. (2 John 10-11)
.
PM: Indeed, what divides Christians in Ireland is often not doctrine, so much as history, culture, language and politics.

.MY ANALYSIS: Whilst these things doubtless play a part in division among people of Ireland, what separates Evangelicals from Roman Catholics are those doctrines mentioned above. Paddy Monaghan's doctrines are not of God and no amount of whitewashing them will make them to be so. Perhaps this is a good place we reaffirm that Evangelical people love Roman Catholics, even if we do loathe their heresies. But it is not love to call people "Christians" who deny the basic way of salvation.
.
PM: Another aim was to foster genuine evangelism, while avoiding proselytism.

.MY ANALYSIS: Genuine evangelism is always based on truth. The ecumenism of the Evangelical Catholic movement and ECONI is based on a lie and therefore it is neither genuine nor evangelism. It has no connection at all with Him who said: "I am the … truth" (John 14:6)
.
PM: We are convinced that it is only as Evangelical Christians within the Protestant and Pentecostal Churches find their brothers and sisters in Christ in the Catholic Church and vice-versa, that a real spiritual revival will sweep Ireland. The II Chronicles 7:14 principle surely applies that "If my people will humble themselves, turn from their wicked ways and pray God will hear.. heal…and forgive"
 .

 MY ANALYSIS: 2 Chronicles 7:14 is applicable only to the real people of God. If we allow that committed RC people are among that people, then we must query [1] the Bibe, where salvation is distinctly said to be by faith alone without works (Ephesians 2:8-9/Titus 3:5) and [2] the genuineness of the 16th Century revival which saw the Reformers separate from Rome. If Rome is true, then that separation was not of God but was a sinful schism that ought to be healed immediately. With all the talk of not proselytising etc., Rome still wants unity in her communion under the Pope i.e. we all become Roman Catholics. You don't have to be rocket scientist to see that. Get the big picture. Who is Paddy Monaghan? He is just a pawn in the big game of church politics. His masters i.e. the hierarchy see that he has his uses, but in the final roundup, all his thoughts and aspirations etc., are subject to the official teaching of Rome which teach that Christian unity is only on Rome's terms.
.
PM: Mission Statement. The Evangelical Catholic Initiative has three objectives: (1) To see a Holy Spirit inspired renewal in the Roman Catholic Church, which is Father orientated, Christ-centred and grounded in the Holy Scriptures. In this we need the support of our brothers and sisters in the other Christian Churches.

.MY ANALYSIS: If we argue that such a renewal took place at the Reformation i.e. many Roman Catholics,including the leading Reformers, then we notice that they forsook the RC Church. They did so because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (through the Scriptures) demanded that they do so. This is not what Paddy Monaghan has in mind. Paddy Monaghan (as a devout Roman Catholic) effectively believes that he were to forsake Rome, then he is forsaking the sacraments through which he gets his saving grace to get to Heaven. To forsake the RC Church is to bite the hand that feeds you and that means to starve. This is why it really does take faith to get out of Rome and trust God as He is revealed in the pages of the Bible.
.
PM: (2) To foster reconciliation among Christians. For there to be effective evangelism in Ireland there needs to be a growth in relationships between believers within all of the Christian churches.
We have already dealt with this point above.
.
PM: (3) To build up Jewish-Christian relationships. As Catholic, Protestant and Pentecostal Christians rediscover their Jewish roots they are enriched and find a greater unity together.

.MY ANALYSIS: No one objects to building up relationships with the Jews (or Roman Catholics) for the purposes of evangelism. However, no matter what road we go, we cannot have unity with Rome as long as she holds to her fundamental errors of the mass etc., A novel approach to the issue will not solve the basic point of fracture which can only be healed by one side or the other surrendering up their basic doctrines.
.
PM: What do evangelical Catholics believe? We believe that every person needs to come to know Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour, to read His Word and to grow in the knowledge of God.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: We agree on this point but only as far as it goes. It is a very basic statement and certainly no basis in itself for fellowship. A  Jehovah Witness or a Mormon could make the exact same statement.
.
PM: Salvation accomplished once and for all on Calvary is a free gift.
 

MY ANALYSIS: This sounds good! But the Evangelical Protestant sees here an empty Cross and an empty tomb while Roman Catholics, like Paddy Monaghan, see a mass wafer and a sacrificing priest. 
 .

PM: We cannot earn or merit or inherit it.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Again this sounds wonderful, but Rome ties it in with receiving the sacraments and to receive the sacrament you need to be in a state of grace and this is attained by works. Dig deeper and you always come across works. Paul refuted this type of thinking in his epistle to the Galatians.
 .

PM: We need to receive it by faith.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Come on Paddy! Say it: "Receive it by faith alone" You wont, will you? Because if you do, you are in trouble with your Church which hasn't budged an inch since the Reformation and indeed glories in its "Ever the same" stance. You are saying nothing that is  fundamentally new for a Roman Catholic. The crowd up north in ECONI [Whatever they call it now] might swallow this kind of thing, but no true evangelical will.
.
PM: As we accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour of our lives, we are changed. We enter eternal life today by entering into a living relationship with the living God.

.MY ANALYSIS: True, but only if these words have a Biblical interpretation and despite the evangelical language, they don't as far as Rome is concerned.
 .
PM: We now want to bring the good news to others. In Ireland many Catholics and Protestants have been over sacramentalised and under evangelised.

.MY ANALYSIS: If you attach any salvation importance to the sacraments (whether they number two or seven) then you are over sacramentalising people. In the doctrine of salvation, this means that they are lost until they are justified by faith alone in Jesus Christ. The problem is fundamental. Toning down the colour scheme is not the radical change that is required.
 .
 PM: Our Identity. The term 'evangelical Catholic' helps to define identity. My primary identity is that I am a Christian. I am in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Secondly, I am evangelical (the Greek word for gospel in the Bible is euaggelion, from which evangelical derives). I have been evangelised and discovered the Gospel for myself, and so want to lead others into a personal faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. My third identity is as a Roman Catholic.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: By identifying himself as a Roman Catholic, Paddy Monaghan automatically endorses every last heresy of his church. Evangelical Catholics endorse the concept of the Pope being "another Christ on earth." They endorse the Calvary denying error of the mass. They endorse salvation by a sacrament and not by grace alone. Sorry, but we can't run with this and be faithful to the word of God.
 .
 PM: It is God's will that Christians live united in one Church under the headship of Jesus Christ. That unity has been shattered into many denominations.

.MY ANALYSIS: There is a vast difference between the outward unity i.e. organisational and the inward communion of the people of God. I like to think that the true people of God, although in many different tents, are still in the same camp. I enjoy Christian unity with Christians from several denominations, although we do differ on some relatively minor points of doctrine. Even if  this unity is not entirely 100% yet it certainly isn't "shattered" either. The Reformation was not a shattering of Christian unity. It was a re-establishing of ground wherein true Christian unity can take place. Rome fought back at the Reformation and made it clear, as she continues to do today, that she did not want those teachings of the Reformers which alone (being Biblical) are the basis of true Christian experience.
 .
 PM: By God's providence, I am a Christian in the Roman Catholic denomination. This is the Christian tradition I am working in for a Christ-centred, Biblically based renewal.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Even if Paddy Monaghan was a "Christian in the Roman Catholic denomination" (and we would be very foolish to deny that there are absolutely 100% no Christians in that fold) yet we would have to attribute that fact to his own unwillingness to obey 2 Corinthians 6;14-18 and separate from it. We cannot invoke God's providence in the matter if we are using it to cover over our disobedience. By referring to this particular Church as Christian (in the NT sense of the word) and by planning to remain it  ("working for a renewal" etc.,) we can only conclude that Paddy Monaghan has no intention of obeying God in this matter. He is not an uncomfortable Christian - a square peg in a round hole  - but a thorough, card carrying, follower of the Pope. Let him publicly distance himself from the teaching of the mass, the error of giving tradition equal status to the Bible etc., and we will review our comments.
 .
 PM: It stands in need of reformation, but has also within it many Scriptural treasures.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: There already has been a Reformation - BIG TIME! - and this has been spurned. Indeed the whole idea was to crush it completely. Run with the Reformation that already took place, instead of looking for another. Any scriptural treasures which Rome has are already being enjoyed by those of us outside their fold. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to enjoy the Bible.
 .
 PM: Barriers to Relationships. Most barriers to relationships tend to be cultural, political, historical and linguistic.

.
We have dealt with this above. I can cope with a different culture, different politics etc., but I can't cope with a different gospel (Galatians 1:8) This is the real issue here. The rest are just papering over ever widening cracks. 

PM: Many Catholics would react negatively when asked if they were born-again or saved. What many hear in this question are issues of proselytism that go back to famine days. They interpret the question as meaning: 'Have you become a Protestant yet?'

.MY ANALYSIS: The issue is deeper though. Why have the Protestants got the "evangelical" words like "saved" and "born again" etc., and Rome hasn't? Answer: This is because Rome doesn't have the gospel. It is a world wide matter. Roman Catholics outside of Ireland don't like this word "saved" either because it is not a merit monger's word. People who are basically trying to be accepted by God on the basis of their religious exercises can never have assurance of salvation and therefore the word "saved" to such smacks of religious smugness rather than Bible based assurance.
 .
 PM: However, the Gospel truth is that we are justified through faith in our Lord Jesus.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Did you really think Paddy Monaghan was going to use the phrase "justified through faith alone in our Lord Jesus?"
 .
 PM: We are justified by faith, not by the language of faith. Many Catholics are born again but may not use this terminology to express it.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Whatever poorly word "confessions of faith" may be heard from the lips of new converts, those who are truly saved soon learn the language of faith and they use it. The issue with the language here is symptomatic - the real problem is that Rome preaches another gospel.
.
PM: Many evangelical Catholics would prefer not to be called "evangelical", because the word has come to have negative connotations for them, invoking images of bigotry, sectarianism, narrowness, and self-righteousness - reinforced recently by the example of self professed Evangelicals involved in the 'Spirit of Drumcree' Group and in the Harryville picket.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: As above, the issue is greater again than the local scene here in Ireland. The word "evangelical" always had negative connotations for Roman Catholics because it described people who rejected the authority and teaching of the Pope. An attempt is being made here to bridge the gap without dealing with the reason why the gap is there in the first place. This leads ultimately to confusion and God is not the author of such confusion.
 .
 PM: The word "evangelical" needs to be redeemed, and reinvested with purely biblical connotations, describing anyone, Catholic or Protestant, who has received and is living by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

.MY ANALYSIS: Fair enough, but only to a point. But if you want to bring in things like the mass, the offices of Mary as co-Redeemer etc., then you are getting beyond "purely biblical connotations" and so the designation of "evangelical" will not fit. As things stand, the term "Evangelical Catholic" is a misnomer. You are either one or the other and Mr Monaghan has not shown yourself to be evangelical.
 .
 PM: Is it not time for the cold war among evangelical Christians to end? 
 .

MY ANALYSIS: A euphemism meaning: "Is it not time for Protestants to return to Rome?"
.
PM: Most evangelical Catholics would prefer to be called Catholic Christians, Committed Christians, Charismatic Catholics, born again Catholics or simply Catholics who love the Lord. However, whatever the label, they love Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour and are thus brothers and sisters of all true Evangelicals within the Protestant and Pentecostal Churches, under one Father.
.

MY ANALYSIS: By remaining in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, these call-them-whatever-you-want Catholics do not accept Jesus Christ alone as Saviour. The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church elevates Mary to the offices which are uniquely held by Christ. This is easily proved, as the quote below from the 1995 Catechism of the Catholic Church shows. On p221 we read of Mary: "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation...Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix." This is sheer idolatry from which every evangelical must flee. (1 Corinthians 10:14)
 .
 PM: Our differences should not divide, when Christ is at the centre. 
 .

MY ANALYSIS: True, but the problem is: Christ is not at the centre. He does not stand alone in His offices, but shares them with "other Christ's" in the Roman Catholic Church.
 .
 PM: God draws us to Jesus in various ways, but there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus - John 14:6.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: God uses His word to bring people to Christ (Romans 10:17) He does not use the lie, otherwise the blind could lead the blind and the ditch remain empty (Matthew 15:14)
 .
 PM: Doctrinal Differences. There are real doctrinal differences, but these are often exaggerated and misunderstood.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: I doubt such exaggeration and misunderstanding are sufficiently such to make these charges stick. The great danger at the moment is the playing down of these "real doctrinal differences" as to make them of no bar to fellowship. This is why this critique of the "Evangelical Catholic" movement has been undertaken.
 .
 PM: In any case, doctrinal differences are a call for dialogue around the Holy Scriptures, and mainline Evangelical Protestants are now moving down this path in most parts of the world.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: No one objects to a true Christian sitting down with any lost soul to discuss the things of God. We call it evangelism. But Paddy Monaghan has already discountenanced such a thing above, giving it the somewhat odious name of proselytising. For nearly 500 years, our Protestant forefathers could not regard the Church of Rome as a Christian Church. Her fundamental doctrines were seen as "damnable heresies" None of those damnable heresies have been abandoned and indeed, since the Reformation, new ones brought into being. We therefore regard those "mainline Evangelical Protestants" who are now dialoguing with Rome on the basis that she is a Christian church as traitors to their Reformation heritage. Protestantism is willing to debate Rome at any level, but the dialogue envisaged by Paddy Monaghan is a non starter.
 .
 PM: Let us look briefly at two areas of difference - the Eucharist and Mary.
The Eucharist
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Here's our opportunity to see just how devout ecumenical Roman Catholics think. Fair play to Paddy Monaghan here for raising these issues (although I raised them above) The issue here is: Does he deny or defend Rome's record in these two important areas? Has Rome ever gone over the top, or are we getting the "whys and wherefores" of those belief's which our Protestant forefathers sternly rejected? Read on. 
 .
 PM: Evangelical Catholics strongly affirm the Roman Catholic Church teaching that there is only one all-sufficient sacrifice for sins, accomplished once for all on Calvary.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: This sounds pretty good as it stands. The devil (as they say) is in the details i.e. how all this filters through to the sinner. 
.
PM: We fully endorse the agreement set forth in The World Alliance of Reformed Churches/RC International Dialogue in 1977, "We believe we have reached a common understanding of the meaning, purpose and basic doctrine of the Eucharist, which is in agreement with the Word of God and the universal tradition of the Church. We gratefully acknowledge that both traditions, Reformed and Roman Catholic, hold to the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and both hold at least that the Eucharist is: (1) a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord (2) a source of loving communion with Him in the power of the Spirit, and (3) a source of the eschatological hope for His coming again."
 .

MY ANALYSIS: What! Is the body, blood, soul and divinity, flesh and sinews and all bodily parts (to quote the Catechism of the Council of Trent)  really, physically, present there?  If this is what those "Reformed" churches signed up for, then they betray their cause and "deny the Lord that bought them" (2 Peter 2:1) The faithful man of God will not be influenced by the actions of others, but will judge all things by the word of God. The whole teaching of Rome on the mass must colour the rest. Some agreement cannot override the whole.
.
PM:We also affirm a statement from the Anglican/RC International Commission on the Eucharist, in 1981, "Christ's redeeming death and resurrection took place once and for all in history. Christ's death on the Cross, the culmination of His whole life of obedience, was the one perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world. There can be no repetition of, or addition to, what was then accomplished once for all by Christ." Some Evangelical Protestants seem not to want to hear what our Church affirms on the once for all nature of the sacrifice of Christ. They seem unwilling to accept that this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: I am aware what Rome says about there being but one sacrifice and that the mass is not a repetition etc., of the sacrifice. But the main heresy is still there i.e. that the mass is a sacrifice and that Jesus Christ is still being sacrificed as a Victim on the Roman altars by a sacrificing priest.  Any Bible believer will deny the mass outright as a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit. By holding unto the mass and seeking here to defend it, Paddy Monaghan and friends plainly show they are attempting to highjack the term of evangelical.
 PM: Mary. Mary is God's guarantee that His Son truly took on human flesh. He who was God drew His humanity from Mary, his mother, through the Holy Spirit. Mary is a model for us of walking in obedience, in humility and in the fear of the Lord. Luke 1:48 tells us that all generations will call her blessed. Jesus himself points out that Mary's blessedness is in hearing the word of God and observing it.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Agreed.
.
 PM: Mary, as a disciple, is saved by faith in Jesus.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Agreed again but we disagree here fundamentally over how Mary was so saved. In line with the Bible, Evangelicals believe that Mary sinned (Romans 3:23/Mark 10:18) and was saved from paying the penalty of her actual sin through Christ taking that penalty upon Himself. Rome believes that Mary never sinned at all and was saved from sin the way people who heed temperance messages may be said to be saved from drink i.e. from ever touching it. Of course, it does not suit Paddy Monaghan's purpose to tell us the whole truth and so we are getting truth here on the drip. This is the equivalent of theological art. The trick of the artist's trade is to put as little on the page as is necessary and rely on the power of suggestion, even illusion to do the rest. By making the above minimalist statement, Paddy Monaghan wants the unwary to assume that we are in complete agreement when the facts are otherwise.
.
 PM: Mary's natural relationship to Jesus as His mother was put in proper perspective by Jesus, in Matt. 12:48-50 ("Who is my mother? ... For whoever shall do the will of my Father...is my brother and sister and mother."). In gratefully acknowledging the unique role of Mary as Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, we see no scriptural warranty for ascribing to her any other role in excess of that.

.MY ANALYSIS: True, but when has the Evangelical Catholic movement embraced the concept of the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith and practice? Paddy gets his extra bits about Mary from tradition which his church keeps assuring us is equal to the Bible. A true Evangelical rejects such tradition as dangerous (Mark 7:13) It is the things left unsaid in this charm offensive by Paddy Monaghan which cause us concern. We are both "old hands" at this game. Paddy Monaghan knows what not to say and we know exactly what we have to say it for him. And when the missing bits are filled in, we are just looking at the old Reformation battle again. Nothing fundamentally has changed.
.
 PM: Jesus Christ alone is the one Mediator between God and human kind.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: But as we have seen, Mary is described in one of her many salvic roles as being a "Mediatrix." (1995 catechism) If she is not a mediatrix between men and God, then she is such between us and Christ i.e. we come to Mary in order to come to Jesus in order to come to God. Ligouri's Glories of Mary, which carried the imprimatuer of Paddy's church, regales us with all the advantages of seeking Mary in order to get something from Jesus. This is an insult to the ever gracious Son of God.
.
 PM: However, we do believe that Evangelical Protestants, rather than reacting against Mary, should begin to state positively what part they believe she played as a "handmaid of the Lord" in God's purposes. This would bring us closer in our understanding of this magnificent woman of faith.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Protestants do not react against Mary, but we do react against Rome's heresies concerning her. Just as there is "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4) and "another gospel" (Galatians 1:8) so too it would appear that there is effectively "another Mary" for the Virgin Mary of the NT is never viewed or proclaimed to be "Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix" or saw herself as holding the office of Saviour. Where she did assume she had some sort of sway with her Son, He very kindly, though firmly, put her into her place (John 2:4) To be positive, as Paddy Monaghan rightly suggests we should be, Evangelicals  see Mary as the instrument God used to bring His Son into the world in a human body. We see her primarily as a "woman of faith" (as stated by above) - not perfect or without sin but primarily as one who should be imitated just as we would imitate Peter and John and other servants of God when they did that which is right in the sight of the Lord. We do not however thrust her into those spiritual roles which are reserved uniquely and without equivocation to her Son and we must repudiate those who do.
.
 PM: How many evangelical Catholics are there in Ireland? The 1993 edition of Operation World by Patrick Johnstone of WEC International estimated the number of evangelical Catholics in Ireland at 2.6% or 100,000. Our estimate would be considerably higher than this. They are to be found in all of the 1,400 parishes in Ireland. They might be participants in an Alpha Course or a Parish Prayer Group or Bible Study, in a Cursilio or Focalare Group, or they may just be ordinary parishioners or clergy.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Reference here to the Alpha Course will not go unnoticed. Despite the hype, it is just old fashioned ecumenism under an evangelical guise. Again the minimalist statements which mean different things to different people cobbled together to present a "common" front before an unsuspecting world.
.
 PM: Plea for Acceptance. Is it not time for the cold war among evangelical Christians to end?
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Our battle here with Paddy Monaghan and the Evangelical Catholics is neither a "cold war" nor is it among "Evangelicals" Without exaggerating any, it is a life or death struggle between the truth of the gospel of Christ and the false gospel of the Roman Catholic Church. Was Paul's fight with the false teachers in Galatia just a storm in a tea cup? No! Paul went in hard to save the gospel in those parts from extinction. If we embrace the doctrines of the Evangelical Catholics, then we can kiss our gospel liberties goodbye. Perhaps not so slowly but surely we will come into the sacerdotal bondage our Reformation forefathers died to free us from. This is no shadow boxing! 
.
PM: Surely we need to allow the Holy Spirit to remove the suspicion and prejudice from our hearts so that we can find one another across the divide, listen to each other's testimonies and build friendships.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Again, I am all for friendships between human beings. I wish Paddy Monaghan no ill will whatsoever as a person. I am willing to reach out the hand of friendship to any sinner because I believe the gospel is for every last creature on earth. It is because of this that I must resist error in all its various forms. If I embrace the ecumenism of Paddy Monaghan and his friends in ECONI then ultimately (as already indicated) I will have no gospel to bring. What we need to "allow the Holy Spirit" to do is to remove the cause of suspicion i.e. the false gospel of a church long departed from the truth and simplicity of the gospel.
.
 PM: Many Evangelicals feel threatened when they hear that a Catholic, who knows Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour, still worships God in the Roman Catholic Church.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: It is not so much that we feel threatened to hear about some one professing faith worshipping in the RC Church, but that we fear the idea that this will be accepted as the norm and as a sign of Christian maturity instead of (at best) an untaught believer who has still to learn the truth of separation from idols and false teaching etc., The fact that these words are being written responding to an article appearing sympathetically on a website of a professed Evangelical site shows just how real our concern is. We are not fighting imaginary battles here or having a 16th Century re-enactment. The fight is as contemporary as it can be.  
.
 PM: Perhaps we need a revelation from God to see that the Body of His Son extends through all the Christian Churches.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: No we don't! The word of God is sufficient to teach us the spirit of truth and error. Judging the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church by this same standard, I find her so seriously wanting as to forfeit the title of "Christian."
 .

PM: Then, like Peter, in Cornelius' house, we might also affirm: "I now realise ... that God does not show favouritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear Him and do what is right." Acts 10:34
 .

MY ANALYSIS: The issue is not what country men come from, but what creed they hold. You cannot be said to fear God and do what is right when you not only deny basic Bible doctrines...but seek to seduce others into holding them. This effectively is what Paddy Monaghan is doing, even if unconscious of the fact.
.
 PM: ECI Activities. ECI organises conferences, produces a newsletter and various pamphlets e.g. "Will I go to Heaven when I die? - no doubt about it" (a 16 page evangelistic tract). A second tract for Catholics entitled 'Why you need to read the Bible' is published with ecclesiastical permission and has proved very popular (140,000 in print. 50 were sent to each of the 1,400 parish priests in Ireland, (sponsored by a N.I. evangelical Protestant businessman!). For three years ECI sponsored a Christian Leaders Conference, now an annual Charismatic Renewal Leaders Conference attended by mainline and Pentecostal/New Church Leaders. ECI also strongly promotes the Alpha Bible Study Course in various parishes and ran an Alpha Leaders Seminar last March. We are also involved in networking across the denominations and in supporting a major 2 year prayer initiative beginning shortly. ECI's reconciliation work recently attracted a grant from the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.
 .

MY ANALYSIS: Again, we are dealing here with an aggressive movement which is seeking by various means to remove those God erected barriers between truth and darkness.
.
 PM: Moment of Grace for Ireland. We now have a second cease-fire and political talks will start in mid-September.

.MY ANALYSIS: It will be obvious from these words that this document is somewhat dated, although the same old arguments and tactics are still in vogue today.
.
 PM: Let us believers truly humble ourselves, seek God's face, turn from our wicked ways and pray, then surely God will hear from heaven, forgive our sin and heal our land. This is a moment of grace for Ireland; as believers let us not be found wanting. Following the example of churches in South Africa, could not all evangelical Christians in Ireland commit themselves for a period of two years to praying for one hour per week towards these three goals: The removal of sectarian attitudes from all our hearts; Christ-centred, biblically based revival, North and South; A just political solution in Northern Ireland. May Ireland again be a light to the nations, giving glory to God. Amen.

.MY ANALYSIS: Fair enough words, but wrongly applied in this situation. Paddy Monaghan believing that he is an evangelical does not make him one, nor does the efforts of ECONI to present him as one simply do the trick. When such a Christ centred Bible based revival comes to Ireland, as it did in 1859 and again in the 1920's under W.P. Nicholson, then Rome will pay a heavy price in the loss of her disciples. However Rome's loss will be Christ's gain. May that be so, for Christ's sake. Amen.

.

Paddy Monaghan is secretary of the Evangelical Catholic Initiative in the Republic of Ireland. Since 1980 he has worked part time as an evangelical Catholic lay missionary and part time in a small financial consultancy practice. He lives near Dun Laoghaire in County Dublin.

.
 END OF ARTICLE

.

Colin Maxwell has been working as an evangelist in the Irish Republic since 1987.