As the old saying goes; “ask two Jews a question and you will get three answers.” As a Jew I have always found this a bit unfair because this old saying seems to be a general position amongst people in all religions. In the case of Roman Catholics when you ask two Roman Catholics a question you will also get three answers.
Popes have contradicted popes, Roman Catholic apologists have contradicted other Roman Catholic apologists and the pew sitting Roman Catholic continues to contradict other pew sitting Roman Catholic. Like I said, this happens in every religion, but in most Protestant denominations (a very few I assure you) there is no conflict on the doctrine of justification.
Now that I have that off my chest I will speak of a particular devious doctrine that continues to have different answers according to who you talk to. How do I know this? Evangelize! Open a room on Pal Talk and engage the Roman Catholics. I say open a room because if you go into their rooms you are quickly silenced or removed when you bring light into the darkness or the truth to dead men and women.
What I want to do in this article is show Protestants a different way of handling the ignorant Roman Catholic. We must not listen to the ignorant Romanist who says the mass is only a memorial meal. I don’t care how eloquent the argument is if it deviates from the clear teaching from the Scriptures it must be rejected. We must listen to the Roman Church Documents that detail what the mass is and is not before we listen to Joe or Josephine Roman Catholic.
The same goes with the Christian Church. Before I believe Christian Joe I want to verify what the Scriptures have to say about the matter. If you have done evangelizing with Roman Catholics you know already what arguments they use and I hope this article will be beneficial in your evangelism efforts.
We must stay on point with justification. You must be able to understand it and articulate it! If you understand justification then you will know that the many other doctrines taught by Rome is a pile of dung. Purgatory, indulgences, prayers to Mary, and specifically, the Mass do not stand a snow ball’s chance if you understand justification. We want the Roman Catholics to see the Mass in the light of justification. I will devote a small segment on the doctrine of justification toward the end of this “book”, lol.
What books are beneficial? There are plenty of awesome books available at our disposal and the one book I would recommend is very simple and to the point. It is a book by William Webster called “Salvation-The Bible and Roman Catholicism.” Printed by Banner of Truth. This book is small, to the point and gets to the gist of the issues which includes the Mass and the Eucharist.
What I want to do is take a different approach. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel, but provide another avenue of attack that may help us in our evangelism efforts in exposing the messy Mass. I want to focus on the term propitiation, drag it out and beat that horse until the Roman Catholic says “uncle.”
Why am I writing this article? It is because I used the same argument with a Roman Catholic apologist who told me; “you have made good points”. Will the good points made save him? Not likely, but the doctrine of justification was presented and God may use his gospel to open this man’s eyes.
The majority of Roman Catholics I have dealt with make this argument; “It is only a memorial meal.” Fine! Let’s look at it through Roman Catholic lenses and see if what they say is true.
Questions or issues I want to address in no specific order?
What is propitiation?
John 6 in the light of John 4.
Do they eat their Jesus symbolically or literally?
What is a true and proper sacrifice?
What is an un-bloody sacrifice? Does Scripture teach there is an un-bloody sacrifice for sins?
Is their Jesus involved in one the greatest aerobics/jazzercise programs in all the ages since, he comes to earth about every four minutes at the request of a priest? (He must be the most “in shape” Jesus due to sitting at the right hand of the Father, standing up as he is called to earth, brought to the alter to be sacrificed and return to the Father and sit down again and he repeats this about every four minutes to be around the globe).
What is 1 Corinthians 11 teaching us as believers? Why are we celebrating the Lord’s Supper?
Most of these issues will be talked about, (and then some) but as I said, no specific order. I realize many already know much of this, but many don’t. They take the word of the lay Catholic and so I want to spend the time bringing some of these things up. But, I want the mature believers to focus in on the arguments made when I speak of propitiation in the light of the Mass.
Most of us already know that the mass is a mess. In a nut shell we have a Roman Catholic Priest who says the magic words and their Jesus leaves the right hand of the Father to be brought down to the alter and *poof* he becomes a happy meal and the Roman Catholic has a “nosh”. (that is Yiddish for a snack) What magic words? “Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum” which translated from the Latin is said to mean “this is my body.”
Wikpedia says; “The words of Jesus reiterated in Latin during the Roman Catholic Eucharist. “Hoc Est Corpus” May be the source of the expression “hocus-pocus”. The term “hoc est pocus” was said probably to make fun of the Roman Catholic magic act that took place in the Mass. I shall not wander at this point on the term hoc est pocus. It is just some food for thought.
Luke 22:19-20 And taking a loaf, giving thanks, He broke, and gave to them, saying, This is My body being given for you. This do to My remembrance. And in like manner the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you.
We must realize that these are not just words repeated from Luke which says we are to do this in remembrance of his death. These words mean the R C Priest is calling the heavenly deli for an order to go. He or she believes they are actually eating Jesus. Oh yummy!
Why do they believe such nonsense? It is because they are blind guides who read into John 6 instead of reading out of John 6. In order to be saved they must eat the real Jesus who is disguised as a wafer. The secret agent messiah comes to earth at the beckon call of an RC Priest. Yes, he is summoned and must come by this priest craft. Yes, it is the real Jesus. Sort of reminds me of the old cartoon “wonder twin powers activate; form of a wafer”
Question? Do they worship the wafer? The Vatican says “yes”. We bow deeply, we genuflect as a sign of adoration to the wafer.
Romans 1 says they served the creation rather than the Creator who is forever blessed. Secondly, this is idolatry! God is not a wafer!
1378 Worship of the Eucharist.
In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.” http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#I
As I will show, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation and since I just brought up eating Jesus, let me read from William Webster who is quoting from “The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism” by John A Hardon. (If you have a weak stomach I apologize if this is made a bit graphic, but I must have the reader follow the logic in their argument and cannot be overlooked)
Please note, I encourage you to get Webster’s book or Hardon’s book to see the Q and A so you don’t just take my words for it. And note, there are different Q and A Catholic Catechisms ( as you will see below from Keenan) so the numbers may be different.
Question 1217. Is the Eucharist necessary for salvation?
“The Eucharist is necessary for salvation, to be received either sacramentally or in desire. Christ’s words ’if you do not eat of the flesh of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you’ (John 6:53), mean that Holy Communion is necessary to sustain the life of grace in a person who has reached the age of reason.” “The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism” by John A Hardon from William Webster, Salvation-the Bible and Roman Catholicsm.
I don’t want to wander off base, but notice the addition in their answer; “a person who has reached the age of reason.” The Arminian’s grabbed that dog by the tail and they ran with it as well. They too teach this doctrine today under the umbrella of Christianity, but it is more commonly known as “the age of accountability”.
Are there any Biblical citations for this statement? Not a one! I find it amazing to see how many things the Arminian’s have kept alive which began in the Roman Catholic Church. Read closely the answer from this next question. What is that wafer?
Question1223. Is only the substance of Christ’s human nature present in the Eucharist?
Christ is present in the Eucharist not only with everything that makes him man, but with all that makes him this human being. He is therefore present with all his physical properties, hands and feet and head and human heart. He is present with his human soul, with his thoughts, desires and human affections”. “The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism” by John A Hardon from William Webster, Salvation-the Bible and Roman Catholicsm.
Question 1224. How does Christ become present in the Eucharist?
Christ becomes present in the Eucharist by means of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the term used to identify the change that takes place at the consecration”. The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism” by John A Hardon from William Webster, Salvation-the Bible and Roman Catholicsm.
Another Catholic Catechism by Stephen Keenan supports the above.
Q. Is the sacrifice of the Mass a true, propitiatory sacrifice?
A. Yes; both for the living and the dead.
Q. In what sense is it a propitiatory sacrifice for the living?
A. In this, that through it they obtain the spirit of compunction and grace to repent of their sins.
Q. How is it propitiatory for the dead?
A. It contributes to the remission of the temporal punishment,* which they may still owe to the Divine Justice.
Q. How do you prove that the Mass is truly a propitiatory sacrifice?
A. From St. Matth. chap. xxvi: “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of Sins;” and from St. Paul to the Hebrews, chap. 6: “For every high priest, taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.”
Q. What do you conclude from these?
A. That as we certainly have, in the Christian Church, a high priest, so his duty certainly is to offer sacrifices for sins.
Q. Is there then more than one sacrifice propitiatory or expiatory?—has not the sacrifice of the cross alone expiated all sin? http://biblelight.net/keenan.htm#127
So, what do we read? It is a true, propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead!
We read above that the wafer is really changed into,,,, “tada” Jesus! Not only is it Jesus, but it contains ALL the organs that make a man, a man! I want to keep this rated G, but you can use your imagination. And you must use your imagination. Why? It is because there is a parallel to be thought of when we refer back to the animal sacrifices under the Levitical system. Remember, only certain parts were used in the sacrifice. This is why I point this out. It is because it is a mockery and does not follow in the pattern of Levitical Law ! They omitted some specifics on that didn’t they, but it can be deduced from their answer to the question above, that the wafer includes everything from head to toe.
The hair all the way to the toe nails and EVERYTHING in between. I realize this is a bit graphic, but I must point out the devilishness in this doctrine.
Now, another point to be considered is that it says we eat not only the physical; we also eat the soul as well. Does soul taste like chicken? Where can one point to a parallel under the Old covenant? Was the soul of the bull also sacrificed? What of the emotions of the bull? Do you see what nonsense this becomes?
Pray tell, If Jesus is being eaten, and we are talking every bit of him, body and soul, who is running the Universe?
Colossians 1:17; He himself existed before all things, and by him all things hold together.
If Jesus is running the Universe according to Colossians 1 above and he is holding all things together, if he is eaten every four minutes then who is in control of the ship of creation?
Another graphic question I have is this; if he is being consumed, isn’t he also being poopied out? I make fun of these things because of their stupidity. Their jesus is NOT our jesus. He is a fraud. He was created by the minds of un-regenerated men. He was created to cater to their system of human works. Their God is not our God and their jesus is not our jesus and their spirit is not our spirit and most of all their gospel is not our gospel.
And before I continue, keep in mind, it is not the Roman Catholic individual I am attacking, it is Roman Catholic doctrine and the reader must understand that.
As I will show later you must use those little grey cells God gave us in putting the picture together. Rome teaches that in the Mass, Jesus is the same victim as he was on the cross. He is again, sacrificed. Roman Catholics will look at you with a straight face and argue that it is not a re-sacrifice. Question, does he become a victim again? Rome says yes! What is a victim?
Merriam Webster defines victim as; “a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite”.
It goes without say what the Bible says about the sacrifice of the Messiah. I would love to put the entire Chapters of Hebrews 7-10 because they teach the complete opposite and they prove that the Roman system is lying, but you can do that. I will pull out specifics.
Hebrews 7:26-27; For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. ESV
Did you catch that Roman Catholics? The Priest (the Messiah) that was sacrificed cannot be compared to the human priests on earth. The High Priest was innocent, unstained, separated from sinners. You Roman Catholic Priests have no such claims. You are dead in Adam’s sin. You ARE NOT separated from sinners.
Secondly, why are you repeating the sacrifices daily when Scripture says there is no need for daily sacrifices? Why? It is because his sacrifice was once for all. It is a done deal!
(I promise I will get to propitiation 
)
Hebrews 9:22-28; Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. ESV
What do we read? We read that a sacrifice requires blood! Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness resulting in peace between an angry God and a sinful man. The word is “aphesis” and Thayer defines it as; “Release from bondage or imprisonment. Forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty”.
If Jesus is being sacrificed without blood then there is no forgiveness. A sacrifice for sins without blood is like a car with no engine. It is a meaningless sacrifice unless there is blood!
Secondly, in repeating the sacrifices we can no longer be secure in his words “paid in full.” He should have been singing “Hi ho hi ho, it’s off to the altar I go. The work on the cross is still to come I owe, I owe. ”
If the words “It is Finished” have been tampered with we are still in our sins and have no pardon from God. I will speak of this later because this is an assault and an attack on the doctrine of justification.
Again we are told by the writer of Hebrews that his once for all sacrifice was a better sacrifice than what was done on earth because it was done in heaven. There is no need for daily sacrifices, or for him to be sacrificed daily because he went into heaven itself and appeared before the Father on our behalf.
No earthly priest can do that and this is why it is asinine to believe the mass is true. No human priest can do this and so any attempt to re-sacrifice is to call into question that he, Messiah, was offered ONCE to bear the sins of many.
The Roman Catholics have him returning to earth daily, but Scripture says he will return a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. Instead, they have him returning to earth to be sacrificed again and again and again. May I say “let God be true and every man a liar”. Can I get an “amen” somebody!
Don’t let Roman Catholics tell you that it is not a true and proper sacrifice. I will show later on that Canon 1 teaches it is a true and proper sacrifice to God and if you deny this you are under Rome’s curse. I am still going round and round with Roman Catholics who want to redefine true and proper.
Continuing I want to begin by quoting from the ISBE to give more of an academic background to the word propitiation. Don’t be skeered!
“The word is Latin and brings into its English use the atmosphere of heathen rites for winning the favor, or averting the anger, of the gods. In the Old Testament it represents a number of Hebrew words–ten, including derivatives–which are sufficiently discussed under ATONEMENT, of which propitiation is one aspect.
It represents in Septuagint the Greek stems hilask- (hile-), and katallag-, with derivatives; in the New Testament only the latter, and is rarely used. Propitiation needs to be studied in connection with reconciliation, which is used frequently in some of the most strategic sentences of the New Testament, especially in the newer versions In Heb 2:17, the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version have both changed “reconciliation” of the King James Version to “propitiation,” to make it correspond with the Old Testament use in connection with the sacrifice on the DAY OF ATONEMENT
Lu 18:13 (”God, be thou merciful (margin “be propitiated”) to me the sinner” (the American Standard Revised Version margin)); Heb 8:12 (quoted from the Septuagint); and Mt 16:22 (an idiomatic asseveration like English “mercy on us”) will help in getting at the usage in the New Testament.
In Septuagint hilasterion is the term for the “mercy-seat” or “lid of the ark” of the covenant which was sprinkled with blood on the Day of Atonement. It is employed in exactly this sense in Heb 9:5, where later versions have in the margin “the propitiatory.”
Elsewhere in the New Testament this form is found only in Ro 3:25, and it is here that difficulty and difference are found extensively in interpreting.
Greek fathers generally and prominent modern scholars understand Paul here to say that God appointed Christ Jesus to be the “mercy-seat” for sinners. The reference, while primarily to the Jewish ceremonial in tabernacle and temple, would not depend upon this reference for its comprehension, for the idea was general in religious thought, that some place and means had to be provided for securing friendly meeting with the Deity, offended by man’s sin.
In Hebrews particularly, as elsewhere generally, Jesus Christ is presented as priest and sacrifice. Many modern writers (compare Sanday and Headlam), therefore, object that to make Him the “mercy-seat” here complicates the figure still further, and so would understand hilasterion as “expiatory sacrifice.” While this is not impossible, it is better to take the word in the usual sense of “mercy-seat.”
It is not necessary to complicate the illustration by bringing in the idea of priest at all here, since Paul does not do so; mercy-seat and sacrifice are both in Christ. hilasmos, is found in the New Testament only in 1Jo 2:2; 4:10. Here the idea is active grace, or mercy, or friendliness.
The teaching corresponds exactly with that in Romans. “Jesus Christ the righteous” is our “Advocate (margin “Helper”) with the Father,” because He is active mercy concerning (peri) our sins and those of the whole world. Or (Ro 4:10), God “loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for (active mercy concerning) our sins.” This last passage is parallel with Ro 3:25, the one dealing with the abstract theory, and so Christ is set forward as a “mercy-seat,” the other dealing with experience of grace, and so Christ is the mercy of God in concrete expression.
2. Theological Implication:
The basal idea in Hebrew terms is that of covering what is offensive, so restoring friendship, or causing to be kindly disposed.
The Greek terms lack the physical reference to covering but introduce the idea of friendliness where antagonism would be natural; hence, graciousness. Naturally, therefore, the idea of expiation entered into the concept. It is especially to be noted that all provisions for this friendly relation as between God and offending man find their initiation and provision in God and are under His direction, but involve the active response of man. All heathen and unworthy conceptions are removed from the Christian notion of propitiation by the fact that God Himself proposed, or “set forth,” Christ as the “mercy-seat,” and that this is the supreme expression of ultimate love. God had all the while been merciful, friendly, “passing over” man’s sins with no apparently adequate, or just, ground for doing so.
Now in the blood of Christ sin is condemned and expiated, and God is able to establish and maintain His character for righteousness, while He continues and extends His dealing in gracious love with sinners who exercise faith in Jesus. The propitiation originates with God, not to appease Himself, but to justify Himself in His uniform kindness to men deserving harshness. Compare also as to reconciliation, as in Ro 5:1-11; 2Co 5:18 ff.
I hope I didn’t lose anybody, but this information helps the reader understand how the term was developed and later applied in Scrpture.
With that said, let me get to my point now regarding the mass and the term propitiation in the light of Judaism and the New Testament.
First, let’s look at the Scriptures because we should agree that they are the referee in the matter. One must be familiar with them first or they can be deceived by secondary teachings that come along later.
Why are Roman Catholics and all the false religions, (Arminians included), so confused and on their way to an eternity without God? It is because they were (in many, many cases) introduced to the secondary source first.
This is not the case with apostates. Those who claimed they were once Protestant and boast of a conversion to Catholicism were never one of God’s elect. They went out from us because they were never really one of us. They were religious and playing the card they had at the time.
It is also because the Bible is not treasured in their hearts and can never be unless the Lord does a supernatural work. As religious people they will only submit to those passages in the Bible that meet their needs and/or do not contradict their theological systems.
How is propitiation made according to Romans 3? In his blood through faith.
Romans 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Definitions I want to reiterate again from above include the following;
”Relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation
Covering what is offensive, so restoring friendship, or causing to be kindly disposed. It is important to note the Greek terms lack the physical reference to covering but introduce the idea of friendliness where antagonism would be natural; hence, graciousness.
Please take the time to get familiar with this passage below because of the insight it provides. Note that the High Priest DID NOT go into the Holy of holies without blood. This is the instruction from Levitical Law, i.e Leviticus 17:11.
Hebrews 9:1 Now the first covenant had both regulations for worship and a Holy Place here on earth. A tent was set up, the outer one, which was called the Holy Place; in it were the menorah, the table and the Bread of the Presence. Behind the second parokhet (curtain) was a tent called the Holiest Place, which had the golden altar for burning incense and the Ark of the Covenant, entirely covered with gold. In the Ark were the gold jar containing the man, Aharon’s rod that sprouted and the stone Tablets of the Covenant; and above it were the k’ruvim (cherubim) representing the Sh’khinah, casting their shadow on the lid of the Ark - but now is not the time to discuss these things in detail. With things so arranged, the cohanim go into the outer tent all the time to discharge their duties; but only the cohen hagadol (High priest) enters the inner one; and he goes in only once a year, and he must always bring blood, which he offers both for himself and for the sins committed in ignorance by the people.
This is why the word must be viewed in the light of its Old Testament meaning. (Atonement for example.) Therefore, the idea of expiation entered into the concept.
Does the Roman Catholic priest always bring blood which he offers for himself first and then for the sins committed in ignorance by the people? Then it cannot be a true and proper sacrifice according to the Scriptures.
How does a converted Jew like me see this? In the blood of the Messiah sin is condemned and expiated, and God is able to establish and maintain His character for righteousness, while He continues and extends His dealing in gracious love with sinners who exercise faith in the Messiah. The propitiation originates with God, not to appease Himself, but to justify Himself in His uniform kindness to men deserving harshness.
Please note again, (I must continue to harp on this) that it is used in connection to a sacrifice with blood. If the sacrifice is propitiatory then it, by definition, must be the real deal. The Roman Catholic priest must bring blood. No ifs, ands or buts.
Secondly, a point often overlooked is found in Hebrews 6:6. Any appearance in my opinion, that the sacrifice completed on the cross is not completed and is repeated in any way, shape or form is to put the Son of God to open shame. I don’t think that is stretching the matter at all.
Think of Hebrews 6 and those who once believed in the finished work of the Messiah. They gave into pressure from friends, relatives, etc and in leaving the truth they had to swear an awful oath against the Messiah. And besides the oath, in leaving the faith, they denied that he was the Son of God. That is the obvious context.
What I want to point out for us is to look past that reason and focus in on the latter part of verse 6. As a result of their leaving, they were crucifying for themselves the Son of God and putting him to open shame. I believe, although this is a different way of looking at the matter, we can still see another application from this passage. If Rome is repeating the crucifixion even though it is under the banner of an un-bloodied sacrifice, the writer of Hebrews says any insinuation or to imply or to suggest another sacrifice is repeated, puts him to open shame.
They have an altar, they have a victim and they say the sacrifice is propitiatory. I’d say it has all the trimmings of a crucifixion. Since they reject the final work on the cross they continue it on earth in a different manner. This is why the Roman Catholic wears a crucifix. He is still on the cross symbolically continuing the work of propitiation. He is continuing the work of propitiation. He continues making peace with God.
I don’t expect others to see it the way I do and that is ok. Let me quote from the NASV and the ESV.
Hebrews 6:4-6; For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. NASV
Hebrews 6:4-6; For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. ESV
Did I lose anyone? Yes I agree that these were people who were brought into the fold and received all the benefits that a believer would get. Simply stated, I believe that any appearance or doctrine teaching the Messiah was sacrificed a second time or however many times, they have put him to open shame. You may hear this tone come out from John Gill in a moment.
To expose him to open shame.
Thayer says the word “shame” means;
1) to set forth as a public example, make an example of
1a) in a bad sense
1a1) to hold up to infamy
1a2) to expose to public disgrace
Again, let me quote from the Question and Answer Catechism but before I do, let me ask you, does Rome teach the sacrifice is continued on earth?
John Gill Comments:
He was once crucified, and it is both impossible and unnecessary that he should be, properly speaking, “crucified afresh”, or “again”; it is impossible, because he is risen from the dead, and will never die more; it is unnecessary, because he has finished and completed what he suffered the death of the cross for; but men may be said to crucify him again, when, by denying him to be the Son of God, they justify the crucifixion of him on that account; and when they lessen and vilify the virtue of his blood and sacrifice; and when both by errors and immoralities they cause him to be blasphemed, and evil spoken of; and when they persecute him in his members: and this may be said to be done “to themselves afresh”; not that Christ was crucified for them before, but that they now crucify him again, as much as in them lies; or “with themselves”, in their own breasts and minds, and to their own destruction.
Now this being the case, it makes their renewal to repentance impossible; because, as before observed, the sin they commit is unpardonable; it is a denial of Christ, who gives repentance; and such who sin it must arrive to such hardness of heart as to admit of no repentance; and it is just with God to give up such to a final impenitence, as those, who knowingly and out of malice and envy crucified Christ, had neither pardon nor repentance; and besides, this sin of denying Christ to be the Son of God, and Saviour of men, after so much light and knowledge, precludes the way of salvation, unless Christ was to be crucified again, which is impossible; for so the Syriac version connects this clause with the word “impossible”, as well as a foregoing one, rendering it, “it is impossible to crucify the Son of God again, and to put him to shame”; and so the Arabic version. Christ was put to open shame at the time of his apprehension, prosecution, and crucifixion; and so he is by such apostates, who, was he on earth, would treat him in the same manner the Jews did; and who do traduce him as an impostor and a deceiver, and give the lie to his doctrines, and expose him by their lives, and persecute him in his saints.
With Rome’s doctrine, no man can be said to be justified once for all and no man can have peace with God once for all because the work is ongoing and applies to the lives of Roman Catholics day by day by participating in the Mass.
The devilishness in this mass is to say that he never completed the work on the cross the first time. The RC would argue that point and say “yes he did.” But it does not add up when you ask them to define “paid in full.” In the Mass men and women are said to receive merits and the work on the cross is applied. Boulder dash and poppycock! My benefits were provided; my debt was paid when I believed his life and death were reckoned or credited to my account and my sin from Adam was imputed to him on the cross. There is no daily application of merits.
Secondly, how do we know this work was not completed? It is because souls are headed to purgatory. Why purgatory? Why do I need to be purged when my sin was dealt with on the cross? Rome says; there are some souls not bad enough to go to hell and some souls not good enough to go to heaven. So we will create a place where they can go in the meantime. And, for a few dollars extra Rome can expedite the soul! I call it the purgatory express. All aboard!
To repeat the sacrifice by using deceitful terms and definitions is to ignore the primary sacrifice completed on the cross. There is no such thing as a re-sacrifice or a mock sacrifice.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Even if the RC says it is done as a memorial they have not remained loyal to Rome and her definition. Rome says it is NOT a mere commemoration, but a true sacrifice. Roman Catholics will argue that it is a memorial. They are wrong in the light of Roman Catholic teachings. They may want it to be a memorial meal, but I want a 72 foot yacht and it just aint goina happen!
Plus, a memorial needs no victim. The Passover was remembered, but the angel of the Lord came ONE TIME to preserve all who had blood on the door posts and top. When the Jews celebrated the Passover did anyone peek outside to see the angel of death? Did the Jew put blood on their doorpost? No.
Do you believe the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice? It does not matter what the Roman Catholic says in the light of their apologists. Once again, Stephen Keenan says the sacrifice on the cross is the same sacrifice at the altar;
Q. Is there then more than one sacrifice propitiatory or expiatory?—has not the sacrifice of the cross alone expiated all sin?
A. The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar, are one and the same.
Q. Why then renew every day the same sacrifice? is not the sacrifice of the cross once offered sufficient?
A. The merits and virtue of the sacrifice of the cross are infinite; but that virtue and these merits must be applied, and this can only be done by certain means.
Q. What are these means by which the merits of the sacrifice of the cross are applied to our souls?
A. They are the sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, prayer, and good works.
Q. Amongst these means, in what light are we to regard the sacrifice of the Mass?
A. We are to regard it as a means employed by the Almighty, for applying the sacred merits of the sacrifice of the cross to our souls, in a very particular manner.
Q. Has the sacrifice of the Mass been offered for the dead since the earliest ages?
A. Yes; as is evident from the testimony of the early Fathers and writers. Tertullian, lib. de Monog., says: “That a woman who would not have the holy sacrifice of the Mass celebrated every year for her husband on the anniversary of his death, should be considered as one who had been divorced from him.” St. Cyprian, Epist. 9, says: “Our predecessors prudently advised, that no brother departing this life should nominate any churchman his executor, and, should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose.” The Council of Chalons (anno 579) decrees, that in all solemn Masses, prayers be offered up for the souls of the departed. In fine, St. Augustine, lib. xxiii de Civit. Dei, tells us, “that one of his priests celebrated Mass in a house infested by evil spirits, and that by this their banishment was effected.” http://biblelight.net/keenan.htm#127
If you agree with Rome then you have added to a finished/completed work. If you agree with Rome then you have another gospel.
The Scriptures teach it was done one time, once for all. He, the Messiah, does not continue being a victim as Rome teaches. He sits at the right hand of the Father. He is now mediating between the elect and God. He is our advocate.
Here is the Council of Trent, Session XXII which says the Mass is propitiatory.
CHAPTER II.
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.
Let me emphasize this again because it undermines the gospel. “the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory”.
If it is truly propitiatory then it is, by Biblical definition, a true sacrifice. This is, therefore, a re-sacrifice. There is, however, no such animal as “untruly propitiatory, almost propitiatory, 30 percent propitiatory, etc. Note what it says in the Canon by using bullets;
A true and proper sacrifice
A divine sacrifice
That same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner
The sacrifice is truly propitiatory
We obtain mercy when it is effected
(and my favorite)
It is done on behalf of the living and the dead, those who are not yet fully purified.
The above Canon is ludicrous. In the light of the Scriptures it CANNOT be propitiatory without blood. But, Rome teaches it is propitiatory and also that it is a TRUE and PROPER sacrifice. (see Canon 1 below in red)
Let us ask the Roman Catholic if the words from above; “true and proper sacrifice offered to God” mean anything to them or are they going to continue to defend Rome?
We must emphasize that true sacrifice requires blood! True sacrifice offered to God is done according to Levitical Law. A Roman Catholic priest does not offer blood on his behalf first does he? No! As I said, this is a mockery of the true sacrifice of the Messiah. Scriptures teach he can never die again. But Rome says he is a victim. A victim must die or he is not a victim! So Messiah dies again and again and again and again and he is eaten again and again and again in order for the Romanist to find favor with God. Can you say human works? This doctrine is an outright attack on justification. If the Mass is true and proper as Rome says;
CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.
Then it destroys the gospel which says that a man is made right with God the moment he repents and believes. Romans 5; the believer has been justified. It is past tense. Not future but past because it centers around the finished work on the cross.
Secondly, to teach the propitiatory sacrifice is for the living as well as the dead is an attack on the Scriptures. When the story of the rich man and Lazarus was given by the Lord, the rich man was told he could NOT cross over. The great chasm prevented any escape from his place of torment. This foolishness of purging after death is a scam and offers a false hope to an ignorant soul.
Wishful thinking; “If I don’t get it right here and now, I can finish it in purgatory” says the man or woman deceived by Rome’s gospel.
Roman Catholics continue to be fooled into believing the mass is a memorial meal. Nothing can be further from the truth. How many of us have heard the RC say it is only a memorial meal?
If you have a Roman Catholic who says “it is a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving or a mere commeration” tell that Roman Catholic that they are not following the Canons of their church. They are under Rome’s anathema. Read Rome’s Canon III below.
First, let me define commemoration. “The act of commemorating; an observance or celebration designed to honor the memory of some person or event.”
Is there any disagreement with that definition? Now, take that definition and read it in the light of Roman Canon Law
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
If you say it is only a sacrifice of praise
If you say it is only a sacrifice of thanksgiving
If you say that it is only a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross….LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!
Furthermore, if you say it is not a propitiatory sacrifice…and that it ought not be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions and other necessities…LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!
Catholic Faith Alive also says it is a sacrifice based upon the words of the Pope
In the words of Pope John Paul II, “The Mass is above all else a sacrifice” (On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist, or Dominicae Cenae, henceforth “DC,” Feb 24, 1980).
[In the Mass] Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering Himself to the Father for the world’s salvation through the ministry of priests (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, henceforth “EM,” 25 May 1967, C 3).
We re-offer in the Mass the body and blood of Christ, separated as they were on Calvary. We represent the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the event which saved us and opened the gates of heaven which had been closed by Original Sin. http://www.cfalive.org/ReadMass.htm
Does the Scripture teach once was enough to pay for sins, past, present and future? You bet! In fact, it specifically says he has no need to offer sacrifices daily because he did this once by offering up himself. The second passage below specifically teaches that he entered ONCE for all-by means of his own blood and what happened? He SECURED an eternal redemption.
Hebrews 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
And, I don’t know how a Roman Catholic can ignore this next text in the light of what Rome teaches. Rome teaches he is offered again and again. Who has the final say, Rome or the Scriptures? Please note the usage of the term ONCE and its comparison to death also being a onetime event. I know I am being redundant so forgive me.
For the Messiah has entered a Holiest Place which is not man-made and merely a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, in order to appear now on our behalf in the very presence of God. Further, he did not enter heaven to offer himself over and over again, like the cohen hagadol (High Priest) who enters the Holiest Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer death many times - from the founding of the universe on. But as it is, he has appeared once at the end of the ages in order to do away with sin through the sacrifice of himself. Just as human beings have to die once, but after this comes judgment, so also the Messiah, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to deliver those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Rome teaches the Messiah is a victim, he is a “true and proper sacrifice” and the mass is “propitiatory.”
Let me just go over this once more. You cannot have a sacrifice without blood and you cannot have a sacrifice for sins unless it is propitiatory. Roman Catholics are duped by Rome. Their apologists are so eloquent with words, but zeal without knowledge will land them only in the fires of hell. Let God be true and every man a liar!
I have asked children to read Hebrews 9 and they have no problem understanding the above passage, that the Messiah died one time to bear the sins of many and he will return a second time, not to deal with sin, but to deliver those who are eagerly awaiting him.
One final point to the question; is the Eucharist necessary for salvation? I already listed question and answer, number 1217 in the beginning of the article, but let me reinforce it with Rome and with everyday Roman Catholics.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law states (c1247) “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass…”
“The faithful are bound to participate in the Mass”. I’d say that is pretty strong language wouldn’t you agree? Furthermore, another Catholic website says it is necessary for salvation
“Who could say he was keeping the Lord’s day holy if he didn’t offer God His most valued gift on that day? Who could claim to love God if he refused (without a serious obstacle) to offer the “summit,” the high point, of the Christian life at least on the day God commanded us to keep holy? What holier action is there?
Furthermore, if Christ’s flesh is real food and his blood real drink, sustenance necessary for spiritual life, should we be satisfied partaking in this sacred banquet just once a week (or once a year, as is required)? And, dare we enter this bodily communion with our God without sharing in a daily intimate communication of love with Him in prayer?
Would a spiritual life of Sunday Mass, a few prayers morning and evening, and confession three times a year constitute loving God with all our “heart, soul, and mind?” In fact, if we do only these things, are we not just hanging on to our faith by our fingernails? And if we knowingly refuse to offer the “summit” of these at least weekly, could we seriously think we are headed for God’s Kingdom?
Thus, to the original question, “Is Sunday Mass necessary for salvation?” we must answer, given that we know the above, Yes!, and a great deal more: A life of deeply committed love. What better time than now to face this? http://www.cfalive.org/ReadMass.htm
If it is “propitiatory” as I showed above from the Council, and it is important enough to participate in, then it is a true sacrifice according to Rome.
We must bring that point home. Sacrifices require blood. Don’t let them get away with this stupidity that there is an un-bloody sacrifice. If it is a true sacrifice then it requires blood. But, in the light of the Scriptures there can be no more sacrifices because of what the Messiah did.
Rome says he is a victim. A victim dies. How can the Messiah die when Romans says he will never die again? Not only does it say he will never die again it says in the same passage that; he died once and for all. If he died once and he will never die again then what is up with the sacrifices and this victim garbage communicated in the Mass?
Romans 6:9-10; for we know that Christ, who was raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has mastery over him. For when he died, he died once and for all as far as sin is concerned. But now that he is alive, he lives for God.
He is no victim. He is the victor, he is the vanquisher, and he is the defeater. He is the Son of God who will judge the living and the dead. He is not brought down to earth by a possible pedophile or any unregenerate man for that matter. He rules man and man does not rule him. He is Lord over all and is not subject to a hoc est pocus act.
Why the Lord’s Supper? Scripture is quite clear and how they get a mass out of the Lord’s Supper I will never understand. They can hem and haw all they want, but Scripture stands alone without some buffoon Catholic apologist trying to read into the Scriptures.
The answer is clear in verse 26 as to why we celebrate and remember while on earth. What is it we are to remember? Why do we eat the bread and drink the cup? Proclamation!! We proclaim to the world what his death accomplished. His death was my death.
To go a step further, his burial is my burial and his resurrection is my resurrection. His heaven is my heaven because of his work alone.
1 Corinthians 11:12:26; For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it in pieces, saying, “This is my body that is for you. Keep doing this in memory of me.” He did the same with the cup after the supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As often as you drink from it, keep doing this in memory of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
William Webster comments;
Jesus himself teaches us that the Church is to observe the Supper ‘in remembrance of me’. The word remembrance is the Greek word which literally means a memorial. The Supper is no altar of sacrifice, but a table of remembrance, a place of spiritual communion with the Saviour by his Spirit.
To teach that Christ has instituted a means whereby his sacrifice can be perpetuated through time is to contradict the plain teaching of Scripture.
This becomes yet clearer from the identification of the Lord’s Supper with the Passover memorial of the Old Testament. The Lord’s Supper was first celebrated at the time of the Jewish Passover and Jesus specifically identifies it as an equivalent when he says: ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer’ (Luke 22:15). What exactly was the Passover? It was an annual feast established by God in which the Jews would remember the night in which the angel of death ‘passed over’ those families which had applied the blood of the lamb to their door-posts (Exod. 12:1-13).
Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance’ (Exod. 12:14).
This was a ‘memorial’ to a specific act of God in redeeming his people from bondage and death. The ‘memorial’ served to bring to remembrance an important event. It did not repeat the event but kept it vivid in the memory through a physical representation.
Just as God instituted a memorial of remembrance of redemption in the Old Testament, he has done the same in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 5:7 states, ‘For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.’ His death is an accomplished fact. Now we are called, not to a sacrifice, but to a feast: ‘Let us therefore celebrate the feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’ (1 Cor. 5:8). When Christ states that the bread is to be eaten and the wine drunk in remembrance of him, he is employing the same language as that of the Old Testament memorial in reference to the Passover. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, it is the commemoration of a sacrifice. http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
Why proclaim his death? His death was a substitutionary atonement on my behalf and my account with God has been settled in the heavenly courtroom. There is therefore NO CONDEMNATION and the person who trusts in his work passes from death to life. The Mass is a fraud for anyone who trusts in it. It is a bogus event and gives false hope.
The Lord’s Supper is done to remember the Lord’s death until he returns. This Mass, however, is done in the attempt to undermine the gospel and force people to be saved by their involvement in the Mass which equates to works righteousness.
The issue of propitiation, as I tried to argue, was a onetime event for all eternity. This teaching from Rome, that the mass is propitiatory, makes the work on the cross incomplete and on-going. It reverses the words of the Messiah when he said, tetelestai, “it is finished” or “paid in full”.
If the debt for sin has been paid, there is no way a man can add or take away from that (Messiah’s active and passive obedience) finished work.
Rome, like every other false religion attempts to merge justification and sanctification and thus, the gospel is distorted. Sanctification is done on earth, but justification is done in the heavens. And, to make the argument stronger, the works of sanctification are not our own, but God’s. We are God’s workmanship created in Messiah Jesus to do good works. Our works will only stain his work.
The issue is; does Rome follow in the light of the Scriptures and the answer is no. If they did there would be no problems, but because of their teachings concerning the mass being propitiatory, they must also attack the doctrine of justification.
If propitiation is repeated then justification is repeated.
Justification is a legal declaration where God deals with my account in the heavens and I am declared not guilty. I am not declared “not guilty” over and over again. God’s wrath is now averted or turned away. Adam’s sin is placed upon the Messiah and the Messiah’s righteousness is placed into my account.
This is why the Scriptures use court room language and accounting terms in order for us to understand how God saves.
Propitiation and justification are based upon the life and death of the Messiah and have no meaning if the Mass is taught.
To say the mass is propitiatory is to say the once for all event was not true and was not effective and so, a person is justified again and again. In messing with propitiation, Rome subsequently messes with the doctrine of justification. We are not justified over and over and over all our lives. We are declared not guilty one time. This was developed throughout the Old Covenant and you can see it in Deuteronomy 25 for example.
This is why Paul says three different times in the New Covenant, that the just shall live by faith. He explains the gospel in Romans 1 and tells the reader that righteousness is from God alone. That is the heart of the gospel and if it is not understood, then hybrid gospel result.
We need righteousness from outside of ourselves and the Lord takes care of it. However, it is innate within man to be religious and work toward a free gift. Romans 1 says we are all religious, but in this religious pursuit, we suppress the truth of God and pursue lies and lies formulate humanism and humanism is the attempt to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work your way to God.
God will not receive ANY human merit because it is an attack on the work of his Son.
The book of Hebrews cannot make this any clearer. It even takes the appointment of death to make the argument that the work on the cross is a once for all event. The Messiah “entered the heavenly tabernacle once to offer his blood to the Father as propitiation for our sins.” If that is true then they must abandon any other teaching that suggests it is repeated as a propitiatory sacrifice.
The work was finished and this is why the writer of Hebrews explains the contrast between the High Priest and the Great High Priest.
Hebrews 7:25-27; consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
Please note the above if there are any Roman Catholics reading this. He did this once for all and so, there is no need to offer sacrifices daily. In the Roman Catholic Church the mass is a daily sacrifice.
The High Priest never sat down because the work was on-going. But, as I said, in contrast, Scripture says the Messiah has sat down. He now sits down at the right hand because the work is done. If the work is done, it would be devilish to insinuate that he must return to an altar on earth about every four minutes to be, in the words of Rome, ”a true and proper sacrifice.” If he is continuing to be sacrificed, then he should not be sitting down.
Secondly, the Messiah is the word of God and it is he who designed the entire model for the sacrificial system. Therefore, he would not defy his own prescription.
To draw from another analogy we can use marriage. A marriage covenant requires only one certificate and it is a onetime event. We do not grab our wives and go to the altar again and again and again throughout our lives. The New Covenant promises that the law would be written in our hearts. He does not put his law in the heart of the believer and then remove the law and put the law into the believer and remove his law. It is a onetime event.
Does God remember our sins?
Hebrews 8:10-12; For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
Many roman Catholics like to bring up Luke’s record of the man who beat his chest and yes I agree that the word “hilaskomai” could be translated propitiatory;
Luke 18:13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’
The point is, he was asking God to make propitiation for him. In contrast the Pharisee was depending upon his own righteousness. A man needs a perfect righteousness and we have no righteousness to offer God. Our righteousness is as menstrual clothes. All our works and merits are filthy rags to the Lord. Salvation is from the Lord.
As I said, the gospel is defined in Romans and the book of Galatians it is opened up. We do not use historical narratives as many Roman Catholics do, and pit them against theological treaties where the gospel is explained to the reader. We must follow the structure of the Bible and follow its order. Romans and Galatians are what are called explanations of the Bible. They are in there proper order.
One cannot be sanctified/set apart for the work of God until he has trusted in the work of the son completed on the cross. Until he submits his life to that work he is only the creation of God and is captive to the will of Satan. He must be born from above and this has nothing to do with men. John 1 says it is not by blood line, or the efforts of man or the will of man that we receive him. It must be by the work of God alone.
Paul quotes from Habakkuk 2 when he defines the gospel in Romans 1;
Romans 1:16-17; For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing, both to Jew first, and to Greek; for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; even as it has been written, “But the just shall live by faith.”
Paul is not ashamed to say that he trusts in a work done outside of his abilities where he once thought he had the ability. In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. The righteousness of God is the only righteousness that can save. Rome rejects this gospel which specifically states it is from faith to faith. When Paul had harsh words for the Galatians he asked the question;
Galatians 3:1-12; You foolish Galatians! Who put you under a spell? Was not Jesus Christ clearly portrayed as crucified before your very eyes? I want to learn only one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started out with the Spirit, are you now ending up with the flesh?
Did you suffer so much for nothing? (If it really was for nothing!) Does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you because you do the works of the law or because you believe what you heard? In the same way, Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
You see, then, that those who have faith are Abraham’s real descendants. Because the Scripture saw ahead of time that God would justify the gentiles by faith, it announced the gospel to Abraham beforehand when it said, “Through you all nations will be blessed.” Therefore, those who believe are blessed together with Abraham, the one who believed. Certainly all who depend on the works of the law are under a curse. For it is written, “A curse on everyone who does not obey everything that is written in the book of the law!” Now it is obvious that no one is justified in the sight of God by the law, because “The righteous will live by faith.” But the law has nothing to do with faith. Instead, “The person who keeps the commandments will have life in them.”
Does the Roman Catholic begin by trusting in their own finished work or are they trying to obtain salvation by adding their righteousness to his righteousness. Rome would have you add your works to his works and when this is done it is no longer from faith to faith. It is no longer a salvation based upon the righteousness of God. It is from faith to works.
John Robbins tells us that they are willing to use Protestant language, but if you do not have them define their terms they will deceive you. The ECT document did this very thing. Rome is bending over backwards to convince Protestants that we are brothers in arms.
Robbins says;
Many Protestants are awakening to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church does teach a doctrine of justification by faith. With surprise they are saying, “I always thought that Catholics taught that a sinner could be justified by his own works of merit. But they do not teach this. I have been subjected to some uncharitable Protestant propaganda about Catholic doctrine. Why, they believe in the saving grace of God the same as we do!” There is no question but that Catholic doctrine has always taught that a sinner is justified by a grace that comes from God through the Lord Jesus Christ. Then what was the doctrinal bone of contention between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation?
There are three great aspects of salvation:
1. God the Father’s choosing of his people—election.
2. God the Son’s (Jesus Christ) work for his people—atonement.
3. God the Holy Spirit’s work in his people—faith.
The Father’s choosing of us. This aspect of redemption occurred before we were born, before we had done any good or evil, even before the creation of the universe. “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world…. In love he predestined us” (Ephesians 1:3-5).
The Son’s work for us. This work of redemption, like election, was done entirely apart from us and without our assistance. Jesus Christ lived a perfect life of obedience for his people. He “died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3). He “was delivered for our offences” (Romans 4:25). He entered the sanctuary, “having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12). He appears “in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24). By his obedience and satisfaction of divine justice, Christ earned salvation for his people and gives it to them freely, from beginning to end. “Whom he predestined, these he also called; whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified” (Romans 8:30).
The Holy Spirit’s work in us. The Holy Spirit gives to the elect the gifts that Christ earned for them. Some of these gifts, but not all, are done in the believer’s mind: Faith is the principal work of the Spirit in the believer. But justification is not an internal work: It is an external act. It is a legal act consisting of God’s pardoning of sin and his imputing of Christ’s righteousness, his good works, to the believer.
The Romanist Concept of Justification
The Roman State-Church does not teach that a sinner can be justified by his own works of merit done before he is regenerated. Briefly, its position on justification is this: Christ’s work for us has made the gift of the Holy Spirit available to believers. Men must receive an infusion of righteousness by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit must work repentance and charity (love) in the believer. God then pronounces the believer just because of the work that the Holy Spirit has done in him. If the believer continues in his belief and good works, then his justification is increased.
Or to express it another way: The Roman State-Church teaches that a man is justified before God because the Holy Spirit has given that man a just nature. God the Father merely recognizes the work which the Holy Spirit has done in the heart of the believer. Justification means to make just or righteous, according to Roman theology.
The Birth of Protestantism
The Reformers abandoned the idea that the Holy Spirit’s work in them could make them righteous in the sight of God. These men knew what it was to struggle for holiness of heart. Never were there more earnest Roman Catholics than Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Farel, Philipp Melancthon, and William Tyndale. They believed that holiness came only from God, and they tried to apprehend enough holiness in their lives in order that they could be accepted before God. Yet, being honest men, they could never see enough of God’s grace in their own experience to give them any confidence toward God. Indeed, as they looked deep within their poor hearts, they saw sin in the form of pride, selfishness, unbelief, unresponsiveness to God’s love, and egotism. They despaired of ever being justified by virtue of God’s work of grace in them.
John Robbins now asks the question; Are you Romanist or Protestant?
(Are you ready for a quiz? Don’t cheat, just learn from any mistakes.)
The meaning of justification by faith alone has been largely forgotten in the professing Christian Church. The meaning of justification has been forgotten, and so has the meaning of faith. But mere forgetting is not the whole issue. In addition to our sinful tendency to forget God’s truth (a tendency that the writers of the New Testament were well aware of, for they repeatedly said that they were writing to remind believers), false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, have worked diligently to twist the Scriptural doctrine of justification. The teaching of the Roman State-Church is a prime example of this. The following ten questions are designed to test your knowledge of justification by faith. After you have taken the quiz, perhaps you could ask a teacher in your church to take it as well. You might be surprised to find that many more than you expected are confused on this cardinal doctrine of Christianity. In each of the following 10 choices, mark either (a) or (b), whichever is correct.
1. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by mercifully accounting him innocent or virtuous.
(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by actually making him into an innocent and virtuous person.
2. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by placing Christ’s goodness and virtue to his credit.
(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by putting Christ’s goodness and virtue into his heart.
3. (a) God accepts the believer because of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ.
(b) God makes the believer acceptable by infusing Christ’s righteousness into his life.
4. (a) If a person is “born again” (regenerate), he will receive right standing with God on the basis of his new birth.
(b) If a person is “born again” he receives right standing with God on the basis of Christ’s work alone. 5. (a) We receive right standing with God by faith alone.
(b) We receive right standing with God by faith which has become active by love.
6. (a) We achieve right standing with God by having Christ live out his life of obedience in us.
(b) We receive right standing with God by accepting the fact that Christ obeyed the law perfectly for us.
7. (a) We achieve right standing with God by following Christ’s example by the help of his enabling grace.
(b) We follow Christ’s example because his death has given us right standing with God.
8. (a) In justification, God pronounces that we are good in his sight.
(b) In justification, God sends his Spirit to make us good.
9. (a) Christ’s intercession at God’s right hand gives us favor in the sight of God.
(b) It is the indwelling Christ that gives us favor in God’s sight.
10. (a) Only by faith in the doing and dying of Christ can we satisfy the claims of the Ten commandments. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/054a-JustificationbyFaith.pdf
(b) By the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we can satisfy the claims of the Ten Commandments.
Answers: 1a; 2a; 3a; 4b; 5a; 6b; 7b; 8a; 9a; 10a.
And finally, we get to the comparison between John 4 and John 6 and I hope I can articulate it in a way that makes sense.
It is deceitful for a Roman Catholic to pick and choose what he says is literal and what is not. In the story of the woman at the well the Messiah tells her that if she drinks of his water she will never thirst again. The Messiah often used every day events, and in John 4 and John 6 he built upon how food and water is required for earthly sustenance and took it to a spiritual level.
The woman was there on a water run. You know the story;
John 4:6-15; And Jacob’s fountain was there. Then being wearied by the journey, Jesus sat thus on the fountain. It was about the sixth hour. A woman came out of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, Give Me some to drink. For His disciples had gone away into the city that they might buy provisions. Then the Samaritan woman said to Him, How do You, being a Jew, ask to drink from me, I being a Samaritan woman? For Jews do not deal with Samaritans. Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God, and who is the One saying to you, Give Me to drink, you would have asked Him, and He would give you living water. The woman said to Him, Sir, You have no vessel, and the well is deep. From where then do You have living water? Are You greater than our father Jacob who gave us the well, and he and his sons and his livestock drank out of it? Jesus answered and said to her, Everyone drinking of this water will thirst again; but whoever may drink of the water which I will give him will not thirst, never! But the water which I will give to him will become a fountain of water in him, springing up into everlasting life. The woman said to Him, Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.
See the parallels between John 4 and John 6.
He tells her that if she were to drink the well water she would thirst again. Sound familiar from John 6? Look at the passages side by side;
John 4:13; Jesus answered her, “Everyone who drinks this water will become thirsty again. But whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never become thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
Now, John 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died.
Do you see the parallel? Eat the bread and you will die. Drink this water and thirst again.
He tells the woman of a the water that will give eternal life.
John 4:14; but whoever may drink of the water which I will give him will not thirst, never! But the water which I will give to him will become a fountain of water in him, springing up into everlasting life.
He tells those in john 6 of the bread that will give them eternal life;
John 6:27; Do not work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.”
What is the reaction from the woman at the well?
John 4:15; The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”
Same reaction in John 6;
John 6:34-35; They said to him “Sir, give us this bread all the time.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never become hungry, and the one who believes in me will never become thirsty.
In both John 4 and John 6 you have the Messiah taking earthly necessities and using them to build upon and teach spiritual necessities. Question, did the woman believe he was the Messiah? We are told she did. Did she drink of the spiritual water the Messiah offered? Of course she did. But wait, Jesus said she would never thirst again right?
Did she ever have to return to the well and drink earthly water again while living in the desert? I think we could agree that she would have. The words he spoke to her were spirit and they were life. The same thing was repeated in John 6 using the Manna. The words I speak to you are spirit and are life.
The Messiah used examples like this all the time as you read through John’s account. There he is walking through the midst of vines and he says
John 15; “I am the vine and you are the branches.” Is he a plant?
John 10:9; “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. Is he a wooden door with hinges?
What about in the Old Testament when he said he had feathers in Psalm 91?
Psalm 91:4; He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark. Is he now big bird?
This is where the church lady comes in and says “how conveeeeeinient! He is not a door, he is not big bird and he is not a plant, but he is a wafer to be munched down? I call this deception.
I hope this helps someone out there and that the Lord will use it for his purposes and his glory.