Tag: Rome

Mary & Roman Catholicism

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Marian dogmas of Rome, start with Rome’s view of an impotent Jesus, whose atoning cross work was anything but sufficient. Rome’s teaches that the work of Christ merely made “a pathway” for man to justify himself by adding to the work of Christ by performing “required meritorious works” (such as water baptism, charity, religious devotion to Mary, Sacraments, etc.). Rome believes that man assists Christ in the salvific process—thereby denying that the alone cross work of Christ was sufficient.

Rome’s esoteric (self-salvation) system is a system of “and (&)”:

  • Jesus and Mary. 
    –
  •  God’s universal plan & man’s so-called free will. 
    –
  •  Faith + works such as water baptism, sacraments, holding to all the Marian doctrines, fide implicita, that is, an uncritical blind “implicit faith” in the Roman Catholic Church). 
    –
  •  Intercession & prayers to Jesus & Mary & so called saints. 
    –
  •  The cross & perpetual sacrifices of Christ at the Mass. 
    –
  • Biblical doctrine & the Church. 
    –
  •  Scripture & so-called tradition of uninspired men. 
    –
  •  Christ & the Pope, etc.

 

Contrary to the biblical doctrine of Christ, the Christ of Rome is anything, but a powerful Savior. The Roman Christ does not and cannot save alone, instead it is a shared cross work that Rome embraces. Rome asserts a false Christ who did not become perfect man (due to the Transubstantiation)[1] nor did He become the righteousness of all who believe (John 1:14; Phil. 2:7-8; 1 Cor. 1:30-31). Rome’s doctrines greatly oppose so many fundamental biblical teachings, especially on justification and the atonement. For example, Rome’s denial of justification through faith alone, apart from works, leaves the Roman Catholic with no assurance of salvation in this life nor glorification in the afterlife.

 

According to Rome, a so-called “saved” person now could always forfeit his or her justified status by a lack of performance (esp. unconfessed mortal sins). Refuting Rome’s claim, the Bible is rich with passages that teach that justification is a one-time permanent, objective, declaratory act of God pronouncing a sinner not guilty through the instrument of faith. (Rom. 4:6-8; 5:1). A regenerated justified Christian is sealed for eternity. As Christ promised, all the ones the Father gave to Him (John 6:37), “I lose nothing but, raise it up at the last day” (John 6:39, cf. v. 44). In Romans 4:8, Paul states that there is not even a possibility that such a one justified by faith apart from works would have any sin against them. Even more, passages such as John 10:28; Romans 8:1, 28-39; 1 John 5:12; and Hebrews 13:5 clearly affirm the preservation of true believers against Rome’s unbiblical soteriology.    

The Marian Dogma                            

Among the massive documents and books regarding the Marian doctrines of Rome, is the renowned book, The Glories of Mary, written by Alphonsus Liguori, which became one of the most commonly used manuals of Catholic teaching and devotion to the Virgin Mary.[2] Note some samples, which delineate the Roman view of Mary (emphasis added):    

“On account of the merits of Jesus, the great privilege has been granted to Mary to be the mediatrix of our salvation” (169).

“So, says St. Bernard, We have access to Jesus Christ only through Mary. And St. Bernard gives us the reason why the Lord decreed that all men should be saved by the intercession of Mary. . . .” (191-92).

“If you ever wish for another advocate with this mediator, invoke Mary, for she will intercede for you with the Son. . . . He who neglects the service of Mary shall die in sin . . . He who has not recourse to thee, oh Lady, will not reach paradise. . .. That those from whom Mary turns away her face, not only will [they] not be saved, but can have no hope of salvation” (228, 256).

“Mary is called the Gate of Heaven, because no one can enter into heaven, as St. Bonaventure declares, except through Mary” (744).

These are only a few samples of Catholic voices affirming Rome’s distinctive Marian doctrines.

The Catholic Church is a life of embracing and practicing perpetual idolatry in giving Mary what is reserved for God alone—namely, religious worship.

Because of Catholic tradition, Roman apologists err enormously regarding the lexical-semantic of the Greek noun douleia (Latin, dulia, “service”) and the verb douleuō (“to serve”) in a religious context—in both in the OT (LXX) and NT. There is a simple explanation here which does not require a lengthy corrective. To avoid the charge of idolatrous worship to Mary, Rome developed a three-tier scheme in which they distinguish between so-called service or honor given to Saints and Mary, and worship given to God denoted by three Latin terms:

I Dulia from the Greek noun, duleia (“service, slavery, bondage”); from the verb douleuō (“to serve, be enslaved, be in bondage”). Catholics are taught to give dulia, that is, “service” (veneration) to so-called canonized “Saints,” who previously died.

II Hyper-dulia (“super-superior service”) is given to Mary alone.

III. Latria from the Greek noun, latreia .(“the service or worship of God” – Rom. 12:1; Heb. 9:1); from the verb latreuō (“to give religious honor, worship” – Dan. 7:14; Luke 4:8; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 9:14), which is reserved for and given to God alone.

This distinction of three kinds of service/worship is not biblically valid. First, nowhere in Scripture does it teach that faithful Christians should give dulia (Greek, duleia) and especially Rome’s concocted term, hyper-dulia to creatures, in a religious context. Second, this distinction of three kinds of service/worship is biblically wrong. Semantically, to give dulia to anyone in a religious context is the same as giving latria (Greek, latreia)—they both denote worship reserved for God alone.

Hence, by Catholics praying to creatures giving them dulia (religious veneration), bowing before statues of Mary is the very thing God prohibits. Paul strongly expresses this point in Galatians 4:8: “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves [‘you served,’ from the verb douleuō] to those which by nature are not gods.” Paul was clear: “to serve” (from the verb i.e., to give dulia) anyone other than God in a religious context is biblically wrong—it is simply- idolatry. Paul sees the unconverted pagans as doing this: “When you did not know God”—you were giving dulia to creatures. Regarding idols and false gods, God commands His people in Exodus 20:5: “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I the LORD your God, am a jealous God.” The Hebrew word translated “serve” (NASB, ESV, KJV, etc.) is from abad (“to work, serve”), which is the most usual English translation of the term. In a religious context, however, to serve God is the same as worshiping Him—an action reserved for God alone (Exod. 4:23; 20:5; Mal. 3:18 et al.).

In many OT passages, however, there are more than a few standard versions that translate abad as “worship” at Exod. 3:12; Ps. 2:11; Isa. 19:23; Jer. 35:15 et al. The NIV translates abad as “worship” at Exodus 20:5: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (same at Exod. 3:12; Isa. 19:23). In the Septuagint (LXX), abad is frequently translated as latreuō (“to worship, serve”; Exod. 3:12; 20:5; etc.) and also translated as douleuō. In other words, in a religious context, both latreuō and douleuō mean the same thing—to give divine worship.

These Marian doctrines are purely outside of and against Scripture. In fact, aside from a passing reference of the virgin birth of Jesus in Gal. 4:4 (without mentioning Mary by name), after Acts 1:14, Mary is never mentioned again in any NT Epistle. Neither Jesus, nor any of His disciples, nor any NT Apostle prayed to her or referred to her as “Our Queen, “Our Life,” “Our Hope,” “Our Mediatress,” “Our Advocate,” “Our Salvation,” etc.

Notes

[1] Rome’s pagan doctrine of Transubstantiation makes Jesus’ body ubiquitous. In other words, day after day millions of Catholics around the world receive the Eucharist at the Mass, and simultaneously eat the literal body, and ingest the literal blood of Christ, “with his soul and his divinity” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1413)  This clearly implies that Jesus’ physical body is ubiquitous—namely, it’s in multiple places at the same time! This contradicts the biblical teaching: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14); “having been made in the likeness of men.” In this way, Rome deforms, and thus denies the biblical view of the incarnation of the Son.

[2] Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has named only 37 Doctors of the Church (with Irenaeus, A.D. 180, being the last one named).

 

Roman Catholicism and Transubstantiation

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

In a previous article, we briefly discussed the Lord’s Supper, in substance, importance, and instruction, which is outlined in 1 Corinthians 11. We also examined Paul’s definition of what an unworthy practice of the Lord’s Supper is. Here we will examine the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which in a general sense they refer to as the Eucharist (Greek, “thanksgiving”—thus, the action of thanksgiving to God).

 

The action of receiving the elements (i.e., the actual eating and drinking of the bread and wine) of the sacrament of the Eucharist is called the “Holy Communion”. However, as you will see, the Roman practice of the so-called Holy Communion is anything but a “Holy” Eucharist to God. It is a blasphemous practice that

1) rejects the biblical view that the “once for all time” atoning sacrifice of Christ alone was sufficient for salvation and was the very ground of justification (apart from man-works) and

2) the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation, as explicated hereafter, deforms and dismembers the incarnation of Christ.

 

Transubstantiation

Rome holds to a distinctive doctrine called, Transubstantiation. In short, this Roman Catholic  theological position is where the  priests who preside at the Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper”), “consecrate the bread and the wine so [that these elements actually] become the Body and Blood of the Lord…. By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [hereafter, CCC], 1411, 13).

 

So according to Catholicism, when Jesus said, “This is My body” (Matt. 26:26), and “This is My blood” (v. 28), and “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19), He instituted the so-called Mass,[1] and gave the apostles, and thus, all future Catholic priests, the power to change ontologically (transubstantiate) the bread and wine into Jesus’ literal Flesh and Blood and Divinity of Christ (New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism  [hereafter, BC], vol. 2, Q. 354, cf. also Q. 355; CCC Article 3, para 1413; Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651). [2] But note, this so-called changing of the bread and wine into the actual and literal flesh and blood and deity of Jesus did not, Rome argues, involve a change in appearance or taste. The BC (Q. 348) states: “After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood, they remained only the appearances of bread and wine.”

 
Theological Heresies of the Transubstantial Eucharist

 Rome’s doctrine of the transubstantial Eucharist, a) presents a perpetual re-sacrificing of Christ, and b) it deforms and confuses the incarnation of Christ.  

First, the notion of the Eucharist as an ongoing sacrifice clearly,   

 

  • Rejects any idea of a “once for all time” or “finished” atoning sacrifice accomplished by His perfect life and cross work.

 

  • Rejects the sufficiency of the glorious cross work of Christ for both the forgiveness of sins and the averting of wrath due to us because of our sin.

 

  • Rejects the notion that sinners are justified though the death of the Son and not according to works.  

 

Note for example, the repetitious way Rome uses the terms such as “sacrifice,” “re-presents,” “propitiation” defining the effects of the Eucharist:    

“The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ” (BC, vol. 2, Q. 360).

“The Eucharist is also a sacrifice” (CCC, 1365).

“The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross” (CCC, 1366).

“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,” (CCC, 1367).

 

The Eucharist, according to Rome, is propitiatory (i.e., forgiving sins and removing the wrath of God): “This sacrifice [Eucharist] is truly propitiatory” (CCC, 1367). “The Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a ‘true and proper sacrifice’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Sacrifice of the Mass”; emphasis added).

Clearly, Rome sees the Eucharist as a “sacrifice,” which is offered through the hands of the priests: “The sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands” (CCC, 1369, also cf. 1414).

The Roman system of the transubstantial Eucharist is an insufficient sacrifice that is offered continuously by sinful Roman priests. This, clearly controverts and attacks the biblical presentation of the once for all time atoning accomplishment of Christ, as He Himself affirmed—“It is finished.” The Roman “Christ” is not able to save a sinner in and of Himself by grace alone through faith alone—apart from human efforts. Nor is the redemptive work of Christ in Romanism the very ground of the believer’s justification.

Biblically, a sinner is “declared” righteous before God not through works such as water baptism, nor through the sinful hands of the Roman priests in their representing the sacrifice of Christ at the Mass; rather it is through faith alone. Paul rightly says: “just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6) “Through the [one time] obedience [atoning work] of the One the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Neither the church, Mary, Roman priests, nor anything or anyone can mediate between God and man. Only the two-natured person (God-man), Jesus Christ is able to be the Mediator:

“For there is one God, and one Mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time” (1 Tim. 2:5-6).   

 

To emphasize the infinitely completed redemptive propitiatory work of the Christ, the author of Hebrews uses the Greek term ephapax (ἐφάπαξ) which means “once for all” (from epi, “upon” + hapax, “once, one”). Thus (lexically), “Taking place once and to the exclusion of any further occurrence, once for all, once and never again (BDAG), or “upon one occasion only” (Thayer).

The author of Hebrews (and Paul in Rom. 6:10) teaches that the sacrifice of Christ as the eternal priest was ephapax (“once for all time”)—for all other OT priestly systems (Aaronic and Levitical) were lesser, imperfect, and obsolete (Heb. 7:11, 23-28). Note the following passages:   

“who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ephapax [‘once for all time’] when He offered up Himself (Heb. 7:27).

“and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place ephapax [‘once for all time’] having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12).

“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ephapax [‘once for all time’!].11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Heb. 10:10-14). 

The ephapax [“once for all time”] and Paul’s doctrine of justification through faith alone, shows in and of itself that the Roman Mass where the Eucharist is a repetitive propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ is an offensive attack on Christ and His one-time finished atoning work.        

   

Reject the biblical teaching of the incarnation of the Son. The second theological heresy of Rome’s doctrine of Transubstantiation is the deformation of the incarnation of Christ. The Roman Church happily agrees that Jesus became flesh. However, in Romanism, the “flesh” that Jesus became is anything, but normal human flesh and likeness. Because, as Rome teaches, the elements in the Eucharist (bread and wine) actually transubstantiates (viz. changes into the non-figurative literal flesh and blood of Christ). Hence, wherever in the world Catholics are receiving the Eucharist (“Holy Communion”) at the Mass, the literal body and blood is being sacrificed at the hand of the priests. This clearly implies that Jesus’ physical body is ubiquitous—namely, its able to be in multiple places simultaneously!

A ubiquitous anomalous human nature sharply counters the biblical teaching that the eternal Word became the perfect representation of man—not a “hyper-flesh” ubiquitous fleshly body: “The Word became flesh…. being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man” (John 1:14; Phil. 2:7-8).

Rome’s doctrine of the transubstantial Eucharist is an idolatrous practice that mocks and rejects both the substitutionary work of Christ as the alone means of justification and manipulates the biblical view of the incarnation of the Son—who “emptied Himself, taking the form [real nature] of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men [not in the likeness of a unusual ubiquitous man]. Being found in appearance as a [normal] man” (Phil. 2:7-8).          

Those who partake in the Roman Eucharist are

1) proclaiming the Jesus of Rome who did not take the nature of normal humanity, and

2) proclaiming the impotent Jesus of Rome whose atoning work was neither sufficient nor perfectly completed. Thus, they would be celebrating that which Paul condemned as anathema (cursed) in Galatians 1:8, 9 (viz. the faith + works system of the Judaizers).

Christians, in stark contrast, proclaim the Jesus of the NT: “Through the obedience of the One [Christ] the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19); “having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God”! (Heb. 10:12; cf. Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9).      

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria

 

See Matthew 16:18: The Plastic Rock of Rome   

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES

[1] In Catholicism, the Mass is a celebration of the Eucharist, where Catholics participate together in “Holy Communion.”     

[2] Cf. CCC Article 3, para 1413: “his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.”

 In support of their erroneous doctrine of Transubstantiation, Catholics appeal to John 6:53-54. However, Jesus had already defined what He meant here back in verse 35, where Jesus refers to Himself as the “Bread of Life” – “he who comes to Me will not hunger [thus, coming to Him is equivalent to ‘eating His flesh’], and he who believes in Me will never thirst [thus, believing in Him is equivalent to ‘drinking His blood’].” Further, unlike the Synoptics, the Gospel John never even records Jesus’ institution of the Last Supper. Further, the historical time frame of the institution of the Lord’s Super would have been not until John 13, which was a different context than that of chapter 6, and at least a year later! In his Commentary on John, Calvin pointed out, “Indeed, it would have been inept and unreasonable to preach about the Lord’s Supper before He had instituted it.”               

Roman Catholicism: A False Church with No Significant Truths

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Fundamental Difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics is this: Rome does not see salvation from start to finish as the work of the triune God alone. Thus, justification before God (salvation) is not through faith alone by God’s grace alone, but, as Rome teaches, salvation comes by faith + the meritorious works that a man must do (including unquestionable devotion to Rome and “worship” to Mary (in the form of “hyperdulia”): 

 

A False Church with No Significant Truths:  4 Chief Reasons

1. Rome is a False Church – Because she and Her Followers, Embrace an Impotent Jesus – Who can neither save infallibly nor permanently, nor can save alone – not without His mother!  (see Mary & Roman Catholicism).

2.Rome is a False Church – Because she deforms and thus rejects the biblical view of the Incarnation of the Son, and rejects the one time sacrifice of Christy as the sole ground of justification (see Roman Catholicism and Transubstantiation).

3. Rome is a False Church – Because she practices epithumiac Idolatry in her Marian doctrines (see Mary & Roman Catholicism).   

4.  Rome is a False Church – Because she rejects the only recognized gospel – Justification through through faith alone.

Trent, VI, Canon 9: “If anyone says that the godless are justified by faith alone . . . let him be anathema.” .

Trent, VI, Ch. 7: “For faith, unless hope and charity are added thereto, neither unites one perfectly with Christ nor makes one a living member of his body.”  

 

Contra Rom. 4:6; 5:1; – – and regeneration precedes faith – John 1:13; 1 John 5:1; Acts 13:48.

Paul’s main thesis in Romans: God’s method of justification does not change. He offers Abraham (pre-law) and David (under the law) as his chief examples: “God credits [logizetai] righteousness chōris ergōn (apart from works, Rom. 4:6).

Rome denies that the work of Jesus Christ completely sufficient for salvation. That faith plus meritorious works must be employed for salvation (as Rome teaches) is, according to the Apostle Paul, Christological heresy (cf. Gal. 1:6-8)–it rejects the work of Christ and hence rejects the Person of the Son, Jesus Christ.

The Christ of Rome is Not a Diligent Savior; As Rome believes, He cannot keep baptized Christians In His Hand – they keep falling out – There is NO perseverance or Definite Atonement For anyone.

Rome’s doctrine of Purgatory, for example, is that when a Christian dies without un-forgiven mortal sins, but who retain either un-forgiven daily sins (viz. venial sins) or “temporal punishment” due for sins are “purged” before entering heaven, so as to be made perfect. In other words, they must suffer for these sins in a place of torment (not hell, though) to be, so to speak, “scrubbed up” (viz. purified) before they can dwell with God in heaven.

Thus, the work of Christ, according to Rome, is not completely sufficient to atone and *justify* a sinner–for one must suffer for his or her own atonement in order to become righteous (just) before God.

Though Scripture testifies in passages such as Hebrews 10:10-14

10:10: “By his will we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

10:11: “And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again – sacrifices that can never take away sins.”

10:12: “But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God. . . .”

10:14: “For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy.”

 

Romans 5:1-2: “Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 5:2 through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory.” .

As with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, we must see Catholics as men and women in need of evangelism. One cannot biblically claim to be truly Christian and reject Christ as the sole means of salvation, justification through faith alone, and engage in creaturely worship.

A Concise Look at the Biblical Perspective of Justification

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

A Biblical Perspective of Justification

Key issue: as noted below, the Greek verb dikaioō (“to justify”) does not have the lexical meaning of, “to make righteous,” as if the sinner is subjectively made righteousness (as in Catholicism). On the contrary, it denotes a declarative act of God pronouncing the guilty sinner innocent (cf. note 4 below).

The Apostle Paul’s epistle to the church at Galatia was specifically an anti-Judaizer polemic. Paul was very concerned as to the pervading heresy of the Judaizers. The Judaizers taught that “faith in Christ” was not enough. Hence, one had to add the Old Testament ordinances, especially circumcision, and the keeping of the ethical and ceremonial laws, to the finished work of Christ:

Some men came from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom [Law] of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1; cf. Gal. 2:1ff.).

This kind of teaching, in the apostles’ mind, was not a doctrinal on the rim issue. By teaching that man must co-operate with God’s grace by adding works (any works) to his faith, the Judaizers stripped Jesus’ atonement of its efficacy. So toxic was the works/salvation doctrine of the Judaizers that the apostle wasted no time (from his opening statement) in sharply anathematizing (i.e., pronouncing a divine curse) men and even angels from heaven who might promulgate it:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed [anathema]! As we have said, before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal. 1:6-9; emphasis added).

Paul never gets tired impressing to the Galatians: justification is through faith alone; i.e., faith apart from, without, modifications or additions of works:

knowing the a man is not justified by the works [ex ergōn, lit. “from works”] of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified (Gal. 2:16; emphasis added).

You foolish Galatians, who as bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you; did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? . . . Even Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS (Gal. 3:1-3, 6; emphasis added).Paul further declares that it is dia tēs pisteōs (lit. “through the faith”) alone that enables one to be adopted as a son of God.

For you are all sons of God through faith [dia tēs pisteōs] in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized [i.e., unified, see above] into Christ have clothed yourself with [eis] Christ (Gal. 3:26-27; emphasis added).

Romans 4:4-8

It becomes increasingly clear as one works through the Pauline corpus that salvation by grace alone through faith alone is clearly the theological starting point for the apostle. Scripture is clear: the righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of justification (man excluded), and the sole means is faith alone apart from works. There is no shortage of passages that that clearly define this divine truth. Since a detailed analysis of each passage is beyond the scope of this work, it is enough to highlight a few where this grand them of justification by faith is presented. For example, in Romans 4:4-8, we read

Now to the one who works, his wages are not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessings on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT” (NASB).

Consider the following:

1. In verse 4, Paul explains that wages from works are not credited as a gift or a favor; but “what is due.” The literal rendering is even clearer: “Now the working one, the reward is not reckoned [or “imputed,” logizetai] according to grace [charin, Paul’s normal word for “grace”], but according to debt [misthos].” In other words, if an employer, after giving a paycheck to the employee, says, “Thanks a lot, here is your gift,” the employee would object stating that he or she “earned” (worked for) those wages! Exactly the argument Paul makes here: wages are the result or reward from works (viz. “what is due.”). In verse 5, he contrasts “wages” that one earns by works, with being “credited” or imputed as righteousness by faith (or “belief”) alone—apart from additions or modifications. This contrast cannot be missed: works vs. faith.

2. Paul presents a contrast between the working man as seen above and the man who does not work, but has faith: “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him . . . his faith is credited as righteousness.” The same participle is used for both verses 4 and 5. But Paul inserts a negation in verse 5:

v. 4: tō de ergazomenō (lit. “but the one working”).

v. 5: tō de mē ergazomenō (lit. “but the not working one”).

It is God, Paul says, “who justifies the ungodly.” The righteousness of Christ was imputed to the sinner’s account when they were justified and the sinner’s sins were imputed to Christ in His sacrificial death upon the cross over 2,000 years ago (cf. Rom. 5:8-10; 2 Cor. 5:19-21).

3. In verse 6, Paul now shows that David understood that “God credits righteousness apart from works [chōris ergōn; emphasis added].” Thus, verse 6 literally reads: “Blessed is the man to whom God imputes or credits righteousness without works [theos logizetai dikaiosunen choris ergon].” Again, Paul does not here limit works only to “works of the Law” (a Catholic assertion). Please note once again, Paul does not even here the phrase ho nomos (“the law”), but ergōn (“works”)—any works (cf. Rom. 5:1; Eph.2:8; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:5-7).

To avoid the plain and straightforwardness of Romans 4:4ff., some would appeal to Ephesians 2:10 (“created . . . for good works”). However, in the Ephesians passage Paul is simply teaching that salvation is chariti, (“by grace”), and dia pisteōs (“through faith”), and ouk ex ergōn (lit. “not from works”; 2:9). Hence, works are the result (not the cause) of genuine faith (as pointed out above). The Apostle James draws the same point: genuine faith does not result in a deedless life.

4. Then Paul quotes David (Psalm 32:1-2) in verses 7 and 8: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.” When the sinner is justified through faith, he or she is legally declared: not guilty![1] Justification is a one-time declarative act in which God pronounces the sinner just or righteous. God does not count their trespasses against them (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Note the strong and specific language that Paul uses in verse 8. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account” (emphasis added).

Many times the full import of particular passages is lost in translations, which is the case here. In first century Greek, there were several ways to negate (i.e., to say “no”) something. Each way had its own, to some extent, nuance. The strongest possible way, however, to deny or negate a future possibility was to use the double negative (ou mē) followed by an aorist subjunctive verb (i.e., generally, a verb of possibility). This construction was only used about eighty–five times in the New Testament. In verse 8, Paul uses this construction: “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account [ou mē logisētai; emphasis added].” The NIV reads, “whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” Paul is denying that there is even a possibility (due to the aorist subjunctive verb logisētai [“take into account” or “count”]) that the Lord will count sins against the one justified. This same construction (i.e., double negative + the aorist subjunctive) is used in John 10:28:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow me and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish [ou mē apolōntai]; and no one can snatch them out of my hand (vv. 27-28; emphasis added; cf. Deut. 32:39).[2]

There is not, Jesus says emphatically, even a possibility, of His sheep ever perishing. Jesus uses the double negative construction to emphasize that the eternal life that He gives is not dependent on man’s self-determination, for man can fail. But rather, eternal life is the promise to those who He has justified, to those whose sins will never be counted against them, to those who have been imputed with the righteousness of Christ to their account. They are declared righteous and they, by no means, will ever perish—not even a possibility!

To be sure, the Apostle Paul saw justification as an essential and fundamental to true biblical Christianity. To deny justification through faith alone (viz. without additions or modifications) was the same as denying the deity of Christ! This is clearly seen in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. As we have seen above, the main purpose of Paul’s letter was to pointedly refute the heresy of the Judaizers (cf. Acts 15:1ff.; Gal. 1:6ff.). To add to God’s work—is to add to Scripture. “Who,” Paul rhetorically asks, “will bring a charge against God’s elect? . . . who is the one who condemns? . .” (Rom. 8:33-34).[3] Therefore, how can anyone undo the work of God? It is God alone, who declares the sinner eternally righteous, and hence justified.

 

Romans 5:1

Therefore having been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1).

Paul constantly taught that justification comes not by works, formulas, or laws, but rather, a man is declared rightness before God through faith alone. Paul was theologically precise as to how the sinner is justified before the presence of God. Notice first that the sinner having been justified has peace with God. The participle dikaiōthentes, translated “having been justified,” is the aorist passive of dikaioō.[4] Grammatically, the aorist here tells us that the action of the participle dikaiōthentes (“having been justified”) was a past action (as rendered in most translations). Furthermore, the participle is in the passive voice. This indicates that the action of being justified was not by the sinner in any way (otherwise the verb would be in the active voice), but rather the justification was done to the sinner, in the past, which was solely a divine act of God (cf. Rom. 8:33). Thus, the ones having been justified now “have [echomen][5] peace [eirēnēn][6] with God [pros ton theon]” (emphasis added).

It is not the action or work of the sinner, which then results in justification, rather, Paul, simply affirms it is ek pisteōs (“through faith”). This is important to realize, that if Paul thought that “water baptism” or “works” were an aspect or a requirement of justification, he could have easily modified the clause to say, “Therefore since we have been justified by faith, baptism, and works, then let us have peace with God” (as in UPCI soteriology). Hence, “faith alone” is simply faith without additions or modifications. Justification is never deemed as a reward for meritorious works or performance, rather it is said to be a gift,[7] which cannot be earned. Paul was clear and consistent in all of his letters: justification is through faith alone, “apart from” works, any works. This is wonderful news. By faith alone the one God regenerated (“made alive”) has been legally declared righteous (justified) in the sight of God, whereby has present active and continuous peace, that is, final and permanent reconciliation and fellowship with God. In his solid exegesis of Romans, Wuest can say of this beautiful passage:

The word “therefore” reaches back to the contents of chapter four—therefore being justified, not by works (1-8), not by ordinances (9-12), not by obedience (13-25), but by faith, we have peace. The first three never give peace to the soul. Faith does . . . The context is didactic. It contains definite statements of fact. It is highly doctrinal in nature. It has to do with a sinner’s standing before God in point of law, not his experience. As Denney [James Denney, D. D.] says; “The justified have peace with God, . . . His wrath (1:18) no longer threatens them; they are accepted in Christ. It is not a change in their feelings which is indicated, but a change in God’s relation to them.[8]

Paul announces to the Christians at Ephesus: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8; emphasis added). “If it is by grace,” Paul says, “it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom. 11:6). Contrary to a faith + works = salvation soteriology, which groups such as the ICC, UPCI, LDS, JWs, Catholic Church, etc. hold to, Scripture presents that justification is through faith alone without any mention of additions or modifications such as the necessity of water baptism: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” the jailer asked, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30-31). 

How are sins forgiven? Scripture is clear:

Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes on Him receives forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43; emphasis added).

Let us pause and think; why is it that over and over the New Testament teaches that eternal salvation is explicitly tied to faith or belief alone with no mention of water baptism if, in fact, water baptism was essential to one’s salvation?[9] Paul’s own statement refutes the notion that water baptism was an indispensable means of salvation: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. . . .” (1 Cor. 1:17).

Water Baptism: a Deed of Righteousness

In Scripture, water baptism is defined as an “act” or deed “to fulfill [not to receive] righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). Yet, Paul clearly refutes this idea:

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6; emphasis added).

Again, the question to a Mormon or Roman Catholic (or any baptismal regenerationist whose church denies justification by faith alone) is this: “Can one walk in your church and be saved by faith/belief in Christ Jesus alone, without being water baptized in the name of Jesus?”[10] For these groups mention above, the answer is categorically: No. The most important issue that every man must deal with can be summed up in this question: “How is a man justified before God?” Is that not the question of the ages, from the first man to the present? How can man be reconciled to God? How can man be declared not guilty in the sight of a perfect God? I think we would do well to allow Jesus Christ, the authority on the matter, to answer:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:24).

Before leaving this verse, it would be wise to breathe in the grammatical significance of the words of Christ. Starting with the first clause: “He who hears [akouōn] My word, and believes [pisteuōn] Him who sent Me. . . .” The participle akouōn (“who hears”) is in the present tense, and the active voice. The participle pisteuōn (“believes”) is a present active participle. Note that both participles verbs are in the present tense, literally: “the one hearing and the one believing.”

Then the phrase: “has eternal life.” The verb echei (“has”) is the singular present active indicative of echō. The indicative mood of the verb indicates a clear presentation of certainty that the event will happen (i.e., “eternal life”). And because echei is in the present tense, it indicates that the one believing (apart from any works) possesses de facto eternal life presently and continuously. For this reason, those (the believing ones) will never come into God’s wrath and judgment (see John 10:28).

We now come to the last clause of the passage: “but has passed out of death into life.” The Greek verb metabebēken (“has passed”) is a perfect tense.[11] The perfect tense indicates a completed action that normally occurred in the past, which has continuous results into the present.[12] Hence, the reason as to why the one believing “does not come into judgment” is because he “has passed out” of perfectly, completely spiritual death. Therefore, the full force of what Jesus was literally saying can be translated:

He who presently and continuously hears My word and believes Me (who I am), I promise that he will presently and continuously possess, without end, eternal life, that is, salvation. And he will never come into condemnation. He has, in times past, been called to be declared righteous (justified) and then to be glorified, whereby passing out of death into life.[13]

Christian water baptism is never even a subject of discussion in John’s gospel. The main theme of the apostle was (a) the full deity of Jesus Christ (e.g., 1:1; 18, 8:24, 58; 20:28; etc.) and (b) eternal life/salvation (e.g., 1:12; 3:16; 6:37-40, 47; 10:27-29; etc.). Never once in John’s gospel is salvation connected to Christian water baptism. Salvation is exclusively by faith/belief alone. If water baptism were in fact an indispensable means of salvation as baptismal regenerationists teaches, you would think that John or Jesus would have taught it—at least once. That water baptism, circumcision, ordinances, rituals, ceremonial or ethical old covenant laws, or any works for that matter, adds (or is a part of) to one’s justification places one firmly under the anathema of the apostle: cursed by God. In the end, looking at all the non-Christian cults and world religions we do find doctrinal harmony on at least two points. The first, of course, is that they all reject Jesus Christ as eternal God, that is, they deny the doctrine of the Trinity in some way or other. And second, they all attack and deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence, they add some kind of creaturely work to their system of salvation.

Yes indeed, it is difficult for mere man to comprehend that through faith alone God freely justifies the sinner. However, we cannot rely on our faulty emotions to test truth. For, in spite of, our limited, finite, conventional wisdom and understanding, the Apostle Paul, who wrote as the Holy Spirit enabled him, declares:

Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works. . . . (Rom. 4:4-6; emphasis added; cf. John 6:47; 10:28-29; Rom. 5:1; 8:1; Eph. 2:8).

The Final Question

How is a man justified before God whereby his sins are forgiven? The baptismal regenerationists’ response is clear: repentance, water baptism (and for the UPCI: baptized in the name of Jesus” with the evidence of speaking in tongues),[14] and living by strict biblical obedience, and only to those is salvation achieved. In sharp contrast, Scripture does tell us clearly how a man is justified before God: “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes on Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43; emphasis added).

Therefore having been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1; emphasis added).

NOTES

[1] In Romans 8:28ff., Paul employs legal terms to underscore the status of the justified: “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect?” (v. 33); “Who is the one who will condemn?” (v. 34); “who [Jesus] also intercedes for us” (v. 34). These terms (“charge,” “condemn,” and “intercedes”) were used in court proceedings in the first century. Hence, Paul’s Roman audience would have understood clearly, as to what he was communicating.

[2] Jesus also uses the same construction in John 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out [ou mē ekbalō; emphasis added].”

[3] Cf. n. 35 above.

[4] The term “righteous” and “just” are translated form the same Greek word: dikaios (adj.), dikaiosunē (noun), and the dikaioō (verb). The noun dikaiosunē simply means the “quality or state of judicial correctness with focus on redemptive action, righteousness” (Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. and rev. by Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000], 247). Commenting on forensic nature of the term in the OT, Protestant apologist James R. White notes:

In the Old Testament, the term “to justify” is often used in the judicial sense, that is, in the context of the court of law [e.g., Exod. 23:7; Deut. 25:1; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23]. . . . Because the doctrine of justification by faith says justification is something God does based upon the work of Christ: it is a forensic declaration, not something that involves a subjective change of the believer (James R. White, The God who Justifies [Bethany House, 2001], 77, 79).

It should also be noted that the verb dikaioō does not mean, “to make” righteous as if the sinner is subjectively made righteousness (as in Catholicism). On the contrary, it denotes a declarative act of God pronouncing the guilty sinner innocent. As Lutheran scholar Leon Morris rightly explains:

How can the death of Christ change the verdict on sinners from “Guilty” to Innocent”? Some have said in effect, “It is by changing the guilty, by transforming them so that they are no longer bad people, but good ones. No one will want to minimize the transformation that takes place in a true conversion or to obscure the fact that this is an important part of being a Christian. However, such a transformation does not fit the justification terminology. It is sometimes argued that the verb normally translated “to justify” (dikiaoō) means “to make righteous” rather than “to declare righteous.” But this agrees neither with the word’s formation nor with its usage. Verbs ending in–oō and referring to moral qualities have a declarative sense; they do not mean “to make—.” And the usage is never for the transformation of the accused; it always refers to a declaration of his innocence (Leon Morris, New Testament Theology, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986], 70).

[5] The verb echomen (“have”) is the present active indicative of echō. However, there is a textual variant concerning echomen (omicron [echomen] or omega [echōmen]?). Note that the majority rendering is the hortatory subjunctive echōmen (“let us have peace”). Even though the subjunctive is possible, I do not see it as contextually probable. Moreover, all the evidence considered suggests the present indicative as the greater witness (cf. Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, [New York: United Bible Societies, 1994], 169-70; James R. White, The God who Justifies [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001], 237, n. 8). Greek exegete Kenneth Wuest explains further:

The context is didactic. It contains definite statements of facts. It is highly doctrinal in nature. It has to do with the sinners standing before God in point of law, not his experience. . . . Furthermore, there is a difference between having peace with God and having the peace of God in the heart. The first has to do with justification and the second with sanctification. The first is the result of a legal standing, the second, the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. The first is static, never fluctuates, the second changes from hour to hour. The first, every Christian has, the second, every Christian may have. The first, every Christian has as a result of justification. What sense would there be in exhorting Christians to have peace when they already possess it? The entire context is one of justification. Paul does not reach the subject of sanctification until 5:12-21 where he speaks of positional sanctification and 6:1-8:27 where he deals with progressive sanctification (Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, 76-77).

[6] The peace is the present possession of all who have been justified. The peace is the blessed result of what true justification is: abiding shalom with God Himself. No more enmity, no more hostility!

[7] Eternal life is never classified in the NT as misthon (“a reward” to the elect; cf. Rom. 4:4), but always as charisma (“a gift”).

[8] Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, 75-76.

[9] E.g., John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; Acts 10:43; 16:30-31; Romans 4:4-11; 5:1; 10:9-13; Galatians 3:2-3; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5-7; and 1 John 5:1, 11-13.

[10] Note, other than water baptism, “in the name of Jesus,” the UPCI teaches its followers that unless they speak in tongues they do not have the Holy Spirit and hence NO salvation. Their assertion is usually derived solely from the narrative accounts in Acts. It should be noted however that there are only three explicit references of the tongues phenomena in Acts: 2:1-4; 10:44-48; and 19:6. It is a hermeneutical error to take a narrative and force it to become a teaching. This violates the hermeneutical principle of the priority of didactic as defined in this chapter above. In point of fact, we read in the Acts account of many converts who were water baptized or said to have been “filled” with the Spirit and yet no mention of tongues (e.g., 2:37-41; 4:31; 6:3-6; 11:24). In fact, there are at least forty times that the Bible mentioned people as being “filled with,” “baptized in,” “fallen upon by,” “come upon by”, “poured upon by” the Spirit, and only three verses explicitly mention tongues (cf. Beisner, “Jesus Only” Churches, 64).In Ephesians 5:18 the Apostle Paul commands to “be filled with the Spirit” (en pneumati). However, grammatically en (“with”) followed by the dative case pneumati (“Spirit”) does not indicate content, but rather means (cf. Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 162, 372-75).

Hence: “be filled by means of the Spirit.” Further, Paul then characterizes the results of being filled: “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks . . . subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” Grammatically, these characteristics above are participles of result. Hence, they indicate the results of being filled by means of the Spirit—wherein tongues are not mentioned. The point is that Scripture knows nothing of the idea that the sole evidence of being filled, baptized, indwelled, empowered, etc. with/by the Holy Spirit is the gift of speaking in tongues. If tongues were the sole evidence, then Paul would not have taught that the gift of tongues is not bestowed on all (cf. 1 Cor. 12:30; note here the negation mē: “all do not [mē] speak in tongues” (emphasis added). The negation mē expects a negative answer: “No.” Hence, this passage is of no comfort for those who insist that Paul there was speaking of a different tongue, not the “gift.” Paul nowhere in his letters makes this distinction. Further, Paul taught that “all” Christians were baptized (by Christ) by means of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; note the double usage of pantes [“all”]).

[11] Specifically, metabebēken is the perfect active indicative of metabainō.

[12] The perfect tense “indicates a completed action whose effects are felt in the present. The action normally occurred in the past” (William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993], 218-19). It denotes a “present state resulting from a past action” (Harold J. Greenly, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 50). The import of the perfect tense can be seen in 1 John 4:2: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come [elēluthota] in the flesh is from God.” Thus, verb translated “has come” (elēluthota) is in the perfect tense; literally: “has come and remains in the flesh.” John’s letters (1 and 2), as with Paul’s letter to the Colossians, were a pointed refutation against the Docetic Gnostics (cf. chap. 2, n. 27) who denied that Jesus became flesh. Hence, John’s main refutation was made clear: Jesus has come and even remains (utilizing the perfect tense, elēluthota) in the flesh forever more (cf. 2 John 7).

[13] See also John 6:47; 1 John 5:12 where the present active indicative echei is utilized to indicate the certainty of one’s salvation.

[14] Ibid.

Rome’s Marian Dogma

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Article here:  https://christiandefense.org/general/mary-roman-catholicism/ ‎

 

Roman Catholicism’s false (a-historical) view of Matthew 16:18 regarding the identification of the “Rock” as Peter.

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

Spanish version here

The Roman Catholic Church greatly opposes many essential biblical teachings include Purgatory (which is a flat out denial of the sufficiency and infallible work of Christ alone); service-worship of Mary (as well as other false Marian doctrines); and esp. Rome’s denial of justification through “faith alone.”

It is unfortunate that many Christian leaders, who are either afraid and/or unaware of the basic teachings of Rome, stay utterly silent on the issue; or, even worst, they endorse the Catholic Church as a legitimate true Christian church! 

 

See Matt 16 18: The Plastic Rock of Rome- On my YouTube page  

 

The “Rock” of Matthew 16:18

This passage is Rome’s basis of the Roman dogma of Papal Succession. Just as the foundation of the false LDS Church raises and falls on Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the Romish Catholic Church, rises and falls on the Papal Succession, which is the so-called divine transmission of ultimate spiritual authority from the Apostle Peter through successive Romish Popes.

As with atrocious false doctrine of ontological Transubstantiation, Rome sees Papal Succession in a real and literal way. The Romish doctrine that the Roman Pope carries the authority and infallibility of the biblical Apostles is called by Rome: Ex Cathedra (“from the chair”), which was officially made Dogma not until 1870 at Vatican 1, under Pope Pius IX.[1]

If Rome’s infallible Papal Succession doctrine is biblical, then not only would be supported by exegesis of the text at Matthew 16:18, but it would be historically shown that no Pope speaking officially, that is, “from the Chair” have ever erred. However, on both counts, Rome’s doctrine of Papal Succession fails. For example, there’s been heretical Popes such as Honorius I (625- 638), who after his death, was Anathematized, for embracing Monothelitism (Christ as having “one will”) and then later he was Anathematized for not ending it. And even officially named a heretic and Anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (680). And Pope Leo II (682- to death 683) endorsed the condemnation of him, as did later Popes. Pope Leo declared that Honorius, “allowed the immaculate faith to be stained” by teaching not “in accord with apostolic tradition.”[2]

Before examining this text in detail, we must consider three important points in Jesus’ response to Peter.

  1. The context is not Peter, rather, the identification of Christ (“Who do you say that I am?” v. 13).
  1. Peter’s Confession (“You are the Christ the Son of living God”) was of a divine origin, thus, not of himself (cf. Phil. 1:29). In Matthew 16:17 we read: “And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
  1. Exegetically and the general consensus of early church, according to Jesus, it was Peter’s Confession that was the “rock,” upon which Jesus will build His church.

Conversely, Rome asserts that the “rock” upon which Jesus will build His church is the Apostle Peter, and not his confession. The Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is false both exegetically and historically, and problematic and unsupported.

Exegetically. The passage reads: kagō de soi legō [‘I also now to you say’] that su ei Petros [“that You are Peter”] and epi tautē tē petra (‘upon this the rock’) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

Note the following: as mentioned, the context, which surrounds Jesus’ statement to Peter (v. 18), starts in verses 13-15 with Jesus’ question to His disciples regarding His identity: “But who do you say that I am?” It is Peter’s response (v. 16), that is, His Confession of who Jesus is (“the Christ, the Son of the living God”) that stimulates Jesus’ statement to Peter. Note again verse 17, which indicates Jesus’ confirmation that Peter’s Confession was not derived from Peter himself (not “flesh and bone”)—rather it was revealed by God the Father.

“You” vs the phrase “this the rock.” “I also now to “YOU” [soi] say that “YOU” [su] are Peter” (lit.). The two pronouns “YOU” (soi, and su) are singular second person personal pronouns. Thus, the pronouns are in direct reference—Hence, Jesus is directly addressing Peter. Jesus said to him, not about him. Note the next phrase (lit.), “And upon THIS [epi tautē] the Rock, I will build my church.”

The pronoun THIS (tautē) is a demonstrate pronoun. The demonstrative pronoun “THIS” has a third person significance, that is, indirect address,[3] contra the two second person pronouns (“I also say to you [soi] that you [su] are Peter”; emphasis added). So, Jesus is not directly addressing the Rock, but rather He is directly addressing Peter: “I say to “YOU, that YOU are Peter and upon THIS [not you] the rock I will build My church.”[4]

Question: If Jesus had wanted to directly identify Peter as the rock, why use the demonstrative pronoun “THIS” at all? For Jesus had already used two second person pronouns (soi, su. “you”) to directly address Peter. If Jesus had meant what modern-day Catholics assert, He simply would have stated to Peter: epi su tē petra (‘”upon YOU the rock’, I will build My church” or “You Peter are the rock,” but He did not. Rather, Christ said, “Upon THIS the rock” I will build My church.”

Historically. Many Catholics selectively quote (snippet) Patristics as agreeing with Rome’s view (esp., Origen, Cyprian, and Eusebius, and Augustine, but citing only his early teachings; yet none of these church Fathers held to Rome’s view). In fact, most Roman Catholics are not aware of the historical research done by Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Kenrick prepared a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other insights.[5] He points out the five interpretations of the identification of the rock in Matthew 16:18, to which important Fathers of antiquity held.  

  1. All Christians were the living stones. This view was held by very few Fathers. Origen, who is a common source of Patristic Tradition, states: “If we also say “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew).

 

  1. All the Apostles—eight Fathers (cf. Cyprian).

 

  1. Christ as the Rock—sixteen Fathers (Eusebius, early Augustine). Eusebius of Caesarea (D. 263-339), in his view (i.e., the rock as Christ), he links this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4.

 

  1. Peter as the Rock—only seventeen Fathers!

 

  1. The rock upon which the Church was built was the Faith that Peter confessed—forty-four Fathers! including the most significant Fathers (e.g., Basil of Seleucia, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary,[6] Jerome, Augustine who stated (later in life) in his Retractions:

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” There’s the rock for you, – there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.

 Thus, only twenty percent of the Fathers held to Rome’s now canonized “infallible” “Petrine Rock” interpretation of Matthew 16:18. That is far from being the norm of the early church. So, Kendrick himself concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the ‘rock’ should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”

As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock actually admitted: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome.”[7] In fact, no one before Bishop Callistus (A.D. 223) ever used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman Bishop (i.e., “Pope” as Rome calls it)—no one.

 Lastly, consider the following points that seriously challenge Rome’s position of the so-called Primacy of Peter and him being the first Pope of Rome:

  1. There is no biblical evidence indicating that Peter had supremacy over all the other apostles.
  1. Peter never once considered that he was Pope, Pontiff; Vicar of Christ, Holy Father, or Head of the whole Christian Church, nor did any of the other apostles make such as claim.
  1. Peter outwardly denied the Lord (out of fear) and Peter was rebuked by the Apostle Paul for being prejudice against the Gentiles (cf. Gal. 2:11-12).
  1. At the first church council in Jerusalem (not Rome), it was James and not Peter who was the leading speaker and decision maker, for James authoritatively declared Acts 15:19: “It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles.” Moreover, the letter that was sent out regarding the judgment never mentions Peter (cf. v. 23).
  1. At the end of Romans (A.D. 57), Paul sends his greetings to at least twenty-six people, but Peter is not even mentioned! Why? Surely, if Peter had “recognized supremacy” over Rome and all the apostles, we would expect Paul to have greeted him first!
  1. Peter was a married man, unlike the Roman Popes (cf. Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

 

NOTES

[1] Ex Cathedra: Any doctrines of “faith or morals” promulgated by the Pope – in his capacity as Successor to St. Peter, speaking from the Chair or Seat of his Episcopal authority in Rome is infallible, he cannot error. The Holy Spirit protects him from erring. The Nature of Infallibility was Stated in Session 4, Constitution on the Church 4, Vat 1.

[2] Philip Schaff, “The Heresy of Honorius” in the History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library; First Published: 1882).

[3] Although demonstrative pronouns (“this, that”) do not grammatically have “person,” it can express an indirect significance similar to a third person pronoun. It can express a thing (“this”) other than a direct reference.  

[4] In Greek, Petros means, “piece of rock”; while petra, means, “large stone, rock, mass.” However, I do not see this distinction as a strong argument against Rome’s view.    

[5] Cf. An Inside View at Vatican I, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon (New York: American Tract Society, 1871).

[6] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (Book II): “Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God” (On the Trinity).

[7] H. Burn-Murdock, The Development of the Papacy (1954), 130f.

 

 

Corralling the New Testament Canon

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Since the reliability of the NT is constantly attacked (due to its main theme: Jesus as the only means of salvation), Christians should be aware of the nature and formation of the NT. Thus, the following is a concise summation of this important topic. First, it must be understood that the erroneous notion that the first-century church was without a functioning NT canon[1] because no formal ecclesiastical (church) pronouncement was made, is historically untrue. Note the following:

In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter establishes the letters of Paul as graphē, “Scripture.” This confirms that Paul’s epistles (most of them) were circulating (probably as a set) before the death of Peter around A.D. 64-66. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul establishes the book of Luke (10:7) also as graphē, “Scripture.” Note that here both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 are preceded by the phrase, legei gar hē graphē, “For Scripture says.” Further, in reference to the Apostle Peter, Jude remembers what “was spoken beforehand by the apostles” (v. 17). Then, in verse 18, Jude quotes from Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 3:3). The contextual correspondence between 2 Peter 2:1ff. and Jude 6ff. unquestionably substantiates that either Jude quoted from Peter or the converse showing that these books were also circulated, collected, and read by Christians in the first century.

As the NT record shows, immediately after the NT letters were written, they were collected (cf. Rev. 1:11), circulated (cf. Col. 4:16;[2] 2 Pet. 3:15-16), and read (cf. 1 Thess. 5:27; Rev. 1:3) in the original churches. Hence, the first century church enjoyed and recognized the apostolic teachings contained in the letters of the original apostles. They indeed had a functioning canon that was sufficient for the proclamation of truth.

 

Canon Criteria

Since the NT church was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20) the chief test or norm of canonicity was “apostolicity.” That is, each book of the NT has either apostolic authorship or apostolic teaching. Canonization starts with the identification of what was theopneustos, “God breathed out” (2 Tim. 3:16).

 

First, there were several reasons as to why the early church progressively collected and codified (i.e., canonized) the NT books:

1) Books were prophetic,

2) Demands of the early church: Because they contained the words and actions of Jesus Christ and the apostolic teachings, these books provided theological and ethical instructions, edification, and encouragement for the church “so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17). Thus, it was necessary to have a full collection of the NT books that could provide the authoritative norm for faith and practice,

3) Heretical challenges: When heresies began to surface, the church quickly and sharply refuted them by way of ecclesiastical (i.e., church) councils and definitive creeds. When the writings of apostles were purposely misrepresented and/or forged (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, etc.), the church found it necessary to establish what belonged in the canon,

4) Missionary purposes: Because of the rapid spread of Christianity throughout other countries, there was a need to translate the Bible into other languages, and

5) Persecution: In times of persecution, it was important for church officials to preserve authoritative (canonical) books which might be handed over to the police and be destroyed.

 

Determining Canon Criteria

It is incorrect to assert that the church created the canon, for the church did not create the canon, but rather she discovered what was already recognized. As seen, immediately after NT books were written, they were collected, circulated, quoted, and read in the original churches. It was this process of canonization that shaped the post-apostolic church’s idea of canonization. The basis of canonicity, then, was inspiration: “God breathed out.” The NT authors wrote as God the Holy Spirit moved them. Hence, the instrument of canonicity in which God employed was the apostles—or those with apostolic authority: The absolute canonical test, then, was apostolicity. The central principles utilized by the church to determine canonicity were as follows:

 

1. APOSTOLICITY: Since the NT church was (aorist participle). “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20), the indispensable test for NT canonicity was apostolicity. Thus, every NT book was written by a “foundational” apostle (or one with apostolic authority). Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 107) says: “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul. They were apostles: I am [not]” (Rom. 4:3).

2. ANTIQUITY: Simply, if a writing was the work of an apostle (or an authoritative associate), it had to belong to the apostolic age. Writings after this could not be apostolic, and hence canonical. For example, even though the highly regarded Shepherd of Hermas (c. A.D. 120) was found in the Muratorian Fragment and some early codices, its late date of composition, precluded it from canonical status. Furthermore, most of the pseudepigrapha (i.e., “false writings”) were rejected for that reason.

3. ORTHODOXY: Genuine apostolic writings would be doctrinally consistent (i.e., orthodox) with the apostolic faith (regula fidei). For example, the so-called Gospel of Peter and Thomas are filled with silly stories and Gnostic teachings, which the apostles (and the early church) sharply refuted (e.g., Col., and 1 and 2 John were written specifically against the Gnostic heresy).

4. CATHOLICITY: The universal church collectively recognized genuine apostolic writings. If a book had only local recognition, it was not likely to be accepted as canonical. Naturally, the NT books that were first collected, circulated, quoted, and read by the original churches became universally recognized.

5. TRADITIONAL USE: Similar to the principle of Catholicity, books that were collected, circulated, quoted, and read by the original churches were, of course, well known among the churches. This criterion examines the church’s habitual (i.e., traditional) use of writings. It inquires as to what NT books were accepted as apostolic. For example, prior to Nicea (A.D. 325), the NT quotations from early church Fathers were so abundant that almost the entire NT could be restructured, based on these writings. The books of the NT were traditionally treated as Scripture. If a church leader in the third or fourth century submitted a book claiming its apostolicity and it was previously unknown, he would have great difficulty in gaining acceptance for it.

6. INSPIRATION: The church believed that only books that were theopneustos, “God breathed out,” were canonical. Thus, inspiration was the means by which the revelation of God was brought to the written record. The vocabulary belonged to the NT authors, but the message was God’s. “Paul wrote,” says Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 90), “with true inspiration” (Corinthians, 47.3). Inspiration, therefore, was a criterion of verification as to what books were apostolic and hence, canonical.

 

Categorizing the Canon

The early church Father, Origen, first grappled with the problem of the church not having an “official demarcation” between canonical and non-canonical books. Then, about a century later, the church historian Eusebius defined and modified Origen’s classification in the following four categories:

Homologoumena (“to speak the same,” i.e., books that were accepted by all): The Four Gospels, Acts, the Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, and 1 John, and Revelation (although he went back and forth as to the category of Rev).

Antilegomena (“spoken against,” i.e., books that were disputed by some): James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

Notha (“spurious” or apocrypha, i.e., books that were accepted by some): The alleged Epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 70); Clement’s first Epistle to the Corinthians (c. A.D. 96); Teaching of the Apostles (i.e., Didache, A.D. 100-120); Hermas’s The Shepherd (c. A.D. 120); Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians (c. A.D. 110); etc.

Pseudepigrapha: (“false writings,” i.e., books that were disputed/rejected by all): “Writings published by heretics,” Eusebius declares, “under the names of the apostles, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, Matthias, Judas, etc. or the Acts of Andrew, John, etc. The point here is that no early church Father ever accepted them; they saw them as “false writings,” for most of these books were written by Gnostics.

 

The Earliest Lists

During the next two centuries, the controversy and doubts over the antilegomena books gradually faded away and there was a final and official recognition of all twenty-seven books of the NT by the universal church. Aside from the early partial NT lists of books, the first known writer to list all twenty-seven books of the NT was Athanasius in his 39th Easter Letter (A.D. 367). Later, in A.D. 393, the twenty-seven books of the NT were laid down as canonical at the regional Council of Hippo under Augustine’s See. Then, four years later, at the third Council of Carthage, the twenty-seven books of the NT were reaffirmed as belonging to the canon. Thus, these twenty-seven books that were universally confirmed at these councils, agree with the present-day canon of the NT that we have in our hands.

What is paramount in accurately understanding NT canonicity is that at these official councils, the early church did not invent or create the NT canon nor did they accept or reject books based on “church authority,” but rather, at these councils, the early church codified and confirmed what was already recognized and established by the people of God starting in the first century (as seen above).

The Canon is closed

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone (Eph. 2:19-20).

The foundation of the NT was laid once and for all. It was built on the apostle and prophets. The text does not say that the church was built on Christ, but rather on the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone that holds the whole church together. Paul does not envisage a succession of new apostles (as Rome teaches today). This is clear due to the fact that Paul uses the aorist passive participle form of epoikodomeō of (epoikodomēthentes, lit., “having been built”). Hence, the action of the verb indicates that the foundation that was laid once and thus never needs to be repeated.

The notion of ‘successive apostles’ as taught by groups such as Roman Catholics and LDS do not consider (a) logically, if there is a need for new foundational apostles, then, the foundation was never really laid to begin with. Hence, something foundational by definition never needs additional foundations, and (b) the idea that we need new apostles or even secondary ones who will add to the fundamental work of the first century are really implying that we need new foundations in addition to or regardless of the foundation that was already laid: viz. the NT “apostles and prophets.” Thus, each new foundation would logically require a new cornerstone.

In direct contrast to the Protestant concept of sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) is sola Ecclesia (i.e., “Church alone”), which is clearly the marrow of groups such as Catholicism. Hence, it is not that the Catholic apologist does not have the ability to exegete, but he has no need, for the Church has done the job for him. For the Catholic sees his Church, not Scripture, as the final sole authority in all areas of life and theology (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 84-85, 113).

 

The Canon is closed theologically and historically

1) Theologically (cf. Heb. 1:1): Every NT book was written by an apostle (or one with apostolic authorship). The apostolic age ended with the death of the apostles (cf. Acts 1:22). In Ephesians 2:20, Paul states that the foundation of the church has been built (never to be repeated) by these foundational apostles. Thus, there cannot be any “new revelation” for the church (contrary to what Mormons and Catholics believe), and

2) Historically: There is no historical evidence that any new foundational apostle has ever existed. Virtually every non-Christian cult has a new prophet or apostle(s) carrying new a message, which rejects and/or redefines the Jesus Christ of biblical revelation. Hence, they all have some reason as to why sola scriptura (Scripture alone) does not work.

 

NOTES

[1] The term “canon” refers to a set or list of authoritative biblical books that are regarded as Scripture (i.e., theopneustos, “God breathed out”; 2 Tim. 3:16).

[2] Colossians 4:16 reads, “When this letter is read among you, have it read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.” The letter to the Laodiceans to which Paul is referring was probably the letter to the Ephesians for the following reason: 1) Paul does not say that it is a letter to the or of the Laodiceans, but rather ek Laodikeias, “from Laodicea,” 2) Paul wrote Ephesians around the same time as Colossians and sent it to another church in the same area, 3) the earliest MSS of Ephesians lack the phrase en Ephesō, “at Ephesus.” Note that Paul spent three years ministering to the Ephesians (cf. Acts 20:31), thus, it would be quite inconsistent for him not to mention the name of the people (or church) to which he wrote, and 4) there is no historical evidence that a “genuine” letter to the Laodiceans was known.