The Effectual Atonement of the Cross

"It is, and must be, an indispensable element in anything which deserves the name of atonement that it satisfies the justice of God, or lays the foundation of a claim of right to exemption from punishment" James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"). 

This statement from one of the forefront theologians of the Southern Presbyterian Church in its heyday represents why the Calvinist view of atonement is logically necessary (together with its biblical evidences) and the Arminian doctrine cannot satisfy the simple meaning of the word.  

An atonement is a sacrifice given to assuage the just wrath of God upon an action or person. We see this first in the Old Testament, in which there is even a Day of Atonement (still celebrated, though deprived of content, by modern Jews): "It shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins. It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute forever. And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments. He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins" (Leviticus 16:29-34). This follows the description of the sin offering. These requirements indicate several things. First, that all of the people are guilty of sin. It is presupposed in the requirement of an atonement for all of the people, not excluding the children or the clergy or any other class among them. Second, it implies that the sin condition brings the judgment of God. And third, it demonstrates the heinousness of, not just particularly bad sins, but of all sins. God hates sin, and requires that a price be paid for it. 

In the New Testament, those implications are stated briefly and explicitly. That all have sinned, we find in Romans 3:22-23: "There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." And that sin brings the judgment of God we find in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death." And that all sin, whether men consider it great or small, is under the wrath of God, we find in James 2:10: "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  

However, there is also a strong contrast between the atonement displayed in the Old Testament and that achieved in the New Testament. In both testaments, we have one lesson: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22). Old Testament believers saw that truth displayed in the daily slaying of animals. However, "since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:1-4). Israel saw this annual atonement, yet they continued to be aware of sin and its consequences. Therefore, it was not the sacrifices themselves which provided atonement. Rather, when observed with faith, they pointed to an atonement which was to come. 

It is in the New Testament that the atonement was no longer merely displayed but was truly, once for all achieved. "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" (Hebrews 9:24-28).

Here we see the fulfillment of what is described by Thornwell, satisfying the justice of God and relieving the consciences of believing men. It fully saves everyone for whom it was given (6:39). As He promises, it cannot fail to achieve its purpose.

Jesus Alone the Hope for the Human Conscience

Guilt is our emotional response to affliction of conscience. That is, when we are aware that we have done wrong, and are deserving of punishment, guilt is the emotion that haunts us, sometimes briefly, sometimes for an extended period, sometimes even for the rest of our lives. The severity and longevity of guilt depends on the severity of our wrong act and the sensitivity of each person's conscience. it is also possible to feel guilty when we shouldn't, as the conscience either blames us erroneously for someone else's action, or for something which should be considered wrong (I John 3:20).

The conscience is something that must be trained. That is especially obvious with children. However, it is a lifelong process, familiarizing ourselves with the Scriptures, so that our sense of right and wrong is brought more and more into conformity with God's standards. That training would have been unnecessary if not for the Fall of our first parents. While they had been created with God's standards as an inherent part of their psyche (Romans 2:15). However, in response to the false offer of Satan (Genesis 3:5), they chose to set their own standards of right and wrong above God's, and, thus, rendered themselves and all of their posterity (except Jesus) incapable of aught but sin. We still have enough of our created nature to know that our sin deserves punishment, no matter how much we strive to suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18-22). Thus, we experience guilt.

How do we free ourselves from guilt?

"If guilt is the response of the soul to the justice of punishment, the only way in which its sting can be extracted is by an arrangement which shall make the punishment cease to be just and give the sinner a right to escape from the evils which conscience forecasts. By no other conceivable method can peace and tranquility, in conformity with the principles of eternal rectitude, be imparted to the mind" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"). 

In order to shed our guilt, we must know that the justice due our sins has been satisfied. The unbeliever can never know this, apart from self-deception, because he goes into Sheol, the realm of death, with his burden of sin on his own shoulders. However, the believer can experience this deliverance in this life, because he, unlike the unbeliever, can know that the justice due his sins has been satisfied, but in the person of a surety, Jesus Christ, on the cross. 

"For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, He said, 'Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but a body have You prepared for Me;  in burnt offerings and sin offerings You have taken no pleasure.' Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God, as it is written of Me in the scroll of the book.' When He said above, 'You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings' (these are offered according to the law), then He added, 'Behold, I have come to do Your will.' He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:1-10).

A Washed Conscience from a Baby in a Manger

This is being posted for Christmas, 2019. We will talk a lot about the birth of Christ today. But I want to talk about why it matters that Jesus was born. Why did God the Son come into this world to live among us?

"Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and the Flood, verse 20], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21). If you saw that verse and assumed that I would be talking about baptism, then you experienced what I am about the describe, the frequent failure to read the rest of the verse. Notice that Peter mentions baptism, but then adds " not the removal of dirt from the body." Note that he compares it to Noah, who avoided being in the water. So, his point is not about baptism, but about what baptism represents, "a good conscience." How does the sinner achieve a good conscience, as represented by the water applied to his body?

Why?

The writer of Hebrews makes a similar point: "Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:1-4). The Old Testament sacrifices were insufficient because they had to be repeated. The blood of the sacrifices never removed sin or changed the nature of those who performed them. Instead, "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (verse 10). And "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (verse 14). 

That is why Christianity, though built on the foundation of the Old Testament religion of Moses, is far superior. The types and shadows have been removed, so that we can have a direct view of the one-time sacrifice of Jesus: "So let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water" (verse 22; see also Hebrews 9:14). Notice that the writer of this epistle uses the same baptismal imagery to describe the application of the blood of Christ to the believer by faith.

"When God can be just and faithful in blotting out his transgressions, then, and not until then, is his conscience sprinkled with clean water and purged from dead works. Christianity must take away our guilt, or it leaves us under the curse of nature" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

The Affliction of Conscience in the Unbeliever

The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 2:15, "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them." He is talking about Gentiles (verse 14), who have not had the advantage that Jews had in having a written copy of the Law. The Gentiles were not then freed to live as they wished, as if they were autonomous while Israel was subject to the rule of God. The Gentile, or the unbeliever today, has the moral law recorded in his heart, which is the basis for conscience. This is an aspect of what Paul had told us in the previous chapter that all men have a knowledge of God and our accountability to Him. That awareness in the unbeliever afflicts his conscience with guilt and the knowledge that he deserves judgment. 

Then one of two reactions occurs. 

In Romans 1, Paul tells us of the first, the hardened unbeliever, who finds some means to suppress his conscience, so that he can continue in his sin. The other is the person who is driven by his conscience to find absolution in the only place that it can be found, by grace alone through faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus alone. "Thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life" (II Corinthians 2:14-16).

"This obligation to punishment, this righteousness of condemnation, must cease to press, or the need which guilt creates cannot be relieved. The sinner feels, in other words, that the justice which calls for his blood must be satisfied, or that blood be yielded to its demand. It is, accordingly, the glory of the Gospel that the blood of Christ who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purges the conscience, dispels all its distracting fears, and imparts peace and serenity where despair and guilt had held their troubled reign" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity," emphasis in the original).

Conscience, Social Order, and the Kingship of Jesus

Years ago, the pastor I had at that time told a story of one of his daughters, about 5 years old at the time. She customarily took an afternoon nap, as most children do at that age. However, on one particular day, she said that she wasn't sleepy and didn't want to take a nap. So her parents decided to allow her to remain up with them. Yet, later, she started to get drowsy, and told them, "You should have spanked me." My pastor cited this as an example of children's awareness that their contrary actions deserve punishment, and that they benefit from such discipline.

In our day, even adults have adopted an attitude that everything we do is justified, and never deserving of punishment. Yet we expect actions done to us to be punished. That means that we have not lost a sense that wrong action deserves correction. We merely exempt what we do from the standard of right and wrong that

Patrick Henry

we apply to everyone else. The result is chaos, with every person having some sob story to explain why his actions should be tolerated.

This is why we are seeing in our day what Scripture tells us about Hebrew society before the establishment of the monarchy: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). No king? But we have never had a king, have we? On the contrary, though we live in a Republic, the Founders built their Republic with a king in view: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!" While the quote has been challenged, it is attributed to Patrick Henry. Whether or not he did say it, it still represents the attitude of the Founders, who, though they created a republic, based it on the presupposition of the kingship of Jesus, and that alone can be the basis of rebuilding a moral basis for a peaceful society.

"The feeling of ill desert drinks up the spirits, and 'conscience makes cowards of us all.' This, then, is the peculiarity which distinguishes guilt - it is a conviction that punishment is due, that it ought to be inflicted, and that , under a righteous government, sooner or later, it will be inflicted; and it is precisely this sense of guilt which the truths of natural religion are adapted to produce within us. It is the echo of our own hearts to the fearful condemnation of a holy God.."

James Henley Thornwell, "The Nature and Necessity of Christianity"

The Conscience: Which Way Shall It Lead?

An important theme in the New Testament is the role that conscience plays in human lives. We immediately think of its role in the life of the believer, but we should never forget that the unbeliever has a conscience, too, though he deals with it in a very different way.

Let's start with the origin of the conscience: "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:15). This verse shows that the conscience is part of the image of God, which, though marred by sin, remains in every man. It is a remnant of the Law of God which had been implanted in the heart of Adam, and which is renewed in the heart of every believer as part of regeneration (Hebrews 10:16).

That conscience in the unbeliever will always produce a reaction, but that reaction can be in either of two directions, as the verse above indicates. For the reprobate, the conscience is solely a source of accusation. We see this, for example, in Judas after the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:3). Did Judas seek forgiveness for his betrayal? No. Rather, he committed suicide (Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18-19). These possibilities, guilt or forgiveness, are the only two possible reactions to the truth of the Gospel (II Corinthians 2:16).

For the elect, his conscience drives him to the only place that he can clear his conscience, to faith in Jesus's atoning blood (I Peter 3:21). For the reprobate, the conscience can never be salved, but can only be suppressed (Romans 1:18).

"The burden which presses with intolerable weight upon the soul is the terrible conviction, wrung from the depths of our moral natures. that we have done wrong and deserve to die. It is this feeling that we deserve our doom which kindles the hell within us. If we would strip ourselves of the burning consciousness of this fact, no amount of evil could ever be regarded in the light of punishment."
James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"

The Whole World Under the Law

I often hear people claim that the moral law of the Old Testament was only for Israel. Now, if we were talking about the ceremonial law, I could see it. But when it is said of the moral law, then the person is saying that it was alright for non-Israelites to steal, to murder, or to commit adultery. I cannot accept that. Furthermore, it would mean that non-Israelites were not sinners, because sin is defined as the breaking of the Law (I John 3:4).

There are two errors that lead people to make this conclusion.

The first is dispensationalism, which teaches a rigid discontinuity between grace and law, such that they cannot coexist. Law was for pre-Christian Israel (or even continues to be for Israel), while grace is for Christians. This is a wrongful use of Romans 6:14, "You are not under Law, but under grace." However, that verse is about the power to resist sin, not to define sin.

The second is really a logical problem, because it involves confusing the written Law with the Law itself. It is true that the Gentiles did not have the written law. However, it is a fallacious leap of logic to take that to mean that they didn't have the Law at all. On the contrary, Paul also tells us, "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:15). The experience of conscience by a person without knowledge of the written Law is due to that same moral Law written in his heart. The conscience can be suppressed, of course, but that only shows that the written Law is advantageous, Paul's exact point (Romans 3:2). 

The problem is that both of the groups described above cherry-pick the verses that they apply to this topic. The crucial one that they both ignore is Romans 3:19: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." The first half of the sentence talks about those under the Law, and the second half tells us that it is "the whole world." And it is on that basis that every human being, not just Israel, is a lawbreaker under the judgment of God, and thus needing redemption in Jesus Christ.

Election and the Warrant to Believe

Anyone who looks at the topics that I explore in this blog would have to be deliberately obtuse not to notice that I am a Calvinist. That is, I hold to salvation only by the sovereign grace of God, with no admixture of human cooperation. A man chooses to believe in God, but only because the Holy Spirit gives him a new heart and draws him to believe.

In general, the objections to the doctrines of grace are not particularly clever. They are more comparable to the exalted notions of a person stoned on marijuana, that are actually moronic.

Among those clever responses is that it will cause a poor sinner to turn away from Jesus because he doesn't know whether he is elect. No one thinks that way. On the contrary, the Bible tells us that no one seeks God (Romans 3:11), unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). In other words, the Arminian uses an impossibility to make his case. By itself, that is sufficient proof that Arminianism is false.

Instead, for the affected sinner who doubts his election, the answer is not to repudiate the doctrine; that would be to call God's Word an embarrassment. Rather, the sinner is not to look at all to election; it is not for men to meddle in who is elect and who is not.

Rather, here is the biblical warrant for the sinner to know that he has the right to come to Jesus for salvation.

"Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. Incline your ear, and come to Me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant" (Isaiah 55:1-3). Is he a sinner, wearied by the load of sin, and exhausted by all his efforts at self-improval and self-forgiveness? Has he been left unsatisfied with his diet of human religions and philosophies, but without relief? Then he is the one that God has called to come to Jesus to receive true salvation by free grace alone, without works. 

"Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts" (Zechariah 1:3). The very God of Heaven binds Himself to be receptive to the repentant sinner who comes to Him for succor. He is the father to the prodigal sinner: "While he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate" (Luke 15:20-24).

"Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). Again, has he grown weary of the burden of sin and religious rules, or fighting to keep from acknowledging God? Then Jesus Himself invites him to come, and promises to relieve him of that burden. 

Thus, it is not on the basis of election that any man can know whether he is welcome to approach the throne of God. Rather, it is the invitations of the Father and of Jesus to come to Him which give every man a warrant to know that he is welcome - a golden ticket, if you will. Run to Him quickly! "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8).

Apostle Paul Refutes the Antinomian: Gentiles and the Law

"Let Israel be glad in his Maker;
     let the children of Zion rejoice in their King!
Let them praise His name with dancing,
     making melody to Him with tambourine and lyre!
For the Lord takes pleasure in His people; 
     He adorns the humble with salvation.
Let the godly exult in glory;
     let them sing for joy on their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their throats
     and two-edged swords in their hands,
to execute vengeance on the nations
     and punishments on the peoples,
to bind their kings with chains
     and their nobles with fetters of iron,
to execute on them the judgment written!
     This is honor for all His godly ones.     
      Praise the Lord!"
- Psalm 149:2-9

In debates between Seventh-Day Adventists and evangelicals, I often see the evangelicals argue that the judaizing of the Adventists is wrong because, they claim, the Law was only for Israel. I don't know whether that doctrine originates in dispensationalism, but I do know that it is just as wrong as the Adventists' holding on to Old Testament food laws.

These antinomians appeal to comments in Paul, such as Romans 2:14: "Gentiles, who do not have the Law." Yet, they pass over what he says just before that: "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law" (verse 12). So, the Gentiles, who are not under the Law, yet sin. What is the definition of sin? "Sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). So, what constitutes sin is defined by the Law. Therefore, the question must be, If the Gentiles are not subject to the Law, as the antinomian asserts, then how can he be said to sin? The antinomian cannot answer.

However, the same passage gives us the solution: "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the Law is written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15). Therefore, the Gentiles certainly do have, and have always had, the Law. They have simply not had the written Law. The standards of right and wrong applied to the Gentile just as they applied to the Jew. However, the Jew had two advantages: first, he had the law written, and thus was not dependent on his fallen conscience to direct his life; and second, he had the ceremonial Law, which pointed him to the coming Messiah who would redeem him from his sins and their consequences. Not having the written Law, the Gentiles were without the hope of forgiveness and sanctification. 

To show the Old Testament foundation for Paul, I direct your attention to the Psalm above. It starts with the pleasure that God has in His redeemed people. However, it also tells us of the judgment on His enemies. How can the antinomian see any justice in that vengeance if God had provided no means for the Gentiles to know moral truth?

The Sense of God in the Minds of Men

In the defense of their program of baptism for the dead, Mormons claim that God gives a second chance for conversion to those who never had a chance to learn about Jesus in this life. In fact, they object to the phrase "second chance," because, they claim, such people had never had a first chance. It would be unjust, they claim, for God to punish for unbelief those who had never had a chance to learn about Christ.

Of course, they completely blank out the biblical teaching that unbelief is an act of will, not of ignorance. No unbeliever is merely ignorant of God; rather, he actively hates God.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (Romans 1:18-23).

In this passage, the Apostle Paul explains that God has so revealed Himself in the creation that no one can claim to be ignorant of His existence or sovereignty. That assertion comes straight from Paul's Bible, what we know as the Old Testament: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world" (Psalm 19:1-4). This is a description of God's self-revelation through His works of creation. In theology, it is called natural or general revelation, because it is available to every human being who has ever existed. This revelation is general, but is suppressed in his awareness by the unbeliever. Again, his unbelief isn't an accident of ignorance, but, rather, a deliberate suppression of what they know to be true.

When Paul spoke to the pagans at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17), this was the basis of his argument to them. The Athenians had an altar to "The Unknown God" (Acts 17:23). This God could not be literally "unknown," or they would not know that He was unknown to them. Therefore, this altar was a tacit admission that there was a God whom the Athenians left unnamed, the very God, the triune God of the Bible, whom Paul then proceeded to explain to them.

In the Old Testament, King Solomon tells us (Ecclesiastes 3:11), "He has put eternity into man's heart." God has made man with an irrepressible spiritual nature, an awareness of God and a need to be in fellowship with Him. Thus, while Paul in Romans and King David in Psalm 19 make their cases from the revelation of God in His works, Solomon proves Him from the nature of man, His created image-bearer.

As Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell paraphrased the biblical writers, "The interests of religion, in some form or other, must and will exact attention. Man is essentially a religious animal. His nature calls for religious worship. He must have God to pray to, as well as a God to swear by, and, while the true God is unknown [relationally], the heart will be filled with idols in His place. All idolatry consists essentially in the false worship of the true, or a superstitious worship of the unknown, God" ("The necessity and nature of Christianity.

All of these shows that the Mormon practice is unbiblical, not because it is different from the biblical baptism of the dead, but rather because it is based on an unbiblical assertion of an innocent ignorance on the part of the unrepentant unbeliever. Thus, if he leaves this life continuing in unbelief, the unbeliever is justly condemned (John 3:18, Hebrews 9:27).

Pride and the Burden of Sin

Martin Luther said something with which I agree completely: "For as long as he [i. e., man] is persuaded that he himself can do even the least thing toward his salvation, he retains some self-confidence and does not altogether despair of himself, and therefore he is not humbled before God, but presumes that there is - or at least hopes or desires that there may be - some place, time, and work for him, by which he may at length attain salvation."

He is putting into his own words the principle of I Peter 5:5 (quoting in turn from Proverbs 3:34): "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 

This is the same fault with which Jesus charged the Pharisees in the parable of Luke 18:9-14: "He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 'Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: "God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get." 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!" I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.'" The Pharisee erroneously believed that sin is a problem that other people have. Jesus said that His ministry isn't directed to such people, because "God opposes the proud." Rather, He would give grace, His attention, to those who understand their sinfulness and need for salvation: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick" (Luke 5:31). I am writing this because I run into people, mainly Catholics and Mormons, who say they believe in the atoning work of Jesus, but not as salvation itself. They see it, instead, as as the completion of their own works. Mormons even have a phrase for it, "We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (II Nephi 25:23, in the Book of Mormon). 
It is only when the Holy Spirit, through the Law, exposes to such people the true wickedness of their hearts, as in the case of the tax-collector above, that they are then enabled to look to Jesus alone for salvation.

The False Fantasy of Moral Autonomy

There is a time in the Bible, where the Scripture repeats this mantra: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6, 21:25). The Bible says that is a bad thing, an indication of moral anarchy. However, in our own day it has become a fashionable lifestyle: "Do your own thing. Just follow your heart."

However, underlying that concept is an assumption of autonomy, the assertion that man rules himself and his destiny, and need not acknowledge any standard of judgment over his life other than his own pleasure. Even Christians fail to connect that mentality to the words of Satan in the Garden (Genesis 3:5): "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." In this case, "knowing" means "deciding." Our popular hedonism has come full circle, to demonstrate its satanic origin, yet that doesn't check the promotion of it.

However, God is neither impressed with our moral sophistication nor our alliance with Satan. "You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, 'How have we wearied Him?' By saying, 'Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.' Or by asking, 'Where is the God of justice?'" (Malachi 2:17). He finds it tedious to listen to us declare our autonomy and right to decide our own morality. After all, He is God, our creator, and we are merely His creatures. Therefore, such a claim of autonomy is an act of rebellion and treason, the exact sin for which Adam was judged, and he and eve were cast out of the garden.

What Does God Believe about Atheists?

In the Fourteenth Psalm, King David said a number of interesting things about unbelief.

In the first verse, he said:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;there is none who does good."

He starts off without fanfare, proclaiming that unbelief is foolish. In our modern society, atheists proclaim their devotion to reason, to logic. But God is unimpressed with their declarations. Rather, He says, the problem is not logic, but righteousness. People believe in all sorts of crazy things, while proclaiming their rationality: aromatherapy, crystals power, aliens. But the question of God is in a class by itself. He has no place in their world of fantasies. Why? Because, in spite of their protestations, it isn't about logic. Rather, unlike crystals, candles, or little green men, the reality of God stands in the way of their hedonistic desires. 

David emphasizes this again in verse 3:
"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,not even one."

This is not news. We know from plenty of other places in Scripture that the natural man is wicked: Even as early as Genesis 6:5, we read, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The difference is that David moves that idea from the field of morality to the field of rationality. Men make their choices by reasoning from their wicked desires, not from a concern for objective truth.

However, David rips the band-aid off the delusion of the wicked in verse 5:
"There they are in great terror,for God is with the generation of the righteous."

While the atheist pats himself on the back, congratulating himself for kicking God out of his consciousness, David exposes his real fear that the awareness of God will creep back, exposing the shallowness of both his reason and his hedonistic devotion. the Apostle Paul makes the same point in Romans 1:18: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Just like squeezing one end of a balloon, the suppression of awareness at one point threatens to burst out at another, to the terror of the unbeliever.

David offers a solution, one that requires true reason, in verse 7: "Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!" "Zion" is used in the Old Testament poetry as a reference to the church. the hope for the unbeliever is the Gospel proclamation sent out from God's people. What is the content of that proclamation? It is God's invitation to the wicked man, when he becomes weary of hedonism and hiding from the knowledge of God: "Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food.  Incline your ear, and come to Me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant" (Isaiah 55:2-3).

The Law for All Men, Not Just for Israel

One form of antinomianism holds that the biblical Law is still valid (Matthew 5:18), but is, and has always been, only for Israel.

That is false.

Before I get to the Scriptural evidence against this assertion, let's just think about the logic of it. Israel was given a moral code to define her actions in the eyes of God: "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Yet, according to the theologians of this stripe, Gentiles have no such standard. If sin is defined by the Law, but the Gentiles don't have the Law, does that not imply that Gentiles do not, therefore, have sin? If yes, according to what standard? And, whether one answers yes or no, does that not imply that Gentiles are not under the government of the God of the Bible? Isn't the source of their law their god, by definition?

I can't imagine how these antinomians can answer those questions. However, I don't have to wait for their answers because the Bible is explicitly opposed to any such concept of independence from God's Law. Paul tells us, "When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:14-15). Every man has a conscience, even those who are so wicked as to heave seared their consciences into insensitivity. And, according to Paul, those consciences reflect the Law of God written in our hearts. This is part of the image of God, remaining in us since the creation of Adam, and restored in the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10, 10:16, from Jeremiah 31:33). Of course, that image has been marred by sin, so the law is not recalled perfectly in the heart. In that way, Israel had an advantage over the Gentiles (Romans 3:2). While having the written Law was an advantage to Israel, that advantage falls far short of implying that the Gentiles were not accountable to God's Law. If that weren't the case, then would not the advantage have been with the Gentiles, for then they could never be accused of sin, and, therefore, had no need for a Savior? Yet, we know that is not the case, because Paul is specifically changed with carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8, I Timothy 2:7)! Why carry to the Gentiles something that they didn't need?

Repentance Is Not Optional

I have noticed an attitude among Christians that says that repentance is a good thing, but nothing more. One can repent, or not, as he sees fit. It has become more of a matter of feelings. That is, if a sinful act has brought feelings of guilt, then repent, so you can feel better about yourself. But that is certainly not a biblical view of repentance.

First of all, repentance is a command, not a suggestion. Consider Acts 17:30: "[God] commands all people everywhere to repent." From Whom does the command originate? From God. To whom is it directed? To all, man, woman, and child, whether professing Christian or not. And people where? Everywhere, i. e., in every nation, of whatever culture. And the logic is compelling. Since every human being (Jesus excepted, of course) is a sinner (Romans 3:23), without regard to age (Psalm 51:5), and is under judgment for that sin (Romans 6:23), there is no human being (again excepting Jesus) who is not in need of repentance.See also Luke 24:47.

However, since we are sinners, we are incapable of any spiritual good (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10-12). That is because sin has killed us, spiritually speaking (Ephesians 2:1). That leaves us without the ability to fulfill this command out of our mere will to do so. In fact, it is impossible for us to will to do so. Rather, it is necessary for God to change our wills (Philippians 2:13). When He does so, then He enables the regenerate sinner to repent of sin (Acts 5:31, II Timothy 2:25). What a wonder that is, that He creates in us the thing that He demands from us!

But the amazement continues: when He grants repentance to the sinner, there is celebration, both on earth and in heaven. When men see a sinner repent, they give glory to God for His grace (Acts 11:18). And in heaven, even the angels celebrate (Psalm 89:5, Luke 15:10).

In writing this, my hope is that someone, somewhere, feeling the oppression of his sin, will answer the Lord's command to repent, turn to Jesus for the forgiveness of that sin, that I and the angels may celebrate! My email address is in the panel to the right. I hope that someone will write me to tell of that experience. But, even if you don't, I hope that you will receive and experience this gift of God, and know that the angels in heaven celebrate with you.

Someone may be saying that he doesn't understand what repentance is. I will give you an historical answer, question 87 from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, one of the doctrinal documents used in Presbyterian churches: "What is repentance unto life? Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience."

Atheists Prove the Truth of the Bible

Have you ever cruised through the reviews on Amazon? If you have some time to kill someday, I recommend this informative way to use it. I especially enjoy going through the reviews of the various translations and editions of the bible. Part of my purpose is just to see to see what is available, but it is also instructive to see what people say in the reviews, especially "reviews" from atheists. I put that in quotation marks because their comments consistently demonstrate that they haven't actually read the Bible; they are just using the opportunity to spout off against it.

Which brings me to my topic.

I have also looked at the reviews of the various editions of the Koran and Buddhist/Hindu texts. The absence of atheist comments is glaringly obvious. Why is that?

I haven't read the Buddhist/Hindu texts. I have, however, read the Koran. It describes a vicious deity who commands his followers to do vicious things, such as those we see committed by ISIS in Syria. Since it glorifies demonic behavior, both in deity and in men, I consider it of demonic origin.

In contrast, the atheist ridicule of the Bible usually consists of assertions that there are "contradictions," without naming any. And that is only if the "reviewer" attempts to say anything more than juvenile ridicule. Again, they do neither of these things for the sacred texts of other religions.

Hmmm... ridicule without thoughtful interaction with the text... What could that indicate? I suggest that it indicates, not that they disbelieve the Bible, but rather that they hate it! Why? Because, unlike either the Koran or the eastern mystical texts, the Bible reveals the sin in the hearts of men and reveals judgment against it. Atheists hate the Bible because, in it, they are confronted by their own wickedness and the wrath of God. And they know that these two things are true!

Thus, the very hatred which atheists express against the Bible proves that it is true and that the wrath of God is real. The Bible describes this in Romans 1:18-22: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who, by their unrighteousness, suppress the truth, for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse, for, although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools."

However, I am glad to say that the Bible also gives the solution in the same book, Romans 10:9-10: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, for with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

My hope is that there is an atheist reading this, who recognizes the futility of his refusal to see God and His righteousness in the world. In the state of unbelief, every person carries the load of conscience, knowing the evil he has done, but with no solution. That's why every unbeliever depends on denial to keep himself going under that load. I know because I have been there. But here I hope that you have seen the solution. You are right to feel that you cannot bear your sin. Only Jesus can do that.

In Eternity, Will Christians Sorrow Over Loved-Ones in Hell?

This is a question that I have been asked by both Seventh-Day Adventists (because they believe in the annihilation of the wicked) and atheists (who don't appear to stop and think that - in their worldview - all their loved ones have simply ceased to exist; is there no sorrow over that?). I expect that Jehovah's Witnesses ask it, too.

The answer to their question is, "No, Christians will not sorrow, whether for this or for any other reason." The Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "The ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Isaiah 35:10). And the Apostle John agreed (Revelation 21:4): "[God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." These are general considerations; there shall be no sorrow, over any matter, in glory.

But specifically on this issue, there will be no sorrow. It is true that, in this life, we sorrow over such things, because we do not yet have the perspective we will have in our glorified state. We still view things according to the values of our fallen state, that is, we look at the situation as sinners. Yet, even now, the scriptures urge us to place the holiness and justice of God ahead of our distorted emotions. In Psalm 9:16, David advises, "The Lord has made Himself known; He has executed judgment; the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands." And in Psalm 51:4, the same writer tells of himself, "Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You may be justified in Your words and blameless in Your judgment." And further, in Psalm 58:10, David realizes, "The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked." Notice that: when we are no longer sinners, in our glorification, we will have the perspective of God, and place His holiness ahead of our creaturely preferences. Logically, who matters more: God? Or your relatives?

David's point, in these Psalms, is that the justice of God's judgment is based on against whom sin is committed. Sin isn't naughtiness, as has become the common view in our society. It is an act of treason against our Creator, He Who made us and has provided the world we live in, the food, air, and water we require for survival, and the human comforts that make our lives enjoyable. To sin against Him after such gifts is wicked enough. However, if you further consider the gift that He has given in His Son, who suffered, bled, and died, how horrific we must now see sin to be. For this, God has said (Psalm 81:11-12), "My people did not listen to My voice; Israel would not submit to Me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels." He has allowed us to pursue the consequences of our own choices and actions. Can there be any injustice in Him now?

The Puritan theologian Thomas Watson said, "The reason why sin committed in a short time is eternally punished is because every sin is committed against an infinite essence, and no less than eternity of punishment can satisfy. Why is treason punished with confiscation and death, but because it is against the king's person, which is sacred; much more that offense which is committed against God's crown and dignity  is of a heinous and infinite nature, and cannot be satisfied with less than eternal punishment."

Yet, we must go further: God has allowed us, not only to pursue our own wicked choices, but also opportunities to awaken and repent of those choices. In Jeremiah 26:3 and 13, He said to Israel, "It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may relent of the disaster that I intend to do to them because of their evil deeds... Now therefore mend your ways and your deeds, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will relent of the disaster that He has pronounced against you." And in Revelation 2:21, "I gave her [i. e., Jezebel] time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality." Has He been unfair? Unjust? Clearly, He hasn't. So, how can anyone claim to have been wronged when He finally carries out the judgment which He has, so far, withheld? 

Now, to refer back to the question with which I began: Will Christians sorrow over loved-ones in Hell? No, we won't. Rather, we will rejoice that the holiness of God has been vindicated. In contrast, unbelievers will indeed suffer sorrow in the life to come, not just for their suffering loved-ones, but because of the judgment for their own personal sins. In fact, you will sorrow, not for loved-ones in Hell, but because of antipathy toward loved-ones in Heaven! If such sorrowing is a horror, something to be avoided, then the solution is to repent of your unbelief. Then, not only will you be freed from your condemnation, but you will also have a message of hope for your loved-ones. Rather than picture them in Hell, suffering for their sins, picture them saved from condemnation, never to suffer sorrow again. As John also says (Revelation 14:13, see also Job 3:17), "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. 'Blessed indeed,' says the Spirit, 'that they may rest from their labors!'"

Hypocrisy and True Spiritual Peace

In Luke 18:9-14, Jesus told a deep parable, that of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. In it, we see strikingly different attitudes in their approaches to God, representative of those of people everywhere. The Pharisee prays (verses 11-12), "God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust,

The Pharisee and the Tax Collector

adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get." Then He turns to the tax collector, who prays (verse 13), "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" Then the Lord ends the parable with His own inspired synopsis (verse 14): "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Notice how much longer the prayer of the Pharisee is (see Matthew 6:1-4). He uses thirty-three words in this English version, all of them extolling his virtues. In contrast, the tax collector uses just seven words, begging for God's mercy on his sins. What a contrast! Thirty-three words to stand condemned, but only seven to be justified!

The Pharisee in the story exemplifies something that the Puritan Thomas Watson said: "The wicked may have something which looks like peace, but is not. They may be fearless and stupid, but there is a great difference between a stupified conscience and a pacified conscience. 'When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.' Luke 11:21. This is the devil's peace. He rocks men in the cradle of security. He cries, 'Peace, peace,' when men are on the precipice of hell. The seeming peace that a sinner has is not from the knowledge of his happiness but from the ignorance of his danger."

This same false, self-deceived spiritual peace is spoken of by the Prophet Jeremiah (Jer.  3:3-5): "The showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come; yet you have the forehead of a whore; you refuse to be ashamed. Have you not just now called to Me, 'My father, you are the friend of my youth— will He be angry forever, will He be indignant to the end?' Behold, you have spoken, but you have done all the evil that you could." In a time of apostasy, the Jews spoke loving words to God, yet devoted themselves to their wicked deeds and idolatries, as if God could be deceived. Yet, He wasn't. And the Prophet Isaiah is even more blunt (Is. 57:21): "'There is no peace,' says my God, 'for the wicked.'"

Watson explains what is necessary for true peace between the sinner and his God: "The graft must first be inoculated into the tree before it can receive sap or nourishment from it; so we must first be

A tree prepared for grafting in a new branch.

ingrafted into Christ before we can receive peace from Him." It is only as the believer is connected to Christ by faith that he can experience true peace of conscience. Isaiah also teaches this (Is. 32:17): "The effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever." See also Isaiah 9:6-7 and John 16:33. In contrast, the one who depends on his own worthiness is described in Deuteronomy 29:19-20: "The one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart,' the Lord will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and His jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven." That is the fate of the Pharisee in the parable with which I began.

What is righteousness? It is a standard of action and motivation purely consistent with the commands and nature of God. Who meets that standard? No one but Jesus, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). That's why it is His righteousness, not our own, that we need, when we seek to approach God: "[They] who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works" (Romans 9:31-32). What righteousness? "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Romans 3:22).

Anyone who follows the example of the Pharisee, satisfied with his own goodness to qualify him for eternal life, condemns himself. The one who, like the tax collector, recognizes his own unrighteousness, but looks to that of Christ alone, is justified, and receives both peace with God and peace of conscience.

Doctrinal Accountability: Can Anyone Avoid It?

"They have spoken falsely of the Lord

     and have said, ‘He will do nothing;
no disaster will come upon us,
     nor shall we see sword or famine.
The prophets will become wind; 
     the word is not in them."
- Jeremiah 5:12-13 

This is an Old Testament version of Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Paul continues (verse 21): "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." The Prophet and the Apostle are both testifying against the claim by some that they don't believe in God: those men and women are lying! They know full well that God exists and that they are accountable to Him. As Paul also says (verses 19-20), "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

This is sometimes referred to as "natural theology," the witness that God has revealed of Himself in His creation, so that all men know of Him, even if they pretend otherwise. Why? That is what Jeremiah is talking about: they believe that they are not accountable for what they refuse to acknowledge. I compare it to the bratty child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sing-songs, "La-la-la, I can't hear you," with the belief that he can then claim not to know what his parents said to him.

Do responsible parents allow their children free rein under this pretense? Of course not! And neither does God allow the atheist to escape judgment, simply because he pretends that he doesn't know, or believe in, God. 

Jeremiah also addresses a Catholic error, the concept of "implicit faith," i. e., the medieval doctrine that the Christian believes whatever the (Roman) church believes even if one does not know it personally.While Rome no longer teaches this doctrine explicitly (please forgive the pun), it is, nevertheless, the heart of the practice of most Catholics. In other words, they admit that they aren't personally familiar with the content of Roman doctrine, but accept it implicitly, not on the basis of evidence, but rather because their Church advocates it. Jeremiah's remarks here, directly, and Paul's indirectly, cut through this form of self-deception: intentional ignorance is no excuse!

Is there anything more explicit about where our doctrines should originate and be tested? I say, emphatically, yes, there is! In Isaiah 8:20, that prophet tells us God's prescription: "To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." Passively receiving the teachings of the Church of Rome (or of any church or teacher), without

checking them against the Scriptures, is to indicate that you are void of spiritual light.

Remember what the bible says of the believers in Berea (Acts 17:10-11): "The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and, when they arrived, they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." I know that Catholic apologists have demonized the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura, but here it is, in Old Testament and in New. Your spiritual welfare depends on it!

The Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass, and Its Offense to the Gospel

"If anyone saith that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and 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."

The Council of Trent

The above statement is a quote from the decrees of the Council of Trent, chapter 9, canon 3. This council was called by the Roman Catholic Church to address the crisis created by the budding of the Reformation. It defined, officially and infallibly (Rome claims), Catholic doctrine, in perpetuity. I have highlighted in boldface the key phrases in that statement. They claim for this statement the support of Malachi 1:11, "For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name will be great among the nations, and, in every place, incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering."

When dealing with Catholic apologists, I find that they consistently claim that the Mass is not a sacrifice. For example, Dave Armstrong writes, "It is crucial to understand that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not a 're-sacrifice' of Christ, as is the common misconception. Jesus does not die every time a priest offers Mass, since He died once, in history, on earth" (A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, p. 95). Yet, he says in the very next paragraph, "in the Mass, Jesus Christ ultimately offers the sacrifice of Himself (just as at the Last Supper), with the priest merely acting in His stead, as a purely secondary, instrumental agent." So, as Trent says, it is a sacrifice, but it's not, because it is Christ sacrificing Himself, not the priest sacrificing Him. To me, that sounds like Rome is trying to play both sides of the matter.

However, whether Christ is supposedly sacrificing Himself, or the priest is sacrificing Him, the claim should be anathema (to reclaim their word) to any true Christian.

The writer of Hebrews (10:5) quotes Jesus Himself, using the words of Psalm 40:6, "Sacrifice and offerings You have not desired." So, in His own words, Jesus is telling us that we do not need a continuing sacrifice, whether offered by Himself, or "with the priest merely acting in His stead." Why is that? Because (Heb. 10:11, emphasis added) "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." The whole point of this chapter of Hebrews is to establish the superiority of Christ's priestly offering of Himself over the Jewish Aaronic priests exactly because their sacrifices had to be repeated. In contrast (Heb. 10:12-14, emphasis added), "when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God..., for, by a single offering, He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." And I think that the final nail in the coffin is seen in verses 17 and 18: "'I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.' Where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no longer any offering for sin."

By claiming a continuing sacrifice in the Mass, the Catholic Church is claiming that it must complete an insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ. And, as the writer of Hebrews (10:1) points out, "it can never, by the same sacrifices, that are continually offered every year [or every Sunday], make perfect those who draw near." That is, if the sacrifice must be continually offered, then it is never sufficient to achieve the purpose of sanctification. The Catholic has no assurance that he has partaken in the sacrifice of the Mass enough times to know when he has been saved from his sins.

That is bondage of an horrific sort! That is why the Reformation was necessary! And it is why bible-believing Protestants must never cease to point the finger at Rome and denounce it as a perversion of Christianity.

On which will you rely, Catholic reader? A Savior who gave His life for His people, once for all, or a Mass with nothing but the claims of the Pope, contrary to the Scriptures themselves?