Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 1:13)

Purgatory - Part 2

Wednesday, August 31, 2005
purgatory??? in the Bible???

1031 - "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire." (Roman Catholic Catechism)

"As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come." (St-Gregory the Great on Matthew 12:31)

The "Biblical" foundation for Purgatory. That's what a Romanist would tell you after reading these two quotes. Problem is, of course, the Scriptures in question are only alluded to, and I assure you, there is a reason for that. You see, for 80-90% of Romanists, the fact that the Romanist Catechism and a Romanist "saint" (with the word "Great" in his title no less) both confess that the Scriptures teach a Purgatory is good enough for them. It's when the 10-20% actually look into these "Biblical proofs" that Romanism gets into trouble.

Now we've seen, in my last post, that from the get-go, Purgatory just simply doesn't fit the general teachings of Scripture when it comes to the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. So, the Bible either contradicts itself, or the "doctrine" of the Purgatory is amiss. The Scriptures cited as "proof" of the existence of the Purgatory are these:

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matthew 12:31)

"If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:15)

"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 1:7)

Okay, let's start with the last Bible passage: 1 Peter 1:7. Go for it my friends, turn to your Bibles and read 1 Peter 1:7. Alright, now read 1 Peter 1:6-7. Now, put your thinking hats on: what is this "fire trial" that is being spoken of in verse 7? Purgatory? Or what verse 6 says, "manifold temptations (or trials)? I don't think I need to add any more.

1 Corinthians 3:15. Read it. Now read 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. What is this "day" in verse 13 in which "every man's work shall be made manifest"? The day the soul dies and enters into Purgatory? Uh... no-oh-oh! The "day in which every man's work becomes manifest" is clearly the day of Judgement, when the Lord will return:

"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." (1 Corinthians 4:5)

So what is this fire that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3:15? Judgement, my friends, judgement; and more specifically, judgement by the Word of God, which is called a "fire" in the Bible:

"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD..." (Jeremiah 23:29a)

If you check the context, 1 Corinthians 3:15 is quite easy to understand, and it most certainly isn't teaching anything about a Purgatory. The idea is that all born-again Christians have the Lord Jesus Christ as their foundation. Where Christians differ is in what they build on the foundation. Believers who don't do well in their Christian experience are compared to people who build with wood, stubble and hay, that is cheap, perishable and valueless material. Successful Christians are described as building with gold, silver and precious stones, that is, priceless, durable material of high value.

Finally, Matthew 12:31. There is a WHOLE LOT of confusion with this teaching on the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". So take a closer look at what this sin is by reading Matthew 12:22-33. You will see that the Lord ascribes the sin of "blaspheming the Holy Ghost" to the Pharisees after they suggest that the Lord healed a possessed man by the power of Satan. Now understand what the sin actually is here: Jesus heals a demon possessed man... people are amazed... this irks the Pharisees, so rather than giving honour to God for this CLEAR good and holy act (one that cannot possibly come from the powers of darkness), they charge the Lord with using the power of Satan to bring about the healing. They blasphemed the Holy Ghost by attributing His working to the devil.

Let me be clear: NO ONE CAN BLASPHEME THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THIS MANNER IN THE CHURCH AGE. Why? Because the Lord is not physically among us, working wonderful and spectacular miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Some of you will now say: "wait a minute Rand, what about this age to come? Doesn't that prove that it is still going on?" The answer: nope, it isn't going on, but IT WILL go on.

"The age that is to come" isn't the church age, nor is it Purgatory. The age that is to come is the Millenial kingdom in which the Lord will, once again, be physically with us, ruling the world in righteousness, working great and wonderful works by, you guessed it, the power of the Holy Ghost (Zachariah 14; Revelation 19:15; Revelation 20:6).

Conclusion: The supposed "Bible proofs" of Purgatory are non-existent; my apologies to Mr. "Gregory Greatness" along with the councils of Florence and Trent. Now, if a Romanist says that Purgatory is the result of Romanist Tradition and only Romanist Tradition... well... they would still be wrong, but they would at least be honest. The problem is, Romanists go with their wicked traditions, and then attempt to read those traditions into the Word of God. This is a grievous sin, and all Romanist who supports such an approach to Scripture is guilty of "adding to Scripture" (Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18).

There is more to come on the topic of Purgatory, so... to be continued in Purgatory - Part 3.


PS: some Romanists (but not many) will use the account of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:20-31) and say that the rich man is in Purgatory, while Lazarus died perfect and escaped the suffering of Purgatory. This, of course is nonsense. Both men were in different sections of Sheol/Hades, not Purgatory. For an explanation of what Sheol/Hades is, check out my post on Hell.


Kind of funny... in a demented way

Tuesday, August 30, 2005
don't you just love hypocrites...

Just a quick little note, encouraging you all, dear readers, to check out the latest post at my friend Scott's blog. The page takes forever to load for some strange reason, but it's worth the wait. Be sure to closely scrutinize the picture. Scott's comments on it are right on the money!

Don't get me wrong by this link, politics really isn't my thing. I couldn't care less about the Republicans, the Democrats, the Liberals, the Conservatives... etc... etc. My citizenship is in Heaven (Philippians 3:20). But, I must say, when I see this kind of hypocrisy and spin, it really makes me laugh, and, when I see how seriously some people take it, it makes me cry.

That's all for now. I hope to have part 2 of "Purgatory" done tonight.



Sunday Afternoon Notes

Sunday, August 28, 2005
the best of the worse...

Well, I'm certainly NOT going to say that the "Gay Pride Parade" was good, or that it went well... but I will say that the Lord protected us and we just had the easiest time with our Gospel signs at this year's parade. I wasn't even shoved once! Praise God.

Oh! there was plenty of mockery, and many instances where the sodomites did their utmost to "gross us out" (and man! can they be gross!). And there was the usual chant "hay hay ho ho... homophobia has got to go" (funny how everyone has a "phobia" to describe what they THINK I am). There was one instance where we were threatened with violence but a police cruiser drove up behind us and the officer gestured for the fellow to move along, and he did (again, praise the Lord). When our time out there was done, we walked past the police officer and we all thanked him for his service. He said:

-"You're welcome... not too fun of a day for you guys eh?" (yes, he used the Canadian "eh?")

-"Worse job of the year for us," my pastor answered.

-"Well, someone's got to do it," the officer replied.

So, we stood against the powers of evil, against the Sodomites and their proud hearts, and we came out of it with nothing worse than being doused with water and cheap perfume. Not too bad... not too bad at all.

A heartfelt thanks to all my brothers and sisters who have prayed for us.


Funny moment: Brother D, who was with us at the parade, was approached and grabbed by 3-4 lesbians who did so to mock him. His responce: "well, you are doing at least one thing right... you are hugging A MAN. (LOL)

Friday Night Notes

Saturday, August 27, 2005
somewhat uneventful...

Another Friday night spent preaching God's Word in the marketplace. We were out to our customary spot for our 3 hours of street preaching. I was afraid I wouldn't be able to preach as long as usual since I'm still fighting off a sore throat, but the Lord was good and He kept my old voice loud and clear.

Nothing much happened tonight. We had a few short conversations with some young men and women, but nothing too dramatic. Alot of people stopped and listened to our preaching though, which is a really good thing. A man did walk up to me at some point and said: "what? you afraid people are having too good a time?" I answered: "my problem is what people today do to have a good time." He didn't reply.

I was expecting alot of Sodomites tonight, since this Lord's Day afternoon is their wicked "Pride Parade" through my city, but while I did notice a somewhat larger number of lesbians, the increase was pretty negligible. That being said, this "Pride Parade" is going to keep me up this weekend I'm afraid. I really hate the wicked event. I mean I REALLY HATE IT.

We will be maligned, we will be pushed around, things will be thrown at us, we will be flashed... etc... etc... and throughout all of it, I will have to work at keeping composed, and compassionate (Lord help me!).

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 1:7)

Please pray for me, dear saints, that the Lord would make the above verse a reality for me on the Lord's Day afternoon; which is when the parade starts.

That's all for tonight... I have to at least try to sleep...

Take care,


Promoting Romanism to Youth

Thursday, August 25, 2005
sooo much worldliness...

Look at this nonsense...

Well, it looks like Romanists and Liberal Baptists have found common ground: it would seem they both agree that there is spiritual merit in The Matrix.

I found this garbage when reading a news article on the various endeavours taken on by Romanists to win over the youth to their wickedness. In the article, they showed this image of a Romanist priest, with idols in both hands, mimicking Keannu Reeves' character in the Matrix, Neo. Actually the entire poster is comparable to several of The Matrix movie posters.

This wickedness comes as absolutely no surprise to me, but I thought I'd put together this little post for your benefit, dear readers, especially as we are considering the various false teachings of Romanism. Now some of you may be wondering: "What's your problem Rand? We know you oppose Romanism, but what specifically is the problem with this poster?" The problem, my friends, is worldliness.

We have Romanists who come to this site, I receive many e-mails, and the plea is all too often the same: "We are your brothers in Christ", they say. "We are only looking to honouring God and serving Him", they affirm. But it's all lies. I know that it's all lies because I know them, I use to be one with them. They treat me like I'm a fool, like I'm the one who doesn't understand, but sadly it is they who don't understand. The Bible says:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Philippians 4:8)

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11)

The Matrix is a wicked movie. Even by the standards of the world, The Matrix has received a R-rating for violence and coarse language, The Matrix: Reloaded has received a R-rating for violence, coarse language and sexual content, and finally The Matrix: Revolutions has received a R-rating for, yet again, violence, language and sex. Hardly "things that are just, pure, lovely and of good report", wouldn't you say? And what should a Christian do with such things? The Scriptures are clear: REPROVE THEM! Not, smooth them over by "Christianizing" it. NO! The Bible says: REPROVE.

Like con-artists, false religions have no time to stand for the Truth. Rather, they will use any means necessary to win over followers. They will use the flavour of the day, whether it be philosophy, pop culture, musical style... whatever! Anything and everything to gain an edge. Well, The Matrix most certainly is the big movie of the 21st century, and you can count on Romanism (along with a myriad of other wicked faiths) to be there to capitatalize.

Friends, judge for yourselves. Look at the fruit as Matthew 7:16-20 puts it. We fundamentalists preach the Gospel + nothing. Why? because that's what the Bible teaches (Romans 10:17). No gimmicks, no bells and whistles, no cunning and crafty speeches... just the plain, honest Word of God.

If you want Truth, find a Bible-only Christian and ask him about the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Avoid "Neo the priest", all he offers is worldliness and the end of that path is death.

Looking forward to being called "humourless" and "strict",


Labels: , ,

Random Words

Wednesday, August 24, 2005
just a few things I really wanted to mention...

New Links:

I will soon be adding two blogs to my links: Joshua Ritchie's Deception in the Church and our friend Doug's Fine Dry Wit. Both these men have shown a degree of spirituality and earnestness towards the Scriptures that I feel safe in directing my traffic to their blogs. Go check'em out when you get a chance.

Also, I have added two more audio sermons: one of them is the continuing series in 2 Peter by my pastor, the other is my continuing series in 1 Timothy. Enjoy.

Old Link:

I would like to report a crime. The crime? The apparent low traffic and commenting over at my friend Eric's blogs. Gleanings of Grace and Sovereign Grace Word are probably the two best, most "meaty" blogs in the blogosphere, and no one is commenting there. This is a crime.

If you just don't have time to regularly read one more blog, then let me suggest you drop my blog and read Eric's. They are THAT GOOD.

In the News:

Did you see this disgusting ungodliness. I particularly love the opening phrase: "A review of medical evidence has found that fetuses probably don't feel pain until the final months of pregnancy..."

Inhuman, hard-hearted wickedness. Assuming that this abomination is true, ask yourselves: "If I murder my neighbour painlessly in his sleep, is it still evil?"

The breadth and length the wicked go to in order to excuse the inexcusable never ceases to amaze me. A warm corner of Hell is prepared for the soul who took on this ridiculously "unscientific" project; as well as for all those who uses it's findings to promote infanticide.


1:33 PM
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger waltermiller75368552 said…

    I read your blog, and i thought it was rather cool. check out My Blog
    Please Click Here to view it

    Have a Great Day

  • Post a Comment  

    Purgatory - Part 1

    Tuesday, August 23, 2005
    one more wicked invention...

    1030 - 1031A: "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned."

    One thing is for sure... you would never in A MILLION YEARS develop the nonsense above by the strict teachings of Scripture. How can I affirm this? Well, let's examine the Scriptures...

    "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-19)

    "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)

    "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:1-9)

    "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:3-7)

    "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)

    "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 10:12-17)

    Now I could go on and on... but I think that these verses will sufficiently prove my point. The point? Simple. By the verses above, it is clear that "all who die in God's grace and friendship", or as the Scriptures puts it, those who have been sanctified (set apart), are FREE FROM ALL SIN, THEY ARE PERFECT, THEY ARE JUSTIFIED, THEY ARE HOLY AND WITHOUT BLAME, THEY ARE ACCEPTED IN CHRIST!!!

    So what's this nonsense of "imperfectly purified". Well, it's just that... NONSENSE. This is a great heresy my friends. To say that a saved soul has been "imperfectly purified" is an affront to the atonement of Christ. And to try to smooth this wickedness out by saying that Christ's atonement was perfect but that it's efficacy isn't total because of men's sins after baptism or any other ordinance is still GREAT HERESY.

    I have no need for any time anywhere to "achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven", the Lord Jesus Christ has done it all for me. By His great atonement, BEFORE GOD, I AM PRESENTLY HOLY AND WITHOUT BLAME. When God beholds me, he sees me IN CHRIST JESUS; spotless, whiter than snow! And He didn't do all this only for Mr. Rand, He did it for every single one of His sanctified, His elect! Praise His Holy Name!

    So this begs the question, where in the world did they dream up this stuff? Well, that's the subject matter of Purgatory, part 2.

    Stay Tuned.



    DON'T "MEME" ME ! ! !

    Monday, August 22, 2005
    we interrupt our regularly scheduled programming...

    Okay... I think by the title, you get the picture. I hate "memes". I really, really hate "memes". I find memes 10 times more irritating than chain letters and you have NO IDEA how much I hate chain letters.

    This being said, I've been tagged with a "meme" by my friend Scott, and since he lives in the same city I live in (which means I can't hide from him), I will answer this, my first and VERY LIKELY my last, "meme".

    Here we go:

    How many books do you own?

    Hundreds... probably around 500 hundred (not counting the myriad of children's books which have taken over my house since the kids came along.

    What is the last book you bought?

    The New Scofield Study Bible: which incidently, is now out of print. I really like this Bible so I'm taking REAL GOOD care of it.

    What was the last book you read?

    The parenting classic: Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp. All and all, I got some good out of the book, but in the end, like books on relationships, I felt the author oversimplified matters that tend to be more complex and varying. It is near impossible to make up a formula that will garantee healthy romantic relationships, I believe the same can be said for child rearing.

    What are some books that meant a lot to you?

    Hermeneutics by Henry Virkler: how this book has helped me in my interpretation of Scripture. And funny enough, although it was clear from the way the book was put together that it was meant to shape its readers into Arminian Dispensationalists, I became a Dispensational Calvinist by the time I was done reading it.

    Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul: though littered with such nonsense as Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism, the book illustrates quite well the great Doctrines of Grace.

    Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand: nothing to do with the Faith, but this book has had quite an impact on me. I suppose I have a "romantic" side after all. (LOL)

    Tag! You're it...

    Well, I hate being "meme-d", but to complete my role, I'm tagging (and I'm sooo sorry):


    I am now going back to the couch, where I will act like I'm dying... because that's what men who have colds do.



    Troll Alert!

    Saturday, August 20, 2005
    sorry folks... but I'm afraid it comes with the territory...

    Well, I gave it an honest shot... I really did. I also thought it would work! I thought I had managed to reason with an internet troll! But sadly, it didn't stick.

    I just received a scornful/mocking e-mail this morning from a troll who used to post long, patronizing, and mocking comments all over my blog (if you didn't see any of these comments, it's because I'm usually pretty quick with the "Delete" button). His e-mail was just more of the same.

    This is quite disappointing considering what had happened a couple of months ago. Anyway, in the spirit of full disclosure, here is the e-mail I received, and this was my answer.

    I must also warn you that this troll has taken a variety of names (both female and male, though mostly male) and he/she/it has had ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with sending my readers his scornful trash via e-mail. I'm terribly sorry about this, but I guess it's the price you pay for being friends with "old-Rand".

    Some of the names to watch for is Taffy, Sister Taffy, Taffy Dooright, Thomas, Thomas Vanderbyl, James (yes, the James who has been commenting here the last few weeks is the same person... I let he/she/it express himself/herself/itself in the hope that I could be a help to him/her/it), Wilfred Davies, or any name that ends with Crockett, Gaines or Davenport. The e-mail I got this morning was from "PreacherMann0507", so you can see, he changes names like I change socks. One way to quickly identify the troll is its love of Psalm 58:10 and Psalm 137:9, which it uses to make God and God's people look like sadistic fools.

    Anyway, I apologize ahead of time for any inconvenience this may cause, I will do my best to keep he/she/it at bay.



    Rained out!

    Friday, August 19, 2005
    no exciting stories for you tonight...

    I'm afraid rain will keep me from Street Evangelism tonight. Probably all for the better, since my pastor is away, and brother Laz was unable to come out tonight. Besides, I am preaching the evening service at church on the Lord's Day, so I'll take the extra time tonight to continue work on my sermon.

    Anyway, the bottom line is you'll all have to wait next week to read my next "Friday Night Notes".



    La Messe

    Wednesday, August 17, 2005
    the French word just seems more fitting...

    "In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession." (Roman Catholic Cathechism)

    Indeed, Romanist Mass is one serious mess. You see, as we have seen in my "Transubstantiation" post, Romanists actually believe that their priest, by the power of their god, can, and does, transform the elements of the Lord's Table, that is the bread and the wine, into the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Christ. Well, you really have to hand it to them, when Romanists go "looney", they don't go halfway: they actually carry the idea that with the bread and wine being transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ, the elements have, well, BECOME CHRIST! And what do they do with this "Christ-sample"? Why they worship it and sacrifice it of course (woohoo woohoohoo...).

    That, in a nutshell, is what Mass is all about. While there is sometimes musical interludes, a short time for a "bible sermon" (note the quotation marks), and the announcement of "bingo night" on Tuesday, the main thrust of Mass is the re-sacrifice of Christ. Ah! I can hear my Romanist readers going all up in arms now. They are yelling: "it's not a re-sacrifice, it's the same sacrifice being re-enacted in a bloodless manner." But this is nonsense and double-talk. Consider their wicked Council of Trent:

    "The sacrifice (of the Mass - note this is sacrifice # 1) is identical with the sacrifice of the Cross (and there you go... sacrifice #2... hence two sacrifices), inasmuch as Jesus Christ is a priest and victim both."

    Jesus is priest and victim in both you ask? Oh yeah! did I forget to mention? The Romanist priest is an "Alter Christus" (man! I hate Latin), that is, "Another Christ". Yes folks, another Christ. Could we go any further into blasphemy? I think not.

    So how does the old fool play the part of "another christ"? By following Romanist liturgy (an established formula for public worship) to a tee. All set in this formula is an exact number of times the priest is to make signs of the cross, turns to the congregation, lifts his eyes to Heaven, kisses the altar, folds his hands, bows his head, genuflects, prays... etc... etc. The liturgy is rigid, it is carried out mechanically by the priest and the congregation simply watches the drab spectacle. And when I say mechanically, I'm surely not kidding! You could set your watch to when the communion was distributed: 11:50 am, without exception.

    While Romanists will defend every aspect of the Mass by pointing out that every element of the liturgy is filled with spiritual meaning, the fact of the matter is most Romanists are completely clueless as to what these meanings are, and in the end, NONE OF THIS IS PRESCRIBED BY GOD IN HIS WORD. It is ALL pure invention.

    In conclusion, let us look at some Scriptures that clearly dismisses the pratice of the Mass:

    "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: NOR YET THAT HE SHOULD OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26)

    "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE [for all]. (Hebrews 10:10) (the "for all" is not in the original Greek text, it is supplied in our English Bibles)

    "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. (Hebrews 9:12) (again, note the supplied words. You see, the sacrifice that was done ONCE has obtained redemption. ALL REDEMPTION! Past, present and future. Absolutely no need for continued sacrifices)

    "So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Hebrews 9:28)

    "But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God" (Hebrews 10:12)

    Romanist Mass is one SERIOUS UNGODLY MESS. Have no part in it. It is false, it is idolatrous, and it is blasphemous.



    Speak of the devil!

    Tuesday, August 16, 2005
    just fell on my lap...

    In this comment box, our Romanist friend Jeff mentions an Anglican named John Stott to make a point on the various views of the significance of the Lord's Table. Problem is, he didn't call him an Anglican, Jeff called John Stott: an Evangelical.

    Now, I realize that "evangelical" means alot of different things to alot of different people, but I ask you, considering this, just how seriously are we take calling an Anglican, an Evangelical? I mean seriously, in the CNN article, I'm with the Romanist nun! YIKES! She is absolutely right when she says: "the cathedral is guilty of the sin of simony -- conducting financial transactions involving spiritual goods."

    Ah! the love of money! Nothing like it!


    Wow! Look at that!

    Monday, August 15, 2005
    just noticed...

    While checking out my blog this morning, I've noticed something kind of cool. Today marks exactly ONE YEAR OF BLOGGING! Yep, I've been at it since August 15th 2004. Though I switched the name of my blog from "A Pattern of Sound Words" to "A Form of Sound Words", I still consider this my blog's 1 year anniversary since all of the content from "Pattern" is now on "Form".

    It's funny, thinking back on how this blog came to be... I was basically caving in to the coaxing of an on-line friend of mine. I didn't think I'd like blogging, but I decided to try it anyway. I think it is now safe to say that I liked/like it... LOL. Another reason why I would use the word "funny" to describe the beginnings of this blog is that the friend who pushed me into blogging, no longer had any interest in being my friend AFTER I started blogging. The friendship went into meltdown when I refused to link her site because it contained profanity. I guess the answer to Amos 3:3 is obviously: "no".

    Many others also have come and gone... most of my "regular readers" in 2004 slowly disappeared, probably due to some post/doctrine they couldn't stomach, but a few stuck around. Scott McClare, Michael Gallaugher and Aimz are probably my most "senior readers"... thanks for sticking around guys!

    The good news is many others have come in their place, and my statcounter clearly shows a significant gain in traffic over the last few months. I thank you all, dear readers for your continued interest and your participation in this blog through comments.

    I truly hope to glorify God through this site, to be a blessing to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and to be a soul-winner to all you who visit this blog as strangers to the grace of our Lord.

    Take care, dear friends, and God bless you,


    Noteworthy events in the last year of blogging:

    -my post on definite atonement. (it was my first post that really caused a spike in my blog-traffic)
    -the Lord bringing brother Laz into the fold.
    -the birth of our third child.
    -my post on C.S. Lewis. (whoa! the hate mail I have received, and continue to receive for that one!)
    -my first post on Romanism. (another post that has made me scores of enemies, but at the same time, has brought in several friends)
    -my series on having a heart for the unsaved. (the series I am most proud of, despite the low interest it has recieved)
    -my post on the King James version of the Bible. (which was the third post on "A Form of Sound Words", but really, the subject matter is the very reason I changed my blog's name)
    -my post which contained pictures of one of our Friday Night Street Evangelism. (your first visual glimpse of what we do, and how we do it)
    -my posts on common objections to Calvinism. (a very popular series)
    -my post on Doug's question on Romanism. (generated some "heated" exchanges)
    -my wife's first "Friday Night Notes". (I absolutely loved this post)
    -my first online audio sermon. (don't mock my "eh!")
    -my on-going series of posts on Romanism. (again, lots of attention on these posts)

    Friday Night Notes

    Saturday, August 13, 2005
    the problem with violence...

    It's been a couple of weeks since we were out for our customary night of street preaching, so it was good to be back... that is, until we were back. The moment we arrived at the street corner where we usually set up, two young ladies walked by with barely any clothes on... they both gave us a dirty look when we offered them a Gospel tract. And right then, I knew it would be a long night. Believe me, I know exactly what Peter meant when he said of Lot:

    "For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds." (2 Peter 2:8)

    We evangelized the marketplace from 8:30 pm to midnight, and sadly, I must report that we left the place as messed up as when we arrived. Alot has happened tonight. The most significant was "old Rand taking one for the team". Yep, I got physically roughed up a bit tonight. One of the "regular drunks" in the market wasn't too impressed with my preaching so he decided to do something about it. He tried to destroy one of our Gospel signs and when I got in the way to stop him, well, my face got a taste of his fist.

    Thankfully, the Lord did not allow for me to get too hurt. I was able to absorb much of the blow by swinging my head back, so no real damage was done. My pastor and brother Laz immediately showed up to my defense so no more blows could come my way. The poor drunk then warned us to not utter another word of "he would take us down". Well, my pastor would have none of that, so he started preaching. Furious, the drunk took a few swings at my pastor and that's when a man appeared out of nowhere and warned the drunk to take a hike or he would "take him out". The man was quite strong looking, so the drunk relented.

    A few moments later, the police showed up and handcuffed the drunk. They wanted me to press charges so they could put the poor soul in jail for awhile, but I opted not to. You see, as street preachers, we will always have to deal with this drunk; there's no way the police would keep this man in jail for more than a couple of days (over a punch in the face). So we asked the police to warn the fellow to leave us alone, which they did. The end result: the drunk sat across the street from where we were preaching, begging for money, and left us in peace (Thank you, Lord).

    One thing this event did though is signal me of my "problem with violence". By this, I do not mean "I do not like violence" (who does?), but rather, I seem to be incapable of dealing with violence. My pastor, on several occasions, found himself having to fight off someone, and in every instance, he has managed to either diffuse the situation, or at the very least, get through the situation with little damage. In my case, I always wind up not knowing what to do, being slow in my reactions. In other words, in the face of violence, I'm confused and unprepared. The Lord help me in this.

    "Deliver me, O LORD, from the evil man: preserve me from the violent man" (Psalm 140:1)

    After all this action, I had a conversation with a Fulun Dafa follower. Falun Dafa is a Buddhist type religion which involves meditations of the "Eastern religion" sort. It is heavily persecuted in China, so some of the followers of this religion spread news around to raise awareness. Anyway, I told him that while I hoped to see the day China accepted freedom of religion, I had no time for his religious nonsense. I gave him a Gospel of John and encouraged him to read it. He said he might "for educational purposes". Pray that the Lord save this man through His Word.

    He tried to show me the merits of his faith by reading a paragraph from his religious booklet, but I stopped him in the middle of his first phrase. The phrase was something like: "The beneficial influence of kindhearted men..." Right there I said: "no such person".

    "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

    "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Romans 3:12)

    I could tell (by his contenance) that that had shocked him. He kept repeating: "no, it can't be that bad", to which I responded: "it can and it is!" Again, pray that the Lord deal with that young man; that he would be delivered from the bondage of his false religion.

    All and all, we passed a high number of Gospel literature tonight, which is good. But that being said, the attitudes are still terribly hard and hateful towards the God of the Bible, and us, His followers. What struck me in particular tonight is just how hard-hearted the women were. It's not uncommon to deal with a hard man, one who curses, mocks and scorns you to your face, but a woman, doing such things, well, I just haven't seen it happen to often. Until tonight that is.

    In my experience, woman tend to be more tender, caring, and accepting... less proud and meeker than men. That's why it was so shocking to me to see dozens of women yelling profanity at me, blaspheming God with terrible words, and just their demeanor... I mean, HARD. I have to tell you, this female hardness is more grotesque than the male counterpart because, not only is it evil, it is unnaturally evil or uncommonly evil. Again, how true the Scriptures are:

    "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men (and women) shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, WITHOUT NATURAL AFFECTION, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

    Alright, that's my report "from the front". I'm tired now, so it's time for bed... goodnight fellow Christian soldiers.



    Friday, August 12, 2005
    when considering this topic, I believe this background music fits best...

    1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." (Roman Catholic Catechism)

    Now there are myriads of Romanist doctrines and practices that absolutely aggravate me and vex my soul, but "transubstantiation" is one concept that I find more hilarious than aggravating. Yes friends, Romanists actually believe that, by the power of their god, the old priest transforms the little wafers used for communion into the actual flesh of Christ, and the wine into the actual, literal blood of Christ (ick... I know). Now I know what some of you are thinking:

    -Uh... Rand, surely people can tell that the wafer doesn't look, feel, smell or taste like flesh!?!

    Of course they can, but you see, like all dumb-dumb, ridiculous false religious practices, there is always a way around the Truth. I have heard some priests say that the wafer and wine, while having been transubstantiated, still maintain their taste/feel/smell and look.

    Now let's pause here a second. IS THAT SERIOUSLY STUPID OR WHAT? All their senses clearly indicates that what they are eating is some weird, manufactured bread, and yet, the Romanist must reject the obvious to basically take the Council of Trent's word for it. What a hard time the Romanist god gives his priests! I mean think about it:

    "Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:7-10)

    There was absolutely no mistake being made here! The Lord "transubstantiated" the water into wine and EVERYONE COULD TELL! So if the Romanist priest has this supposed God-given power to transform bread and wine into flesh and blood, why is it that no one can tell it happened?

    So where does this insanity come from? How did Romanism come to accept such a bizarre concept? By misinterpreting the Scriptures. You see, Romanists are hard pressed to do anything right when it comes to godliness. Too often they totally disregard the teachings of Scripture, and then the few times they actually turn to the Bible, they mess up (either by ignorance, or by reading what they want into the Word) what the passage is saying.

    "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)

    And there's the passage Romanists mess up; they take the above statement of the Lord Jesus Christ LITERALLY. The problem is, of course, the Gospel accounts and the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 make it quite clear that the above passage is to be interpreted figuratively.

    "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20)

    "After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:25-26)

    Tell me, is the cup LITERALLY the New Testament? Or was the Lord just using a figure of speech? DON'T BE STUPID. The same way "the cup" is a similitude for the wine that it contains, the wine IS A SIMILITUDE of the blood; and by extention, the bread IS A SIMILITUDE of the body. There is nothing LITERAL here. And then, consider these:

    "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." (Luke 22:18)

    "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." (1 Corinthians 11:27-28)

    Wait a minute! Wait just a minute here! All you Romanists who believe in "transubstantiation", you all better get in touch with your priests/bishops/archbishops: there is corrections to be done in your Bibles. For you see, it would seem, by the verses above that the Lord Jesus Christ "forgot" that it wasn't "the fruit of the vine" he was drinking with His apostles, it was His blood. And then, Paul also seems to have forgotten that it is not bread that men could eat unworthily, it was the actual "flesh of Christ".

    What nonsense!

    And yet, the concept of the Lord's Table really isn't that complicated. The Lord Himself tells us that it is to be a remembrance of His Person; it's NOT a RE-ENACTMENT, it's a MEMORIAL. Christ wasn't teaching some weird form of cannibalism, he was giving his disciples (and us through the transmission of the Scriptures) two visual objects by which they/we may remember the work of the Cross (and a quick note here, these are the only two objects Christians should use in their worship of the God of the Bible... no statues, no jewelry, no candles... the cup and the unleavened bread + nothing).

    In conclusion, let me emphatically repeat: DON'T BE STUPID. If it looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread, and tastes like bread... IT'S BREAD! The heresy of "transubstantiation" is just that... HERESY. And while I find it ridiculous and laughable, I know that way too many souls actually buy the nonsense.

    Say "no" to the folly of Romanism, say "yes" to the plain and honest teachings of the Bible.



    Romanist Mariology - part 2

    Monday, August 08, 2005
    who are they kidding... themselves?

    971 - "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. (Roman Catholic Catechism)

    Romanists, when charged with worshiping Mary will quickly deny the charge. They will point to the phrase in the declaration above: "This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit..." But please, Romanists, stop kidding yourselves:


    Fact # 1: As seen in this previous post, Romanists declare that Mary is the "Immaculate Conception", that is she was born without sin, and has been, throughout time and eternity, sinlessly perfect.

    Fact # 2: Romanists throughout the world bow and kneel before idols representing the Virgin Mary and pray to her. An example of such prayers:

    Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
    Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
    Holy Mary, mother of God,pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

    The first two phrases are actually from the Gospel of Luke, but don't let that fool you, the first phrase was spoken by the angel Gabriel when Mary was told what the Lord would do with her concerning the coming of our Lord, and the second phrase was spoken by Elizabeth, Mary's cousin, when she became aware, by the power of the Holy Ghost, that Mary was carrying the Son of God in the flesh. Neither phrases was meant to be a prayer or pattern unto prayer.

    The last phrase, of course, is pure idolatry. Not only is Mary NOT the mother of God (as seen in a previous post), but nowhere in Scripture do we read of an intercessionary office ascribed to Mary. Rather, this office is solely attributed to Christ:

    "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8:34)

    Fact # 3: Romanists sing praises to Mary; and notice, in this example, just how many attributes that the Scripture attributes to God and God only, which is here, attributed to Mary:

    Daily, daily sing to Mary,
    Sing, my soul, her praises due.
    All her feasts, her actions worship
    With the heart's devotion true.
    Lost in wond'ring contemplation,
    Be her Majesty confess'd.
    Call her Mother, call her Virgin,
    Happy Mother, Virgin blest.

    She is mighty to deliver.
    Call her, trust her lovingly.
    When the tempest rages round thee,
    She will calm the troubled sea.
    Gifts of heaven she has given,
    Noble Lady, to our race.
    She, the Queen, who decks her subjects
    With the light of God's own grace.

    Sing, my tongue, the Virgin's trophies
    Who for us her Maker bore.
    For the curse of old inflicted,
    Peace and blessing to restore.
    Sing in songs of peace unending,
    Sing the world's majestic Queen.
    Weary not nor faint in telling.
    All the gifts she gives to men. .

    Fact # 4: Pope Pius XII declared the Mary was the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Strangely enough though, the Scriptures say nothing of a Queen of Heaven and Earth, just a King:

    "Jesus answered, My KINGDOM is not of this world: if my KINGDOM were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my KINGDOM not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a KING then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I AM A KING. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." (John 18:36-37)

    Fact # 5: Pope Pius IX... take it away!

    "The foundation of ALL our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to HER the treasury of ALL good things, in order that everyone may know that through HER are obtained every hope, every grace, and ALL salvation. For this is His will: That we obtain everything through MARY."


    Now I could go on and on, but here's the gist of the matter, if you haven't already figured it out: Mary is given attributes and offices that the Scripture strictly give only to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Mary is then adored and exalted for these. So how does this devotion differ from the adoration of the Living God? And an even more interesting question, if there really is a Romanist Mary, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD SHE NOT BE WORTHY OF WORSHIP! I mean seriously: she's sinlessly perfect, co-redemptress, queen of Heaven, the provider of all good things... etc... etc. If God is to be worshiped for being and doing all these things, why not the Virgin Mary?

    Romanists love to play with words like latria (which means the supreme worship, given to God alone), the dulia (which is a secondary veneration of "saints" and "angels"), and hyperdulia (which is a higher kind of veneration, offered specifically to the Virgin Mary). But in the end, it's all smoke-screen, for the Romanists lift up their version of Mary to the level of God, and then they adore her and exalt her in the same fashion as they would with God Himself. It is also noteworthy that in my many years as a Romanist, I was led to offer far more prayers to the Virgin Mary than to God (consider the Rosary: a Romanist will pray 2 "Lord's Prayer", 1 "Apostle's Creed", 2 "Glory be to the Father, and a whopping 13 Hail Marys).

    The conclusion of the matter: Though they deny it wholeheartedly, there is no doubt that Romanist "devotion" to Mary is nothing short of worship. So what's the big deal about that? Why doesn't the Romanist just say: "yeah! I worship Mary the Queen of Heaven!" Why do they play on words instead? Simple.

    "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matthew 4:10b)

    You see, to boldly proclaim their obvious Mary-worship, Romanists would be at odds with this very clear teaching of Scripture; so absolutely clear, they really can't twist this one around, as they do with so many other passages. So instead, they make the word "worship" of absolutely no effect by replacing it with wicked inventions like latria, dulia and hyperdulia.

    Romanist, you have broken the First Commandment of Moses by your worship of the so-called "Queen of Heaven", repent and be converted unto God, that your sin may be blotted out.



    Sorry Folks

    Saturday, August 06, 2005
    no preaching tonight...

    There are no "Friday Night Notes" tonight, since all the men of our church congregation (myself included) were on the roof our our church, re-shingling the whole thing. It's hard, long labour, but the fellowship time with my brothers in Christ is very, very sweet. Anyway, after 14-hours of hard labour, there just wasn't enough in the tank for street evangelism.

    Our work will continue all day tomorrow, so please pray that the Lord would keep the rain from falling... that He would grant us safety in our work... and that He would help us finish the job before the Lord's Day.

    Take care,


    Romanist Mariology - part 1

    Thursday, August 04, 2005
    so much nonsense, so little time...

    In my last post, we have seen the fabrication that is Mary's "immaculate conception". Sadly though, the wicked heresy around the person of Mary doesn't end there in Romanism. If anything, the heresy of the "immaculate conception" is the end result of a string of wicked doctrines that have been developed by the papacy, and received by Romanists around the world.

    Dealing with ALL these wicked doctrines and practices in one post would make for one SERIOUSLY long post, so we'll break it down. First heresy on the agenda:

    1- Mary, the Mother of God?

    975 - We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ. (Catechism of the Roman Catholic church)

    Yep, a whole lot of foolish heresy here. First, Mary most certainly isn't the mother of God. God is eternal, Mary was not:

    "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalm 90:2)

    "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph), which was the son of Heli..." (Luke 3:23)

    In the preceding verse, it is clear that Jesus was the son of Heli through Mary, since it is her genealogy that is given in Luke 3 (Joseph, according to Matthew 1:16, is the son of Jacob). So Jesus' grandfather was Heli, which means Mary was Heli's daughter... which means she isn't an eternal being... which means there is NO WAY she can be "the mother of God". So where do the Romanists get this strange view? Simple they mix a bit of papal nonsense to Scripture:

    "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

    This phrase, spoken by Elizabeth, Mary's cousin, was in reference to the child the was growing in Mary's womb, the Lord Jesus Christ. While the Lord Jesus Christ is 100% God, He is also 100% man, and it is in this sense that Mary was the mother of Elizabeth's Lord. While it was impossible for Mary to be the mother of our eternal God, she was indeed the mother of our Lord's humanity. Funny enough, even the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431, which I believe is still recognized by Romanism, made sure to make this important distinction:

    "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God ACCORDING TO THE MANHOOD." (emphasis mine)

    Christians should be very careful at how they phrase matters of doctrine that they do not err and wind up blaspheming God. To call Mary: "the Mother of God", is a serious blasphemy attacking the very nature of God. God was NOT born of a woman. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have always existed, long before Mary ever came onto the scene.

    We will see in the next few posts, why Romanist will still stubbornly hold to the title of Mary as the "Mother of God".



    10:30 PM
  • At 4:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In considering your post I had to think in terms of what the RCC calls Christ, i.e., two natures, one human, one divine. This leaves me thinking is the birth of Christ God becoming man or not? Is the Trinity for real and is it scriptural?
    I think I need a bit more help in this area.
    Domenic D

  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Rand said…

    Not sure how your questions fit with my post… but here goes…

    The birth of Christ, or to be precise, the conception of Christ was indeed God the Son taking on human flesh. Just to be clear: a new entity was not created in Mary’s womb, the Eternal Son took on human flesh. The Trinity existed prior to the Holy Spirit’s work in Mary.

    The Trinity most certainly is real and Scriptural. See John 1:1, John 8:58, John 10:33, Acts 5:3-9, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 John 3: 7-8. There are a host of key verses in the O.T. pointing to the Trinity, some of them require some knowledge of biblical typology.

    I encourage you to keep searching the Scriptures, friend… the Word of God is able to make you wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15).

    Also, might be wise to spend less time on Romanist websites which will only, in the end, lead you astray.



  • Post a Comment  

    Immaculate Conception

    Tuesday, August 02, 2005
    more like immaculate deception...

    491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."

    And there you have it. The first example of how adding to the Holy Scripture messes everything up. The Truth of the Scriptures when supplemented by TRADITIONS becomes a lie; and the statement above, taken from the "Roman Catholic Catechism" is a perfect example of this.

    Note, when a Romanist speaks of the Immaculate Conception, he speaks of MARY (not Jesus) being born without sin; totally free from the taint of the original sin. So Romanism will have us believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born sinlessly perfect. For 1800 years of church history, not a word of this was known, and then BOOM! Just like that, Pope Pius IX shows up and announces to everyone this important "revelation". Where in the Bible did "old Pius" get this "revelation" from? Nowhere, there simply isn't any passage that remotely comes close to such a view.

    Now, while there is no part of Scripture that supports this view of Mary's sinless state, there is plenty of Scripture which contradicts it:

    "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans 5:17-19)

    By the offence of Adam, ALL WERE MADE SINNERS AND PLACED UNDER JUDGEMENT. The only exception is the ONE who was righteous and obedient (as in zero sin), in the Scripture above makes it quite clear that the ONE is Jesus, not Mary.

    "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." (Luke 1:46-47)

    In no uncertain terms, Mary acknowledges her sinfulness in the above verse. If she was sinlessly perfect, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD SHE NEED A SAVIOUR FOR? Mary rejoiced in the God of her salvation, for the Lord had saved her from her sin, just as he has saved me and all other saints past, present and future.

    So without Biblical support for the "immaculate conception", but rather the Bible clearly rejects it, how could it be that so many Romanists believe the heresy? One word: pope. You see, Romanism is one solid heresy built on top of another. The TRADITIONS begets the PAPACY, and the PAPACY begets A WHOLE LOT OF NONSENSE. Simply put, millions of Romanists have received the teaching of the "immaculate conception" because a man in Rome said so.

    Now here's the thing: it is clear from history that the papacy has done and decreed TERRIBLE things. For example:

    "Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare to have their shops open or to work in public." (Pope Eugenius IV, Decree of 1442)

    I could have put the name Adolf Hitler at the end of that quote and it would have TOTALLY fit.

    So back to "the thing": if a pope could have been so wicked... so wrong... what guarantee have we that this "immaculate conception" is accurate? It was a pope who decreed the above statement, and it was a pope that decreed the "doctrine" of the "immaculate conception". Ask yourselves: how much faith does this office deserve? Most intelligent people don't care to hear anything Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker have to say because they were found out. Their wicked deeds destroyed their credibility, and justly so. SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE THE PAPACY?

    Don't believe the nonsense of the "immaculate conception" my friends. Turn to the Word of God, not the wicked words of men. Think about it... when you follow what God says, can you really go wrong?



    More Audio

    Monday, August 01, 2005

    I've just added two more audio sermons to my sidebar. One of them is my pastor's continuing series in 2 Peter, the other is a sermon he preached last year on Matthew 9:35-38, and this is the one I really want to showcase.

    It's always been one of the top objectives of this blog to encourage God's people to get involved in serious, mass evangelism. Sadly, my series on "Having a heart for the lost" has kind of been like the little organ shop on the third floor of the super mall; as in, no one ever goes there.

    Well, I'm going to try my luck with this message: "The Harvest is Plenteous". It is very good. It convicts me everytime I hear it, I hope it'll have the same effect on you.

    That's it for now, we'll be going back to my series on Romanism soon.

    Take care,