Judgment of an Atheist god

Atheists choose to not believe in God for many various reasons, but one reason in particular is extremely peculiar. An atheist recently commented on this blog that she would not want to see even the meanest, rottenest, filthiest murdering psychopath SOB in the world to have to live in eternal hell. And if you think her sentiment is unusually rare, think again.

Even though they do not believe in God or hell, atheists like to challenge Christians with “If God is truly a loving God why would He send anyone to hell?” When presented with this challenge by atheists, some Christians think it is a good question that requires a good biblical explanation; I am not one of those Christians. If the question were asked by a believer or someone seriously considering the faith then yes, it requires a good answer. But when people who outright reject the council of God ask the question, it can only mean that they are trying to justify their behavior and unbelief, or they are attempting to just confuse Christians with the whole God is love thing.

The later are what I will call the true atheists; those who have no particular reason for not believing in God they just don’t. The former are those who have excuses for not believing in God. So to those of you atheists who truly wonder why a loving God would cast anyone out of heaven, here is a little scenario:

Suppose you have a large family living in a large house. You are loving parents, who adore your children, but times are tough and you are desperately strapped for money. So you decide to rent out one of the rooms in your large house to a stranger willing to pay room and board. Now suppose that stranger, once he settles into your home, begins to seduce, rape, torture, and murder your children. Where will your god’s compassion lie? What will be the judgment of your god? Will the stranger remain in your home, or will your god cast him out forever?

What Atheists Believe: What would you add?

Mark P. of Proud Atheist provided a list of what atheist believe. ”The list can be read here. Mark asks his readers, “What would you add?”

How about these:

Atheists believe it is okay to seize snippets of our sacred book and use them to smear God and His people without any regard for context. Why not at least examine the context first?

Atheists believe in love so long as it doesn’t involve people of faith. At least that has been my experience.

Atheists believe in kindness so long as it is not directed towards people of faith. A quick visit to Proud Atheist will attest to that.

Atheists believe in family unless you are of the family of God.

Atheists believe (or at least some do) that people of faith are fair game for ridicule and scorn.

Atheists believe in a woman’s right to choose the fate of her unborn child.

Atheists believe unborn children have no rights.

Atheists believe that creationism is a fairytale.

Atheists believe in the fairytale of evolution.

Atheists believe that faith in God is silly.

Atheists believe our ancestors were monkeys.

Atheists believe there is no evidence for God.

Atheists believe the non-evidence of a missing link. Atheists do have faith after all!

Atheists believe a person is hateful if they do not support the homosexual lifestyle. I would like to think this is not true of all atheists.

Atheists believe that it is natural for a person to be bisexual.

Atheists believe they will never bow their knee to the God of the universe. I believe they are wrong.

And more importantly, atheists still have time to reconsider the damage they are doing to others who might actually be interested in honestly examining the Christian faith and exploring the depth of God’s love!

Atheists should either learn what Christianity is or leave it alone.

Disclaimer: This list is compiled from my own experience with atheists and does not necessarily represent the beliefs of all atheists on every point.

Atheism: The Product of a Growing Liberal Agenda

Social networking via the Internet has rapidly become the most popular way in which people who share common interests come together. People form all over the world can share their ideas, struggles, and common questions regarding anything from sleep apnea to menopause. Whatever one’s interests, there is likely a social Internet group out there eager to welcome a new member. But there is one social group that is growing particularly fast, especially among younger generations (or so it seems), where its members will deny that they anything in particular in common with one another. They are atheist, and as much as they deny commonality they have one thing very much in common, and that one thing is the very thing that brings them together in cyberspace.

I had always thought the one thing all atheists have in common is an absence of belief in a deity. I was wrong; they do have that in common, but it is not what compels them to seek out one another. What induces them to gather on the Internet is a strong inclination towards a far left liberal agenda, and their sworn nemesis is conservative Christianity. Although atheism has been around for several millennia, it has never before developed into a cult – but now that they have a distinct common cause, that is beginning to change.

If you troll around the Internet exploring atheist blogs you might pass them off as just spouting anti-religious gibberish. But if you take the time to look a little closer you will find next to nothing about anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu or anti-anything other than Christian. Why? Because Christians represent what they truly hate: conservative values.

As part of my research I decided to enter into a discussion on an atheist blog. I decided to comment on a post called, (Still) Wondering Why Christians Visit Atheist Blogs on a blog run by “Mark P.” called “Proud Atheist.” I stated that I was amused by the apparent contradiction between the title of the post and the fact that they used Christian tags to promote it. I also said that I had no interest in debating them, I simply wanted to understand their common bond. Mark, the owner, made it perfectly clear that I was not welcome there so I decided to not comment further. But then another atheist piped in with this:

“Another fundie without a clue. There is no debate you asshat. You have no valid claims, no evidence and your harmful beliefs are delusional. Your cult’s faith is belief in something without evidence and which is not true. Sorry, your entire life’s foundation is based on lies and Iron Age superstitions. The only waste of time is your life.”

Asshat? That was new. I thanked the brusque commenter for opening his/her heart to me like that, but the apparent literalist informed me that his/her heart is nothing more than a muscle that pumps blood. Personally, I didn’t see it as anything more than that either. However, I interpreted this commentator’s personal shot at me as an invitation to join the discussion, so I did.

The first thing I discovered from the comments was a common belief among the atheists that Christianity is dangerous, so I wanted to know why they think this. It soon became apparent that the real issue was not their dislike of Christian doctrine, which I would later find out they no nothing about, but rather their opposition to conservative values as illustrated in the following comment from one of the atheists.

“If a Christian believes the bible is literal they are much more willing to do violence. It is these types of views that make Christianity dangerous. It is also the lack of words from the liberals and moderates to stop the hate of the more conservative. I know some of that is the liberal and moderates fault.”

Another atheist was upset because we Christians oppose free speech in the form of obscene lyrics and videos.

So I got it; it’s a liberal verses conservative thing. So if these liberal atheists want to used the excuse that the Bible teaches Christians to be violent in order to oppose our conservative values, they aught to be able to show from the Bible where that violence is being taught – but they cannot.

I began to prod them for a focused discussion on orthodox Christian doctrine; the very doctrine that was delivered to the apostolic church (first and early second century Christians), but found no takers. Instead they pointed to things like the Inquisitions – never mind the fact that most of the victims were Christians, a fact that didn’t seem to matter to them. Some of them claim to know the Bible better than most Christians yet they lacked any actual ability to discuss our basic doctrine. One of them claimed to have been educated in a “faith school” for a number of years. She wanted to know what brand of Christianity I was and when I pointed to the apostolic church saying, “There is no brand of Christianity there,” she thought I was a member of the apostolic church. That, along with allusions of Jesus being born on the 25th of December and a mention of three wise men, was all I needed to confidently conclude she had no idea what Christianity teaches.

I addition, the two hottest topics of our discussion happen to be two of the hottest topics of the liberal agenda: abortion and homosexual rights. In fact, when I stated that homosexuality is not natural, the Christian-educated atheist replied:

“You believe that homosexuality is wrong. You are wrong. You have proven yourself to be repugnant in my eyes with that one statement.”

From there she went on to tell me (finally) why conservative Christians are evil and dangerous:

“If you give food to a hungry man and also pass on the “word of God” and that man is gay there may be negative feelings stirred in him about his validity, his right to be who he is. That’s evil.”

And that is what it really comes down to. They know little or nothing of our doctrines; their only gripe against liberal Christians is that they don’t speak out enough against conservative Christians; and they believe Christianity is dangerous because of our stance on social issues. The fact that blogs like Proud Atheist are growing in popularity is not because atheists have found a happy place to mingle, it’s because they are part of a rapidly growing cult of anti-Christian anti-conservative far left liberals.

Critical Questions for Adherents of Sola Scriptura: My Answers

The following questions are asked by Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, in one of his recent newsletters published on his website. The questions challenge the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There are three general areas in which Martignoni disputes Sola Scriptura: Logic, History, and Scripture. This post will answer Martignoni’s five questions from the perspective of logic.

1. Where did the Bible come from?

We believe the New Testament was orally preached to the first believers. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to various churches, which were compiled as early as the late first or early second century and circulated among Christians. Along with the Pauline Corpus the four Gospels were compiled by the mid second century along with First Peter, Jude, Revelation, and two of John’s letters.

It is certain that 22 of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament were well rooted in the ancient Christian church of the first two centuries. There is no record of these 22 books ever being disputed or doubted until 150 years later in the fourth century when some disputed the book of Jude. Even if we move Jude out of the list of undisputed books, we still have 21 books of the New Testament that were considered authoritative Scripture in the early church.

2. What authority do we rely on for our belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God?

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) states that the Bible is the only infallible authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. It does not claim to come from the Bible as though the apostles could have known the scope of its contents. Their calling was to lay the foundation of the church and in so doing left their writings to continue their work in these last days.

Nevertheless, if a person believes the Gospel message and puts their trust in the Bible as the word of God, it does not mean they profess the entire Bible to be inerrant or even inspired. Every believer who draws closer to Christ will gain understanding and insight into the more difficult areas of the Bible. Gaining biblical understanding, however, is not something that is accomplished in isolation. The body of Christ has structure and organization. “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:11-13)

Some things may never be understood to the point of an individual being able to honestly say that the Bible is inerrant in its entirety. As the formally blind beggar said to the Pharisees who accused Jesus of being a sinner, “Whether he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I know, that though I was blind, now I see.” (Jhn. 9:25) When believers draw closer to Christ they begin to understand the harmony of the Scriptures, which in turn enables them to gain trust in its contents – even if they know little or nothing of its history.

As Christians mature in the faith it becomes evident that the authority of the Bible is God Himself. When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Son of the living God, Jesus answered saying, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Mat. 16:17) And so it is with all who put their faith in Christ!

3. Is there a list of books in the Bible, which tells us which books should be in the Bible?

This question is obviously meaningless. Catholic apologists formulate it in order to set up what they believe to be a trap of contradiction for Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately for them, Sola Scriptura claims nothing of the kind. It would be a waist of time for any Catholic to use this tactic. Sola Scriptura is not a biblical doctrine; it is a doctrine born out of the Reformation to protect faithful Christians from the corrupt traditions and brutal spiritual oppression of the Catholic hierarchy.

4. What authority decided the disputes among Christians as to which books should and should not be considered inspired Scripture?

Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, history has provided no evidence that twenty of them were ever disputed. These twenty books alone, which include the four Gospels, all of Paul’s epistles except Hebrews, Acts, First Peter and First John are enough to validate the Bible as authoritative. The remaining seven books were scrutinized thoroughly in the early church and found to be acceptable. Anyone familiar with the Bible can determine for himself or herself whether these books harmonize with the other twenty. I don’t think one would find many believers who find them objectionable.

5. What authority prevents me from disagreeing with the canon of Scripture as we currently have it and putting my own Bible together?

The only people in history who have ever done that are those who hold themselves as their authority. Our authority is Christ!

Once Saved Always Saved: Is it illogical?

From Catholic Apologist John Martignoni’s newsletter #118:

Every believer in once saved always saved that I have ever met, also believes that there are those out there who think they are saved, but really are not – the faux believers, as I call them. So, ask anyone who believes in OSAS these questions (this is from an actual conversation):

Question: Are there people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?

Answer: Yes, there are.

Question: Are you saved?

Answer: Yes, I am.

Question: How do you know you’re not one of those people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?

Answer: I know in my heart that I am saved.

Question: Wouldn’t someone who thinks they’re saved, but really aren’t saved, say the same thing?

Answer: I suppose so.

Question: Then how do you know you’re really saved?

Answer: I just know.

Question: How do you know?

Answer: I just do.

The whole point of this line of questioning is that, if it is possible to think you’re saved, but not really be saved, then no one can have eternal security – no one can know for sure that they are saved – because anyone who thinks they’re saved could actually be one of those who think they are but really aren’t. As you ask these questions, I guarantee you will not be able to keep from smiling as the folks you’re talking to can do nothing but go ‘round and ‘round in a circle of illogic.

That last sentence provides a little insight into the character of this particular Catholic apologist, don’t you think?

Martignoni can’t seem to figure out how a believer can believe they are saved. He apparently has no confidence in his own faith, ells why would he be so mystified? Is it really so odd for a believer in Jesus Christ to believe he is saved? Is it illogical? Let’s compare the logic of someone believing they are saved with one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church: Holy Matrimony.

Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church is a sacrament that rightly depicts and represents the relationship between Christ and His church (true believers). Fr. Thomas Richstatter, an expert in liturgy and sacramental theology stated:

“Christian marriage is the sacrament which shows us God’s desire to be one with us.” .”¹

In addition, the Catholic Church does not believe that a Christian marriage can be ended. Richstatter further declares:

“The Church does not want to say that a sacramental marriage comes to an end because we consider the love of the husband and wife to be a sign of God’s unending love for us.
God’s love for us can never end in divorce. God is faithful even if we are not. The Church desires that even if one of the partners of a marriage is faithless to the marriage bond, the other, by remaining faithful, gives a powerful witness to the community of the way God loves us.” (ibid)

Amen to that! God is faithful even when we are not. If we truly possess a loving relationship with Him, even though we are not always faithful to His commandments, He promises never to forsake us. (Heb. 13:5) But what becomes of couples who are not really committees to each other; their marriages will surly fail. In this situation, the Catholic Church may provide and annulment – “a legal declaration that a valid sacramental marriage never existed.” (ibid)

In the Catholic Church marriage represents God’s love for His people. The relationship is either permanent or it never really existed. But when it comes to our relationship with God, all this seems to go out the window for Martignoni. When a groom says his vows and believes in his heart that he truly will commit to them, he knows he is committed to his bride. But when a groom harbors doubt in his heart he knows he is not committed, even though he may say, “I do.”

A person who says he is saved is not necessarily the same as a person who truly believes they are saved. Both say it, one knows it. It is not possible for us to judge the heart of another. But the Catholic Church, which appears to grasp the sanctity of marriages, should not be confused by the idea that one can know they are saved. One is either committed to God or they are not.

In John 15, Jesus tells us to abide in Him. We do that through love which enables us to obey His commandments. And when we unwillingly fail to keep His commandments, He is our advocate with the Father who is quick to forgive because we are covered by Christ’s blood. So a person who loves God will cherish their relationship with Him, and by Him they will be nourished and bear fruit. Jesus promises that those who bear fruit will not ever be cut off, but pruned so that they might bear more fruit. But those, like the doubtful groom who bear no fruit, will be cut off.

Although we cannot tell by simply asking someone if they are saved if they really are, the person who professes their salvation knows deep down inside where he stands, whether he is able to face that reality or not.

Any persons that doubt another’s ability to know they are saved must have doubts as to their own salvation. Perhaps that should be their cue to refocus their criticism from others to themselves.

1. http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0596.asp

Remember Them!

The first fold of our flag is a symbol of life.

The second fold is a symbol of our belief in the eternal life.

The third fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.

The fourth fold represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.

The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, “Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.”

The sixth fold is for where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The seventh fold is a tribute to our Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that we protect our country and our flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of our republic.

The eighth fold is a tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on mother’s day.

The ninth fold is a tribute to womanhood; for it has been through their faith, love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great have been molded.

The tenth fold is a tribute to father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of our country since they were first born.

The eleventh fold, in the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The twelfth fold, in the eyes of a Christian citizen, represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.
When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, “In God we Trust.”

If a baby dies, does it go to Heaven or Hell?

Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, asks his readers, confronted by folks who believe in “once saved always saved” (OSAS), to ask this question: “If a baby dies, does it go to Heaven or Hell?”

One could say that Martignoni is hypocritical by asking this question. The Catholic position on this issue is that if an infant dies without baptism, they are not assured entry into heaven. So ask a Catholic apologist where an un-baptized baby goes if it should die, and you will get anything but a straight answer. This is because the Catholic Church, in its unquenchable thirst for power over its faithful, cannot allow Catholic families to think that their child could be saved without their help. But on the other hand, they do not want to make God out to be a tyrant, so they allow for the possibility of heavenly mercy for those children who unfortunately pass away without baptism.

Of course all of this is far-fetched and nowhere near biblical. No one would think that the Catholic hierarchy is ignorant of the Bible, yet somehow they seem oblivious to the story of King David and his son who was stricken by God in 2 Samuel 12. King David sinned against God and when he confessed it, Nathan the prophet told him that God has put away his sin and he would not die, but the child who was born to him would be stricken and die. And it so happened that the child became ill and David pleaded with God for the child’s life. David fasted and lay on the ground until the seventh day of the child’s life. And on that day the child died. But as soon as the child died, David ended his fast, cleaned up and ate food. It puzzled his servants that David would end his morning as soon as his son died, but David explained, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

So where did David go when he died? Remember, this child died on the seventh day of his life. That means the child died without circumcision, the sign of the covenant. In Catholic theology baptism replaced circumcision so in essence, David’s child died without baptism. So what did David mean when he said, “I shall go to him”? Did he simply mean that he would one day die too? That would hardly make sense. David abruptly ended his weeping and pleading as soon as the child died. If he thought the child would be denied heaven, wouldn’t he continue his mourning and pleading? Instead he rose up and comforted Bathsheba! David knew that the child would be with God and he knew he would be there too.

Catholic apologists constantly remind us that when we die we will be judged according to our works. True, so I would ask them, which of an infant’s works could deny him the glory heaven? It is interesting that the Catholic Church will bend over backwards to appease Muslims by assuring them that if they follow the teachings of their religion and always seek truth, they will be saved. But an infant who is not baptized has no such hope? Excuse me, but if a Muslim were seeking truth would they not eventually cease to be Muslim? The last time I checked, Christians believed the truth to be that Christ suffered, died, rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. This truth is far from the teachings of the Muslim religion! What about the Catholic Church’s missionary mandate that states her obligation to preach the Gospel to all nations? But instead of preaching the Gospel, Pope Benedict, on his recent trip to Jordon, said this:

“My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by his majesty the king in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.”

Isn’t he supposed to be a successor of the Apostle Peter? Would Peter cower to the king of Jordan and praise Islam? Or would he proclaim the Gospel? I think we all know the answer to that one.

So why does the Catholic hierarchy give a pass to people of other religions who faithfully follow the teachings of their religion, but have no idea what becomes of a baby that dies without baptism?

Where does this thinking come from? Well, the part about salvation for non-Christians seeking truth comes loosely from Romans 2. There, Paul speaks about Gentiles who lived without the Law having a natural law written on their hearts and their conscience bearing them witness as to right and wrong. So if a Gentile, ignorant of God’s Law, could be justified by obeying his conscience, what does that say about a baby that is not aware of his conscience? If there is no condemnation for a person who, out of ignorance of God’s Law, obeys his conscience, there certainly cannot be condemnation for a child who has no ability to sin against his conscience. The idea that a child must be baptized in order to assure his salvation is absurd.

In closing, here is a relevant quote from the ancient church.

“According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary — if it be not a case of necessity — that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].
Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins?” (Tertullian, Treatise On Baptism 18,4 – c. AD 200-206)

Good question!

The Evolution of the Sacrifice of the Mass: Part 2

In part one of “The Evolution of the Mass,” we explored the elucidation of second century apologist, Justin Martyr, concerning “sacrifice.” Justin had stated that the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God are prayers and giving of thanks offered by worthy men. So how did the church go from that understanding to the belief that Christ must be re-sacrificed in an un-bloody manner?

Justin plainly associates this only sacrifice of prayers and giving of thanks with the Eucharist of the bread and the cup saying, “which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.“¹ When the context is brought to light it is easy to see that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is in the hearts of those participating in the giving of thanks (which is what eucharist means), not in offering the bread and wine.

Later in the same century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, explained, “For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.“²

Irenaeus makes a clear connection to the thing being offered as the bread and wine of the Eucharist. But his very next words, which contrast Christian oblation with that of Jewish oblation, make it clear he did not mean that the bread and wine become Christ and are offered to God: “But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God.“³ That is to say, the true oblation to God is done only through Christ. It makes no sense to offer Christ to God through Christ. Nevertheless, the Eucharist, in a very short period of time, had become more focused on the elements yet remained pure in its meaning. Irenaeus undoubtedly directed his focus to the bread and wine because it was there that he found his strongest arguments against Gnosticism’s association with the Eucharist.

The great Christian philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, unmistakably understood Irenaeus’ distinction of the Eucharist sacrifice as a corporal worship of praise and thanksgiving. Clement, who in the late second century was the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,“⁴ which is the quintessential biblical reference used to support the transubstantiationalist belief.

Moving into the early third century we find Tertullian commenting that prayer is the victim of the Christian sacrifice:

“…Every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer as a choice victim. For this is the spiritual victim which has abolished the pristine sacrifices… We are the true adorers and the true priests, who, praying in spirit, sacrifice, in spirit, prayer- a victim proper and acceptable to God, which assuredly He has required, which He has looked forward to for Himself! This victim, devoted from the whole heart, fed on faith, tended by truth, entire in innocence, pure in chastity, garlanded with love, we ought to escort with the pomp of good works, amid psalms and hymns, unto God’s altar, to obtain for us all things from God.“⁵

However, touching on the subject from a Catholic apologetics standpoint, the Catholic Encyclopedia grossly misrepresents Tertullian’s exhortation to communion during fasting. The encyclopedia quotes Tertullian’s words, “participation of the sacrifice” claiming that he “speaks of a real, not a metaphorical offering up of sacrifice.“⁶ What the encyclopedia fails to mention is that just a few sentences earlier Tertullian describes the sacrifice as, “sacrificial prayers.“⁷

There is no doubt, apart from severely biased opinions, that Christians up through the third century understood the Eucharist to be a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving culminating in the participation of the Lord’s Supper. The next century, however, would bring about change that revolutionized the way Christians viewed the Eucharistic celebration. The conclusion of this three-part article will explore how and when the metamorphous of the Eucharistic observance took place.

1. Dialog with Trypho, 117
2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:18:4
3. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:18:4
4. Clement, Paedagogus 1:6
5. Tertullian, On Prayer 27-28
6. Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass
7. Tertullian, On Prayer 19

The Evolution of the Sacrifice of the Mass: Part 1

The most ancient writing depicting what early Christian gatherings looked like come from a work called the Didache, also known as “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.”

But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice ; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. (Didache, 14)

Catholic apologists often use this quote from the Didache to support the “sacrifice of the mass.” But what is meant by sacrifice and how are Christians supposed to offer it? On its own the text is ambiguous, so to further garnish support for their doctrine, Catholic apologists turn to the second century apologist, Justin Martyr, who, when taken out of context, seems to bolster their point of view in his dialog with Trypho the Jew:

My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. (Dialog with Trypho, 41)

The two quotes put together provide enough evidence to reasonably conclude that early Christians believed the sacrifice referred to by Malachi to be the bread and cup of the Eucharist. But does that mean they believed they were offering Christ as an un-bloody sacrifice? Catholic apologists would like for us to believe that, but that is not what the early Christians believed. In the same dialog, Justin comes around to this subject again. This time Justin explains the sacrifice much more clearly in a portion of the dialog Catholic apologist will never provide because it puts their assumptions to shame.

Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him … Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. (ibid, 117)

“That prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God.” From Justin’s explanation we can make better sense of the former quotes. We can now see that Justin was saying that Christians offer the Eucharist i.e., thanksgiving, in the breaking of bread and the sharing of the cup. His explanation also helps us to understand what the author of the Didache quote meant by “Break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” In other words, do not offer thanksgiving (Eucharist) until you have confessed your sins so that your sacrifice (thanksgiving) may be pure.

Even without the explanation, a description of a typical Sunday gathering of Christians in Justin’s time illustrates this point.

On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president [Bishop] verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (First Apology, 67)

This description solidifies that the fact that the early church considered the sacrifice to be the giving of thanks over the elements that represent Christ’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary, and participation in that sacrifice by partaking of those elements. As Justin said, “That prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God.”

To be continued…

---

1 Mal. 1:11
2 Mal. 1:10-12

Ramifications For a Biblical World View: Are You Ready?

Can a specific event or circumstance for setting off the Great Persecution under Emperor Diocletian (303-313AD) be determined? I believe it can. And it boils down to Christians embracing a solid biblical world view in spite of offending family and friends for doing so.

In the late third century, before the persecution began, there was a woman of great importance to the pagans in her region. The woman was a priestess who worked daily in the pagan temple of the Roman gods of the mountains. She was well known, highly respected, and incredibly superstitious. She had trained her children to fear the Roman gods and to observe the pagan rituals meticulously. She regularly supplied meat from the sacrifices offered in the temple to her family and servants.

At the same time, the Christian church was growing rapidly as it had been enjoying a decades-long period of relative peace. Pagans were converting to Christianity all over the Roman Empire. Christians held high offices in the Roman government from military leaders to government advisors; some were even governors of provinces. However, despite its rapid growth, Christianity remained a small minority compared to the pagan world around them. Nevertheless, the faith made inroads in just about every area of the empire. Before long, a pagan would be hard pressed not to have a Christian family member, or know of a friend or acquaintance that had joined the faith.

The encroachment of Christianity landed firmly in the family of the priestess. As she served the sacrificial meat, the Christians in her family abstained and committed themselves to fasting and prayer. This infuriated the woman who then complained to her grown son, who was equally superstitious, how the Christians anger the gods. Her son was a man of no meager importance. His name was Galerius and he was Diocletian’s Caesar in the eastern empire. Like his mother, Galerius was equally enraged with the Christians. His desire was to achieve nothing less than complete destruction of the Christian faith. However, not possessing the power to achieve his goal on his own, Galerius became, as it were, the devil on Diocletian’s shoulder.

Galerius managed to stage a couple of precarious events where Christians could be blamed. Though these events prompted Diocletian to punish Christians, the ramifications were no where near what Galerius anticipated. But eventually Galerius wore down his senior ruler and Diocletian officially declared Christianity illegal. Consequently countless Christians were killed or imprisoned during the decade long persecution.

All this began because Christians possessed a greater love for God than they did for their own families. They took seriously the council of the Apostle Paul who warned that one cannot partake of the Lord’s Table and also of the devil’s table. They did no more than abstain from the family feast on the principle of what they had been taught from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. And in the face of determined opposition, they stood their ground peacefully, respectfully and prayerfully.

Christians were severely persecuted for their faith because they firmly believed in a biblical world view. Imagine if you will a general acceptance of pagan beliefs by Christians in the third century. Let’s say those family members who abstained from eating the sacrificial meat decided, “What the heck, what’s it going to hurt? Why upset the family over a simple meal?” Sounds like something they could have let slide for the sake of peace and unity. One could argue that such a sentiment could have staved off the persecution all together. But what they decided instead was that God their Creator and Savior was more important than peace and unity – even unto death.

So as the world’s progressive agenda finds its way into our families, friendships, and workplace, we must, if we truly love our Lord and Savior, peacefully, respectfully and prayerfully stand firmly opposed to the incursion of its ideals.