John Martignoni’s Word of Mouth

I was cleaning up my bookmarks for the New Year when I came across a link to the website of the Catholic apologist, John Martignoni (http://www.biblechristiansociety.com). I had bookmarked the website because of a debate between him and Dr. Joe Mizzi of the “Just for Catholics” website. When I came across his assertion on “oral tradition” I couldn’t help but respond by writing this post.

A quote taken from John Martignoni’s website adequately demonstrates why so many Catholics I encounter are completely ignorant of the canonization of Scripture. It seems many Catholics (maybe most Catholics) think that the authenticity of New Testament Scriptures was passed down orally through a succession of bishops, then put together and canonized by a Catholic council. The impression they have is that a church council, sometime back in the fourth century, was faced with dozens of writings from which they decided, from apostolic oral tradition, which were inspired and which were not.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as I will demonstrate here.

In issue 89 John Martignoni makes this statement:

“Well, the problem for Joe [Mizzi] is, they received “by word of mouth” that the canon they were passing on was indeed apostolic in origin. It was passed on “by word of mouth”…oral tradition…that 1 and 2 Corinthians were indeed authentic letters of Paul. It was passed on “by word of mouth”…oral tradition…that Matthew and John were indeed authentic writings of Matthew and John. It was passed on, “by word of mouth”…oral tradition…that the writing of Mark represented the oral traditions of Peter; and it was passed on, “by word of mouth”…oral tradition…that the Luke who wrote the Gospel that bears his name was indeed the companion of Paul and was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit…The Church determined the canon of Scripture based on Tradition…Tradition that had been passed down orally from the beginning of the Church. And, that canon was set at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.” (John Martignoni)

What John is referring to when he says the “canon was set at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D,” is actually a list from the Gelasian Decree produced in the sixth century and sometimes falsely attributed to the council of Rome. The earliest council to address the canonical list is probably Hippo in 393, but certainly Carthage in 397 finalized it. Just about every Catholic I have encountered on this topic is under the impression that the council of Carthage decided which books belong in the Bible and which do not. In actuality, all the council did was close the canon that already existed and forbade the reading in church of any writings outside the accepted canon. There is a great deal of history with regards to the formation of the canon of Scripture, and to say that oral tradition is responsible for its authority as Scripture is simply false and far from the facts of history.

In the apostolic church the Pauline letters circulated singularly, but as early as the beginning of the second century they circulated collectively, and with them the epistle to the Hebrews. This collection is known as the Pauline Corpus. The Chester Beatty manuscript is the oldest surviving copy. It did not include the three Pastoral Epistles (1, 2Timothy and Titus), but did include Hebrews.¹

Of the 27 canonical books, Irenaeus quoted from 23 of them in his treatise against heresies in the second century. And Eusebius provides an account of early second century Christians not only evangelizing orally, but delivering written books of the Gospels to people who had not heard the Good News.² And in 1740 historian Ludovico Muratori published his Muratorian Fragment containing a list of New Testament books dating to around 170 A.D.

The Muratorian Fragment contains the oldest list of canonical books of the New Testament recognized in the Roman church at the time. The list includes the four Gospels (though only Luke and John are actually present on the fragment, the Gospels of Mathew and Mark are assumed have been mentioned before them because the first completed sentence on the fragment is “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke“). The compiler comments that Luke’s authority is derived from his association with Paul. He claims that Luke was Paul’s legal expert, which when understood within the context of the Roman world implies that Luke was part of Paul’s staff and thus issued his writing with his own name but in accordance with Paul’s opinion (F.F. Bruce). With regards to this opinion it is reasonable to suppose that the explanation for Luke writing Paul’s Gospel originated in Rome, perhaps about the time this list was compiled.

Besides the four Gospels, the list includes as acceptable all of Paul’s epistles (but not Hebrews, which incidentally in Rome, was not recognized as Pauline until the fourth century), the Apocalypse of John (Revelation), Jude and two epistles of John. In all, 22 of the 27 books of our New Testament are presented in this list as acceptable in the church. The apocalypse of Peter was also mentioned as acceptable but not by all. And oddly the Wisdom of Solomon also appears on the list as acceptable.

The books of our New Testament not mentioned are, 1 and 2 Peter, third John, Hebrews and James. There are also interesting exclusions such as the Shepherd of Hermas. The Shepherd of Hermas was read regularly in the churches but was rejected because, the compiler says, “It was written quite recently in our own time.” This is interesting because it shows us that the early Christian leadership compiled Scripture, not based on oral tradition, but on evidence of authenticity. The four Gospels and the Pauline Corpus were never brought into question because they were deeply rooted in the catholic (universal) church and recognized by all as authoritative. But the absence of the five books of our New Testament from the Muratorian Fragment poses an even bigger problem for Martignoni and other adherents of oral tradition. If indeed the bishops in Rome could determine by oral tradition, which books belong to the canon of Scripture, these five books could not have been missing from the list because the same oral tradition is said to have reached the council of Carthage, which included them.

In Eusebius’ time (early fourth century), the final number of accepted books had still not been established. Eusebius lists James, Jude, 2Peter, 2John and 3John as disputed but recognized by many. He lists the Apocalypse of John as generally accepted but rejected by some. The composer of the Muratorian Fragment states that the Apocalypse of John, Jude and two of John’s epistles were accepted in the catholic church.

If oral tradition is responsible for the collection of accepted books, it has proven itself unreliable to say the least. Eusebius, however, describes something far different than oral tradition when he comments on the compilation of Scripture in his own time:

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers- we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

(Hist. Eccl. 3:25:6)

The ecclesiastical tradition, used to determine the accepted writings, was clearly not oral tradition. Writings, whether accepted or rejected, were scrutinized and compared to orthodox ecclesiastical writings. Notice that Eusebius condemns the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. The compiler of the Muratorian list also excluded these writings by saying, “the Acts of all the apostles have been written in one book.” However, he claims that Luke only recorded the things that took place in his presence and, therefore, omitted the passion of Peter (the account of Peter being crucified upside-down) and Paul’s departure to Spain. Both these stories are detailed in the Acts of Peter, a book deemed unworthy and absurd by Eusebius and ignored by the ecclesiastical writers, yet considered factual accounts by many in our day.

By the time Eusebius wrote his history the canon of New Testament Scripture was almost completed. In 330, just after establishing his new capital in Constantinople, Constantine requested that Eusebius provide 50 copies of the Christian Scriptures. Unfortunately we are not told what books were included in Eusebius’ New Testament, but there is little doubt based on his writings that it contained the 27 books of our current New Testament.

In his thirty-ninth festal letter, announcing the date of Easter in 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, presented the list of New Testament books exactly as we have them today, but not in the same order. He was the first in history to produce a written list of the 27 books. Canon 60 of the regional council of Laodicea in 363 also lists the books of the New Testament, but excludes Revelation. Canon 60, however, may be a later addition, as it is absent from some of the Laodicean manuscripts.

In conclusion, this short post is merely a tiny synopsis of the vast and rich history of the development of our New Testament Scriptures. The oral tradition assertion often touted by Catholic apologists like John Martignoni, is backed by nothing. It relies entirely on the reader’s, or hearer’s ignorance of church history.

Brian Culliton

hiswordistruth16@aol.com

1 F.F. Bruce, Canon of Scripture (InterVarsity Press, pp 130)
2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3:37:2 (Hendrickson Publishers, pp 102)

Leviticus 20:13

As the clamor continues to increase among the gay and lesbian community and their supporters, the Scripture passages condemning the behavior are becoming more and more confusing to a lot of folks.

Case in point: someone wrote to the editorial section of my local newspaper opposing homosexual marriage. In the commentary, the writer sited Leviticus 20:13 but said only that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination. A few days later, a counter commentary appeared stating that the previous opinion failed to identify the remainder of Lev. 20:13 affirming the punishment for the sin, which is death! The implication being that if one uses this verse to condemn homosexuality, then one must also adhere to the notion that homosexuals should be put to death. The rebuttal is a classical “gotcha” response. Its purpose is to confuse Christians by forcing us to choose whether we accept or reject the law of God as divinely instituted.

The Law of God is indeed divine and righteous. Under the Law, homosexuality is condemned and punishable by death, so too is adultery and several other immoral acts. But does this mean that Christians believe death as a punishment for such sins should be carried out? Consider this:

In His sermon on the mount, Jesus taught mercy with regards to the strict judgment of the Law. Many of the religious leaders in Israel, who believed His message was blasphemous, purposed to entrap Him by contrasting His teachings with the Law whenever the opportunity arose. One such opportunity happened when certain Pharisees saw His disciples plucking grain and eating it on the Sabbath as they passed through a field.

The Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Law by letting His disciples do this. The tradition of the Jews had strictly prohibited any work on the Sabbath, even if that work was a work of necessity. The disciples were hungry and in need of nourishment, but the tradition of the Pharisees showed no mercy. Jesus reminded them that when King David and his men were hungry, David entered the temple and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to do.

Jesus then asked them, “Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Mat. 12:5) The priests worked on the Sabbath day to present the offerings before God for the sins of His people, yet the Law prohibited work on the Sabbath. But the work of the priests was the work God; therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Mercy and kindness are the works of God; so Jesus told them, “If ye had known what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” (v7)

The mercy of God was also exemplified when the Pharisees once again found an opportunity to trap Jesus by the Law. They had found a woman who was caught in the act of adultery and brought her before Jesus. They took up stones in their hands and challenged Jesus by reciting the Law that stated she should be stoned. Believing the Law to be explicit in its judgment, they asked Jesus what He had to say concerning this. When Jesus looked up, He simply said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7) Unexpectedly faced with the reality that they themselves were guilty of the same Law that condemned the woman, one by one they dropped their stones and walked away. Jesus approached the woman and asked her, “Woman, where are your accusers? Has no man condemned you?” The woman replied, “No man, Lord.” So Jesus told her, “Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more.”

Understanding the Law of Moses from the perspective of God’s love and mercy enables us to understand that God did provide mercy in the Law. The punishment for immoral acts listed in Leviticus did not have to be carried out had the religious leaders showed mercy. The Law did not exclude opportunity for repentance, and it provided provision for the shortcomings of His people, for His people were weak and none were righteous according to the Law.

All the judgments of the Law have been executed upon Christ who is the fulfillment of the Law. God’s mercy was exhibited through the sacrifice of His righteous Son upon whom the sins of the world may be imputed for all who repent and believe. God did not condemn us before we believed, but waited on us patiently. How, therefore, can we do anything but show to others that same mercy, compassion and patients we received? If the Spirit of Christ is not shown through us, how can we expect others be drawn to His grace and goodness? If they hate us for our opposition, though we show mercy, praise God; if they repent and come to Christ, praise Him even more!

Living Water

Extraterrestrial water; science is bent on finding it and governments have spent billions on programs undertaking its exploration. Why? Because water is believed to be the prerequisite for life. Water is necessary to sustain life, without it we humans could not survive. But a glass of cool refreshing water can only sustain us for so long. Eventually we will need more water, then again and again; a cycle we will repeat throughout our lives.

Jesus, like all of us, experienced thirst. When He had journeyed to about the halfway point between Judea and Galilee, Jesus encountered a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. With His disciples having departed to town for food, Jesus asked the woman for a drink. The woman was astonished that a Jew would ask a Samaritan for water, but Jesus told her that if she knew the gift of God, and who it was that asked her, she would have asked Him for water and He would have given her living water. He told her something that was obvious, “Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again.” Then He said something astounding: “But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

The prophet Ezekiel was given a vision from God of a river flowing from the temple. It flowed from the altar which represents Christ. (Rev. 22:1) He walked through the river at a thousand cubits beyond the east gate and the water was ankle deep. At another thousand cubits the river was knee deep; and another thousand the water was waist deep. Before long Ezekiel could not pass through the river without swimming. Eventually, Ezekiel was told, the river flows into the sea where it brings healing. He also saw trees that grew along side the river that, be virtue of drinking that healing water, produced fruit for the healing of the nations.

It is interesting to read of a river that increases as it propagates with no tributaries emptying in to it. But if, as Jesus said, those who receive from Him the living water, themselves become springs of living water, than indeed the river of life will grow deeper. And all who receive the water from Christ will live, as Ezekiel heard and recorded:

“And it shall come to pass, that every thing that lives, which moves, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh. And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.” (Ezk. 47:9-10)

“Follow me,” Jesus said to Peter and Andrew, “and I will make you fishers of men.” (Mat. 4:19)

The truly satisfying water is the living water freely given by Christ to all who are willing to receive it. It is the only water that once received will sustain life forever.
Governments will continue to spend and science will continue to search for water that gives temporal life, but may we who have received living water, spring forth and freely give as we have received.

Did you vote yourself straight to hell?

According to a Roman Catholic priest in Columbus South Carolina the answer is yes, if you voted for Obama! The S. Carolina priest, Jay Newman, told parishioners that if they voted for the pro-abortionist Barack Obama they should refrain from taking communion lest they “eat and drink to their own condemnation.” Parishioners who voted for Obama were told on the church’s website that they should be reconciled to God through confession and penance before participating in the eucharist calibration. In effect, Newman told his congregation that if they voted for Obama they were no longer under God’s grace and thus condemned to hell until reconciled.

Stephen Gajdosik, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, stated that Newman acted within the confines church teachings with regards to his authority as a local priest. It is clear form Gajdoski that condemnation issued from a local priest towards his congregation is justified and binding, but not binding on Catholics outside his jurisdiction. This is confusing to say the least. It is not as though we are talking about local secular government here; we are talking about what Catholics believe to be divine law. Inevitably Catholics will ask, “Is God a discerner of persons?” Is it okay for a Catholic in Chicago to vote for a pro-abortion candidate while a Catholic in South Carolina falls from grace for doing the same thing? God forbid such confusion should exist with God.

The truth is: many Catholic bishops and the Vatican haven’t yet figured out how to reconcile their anti-republican sentiments with republican morals. They despise the group most outspoken in opposing abortion rights; the religious right. They cringe at the thought of being associated with breakaway heretics. In the midst of their confusion, they are confusing regular Catholics, many of whom are so indoctrinated by poor instruction they have little recourse but to blindly follow the whims of their priests. God doesn’t judge you by your voting record; He judges you by your heart. The fruit a tree bears is not produced by the actions of the tree, but by the nutrients supplied from within. If a person voted for Obama, though they stand opposed to abortion, they have not violated any moral law.

Sincerely, a conservative republican!

Revelation 12 Part 1

And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was the child; and she cried out, travailing in birth, and in pain to be delivered. (v1-2)

This commentary is presented with the belief that the child in this verse represents Christ as evidenced in verse five of this chapter.

The elements John sees in this vision of the sun, moon, and stars are found together in one other place in the Bible; the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis.

Then he [Joseph] dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him, and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?” (Gen. 37:9-10)

The connection to the description of the woman from Joseph’s dream and Jacob’s rebuke, suggests that the woman is somehow tied to the family of Jacob. In Joseph’s dream, the sun represents his father Jacob, the moon his mother Rebecca, and the eleven stars his eleven brothers. The sign does not necessarily represent these individuals, but rather the family of Israel.

Some believe that the woman represents the nation Israel; others think she represents the church; and some find elements of both. There are even those who believe the woman to be the virgin Mary. Evidence that the woman is Mary the mother of Jesus, however, is base solely on the fact that she gave birth to Jesus; there is no biblical evidence outside of that fact that lends credence to the theory. But whether the woman represents Israel, the church, or something else requires more biblical examination. The following reference may help furnish some insight to the investigation.

Then he said, “Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” (Gen. 32:28)

Jacob wrestled the angel not by his own strength, but by the strength God provided him. The prophet Hosea testifies, “In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his manhood he strove with God. He strove with the angel and prevailed, he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with him.” (Hos. 12:3-4) Jacob was in prayer when the angel met him and continued in prayer with weeping throughout the struggle. At one point the angle put Jacob’s thigh out of joint with the touch of his hand. Jacob would not have prevailed had he not drawn strength from God through faith. Thus, the angel gave him a new name. No longer was he called Jacob (supplanter) but Israel (God Prevails). By faith Jacob prevailed and received the blessing from God of God’s governess. Thus signifying that his descendants would be governed of God.

In Old Testament times the governed of God were those who believed God and trembled at His word. The majority of the nation often failed to fit this description. Evidence from the prophets reveal that the believing Jews have, through most of Jewish history, been a mere remnant of the nation of Israel.

God, by His prophet Isaiah, asked the Jews a provocative question:

Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word. (Isa. 66:1)

The Jews revered the temple as the house of God; it was the place of the arch and Spirit of God dwelt among His people there. The Jews did offer sacrifice in the temple, but many did it carnally and with complete absence of divine worship. God reveals the true sacrifice He desires which should have accompanied their offerings. For through His offering of His only Son, God shows mercy to such who love Him and tremble at His word. But for those who followed the letter of the Law and rejected the spirit of the Law by delighting in their scandals, God sharply answers with this:

“He who slaughters an ox is like him who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like him who breaks a dog’s neck; he who presents a cereal offering, like him who offers swine’s blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like him who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations; I also will choose affliction for them, and bring their fears upon them; because, when I called, no one answered, when I spoke they did not listen; but they did what was evil in my eyes, and chose that in which I did not delight.” (Isa. 66:3-4)

Clearly God distinguished between those Israelis who feared Him and those who followed their own ways.

Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word: “Your brethren who hate you and cast you out for my name’s sake have said, ‘Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy’; but it is they who shall be put to shame. (Isa. 66:5)

Indeed, when Christ was risen to glory the believers of Israel found peace and joy though they were put out of the synagogue and dishonored by their people. The nation of Israel had the opportunity the rest of the world lacked, they had the promises, the Law, and the prophets. Yet they rejected God and His grace. But a remnant of that chosen nation has always been faithful and always will be faithful. The Apostle Paul tells us that the nation is indeed the bearer of Christ according to the flesh, but think not that their rejection has in any way impeded the promises of God, for Paul confirms what we read from the prophets; that they are not all true Israelites.

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. They are Israelites, and to them belong the son-ship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. (Rom. 9:3-8)

It is my conclusion, based on the biblical evidence, that the sign John sees in verse one represents true Israel, because in reality, this was not man’s doing but of God’s.

Nature of the “B” in LGBT

It occurred to me after writing my previous post that Justin R. Cannon has a bigger problem with his argument than I previously thought. As stated in my last post, Cannon presents the argument that the people Paul was referring to in Romans 1 were acting unnatural in their same-sex activities because they were heterosexual. If they had been homosexual this action, according to Cannon, would have been natural and acceptable.

The foundation of Cannon’s entire argument is based on people being created either homosexual or heterosexual. Each of these creations possess their own unique nature. So what is unnatural for one is natural for the other. If God created homosexuals with their nature and likewise heterosexuals with their nature, what nature do bisexuals possess? Did God create bisexuals with a dual nature?

Cannon includes bisexuals in his defense of the LGBT way of life, so what exactly does it mean for bisexuals to be part of God’s natural creation? Are they a special group of humankind created to have “natural” relations with either sex? If so, why did God create heterosexuals? Why are there homosexuals? Why didn’t God create us all to be bisexual thus allowing us to choose whichever lifestyle suits us? That way, people could not have been lead to “unnatural” relations because of their sin and Paul would not have condemned the behavior.

But the fact of the matter is God created women for men so that the two could be one flesh. Paul was rightly condemning same-sex actions as unnatural because they are. God created a heterosexual race only; and Justin R. Cannon’s self-defeating Bible study only serves to prove how true that is.

Response to an LGBT Bible Study

I was asked to give my opinion on the conclusions of Justin R. Cannon regarding Romans 1:24-27. Cannon’s commentary appears in a Bible study on a pro-homosexual website called truthsetsfree.net. Cannon is the founding director of the website which touts itself as an affirming Christian outreach ministry to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.

I have been involved with apologetics for many years, but never delved into this arena until now. I never realized the impact the gay agenda had on the Christian church until it hit home, when my grown stepdaughter was seduced by the doctrines of the “Christian” gay agenda.

Romans, chapter 1, is one area of Scripture I always felt was so non-ambiguous regarding the condemnation of homosexuality that the homosexual community couldn’t possibly formulate a coherent argument to the contrary. Reading Cannon’s commentary affirmed my assumption.

Cannon is praised by the LGBT community because of his efforts to justify homosexuality in God’s holy word. Cannon’s work is comforting to many in the gay and lesbian community, but do his arguments make sense? How, for example, does he justify homosexual behavior from Romans, chapter 1, when it appears to so strongly condemn that behavior?

Cannon first wants his readers to believe that anti-homosexual sentiment in the church is a result of bad teaching and a lack of contextual understanding. But what Cannon offers his readers is something far worse than “bad teaching;” he offers them a twisted view of Scripture designed to fit his gay agenda.

In his Bible study, Cannon draws the attention of his readers to a single Greek word, aphente (to give up, divorce), appearing in verse 27. He asks his readers to ponder these questions: “How can you give up something you do not have? How can you divorce something you are not bound to?” He answers the questions by misrepresenting Paul’s teaching on God’s natural creation. Instead of recognizing the true context: “they gave up the natural use of women,” Cannon changed the meaning to: “they gave up THEIR natural use of women because they were heterosexual.” This, of course, implies that God also created homosexuals who have a different nature than those to whom Paul is referring.

This raises some obvious questions: If God created man in His own image, why do men possess two different natures? Does God have two natures? If God calls a man’s leaving the natural use of women dishonorable, then the same must be true for a homosexual man leaving his “natural” use of a man for a woman?

Nobody needs to explain to a child, for instance, that homosexuality is unnatural; it is evident from creation. Men and women are different and compatible. When God made Eve from Adam, Adam declared, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” The following verse, therefore, affirms, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” It is evident that God designed nature such that a young man would expect to have a mother and father, leave home, and marry a woman. This nature is clearly evident from the creation. To the church in Corinth Paul asserted this: “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1Cor. 11:8-10)

Man was not created for man or woman for woman, but woman was created for man. That is the way God made us. It is the result of our fallen state that has perverted the truth of God’s creation. The creation itself is evidence of what natural relations are. Those who practice unnatural relations are without excuse because of that evidence.

Even marriage is a model of God’s relationship to us who believe. Paul elucidates to the Ephesians in chapter five that the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church. Christ is the Bridegroom and the church is His bride. If homosexuality was intentionally created by God, who is the head in those relationships? And what do such relationships represent spiritually, that God is the Bridegroom of Himself, or that the church is her own bride without God? And if a homosexual man were to abandon his same-sex relationship and join himself to a woman, thus becoming a model of Christ and His church, are we to believe that God will find this dishonorable? If the gay and lesbian community wants to ponder spiritual questions, let them chew on these.

Cannon further attempts to distort the context by introducing an unfounded connection to orgies. Cannon concludes that since Paul refers to lust and dishonorable passions being practiced, he must be talking about orgies. Yeah, that’s the ticket. It is a matter of historical fact that the pagan world indulged in orgies so this must be what Paul is referring to. Cannon’s conclusion is nothing short of a blatant denial of the true context of Paul’s words.

The only thing Cannon accomplishes in his Bible study is to introduce to his readers a different gospel than the one preached by Christ’s holy apostles. Take head to what the Apostle Paul sternly warned, “If anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:9)

Our prayers cry to God through our Savior Jesus Christ that those homosexuals compelled to follow Christ will receive strength to overcome their carnal desires and cleave onto His amazing grace and healing. Many have left the gay community by turning to Christ for help. Contrary to the lies propagated by gay activists, former homosexuals live happy normal fulfilling lives. We all have our cross to bear, so we ask that you bear your cross and turn to Him. He will not disappoint you; He will not leave you in confusion.

For resources and information to help understand this issue from a Christian perspective, please visit www.focusonthefamily.org

God bless!

Debate on the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

The following is a debate I had with a Catholic that took place on a Catholic internet forum in May 2008. Because this discussion took place on an internet discussion forum, and because there were no predetermined standards, we were not the only two involved. The overall discussions varied in topic and involved different people chiming in at different times. It culminated, however, in a one-on-one discussion between myself and a Catholic on the topic of the immaculate conception. It is that portion of the debate that appears here.

The debate is posted here for those who may wonder how Catholics might defend what appears to be un-defendable in light of Scripture and historic Christian doctrine. I hope it also serves as a means by which we can better present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Catholics who are willing to here it. This discussion sheds light on the Catholic perspective which is necessary for communicating the Gospel to those who’s understanding of Scripture is tainted by false doctrines like the “immaculate conception.”

The debate is posted with the permission of the Catholic participant.

Catholic
I love that trite little attempt by non-catholics to say that Jesus was somehow putting down his mother. Some even go so far as to allow it to contradict Luke 1 where it says “blest art through among women” and some claim that they are just as blessed as Mary by their children. Mary was the Mother of the child who was the greatest blessing of all time! The answer to Luke 11:28 is simple. Jesus was correcting the source of blessing. That one is not simply blessed by birth or giving birth with regard to heritage and children. But one is blessed in responding to the grace of God which Mary did in her fiat “be it done unto me according to your word”. We may, like Mary, be blessed when we say “not my will but thine”. But Luke 11:28 does not speak of the quantity of blessing and we are not all blessed equally (some receive 10 talents, some 5, and some 1) and Mary is the blessed among women by God’s prerogative and grace and her response to that grace/calling.

Response
I really don’t know what “trite little attempt” you are talking about. You must be referring to someone else; I simply asked if you would explain Luke 11:28, which you did and I thank you.

As you might guess, I disagree with your interpretation that Jesus was correcting the woman. I believe He was instructing rather than correcting. Jesus never denied that His mother was blessed. He used the occasion to teach that there was a far better blessing than the blessing of being the mother of the Lord, and that is the blessing of eternal life promised to those who believe and follow Him. Mary had no pass to eternal life simply by being Jesus’ mother. So the blessing of being His mother cannot compare to the blessing of eternal life. And that is what Jesus was teaching.

You brought up the parable of the talents. How exactly does Mary fit into that parable? If you place her in the parable, how many talents does she receive? Is it more that any other believer? How could you possibly know?

Yes, Elizabeth’s greeting, “blessed are you among women” exhibits a special and unique blessing that Mary received from God. But it is also a very specific blessing. Elizabeth did not say she was blessed among men, or mankind, but among women. This was said, as you stated, because she believed the Lord and the will of God was carried out through her. But that is it; the blessing cannot be taken to the point of Mary being something grater than all other believers. “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

And what about blessed Abraham; wasn’t he blessed for believing God too, just like Mary? Aren’t Christians the children of Abraham through Christ? It is never said that we are the children of Mary through Christ. So why is Mary grater than Abraham in Catholic theology?

Catholic
Your welcome. I was speaking in more general terms of those who use this verse as a “proof text” against Catholic Marian theology. It was not specifically against you. I’ve answered these questions many times so if I make a general statement like that don’t take it so personal.

The reason there are umpteen thousand denominations is because of this either or theology everyone has. Has to be faith or works, Mary of Jesus, Peter or Jesus, etc. etc. Of course he was instructing. Everything he did was instructive. But I am not quite sure what “blessed rather” means if it doesn’t mean, rather than her womb and her breasts being blessed, i.e. physical blessing, she was spiritually blessed. And the spiritual blessing came about because she said yes to the Lord! and so is everyone blessed who says yes to the Lord.

[In reference to: “Jesus never denied that His mother was blessed.”]

I didn’t say he did. I have dialogued with some non-catholics who seem to call it in to question or minimize Mary’s blessing. I think you do that to a degree, primarily because you don’t understand blessing. i.e. the blessing of a child. More later.

[In reference to: “He used the occasion to teach that there was a far better blessing than the blessing of being the mother of the Lord, and that is the blessing of eternal life promised to those who believe and follow Him.”]

This is exactly my point. Her blessing wasn’t specifically in her motherhood and what she could do for Jesus. I am a father to 8 children and I tell you I am far more blessed by what they do for me. Children as Psalm 127 says are a blessing. But in fact they are a blessing because God uses them to mold us in to who we are. I recall a fair we used to go to. The first year my wife and I and her three boys from a previous marriage went. They DROVE ME NUTS! Dang kids running around all over, jumping on all the machinery, going every witch way. But as the years went by I became more and more patient with them and appreciative of their zest for such things. They didn’t change nearly as much as I did and as time went and we had 5 more, my patience grew to the point that 8 seems easier than 3. That’s the blessing of children. That’s the blessing of being open to life. Children are our opportunity to nurture the beatitudes. To live them and to grow in them.

Mary was given an infinite blessing. Can you imagine learning from watching the son of God!!!! Watching him perfectly handle when other children teased him about the mystery around his birth, being before she was married to Joseph and all. Do you think people didn’t talk? Watching his charity toward others, etc. etc. Learning from perfection! No way I can claim I am blessed more than Mary. No way anyone can. Can you imagine anyone saying they did not want to be Mary or Joseph with this child for 30 years? I can’t.

I believe in Psalm 127 and I believe that she received an infinite blessing from God because of her fiat. “Be it done unto me according to your word.

So there are greater things to say yes to, than bringing the savior of the world in to the world? I can’t imagine a greater call. I am really surprised that you would make such a claim. Anything great in Mary was from God. Anything great in us is from God. You make this out to be a petty jealousy thing of who is blessed more than who. Just acknowledge the greatness of God in her. Try it.

Abraham was blessed. Everyone is blessed in some fashion. The salvation of all mankind however came through Mary and her yes, which countered Eve’s no. She is the new eve. The obedient eve. She was blessed more than Abraham because of her special calling to raise the son of God. I believe I adequately justified that above. But you will disagree I am sure. God did great things for her! as she says in her canticle. All that was in the OT prepared the world for that yes that she spoke and from it the blessing came to mankind of Christ! There was never a greater yes in all of history, except of course Christ’s yes to dying on the cross for our sins. She heard the word of God through the angel and it blessed her and all of us!

Response
Mary was indeed given an infinite blessing; not for giving birth to Jesus, but for believing. And it was that faith that brought her to a relationship with Christ unlike anything she experienced raising Him. That blessing is no different than what every believer who does the will of the Father receives. The rather means, rather than envy the mother of Jesus as the woman did, envy those that through faith and the grace of God receive the blessing of eternal life. “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

You brought up Mary being the new Eve; if Mary was eternally blessed for believing God, was Eve eternally damned for believing the serpent? And if Eve was saved by the sacrifice of Christ, was not Mary saved the same way? As I said before, Mary could not have obtained eternal life without the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, the blessing of giving birth to Messiah because she believed God, could not, apart from His sacrifice, save her; it could only be an eternal blessing via the cross. And that blessing is the same blessing all God’s children receive who believe Him and do His will. Both Mary and Abraham are perfect examples of what we all aught to be. But you know as well as I do that God is no respecter of persons.

I would like to expound on the connection between Eve and Mary when I have a little more time.

Catholic
I most certainly agree that the faith is critical to the blessing. I even from one point of view agree that we all have at [least available to us an infinite blessing. I would contend that the limit of the blessing is the faith, hope, and love virtues. Us being limited creates have limited and varying amounts of these virtues unfortunately and so that limits both our view of the blessings and the ability to use it to move mountains. If we just had the faith of a mustard seed ….. I think Mary has the advantage particularly in the area of love over us. Remember Simon and the woman who was washing Jesus feet with her tears and drying them with her hair in Luke 7? I love that story. But it shows us that our love is not equal with regard to God. It shows us at least in part why he allows sin, i.e. to open our hearts up to him when we are forgiven. Then the blessings pour in. Simon had blessings and he even recognized some. Jesus didn’t say “you don’t love me”. But that Simon loved less. The difference between the Christian and the non-believer is not that the blessings are available to one and not the other. The sun shines on the good and the bad. The difference is that one is able to express a love and a faith that make the blessings real and are able to actually bring about changes in his life and in the world from the blessings. A blessing ignored does not bring about such change. With regard to Mary and love I think that is perhaps the key to understanding why she was more blessed than anyone. Personally I know of no love greater than a mothers. She loved Jesus far more than you and I will in this lifetime, which made her far more open to the blessings available. Made her faith stronger than ours and gave her hope, that allowed her to remain silent as she watched her son being crucified. I am sure she shed many tears but the silence is deafening! To me, to be able to stand at the foot of the cross, watch him die, and not take matters in to her own hands says much more than any words she could have spoken.

[In reference to: “You brought up Mary being the new Eve; if Mary was eternally blessed for believing God, was Eve eternally damned for believing the serpent?”]

I am surprised that you would have to ask this. The promise is to Eve and to all. The forgiveness of God knows no bounds. We bound it by our lack of faith, our lack of hope, and our lack of love. Or should I say deficiency in these three areas. Eve was saved by Christ’s grace as we are.

Do you agree that grace can prevent us from sin? I would hope so. St. Augustine in his Confessions, third chapter speaks of repenting of the things he would have done had he not come to Christ. Not something we have to do but it lets us reflect on the sins we would commit had we not known him. Grace does prevent sin. That Mary says she needed a savior is no proof that she was not sinless. For without grace if in fact she was sinless, like Adam and Eve who were sinless before the fall, she would have sinned. No question.

[In reference to: “Therefore, the blessing of giving birth to Messiah because she believed God, could not, apart from His sacrifice, save her; it could only be an eternal blessing via the cross.”]

I one hundred percent agree. The grace from the cross goes back as well as forward. That is why Abraham is used as an example in Romans 4 and it says his faith was credited as righteousness.

Again, the availability of the blessing is equal but our ability to access it depends upon our love for God, which is also given to us through grace. That God is not a respecter of persons does not mean we all are equally blessed. It does not mean that we all receive equally and all of that is his discretion. Any goodness in us is his discretion and a gift from him. Mary received a gift of being a mother of the savior and having that motherly bond that gave her a love that no one else could have. This was a gift to her from God that she simply said yes in faith to, being open to the blessing. If God were a respecter of persons, the gifts would not be free, that I agree on, but we need to recognize the difference between what is a gift in the person that predisposes us to further gifts. Grace starts before we are saved. Grace for Mary started before she said “be it done unto me according to thy word” and it made her open to receiving that infinite gift of a child who was the son of God.

Response
You said, “Grace does prevent sin. That Mary says she needed a savior is no proof that she was not sinless.”

I said, Therefore, the blessing of giving birth to Messiah because she believed God, could not, apart from His sacrifice, save her; it could only be an eternal blessing via the cross.

You said, “I one hundred percent agree. The grace from the cross goes back as well as forward.”

So if you consider Mary sinless on account of Christ’s sacrifice, then you would agree that every one of God’s children are sinless just like Mary for the same reason. This shows that you don’t really believe Mary was uniquely sinless from conception like you think you do. Christ was made an offering for sin; if Mary was saved because of that sacrifice as you agree she was, you cannot believe she was sinless from conception.

Catholic
Yes, another non-catholic telling a Catholic he knows Catholicism better than I and knows how I should think and what I should think. Did you read my post? Do you claim that avoiding sin is the same as committing the sin? Do you claim we don’t need grace to avoid sin? Was Eve sinless before she sinned or not sinless? Can God create a sinless human being?

Response
Actually, it was you who agreed that Mary’s salvation was only possible by Christ’s sacrifice. You and I both know that Christ’s sacrifice was the offering for sin. So because you believe Mary’s salvation came by that sacrifice, you believe she was not born sinless, but needed her sin placed upon Christ and put to death on the cross just like the rest of us. That is what you believe! Unless you want to tell me you do not agree that Christ’s sacrifice was the offering for sin.

Yes, Eve was created sinless, but did you forget that the promise that in her seed the serpent’s head would be crushed was made after the sin? The promise was not made while Eve was sinless, but after she and Adam had sinned. God created two sinless people who, had they not sinned, would have lived forever. But because of their sin, death entered the world. Did Mary die?

“Just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” (Rom. 5:12) Paul did not say, “except Mary.”

Catholic
His Sacrifice is for sin to be sure. But is sacrifice ONLY for sin? The Old Testament offerings that foreshadowed Christ’s offering were not just for sin. What are our sacrifices for? If you say all sacrifices are for sin, then you have a problem.

Response
You agreed that Mary’s salvation was a result of Christ’s sacrifice. So if you believe Mary had no sin and, therefore, had no need for Christ’s atoning sacrifice, how do you explain her salvation by that sacrifice?

Catholic
Because I don’t agree that his atonement was ONLY for sin committed as my last post tries to point out but you cannot seem to grasp. By HIS grace she did not sin. I think I’ve made that quite clear. Eve did not have to sin because she was human. Mary did not sin because she relied on God, not because she had the power within herself not to sin, except by his grace. Your statements imply that we have the power not to sin and don’t need grace and grace is like a mop up afterward. Paul tells us “you have not resisted sin to the point of death” in Hebrews. Such a resistance to sin requires grace! All is grace, doing good that God wants us to do, not just avoiding sin or having sins cleansed by grace, is grace. You have a very limited view of grace and what Christ really did for you on the cross.

Response
Saying, “Because I don’t agree that his atonement was ONLY for sin committed” does not answer my question. So let me ask it in a different way: if not for debt of sin, then what aspect of Christ’s sacrifice makes you believe that Mary received special grace to avoid sin from conception?

Isn’t Christ the righteous sacrifice upon whom our sin was placed and taken to the cross?

Did He who knew no sin not become sin so that sin might be put to death?

And if He became sin and was put to death, how does Mary benefit from the cross if she also knew no sin?

When Jesus said, “No one is good but One, that is, God,” did He not mean NO ONE but God?

When Paul said, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” did he not mean ALL have sinned?

And when Paul said that Adam’s sin brought death to all men, because all sinned, did he not mean ALL sinned?

What do you say to these things?

Catholic
[In reference to: “Saying, “Because I don’t agree that his atonement was ONLY for sin committed” does not answer my question.”]

Why yes I have in many ways quite clearly. Catholics I am sure have understood what I’ve tried to say but it is dead on arrival with you. You know what you believe and also what I believe so there really isn’t a lot of point in taking a third or fourth run at it except to say that God a human being that was without sin. I was answering the IC as a general matter which included no sin for Mary. God however created ANOTHER child without sin. I believe in original sin and that the sin nature is in the sperm and the egg. Yet Mary by grace had had this taken away. She was the first perfect human created sin God did it TWICE before (so it is quite possible for him to do it don’t you agree).

[In reference to: “Isn’t Christ the righteous sacrifice upon whom our sin was placed and taken to the cross?”]

Yep. But what you refuse to answer is he responsible at all for sins that you would commit? Do tell. If everyone has to sin in order to be saved then you must think that babies sin. Otherwise you have two different ways of salvation or some claim that all don’t need to be saved. That’s not consistent with scripture.

[In reference to: “Did He who knew no sin not become sin so that sin might be put to death?”]

Yep.

[In reference to: “And if He became sin and was put to death, how does Mary benefit from the cross if she also knew no sin?”]

Truly your joking in having to ask this question now. Please tell me you are. I’m not going to type it out again.

[In reference to: “When Jesus said, “No one is good but One, that is, God,” did He not mean NO ONE but God?”]

You might want to read the background of this in Psalm 14 where Paul is quoting from.

[In reference to: “When Paul said, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” did he not mean ALL have sinned? And when Paul said that Adam’s sin brought death to all men, because all sinned, did he not mean ALL sinned?”]

Well if all meant every single one then babies sin in the womb. Christ had to sin since he was fully man and fully. Now do me a favor and check the following passages and get back to me if all (pas gk) is always every single one. Mt 2:3 , 4:24. Mt 3:5, 21:10, 27:25, Mk 2:13, 9:15 That’s just a few examples. By the way what kind of sacrifices do we make and what for? Please answer. Blessings

Mary was spared by grace from the sin of adam passed on to who. This sin passed on which causes our sin nature, ie. concupescence etc. is inheretied to us all. But as a FREE GIFT from God and a gift for his son he made Mary as a new creation, free from sin, preventing in some way which we do not know from this stain on the soul. Note it was a FREE GIFT to her. Now your going to have to show me that original sin is false and then your going to have to explain why little children don’t need a savior and why they are excluded from the ALL HAVE SINNED and where is the age of reason in scripture.

Response
You are a riot. This is not about what God is capable of doing, nor is it about babies; this discussion is about Mary and your belief that she was sinless. Your entire defense is based on what God is capable of doing. You have no Scriptural proof for what you believe. From a biblical perspective, what you believe isn’t even reasonable.

You see the same Scriptures I do yet deny they mean what they say. In Adam all die, and in him all have sinned. This includes babies and little children, the difference is that they are not accountable if they should die in their youth on account of their inability to commit sin. But even they are justified by Christ’s sacrifice; not because of sins they committed, but because of Adam’s sin.

The fact of the matter is little children die; and that fact is a direct result of Adam’s sin. If God did create someone sinless, they would be exempt from death because death is punishment for sin. “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (Rom. 5:14) Why don’t you understand this?

If you believe God created anyone sinless since the fall of Adam and Eve, you completely fail to understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have absolutely no bases for your argument. The doctrine of immaculate conception is completely unbiblical, unreasonable, and was completely unknown to the early church. The apostles never taught it, the early Christians never heard it, and it never happened! The only believable thing you said about your doctrine is, “…we do not know…”

Finely, I hope you had fun knocking down the straw man you built. I haven’t said anything about it before, but now it is getting tiring. First you suggest that since I said our sins are place upon Christ, I must believe His sacrifice was only for sins committed. Once you have decided that for me, you assert that I must believe babies commit sin. Straw man built. Then you say, “that’s not consistent with Scripture.” Straw man successfully knocked down; congratulations. The rest of your post simply continues with that assertion and culminated in your ridiculous request that I explain to you why little children don’t need a savior. You not only knocked the straw man down, you pummeled him beyond recognition. You must be proud.

“Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1Thessalonians 5:21)

Response
God bless you too, Thessalonian. And to Seminarian and all who have participated here, thank you and God bless! I’m done too!

My comments on the debate:

One of my favorite quotes regarding the so-called immaculate conception, comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia where they are quoted as saying, “In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.”

This quote shows the arrogance behind the leadership of the Catholic Church. If anyone, including early church fathers, are not in agreement with the mighty Catholic Church, they must be in error. But I guess arrogance and stubbornness are about the only way one could defend such a ridiculous doctrine. And this is exactly what I found from my Catholic opponent.

My opponent was firm in his belief that the cross of Christ kept Mary from sin, but could not tell me how, because he doesn’t know. Eventually he would have admitted this because there is simply no way around it.

We know that the Christ’s sacrifice was for our sins. He entered the Holy Place by His own blood for the sins of His people. This is what the high priest did on the Day of Atonement each year for the sins of Israel. Christ is the true High Priest who takes away the sins of the world. Mary was no doubt included with Israel when the high priest offered the blood for their sins. And likewise, Mary’s sins were forgiven by the true and righteous sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.

Ignatius of Antioch and the “Real Presence Doctrine”

 Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters that are extant.  The situation Ignatius was in while composing his seven epistles is unique to say the least.  Showing his love for Christ and His church, Ignatius selflessly and voluntarily presented himself before the Emperor Trajan as a Christian bishop and was subsequently charged and condemned to death by wild beasts. 

All seven letters were written while Ignatius was a Roman prisoner in rout to Rome where he was to be killed. Four of the letters were written during a stop in Smyrna where Pollycarp was bishop; they consist of his letter to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, and the Romans.  The remaining three letters to the Philadelphians, the Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp were written from Troas where they tarried a few days. 

The works of Ignatius can be somewhat confusing because of what are called, long recensions.  The long recensions are longer versions of Ignatius’ letters that were created in the late fourth or early fifth century.  Even the authenticity of the short (or shorter) recensions is in question by some scholars.  Nevertheless, I will treat the short recensions as authentic because they are generally believed to be authentic, and I have found a clear reference to one of them in the writings of Irenaeus.

From Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, there is a quote that has become somewhat famous in Catholic apologetic circles.  The quote has been credited for convincing many former Protestants that the Catholic Church is Christ’s true church, not that any of these people needed Ignatius to help them get there; they were headed there anyway.  But the quote is believed to be quite powerful in persuading Catholic leaning inquisitors.  Here is the quote:

“They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” (From Chapter 7)

As always, in order to understand the quote, the context must be considered.  Who are “they?”  Why do they not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of Christ?  And what does Ignatius mean by eucharist and prayer?

Who was Ignatius referring to?  Prior to making the above statement, Ignatius identified the heretics in a couple of different places.  “He [Jesus] suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians.” (ibid, Chapter 2) And, “For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.” (ibid, Chapter 5)

The they Ignatius was talking about are Dosetists (Greek dokesis).  The word means “to seem.”  Docetism claimed that Christ did not exist in human form.  And, as Ignatius points out, they claim He only seemed to suffer, to which Ignatius replied, “they only seem to be Christians.”

They do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of Christ because they didn’t believe he truly suffered.  And the eucharist itself, Ignatius describes, is: “our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”  In other words, the eucharist is the celebration of the passion and resurrection of our Lord.  Ignatius goes on to say this:

“Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.”

It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius.  They attempt to make it look as though the Dosetists objected to the eucharist because they didn’t believe the bread and wine used to celebrate it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ.  That simply isn’t true; rather, Ignatius conveys that the gift of God is eternal life made possible by the sacrifice of Christ.  That sacrifice is what the eucharist is all about.  It is the sacrifice and suffering of Christ the Dosetists spoke against and, therefore, abstained from celebrating the eucharist in which thanksgiving is offered for Christ’s passion. 

There is absolutely no contextual support for claiming that Ignatius was referring to the eucharist bread as being the literal flesh of Christ.  That is merely assumed by those who already believe it.  We should also keep in mind that Ignatius was about to be martyred, and this letter to the Smyrnaeans was written to exhort the church to keep the unity in truth, obeying the Gospel of Christ, and to be aware of heresies like Docetism.  If there had been anything like the sacrifice of the mass or eucharistic adoration existing during that time, Ignatius would have certainly included something about it in this letter. 

In his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius wrote, “If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].  Take ye heed, then, to have but one eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood.”  (Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapters 3 and 4)

There is only one sacrifice for sin, one flesh of Christ, and one altar in heaven, and one truth which is in Jesus Christ.  He exhorted the Philadelphians to come together to give thanks and praise, to celebrate the passion of Christ in unity and love.  This exhortation is echoed in His letter to the Ephesians where he said, “Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.” (To the Ephesians, Chapter 13)

Notice, he didn’t exhort them to come together to participate in offering up Christ in an un-bloody sacrifice.

Most of Ignatius’ letters were exhortations to peace, unity, and vigilance, but his letter to the Romans was quite different.  The thing that troubled Ignatius most was the potential hindrance of his martyrdom by the Christians in Rome.  Ignatius wanted to make clear to the church in Rome his desire to be martyred. Fortunately for us, doing so provided opportunity for him to expound a bit on his understanding of the bread of Christ.

“I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 4)

Ignatius identifies himself as wheat and bread of God.  This comes from the biblical understanding of the eucharist celebration.  The Apostle Paul said, “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” (1Cor. 10:17)  That bread representing not only the body of Christ that was broken for us, but also our oneness with him.  And, the Lord promises we too will suffer persecution because if we are one with Him, the world will hate us as it does Him.  A better explanation is found in the words of Irenaeus who referenced Ignatius’ words:

“And therefore throughout all time, man, having been moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God: the chaff, indeed, which is the apostasy, being cast away; but the wheat, that is, those who bring forth fruit to God in faith, being gathered into the barn. And for this cause tribulation is necessary for those who are saved, that having been after a manner broken up, and rendered fine, and sprinkled over by the patience of the Word of God, and set on fire [for purification], they may be fitted for the royal banquet. As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: “I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” (Irenaeus Against Heresies, 5:28)

By calling himself the wheat of Christ and the pure bread of heaven, Ignatius identifies himself to be in union with Christ’s passion.  And this is what Ignatius wanted more than anything, to partake of the bread of God; that is, to be martyred for his faith and live forever more with Christ.  He eloquently explained to the church in Rome that he desired the ultimate prize: eternal life made possible by the flesh and blood of Christ.

“For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” (To the Romans, Chapter 7)

Ignatius speaks of the Spirit of God within him (there is within me a water) beckoning him to come.  He had no delight in corruptible food such as earthly bread, but rather the living bread come down from heaven, namely, the flesh of Christ that was sacrificed for the sins of the world.  And for drink he desired not corruptible wine, but the incorruptible blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins.  Ignatius was about to encounter his Lord face to face!

Attempts to use Ignatius’ words here to support transubstantiation are nothing short of ridiculous.  It is incomprehensible to think that anyone could ignore the obvious context of this letter (or any of Ignatius’ letters) just to promote their agenda.  Unfortunately it will continue to be the case.  But for those who truly desire truth and are willing to take the time, the agendas of some will not prevail over truth. 

Justin Martyr And The “Real Presence Doctrine”

 Of Justin’s extant writings, three are referenced here: the first and second portions of his apology written to Emperor Antoninus (138-161), referenced as first apology and second apology, and Justin’s Dialog with Trypho the Jew.  

In Justin’s first apology, he gives a rather detailed description of the celebration of the eucharist for the purpose of contrasting it with certain pagan distortions of truth. 

“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.  And this food is called among us eukaristia [the eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)

Earlier in his apology Justin defended against accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood.  Here, in his description of the eucharist, he is making it clear that Christians do not partake of flesh and blood in any carnal way, but rather bread and wine mixed with water: “to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water.”  Justin then asserted that though Christians partake of bread and wine, it is not common bread or common wine, but that the bread and wine are connected to Christ who became incarnate and was sacrificed at Calvary for those who believe.  This food, i.e. bread and wine mixed with water, which by transmutation nourishes the body, is what the Christians call the flesh and blood of Christ.  The accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood are, therefore, refuted by Justin. 

Justin gives an example of what the pagan government did tolerate and even honor, while persecuting Christians for what appeared to them to be a similar behavior.  Among them were certain men who performed evil magic and were honored and revered by the pagan leaders.  Justin even names some of these men: a Samaritan named Simon for whom they erected a statue in his honor with the inscription, “To Simon the holy God.”  Another was Meander, a disciple of Simon who persuaded his followers that they would never die.  And also someone much more familiar to us today, Marcion, who, among other heresies, denied that God was the creator of the universe.

All these, Justin explained, are called Christians.  But only the true Christians who hold the apostolic teachings are persecuted by the authorities.  And in summing this up, Justin wrote:

“And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds–the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh–we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.” (ibid, 26)

To put it in context, Justin first referred to the eating of human flesh a shameful deed; then he explained that the eucharist celebration does not involve consuming human flesh in any way.  The bread and wine mixed with water are symbolically the body and blood of Christ.  The accusation that Christians ate human flesh was used to persecute Christians, while others who may have actually done that were not persecuted.  The purpose of Justin’s explanation of the eucharist was to counter the accusation that Christians ate human flesh.

Justin continues to make his point in his second apology.  Here Justin shows that feasting on human flesh is contrary to the Christian mindset. 

“For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds.” (2^nd Apology, Chapter 12)

Justin thoroughly refuted the claim that the eucharist is literally flesh and blood in his apologies.  In a debate with a Jew named Trypho, Justin deals directly with the eucharist as he did in his first apology.  To Trypho he wrote about many Old Testament types and how they pointed to Christ and His church.  With regards to the eucharist, he said:

“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, ‘I said,’ which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”

This is the very definition of the eucharist – a celebration of the remembrance of the Lord’s passion in which Christians offer thanks and prayer.  The offering of fine flour was part of what the cleansed leper was required to offer.  Justin tells Trypho that this offering was a type of the bread of the eucharist.  He goes on to explain what the bread of the eucharist represents, thus by similarity, what the fine flour presented by the leper represented.

The bread represents what Jesus offered in the past, that is, His suffering flesh, which He endured for the sake of those who believe on Him.  According to Justin, the fine flour presented by the leper pointed forward to the same thing.  But the Catholic Encyclopedia does not agree.  Under the topic of “The Sacrifice of the Mass,” they say this:

“A heated controversy had raged round the conception of Justin Martyr (d. 166) from the fact that in his “Dialogue with Tryphon” (c. 117) he characterizes “prayer and thanksgiving” (euchai kai eucharistiai) as the “one perfect sacrifice acceptable to God” (teleiai monai kai euarestoi thysiai).” [i]

Unwilling to accept Justin’s definition, the Catholic encyclopedia continues with an objection: “Did he intend by thus emphasizing the interior spiritual sacrifice to exclude the exterior real sacrifice of the eucharist? Clearly he did not, for in the same “Dialogue” (c. 41) he says the “food offering” of the lepers, assuredly a real gift offering (cf. Leviticus 14), was a figure (typos) of the bread of the eucharist, which Jesus commanded to be offered (poiein) in commemoration of His sufferings.”

The problem with this reasoning is Jesus never commanded the bread to be offered, but rather taken or received (lambano); “Take, eat, this is My body.”  He then commanded His disciples to do this (poiein) in remembrance of Him; that is, to break bread in remembrance of Him and offer the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, not offer the bread as a sacrifice.  The encyclopedia article continues to become more desperate as it goes on:

“He [Justin] then goes on: ‘of the sacrifices which you (the Jews) formerly offered, God through Malachias said: ‘I have no pleasure, etc’. By the sacrifices (thysion), however, which we Gentiles present to Him in every place, that is (toutesti) of the bread of eucharist and likewise of the chalice eucharist, he then said that we glorify his name, while you dishonour him.’ Here ‘bread and chalice’ are by the use of toutesti clearly included as objective gift offerings in the idea of the Christian sacrifice.”

You know you are in trouble when you have to resort to defining common Greek words like toutesti (that is).  Perhaps the Catholic quire will believe it, but certainly not anyone seeking the truth.  Justin continues to develop his point as the dialog progresses.  Justin makes his point even more clear in chapter 70 where he connects a prophecy of Isaiah with the eucharist.

“They [the words of Isaiah] are these: ‘Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might. The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water[shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counselors? where is he that numbers those who are nourished,–the small and great people? with whom they did not take counsel, nor knew the depth of the voices, so that they heard not. The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”

Justin explicitly stated that bread (not the flesh) is given by Christ in remembrance of His flesh, and that the cup is in remembrance of – not is – His own blood.  If Justin believed in transubstantiation i.e. the real presence, he would have certainly stated it here, instead he refutes it. 

In ending his exhortation to Trypho on the subject of sacrifice, Justin affirmed the definition of true Christian sacrifice in this statement:

“Ezekiel says, ‘There shall be no other prince in the house but He.’ For He is the chosen Priest and eternal King, the Christ, inasmuch as He is the Son of God; and do not suppose that Isaiah or the other prophets speak of sacrifices of blood or libations being presented at the altar on His second advent, but of true and spiritual praises and giving of thanks.” (ibid, chapter 118)

Truly it is as Justin said, “giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God.” (ibid, chapter 117)

---

[i] Catholic Encyclopedia; Sacrifice of the Mass