Article #37- The "Mass" Isn't the same Sacrifice as Calvary

Gospel Light Ministries

"The "Mass" Isn't the Same Sacrifice as Calvary”

Growing up as a Roman Catholic, my religious life centered upon Sunday's mass service. Have you ever thought about what the mass represents or what the significance of the Mass is? If you are like most people, you probably haven't. Or perhaps you might have thought that the Mass is just how Catholics want "to do their thing," figuring that it's just another form of worship. The problem lies in the fact that the Bible tells us that there is only one way to get to Heaven, not many ways to get there, so let's us see just how well "The Mass" compares in this process. This is what the Catholic Catechism tells us:
1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.
1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."
1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.
1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."
"Whooooa! That's enough about what they claim the mass is." you must be thinking. Well, there is more to it. On a website, WWW.Catholic.com, they explain the mass to be: "Similarly, in the Mass Christ offers himself to the Father on our behalf, and we, his people, join ourselves sacramentally to his offering. The Mass is a way of approaching God through Christ's sacrifice, which is made present sacramentally because Christ himself is present." The problem is that this belief is built upon the false teaching of transubstantiation. This was taken from an old teaching of Aristotle in 300 BC which states that everything is made up of accidents (outward appearance) and substance (inner substance). They claim that the inner substance of the wafer changes into the literal body and blood of Jesus while the outer appearance remains the same.
There isn't space enough here to pick apart all of the given arguments, but I'll touch on a few areas. First, for every miracle that Jesus did in the Bible, there was physical evidence that a change happened, as in the water didn't stay water that simply tasted like wine or the crippled people no longer were crippled, etc., etc... Secondly, Matthew 15 tells us that food has no bearing on corrupting a person, so how can it be that by literally eating His body we gain entrance into Heaven? Thirdly, John 6 is about believing in Jesus. And just as Jesus spoke in John 4:31 to 34 about the meat that He had to eat was spiritually speaking, likewise in John Chapter 6, He spoke of doing the Father's will. In fact, He tells us this in verse 6:63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Furthermore, Jesus often used figurative language to help explain Himself to us, as when He said, "I am the door," (John 10:9), "I am the light," (John 9:5) and "I am the vine" ( John 15:1+5) with no literal misunderstanding. And fourthly, we are told in Acts Chapter 1:11, that "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." So are we to ignore this verse as well as Matthew 24:26 and 30 which says, "So if anyone tells you, `There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, `Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."? When Jesus appears the next time, the whole world will see it.
Finally, by knowing what Jesus said, the Bible interprets itself. When Jesus came to Earth, it was as a human, and He often told of His death that was to come. So when He said, "This is my Body...." He was talking about His physical body, that His Body was about to be persecuted, not the bread which He was holding. No, the mass isn't the same sacrifice as Calvary, and the important event to focus on is what happened on the cross, not at the last supper. Jesus simply invites everyone to partake in the breaking of the bread in remembrance of what He was about to do on the cross. Communion is done in remembrance of what Jesus did nearly 2000 years ago so we can praise, worship and thank Him for all that He's done for us. Thus, the early Church simply did four things. They, "... continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42) We should do the same today.

Article #35 - "Brethren of the Lord?"

Gospel Light Ministries

"Brethren of the Lord?"



The Bible shows us that Jesus may or may not have had brothers and sisters, depending upon to whom you decide to listen. On one hand, the Bible tells us, "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matthew 13:55,56) "And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." (Mark 3:31-35) We could continue by showing other Scriptures as well, such as, "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days." (John 2:12) Or even from the Book of Acts that tells us, "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts 1:14) These are pretty obviously, Jesus' brothers and sisters when you are reading the Bible to see what it says. There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

The question is why do some people profess that idea of Mary being an "ever-virgin" girl? Despite their claims, it is not Biblical. Yes, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to our Lord Jesus, just as the Bible prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." But after Jesus was born, she undoubtedly had more children. Their arguments are filled with half quotes and pure suggestive speculation so as to give an appearance of truth. Satan did the same thing to Eve in the garden when he tempted her into doubting God's word. Here are some of the "explanations" given by those who believe Mary remained a perpetual virgin.
1. "Brother" and "sister," and their plurals, are indeterminate in New Testament Greek. The indeterminacy arises from the lack of words for close relations, such as cousin, in Aramaic and Hebrew. We can conclude nothing about the relationship of Jesus’ "brothers and sisters" from those disputed words alone.
The Biblical response - Read the Matthew and Mark Scriptures again! They weren't disciples, and when did Mary and Joseph open their house for all these extras? Seems like a ridiculous defense for permanent virginity. There were more precise words for "cousins" if needed.
2. "Firstborn" does not imply there was a "secondborn" child. "Firstborn" was a legal term under the Law, designating the child who opened the womb and who, if male, had special rights and duties by virtue of being the eldest son in the family.
The Biblical response - This may be correct but it certainly does not pertain to this discussion. It is meant as a suggestive diversion that does NOT apply here. Nor does it mean there was not a second born.
3. For the Jews, "until" did not mean what it means today. It implied nothing about whether an action happened after a particular instant. One cannot conclude that if Mary was a virgin "until" Jesus’ birth, she must have ceased being one after.
The Biblical response - Just another attempt to deny God's Word and Paul wrote in Corinthians about how married spouses should not deny sex to each other.
4. Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, despite their substantial theological deficiencies, were intelligent men--at least as well read as D. James Kennedy and Ian S. McSevney. The three Reformers maintained Mary’s lifelong virginity precisely because they thought the Bible taught it.
The Biblical response - Regardless of whom says their beliefs, it doesn't matter when comparing men's words to God's ways. Man's ways are not to be followed over the Lord's ways as Paul tells us, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8) These reformers may have sincerity, however, these men are just simply sincerely wrong on this.
5. The arguments include how Mary was pledged to be a virgin. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage.
The Biblical response - Mary is consenting to God's plan and simply says that she is a virgin now. No need to read into Scriptures what is clear, that at the time of this, she wasn't having sexual relations with a man.
6. The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
The Biblical response - Jesus cared for His mother and wanted her welfare to be in good hands. John is a believer while at this point Jesus' other family members were not yet saved.

In closing, I can't deny the obvious, that Jesus had half-brothers, and half-sisters which doesn't deny anything about God or His ways. But for the churches that promote these facts, they deny again what Scriptures tell us, proving again that they can't be Jesus' church. Gospel Light Ministries again appeals to those that defend their "Church" as "the one, true, infallible Church" and realize that the spiritual battle continues for their soul and that they're in need of the Biblical truths and Salvation. Loyalty and faith count for nothing without the solid Biblical facts as "that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3) Pick up a Bible and "as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby," (1 Peter 2:2) and as Jesus said in John 8:31, "and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Gospel Light Ministries

Article #33 - Are You Born Again?

“Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:5). Just what does He mean by being “Born again?” Sad to say, the enemy of the Gospel of grace even has the Sunday Visitor, a weekly news periodical, in on his effort to twist the truth. Let’s look at the question in which the Sunday Visitor talks about whether a person is born again and compare what they say to what the Bible tells us.

The article starts out clear enough by giving us some of the Biblical verses that we’ll want to look at. It begins by pointing out Jesus, who tells Nicodemus: “No one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (or “born again” - the Greek in this passage, John 3:3, allows for either translation). Nicodemus is puzzled. “How,” he asks, “can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” (John 3:4).

The Sunday Visitor article then gives a faulty interpretation as well by telling us that this means, “The event described here is not, as some Christians insist, an initial profession of faith in Christ. Rather, it refers to the sacrament of Baptism, when the person is washed with water and receives the Spirit. Later, preaching on Pentecost, St. Peter confirms that those who are baptized receive the Spirit (see Acts 2:38).”The correct Biblical look at this section is just the opposite, however, as we look at the context of John chapter 3 and Acts 2:36-43. First, in John 3:5,6 the section continued by saying, “Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.’” Man is born of the flesh at his birth, with the water of his mother’s fluids, but still needs a spiritual rebirth as verses 15 to 18 explains the need for belief, “That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life...He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Secondly, in Acts 2:36 - 43, we see Peter preaches the gospel to the Jews that crucified Jesus (verse 36) and since they publicly rejected Him, Peter was now calling for the same Jews that asked “What shall we do?” to acknowledge Jesus publicly by being identified with Him in baptism. Note that in verse 41 it says, “those who gladly received his word were baptized.” The people that “received the Word of God” concerning the testimony of Jesus by Peter believed. It was after this that they were baptized.

The reason we can be confident that baptism is not the requirement for remission of sins is because in Acts 10:43, Peter, the same speaker is preaching to the Gentiles at Cornelius’ home. And about salvation he said to them there, “To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” So we see that the same speaker puts believing for the requirement for salvation.
Even more proof is found at the end of Acts 10. Luke tells us in Acts 10:44, “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word..” Those are the Gentiles that were saved and filled with the Holy Spirit at that point. Peter goes on to say in verses 47,48 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Note the baptism was after they “received the Holy Ghost as well as we” says Peter. To try and create an argument that somehow these Gentiles were not saved would really be Scripture-twisting.
There are many arguments about baptism, too many to be handled here. Paul is certainly not teaching that water baptism was the means of God saving the sinner. For he goes through great lengths in Romans chapter 4 regarding Abram and his justification by faith when he simply believed God. Paul makes it clear when he quotes Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:4, “For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” This is definitely a foundation to Paul’s argument that salvation is at the point of believing and involves no ritual. Baptism is to be done as a means of identifying oneself as a believer in what Jesus did at Calvary’s cross and resurrection. Even the verses, such as in 1 Peter 3:20,21, which says, “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” needs to be examined. It isn’t the ritual of the water that saved anyone. The facts are that the water destroyed all it touched, but rather the Ark, a type of Jesus Christ and through His resurrection which does the saving. There are other verses as well in which someone may think Baptism saves, but we must remember that we are “saved by grace, not works” (Ephesians 2:8) and as Paul tells us, “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6).

Baptism is a work that someone does after hearing and believing; they then should identify themselves, publicly, to be a believer in Jesus. As Scripture tells us, consistently, “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.” (Ephesians 1:13). This is the point in which you are a Born Again Believer. How? Simply by believing the Word for the Bible tells us, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17) and “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” (Ephesians 5:26). As Paul tells us, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:17,18).

Gospel Light Ministries
Article #32 - The Problem with Ecumenicalism

Ecumenicalism is basically just a big word used by a lot of religious people, but to know exactly what it means, we'll look up the word. We see that ecumenicalism means -"the doctrine of the ecumenical movement that promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations: aimed at universal Christian unity." In other words, ecumenicalism basically means that there is within Christianity "the urge to merge" with others that profess to be Christians, primarily by tolerance of those that are different in their beliefs while looking at what we have in common. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? But it is even more convincing when the leader of a certain denomination adds that Bible verse found in John 17:22, "...that they may be one, even as we are one," as if Jesus was all for unity. However, Jesus wasn't preaching unity for the sake of unity. He was asking for unity amongst His disciples, those like-minded followers, the believers of His one true way of His one true Gospel. Elsewhere His word tells us this fact, the fact that He is against ecumenicalism, as in Luke 12:51+52, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." And Matthew 7:13 +14 tells us, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." The Bible clearly tells us to separate believers from non-believers, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" And "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (John 6:14+17)

Why do I choose to question ecumenicalism? Am I against peace? No, but there is a danger that goes with ecumenicalism. And I see it when the persons that try to get me to look the other way by telling me to "Let's forget our differences, after all, there are no two people alike. Let's just try to get along!" This is compromise! The Bible is clear about there being only one God, one Jesus, and one Gospel. And John 3:16 tells us, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:36 adds our two choices, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Jesus tells us that differences do matter in His Word, the Bible, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Therefore, it seems to be clear that the Bible tells us two reasons to oppose ecumenicalism. The first is that there is only a minority of those that claim to be Christians are actually true believers, the others are Christian in name only. The second is that God doesn’t want believers to compromise His gospel with nonbelievers and knows that His Word divides people, not unite them. Hebrews 4:12 tells us, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." God knows and warns us about the dangers of compromising throughout the Bible.

We now live in a period of which all the parts of the puzzle now are falling into place for the return of Jesus. The Bible tells us that we are living at the time in which we can expect Jesus to come for His followers and for the rest of the world of unbelievers to suffer through the seven year tribulation. I won't get into that part now except to say that the Scriptures talk about a one world religion forming at that time and we can see it already when everyone starts compromising. Then we have what we saw happened in 1986 with a World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi, Italy. That unprecedented gathering at the pope's invitation drew leaders of Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Unitarians, traditional African and Native American religions and many others. Together, under the roof of the Basilica of St. Francis, they all prayed, side by side, with Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant leaders for world peace, often times saying "we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God." All these religions having the same God? Not hardly!

Sounds much like those that Jesus warned about in the Books of Jeremiah 6:14 and 9:11, where it says, "Peace, peace; when there is no peace." Finally, in Matthew 24:24+25 we see a warning from Jesus. It says, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before." Are you sure that Ecumenicalism is what you want? I don't and I'd rather stick with Joshua's thinking, "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)