Biblogic Series: Tangent:

The Literal Body of Christ

Attention Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans:

Context: 1 Corinthians 15

The biological body of Christ was raised imperishable or incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:42) and immortal (1 Corinthians 15:53-54).

That which is imperishable cannot perish, and that which is immortal cannot die.

Since Christ's post-resurrection body is imperishable and immortal, it can neither die again nor continue in death.

If the Eucharist becomes dead or dying flesh, it cannot be the body of Christ continuing or repeating death. 

If the communion bread does not become the dying or dead flesh of Christ, it can only symbolize the body of Christ. 

If your priest cannot turn communion bread into the flesh of Christ, what other superpowers has he been faking?

If you worship (synonym: venerate) something that is not God as though it were God, technically, that’s called idolatry.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Don't plagiarize; cite sources properly.

Venerating Mary Undermines Worshiping God

Answering a question on Quora:

How does our veneration of Mary and the saints relate to our worship of God?

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of WORSHIP

1: to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power

2: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion

Definition of VENERATE

1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference

2: to honor (an icon, a relic, etc.) with a ritual act of devotion

As you can see, both worship and veneration involve reverence, respect, honor, and devotion. The only difference is the object of veneration or devotion. So they’re the same thing; people just use one word for God and a different word for saints such as Mary.

In other words, an institution plays word games when it says, “We don’t worship Mary or saints, we venerate them.”

The Catholic institution claims Mary is a “co-mediatrix” and “co-redemptrix” with God the Son, placing her on the same level, with regard to mediation and redemption, with the infinite God the Son. To be precise, although the Roman Catholic Church does not officially endorse such teachings, it allows them, and large segments of the institution actively defend and promote them.

On the other hand, the Bible says, “For there is one God, one mediator also between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all…” (1 Timothy 2:5.) Christ plus Mary = 2, not 1. So, logically, if there is one Mediator, God the Son, then depending on another mediator takes away from the reverence, respect, honor, and devotion due to the One.

As infinite God the Son, Christ is omnipresent and omniscient. As such, He can be aware of thousands of simultaneous prayers spread across Earth’s surface (and perhaps a few in orbit). But how can any mere human possess that omnipresent awareness and multi-process thousands or millions of simultaneous voices?

One priest explained to me that people see God as stern and unsympathetic, so they turn to Mary to intercede with Christ. This implies that Mary is more loving and sympathetic than Christ, and therefore quicker to intercede for us. Put another way, Mary’s love and sympathy is greater than God’s, or God is inferior to Mary. Pause for a moment and re-read that.

The scriptures, on the other hand, says Jesus is our high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses, “One who has been tempted in all things as we are” (Hebrews 4:15), and is “able to save forever those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). Closer to the hearts of those who become biblical Christians God’s way, “the [Holy] Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and… He intercedes for the saints (all believers) according to the will of God” (Romans 8:26–27).

So, rather than chanting mindlessly and praying to saints, we are commanded by God to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16). We do not know that saints in heaven hear us, let alone individually. However, we do know that the brother or sister we ask for prayer hears us, that Christ hears us, and that the Holy Spirit not only hears us, but also corrects our prayers. So, what does it say about our reverence, respect, honor, and devotion to God when we disobey the command to come directly to Him and instead give it to His creatures?

The Catholic institution says that Mary reigns with Christ in heaven. However, the scriptures say that Christ shares God’s own glory and sits on the right side of God’s throne (Hebrews 8:11, Hebrews 12:2), and the LORD (YHWH) says “I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8). Can we say of Mary,

“Yours, LORD, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and on the earth; Yours is the dominion, LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all“ (1 Chronicles 29:11)?

If a Catholic usurped titles, roles, and attributes of the Pope, you could rightly call it irreverence, disrespect, dishonor, and disloyalty. And if I usurped a title, role, or attribute of God such as Mediator, Redeemer, or omnipresence, you could rightly call it irreverence, disrespect, dishonor, and disloyalty — in short, blasphemy.

So practices of “veneration” such as creating and servicing images of saints, praying to them, and taking time away from worshiping God not only minimizes worship of God, but actually insults Him.

(Dear Catholic: I don’t hate you. I want better for you. But that requires following the gospel, which Rome has severely distorted. Biblical grace is a “gift” to be received as a free, once-for-all gift direct from God. It is not something earned because anything earned is no longer a gift. Unfortunately, that’s out of scope here.)

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Water Baptism Can Prevent Salvation

Answering a question on Quora:

Why is water baptism required for salvation from the wages of sin...?

Water baptism is not required for salvation. It is a new believer’s first act of obedience to God after having entered into salvation.

“Baptism” has two meanings. When reading about “baptism” in the Bible, always ask yourself which kind is meant.

The “baptism” that saves is done silently by the Holy Spirit. The water ceremony symbolizes part of it, namely, the death to self called “repentance” and our spiritual regeneration (more on this, below). Baptism by the Spirit also makes believers members of the universal church with unique roles and giftedness to aid in the functioning of the body of believers. See 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 and especially verses 12–13. Also see Romans 12.

The obvious meaning is the ceremony of being dunked in water. By going down into the water, we identify with Christ’s death, and it represents that we died to self during the process of conversion. By coming up out of the water, we identify with Christ’s resurrection, and it represents the new, regenerated life of our spirits in Christ. Read the first paragraph of Romans chapter 6. (You will notice that pouring, sprinkling, and dabbing do not fulfill the symbolism. Even the Roman Catholic Church baptized by immersion for over 1,200 years.)

1 Peter 3:21 is often cited as evidence that water baptism saves. However, the verse says baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” In other words, it is about obeying God to gain assurance that our faith is sincere.

Many churches claim that baptism places people into God’s New Covenant, so it is analogous to the Old Testament ceremony of circumcision. That ignores that the Old Covenant was between God and a nation (not individuals), whereas the New Covenant is directly between God and individuals. The New Testament not only does not support the claim; it actually contradicts the claim. See Ephesians 2:8–9.

Paul’s epistle to the Galatians dealt with an early church heresy that added ceremonies to faith as requirements for salvation. The specific ceremony was circumcision, but I’m sure you can see the principle without having it spelled out. Paul used terms such as “foolish” and “bewitched” (chapter 3) to describe those who fell for the heresy. In fact, the term “fallen from grace” refers not to losing salvation (the pop definition); rather it refers to those who add ceremonies to simple faith as requirements for salvation (chapter 5).

Peter did advise the Jews who had just murdered Christ to repent and be baptized. However, the salvation of gentiles in Acts 10:44–48 shows that salvation and Spiritual baptism precede water baptism.

Baptism to be saved puts the cart before the horse. It tries to makes the result into a cause. It tries to make our meritorious work of going through a ceremony into a way to earn a gift. Can you see the contradiction in “earning a gift?” And if someone has tried to earn a gift that is acquired through faith alone, have they really received the gift?

I was “baptized” (dabbed) in a mainline church as a child. It did me no good. Many others who were “baptized” became atheists, joined heretical churches, or joined cults. What did me good was hearing a corrected, biblical gospel when I was mature enough to grasp it. Then I got baptized God’s way.

We don’t get baptized to acquire salvation; we get baptized to assure ourselves and tell the world that God has already saved us. 

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, provided credit is given where credit is due.

Procrastinated Salvation Due to a Fallen Gospel

Answering a post on Reddit

Prayer for an end to procrastination

Hi all, lately I've been learning about what it means to actually be a Christian. It's not just a feeling, but rather a love relationship with God. Recently I've been struggling with 3 major things and I was wondering if you would be willing to pray that God helps me overcome them (preferably quickly too):

1. Procrastination (this is probably my biggest one, because I fear that I take steps back when trying to take steps towards God because I end up feeling like I'm willing to do what God wants, but after I do this, this, and this. The thing I assume that God wants me to do is call upon His name to be saved, but I sometimes can tell that I hold out on calling His name due to the procrastination and the genuineness of my heart [4]).
2. Lust (I'm having trouble realizing that my lust has had destructive effects on me and need help realizing this in a way that will result in my salvation).
3. Going "in and out of reality" (basically zoning out or going into a sort of autopilot mode. It's like listening and watching a conversation and enjoying watching more than being a part of it).
4. The genuineness of my heart (I struggle with genuinely praying, wanting God's help, and wanting Him at times, and how this relates to the procrastination of potentially holding out on Him when it comes to calling upon His name. Sometimes I think that I hear about a problem and then assume I have it or let myself slip into that problem, so that's another thing I would appreciate prayers for: running from problems that God doesnt want me in, not to them. Thank you all so much, happy new year and merry late Christmas :). God bless you ❤

Answer

I struggle with many of the same things and do not count myself worthy to preach. And yet, we are responsible to share what we have been blessed with, so I'll offer what I have learned. It will revolutionize the way you look at the problems for which you've requested prayer.

All religions except one have, as their ultimate goal for individuals, achievement through personal merit of some form of "salvation." Many mistaken variants of Christianity, veering onto that same path, have become counterfeit "Christian" churches, denominations, or movements.

To debunk that concept, the Law given to ancient Israel through Moses proved that nobody could achieve that level of righteousness. The Mosaic Law was one Law with many points. It had several layers.

The Law is like fractals. Every time you look closer, you see more details. Each layer adds details about how to fulfill the previous layer:

1. Love God
2. Love God's creation; specifically, fellow humans
3. The Ten Commandments
4. Another 600 commandments; some being ceremonial or civil and only for ancient Israel, but many being moral.

Here's one example:

1. Love God.
2. Love God by loving your fellow humans.
3. Do not commit adultery or covet (desiring what's not yours).
4. Do not lust after someone other than your spouse because lust is adultery of the mind and covetousness. God is Spirit, so what we "do" in our spirits is just as real to Him as what we do in the material world.

Although the Law served to maintain peace between neighbors and between us and God, it served two main purpose:

• Many ceremonial elements conveyed spiritual or prophetic truths. For example, the sacrifices symbolized how Christ would bear our sins on the cross.
  
  
• The strictness of the Law showed us that we could not self-righteously justify ourselves. "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law [specifically, ancient Israel; generally, self-righteous people], so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20).

Both purposes drove a third: Instead of relying on self-righteousness, we must trust entirely the undeserved favor of God. "Now to the one who works [people who try to achieve salvation through self-righteousness], his wage [salvation] is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:4-5). So if you think you will get salvation by controlling your lust, you will never achieve it. But when you grasp how futile your efforts are and instead trust God 100%, He gives you the gift!

In other words, if you insult the Giver by trying to deserve the gift, you get neither the Giver nor the gift. But if you receive the gift as a free gift, you receive both. "For by grace you [people who have already found salvation] have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

This does not mean you can maintain sinful habits. The next verse says, "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). It makes no sense that a person would repent from sins and then embrace them.

As part of salvation, God becomes no longer your Judge, but rather, becomes a Father who cares about your maturity. Therefore, like any good human father, He chastises His children. In some cases, He even will call His children home to heaven prematurely, if they are stubborn enough about destructive sins. (See the first twelve verses of Hebrews 12. https://biblehub.com/nasb/hebrews/12.htm)

(Hint: Don't listen to people who promise prosperity or "your best life now." Once God starts training you, life can seem a lot harder; and if you don't receive such correction, you need to re-examine whether your faith was genuine.)

Receiving the gift is like changing directions. It means turning away from sins and from self-righteousness and turning to faith in God. You already feel the weight of your sins, so I don't need to tell you to repent. When you receive the gift as a free gift, God gives you a spiritual rebirth and sends His Holy Spirit to help you get the victory over your sins that you could not achieve on your own.

Victory over sins is a result of salvation, not a cause of it. If you wait to make yourself worthy, you will wait forever. The world's religions say you must achieve that victory in order to receive salvation. They make the result into a cause. This is one of the heresies that the Bible talks about in the letter to the Galatians. 

Pop culture has misdefined the term "fallen from grace." The term does not mean losing God's favor. It means that a false gospel is followed that teaches people to do things to earn salvation (Galatians 5:4 https://biblehub.com/nasb_/galatians/5.htm). 

2,000 years ago, new Christians from the Jewish culture said you had to be circumcised or eat only kosher foods. Today, people say you have to avoid certain sins or persevere by your own strength, or else you lose salvation. Their message is "fallen from grace" into self-righteousness.

When you understand that salvation is a gift, you will no longer have any reason to procrastinate about receiving it. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, providing that credit is given where credit is due.

Praying for Wealth

From a question on Quora 

Is there a specific mantra or prayer for financial prosperity and wealth?

I answer from a Christian perspective. If you are considering mantras, my answer is probably irrelevant. Hopefully, it will help other, future readers. I had three points to make in answer to the question.

Jack Richards’ answer made my first point. Christians should concern themselves with what good they can do for others and what sort of persons they are, not with how to be come healthy and wealthy. God chooses to make some wealthy so they can help others, but His heart goes out to the lowly and He rewards those who love serving others.

The standard for what Christians should believe is their Bible. There is a type of Christianity called the Prosperity Gospel that deviates from biblical teachings. It emphasizes health and prosperity instead of emphasizing growth in holiness, service to God and others, and spreading the good news that God redeems people at His own expense if they will only receive it.

The prosperity gospel works for its leaders — at the expense of gullible people who love being flattered and whose minds are on materialism. Its mass manipulation and prestidigitation appeal to people who lack knowledge of such matters. It also appeals to people with shallow faith, who need extraordinary proofs before they can trust God for deeper relationships.

Prosperity gospel preachers often teach people to say specific words, such as commanding wealth to come to them. This is not only unbiblical, it is antibiblical. It is so American — and so human. It is a wrong mindset, as described in Marcus Anderson’s answer.

Marcus made my second point by giving an example of a prayer from the Bible about wealth, made with a right mindset. The prayer asks for enough prosperity to meet needs. We need enough wealth to buy food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation. We need enough left over to help others. So asking for income, or, better, ways to earn income, is right.

However, prosperity is a trap for most people. It tempts us to think we are the source of prosperity and forget to thank God for giving us the ability to earn. We become self-sufficient instead of depending on God. Gaining and protecting wealth tempts us into moral compromise and even into treating others unjustly. And every week, we read about how wealth gave some celebrity the means to indulge in self-destructive vices. Whatever we give a higher priority to than we give to God becomes an idol.

My third point is that Christianity is not a religion of magic. Words have power to inform, convince, and motivate people; but they have no power over physical things. Words can deceive or show disrespect. In that sense, they have power to cause a negative reaction. This is especially true when treating labels for God as worthless or usurping His titles. Fortunately, we can also use words in prayer to convince God to do things. But in prayer, there are conditions; primarily:

• God is Spirit, so the thoughts and intents of our spirits are as real to Him as our actions are. Our words are powerless with God if our intents do not correspond.
• God has plans of His own for running the universe. Our prayers must be moral and must fit with God’s plans.
• God loves His family and provides for them. He sometimes demonstrates His presence for the sake of those not yet in His family. But He has no obligation to creatures who owe all their obligation to Him. 

Christianity is not like magic or like other religions in which words have power of their own. Mantras and pre-written “prayers” do not impress God. Jesus of Nazareth said, “When you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard” (Matthew 6:7). The word in the ancient Greek manuscripts was βαττολογέω (battalogeó), which meant to stammer, utter nonsensical repetitions, be long-winded, or use empty, formalistic words. It describes practices from those requiring prayer beads (e.g., Catholic, Buddhist, shamanic), Pentecostal / Charismatic tongues-speaking, formulaic prayers heard in liturgical churches, and bloviating prayers anywhere else.

Christianity is a relationship, and a prayer is one side of a conversation within that relationship. Prayer is simply reasoned asking in humility and dependence. If your heart drives you to repeat yourself, it is not wrong. It is even commendable to think deeply about your request and present reasons as part of your request. The power, there, is in examining your own intentions and opening up your heart to God.

But manipulative repetition is disrespectful, and God will not respect it. Many Christians fall into using pre-written prayers. That is an acceptable method for those who cannot stay focused or who find prayers that express their hearts. They must take care, however, that such prayers do not become shallow formulas, lazy ways to avoid thinking deeply, or evasive ways to avoid opening up their hearts before God.

Copyrighte 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use; and I trust you to give credit where credit is due. 

Sacraments, Ordinances, and Channels of Grace

Sacraments Are Catholic. Ordinances Are Biblical.

A sacrament is a ceremony that both symbolizes something and serves as a conduit for grace. Sacraments are "Christianized" substitutes for the Jewish religious practices that the Catholic hierarchy restored after God had fulfilled and abolished them. So sacraments are "good works" by which Catholics think they earn grace.

Earn grace is an oxymoron, of course, because grace means unmerited favor, and you cannot earn something that you cannot merit. In Romans and other epistles, Paul goes to great lengths to explain that faith and works, and grace and wages, are mutually exclusive pairs. By trying to mix the unmiscible, Catholicism

The only conduits of grace in the New Testament are faith (Ephesians 2:8), prayer (Jude 20), and hearing the Word (Romans 10:17). (Calvinist/Reformed may add the new birth, which they believe has to precede faith because they take "dead in trespasses" to be literal, not metaphorical.) These are neither symbols nor conduits. A purely symbolic ceremony such as baptism is called an ordinance, or sometimes, a tradition.

Many churches that descend from Rome retain Romish baggage such as infant baptism and words like "sacrament." If you carefully distinguish between sacraments and ordinances, it will be easier to discount Rome's works-based gospel.


Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler (Permission granted for non-profit purposes; just give credit where credit is due.)

Interpreting Communion and Scriptures Unworthily

Transubstantiation and 1 Corinthians 11:27

Regarding "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord,” a Roman Catholic asks, "How can eating something that isn't Jesus's body make us guilty of a crime against Jesus's body?" 

His assumption is that the bread and wine (or grape juice) must become the literal flesh and blood of Christ in order for taking communion unworthily to be a sin against Christ's flesh and blood.

First, a rhetorical question not founded on logical analysis is not an argument, it is merely a whiny protest. Never accept a question as a substitute for logic.

Second (I can't believe I have to explain this!), when you insult a symbol, you insult the thing it represents.

"Mama" is a word that symbolizes a person, and if I insult "Yo mama...," I insult your mother and may receive a bloody nose for it. There's no question that insulting the symbol insults the thing symbolized. Likewise, if you insult the symbols of Christ's body and blood, you insult Christ's body and blood.

The childishly literal person might object that desecrating a symbol does not physically desecrate its antitype. Irrelevant. In the spiritual dimensions that God occupies, the thought is as real as the physical, so presumptuous sacrilege toward a symbol of Christ's body or blood constitutes a real crime against Christ's body or blood.

You will find dozens of nations wherein insulting the symbols of the state, rulers, or dominant religion can earn you the death penalty. How much more, if you desecrate a symbol of Savior God?

You don't have to be a grammar nazi or to impose Catholic superstition upon the words for the verse to make sense. Just let it say what it says. Unworthily eating symbols of Jesus's body or blood is a crime against Jesus's body.

And unworthily interpreting the scriptures is a crime against the Spirit Who inspired them.


Since I first posted this on Facebook, I cannot claim copyright. I will trust anyone who copies it to give credit where credit is due.

Set Apart in the Bible

What does it mean to be set apart in the Bible?

The answers to this question on Quora were either so simplistic or off-the-wall, I had to add my own answer, which turned into its own word study.

To set apart simply means to separate or isolate something. In the Bible, it means to designate or separate something for a particular use.

The literal meanings of set apart and set aside are the same. However, the connotations (implied meanings) can be either the same or opposites.

• A thing is set apart for a particular use.
• A thing is set aside to keep it from the current action.
• A thing can be set aside to keep it from the current action and reserve it for a later purpose. In this usage, the meaning is the same as for set apart, although set aside implies more about the timeline.

The terms translated set apart can also be translated consecrate, make holy, prepare, sanctify, purify, dedicate, reserve for destruction, and numerous variations (for example: make holy, keep holy, declare holy, prove to be holy, regard as holy, dedicate, and foreordain). Which meaning depends on the context and the translator’s interpretation of the contextual meaning.

For a general example, the implements in the tabernacle were set apart for holy use, not to be defiled by ordinary, outside use. This was a symbol of God’s holiness and of the holiness He desires of His people. An extreme example of violating that happened during Babylon’s reign over Israel, when Babylon’s king and his guests used cups looted from Israel’s temple for drinking at a banquet (Daniel 5:3).

Set apart is a verbal phrase, a paired verb and preposition that act as a single word. In the Bible, it usually represents a single Hebrew or Greek word. There are several words translated as set apart.

Here are some examples of how the meaning varies with the context.

• Genesis 21:29, Abimelech said to Abraham, "What do these seven ewe lambs mean, which you have set by themselves?" — Although Abimelech suspects that there’s a purpose, the focus is on the physical separation of seven lambs from the flock. Compare Genesis 30:40.
  
• Deuteronomy 10:8, At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to serve Him and to bless in His name until this day. — Here, the LORD (“YHWH,” or “I AM”) assigned specific priestly duties to one of the twelve tribes of Israel.
  
• Joshua 20:7, So they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali and Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah. — Read this in context. The cities were designated as cities of refuge. In those days, there was no police force and court system; if somebody killed your brother, you had to execute justice yourself or convince somebody to do it for you. In questionable cases (such as accidental manslaughter), the cities of refuge protected the accused until questions of guilt could be resolved.
  
• Deuteronomy 15:19, You shall consecrate (set apart) to the LORD your God all the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock; you shall not work with the firstborn of your herd, nor shear the firstborn of your flock. (compare Numbers 3:13.) — As Creator, and source of all blessings, God commanded Israel to devote to Him the first part of any production, whether children, flocks, or produce. First-born children were to be reared to lead their families spiritually, and the first tenth (“tithe”) of profit from work was to be given to God to support religious work. Compare also 1 Corinthians 16:2.
  
• Psalm 88:5, Adrift (“set apart”) among the dead, Like the slain who lie in the grave…. — “Adrift,” used by the KJV, is more literal than “set apart” in the NIV or “forsaken” in NASB. ESV’s “set loose” conveys the connotation most accurately. Psalm 88 is a lamentation of one undergoing severe trial and despair, and he feels purposeless, set apart for treatment as though already dead.
  
• Acts 13:2–5, While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they (the leaders of the church at Antioch) had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away…. When they reached Salamis, they began **proclaiming the word of God…. — The leaders of the church designated and commissioned Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to do missionary work. This did not make them holy; rather it recognized their holiness and their dedication to serving God.
  
• Galatians 1:15–16, But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles… — Paul claims that God fore-ordained him to put faith in Christ and carry the gospel to the the world outside of Israel. This comes close to claiming predestination but is not that specific. In John 10:36, Jesus similarly claims that the Father commissioned Him for the role He fulfilled during His incarnation.
  
• 1 Corinthians 6:11, Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. — The Weymouth translation renders sanctified as “set apart as holy.”  

If you want to trace every usage of the term, you need to set aside a few days, list all its various translations, and search for each one using a concordance or an electronic Bible. I would expect you to find hundreds of verses.

From the few dozen occurrences I read while compiling this, I noticed a trend. When set apart implies a change in a person, it is a change that applies to every believer, not just to a select few holier-than-thou ministers. In contrast, set apart can apply to specific people when it implies being assigned a task, duty, or mission.

Catholics seem to connect set apart with the (claimed 😉) celibacy of priests and nuns. Although Paul recommended singleness in certain circumstances (Paul traveled constantly and was under constant threat of assassination or execution -- and he was eventually executed), nowhere does scripture require anyone to set themselves apart for singleness for any office in the church. In fact, Peter and most of the apostles were married, and Paul recommends marriage for all, including ministers, who feel weak regarding sexual temptation.

Words translated set apart have a wide variety of possible translations and meanings. The term is sometimes literal, sometimes figurative. It can imply a mere physical act, a declaration, or a foreordination. It is wise to look to the context for meaning and even more wise not to lock yourself into any given meaning.

God Brings Samaritans Into the Church

Question from Quora: Can you explain Acts 8:12-17?

Few people catch the meaning of this passage, so this is a good question.

The theme sentence of of Acts is chapter 1, verse 8. Before departing Earth for heaven, Jesus told the disciples, you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth. 

The events in Acts 8 form one of the high points of the outline.  If you understand the outline, you understand the significance of 8:12-17.  That outline unfolds as follows:

Jerusalem

In chapter 2, the Holy Spirit makes His grand entrance. The Holy Spirit descends on the disciples, causing the believers to speak in languages they had no way of knowing, along with other signs. This is followed by Peter preaching the gospel and many joining the disciples.

The language phenomenon had prophetic significance. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul cites Old Testament prophecies to explain the primary purpose of miraculously speaking in foreign languages. The spectacular event that day was a warning to the Jewish nation that they had come under God’s judgment for rejecting their Messiah. As prophesied by Daniel and other prophets, Judea was destroyed by waves of Roman armies in 67 to 70 AD.

The Grand Entrance of the Holy Spirit marked a revolutionary change. Previously, He had come upon just a few believers for specific purposes such as guiding a king, empowering a warrior, or delivering revelation through a prophet. Now He had come upon all believers, not just for a narrow ministry, but to abide. What had previously been a temporary or conditional gift now became a permanent, sealing gift. Whereas only a chosen few had received ministries from God, now all received ministries and were empowered with “spiritual gifts.”

Judea

Chapter 8 briefly describes how the believers were scattered throughout Judea by persecution. Jerusalem represented the initiation of the gospel among the Jews, and Judea represents spreading of the gospel among the Jews.

Samaria (chapter 8)

The Samaritans had a mixed heritage, having descended from a mixture of Israelite and local ancestors.  Some followed the God of Israel, but most followed the religions of their non-Israelite ancestors or of the occupying armies.

The Jews descended primarily from Judah, one of the few families of Israel that had not been scattered into the world by invaders.  They were very inwardly focused.  God had commissioned Israel as a nation of priests to the world, but they had failed to maintain their own religion, let alone spread it.  In their minds, they were God’s chosen, and that was that.  They considered their half brothers, the Samaritans, unclean, second-class, and enemies. So what was about to happen required a major shift of thinking. 

Up to that time, all of the Christians were Jews.  Some began to recognize what God was doing, but it took decades for others.  Phillip went among the Samaritans anyway and preached Christ to them.

• 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

(The story of Simon is a tangent, so I'll skip verse 13.)

Shockingly to the Jews, the Samaritans converted. But something was missing. There was no miraculous evidence that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Samaritans.

At this point, we need to reach farther back for context. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus tells Peter,

• I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Acts 8 is a an example of the fulfillment of Peter using those metaphorical keys. (It has nothing to do with creating a permanent office or making Peter into a “pope.”)

• Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.  For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (verses 14-16).

Here, Peter fulfills his commission. He and John pray for the Samaritans to receive the full blessings of salvation, just like the Jewish believers had in Jerusalem. So the gospel expands outside of the Jews, and the Samaritans are now included.

• 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.

The passage does not state how Peter and John knew that the Samaritans had received the Holy Spirit, but it is safe to infer that something miraculous happened. The likely possibilities are that some began prophesying and speaking in foreign languages in a manner similar to what had happened in Jerusalem.

You may notice that I don’t call it speaking in tongues. According to Acts 2:5–11, it was not the unintelligible babbling that you hear today. People from foreign lands heard the speakers in their own native languages, and 15 specific languages were understood by unconverted bystanders.

The evidence showed several things: God had expanded the blessings of belief and ministry beyond the Jews.  Previously, the Holy Spirit had only come upon people of Israel.  The Jews thought they had a unique claim on their relationship with God. This destroyed that misconception.  Since the Holy Spirit came upon people for the purpose of ministry, this meant that not only belief, but also the priesthood, was being taken away. And again, the sign warned the Jews of the destruction to come.

Thus, Peter had fulfilled his role, bringing, so to speak, the Grand Entrance of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans.

To the Ends of the World

In chapter 10, we see the gospel and the Holy Spirit expand to a Roman soldier, Cornelius, and his household. The Samaritans were half Israelite, but Romans were unclean occupiers from a distant land!  Even Peter needed special visions to prepare him for dealing with a Roman.

After Cornelius converted and spoke in foreign languages, Peter had some explaining to do back in Jerusalem before the council of apostles.  They were offended that Peter had even eaten with gentiles.  Once again, God had expanded the group called “God’s people,” and the Jewish Christians had to adjust how they saw themselves and the rest of the world.

The remainder of Acts mostly describes the continued expansion of the gospel to Asia Minor and Greece. We even see the church’s first heresy when Jewish believers demanded that gentile believers start living according to Jewish customs. Although Acts shifts to following Paul's evangelistic journeys, Peter had used his "keys" to reflect that God had unlocked the kingdom for the Jews, the Samaritans, and the rest of the world.

Note to Charismatic and Pentecostal brethren: Christ’s prophesy in Acts 1:8 was fulfilled. The opening of the gospel and the grand entrance of the Holy Spirit to expanding circles of people does not constitute a pattern that applies today, and the prophetic meaning of “tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:20-22 plus Deuteronomy 28:49, Isaiah 28:11,12, and Jeremiah 5:15, and their contexts) was fulfilled over 1900 years ago.

Note to Catholic apologists: Peter in Matthew 16:18 is a masculine noun, denoting a stone by itself, whereas rock is a feminine noun, denoting a formation in the ground.  The difference denotes a play on words in which Peter and the rock cannot be conflated or confused.  In addition, throughout the Old Testament, Rock is a name for God, in general (Psalm 18:2), and for Christ, specifically (1 Corinthians 10:4). Even Peter used the word that way (1 Peter 2:8). This rock could not, therefore, refer to Peter. It had to refer to Peter’s confession.  To call Peter the Rock on which Christ founded the church is to equate Peter with God, and that is blasphemous.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler; permission to use excerpts is granted for personal, not-profit use.  Please give credit where credit is due.  

Where the Popes and Cardinals Are in the Bible

The Short Answer

The best answer is simply that the Bible says nothing positive about popes and cardinals. It doesn’t take many words to point out an absence of evidence. I will require many words, however, because it is not so simple to refute rationalizations for violating what the scriptures do say.

Titles Are Not "Wrong"

In a hierarchy, it is desirable to give titles to different levels. For example, in a corporation, you might have a president, several vice presidents, managers, and supervisors. Even Moses, upon the advice of his father-in-law, appointed levels of supervision. The New Testament has words such as deacon, elder, shepherd, and bishop, and they are used descriptively rather than as titles. Man focuses on titles, but God focuses on the work.

Industry, especially the software industry, is returning to the model of allowing people to self-organize, at least at the bottom levels, because they know what needs to be done and how best to accomplish it. This trend is called “Agile” and helps produce more value sooner, especially in changing environments. 

Similarly, the New Testament is intentionally ambiguous so that creating offices such as Pastor, Bishop, and Cardinal is left to individual churches. Not every model, such as independent churches versus worldwide denominations, fits every political and cultural environment. So the fact that the scriptures do not spell out a title is not enough reason to reject it.

The Unbiblical Title and Role of Pope 

The title of Pope, however, is strictly anti-biblical — and worse. Jesus said, Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) One rule of Bible interpretation is, if the plain sense makes good sense, any other sense is probably nonsense.  It is not only anti-biblical to call a priest Father, but also to call a man Pope.

Further explanation ought to be unnecessary, but I anticipate heated objections, so I’ll elaborate.

When we consider the title, Pope, we must first recognize that it comes from Greek papas, father. This is echoed in another title of the pope, Holy Father. In Mark 10:18, Jesus said, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 

There are many similar statements with the term holy, such as 1 Samuel 2:2, There is no one holy like the LORD, Indeed, there is no one besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God. Goodness and holiness can be ascribed to God alone. Peter would have been appalled at being called Father or Holy Father.

Do you see a trend, yet? 

In John (see 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, and 16:7), Jesus gave a descriptive title to God the Holy Spirit: Paraclete, which has the meanings of comforter and advocate. He described the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) as coming in His place, to be His vicarious Presence. That meets the definition of Vicar of Christ (substitute for Christ). 

Catholicism puts these usurped titles into action by placing its “Fathers” between believers and God, discouraging non-clergy from fully enjoying the personal relationship that God desires to have with his children. All three members of the Triune God fulfill the relationship without human interference:

• The Son -- He [God the Son] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:25
  
• The Spirit -- In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with unutterable groanings; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to [the will of] God. Romans 8:26–27
  
• The Father -- Let us then approach God's [the Father’s] throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrews 4:16

The system instead inserts itself between people and God, encouraging people to bring their prayers to its priests, to believers in heaven, and to angels — as though they had the omnipresence and omniscience that allows God to receive all prayers.

No First Pope

Before closing, one more issue, and a tangent, need addressing. You will observe circular reasoning that Peter was the first pope, so the papal office is legitimate, so the first pope was Peter. 

First, nobody called Peter a pope until hundreds of years later. The proof text, Matthew 16:15–19, used by Catholic teachers, simply does not call him pope, and it does not give him the extent of authority they claim.

Christ Is the Rock

The rock on which Christ said He would build His church is Peter’s confession. You can see Peter as being the rock only if you are biased to see it that way. In the Greek, Peter is masculine gender petros whereas rock is feminine gender petra. A petros is a stone whereas a petra is a monolith. If Jesus had meant Peter was the rock, He would have used the same word, saying You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petros) I will build my church, not on this rock (petra). 

To the contrary, the Bible gives the title of Rock to God the Son, as in 1 Corinthians 10:4, that rock was Christ, and as in 1 Samuel 2:2 (above). Even Peter himself identified Christ as the Rock toward the end of 1 Peter 2:4–8, and anyone who grasps biblical metaphor can understand that “rock,” Christ, extends to the recognition of whom Christ is — the core of the gospel. Again, Catholic teaching misapplies a title that belongs to God alone to a human.

Keys to the Kingdom Fulfilled in Acts

Catholic teaching says that the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose refer to total authority over the church. That is inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament. Act 1:8, the theme verse of that book, declares, you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.  Acts describes the expansion of “God’s people” from the disciples, to Jews in Jerusalem, to Judeans, to Samarians, to the gentiles. Peter was present for each of those expansions, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit were opened up to those concentric groups through him. 

However, Peter did not remain at the head of the church’s earthly hierarchy, as it had another president long before Peter left the scene (Acts chapters 15 and 21).

Catholic Bishops are Unqualified

Second, the Catholic explanation avoids the apostle’s description of a bishop’s qualifications. The Catholic will say that the bishop is married to the church, but Titus 1:4–9 specifically speaks of not only a wife, but also children. Indeed, Paul pointed out how Peter, Jesus’ brothers James and Jude, and other apostles each had wives, and had a right to have wives, in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul clearly teaches that God makes some people for marriage and others for single lives. Imposing celibacy on all clergy is strictly anti-biblical.

On a metaphorical level, it violates common sense for the church (the body of all believers) to take multiple human husbands when it is already the future Bride of Christ. (Ephesians 5:25-27, Revelation 19:7-9) Likewise, it makes no sense for the married apostles to have both earthly and corporate wives. Thus, the Catholic priesthood usurps yet another title and role of God, that of divine Husband.

The Sin of Papal Veneration

Catholicism gives to its chief the titles and roles of Holy, Holy Father, Pope (papas), Paraclete, Vicar of Christ, intercessor, husband of the church. It delegates those roles and titles, in reduced form, to its local representatives. These titles all belong to God. Catholic priests may have been taught that God delegates these to them, but the claims contradict the Bible. I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8 Usurping the titles and roles of God is a severe form of blasphemy.  

Over a millennium of rationalizing does not make the rationalizing any less sophistic. It is worth considering whether allegiance to an organization that creates new standards (traditions that morph with the culture) in order to justify contradicting the unchanging original standard (the scriptures) is the right choice.

Did Christ Die "for" Only the Elect?

Reformed / Calvinist / Particular versus Arminian / General

The Reform movement began a Century before Calvin's time, but one of the debates that divide Protestants from Catholics and Reformed Protestants from other Protestants came into clear focus as a result of conflict between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius.  For this reason, the Reformed school is often called Calvinist and the non-Reformed school is called Arminian.  Within Baptist history, the Reformed position is held by Particular Baptists and the Arminian position is held by General baptists.

The differences break down into many points.  In general, the Reformed beliefs are far more biblical than the Arminian beliefs.  Here, I'm going to focus on just one point: For whom did Christ die?  The Reformed belief holds that Christ died for the elect; that is, for, and only for, those whom God saves from damnation. The Arminian belief holds that Christ died for the world.

Both sides oversimplify by failing to separate the value of Christ's sacrifice and its application into two issues.

Reformed interprets "Christ died for the elect" too restrictively

The Reformed side errs by interpreting "Christ died for the elect" as meaning that the Sacrifice of Infinite God has finite potential value.  First, this mathematical absurdity is reverse-engineered from the Catholic assumption that God's grace and sacrifice are quantifiable.  Some argue that if all the value of Christ's sacrifice is not applied, then all is somehow wasted.  However, dead is dead, and eternal God is infinite. It is absurd to quantify and limit the infinite.

Second, it is a logical absurdity to assume that having one purpose, dying for the elect, excludes having other purposes. For example, Christ's sacrifice glorifies the Father and Himself, so it would be correct to say that Christ died "for" glorifying God.  By Reformed logic, Christ could not die for the glory of God or for vindication of the Father's plan to allow the Fall because He died (only) for the elect.

Third, Christ's sacrifice not only redeems the elect, but also, after the removal of the lost in the Day of Judgment, redeems the whole of creation.  Yes, Christ died "for" the elect, but His sacrifice has far more value.

Arminian interprets "Christ did for the elect" too loosely

The other side understands that the Sacrifice of the Infinite has unlimited potential value but errs by confusing unlimited value with universal application.  Arminianism holds that God applies the value to all men by freeing them to choose to receive or not receive Christ and His gift of salvation.  This flies in the face of New Testament teachings about how the lost are enslaved by sin and how the carnal mind is at enmity with God.  Paul makes it clear that even faith is a gift from God, and without that gift comes no conversion.  

Many denominations, the Roman Catholic Church among them, carry the error further by falling into forms of Universalism, the belief that all men will be redeemed (or at least purged) and enter heaven.  Pentecostals and Charismatics carry unlimited value to an absurd extreme by applying it to carnal desires for wealth ("it's in the atonement"), health ("by His stripes you were (physically) healed"), and personal pride ("he who speaks in tongues builds up himself").

On this point, both sides err by dragging along Catholic baggage.  The error on the Reformed side does not affect any critical points of the gospel that I know of, but the errors on the Arminian side can be damning.  

That is not to say that all Arminians are unsaved.  One can believe the gospel before being taught Arminian errors, and not everybody who belongs to a given church believes all that their church teaches.  However, I have only discussed one of many points.  Those who have accept Arminian errors before conversion fall short of the grace of God.  Their conversions are false, and those who mislead by preaching false gospels shall have much to answer for.