A Perspective on Mary

Before I got married I did a short stint in the Canadian Armed Forces pursuing chaplaincy. While I was there I got into a discussion with a few of the Catholic students in my course about my perspective of Mary, the mother of Jesus. I was asked why I think it’s wrong to pray to Mary, and how I view her if not in that kind of veneration and devotion.

The answer to the first question is two-fold. First, the Bible says that we are not to pray to images and idols (Deuteronomy 5:8-10). This covers the worshipping of statues and pictures of Mary. But for those who claim they are not worshipping an image but praying to or venerating Mary as a mediator, 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men – the testimony given in its proper time.” Throughout Scripture it is seen that under no circumstance should anyone other than God be prayed to.

I would like to now shift our attention to the second question. If we are not to worship or venerate or pray to Mary, what should our attitude be towards her?

Mary was a woman of great faith. She had the faith courage to say, “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be done to me as you have said” (Luke 1:38). Mary is a picture of faith and obedience to God. As such, she is someone who is to be viewed as an example for our faith in life.

Besides putting her trust in God, Mary proclaimed God’s glory (Luke 1:46-55). She remained faithful to her betrothed and remained pure until after the Lord’s birth (Matthew 1:25). She fulfilled the requirements of the law (Luke 2:39) – that same law which her child would ultimately fulfill once for all on the cross. She treasured everything the Lord was doing in her heart (Luke 2:51).

This Christmas season, let us remember that the faith of the young woman Mary is one to be emulated in our own lives. May we also say to the Lord “I am the Lord’s servant,” and submit to do everything he has called us to do.

How Did We Get The Old Testament?

Today I will address briefly the history of the Old Testament canon and the presence or lack thereof of the apocrypha in different translations.

The Old Testament was written over long period of time and covers history from the beginning (Genesis 1:1) until about 400 BC (the prophet Malachi). These were written in Hebrew, and were passed down much like the New Testament books were (see yesterday’s article). The books were accepted and considered authoritative by the Jews from the time of their writing, and were passed down as such.

Between the third and first centuries BC, the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) was translated into Koine Greek, and is known as the Septuagint (LXX). This was completed around 180BC, and contains all the books that appear in the Old Testament in our Bibles today. This shows us that the books of the Hebrew Bible were agreed upon by that time. Officially, the Hebrew canon was closed at the Council of Jamnia around AD 90.

The LXX contains books that the Hebrew version of the Old Testament (known as the Masoretic text) does not. These are the books of the apocrypha. The apocrypha are books that the authority of was questioned. The Jews did not accept these as Scripture, but did view them as historically important.

As far as the Christian church went, some important texts included the apocrypha, including Jerome’s Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate. The Catholic church formally accepted the apocrypha as part of the canon at the Council of Trent in 1549.

To answer the question that was asked yesterday, the apocrypha was never accepted as Scripture by the Jews, and thus was never “un-decided” by the church. It was formally included in the canon by the Catholic church in 1549, a decision that was subsequently rejected by many Protestant churches after the Reformation.

I do not accept the books of the apocrypha as Scripture because they were not accepted as Scripture at the time they were written, a fact that is true of all the other 66 books of the Bible. These books were never in question, and if discussion was taken up over some of them, did not last long. The apocrypha has been understood to be interesting historically, but not God-inspired since the time of its writing.

We at Acts 20:24 Ministries accept the 66 books of the Holy Bible as the inspired Word of God.

The Shame of the Church

I was reading an article today about an LA Times religion beat reporter who lost his faith in the process of reporting all the bad news about things like the Catholic priest scandals. This makes me very sad, and even angry.

It makes me angry because of all the people who are walking away from God because of those who shame the name of the Lord by their actions while claiming to be one of his servants. It disgusts me.

It also frustrates me that people walk away from God because of all this. I understand why those who have been hurt by the church are so disillusioned by it. At the same time as I ask this question: If someone is a mean school teacher, does that mean the Board of Education does not exist? Or if someone is a crooked cop, does that mean the Ministry of Corrections doesn’t exist? Of course not. The institutions still exist, even though the people working under them made terrible choices out of their own free will.

The same thing is true of God and the church. Many claim to be of God who are not. But still there are those who are saved and then fall from grace and do foolish things. This is done out of their free will. God cannot be blamed.

For those who still have difficulty, I ask this question: Do you blame God for the things you do? Do you claim that it is God who makes you do everything in your day, even the bad? The answer is no, you are aware that you make your own decisions as you live your life. The same is true of the priest who molested children. He made a sinful choice, but it was his choice to make. If we did not have free will, we would only be robots, and not really human.

The Claims of the Pope – Part 6 – In Conclusion

In conclusion, let’s revised the claims of Pope Benedict XVI that non-Catholic Christians aren’t true churches:

“According to the Catholic doctrine, these Communities [the non-Catholic churches] do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense of the word.”

In this series of posts, we have established:

1. All believers in Jesus Christ are priests, and therefore the Catholic church does not hold a special and exclusive priesthood
2. Because of the lack of exclusive priesthood, the Catholic church does not have an exclusive method of performing the Eucharist (also called Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper)
3. Believers are not saved by any work, including receiving the Eucharist in the way prescribed by the Catholic church
4. The Catholic priesthood does not have exclusive access to the gift of apostleship or apostolic authority

In examining these things, it can be clearly seen that the claim by the pope that the Catholic church is the only true church of Christ is fallacious and unbiblical. The church of Christ is made up off all those who have believed on his name and saved by his blood, death, resurrection and ascension.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – The Priesthood
Part 3 – The Eucharist
Part 4 – Saved By the Eucharist? Saved by Works?
Part 5 – Apostolic Succession

The Claims of the Pope – Part 5 – Apostolic Succession

Finally, I want to hit the issue of the Catholic church’s claim of apostolic succession.

The Bible says that it is Christ Jesus who gives us gifts of ministry. “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it… It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers” (Ephesians 4:7, 11).

Apostleship is one of the gifts that Christ has gives to some. Notice, it is Christ who gives the gift of apostleship, just like all the other gifts (see also Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12). The gifts may indeed be passed on by the laying on of hands (e.g. 2 Timothy 1:6). However, it has always been Christ who decides who receives which gifts, and it is he who ultimately empowers to receive them, not man.

To say that only certain people have authority, (i.e. the pope), because of a certain succession is not biblical. The same is true of the claim that only certain people may receive certain gifts.

Therefore, Catholic bishops are not the only people who are permitted by Christ to receive the gift of apostleship.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – The Priesthood
Part 3 – The Eucharist
Part 4 – Saved By the Eucharist? Saved by Works?
Part 6 – In Conclusion

The Claims of the Pope – Part 4 – Saved By the Eucharist? Saved By Works?

As we have already examined, the Catholic church has claimed that non-Catholic churches do not have the proper priesthood, and thus do not have the ability to perform the Eucharist properly. Today we will explore the ramifications of this.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). The Bible clearly states that we are not saved by works, but by faith. Therefore, it is fallacious to claim that a church does not hold the means of salvation because it does not perform the Eucharist a certain way.

I will not ignore the next verse in this passage, which says, “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” It is true that a Christian will display their faith by their actions, for “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17, 26). As a part of Christianity, the Lord Jesus gave us the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But we must understand that these things do not save us. We are saved by our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and are born again on this account.

Therefore, we are not saved by receiving Communion, let alone by receiving it in the manner of the Catholic church.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – The Priesthood
Part 3 – The Eucharist
Part 5 – Apostolic Succession
Part 6 – In Conclusion

The Claims of the Pope – Part 3 – The Eucharist

The pope claims that because non-Catholic churches don’t have the priesthood, they can’t perform the Eucharist (also called Communion or the Lord’s Supper) properly. Last week we talked about the Catholic claim of a unique priesthood and how that is not the case. Today we will look at the claim of the uniqueness of the Eucharist.

When the Lord Jesus Christ had his last meal with his disciples, he broke the bread and passed the cup around and said, “Do this is remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 9:25). The Lord commanded the disciples to continue to break bread together in remembrance of the sacrifice he was about to make. And as the followers of Jesus increased after the day of Pentecost, they in turn obeyed this command and met daily to fellowship and break bread together (Acts 2:46).

The Lord never said that only certain people were permitted to break bread. He also didn’t ordain special words to be recited in the process. He only said, “Do this.” There is also no indication that in the early church they had a special process or ceremony for breaking bread. Those closest to Jesus would’ve been given proper and sufficient instructions on how to perform the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper if in fact there were special instructions. However the Catholic mass as it is didn’t come about for some time afterwards.

Therefore, not only is their no grounds to say that only certain people may be priests (as all believers are considered priests), there is no grounds to say that only certain people are able to perform an Eucharistic mass to properly distribute the Lord’s Supper.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – The Priesthood
Part 4 – Saved By the Eucharist? Saved by Works?
Part 5 – Apostolic Succession
Part 6 – In Conclusion

The Claims of the Pope – Part 2 – The Priesthood

Pope Benedict XVI’s response to the question of why the Catholic church does not view other Christian denominations as legitimate members of the Church of Christ is as follows:

“According to the Catholic doctrine, these Communities [the non-Catholic churches] do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense of the word.”

In a nutshell, it is saying that other churches do not have the Catholic priesthood; because they do not have the Catholic priesthood, they do not have the ability to perform the Catholic Eucharist; and because they can not perform the Catholic Eucharist, they are not part of the church. Further up in this document it says that because the other churches do not have these elements, they do not have salvation.

There are several things biblical wrong with this statement. Today we will look briefly at the claim that non-Catholic churches do not have the priesthood.

Revelation 1:5-6 says, “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom of priests to serve his God and Father – to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.”

Again, 1 Peter 2:4-5 says, “As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 2:9 says, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

According to Scripture, all believers are priests. There is no special priesthood that is only attainable by certain members. We are a kingdom of priests to God Almighty. Therefore, to say that the Protestant churches don’t have the priesthood is simply not true.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 3 – The Eucharist
Part 4 – Saved By the Eucharist? Saved by Works?
Part 5 – Apostolic Succession
Part 6 – In Conclusion

The Claims of the Pope – Part 1

Recently the pope released a document clarifying the Vatican’s position that churches outside the Catholic church are not truly Christian. This is quite an outstanding (or outrageous) charge.

Over the next couple of days I would like to examine the wording of this document, and line it up with the Word of God, the Bible. There are several things that are awry with the document, and I seek to get to the bottom of them.

Part 2 – The Priesthood
Part 3 – The Eucharist
Part 4 – Saved By the Eucharist? Saved by Works?
Part 5 – Apostolic Succession
Part 6 – In Conclusion