From the section on Justification from:
In this episode, we continue our analysis of the second part of Marcus Grodi's evidence from the early church fathers that led to his conversion to Roman Catholicism: the Eucharist. We provide evidence from the early church that “the Eucharist” referred to the tithe offering for the poor and prayers of gratitude to the Lord, and not to the Lord’s Supper. Bread and wine were then taken from the offering and consecrated for use in the Supper. Contrary to the Roman Catholic claim that the consecration turns the bread and wine into the Eucharist, the early writers believed the consecration turned the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ. The Eucharist came first, and when the offering was over, the consecration was spoken, followed by the meal. What was offered in the liturgy was the sacrifice of gratitude in the tithe, and the sacrifice was over before the words of consecration were spoken and Lord’s Supper began. And even after the consecration, the bread and wine were still said to be figures, types, antitypes and symbols of Christ’s body and blood. This liturgical order prevailed for 300 until the end of the 4th century when the liturgical sacrifice began to occur after the consecration, and the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass was born. The liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood during the Lord’s Supper is a late fourth century novelty, nothing more. It was neither instituted by Christ nor practiced by the early church.
Show Notes:
Marcus Grodi: The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw - The Journey Home (3-19-2007)
Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book I, chapter 13, paragraph 2 (174-189 AD)
“Pretending to offer the eucharist (εὐχαριστείν) in cups mingled with wine, and extending the word of invocation (ὲπικλήσεως) to unusual length…” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West, volume 42, Five Books of S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Against Heresies, Rev. John Keble, M.A., translator, James Parker & Col, 1872, 41) [We will discuss the variance between Keble’s translation and Schaff’s translation in the next episode]
Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 17 (174-189 AD)
Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18, paragraph 5 (174-189 AD)
“…that as bread from the earth, receiving the summons (έκκλησιν) of God, is no longer common bread but an Eucharist composed of two things, both an earthly and an heavenly one; so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of Eternal Resurrection.” (Keble, 361) [Here Irenæus says we partake of the Eucharist, but by, implication only after the Eucharist is consecrated (see Book V, chapter 2, below), but that it was already the Eucharist when it was first summoned by the Lord for the tithe. Irenæus has established a parallel to make a point—when the bread is summoned for a tithe, it becomes heavenly, and not just earthly, for, though earthly, it is now set apart for heavenly purposes; so too, we though earthly, are set apart for a heavenly destiny when we receive the consecrated bread. Notable, indeed, that the bread becomes the Eucharist when it is summoned for a tithe, not when it is consecrated. We will discuss the variance between Keble’s translation and Schaff’s translation in the next episode.]
Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2, paragraph 3 (174-189 AD)
“Since therefore both the cup which is mingled and the bread which is made receiveth the Word of God, and the Eucharist becometh the body of Christ, and of these the substance of our flesh groweth and subsisteth: … even as the wood of the vine arched down into the ground beareth fruit in its due time, and the corn of wheat falling into the earth, and mouldering, is raised up by the Spirit of God, Who upholdeth all things: and afterwards by the Wisdom of God cometh to be used by men, and having received to itself the Word of God, becometh an Eucharist, i.e., the body and blood of Christ: so also our bodies, nourished thereby, and put into the ground, and dissolved therein, shall rise again in their own time, the Word of God giving them resurrection to the glory of God and His Father:…” (Keble, 453-54) [Here Irenæus makes a play on words — just as the bread of the tithe becomes the body of Christ when it receives the word of God {“this is My body; this is My blood”} at the consecration, so we will be raised up by the Word of God at the resurrection. Notable, indeed, that the bread was already the Eucharist when before it was consecrated. We will discuss the variance between Keble’s translation and Schaff’s translation in the next episode]
Five Books of S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Against Heresies, Rev. John Keble, M.A., translator, James Parker & Co., 1872
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book I (202 AD)
Tertullian, On Prayer (208 AD)
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV (208 AD)
Hippolytus of Rome, the Apostolic Tradition (c. 215 AD)
The Didascalia (230 AD)
Origen, Against Celsus, Book VIII
Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, letter to Fabian of Antioch (251-253 AD) [Recorded in Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, chapter 43]
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, letter [9] to Bishop Sixtus of Rome (254-258 AD) [Note: it is epistle IV in Migne’s series on the greek fathers; the letter is also recorded in Eusebius, Church History, Book 7, Chapter 9, where he refers to it as epistle VI]
The Canons of the Council of Nicæa (325 AD)
The Canons of the Council of Nicæa (Greek and Latin) (325 AD)
Julius, Bishop of Rome, to the Accusers of Athanasius (341 AD) [Recorded in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians, Part 1]
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 19 (c. 350 AD)
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 23 (c. 350 AD)
Euchologion of Serapion of Thmuis (350-356 AD)
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 2 (361 AD)
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 18 (374 AD)
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 45 (381 AD)
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Space of Three Days between the Death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (382 AD)
Ambrose of Milan, Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David, Psalm 38 (389 AD)
John Chrysostom, Treatise on the Priesthood, Book III (387 AD)
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews, Homily 17
Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom (398 AD)
The most pressing question to what's left of gospel-loving, Bible-believing Christianity in America is this: Will we be leaders or followers?
Nate Collins and “Revoice” refused to sign the excellent and thoroughly biblical “Nashville Statement.” The Nashville Statement can be viewed here: https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/
Nate Collins was interviewed on the podcast called “Sheologians.” That program can be heard here: http://content.blubrry.com/sheologians/Sheologians-Nate-Collins-Revoice.mp3.
If you go to timestamp 1.30 you can hear Nate Collins describe himself as a “gay man” who is married to a woman and that he has 3 sons. To hear Nate Collins’s reasons for refusing to sign the “Nashville Statement,” go to time-stamp: 6.30 and listen for a few minutes. Specifically, here is a transcription of what Nate Collins says about the Nashville Statement and how it prompted him to found the Revoice organization:
Probably the thing that kicked it off in my mind was when the Nashville Statement came out. A lot of us felt that the Nashville Statement unfairly excluded people like me, people like Wesley Hill, people who would loosely be related to the Gay Christian movement. … I felt like there was some excluding going on and some foreclosing conversations by this event. … The idea for Revoice came in the aftermath of that. I thought, “ya know what? There needs to be some community that will welcome anybody who does not identify as straight, who has some complexity in the way they think about their gender and sexuality. And let’s welcome each other. Let’s have a place where we can gather together and enjoy each other’s company and find a new community.
What was “excluding” about the Nashville Statement? The statement consists of 14 articles, each of which has an affirmation and a denial. Here is what Nate Collins and Revoice did not like:
Article 7: WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.
Article 8: WE AFFIRM that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life. WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.
Article 10: WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.
Article 13: WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one’s biological sex and one’s self-conception as male or female. WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ sanctions self-conceptions that are at odds with God’s revealed will.
These precious biblical and Christian truths spelled out in these particular articles of the Nashville Statement are, in point of fact, denied repeatedly and emphatically by the speakers at the Revoice Conference.
In this episode, we begin to analyze the second part of Marcus Grodi's evidence from the early church fathers that led to his conversion to Roman Catholicism: the Eucharist. We cover the origin of the Eucharist and the origin of the term "Sacrifice of the Mass" and begin to show from the early church that “the Eucharist” was the tithe offering for 300 years, until the end of the 4th century when the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass was born.
Show Notes:
Marcus Grodi: The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw - The Journey Home (3-19-2007)
On the late origin of the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Supper
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Space of Three Days, Oration 1 (382 AD)
Ambrose of Milan, Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David, Psalm 38 (389 AD)
On Roman Catholicism’s inability to explain the origin of the term “the Mass” to refer to the Supper
Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, Ite Missa Est
On the “the Sacrifice of the Mass” originally referring to the dismissal of unbelievers for the offering of tithes and prayers
Justin Martyr, First Apology (155-156 AD)
Hippolytus of Rome, the Apostolic Tradition (c. 215 AD)
The Canons of the Council of Nicæa (325 AD)
The Canons of the Council of Nicæa (Greek and Latin) (325 AD)
Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians, Part 1 (c. 341 AD)
On Protestant efforts to redefine the Memorial Meal as an offering of Christ to the Father
Jim Jordan, Doing the Lord’s Supper, November, 1995
Jeffrey Meyers, The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship, 223 (2003)
Peter Leithart, Eucharistic Sacrifice, January 12, 2017
On the New Covenant Sacrifice of the Early Church
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 109- 124 (155-167 AD)
Irenæus, Against Heresies (174-189 AD)
Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise XII (c. 255 AD)
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III (208 AD)
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV (208 AD)
Tertullian, On Prayer (c. 200 AD)
Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily XIII
Eusebius of Cæsarea, Proof of the Gospel, Book I (311 AD)
Aphrahat of Persia, Demonstration 4, On Prayer
On Cyprian’s statement “for the Lord's passion is the sacrifice which we offer”
Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62 (c. 253 - 257 AD)
Pontius the Deacon, The Life and Passion of St. Cyprian
Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 59
Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 33
Their Praise was their Sacrifice, part 5 (analysis of Cyprian’s use of “offer”)
The Didache (50s-90s AD)
The Interlinear Didache
Migne’s Series on the Greek Fathers
Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians (late 1st century)
Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrnæans (107 AD)
Justin Martyr, First Apology (155-156 AD)
This is some additional commentary on this article I wrote for the Aquila Report called "The Myth of Sexual Orientation"
https://www.theaquilareport.com/the-myth-of-sexual-orientation/#_ftnref2
Carlos and Tim catch up on emails, recent events, personal updates, and controversies about Apologetics and the Jeff Durbin/Andy Stanley exchange, School dress ups and gender, Christians and entertainment, Roman Catholic Baptism and Presbyterians, Charles Hodge and JH Thornwell, Richard Gaffin and Justification, and Piper and being Counted Righteous in Christ.
Charles Hodge on the Roman Catholic Church:
Indeed it is a matter of devout thankfulness to God that underneath the numerous grievous and destructive errors of the Romish Church, the great truths of the Gospel are preserved. The Trinity, the true divinity of Christ, the true doctrine concerning his person as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever, salvation through his blood, regeneration and sanctification through the almighty power of the Spirit, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life, are doctrines on which the people of God in that communion live, and have produced such saintly men as St. Bernard, Fenelon, and doubtless thousands of others who are of the number of God’s elect. (John Robbins, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=228)
References
http://www.trinitylectures.org/sacramental-sorcery-p-161.html
http://www.trinitylectures.org/emperor-has-no-clothes-the-p-182.html
CALVIN ON THE VALIDITY OF 'ROMISH' BAPTISM, http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Calvin-on-the-Validity-of-Romish-Baptism-Dr.-F.N.-Lee.pdf
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2810687752
https://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2019/04/29/endgame/
Dallas Exhibits
This is an exposition of Romans 9:19-24. This used to be a passage that caused incredible consternation and angst in my soul. Today, it is a beautiful anchor amid the storms in which we now live. I pray it will be this for you too.
Join Tim Shaughnessy in this episode of Semper Reformanda Radio as he discusses the tactics of false teaches and the tools we must use to spot them.
Many Christians today do not seem to realize that we are in a spiritual war, but one can hardly read the New Testament without coming to realize that from the time of its inception the Church has been under relentless attack. Throughout church history, much of this has come in the form of physical persecution and when that occurs it is easy to recognize. But there is another form of attack that is more subtle and more dangerous. It is an attack that is not just meant to kill the body but is also meant to kill the soul. This, of course, is a spiritual attack through false teaching.
The New Testament repeatedly warns us, not only that, false teachers will come, but that when they do come it will be through great deception. Jesus warned, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15). It is not difficult to grasp the meaning of this but it is difficult when faced with the challenge of spotting a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is due to the fact that they look just like sheep.
The challenge we face is not just spotting these wolves in sheep's clothing but it is also calling it to the attention of the church. Whenever someone points out a wolf in sheep’s clothing they are sure to be confronted by others who will immediately defend the wolf by pointing out the sheep’s clothing. People get angry when others call their favorite teacher a wolf in sheep's clothing. Rather than being upset by the fact that the gospel is being subverted or obscured, it would seem that many get upset at those who call it to their attention. This is why Paul asked the Galatians “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth” (Galatians 4:16)?
The reality is that many people have not stopped to consider the incredibly deceptive nature of false teachers. Yet, Paul also warned of the deceptive nature of false teachers when he wrote, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13). These men were wolves in sheep’s clothing. They disguised themselves as apostles of Christ. John Robbins also saw this in scripture and wrote the following:
Heretics introduce false ideas stealthily: “But this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Galatians 2:4) and “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation...” (Jude 4). They appear to be sheep, but are not; and the ideas they teach, at least at first, appear to be true, but are not. By their smooth words, they deceive many into thinking that they are Christian brothers and the ideas they advance are Biblical.
The reason many people today are unable to accept that certain teachers are actually false teachers is that they have not wrestled with this in scripture. They wrongly assume that the wolf in sheep’s clothing is trying to deceive people out of malicious intent. When someone calls a teacher they like a wolf in sheep’s clothing they ask, “so you think he is really trying to deceive people and lead everyone astray.” Then they dismiss the warning out of disbelief because the teacher they like really is sincere in what he teaches. After all, Joel Osteen looks like a genuinely nice person.
The truth is that these wolves in sheep's clothing believe they are sheep. These false teachers believe they are teaching the truth because they are self-deceived. Let’s not overlook the fact that Bruce Jenner has gone to great lengths to disguise himself to look like a woman because he somehow believes he is a woman. Such is the nature of self-deception. People do not seem to recognize that these deceivers do what they do and teach what they teach because they are themselves deceived. They believe they are serving and following God. This is why Jesus warned, “They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God” (John 16:2).
The Bible warns us that false teachers will come and that they will be extremely deceptive when they arrive. Therefore, it is necessary to take a moment to discuss three key insights which will allow us to navigate the murky waters of controversy and spot these false teachers.
False Teachers Use Scripture
First, we must recognize that false teachers use scripture to teach their false doctrine. This should not surprise us and we should not be duped into thinking that their teaching is therefore Biblical. It is a strange thing to realize that false teachers will use the Bible to teach their anti-biblical views. This is called twisting the scriptures and it is exactly what Satan, who is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44), did when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. In Matthew's account we read:
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple6 and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you,' and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone'" (Matthew 4:5,6).
When Satan tempted Jesus to prove that he was the Son of God by throwing himself down from the pinnacle of the temple he quoted Psalms 91:11,12 and twisted its meaning. Clearly, the passage is a promise from God but it did not mean that Jesus could use it to test God. This is why Jesus responded by saying, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test'" (Matthew 4:7).
Today, we have countless examples of false teachers twisting scripture to teach false doctrine. Mormons will use the Bible in an effort to substantiate Mormon doctrine. Word of Faith preachers constantly use passages like John 10:10 and 2 Corinthians 8:9 to teach their false prosperity gospel. Every Christian needs to be aware of this deceptive tactic and needs to embrace the all-important principle of the Reformation that scripture interprets scripture.
They Speak Our Language
The second insight we must learn is that false teachers use Biblical terms and orthodox language but changes their meaning. John Robbins pointed this out when he wrote, “The most effective attack on truth, the most subversive attack on the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy of the work of Christ for the salvation of his people, is always couched in pious language and Biblical phraseology.” This is why it is necessary to define our terms. However, this practice of deception is not limited to single words. When it is a single word that is given two meanings we call that equivocation but when it is a phrase we call it amphibology.
Christians, Mormon, and Jehovah’s Witness all say that “Jesus is the son of God.” Here we have an example of both equivocation and amphibology because we all mean something entirely different by the word “Jesus” and we all mean something entirely different by the phrase, “son of God.” When Mormons speak of Jesus they mean the spirit brother of Satan and when they say he is “son of God” they mean that he was first a spirit born being who had a beginning and that heavenly father had sex with Mary in order that he should be born here on earth. When Jehovah’s Witnesses speak of Jesus they mean that he is Michael the Archangel and he is the “son of God” because he was the first thing created by Jehovah. When Christians speak of Jesus we mean that he is the second person of the Trinity and the title “son of God” means he is the unique one who is God made manifest in the flesh.
It is essential for Christians to realize that these tactics of deception are not limited to these obvious examples. Every heretic in history has taught their heresy while using scripture and orthodox language. But there is yet a third insight we must learn and that has to do with language and logic.
Sufficiency of Language and Necessity of Logic
Christians must recognize that language and logic are sufficient for communication. God has given us the gift of language for communication and because we are made in his image we necessarily think in terms of logic. Therefore, we are expected to make logical deductions and inferences. The Bible speaks to us in such a way that it assumes our ability to do this and we are given numerous examples of logic scripture.
In Matthew 22:23-28 the Sadducees attacked the resurrection by presenting Jesus a question about marriage in the afterlife. Jesus first responded by correcting their understanding of the scriptures and pointed out that marriage ends at death. Then he said:
“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:31-32).
The passage Jesus quoted says “I am the God of Abraham,” not “I was the God of Abraham.” The verb is in the present tense, not the past tense. In other words, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living and Jesus refuted the Sadducees by pointing them back to scripture and then by deducing the resurrection from the tense of a verb. The Sadducees were expected to believe the resurrection and so are we, which means we are expected to believe not only that which is expressly stated but also that which may be deduced from scripture.
This principle of making logical deductions was so vital to the Protestant Reformation that it was given confessional status in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In chapter 1, paragraph six, the Westminster divines stated that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture...” This is critical to understanding God's word because doctrines such as the Trinity, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Redemption are not explicitly stated in scripture but are by good and necessary consequence deduced from scripture.
It is imperative that we be willing to make logical deductions. Unfortunately, we live in an age of anti-intellectualism and irrationalism and many people do not recognize the significant threat this poses to the church. The inability or unwillingness to make logical deductions will prevent us from understanding God's word and keep us from recognizing those who detract from it.
Imagine two men are talking and the first man says to the second man, “all Mexicans are lazy.”
Then the second man looks at him and asks, “why would you call Carlos lazy? He is Mexican and one of the hardest working guys I know.”
Then the first man gets upset and fires back, “I didn’t say anything about Carlos being lazy. You’re putting words in my mouth, you’re taking me out of context and you’re misrepresenting me.”
The logic here is simple. If all Mexicans are lazy and Carlos is a Mexican, then Carlos is lazy. The second man was not misrepresenting the first man or putting words in his mouth or taking him out of context. He accepted the statement and made a valid deduction thereby ensuring that the first man was represented accurately. The first man was guilty of saying that Carlos was lazy but he chose to be irrational because of the stubbornness of his heart. He didn’t want to face the fact that he had insulted Carlos directly even though it wasn’t expressly stated.
This type of irrational behavior is quite typical of people today. They falsely accuse others of misrepresenting them and accuse them of committing a straw man fallacy because they don’t want to accept the consequences of their position. The straw man fallacy is quite possibly the most abused and misapplied informal logical fallacy because people tend to be prideful, irrational and refuse to accept that they are wrong. But this is where the Christian needs to stand firm and insist on rational discourse. Simply because someone has reduced your position to absurdity, and you’re not willing to accept the logical conclusion, does not mean they have misrepresented you. It means you should change your views.
We do not need to back down when people falsely accuse us of misrepresentation but we do need to be very concerned about representing others accurately and fairly. The question is how do we do this. Well, the answer really is quite simple. We accept their statements at face value, allow them to define their terms, and we make valid inferences or deductions.
It is important, however, to point out that when we say that the deduction or inference is valid we don’t mean it is true. We simply mean that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. We can make a valid deduction from a false premise which would make the conclusion false. In the example above we see that the conclusion that Carlos was lazy necessarily followed from the premises but the conclusion was false. This is because the premise that all Mexicans are lazy is false. In order to have an argument that is sound, we must have true premises and a valid deduction. When we make valid deductions or inferences from scripture the arguments are always sound and the conclusions are necessarily true. This is because God’s word is truth; “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).
Here is a link to the new Legacy Edition of J. Greshem Machen’s masterpiece, Christianity and Liberalism:
Thomas Brooks outlined these 7 characteristics of false teachers in the 17th century. Nothing has changed. Here they are:
1. False teachers are men-pleasers. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Luke 6:26; Galatians 1:6-10; Isaiah 30:9-10; Jeremiah 23:16-17
2. False teachers are notable in casting dirt, scorn, and reproach upon the persons, names, and credits of Christ's most faithful ambassadors. 2 Corinthians 10:10
3. False teachers are venters of the devices and visions of their own heads and hearts. Jeremiah 14:14; 23:16; Matthew 24:4-5; Titus 1:10; Romans 16:18; Jeremiah 23:1-3
4. False teachers easily pass over the great and weighty things both of law and gospel, and stand most upon those things that are of the least importance and concern to the souls of men. 1 Timothy 1:5-7; Matthew 23:23; Romans 8:1; Galatians 3:1; Galatians 5:12; Philippians 3:2; Matthew 23:24
5. False teachers cover and color their dangerous principles and soul-deceptions with very fair speeches and plausible pretenses, with high notions and golden expressions. Galatians 6:12; Romans 16:17-18; Matthew 7:15
6. False teachers strive more to win over men to their opinions, than to better them in their lives. Matthew 23:15; Acts 20:28-30
7. False teachers make merchandise of their followers. Jeremiah 6:13; 2 Peter 2:3
In this episode, we give thirteen (there are many more) examples of invalid assumptions that inform many ancient and modern eschatologies, and the Scriptural answer to them. The episode serves as a summary of the first 21 episodes of the Danielic Imperative, and a prelude to the next 21 and beyond.
This is my precious Amy. She is a rare jewel of a wife. I thank God for every day He has shared her with me. One of my children snapped this picture when she wasn’t looking. That authentic smile while holding one of our 10 little ones in a sling… priceless. I put Proverbs 31:10-12 on this printing.