Box 353, Ponte Vedra Beach, Jacksonville, Florida 32004-0353
PO Box 8, New Ross, County Wexford, Ireland
Subject: Re: The Wednesday Word: The Man Who Prayed in Reverse April 18 2012
You know Miles, you remind me of me! Your style is succinct and provocative and you
write well. I always think this passage brings out the wonderfully human love that
Peter had for the Lord Jesus. By this time he must already have witnessed quite a
number of miraculous healings and exorcisms, not to mention the Lord's continual
preaching of the kingdom of God and he could, I suppose, have reached a point where
his honest recognition of his own lack of faith would have appeared quite depressing
and seemingly hopeless. When he made the comment, he was clearly embarrassed and
despondent about his chances of living up to Jesus' standard. He felt unworthy, just
like the man who gives back the prize he did not deserve. Peter was displaying his
morality and genuineness of heart that had already been prepared beforehand by Christ.
This is what God does to us. He was praying in reverse as you say, but he didn't
mean it! And of course our Lord recognized this. By the way the throne if grace is
also one of fury and wrath(Matt 25:41).
I like your Wednesday Words; they are excellent and thought provoking. They are by
themselves a notable ministry in your hands. Praise God.
D.M. United Kingdom
I appreciate your note.
With respect, the Throne of Grace is never know as a throne of Wrath and Fury. We
do well to note that there are several thrones mentioned in the Word. There is the
Throne of Glory (1 Tim 6:16) –how wonderful a throne that is, but this is not the
throne of grace to which we are commanded to come-----and a good job too (see Job
23:15, Judges 13:22). There is also a throne of God’s government (Ps 9:4,7). We love
that throne, but it is not the throne that we as sinners have been called to. It
is not the throne of Grace. There is the throne of God’s Justice (Ps 143:2). When
God sits upon this throne and casts his eye over sinful man He sees that there is
not one found to be righteous, no not one. But, this is not the Throne of Grace.
There is the Great White Throne (Rev 20;12), but there is no grace or mercy shown
there. However, we rejoice in that we have, as undone sinners, been commanded to
come boldly to the Throne of grace and it is at that throne we find mercy and grace
to help in the time of need.
I appreciate your point about Peter but must respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
When we compare scripture with scripture we discover that nearness to God makes a
man feel undone. This is what happened to Peter. Take, also, Job for example. His
friends, despite repeated attempts to, could not persuade Job of his unrighteousness.
Then the Lord showed up and Job declared, “Behold I am vile” (Job 40:4). In the light
of God’s presence we are undone. As we encounter Him we see ourselves as ruined within
ourselves. It is only the ruined man to whom the message of grace and mercy is healing
balm. Take the great woe preacher Isaiah. he “woed”all round the place till one day
he met the manifest presence of the Lord and then changed his tune (Isa 6). He cried
out, woe is me---I am undone. Nearness to God will always make a man feel this way.
The powerful miracle of the draft of fishes gave Peter a new glimpse of the glory
and majesty of the man who was God. it was this that caused him to utter his remarkable
Subject: Re: The Wednesday Word: Cleansed By the Blood: Part 5
I am not altogether sure you are right in ascribing the sin of murdering Jesus, to
all of us. Mankind was guilty certainly and maybe still is, but there were some at
the time who could not be said to be at fault eg Jesus' mother, Mary. Don't forget
we who are least in the kingdom of heaven are greater than John the Baptist. We were,
by divine ordination, born after the ascension. Maybe had we been there at the time
sitting in the Sanhedrin we might have cast our vote against the LORD. Have you ever
asked yourself why the Great Apostle referred to himself as the chief of sinners(1
Tim 1:15)? Was it possibly because he was the one who crucified our LORD? Certainly
he was the eminence grise of the Jewish leadership and very likely the loudest and
most strident voice demanding His crucifixion. He was unquestionably the cleverest.
Why else would he claim to be the greatest of sinners? You and I are not so burdened
by guilt. It seems to me you are expressing a personally held guilt therefore which
is unnecessary, because firstly as you point out, Christ has already taken your sin
and secondly He has deliberately manifested you in these latter days, so that you
need not vicariously apply to yourself this sin of Deicide.
I may well be in error here and await your response with interest. I know that the
Lord Jesus through His Holy Spirit, will correct me graciously, should He so determine.
Thanks for the note. You raise some interesting issues.
If we believe the Bible we must conclude that all have sinned (Romans 3:23). Since
all have sinned and not some then this includes Mary the Mother of Christ. She admits
this in the Magnificat when she claims God as her saviour (Luke 1:47). Only sinners
need a saviour. As a sinner she had earned the death penalty (Rom 6:23) but Christ
became her substitute and received God’s wrath on her behalf as He died in her place
at the Cross.
Regardless of which side of the ascension we live man by nature is an enemy God (Rom
5:6-8). Man is a sinner (Rom 3:10 ff) and sin is the transgression of the Law (1
John 3:4). As transgressors of the law we are essentially haters of God (Rom 1:30).
We hated His interference, rules and regulations. We were like the Jews of old who
declared, “We will not have this man to reign over us. The sinner, as such, is not
only a hater of God, but his carnal mind is also enmity against God; it is not subject
to the law of God, neither indeed can be: (Rom. 8:7). Since all have sinned all deserve
death and judgment, but Christ died as the substitute of His people. It was however
our sins which put him on the cross and as such all his people are indeed guilty
of Deicide whether or not we actually lived back then or not.
The men who voted for his death were not the only guilty ones. To say this is to
minimize the whole matter.Peter tells the multitude in Jerusalem that they were guilty
of Christ’s death for they had “killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from
the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (Acts 3:15). Peter does not flatter his hearers;
but boldly declares that they had “killed the Prince of life.” This was literally
true, and it was needful that they should know and feel it. As Spurgeon says, “There
is no gospel without the cross, and no useful preaching which does not appeal to
the conscience; yes, there must be the cross for doctrine, and honest rebuke as the
trumpet to awaken men’s hearts. Ye ministers, take note of this!”
Paul claimed to be the chief of sinners, not because he had clamoured for Christ’s
death---there is no record of this when Paul gives his testimony. Rather Paul says
he is the Chief of sinners because
1) He is growing in grace and see just how wretched a man he is in his natural man.
2) He was the chief of sinners (in his estimation) because he plundered and wasted
the church (1 Tim 1:13-15).
David, when I talk about sin I am not talking about any unresolved personal issues.
If you are one of God’s elect you will gladly embrace the cross and the saviour who
died there for wretches. Christ came only to save the lost. If a man however does
not believe that he needs saving to the uttermost, it is doubtful whether or not
Christ came to save him.
This letter is in reference to the most recent Wednesday Word
“What you are saying is not altogether right. You say, "nowhere does the Bible tell
us that the wages of our obedience is eternal life." Hebrews 5:9 says, And being
made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.
We do not earn eternal life, nevertheless obedience IS conditional to eternal life.
You don't make that clear. “
Nowhere, in the Bible, does it teach that salvation is a result of our obedience.
Rather salvation is a result of Christ’s perfect obedience performed on our behalf.
He, Christ, as heb 5:9 says, became author of eternal salvation. Are we now to believe
that there are two authors of eternal life i.e. the obedient Christ and the obedient
follower of Christ? God forbid that we should preach such a thing.
The mark of the elect, however, is that we obey him. This begins with obedience to
the gospel. To have saving faith is to obey Jesus. But what does Jesus command? He
commands that we, “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). This is what Paul
calls “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5) . Try as we may, we cannot separate saving
faith from obedient faith, or unbelief from disobedience ( See Heb 3:18-19, Heb 4:6,11).
Our obedience, however, in no way obtains our salvation, but is rather an evidence
that we have been marked out by the Father. From first to last we are saved through
the finished perfect obedience and work of Christ.
Our obedience to the gospel and subsequent obedience to the Lord is the fruit of
salvation not the ground of it. In Heb 5:9 the “ all them that obey him” are the
elect. The proof of their election is a continued obedience. HOWEVER THIS OBEDIENCE
DARE NOT BE ADDED TO THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST AS THE GROUND OF SALVATION. Unfortunately,
your doctrine is dangerously close to the doctrine of the denomination called the
Church of Christ. They however take things a little farther and tell us what exactly
constitutes our obedience (baptism in their church etc.).
Again let us state clearly that the obedience of Christ both passive and active has
obtained eternal life for us. There is nothing, but nothing that can be added to
this. To say that we can and must add our obedience to gain eternal life is to depart
from the gospel.
Subject: RE: Email from Miles McKee website, Marcus C. Grodi Religionist or Rascal
Ah...I see. So starting with the protestors and passing since to you, you are in
a better position to understand, interpret and promulgate God's plan for mankind's
salvation then those who had been in direct lineage back to our Lord Jesus Christ
starting with his own chosen vicar, St. Peter. And St. John, who walked with Jesus
and was at the foot of our Savior's cross, had it wrong too. Luther, Calvin, Wesleyan,
and the almost infinite number of "great interpreters" all the way to Miles McKee
should be relied upon for "knowing" the truth over the Church that Christ himself
founded. And you protestors are so divergent in your beliefs, interpretations of
scripture, and worship practices that the only thing that today holds you together,
is your break some 500 years ago from the Church that to that point had lived for
1500 years going back to Christ's walk on earth.
Some might say that at least as a matter of livelihood, you are fortunate to have
followers who buy your hogwash because evidently, for whatever reason, they do not
have the reasoning skills nor the wisdom to look at the total history of Christianity,
and pre-Christian Judaism, which in itself points very clearly toward the Church
that Christ founded and the Eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament that all protestors,
by definition, deny. As I stated initially, I hope for your sole's purpose that God
looks favorably on your own interpretation of his Divine plan, and especially how
you have chosen to, in my mind, not only reject His plan but spread the ill-truth
to many that for their own prejudices, ignorance, and lack of resourcefulness are
receptive to it.
Thank you for the clarification on your position. I will continue to keep you and
all of our separated brethren in my prayers.
With respect Steve, you don’t see a thing. You have, it seems, little clue about
the history of the Papal religion. the religion which you tout as being the one true
communion founded by Christ. One would expect to discover that, if your proposition
is correct, the early churches would have bowed to this position and willingly submitted
themselves to Rome. This, however, is not the picture history paints. It took Rome
100s of years of bullying and politicking to achieve her self-created ‘primary status’.
Why not do yourself a favour and read Gibbon (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)
on this matter? Edward Gibbon was no adherent to spiritual Protestantism so he didn’t
write with an evangelical axe to grind. He was, however, one of the finest historian
who has lived. He along with many others have shown clearly how this erroneous claim
you make about Peter and the ‘true church’ was not held by the other early churches.
Better still why don’t you read the conclusions of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325)
on this matter?
The important thing to note is that, apart from settling the question of Arianism
and the Trinity, the Nicene Council confirmed certain areas of geographical responsibility
for the churches. It did not decree these areas into being, but merely recognised
that which was already in existence at that time. If, as you insist, Peter and his
supposed successors were the Head of the Church, why then did the Bishops at Nicaea
not affirm this and readily declare the Bishop of Rome to be the jurisdictional head
of Christendom? But they did quite the opposite. We learn from Canon Six of Nicaea
that Rome was considered merely one of the centers of Christianity and not, as is
falsely claimed by you, the supreme center. Nicaea, recognised that the bishoprics
of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were basically on an equal footing Nicaea, it should
be recalled, was an ecumenical council attended by the representatives of both the
Eastern and the Western churches and thus her canons had universal subscription.
So much for your theory of Rome’s ancient supremacy!
Very, very few bought into the error of Papal Supremacy. It was a doctrine that the
Bishop of Rome tried to subject others to and didn’t gather much momentum till the
days of Leo the Great in the 5th century. Since those days, however, Rome has amassed
and invented a great body of lies (history re-interpreted) to confirm her story and
as the old saying goes, “if one tells a lie often enough people will believe it.”
You build your house of cards on the mistaken notion that Peter was the foundation
of the church---sheer nonsense. I‘ve already answered questions like this in a more
comprehensive manner on my web site www.milesmckee.com. If you have any regard for
the truth you will do some research. See, for example, my article, “Fifteen Reasons
Why Peter was not the Supreme Pontiff” http://www.milesmckee.com/peter_was_not_the_supreme_pontiff.html
Again, as I glance at your faulty view of history, I see you spout the ill-informed
nonsense that people of my view point only appeared 500 years ago. This is laughable.
Have you read any history at all? Do you know anything of the teaching of the Fathers
and others? It would seem not. Here is a partial list, compiled by Professor Buchannan,
of just some of the things that the pre –reformation teachers held. Notice how they
are very much in line with the men of the Reformation.
Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not
justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or
piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle
Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is
through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am
willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title
deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.
Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will
of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).
Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of
a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death,
who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom
for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible
that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son
of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden
in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors"
(Letter to Diognetus).
Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many
should be justified and receive salvation."
Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness,
then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous
? Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified
as was Abraham."
Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up
on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true
righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."
Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile,
believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."
Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified,
because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for
his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto
himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."
Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone,
not on account of good works which he possessed not."
Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ)
to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness
of God, when we are justified, not by works...but by grace, where all sin is made
to vanish away."
Chrysostom: "Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but
he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed."
Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because
it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received.
The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven
him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order
that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a
man has received."
Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies,
we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith
in Jesus Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not
by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."
Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go,
then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you,
"You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between
me and my sin.""
Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness
and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness
can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which
alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him
believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith
alone, he shall have peace with God."
You seem to live with the deluded impression that the Reformers brought some new
teaching to the Church. The Reformers, however, did not want a new church, they merely
wanted to reform the existing church and bring it back to the New Testament gospel.
The power brokers of Rome, however, would not countenance this, no not for a moment.
To re-establish Christ as the head of the Church would be too high a cost for them;
a cost they had neither inclination nor desire to pay.
As for the Old Testament being a book about the Church, by what Biblical authority
do you claim that? Where’s your evidence from scripture? According to Jesus the OT
was a book about Him, not about the church! If you are a Bible reader you will know
where that is taught.
However, knowing or not knowing these facts will not matter when you stand before
God in Judgment. On that great day, He will not ask you, whether, you are good or
bad or a member of Rome or a Protestant. He will, on the other hand, ask you what
you think of Christ. Of course, in reality, He already knows all things and will
have no need to ask anything. So let me ask, have you trusted Christ Jesus alone
for salvation? Have you come to Him as a poor broken sinner whose greatest need is
mercy and cleansing? What or Who are you trusting for eternal life? Is there a deficiency
in Christ and His cross that causes you to wish to supplement it with good works,
sacraments, intercession of the saints and church membership?
May God be merciful to you and give you a heart for the Truth.
I just had the extreme displeasure of reading your exhaustive article on your thoughts,
feelings and opinions about Mr. Grodi's conversion to Catholicism.
Why you would take the time and energy to publish such a hostile, bitter and vindictive
prose on someone doing so much good for the spread of Christianity is in itself suspect.
But in reading the complete article, it becomes clear that your larger problem is
with the Roman Catholic Church.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion as is Mr. Grodi or any one of us. I certainly
hope you are extremely confident in your abilities to fully comprehend and understand
all there is to know about Catholicism. I would think that if you are wrong, our
Lord will look very unkindly on your open hate for not only the institution that
we Catholics believe Christ himself founded, but on a very caring Christian like
Mr. Grodi, whose unquestionable passion, in my opinion, is to help all of us find
the salvation in God the Almighty that we all long for.
I will keep you in my prayers and trust that God will use you according to his will
and that you will remain open to it. I believe that nothing less than your own salvation
is at stake, very much along with all of the rest of us, preachers and laymen alike.
Yes indeed, my problem is with the teachings of Roman communion. When one
reads the positions which Rome clarified at Trent one can not but fail to
appreciate why she anathematises believers like me. Rome, appreciated that
there was no co-existence to be discovered between forensic justification
and infused righteousness----a point that many of today’s evangelicals and Roman
Catholics fail to grasp. Although since the days of Trent men like
Newman have tried to synthesise our contrary views, they, since black is not
white and light is not darkness, have entirely failed.
Thank you for the Wednesday word. Praying for you guys and the people of Ireland.
I'm having a hard time sharing the gospel here in Las Vegas. After sharing with them
the only way to be right with GOD, I'm having a hard time in explaining what our
response should be. I remember when you were here we were telling people that they
have to repent of their sins a put their trust in JESUS. One of the people who used
to go out with us no longer does and say we are going to Hell because we are telling
people this. Another shoots to lead them in a "sinners prayer". Another tells them
to confess with their mouth and believe in their heart. I have been watching a Bible
study on TV and he also using the Romans road have them confess with their mouth.
I know that Salvation is something GOD does so what do I say to someone after I explain
the gospel? Help! Love -
Thanks for your note. We are told to repent and believe the gospel. I suggest you
read some of the old evangelists like Ichabod Spenser.
Here is a quote from the above article on Repentance---as u know, repentance is essential,
but it does not save us.
“Sinners certainly ought to repent, for God commands them to repent. But in my opinion,
he does not design to have them understand his command, as having respect only to
their own ability to repent, and not having respect to the proffered aids of the
Holy Spirit. Such aids constitute one grand ground on which his command is obligatory,
and sweep away every possible excuse. No man ever did repent without the Holy Spirit,
or ever will; and this is no small amount of proof that no man ever can. Nothing
seems to be gained by making a sinner believe that he is able to repent without divine
assistance. Such a belief will be very likely to mislead him to a reliance upon his
own shattered strength And as to his conviction of criminality for not coming to
repentance, surely there is strong ground for such conviction, since God offers him
all the ability he needs, — in me is thy help, — let him take hold on my strength
that he may make peace with me.”
You can find much more material by Spenser online.
I also recommend that you read Spurgeon sermons www.spurgeongems.org ---on this site
nearly all (if not all) his sermons are presented in updated English. He also wrote
a book called the Soul Winner, it should be of help---you can find the complete text
Keep preaching Christ Crucified. Urge sinners to repent and believe, ---avoid formulas!
Avoid the Ask Jesus to come into your heart prayer. Avoid idiots who tell you that
you are going to Hell for doing what the Bible makes clear you should do.
How, exactly does this continually happen? Every week the "Wednesday Word" seems
to apply specifically to my weak self, and some particular situation, whatever it
may currently be. This astounds me. The encourgagement and exhortation are greatly
appreciated. I share your weekly letter with my list of email contacts. Thank
you so much for taking the time and the trouble to send a truly nourishing meal to
the sheep each Wednesday. May the LORD richly bless you and your family and your
"God, our Father, walk through my house and take away all my worries and illnesses
and please watch over and heal my family in Jesus name, Amen."
This prayer is so powerful. Pass this to 12 people including me. A blessing is
coming to you in form of a new job, a house, marriage, finances, or maybe an answer
to something (a prayer, a request) that you have been waiting for. Do not break
or ask questions. Does God come first in your life? If so, stop what you are doing
& send it to 12 people now. Watch what He does!
JJ Alabama, USA
Dear Sir---this is just more legalistic claptrap---the kind of junk that is killing
the church. The blessing of God does not come to me because of forwarding this email
to 12 people (something I refuse to do). The blessing of God comes to me because
God took His Son and publicly placarded Him as a propitiation for my sins 2000 years
ago. To forward emails in order to receive the blessing of God is to attack the
And that's the Gospel Truth
The following article was forwarded to all Wednesday word readers on June 23, 2010.
A response from one of the readers was immediately received. This response plus Miles’
further response may be found below the Wednesday Word.
The Wednesday Word: Sin on Him or in Him?
In this day and age when the gospel is under attack from all sides we must be aware
of certain gospel foundations. For example, we must be clear about what Christ being
‘made sin’ means. Was He made sin by imputation or by impartation? In other words,
was Christ counted a sinner at the cross or was He physically made into one? The
only answer which does justice to the Biblical evidence is that Christ was made sin
by imputation and not by impartation. Here’s the problem, if Christ became wretchedly
sinful in Himself then it follows that, because of the cross, we become perfectly
righteousness in ourselves. Notice the following parallel, “he hath made him to be
sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him
(2 Cor 5:21).” He was made sin we are made righteous. In other words, at the cross,
Christ was legally treated as if He was actually sinful in Himself although, in Himself,
He remained righteous, pure and untainted. Conversely, because of His finished work
we are now legally treated as though we are perfectly righteous in ourselves---though,
in actuality, we are not.
Christ was reckoned as sin that we might be reckoned as righteous. If, however, it
was our sin ‘in Him’ that caused His damnation then it follows logically that His
righteousness ‘in us’ is the cause of our acceptance -- a favored doctrine of the
Roman Church. But sin was not in Him; it was reckoned (imputed) to Him, laid upon
Him, not infused into Him. His righteousness was in Him (Jeremiah 33:16) and we
are treated as if we are righteous because the righteousness of Christ is reckoned
to us (Isa 54:17).
This truth that sin was on Christ, but not in Him is pictured in Abel’s offering,
the burnt offerings, the scapegoat and the transfer of sins to the innocent animals
etc. Just as sins were imputed or reckoned to these animals, but not infused into
them, so our sins were laid on Jesus, but not infused into Him (Isa 53:6). This is
not to say that Christ did not suffer and feel the effects of our sin. He took our
curse and damnation to the fullest extent, yet in no way did He become a sinner.
Only a sinless perfect sacrifice could save us.
In Sunday School classes of the 1800s they taught the children that, at Calvary,
there were three crosses and three dying men. One man was dying in sin (the unrepentant
thief), another man was dying to sin (the repentant thief), but the man in the middle
(Christ Jesus) was dying for sin. The children would then quote the following mantra,
“One man had sin both on him and in him. Another man had no sin on him but sin in
him; Christ Jesus had sin on Him, but none in Him.” Those children were taught more
than some of our dear adults are today.
Our sins were not in Christ they were on him and as such He received our awful penalty.
His righteousness is, likewise, not created in us, but placed on us and as such
we receive His marvelous reward. Our sin brought Jesus to the cross (Isa 53) but
His righteousness will bring us to heaven (Phil 3:8-9). Furthermore, when He suffered
for sin the shame was entirely ours, but when we shall be glorified the glory shall
be entirely His. When Christ died, there was nothing in Him worthy of death, yet
death was his lot; similarly, there is nothing in us worthy of heaven, yet heaven
God executed His Son because our sin was on Him; likewise, God will glorify us because
Christ’s righteousness is on us. Death deserving sin was imputed to Christ and heaven
deserving righteousness is imputed to us (Isa 53:11).
This letter was sent in response to my Wednesday Word on the matter of ‘Sin in Christ
or on Christ’:
I trust you are well. When our Lord made the water wine at the marriage feast, Did
he have someone write out some post-it note saying “wine” and stick them on the sides
of the water pots, or did he make the water wine? Did he make the water wine, or
simply say “the water is wine” and treat it as though it were wine? These questions,
I really would like for you to answer, when you have time.
Where in all the Word of God is there a legal term, like “impute” or “reckon” used
to refer to Christ being made sin?
If the only thing our Lord anticipated in the Garden was the prospect of being treated
as though he were sin, what broke his heart?
If he was not made sin, how could our Lord have been justly punished for sin (Proverbs
If God’s elect are not really made perfectly righteous, how can they be admitted
into heaven at last (Hebrews 12:14; Revelation 21:27)?
When the Lord declared that Job was perfect, was he merely saying, “I will pretend
that Job is perfect?”
Please understand, my brother, that I am not being sarcastic. I have raised these
questions in the clear manner that I have because I wish to be clearly understood,
not mis-stating anything, and because I would really like to have them answered.
There is one more thing, about which I hope you can help. --- Can you point me to
some reference, somewhere, either oral or written, in which anyone ever stated that
Christ was a sinner?
I fully appreciate that you were not attempting sarcasm in your letter. I, likewise,
will attempt to be devoid of mischief when answering your questions. It is not my
desire to enter into a vitriolic polemic, but rather to examine what it is that you
are asking and/or stating. If, in fact, I answer what I mis-understand to be your
position I apologize in advance and ask that you please advise me as to your actual
One of the reasons I say this is that having read your letter several times, I’m
still not really sure what you are defending or promoting. With respect, there seems
to be something of an ambiguity and perhaps contradiction in your statements. The
article I wrote dealt with the matter of sin in Christ or sin on Christ. In response,
the first thing you tell me is of water pots being actually filled with wine and
not being imputed as having wine. In the context of my article, this would seem
to imply that you either believe that our sins were not imputed to Christ, but made
actual in Him or that His righteousness was not imputed, but rather infused into
us (or both).
Furthermore, I'm afraid you have lost me here in your analogy of water pots for I
was unaware that this miracle of water to wine pointed to Christ's work at the cross.
It may be a picture of regeneration or the joys of new life in Christ, but I see
no allusion here to the truth of justification by grace through faith. As you know,
Rome incorrectly teaches that we are justified by an infused righteousness and thus
continues to thoroughly confound and confuse the truths of Regeneration and Justification.
Are you suggesting by your water pot analogy that it is something within us which is
the ground of our justification?
In my last letter I addressed your question "Can you point me to some reference,
somewhere, either oral or written, in which anyone ever stated that Christ was a
sinner?” I pointed to the myriad of Word of Faith preachers who do indeed claim
this. One of the reasons I wrote the article was to counteract this wretched teaching
from these men. They are in grave error, but at least they are consistent in their
logic. They see that infused sin into Christ unavoidably makes Him a sinner. I will
say more on this matter later.
I will now attempt to answer question 1, 3 - 5 ---they are related. You ask,
(1) 'Where in all the Word of God is there a legal term, like “impute” or “reckon”
used to refer to Christ being made sin?'
(3) If he was not made sin, how could our Lord have been justly punished for sin
(4)If God’s elect are not really made perfectly righteous, how can they be admitted
into heaven at last (Hebrews 12:14; Revelation 21:27)?
(5) When the Lord declared that Job was perfect, was he merely saying, “I will pretend
that Job is perfect?”
Let’s deal firstly with question 4 and 5--- If God’s elect are not really made perfectly
righteous, how can they be admitted into heaven at last, et al. The two scriptures
you quoted say nothing about an infused righteousness being our ground and basis
of acceptance before God. They do mention right living, but not as the ground of
justification. If our behavior is the ground of our admission into heaven then we
have no gospel, only law.
When we will be admitted, at last, into the fullness of heaven, we will be admitted
in a glorified state. It is then that we will be perfectly and righteously transformed.
“When He shall appear we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is’ (1Jn 3:2)
---notice becoming like Him only happens in its fullness when we see Him at His return.
To teach that we are to be perfectly righteous in ourselves before we are glorified
is to promote a premature eschatology. The Holiness Movement has a similar error
in their perfectionism teaching. Our only perfection, however, is outside of us
in the person of Christ. And yes if we are legally perfect, God calls us as being
so. The enemies of the gospel have through the years called this a legal fiction,
but there is nothing fictitious about it, it is a judicial reality.
Since this full conformity to the likeness of Christ is in the future, at the return
of the Lord, it stands to reason that we do not have it now nor can we have it by
supposed sanctification techniques or by works of the Spirit. The scripture is unambiguous-----
“it doth not yet appear what we shall be.” If it “doth not yet appear” then it “doth
not yet appear” --------It will, however, yet appear at some point in the future,
----contrary to all the protestations of those who want us to be suitably and perfectly
transformed in this life.
If justification makes us inherently righteous by infusion then we must possess enough
inherent righteousness to satisfy divine justice and merit eternal life. However,
if this is the case, Christ our High Priest is made redundant. If, on the other hand
we have, let’s say, half of the righteousness of Christ infused into us, we do not
now have enough righteousness to take us to heaven (unless, that is, God has lowered
His standards).---We must, therefore, take some additional steps to secure additional
righteousness for ourselves. Thus we are brought back into works/religion by the
teaching of infused righteousness as the ground of our salvation.
Furthermore, if infused perfect righteousness is ours before the eschaton, then the
formula, simul iustus et peccator (at the same time righteous and a sinner), must
be rejected. As you know, this was Luther’s battle cry in the struggle with Rome.
The Council of Trent revealed that Rome considered Luther's simul iustus et peccator
to be a very serious and dangerous threat to their infused righteousness teaching.
The Roman Church contended that “justification” means making a man righteous in his
own person. They reasoned, “How can God pronounce a man righteous in His sight unless
he is actually righteous?” Is this the same thinking you present in questions 4
and 5? Rome holds that a man must be born again and transformed before he can have
right standing with God. Yet you ask, “If God’s elect are not really made perfectly
righteous, how can they be admitted into heaven at last--?” I hope I misunderstand
what you are asking for, if not, it seems, if question 4 and 5 are a declaration
of your thinking and not a theoretical question, that you have become Roman Catholic
in your approach to justification.
The Reformers taught, and I believe it holds true to scripture, that our righteousness
is an “alien” righteousness. It is alien because it did not come from us. It is
not our righteousness, it is His. It is an alien because it is outside us, reserved
in heaven for us. My entire contribution to salvation is my sin, not my righteousness!
Scripture leaves no room for inherent perfection. If indeed we admit that we still
sin it follows that the perfect righteousness that saves us must be outside of us.
Why? Because, if this perfect righteousness was something that we already possessed,
we would not sin. If we are sinners, it must of a necessity be true that perfect
righteousness is imputed to us, not infused into us. If all of Christ’s perfect
righteousness, on the other hand, is infused into us, we are already perfect ------we
no longer sin and thus no longer need our High Priest to save us to the uttermost
and to bring us to God.
On another related matter, as you know we are saved by both Christ’s active and passive
obedience. It is beyond me then to comprehend how, for example, his active obedience
can be infused into us. How does that work? If we must become perfectly righteous
in this life how does his active obedience get into us? Is it infused? If so, how?
By the work of the Spirit? By sacraments? By personal obedience? How exactly does
this work? If you say this perfect righteousness is imputed into us by the Spirit,
I ask, for what reason? This righteousness is already ours having already been imputed
judicially to us. If you say that it is done bit by bit as a process, then you are
admitting that this work is incomplete and imperfect (being that it ongoing). Are
we now to trust in an unfinished and imperfect work as the ground of our salvation?
I find no such problems, however, when I accept that His entire righteousness both
passive and active is reckoned as being mine. God does not need to infuse justifying
righteousness into us to save us. That would be a redundant step since our righteousness
is already complete.
Bonar said, “We get everything upon the credit of His name, and because not only
has our unworthiness ceased to be recognized by God in His dealings with us, but
our demerit been supplanted by the merit of One who is absolutely and divinely perfect.
In His name we carry on all our transactions with God, and obtain all that we need
by simply using it as our plea. The things that He did not do were laid to His charge,
and He was treated as if He had done them all; so the things that He did do are put
to our account, and we are treated by God as if we had done them all " I believe
he is right on this!
In question 1, you ask where in all the Word of God is there a legal term like impute
in reference to Christ being made sin? ------ I reply, where in the Word is this
not implied? Imputation is implied and stated throughout the dealings of God with
His elect. I will concede that not every verse uses the actual word ‘impute’, but
if our hermeneutic demands that imputation can only be present when it is expressly
mentioned then, as we apply the same hermeneutic, we must also conclude there to
be no Trinity, no Substitution and no Satisfaction made at the cross. These things
are never specifically mentioned by name.
In addition, no verse can tell the entirety of the gospel. The gospel is too great!
We agree, for example, that at the cross Christ was made sin (2 Cor 5:21). But it
doesn’t say that in Gal 3:13. There it says He was cursed. So which was he, ----
cursed or made sin? Well of course the answer is both/and not either/or. Does it
mean then, because there is no mention of Him being made sin in Gal 3:13, that he
was not made sin? In no way! There is such a multifaceted aspect to salvation that
not everything which happened at Calvary can possibly be told in one verse.
Staying with Gal 3 for a moment, in verse 10, we read "For as many as are of the
works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that
continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
This is forensic language! I say this because I want to stress the forensic nature
of Justification. In fact, in this and following verses, Paul is quoting Deut 27:26.
The language is forensic and judicial, not ethical and moral. The word ‘curse’
brings us to the law and it's the law that curses. The law is a forensic demand------It
tells us to “do or die’. The remedy for the curse is, of course, the law keeper.
And what happens to this law keeper? He is cursed—He takes the curse of the law
on behalf of His elect. Was he invaded with a curse? No! He didn’t have to be to
fulfill the forensic nature of this transaction. This was a legal matter, the curse
was justly placed on Him as the substitute of His people.
Christ, in verse 13, is cursed, not for himself, but for us. If He, on the other
hand had taken our sins within Him, then the whole exercise would have been pointless.
He would of a necessity have been cursed for Himself and not for us. Again v 13
says "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:
for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" Notice again, the
forensic context! Justification is tied up in a legal declaration and not by any
work done within us. Our entire salvation is worked out in accordance with and in
reference to the Law. There is no way that His taking our sin or us receiving His
righteousness is anything other than by imputation.
2 Cor 5:21 is equally to be taken in a legal sense. Indeed as we read the passage
we can see clearly that the context is forensic. It talks about our reconciliation
to God---our objective not subjective reconciliation. Notice the connecting word
“For” in verse 21---this means that it is connected and related to the verses that
come before and these verses deal with reconciliation. Reconciliation is a legal
matter-----this is confirmed in Romans 5:10 where we read, “By whom we have also
received the atonement “(or reconciliation). It was the vicarious work of Christ
for us that restored us to divine favor. At the cross, Christ was legally treated
as a sinner and suffered as though He were you and me to legally reconcile us to
God. God provided reconciliation by means of the atonement and it is by this work
of reconciliation for us, in Christ, that he restores us to favor. It is not by
accomplishing anything in us, but by doing something for us that he reconciles us.
In Christ the separation between us and God is removed. In Christ we have been returned
to favor—we have been legally reconciled! If 2 Cor 5:21 is not a forensic verse,
then it breaks with the context of the passage in which it is found and indeed breaks
with the entire tenor of scripture, but worse still, it leaves us without a Savior.
If He was made a sinner in Himself, logic dictates that He actually became a sinner.
We can’t say that he became sin in Himself, but didn’t become a sinner. The truth
of the matter is that all lawbreakers are inherently unrighteous. If the reckoning
of our inherent unrighteousness to Christ had consisted of the infusing of our sin
into him then there is no way that we can be saved. Indeed, the offering of Himself
would be unacceptable to the Father for a sin filled offering would have been deplorable.
On another separate but related note, I’d like to ask by what agency was our sin
infused into Christ? Was it by the work of the Holy Spirit? I think not---the Holy
Spirit, being Holy, can have no fellowship with sin. So how then did sin get into
Christ? If our sin, on the other hand, is reckoned or imputed to Him, then no such
When something is inherent it becomes our personal property. My unrighteousness is
inherent and it is thus mine. Christ’s perfect righteousness, however, cannot be
completely infused into me in this life for if it were it would become my personal
property. I would then be as perfect as He is (in and of myself)---(again we are
faced with a premature eschatology). Similarly, if my sin is infused into Christ,
my sin becomes essentially His and thus He becomes a sinner. It is unavoidable.
But if this is so, then Christ is disqualified from being our Redeemer. No sinner
can redeem other sinners. Our gospel has ended!
But the good news is that our sins did not become His personally by infusion. Other
than legally, they were not His sins. Christ was made sin for us in the same way
that we are made righteous ---that is by a judicial act by God. Our sins became His
only as they were put down or reckoned to His account. Much in the same manner,
the wrong that Onesimus had done to Philemon was not Paul’s, yet Paul took responsibility
for it and had it charged to his account. I’m sure you’ll agree that although Paul
became personally responsibility for Onesimus’ crime, there was no way that he could
ever have been called a thief or that in and of himself the actual thievery of Onesimus
became infused into him. BTW, this I say this not to minimize or diminish the wretched
sufferings that imputed sin brought, but more on that when I get to question 2.
For now, back to this matter of forensic justification in 2 Cor 5:21. I was talking
to a friend, a Greek scholar, who informed me that the Greek word "poieo" has so
many possible meanings that it is difficult to become doctrinaire on its use. However,
it can be as easily translated “bore” as “made.” Both are possible, but in this verse
the active voice makes it something that Christ did, “bore” rather than something
that was done unto Him “made” by the Father---that would make it passive voice.
Our becoming righteous is from the Greek word, “Ginomai” which means that we ourselves
will become perfectly righteous. Since it is middle voice, this means that this
can either be dramatic or futuristic. For reasons stated earlier I personally believe
it is futuristic. So we see again that 2 Cor 5:21 is forensic and thus deals with
Salvation is gracious and loving, but is accomplished in a legal framework. This
is no New Testament invention for as you know, the Old Testament is teeming with
forensic metaphors. I believe I mentioned, in the article, the Scape Goat as a picture
of double imputation ---the sinner’s guilt was imputed to the animal and the animal’s
innocence was imputed to the worshipper. The justice of God was satisfies as was
the conscience of the worshipper. Why in the name of all that’s reasonable would
God give us such forensic instruction in the Old Testament on imputation if it is
not pointing to Finished Work Gospel Truth?
I know you know these things and that you have preached imputed righteousness for
years but it would be wise to refresh ourselves as to how else the concept of imputation
Genesis 15:6: "It was imputed to him for righteousness;" i.e. it was so reckoned
to him, that in virtue of it he was treated as being what he was not. This of course
is but one side of the double imputation that will come at Calvary. Christ was treated
as a sinner---treated as being was He was not, not treated as what He was. If he
had sin in Him then He was a sinner and should have been treated as such. But, as
stated before, if this is the case, then none of us are saved for there is no sinless
substitute who has died on our behalf.
Genesis 31:15: "Are we not counted of him strangers?" i.e. Rachel and Leah were not
actually strangers but counted, reckoned and treated as such. They were in actuality
family, but were treated as being otherwise.
Likewise, Christ, although not actually a sinner, was treated as though He were.
He took legal liability for the elect and became answerable for them at the bar of
divine justice. The enemies of the cross would tell us that this is a mere legal
fiction and to treat Jesus as a sinner when He wasn’t one is a form of cosmic child
abuse. But no matter, Christ is the penal substitute and surety of the covenant.
Leviticus 7:18: "Neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it." The benefits
gained by the peace-offering---i.e. the non reckoning of sin, shall not be counted
to him. It should be noted that there was no inherent change in either the sacrifice
or the worshipper. It was a legal transaction. This truth is demonstrated right throughout
Numbers 18:27: "Your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you as though it were
the corn of the threshing-floor." --------- i.e. the LORD will consider this offering
to be your harvest offering, as though it were the first grain from your own threshing
floor or wine from your own winepress. ----------------The priest, who had no inheritance
was treated as though he had a great harvest. John Gill says “---it should be as
acceptable to God as if they had fields and vineyards, threshing floors, and wine
presses of their own, from whence corn and wine were taken, as the Israelites when
they received their tithes from them; and what remained they had as good a right
unto, and might make use of as their own, as well as they; see (Numbers 18:30).”
These fields etc were reckoned as being theirs---they were treated as having what
they had not. Much in the same way, Christ was also treated as having that which
he had not---sin! He stood charged, not with personal, but imputed guilt. Similarly
we are treated as having that we do not inherently possess---righteousness.
2 Samuel 19:19: "Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember
that which thy servant did perversely" ---------
i.e. do not deal with me according to my iniquity. Shimei had cursed the retreating
King and had thrown stones at him. According to the Law this was a death penalty
offence. He comes to David and confesses his iniquity. He knows he has sinned,
but he asks to be treated as though he hadn’t. This is a picture of us coming to
Christ, confessing guilt and asking that our sins will not be reckoned against us.
In justification we are treated as being that which we are not. This is no legal
fiction; it is, however, gospel truth.
This gospel picture continues and as we see the full story unfold we discover that
the request was granted, but David it seems only planned that the promise should
last for the duration of his lifetime. And so it is with us, the non-reckoning of
our sins lasts only as long as our King and High Priest lives.
Psalm 32:2: "Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity"; Non imputation
is of the very essence of justification: the believer has sin, but his sin is not
reckoned, not accounted to him. We are treated as though our sins were not (see also
Psalm 106:31). We have a substitute to whom all our transgression, sin, and iniquity,
(that ‘three headed dog at the gates of hell’), have been charged.
Romans 4:3: "It was counted to him for righteousness."---- “We hence conclude that
the question is not, what men are in themselves, but how God regards them; not that
purity of conscience and integrity of life are to be separated from the gratuitous
favor of God; but that when the reason is asked, why God loves us and owns us as
just, it is necessary that Christ should come forth as one who clothes us with his
own righteousness.” John Calvin
Romans 4:5: "His faith is counted for righteousness"; i.e., not as the righteousness,
or as the substitution for it, but as bringing him into righteousness. The next
few verses of Romans 4 all use the word impute’. It simply means to put to one's
account. See also Romans 4:6: "Unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works."
Romans 4:8: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” Romans 4:11:
"That righteousness might be imputed to them also." Romans 4:24: "To whom it shall
be imputed, if we believe on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." 2 Corinthians
5:19: "Not imputing their trespasses unto them." Galatians 3:6: "It was accounted
to him for righteousness."
In all these scriptures, the idea of reckoning to one what does not belong to him,
and treating him as if he really possessed all that is reckoned to him, comes out
very clearly. Righteousness is legally transferred to us so that we can appear before
God in it, just as if it were entirely ours. It is our—legally. Likewise our sins
became legally charged to Christ and they became really His. As Bonar says, “The
transference of our guilt to the Divine Substitute, and the transference of that
Substitute's righteousness or perfection to us, must stand or fall together.”
In summary, in Romans, Paul not only declares that God justifies the ungodly (Romans
4:5), but that God does this by imputing righteousness to the one who believes Romans
4:3-8. Furthermore, in Romans 5:18-19 Paul shows that the righteousness that God
imputes is "the righteousness of One". Again we need to state that to impute righteousness
to a sinner simply means to attribute to the sinner a righteousness that he does
not possess in himself. As you remember, in the Old Testament, Eli thought that Hannah
was drunk: the word ‘thought’ in this case is literally the word impute or imputed:
Did Eli make Hannah drunk by his thinking she was drunk? ---Not at all! He merely
thought of her as being drunk, but his thinking in no way made her drunk. In the
same way, imputation of righteousness to the sinner does not change the sinner into
someone righteous, it merely changes the way in which the sinner is thought of and
reckoned to be. Nor was Christ changed into something sinful, he was reckoned and
treated as being that.
If the forensic nature of justification is dismissed and replace by a moral sense
i.e. the sinner made righteous by infusion or Christ being made sin by infusion then
there is no good news. Justification is made to depend upon the subjective work
of Christ in us not on His mediating work for us.
Now to question 2 “If the only thing our Lord anticipated in the Garden was the prospect
of being treated as though he were sin, what broke his heart? I reply, there are
many things that broke His heart not the least of which was the prospect of being
treated as though he were us. You seem to imply that being treated as sin is a minor
affair. But how can that be so? He was about to be made a curse for us," and about
to face unknown things---previously he had known no sin but now was to be reckoned
as that very thing that he detested and hated. This prospect of being treated as
sin caused Him to be sore amazed and very heavy and to say that He was exceeding
sorrowful even unto death; ---there was no hype, no exaggeration in any of these
words. It was the prospect of being reckoned by God as our sin that made the Lord
Jesus Christ sorrowful (“sore amazed and very heavy ") He was beginning to identify
with the shame and guilt of His people and so great was the pressure that He began
to sweat drops of blood---this was no little thing.
As I understand it, our Lord was under such pressure that from head to feet He was
actually bathed in blood. This blood was neither caused by outward blows nor by the
crown of thorns, nevertheless He broke out into sweat, and that sweat was sweat of
blood when confronted by the horrors that faced Him.
He knew that he would be left to suffer alone and knew that He had to, by Himself,
purge our sins. There would be no one to help or to hear---even the Father would
withdraw. He was to be abandoned by almost everyone, receiving no help or kindness
from earth or heaven. He is about to be baptized in wrath as the sin-bearer. And
as if that wasn’t enough, He is also about to enter into conflict with the powers
of darkness and make a public spectacle of them. It is no wonder then that He was
For Christ to have our sins objectively imputed to Him did not lessen the punishment
that he suffered. It was no less heavy and awful than as if the sin had been His
personally. He didn’t just appear to be punished, but was in fact and in reality
punished for us. Our judgment was laid upon Him by God “For the Lord has laid on
Him the iniquities of us all.” Jesus saw what was coming. He weighed it, understood
it, took its measure then said to His Father, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt."
In summary, the Lord Jesus was our sinless sin bearer, surety and mediator. We are
now made the righteousness of God in Him and He was made sin for us. Both things
happened in an objective way, by imputation not by infusion. May melting grace be
given to us as we consider these things.
"Miles, if you have time, tell me how you normally deal with Church of Christ doctrine,
and explain Acts 2:38, Acts 2:47, Acts 22:16, I Cor 12:13."
BG. Tennessee, USA
The first thing I do with the conservative Church of Christ folk is to take them
to 1 Cor 15:1 ff---There we discover that the gospel was preached in the Old Testament.
If our gospel is the real gospel it must be established in the OT. The apostles,
after all, only had the OT to preach from! There's not one passage about baptism
by immersion in the OT to substantiate their claim.
Acts 2:38 "be baptized for the remission of sins"-------- If a man is given a medal
for bravery does the medal make him brave or is it given because he was already brave?
Well the answer of course is that the medal makes no one brave, but is given because
the bravery of the recipient. Likewise with baptism---baptism for the remission
of sins is a baptism which does not remit sins, but is given because the sins have
Acts 2:47--not sure what this has to do with the debate
Acts 22:16 The C of C love this one! but what is it really saying? Is it saying
that water really washes away sins? If that is so then every Baptist must be saved---Why?---
Because they have all been 'dunked' and for that matter so have all the Pentecostals!
But this is not good enough say the C of C---it has to be our water----yet they
don't pretend to have any special ingredient they mix with the water to make it salvific----But
their water they say, does the business--that's the way to get folks saved----talk
about Holy Water! They have outdone Rome in the quantity of Holy Water they use
yet Rome has outdone them in the power of the Water for Rome only uses a sprinkle
to get people "saved"
But back to this verse, if Ananias really meant that water not blood washes away
sins then Paul is now, at long last ,being confronted by the gospel. Why then in
the name of thunder do we never find Paul preaching or teaching on this kind of salvation
In Romans 10 we see what Paul preached He says, "This is the word of faith which
we preach." This is good---I'd really like to hear the message-------- Paul has
been sent to preach! What have you got to say Paul? And Paul says "That if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, shall believe in thine heart that God
hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be...saved." What are you saying Paul?
Where's the water Paul? Where's the baptismal regeneration Paul?
The C of C, you see, conveniently leave out the part in this verse that says "calling
on the name of the Lord" But Paul doesn't. In Romans 10:13 Paul says "Whosoever shall
call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" The New Testament never teaches that
a man can be saved by water. We are saved by grace through faith, ---------------we
call on the name of the Lord---in other words we believe on Him. Ananias is saying
Paul, since your sins are washed away arise and be baptized calling on the name of
The Greek scholar A T Robertson says of this verse " ----to take these words as
teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism,------ is in my opinion
a complete subversion of Paul's vivid and picturesque language. As in Romans 6:4-6
where baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures
the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way
(verse 10). Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ."
Roman Catholic Priest responded to my piece on Christ, “The True High Priest” (for
article see HERE)
Below is his letter---I have removed his name and email address for the sake of his
privacy. Then comes my response.
To: "'Miles McKee'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: The True High Priest
In response to Hebrews 4:14 read Hebrews 5:1-2 for when we read scripture we must
read it in its entirety.
Also, in the Sacrifice of the Mass we are not redoing the sacrifice again, but through
the beatific vision of God, which sees no bounds of time or place, joining, at the
very moment of the crucifixion our prayers and our personal sacrifices to that of
our eternal High Priest - Jesus Christ.
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17
1 Cor 12:28-29
1 Cor 11:23-24
Thanks for your comments.
I agree that we must read scripture in its entirety. Scripture is the interpreter
of Scripture. You cite Hebrews 5:1-2 to clarify Hebrews 4:14. Hebrews 5:1-2, speaking
of the Old Covenant priesthood says, "For every high priest taken from among men
is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and
sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are
out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity."
Evidently these verses in Chapter 5 refer to the Jewish priesthood and not to Christ
since Christ, being sinless, did not offer any sacrifice for His own sins (see 5:3).
Nor can these verses be construed to refer to any supposed continuing priesthood.
The context will not allow this. The old Aaronic priesthood has been abolished in
As you know, the book of Hebrews declares Christ's superiority over angels, Moses,
the Old Testament Priesthood and the Old Covenant itself!
The Priesthood and its sacrifices have been abolished. This is taught in Hebrews
10 and I quote,
1: For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of
the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually
make the comers thereunto perfect.
2: For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers
once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3: But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do
thy will, O God.
8: Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for
sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He takes away the first, that
he may establish the second.
10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ once for all.
11: And every priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices,
which can never take away sins:
12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down
on the right hand of God;
13: From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15: Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had
16: This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord,
I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17: And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18: Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19: Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of
20: By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil,
that is to say, his flesh;
21: And having an high priest over the house of God;
22: Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23: Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful
24: And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is;
but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. ------------------------------
The First Covenant is removed that the Second would be established. In this New
Covenant we have but one priest, the Lord Jesus (v21), whose sacrifice has already
been made in His once for all, unrepeatable act at Calvary (v12, 14). That Christ
has sat down demonstrates that His work is finished. All the sacrifices of the Old
Testament are done away with. They need not be repeated---ever!
In the Old Testament there was no real remission of sin (v 11). Now, because of
Christ's final sacrifice, there is no more remembrance of sin (v17). Christ 's offering
for sin is possessed of such perfection and unceasing efficacy that there is no need
for further sacrifices for sin. If no further sacrifices are needed then a sacrificing
priesthood is made redundant.
The Aaronic priesthood of the Old Testament has been replaced by the order Melchizedek
(Ps 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20) of which there is but one priest, the
Lord Jesus. We need no other priest. We need pastors and teachers, but no sacrificing
Regarding your comment on the beatific vision, it seems you stand contrary to your
church's position. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that,
"The Sacrifice of the Cross is continued on earth through the Sacrifice of the Mass.It
is the Sacrifice in which Christ is offered under the species of bread and wine in
an unbloody manner. The Sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration
of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice.The
Mass re-presents Christ's sacrifice of himself to his heavenly Father. In the Mass,
no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father.The
Mass in no way detracts from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross because the Mass
is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross, to continue on earth until the end of
time.The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins.'
(The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, 1264, 1265, 1269, 1277).
According to the teaching of your Church, the priest does not merely commemorate
the death and sacrifice of Christ, but actually continues his sacrifice through the
true and proper sacrifice of the Mass.
Furthermore and with respect I would point out to you that, you differ from the official
teaching of Trent. You say "in the Sacrifice of the Mass we are not redoing the
sacrifice again," But this is not the teaching of your church. Let's hear what Trent
Session XXII: On the Sacrifice of the Mass
Canon I: If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered
to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat;
let him be anathema.
Canon III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of
praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice
consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him
only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead
for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.
If the Mass is a propitiation and equally so with Calvary then we must conclude that
Christ's propitiation on the cross was insufficient! The Father evidently failed
when he set forth Christ as a propitiation for our sins!
But such teaching flatly contradicts the teaching of Hebrews 7:26-27
"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from
sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests,
to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this
he did once, when he offered up himself."
Also Heb 9:11-12
"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither
by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the
holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
See also Heb 9;24-26,28 24: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made
with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear
in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the
high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then
must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the
end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. --------”
Heb 9:28: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that
look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
According to the Church of Rome, Christ is indeed offered in the Mass as a propitiation.
But according to scriptures (as we have just read) redemption has already been accomplished.
He has already borne our sins, He has already put away sin, He doesn't need to offer
up daily sacrifices for the people's sin for this he did once, when he offered up
According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the Mass is a re-presentation
of the sacrifice of Calvary. Since Christ died at Calvary, we must conclude that
if the Mass is a true and proper sacrifice, then Christ must of a necessity die in
every Mass. However, I would draw your attention to a truth that Paul taught the
first Church at Rome. He says,
"Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more
dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth,
he liveth unto God" (Romans 6:9-10)
The Scriptures are unambiguous----now that Christ is raised from the dead, he dies
no more. This plainly contradicts and disproves the doctrine of the Mass.
On another subject you cite several scriptures. I thank you for drawing these to
my attention. They are as follows,
Acts 14:23 "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed
with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed."
I take it that you draw my attention to this scripture to establish the existence
of a sacrificing priesthood. But, where does this verse do this? Furthermore, if
you could, please name me one elder or apostle who conducted a Mass and show me where
they did so in scripture! Beware of the traditions of men being taught as doctrine!
1 Tim 3:1, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth
a good work."
I notice that you exclude the next verse, which if this passage does indeed refer
to the Roman priesthood (which it does not) does great disservice to your cause for
v 2 says 'A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
You list v8 "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to
much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;"
Again, this begs the question for you assume this to teach the priesthood when in
actual fact it addresses the qualifications for a deacon.
You also cite 1 Tim 5:17 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double
honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine."
Again, you assume the thing that you are setting out to prove. There is not one mention
here about a sacrificing priesthood. The reason for this omission is that no sacrificing
priesthood is needed! We now have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood
of Jesus, by a new and living way. We have a great high priest over the house of
God. All that stood against us has been removed by Him. The way to heaven is open
because Jesus Himself is the way! There is no more offering for sin (Heb 10:18)
You cite Matt 28:18-20.
18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth.
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo,
I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Again-nowhere does this teach the re-instating of a sacrificing priesthood!
Also you produce 1 Cor 11:23-24 for my consideration.
23: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the
Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body,
which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Amen! Stick with this, stay with the memorial---the remembrance of Him. Trust in
Christ alone as the sufficient substitutionary sacrifice for sin and you will not
You list Acts 15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon
you no greater burden than these necessary things;"
I am not sure why you cited this verse. I cannot see the relationship to anything
we are discussing. However, have you noticed the next verse (v29)? "That ye abstain
from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well'.
Abstain from blood! Yet you say that each day in the Mass you drink blood---God's
blood. How strange in the light of this prohibition!
Again, thank you for taking time to read my piece on "Jesus, The True High Priest"
and for your response. I look forward to hearing from you anytime.
"In Peace let me resign my breath
And Thy Salvation see
My sins deserved eternal death
But Jesus died for me."
What is your teaching on Lent days?
There is no Bible command to observe Lent---Lent is a tradition of man.
The good news of Christ's victory in life and death should be kept central the entire
year. The cross and resurrection is to be kept at the heart of all we do, not merely
at Easter. Likewise, the incarnation should be preached all year---not merely at
For people to go around giving up their favorite things and by doing so hoping to
obtain divine favor, is to fly in the face of the gospel. If divine favor can be
gained by self-sacrifice, then Christ Jesus could have stayed in heaven and avoided
the pain, rejection and wrath!
There is only one way only to God---it is not through self, good works or sacrifice,
but rather through the doing and dying of Christ. By faith, we believe that as He
lived, he lived for us and as He died He died for us and as he arose and ascended
into Heaven, He did this on our behalf. "He that believeth on Him is not condemned"
Since I have listened to you on the radio, you have constantly promoted the belief
that the holy bible is truth and needs no sinners like us to mess it up. However,
I noticed when you argue against another's position you make generalizations, jumps
in logic, or change the translation to suit your agenda. The spirit of the vatican
document is the belief that it's members have access to the necessary ingredient
for salvation since it is centered on Christ's teachings. It does not state that
other churches don't have this ingredient, will not be saved, or that the pope dispenses
salvation. It states it can trace it's ancestry back to apostles and christ who were
the "original true church." It does not state other churches do not count. Unlike
several other churches, it holds the eucharist as an essential part of one's faith.
If I am mistaken, please provide the page and line of the released document where
it says otherwise.
You have twisted this document to state from your own words that "others do not count."
Did you ever take a class on logic? If I say my house has the necessary ingredient
to make a cake, does this mean your house does not? Absolutely not. Shame on you
for using the Fox network for your source of documentation. Tell me on what page
of the vatican document does it state the others do not count or on what page does
it claim the pope is the giver of salvation. We should all be careful not to propogate
lies! You told me I should run as fast as I can away from the church. I responded
that since childhood my church has promoted Christ as the focal point and savior.
I asked you before and I ask you again to respond to me. What specific church teaching
should I run from? Please be specific and do not generalize. It is dangerous when
one extracts a phrase without considering the "spirit" of its meaning. A non-christian
could use this tactic against us Christians claiming we worship a playful deity that
"Leads us into temptation." Please respond...
I just spent a little over 30 minutes going through your website. Very interesting.
I'm wondering if I could ask you what you believe and would love some scripture to
back it up.
I am 43 years old, born and raised Catholic. My family is very, very Catholic. But
they are what I would call Italian Catholics. Very, very deep into Mary, the Pope,
and all the Saints, especially Padre Pio. My family never reads the Bible, just takes
the church's direction on life. Tons of statues in their homes of Mary.
I left the Catholic church three years ago. Jesus came into my life in a mighty and
powerful way. I will never forget that day when I asked Him into my life, into my
heart and accepted Him as my Lord and Savior. I felt as if the skies above ripped
open and an unbelievable Love came pouring down. I haven't been the same since.
My parents just found out. I live in another state so they didn't know till I told
them. They are furious. Freaking out. They believe I am brainwashed. They are detested
that I don't pray to Mary or believe in her powers. They are furious that my children
are not in catecism.
My question is this. Are they saved??? They believe in Jesus, that he died for us,
but are they saved?? I know that God will judge them, but if we are to go out and
witness, are we not to assess the person's beliefs? I just wonder, How could our
Father even look at my mother, for instance, if she puts all her trust and faith
in Mary and Padre Pio?? It's an abomination to Him. I pray for my family's Salvation
and believe that they will be with me in heaven.
I will patiently wait for your response. Thank you for your work. I will definitely
spend more time reading your work.
Thanks you. And have a blessed day!!!
Thanks you for taking time to write to me.
You find yourself in a very difficult situation coming from such a background. For
your family, your leaving of the Roman Church was perhaps not so much a theological
problem as it was social treason. The only thing they have known in their culture
As to whether or not they are saved, that is not my call! God knows who are his.
In saying that, I must also say that I don’t know how someone trusting Mary or Padre
Pio or the Pope or the Church (any church) could be saved.
Salvation implies danger. We are saved from imminent danger and that danger is the
wrath of God. How can Padre Pio do anything about the wrath of god or how can the
Pope avert it. There was only one who intercepted it and he is our Lord and savior
Jesus the Christ. He alone, therefore, is qualified as the savior from the coming
wrath. How can Padre Pio contribute to this saving work which was completed 2000
You must continue to pray that they will see that Christ is all their righteousness.
I look forward to hearing more about how you are growing in the Gospel----what you
are studying etc etc.
By Grace Alone
“I look forward to hearing your very short program on the radio station I listen
too every morning (WIHS Middletown, CT USA ). Your programs are some of THE MOST
Inspirational messages I have heard, plus I enjoy your Irish accent. It makes me
smile to hear you and I thank Jesus Christ, our Savior, for letting you speak on
the radio!!! On your webpage, the link to GETTING INTO HEAVEN is totally awesome!!
Yes, I know only God is awesome, but your words, that I'm sure He gave you, are pretty
much perfect! or very well put. I am a sinner, but I know Jesus Christ died for me.
I thank you and WIHS for allowing us to hear your messages, though brief, every morning!!
I don't know exactly the day I became SAVED, as some do, but I know Jesus is in my
heart and I count on Him to help with my sinful life. If you ever come to Connecticut,
please let us know.
Dear Mr. McKee,
I began listening to your radio broadcast about 2 years ago. I had not got an idea
that Jesus was actually God. Now I rejoice to know that my God is my savior.
B H USA
i am responding to your view on the R.Cs...
While i have expressed my views on the subject, and i agree somewhat on you points
of view, lets look at scripture.
It is a well documented fact that the catholic church has been covering its behind
for centuries, no argument from me there.
That scandals are rife among its rank and file, and that some people (maybe too many)
folllow the so called vatican ideology blindly.
Now lets look at the world today and consider for a moment, who is leading people
and even the faithful blindly.
Islam comes to mind, the Irish Republican movement, George W Bush and Hitler. Although
these are not my personnal favourites.
Everyone has an opinion or an expression to make about all these folks.
Now when i find myself getting dejected with some expressions and opinions, and cannot
find a common ground i turn to the BIBLE.
(HOPE) fully i will find something to inspire and most importantly strengthen my
So as i always do, i in a random fashion opened the good book at
ah i thought this will do nicely
This totally goes with my thinking on the world.
GOD WILL REMEMBER OUR WICKEDNESS, AND PUNISH US FOR OUR SINS.
the judge and jury are out at he moment, and they are pondering the the evidence(and
there is an awful lot of it)
I/we already know the verdict we thinks, but we dont get to make the final decision.(its
that humans being thing)
God has a great memory, ——and i wont make judgements on anyone or institution. NOT
Jesus is my shepherd and guides me away from trouble, but even the wisest goat eats
the wrong berry's.
Lets watch, wait and pray for a favourable outcome for all off us when the LORD JESUS
Some kind of a catholic: Australia
Thanks for the note. It raised some issues which I am happy to address.
You say, “Now when i find myself getting dejected with some expressions and opinions,
and cannot find a common ground i turn to the BIBLE.
(HOPE) fully i will find something to inspire and most importantly strengthen my
FAITH. So as i always do, i in a random fashion opened the good book at ----”
This, if you don’t mind me saying so, is the exact opposite way in which we should
read the Bible. You might, as the old adage goes, open up the Bible one day and read,
Judas went and hanged himself’ then open it again and read, “Go and do likewise”.
Scripture is to be read one book at a time. It’s the only way to learn it and have
it as a guide. Read it and meditate on what it is saying and you will gain much insight
into how God thinks and thus you will begin to know his character.
But why read it? Jesus taught it like this, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but
by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). Maybe you are too
busy to read the Bible every day, this can happen but I’m reminded of when a man
once made this excuse to a well known preacher and the preacher replied, "My friend,
if you are too busy to read the Bible every day you are busier than Almighty God
ever intended any human being should be, and you had better let some things go and
take time to read the Word."
Again Jesus said, "The Words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are
life" (John 6:63).
Consider also these scriptural testimonies to the Word
"The entrance of Thy Words gives light" (Psa. 119:130).
"Thy Word is truth" (John 17:17)
"To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is
because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).
The Holy Scriptures ... are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which
is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby"
(1 Peter 2:2).
I have esteemed the Words of His mouth more than my necessary food" (Job 23:12).
"Thy Words were found, and I did eat Them; and Thy Word was unto me the joy and rejoicing
of mine heart: for I am called by Thy Name, O Lord God of hosts" (Jer. 15:16).
"Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly" (Col. 3:16).
As for it not being your job to make judgments----this is incorrect! This is not
what the scripture teaches!
Today we frequently hear the admonition not to "judge”. There is now a virtual gag
order on those who would speak up against bad doctrine and evil workers. The word
judge has been so perverted that to judge anything is now considered, by many, to
be anti-Christian behavior, and anyone who judges is likely to be labeled as a hate
monger who suffers from a bad spirit.
Well, what does God’s word have to say on this subject? Let’s weigh (judge this)
by the word for as already quoted, "To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak
not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).
If we are to think with God on this matter we must not be swayed by the prevailing
wisdom of the age; we must rather hold to and agree with what the Lord has said in
His Word. So then, is it true that Christians are told not to judge? The simple answer
is no! In fact, according to Scripture those who do not judge are more likely to
be led astray by false doctrines and to end in grave error.
So what does it mean to Judge? Webster's Dictionary defines the act of judging as
"to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises."
Simply stated, judging is the process of evaluation that people employ everyday to
make determinations of what is true.
But nowadays, when we state clearly what the Word states and these statements involve
a censure on the beliefs of others, we are usually inundated with the mantra---“you’re
not allowed to judge you’re not allowed to judge.” This is silly, for of course I’m
allowed to judge if I judge, that is, by the standard of the Word….I’m just not allowed
to make up my own subjective standards and judge others by my pet theories. The "opinions"
of man do not qualify as a standard for judgment.
But doesn’t God tell us not to judge? Of course He does, but let’s get the context
of what he is saying straight! Matthew 7:1 says "Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you
give out, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that
is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how
will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold,
a beam is in your own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own
eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
To whom is Jesus speaking here? We discover this in verse 5 when he says, "Thou hypocrite."
Jesus is not forbidding Christians to judge (unless He is calling every Christian
a hypocrite). He is warning, however, that we will be held accountable for what we
know. In other words, if we know enough about sinful behavior to tell others that
it is wrong, then we have no excuse as to why that sin would be present in our lives.
This simply means, by way of illustration, don’t lecture people on temperance if
you yourself are a drunk etc.
This is consistent with Paul's advice in I Corinthians 11:31-32 that we judge ourselves
first so that we will not be judged. As Jesus says in verse 5 of Matt 7, we should
cast the beam out of our own eye and then we are in position to point out the fault
We are no where commanded not to Judge according to the standards laid down in the
Word. In fact it is quite the opposite: The Bible tells us, "But he that is spiritual
judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (I Corinthians 2:15). This
is a far cry from the spirit of the age that tells us we can’t judge. Remember when
we Judge we are to evaluate things by the Word. If the Word says it is wrong we must
stand with the Word! But, to say we can’t judge is to fly in the face of direct scriptural
Far from being told not to Judge, we are in fact commanded to judge righteously,
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24).
Christ Jesus expects his followers to exercise judgment. Jesus Himself criticized
the Pharisees for being unable to judge the spiritual things of God. Listen to some
of these pro-judgment scriptures.
Matthew 16:3: O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not
discern (Judge) the signs of the times?
John 7:24: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Acts 4:19: But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in
the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
I Corinthians 2:15: But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is
judged of no man.
I Corinthians 6:2-5: Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if
the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this
life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge
who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there
is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his
I Corinthians 10:15: I speak as to wise men; judge what I say.
I Corinthians 14:29: Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge
Hebrews 5:14: But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who
by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern (judge) both good and evil.
Now this brings us to the important question of what a preacher preaches. Paul tells
Timothy to, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for
in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (I Timothy
Notice how that Timothy is not only to take heed to (judge) himself but also to judge
the doctrine he is preaching because, and if we say this in its negative form, we
see that bad doctrine can damn the soul.
Not all doctrine is sound doctrine. There are doctrines of Devils (I Timothy 4:1);
There is the Doctrine of the Nicholatians which God hates (Revelation 2:14-15) We
are even warned in Galatians 1:6-7 that there is another Gospel. Paul cautions "I
marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ
unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ." Yes the worldly wise tell us we must not judge.
Then he states; “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (V 8) He
then emphasizes it again by saying, “As we said before, so say I now again, If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed”.
These are words which demand we exercise judgment. If any one preaches another gospel
be it an Angel an Apostle or even a Pope, let him be accursed! But, these verses
are carefully avoided today by those who want to say that we are all one and that
we are not to judge the doctrine that is held by others.
The jury is not out on the matter of salvation. Salvation was settled and accomplished
by Christ alone 2000 years ago. He does not need the help of the Roman Church with
its so called saving sacraments to accomplish His already completed mission. He accomplished
it all 2000 years ago and declared it is finished. I, therefore, based on the Word
of God, judge the Church of Rome to be the purveyor of doctrines which will damn
men’s souls if believed and adhered to. This judgment is not based on subjective
feelings but, rather, on God’s unchanging Word.
The Bible presents Christ alone as our only saviour: Rome presents itself as the
The Bible presents Jesus as the only mediator between God and man: Rome presents
us with a variety of mediators starting with Mary and going through all the saints.
The Bible presents us with ONE High Priest---our high priest Jesus: Rome presents
us with its own High priest, the Supreme Pontiff.
The Bible presents us with a finished gospel, a salvation already obtained and accomplished:
Rome presents us with an ongoing salvation, a continual offering of Jesus in the
Mass as a bloodless sacrifice.
To say these things is not judgmental but it is, rather, to be obedient as a follower
of the Christ who has commanded me to “judge righteous judgment!”
John warns us, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits (Judge) whether
they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (I John
4:1). We again read, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed
into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed
as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
(II Corinthians 11:13-15).
With there being false doctrine, false prophets, deceiving spirits abroad in the
world today we had better learn how to judge!
But this is enough for the moment! My concern is that millions are trapped in the
Church of Rome, being fed the lie that they are in the True Church and being steadily
poisoned by doctrines which will damn them to Hell. Who will rescue them? Who cares
enough for their souls to bring them the pure Gospel of Christ alone, Grace alone
and faith alone? Should we embrace the spirit of the age and ‘not judge’ and thus
abandon them to their doom?
I enjoyed reading your article on Marcus Grodi.
When Catholic radio first became available in our area, I often listened to Grodi,
Haan, Keeting, etal. A couple of things really struck me.
First, these programs regularly had former protestants explain why they left protestantism
and came home to Catholicism. Often these people were former pastors.
Although they often claimed to know the Bible, they actually had very weak knowledge
of the Scriptures. They look at it now as if they have the best of both worlds -
their Bible upbringing and the Catholic Church. In fact, they had a poor Bible upbringing.
Second, Grodi once mentioned several difficult verses that caused him to turn from
protestantism to Rome. When I heard the verses, I was stunned.
The Bible has some difficult passages, but these verses were not among them. I was
shocked that a person would admit that their lack of understanding of these verses
played a part in accepting the Roman Catholic Church.
At the same time I realize that the reasons people make these kinds of choices are
not primarily academic or intellectual. They are spiritual.
Thanks again for the article.
In the care of His grace,
More than 80% of my neighbors are Catholic.
A priest in our area was murdered a few years ago, and the murder was never solved.
Some people suggest that the murder was related to this Latin mass and Vatican II
At a recent neighborhood graduation party I spoke to a Catholic who argues that the
current pope is an antipope. As a result this man and his family attend a Latin mass
and will not go to the Vatican II mass churches.
Are you familiar with Malachi Martin or Michael Dimond? Martin passed away a few
years ago, but Dimond has a website mostholyfamilymonastery.com
When you boil it all down, the essential issue is not whether the priest holds up
two fingers or three at some points of the mass. It is not about whether the Catholic
priest has been given proper orders so he can do his hocus pocus with the bread.
The major issue is the matter of justification. Your website emphasizes that key
Either Jesus died for all of our sins, or He didn't. Either God declared me righteous
based on my faith in Jesus Christ who died in my place for my sins and rose on account
of my justification or He didn't.
Many people can see how Jesus died for their past sins, but they have trouble accepting
the truth that He also died for all of their future sins too. Here is a good question:
"When Jesus died, how many of your sins were future?
Dear Mr. Mckee,
I was saddened to see your review of Marcus Grodi's conversion story. I myself am
Catholic, and was disappointed in your mean-spirited comments on Mr. Grodi's personal
conversion. You were very judgmental, "judge not" and did not show love as Christ
commands as being one of the greatest commandments. I would be interested in knowing
what has happened in your past that has brought you to such a hatred of the Catholic
Church. I do have one question for you that I would like you to help me to understand.
I keep hearing that we are "saved" by "faith alone" through God's grace. I understand
that there are many passages in the Bible that speak of the importance of faith.
But there are many passages in the Bible that also speak of the importance of what
we do that help determine our salvation. For instance, how do you explain the passage,
Matt 19:16-21 that speaks of the man who asks' Jesus what he must "do" to have eternal
life. Jesus didn't say, "all you need is faith". Jesus said, "obey the commandments"
and then to sell everything and follow him. Jesus was expecting him to "do" something
in order to have eternal life. This of course is just one of many that I could quote,
but I would like an explanation of this particular one so as to keep this fairly
simple. I thank you for your time, and your assistance in helping me to understand
this particular doctrine in light of the many scriptures that seem to contradict
it. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much for taking time to write to me. I sorry that you think I am being
mean spirited when I tell the truth. At the risk of being though to be hard-nosed,
I must ask, would you also think that Jesus was mean spirited when he told the disseminators
of false religion that they were hypocrites, snakes, descended from vipers and going
to hell? After all it was Jesus who said,
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like white washed sepulchers,
which indeed appear beautiful on the outside, but are within full of dead men's bones,
and of all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but
within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity( Matt 23:27-28). ------You serpents,
you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? (Matt 23:33).
I’m sure you’ll agree that my language regarding Mr. Grodi was much more temperate
that that of the Master! Do you also think Jesus was judgmental, mean spirited and
lacking in love when He said these things?
It is, we must observe, a sad commentary on the age in which we live when telling
the truth and standing up for Jesus draws the criticism of being lacking in love
However, you say you would be interested in knowing what has happened in the past
that has brought me to such a hatred of the Catholic Church. The only thing that
has happened to me in the past to cause me to oppose the dogmas of Rome is that God,
in His grace, showed me, through His word, that Christ alone is my hope, my mediator,
my redemption, my Great High Priest, my shepherd, my savior and my life. Your Church,
while it praises Jesus actually plunders Him! It does this by saying that He is of
course all of those things I listed but He is, in reality, none of them because these
saving benefits can only be dispensed by the Church of Rome! Christ, according to
this position, has no real ministry or power to save outside of your church-----------I
could be cheeky and ask, can love hold such an arrogant position? But I’ll pass on
that and simply say that any church which takes away from the glory of Christ as
savior and mediator and opposes Him by claiming these ministries for themselves is
no friend to me.
It is my love for the Lord Jesus and His glory that causes me to be passionate in
His defense and zealous in my opposition to those who would rob and plunder Him of
the honor due to Him alone!
You bring up an interesting question about the place of good works and the place
of faith. You ask me how I explain the passage, Matt 19:16-21 that speaks of the
man who asks' Jesus what he must "do" to have eternal life. You correctly observe
that Jesus didn't say, "all you need is faith". Jesus said, "obey the commandments"
and then to sell everything and follow him. Jesus was, you say, expecting him to
"do" something in order to have eternal life.
So let’s look at that. Did Jesus actually teach that the way to salvation was to
sell everything we have? If He did, then if you own a car, a house, a bed or any
possessions, you are going to hell. Is that the position you are asserting? I hope
not!! But if the “do” in eternal life is selling everything and giving it away then
you along with most of us are lost!
So what is happening here? Jesus, in this passage, has met a man who thinks he is
righteous by his works. He thinks he is a law keeper; he thinks he is blameless when
it comes to keeping the Ten Commandments. So Jesus, the physician of the soul, tells
him to sell everything he has. The man refuses thus proving he is guilty of covetousness
and thus a lawbreaker. He loves his possessions more than he loves Jesus. He has
other Gods before the living and true God. His money is his God! He is the worst
type of lawbreaker----one who breaks the law while all the while thinking he is righteous!
The ‘do’ in this case revealed what was really in the man’s heart and exposed him
as someone who badly need the savior.
Furthermore, the do’s of the law are good but they can not save. To get to heaven
we need a perfect righteousness. We need to be as righteous as God Himself (Matt
5:48, 1 Peter 1:16). But remember, God is holy and uncompromising in His standards!
So we are lost, stuck, undone and in trouble if we can not find a righteousness which
will satisfy God. But where can we find such a thing? If we can keep the law, that
will work! But how in the world do we keep the entire law? James 2:10 tells us “whosoever
shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” And
never mind keeping the entire law----none of us can even keep the first commandment---to
love God with all! Only the hypocrite claims to keep this one, for the truth is that
no person has pure thoughts the whole time or loves God with his whole strength and
soul the whole time.
So where can we find the righteousness which will satisfy God? The answer is it is
found in Christ alone! Christ Jesus lived a perfect life. He was not only innocent
but was also righteous. He lived, died and rose again as a substitute for His people.
But what use is that to me---I need somehow for those works to become mine? He lived
as my substitute and was perfectly righteous on my behalf but how do I make that
righteousness my own? The answer is found in Jesus! His righteousness becomes ours
by faith---not faith in ourselves or the church but in Christ Jesus. Nor do we need
to supplement Christ’s work by adding our good works to the equation! His good works
and character are sufficient to impress the Father. We are indeed saved by works,
but the works which save are the works of the Lord Jesus Christ! We need add nothing
to them! Faith embraces Him and makes all that He has our own!
Paul confirms this when he wrote; “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness,
which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith:” (Phil 3:9)
This is no new idea for Paul tells the Galatians that in the Old Testament, “Even
as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness Know ye therefore
that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” (Gal 3:6-7).
He further states that “-- no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it
is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.”(Gal 3:11)
Had we been able to keep the law then Christ would not have needed to go to the cross.
Thus Paul writes, “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come
by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Gal. 2:21).
Now, however, that we are saved by faith in Christ Jesus plus nothing we are free
to do good works! We, in fact, should abound in good works, but these works are never
seen as rivals to the works of Christ in this matter of obtaining right standing
I’ll leave you with a quotation from one of my favorite Gospel ministers:
“Have I then no work to work in this great matter of my pardon? None! What work can
you do? What work of yours can buy forgiveness or make you fit for the Divine favor?
What work has God commanded you to do in order to obtain salvation? None! His Word
is very plain and easy to be understood, "To him that works not, but believes in
Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
There is but one work by which a man can be saved. That work is not yours, but the
work of the Son of God. That work is finished.” Horatius Bonar
If you wish, I will send you a more detailed answer on the place of faith in receiving
the righteousness that Christ has already obtained for us.
Mr. Mckee,I am a man born and raised as a Roman Catholic, yet "Born Again" by grace
through Saving Faith given by God alone (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus)
at age 34. Though I had been through all the Catholic formalities: 1 year leading
to first communion, 1 year leading to first confession, 1 year leading to confirmation,
etc. I never truly knew about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. I never
really knew about the Pope's ability to speak "ex Cathedra". I never really knew
about Mary as intercessor to God. Etc. When I discovered these doctrines in my mid
to late 20's I left the Catholic Church. Later, God took my "head" knowledge of Jesus
Christ and God's plan of salvation and put it in my heart with saving faith in Jesus.
Interestingly, I came to "head" knowledge when I was on a 7 month military peacekeeping
deployment to Israel and Egypt and had time to study the truth. I was an Army Infantry
Captain at the time.As an ex-Catholic evangelical, I have a passion for reaching
Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church hierarchy does not encourage doctrinal study
and stays away from the more ridiculous things like transubstantiation. Most Catholics
are born into it and have no idea. Mr. Hahn really causes me anger, as he had the
truth and yet traded it for a clear lie. Additionally, he is now going to lead so
many astray by claiming his knowledge of Protestantism and the superiority of the
Catholic Church. I am finding many protestants going to catholism because their specific
churches are so heavily infected with Liberalism. They see the Catholic Church as
a "rock" and standing for something against the rising tide of secularism. If only
more evangelical churches would understand the importance of truly following "Sola
Scriptura". Not just the easy parts, but the whole counsel of God.Sola Fide,Solus
Christus,B. C. USA
I just want to commend you on that excellent essay about Marcus Grodi. As a former
Roman Catholic, I really appreciate someone standing up for the truth. I don't know
why other Protestants aren't as informed or outspoken as you about him as you are.
I believe that this man is leading thousands straight to Hell. How ironic that as
a Presbyterian minister he was afraid of doing just that! I continually hear from
Protestants, "Catholics are now studying the Bible you know". This is absurd. The
only way they "study" is through the eyes of Rome or Marcus Grodi or the likes of
him. Why is it that protestant denominations are so afraid of saying anything negative
about the Roman Catholic Church? I do attend an Evangelical Presbyterian Church which
teaches the truth but they just seem to ignore what's going on all around them. Thanks
again for the encouragement. I'm glad to know someone who understands how dangerous
this cult is, and I don't dare mention it's a cult or I'm being judgmental!
I read your article on what is the gospel? And you know something? I agree with you
100% even though I have been guilty of telling people to ask Jesus to come into their
heart. But the power is in God's Word not in the preacher. (i.e. the efficacy of
the Word is not dependent on the purity of the teacher). I will indeed in the future
give it more thought when I present the gospel message. Thanks!