D'Souza then goes into some very signicant conclusions about the creation story in Genesis. This stuff is incredible.

But, to summarize, this one chapter of this book has had an incredible impact on my idea of the relationship of theology and science. The author quotes an astronomer name Robert Jastrow and I will also conclude with it:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have sitting there for centuries."

It is all coming together... READ THIS BOOK!!!

 

Now to examine our own capacity for understanding. Why would it be wrong to not promote our own thoughts and beliefs over that of another person? Are we as humans given a rationale and understanding that gives our own thoughts truth simply because we thought them? Are they correct because they are thoughts of our own design? This idea is a promotion of self-omniscience and in turn relative truth.

Of course we will not accept the teachings of every Bishop on every subject blindly. This is why there is a college of Bishops. They are there to keep the car on the road. To apply an automotive analogy, we have a car that is driving down the road. This car just so happens to be holding a package in the backseat that is called 'Truth'. In the driver seat we have the Church (The Pope, Bishops, and Priests). In the passengers seats we have the believers all surrounding and holding tight to the truth. When a Bishop promotes an erroneous teaching it is like someone taking a wrench to the tie rod of the car and adjusting it out of alignment. The car now wants to vere to the right or the left of the road. If left uncorrected it will go off the road and that truth will no longer be protected and promoted, but to save the day we have the Church who takes hold of the steering wheel and makes sure the misadjustment done to the suspension does not take the car off the road. Over the next mile or two the adjustment made to the suspension is then corrected by the Church and we are driving straight again, all while never letting a tire hit the dirt.


 

I told you quite a while ago that I would get some biblical information on the Eucharist. So, I'll sum up the argument as concisely as possible.
 
First off, John chapter 6 is some major evidence, we have already been through this. verses 48-71:
"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink (true food and true drink, NOT symbolic). Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven (yes, it is a miracle from heaven). Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" (a similar thing that most protestants say in this age) Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him (seems like leaving Jesus would be a little harsh if he was only speaking symbolically, since he had spoken in this way before). Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." (these true disciples believed not because it made sense to them, but because they believed Jesus spoke the words of life) Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?" He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve. "
 
Again, I'll argue that Jesus would not lose disciples over this passage if he meant it to be metaphorical. Jesus used all kinds of more extreme metaphors (hate your parents, gouge out your eye, cut off your hand) all over the Bible and yet this one is the one he loses disciples over. I doubt this was taken symbolically by this audience.
 
And Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians (keep in mind Paul was NOT a part of the Last Supper)
1 Corinthians 11: 26-29
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord (why would one who eats of the bread and cup unworthily have to answer for the body and blood of Jesus if it is still just bread and wine?) . A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.  "
 
To discern means to percieve, distinguish, or recognize. There would be nothing to discern if Jesus meant the Body and Blood to be metaphorical. There is no indication in all of the New Testament that any mention of the Body and Blood was meant to be symbolic.
 
And once again, purely historically, all early Christians recognized the Body and Blood to be literally Jesus' Body and Blood.
 
The Didache (Did-Ah-Key), or teaching of the Apostles, 9:1
Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized in the Name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that the Lord said, "Do not give that which is Holy to dogs." Matthew 7:6 

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 7:3, 106AD
"I desire the bread of GOD, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ." 

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, 6:2, 106AD
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. THEY WHO DENY THE GIFT OF GOD ARE PERISHING IN THEIR DISPUTES." 

St. Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 65-66, 148 A.D.
"But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to so be it. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His Word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, IS THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF THAT JESUS WHO WAS MADE FLESH. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone..." 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22(Mystagogic 4)6, 350AD
"Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Masters declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ." 

St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37, 383AD
"Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the Word of GOD has been made over into the Body of GOD the Word." 

St. Ambrose of Milan, The Sacraments, 4:4:14, 390AD
"You may perhaps say: "My bread is ordinary." But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the Flesh of Christ." 

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Corinthians, 24:4:7, 392AD
"When you see the Body of Christ lying on the altar, say to yourself, Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner but free...This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of blood, the other of water, for all the world. This is the body which He gave us, both to hold in reserve and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love." 

St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermons, 227, 393AD
"The Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the Word of GOD, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the Word of GOD, is the Blood of Christ." 

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 26:27, 428AD
"He states demonstratively: 'This is My Body,' and 'This is My Blood', lest you might suppose the things you see are a figure. Rather, by some secret of the all-powerful GOD the things seen are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ." 

Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, Apocriticus, 3:23, 400 AD
"Christ took the bread and the cup, each in similar fashion, and said, 'This is My Body and this is My Blood'. Not a figure of His Body nor a figure of His Blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His Body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth. Holy Eucharist. The True Presence of Our Lord..."
 Quotes and some information taken from here: http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/true.htm This site is very good, but it portrays the same argument that every Catholic would present. In other words there is nothing special about that particular website as opposed to any other Catholic informational website.
 
 
The one thing that I was amazed with the most when I converted was the fact that I missed the boat my whole life on what communion was and is. It is an amazing gift that God has given us. The Eucharist is the central sign of the Christian faith, as the Bible says, if you do not partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ you have no life in you.
 
I know it is a lot to take in, but lemme know what you think.
 
Chris
 

From now on I think I'll be posting common objections to the Catholic faith in a specific format. These things from now on will be called 'Form Errors'. I created this title and assign no actual scholarly weight to it.

I hear every so often from protestant Christians or non-Christians that Catholics could be considered hypocrites because we condemn use of contraception and yet have "our own version" of contraception in Natural Family Planning.  I even heard in a Youtube video a Catholic criticize a Catholic priest for our use of contraception in NFP. The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTWwSbpWRc&eurl and the Catholic is Sean Hannity.

But is Natural Family Planning comparable with contraception? Contraception is most usually used to either prevent pregnancy while still being able to have sex or to prevent contraction of an STD such as AIDS, again while still being able to have sex. 

Natural Family Planning is a method of understanding used to help a couple know when the woman is most fertile. It can either be used to help a woman get pregnant or to prevent a woman from getting pregnant. There are no artificial materials involved.

A proper understanding of NFP is especially important when understanding the differences between it and contraception. When trying to prevent pregnancy using NFP, as opposed to when contraception is used,  the only method used is one thing: Abstinence.

Using our knowledge and understanding of the womans fertile cycles is the only difference between using NFP and having sex at any moment regardless of consequence of offspring. We are able to understand when a woman is most fertile by 'reading' tell-tale signs such as temperature and mucus levels.

Having sex in the way that it was designed by God is the only acceptable form of sex. God designed sex to be open to procreation and to be pleasurable. When we share in this gift with our spouses it is only acceptable to perform it in a way that does not put any unnaturally created barriers in the way of procreation. Of course though, as humans with feelings, moods and desires we can choose to not have sex at any given time. We are not required to have sex when we do not want to.

Abstinence is the key difference between contraception and NFP. Contraception cheapens sex by attempting to eliminate an entire God-given aspect of it; openness to procreation. It puts an articifial human barrier in a union that has been created by God for procreation and union between a couple.

If at any time a couple using NFP does not want to have a child they will abstain from sex during the times of high fertility. This ensures when the couple does have sex it is fully giving and performed naturally the way God intended it to be.
 

1: He will increase abortions by passing the FOCA, or the Freedom of Choice Act. This act will negate any regulation against abortions at state level or federal level. Including the Born-alive protection act which protects baby’s who are fully born and alive after a botched abortion from being thrown in the trash can. If FOCA is passed, Americans will be throwing away fully born children. You cannot FOCA and then pretend that you think it’s a shame Casey Anthony neglected and probably killed her child.  

“I’m a believer in knowing what you are doing when applying for a job. I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a nation ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the senate. Now there are some people who might be comfortable doing that but I am not one of those people.”  Barack Obama, 2004

Illinois. Well, needless to say there is nothing “junior” about being President. He has been a Senator since 2004. He even lost in 2000 for a seat in the House.

4: His voting record shows he was unable to make a decision one way or another on an incredible amount of bills. What is the point of electing an official who is not capable of fulfilling his job to the fullest? He has fallen in the trap of not standing up for his ideals in order to protect his record. While he aptly pointed out the President does need to be able to do more than one thing at a time, if while doing those things you cannot make a decision your actions come out as ‘looking busy’. I’m sorry, but if I knew my senator would be looking out for his own record and how he looks to the voters instead of voting for or against a bill that his constituents feel is important, I would not support them in the first place.

4: He would acknowledge that Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and Fidel and Raul Castro are valid and just leaders by sitting down with them as equals without any prior agreement. This would be handing them a hefty amount of respect and advantage in the eyes of the world, respect they do not deserve.

5: He supports a timeline in Iraq. The consequences of a timeline are two-fold. Yes, we here in America have a goal and a light at the end of the tunnel, but so do the terrorists. They would likely increase terrorist activity and make it almost impossible to leave with governmental order. We would either have to make the choice of making the leave date null and void by not adhering to it or leaving chaos in our tracks. The terrorists can have no reason to believe that we will do anything but do what it takes to finish this the right way.

6: Electing Barack Obama would and could never be bi-partisan. He represents almost the furthest left voting in the senate. It would only divide Washington further.

7: He has shown that he is a Grade-A Washington actor. He will say and do what it takes to tug on the heart strings of the Americans, regardless of truth.

“I had a uncle who was one of the…. Umm… who was part of the first American troops to go into Austwitz and liberate the concentration camps…”

American troops did not liberate Auswitz, the Soviets did.

Is this not proof positive he will say what he needs to say to make himself appealing to Americans? Sorry, but there may not be much argument in this #7 Reason but don’t say I didn’t tell you so. He’s just a little more charismatic than politicians before him, he is not different. McCain is trying to show you that he is serious about reform by choosing an outsider to Washington as his running mate.

8: Joe Biden is a terrible running mate for a person wanting to convey the idea that he is going to change Washington. One of the reasons Obama is so appealing is probably because he is inexperienced and has convinced people that he is an outsider who will shake things up. Biden is a 35 year Washington vet who will keep Obama on the left side, not on our side.  Not to mention Joe Biden has a terribly conflicting personal life compared to his political life. He is a Catholic who though his Church, Bishops, and fellow Catholics have told him his view on abortion is opposite the Catholic Church he still upholds something his religion does not. A person who cannot have uphold his own values will not uphold ours.

9: “Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are”. Sorry Barack, I do not believe in 20 years you never heard Jeremiah Wright (I will not call him Reverend) say anything controversial. Please sir, give us the benefit of the doubt that we are not the most gullible people in this universe. Well, on second thought, have you seen the electoral votes this week?… maybe most of us are.

10: He is buying votes by handing out 500 dollars to the middle and lower class and calling it a tax break. Déjà vu anyone?

11: He wants to make government bigger and more expensive not smaller and less expensive. Who will pay for it? Small businesses who create a large amount of jobs here in America. Not to mention it will run off big business to other countries with lower tax rates.

12: Oh, I’m sorry… I see I have gone over 10. I’ll limit it at 11 then.

The Necessity of Baptism

Biblical support for the Necessity of Baptism:

Mark 16:15-16

“He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

 John 3:3-5;22-23

“Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?” Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. …

 … After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing. John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was an abundance of water there, and people came to be baptized,”

 This verse has almost always historically been related to baptism (3-5).  See the record of Jesus' baptism by John the baptist.

 1 Peter 3:20-22

“…who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.”

 Romans 6: 3-4

“Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.”

If you remove the comparative clarifying statement in this verse, it would read:

“We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, we too might live in newness of life.”

It is very easy to see here that Baptism was biblically seen as the induction into God’s family for the forgiveness of sins. The Jewish culture considered circumcision to be a similar act. The New Testament speaks of this to some extent.

Circumcision and Baptism:

Colossians 2:11-12

“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”

What is/was the Jewish consideration of circumcision?

 “Circumcision causes an angel to save the Israelites from the pangs of Gehenna, to which, according to Ezek. xxxii. 24, the uncircumcised ('arelim) are consigned …., it is Abraham who sits at the gate of Gehenna to save the circumcised” (from the Jewish Encyclopedia, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/)

 So, the Jews believed that Circumcision actually saved the person from Gehenna. Some Jews did argue though that circumcision may not have been necessary. For example, Joshua believed that one may have needed nothing more than the purificative bath, or the baptismal rite to be saved. While others argued that the circumcision was required and the baptismal rite was not. Either way, we see though that the Jews believed in an induction rite into the family of God. Now, do not get me wrong. I am not saying to you that circumcision and baptism can be compared interchangeably, they are a different act. The argument here is that God did not limit infants from God’s family in the Old Testament so he would not in the New.  Baptism is an inclusion into the life and death of Christ.(Romans 6:3-4)

 On a side note, circumcision was performed on the 8^th day of a baby’s life in Jewish culture, assuming no consent from the baby that they actually desired the rite or knew what they were participating in.  Also see Acts 16:15, Acts 16:30-33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 for examples of entire households being baptized, not excluding infants.

To conclude, it seems superfluous to me to argue that one does not need baptism. This is a simple matter, Jesus tells us to be baptized, the apostles tell us to be baptized, and we have a long standing tradition of being baptized. Why argue that we don’t need it? Jesus puts significant spiritual weight upon its effects, so why risk it and end up sounding almost repugnant towards the instruction?

 God knows that the thief on the cross, when he announced that he believed in Jesus, would have if he could, come down from the cross and lived life like a Christian.  This would have inevitably included being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this way, he was baptized by desire. He could not be baptized had he even requested to. If something keeps a person from being baptized before their death the desire to be baptized into God’s family is baptism enough. 

The idea that baptism is an outward sign of an inward faith, and that is all it is, is unsupported by scripture. It not only trivializes baptism but it also draws something out of scripture that is not there.

"[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

 Matthew 16:26-28

“What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life? For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct. Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

 Romans 2: 5-8

“By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.”

 2 Corinthians 5: 9-11

“Therefore, we aspire to please him, whether we are at home or away. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil. Therefore, since we know the fear of the Lord, we try to persuade others; but we are clearly apparent to God, and I hope we are also apparent to your consciousness.”

 1 Peter 1:17

“Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one's works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning,”

 Revelation 20:12-13

“I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. ¹⁰ The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls.

The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades ¹¹ gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds.”

Can you lose true faith?

Hebrews 6:4-6

“For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.”

 “Those who have once been enlightened… and then have fallen away”

 The word enlightened from the dictionary means: “having knowledge and spiritual insight” or “characterized by full comprehension of the problem involved”

 2 Peter 2:20

“For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.”

This verse is speaking about people who know Christ but are still overcome by the defilements of the world. These people were better off never having known the Truth.

There apparently were people, in those times at least, that had the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ but yet still fell away.

 Hebrews 1:26-27

”If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”

This is more examples of people gaining the knowledge of the truth, but then falling away through sin. Not to mention this verse is kind enough to tell us what will happen if we do sin deliberately

John 15:6

“Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.”

Had this verse said “Anyone who has never been in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither” then one could not use this as support that someone can lose there faith, but with the wording it uses, especially the word remain, this can be used as a proof text for “faith-loss”.

 A study of the word remain will tell us who this verse is actually referring to. If I remain in my home until noon on Saturday because I slept in or was watching TV, you could say that I was indeed in my home until noon. Likewise, if someone remains in Christ, you can assume that they are indeed in Christ. On the other side of that coin if I did not remain in my home until noon, you could say that I was in my home previously but I did not stay there until noon. Applied to this verse; if you do not remain in Christ then you were indeed there previously but you no longer are.

 Using this logic you could conclude that you can be in Christ and then become no longer in Christ. In other words, lose your faith. Someone who was in him may no longer be in him.

Judas Iscariot

The final and best example that I will provide to prove a believer can indeed leave the graces of God. Judas Iscariot for almost 3 years followed Jesus; a feat not generally possible by someone who is lying to themselves about belief. Yet, Judas leaves Jesus when he tells his disciples and many Jews that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. From that point on Judas only followed Jesus as a shell with no real belief. (see the end of John chapter 6)

More verses opposing ‘Once saved, Always saved’:

Romans 11:22, 1 Corinthians 9:26-27, 1 Corinthians 10:12, Phillip 2:12

Galatians 3:15-22 "Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. ¹⁶The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"^[g] meaning one person, who is Christ. ¹⁷What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. ¹⁸For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. ¹⁹What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. ²⁰A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.  ²¹Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. ²²But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sins so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. " (Emphasis added)

 So, the law that was introduced 430 years after Abraham was to end with the coming of the Messiah. I think we will find that 430 years after Abraham is roughly the time Moses was given the Decalogue. During a time the Israelites were 'attempting' to follow God but kept reverting to Egyptian ritual and worship. "…It was added because of transgressions…"

Exodus 31:12-17" ¹² Then the LORD said to Moses, ¹³ "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. ^[a14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. ¹⁵ For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. ¹⁶ The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. ¹⁷ It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' " "

So, the Sabbath is a sign between God and the Israelites. That's interesting, because I don't think Christ claims anyone who becomes Christian becomes an Israelite.

Romans 1:16 "¹⁶I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."

That sounds like some definite differentiation there. "…FIRST for the Jew, THEN for the Gentile…" So if we are not added to the Israelite race when we become Christian then are we obligated to hold the Sabbath; which is the sign of God's covenant with Israel? This idea stems from an early Christian tendency of the converts from Judaism of judaizing, which is insisting Gentiles who are converts to Christianity first must adhere to the laws of the Mosaic covenant. Pauls letter to Galatians is almost primarily focused on renouncing judaizers.

So is my argument that with Christ the Decalogue has been made null and void? No, and we will see why.

Throughout the New Testament all of the 10 commandments are 'reinstated' by Jesus and his apostles, in their original form, in the New Covenant…

First Commandment - Worship God - (mentioned 53 times) Matthew 2:2; 2:8; 2:11; 4:9; 4:10; 14:33; 15:9; 28:9; 28:17, Mark 7:7, Luke 4:7; 4:8; 24:52, John 4:20,21,22,23,24; 9:38; 12:20, Acts 7:43; 8:27; 16:14; 17:23; 18:7; 18:13; 19:27; 24:11, Romans 1:25; 12:1, 1 Corinthians 14:25, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:18, Hebrews 1:6; 9:1; 9:6; 10:2; 11:21, Revelation 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4; 19:10; 22:8; 22:9

Second Commandment - No Idolatry - (mentioned 20 times) Acts 15:20,29, Romans 1:25, 1 Corinthians 6:9; Chapter 8; 10:7,14; 12:2, 2 Corinthians 6:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Galatians 5:20, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, 1 Peter 4:3, 1 John 5:21, Revelation 2:14, 20; 9:20; 21:8; 22:15

Third Commandment - No Profanity - (mentioned 4 times) Matthew 12:36, Ephesians 5:4, Romans 2:24, Revelation 16:9

Fifth Commandment - Honor Parents - (mentioned 6 times) Matthew 15:5, Matthew 19:19, Mark 7:10; 10:19, Luke 18:20, Ephesians 6:2

Sixth Commandment - Murder - (mentioned 7 times) Matthew 5:21; 19:18 , Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 , Romans 1:29; 13:9, James 2:11

Seventh Commandment - Adultery - (mentioned 12 times) Matthew 5:27,28,32; 19:9,18, Mark 10:11,19, Luke 16:18; 18:20, Romans 13:9, James 2:11, 2 Peter 2:14

Eighth Commandment - Stealing - (mentioned 6 times) Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 2:21; 13:9, Ephesians 4:28

Ninth Commandment - Lying - (mentioned 4 times) Matthew 15:9; 19:18, Mark 10:19 , Luke 18:20

Tenth Commandment - Don't Covet - (mentioned 9 times) Mark 7:22, Luke 12:15, Romans 1:29; 7:7; 13:9, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, Hebrews 13:5, 2 Peter 2:14

…Except for one commandment, the fourth. The Sabbath day was indeed addressed though, in a revised way…

Romans 14:5-6 "⁵One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ⁶He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

Galatians 4:8-11"⁸Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. ⁹But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? ¹⁰You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! ¹¹I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."

Colossians 2:16-17"¹⁶Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. ¹⁷These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you'll say, what about Revelation 12:17 and all the other verses that talk about following God's commandments?

Revelation 12:17¹⁷Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus."

Well it just so happens that John was good enough to dictate the commandments of God for us, and these parallel perfectly from Jesus' own words in Mark.

1 John 3:21-24"²¹Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God ²²and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. ²³And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. ²⁴Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us."

Mark 12:28-31 "²⁸One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" ²⁹"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.^{[a ] 30}Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'^{[b] 31}The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'^[c]There is no commandment greater than these." "

What are the commandments of God? Do what Christ said for you to do. It just so happened he tells us to adhere to the same things that the Decalogue tells us to adhere to. Minus one, Saturday Sabbath. No where in the New Testament does it say that you should maintain the Saturday Sabbath when the other 9 commandments are mentioned a total of 121 times in the New Testament.

What are the greatest of the commandments? Two commandments that aren't even included in the Decalogue in and of themselves. Are these two commandments not the Decalogue combined from 10 to 2? If you love your neighbor you will not kill, commit adultery, steal, lie, and covet and surely you will honor your parents. And if you love your God you will have no other gods beside him, will not carve gods to replace him, and you will not take his name in vain. But, the odd man out is the Sabbath. It was made for man, not for God. It says in the scriptures "And He was saying to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:27 . For the 7^th day Sabbath was a sign of God's covenant with the Israelites from Moses' day on until fulfillment of the Messiah as Galatians 3:15-22 tells us.

Matthew 5:17 "¹⁷"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. "

Christ came to fulfill the law. If Christ came to fulfill the Sabbath one is to say that nothing about it should change? If it were described as just a shadow of what is to come are we not to understand the new Sabbath as a celebration for all of mankind being included in God's covenant, and not merely God's covenant with Israel?

The majority of Christians choose Sunday as their Sabbath, but there is no rule stating even Sunday must be every Christians Sabbath as Paul says "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." Though Christian tradition from almost immediately shows we are meant to gather on the Lord's Day.

So, in conclusion…

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons." Galatians 4:4-5

All emphasis in verses from scripture *added* -- Credit to Grace upon Grace for Commandment table

Obama and Abortion, Can a true Christian truly support him?

Let’s start out with what does Obama say about Abortion and Roe V Wade?

"I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President.  I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in this case.”

What does Roe V. Wade say about abortion?

“The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” Wikipedia

---- For any reason a woman chooses ---- such as; “I wanted a boy, not a girl” or “This is just a bad time in my life.” or “It is making me look fat.” or “I didn’t think it was going to be this uncomfortable.” or “I’de rather buy these Gucci shoes than pay for a human life that God created.”

Okay, so up until that 7 months a woman can have an abortion for any of the above reasons. This includes the Partial Birth Abortion.

A partial Birth abortion is an abortion where the mother is induced for labor anytime after the 5 month period. The baby is delivered feet first. The birth is stopped right before the head emerges. The doctor then punctures the skull, usually through the neck, and then suctions out the baby’s brain matter.

No, ladies and gentleman, that was not a script for a horror movie. That is a procedure that was legal up until Bush signed a bill banning it by law in 2003. Clinton vetoed it twice in the 90’s. In 2004 federal district courts in 3 states tried to appeal it. It went to the Supreme Court as Gonzales v Carhart, and the supreme court upheld the ban by a 5-4 ruling.

What does Barack say about Gonzales v Carhart?

“I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling… I am extremely concerned that (it) will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade.”

Alright, so we know he wants to support Roe V. Wade. He wants to allow a woman to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants. Not only that but he “will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President.” We know he opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as something that could “erode Roe v. Wade”. We know that if it was up to him there would still be a legal Partial Birth Abortion. So what about the babies that survive any abortion attempt and are fully born? Would he allow protection for that baby?

“August 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New documents just obtained by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) prove that Senator Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Douglas Johnson, NRLC spokesman, explains: "Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."”

He believes that if a mother attempts an abortion and fails, then she can still choose whether or not to let the child live. A child that is just as alive as the wanted baby two rooms down.

Now onto the Freedom of Choice Act. Barack Obama co-sponsors this act and says: “The first thing I'll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” What does this act entail?

“To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.” S. 2020

“Senator Barbara Boxer, co-sponser (with Barack Obama) of the bill, has said: "The Freedom of Choice Act supercedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose. That means a poor woman cannot be denied the use of Medicaid if she chooses to have an abortion." In other words, state governments and the federal government would be mandated to fund abortion with taxpayer money.”

“This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions. If Obama becomes president and lives up to this promise, then everyone who pays income tax will be paying an abortionist to perform an abortion.” David Freddoso

“Obama is one of the very few pro-choice advocates who accepts no restrictions on late-term abortions, or any kind of abortions. I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.” David Freddoso

So what, he supports abortion, plenty of people do. What does he say about who should pay for the abortions? He “does not support” (according to his campaign) an amendment called the Hyde Amendment. It essentially prohibits the taxpayers from funding abortions through the Medicaid program. He also shot down similar legislation in the Illinois state Senate.

Greaaaat… So if it was up to him a woman can have an abortion for any reason and we taxpayers get to pay for it, whether we support Choice or not.

Hold on, now that I think about it, if he is elected, it will be up to him.

But, what does he say to Christians at a Christian forum (Saddleback Church)? That choosing when a life becomes a life is “above his pay grade”. What!? By supporting the right to choose you have made a judgment about when life begins. You claim to be Christian and you claim to follow the commandments, including ‘Thou shalt not kill’. You have deemed abortion not killing by allowing it. Thus you have made a decision that you claim is “above your pay grade”.

I’ll argue that Barack Obama is the most Pro-Abortion candidate to show his face in a presidential race ever.

He won’t protect a zygote, he won’t protect a fetus, and he won’t even protect a baby that was fully born after a botched abortion.

I’ll likewise argue that a person cannot claim to live by Christianity without blatantly lying to himself and others if he still supports Barack Obama after fully knowing his stance on abortion. After all, ‘Thou shalt not kill’.

Imagine a totum-pole, one head upon another head, each holding the ones above it up. If a woman supports her right to abort her child, she is holding abortion up. If Obama supports the woman’s right to choose, he is supporting the woman and abortion. If a voter supports Obama and his policy, they are supporting Obama, the woman, and abortion. You cannot support a candidate and hold him up without supporting all of his doctrine. Each portion of the totum-pole supports the one above it.                                       

Yes, this does work both ways. Anyone who votes for McCain believes he exemplifies the best option for president. They either support his policy or they support more of his policy than they do Obama. I think we will find in most elections it will be a decision of the lesser of two evils. In this case, McCain upholds no policy that has had nearly as much detriment against human life than abortion. If you stand by the fact that some cases of abortion, maybe not all cases, is murder, then you stand by the fact that Obama supports our choice for murder. Not one of McCain’s policies is as explicit and has as much negative magnitude as Obama’s support for choice. 

Lets throw back to the late 1990’s. What really would Jesus do? You think there is any question in his mind on this one? You think Jesus would support an act called the Freedom of Choice act which would re-legalize partial birth abortions (I don’t need to describe this procedure again do I?)? Would it not be better to err on the side of caution? We are called to be like Christ. Do you imagine Christ telling a woman “Even though my Father and I created a soul just for your baby. If it really is a burden on you, go ahead and head over to the clinic and suck it’s brains out with a tube.” I will argue that there is not another moral policy on the table in this election, aside from the definition of marriage, that Jesus would lean one way or the other on. Give the rich more tax breaks than the poor? Nah, Jesus said “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and “If a man strikes you turn the other cheek.”. We are not taught by Christ to create an uproar if there is an injustice in the legal system. Heck, Christ died by an injustice in the legal system and he specifically insisted upon not creating an upheaval.

What policy can one argue Barack Obama has that overcomes this monstrous flaw in his theology, policy and character?

As Christians, we cannot allow Barrack Obama to win the presidential election.