Books which the Protestants do not con sider inspired by God, and therefore do not include in their Bible. The Catholic Bible was translated into English from the Latin Vulgate, a ver sion which greatly influenced Biblical translation for about 1,000 years. The Latin Vulgate was also one of the main sources of the King James Version which we still use today. The Catholic Bible is, in the main, much like our own Prot estant translations, varying only in dif ferent words used by the translators to convey the same meaning. It is -called the Douay Version because it was pub lished in France in 1609. When it comes to a matter of interpre tation of the Scriptures, there is a real difference between Catholics and Protes tants on certain fundamental issues. For instance, the word repent in our Protes tant Bible is sometimes' translated da penance in the Catholic Bible, However, the great doctrine of justification by faith is set forth in the Douay Version. If Catholics would only read their own Bible, they would see the" fallacy of the teaching of this system concerning sal vation through penance, ordinances and the mass. They would also see the Nm- ,scriptural interpretation of a host of other things that belong to Roman Ca tholicism. I always recommend to Roman Catho lics that (¿hey read Paul’s Epistle to the Romans in their own Bible. Many Cath-'' olics have come to a knowledge of the truth of justification by faith through a reading of this epistle in the Douay Version. ’ - At least two thoughts have been sug gested: (1) That this was the occasion of His public anointing by the Holy Spirit in His earthly ministry •—thus proving to all the world that He was “the beloved Son of the Father” in Heaven; and (2) that in this act He identified Himself with sinners, in or der to fulfill “all righteousness.” The Jordan River represents death, and His going down into it was a pic ture of His approaching sacrifice on the cross. Our Lord came into the world to die on behalf of sinners. Here at the beginning of His ministry He identified Himself with sinners who were being baptized by John; and by so doing, He foreshadowed the purpose of His com ing into the world. At Calvary He went into death on behalf of transgressors. He “who knew no sin” was made “sin for us.” It was at the cross that all righteousness was fulfilled. Christ’s bap tism was a picture of all this. It is noteworthy that in this event we have the Father’s voice from Heaven, the presence of the Son in His human body, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, descending “as a dove” upon the sinless Son of God. Here we have a beautiful lesson in the doctrine of the Trinity. Since Christ was sinless, why was He baptized?
Dr. L. T. Talbot ject to Joseph and Mary. He ate, slept, grew in wisdom and stature. We must remember that He became Man in order to die for sinners. God cannot die; but He devised a plan by which He could be, at the same time, both God and Man; and as the Son of Man, He died that sinners might live. (Read Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15.) This is our gospel message— that the Lord suffered, was tempted in all points like as we are, sin apart— He was not tempted to sin, because He was holy! But because He knew hunger and thirst and weariness- and loneliness; because He suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted. He is our sympathizing Saviour. Moreover, when He became .flesh, He laid aside His glory—not His deity. He became subject to His Father’s will—as a Man. It is a great mystery, the mys tery of godliness, that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto him self.” And what we cannot explain about the Incarnation, we leave to faith! (Read Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:14-19; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19; John 1:1-14.) Will you please explain what is meant in Philippians 2:5-8, where we read: “Being in the form of God,” and that He “ took upon him the form of a serv ant” ? According to these texts, what was changed? Only the form. Before the In carnation He was in the form of God, but at the Incarnation He was in the form of a servant. The form, and not the personality, was changed. He was ever the eternal Son. In John 8:24 our Lord said to the Jews, “ If ye believe not that I am, [not ‘I am he’ ; for the word he is in italics in our English translation, and is therefore not in the original Greek]— if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.” The name “I AM” was the one God gave to Moses from the burning bush, and presents God as the self-existent One. Our Lord Jesus, in taking that name, declares in unmistak able language that He and the “I AM” of the Old Testament are the same. What is the difference between the Catholic and the Protestant Bibles? The main difference is that the Cath olic Bible includes certain Apocryphal
How do you explain certain discrep ancies in the Bible? There are no discrepancies, even though man has sought to make it ap pear so. Or should I say Satan has sought to make it appear so? Once we remember that “the natural man [the unregenerated man] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14), we have the solution to many so-called discrepancies, that are not dis crepancies at all. It is not in man to understand spiritual things; he must be taught by the Spirit of God. And the unregenerate man has not the Spirit of God. There may be faulty translations of certain words, such as world in Matthew 28:20, which should be rendered age: “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end [consummation] of the age.” But such translations are of little con sequence, in so far as they touch the matter of sin, salvation, and eternal issues. Moreover, once the Spirit-taught man analyzes these passages cited by skepti cal men, he always finds that apparent variations are explained in a most plau sible way. Only man’s ignorance of what the Bible says; his repetition of hear say; and his sin-darkened mind can ac count for what man may call a discrep ancy. God does not make mistakes! And He has seen to it that His Word is inerrant! How would you explain the statement in Luke 2:52, that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” ? Luke is emphasizing the real humanity of Christ. There was a cult in the be ginning of the Christian era which de nied the reality of His human body. The exponents of this cult claimed that Jesus did not have a human body at all, and that His body was a phantom, a creation of mortal mind. This is the teaching of certain present day cults, such as Chris tian Science. The humanity of Christ is emphasized by Luke because the Spirit of God foresaw that at the end of the age there would be a denial of His hu manity, as there would be also of His deity. Accordingly, Luke tells us that Jesus developed as other boys did. He was sub-
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs