unable to dp the will of God, you cannot truly appreciate the enormity of sin, and you cannot actually love others until you have received the new nature that only God can impart. You may think you are doing these things, but in reality you are not. No amount of “ trying” will avail anything. The new birth is discussed in John 1:12,13: “ But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that be lieve on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” We can not understand the miracle of regenera tion; we can neither explain it nor work to attain it. God accomplishes it within us when we believe; it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Stop “ trying” and trust (Prov. 3:5, 6). You doubtless refer to Acts 26:11, which reads, in the Authorized Version, “ I punished them oft in every syna gogue, and compelled them to blas pheme.” If you will read this verse in the Revised Version, you will find the more accurate translation, which gives these words an entirely different mean ing: “And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme.” This does not say that Paul succeeded in making Christians blaspheme. It is a fact of history that hundreds of saints have suffered torture and death rather than deny the Lord who bought them. Is it true that Jesus had half-brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary? I have heard this denied. Yes, after Jesus was born in Bethle hem, Joseph and Mary had sons and daughters. In Matt. 13:55, 56 we read: “ Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his breth ren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” (Cf. Mark 6:3; Matt. 12:46; John 2:12; Acts 1:14; I Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19.) The denial that Mary had other chil dren originated with Roman Catholic teaching that she was sinless; this is called the doctrine of the immaculate conception. This teaching claims that Mary never did marry Joseph, that she was always the Virgin Mary. But we have already shown, in answer to pre ceding questions, that this is unscrip- tural; that Mary acknowledged herself to be a sinner needing a Saviour; and that she recognized that the Lord Jesus was the only Saviour from sin. Moreover, Psalm 69:7-9, which is a definite prophecy of the coming o f1Jesus into the world to suffer for sinners, is irrefutable proof that Mary had other children. Note especially verse 8: “ I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.” T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S How could Saul of Tarsus make Christians blaspheme?
here, is found all through the Bible to mean represent . When our Lord said, “ This is my body,” He said, according to the custom of the language used, “ This represents my body.” Go back to Genesis 41:26: “ The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one.” Will anyone claim that the seven good cows and the seven good ears were literally seven years of 365 days each, which had not yet come to pass? All ad mit that they represented seven years. Again, Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, “ Thou art this head of gold” (Dan. 2:38). Did Daniel mean to say that the king standing before him was really gold? Of course, such an interpretation would be foolish, and Nebuchadnezzar was represented by the head of gold. In Revelation 1:20 we find the words, “ The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candle sticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” Has anyone ever risen to claim that these words are to be taken literally? They are symbolic, of course. The Lord Jesus said more than once, “ I am the bread of life.” (Read the sixth chapter of John.) Now to follow the Roman Catholic interpretation, we must declare that Jesus, who said this, was not flesh and bone and muscle and hair, but that He was literally bread. Such illustrations of this point could be added by the dozens. My friend, the. Lord’s presence is not in the bread and wine. Our Lord’s presence is not in the elements, in some mysterious way, so that they are not symbols. Not at all. We eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ when by faith we recognize His presence with us, and when by meditation upon His Word we feed our souls upon Him who once died for our sins upon the cross. Our Lord said, “ Where two or three are gathered to gether in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20)— not in the midst of the elements, but in the midst of His'people! Do you believe that Cain was ever saved? My Bible class desires an ex pression from you. There is nothing in all the Bible to indicate that Cain was ever saved. In fact, there is everything to imply that he died a lost soul. In the first place, he tried to offer to God a bloodless sacri fice, the works of his own hands, and this was in open rebellion against God. In the second place, we read in Gene sis 4:16 that “ Cain went out from the presence of the Lord.” Having thus turned his back upon God, he and his descendants built a godless civilization which became so corrupt that it had to be wiped out in the flood. Read I John 3:12 and Jude 11. Why should the new birth be necessary when a person has spent his life trying to do the will of God, confessing his sins, loving others, etc.? The things you mention are the result of the new birth. That is, you are wholly
Why do Protestants say that the Ro man Catholic mass is not scriptural? I am a Roman Catholic, and in many ways your teaching is in agreement with what I believe. But you speak of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper as repre senting the body and blood of our Lord. Christ Himself said, “ This is my blood . . . this is my body.” Why is it that the Protestants do not accept the word of the Lord as being literally true? In the Catholic mass we are taught that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus, even as He Himself affirmed. There are several reasons why the Protestant Church does not accept the Roman Catholic interpretation of these words: 1. When our Lord instituted this me morial, He sat at the table with His disciples' in His physical body. The blood, the life of the body, flowed through His veins. And yet He took the bread in His hands and said, “ Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me” (I Cor. 11:24). That bread remained bread. He was sitting there before them; they could look upon Him, could feel and touch His hands'. His body was unchanged. He must have been speaking figuratively, because He said, “ This is my body, which is broken for you.” And yet at that moment Christ’s body had not been broken, had not been crucified. And when He took the cup and said, “ This cup is the new testament [cove nant] in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20), that which was in the cup did not undergo any change. It did not- actually become the blood of our Lord, for His blood was still flowing in His veins, soon to be poured out for our sins upon Calvary’s Cross. 2. The word is, as used by the Lord Page Fourteen
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker