Monday 7 March 2016

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 8

If the Lord Wills, I may consider looking at 1 and 2 Maccabees. For now, they will be skipped and dealt with if again the Lord Wills. With that out the way, let's continue.

"It is impossible to be pleasing to the Lord without an altar of sacrifice, without the grain offering and a drink offering (wine) where we consume the blood and the host. This is why Islam prohibits alcohol and with such prohibition, Antichrist will stop “drink offering” as Joel also predicted. How can one confess sins and partake in the sacrifice without these elements become unimaginable."

I have said what I need to say on Joel, that has already been covered:

"Everything I have written here became clear to me only after I, last week, prayerfully decided to examine this “sacrifice” for myself having never believed since I joined the Baptist church which said that apostolic-succession are “harlot” and “Antichrist”. It bothered my inner temple deep within my soul. So I decided to walk into the confessional booth, I must say, the one they told me never to enter, to try this apostolic succession sacrificial flavor if you will.
After my confession, the priest asked: “Why do you allow such intrusive thoughts enter the gates of your temple knowing that they, like the leaven, fester and grow, sin is destructive and destroys the temple, and only leads into more sin?”
Sin starts by a thought which settles in the mind and festers like leaven, it grows, swells, and corrupts and leads to venial or even mortal sin where the temple is completely destroyed and such unclean vessel cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
The priest addressed the root not just the symptom. It was a free gift. I was the one who got a free offering. I paid no money, no offering, no indulgences, and nothing of what the slanderers claim."

This statement needs relooking at in a future article. All I can say regarding the subject of "apostolic succession" as Shoebat keeps phrasing it, It's not present in Rome, As James White said: "Apostolic succession is a matter of fidelity to the truth, not historical genealogy. It is more important to stand in theteaching of the Apostles than to trust in an alleged historical procession that casts truth out into the cold.

"How can this sin be healed if I just go directly to Christ without gaining the proper instruction given by Christ to His first priests, the apostles, and from there onward to the priests to the end of the age? How could Christ only instruct His apostles only during their lifetime when He told them “I will be with you until the end of the age”? He will be with His church forever."

Not sure what he is getting that. If you go to Jesus and ask for his forgiveness and repent, naturally you should want to go and recieve instructions and to know the biblical Gospel from them.

"Scriptures throughout, described the church, not the Scriptures, as Christ’s body: “the Church [not just Scripture] is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) which without the Church no one can interpret Scriptures correctly. So where was this “pillar and bulwark” for fifteen centuries since the apostles?"

See my paper on the 1 Timothy 3:15 for information:

What makes Shoebat assume that Roman Catholicism is right when he asks where the pillar and foundation of the truth are?

"Christ is the temple, we need no sun, He mirrors His reflection upon ordained men stemming all the way back from when He gave instruction to His apostles shedding His light in the darkness of our hearts and offers forgiveness.
It is one thing to go in and pray in the closet, but confession in Scripture, was never intended to exclusively be in the closet, and it is another experience when one has to give detail of what they have done to a priest “confess your sins to one another that you may be healed” (James 5:16).
One sins much less if they have to confront the accountant. If Christ ever intended to forgive sin exclusively through Him without priests, why then does the Scriptures make clear: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shallretain, they are retained” (John 20:23)."

I'll link to these again:

Also the confession with James has nothing to do with confession to a priest, Let's look

"James 5:13 Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

17 Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. 18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins."

It is to do with men and women in the church holding each other accountable, acknowledging their faults to each other so that they can pray for one another to be repentant and holy. Sometimes sickness can be associated with unrepentant sin, with requirements to pray for the person to turn from their evil and back to God and for the individual in question to ask God for forgiveness and repent toward him. It has nothing to do with confession to a priest to absolve you from sins.

"“sins that you [the apostle/priest] shall forgive”?
I was told at the non-apostolic-succession church that all of our sins—past, present, and future were forgiven once we became Christian.
Then I find the disciples having the authority to continually forgive or even retain sins in John 20. I found nothing in Scripture that says “I forgive your sins, past, present and future”.
Indeed, it is the tradition of men which has become Scripture, traditions instituted by men, who only condemned God’s traditions, while all these verses I shared so far from Scripture here were thrown out the window."

Putting aside the debate as to whether or not a Christian can lose their salvation, What does John 20:23 have to do with Catholic priests being able to pronounce forgiveness to the guilty party?

Personally, the only time future sins are forgiven and covered is if they have been repented of, but even in the context of those who believe in Perseverence of the Saints, they will argue and point out that those who are truly saved will repent of their sins and persevere in holiness to the end. The only people that would argue future sins are forgiven in the way Shoebat presents in the paper as supposedly a belief that all Protestants hold to are anti-nomians, something which Protestantism, both OSAS or NON-OSAS condemn.

"If sins are forgiven, past, present and future, why would Jesus teach: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12)? Why then can’t we just once and for all say “thank you for forgiving us our debts, past, present and future and from this day forward, I will ask and pray no more”.
Jesus was teaching us how to pray and this prayer of Our Father, is central in the apostolic-succession church and is to remain with us including asking for the forgiveness of sins."

Putting aside his caricature and have covered what the point about past, present and future sins being forgiven, The Lord's Supper a Protestant would gladly confess.

"Does He forgive our sins, past present and future the moment we invite Jesus? No, We are told “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). How this was understood in the early church, in 70 AD, way before the claim that ‘Constantine changed everything’, the earliest of Christians taught that the believer should:
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that yoursacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
Sacrifice? Do this “confession” before taking communion, never after? In the earliest record of the church, in 70 AD, there was order, not chaos."

I honestly don't take issue with the statement in the Didache. You SHOULD confess your sins before taking communion, not because of pagan transubstantiation, but because by not confessing sin and taking the Lord's Supper, you eat and drink judgement to yourself, either risking illness or death for profaning the Lord's Supper.

Granting confession as important (which it is), it would not bolster the Romanist abuse of confession. Also I thought the article that Shoebat was about the Abomination of Desolation?

"In the non-apostolic-succession churches, they even told us that “Genesis 14 indicates that as Abraham arrived with his troops and came before Melchizedek, Melchizedek brought out some food (bread and wine) to feed all these hungry guys” (see Ron Rhodes).
What utter nonsense. The text says: “And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.” The very bringing of the bread and wine was because he was a priest and it was done by a priest.
And Malachi 1:11, again, “My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty.”
Only the priesthood can fulfill this with literal incense keeping in mind that this “incense” is not allegoric incense since if there is any smoke or incense on earth, it is always synonymous with sacrifice. Again, keep in mind that this is no old testament sacrifice since just one verse before, in Malachi. 1:10, it says that when this period comes, God would not be accepting the Jewish sacrifices: “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the LORD Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands”."

I have already commented on Malachi 1 in the previous paper so I need not go over that again:

It amazes me that Shoebat disregards the interpretation of "Genesis 14 indicates that as Abraham arrived with his troops and came before Melchizedek, Melchizedek brought out some food (bread and wine) to feed all these hungry guys". That it is PARTIALLY what happened in Genesis 14, Melchizedek brought them food and blessed them. with Abraham giving a tenth of everything. Melchizedek was a priest and a king, No Protestant denies this.

"And if Melchizedek was simply feeding “hungry guys” why would the Psalmist in Psalm 110:4 declare “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek“?

He permanently offers sacrifice (offering). Ever wonder why in Ezekiel a grain offering was made including a meat offering? That the grain is the bread and the meat is theflesh (Gen. 4:3-5, Num. 16:15, 1 Sam. 2:17, 29:26:19 Isa. 1:13). Even the protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly confirms:
The Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi’s prediction that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have a ‘pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist.
Salvation is a process. So many verses are ignored and are rarely if ever studied by the simpleton who quickly jots a comment with no depth."

I have commented on the grain offering not referring to the Lord's Supper already:

Neither Daniel nor Ezekiel have the Lord's Supper. The biblical texts above I would need to look into if the Lord Wills.

"It is the devil, through his trickster, institutes disorder. Christ broke the bread and gave it and said “this is my body”.
The trickster will quickly switch from literal into allegory. He also knows that he cannot answer the Jesus-style question: how could the church have for twenty centuries (not just since the sixteenth century) practiced and believed in the Eucharist? Was this all wrongly done and these could not correctly understand what Christ meant by “this is my body”?"

I have no time to go into why it is not referring to his literal body and blood, I have already written an article on transubstantiation:

He'll use the two senses excuse and go into the church fathers but that will be saved for another time if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.

No comments:

Post a Comment