• Angels: created when?
• We Become Angels?
• Did pope John Paul II go to Heaven?
• "Mary" and catholic sun-worship
• Christening of children?
• Death Penalty?
• Doctrinal verb tense

Re: Trivia: Eve/Apple "The "dragon...that serpent of old...the devil" (Rev12:9) Where did he get his start?

"It would seem likely that he was around and watched as God created the heavens and earth during those six days, as Job was told by God how the "morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" as the "foundations" of the world were laid. (Job38:4-7)

READER QUESTION:
This is one argument I had with Dave Hunt a couple years ago. He had stated in I think it was the September or October 2003, maybe 2002, Berean Call Newsletter that the angels were around for ages before the world was created. I wrote back as did others that they were created during the 6 days of creation. Dave Hunt did not respond to my letter directly but did to someone elses where if I recall he said that there were no verses to back up the statements the other persons letter had made. I had given him the following verse(*) but he did not address it so if you can think of any thing that would back up his reply besides Job 38:4-7 as that could have been that they shouted for joy after they were created, I would appreciate hearing from you but for now I will have to go by the verse below and believe that when in Genesis 1:1 where "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" could mean that in creating the heavens he also at that time created the angels putting them there with him while he laid the foundations of the earth.

* Exodus 20 11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and ALL THAT IS IN THEM, and rested the seventh day.

VW ANSWER:
Well, you notice my statement said, "it would seem likely that...."

When God made the "heavens and the earth", Genesis ch1 outlines what that consisted of: this earth, land, sea, plants, animals, man; and the heavens consisting of the sun, moon and stars...the stars being suns, galaxies, etc as visible from earth. But Genesis ch1 does not describe God's creation of the "Heaven" where He dwells, in the 'spiritual' realm. Remember, there are three heavens:

1. the atmosphere of this earth where the "flying creatures" fly in the "firmament of the heavens" (Gen1:20)
2. the heavens where the stars are (Gen15:5, Ps8:3)
3. the "third Heaven" where Paul heard unspeakable things in God's presence, or "Paradise" (2Co12:2-4)

To suggest that they were created during those six days -might- be a possibility. However, they would have had to have been created right at the -very- beginning before anything else, if that was the case, otherwise, how could they have "shouted for joy" when the "foundations" of the earth were laid? (Job38) Because the very next thing we are told is how the earth was there in the darkness, "without form and void". (Gen1:2)

But, did God create the angels...."shouting" -as- they were being created? If there had not been at least -some- prior existence for them, what would have been the -basis- for their "joy" as they shouted at the creation? By the context it seems obvious that they had been around prior, and watched the creation....thus, rejoiced in it. Man was not made an automaton...thus I would doubt the angels were, either; especially seeing as how satan had the ability to rebel, just as man did; thus, their praise and joy would have been based on 'reason'...them having had some prior context by which to be joyful over the creation.

Scripture does not tell us directly, because angels are not the objects of our devotion (Re19:10,22:9, 1Ti4:1, Col2:18) , but are ministers serving those who are saved. (Heb1:7, 14) And in my reading yesterday I was reminded of children and "their angels" who are before God continually. (Mt18:10) Some speak of "guardian" angels...I don't know of specific Scripture to support that. There are testimonials over the years of people being helped by what they assumed were "angels". When something is experiential testimony, and when the unsaved are involved, one has to exercise caution, because there are both good angels, and demons, the fallen angels....and satan's demons make themselves up to appear as "ministers of righteousness". (2Co11:15) Just like: that TV show "Angel" is really about demons.

[VW: A couple days after this exchange, my reading found me at this Scripture, which might shed some light; does it qualify as a "guardian" angel?: "for He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone." (Ps91:11-12) :VW]

If one reads Hebrews ch1 it seems there are several entities being discussed:

1. God (vs1)
2. the Son (vs2)
3. man...the one to whom God speaks (vs1-2)
4. angels (vs4)
5. earth/heavens...the works of God's hands (vs10)

So, all of this, to return to how I started that comment: "...it would seem likely that..." Until we get into God's direct presence at the resurrection/rapture, this is probably as far as we can know for sure, until we see God's glory, His dwelling, Paradise, and His ministers the angels. I'm not going to be dogmatic that the angels weren't created during those six days; but it certainly seems "most likely" that they -did- exist prior to Genesis 1:1....but this is not to make -any- 'speculation' as to "how long" they had been around prior to it.

READER FOLLOW-UP:
Getting back however to Exodus 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day., I would have to believe that the "all that is in them" includes angels. I will also not be dogmatic about it and will thank you for the views you have given me.

VW ANSWER:
No...because ex20:11 is only talking about heavens #1 & #2....it is not talking about Heaven #3 where God dwells. God is "spirit" (Jn4:24) and angels are ministering "spirits" (Heb1:14)....whereas heavens #1 & #2 are 'physical'...and "all that is in them" was described as plants, animals and man. And for as detailed as it is about everything being made "according to its kind", the creation account of #1 & #2 did not include angels...doesn't even mention them...not a peep.

But I won't argue about this. -smile-

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
I am a fairly new Christian, and I hope this isn't a dumb question, but here it is: During a recent bible study, the subject of "Angels" came up. Someone said she believed her deceased mother was watching over a sister, believing her deceased mother is an Angel. I disagreed, saying Angels were never mortals, they are supernatural creatures and were always in existence to do God's work. I do believe in Angels, but I don't believe when we die we become one. Please shed some light on this.

VW ANSWER:
No, this is not a dumb question. And it is understandable that there could be confusion, because today's culture has embraced some eastern "animistic" concepts. Shinto and many others believe that the dearly departed become gods. In our western societies they are believing that the dead become angels...or just...a spiritual presence near the living whom they left behind.

The best way to understand that we do NOT 'become' angels is to compare between the two: mankind and angels.

• Angels are ministering spirits before God's presence. (Job1:6, 2Ch18:18, Heb1:7) They were around when God set the universe in place. (Job38:4-7) Thus, they were also around to observe God creating man out of dust. If they (of spirit) observed man being formed (of dust), the two are obviously not the same. Among other things, they are sent to minister on behalf of those who will be saved. (Heb1:14)

• If angels minister on behalf of those who will be saved, is that not a different sort of entity than those they minister to? Salvation and God's grace is something that is not for angels, and they look at the Gospel with wonderment (1Pt1:10-12), but God's saving love is for the world of mankind. (Jn3:16)

• Angels are spirits. We are, in addition to spirit, also "flesh and blood" (Heb2:14, 1Co15:50-54, etc) Fallen angels (evil/unclean spirits) take up residence within willing/permitted hosts (Mt12:43-45, 8:31-32), something that humans cannot do.

• If man is, for a time, "less than" angels, man is not the same. (Heb2:7)

• Believers will "judge" angels. (1Co6:3) The ones being judged are not the same as the ones doing the judging

• Believers become "like [Jesus]" when we "see Him as He is" (1Jn3:2) If Jesus is so much "better than the angels" (Heb1:4), and we become 'like' Jesus, that means we also become better than the angels. After all, the angels are serving (ministering on behalf of) us. If one is "better" than the other, they are not the 'same' ...they are different.

• When Jesus proclaims His redeemed ones before God, He also does so before the angels. (Mt10:32, Lk12:8-9) Are not the ones being "confessed" -different- from the ones being confessed -to-?

When Jesus died and rose again He was the "firstfruits". When the Believer dies and rises again (or is raptured, after never dying, but being changed 1Co15:51, 1Th4:17, Jn11:26), he becomes like what Jesus became, when He comes. (1Co15:20-23) That is soooo much better than angels!

"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it dawned upon the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." (1Co2:9)

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
Did the pope go to Heaven? Was pope JP2 saved?

VW ANSWER:
Certainly, the One who knows every person down to the level of "soul and spirit" is Jesus Christ. (Heb4:12) But is it possible in certain cases for 'us' to know? And if so, 'how' can we know?

Paul states: "...that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Rom10:9-10)

Jesus said: "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Mt12:34b-37)

What were John-Paul's words? What was his confession? In whom was his trust?

At the beginning of his papacy he made it clear that the one who had his highest devotion was Mary. His papacy was dedicated, from the very beginning, to the "blessed virgin" with the prayer to her, "totus tuum"; and throughout his papacy he made a point of publicly pilgrimaging to certain Marian shrines, and even for the Y2K year-change into the new millennium, as I recall, he even had one of the famous "mary" statues temporarily moved to the Vatican for the occasion.

The day before he died, according to NBC's Tim Russert, JP2 proclaimed to the masses congregated outside his apartment (his 'last testament') that he had "entrusted everything to the virgin Mary". The day he died, the Vatican official who made public announcements and prayed on JP2's behalf proclaimed that JP2 was: given "into the hands of Maria"

The pope, being the so-called 'vicar' of Christ: should he then not be Christ-like, if that is his claim? Thus for comparison: When Jesus died on the cross, to whom did He commit His spirit? "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit" (Lk23:46)

What was the relationship at that moment between Jesus and Mary? Did Jesus commit Himself into the hands of Mary? NO! Rather, to John He bequeaths: "Behold your mother" (Jn19:27) Nothing was committed -to- Mary; rather, Mary was committed (willed/adopted) into the care of John.

Of this matter, the one who gave the 'homily' at JP2's funeral certainly twisted (2Pt3:16) the Scriptures: taking these words where Jesus was (actually) 'bequeathing' Mary into the care of John and says to John, "behold your mother" (Jn19:27a); using that little expression to explain how JP2 had followed Jesus' command and "looked to his mother (Mary)"... just like that disciple (John) "looked to Mary", so did JP2. Bequeathing and worship are not the same thing! Taking (physical) care of an aging woman (widow), who would have no other means of support in that ancient culture, is not the same as praying to her! We "bow [our] knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph3:14); not Mary. We "ask the Father" in Jesus' name (Jn15:16, 16:23); not Mary's. If anybody has a doubt about the fact that Jesus was 'bequeathing' Mary into the care of John, please follow the rest of the verse, the part the cardinal at the funeral did not read "...And from that hour that disciple took her into his own home." (Jn19:27b)

When Stephen became the first martyr he prayed: "Lord Jesus receive my spirit" (Ac7:59) Not Mary!

Paul says, "..the time of my departure is at hand...there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day.." (2Ti4:6-8) The "Lord", not Mary.

Peter, their alleged "first pope", speaks of his own imminent death: "knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ made known to me." (2Pet1:14) What? Not a communication from Mary? Peter never once makes mention of Mary in either of his epistles, nor any of his preaching and ministry in Acts. After Acts ch1, throughout the N.T. of Church doctrine, Mary (Jesus' mother) is never again mentioned.

Upon whom is salvation based? And into whose presence does the Believer go? "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under Heaven given among men that is required for us to be saved." (Ac4:12,10) And -Jesus- is the one who promised, "...that where I am, there you may be also" (Jn14:3) NOT Mary!

The Rosary, the "Ave Maria" prayer to Mary which all the 'faithful' were praying, speaks of the "hour of our death", trusting in Mary. At JP2's "hour of death" where was his trust? Jesus of Nazareth? or Mary? He did not commit himself into the hands of the Father, but Mary; Mary the ancient Queen of Heaven of Babylon.

By John Paul II's own mouth, he was going to the Queen of Heaven, not God the Father, not Jesus Christ. Don't be fooled by the likes of Jack Van Impe who has regularly praised JP2 for being a "christian", a "man of God", speaking of salvation through the blood of Christ (their 'transubstantiation' of the body/blood is a 'cover' or 'decoy' for what is actually the ancient pagan sun-worship); when it came to his time-to-die, the testimony of his mouth was his trust in the Queen of Heaven; in these days bearing the name "Maria". God judged Israel for worshiping the Queen of Heaven, and John Paul II is also under God's judgment... from the testimony of his own mouth. He has NOT gone to the "paradise of God" (Rev2:7) His was an "other" gospel, which is "accursed". (Ga1:8-9)

[Top]

READER COMMENTS:
Before your [sic] TRY to teach your followers on what or how a catholic believes, Do the world a favor---DON"T Cause you are so far off base it's not funny. Your false preception on the subject of Mary and Catholics is disturbing. Mary is conduit to Christ, She is not "Mary; Mary the ancient Queen of Heaven of Babylon." as you say.

Get your facts straight!!!!!!!
from somebody objecting to (above) comments about JP2's dying testimony

VW ANSWER:
re:
Mary is conduit to Christ

VW:
And....where is this found in Scripture? It isn't.

Jesus said that the 'conduit' (if that's the term you wish to use) is the Holy Spirit. (Jn16:13-15), which Paul affirms (Rom8:26-27) Jesus taught 'nothing' about Mary, other than to -disagree- with the "blessing" that somebody yelled out to Him about her: "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which You sucked! But He said, No; rather, blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it." (Lk11:27-28)

re:
She is not "Mary; Mary the ancient Queen of Heaven of Babylon." as you say. Get your facts straight!!!!!!!

VW:
Did you click on the (above) embedded link for "Queen of Heaven"?

If you will read it: Notice the lineage of the goddess of Babylon, mutated down through the centuries, and from culture to culture, the one called "mother of god" (sound familiar?), "virgin mother" (sound familiar?), "holy virgin" (sound familiar?), and your pope John Paul II was quoted often as praying to the "Queen of Heaven". Your catholic tradition, when you pray to "mary", you can also just as easily interchange the expression "Queen of Heaven", and you pray, "Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners...." If you do a simple Google search of websites enshrining her, you will find countless similar such expressions (titles) for the one you call Mary; these titles which originated from Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, etc over the past 4500 years.

Mary does not intercede for the sinner....Jesus does. "It is Christ who died, but rather is also raised, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us." (Rom8:34) People who are saved "come to God through [Christ], since He lives forever to make intercession for them." (Heb7:25) There is utterly -NO- Scriptural doctrine even hinting at any sort of saving or intercessory ministries of Mary. After Acts ch1, once past the 'historical' accounts, and into the doctrinal books/epistles, she is never again mentioned....even in the epistles written by Peter.

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus," (1Ti2:5) Nothing about "mary" in any of those passages.

I do have the facts straight. If you don't recognize any of this, perhaps you are not as knowledgable in your "church" teachings as you should be? Many catholic parishoners are not, blindly following the 'traditions' handed down to them from their priests; blindly reciting the mantra rituals.

Of course, your parish priest isn't going to be preaching this to you, otherwise, if you are also reading the Bible, he knows you would start putting 2 & 2 together....why do you suppose the catholic church 'forbade' the reading of the Scriptures by the 'laity' for so many centuries? They know that catholic doctrine is not what the Scriptures teach. In fact, part of catholic doctrine is: If there is a difference between Scripture and Tradition, Tradition takes precedence over Scripture.

Your priest also likely doesn't teach you how the mass is really worship of the 'sun'? not Jesus! If they were honest, telling you how you are worshiping the sun, thus equating it to ancient Babylonian and Egyptian paganism, how many "christians" do you suppose could be lured in? If you don't believe this, look at...

the host ...and see the little 'flames' that border its circumference. Notice the sun's 'rays' in the middle. Notice the initials for Isis, Horus, Seth; ancient Egyptian deities.
The "monstrance" or "ostensorium" where the host is kept. Notice the similarities between it and "balda" below.
and the "balda" of the sun inside St. Peter's basilica
and speaking of Egypt... notice the ancient Egyptian oblisk in front of St. Peter's; moved there from Egypt. Is that a sphere of the sun-god "Ra" on its top?
Ishtar (Isis, Aphrodite, Maria) are all related to sun-worship. Won't go into those details now. Which is also where the (easter) Ishtar-sunrise service comes from. That's what the art-depicted 'halo' is about.

Interesting how, when I did a quick Google search, there was a newspaper called, "Santa Maria Sun". Apparently many 'do' correctly understand.

And also, as there have been countless documentaries on TV about JP2, they have also been showing countless images of pictures and statues, many of "Mary" with a queen's 'crown' embedded in that halo on top of her head...the Queen of Heaven. They can speak so much of "Jesus, Mary and Joseph" and adore the crucifix, that people become blind to the truth; the true objects of their worship. Like the expression, the best place to hide is "in plain sight". As I see all these images lately, not really having paid that much attention to detail previously, I'm realizing that all a person needs to do is to "open-their-eyes" to the images, icons and statuary; the truth of catholicism's sun-worship, and of "mary" being the ancient Queen of Heaven, has been staring us all in the face for years.

If you will read the Scriptures you will learn Truth....and the "Truth will set you free" from your bondage. But you need to abide in the Word of Jesus Christ, not the utterances of the one you think is "mary" who speaks to various ones of you in visions and apparitions.

"Then Jesus said to those Jews who had believed in Him, If you continue to abide in My Word, you are truly My disciples. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." (Jn8:31-32)

Amen.

[Top]

INTRODUCTION:
Here is a topic where I am not going to include the questioner's question with all of their personal specifics. But this topic is a universal one. All my life, since youth, I've known of mixed marriages, where a Christian is married to a Catholic. Sometimes the Christian, against all sound advice, marries the catholic, thinking they will convert the catholic. In others, the person becomes a Christian after already being married. AND THERE ARE CHILDREN. Catholicism is militantly adamant: when one spouse is catholic, the children -MUST- be 'christened' in the catholic church....no ifs, ands or buts. And they will go to great lengths to see that it is done. The RCC is not at all above deceit and subterfuge to get the deed done, and will readily contrive along with scheming relatives, in-laws, etc. to sneak the children away and do the deed in secret. What is the Christian spouse/parent to do?

Hopefully, with that as introduction, the answer will cover the topic sufficiently.

VW ANSWER:
Yes... this is the 'fun' part of the unequal yoke, eh. And indeed, catholics are -very- militant about things being done 'their' way. (If only, Christians in general would be as militant for God's Truth!)

Quite frankly...you may not be able to do anything to prevent the 'christening'. If you dig in your heels and absolutely 'refuse' to allow it, I would see one of a couple things happening: 1) You might find your husband wasn't as strongly catholic as you thought, or 2) your marriage could be in jeopardy. And if #2 ended in divorce, 'who' would get custody? Please keep this little question in mind as I proceed with this answer.

Paul exhorts the Believer in a mixed marriage to "not leave" the unsaved spouse. (1Co7:12-13) When one spouse is a Believer, the children are protected by an umbrella of sanctification. (vs14)

So, what about the catholic rituals? Well...water is water. Babies and children get baths on a regular basis, yes? And what is the difference between bath water, and the water in a catholic "fountain"? Both are made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. As Paul says about meat offered to idols, where a Believer eats it without participation in the pagan sacrifices; he says to go ahead and buy "whatever is sold in the meat market" not worrying about the pagan rituals, "for the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness" (1Co10:25-26)

What if your in-laws sneak the children away and 'secretly' get them dabbed with water? For whose benefit is that? The children's, or the in-laws'? As long as -you- are a Believer, God's protection is on your children; and Jesus promised, "Behold, I give you authority....upon all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you." (Lk10:19) As long as you are a Believer, and are "diligently teaching" your children in the Law of God (De6:7), God will keep His promise.

It is a well-understood fact, by those who know human development, that a person's character is pretty much established by the age of 5 or 6. Think of Samuel...whatever his mother did in raising him until he went to serve at the tabernacle....he was one of the most faithful of all the prophets in Israel; he anointed David. Think of Moses....after he was weaned, he was then raised in pharaoh's court, and trained in all the paganism of the day. Remember, it was Egypt that had Ra, the sun god, and Isis and Horus...predecessors to Rome's madonna and child. In the movie "Ten Commandments" Charlton Heston acts out a (Hollywood) Moses that grows out of that system, in doubt of God's existence; but Heb11:24-26 tells us, "By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the temporary pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the recompense." That was at the age of 40; but he had been raised by his birth mother for scarcely a few years, until he was weaned, and THAT's what 'stuck' with him.

What your children grow up believing will be more related to how -you- train them up with the Bible...not some water that gets dabbed/poured over their heads, if that gets forced upon them against your will.

"Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Pr22:6)

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
Do you have any thoghts/ideas on the death penalty?

VW ANSWER:
Scripture is pretty clear.

"At the hand of every man’s brother I will require the soul of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." (Gen9:5-6) And later, in the Law through Moses, God specifies: "The kinsman avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death." (Nu35:19)

In the O.T. Law the death penalty was also for breaking other laws like Sabbath, kidnapping, sexual misconduct, etc. However, Jesus seems to 'soften' some of them somewhat, when he says to the woman caught "in the act" ... "neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (Jn8:11)

However....the matter of one human being inflicting danger upon the life of another human being...the penalty was given before Moses. God places great value upon the blood/soul/life of mankind, and covenanted the death penalty for breaking that sacred trust to honor the life God breathed into fellow-man...man having been created "in the image of God" (Gen1:27, 9:6)

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
Last Sunday (this one's been in my folder for several months) we sang "Amazing Love" ('..oh what sacrifice', not the old hymn). The worship leaders and congregation sang the projected lyrics "My debt He pays, and my death He dies." Do you see anything wrong with this? I did and emailed the music pastor. I haven't heard anything back yet (I don't *think* I'm nit-picking). Let me know what your response would be and what Scriptures you would use against these lyrics. Thanks,

VW ANSWER:
The problem I see is in the verb tenses. And I have known conservative pastors in my past who might have excused such a thing for "poetic license" reasons. Often, poetry will convey generic concepts, whilst being designed around the 'literary' concerns of the poetry or other writing....where things like grammar and verb tenses might be compromised for the sake of "literature" (rhyming and meter, etc) However, I have a problem with that.

Certainly, Jesus paid "my debt". That's what "propitiation" is all about. (Rom3:25, 1Jn2:2,4:10) "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2Co5:21) The wages (consequences) of sin is "death". (Rom6:23) When Jesus died, "we were buried with Him through immersion into death" (Rom6:4, Col2:12)

When Jesus was crucified, spiritually we were "crucified with Christ" (Ga2:20) The promise of our resurrection is due to our "fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death" (Php3:10)

But this is all 'past' tense. It's a done deal. When the words of the song are 'present' tense, it begins to drift towards the catholic-esque doctrine of the "ever-bleeding-Jesus". They teach that His "wounds are -still- open....they are -still- bleeding" Thus, one of their primary icons is the crucifix, showing Jesus with crown of thorns, blood coming out his wounds, etc. In their mass they continually RE-crucify Jesus, "exposing Him to public disgrace" (Heb6:6)

(Although, the catholic mass isn't about Jesus at all; it is about the ancient pagan sun-worship; which is what the 'round' wafer of the 'host' is about.)

Jesus offered Himself "once for all". (Heb7:27, 9:12,26, 10:10, 1Pet3:18) and now "Christ has been raised from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." (1Co15:20)

And this gospel, this "faith" has been delivered (preached) to us "once for all" (Ju1:3)

It's a DONE-DEAL. Jesus proclaimed to all creation: "It has been finished" (Jn19:30) And it is sooo a done-deal, that Paul proclaimed the presentation of anything new/different/other, than "what we HAVE PREACHED", to be "accursed" (Ga1:8-9)

That's the 'problem' I have with the lyrics. It is too 'catholic', and not Scriptural.

READER FOLLOW-UP:
Thanks for confirming this, and in greater depth than I would have thought of. My note to the music pastor was simply that with "pays" and "dies" in the present tense, this is something He continues to do, which we know is false: Romans 6:10 "The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God." (NKJV) 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"

That I could hear everyone around me proclaiming in song that 'Jesus DIES our death' without hesitation it is alarming. A rampant lack of discernment and shrugging off the "minor details" like this is killing the modern church.

VW: Amen!

[Top]