Doubt and Confusion Concerning the Holy Spirit as a Person

by Cris Putnam
question-markEver since George Lucas’ Star Wars, there has been an increasing tendency in evangelicalism to think of the Holy Spirit akin to “the Force.”  In the culture at large, it is even worse. According to recent Pew Forum statistics 25% of Americans who believe in God, think of God as an impersonal force.[1] Amongst Christians, doctrine of the trinity leads to similar confusion. The classical understanding is one God in three persons. However, many evangelicals tend to view the Holy Spirit as a force employed by God the Father. In his seminal Christian Theology, Millard Erickson noted, “We are not dealing here with an impersonal force. This point is especially important at a time in which pantheistic tendencies are entering Western culture through the influence of Eastern religions.”[2]  I documented the influx of pantheistic thought through the work of Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in Exo-Vaticana. In a recent Facebook discussion, doubt was expressed concerning the personhood of the Holy Spirit based on the following argument:

Many will point to Scriptures like John 14:26 as proof that the Holy Spirit is a person:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 KJV)

The problem is, the Greek word used here for “he” is ekeinos (Strong’s 1565), which is a demonstrative pronoun that means “that, that one there, yonder” as opposed to the standard pronoun autos (Strong’s # 846), which is a personal pronoun meaning, “he, she, it, they, them, same” as seen repeatedly for instance in 1 John 3:24:

And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (1 John 3:24 KJV)


This is a poor argument. What is defined as “the problem” above is John’s use of ἐκεῖνος which means “that” or “that one.” The force of the argument is that if John wanted us to understand a male person he would have simply used αὐτός which translates “he, she, it” depending on grammatical gender. It implies his choice of the demonstrative imparts ambiguity upon the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but this is simply not so and reflects a lack of understanding basic Greek grammar.

Greek employs a lot more pronoun forms than English: personal, reflexive, demonstrative, indefinite, interrogative, relative and reciprocal.  Demonstratives are used when the author wants to communicate where something is in relation to the speaker/writer and there are two forms near and far. In this case, it was a distance in time.


 demonstrative pronoun. n. A pronoun that serves as a pointer or indicates where something is in relation to the speaker/writer (Lat. demonstrare, “to point out”). Near demonstratives (this and these) speak of things that are relatively close; far demonstratives (that and those), of things that are relatively distant. The latter are sometimes distinguished as demonstrative adjectives.[3]


John chose to use a demonstrative pronoun in John 14:26 because the Holy Spirit was not yet present, but in Greek there is no ambiguity concerning gender because he chose the masculine form. What is important is that John could have chosen the neuter form (and technically should have) but he didn’t for a reason.  After the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, it makes sense that 3rd person singular would be used rather than a demonstrative pronoun. Attested in 1 Corinthians 12:11, which states that the recipients of the various spiritual gifts are “the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.” (βούλομαι, verb, present,  middle/passive, indicative, third person, singular) When Jesus spoke the Holy Spirit had not yet come, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he had. This demonstrates that simply using a concordance to translate Greek words to English is not sufficient for biblical exegesis.

What makes this particularly dangerous is that these types of misunderstandings have a long checkered history of spawning cults. In apologetic theology a cult is defined:


A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.[4]


The personhood of the Holy Spirit is a central doctrine of classical Christianity. Denying it qualifies as a cultic belief akin to other groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Theology is important. Matt Slick has a nice outline detailing the biblical basis for the classic doctrine of the Spirit here.


[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 875–876.

[3] Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 44.

[4] Alan Gomes, Unmasking the Cults (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 7.

The Date and Historical Reliability of Acts

By Cris Putnam

Ministry of the Apostles - Fyodor Zubov (1689)

Ministry of the Apostles – Fyodor Zubov (1689)

The dating and authorship of Acts is connected to the date for the Gospel of Luke since Acts is the second of a two volume work by the same author. It was not unusual in Greek, Latin, and Jewish works for an author to divide into volumes as in the case of Luke/Acts.[1] This is evidenced clearly in that both are written for the benefit of a person named Theophilus and Acts begins by referring, “In the first book…” (Acts 1:1).  Many critical scholars date Acts in the 80s mainly due to an anti-supernatural bias concerning Jesus prophecy about the surrounding of Jerusalem in Luke 21. They reason that If Luke is post AD 70 then Acts is even later.[2] However, it is highly significant that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem as fulfilled prophecy, Nero’s persecution or the execution of Paul.  These events are monumental milestones in Christian history yet Acts ends abruptly with Paul still in prison, no discussion of Nero and no mention of the fall of Jerusalem. The most logical conclusion is that the events had not yet occurred.[3] The abrupt ending with Paul still in jail seems decisive. Thus, conservative scholars date Acts in the early sixties. Authorship is not as contentious.

There are compelling reasons to accept Luke as the author. It reads like the author of Acts was present during some of the events he narrates. For instance, during the trip from Troas to Philippi on Paul’s first missionary journey the author uses “we” as if he were there (16:10–17).[4] Evidence in Paul’s letters reveals Luke accompanied Paul (Col 4:14). Furthermore, the uniform testimony of the early church that Luke was the author of the third gospel and of Acts is undisputed.[5] Although Luke was a Gentile he had familiarity with Greek Old Testament.  He had excellent Greek, research and writing skills. He was familiar with the genre of historical writing in the Hellenistic style.[6]  In fact the word, “Acts,” inferred a recognized genre for books that described the great deeds of people or cities.[7] As far as historical detail the book has demonstrated remarkable accuracy. Luke uses the specific correct terms for Roman officials (Acts 18:12; 23:26) and the use of the correct nautical terminology in the account of Paul’s shipwreck has been verified.[8]

A late nineteenth century skeptical archeologist, Sir William Ramsay, started out to prove that Acts was a second century work of fiction and was persuaded by his findings to the contrary. He concluded, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”[9] This has been corroborated by the work of modern scholars like Colin Hemer.[10] Because of the accuracy in general details which can be checked is established, we have justification to trust the rest.[11]  One argument for Luke’s accuracy in capturing the words of the apostles is that Peter’s sermon summaries in Acts use idiomatic Greek expressions that also appear in 1 Peter.[12] Finally, the issues of date and author are important because they assure us that our faith is based on reality. Biblical faith is not a leap into the dark or wishful thinking. Rather, it is more akin to earned trust. Like Ramsay’s conclusions because Luke has proven trustworthy in what we can see and verify we have cause to trust him in what we cannot verify.

Here is a nice video from the YouTuber Shazoolo:


[1]Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Volume 2: John, Acts. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 223.

[2]D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 297.

[3]Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament : Its Background and Message, 2nd ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 283.

[4]Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 290.

[5]D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 291.

[6]Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Volume 2: John, Acts. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 221.

[7]Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 285.

[8]Lea and Black, The New Testament,  286.

[9]Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006), 93.

[10] Lea and Black, The New Testament, 286.

[11]I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 1970), 69.

[12] Lea and Black, The New Testament, 284.

Slaughtering a Sacred Cow: the KJVonly Argument From Psalm 12

By Cris Putnam
KJV sacred cowA “sacred cow” is an idiom taken from Hindu bovine worship, a practice that Christians consider idolatry. We also call something a sacred cow if its devotees consider it immune from question or criticism. For many fundamentalist Christians the King James Translation has become a sacred cow. Unfortunately, a great many people have been indoctrinated from childhood with scare tactics and fallacious arguments and never meaningfully question what has come to be known as “King James Onlyism” or KJVonlyism.

For an example of the fear based argumentation I am referring to, examine the webpage at Chick Productions here.  I am not intending to simply make fun of these people and I have a lot in common with them. I went to a KJV only Christian school for one year of high school so I really do care about the people. That eleventh grade year at Friendship Christian School led me to believe that most Christians were mind controlled and incapable of critical thinking. I’ve grown to see I was wrong about a great deal but, sadly, some of my adolescent analysis was accurate.

Fear based false beliefs are called “strong holds” in the Bible and part of my call to ministry is the destruction of strongholds (2 Cor. 10:4). This is not an attack on the Bible or even the King James Version. Rather, it is an attack on a false idea about the Bible—a stronghold—I am slaughtering a sacred cow. Here is the primary argument you will see repeatedly used by the KJVonlyist:

Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that “. . . . his truth endureth to all generations,” and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God’s WORD is truth.’

These words state very clearly that God’s preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere.[1]

Similarly, in a discussion on Facebook a fellow asked me, “If God can’t keep His word pure (as he promised in Psalm 12), how can I trust Him to keep ME?” You can see the dangerous nature of such indoctrination in that his faith is hinged precariously on something as fragile as the absolute perfection of a seventeenth century translation. The same fellow later commented, “No. I’m thinking if I can’t trust any of the versions to be accurate, PERFECTLY, then why bother. Either God is able or He isn’t.”  (Use of all caps reflects that I copied this directly from a real conversation).

How do you respond to this without destroying someone’s faith? Well first of all it is unfortunate that his faith is in the wrong thing. I believe this is idolatry or perhaps bibliolatry. These folks have made an idol out of the King James Bible. Next, notice the selfish demands placed on God. “If God will not meet my requirements, then why bother?” That is quite a presumption. It reminds me of the atheists who say, “If God wants me to believe in Him, then he should appear to me.”

Is it wise to make demands of God …or else?

You might get an answer like, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2)

I realize many of you might be thinking, “Hold on a minute! God promised he would do this in Psalm 12, so this is not an unreasonable expectation.” Indeed, that is the crux of the KJVonlyist argument.However, it is riddled with errors and assumptions.

First, even if the Lord promised to preserve his words, (I do believe he has preserved them) the words the Psalmist was referring to were Hebrew words not 17th century English words. It also begs the question of where God’s preserved words were before 1611? What about non-English speaking countries? But the argument’s worst flaw is actually more egregious than that erroneous assumption. It’s truly self-refuting.

Unfortunately, in this case the King James translation leads one to misunderstand the Psalm in a fundamental way. This is why serious Bible students put in the effort to gain at least some minimal competence in Hebrew and Greek exegesis. I am far from an expert but I have completed one year of biblical Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary as well as working through Dr. Michael Heiser’s training videos for Logos Bible software on my own (available here).

Using Logos’ interlinear Hebrew Bible, it took me less than five minutes to see that they misinterpret Psalm 12. To understand why a brief explanation of basic grammar is helpful. In Hebrew, all nouns have what is called grammatical gender. Many languages like French and Spanish do as well. It serves as a grammatical function more than a commentary on sexual gender. Part of that function is to clarify what or who a pronoun is signifying. Accordingly, a pronoun should match its antecedent in gender and number.

For example,  if I say in English “My wife went to the store.” I would choose a feminine pronoun to continue, “She bought milk.” The antecedent “wife” is female, so “she” is correct and “he” is not.  Number is similar; in this case, both are singular. However, if I wrote “The women went to the store.”  The pronoun would be “They bought milk.” Now let’s analyze the passage in light of Hebrew grammar.

The words of the LORD are pure words (noun, common, feminine, plural):

as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them (pronoun, 3rd person, masculine, plural),

O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

(Ps 12:6–7, KJV)

The genders are parsed from the Hebrew text. Here is the passage from the Hebrew Bible:


            אִֽמֲר֣וֹת יְהוָה֮ אֲמָר֪וֹת טְהֹ֫ר֥וֹת כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֭רוּף בַּעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֝זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם׃

            אַתָּֽה־יְהוָ֥ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ׀ מִן־הַדּ֖וֹר ז֣וּ לְעוֹלָֽם׃


Here are the parsings:

Noun, Common, Feminine, Plural  “words”   —-   אֲמָר֪וֹת

Pronoun, Suffixed, 3rd person, Masculine, Plural —-   הֵם   is suffixed on תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם

For their argument to work, “them” must match “words.” However, in verse 6 “words” is grammatically feminine and the pronoun “them” in verse 7 is grammatically masculine. So the pronoun “them” is not referring to “words” but rather the poor and needy (masculine, plural) that are mentioned above in verse 5 (Ps 12:5). In fact, this is one passage where the NIV (cue foreboding music) has a vastly superior rendering to the KJV.

Psalm 12:6–7 (NIV):

And the words of the Lord are flawless,

like silver purified in a crucible,

like gold refined seven times.

You, Lord, will keep the needy safe

and will protect us forever from the wicked,


Don’t place your faith in sacred cows.


[1] “How I Know That The King James Bible Is The Word Of God,” accessed 8/17/2013.

[2] Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology; Bible. O.T. Hebrew. Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit. (Logos Bible Software, 2006), Ps 12:7–8.

Why the King James is Not a Perfect Inspired Translation

KJVThe King James Bible translation was great piece of work for its day but is it really the perfect infallible word of God for all time? I do not think so. Due to archeology and scholarship, we have gained a lot of knowledge about the ancient world since 1611 and modern Bibles reflect this much more accurate and informed scholarship. For example, the Masoretic text of the Old Testament dates to AD 1000 but today we have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls (with Old Testament fragments back to 200 BC) and thousands of Ugaritic and other texts that inform us about the context of the Old Testament. In 1611, this stuff was buried under ground. Translations like the ESV are far superior to the KJV because they reflect this new knowledge.

As far as the discussion concerning NT manuscripts, Dr. Dan Wallace has penned a fine essay here. What you will find is that the KJVonlyist arguments are very misleading and trade on fear. Studying church history reveals that scribes added things over time rather than taking them out. The verses KJVonly people claim have been removed are additions, usually by Catholic scribes.  We want to study the inspired word not a medieval Catholic’s additions (as in the case of 1 John 5:7 KJV).

If you like the King James Bible and prefer to use it then I have no problem with that. This post is directed toward those KJV-only people who argue that God inspired the KJV translators to preserve a perfect inerrant translation of his word in 1611. This idea is easily disproved but persists with a cultist tenacity.

I joined a Facebook group called “King James Bible Debate” but I quickly discovered the members did not really want to debate. After the numerous pleasantries concerning me being a Jesuit plant were offered, I presented an argument that went unanswered… silence…  and I mean crickets were chirping… a few red herrings and non sequiturs were proffered and, then I was hurriedly banned from the group ( I suppose for being Jesuit). It’s very revealing when a group must silence dissent in order to preserve the paradigm – it is how cults always operate. The argument that got me banned is as follows:


  1. The God of the Hebrews hates false gods (Judges 2:17; Jer. 14:22; 18:15).
  2. The Greek term pascha means ‘passover’ and the KJV translators rendered it as passover 28 times. “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” (Lk 22:1, AV)
  3. However, they rendered the same exact same term as “Easter” in Acts 12. “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”(Ac 12:4, AV)
  4. The English word “Easter” is derived from the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess, Ēostre, a form of the widely attested Indo-European dawn goddess. Saint Bede the Venerable, an Anglo-Saxon theologian, historian, and chronologist, best known today for his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum recorded in the 8th century that it was it derived from Eostre, or Eostrae, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring and fertility.
  5. The God of the Bible would never inspire a translator to name His holy feast day after a pagan goddess (Isaiah 42:8). This violates His character and holiness.

Therefore, the King James Bible is not a perfect inspired translation. This seems decisive enough to dismiss the central claim of the KJVonly cult but in light of a dispute over etymology I’ll offer one more argument that is similarly devastating to the “perfect translation” idea.

  1. When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he had an actual date and time in mind. There was no “Easter” celebration in Jerusalem in the AD 60s when Acts was composed. Luke meant the Jewish passover feast and it is well established that the early church celebrated Jesus resurrection during passover.

The paschal feast thus took place in the primitive Church at the same time as the Jewish Passover, that is, on the night of the 15th Nisan, and by the date rather than the day. The feast had, however, a very different character from the Jewish Passover, though without denying its derivation from this. [1]

  1. Due to replacement theology and anti-Semitism, the Council of Nicea defined Easter specifically so it was not on the date of the Jewish Passover. Constantine wrote:
  2. And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy for us to keep this most sacred feast following the custom of the Jews, a people who have soiled their hands in a most terrible outrage, and have thus polluted their souls, and are now deservedly blind. Since we have cast aside their way of calculating the date of the festival, we can ensure that future generations can celebrate this observance at the more accurate time which we have kept from the first day of the passion until the present time….  — Emperor Constantine, following the Council of Nicaea [2]

  3. Thus, by definition Easter does not denote the date that the inspired author Luke intended.

Therefore, the KJV is not a perfect inspired translation.

When your belief system is hinged on something as precarious as absolute perfection from a group of fallible men, one counterexample implodes the house of cards.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy applies to the original autographs written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. Although we do not have those originals, the science of textual criticism, as employed by Holy Spirit led scholars, gives a Greek New Testament text that we can confidently assess to be around 99% true to the originals in modern editions like the NA28. Translations are another matter. Some concepts in Hebrew and Greek do not translate to English directly, so no English translation is infallibly perfect, it is not even possible,  because they all must compromise at points. But thanks to hard working scholars and archeologists, we have a very accurate rendering of the ancient text that we can trust for all maters of faith and doctrine.


[1] Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 902.

[2] “Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter”

The Problem With the Roman Catholic Mass

By Cris Putnam
I find the Eucharist as it is postured by the Roman Catholic Church to be extremely problematic theologically and this post will explain my reasoning. I suspect few Catholic lay people are aware of what the priest believes he is doing during the ritual. John O’Brien’s popular Catholic apologetics work, The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, is considered a classic defense and accurate explanation of Roman Catholic faith and practice. What follows is a thorough explanation of the priest’s role in the EuchaFaith of Millionsrist:

The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. “No act is greater,” says St. Thomas, “than the consecration of the body of Christ.”[1] In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself.

When the priest pronounces his tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from his throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priests command.[2]

The quote above is outrageously blasphemous on a number of levels.  First, it seems sorcerous. An academic definition of magic is the “Attempt to influence or control people or events through supernatural forces. These forces are called upon by means of ceremonies, the recitation of spells, charms, incantations, and other forms of ritual,”[3] So it seems fair to examine the description and ask: “In the Mass, is the priest said to influence events, people, and things with ceremonies and the recitation of incantations to control supernatural forces?” Is this not something like ritual magic? Indeed, the priest is said to be even more powerful than angels and to have the authority of God, Himself! Not only does he control people or events, he allegedly controls Christ. The priest ostensibly reaches up into the heavens, knocks Him off His throne, and offers Him up on the  “altar as the eternal Victim.” I contend the priest has no such power and this reflects hubris of the highest order.

The sheer unmitigated gall it takes to even imagine ordering the sovereign Lord down from heaven in head-bowed obedience is beyond comprehension. Think about this passage before defending the Roman theology:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Col 1:15–18)

Do you really believe the sinful human priest orders the Creator of the Universe off his throne? A better question is whether another sacrifice for sins is necessary. What does the scripture say? Speaking of Christ, the Bible says, “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (Heb 7:26–27; underline added). The comparison in Hebrews is with the Old Testament priesthood who offered up animals for sin. The Bible could not be much clearer than “needeth not daily” and “for this he did once.” Once is the operative term which the Holy Spirit inspired repeatedly throughout Hebrews.

Rome’s theology is a one-hundred-and-eighty-degree inversion of what Hebrews unequivocally teaches, because the Eucharist is a sacrifice that is repeated day after day all over the world. Please consider another passage from Hebrews 9 (and just in case one might think there is a Protestant bias in the Authorized Version, this time I will quote from Rome’s sanctioned NAB translation):

For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf. Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own; if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice. Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him. (Hebrews 9:24–28, NAB)[4]

Oh, how we do eagerly await him! The passage speaks for itself and I only cited the NAB version to show that they are without excuse. It really could not be any clearer that the Roman mass is a disgraceful sacrilege. It really seems that God anticipated the apostasy of the Eucharist because yet again in Hebrews we read, “But this one offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated” (Heb 10:12–14). If you accept the authority of the Bible, there really is no possible way to reconcile the Roman sacrificial system.



[1] St. Thomas, Summa Theol., lib. III , q. 40, a4, 5.

[2] John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, New and rev. ed. (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1974), 255–256.

[3] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale reference library, 844.

[4] Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees, Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops and United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board, The New American Bible : Translated from the Original Languages With Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources and the Revised New Testament, Heb 9:24–28 (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1996, c1986).