1. The Origin of the Papacy

I am as many already know on face book and other sites as well as this site , Purely Presbyterian, as an ex Roman Catholic and a convert to the Reformed faith and Protestantism, I am since 2010 a Presbyterian. J.A. Wylie
Book I. History of the Papacy. was one of the first books I read while investigating Protenant denominations after I left Roman Catholicism in 2006.When i first read Wylie’s statement “Popery, then, we hold to be an after-growth of Paganism,” I thought I can agree completely. One of the reason I left the Roman catholic church was my disdain for the papacy of Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI. I agreed completely and really felt the same way as JA Wylie when he said That principle received the most fearful development Popery is the last, the most matured, the most subtle, the most the the papacy was skillfully contrived, and the most essentially diabolical form of idolatry which the world ever saw, i knew then that I was really already a protestant. I now Believe the pope is the antichrist and that the papacy is an evil antichrist institution. As a Presbyterian and Reformed Protestant I now follow and subscribe to the 1647 Westminster Confession and Standards

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 25.6
vi. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

One of the great heresies of the Roman Catholic Church is their exaltation of a man to the place of Christ. The Pope or Bishop of Rome takes the title “Vicar of Jesus Christ,” meaning that he acts as Christ’s representative, ruling as the supreme head of the church on earth. He is also called “Pontifex Maximus,” meaning supreme or great high priest (Lev. 21:10, Vulgate), but the Bible says our great high priest is Jesus, the Son of God (Heb. 4:14). Invoking the authority of Peter, the Pope claims to speak infallibly on matters of faith or life, placing his own words on the level of the words of Christ.

The Lord Jesus warned that “false Christs, and false prophets” will come (Matt. 24:24). Paul foretold that the coming of the “man of sin, the son of perdition” who would exalt himself to the place of God in the temple (2 Thess. 2:3-4). The Westminster divines believed (and make a good case for their beliefs in their frequent writings on this subject!) that the office of the Papacy (not any one individual Pope) fulfilled these prophecies, asserting its claim to rule the universal church, which is the New Testament temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16).
Thus the Westminster Confession closes its chapter on the church with a solemn warning. Christ alone is the head of His church. He who dares to usurp Christ’s place becomes an enemy of Christ.

I now believe that the papacy is an antichrist institution and I concur most with JA Wylie when he says that “Papal idolatry is a more subtle, complicated, malignant, and perfected system than Pagan idolatry was.”

Today I am by God’s grace alone a Reformed Protestant, a Presbyterian; and I subscribe to the original Westminster Confession of faith. I believe and agree that the pope is The Antichrist: The Foremost and Most Formidable Foe of the Church. I am as many already know on face book and other sites on the internet an ex Roman Catholic and a convert to the Reformed faith and Protestantism. I became a Presbyterian by public affirmation of faith in October 2010. I have renounced Roman Catholic teachings which contradict or over ride the scriptures. I renounced any and all allegiance to the Pope of Rome. I have become a staunch Reformed Protestant. I wish to share the following which is a very good excerpt from JA Wylie on the origin of the papacy and its pagan idea of the pope, Bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of Christ’s church. I believe as most of the 16th century Reformers that the office of the papacy is an evil institution and the office of the pope is Antichrist. ~ Dudley Davis ~

“I am now completely Protestant in Doctrine and Conviction”

I just completed an intense study of the Protestant doctrine of faith alone. I am a former Roman catholic and have been a Presbyterian now for almost 6 years. I have renounced all Roman catholic teachings which contradict the scriptures. I am now convinced and believe it is by Grace alone we are saved,and that grace opens us to have faith alone in Christ alone which is the true message of the Gospel of salvation. It is Scripture alone which is our only and final authority, not the pope of Rome or any man, only Jesus Christ heads His church. I believe all praise and glory belongs to God alone and not Mary or the Roman Catholic saints. I am now completely Protestant in doctrine and conviction.

I also now believe that the way that I understand the Gospel is that we are saved by faith alone apart from any works. I think that is the way that the Gospel needs to be preached and understood. In my notes I wrote a paper last year on the subject called “The Roman Catholic view of Justification and the Protestant view is a strong dividing line between being RC and being Protestant”

I realize now as an ex Roman catholic that I was brainwashed with teachings which were not biblical and defied the true message of salvation. I found tonight the following list of verses about being saved by faith. I took note that faith and works are contrasted. In other words, we are saved by faith “not by works” and “apart from works”, etc. The point is that there are only two options. We are saved by faith alone or we are not. Since we have faith and works (both conceptually and in practice), then we are either saved by faith alone or by faith and works. There is no other option.

If we see that the scriptures exclude works in any form as a means of our salvation, then logically, we are saved by faith alone. I took a look at what the Bible says about faith and works. Last year we did a study of Romans in our bible class. Saved by faith alone is all throughout Romans. Roman Catholicism uses as the argument for faith and works James statement in James 2:24 I also looked again at James’ statement about “faith alone” which was always used by the RCC as an argument against the Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone and I will state what I believe is the misinterpretation Rome gives or implies with James.

Rom. 3:28-30, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.” Rom. 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,” Rom. 5:1, “therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” Rom. 9:30, “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.” Rom. 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Rom. 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Gal. 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. Gal. 3:5-6, “Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Gal. 3:24, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.” Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9 Not by works, lest any man should boast.” Phil. 3:9, “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”

Again, works/Law is contrasted with faith repeatedly and we are told that we are not justified by works in any way. Therefore, we are made right with God by faith, not by faith and our works; hence, faith alone.

James 2:24, not by faith alone…..or the misinterpretation Rome gives. The scriptures clearly teach that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on the cross. This faith alone saves us. However, we cannot stop here without addressing what James says in James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” There is no contradiction. All you need to do is look at the context. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works. James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14 ). In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith, a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt. It is empty of life and action. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that type of faith isn’t any different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by actions. Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man, but not to God. In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, “Faith without works is dead,” (James 2:20). But, he is not contradicting the verses above that says salvation/justification is by faith alone.

The Roman catholic church so sadly distorts the true message of salvation. I can now say as John says: “I confess that through my faith in Jesus Christ I have full assurance of salvation” (1 John 5:11-13).

I know now “I am saved” not that I will be saved. I think I am beginning to shed some of the last false teachings of Roman Catholicism which had lead me to almost loosing faith altogether. Dudley A Davis Jr

“What does it mean to be Reformed?” ~ Dudley Davis ~

Some people have asked me why I became a Presbyterian. I thought the following piece I wrote a while back answers the question. I am Reformed Christian and a Presbyterian because its theology of free grace, pure grace and total grace. I am Presbyterian because it basis its beliefs on scripture, not traditions as does Roman Catholicism. It does not teach that membership in a church is the means of salvation. I was at one time a Roman catholic but became a Presbyterian, a Reformed Protestant, when I discovered reading the New Testament scriptures; that being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. It means being a member of the body of Christ, which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn’t forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn’t forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn’t forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. In Reformed Protestant theology the church is there to guide us but the church does not save, it offers Christian fellowship but Jesus alone saves. Jesus alone is Lord. Only Jesus’ sacrifice can cleanse us. Only by faith are we made right before God. Justification is by faith–not by anything we do. There are no meritorious works that we can do to save ourselves. Reformed theology places one’s salvation on the unmerited grace of God alone, by faith alone in Christ alone. It is really that simple and it answers the question one may ask; “What does it mean to be Reformed?” ~ Dudley Davis ~

“I am happy today and have peace of mind as a Reformed Protestant and a member of the Presbyterian Church”

I am as many know a former Roman Catholic and a convert to the Reformed Faith. I left Roman Catholicism in 2006 after studying the scriptures. I explored and studied the Protestant reformers and the major Protestant denominations till 2010. In 2010 after discovering John Calvin and John Knox and the theology of the free grace and the Reformed faith and meeting several times with then pastor Steve Davis; I decided to join the Manasquan Presbyterian Church and make an affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian. I made my affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian on October 24th 2010. My conversion was a gradual process over many years reading the scriptures and also I believe by the grace of God alone. I wish to share what I have come to believe as a Christian and a Presbyterian.

I came to discover more about who I am and learned the truth of salvation as a Presbyterian and a member of the Manasquan Presbyterian Church. My eyes were opened to the truth of salvation and the Gospel of grace as taught in the Reformed Faith, that it is by the free grace of God alone which we are saved.

What is grace? Grace is God’s gift of salvation to us – unmerited by us. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” Eph. 2:8 Also as a Roman catholic I always felt a sense of guilt and that anything that went wrong was God punishing me for my sins. I always felt guilty. I had what a councilor told me was catholic guilt. The term “Catholic guilt” is generally used to describe the feelings of remorse or conflict in people who are or were raised Catholic. Sometimes this guilt is associated with specific church teachings, since when people feel that they have violated their faith’s laws they tend to feel guilty about it. “Roman Catholic guilt” is an obsessive feeling that anything that goes awry is your fault because you’ve done something bad.

According to Roman Catholicism, justification is a process in which God’s grace is poured forth into the sinner’s heart, making that person progressively more righteous. During this process, it is the sinner’s responsibility to preserve and increase that grace by various good works. The means by which justification is initially obtained is not faith, but the sacrament of baptism. Furthermore, justification is forfeited whenever the believer commits a mortal sin, such as hatred or adultery. In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, then, works are necessary both to begin and to continue the process of justification. The error in the Catholic Church’s position on justification may be summed up in this way. Scripture presents justification as instantaneous, not gradual. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:24). Eternal life is the present possession of all who believe—and by definition eternal life cannot be lost. The one who believes immediately passes from spiritual death to eternal life, because that person is instantaneously justified (see Rom. 5:1, 9; 8:1). I began to see that the Roman Catholic view of Justification and the Protestant view is a strong dividing line between being Roman Catholic and being Protestant.

Any Gospel that preaches “Jesus and” is a false and misleading Gospel. When I was raised as a Roman Catholic we were taught that the Protestant fold fell away from the truth. I now can see lock, stock and barrel it was Rome that fell away from the truth and it was truly the Reformers who restored the church to the truth of the Gospel, “PROTESTED” all the nonsense Rome added and restored the church to the way it was intended to by adhering to the Gospel message of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone and his redemptive act on Calvary for all who place faith in Him alone for salvation and not Rome’s heretical additions.

There are clear distinctions between what the Holy Bible says and what Roman Catholic doctrine says. Both cannot be correct! As Protestant I now rebel and PROTEST the false teachings of Rome and I am Obedient to the word of God alone, the scriptures alone which are only and final authority, not the pope of Rome or any man. The Bible teaches that justification means righteousness is imputed, not infused. Righteousness is “reckoned,” or credited to the account of those who believe (Rom. 4:3–25). They stand justified before God not because of their own righteousness (Rom. 3:10), but because of a perfect righteousness outside themselves that is reckoned to them by faith (Phil. 3:9). Where does that perfect righteousness come from? It is God’s own righteousness (Rom 10:3), and it is the believer’s in the person of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ’s own perfect righteousness is credited to the believer’s personal account (Rom. 5:17, 19), just as the full guilt of the believer’s sin was imputed to Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). The only merit God accepts for salvation is that of Jesus Christ; nothing man can ever do could earn God’s favor or add anything to the merit of Christ. As I studied scripture further I saw it clearly teaches that man is justified by faith alone, not by faith plus works. According to the Apostle Paul, “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom. 11:6). Elsewhere Paul testifies, “By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9, emphasis added; see Acts 16:31 and Rom. 4:3–6). In fact, it is clearly taught throughout Scripture that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28; see Gal. 2:16; Rom. 9:31–32; 10:3). In contrast, Roman Catholicism places an undue stress on human works. Catholic doctrine denies that God “justifies the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5) without first making them godly. Good works therefore become the ground of justification. Roman Catholic doctrine and liturgy obscure the essential truth that the believer is saved by grace alone through faith alone and not by his own works (Eph. 2:8-9). In a simple sense, Catholics genuinely believe they are saved by doing good, confessing sin, and observing RC rituals, the mass and other ceremonies.

Adding works to faith as the grounds of justification is precisely the teaching that Paul condemned as “a different gospel” (see 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6). It nullifies the grace of God, for if meritorious righteousness can be earned through the sacraments, “then Christ died needlessly” (Gal. 2:21). Any system that mingles works with grace, then, is “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6), a distorted gospel that is not biblically correct. (Gal. 1:9), the Roman Catholic view on justification sets it apart as a wholly different gospel than the true Christian faith, for it is antithetical to the simple gospel of grace as taught in the bible and the Reformed faith. I have peace of mind and no weight of guilt because of the grace of God alone and I am assured salvation as such and not by any meritorious works that I might do. This does not mean that I do not do good works; I now do good works because I am a Christian and a follower of Christ’s Gospel that is also known as sanctification in the Reformed faith. I do good works and I have a peace of mind that I did not have as a Roman catholic. I am happy today and have peace of mind as a Reformed Protestant and a member of the Presbyterian Church. I have posted this comment as a post on my own fb page and on other sites under the title “Letting Go of Roman Catholic Guilt and Truly Becoming Protestant” as a testimony of my Christian faith and what it really means to be a Christian and what I have found to be true as a Presbyterian. I have found that God’s gift of salvation to us is free grace– unmerited by us. Eph. 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” ~ Dudley Davis ~

What I Believe Concerning The Lords Supper

I am an ex Roman Catholic and convert to Reformed Protestant I am a Presbyterian. Regarding the Lords Supper I now believe the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is repugnant to the true nature of the sacrament of the Lords Supper as is the ritualistic Roman Catholic mass! It has also led to so many superstitious practices.

I believe as a Presbyterian as John Calvin taught. Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.

I believe as a Presbyterian Christ’s presence in the Supper but as spiritual for the supper is spiritual food for the soul

I believe as Calvin taught is spiritual food for the soul, not carnal food for the body. According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, what Zwingli taught). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify, transubstantiation taught by the Roman catholic church.. Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

Roman Catholics are taught to believe that the bread wafer is transubstantiated, changed into the actual body of Christ at their ritualistic RC mass. He is again re -sacrificed at every RC ritual mass. They often practice another ritual after the mass called adoration of the blessed sacrament. Vatican II tried to eliminate this ritualistic practice but under the papacy of Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger, this blasphemous and abominable desecration of the Lords Supper was brought back. I am as many now know an ex Roman catholic. I am now a Presbyterian and I deny the Roman Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation. I renounce it as I renounced all the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. As a Presbyterian I believe that The Lords Supper is a memorial of His sacrifice and we do it as He commanded to do in remembrance of Him. I believe as a Presbyterian that Christ becomes present in Communion spiritually for the Lords Supper is food for the soul but I also believe the bread remains bread and the wine or juice remains wine or juice. As a Protestant I do not believe and I now reject completely the RC teaching called transubstantiation. I will demonstrate why the Roman Catholic is wrong. Here is the passage Roman Catholics use to justify the false teaching of transubstantiation:

John 6:48 “I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”

I have read a lot about this argument and I have sided with protestant theologians who argue in the following way:

I believe it is seriously flawed. I believe that it is taken out of the context of the entire book of John and bears a burden that it cannot sustain on exegetical and theological grounds.

There are two reasons why:

1. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.
   The people in John 6 were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in His talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements. It is true, Christ did not correct them. But this is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. As Peter demonstrates, it is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life (John 6:68). Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10). The rest He let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.

But why didn’t He simply correct their misunderstanding in this case? For the same reason He does not throughout the book of John. He often says things that are open to misinterpretation and then leaves His listeners in their confusion. Notice these examples
a. John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘what sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
Notice, Christ was not being literal here yet He did not correct the misunderstanding. This misunderstanding eventually leads to His conviction and death.

1. John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
   Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).
2. Another important Roman Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all. Obviously if we took the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and believed John included this passage to communicate that believers must eat the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, you would expect John to have recorded the events that it foreshadows. You would expect John to have a historical record of the Last Supper, the inaugurating meal of the Eucharist. But John does not. What an oversight by John! In fact, John is the only Gospel writer that did not record the Last Supper. Therefore, it is very unlikely that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation. Remember John wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s Supper.

The brief questions that I have for those who believe that Christ’s words must be taken literally are these which are related:
Do you take Christ’s words literally when he said “This is my body” (toute estin to soma mou)? If so, since the verb “is” (estin) is in the present tense, do you believe that it was his body at the time of the original Lord’s Supper? If not, why are you at liberty to take it non-literally here, but insist that it is literal otherwise? In other words, how could not be literal here, but be literal after Christ’s death? If so, don’t you think this is a violation of Chalcedon? ~ Dudley Davis ~ another reason why I am now a Presbyterian and no longer a Roman catholic.

~ see my note “A” below:

A:The Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D) according to the Center for Reformed Theology. CRTA.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Regarding the Lords supper as I said in the beginning of my post “I now believe the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is repugnant to the true nature of the sacrament of the Lords Supper as is the ritualistic Roman Catholic mass! It has also led to so many superstitious practices.” ~ Dudley Davis ~

I believe as a Presbyterian as John Calvin taught. Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.

I believe as a Presbyterian Christ’s presence in the Supper but as spiritual for the supper is spiritual food for the soul

I believe as Calvin taught is spiritual food for the soul, not carnal food for the body. According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, what Zwingli taught). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify, transubstantiation taught by the Roman catholic church.. Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

~ Dudley Davis ~ ex Roman Catholic and now a convert to the Reformed faith. Today I am a Reformed Protestant. I PROTEST this and all the false teachings of The Roman Catholic Church.

I am a former Roman Catholic and by Gods grace alone now a Reformed Protestant, a Presbyterian

• I am today a Protestant and as a Presbyterian I believe I have come to know more about who I am. I am as many know a former Roman Catholic and a convert to the Reformed Faith. My conversion was a gradual process over many years reading the scriptures and also I believe by God’s grace alone. I am a Reformed Christian and a Presbyterian because its theology of free grace, a gift from our creator and something that is not earned. The Presbyterian church does not save, it offers Christian fellowship but your faith alone in Christ alone saves. Only by faith are we made right before God. Justification is by faith–not by anything we do. There are no meritorious works that we can do to save ourselves. Reformed theology places one’s salvation on the unmerited grace of God alone, by faith alone in Christ alone. I explored and studied the Protestant reformers and the major Protestant denominations for several years. In 2010 after discovering John Calvin and John Knox and the theology of the free grace and the Reformed faith and meeting several times with then pastor Steve Davis; I decided to join the Manasquan Presbyterian Church and make an affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian. I made my affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian on October 24th 2010. As a Presbyterian I have peace of mind and no weight of guilt because of the grace of God alone and I am assured salvation. I will add that I am a Moderate Calvinist/Free Grace/ Firm Believer in the Eternal Security of the Believer. I subscribe to Westminster Confession of Faith which is the traditional formal statement of doctrinal belief for Presbyterians of what the scriptures teach for scripture is only and final authority.~ Dudley Davis ~