The Purpose Driven Blog
Virgin Birth on Trial

The Great Triad Mystery

An objective evaluation of both Old and New Testaments will reveal that the authors, building and enlarging upon the expectations of their predecessors, worked in sequence towards an ultimate goal - the establishment of an ideal kingdom  - the Kingdom of God on earth.

It was only after many years of bitter controversies that the Triad of 'mystery' doctrines - Trinity, Miraculous Incarnation and Transubstantiation - came to be regarded as 'truths' necessary for salvation.

In reality, they serve no other purpose than to confuse the issues and to make appreciation of the 'kingdom' plan impossible.

That these 'mysteries' have their origins in sources far removed from the bible should be obvious to any student of ancient history.

An exhortation of the New Testament is to "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." (I Thess 5:21). A wise injunction - one to which I subscribe. One which will form the basis of our examination of church doctrines.

Most reasonable people would reject the notion that all is hidden in 'mystery'. If they are followers of Jesus of Nazareth, they are quite entitled to expect that there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed. (Luke 8:17)

Coming up: Virgin Birth on Trial



Can you cite where Transubstantiation "came to be regarded as a 'truth' necessary for salvation?"

Now I'm Southern Baptist so I'm nowhere near as up on the Cathecisms as I am the Bible, but the only beliefs necessary for salvation that ever came up were in Romans 10:9

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

(the same requirement for a belief in Jesus is found in John 3:16 as well)

Random asides:
1) Confession/forgiveness of sins are also considered requirements in addition the belief and confession requirements listed above.

2) A belief in Miraculous Incarnation is somewhat implicit in a belief in Christ's divinity which is necessary for truthful profession that one believes Jesus is Lord so I'm not arguing that point.

3)I'm also not arguing that the Trinity is regarded as a truth necessary for salvation as The Trinity is implicit to Christ's divinity and the Miraculous Incarnation - i.e., Christ as God's Son whose presence on the earth was brought about through/from the Holy Spirit, see Matthew 1:18 "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

4) The closest thing I know of to a statement by the Catholic Church that transubstantiation is necessary for salvation is the profession from the 4th Lateran Council (see But even that doesn't say that transubstantiation is necessary for salvation. But then again, I'm not Catholic so I don't know all things Catholic.

5) There is a lot of Biblically unsupported assertions in the 4th Lateran Profession (e.g., Mary the ever Virgin and the concept of Transubstantiation which I said before rests on a faulty, though not unsupported, interpretation of the Bible).

Vynette Holliday

Transubstantiation was 'canonised' at the THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (11 October 1551) Session 13, Chapter 4

“Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 1642).


Canon 1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.



I'm glad I'm not Catholic because I would be anathemized. However there is at least some humor in being excommunicated over differing interpretations of communion.

The comments to this entry are closed.