Follow
As we explained several months ago in our entry, In Vain Do They Worship Me, Roman Catholics worship the elements of the Lord’s Supper, and because the bread of the Lord’s supper remains bread throughout, we do not hesitate to call our Roman Catholic acquaintances—and yes, even this writer’s own Roman Catholic family members—”bread worshipers.” This term is considered offensive to Roman Catholics but we do not shy away from it. As the Scripture says,
“he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto, …he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, ‘Deliver me; for thou art my god.’ … a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, ‘Is there not a lie in my right hand?'” (Isaiah 44:15-20)
The “bread god” in the priest’s right hand is a lie, and we will no more demur from calling the idol what it is than we will demur from preaching the Gospel, which is equally offensive to them. Much more offensive to us is their insistence that we join them in worshiping the work of their hands. The world cannot be fully converted, they say, until all men bend the knee to their bread idol.
From imploring the world to join her in the idolatry of Eucharistic adoration, Rome will not cease—at least not until that fateful day (Revelation 19:20). “The Eucharist,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life,'” and “is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life” (paragraphs 1324, 1407). Once the bread and wine are brought forward at Mass, they are ostensibly transubstantiated into the body and blood and soul and divinity of Christ which is then both sacrificed and adored:
“the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1350).
“Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with the worship of adoration. ‘To visit the Blessed Sacrament is . . . a proof of gratitude, an expression of love, and a duty of adoration toward Christ our Lord’ ” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1418).
The religion of Rome teaches therefore that Christ came to earth as a man in order to establish a religion that offers the Mass sacrifice to God for our sins, and adores the bread with incense on bended knee. Not only is the Eucharistic bread sacrifice the “heart and summit of the Church’s life,” but it is also the “source and summit” of all evangelism:
“From the perpetuation of the sacrifice of the Cross and her communion with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, the Church draws the spiritual power needed to carry out her mission. The Eucharist thus appears as both the source and the summit of all evangelization, since its goal is the communion of mankind with Christ.” (John Paul II, Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 22)
To justify the Eucharistic idolatry that is the heart and soul of Roman Catholicism as well as the source and summit of her evangelism, Rome’s apologists make much of the prophecy of Malachi 1:10-11. According to his prophecy, written in the 5th century B.C., the incense and sacrifices of the Jews were offensive to God, but the name of the Lord would one day be great among the Gentiles, who would offer to Him “incense … and a pure offering”:
“Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 1:10-11)
This, says Rome, is a prophecy of the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass, as depicted in the picture below, and for that reason Protestants are told to forsake the religion of Christ and join them in bowing to the Eucharistic idol and eating of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Malachi has spoken, they say, and we must follow where he leads us. As the Catholic Catechism says, citing Irenæus, “The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1350).
The Douay Catechism repeats this, saying that the Church has always understood the prophecy of Malachi to refer to the Mass sacrifice, and that “All the Holy Popes, and Fathers, and Councils of the primitive ages, teach” as much:
“Q. Is the blessed Eucharist a sacrifice?
“A. It is a clean oblation, which the prophet Malachy i. 11, foretold would be offered from the rising to the going down of the sun, in every place among the Gentiles; which was prefigured by Melchisedech, priest of the Most High (Gen. xiv. 18,) when he brought forth bread and wine; and which was, in reality, instituted at the last supper by Jesus Christ, when he took bread and wine, blessed them, and distributed them with his own hands amongst the apostles, saying, THIS IS MY BODY; THIS IS MY BLOOD. Christ Jesus is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech (Heb. v. 8,) and so he instituted, according to his order; that is to say, in bread and wine, this great sacrifice of the NEW LAW. All the Holy Popes, and Fathers, and Councils of the primitive ages, teach that the mass is the self same sacrifice of bread and wine that had been instituted by our Saviour; whilst the histories and annals of all countries, not excepting England herself, declare that the Holy Mass, but no other sacrifice, came down to them as a part and parcel of Christianity, from the apostolic age.” (Douay Catechism, (1649), pg. 90)
So sure are Rome’s apologists of this interpretation that Catholic Apologetics International (CAI), in 2002, formally issued “The Sacrifice Challenge” (below), believing it was impossible for anyone to prove that Malachi 1:11 was anything else than a prophecy of the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass.
Catholic Answers, as well, has produced a tract under the title, The Sacrifice of the Mass, claiming that the first Christians understood the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper to be the sacrifice envisioned by Malachi:
“The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as ‘Bible Christians’ insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings.”
To support this claim, Catholic Answers appeals to a Protestant historian, J. N. D. Kelly, who lamentably concedes to Rome the whole ante-Nicene era:
“Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church ‘the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11).’ “
Kelly’s book, Early Christian Doctrines, goes on to say that the Early Church saw the Eucharist as a sacrifice “from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. … The words of institution, ‘Do this,’ (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε) must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second century ears” (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 196). Kelly, as we shall demonstrate, surrendered to Rome at precisely the point that the battle must be fought and won. We will fight that battle here.
We are quite happy, therefore, to accept The Sacrifice Challenge (even though it appears to have expired—it is no longer available at CAI), and in particular to correct Kelly, and to rebut both the Catholic Catechism‘s misuse of Irenæus and the Douay Catechism‘s fraudulent claim that “All the Holy Popes, and Fathers, and Councils of the primitive ages, teach that the mass is the self same sacrifice [and that] no other sacrifice, came down to them … from the apostolic age.” We shall also correct Catholic Answers‘ equally erroneous history. The Sacrifice Challenge is easily answered, the claim is easily rebutted, and Kelly’s capitulation, as we shall see, is very easily corrected.
What we shall find is that the Early Church Fathers consistently represented the thanks, praise, prayers and gratitude of the saints as the sacrifice of the New Covenant, in accordance with Hebrews 13:15 and Romans 12:1, and saw the bread solely as a symbol or figure by which Christ’s sacrifice was brought to the minds of those present at the Lord’s Supper. It was Jesus’ sacrifice that was brought to mind by the bread and wine, and their thanks was offered to Him for it, their gratitude being the only sacrifice of the New Covenant. As we showed two weeks ago in Novel Antiquity, the Early Church Fathers were unaware of any visible sacrifice in New Covenant worship. To revisit just a few examples:
“[T]he victim fit for sacrifice is a good disposition, and a pure mind, and a sincere judgment. … These are our sacrifices, these are our rites of God’s worship; … But certainly the God whom we worship we neither show nor see.” (Minucius Felix, Octavius, chapter 32)
“Therefore, in each case, that which is incorporeal must be offered to God, for He accepts this. His offering is innocency of soul; His sacrifice praise and a hymn. For if God is not seen, He ought therefore to be worshipped with things which are not seen.” (Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book VI, chapter 25)
“[T]his is true worship, in which the mind of the worshipper presents itself as an undefiled offering to God.” (Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter 2)
Even as they wrote these things, the Early Church Fathers were aware that Jesus had instituted a memorial meal in which sensible elements of bread and wine were used not to propitiate God but to stimulate our recollection. Regarding these, they spoke not of a sacrifice but of “remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food,” and antitypes (symbols) that exhibited Christ’s sacrifice symbolically, and by which symbols the sufferings of Christ are “brought to mind” or “shown” or “viewed” or “exhibited” by the “figures” and “symbols” of bread and wine. But they did not see the bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper as the sacrifice. Bread was broken by way of remembrance (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). Thanks was offered by way of a sacrifice of praise (Hebrews 13:15).
We have such an abundance of evidence from the Early Church Fathers that we can establish at the outset that Rome’s Mass sacrifice was wholly foreign to them, and further that Rome has attempted once again to project onto the first three centuries of the Church yet another late-4th century novelty. That the early Church certainly did not see Malachi 1:11 fulfilled in the offering of transubstantiated bread and wine to the Father is evidenced by their own words as they explain what Malachi 1:11 really meant to them:
“ ‘…and in every place sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering’ [Malachi 1:10-11] — such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III, chapter 23)
” ‘…and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering” [Malachi 1:10-11] — meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience…” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 1)
“The prophet said concerning the peoples [Gentiles] that they would present offerings instead of the people [Jews]: ‘My name is great among the peoples, and in every place they present pure offerings in my name.’ [Malachi 1:11]” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 16:3))
“Hear concerning the strength of pure prayer, and see how our righteous fathers were renowned for their prayer before God, and how prayer was for them a pure offering. [Malachi 1:11] … Observe, my friend, that sacrifices and offerings have been rejected, and that prayer has been chosen instead.” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 4:1,19)
“Those which were then the sacrifices now are prayers, and intercessions, and thanksgivings.” (Apostolic Constitutions, Book II, Section 4).
“He says well on both these grounds, ‘And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice.’ [Malachi 1:11] Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the ‘incense’ is ‘the prayers of the saints.’ ‘ (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 17.6)
“For, ‘from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;’ [Malachi 1:11] as John also declares in the Apocalypse: ‘The incense is the prayers of the saints.’ Then again, Paul exhorts us ‘to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.’ [Romans 12:1] And again, ‘Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.’ [Hebrews 13:15]” (Irenæus, Fragments, 37)
There are many more examples than these from the Early Church Fathers, and we shall examine them all more closely in the coming weeks, but for now, it is clear that J. N. D. Kelly capitulated to Roman arguments without fully examining the evidence. It is also clear that the Catholic Catechism grossly decontextualizes Irenæus, and that the Douay Catechism was committing more than an innocent exaggeration when it claimed that “All the … Fathers … of the primitive ages” taught that the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 was the Sacrifice of the Mass, and that “no other sacrifice, came down to them” from the apostles. It is also clear that Catholic Answers is grossly wrong in its claim that “The first Christians” saw the bread and wine as the sacrifice and “proclaimed this in their writings.” There is sufficient evidence from the Early Church to prove that a bread and wine sacrifice was wholly foreign to them, and that praise itself, and not the bread, was believed to be both the incense and “pure offering” of Malachi’s prophecy. Due to the sheer volume of the evidence, we will take several weeks to complete this series. In anticipation of that, we plead the patience of our readers. Such a critical analysis as this cannot be conducted in a single post.
Before we proceed with the series, however, there are three potential traps in The Sacrifice Challenge, and we will address them here. The first is the broad semantic field employed by the Early Church Fathers to discuss the Lord’s Supper. The words “Offer,” “celebration,” “sacrifice,” “oblation,” “gifts,” and “eucharist” are all used in close proximity to the Lord’s Supper, but they do not all mean the same thing, nor do they all refer to the bread and wine. Nor do all Church Fathers use each term in the same way. One says the oblation of the New Covenant is praise because there are no more sacrifices. Another says the sacrifice of the New Covenant is praise, because there are no more oblations. Yet another says that praise is our sacrifice, but that the oblation of the New Covenant is the collection of tithes and gifts and first fruits for the poor. Yet another says sacrifices, offerings and oblations were all done away with, and now there is only prayer. Yet another offers an oblation of gratitude for the bread and wine, then invokes the Holy Spirit that He might exhibit to the people, rather than offer to the Father, Christ’s sacrifice by the symbols for which gratitude has been expressed. Usage varies from Church Father to Church Father; one Church Father may vary his usage from writing to writing, and even from paragraph to paragraph. Context, of course, is necessary in order to understand what the writer was saying, and what he meant by what he said.
The Sacrifice Challenge is further complicated by a second potential trap, which is the tendency for “ευχαριστια” in the modern rendering of the early texts to be transliterated as “eucharist” rather than translated as “thanksgiving.” Eucharist means “thanksgiving,” and only occasionally refers to the meal—an equivocality that Rome turns to her considerable advantage when she interprets the Early Church Fathers. Thus, when one writes of “the sacrifice of the thanksgiving,” in reference to thanks, Rome can see only “the sacrifice of the Eucharist,” in reference to bread, and claims the victory as if it was not the thanks, but the representation of Christ’s Body and Blood, that was the sacrifice. We will note in the coming weeks, but will only summarize here for illustration, that Justin Martyr in different paragraphs within a single work refers alternately to “the bread of the Eucharist” and “the Eucharist of the bread.” Based on Rome’s preferred equivocality, Justin thus appears to place the emphasis on the bread. But in both cases, ευχαριστια is the term he uses, and when translated instead of transliterated, it becomes “the bread of the thanksgiving,” and “the thanksgiving of the bread,” making clear in his context that his emphasis was on the “thanksgiving” as the offering, and not the bread—something that Justin himself more than once clarifies explicitly in his own writings.
When such equivocation is disallowed, we recover the distinction that is present in every Scriptural account of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus took “ἄρτον” (bread) and gave “ευχαριστια” (thanks) to God, broke “ἄρτον“ (bread) and gave “ἄρτον” (bread) to his disciples (Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). He did not take the “thanks,” and break the “thanks,” and give the “thanks” to his disciples. Nor did He give “bread” to His Father. The only time He offered bread at the Last Supper is when he offered it to His disciples, and the only thing He offered to His Father was thanks and praise. The Scriptural accounts are unequivocal on this. For this reason, where ευχαριστια is rendered “Eucharist” in the citations we use in this series, we render it “thanksgiving” so that it may be understood in its original usage and to show how the Early Church Fathers separated the bread from the thanks when they taught that we are to offer thanks as a sacrifice of praise (Hebrews 13:15). We agree that “eucharist” (ευχαριστια) means “thanksgiving,” and that sometimes the Early Fathers called the meal “ευχαριστια.” But they certainly did not see the bread as the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood.
By seeing the “thanks” and “praise” separately from the “bread,” we avoid the third potential trap in The Sacrifice Challenge. We understand from the Scriptures that Jesus “took bread” on the night He was betrayed, but He also thanked, praised and hymned His Father (Matthew 26:30, Mark 14:26). More than one Church Father states, without elaboration, that at the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the oblation of the New Covenant. Because Rome’s apologists see the bread as the “ευχαριστια,” they cause the bread at the Supper to eclipse Jesus’ thanks and praise and hymn to His Father at the very same meal. A careful reading of the Scriptures, as well as of the Early Church Fathers, is warranted here, for it shows that the Fathers saw the thanks, the praise and the hymn as the sacrifice, and not the bread.
With these cautions and elucidations, we will proceed with an analysis of the Fathers and their interpretation of Malachi 1:10-11. We will largely limit our citations to those Early Church Fathers who explicitly cited Malachi 1:10-11—since that is the verse upon which the Roman hypothesis turns—but we will occasionally cite those who identified for us the sacrifice of the New Covenant, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, even if they did not invoke Malachi.
What we find is that it is not until the end of the 4th century—right on schedule—that Malachi 1:11 begins to be interpreted as a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood under the elements of the Lord’s Supper. It was then, no earlier, that Rome’s abominable sacrifice of the Mass was instituted. To that end, the Douay Catechism, Catholic Answers, the Catholic Catechism, Catholic Apologetics International, and J. N. D. Kelly are all shown to be correct only in the sense that the evidence for their interpretation is a full three centuries removed from their claim. Other than that, their claim is patently and demonstrably false.
We will begin our full analysis next week with the Didache and “Pope” Clement of Rome.
Tim quote the RCC:
““The Eucharist,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life,’” and “is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life” (paragraphs 1324, 1407). ”
This is really crazy…in fact, it is destructive and damnable heresy. Rome is so easy to damn anyone who does not believe in your position as heretics, and put them to death. So it is time to start calling this real presence Eucharist doctrine damnable heresy. Yes, I know if we get too loud Rome will silence our protest as she has done to millions of others before us, and you could even imagine a few on the site sitting back praising our being murdered over the protest against the real presence doctrine.
JESUS CHRIST is the “source and summit” of the Christian life and the “heart and summit” of His church’s life.
The EUCHARIST is the “source and summit” of Antichrist and her followers, and the “heart and summit” of the false church who are part of the synagogue of Satan.
Hey Walt!
Seems like being out of the country for 3 weeks hasn’t impaired your ability to write extensive responses.
“TIM–
So from 1095-1245 AD, who were the non-Catholic Christians? Are they recorded in history as being separate from Rome? I would love to study their history.”
Reformed–separated 1525 AD
Hugeunots–separated 1550 AD
Waldensians–separated 1184 AD
The Waldensians are the earliest I can find. I cannot find anyone from 1184 AD back. The Eastern Orthodox was separated from Rome in 1057 with mutual excommunication, but I really don’t count them because their doctrine is identical to Rome’s except for the Papacy, and some minor differences like the location of the epiclesis in the sequence of the Mass and the Fililoque in the Creed.
I am trying to find out about non-Catholic Christians between 1057 AD back to 450 AD.
You seem to know Roman Catholic history during this time. Do you know the history of non-Catholics during this period?
You sure do spend a lot of time researching the Anti-Christ.
Bob, I meant I could not respond during the week as it seems sometimes to get a lot of posting. I always try to come here on Sunday to read Tim’s incredible research (few do what he does and certainly NONE on your side of the fence) on Sunday.
You can count on me most Sunday’s when traveling, but not likely during the week.
BOB–“So from 1095-1245 AD, who were the non-Catholic Christians? Are they recorded in history as being separate from Rome? I would love to study their history. I am trying to find out about non-Catholic Christians between 1057 AD back to 450 AD.”
It’s a good question but Tim can’t answer it. Neither can Walt. The truth is there is no recorded history of non-Catholics during that time because they didn’t exist.
You also said to Tim “You sure do spend a lot of time researching the Anti-Christ.”
Doesn’t he though? You don’t suppose there is a conspiracy with him and the Father of Lies………? Nah. Well….maybe.
Bob, you say you are a Methodist. Everyone on this blog thinks you are a Catholic. Why is that? I have read your responses and the reasons of why you know so much about us. Now I’ve got a million dollar question for you.
Why haven’t you become Catholic?
Matthew said ” its a good question, Tim can’t answer it and Walt can’t either” Neither can you. Paul used church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. This body is superintended by the Spirit of God, His elect from all nations and all peoples through all time. This is the invisible universal catholic church. These people have been in many visible churches throughout time. But God doesn’t dwell in buildings anymore, but in the heart of His people. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit scripture teaches. You continued ” no recorded history” The elect are recorded in the book of life. They are those who trust in the promise alone for their salvation. But they are not those who use grace as a tool to merit salvation and are steeped in worshiping the death wafer and the mother of Jesus, and such is Roman Catholicism.
Matthew,
You wrote,
Well, that is one possibility, I suppose. I should probably let you know that Bob asked me to produce the answer to this same question about a month ago, and I said I would answer in my own time. At about the same time, he alleged that my use of ellipses in my citations (hardly unknown in the history of scholarship) indicated that I was probably leaving out data that worked against my hypothesis. I asked him for proof of this allegation, and he responded that he, too, was biding his time, and would not answer. Yet here he is again, demanding an answer, but unwilling to provide any evidence to support his allegation that I am intentionally skewing the data.
A gentleman named Nick come by the blog once, insisting that I answer his objections based on Romans 4. Bob wants to know the denomination of the Church that existed since the apostles. Jim wanted months ago to know what Malachi 1:11 could possibly mean, if not the Roman Eucharist. At about the same time, Jim ridiculed me for not answering Nick’s allegations on Daniel 2, and also wanted me to answer him on the meaning of the show bread in the Old Testament. If I were to accede to every demand of every visitor, the Catholics would be running the blog, and I would be nothing more than an errand boy for every visiting Romanist. As it stands, I answer in my own time. I am spending 5 or 6 weeks answering a question Jim asked months ago on Malachi. If I were to drop that to answer Nick on Romans 4, or Nick on Daniel 2, or Bob on his question regarding a denomination, Jim would accuse me of being unable to answer his question on Malachi 1:11.
So you see, you cannot legitimately infer ignorance from silence. That would be illogical. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that I cannot rub two thoughts together to form an idea, or rub two ideas together to from a hypothesis. In fact, I may actually be a red-neck with a 3rd grade education writing blog entries in my pajamas from my mother’s basement. Then again….
Well, that’s not exactly the truth, as it turns out.
Moving on, regarding the comment,
Yes, I do. You will find in the Scriptures that the Antichrist is mentioned quite frequently, and the apostles and prophets warned us of him vehemently—not always by that name, but they warned us nonetheless. You should study him as well. The apostles and prophets were quite concerned about his arrival, as were the early church fathers.
You observed,
If I have lied, please point out where I have done so and I will correct it.
Thanks,
Tim
Re reading “As were the early church Fathers” Cyril of Jerusalem makes an incredible statement when he says : being on guard, unless you receive the false one as true” Roman Catholics, you have been lovingly warned is so many well documented articles on this site. You have received the false one as true. You have exchanged the truth for a lie. I also encourage all of you to study antichrist in scripture. It is no more well documented then here. Roman Catholicism is foreign to Scripture. God bless
You say Catholics worship bread. I am a Catholic and I don’t worship bread. You are a liar. Now correct it.
Matthew,
In Isaiah 44, the unfortunate idolater does not have the sense to realize that he is not worshiping his god, but is in fact worshiping a tree. He grows his cypress, cedar, oak and ash trees in the forest, and then cuts them down, and makes a fire for himself. Of what is left, he makes for himself a god, and “he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, ‘Deliver me; for thou art my god.’ ”
What is clear from this passage is that the man really believes he is worshiping a god, but in fact he is worshiping a tree. There is no understanding in his heart to ask, “shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?,” or “Is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isaiah 44:14-20)
In his unfortunate condition, he is unable to realize that just because he has fashioned it into a new shape does not mean that he is not worshiping what it actually is. Just so, your priest harvests wheat from the field, fashions it into bread, pronounces a blessing over it and thinks that by doing so, the bread is no longer bread, but rather is his god. His understanding is darkened and he cannot see that he holds a lie in his right hand. Yet he commands that you bow down to what is just bread, and worship it.
Has God lied by saying the man worships a stock of tree, knowing full well that the man believes in his heart that he is worshiping ‘his god’? Nor am I lying to you when I say that you worship bread. You do not believe that you do, and the man in Isaiah 44 did not believe that he was worshiping a tree. Yet as surely as he worshiped the tree, you worship bread.
The lie is not in plainly stating what is true. The lie is in convincing yourself that you are bowing to the Creator of the Universe. You certainly are not, yet you give to bread the latria that you know very well belongs to God alone. That is the lie.
Thanks,
Tim
Matthew–
Sorry about the late response. Duty called and I have been away from the computer.
Why have I not become Catholic?
Three reasons.
1) I got a problem with Papal infallibility. I understand why it should be the case. I would like to be able to rely on infallible teaching when it comes to my eternal soul. But the preponderance of the evidence from Roman Catholic history seems to say that the Papacy can be corrupted just like everyone else. We are all human. I believe the omniscience of God takes that into account.
I do not have the knowledge it takes to say Rome is wrong, but sorry, I just don’t believe it.
2) I have a problem with the hyperdulia of Mary. Again, I understand the reasoning behind the doctrine. I personally don’t accuse you of idolatry because I think Catholics know there is only one God–the Father,the Son, and the Holy Spirit . I just don’t see why Mary warrants anything over and above anyone else who has dedicated their whole life to Christ.
3) And this is the biggy. I don’t see any reason to leave the Methodist Church. It is what I was raised with. My family and closest friends are Methodist. I have a great sense of loyalty to my church. If perchance it should start teaching contrary to my beliefs, I would not be hasty in leaving it, but would rather make every effort to help turn it back on the right path. Too many people church hop these days. I don’t.
I hope you respect that.
The Waldesians are far older than Peter of Lyon and thus there were non catholics before 1084 AD.
In fact, there were a great many non-Roman Catholics starting at the end of the 4th century, and they have been a thorn in Rome’s side ever since. For more on this, see my ongoing series, Come Hell or High Water.
The Waldensians were Catholic. Their teachings didn’t become Protestant until the Reformation.
Mark,
Can you elaborate on this? You have already confessed that you “honestly … don’t know what a Protestant looks like,” so how can you know whether the Waldensians’ teachings “became Protestant” at the Reformation and weren’t Protestant before the reformation?
Thanks,
Tim
How about we start with that they believed in the Sacraments and in transubstantiation.
In their confession of faith, “We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest…”
The Waldensian Way to God by Joseph Viscotti, https://goo.gl/nqonhi
And they believed in transubstantiation. The Lombards speaking about the Waldensians: “”To the question they [the Poor of Lyons] raised concerning baptism, we replied as follows : We affirm that no one can be saved who refuses the material water of baptism and that unbaptized infants are not saved. This we called on them to believe and profess….
“One point of difference between us and the companions of Valdes…concerned the breaking or SACRIFICE [emphasis author] of the bread. As we have verified, their judgment differs from ours…
“In the first place, some of the companions of Valdes maintain that the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the Word of God, adding that the power comes not from men but from God.
“To this we objected, saying that, if the bread and wine are transubstantiated…by the mere mention of the Word of God, it follows that any person, Jew or pagan, could pronounce the Word of God on the bread and wine, and, according to this opinion, it would be transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
“This is absolutely impious and cannot be sustained by any valid authority and is unreasonable….They have acknowledged that the sacrament cannot be performed by women or laymen, but only by the PRIEST. They also said that no one, good or bad, but only He who is God and man, that is, CHRIST, can transubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood.” “Letter from the Poor Lombards to the Poor of Lyons who are in Germany,” in Tourn, 21-23.
Thank you Mark. You wrote,
But other witnesses say the opposite of the Waldensians:
Further, Pope Innocent III said the Waldensians and Albigensians held the same doctrines, and Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay complained that the Albigensians had their own bishops and deacons and held that the bread of communion was just common bread,” just as the Waldensians believed.
Anyway, there is more to this story than your simple insistence that “they were [Roman] Catholics.”
They most certainly were not.
Tim
Peter Waldo never sought to leave the Church but only to do itinerant preaching. He didn’t get the recognition he had hoped for from the Church and eventually left it. The Church, rightly, didn’t want untrained people trying to preach. Why? It leads into all sorts of heresies, which is eventually what happened to the Waldensians, culminating in their embracing of Calvinist teachings of the Reformation.
If the Waldensians were the “true church” then you have a problem in that they believed the Catholic Church on all issues except for ecclesiology.
You do realize that other quasi-Christian groups like Sabbatarians also lay claim to the Waldensians to support their own “true church” lineage. For example, there was a group of Waldensians called the sabbatati. Some Sabbatarian groups say this is because they kept the 7th day Sabbath. What’s funny is sabbatati has nothing to do with the Sabbath, although it sounds like it. It actually is referring to the type of sandals that they wore.
The bottom line is, if you are trying to find an unbroken chain of the “true church” through the centuries, and you claim that the Waldensians or the Albigensians are links in that chain, then your chain is broken, and the gates of hell has prevailed against the church.
Mark, I just provided you evidence that the Waldensians were known for seeing the bread of the Lord’s Supper as just a figure of the Lord’s body, and that from a Friar who was alleged to have lived among these very Waldensians who you claim were Catholics. He also said they rejected purgatory, Lent, prayers for the dead, the sacraments of confirmation extreme unction and marriage, intercession of the saints, fasts, feasts, holydays, consecrated church buildings, etc…, and that they thought the Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon. That doesn’t sound very Roman Catholic to me.
This is why you are constantly under moderation. Cut. Paste. Repeat. No thought is put into your posts other than that which is minimally necessary to operate a keyboard. You have not even begun to read, much less analyze, the evidence. Your own popes deny that the Waldensians were Catholic, and yet you insist that they were Catholic!
Thanks,
Tim
Interesting that you try to plant seeds of doubt about my credibility by appealing to the fact that you put me under moderation for being “cut and paste” and putting “no thought is put into your posts other than that which is minimally necessary to operate a keyboard “. This is just a distraction and most intelligent people can see that this just isn’t true.
Read Peter Waldo’s confession of faith of 1180, which you haven’t addressed. As RC Sproul’s ministry says, “The Waldensians did not seek to leave the church but wanted the church’s approval to preach. Their preaching was basically orthodox but criticized the clergy severely for failing to teach and lead the flock of Christ faithfully.”
“They did not desert the church but were driven out of it. ”
Now, you can ignore the fact that they were a Catholic sect for many years to your own detriment. Certainly the Waldensians eventually left the Catholic faith due to their preachers not having any education or training in the Bible or the Christian faith, which was the reason the Church didn’t want them to do it in the first place. They eventually left their belief in faith and works to adopt “faith alone” that Calvin taught.
Mark,
You wrote,
I did. But we were talking about the Waldensians, Mark, not Peter Waldo. Eberhard de Béthune (Liber Antihaeresis) reported that the name Waldenses appeared in documents more than a decade before Peter Waldo got Rome’s attention. Also, Bernard de Foncald wrote about the Waldensians heretics condemned by Pope Lucius II in 1144, almost four decades before Peter Waldo. Peter Waldo was a Roman Catholic who eventually converted to the cuase of the Waldensians. He did not found the Waldensians, so you are right: I “haven’t addressed” Waldo’s confession. That’s because we were talking about the Waldensians, who predated Waldo, and Waldo was still Roman Catholic when he wrote his confession.
Read the actual condemnation of actual waldensians from your own popes and you’ll find that they rejected the sacraments and all the rest of your superstitious novelties.
You wrote,
Double check your history, Mark.
But enough of your distractions. I’m still in the 9th century in this series, not the 12th.
Best,
Tim
What is a Lutheran? A follower of Luther. What is a Waldensian? A follower of Waldo (Valdes, or Waldes). Of course his group had Rome’s attention before his confession in 1180. Why do you think the Church wanted Waldo to confess the Catholic faith?
Or, are you suggesting that Peter Waldo is NOT the founder of the Waldensians? That is novel.
BTW, the Waldensians weren’t declared heretical by the Church until 1215, 10 years after their founder died. It took ten years for them to reject most of the Catholic teachings their founder (and the group) believed in up until then. Your assertions that the Waldensians rejected Catholic teaching are anachronistic.
Mark, that’s precisely the point—the “Waldensians” were not founded by Peter Waldo, and it is now known that they predated him. Waldo was born around 1140, and the first mention of the Waldensians is about 1144 in a condemnation from your own Pope Lucius when Waldo would have been about 4 years old. The question on the etymology of “Waldensians” is centuries old. Your belief that it is a novel proposition to suggest that Peter of Valdis was not the founder of the Valdensians is evidence of your insurmountable ignorance.
Enough of your nonsense today.
Tim
Walt–JESUS CHRIST is the “source and summit” of the Christian life and the “heart and summit” of His church’s life.
I agree. And we acknowledge that in the Eucharist. Here it is:
Members of the congregation bring up the bread and wine for the celebration of the eucharist or other gifts for the needs of the Church and the poor. This is our living sacrifice, by giving of our very selves, in prayers, praises, and thanksgiving as well as tithes and offerings. The bread and wine are blessed thusly:
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.Blessed be God for ever.
By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.
Blessed be God for ever.”
And then we pray some more:
“Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.
Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
P. May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.
Amen.
The Lord be with you.
P. And also with you.
Lift up your hearts.
P. We lift them up to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
P. It is right to give him thanks and praise.
Father, it is our duty and our salvation always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ.
He is the Word through whom you made the universe, the Savior you sent to redeem us. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he took flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary.
For our sake he opened his arms on the cross; he put an end to death and revealed the resurrection. In this he fulfilled your will and won for you a holy people.
And so we join the angels and the saints in proclaiming your glory as we say:
“Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.”
And then we pray some more:
Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit,that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands
and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
“Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.”
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
“Take this all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”
And we raise our voices in adoration:
Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:
Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.
And then we pray and pray and pray some more:
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.
May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God; with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.
Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on earth; your servant, Pope Francis., our bishop Patrick, and all the bishops, with the clergy and the entire people your Son has gained for you. Father, hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here before you. In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be.
Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship.
We hope to enjoy for ever the vision of your glory, through Christ our Lord, from whom all good things come.
Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor are yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.
Amen.
And then we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we greet each other with a sign of Peace. We sing praises, we enjoy our feast together as Christ abides in us and we abide in Him.
Synagog of Satan? Nothing could be further from the truth.
1Cor 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
Matthew wrote:
“Synagog of Satan? Nothing could be further from the truth.
1Cor 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.”
Jesus Christ Himself says (Matt.7:20-23)
“20 Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 ¶ [j]Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth my Father’s will which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not by thy [k]Name prophesied, and by thy name cast out devils? and by thy name done many [l]great works?
23 And then will I profess to them, [m]I never knew you, depart from me [n]ye that work iniquity.”
Walt–
Your Sola Scriptura is showing.
So, you try to interpret Scripture with Scripture.
Here is your logic. You consider Paul’s epistles to be the Word of God. Paul says “no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.” Then you say Jesus says “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven…And then will I profess to them, I never knew you.”
You indicate by comparing these Scriptures together that Jesus doesn’t know the Holy Spirit.
Now, if the Holy Spirit is the one who guides one to say “Jesus is Lord”, then how do you explain the Holy Spirit guiding one to be a doer of iniquity?
Learn your doctrine! The Mass is referred to thru Roman Catholic history as the” work of the people” to propitiate their sins and merit and increase of salvation. It is an abomination that says we are save by faith alone in Christ alone apart from any merit or work on our part. Let me least the way that Rome has made sacrilege out of the Lord’s supper. The sacrifice for our sin is the not yet glorified flesh on the cross, not the bread ( glorified body of Christ) of the supper. How could it be propitious for the Apostles since Christ had not yet died for their sins. And if it wasn’t propitious for them, how could it be for you. It was instituted as a commemoration and remembrance of what He did on calvary, and for us to offer up praise and thanks giving for the already shed blood for our sins on the cross that saved us. . Without shed blood there is no forgiveness for sins. As Tim has shown there is no evidence in the early church for transubstantiation or a sacrifice of bread.
Kevin Failoni–“Learn your doctrine!”
This came straight out of the Roman Catholic Sacramentary of the Mass. We do this every Sunday.
Your wailing and gnashing of teeth is disturbing.
What you do every sunday is participate in a re breaking of Christ’s body for your sins. Without doing this you cannot be saved. Scripture says we are saved by grace thru faith in Jesus Christ. Learn your doctrine! Go to the canons of Trent. Please quit denying what the Mass really is. There is no special Priesthood in scripture performing OT altar sacrifices. Hebrews is clear, the old covenant has passed away, and there are no more sacrifices for sin. The Mass is an abominable WORK to earn salvation. When you are in the Roman Catholic system you are doing sacraments to receive increases of grace to be saved. The bible is clear, we are save by believing in Christ alone, and anyone seeking the favor of God thru what they do will not be saved !
The 1599 Geneva Bible notes are clear what verses 1:10-11 mean. The additional notes before and after are helpful as well.
Malachi 1:7 Not that they said thus, but by their doings they declared no less.
Malachi 1:8 You make it no fault: whereby he condemneth them, that think it sufficient to serve God partly as he hath commanded, and partly after man’s fantasy: and so come not to the pureness of religion, which he requireth, and therefore in reproach he showeth them that a mortal man would not be content to be so served.
Malachi 1:9 He derideth the Priests who bare the people in hand that they prayed for them, and showeth that they were the occasion, that these evils came upon the people.
Malachi 1:9 Will God consider your office and state, seeing you are so covetous and wicked?
Malachi 1:10 Because the Levites who kept the doors did not try whether the sacrifices that came in, were according to the Law, God wisheth that they would rather shut the doors, than to receive such as were not perfect.
Malachi 1:11 God showeth that their ingratitude, and neglect of his true service shall be the cause of the calling of the Gentiles: and here the Prophet that was under the Law, framed his words to the capacity of the people, and by the altar and sacrifice he meaneth the spiritual service of God, which should be under the Gospel, when an end should be made to all these legal ceremonies by Christ’s only sacrifice.
Malachi 1:12 Both the Priests and the people were infected with this error, that they passed not what was offered: for they thought that God was as well content with the lean, as with the fat: but in the mean season they showed not that obedience to God, which he required, and so committed both impiety, and also showed their contempt of God, and covetousness.
Malachi 1:13 The Priests and people were both weary with serving God, and passed not what manner of sacrifice and service they gave to God: for that which was least profitable, was thought good enough for the Lord.
Malachi 1:14 That is, hath ability to serve the Lord according to his word, and yet will serve him according to his covetous mind.
Tim wrote:
“It is also clear that the Catholic Catechism grossly decontextualizes Irenæus,”
It’s also very clear that you decontextualize the Catechism.
Matthew said:
“It’s also very clear that you decontextualize the Catechism.”
Here is the difference. Tim took the time to make his claim and then prove it in the article.
Would you please take time to prove at least one or two things in what you claim? There has to be at least to some degree some evidence you can give anyone reading this blog outside of pure emotion. If so, please try to use some skills to prove what you say as Tim does week after week.
No evidence?
“The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”–St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,
St. Ephraim :
“Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.
And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.” –”Homilies” 4,4 ca.. 350 A.D.,
“After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out….Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: ‘This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.” –”Homilies” 4,6 ca. 350 A.D.,
Athanasius:
“You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus His Body is confected.”–”Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,
St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
“Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ. –”Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]”
“These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart’, partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:–To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”–St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:
St. Epiphanius of Salamis:
“We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: ‘This is really Me.’ And He gave to His disciples and said: ‘This is really Me.’ And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, ‘This is really Me.’; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.”–”The Man Well-Anchored” [57] 374 A.D.
St. John Chrysostom:
“It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”–St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
St. Ambrose of Milan:
“You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.” –”The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”–St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:
“We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.”
–St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:
ST AUGUSTINE:
“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”–”Sermons”, [227, 21]
” For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is devoid of grace and a savior” Do you understand what he is saying here. Take off your Roman glasses. Of course anyone who takes the Eucharist must believe that Christ body was broken on the cross for his sins. He is talking about having faith in the one time sacrifice for our sins, not about transubstantiation. Christ was giving a depiction of what he was about to do, he wasn’t making the bread the sacrifice for sins. wake up and smell the coffee!
Ambrose said ” praise to God is offered, prayer is offered , prayers for the people.” Your citing are supporting the case Tim is making. Smell, coffee. ” Draw inner peace from receiving this BREAD as SPIRITUAL FOOD.” Take off the Roman glasses, their is no rebreeding of Christ’s body here or transubstantiation. Smell coffee! God bless
ST Ehpinatious ” This is really me. And we see that it is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible, not to the outline of limbs. For it is round i shape and devoid of feeling. And to its power, He means to say even of its grace, This is really me, and no one DISBELIEVES His word. For anyone who does NOT BELIEVE THE TRUH IN WHAT HE SAYS ID DEVOID OF GRACE AND A SAVIOR.” Do you understand what he sis saying here. The power is in BELIEVING the WORD! When you come to the table you must have faith that Christ died for your sins on the cross. Its spiritual food in that its a reminder of the body that was broken and the blood ALREADY shed for our sins. Its a commemoration. Thats why Augustine says ” understand spiritually what I have told you. Why? Because the FLESH profits nothing. Christ’s flesh shed ONE TIME on the cross only profits you if you believe it was the sacrifice for your sins. But it doesn’t profit you if you believe Roman Catholic of a continual sacrifice for your sins. When Paul says isn’t ” the participation” participation in the body and blood of Christ. He is talking about participating by faith thru the Spirit. We died with Christ and were buried with Him. He sacrifice continues to cover us because we live by faith in one time sacrifice for our sins. Please let our savior off the cross. HE IS RISEN! God bless and have a great day. Tim has addressed much of these Fathers quotes. Please read them. He has a firm grasp on this stuff. But you will have to remove your Roman glasses.
Hi, Matthew,
Thanks for providing this information. Your citation from Cyprian is not from a letter he wrote to the Ephesians in 258 A.D., but rather from his letter to Cæcilius in 253 A.D.. You can read his letter (Letter 62) here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050662.htm. Your citation is from paragraph 14 of that letter.
When we get to Cyprian in a few weeks, you’ll find that he did not teach that Jesus offered His blood as a sacrifice at the Lord’s supper. In any case, I thought you’d be interested in reading the above citation in context.
As regards Ephraim the Syrian, it is difficult to construct a coherently Roman Catholic liturgy from his works. Even within the passage you cited, there is a denial of transubstantiation: “But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread.” How can it only be bread to him who does not believe, if it has already been transubstantiated into Christ’s Body and blood? In his Hymn on the Nativity, he says again that its value is in what the individual believes, not in what the priest says:
In any case, in his Hymn, De Azymis (12.5), he refers to Christ’s use of bread and wine symbolically:
This is the language of symbolism, in which the bread is not Christ’s flesh and blood, and it is not offered to God as a sacrifice, but merely serves as a symbolic representation of the sacrifice which Christ would offer to His Father the next day.
In any case, Ephraim was highly metaphorical and symbolic in his writing. It is hardly evidence for Rome’s sacrifice of the mass.
Regarding Cyril of Jerusalem, his statements lose their Roman Catholic edge when taken in the context of his lectures:
Thanks,
Tim
Walt–
Why don’t you take the time and read the Catechism for yourself. You will get the context.
Mathew. Evangelical theology denies the nature- grace inner connection as faulty axiom in Roman theology. For example, the passover meal as celebrated by the Jews in Exodus was not an infusion of grace to render them more holy in character. The chosen lamb was the spotless vicim whose life was sacrificed for the people of Israel, and they were spared from the just and wrathful judgment of God by the imposition of blood on the doorposts of the Jewish houses. This action was forensic, or legal, acquittal of the people of Israel. God did not destroy but passed over them, even though they deserved the same fate as the Egyptians. K
Matthew wrote:
“Walt–
Why don’t you take the time and read the Catechism for yourself. You will get the context.”
Actually, I was raised studying it in Catholic school. I was a good student and was one of two in our school who was asked to read in morning mass 3 days a week before school started. I was a good little boy studying the catechism.
Unfortunately, with that background, I started to read the bible many years later, and was blown away how totally different the catechism was compared to the Scriptures. Especially the doctrine of salvation, and ordo salutis…TOTALLY different than the Bible.
Then I read the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Larger Catechism, and thought…WOW, this is exactly in line with what I read in Scripture.
Tim wrote:
“It is also clear that the Catholic Catechism grossly decontextualizes Irenæus, and that the Douay Catechism was committing more than an innocent exaggeration when it claimed that “All the … Fathers … of the primitive ages” taught that the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 was the Sacrifice of the Mass, and that “no other sacrifice, came down to them” from the apostles. It is also clear that Catholic Answers is grossly wrong in its claim that “The first Christians” saw the bread and wine as the sacrifice and “proclaimed this in their writings.””
The lying is so incredibly sad, and just watch what Matthew, Scott, Jim and others will do running to apologize for the misunderstanding and defend this antichrist doctrine as faithful and true to the Lord. Unfortunately, anyone who reads Scripture (and obviously can read facts and evidence stated above) knows the incredible wickedness of this antichrist system of doctrine, worship and government.
Just look at all the Priest molesting the children and boys, and it should give you serious pause for concern. Something is wrong in their system of discipline as well. Then look closely at the new Pope…doing everything he possibly can to befriend and align with every false religion who hates Christ by their words and actions. Don’t be surprised if this Pope reaches out to the formally established Church Of Satan hoping for an alliance to bring “all religions together as one”.
http://www.churchofsatan.com/
Walt– “Actually, I was raised studying it in Catholic school. I was a good student and was one of two in our school who was asked to read in morning mass 3 days a week before school started. I was a good little boy studying the catechism.”
Then I suggest you re-read the section on Jesus with your adult mind instead of your little boy mind. It actually says we worship Jesus as God. CCC 422-682. I wonder why you anti-Catholics always seem to overlook this part?
Oh yeah….it doesn’t fit your Romist strawman.
Mathew said” it actually says we worship Jesus Christ” when in reality you worship a piece of bread as Christ. Do you genuflect to each other after you eat it?
Kevin–
You don’t bend a knee to Christ at all in your worship.
I turn my face to heaven when I pray. God bless
Matthew,
You worship Jesus as God. Big deal. The people fashioned their own god and had a “feast to Yahweh”. (Ex.32: 1-6) The same type of thing happens at mass.
Eric W–“The same type of thing happens at mass.”
No, Eric, it doesn’t. Jehovah did not tell them before hand “Go and make a molten calf from your earrings. For it is My Countenance which brought you out of Egypt. Bow down to it and look upon it to feast in My name. Do this in remembrance of Me.”
They actually said “Come, MAKE US A GOD who will go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.”
Catholics don’t make bread gods. We worship the true Body and Blood of Christ because He said so.
“Take heed of all occasions of idolatry, for idolatry is devil-worship. Psalm 106: 37. If you search through the whole Bible, there is not one sin that God has more followed with plagues than idolatry. The Jews have a saying, that in every evil that befalls them, there is uncia aurei vituli, an ounce of the golden calf in it. Hell is a place for idolaters. ‘For without are idolaters.’ Rev 22: 15. Senesius calls the devil a rejoicer at idols, because the image-worshippers help to fill hell.” – Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments
“By all which, you see where the idolatry of worship lies. The instituting of any, though the smallest part of worship, in and by our own authority, without scripture-warrant, makes it idolatrous, as well as if we worshipped an idol” (Ex: 20:5). – The Works of John Flavel, Vol, 4, p. 527
“For nothing is more wicked than to contrive various modes of worship without the authority of the word of God.” – John Calvin, Commentary On John
“All things considered, certainly it is no small condemnation of us to behold what an ardent zeal the holy martyrs had in the past, especially in comparison with the nonchalance we demonstrate. For as soon as a poor man of that time got so much as a little taste of the true knowledge of God, he did not hesitate to expose himself to the danger involved in confessing his faith. He would have preferred to be burned alive than to go so far as to commit some outward act of idolatry.” – John Calvin
“The matter is not of so small importance, as some suppose. The question is, whether God or man ought to be obeyed in matters of religion? In mouth, all do confess that only God is worthy of sovereignty. But after many — by the instigation of the devil, and by the presumptuous arrogance of carnal wisdom and worldly policy — have defaced God’s holy ordinance, men fear not to follow what laws and common consent (mother of all mischief) have established and commanded. But thus continually I can do nothing but hold, and affirm all things polluted, yea, execrable and accursed, which God by his Word has not sanctified in his religion. God grant you his Holy Spirit rightly to judge.” – John Knox, Works VI:14 cited in John Knox, True and False Worship
“For God is not worshiped of us, but when it is his will to accept our worship: and it is not his will to accept our worship, but when it is according to his will.” – William Perkins, A Golden Chain, or the Description of Theology
“The Regulative Principle of Worship declares that God alone is sovereign in worship. The Regulative Principle of Worship simply applies the principles of Calvinism (i.e. God’s sovereign Lordship) to worship, whereas the view that what God doesn’t forbid in worship is permitted is applying the principles of Arminianism (i.e. man’s sovereign lordship) to worship. Just as fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in salvation (e.g. “I can cooperate with God in salvation”, or “I have a natural freedom to choose Christ”), so fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in worship (“I can cooperate with God in worship by adding what I desire so long as God doesn’t specifically forbid it”). But just as God condemns a man-centered salvation, so God condemns a man-centered worship (Col. 2:23 specifically condemns all will-worship, i.e. all worship instituted by man).” – Greg Price, Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship
“Christmas was not celebrated by the apostolic church. It was not celebrated during the first few centuries of the church.
As late as A.D. 245, Origen (Hom. 8 on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ, “as if he were a king Pharaoh.” By the middle of the 4th century, many churches in the Latin west were celebrating Christmas.
During the 5th century, Christmas became an official Roman Catholic holy day. In A.D. 534, Christmas was recognized as an official holy day by the Roman state.
The reason that Christmas became a church holy day has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible does not give the date of Christ’s birth. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate Christmas.
Christmas (as well as many other pagan practices) was adopted by the Roman church as a missionary strategy.”
– From: The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian Schwertley (Free Online Book)
This book is must reading if you are a Christian (especially if you are a Calvinist, as this book deals with the sovereignty of God over worship) and you are studying Christmass or any of the worship issues! Schwertley also makes the application of Sola Scriptura to worship in this important work. FREE in MP3 format: The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian Schwertley.”
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/christmas.htm
Presbyterians stand against the Romish Christmass holy day. It is so wonderful to see our forefather’s know about this 4th century practice by Rome, but very sad to see some on this blog proclaim to be reformed wishing people “merry christmass”. 🙂 The term reformed is so differently defined in our generation than what were the true reformed of old.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/americanxmas.htm
“It does not appear that the Parliament issued any directive about the Assembly’s list of customs or rites to be discontinued, including this custom of preaching on Christmas. [22] However, the Parliament did move in June of 1647 to outlaw all ‘holy days,’ and tried to meet the concern for servants, expressed earlier by the Assembly. Neal writes. [23]
Among the ordinances that passed this year for reformation of the church, none occasioned so much noise and disturbance as that of June 8, for abolishing the observation of saints’ days, and the three grand festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide; the ordinance says, “Forasmuch as the feast of the nativity of Christ, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other festivals, commonly called holy-days, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed; be it ordained, that the said feasts, and all other festivals, commonly called holy-days, be no longer observed as festivals; any law, statute, custom, constitution, or canon, to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.
And that there may be a convenient time allotted for scholars, apprentices, and other servants, for their recreation, be it ordained, that all scholars, apprentices, and other servants, shall, with the leave of their masters, have such convenient reasonable recreation, and relaxation from labour, every second Tuesday in the month throughout the year…”
American Presbyterian View of ‘Holy Days’ Prior to 1788
From the beginning of their arrival in the America colonies, the Presbyterians, who were mostly transplanted Scots and Ulster Scots, [43] did not observe Christmas or other ‘holy days.’ The Presbyterian view is clearly stated in the appendix to the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, Touching Days and Places for Public Worship: [44]
There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath.
Festival days, vulgarly [commonly] called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.
Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.
As no place is capable of any holiness, under pretence of whatsoever dedication or consecration; so neither is it subject to such pollution by any superstition formerly used, and now laid aside, as may render it unlawful or inconvenient for Christians to meet together therein for the publick worship of God. And therefore we hold it requisite, that the places of publick assembly for worship among us should be continued and employed to that use.”
“The Puritans knew what subsequent generations would forget: that when the Church, more than a millennium earlier, had placed Christmas Day in late December, the decision was part of what amounted to a compromise, and a compromise for which the Church paid a high price. Late-December festivities were deeply rooted in popular culture, both in observance of the winter solstice and in celebration of the one brief period of leisure and plenty in the agricultural year. In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been. From the beginning, the Church’s hold over Christmas was (and remains still) rather tenuous. There were always people for who Christmas was a time of pious devotion rather than carnival, but such people were always in the minority. It may not be going too far to say that Christmas has always been an extremely difficult holiday to Christianize. Little wonder that the Puritans were willing to save themselves the trouble.”
“The Puritans understood another thing, too: Much of the seasonal excess that took place at Christmas was not merely chaotic “disorder” but behavior that took a profoundly ritualized form. Most fundamentally, Christmas was an occasion when the social hierarchy itself was symbolically turned upside down, in a gesture that inverted designated roles of gender, age, and class. During the Christmas season those near the bottom of the social order acted high and mighty. Men might dress like women, and women might dress (and act) like men. Young people might imitate and mock their elders.… Increase Mather explained with an anthropologist’s clarity what he believed to be the origins of the practice: ‘In the Saturnalian Days, Master did wait upon their Servants … The Gentiles called Saturns time the Golden Age, because in it there was no servitude, in Commemoration whereof on his Festival, Servants must be Masters.’ This practice, like so many others, was simply picked up and transposed to Christmas, where those who were low in station became ‘Masters of Misrule.’ To this day, in the British army, on December 25 officers are obliged to wait upon enlisted men at meals.”
Tim, Excellent! What a surprise, Rome would reverse the thanks and the bread! Read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth! Great article, perspicuous.
Tim,
After reading the comments today of Matthew and Scott go on about how everything we seek to prove is just a conspiracy theory and how your extensive evidence week after week is just an emotional anti-catholic tirade, I can really see much more why I and so many others who are thinkers left the Catholic church.
When I see Jim posting I can see he just openly and honestly disagrees with everyone who says anything against the RCC using humor and emotion. However, with the new tag team Scott and Matthew (I would bet $100 they know each other), bring your “typical” Romish response to everything written. It is all a conspiracy and the only reason you detail evidence to disprove their foolishness week after week is only because you are a damaged Catholic.
Thank you for showing this audience, especially whoever is lurking as I personally know a few that don’t respond, the enormous gap being a faithful student of Scripture and proving these things verses those who sit back and make everything a practical joke or a conspiracy with ZERO evidence for their position.
Walt said “with the new tag team of Scott and Mathew ( i would bet a hundred dollars they know each other)” And ill put up another hundred they know Bob and CK. lol
Tim,
Are you celebrating Christmas this year? Do you believe Christmas originated prior to the birth of Rome in the 4th century?
Walt, I wasnt aware that Reformed Presbytyrians dont celebrate Christmas?
Walt, yes I do celebrate Christmas, and I have celebrated Christmas in the past. Your question is quite interesting, and I’m glad you asked. What I have been able to read today, the early Church was curious to find the date of Christ’s birth (I don’t have the sources at my fingertips, but I’ll come back to them), but there is no evidence that Christmas was celebrated until the end of the 4th century. The earliest identification if Christ’s birthday is from the Chronography of 354 A.D..
Under Christmas, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church has this to say (p. 338):
I really hadn’t thought of the actual date of the origins much until you asked, and it’s a very good question.
On a side note, I believe that Jesus would likely have been born in September, during the Festival of Succoth (literally “Stables”) (see Ge 33:17) also known as the Festival of Tabernacles (John 7:2), given that He came to fulfill the Law, and other significant events in His life took place at Festivals (Passover, Unleavened Bread, Pentecost). At that festival, the Jews stay in stables or booths for seven days to celebrate their release from bondage in Egypt (Leviticus 23:42, Nehemiah 8:14-18).
I have long been aware that some believers do not practice Christmas. I have generally taken Calvin’s view: “Since my recall, I have pursued the moderate course of keeping Christ’s birth-day as you are wont to do.” (see Letter 270, January 2, 1551).
One reason I have been less concerned about Christmas than about other novelties is that the Feast of Rededication of the Temple (the celebration of the Maccabean victory over Antiochus IV) was celebrated by the Jews in Jesus’ day, and on the day of the celebration, Jesus walked into the Temple and said nothing of it (John 10:22-23), which is considerably different from His response to the money changers (John 2:15).
In fact, he treated it like any other feast (i.e., Tabernacles, John 7:14; passover, Luke 2:46; unspecified feast, John 5:1).
I look forward to your thoughts on this, and I will study it further. But from all I can see from a quick perusal, the celebration of Christmas is also a novelty of the late 4th century.
Thanks,
Tim
Heardca great quote by Calvin ” th cross of Christ gets overthrown everytime the altar goes up” how true.
We Catholics sure have a lot of power to overthrow Christ. Guess he isn’t all that omnipotent, according to Calvin.
Scott’s words signify a feigned devotion to Christ. The Bible acknowledges a possible “made void” situation. This is a good example of how RCs deny Christ under the appearance of affirmation.
…so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. – 1Cor. 1:17
First of all, the suggestion of itself is offensive—that my devotion to Christ is “feigned.”
Second of all, “overthrow” and “made void” don’t mean the same thing. Perhaps you have some lexical sources which you can point me to which show that these two terms are synonymous.
Scott, you are being a hypocrite by telling Eric W to get a lexicon. You worship in a church that understands one sacrifice means many, one mediator means many, and not of yourselves means salvation by merit, and Word means church. Buy yourself a lexicon, ok.
That has zero to do with the topic under discussion. Can you address the topic under discussion or not?
Scott,
You intentionally portrayed Calvin as silly when he sought sincere and pure devotion to Christ. RC preachers, who preach a different Jesus, portray Calvin as silly. Sincere and pure devotion to Christ doesn’t listen to preachers who preach a different Jesus.
To overcome or make void are the same when some effect(s) is prevented. If you don’t want others to think you feign devotion, then don’t use words that signify that behavior.
You offer a propitiatory sacrifice to the Father. Bye Bye Cross of Christ.
I said the use of the expression “overthrow” was hyperbole gone mad. If hyperbole gone mad is silliness, so be it. Personally, I would call it demagoguery rather than silliness, but that’s me.
Scott, I think you misunderstand his quote. When the Catholic altar goes up, it is a complete denial of His perfect, one time sacrifice, at the consummation of the ages, that put sin away, perfected us, and obtained eternal redemption Hebrews 9:22. He didn’t obtain 6 months of redemption or 6 days, but eternal redemption. There are no more sacrifices for sin Hebrews 10:18. Rome tries to appeal to Melchizedek bringing bread and water to support their bread sacrifice, but no blood was shed there which is a necessity for forgiveness. And it wasn’t a sacrifice. And the the appeal to Malachi 1:11 fails hermeneutically. Tim said it very well the bread was broken and eaten, and thanksgiving was offered up to God in remembrance of the blood that has already saved us. Scott, Rome promotes pantheism, because in Roman Catholicism which bought Aristotle’s pagan categories, makes grace and accident that elevates nature into divinity. In fact, i don’t know if you know this but when a Catholic eats Christ’s divinity he retains it in his veins for 15 minutes Scott Hahn says. So Catholics are participating in the divine essence of God. They try to get around this by saying the creator creature distinction is still wide, however they are becoming little gods. They misinterpret the saying that Christ became man that we might become god. But that only means that we become, not what He is, but what He became to us in all holiness and righteousness.We become truly human, all God intended Adam to be. When Peter talks about participating in the divine nature, he uses the word koininia, fellowship, like a husband and wife or a monarch with his subjects. The Mass is seen as the greatest sacrilege by Protestants that will always keep us apart. Rome tries their best to emphasize it as a re presentation of the sacrifice on the cross, but Trent is very clear it is a true and proper sacrifice that is propitious. It is necessary to to merit the increase of sanctifying grace necessary for heaven, as all their other sacrifices are. But it is the summit. It has been called historically ” the work of the people” , unfortunately we cannot be justified by anything we do, only by faith alone in Christ alone. Neither transubstantiation nor bread sacrifice for sins was practiced in scripture or the early church. The supper for Protestants is a commemoration and remembrance of the one time sacrifice that put sins away, all of them. it is a time to give thanks, and praise for a justification we already permanently possess thru Christ. K
I’m sure I understand what he meant, it’s just that the way he says it is not how he ostensibly means it. He says “overthrown” where he means “denied.” Now, unless this is a mistranslation, it’s an ironic extreme of hyperbole to imagine that a denial (so-called) of the cross amounts to an overthrow of it. Not even Christopher Hitchens, who (unlike Catholics) really did deny the cross had one minor scratch on an iota of an ability to overthrow the cross, even if he had done nothing else in his life but utter blasphemies 24/7. In other words, Calvin was so wrought up about Catholics that he unwittingly ascribed to them a fictitious power they couldn’t have even if they sought it. Whether it’s what he meant or not, it’s what he said. (Again, unless that’s a mistranslation.) “Overthrow” and “deny” are two completely different things. This is hyperbole gone mad.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/overthrow
There’s not a single definition of “overthrow” here that would suit Calvin’s meaning. Either the translation is very bad, or Calvin was very paranoid.
Overthrow is the perfect word. The Catholic church and there faulty axioms of nature grace inner connection and the church as a continuation of incarnation and atonement ( altar) synergistic atomenent thru the acts of the church, seeking to overthrow the finished work of Christ on the cross that put sin away, and accomplished eternal redemption. Please see my post above on the God passed over the Jews and not infused them at the passover.
If “overthrow” is the perfect word, then you need to show one of two things:
(1) That the word “overthrow” and “deny” mean the same thing. Do you have any lexical sources you can direct me to which would establish this?
(2) That the Catholic Church has the power to overthrow the cross—that is to say, that the Catholic Church is more powerful than God.
Which of these two are you arguing?
Scott, quit being petty with words. Let me explain again what I think he means by overthrow. Set up in the place of. Thats why Tim is spot on that wise men think of antichrist often. Rome set up this idol-prpitiatory work in the church which overthrew jbfa and will not permit men to be saved, and Rome excomunicates itself from the church by this irreconcilable act. The Mass overthrows the gospel of faith in the finished work of Christ, and robs people of the assurance given in scripture.
Very well, you tell me nothing. Probably because you can’t. Incidentally, I agreed with you about what Calvin meant. I merely said that he was either using gross and impossible hyperbole, or this was a mistranslation. Insisting that words mean things is not being “petty,” it’s called knowing how to use the language—a concept that obviously is too vast for you to comprehend. You seem to think I’m also being petty in my insistence that if one historical event follows another, that must mean the earlier one came first!
Scott, your chronology is incomplete or lacked information. Namely, God spoke the world into existence ex nihlo. The Word precedes the church. We dont deny that the church plays its role. But its ministerial not magesterial. God called Abraham out of a moon worshiping family by his word, spokr creation into existence by his word, and saves men by meeting us in the gospel thru the Spirit. The church stands under his word and simply passes it on. Paul simply uses the church as a metaphor for the body of Christ, but it cannot replace Him or his infalible word. Rome says the word is written in thecheart of the church and they are the infalible interpreter and distributor of salvation thru secondary causes. But Evangelical theolgy says God has control of the conscience of man, not the church, and it is the Spirit who blows where andhow He wills. Churches dont connect us to God. No church owns Him.
I agree with that. You insist on confusing Jesus with the Bible. I’m talking about the Bible. You are trying to say I’m wrong by talking about Jesus. It doesn’t work that way. This is not a question of an incomplete chronology on my part—it’s a question of a slipperiness with the phrase “Word of God” on yours.
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
– 2Tim. 2:14
Would you say that Tim is also “wrangling about words”? Or is there some special reason he can make distinctions like this, but I can’t?
Scott,
Even Tim must be careful and take the same warning. There is a difference between you and Tim. Both of you hold high regard for the “Fathers”. On the other hand, you hold Calvin as a heretic.
I hold that some of Calvin’s views were heretical, yes. I also think (in fairness to Tim) that he is absolutely right to apply the standard he articulates. I would disagree with him in his application of it, but the standard is correct.
Scott, is Jesus the Word of God incarnate, and Isvthe bible the infalible Word inscrpturated? Has God not spoken to us thru his Word incarnate and inscripturated? Does not the word testify to the Word. We can speak of the Word of God and the word of God in this way. Why are you trying to drive a wedge. Because Rome says the church is the Word? Right. Thats a faulty proposition to collapse the head into the Body. The Word isnt the church, it preceeded the church. God saves men thru his Word, thecchurch can simply lead us to faith, the Spirit delivers the goods. Thats why the WCF says that the Pope cant be the head of the church. These Popes die, and how could the church live if its head were dead. But Christ is the head of the church, and the church forever lives in Him. God bless.
Scott, in Hebrews when we are told in these last days God spoke thru his Son, are we to believe all the previous words that God spoke in scripture aren’t the Word of God. God eternally speaks thru his Word thru the agency of the Spirit . “For by Him all things were created , both in the heavens and the earth, visible and invisible, whether thanes or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things have been created thru Him and for Him.” Notice God spoke the world into existence thru His Word. The words of Jeremiah or Isaiah are no less God’s Word than Jesus is God’s Word. We obviously know that Jesus isn’t 66 books and 66 books isn’t Jesus, but the Word of God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. K
Scott, one more thing. Tim, described this to me very well. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the Life. He is saying the things He says about himself are true and we must believe them. Catholics like to say Jesus is the “Word of God” but separate it from sola scriptura. But this is a mistake since the infallible scripture testifies about the Son and is the Word of God. I must believe the words of Christ and disbelieve words not true. For instance the word of god says Christ is the inly mediator. I bleive this. Roman Catholicism says Mary is a mediator. I don’t believe that. We don’t just preach Jesus, but the His words of truth found in scripture. K
Scott, the Roman Catholic church has its own version of the Talmud. And this tradition supplants the the sufficiency of Scripture. You need look no further that how Jesus dealt with the Roman Catholics of His day ” those trying to be justified by law.” He accused them of abandoning the scriptures for the sake of their traditions, and He told them they taught as doctrines the commandments of Men. He said ” I am the way, the truth, and the Life” He who believes in me shall never perish. But the Jews didn’t believe. Similarly God sent Luther to unpile all the things that Rome had piled on the cross of Christ, so that Christians could be saved in what Paul calls ” the simple devotion to Jesus Christ” by faith. The Roman Catholic church is the height of unbelief making necessary so many things to be saved. But the scripture is clear to look or test in anything else but Christ Alone is to deny faith, which the book of Hebrews tells us without it it is impossible to please Him. All Catholics must leave that church and trust in the finished work of Christ. And as Tim has so clearly shown thru many hours of scholarly research, Rome is the error, the antichrist. You are a man where words are important. Anti means in greek, in place of. Rome has substituted its sacerdotal system for Christ and simple faith. This will not stand. K
And incidentally the Corban rule (which is what is being discussed in the passage you cite) has nothing to do with the Pharisees trying to be justified by the law. They did try to be justified through the law, but the Corban rule has nothing to do with that. It has to do with traditions that subvert the law, which us a different question altogether.
“We obviously know that Jesus isn’t 66 books and 66 books isn’t Jesus, but the Word of God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”
Okay, then you concede that Jesus and the Bible are two different things. You might say the Bible testifies to Jesus—that I would have no problem with—but you can’t say that the Bible IS Jesus.
So we agree on that.
My point was that the church that began on Pentecost exists before the Bible exists. I never claimed that the church that began on Pentecost exists before the eternal Word (understood as Jesus Christ) exists. That is not my claim, that is not my belief–and over and over and over and over again I pointed this out to you, but you keep going back to it as if it’s somehow relevant to what I was trying to say.
Why you think you can refute the point I made with the other point that I didn’t make, and actually agree to, is still a mystery to me. They are two separate claims. Somehow the idea that the New Testament—you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.—came into being after the church did gets you all tied up in knots, to where you have to go and say that Jesus existed in the beginning with the Father, which is not a contradiction at all. Somehow you think it’s a refutation. It’s not. BOTH are true.
Tim–
I would have answered your thread directly but it ran out of reply arrows.
You said “As regards Ephraim the Syrian, it is difficult to construct a coherently Roman Catholic liturgy from his works. Even within the passage you cited, there is a denial of transubstantiation: “But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread.” How can it only be bread to him who does not believe, if it has already been transubstantiated into Christ’s Body and blood? In his Hymn on the Nativity, he says again that its value is in what the individual believes, not in what the priest”
Here is his logic. You believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is His proclaimed Word, right? How can he receive The Word if he doesn’t believe? It’s still the Word of God. The value is in what the individual believes. The Word is to no effect to an unbeliever.
There is no denial of transubstantiation.
Tim–“Has God lied by saying the man worships a stock of tree, knowing full well that the man believes in his heart that he is worshiping ‘his god’? Nor am I lying to you when I say that you worship bread. You do not believe that you do, and the man in Isaiah 44 did not believe that he was worshiping a tree. Yet as surely as he worshiped the tree, you worship bread.”
Your quote of Isaiah 44 is a really bad example. God did not before hand say to the man “Here, take this wood and make an image of Me, for this is My Body which is given up for you. And take this cup of sap and bark and start a fire and cook your food with it. It is the sap of My Blood, the Blood of the New and everlasting Covenant which will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of Me.
If you don’t carve My Flesh and burn My Sap and Bark you will not have life in you and I will not raise you up on the last day.”
Because My Flesh is true wood and My Sap and Bark is true fuel.”
Sounds absurd doesn’t it? But Jesus DID equate His Body and Blood with bread and wine. This IS my Body. This IS my Blood.
I worship Jesus Christ in the sacrament that He Himself established. He is truly present.
Tim, you are lying to me when you say that I worship bread. I DO NOT WORSHIP BREAD!
You lied. Now correct it.
Mathew – it doesn’t matter what you believe. Tim is his own pope and your lord. You believe what he says you believe and be thankful he doesn’t lock you in a room with Wild Eyed Kevin.
CK, In what way have I made myself pope? I have at no point ever told Matthew what he believes. I have told him that in spite of what he believes, he nonetheless is bowing to, and worshiping a piece of bread. In fact I stated explicitly in my comment to him that “You do not believe that you do [worship bread], and the man in Isaiah 44 did not believe that he was worshiping a tree.”
You mentioned in a comment some time ago that “What they fail to see is that if you MUST rely on untruths to get to your truth, then what you have cannot be the truth.” Yet here you are, alleging that I told Matthew what he believes, when I clearly agreed that he does not believe he is worshiping bread.
Is it possible that you have relied on a half-truth to make a point? Is it possible that you yourself do not have the truth?
Thanks,
Tim
Matthew,
Your use of John 6 is a really bad example. Jesus was clearly speaking metaphorically in John 6, such that “eating” is a figure for “coming to Him” and “drinking” is a figure for “believing in Him.”
The conversation started when Jesus said, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (John 6:27). This draws us back to a comment he made in John 4, that He had meat of which His disciples knew not, for His “meat” was to do the will of His father:
Do you believe that Jesus’ Father’s will became flesh and blood for Jesus to eat?
When Jesus starts a conversation metaphorically, it is bad exegetical form to complete it literally.
As I have noted elsewhere, and will continue on this thread, the Early Church did not see the bread and wine as literally the body and blood of Christ. They understood his words at the Last Supper to mean that this bread is a figure, symbol or antitype of His body, and that the wine was a figure, symbol or antitype of His blood.
So no, Jesus never commanded you to make an image of Him or to bow down and worship the Eucharistic bread. The fact that there is no clear evidence of Eucharistic adoration until late in the 11th century, and that elevation of the host and kneeling before the Eucharist at Mass can be traced no earlier than that time, speaks quite convincingly that the True Presence you think you worship was unknown to the early church.
I know you don’t believe it, but you do in fact worship a crust of bread, which is idolatry. The lie is not in my saying so, but in your darkened heart and blind eyes, that you cannot see or understand that what you worship as God is nothing more than a piece of wheat forged into a piece of graven bread, and yet you have convinced yourself that you are worshiping Him in spirit and in truth.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you said:
But the evidence you give that the conversation “started” metaphorically is something Jesus says in John 4. Between John 4 and John 6 “some time” elapses, as we are told in John 5. So aren’t these two different conversations?
Tim–“Your use of John 6 is a really bad example. Jesus was clearly speaking metaphorically in John 6, such that “eating” is a figure for “coming to Him” and “drinking” is a figure for “believing in Him.”
“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35)”
You believeth in figures.
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
Ergo, you believe that the flesh that He gave for the life of the world was just a figure of His flesh. That was just your belief in him that was nailed to the Cross.
I believeth Jesus when he says:
“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 yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
Ergo, I believe Jesus when He says His flesh if TRUE food, not figurative food. And His blood is TRUE drink and not figurative drink.
Sorry, I don’t believe in some figure of Jesus, I believe in the Real Presence of Him.
Also, your spin on what the Fathers were saying just doesn’t wash, because you start with the false premise that they believed Jesus Flesh and Blood are just a figure.
Tim, you lied. Now correct it.
Mathew, this is not talking about the flesh given for us on the cross. I address this in an earlier post today. I hope you will read it. We can all agree that the flesh that died on the flesh that died on the cross saved many. John 6 isnt about the Eucharist or sacramental interprt. I hope you will read my earlier post. God bless Kevin
Preach it brother Tim!!!!! Why you trust a collection of books put together by the anti-christ is the true mystery.
Thanks, CK. Are you saying Antichrist put the bible together in the late 4th century? If not, when did the bible come into existence?
Thanks,
Tim
CK, when did Rome put this collection of books together?
Thanks,
Tim
CK–
I hope this information helps.
Athanasius of Alexandria compiled this list of books accepted as canon: “Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles — namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John
These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them…
But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.”–Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter in the year 367
This is the earliest list of the current 27 books of the New Testament compiled without additions or subtractions. This is the same canon that is listed in the Latin Vulgate.
The Codex Sinaiticus was an earlier version but it added the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermes. All earlier lists were either incomplete or added other writings that were later rejected.
The current canon was officially accepted at the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.
So one could say that the canon closed no earlier than 367 AD but officially in 397 AD, which is after the 358 AD date which Tim proposes the rise of Roman Catholicism started.
I’m sure he’ll differ with this somehow.
Scott, Ck, and Tim,
( I hope Tim doesn’t mind me throwing him in with the other Catholics. He does indeed carry the Tau of Baptism and the seal of the Spirit given in Confirmation. He is just confused and doing the work of the devil for the moment but hopefully will come out of it before he dies ).
Did you all notice that Kevin asserted the following ( from now on I will refer to him using the acronym supplied by CK; WEK, which is short for “Wild Eyed Kevin” );
” Namely, God spoke the world into existence ex nihlo. ”
Where does WEK get this? Certainly not in Genesis. That account shows God forming the world out of pre-existing stuff.
Creatio ex nihilo is not explicit in the 66 books of WEK’s Bible.
Only in our complete Bible do we this doctrine clearly taught.
Matthew,CK and Scott,
Isn’t Kevin a.k.a.”WEK” incredible? A classic throw back to the 19th century Know-Nothing Party of New York. ( Ever see “The Gangs of New York”? )
He is like a dinosaur. A breed almost extinct but brought back to life like in Jurassic Park. He is quite valuable to study like a weird bug under a microscope ( and then squish him with your thumb ).
He uses all the classic slurs made famous by bigots of yesteryear.
Imagine how bad WEK would be if we didn’t have the secular authorities to restrain him. I have no doubt he would burn down a convent or pass out Jack Chick comix to children.
And Tim whips him up into his wild eyed frenzy.
By the way, Scott, we know each other from that “other blog”.
I am the dashing Zorro-like swashbuckler loved by the good and feared by the bad known as… get ready for this… GUY FAWKES!
Guy Fawkes unmasked! Incidentally, I was quite amused by that game of “expose the contradiction” going on on the other blog.
What does it mean the flesh does not give life, the Holy Spirit does?
That you must accept what God says through faith, not through human reason.
Scott, According to the first part of the discourse, Jesus speaks about believing in Him for eternal life, leading to resurection on the final day. In the second part, He metaphorically repeats the first idea, now with feeding on his flesh and drinking his blood leading to resurection. To take this metaphorical expression as a reference to the bread and the cup of the Eucharist makes the sacrament necessary for salvation, thus contradicting Jesus emphasis on faith in the earlier part of the discourse. Jesus later statement ” it is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is no help at all. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” warns against a sacramental interpretation of this discourse. Clearly flesh in this discourse does not refer to Christ’ incarnation, which does indeed avail for everything regarding eternal life. The flesh has direct referal to the previous discussion which plainly rejects sacramental inference. He also says eating his flesh not his body. This cant be used as Rome’s reason. Thx K
Ok, let me ask you a question. You’re referring to John 6:63. What is the question that Jesus is answering when he says this?
Scott, the immediate statement by Christ after 63 is ” but there are some of you who dont believe.” He was clarifying for the disciples dont understand this physically. Many of those who took him physically walked away pbecause they were unbelievers. Same thing with Catholics. To come to a saramental physical understanding is to miss faith. Hope you are having a good day.
I’m not asking you what Christ said after verse 63. I’m asking you what question he is answering. Someone asked him a question, and he’s answering it in verse 63. What’s the question he’s answering?
Tim,
I had to take a break from our discussion about the Romish Church starting in the latter half of the 4th century.
3 times I asked you about Linus and the list of bishops of Rome. In frustration, I gave up and went elsewhere to discuss the Papacy in the early Church. If you ever answered me, I never found it with all of Kevin’s camouflage. I see the situation has not improved so why bother, huh?
Actually, I suspect you were grateful for Kevin’s tidal wave of protective spam as your assertion claiming the Church to be a late 4th century heresy falls apart just by tracing the papacy back before that date.
Jim,
Glad to hear from you. Here is the post I provided to you on the day you acknowledged that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.
Best regards,
Tim
———-
Thanks. You are correct. Irenæus identified Linus as the first bishop of Rome.
What is interesting in Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraphs 1-4, is that Irenæus neither identifies Peter as the first Bishop of Rome, nor imputes anything special to the bishopric except that it was located in the chief city of the empire. The intent of this chapter was to show that “it is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.” (paragraph 1).
Since it was “within the power of all … in every Church,” to find the truth, then to which Church should someone go in order to find the truth? Well, every Church. Anyone who wanted to get the truth could go to any Church at all—there was no need to go to Rome. Irenæus gave several examples:
“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.”
“It is true,” said Irenaeus, “that there is the ancient letter from Clement to the Corinthians,” and “From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches” (paragraph 3). Of course, Polycarp’s letter was “very powerful” and would serve the purpose, too:
“There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth.” (paragraph 4)
Either epistle will do, apparently. The great thing about these Epistles, though, is that Clement and Polycarp insist that the recipients turn to the Scriptures:
“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached?” (Clement, to the Corinthians, chapter 47).
“For I trust that you are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you” (Polycarp, to the Philippians, chapter 12)
Of course, if you can’t get to Rome, or get your hands on Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, or if you can’t get to Smyrna, or get your hands on Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, “Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” (Paragraph 4). Yes, Ephesus would do nicely, too.
It seems that Irenæus’ point was not that there was a consistent, or even a unique, testimony in Rome, but that there was a consistent testimony throughout the known world, in every Church, and it frankly didn’t matter to which one you went to find the truth. Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, or “all the Asiatic Churches.” The testimony was the same. The great thing about this is that you could go to any of these Churches and find that there were no “secret teachings” floating around out there, waiting to be discovered in the 4th or the 11th centuries—like incense, kneeling on Sunday, candles, Eucharistic adoration, transubstantiation, Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary’s sinlessness, Papal primacy, etc… Anything you needed to know you could learn at any Church in the world, and anything you needed to know had already been delivered:
“For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.” (paragraph 1).
Irenæaus was apparently unaware of the development of the “Development of Doctrine” doctrine.
I said earlier that there was no need to go to Rome. That’s not exactly true. Apparently Polycarp needed to go to Rome:
“He [Polycarp] it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.” (Paragraph 4).
Good thing Rome had “Pope” Anicetus who had it covered, so they didn’t have to import an Asian bishop to set things straight in Rome. 🙂 Didn’t Polycarp know that Anicetus was infallible, and had it all under control?
Jim, I know none of this will matter to you. But you should know that your citation of Irenæus to prove the existence of the Papacy prior to 350 A.D. actually does the opposite of what you think it does.
Tim
Tim,
Of course Apostolic succession existed in all the bishoprics. Who ever said it didn’t. That is not the point.
Irenaeus said it would be too much work to trace the Apostolic succession for all the Churches/Bishoprics. Therefore he opted for the chief bishopric, Rome.
By the way, Rome was not the chief bishopric because it was the chief city of the empire. When that suggestion was first made, when the Constantinople became the New Rome, it was clarified that Rome had been the city of Peter and Paul, not the Caesars.
Tim, before 350, Rome was already recognized as the authority.
Rome had weighed in on a dispute in Corinth.
Ignatius acknowledged Rome in a special way.
Irenaeus was long dead before 350.
Pope Victor had addressed the issue of the date of Easter to the eastern churches.
Stephan had intervened in the affairs of Carthage.
The Council of Sardica had indicated Roman primacy.
What other see was appealed to to settle a dispute in another bishopric? Di any other bishopric tell another one how to behave?
Why the quotation marks around the word “pope”. Nobody denies the word “papa” or “abba” was/is used for any patriarch or abbot at first. It took a couple of centuries for it to be narrowed down to the Bishop of Rome in the West. What’s your point?
In your litany of romish innovations, you forgot the most perfidious of all- the diabolical Bingo game!
Scott, I just told you what question he was answering. He was clarifying for the disciples who said this is a difficult statement who can understand it. He was answering the question are we to understand this physically or spiritually, to which He gave a resounding It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh cant help you at all. God is Spirit, and the words he speaks are spirit. We are to belive his words about eternal life, thats it. This passage isnt way before the last supper, and in a different place. I have Jewish Christian friend who just shakes his head and laughs at Rome’ brutal mischaricterization of John 6. Rome reads the book of John like a metaphysical essay, its simply about coming and believing and as the result receiving eternal life. Thanks K
Scott, that should read it is long before the last supper and a different place. I will let you have the last word unless you want to discuss it further. Why dont you just give me your point. Thanks
Oh, wait. Was the question “Who can understand it?” Or was the question “Who can accept it?” (John 6:60) The Greek word in question is “akouein,” which literally means “Who can hear it?” English translations that don’t translate “akouein” as the literal “hear” normally translate it “accept”—with one exception, that is, the NET Bible. NIV and four other versions translate it “accept”; the rest translate it literally as “hear” or “listen to.”
Well, whether you say that Jesus is being asked “Who can understand this?” or “Who can accept this?” makes a big difference. If “accept” is right, it means that they understand what he just said perfectly well, and therefore there’s no reason to believe that in John 6:63 he’s simply clarifying their misunderstanding along the lines of, “Don’t worry folks, I was just speaking metaphorically here.” Rather, he was trying to help them accept what they already understood perfectly well.
So then my question for you would be: What reason do you believe that “akouein” is more properly rendered “understand” than “accept”?
And the other question is: If Jesus is to be understood as clarifying that he was speaking metaphorically in verse 63, then why do so many of his followers abandon him in verse 66? Are we to believe that they still assumed Christ to be speaking literally even after he clarified that he was speaking metaphorically?
Scott, acording to what you just said, Jesus could have just stayed home that day, He was wasting his time, they already understood it. Wow! Thats the first time I have ever heardthat. Thats as proposterous as a sacramental understanding of a passage that had nothing to do with the last supper. Jewish christians understand this well and scoff at Rome’s attempt to make it about Eucharist. Its about coming and believing as He states clearly in the first part of the discourse, and the second part He uses metaphor to help them understsnd. He finally just flat out tells them, get your minds off the physical, the words I speak are Spirit, the flesh cant profit you at all. And like Tim telling the RC’s here they still didnt get it. God is Spirit, his Word is Spirit. Augustine ” understand spiritually what I tell you. When Rome bought transubstantiation it bought the physical and therefore according to Jesus bought unbelief. The difference Scott between us and you is you have a low view of faith and need add the the physical, we on the other hand believe John in 1 John 5 by our faith we overcome the world. Faith alone in Christ alone.
If he had just stayed home that day, they wouldn’t have heard what they had understood. Jesus only said what they understood because he left home in the first place. Nice try.
I can say that more clearly. What they “already understood” when they asked the question in John 6:60 was what Jesus said in John 6:35-51. If Jesus had “stayed home that day,” he never would have spoken the words in John 6:35-51 in the first place. So your objection makes no sense. They didn’t “already understand” something Jesus said on a previous occasion. They “already understood” what Jesus said a minute earlier—after he had left home. They weren’t asking him to explain it, they were asking him to give them a reason to accept it.
I would like to publicly apologize to everyone here for any offense I have given this year while in the course of discussion. Also I would like to apologize to everyone, especially Tim for too many posts, and long posts. I would also like to apologize for interupting other peoples discussions and any other rudeness. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. God bless everyone in the New Year. K
Tim,
Is the dating of the Gospel of James somewhere around 150 A.D.?
That means the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was around for about 200 years before your magical date of 350.
Plus, early historians like Jerome and Eusebius say Justin, Irenaeus, Polycarp and Ignatius taught it too.
Scott, the burden is heavy on you to explain sacramental context and meaning, in fact I have explained the passage acurately and its impossible to bring the meaning of ongoing physical eating of his flesh tha ” will” bring the Catholic eternal life. Jesus says beliving brings resurection. Also, your argument about accept versus understand is weak because people ask questions because they dont understand. He first tell them to belueve unto eternal life. In the second part of the discourse He gives them metaphor to understand coming and believing because there mind like Roman Catholics is on the physical manna. At last he flat out tells them the words I speak are Spirit, the flesh does you know good. But you, and Ck, and Jim and Mathew tell us without the constant physical nourishment you cant spiritually live. But see this is what Jesus rejects, He says my words are spirit, it is thd Spirit of God who gives salvation thru believing. K
Impossible to bring the meaning “eating” to the passage? Really? Aren’t you forgetting verse 56?
Moreover “trogon” in verse 56 is present tense, literally translated “The one who is eating my flesh and drinking my blood”—which implies an “ongoing” action.
Scott, that is consistent with the one who believes, one continues to believe. But you refuse to see the parralel between believind in the first part of the discouse and eating in the second and Spirit not flesh in the literal answer to their question. Again think about the context, Jews looking for physical signs ” manna” and Jesus saying I’ m the bread come down frm heaven, not bread offered up to heaven. To eat this bread or his flesh is to come and believe. But they like Catholics walk away understanding physically. Its flat out unbelief. Trogo does not always mean to gnaw, I beg to differ. It has more than one meaning. No, the burden is on you is to prove this has sacramental interpret. When its long before the Supper and its about coming and believing. Incidentally he says eat my flesh not my body. Two different words. K Thanks for thecdiscussion.
If “trogo” doesn’t always mean “to gnaw,” give me one instance of its use in a different sense. Just one. You’re not going to find it in the New Testament, because it’s used 6 times only in the NT, and 4 of them are in John 6; the 5th has to do with eating bread with Christ at the Last Supper; and the 6th is in Matthew about those who were eating and drinking in the days of Noah. So get out your Liddell-Scott and find me the reference to “trogo” being used in some different sense in some other classical or koine text. I’m not sure what edition you have of Liddell-Scott that tells you differently, but the 1991 impression has the entry on page 822. Or, if you’re inclined, you could check out Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (1979), where the reference is on p. 631. Have at it.
Here’s a standard reference from an online source, and it gives only the one single sense of trogo: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5176
Of course Jesus is the bread come down from heaven in the Incarnation. He’s also the bread offered up to heaven on Calvary. The Mass has to do with Calvary; no Catholic has ever claimed it had to do with Bethlehem.
I’m not sure how the parallelism with believing that you mention has to do with a literal vs. a metaphorical reading. That’s simply a non-issue.
You continue to go down rabbit trails. You spent so much ink on trogo. Your only answer to me definitavly showing you in 3 parralel section, the first being the discourse on believing, the secong being the metaphor for believing, and finally Jesus telling the flesh profits you nothing, the Spirit gives life. And you turn around and say the passage is about the flesh, and has sacramental meaning. This passage has nothing to do with tbe Lord’s supper. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong subject. Other tha that your batting 1000. Im done. God bless
“He says eat my flesh” not “eat my body.”
First, that’s wrong. He says “flesh” (σάρκα) in John 6:53.
He says “body” (σῶμά) in Matt. 26:26.
Second, in this context, can you tell me what the difference is between Christ’s “flesh” and Christ’s “body.” Is flesh part of something different than Christ’s body? This is really desperate if you’ve resorted to this fictitious distinction.
Oh, and if you want to go to a third lexicon, just for thoroughness on your own part in checking me out, try Kittel.
https://www.logos.com/product/8491/theological-dictionary-of-the-new-testament
Search top and bottom and find me that reference.
And even Vine’s (a Protestant source) admits that the root word “trogo” means “to gnaw or chew.”
And a quick check of lexical sources tells me that the word “trogo” is *never* used in a metaphorical sense anywhere else in either classical Greek or koine Greek. So the burden is really on you to show how, if “trogo” is never used metaphorically anywhere else, it’s to be understood as such here.
Tim;
I am anticipating your assertion that the case of Cyprian ( 100 years before your date of 350 ) somehow proves your case so I am beating you to the punch with this:
“”The Lord said to Peter, ‘I say unto thee, that thou art Peter… feed my sheep,,, shall be loosened in heaven….upon him he builds the Church and commits to him the sheep to feed AND THOUGH ALL THE APOSTLES HE GIVES AN EQUAL POWER, YET HE FOUNDED ONE CHAIR AND BY HIS AUTHORITY APPOINTED THE SOURCE THE SOURCE AND SYSTEM OF UNITY. CERTAINLY THE REST WERE AS PETER BUT PRIMACY IS GIVEN TO PETER AND ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR IS SHOWN; AND THEY ARE ALL SHEPHERDS BUT ONE FLOCK IS EXHIBITED, WHICH IS FED BY ALL THE APOSTLES WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT…hE WHO DESERTS THE CHAIR OF PETER UPON WHOM THE CHURCH WAS FOUNDED, DOES HE TRUST HIMSELF TO BE IN THE CHURCH?…’
Then, going on and quoting from Cyprian, Ep.Iv. ad cornel pp 182
‘ Moreover,..to carry letters from profane men to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise; nor do they consider that the Romans are those the whose faith was praised by the Apostle TO WHOM FAITHLESSNESS CANNOT HAVE ACCESS”.
Read what Cyprian said to Pope Cornelius for a clear understanding of Cyprian’s views on the Papacy. He says to be in union with Pope Cornelius is to be in union with the Catholic Church. He calls Rome the “root and mother of the Catholic Church” and the “Chair of Peter the source of unity”.
Even after the martyrdom of of Pope Fabian, when the Chair was vacant, Cyprian wrote to the clergy of Rome for advice on a dispute.
As for the Rock of Matthew 16, Cyprian explain that all the Apostles were given authority but Peter was singled out.
Augustine assures us that the argument between Cyprian and Stephan did not breech the bonds of unity.
Besides,, Cyprian was wrong. The Church does not rebaptize.
Remember the date, Tim. This was long before your “latter half of the 4th century”.
Scott,
Are you aware of what the expression “to eat someone’s flesh” means?
It is used in the book of Daniel to describe how the enemies of the Jews conspired against them. It means to revile. slander and lie about someone. I understand the phrase is still used today in Palestine.
I actually first heard this awesome bit of information from Chuck Swindoll of all people. Too bad Chuck didn’t link it up with John 6. But he went into great detail in a radio show about Daniel about 20 years ago.
I have already told this to the Protestants on this blog this long ago. Notice how it has never sunk in.
Jim,
I never heard that before but I just looked up your comment on the earlier post. I suppose, then, that if Jesus *had* been speaking metaphorically, then the meaning would have been “unless you slander and revile me, you have no life in you.” It could only have a literal meaning, since the commonly understood figurative meaning (more of an idiom than a metaphor) would have rendered Christ’s words ridiculous.
Hi Scott, hope you are having a nice Christmas. You are caught up on the wrong point in concentrating on the metaphorical versus the literal. The point of the passage is believing versus the flesh which profits nothing. Rome reads into it exactly opposite of what Jesus point is . Jesus says earlier to the Jews that ” the work of God is to believe” , yet Rome calls the Mass the ” work of the people” to earn increase of salvation. But Jesus told them that beliving resulted in resurection. The Mass is the work for the flesh, Jesus said his words were Spirit and only coming and believing can save some one. To receive the bread from heaven one must believe, which is opposite of thd Catholic Mass. Hope this helps, God bless.
Jim said ” do you know what eat my flesh means” ya, its clear in John 6 it is a metaphor for believe. The first part of the discourse is about coming and believing, the second part is the metaphor for believing and the 3rd part he tells them the flesh profits them nothing, and yet you make it about the how the flesh profits you. There isnt any sacramental meaning in this passage, and its not about the flesh that hung on the cross. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong subject. Your interpretation in John 6 is unbelief. K
The hypothetical RC invites us to Mass and asks us, ” Does this cause you to stumble ? (John 6:61)
Before we answer, he asks another question: What then if you believe the Son of Man comes down from heaven AND remains in heaven ?
The word of institution at Mass is the answer to that question. John 6 records an historical context of Jesus speaking with the people. He was present. The Mass is the new supra-historical context of Jesus speaking to the people through the words/ Priest. He is present. The RC cannot see any other way to make Jesus’ words true in our context. He must be in heaven AND on earth .
Whenever we deny the “present” Jesus at Mass, we are in effect “seeing and hearing Jesus” at Mass, but we don’t believe. (John 6:36)
Behold ! The Mass is the substitute Jesus and substitute historical context of John 6.
Jesus can’t be present in heaven and earth? Is Jesus God or not? Your objection is based on a theoretical limit to God, which somehow you are applying here in order to reject a doctrine because you want to reject it.
Scott, you wrote:
Jesus can’t be present in heaven and earth? Is Jesus God or not?
Your questions reveal something about yourself. You assume that his power is already working at Mass in the way you want. Then you speculate about God’s power within logical possibility. All of this is done without a single word from God ! I notice you didn’t object to my portrayal in the hypothetical.
———————
You wrote:
…in order to reject a doctrine because you want to reject it.
The hypothetical RC continues…
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits everything; the words that I ( RCC doctrine) have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”
You would love it if I said, ” “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.” I reject it because Jesus said the flesh profits nothing.
And you assume his power can’t work at Mass in the way you don’t want. Note that you say you “reject” what Peter affirmed.
The purpose of my question was not to show that transubstantiation is correct, but that the reason you object to transubstantiation is invalid. If you are going to object to it, you need to come up with a better reason than “It’s not possible for God to do that.” Really? There’s something it’s not possible for God to do? Obviously, whether he does do it is another question. But if he doesn’t, it’s not because he can’t.
Amen Eric W, this is so well stated. How does Christ return for Catholics, He never left for them. Push the Holy Spirit aside, He was unnecessary, Christ stayed as the church.
Your misunderstanding of what the Church believes is vast. That’s the most I will allow myself to say on this Solemnity of the Nativity.
Since the Nativity does involve a manger, however, I suppose I can say STRAW MAN.
Kevin,
They don’t have words of eternal life. I think you are right about the Spirit being unnecessary.
“Eat my flesh and have eternal life because flesh profits nothing”?
That makes no sense unless Christ is using “flesh” in one sense in the verse 53 and “another in verse 63.
When Christ says “eat my flesh” (verse 53) he means “eat my body, that brings you eternal life.”
When Christ says “the flesh profits nothing” (verse 63) he means “human reason profits nothing; faith does.”
But you insist on looking at the first use of “flesh” and the second use of”flesh” and interpreting them as one in the same sense. That makes nonsense of what Christ is saying. Christ only makes sense if he’s making contrastive use of the word “flesh.”
Clearly Christ believes flesh in the first sense profits something because he says “unless you eat my flesh you will have no life in you.” (John 6:53). I think having life in you is profit, don’t you? He’s talking about his own flesh—that is, his body.
It is in the second sense (John 6:63) that Christ says “the flesh profits nothing.” Here he’s no longer talking about his flesh; he’s talking about ours. “The spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing.” He’s talking about faith vs. reason. The reason I say this is because I have looked at the question he is answering. He is asked, “This is hard; how can we ACCEPT this?” Christ tells them how. To paraphrase: You can’t accept it because your reason is standing in your way. You need to accept it on faith. I can give you my body to eat.”
Scott said ” certainly eating his flesh profits something” its amazing to me Catholics never talk about faith or believing. Dont you think you are leaving a big part of John 6 out, like the main point throughout, believing . To eat his flesh is tobelieve.. He is trying to get this point thru to the Catholics of His day who want to look for the physical manna, which is unbelief, because only the Spirit brings life. Flesh doesnt mean human reason, it signifies unbelief. This is not talking about the flesh that died on the cross which benefits those who are called. Its about believing. ” The Spirit gives life” not physically eating flesh. One more time, The Spirit gives life. How? By believing. There is no sacramental meaning here. And certainly it says eat his flesh, not his body and divinty. Eating is believing. And those who tried to make it about physical food, Hecflat out tells them. My last comment on this subject, ill give u last word.
Catholics never talk about faith or believing?
You really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, do you? Stop now before Bill Engvall puts a sign on you.
And also, you’re not analyzing anything. You’re not exegeting. You’re just asserting. That doesn’t work.
Scott, look at your own posts on John 6, its completely focused on the physically eating of Christ in a sacrament, when the whole context is about believing. Even though Jesu told them not to long for the physical manna but He was the bread from heaven and believing appropriates Christ, not the physical. You look at the physical only, the very thing Jesus is speaking against. K
My posts are
Sure, because:
1. I believe that’s what John 6 says.
2. That’s the part of it you deny.
This is a problem why? If I want to defend my reading of the passage, I’m not going to do so by talking about your reading of the passage. That would be silly.
Eric W, 1 Corinthians 2:12 ” Now that we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God.” Eric W my good friend, let our Catholic Interlocutors observe in this one verse the violations of their abominable religion. First, We have received the Spirit of Christ, not the flesh of Christ, we are incorporated into his body and his humanity thru the Spirit. We worship the incarnate body of Christ thru the Spirit which we have received and which gives us life. Second, ” that we may know” , because we possess the Spirit of Christ, we KNOW that we possess all these things from God concerning our salvation, including our justification. Third, notice “they are freely given” to us by God thru faith in His Son. Now lets compare this to the Roman Catholic plan of salvation and how IT violates this verse. First, “it is the flesh” that gives life, the Spirit profits nothing. Second, ” we CANNOT know that we possess salvation including justification until we pass the final exam of our righteousness mixed with His at judgment. . Third, these things ” are NOT freely given by God” , but instead grace is the tool to merit salvation at the sacraments. The Mass is called ” the work of the people” for salvation thru history, can that be reconciled with all things freely given by God, I think not. Can the Mass as a continued physical feeding to stay saved be reconciled with you may know, i think not. And can the we received all these things be reconciled with receiving all things thru the flesh, I think not. God bless K
I will grant you that there is a figure of speech on with the word “flesh.” But it’s not the figure of speech you think it is. (These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.) It’s not a metaphor. (“My love is like a red red rose” is a simile; “my love is a red red rose” is a metaphor.)
Properly, it’s called a metonymy. You get a metonymy when you substitute a part for a whole or a whole for a part. So if you say “the pen is mightier than the sword,” you’re using a metonmy because you’re substituting “pen” for “words” and “sword” for “war.”
So in this passage. In verse 53 Christ says that we must “eat his flesh” to have eternal life. Now, the Catholic teaching is that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. So Christ is substituting a part (flesh) for the whole (body, blood, soul, and divinity).
In verse 63 Christ says “the flesh profits nothing.” Here, as I said, we have a contrastive sense of the word “flesh,” though still a metonymy. What he means is “human reason profits you nothing.” He’s substituting “flesh” (part) for “reason” (whole).
FYI
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
And I knew there was a word for the kind of figure of speech where you repeat the same word in different senses, so I looked it up in a valuable book on figures of speech I’ve had for years, by Arthur Quinn.
The name of it is “antanaclasis.”
An example is Benjamin Franklin’s words: “We must all hang together or surely we shall hang separately.” The word “hang” doesn’t mean the same thing in the second instance as it does the first.
That’s what’s going on with Christ’s use of the word “flesh.” He’s using antanaclasis.
So again, I grant you figure of speech—but it ain’t the droid you’re looking for.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
8. accused the Jews—literally, “ate the rent limbs,” or flesh of the Jews (compare Job 31:31; Ps 14:4; 27:2; Jer 10:25). Not probably in general, but as Da 3:12 states, Sh
Jim: Which verse is JFB commenting on here?
Dan. 3:8?
Scott,
Exactly.
Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and the other guys, Catholic and Protestant, especially to our estranged brother Tim and his blond family.
Tim, hi, hope you are enjoying Christmas with your family. Tim, the Catholic system and its faulty axiom of naturecgrace innerconnection makes transubstantiation necessary for salvation. That fallen human nature can be prepared to receive grace is not biblical, besides being pelagian. Rome’ s synergistic neccessity for the participant to receive increases of grace thru the acts of the church necessitates their faulty understanding od passages like John 6. Imputation of Christ’s righteouness through faith alone is the antithesis to this Relgion. Faith will always take a back seat to the physical nature of grace and the necessity for infusions of it ?
Here is Coffman’s Bible Commnetary ( No, not Kauffman’s )
“THE CHALDEANS’ CHARGE AGAINST THE JEWS
“Brought accusations …” (Daniel 3:8). Some translate this, “maliciously brought accusations”; and it would appear to be an accurate reflection of what happened. The Hebrew here has an idiom that reads literally, “ate their pieces.”[17] It also may be read, “ate their flesh.” Many of the “old guard” in Babylon hated those foreign newcomers who had been so signally honored by the king; and, moved by jealousy, …”
This is a Protestant talking above.
The first half of Jn 6 is indeed metaphorical. Jesus is the Bread of Life.
Midway through the discourse though, Jesus suddenly changes His tone. He starts talking about eating His flesh.
This could either be taken literally or figuratively.
Did Jesus mean to say, ” Unless you slander and calumniate me, and plot against me, you can have no life in you”?
Is that why the Jews walked away?
Is there a play going on here? We have Christ’s flesh to eat because the Jews ate his flesh—that is to say, brought accusations against him and the Romans had his flesh scourged and crucified?
John 6 would then be a prophecy of both the crucifixion and the Eucharist. (Which are, in a way, the same.)
Just speculating.
Scott,
Hmmmm? Why not?
Ever read Chapter 2 of the Book of Wisdom? Verses 10-20 show the wicked Jews eating the flesh of the Just Man.
Paul liked that book but the Jews sure didn’t. That’s why they didn’t include it in the canon at Jamnia.
Yeah, but you know Wisdom isn’t canonical, since it was written in Greek. Wisdom being of the Greek, you know. 😉
Interestingly, if you reject the Deuterocanonical because they were (well, only some of them were, but those Dead Sea Scrolls haven’t changed a Protestant mind on this point yet) written in Greek, then you might as well reject the whole New Testament too.
Scott, God passed over the Jews in exodus, He didn’t infuse them. It was forensic, legal, not ontological.
Um. Wat? What rabbit trail did this re-emerge from?
Well, regardless of what rabbit trail this popped out of, you’re talking about the Old Covenant. We’re in the New Covenant now. Things changed with Christ. Did you get the news?
2 Cor. 5:17: We are a new creation in Christ.
We are. The Hebrews weren’t; Christ hadn’t come yet.
2 Cor. 5:21: That we might be (what’s the word?) made the righteousness of God.
Not “that we might be imputed the righteousness of God.” No. That we might be made the righteousness of God.
This comes with Christ, not with Moses.
Luther, incidentally, had it wrong. God is not a liar; he doesn’t cover dung with snow and say, “Hey, look everyone! Snow!”
No. He turns the dung into snow.
Romans 4:5 ” but to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteouness. Seems like Pau agrees with Luther. God doesnt justify the righteous, but the ungodly thru faith, by crediting the righteouness of Christ to them, apart from all works. As I said God in Exodus didnt infuse the Jews with sanctifying grace, He passed over them. Think about it. He justifies the ungodly 4:5. K
Luther misunderstood Paul.
2 Corinthians is a Pauline epistle too. You can’t use Romans to refute 2 Corinthians, as if 2 Corinthians is some weird Catholic book foreign to scripture. You have to harmonize them. The way to harmonize them is to say, yes, we’re saved by faith, but not by faith alone, and justification doesn’t mean God just says, “Oh, I’ll call you righteous even though you’re not”; it means God actually making us righteous. There’s no conflict between Romans and 2 Corinthians, so stop acting like you need to be on the side of the wonderful Romans against the wicked, pelagian, papist 2 Corinthians.
The Jews ate Christ’ s flesh” You Catholics just make it up as you go. It was against Jewish Law to eat flesh and drink blood.
Are you capable of reading?
Scott, the bible must be understood in context. The book of Romans is the book on justification. And yes you got it, God counts a man righteous even though he isnt 2Corintians 5:21. Isnt it great, thats the grace and mercy of God. Grace is demerited favor, getting what we dont deserve, and mercy is not getting what we do deserve. God justifies and ungodly man, apart from works, by believing in Christ. Jeremiah 23 says ” He is our righteousness” its called the good news, and brings us present peace. K
Trent misunderstood Paul badly. They are under the anathema of Galatians 1:9.
Um, how does the fact that Romans is about justification imply, of itself, that the Reformed doctrine of justification is correct? You’ve told me nothing other than what the subject of the book is. That was never in dispute in the first place. Do better.
Jim said ” the first part of John 6 is metaphorical. ” Jim, there is nothing metaphorical by Him telling us to believe on Him for eternal life. This is consistent thru the NT, faith alone in Christ alone saves a man. The parallel passage of eating his flesh and drinking his blood is metaphorical about coming and believing. Its exactly parallel. Its about receiving Him by faith. There is no sacramental meaning here. Merr Christmas Jim
Kevin–“Its about receiving Him by faith. There is no sacramental meaning here.”
It is the exact sacramental meaning–faith and not human senses. You betcha we Catholics receive Him in faith:
“Word-made-Flesh, the bread of nature
by His word to Flesh He turns;
wine into His Blood He changes;-
what though sense no change discerns?
Only be the heart in earnest,
faith her lesson quickly learns.
Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail;
Lo! o’er ancient forms departing,
newer rites of grace prevail;
faith for all defects supplying,
where the feeble senses fail.”
–Pange Lingua
John 20:29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Kevin, it takes no faith at all to dis-believe.
Check this out ( another Protestant )
“3:8 In v 8 we read that the Chaldeans ‘brought charges’ against, or ‘maliciously slandered’ the Jews. Such is a weak rendering of the Aramaic word קרציהונ (qarseyhôn). Literally it means “eat the pieces of flesh torn off from someone’s body” (Koehler-Baumgartner, p. 1121). Obviously, the literal rendering is too strong here, but Daniel seems to have chosen it to indicate the strong animosity of the Chaldeans for the Jews. One could wonder if this were intended to be some sort of proleptic pun, for the punishment the Jews faced was that they were to be barbecued!
Scott, the whole book of Romans is about how a man is justified by faith. And Galatians is about those who were trying to undermine the doctrine of justification by faith alone. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and not through our own obedience which is our sanctification. Rome reverses wrongly reverses justification as com in after a life of sanctification. But thats not what scripture teaches. Reformed don’t separate justification from sanctification, but we rightly distinguish them.. IOW a justified person will be sanctified, but justification in scripture is a declaration of not guilty before God, because God doesn’t count our sins against on account of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us. Romans 5:19. 2 Corinthians 5:21. ” Romans 5:19 says we are constituted righteous thru anothers obedience. The medieval Roman church missed the mark when they misinterpreted justification as accumulating the inherent righteousness necessary thru good works and merits. But God says those who try to be justified by their works in any way, will not make it. Romans 4:5, 11:6, 4:16, Ephesians 2:8, Philippians 3:9, Galatians 2:16, Romans 5:1, 3:26, Romans 9:32-10:4. Study those verses.
By faith ALONE? Find me the verse in the Bible that uses the phrase “by faith alone.” Let me know what you come up with.
Scott, you continue to misrepresent the biblical ( reformed) gospel. It isnt ” by faith alone” The gospel is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The reason faithalone justifies us is because it alone can receive Christ and his perfect obedience which justifies us, listen to Romans 5: 19″ for as thru one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so thru the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous. Notice carefully Scott, we are sinners by hereditary right, and notice we are righteous, not because of our obedience, but the obedience of another. Imputation. Works are simply the result of justification, not the cause. Paul excludes all works or anything coming from ourselves in being justified Ephesians 2:8, Titus3:5. Listen to Romans 1:16,17 its powerful, ” For im not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, for in it ” the righteouness of God ” is revealed from faith to faith” notice from faith to faith covers the whole of salvation ” for the righteous shall live by faith” He calls us righteous and we simply live by faith. I know this is a foreign concept to you because you have been taught you will be justified after you are sanctified thru doing the sacraments. Thats not the gospel. God bless
Kevin, you were the one who said “the doctrine of justification by faith alone.” I’m just asking you to find where in the Bible the expression “by faith alone” is used. I’m not “representing” anything, I”m just asking a question. When you find the verse that uses the expression “by faith alone,” let me know what it is.
And it’s not “a foreign concept,” incidentally, because I used to believe it. I just don’t anymore.
I know you think I don’t understand these things. Well, the truth is, I understand them, I just don’t buy them.
Scott, ” well the truth is I understand them, I just dont buy them” I know. You traded a God centered gospel for a man centered religion. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Its time forme to step away from our conversation. K
Very well. Find that verse where the phrase “by faith alone” is used in Scripture. There is one there. Think about it.
Tim,
On the issue of Christmas, my reasoning is as follows.
The regulative principle of worship. This doctrine was very much presbyterian and protestant throughout both the first and second reformations. Therefore, any worship of Jesus Christ outside the Lord’s Day Sabbath in a public way would not be permitted. Certainly, both private and family worship allows us to expand our worship of Jesus in more personal ways, but the regulative principle should be our guide in such circumstances. For example, exclusive psalmody in public, family and private worship of God without instruments is permitted, but this does not forbid anyone in their private or professional career to praise the Lord with hymns and man inspired spiritual songs with instruments. Even on the Lord’s day after public worship there is nothing wrong with all sitting around playing the piano and singing man inspired songs to praise and honor the Lord.
Christmas is a form of public and private worship of Jesus, and while today it is more commercialized the “second reformation” reformers were concerned it was a form of idolatry and banned it from being celebrated. However, some argue that it is not a regulative principle issue, and celebrate it.
See here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/christmas-and-the-regulative-principle/
However, for me as a Presbyterian it is more of a covenantal issue. Our forefathers during the peak of the reformation banned the holiday, and as a Covenanter these “attainments” have meaning and significance. The Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland, England and Ireland, as well as the National Covenant of Scotland, are significant national and international covenants. They are binding upon those nations, as well as the “King’s Dominions” at the time, which included Colonial America and Canada, for example.
These attainments and our Terms of Communion are designed to bring us into that one perfect man of faithful unity and uniformity in the one true Christian religion. Since I am a big believer in what it means to have lawful court decisions that bind me in the Presbyterian church, I cannot overturn these decisions out of emotion or my desire to be an independent. I have no obligation to bind myself to any “unlawful” or “unbiblical” court decision, but if these decisions were made by faithful church courts, they do bind me.
Christmas is a difficult issue for many I know as they want to worship Jesus, but not because it was developed by the Romish church. Rome clearly invented it, as it invents every innovation as you demonstrate on this blog. Following any sort of Antichristian religion is terrible practice to get one’s family and friends involved in…but it is not easy for many to practice the biblical mandate, “but for me and my house (family) we will serve the Lord” with Antichrist as our teacher.
I would suggest you look at the doctrine of the Romish Christmas in light of a covenantal, presbyterian issue as well as a regulative principle issue.
Tim, I found this interesting in light of what Calvin said quoted from the above article.
(“Those who observe the Romish festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded, unless they remain obstinately rebellious.” – Register of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1546)).
Tim, I just finished Roman Catholicism Theology and Practice by Reformed Baptist Theologian Greg Allison. I believe the guy at Beggars All said it was the best book written in 50 years on Roman Catholicism. i have to agree. It is a compelling assessment of the Catholic Catechism from the perspective of Evangelical theology. Having worked in the ministry to Roman Catholics, Allison has tremendous command. Its fair in the areas of agreement and poignant on the major disagreements. The chapter on how to approach and reach Catholics is worth the price of the book. Clear read. Hope our Catholic friends will read it. K
“Avoid Antichrist By Trying the Spirits: How To Avoid Antichrist’s False Doctrine (Arminianism, Sacramentalism, Etc.), Antichrist’s False Worship (the Mass, Non Regulative Principle Worship, Etc.), Antichrist’s Holy Days (Christmas, Michaelmas, Candlemas, Easter, Good Friday, Ash Wednesday, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, All Saints Day, Etc.) — And Much More Against Antichrist — By John Knox, W.J. Mencarow, Westminster Divines, Dr. Reg Barrow, John Owen, Kevin Reed, Jonathan Edwards, Greg Price, George Gillespie, Dr. Steven Dilday, John Calvin, Jim Dodson, Charles Spurgeon, Dr. Matthew McMahon, William Perkins, Richard Bennett, Henry Bullinger, J.A. Wylie and Others”
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=4414114716
Tim, I just started listening to Jim Dodson and would highly recommend you listen to some of his materials if you find time. While we a few minor differences, I am happy to say we agree with everything he speaks about regarding antichrist.
Tim,
What are your credentials in history? From where did you obtain your phd? How many historical texts have you had published? Why should we accept your work over the opinions of schaff, pelikan, kelly, cross, etc? These are all highly respected and credible protestant historians. One might even say the most respected in the last hundred years or so. I want to know why you think they have all erred in this area.
Philip Schaff 1819-1893
The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, § 96. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist)
J.N.D. Kelly 1909-1997
[T]he Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi’s prediction (1:10 f.) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized [did. 14,3; Justin, dial. 41,2 f.; Irenaeus, haer. 4,17,5] upon by Christians as a prophecy of the eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies [14, 1] the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the eucharist, and the idea is presupposed by Clement in the parallel he discovers [40-4] between the Church’s ministers and the Old Testament priests and levites, as in his description of the function of the former as the offering of gifts. Ignatius’s reference [Philad. 4] to ‘one altar, just as there is one bishop’, reveals that he, too thought in sacrificial terms. Justin speaks [Dial. 117,1] of ‘all the sacrifices in this name which Jesus appointed to be performed, viz. in ther eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are celebrated in every place by Christians’. Not only here but elsewhere [Ib. 41,3] too, he identifies ‘the bread of the eucharist, and the cup likewise of the eucharist’, with the sacrifice foretold by Malachi. For Irenaeus [Haer. 4,17,5] the eucharist is ‘the new oblation of the new covenant’… It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood [1 apol. 66,3; cf. dial. 41,1] them to mean, ‘Offer this.’If we inquire what the sacrifice was supposed to consist in, the Didache provides no clear answer. Justin however, makes it plain [Dial. 41,3] that the bread and the wine themselves were the ‘pure offering’ foretold by Malachi. Even if he holds that prayers and thanksgivings are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses [1 apol. 65,3-5] the term ‘thanksgiving’ as technically equivalent to ‘the eucharistized bread and wine’. The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. Altogether it would seem that, while his language is not fully explicit, Justin is feeling his way to the conception of the eucharist as the offering of the Savior’s passion. (Early Christian Doctrines pp. 196-197)
Jaroslav Pelikan 1923-2006
By the date of the Didache – although the date is itself a controversial issue- the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11. But even without an answer to the question of the Christian sacrifice, the description in the Epistle to the Hebrews of the death of Christ as a sacrifice seems to have been based on the Jewish liturgy.When the Jewish liturgical context of this sacrificial language could no longer be taken for granted among Christian hearers and readers, the Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference.
Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ…(The Emergence of Catholic Tradition pp. 146-147,170)
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language…the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first…From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ. (F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone)
Kenneth,
Thanks for writing. In answer to your questions:
I have none.
I do not have one.
None.
You should accept neither mine nor theirs. You should inspect the data and discover this for yourself instead of taking their or my word for it. I seem to recall that you were emphatic in your right—and your ability—to sift through the Vatican II data and make your own conclusion that as a council it was a “huge gaff,” and “useless,” even though highly respected Roman Catholic Theologians and the Pope himself disagree with you.
And Ptolemy was a highly respected astronomer. Yet here we are, orbiting the sun.
Ptolemy had 1400 years on Copernicus. Just because an opinion has been maintained and upheld as “truth” for a lengthy period of time does not make it true. It just makes it old.
Thanks,
Tim
Hey TIM Copernicus–
You said: “A careful reading of the Scriptures, as well as of the Early Church Fathers, is warranted here, for it shows that the Fathers saw the thanks, the praise and the hymn as the sacrifice, and not the bread.”
Chapter 41. The oblation of fine flour was a figure of the Eucharist
Justin: And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first. — St. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) Dialog with Trypho
“He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane it.”
In reading it carefully, it doesn’t get any plainer than that. I know that you render Eucharist as thanksgiving and that you say that Justin renders Eucharist as meaning the “celebration” as a whole which includes bread and wine. You are reading things into the writings of Justin just like you do Daniel, instead of reading the text for what it says–the bread and the cup are offered sacrifices to God. They are a part of the completed oblation along with thanksgivings, praises, alms for the poor, prayers and intercessions, and our very selves as living sacrifices which is our reasonable service offered through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ; in unity with the Holy Spirit; for the honor and glory of the Almighty Father; forever and ever.
Thanks, Bob,
When Justin says, of “the Eucharist” that it is “the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity,” he is identifying it as a celebration “in remembrance of the suffering,” a celebration performed “that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world,” etc…. which gives the distinct impression that a celebration that includes bread to stimulate our memories, during which celebration the giving of thanks is the sacrifice.
Later in the same work, he confirms this, saying that prayers and giving of thanks are the only sacrifice, and that solid and liquid food simply effect our recollections, bringing His sufferings to mind, not bringing them to the altar:
That he has neither the bread of the Lord’s Supper nor the incense of Rome’s later novelty in mind as the “pure offering” is seen in his 13th chapter of his First Apology:
“that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit … He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense … the only honour that is worthy of Him is … with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns … and to present before Him petitions”
It doesn’t get any plainer than that.
As I noted in part 3 of Their Praise Was Their Sacrifice, Justin Martyr was recounting the institution of the Lord’s Supper when he said, “Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ.” The only time Jesus offers hymns to his Father was at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26).
I thought you might find these citations from Origen of some value as well:
Justin agreed with Tertullian and Origen that Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled with simple prayer from a pure conscience.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
When Justin says, of “the Eucharist” that it is “the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity,” he is identifying it as a celebration “in remembrance of the suffering,” a celebration performed “that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world,” etc…. which gives the distinct impression that a celebration that includes bread to stimulate our memories, during which celebration the giving of thanks is the sacrifice.
“Which gives the impression” to you maybe. To me it includes the bread and the wine in the sacrifice.
And you said: “Later in the same work, he confirms this, saying that prayers and giving of thanks are the only sacrifice, and that solid and liquid food simply effect our recollections, bringing His sufferings to mind, not bringing them to the altar:
“…but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. ”
As opposed to unworthy men, which is in line with what Malachi says. Unworthy men’s sacrifices are not perfect and pleasing.
For such alone (worthy men) Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind…” (Dialogue with Trypho, paragraph 117).
Only worthy men offer thanksgiving and praise AND solid and liquid food which is effected by the remembrance of Christ’s crucifixtion–the very reason Christians are considered worthy men. This is in line with Malachi in that worthy men’s sacrifices are acceptable over unworthy men. Example: Cain’s sacrifice was not acceptable because his heart was not right with God. Abel’s was and his was acceptable.
And you said: “That he has neither the bread of the Lord’s Supper nor the incense of Rome’s later novelty in mind as the “pure offering” is seen in his 13th chapter of his First Apology:
“He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire [Malachi 1:10] what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns [Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26]” (First Apology, paragraph 13)
Which is exactly what happens in the sacrament in the Methodist Church or the Roman Catholic Church, none of it is consumed by fire as if God is in need of it, but rather it is used by us and the needy with thanks and praise through Jesus Christ in whoms’ sacrifice is all about our salvation.
“that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God.
He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense … the only honour that is worthy of Him is … with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns … and to present before Him petitions”
Worthy men, that are worth of Him, make offerings that are pleasing and acceptable to God–Christians who offer these things through Christ who is with us, remembering what He did for us in His body and His Blood by the bread and cup of the Eucharist. Through Him, with Him, and in Him–
how could it get any more worthy or pure of heart than that? Just like what Malachi prophesied “In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations.” It is doxological from start to finish.
That’s right. It doesn’t get any plainer than that.
You also said: “As I noted in part 3 of Their Praise Was Their Sacrifice, Justin Martyr was recounting the institution of the Lord’s Supper when he said, “Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ.” The only time Jesus offers hymns to his Father was at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26).”
The Last Supper was in a sacrificial setting. The Passover Feast, the Pasch, the seder meal, are all sacrificial in nature. The hymns are part of the sacrificial rite. Christ showed the disciples that He is the Pascal feast, the Lamb of God, ministered to His people according to the order of Melchizadec through bread and wine as His Body given up and Blood shed for all so that sins could be forgiven, which is the New and the Everlasting Covenant.
“He opened, therefore, the wells and taught us, that we might not seek God in some one place, but might know that ‘sacrifice is offered to his name in every land.’ [Malachi 1:11] For it is now that time ‘when the true worshippers worship the Father’ neither in Jerusalem nor on mount Garizim, ‘but in spirit and truth.’ [John 4:20-23] God, therefore, dwells neither in a place nor in a land, but he dwells in the heart. And if you are seeking the place of God, a pure heart is his place. For he says that he will dwell in this place when he says through the prophet: ‘I will dwell in them and walk in them; and they shall be my people and I will be their God,’ says the Lord.’ [2 Corinthians 6:16, Leviticus 26:12]” (Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily XIII, 3)
Works for me, too
“But if you wish to be taught how the Law is dead, look and see. Where now are the sacrifices? Where now is the altar? Where is the temple? Where are the purifications? Where is the celebration of the Passover? Is not the Law dead in all these things? Or let those friends and defenders of the letter keep the letter of the Law if they can.” (Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily VI, 3)
That’s right. And the Jews to this day still are under the Law.
“Let that soul which will not give ‘sleep to its eyes’ nor ‘sleep to its eyelids’ nor ‘rest to its hours, ‘until it find a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob,’ [Psalms 132:4-5] let that soul, I say, have further in itself also an immovable altar on which it may offer sacrifices of prayers and victims of mercy to God, on which it may sacrifice pride as a bull with the knife of temperance, on which it may slay wrath as a ram and offer all luxury and lust like he-goats and kids. But let him know how to separate for the priests even from these ‘the right arm’ and ‘the small breast’ and the jaws, that is, good works and works of the right hand (for let him preserve nothing evil); the whole small breast, which is an upright heart and a mind dedicated to God and jaws for speaking the word of God.” (Origen, Homilies on Exodus, Homily IX. 4)
That’s right. God would much rather have obedience than sacrifice any day. An upright heart, a mind dedicated to God and speaking his word, in which there is no need of sacrifice.
“Justin agreed with Tertullian and Origen that Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled with simple prayer from a pure conscience” offered through Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. (emphasis mine)
Tim,
You should accept neither mine nor theirs. You should inspect the data and discover this for yourself instead of taking their or my word for it. I
I do not have the time to sift through the necessary documents to form an independent thesis. I can merely study the words of people who have, and I’ve noticed their testimony is decidedly against you.
And Ptolemy was a highly respected astronomer. Yet here we are, orbiting the sun.
Ptolemy had 1400 years on Copernicus. Just because an opinion has been maintained and upheld as “truth” for a lengthy period of time does not make it true. It just makes it old.
1. Gallelio was a qualified and respected scientist. You are not a qualified or respected historian. When was the last time some random lay person over threw the professional academic consensus?
2. Gallelio had access to information that other had not had previously. Information that he obtained from the telescope. You are not presenting new information. You are merely trying to interpret the same data in a way the better suits your bias.
In other words, you don’t have the chops to be taken seriously. Sorry.
I woukd be more inclined to take a hard look at your work if it had some support outside of your own imagination.
Kenneth,
Thanks for your note. It’s interesting that I referred to Copernicus overturning Ptolemy, but you responded with Galileo supporting Copernicus, and that Galileo presented new information, while I am only presenting old information in a new way.
I find that fascinating, because Copernicus did exactly what you say I am doing—he did not present new information. He just reinterpreted it. So when you say, “I would be more inclined to take a hard look at your work if it had some support outside of your own imagination,” it does not answer the observation I made about Copernicus. People rejected him on the same grounds. Why should Copernicus be taken seriously? After all, he had the same data everyone had had for millennia, and was only interpreting it according to his heliocentric bias.
In any case, Copernicus’ Ph.D. was in canon law. He never got one in astronomy, but he arrived at his novel ideas by studying independently the same information people had been holding to for 1,400 years: Ptolemy’s Almagest.
Anyway, you are under no compulsion to study my works or arrive at my conclusions based on Roman Catholic interpretations of the Fathers. But if your approach is not to sift through the data but rather to read other people’s interpretation and side with the majority, well, perhaps we should all collectively reject Copernicus, as well, since the testimony of his contemporaries was decidedly, and almost universally, against him.
In any case, can you help me understand why you should be taken seriously on Vatican II? Many other Roman Catholics, some of them of very high rank and presumably quite educated, think Vatican II was more than just a huge gaffe and a useless waste of time. Why not just set aside your personal bias and go with the majority?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
This is hardly fascinating. The scientific majority of the time had very good arguments against Copernicus’ model. He could not account for parallax and his entire system didn’t fit within the aristotlian framework of the time. In other words, the majority were justified in rejecting his thesis until new information was provided. Information that served as a “game changer”. We should not take professional academic consensus lightly. Especially if we are not qualified to even sit at the same table as said academics. Whenever there is a consensus, it is probably the case their conclusion is the most reasonable considering multiple and converging lines of evidence. The example of copernicus does not refute this truth.
Again, when is the last time some random lay person outsmarted the majority of professionals in a given field of academia? I can’t think of any. Can you?
Copernicus was shown to be right given the information the telescope provided. If this information had never been presented, we would still be justified in rejecting his work.
Your work does not merit serious consideration. You have no credentials whatsoever. Worse, you can’t even borrow legetimacy from others, because you claim to have discovered truths hidden from virtually all of your contemporaries. I find this unlikely, and so feel comfortable dismissing your efforts out of hand.
Sorry, Kenneth. I was not clear. What I found fascinating was that I referred to Copernicus and you responded with Galileo.
Galileo did not meet your criteria. He had no degree (you may recall that you recently asked me if I had one), he arrived at his conclusions not with new data, but by reviewing the same old data from a new perspective (you may recall that you recently said that was what I was doing). Now, you say “Copernicus was shown to be right given the information the telescope provided,” which is true—100 years later. Galileo was from the following century. He was not Copernicus’ contemporary.
In other words, based on your initial challenge to me to produce a degree and not just arrive at my conclusions by looking at the same data from a different perspective (bias), I responded by showing that Copernicus had done exactly that. You responded by telling me that Galileo brought new data to the table. Yes, he did. In the intervening 100 years, was Copernicus false?
You continued,
That’s what I’m trying to figure out with you. Are you smarter than the majority of Roman Catholic academics who disagree with your assessment of Vatican II? Why should I believe you? Do you have a Ph.D. in canon law? Why do you not conform your beliefs to the majority? After all, they are looking at the same Vatican II data that you are.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Galileo did not meet your criteria. He had no degree (you may recall that you recently asked me if I had one), he arrived at his conclusions not with new data, but by reviewing the same old data from a new perspective (you may recall that you recently said that was what I was doing).
Gallelio did have new information. The telescope proved that Copernicus was correct.
Now, you say “Copernicus was shown to be right given the information the telescope provided,” which is true—100 years later. Galileo was from the following century. He was not Copernicus’ contemporary.
Yes I know that. The majority rejected Copernicus *because multiple and converging lines of evidence* pointed in the other direction. Copernicus could not account for parallax. The data at the time was against him. It wasn’t for another hundred years, when NEW information was presented, that the majority would change their position. In other words, the consensus changed when the evidence changed. When there was better information to consider.
In other words, based on your initial challenge to me to produce a degree and not just arrive at my conclusions by looking at the same data from a different perspective (bias), I responded by showing that Copernicus had done exactly that. You responded by telling me that Galileo brought new data to the table. Yes, he did. In the intervening 100 years, was Copernicus false?
1. Copernicus had studied astronony at 4 different universities for years before getting his doctorate in canon law (Padua, crocow, ferrara, and bologna university). He was a very qualified man. You are not.
2. He was genuinely interested in the truth and not looking to advance a religious bias. Look at what you wrote in your own post. You write that
(Kelly) surrendered to Rome at precisely the point that the battle must be fought and won. We will fight that battle here.
This is not the language of a man trying to look at things from new perspectives in an earnest pursuit of the truth.
Finally, as I’ve already said, although Copernicus was correct, the consensus of scholarly opinion remained against him and for good reason. The best explanation of the evidence available at the time sided with ptolomy.
In summary, you bare scant resemblance to Copernicus. You are not qualified as he was to meaningfully challenge a consensus. You are attempting to advance a religious agenda and are not on an honest search for truth. You are not presenting any new information but are instead looking at the same data with the intention of reaching a different conclusion. One that no one even in your own camp would hold to. It is for these reasons that we may all feel comfortable dismissing your efforts out of hand.
Thanks, Kenneth. Well, fair enough. It is not my intent here to convince you to take me seriously. Perhaps I do not have “the chops” for this. Although I still do not understand why I should listen to you on Vatican II, since you have dismissed the opinions of people who (I presume) have more degrees than you do, and form a majority opinion on the usefulness of Vatican II. I don’t understand why you have “the chops” to relegate Vatican II to the category of “totally useless” and “a huge gaffe,” in the face of an ecclesiastical consensus that militates strongly against your position—and you’re all looking at the same council. Do you have “the chops” to do that?
It seems to me that your objection to my position is that it is “new.” Nobody in Rome would subscribe to my ideas. As you have noted “no one even in [my] own camp” would hold to some of my conclusions. All that is true. But that alone does not make my theory false. If that were so, then we must hold that Copernicus’ hypothesis was false until Galileo came along—but that would be foolishness. Even you acknowledge that Copernicus was right even when the scientific consensus was universally against him. No one in Copernicus’ “camp” held to his novel ideas either because there was no heliocentric camp. He simply had to propose his new theory—against more than a millennium of scientific consensus—and either be ridiculed for it or be accepted. I have no expectations of the latter, and am comfortable with the former. So I am comfortable with your conclusion that I cannot be taken seriously.
That said, you wrote,
Well, if it is true that Kelly surrendered to Rome when he should have resisted her, then you might say that mine is the language of a man who loves the truth very much. And if Roman Catholicism is the prophesied Antichrist, then an earnest pursuit of truth must necessarily include the possibility that Roman Catholicism is the prophesied Antichrist. It seems to me that in your mind, any possibility of Roman Catholicism being the Antichrist must be ruled out before a hypothesis can be taken seriously. That is like saying Copernicus can only be taken seriously if he will just drop all the heliocentric nonsense and propose something that is more in line with Ptolemy. But that is not an earnest pursuit of the truth. In fact, it is bias.
Thanks,
Tim
I don’t have an opinion on your work on the Church being the antichrist. I haven’t bothered to read it. Anyways, I am impressed with the volume of your posts. You clearly put a lot of effort into your studies and you are always very charitable and pleasant to speak with. Well done on that front.
Thank you, Kenneth. You’re always welcome here.
Tim
Interesting discussion and challenge by Charles to his own presupposition which appears to be…essentially…if one does not have a university degree in the field of research one is studying and analyzing, that *person* is not credible. If the person then makes a detailed analysis why the data is in error by the majority, than the *analysis* is immediately to be rejected as wrong.
Thus, in this case, because Tim does not have a MS or PhD in history his writings are to be immediately suspect, and since Tim does not have these degrees his analysis is to be rejected and not received because it disagrees with the majority of historians.
Not only is this presupposition seriously foolish, but it plan ignorant. It means that Kenneth himself is not able to make any sort of determination of any facts or evidence that are outside the limited area of his own university PhD or MS degrees. This is really such a weak position to take in the study of any subject matter.
As we see today, in our society, some of the best, brightest, most well trained students come from home schooling families in many areas of subject matter, and they are neither trained in public or Roman Catholic schools, and certainly have no need to limit their educational bias by a secular university degree. Anyone can search google and learn about home schooling trained students who have excelled at the top of their age group in national spelling, math and science programs without ever obtaining any public or university school degree. To totally ignore this class of our society as being totally ignorant and unworthy of “even reading” their material is really the typical Roman Catholic bias showing through that is so common in their synagogue of Satan.
This was precisely how I was trained as a Roman Catholic student to absolutely reject and not ever study any writer who was not Roman Catholic in religion because they were ignorant. Unless one was educated by Rome, schooled in Vatican approved universities or Jesuit inspired universities on religion (as my father was from Notre Dame and this was an approved school) we were to ignore their position.
While I was given permission to read the bible 3 days a week at morning mass to the congregation, I was not encouraged to read it on my own as this could cause me to educate myself. I later learned that when Rome forbid the bible to be read by the masses before, during and after the inquisition, it was exactly because people could educate themselves and become protestant heretics. Kenneth shares the same presupposition.
Ignore the source documents and avoid them unless you are trained by the Vatican or Rome or a Jesuit inspired university with a degree to interpret them.
Fortunately for Tim, all of his INTERPRETATIONS coming to the SAME CONCLUSION on historic post millennialism are backed by their ENTIRE REFORMATION and EARLY CHURCH FATHERS combined. The best early church writers point to Rome as Antichrist as is being uncovered here on this blog site, and while Tim does not choose to use any Covenanters or Reformers in his support for his views, I can say they nearly all support his conclusion.
One can conclude that Tim sits with the greatest majority of all the best reformed and early church writers (who have extensive degrees) that Rome is the only biblical antichrist.
The only “majority” who oppose his writings are those of Satan, Antichrist inspired writers and the great masses who are educated in public and jesuit inspired universities.
Kenneth’s blog says:
“My name is Kenneth Winsmann and I am a student living in the greater Houston area. I am studying to be in education but my passion is for theology and apologetics. I’m married and have three beautiful young boys. I grew up in a charismatic evangelical family but developed my theological convictions in the Lutheran (LCMS) tradition before converting to Roman Catholicism. Have you ever attempted a pleasant and mutually enriching conversation about “religion” or “spirituality” only to find yourself trapped, with your feet to the fire, getting interrogated by that jerk who had done his homework? Well, I’m that guy and this is my blog.”
If it were not so sad to read, based upon his sole arguments against Tim above, it would be just plain hypocritical. No, I did not say heretical, but hypocritical.
Nobody should read his blog as all his comments are in total opposition to the best early church and reformed scholars and writers…period. Case closed. Avoid and ignore.
“The Sacrifice Challenge is further complicated by a second potential trap, which is the tendency for “ευχαριστια” in the modern rendering of the early texts to be transliterated as “eucharist” rather than translated as “thanksgiving.” Eucharist means “thanksgiving,” and only occasionally refers to the meal—an equivocality that Rome turns to her considerable advantage when she interprets the Early Church Fathers. Thus, when one writes of “the sacrifice of the thanksgiving,” in reference to thanks, Rome can see only “the sacrifice of the Eucharist,” in reference to bread, and claims the victory as if it was not the thanks, but the representation of Christ’s Body and Blood, that was the sacrifice. ”
Tim, thx so much for explaining this. It made my understanding so much clearer about the use of the word ‘eucharist’ in some churches and their writings. The wiliness of the equivocation used by Rome is just astounding.
I wonder if such trickery is used in many modern Bible translations also?